Man of Steel (2013)

[Lordmandeep]

Avengers over MOS. Avengers had more variety in the final battle. Superman & Zod indiscriminatly smashing through buildings went on way to long.

 

The reality is that the Zod battle was not even anything amazing really, it was the smallville battle that was far better.

It was the city getting destroyed that was far better beforehand.

 

 

I agree there was nothing like Hulk Smash or Puny God Or I am always Angry and Circle Shot or even the long track shot that sticks out as memorable from the Zod fight.

 

The smallville fight will go down as one of the best of the year easily.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Lordmandeep

[Gopher]

HULK smash Man of Steel, and sure enough, it's an important read: http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

[4815162342]

Film Crit Hulk lost me when he tried to defend Mass Effect 3 with the worst straw man arguments possible and displayed a total lack of understanding about what the franchise was really about and the role of dynamic choice gameplay in constructing different outcomes.

 

Ever since then I've thought more and more that he thinks he's a lot more insightful and incisive than he really is and his writing drips of it, blowing rather minor or moderate points out of proportion with "AH HA! SEE WHERE YOU HAVE GONE WRONG ANDHOW I CUNNINGLY DEMOLISH ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND PREFERENCES!"

 

 

For example Hulk complains that Superman has no arc because he never doesn't save people. He flat out says that because Clark saves the school bus early on and then saves the family at the end, he never changes at all. The implication of that is Hulk wanted Clark to let the school bus submerge and the kids to drown, so that he'd then realize his great gifts give him an obligation to save people and he would evolve from a reluctant recluse to the American Hero. It'd be cool right...except that single thing would slaughter the Superman/Kent character far more than anything he points out in his mammoth essay and he seems totally oblivious to that and he references famous Superman comic appearances later on. The entire nature of Superman is that he is always going to save people, from childhood on. Hulk's implied willingness to let that get demolished in favor of having a traditional conflicted behavior character arc shows he's just not grasping some basic points while faulting the movie for alleged other issues.

Edited July 6, 2013 by 4815162342

[rashad30]

MOS is a 9/10 for me. I loved every minute of it.

[Ozymandias]

HULK smash Man of Steel, and sure enough, it's an important read: http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

 

Capital letters guy and his hammy 3rd person persona is terrible, never liked him.

 

Man of Steel definitely has its problems IMO(like pacing, dramatic scenes that fall flat, forced dialogue), but when Capital letters guy writes stuff like this(one of many examples), I can't help but laugh.

 

ZOD KEEPS REPEATING HIS MOTIVATION AD NAUSEUM: "My people! My people!" IT IS CONSTANT. IT IS PERVASIVE. IT IS REPETITIVE. AND THEN IN HIS FINAL LAST SPEECH OF (PAPER THIN) CLARITY, HE SPECIFIES HOW HE HAS A FULL-ON GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO SAVING KRYPTON (THE FIRST TIME WE EVER ADDRESS THE GENETIC STUFF IN TERMS OF ITS PURPOSE OF A SINGLE CHARACTER MOTIVATION BTW) AND HOW THAT IS ALL HE KNOWS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE MOVIE HAS FLIRTED WITH, BUT IN THAT MOMENT WE SEE HIS PURE EMPTINESS AND IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU FEEL FOR HIM, WHICH MEANS A) IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN MIGHTY USEFUL IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING THAT CHARACTER FROM THE GET-GO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED OR IT WOULD BE OPTIMAL IN TERMS OF HUMANIZING THE CHARACTER FOR A CATHARTIC UNION OF SORTS, RIGHT? BUT INSTEAD THE MOVIE TAKES THIS FIRST CLEAR ARTICULATION OF HIS MOTIVATION AND USES IT TO... DRIVE ZOD INTO A RAGE OF KILL-EVERYONE SMASHY... WHICH IS NOT ONLY WRONG-HEADED, BUT IT MEANS THE MOVIE IS USING THE CLARIFYING OF A CHARACTER MOMENT TO JUST MAKE HIM DO... EXACTLY WHAT HE'S ALREADY BEEN DOING.

With his speech, Zod is explaining what his motivations used to be. He wasn't feeling empty before his mission failed.  Before, he was just a familiar zealot figure, totally confident in himself because he is doing what he is designed to do, kinda like a "God's work" kind of thing. This zealotry already implies that he saw himself as part of a grand design, a design we see during the lengthy Krypton scenes and the dream sequence, and the real world events that are implicitly associated with them.  At the same time, Zod's justification for his prior behavior "I was just doing my duty" is transparent bullshit. That's what make the scene kinda sad, it's his realization that he's been living a lie. Zod realizes he is(and always was) empty inside. And in the process of explaining his motivation, of realizing its meaninglessness, his motivation changes to embrace irrational destruction for its own sake.  Before his speech and sheds his armor, Zod's motivations are pathological, its only once he embraces evil for its own sake that Zod becomes an inhuman and "ethical monster".

 

Capital letters guy didn't pick up on any of this.  He's writing about characterization, and yet writes as if the character changing over the course of the story is an error.  He doesn't even take the context of the speech in the story into account.  Ugh....the fuck?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Shpongle

[ACCA]

Capital letters guy and his hammy 3rd person persona is terrible, never liked him.

 

Man of Steel definitely has its problems IMO(like pacing, dramatic scenes that fall flat, forced dialogue), but when Capital letters guy writes stuff like this(one of many examples), I can't help but laugh.

 

With his speech, Zod is explaining what his motivations used to be. He wasn't feeling empty before his mission failed.  Before, he was just a familiar zealot figure, totally confident in himself because he is doing what he is designed to do, kinda like a "God's work" kind of thing. This zealotry already implies that he saw himself as part of a grand design, a design we see during the lengthy Krypton scenes and the dream sequence, and the real world events that are implicitly associated with them.  At the same time, Zod's justification for his prior behavior "I was just doing my duty" is transparent bullshit. That's what make the scene kinda sad, it's his realization that he's been living a lie. Zod realizes he is(and always was) empty inside. And in the process of explaining his motivation, of realizing its meaninglessness, his motivation changes to embrace irrational destruction for its own sake.  Before his speech and sheds his armor, Zod's motivations are pathological, its only once he embraces evil for its own sake that Zod becomes an inhuman and "ethical monster".

 

Capital letters guy didn't pick up on any of this.  He's writing about characterization, and yet writes as if the character changing over the course of the story is an error.  He doesn't even take the context of the speech in the story into account.  Ugh....the fuck?

 

Yes, a lot of critics of the film failed to properly pay attention, because things in the film were fairly clearly explained for the most part.

[Gopher]

Numbers: post that comment on the site and he'll respond to it. He's great about constructive criticism. 

[Ozymandias]

Yes, a lot of critics of the film failed to properly pay attention, because things in the film were fairly clearly explained for the most part.

 

Heh, its especially embarrassing for this guy in this particular case because Man of Steel is such a simple story, its very straightforward with no real complexities, subtleties, or ambiguities in it yet he seems like he needs even more expository dialogue(this movie already had perhaps too much of that) or something....he prides presents himself as being an intellectual and expert on film criticism/analysis and routinely writes 20,000(literally) word reviews essays on movies he thinks are bad, he rarely ever talks about movies in such detail that he likes except as a counterpoint in bad reviews like this.  I don't even care for this movie that much, to me it was just a pretty good 2 hours of popcorn entertainment.  I only read his essay(I actually didn't even bother finishing it) because multiple people linked it as if it was an important public service announcement of intellectual superiority(I stopped reading his stuff awhile ago).

Edited July 8, 2013 by Shpongle

[ACCA]

Heh, its especially embarrassing for this guy in this particular case because Man of Steel is such a simple story, its very straightforward with no real complexities, subtleties, or ambiguities in it yet he seems like he needs even more expository dialogue or something....he prides presents himself as being an intellectual and expert on film criticism/analysis and routinely writes 20,000(literally) word reviews essays on movies he thinks are bad, he rarely ever talks about movies in such detail that he likes except as a counterpoint in bad reviews like this.  I don't even care for this movie that much, to me it was just a pretty good 2 hours of popcorn entertainment.  I only read his essay(I actually didn't even bother finishing it) because multiple people linked it as if it was an important public service announcement of intellectual superiority(I stopped reading his stuff awhile ago).

 

I never really read him, save for once or twice. I think he's really annoying and highly overrated. It seems as though he tries really hard to get attention. I never read what most critics write, save for a few reasonable critics, which I read just to get an idea of what a film is like sometimes. Mostly I just skip critic reviews altogether.

 

But yes you are correct, Man of Steel had a straightforward story with no real complexities. It didn't need any more exposition.

Edited July 8, 2013 by ACCA

[ChD]

The bottom line is if Nolan's name weren't attached to this movie, no one would've given 2 fucks about this movie, even with very little involvement he probably had...

I think people would've... Despite Nolan's name already being there, the trailers and everything else were top notch. WB didn't fuck up the marketing so even without Nolan's name, the movie would've scored big. Maybe not as big as it did, but it still would've.

[Jessie]

The bottom line is if Nolan's name weren't attached to this movie, no one would've given 2 fucks about this movie, even with very little involvement he probably had...

Oh please. Great trailers were the reason people watched this. The fact this will hit 300m despite bad reviews just shows how much potential this movie had.

[Ezen Baklattan]

I'm finally going to see this tonight.

[Jessie]

MOS is a 9/10 for me. I loved every minute of it.

Well, you loved every 9 out of 10 minutes of it.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Yeah, I lied. I went to see World War Z instead. Sorry.

[The Stingray]

Yeah, I lied. I went to see World War Z instead. Sorry.

Good for you. WWZ is better.

[Michael Gary Scott]

Good for you. WWZ is better.

definitely

[Dilusha Bandara]

Oh please. Great trailers were the reason people watched this. The fact this will hit 300m despite bad reviews just shows how much potential this movie had.

 

Still thinking of 300?  Do you know exactly how much this movie has made domestically right now?

[Omario]

Still thinking of 300?  Do you know exactly how much this movie has made domestically right now?

 

Dude he posted that on 8th July....something is seriously wrong with you

[Lordmandeep]

Agree I enjoyed WWZ more then this. 

[Dilusha Bandara]

Dude he posted that on 8th July....something is seriously wrong with you

I didn't see the date, btw