Oh golly, we're slipping-- ! Should we be starting a NO SPOILERS thread for initial discussion of the newest Superman reboot? Want to go ahead and consider this the spot to begin it?
I haven't seen the film yet myself, and was considering going today (Father's Day). . . but honestly, EVERYONE I've heard from that could be considered a Superman fan has really not been liking the ending at all. More than a couple spoke of leaving the theater angry, even (not a good way to exit a 2-1/2 hour film). My 14 year old daughter's usually a good sport about superhero films (and REALLY liked Green Lantern!), but this doesn't sound like something I would want to subject her to.
I haven't seen it yet, but overall, reactions are slightly positive in places I lurk. There are nay-sayers, but it seems even most of those felt it a well made film even if they did not like every decision or story point.
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 19, 2013 11:15:01 GMT -5
Being a Superman fan, I want to see this film. In various other areas of the Interweb, I've read mixed reviews though. Everyone seems to agree that Cavill and Adams do commendable jobs in their respective roles but the sheer level of violence and wanton destruction has turned some people off, especially if you consider the amount of unseen casualties implied by that level of destruction.
And for the record, I enjoyed Returns. I thought Singer demonstrated his love and affection for the character quite well, a feeling I don't quite get from Snyder.
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 27, 2013 13:42:31 GMT -5
I quite liked Returns too.
This didn't really do it for me. A lack of drama meant that there was little to latch on to or with which to place any emotional investment into the action. The sense of insignificance in the face of the monumental levels of destruction in the battles between godlike beings made me think of Alan Moore's Marvelman more than Superman.
Undeniably spectacular though and some of the flashback sequences were effective. The manner of Johnathan Kent's death, especially compared with how it was handled previously, was a bit of an indicator regarding this movie's tendency towards bigger, louder, faster.
The attempt to give Supes more psychological depth had some interesting aspects, but didn't really go anywhere. Ultimately there isn't any story or theme, either personal or conceptual to tie this all together and make it matter.
Better than Iron Man 3 though for my money -but I really hated that.
HBSon & I did go see the movie earlier this week, and I put up a rather long reaction post about it on the related thread on dlw66's Bronze Age Babies blog. I'm gonna take a chance and simply re-post it here, rather than try to write the whole blamed thing all over again:
HBSon really summed it up well as we sat through the credit roll (six of us saw the film at the 7:15 showing last night. . . yikes!): there were elements of a good movie in there trying to get out, but the director, writers, producers and cinematographers kept preventing it from happening (to paraphrase).
I'll hit some points concisely (hopefully)-- dead-beat from laying linoleum tile in the kitchen all day.
1) This is huge, because it's so pervasive in a lot of "edgy, hip" films these days, and it's such a STUPID CONVENTION: the blasted reliance on this Shouldercam/phonecam bull$%%* HAS GOT TO GO! It DESTROYS the visual effect of every blasted big film that it gets into. It doesn't add verisimilitude, it MAKES IT HARD TO SEE! The badly-shot moment mentioned above, w/ Lois after Clark kills Zod? And he puts his head against her stomach in despair and exhaustion? Should have been touching-- BUT, the FRIGGIN CAMERA WAS BOUNCING UP AND DOWN THROUGHOUT!! A moment that needed to rely on an extremely rare moment of stillness was made trivial and ineffective because of the obtrusive movement. It's like having a coughing fit during silent prayer.
2) Not only was Pa Kent's death a deal-breaker (one has to assume that the director/writers/producers simply must not have kids of their own. . . or Dads), he lost us completely by berating Clark for saving the schoolbus full of kids, justifying it with something along the lines of well, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. I feel like the movie was trying REALLY hard to make that a reasoned, wise position. . . and it's simply sick and wrong, I'm sorry. I'd be curious as to how Costner felt about the way his character was written. And I'm sorry, NO loving son would ever let his Dad die if he had any power to save him-- (HBSon heartily assured me of that)-- the scene was beyond stupid.
3) Not enough actual scenes. The Clark/Lois relationship got from point A to point C or D w/out ever going through a "getting to know you" Point B. I'd bet money that scene was filmed, and then cut to make time for more mayhem.
4) Yes, too much mayhem by easily a third. The opening demise of Krypton came in at a level that would be the climax of most films. Just from a structural standpoint, that's bad. It immediately desensitizes the audience, so that Armageddon becomes the new Daily Commute. The fights themselves just barely made sense as long as you were keeping up with a lot of rationalizations. Clark should not have been able to beat Zod or any of those guys, though (Although thumbs-up to Jor-el for taking out Zod in hand-to-hand!). Also, Clark really wasn't directly responsible for circumstances of the mass destruction or loss of life until after he took out the world-breaker thing and started fighting Zod. BUT-- at that point it seriously hurt the film, as he was actively and visibly (you had to be looking carefully) bringing down buildings on bystanders himself. The FIRST order of business. . . and he couldn't possibly have missed it. . . is to take the fight elsewhere. It's one of the oldest comic book conventions ever, AND it has precedent in real-life law-enforcement. I mean, I would have done it myself.
5) Okay, I do get him killing Zod-- and it had a terrible cost for Clark. It was an unwinnable circumstance for an inexperienced hero. Again, I think I would have made the same choice. It obviously didn't come lightly.
6) "His own terms" worked just fine in context and in that moment. I totally got it, and really had no problem with it. Not gonna be a government/military pawn.
7) This may ruffle some feathers, but I found the female army captain (a CAPTAIN, mind you) at the end going, "I really think he's kinda hot, tee-hee, giggle" unforgivably offensive. . . especially at a time when viewing our women soldiers as soldiers and not as silly girl-objects is such a big issue in our armed forces. How about if the general were a woman, and the tee-hee giggle came from an openly gay officer? I know it was a throwaway, but it rubbed my 180-degrees the wrong way in that moment.
Liked really the whole cast quite a lot-- although Amy Adams simply isn't Lois Lane. She doesn't have that hard, whip-crack tongue and driving ambition-- as an actress, she's just not that type. I believed HER, I just didn't believe she was Lois.
Wow-this got long and is all stream of consciousness-- let's see if it fits. . .
June 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM
And Crimson C, I came to the same conclusion about it being humorless. It occurred to me that we never had a legitimate laugh throughout the whole film. There's not any sense of FUN whatsoever. Honestly, the much-derided Green Lantern had a better sense of fun and wonder than this film. In fact (I'll just go ahead and say it out loud) I enjoyed myself at that film much more than I did this one. Sadly, the failure of that movie may have served only to solidify the WB mindset that the future for DC superhero films lies in clinging to that relentless sense of noir gravity. . . that every film will need to be a huge, grim, sweeping epic. Ugh. AVENGERS was just about the most fun film I've ever seen that still packed a punch with both dramatics and with action. And yet there were MANY moments that were nearly lost simply because they were covered by laughter in the audience (never heard the "Puny God" line, nor Loki's beaten-up squeaking until the third time I saw it-!). The Spiderman films? ALL of them had legitimate laughs. Thor, Cap & Hulk films? Yep. Second Hulk film more than the first, which partly what helped it be a better film. RDJr's dry comic delivery as Tony Stark is the heart of the Iron Man franchise. You have to wonder how the Warner Brothers suits manage to not get this simple fact so persistently. . .
Post by Marvel Boy on Jul 21, 2013 10:16:17 GMT -5
Well, unfortunately, I missed it at the theaters so have to wait till it hits DVD, Pay-for-View. Based on everyone's comments (good review there HB), this was a dry, grim film. Sad, even Reeves had some good chuckle moments in his films.
Warner announced at SDCC that the sequel will be Superman/Batman. Cavill and the rest will return in their respective roles but I guess the hunt is now on for the next Batman.