Follow Us

Film Freak Central's Bookstore

March's Most-Read

  1. Noah
  2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
  3. Nympho-maniac
  1. Hannibal Season 1
  2. Game of Thrones Season 3
  3. Saturn 3

E-Mail Us


« This Is the End (2013) | Main | Superman Returns (2006) »

June 13, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I thought Man of Steel was the best Superman movie to date, personally. The Reeves versions were so god-awfully cheesy that I am unwilling to accept any argument for them unless the person arguing explicitly states nostalgia as the motivation.


Dreadful movie. Chaw is 100% on the money except that he gave it 2 stars. They got Superman right in the late 70's w/ the first 2 Christopher Reeve movies and should have stopped there. Every sequel or reboot is worse than the last.


This review correctly identifies most of the problems with "Man of Steel," but "pandering"? If only.


I actually did notice the similarities to Prometheus, among about half a dozen other films. I came up with a list in my head of everything Man of Steel had lifted from during the movie, but, as is the way, have forgotten most of them by now (two days later).

As for its bizarre narrative structure, I can only assume that the blame falls on David Goyer, who figured it worked so well with Batman Begins that he might as well try it again, only without Nolan's touch it just seems craven and perfunctory, as does most of this movie. I've never been one to chastise writers for taking superheroes too seriously, but I found myself viscerally angry at the death and destruction in this film. Any arguments for zeitgeist have long since past, and taking advantage of psychic wounds in order to up the stakes in your stupid reboot are, frankly, an outrage to me. I also found it inappropriate yet inevitable that literally the only joke in the film came when Lois and Superman return to Metropolis to find it looking like Syria ("they say it's all downhill after the first kiss, gahyuk! What is this, a funeral?") It's beautiful to look at, just like all Zack Snyder films, but just like all Zack Snyder films the only thing it manages to accomplish is wash over the audience in waves of stylish incoherent nothingness.


I just watched it. I have to agree with the reviewer here, however my criticism is even more scathing. Snyder seems unable or unwilling to structure his films in the right manner or in any intelligent manner. Man of steel jumps about from flashback to backstory to present tense and it is all so rushed the viewer gets lost,confused and irritated along with it. The writer and director have criminally neglected the incredible actors they had at their disposal. Russell Crowe will be privately humiliated by this picture(he will never say so in public until money isn't an issue anymore-maybe a few years down the line)because it is a turkey.

PS: Also note how much Snyder & Goyer have stolen from Prometheus & Avatar in the films Kryptonian themes!


007(Connery and Moore) was dashing & suave and Superman(Reeves) was pretty & endearing.

Daniel Craig as 007 and Cavill as Superman are just beefcake.

Michael Taylor

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I'd just like to register how much I hate the use of massive carnage as a way to add gravitas to superhero stories. I thought "52" was mostly very good, but when Black Adam levels an entire country to get revenge on Captain Marvel and friends you have to groan at how much certain people have lost sight of the pulpy, fun origins of the superhero story.

It was brilliant in Watchmen, but Watchmen was a singular work of genius. Generally speaking, if your story has villains who shoot lasers out of their eyes, come up with a more clever way of upping the stakes than the act of slaughtering of millions of people.


I'm sorry but this was really a mess of a movie. Its near empty and you long at some point in the movie to jump up on your seat and scream at the top of your lungs "Go Superman!" But you wait for it and wait and you never become attached to Superman or Clark Kent. You never really feel for him. The Superman here does not inspire. They've made such a visually assaulting movie that lacks any heart.


I saw the Man of Steel the early screening tonight. I don't see where the hatred is coming from for this film or why so many are trying to derail it. It's a bit choppy at first in its execution, but once it gets going it becomes a speeding bullet of a movie. This is what the Superman fans wanted and Snyder delivers. Forget what the critics are saying and those whining about a weak story and too much action. It’s a pure adrenaline rush. It’s intense and sometimes grim and gritty. It has emotion, humor and the action is epic and just plain bad-ass. It’s a thrill ride from beginning to end. The whole cast is excellent. Amy Adams interpretation of Lois Lane is the best ever put on film. Henry Cavill is great and plays the role with a quiet conviction and sly wit and charm. And of course there’s Michael Shannon as Zod. He definitely delivers in the role of the villain. In my ways you could call him a “Beautiful Monster.” Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Laurence Fishburne play their roles perfectly. You’ve never seen a Superman movie like this. I’m sold and can’t wait for the next one because the possibilities are endless. In the end “Man of Steel” is about making a choice, and hopefully you’ll choose to go see it for yourself.


Interesting to see the hundreds of dutiful studio plants posting on IMDB and other social media sites to defend this mess of a movie - - and mostly incoherently.


Really good review, but I was wondering if maybe Walter or anybody reading from the sidelines would care to elaborate on this passage:

"I fear that Snyder--a director who seems to abhor difference and adore surfaces in his pictures--is exactly the wrong person to explore the irony of an immaculate conception tortured in the role of outsider."

I get where this is coming from as a counterpoint to Superman Returns (where someone who very much understands the role of outsider in several different ways directed the film), but it's not necessarily an accusation that I'm ready to hurl at Snyder based on his own body of work. 300, sure, even Dawn of the Dead. But Watchmen and Sucker Punch seem a little harder to tar with that brush, at least as far as I can see.


Zack Snyder movies have the same problem as Michael Bay movies; his 'style-over-everything' overkill approach works great for trailers and clips but drawn out to feature length, they become brutal sensory assaults (headache-inducing at 60 minutes, nausea-inducing at 90 minutes, and concussion-coma-inducing at anything over 2 hours).

There's a great 45-minute version of Watchmen, an enjoyable 30-minute version of 300, and a good-enough 10-minute version of Sucker Punch. But in their full-length uncut forms, they're almost interminable.

Lon Nol Lol

Somewhere in an alternate universe, they greenlit a blockbuster adaptation of Mark Millar's 'Red Son' or Kim Newman's 'Ubermensch!'. Either of which I'd rush to see. Just not this.


For what it's worth, the question of how Superman shaves was addressed in the comics. He uses a hand mirror to reflect his eye lasers to shave his super facial hair.
*adjusts pocket protector*

Squarely Rooted

Man, this reads like a lot worse than a 2-star review. And I was arbitrarily harboring high hopes for this one as "Watchable Movie of Summer 2013."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Please Support Film Freak Central

Please note that "RECENT POSTS" also lists archival content that's just been imported from the old site.

Letterboxd - Bill Chambers's Screening Log