Man of Steel

[Totenkindly]

Edit: OTOH, Flight of the Navigator is probably something that would be cheapened for me.....but I'm just so curious, I'll probably watch it again, anyway. I got over how stupid Mighty Mouse really was, after all.

Well, I will note that (for me) Warner Brothers (Bugs, Wile E, Roadrunner, Speedy, Sylvester, Tweety, Yosemite Sam, Daffy, Witch Hazel, etc.) never get old for me regardless. A few things survive childhood's "juice goggles."

 

[Totenkindly]

One could clearly see Snyder's finger prints in the fights.

Yeah, big-time.

I think it would have been better if they hadn't blown their fight load halfway through where Clark is up against the two Kryptonians halfway through the movie.

That fight to me was pretty much the highlight, it lasted quite a while and was no-holds-barred. That's the kind of "superhero" fight I was waiting to see for a long time, but I know some other people like a different style. I just really like fights with a lot of knockback and physics, as well as prop damage, lol. (Then again, I'm the one running a barbarian in Pathfinder who thinks "body bludgeon" -- where you rage and grab an enemy and then use them as a large club against other opponents until someone goes down -- is a totally theatrically awesome power, even if in terms of min/maxing there are other powers that are much more destructive. And I think we did see that move performed in this fight as well.)

Michael Shannon was wasted as Zod. You've gotta get some better writing if your going to get someone that good to be your bad guy.

Yes, he did fine with what he was given, but he should have been given something with more nuance and tailored more to his personality. He's a great actor with a range, even if he can do the "crazy guy" thing well. I still remember his performance in Take Shelter, where he basically owned that film.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Take Shelter, where he basically owned that film.

Was that good, I still haven't seen it?

But I really like Michael Shannon, and thought it looked like something I would really like.

 

[Totenkindly]

Was that good, I still haven't seen it?

But I really like Michael Shannon, and thought it looked like something I would really like.

It's a LOT different of a film. Find it on IMDB/RT to read about it.

Basically, he's a really introverted kind of socially stilted guy who lives in the midwest who starts having horrible dreams about storms/tornados threatening his home and family, and so he starts getting obsessive to the point he has trouble working and starts digging up the backyard to put in what seems to everyone else like a needless storm cellar. (like Noah in the Bible -- "the apocalypse is coming" but everything thinks he's crazy.) It's that kind of psychological and personal drama, where all the other people are reacting to him in different ways, and he's so sure of his visions which torment him, but he's also acting obsessively. His wife I think is played by Jessica Chastain.

A lot of the role is internal, but Shannon still finds ways to express it. It's kind of agonizing to watch. It's handled in a very "believable" fashion, and it's hard to tell whether he's a man who has been cursed with an authentic vision or is slowly going mad while his wife is trying to figure out how to help him AND protect the kids.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675192/

EDIT: It's one of those films that barely makes anything in the theater (budgeted at $5 million, brought in around $2 million in US theaters), but won a buttload of indie-style awards for the movie and/or for the two leads.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's a LOT different of a film. Find it on IMDB/RT to read about it.

Basically, he's a really introverted kind of socially stilted guy who lives in the midwest who starts having horrible dreams about storms/tornados threatening his home and family, and so he starts getting obsessive to the point he has trouble working and starts digging up the backyard to put in what seems to everyone else like a needless storm cellar. (like Noah in the Bible -- "the apocalypse is coming" but everything thinks he's crazy.) It's that kind of psychological and personal drama, where all the other people are reacting to him in different ways, and he's so sure of his visions which torment him, but he's also acting obsessively. His wife I think is played by Jessica Chastain.

A lot of the role is internal, but Shannon still finds ways to express it. It's kind of agonizing to watch. It's handled in a very "believable" fashion, and it's hard to tell whether he's a man who has been cursed with an authentic vision or is slowly going mad while his wife is trying to figure out how to help him AND protect the kids.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675192/

EDIT: It's one of those films that barely makes anything in the theater (budgeted at $5 million, brought in around $2 million in US theaters), but won a buttload of indie-style awards for the movie and/or for the two leads.

I need to see this! Also, I wonder what Darren Aronofosky's Noah movie is going to be like.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's a LOT different of a film. Find it on IMDB/RT to read about it.

Basically, he's a really introverted kind of socially stilted guy who lives in the midwest who starts having horrible dreams about storms/tornados threatening his home and family, and so he starts getting obsessive to the point he has trouble working and starts digging up the backyard to put in what seems to everyone else like a needless storm cellar. (like Noah in the Bible -- "the apocalypse is coming" but everything thinks he's crazy.) It's that kind of psychological and personal drama, where all the other people are reacting to him in different ways, and he's so sure of his visions which torment him, but he's also acting obsessively. His wife I think is played by Jessica Chastain.

A lot of the role is internal, but Shannon still finds ways to express it. It's kind of agonizing to watch. It's handled in a very "believable" fashion, and it's hard to tell whether he's a man who has been cursed with an authentic vision or is slowly going mad while his wife is trying to figure out how to help him AND protect the kids.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675192/

EDIT: It's one of those films that barely makes anything in the theater (budgeted at $5 million, brought in around $2 million in US theaters), but won a buttload of indie-style awards for the movie and/or for the two leads.

I'm a huge fan of character studies like that.

There Will Be Blood is one of my all time faves.

 

[Totenkindly]

I need to see this! Also, I wonder what Darren Aronofosky's Noah movie is going to be like.

I forgot that he was working on that. (Isn't Russell Crowe playing Noah, or am I misremembering?)

Aronofsky's one of my favorite directors. Even his missteps can be better than another director's successful effort.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I forgot that he was working on that. (Isn't Russell Crowe playing Noah, or am I misremembering?)

Aronofsky's one of my favorite directors. Even his missteps can be better than another director's successful effort.

Yeah.... I don't think he has to sing in it, so he should be fine.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah.... I don't think he has to sing in it, so he should be fine.

Thank god I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that, my nasal cavities would be flooded by now.

...But yeah, srsly.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm very conflicted on this film: I haven't it yet, despite how much I've been dying to see it. Yet I think what's really stopped me from wanting to see it is all the negative reviews I've read about it, despite how amazing I thought the trailer was/is (the Jor-El monologue and the Kevin Costner scenes with young Clark).

I think what's really stopping me is knowing that my extremely high hopes and expectations are simply not going to be met, which just sucks considering this effort is probably the closest we'll ever get to getting a decent and moderately grounded, non-campy Superman film (Sorry, Donner). It just sucks to see the pinnacle of comic book superheroes continually get such a shitty run with new generation audiences that cling to more gritty, darker anti-hero types. I especially don't like how they've changes the character's personality in The New 52 to match these types, which completely butchers the character. There's so much inner conflict in Superman (being the only surviving member of a dead planet, having seemingly infinite power, yet being confined to constantly limiting himself to maintain total control to preserve such fragile surroundings, the life of forced isolation), that you don't need to turn him into just another emo douche written with '90s quality Bart Simpson witty dialogue -- The best part of his character is the complete contrast in personality when interacting with those types.

Also, apparently there's too much action, which is a criticism I've never heard of in superhero flicks (usually the complaint is the exact opposite)

 

[Mal12345]

I'm very conflicted on this film: I haven't it yet, despite how much I've been dying to see it. Yet I think what's really stopped me from wanting to see it is all the negative reviews I've read about it, despite how amazing I thought the trailer was/is (the Jor-El monologue and the Kevin Costner scenes with young Clark).

I think what's really stopping me is knowing that my extremely high hopes and expectations are simply not going to be met, which just sucks considering this effort is probably the closest we'll ever get to getting a decent and moderately grounded, non-campy Superman film (Sorry, Donner). It just sucks to see the pinnacle of comic book superheroes continually get such a shitty run with new generation audiences that cling to more gritty, darker anti-hero types. I especially don't like how they've changes the character's personality in The New 52 to match these types, which completely butchers the character. There's so much inner conflict in Superman (being the only surviving member of a dead planet, having seemingly infinite power, yet being confined to constantly limiting himself to maintain total control to preserve such fragile surroundings, the life of forced isolation), that you don't need to turn him into just another emo douche written with '90s quality Bart Simpson witty dialogue -- The best part of his character is the complete contrast in personality when interacting with those types.

Also, apparently there's too much action, which is a criticism I've never heard of in superhero flicks (usually the complaint is the exact opposite)

Jor-el is the only reason to see this movie, but only because he did a lot more than give a speech or two.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm very conflicted on this film: I haven't it yet, despite how much I've been dying to see it. Yet I think what's really stopped me from wanting to see it is all the negative reviews I've read about it, despite how amazing I thought the trailer was/is (the Jor-El monologue and the Kevin Costner scenes with young Clark).

I think what's really stopping me is knowing that my extremely high hopes and expectations are simply not going to be met, which just sucks considering this effort is probably the closest we'll ever get to getting a decent and moderately grounded, non-campy Superman film (Sorry, Donner). It just sucks to see the pinnacle of comic book superheroes continually get such a shitty run with new generation audiences that cling to more gritty, darker anti-hero types. I especially don't like how they've changes the character's personality in The New 52 to match these types, which completely butchers the character. There's so much inner conflict in Superman (being the only surviving member of a dead planet, having seemingly infinite power, yet being confined to constantly limiting himself to maintain total control to preserve such fragile surroundings, the life of forced isolation), that you don't need to turn him into just another emo douche written with '90s quality Bart Simpson witty dialogue -- The best part of his character is the complete contrast in personality when interacting with those types.

Also, apparently there's too much action, which is a criticism I've never heard of in superhero flicks (usually the complaint is the exact opposite)

Don't let the reviews hold you up. This is one of those movies that you might like or might not, but based on the variety of response I've seen, you'll have trouble gauging off other's reactions. (For me, it wasn't a "classic," but I'd watch it again. I just haven't had the money. My INTP kid, who is 18 and does read comics and is fairly acquainted with the source material including even having read the few classic Alan Moore Superman tales, really liked it and loved the fight scenes.)

I felt like this version of Superman was fair without being either a cynical douchebag smartass or a blowing-sunshine-out-my-ass milquetoast. it just could have used more grounding in spots.

If you can find a matinee for it, maybe that would be your best bet.

Jor-el is the only reason to see this movie, but only because he did a lot more than give a speech or two.

This highlights exactly why you need to judge the movie for yourself, [MENTION=13112]Stigmata[/MENTION].

I would have been happy with a lot LESS Jor-El. I felt like at times he attempted to take over the movie, which was never about him, and I was just watching needless Crowe-channeling-Maximus shots in order to make up for the debacle of Les Mis. I was glad when he was gone; I wanted more Pa Kent, if anything, and better lines for Ma Kent, since Diane Lane is such a wonderful actor.

 

[Stigmata]

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this, but I actually thought Brandon Routh got the short end of the stick when it came to Superman Returns. To me, he was the perfect(2nd only to Reeves) Superman/Clark Kent, aesthetically speaking. He was heavily criticized because everyone said he was stale and uncharismatic, which is exactly what Clark Kent is, which is why no one ever suspects him to be Superman. It's not his fault the script sucked.

 

[Totenkindly]

I never saw it. Was that the one Brian Singer directed?

 

[Stigmata]

I never saw it. Was that the one Brian Singer directed?

Yep. It was basically a continuation of the Richard Donner films.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yep. It was basically a continuation of the Richard Donner films.

Maybe I'll dig it up.

Did you see the "Richard Donner" version of Supes 2? Or the one that was originally released? I got the former on Blu-Ray last year, liked it much at least as far as Richard Donner Supes goes.

 

[Mal12345]

Don't let the reviews hold you up. This is one of those movies that you might like or might not, but based on the variety of response I've seen, you'll have trouble gauging off other's reactions. (For me, it wasn't a "classic," but I'd watch it again. I just haven't had the money. My INTP kid, who is 18 and does read comics and is fairly acquainted with the source material including even having read the few classic Alan Moore Superman tales, really liked it and loved the fight scenes.)

I felt like this version of Superman was fair without being either a cynical douchebag smartass or a blowing-sunshine-out-my-ass milquetoast. it just could have used more grounding in spots.

If you can find a matinee for it, maybe that would be your best bet.



This highlights exactly why you need to judge the movie for yourself, [MENTION=13112]Stigmata[/MENTION].

I would have been happy with a lot LESS Jor-El. I felt like at times he attempted to take over the movie, which was never about him, and I was just watching needless Crowe-channeling-Maximus shots in order to make up for the debacle of Les Mis. I was glad when he was gone; I wanted more Pa Kent, if anything, and better lines for Ma Kent, since Diane Lane is such a wonderful actor.

That's exactly why you should judge the movie for yourself, [MENTION=13112]Stigmata[/MENTION]. Ma and Pa Kent have never had a major role in the Superman origin movies, and they never should. These aren't dramatic roles, they are boring farmer and farm-wife roles. In the original origin tale, they didn't even keep the baby but gave him over to an orphanage.

I didn't want to give away any Jor-el spoilers in my previous comment. But Jor-el was really the only character worth watching.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's exactly why you should judge the movie for yourself, [MENTION=13112]Stigmata[/MENTION]. Ma and Pa Kent have never had a major role in the Superman origin movies, and they never should. These aren't dramatic roles, they are boring farmer and farm-wife roles. In the original origin tale, they didn't even keep the baby but gave him over to an orphanage.

Have you really ever read the comics?

 

[Mal12345]

Have you really ever read the comics?

I've read hundreds of Action Comics.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've read hundreds of Action Comics.

I found the amount of attention given to them depends on the writer and the series. There are a few Superman series that have been around for awhile, Action is just one.

At least you've likely had the pleasure of being introduced to Krypto, Superdog.