Angry Reviews - Man of Steel

(111 votes, average 4.05 out of 5)
Facebook Share

See more at

Comments (181)
  • TheBechtloff
    I don't really get the critics on this. I thought this was BY FAR the best Superman movie.
  • mainstreetsaint
    It was everything that I was thinking it was going to be from the trailers.
  • LikaLaruku
    I keep expecting Joe to squee.
  • Zorro4k6
    It did seem that way didn't it? Haha.

    Anyway, Joe, I agree 100% with everything you said. Even if the story isn't very complicated, it's still pretty good nonetheless. I loved this movie. I enjoy the sound design. I'm pretty sure I heard bones cracking during the fight scenes. That was just awesome.

    If the critics say Superman doesn't save anyone in this movie, then all I have to ask is did they walk out during the very beginning? I mean he saved the whole freaking planet. He saved all those people on that oil rig. How can they say he doesn't save anyone? Weird. This is why I don't listen to "professional" critics. I trust my friends and you Joe. :)

    Anyway, I look forward to your spoiler review.
  • Lan
    Maybe, but neither of the fighters even got so much as a bloody nose. It created some severe cognitive dissonance. I could see and hear horrible things being done, but neither fighter showed the effects of it.

    Come on, muss your hair, rip your cape, SOMETHING. They shouldn't end the fight looking as good as they entered it. They weren't even dirty. :P
  • Bathrex
    Allow me to shed some light just a bit. Critics see both good and bad movies. All the bad movies they like to give good ratings because they had to suffer x-amount of hours of pure horror. So only natural they want others to suffer with. They give good movies bad reviews so we go watch bad movies. They want us to feel there pain.
  • itstheblueguy
    Hm... so in a field where the only way to stand out and make a living is to become known for your insightful, relevant, and useful recount - with plenty of hopeful writers who'd be happy to take your job if your work didn't sell - critics are most concerned with a petty vendetta to screw over their readers? Assuming that doesn't sound absurd up front regardless, the Superman movies probably aren't your best evidence of that, since they're ratings from critics are pretty much exactly how fans rank them today, with Man of Steel as the only possible exception. (Or if this was a joke, sorry I didn't get it.)
  • 2001
    Like Joe, fans love the movie because of how "bad ass" and "frickin' awesome" the movie is. They come to the movie to be entertained. A good story is always a nice bonus, but they primarily want to see intense action and insane special effects.

    For most movie critics, a movie is a means of telling a story, and they judge a movie not only on how entertaining the movie is, but also on how well it tells its story. This Superman movie has a very mediocre story, and it doesn't tell it particularly well. Instead of developing characters and giving meaning to their actions scenes, this movie just has characters monologue about what's supposed to be important, and has actions scenes just for the safe of having action scenes.

    General superhero and summer blockbuster fans would never care about something like that, but film critics usually do. That's where the disconnect is.
  • AngryJoeShow
    Well said!
    However, id take this over Superman Returns "Character Development" any day. All the development happened through action, through flashbacks, and through adversity. It was a story about being THRUST into action without preparation - I think people expected to be able to sit and watch a slow unfolding story before it then goes into epic action - This wasnt that story. And I for one am glad for it. We've had many Superman movies already for that. This is new a different in the best way right now.
  • osakayumu
    it's amazing how similar your opinions on man of steel are to my opinions on the star wars prequels.
  • SpeedyEric  - osakayumu
    Same here.
  • 2001
    Well, unfortunately for Superman Returns, it didn't have good character development or decent action scenes.
  • AlucardsQuest
    I still don't think that they established that properly. Basically the film makers thrust the audience into the action without preparation.

    I disagree that it was the best way of doing it. They could have made this movie a masterpiece, as all the ingredients for brilliance were there to use. But in the end it seems to boil down to saving all the of Superman's consequences for a sequel... that isn't a good way to tell a story in one movie.

    Also I disagree with him being unprepared for saving as many people as possible in a crisis, that's the entire premise of the character. He's 33 years old and had decades to find out how to properly utilize his powers. Just shaking someone's hand or giving them a hug had to be mastered. So why is he crashing through every building in sight in a city populated by 6 million people?

    It seems hypocritical for you to criticize Superman as a villain in Injustice, then then turn around and call this movie perfectly fine because it's an Elseworlds story (which to my recollection, no one but you has said). You're welcome to defend it, but suggesting that everyone else who didn't like it is wrong or has something wrong with them, seems petty.

    Even on a popcorn movie level, I wasn't impressed with the effects. They weren't anything that I haven't seen before. in fact now it's getting to the point where special effects don't impress me any more.

    Check this out...
    http:// 9b0f5c409a779d177ce96c55e d83e1f8/ tumblr_mop3viS8PR1qhmu4uo 1_500.jpg
  • AngryJoeShow
    1. Being 33 and growing up on a farm doesnt prepare you for fighting military trained kryptionans, no matter how well you have come to terms with your own abilities (which he hasnt even yet, not all of his powers were active - did you miss the part where he learned to fly? and zip around? thats all new to him. As well as the extent of everything. Pay closer attention if you assumed he was well versed with all his powers before the fight.)

    2. Its a movie, cityscapes and destruction are more impressive visually then taking Zod and his entire army to a corn field. (which is impossible, what is he going to bear hug them all and force them to fight there? what about their ships?) Most of the city was being evacuated, had been evacuated. Also all of the buildings superman crashed through were empty. Not a single person was seen in any of them. The lowest amount of destruction is to take all of them up in to space and fight them there, but that doesn't make for a very compelling location to do the entire movie in the eyes of the writer or director for the single purpose of covering their bases with the amount of destruction that would occur. The amount of destruction and people at risk in this movie is a very deliberate move - that fact that people are still talking about it is evidence of that - trust me, its going to be explored in the sequel with Lex. It was done with purpose - story purpose.

    3. My gripe with Superman in Injustice had you paid any attention before calling my a hyprocrit has to do with that story being told a THOUSAND times. Evil Superman this, Evil Superman that, what if he did this and what if he was a bad guy like that, etc. Not because simply he was a villian excused by an elseworlds story. This Man of Steel movie does something with the mythos we've never seen in the comics. Jor-el expansion, kyrpton expansion, superman being thrust into action when not ready, not being clark kent before hand or the daily planet before hand, lois knowing who superman is before they start their relationship, lois battling kyrptonians and saving supermans ass as much as he saves hers, humans standing up and fighting alongside superman with equal purpose. A lot of new things here in this film that other films (and even some comics) havent fully explored - and all that in 2hrs+. Check your high and mighty (you are a hypocrite attitude at the door), this is just my opinion of the movie and my opinion of Injustice's evil superman storylines - I hunger for new Superman stories - this was it. A non-fan may not understand why he isnt the same way everyone has always known him to be - thats fine.

    4. What movie has the superpowered beings (DBZ level) of effects this has? Matrix Reloaded? Here its done better. if you are simply jaded with special effects thats fine, but check out the cgi fest that is World War Z, then come back and tell me which was done better.

    5. Your link didnt work mang.
    Great ...
  • TragicGuineaPig
    I'm not going to lie to you: this movie has a lot of "Fridge Logic" to it. That is, while you're watching it, you don't think about it much, but later on, you say to yourself, "You know what? That didn't make a lot of sense."

    I enjoyed this movie immensely. A lot more than I thought I would, actually. But there are some things that, when I stop and think about them, I really feel should have been done a lot differently.

    For example, Pa Kent's death. Here's what I think they should have done: have Pa Kent die as a direct result of Clark's actions, not the passive result of some lesson Pa was trying to teach him. Or have him die to protect Clark directly, and not just so Clark can remain anonymous. I was moved by what they did do, but in retrospect, it was kind of empty the way they handled it. They should have done something to make the sacrifice more meaningful in the grander scope of things, you know, like Uncle Ben from Spider-Man.

    And if Zod really intended to kill those civilians, why couldn't he just move his eyes? Maybe if Supes had his eyes covered with his hands.

    But overall, I enjoyed the film, and will likely get the Blu-Ray when it comes out.
  • Dreadjaws
    "I'm not going to lie to you: this movie has a lot of "Fridge Logic" to it. That is, while you're watching it, you don't think about it much, but later on, you say to yourself, 'You know what? That didn't make a lot of sense.'"

    I see it as the opposite. For what I've read from people who complain about the film, they mostly complain about things they DIDN'T took their time to think after watching.

    For instance, about Zod, I think it's quite visually obvious in the film that a kryptonian's heat vision goes where his head is pointing, not his eyes. Plus, if Superman had tried to cover Zod's eyes he would have lost the grip on his head.
  • Elphaba645
    You know, there's a very good reason why I much prefer Doug and/or Rob's reviews. They always say how you're entitled to your opinion, instead of calling you dumb for liking or disliking movies.

    My mouth was practically hanging to the floor this whole review. I couldn't disagree more with almost everything he said. I really hated this movie. TERRIBLE!!!!!!

    And you think that having Russel Crowe consistently in the movie is a GOOD thing? And surprisingly, he was one of the LEAST bland actors in the movie. The acting was AWFUL, as was the writing, story, characters, flow, and basically everything in the movie. I had absolutely NO emotional connection to anyone at ANY scene. They were bland and jerks and yes, Joe, BORING. And I'm NOT stupid for thinking it. I can have my own opinion with totally legit reasons for it. And you can have yours, I'm not saying you're wrong, this is just my opinion.

    And the fact that Batman is probably in this? Yeah, and I'd much rather be watching him. He is a far more interesting character, like one of my favorite characters EVER, and I'd rather be watching ANY Batman movie than this piece of crap called a movie. Even Batman and Robin I would prefer to watch. At least I could call some friends and we could make fun of it. But I just spent this movie bored and wishing I was watching another movie.

    All in all, this overly positive review was painful to watch. I need to watch Doug and Rob in sibling rivalry to balance out this misled enthusiasm. And when will they learn that CALLING PEOPLE STUPID FOR THEIR OPINIONS DOESN'T GET PEOPLE TO LIKE YOU, OR LISTEN TO YOUR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Hardback247
    You the video because a person LIKES a movie? Yeah, that makes sense...
  • raknai
    The best Superman movie for people who dont like (hate) Superman.
    This movie is more Dragon Ball than Superman.
    Great movie for Batman fans brag about how Batman is more noble and right than Superman.
    No true Superman fan accept this ridiculous travesty, was worst than Superman 4.
    At least that was the Superman.
    If they are incapable to do a Superman movie create a new hero.
  • AncientRelic
    Your geek-out didn't disturb me but why was the trailer backwards? Other than that good review.
  • Fangheart
    I think the trailer is backwards because showing the mirrored version of copyrighted stuff is apparently ok with youtube or something....if it's copyrighted and not mirrored then it's deleted...I guess. I dunno.

    Joe, you should have been on the MOS Sibling Rivalry. THAT would have been very entertaining.
  • lonewolf23k
    Yes! At last, someone on Channel Awesome who defies the "Let's dump on MoS" bandwagon!
  • SatMornRejects
    Well, time to sign up for the Angry army now.
  • fusionater
    I'm personally one of the folks that didn't like this, nor do I understand how people could possibly like it, but hey, why be negative, maybe I'll like the next superman franchise, people that like this one(about half the people who watched it based on what I've seen), enjoy it and it's sequels. :)
  • Joeslickback
    So I guess I should Ignore General Zod of Zodmas LOL.
  • whiteglint3
    People who didn't like Man of Steel fall into two groups.

    1, people who wanted the Donner films again, goofy, lighthearted Silver age Superman effortlessly doing everything, while I love that superman, he wasn't even close to realistic, and the comics superman moved on from this incarnation years ago.

    2, people who didn't like it was actionly, like a comic book, which is incredibly ironic, considering it is a comic book movie, they also generally don't like the dark tone, because.. I dunno to them superman isn't allowed to be dark in any way.

    the thing is, this is how the comic books are, he fights people, hell this portrays the action better than any comic book ever did, and generally it did this, incredibly well.
  • fusionater
    Yeaaaaaaaaah...that's jut false.

    I've criticized the overall bland acting, the goddamn shaking camera(it hurts my head more than 3d ever could), the weak dialogue...and I've praised the action scenes. As for people wanting the donner version...kinda...yeah, moreso that a lot of people don't WANT Superman to be THIS realistic, by all means, take your story and characters seriously, but come on, it's a oomic book movie, it's not real, it's fiction, have a little fun, I hate it when people equate realism with good. That's not to say realism can't be great for a movie, hell, it worked wonders for Batman, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be that way. At least not to such a, shall we say, super extreme.
  • didaz198
    We can disagree and argue all we want about the acting, shaky cam and dialogue, but I'll focus on something else you mentioned. I wouldn't say the film wants to be THAT realistic to Nolan Batman's universe, but that it wants to be grounded to reality more. I suppose your main issue is that it was so dark that it started to be dull. Even in TDK, as realistic and dark as it was, it still managed to have light moments which Man of Steel still managed to do (imo, you can disagree if you want).
  • fusionater
    That's a fair way of putting it, I do think that it did tend to get dull, especially when EVERY scene had to be something important to the plot, come on, the darkest stories of all time have some comic relief to them, there are only 2 moments in the movie that made me laugh, and I'm not actually sure they were supposed to. By all means, enjoy the movie, but I get irritated when one side of an opinion is demeaned by the other, in this case, lots of fans are like "man critics are dumbasses, their opinion doesn't matter", sometimes it's the opposite, sometimes it's fans against fans, every time, one side always ends up being the one that goes "what is wrong with them!?!? they must be jackasses or something". This time I think the people who liked it are doing it a lot(that's not to say I think that just because I'm on a side of people who don't like it, I've been on both sides). And that ends my likely incoherent ramble. :p
  • firefly4f4
    Third group -- my group:

    3. People who thought the cinematography was poor, the script woefully lacking and full of tell-don't-show exposition, the special effects confusingly inconsistent (especially the Kryptonian technology) and -- most importantly -- who wanted to see an action movie with a guy who BEHAVED LIKE Superman, not just just some guy with super power throwing punches.

    Yeah, yeah, he saved the world, but where is he shown mourning the lives lost? Where's the care for the REMAINING buildings? Where's the care for the PEOPLE hurt when he's fighting Zod, or for that matter when he's fighting IN THE CENTER OF SMALLVILLE!

    This is a film that builds the character up as a Savior archetype, but he shows absolutely no concern for the lives lost while doing it. That's what's wrong with the film.

    That's the problem. He's a guy with superpowers, but he's Superman-in-name-only.

    And do NOT use the "he's just figuring things out." He's 33, and his morals have always come from the Kents. He'd have had at least THAT much figured out, even if he wasn't (for some reason... he waited until he was 33 to figure out he could fly?) fully in control of his powers yet.

    It seemed to me like everything they were building up in the first half, before he turned himself over to Zod, got thrown out the window by how frankly reckless he was.

    You can have both good action, good story, and good characters in the same film, and at the same time. In my mind, this film dropped the first two as soon as the action started.

    Heck, even if they showed him FIXING parts of Metropolis (and remove that stupid kiss scene amongst the RUBBLE OF A CITY where lives were lost), helping people recover, it could have been bearable. Instead, after the destruction, quite a bit at his hand... he destroys a drone. FUCK HIM. He does NOT get a free pass to NOT show compassion just for saving the planet. HELP REBUILD FFS!
  • Magmabear
    Pretty much nailed it for me, firefly44.

    Thing is that the action is so good, but is completely out of character for Superman to go apeshit all over Metropolis and destroy everything and everyone.

    This movie was an awesome superhero movie, however, it was a terrible Superman movie. That's where I pretty much stand with this movie.

    Hopefully they'll get it right the next movie. I'm hopeful for that, at least.
  • AngryJoeShow
    What a fantastic idea, and a sorely missed scene. I just dont think david was smart enough to include it. Where were you when we needed you.

    A scene of Superman helping rebuild would have been a much better way of ending it than the stupid drone - hes kinda hot scene!
  • firefly4f4
    If that had been done -- as I said, it's as simple as showing him helping the rebuilding effort -- it would have done a LOT to help the film, in my eyes. You don't need the drone, you don't need the scene at the Planet, just help to rebuild after the damage. Suddenly, there's heart, there's consequences, more stories to follow, and I'm personally a lot happier.

    I find a lot of films I don't like could be improved by small things like that. Show me that there's more than one note.

    I do appreciate the enthusiasm you show. I figured I must have looked like that after all my viewings of The Avengers last year.

    I still hated the tornado scene, though. I don't think they should have killed Jonathan THAT way -- in fact, don't address it at all in this film. Show Clark at the grave, but leave HOW that happened for another story. As it is, I seriously don't buy that Clark would have LET his father die like that. I can buy something might have happened where he couldn't save him, or maybe simply WASN'T there, but that clearly wasn't the case here.
  • AlucardsQuest
    How about people who make broad generalizations about others in order to better stereotype them? This movie wasn't dark, it was insipid... difference.
  • AngryJoeShow
    Insipid is your opinion. In my opinion and the majorities opinion it wasn't insipid at all. Simply giving us the best action and visual approximation of Supermans powers seen to date alone dispels that accusation.

    You are better off saying the film is lacking in other areas.

    You complaining about making broad generalizations seems funny to me now.
  • guneagle01
    3. people who like good movies
  • raknai
    You forgot people who like Superman and wanted to watch a Superman movie not a white Hancok
  • SpeedyEric  - So far, 8.1 out of 10 rating on IMDB.
    Thank Rao for a POSITIVE review of MoS on this site. Everything Joe said hear are the reasons why I love this movie as mush as he does, and then some. Along with the shaky cam thing, I really don't have a problem with it as long as I can see what's being shown on screen.

    I'm also looking forward to seeing Man of Steel 2 (which I heard may also include either Wonder Woman or the new Batman), and I also hope that DC and Warner Brothers don't rush into anything just to get us to the long awaited Justice League movie, mostly because like in the DC Animated Universe, I'd like to see Supes and Bats team up BEFORE the forging of the League.

    Anyway, thanks again for you review, Joe, glad ta help this movie make it pass Toy Story 3 on opening weekend, and I'm happy to see your favorite superhero whooping @$$ on the silver screen again after 26 years.
  • tsg812
    What's the point of this site if people are only going to be happy with positive reviews?
  • SpeedyEric  - Everyone needs to cool down now and then.
    It's actually nice for people on this site to give possitive reviews every now and then while still making some jokes. Linkara thought that the comic Doom 2099 #1 was really damn good, NC actually likes the movie A.I. now more than he did before the review, MikeJ made his positive reviews on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, and Joe can still talk about how good (Metro: Last Light) or how bad (Star Trek: The Game) recently released games are.
  • Salosandre
    I really expected Joe to hate this movie with a passion since he's such a superman fan. It was pretty badly written.
  • SpeedyEric
    We all knew from the comments for Doug and Brad's videos that Joe loves it.
  • mr.keys
    He's totally right about the RottenTomatoes numbers. I never really "hated" Superman Returns, I tend not to get worked up over or hate any movie, but I believe MOS was by and far a much better movie and enjoyed it.
  • SpeedyEric
    I also don't hate Superman Returns. When I saw it in the theatre, I was please to see a Richard Donner-like Superman movie in the theatre, AND it was my first midnight premiere. I actually liked Brandon Routh's take of the boy in blue, and I really enjoyed Keven Spacey's darker version of Lex Luthor, making him like a cross between Lex from the comics and the Gene Hackmen version.

    But don't worry. I also find MoS 110% better than the 2006 film.
  • didaz198  - I said it before and I'll say it again
    MoS is rough around the edges for sure, it isn't perfect, but I like it a lot. Solid 8/10 for me.
  • danatblair
    I don't think there is a particular bandwagon with the critics here. Many of them may simply have not liked the movie. Others may have liked it just fine. And even if there is somehow a bandwagon, I'd say that considering the number of people hate raking negative reviews with 1 star rankings I think it is a little silly to say there is only one bandwagon.

    And whiteglint3, lumping the people who dislike the movie into categories of your own construction as a way to automatically declare the movie supporters the winner ... does not do the supporters any favors.
  • ThreeStoogesFan
    YES! Thank you Angry Joe for giving Man of Steel the praise it deserves!
  • Basiritz
    I have to agree. This movie was pretty awesome. Finally the superhero fight I've always wanted to see.
  • TheMovieDoctor
    Oh Joe... I agree that the critics are a little short sighted on some of their major problems with the movie, but I also think that your theory about your fan boy self is clouding your judgement is correct.

    The big problems I had with the movie are three fold, and simple... Bland characters, shaky cam, and over complicated exposition.

    If you liked it that much, awesome. In fact, I'd love to go see it again to see if I can squeeze more of what I liked out of it too. Unfortunately, I have a hard time overlooking the plot holes and some of the editing (not the same as the critics, because I can follow most deconstructed narratives also) especially when it feels like there are literally gaping scenes they seem to have just left out.

    Also that end scene with Lois and Superman... Needed? Not really...
  • AngryJoeShow
    I disagree with the Bland Characters Bit.

    For one this Lois is better than any other Lois that has come before, especially Kate's in Superman Returns who was basically just a whiny damsel who acted more like a teenager than a strong female lead.

    Lois in this film is head strong, heroic, and is very closely tied with superman the way she should be. He also saves her as she saves him, again the way it should be. I'll agree that perhaps more was needed on the romance front, but the movie cant have everything from all the previous superman films and comics combined - I guarantee you will see that development in the sequel.

    What we have here is, hey what have you gotten a lot of in the past? Boy scoutish, Hero Worship, Daily planet bumbling, drawn out origin stories, mopey third wheel relationships, and some really odd new superman powers - all with very low amounts of drag out superpowered fist fights. This movie focused on that, it focused on the battles, the military, the struggle - along with death and destruction as no other movie has really explored it in depth. It was refreshing, and now that we got that, it accomplished its set goal - now we have a sequel already in the works to explore all the ramifications of it, as well as all the things critics love and embrace more so.
  • AlucardsQuest
    I'll agree with Lois being improved from a moral stand point and she gets a chance to help Superman, but that's it. He still has to save her 3 times. She could have been completely written out of the movie and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

    Also you're making sequel concessions again. If they couldn't make a complete story in one movie in 2 1/2 hours (which felt like 5) then that's poor writing.
  • AngryJoeShow
    And she helps to save him and the world at least 2 times, possibly 3. Why are you comparing the number of times someone needs saving? As evidence of what exactly? Do you know how many times lois has to be saved in the other films or the comics?
    Whats your point?

    The entire earth needs saving. And to write her out of the movie makes a huge difference seeing as she does many pivotal things in the film both in supermans eyes and in the eyes of the overall plot. More so than any other superman film. I get the feeling you are speaking from a place where you dont know much about the comics nor the previous films.

    And claiming a character can be "written out" is true for just about any piece of fiction - is it possible to take out a side character? Yes it most certainly is. Good job on proving nothing.

    As for it feeling like 5 hours - god I wish it was 5 hours. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion that it was poor writing. You dont like the Superman film. I get it.
  • The Dubya
    "This movie focused on that, it focused on the battles, the military, the struggle - along with death and destruction as no other movie has really explored it in depth."

    MOS explores death and destruction with as much depth as a Transformers movie...

    Hell the only thing that really separates this from those movies is that the story/characters here are too bland to get offended over (while Transformers just beats you over the head with how brazenly stupid it is).
  • SwissIrishAmerican
    I loved this movie too!!!! No it's not perfect, but I think it looks more realistically at humanity than many other superhero movies. I agree with you Joe. This isn't the same Superman, but even more than that, there is a story being told about humanity in this "Elseworlds" story.
  • HonestGeek  - Thank God!
    Thank you Angry Joe. After watching both Doug Walker's Zod Review and Brad Jones Midnight screening I really wanted to think that one of you guys could see this movie for what it really is.

    I personally think this is the Superman movie the fans deserve and everyone who disagrees isn't watching the same movie as us. Thanks again Joe and may Rao be with you.
  • ronincs
    I think most people don't realize that the dcu is actually a multiverse. I agree this is a great elseworlds story.
  • Eyeshot
    I definitely liked Man of Steel, and I agree that critics are either nitpicking or simply pining for the Richard Donner/Lester flicks. Amy Adams however ... I think she should have channeled Margot Kidder more. Lois Lane has sass and spunk, which Adams should have conveyed more in her delivery.

    It was good to hear your opinion, Joe, but what I REALLY want to know is: Xbox One or PS4? Will you get an Xbox One to "reward" Microsoft for reversing their policies, or will you get a PS4 because Microsoft pissed you off too much? Or is it too early to ask? The Earth needs to know!
  • Adviel
    Finally some on on this site liking this movie.
    This movie is awesome.
  • Goat Boy
    As much of a fan of Brad Jones as I am, his and his crew's reasons for hating this movie were Larry-the-Cable-Guy-fan stupid.

    Oh, yeah, and Amy Adams was so fucking hot in this!
  • Youngbountygirl
    I did think it was a good movie. I did love the performance of Louis Lane, excellent job! I also didn't think there was bland character development (I was thinking "what cha talkin' about Willis?" when I saw that in the critics' review). I was slightly disappointed SLIGHTLY and that was because I kinda expected more creativity to it and the movie seemed to be taking ideas from different cliches I've watched like being a hobo at first, villain trying to destroy the world to revive his people, and the bland romance development (yeah, I found absolutely no buildup with the romance whatsoever and I'm surprised the critics never caught onto that). With it's flaws, I did enjoy it and thought it was good.
  • VampByDay
    So, Joe? Honest opinion? I can see why people don't like it. I don't think it's nearly as bad as people say, though. Using YOUR own rating system, I'd give it a 5 (average). Not because it is mediocre though, because it's not. Instead, it has some REALLY good parts. I love what they changed in the backstory, Zod has a purpose now, and you know why he's crazy, you know why Krypton exploded, all the changes they made I think were for the better. I saw no problems with the acting (some found it flat, but I thought it was subdued.)

    But it had some, let's be fair, major problems. The pacing was abysmal, and some of the editing was downright atrocious. And really, that's two major strikes right there. That's going to mess things up for a lot of people. Additionally, I agree, we don't get a lot of characterization for Clark until WAY late in the movie. I do think we finally get some, but I would have liked more. Like, what does he think about the Kryptonians? What does he think about his father?

    All in all, it has some really good bits from a storytelling and acting perspective, and some really bad bits from a basic filmmaking perspective, and it kind of, sadly, evens out for me. Just my two cents though, and I'm not really a film buff.
  • AngryJoeShow
    What was the editing problems? One person says that going from the rocket pod landing on earth to the fisherman ship and all of a sudden the movie has editing problems?

    Thats a jump in time, a large one, because they didnt want to focus too much on the origin story with so much else to cover.

    Trying to figure out what these "HUGE" editing problems are, ive seen some bad editing films but this really doesnt rank anywhere near up there.
  • ahak
    Please stop using the "it's an alternate universe, you guys don't get it" bullcrap argument, just stop. People get it, it's just not very well done. Marvel movie universe is an alternate universe too, but people almost universally love it. Superman doesn't need to be darker, more realistic. He is suppose to unrealistically good, basically a symbol of perfection. He doesn't need a uncle ben backstory. Leave the brooding to Bruce.
  • Andruism
    Holy shit, I totally missed the spider thing. Honestly I was thinking 'Octopus', but I can see spider thinking. I did notice the polar bear though.

    By the way, that same producer worked on this movie. I can't help wondering if he was still insisting on it XD
  • mainstreetsaint  - Glad you liked the movie too, Joe!
    Listening to you mentioning the no-win situation with the characterization in MoS, I thought of what the real challenge of this film; it was in a no-win situation. How do you have a balance of story and action? Too much action, and critics and some movie goers are alienated but too little and people are turned off and bored. For the most part, I enjoyed it a lot and was good enough for a new origin story for a reboot of the Franchise.
  • SilverFoxR
    Wow, Joe... you really DID geek out on this one.

    I'm going to apologize, but I have to disagree with this movie being all that good. I kind of have to agree with the 50% or so critic score.

    One thing with Zod that bothered me was that the whole issue with him "being bred to protect Krypton"... sure, the speech at the end was nice... but I would have liked to have seen him with more scenes and dialogue where he SHOWED this instead of twirling his moustache.

    And, there's a couple of major plot holes with this movie that just break things for me... even though it's pretty much Superman lore to some extent:

    1) If they had interstellar technology... WHY DID NOBODY ATTEMPT TO LEAVE KRYPTON? Even when the planet was literally crumbling, why didn't anyone attempt to jump on any form of ship and take it off the planet? Hell, Zod retro-fitted the equivalent of a prison barge with a warp drive... so it couldn't be all that difficult.

    2) Why did Zod have to terraform Earth when there were other planets nearby that the World Engine could have easily kneaded into a Krypton Pizza for them? Mars, perhaps? Just needs a little plant life they could borrow from Earth (or any planet they want, because they have A SPACESHIP WITH WARP TECHNOLOGY). They probably could have completely skipped any kind of conflict with Clark or the Earth if they just went up to Supes and said "Hey, your dad gave you a registry code for every person on our dead planet. We want to revive our race on a nearby planet. Could you help us?" and he would have probably HELPED THEM.

    3) Here's a big one...
    WHY TERRAFORM EARTH AT ALL?!? They already know Earth has everything they need to survive (as they have proof that one of their own has survived for over almost 30 years peacefully) and, most importantly, they would have the power of gods among men! They don't need to use the Earth Pizza Machine... Earth is made-to-order! They even have Earthlings they could use to help them re-build their entire race, either by assistance or by force if necissary. Why kill an entire planet that could be better used to assist in the rebirth of Krypton?

    Zod's ultimate plan is ultimately moronic... and not one person seems to care.

    Though he's not the only idiot in the movie... another notable dimwit is "Pa Kent" in a few ways... especially his "Uncle Ben" moment of trying to keep Clark from saving him. Honestly, there were ways Clark could have saved his dad without showing off his powers. Some people might have thought it to be extremely lucky of them to survive, even miraculous, but not because Clark was magic or anything. All he had to do is run (without super speed) to his dad, hold onto him and try to help him back to the overpass, downplaying his superhuman abilities. It would still be somewhat believable. After all, if a normal, 100 pound woman in real life...
  • lonewolf23k
    SilverFoxR, all three of those points aren't bugs, they're features exposing just how badly screwed up Kryptonian society's mindset had gotten.

    1-They had become such die-hard isolationists that they refused to accept Krypton could blow up, and rejected any notion of leaving the planet.

    2-Earth, compared to Mars or Venus, is a lot easier to "Kryptoform" due to being already a life-baring planet. If Zod has limited resources to dedicate to the task, then Earth is a much better choice to work with then Mars. And the issue of getting into conflict with Kal-El or wiping out Humanity is just something he doesn't care about.

    3-Zod wanted Krypton back. HIS Krypton. He didn't even care about the possibility of getting god-like powers or ruling over an enslaved planet of humans. He was genetically hardwired to preserve and restore the society he'd always known, and he wasn't going to accept any compromise.

    Yes, Zod's plan was insane and moronic. THAT WAS THE POINT. It was a condemnation of EVERYTHING that Kryptonian society had become by it's end, with Zod being incapable of doing anything but try to restore a doomed society incapable of evolving. And that's why, when Superman destroys the Genesis tanks, he does it saying "Krypton HAD its Chance". He's saying "Krypton failed. Time to move on."
  • The Dubya  - RE: lonewolk23k
    It's funny you bring up Superman destroying the Genesis tank...

    So clearly he had no issue zapping HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of potential Kyrptonian spawn out of existence to save the planet without thinking twice about it. Butttt we're supposed to buy that not even 10 minutes later he suddenly he gets all hesitant and weepy with the hilariously cheesy "Oh noes! oh noes! should I kill Zod? Should I kill Zod? Noooooooes I killed Zod BOO HOO EPIC CRYYYYY!"

    So what, it's easier to mass kill a bunch of faceless enemies you can't see than to have to do it with your bare hands? And hell he already fucked up whatsherface's crew of Kryptonians earlier in Smallville. I didn't see him Epically Weep for them either.

    There's NO doubt in his mind that Earth > Krypton pretty much throughout the entire movie, so what exactly was he supposed to "regret" at the end? What was supposed to be so "hard" about the end? He never gave a shit about Krypton other than discovering his real dad, so Zod pleading at him like that shoulda just been white noise.
  • AngryJoeShow
    Zod Never twirled his mustache as hard as the original Zod from the Donner Films. So to try to dismiss this character as "overly evil" is actually not right, because thats what the original Zod was. This one has purpose to build kyrpton anew from the codex that he believes kal-el is hiding - its his sole purpose now and he will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. This zod was a stronger motivated and justified zod than ever before.

    Your plotholes:
    1. The council did NOT believe that the planet was going to be destroyed. The writer did a bad job conveying this but it is there. He should have written in and outright refusal and dismissal of Jor-els findings in a more resolute way. And then a scene (not just with lara) with everyone saying, my god Jor-el was right.
    Most ships were fighting Zods Rebellion. None of them were prepared for a planetary evacuation (which requires preparation).
    I will agree though that its pretty unlikely that ALL the kyrptonian colonies died out on their own (but I think this was left to be explored in the future with brainiac/supergirl/ argocity/etc)

    2. Terraforming Earth is a plot device - instead of having superman go up against 20-30 kyrptonians who are just attacking and destroying cities and militaries, its easier and lot less costly on the budget to have there be a central point of conflict. This is done for story purposes - much like video games sometimes need to change details of historical accuracy and the like so that they are still "fun" to play.
    Zod also just wanted things BACK the way they were, having to deal with superpowered beings under his rule isn't necessarily the best idea for a dictator who plans to rule with an iron fist and dictate whose bloodlines should be eradicated.

    Zods plan wasnt moronic at all. He was following military plans and likely routines that he has always followed. Only this time its to return krypton to as close as possible as it was before no matter the cost.

    Pa Kent thing, now you are just arguging motivations of characters because YOU disagree with them. Why did Bruce Waynes father have to struggle with the Robber causing him and his wife to get shot? Because without it, Batman would never be born, and the whole nolan trilogy wouldnt even happen - there are plenty of things joker does that are idiotic and can be nitpicked at (motivations) just like you are doing with Pa Kent.
    Jonathan felt that the world wasnt ready for a being with the power of Superman, and was ultimately just trying to protect his own son. He wanted his son to be ready if the time ever came. But that just didnt work out - just like in real life, things dont always go how you plan them out to be. Its not a comic book boy scout story of hope and winning without any causalities.
  • The Dubya
    "Jonathan felt that the world wasnt ready for a being with the power of Superman, and was ultimately just trying to protect his own son. He wanted his son to be ready if the time ever came."

    So he wanted Clark to "wait" until some vague and arbitrary point in time to use his powers, even if it meant LETTING A SCHOOL BUS FULL OF KIDS DIE?

    Yeah no, No matter how much of a fan you are of this film, you're never convincing me or anyone else that that line doesn't make this Johnathon Kent a cowardly piece of shit. He literally told his TRAUMATIZED son that he probably would have been better off letting those kids drown instead of having ONE mother come over and make the Kents feel mildly uncomfortable. Because you're afraid of what people MIGHT say about Clark.

    And that solidifies what he was instilling in his son; COWARDICE. Cowardice over ASSUMPTIONS. He ASSUMES that the world "wouldn't be ready for him". He ASSUMES "people would be scared of him". He ASSUMES a whole bunch of crap that...never...fucking happens....

    Does Lois Lane even bat an eye at Clark when he flies down to meet her for the first time? Do any of the army guys even flinch when they first meet him? Does anyone react strangely to this flying man at ALL in the film? No? Didn't think so.

    Soooo what the fuck was the point of all that crap Papa Kent was spewing again? For all the empty lip service paid to the world's supposed reaction to Clark being sooooo scarrrrrry, we're not shown a FRAME of that kind of reaction. The military is only mildly cautious of him moreso that they aren't sure what his relationship to Zod really is rather than an inherent fear of "OMG Imma Judgemental Human So A-Scared Of His Powers" that they were trying to beat us over the head with.

    Give me the boy scout over the fucking coward anyday...fuck this movie's John Kent.
  • Harry Lime
    I think the biggest problem with Man of Steel is Zod's motivation. During the opening scenes, when it was explained that Kal-El was the first natural birth in centuries and Zod saw that as an "abomination," I thought that was a great set-up for him wanting to kill Superman, packed with personal conflict and drama. But that angle was completely forgotten for the rest of the movie and replaced the far weaker (in my opinion) terraforming plot.

    Not to mention the grey, joyless tone of the movie, the overuse of expository dialogue, the forced, unbelievable romance, and the overlong and boring action scenes.
  • Falanca
    What you've failed to see here is that the unnaturally natural condition of Superman and Zod's hatred towards such blasphemy towards traditions is ultimately synonymous with the "terraforming" plot.

    He wants to have the Krypton he lived on, right down to the final detail, in both physicality and overall mindset of his kinsmen and women. Superman in the end IS the embodiment of disregarding every tradition and taboo Krypton had until that point in time. They all rhyme and reason. You're right about spewed exposition and the tacked on romance at the end, hell even if the action scenes bored you (i was really entertained by all) it's your opinion to be rightfully respected, but man, Zod had no flaw in his given motivation. I don't think "killing a kryptonian who's light years away because he was given birth in unorthodox but natural methods" is a better motivation than what we're given, which is something I have to doubt if you understood it all.
  • AngryJoeShow
    Anyone saying these action scenes are boring are completely pulseless and "joyless" just as they claim the movie to be.

    Never before has superman and kyrptonians been depicted more accurately as to their extent of powers, speed, and abilities when faced against humans and each other. If these action scenes were boring, than Superman II's action scenes of the very same were abominations of cinema. (which they werent, and neither are these depictions of superpowered fights) Open up a Superman Comic and you'll see them play out nearly exactly as you see them in this movie.

  • AlucardsQuest
    How many times can you punch someone and drag them through buildings? It got boring after a dozen or so times. Buildings get destroyed in movies all the time these days, why is this so special? Just because it's Superman? That's not good enough. Everyone wants to side with Superman, but ultimately the audience isn't given much reason to do so. JorEl tells him to protect the humans (which he gladly does so, without thinking about it and puts on the costume for some reason) but he really does a lousy job of it. They could have cut the action scenes down, but at the same time made the hits more impactful and poignant.

    As for the action resembling the comics, well which is it? If this is more like the comics why do you refer to it as Elseworlds?
  • AngryJoeShow
    Since you've made it your personal quest to engage with me on how my opinion of the Superman film is wrong. Let me address this point as well.

    You can punch and drag villains through buildings as much as it takes, the amount here pales in comparison to the comics (which people desperately want to compare it to).

    You saying buildings getting destroyed in a superpowered fight is boring is your own opinion, to others its exciting and an accurate depiction of what would happen when beings at this power level punch each other and fall against something to stop their momentum. If the idea of this is inherently boring to you then yes your enjoyment of the film is diminished. Im sure many people find this sort of action not to their liking - but this is a superman story, and this is what happens in superman leveled fights.

    Because it resembles the comics doesnt mean I have to choose whether its like the comics or a new story. It is a new story - what exactly are you trying to prove when you are harassing me over what its more like the comics or an elseworlds story? Elseworlds stories always "resemble" the character that we already know - DUH. Good grief.

    If you wanted more character development for the film, more time for "story elements", more time for "diagloue" between the characters - thats 100% fine - state that and be done with it. I myself appreciated that this film gave us more action than any other superman film.

    Obviously with a set time limit in a given movie, if something was to be lessened and more importance placed on something else, say 70% fighting and 30% then I'm glad they choose this route for this particular story. You disagree - clearly - and thats fine. But it doesnt change anything about my own opinion or the opinions of the majority of people who made the film a success. They wanted something they havent seen before - and its exactly what they got.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

NC: WYNKA - Planes, Trains &

Watch Video

Bum: HG - Mockingjay P1

Watch Video

Yomarz: Farcry 3 - Blood Dragon

Watch Video

SF Debris: Dr Who - Blink

Watch Video

FB: Mr Turner & Nativity 3

Watch Video

ChaosD1: MMO - FFXIV

Watch Video

Shaun K: UG - To Be Continued

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 23 - Another

Watch Video

Linkara: Avengers #1

Watch Video

Dom Reviews: Homeworld 2

Watch Video

RR: Cloudkicker

Watch Video

Animerica: Tokyo Majin, Part 2

Watch Video

GW: Leeroy Jenkins

Watch Video

Best for a Buck: Gunpoint

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Tatoos

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 22 There's No

Watch Video

BB: UnAmazing Spiderman2

Watch Video

Todd: Dick Tracy

Watch Video

MikeJ: Bare Lifts Infomercial

Watch Video

FB: Serena/Love, Rosie

Watch Video

Brad: Tries McRibMac

Watch Video

Linkara Riff: Why Braceros

Watch Video

Vangelus: Kyoryu Red

Watch Video

Nerd3: Big Hero 6

Watch Video

Team NChick: Pumptober 21

Watch Video

WTFIWWY: Love in Penguins

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (145)
Sports (264)
News (285)
Book Reviews (569)
Funny (593)
Top # Lists (793)
Animation (1002)
Wrestling (1018)
Movies (1148)
Anime (1190)
Thoughts (1225)
Comics (1314)
Misc Reviews (1347)
Music (1547)
Video Reviews (2037)
Film Review (2863)
Uncategorized (4086)
Video Games (5434)
Old Blogs (15309)