Saw it today. Wanted to love it. It was stupid, self important and too much stupid, senseless Krypton plot. It also lacked any humour.
The only redeeming part of the movie was the gorgeous Henry Cavill. He is stunning. Totally hot in his shirtless and non-shirtless scenes.
One of the worst scene was when Clark goes to a priest and is discussing his purpose - the shot of him had a stained glass window in the background with a sunlit Jesus.
It was so corny and was down without any irony.
I didn't think they could make a worse movie than the last Superman.
What did you think? What were the best or worst scenes?
Can't wait to see the scenes where he isn't non-shirtless!
OP, perhaps Oprah and Terrence Howard's upcoming film, "The Butler" is more your speed.
It was drivel. But the masses will love it. It has a fascist bent and is violent.
If you thought Superman Returns was awful, you're as dumb as the typos in your post.
Yep, it sucked. This is the third Henry Cavill movie I've seen and in all of them he cannot act for shit. I will not watch anymore movies with him as a lead.
There's a Superman troll among us. Seems like there are 5 or 6 different Superman posts floating around.
Personally I think it looks awful. Why do they make all movie superhero costumes all look like textured meshy leather now? It's getting ridiculous.
It really really was awful, at least returns had heart, man of steel is basically a 2 1/2 hour explosion.
When will Hollywood learn that you can't mix Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan.
Why don't "real" Superman fans like the Christopher Reeve version? He was so handsome, quirky and funny in those movies.
I completely agree with you on the humour front, this movie could have sorely used some more.
I don't want to seem like a Whedon fan boyl, but i'm excited he's entered the world of making superhero films, because balancing humor and drama, while still making the stakes seem high, is something he does best.
Even Favreau would have done better.
Zachary Snyder also ruined Watchmen.
His acting was fine. The movie was well done, exciting, and interesting.
No, it wasn't a comedy. There were a few smiles in there though... it wasn't COMPLETELY clacking in humor. But yes, it's of the more "dark, gritty, realistic" sort of comic book hero movie that seems to be the in thing of late.
Over-all, I enjoyed it, and I'd totally see it again.
It wasn't nearly as stupid as the Star Trek movie.
"clacking"? heh. That should be "lacking" obviously.
[quote]When will Hollywood learn that you can't mix Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan.
Better yet, when will Hollywood learn Cavill can't act for shit?
Cavill looks a bit like FRATMEN model Trent.
You could replace cavil with a plank of wood and you could barely tell the difference.
The only thing I've seen Cavill in is The Tudors and I never paid much attention to him. He was always very stoic, very bland, pretty to look at and perfect for that kind of show.
When I heard he was playing Superman I figured he must have fucked someone hard to get it.
Hope it was worth it.
[quote]You could replace cavil with a plank of wood and you could barely tell the difference.
Cavill is like Bernie in "Weekend at Bernies" - they just prop him up and shuffle him around and he's just "there".
Yup, cavill should've been a model instead.
What was the overall response by critics to Cavill's performance? Their like or dislike of the film aside, did they mostly say good things about him or bad?
The complaints about Cavill are most of the same that were said about Brandon Routh.
The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?
[quote]The complaints about Cavill are most of the same that were said about Brandon Routh.
And where is Brandon Routh today? *crickets*
And this isn't just about Superman - people mention Cavill's bad acting in ALL his movies, especially his last movie "Cold Light of Flop".
[quote[The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?
Superman is a boring character, but even if he was interesting, Cavill would make him boring.
Why the hell did they have to go back to the beginning again? The first with Brando and Reeves was a wonderful film. As much as a pain in the ass as Brando was during production, his scenes work. Why couldn't they have just done a new original Superman adventure.
Captain America was a great movie experience about a "good" superhero. It can be done.
The Avengers also made good use of Cap's innate goodness by pitting him against Iron Man's selfishness.
The conflict in the next Captain America movie is similar to Superman's internal struggle, that of the outsider in a strange place- "The Man Out of Time".
Obviously you haven't seen it because he kills someone in this movie & we see both his struggle before and the anguish afterwards
As far as internal struggle goes, that's why many people hate this movie because this version of "Superman" is mostly about his internal struggle and self doubt
His "feeling out of place" and coming to terms with who he is, finding meaning or a purpose to his existence.
In many ways its a metaphor for all of us, or at least many of us who've ever felt alone or isolated , anone who never felt like they "fit in"
Personally I think it's Snyder's best movie to date. It's a much more restrained or mature movie than his earlier work. (Though that's not much of a stretch)
That's not to say he doesn't go a little crazy with the special effects, but this is "his" interpretation of how we would experience Superman in the real world.
I think it's a thoutful film, especially the flashbacks with his earth mum, and pa.
It's not all Cavill, there are touching scenes with Diane lane, and the other kids who play superman in his youth
The movie may not be for everyone, many older people feel they hate this interpretation because they are so fond of the Christopher reeve or older versions.
It's funny, Returns was trashed because there wasn't enough action, and it was too much of a love story between Supes & Lois.
Snyder's interpretation is being trashed because there's "not enough romance or story", and "too much action". Too serious, not enough jokes...etc.
All ridiculous in my opinion. Those who have been looking forward to this will likely love it, as I did, and those who are skeptical appear to be leaning towards the fashionable trend of insulting the movie for one reason of another.
I thought Cavill was pretty decent in immortals, though I was nervous about his ability to pull off such an iconic role.
Thankfully (IMO) he played the role exceptionally well. Remember, he has to play the version of Supes that aligns with Zach's vision, and he was a natural fit for that.
Saying he could be replaced by a plank of wood is unjustly harsh. Especially since many or most of you haven't even seen the film.
If you hate the film so much hey, to each his own.
Maybe it's just not your speed.
R25 Oh great, another shill writing essays to peddle this piece of shit movie.
Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!
And, honestly, Brandon "WEHT?" Routh was better in the last movie
I've posted before what I know about it from people I KNOW, who work at the studio.
As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.
I haven't seen it, but am curious. I hate that it's the same old story AGAIN.
Why is Superman killing people in this movie? The one thing that separates Superman is that he doesn't kill.
Because they want to have another Batman franchise.
R27 You better believe Matt could've done a better job, and yes, even Routh did better. I hope they don't use Cavill for the next movie and start from scratch again. Very poor choice.
Shut up, stupid ass!
Blame the director for the cheesiness. He's the one who included a cringe-inducing love scene set to Hallelujah in Watchmen.
What we need is a Superman origin story, because, frankly, I don't understand where he came from.
Superman will never have a successful modern day adaptation because the public is too jaded and our tastes are now more in tune with sarcasm and irony than anything that smacks of earnest and what is Superman if not the epitome of earnest?
Bottom line: Superman is too corny to work today.
Batman is the angsty one. Superman is the boy scout. Isn't that Comic Book 101?
[quote]As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.
Uh ... But that's always the case with Superman. By the time of the original TV series, the kids who read his comics in 1938. By the time the Christopher Reeve series came out, the kids who followed him in the "Silver Age" were grown up,
The REAL goal was to make the new Superman dark, psychological, and violent like Nolan did with Batman. They succeeded in that, but in the process lost the "super" and wonder from the series.
Yeah, I don't get (let alone share) the criticisms of Henry's performance in this movie. He's not "blank" or "a prop" or any of those things. He has many emotional scenes that he pulls off quite well.
I don't think it lost any "wonder". I do think it lost some of the more light, fun moments... but I'm find with it losing the camp and silliness.
I think Henry Cavill was a great choice, and I can't wait to see Man of Steel 2 with him in it. I'm sure it'll be a bight lighter in tone, given he'll finally take on the "working under cover at The Daily Planet" role, where that sort of fun can happen.
I just saw it. It was fine. Cavill is stunning but bland. But that's also Supermab. Stunning, bland. I'd fuck the hell out of him, then ask him to leave.
My problem was that it was just too damn expository. I love back story, but it was a bit ridiculous in this film. It never really ended. And there were odd continuity problems. Like, how did Clark get his job on the Arctic project? He was hitchhiking one scene and was helping Lois off the helicopter in the next. Odd.
I loved the parents. Lane, Costner, Crowe and whoever played Laura were wonderful. And I like Amy Adams.
But it was a good summer flick. Though, how Superman ended up killing Zod made me think: All of Metropolis had to be destroyed for THAT?
Did it involve ridiculously exaggerated gestures for the benefit of 5-D viewers?
Brandon, isn't it time to get off of DL and go to bed?
No one cares about you anymore.
[quote]And where is Brandon Routh today? *crickets*
Posting thread after thread here on DL about how Man of Steel is a "bomb" and Cavill is not a good actor.
Brandon Routh is starring in Partners as a gay.
[quote]Cavill looks a bit like FRATMEN model Trent.
There's a rumor Henry Cavill did Fratmen or Sean Cody before he made it big but it wasn't under the name Henry. Maybe it was Trent.
[quote] Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill.
Superman does kill in this movie. He killed thousands of people with his collateral damage.
Not to mention he brought Zod to Earth in the first place because he stupidly sent out a distress signal so he was responsible for everything. The blood of every life lost is on his hands.
They made Lois too stupid in this. How could she not recognize Clark as Superman in the end? "Nice to meet you?" Uh, you've met before, you ditz. Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, my ass.
R29 Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals in Superman 2.
Just watched it. It was okay, a bit ridiculous with the destruction of a whole city. I liked the high tech stuff. Interesting they chose to have Lois Lane know that Clark Kent and Superman is the same person.
I’m personally interested in it solely because of Henry Cavill’s face, so I’m sure I’m going to see it eventually. I don’t think I’ll be able to catch it in the theater though because of how busy my job at DISH has me right now. I’m going to add Man of Steal to my Blockbuster @Home queue through my DISH account instead. That way, when it comes out on DVD, it’ll show up in my mailbox and I won’t have to go out of my way to track it down. It’s a lot easier because I used to always forget to go rent the movies I missed in the theater, but now they always come to me!
For some reason you "sound" adorable, R50.
Call me crazy, but I actually liked Brandon Routh's Superman more. At least his Superman had heart and charisma. Yes, Superman Returns certainly had its problems, but none of it was his fault. All reviews actually said that Routh's performance was good, despite the movie itself lacking things.
Henry Cavill's Superman on the other hand is boring and bland. He made no presence, it's like he was completely dead when he took on the cape. Say what you want about Brandon Routh, but he certainly had a presence when he wore the cape. He felt, and looked, more like Superman than Cavill ever will.
I don't get the choice of Cavill, it was as stupid back then as it is now. He doesn't look like Superman, and his acting is awful. And please.. I've seen a few movies with Cavill, outside of Superman, and his acting sucked in all of them. Hell.. Brandon Routh is a better actor than Cavill, which says a lot. Brandon Routh always felt like he WAS Superman. Cavill just felt like a dude with a cape. There's a notable difference. What's even more funny was that the fanboys defended the decision to give to role to Cavill. One of the main reasons they said was that he's a good actor, and better than Brandon Routh. LOL forever. They were certainly mistaken about that. Henry Cavill is good to look at, but he doesn't have an ounce of charisma or presence in any of the movies he's been in. He's completely dead.. a seriously wooden actor.
I agree that Henry must have fucked somebody powerful to get the part.. hell, maybe he's not gay after all, maybe he's just like any other actor out there.. ambitious and willing to fuck anyone to get there (whether male or female).
I wonder how well Brandon Routh would have done if he got to play Superman instead of Cavill in this movie.. my guess is that the movie would have been better.
Great movie. I loved it!!!
I like it!
When he had him on the show this weekend Graham Norton kept calling him by his school nickname: "Fat Cavill". Apparently he was a junior porker. No wonder he comes across as emotionally shut down.
I'm shocked by the positive comments on this thread. I thought gay men prided themselves on their good taste, or has Datalounge been invaded by publicists and teenaged fanboys? I see a lot of movies and the new Superman movie is by far the worst one I've seen this year. Criticizing the acting in a movie this bad is totally beside the point.
I'm obsessed with r50 and his exposition of his film renting habits.
[quote]There's a rumor Henry Cavill did Fratmen or Sean Cody before he made it big but it wasn't under the name Henry. Maybe it was Trent.
Really now? You don't think that the owners of Fratmen or Sean Cody would take advatange that they have nude pictures of the star of the biggest motion picture this week? Now, tell me the studio paid them off, even though pictures on the web never go away. It's a stupid thing to even repeat.
Well you knew going into it that Cavill was no great thespian, thus the need to surround him by an incredible supporting cast. Sure, Chris Reeve nailed it, but then again his Superman wasn't all that complex either. If you make him TOO dark and jaded then you've altered the character too much.
And to those that said that Brandon Routh did a better job - if by "better job" you mean to simply mimic Reeve's performance even down to facial gestures, then yeah.
R56 Thanks. Henry's acting was the least of the film's problems.
To quote Little Sally from Urinetown: too much exposition.
And what was General Zod's motivation? Why did he start shooting people in the first scene? Who is he? Why should we care?
Amy Adam's was awful too.
^ I think the perma-bad hair day and lisp make a grumpy Kryptonian.
Jeez, you know your a bad actor when you're a hot (male) piece and even DL won't give your a pass.
R52 = Brandon Routh who just can't let the 1978 Donner vision go
Amy Adams would make a great Lana Lang. She is not Lois Lane material. It's as much of a miscast as Kate Bosworth. Jennifer Lawrence would have been perfect for the role.
Amy Adam's what?
[Uh ... But that's always the case with Superman. By the time of the original TV series, the kids who read his comics in 1938. By the time the Christopher Reeve series came out, the kids who followed him in the "Silver Age" were grown up]
Yes [r37] but the 70's Superman was marketed to children, specifically. A saturday afternoon popcorn movie. Warners didn't market this version to kids. The targeted fanboys, teens and adults who love the character and want a darker story.
[quote]As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.
No, it wasn't.
[quote]Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill.
Batman doesn't kill either, nor uses guns.
r56 is insufferable.
[quote]Why the hell did they have to go back to the beginning again? The first with Brando and Reeves was a wonderful film.
Honey, that was ten billion years ago. This is Superman for a new generation. Nolan's realistic, gritty take is what sells now.
[quote]Why don't "real" Superman fans like the Christopher Reeve version? He was so handsome, quirky and funny in those movies.
"Real" Superman fans decide if a film is good depending on how true it stayed to the source material, not by which guy was prettier, dumbass.
[r67] I stood and talked nolan about it two years ago, dumbass.
[quote]And what was General Zod's motivation? Why did he start shooting people in the first scene?
His parents were narcissistic smucks who should never attempted to raise a child.
To the people who loved it, is it only because you want Cavill to fuck you bareback and shoot in your face while his hairy English balls are resting on your chin and his beefy fingers are up your hole and you can smell the musk of his taint? Go ahead, be honest. We're all friends here.
“It beat all expectations,” a Warner Bros executive tells me. “Interesting note that Superman’s Saturday gross is double the next ranking Top 4 films added together. That’s really dominating the marketplace.” Estimates now for the 3-day weekend are $112.7M and the 4-day opening cume is $125M including those Thursday 7 PM Wal-Mart shows. As for Sunday, “always an upside to consider with a huge Father’s Day result,” the exec tells me. Saturday’s number followed very strong matinees – the same as opening day at $15.5M. Sunday also will bring an updated international figure which currently stands at $25.9M.
The problem with Superman Returns is that it was too much like the Reeve Superman films. In addition, Routh was basically doing a Reeve impersonation. Spacey channeling just enough of Hackman to not make the role his own.
I think in the case of MOS, Warners decided to go the Batman Begins route and start from point zero.To be honest, as good as the first two Reeve Superman films were those movies were made in the late 70s. MOS is not perfect by any means but compared to the absolutely puerile comic booky films I've seen lately(including super hero and non superhero films) it wasn't that bad.
That's what they were going for R75. They wanted Superman Returns to be a continuation of the 70s movies. I think that was Singer's biggest mistake. The best thing about Singer's movie was Brandon Routh. He was Superman. Cavill, not so much.
To whoever wondered how Lois didn't recognize Clark at the end, you obviously missed the point. Of course she knew it was him. She was pretending not to know him to protect his secret identity.
I'm sorry, but even if you absolutely hate the new film and Cavill right along with it, I can't understand how anyone could possible feel that Brandon Routh did a good job in Singer's movie.
The only thing good about "Superman Returns" was Eva Marie Saint and Parker Posey. Everything and everyone else in that film was simply horrible.
What about when they froze the criminals and sent them up to the sky in giant dildo shaped vehicles? The whole theater laughed at that.
[quote]Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!
Please. Bomer can't even defend himself from his slap-happy husband. Who's going to buy him defending the people of Earth from General Zod?
[quote]Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!
Brandon Routh would have been even better!
Parkey Posey was much too old to play a moll.
Routh was good as Clark Kent.
Can someone tell me if I am wrong but the dark and gritty mood worked for Batman but shouldn't Superman be different? A little brighter, I'm not talkin sunshine and happiness but the dark and gritty setting should not be for Superman. That's part of the difference between these two characters for me. Superman is the "ideal" while Batman is the more down to reality" kinda thing. And that Lois Lane with her reddish/brown hair just doesnt work for me when I saw the previews.
[quote]Routh was good as Clark Kent.
From your lips to God's ears.
so r84 where were you when EVERYBODY were saying Routh sucked ass and was bad casting for the Superman movie? Where were all of you Superman Returns apologists then?
I think there was a good movie somewhere in there wrapped up in all of the explosions and noise. Superman's struggle has always been about where he belongs and where he fits in. He can't ever really be himself because he could lay waste to the entire planet.
Why not just put Tom Welling back in the role? He doesn't have anything else to do and he already has the role identification.
"Estimates now for the 3-day weekend are $112.7M and the 4-day opening cume is $125M including those Thursday 7 PM Wal-Mart shows"
Ugh, the sheeple will see anything. Hollywood, stop it with the comic book "reboots"
The 70s Superman movies are kind of over-rated, IMHO. They're campy, silly, and very VERY dated.
Reeve did a good job with the role of Superman. He had a range of emotion and did all of them well. Even though the movie is campy and too silly in parts the first two Reeve movies work because I believe he is human along with being a super. It is his humanity that shines in the those versions. Also Kidder really was a fun Lois to watch. Adams didn't do a thing for that role.
Cavill is a bad actor. Most of the acting was bad in this new version. Also all the explosions just got to be boring after a while.
One thing Donner wanted to accomplish when he made his version is "you'll believe a man can fly." There is some realism in his versions that gave the visual some depth. This new version was not great to look at in spite of all the innovation in CGI. People need to start back at square one when it comes to understanding great looking films and great films in general.
[quote]Cavill is a bad actor.
People keep saying this. I saw no evidence of it in Man of Steel. His acting was fine. He played the role very well. I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you were really wanting from him, when you say stuff like this. Honestly, I'm utterly clueless how you think he could have done better.
I thought most of the acting was GREAT in this new version. Again, no idea what you're talking about. They all inhabited their characters and made them believable.
The new version is GREAT to look at, it's stunning, and the flight is far more believable than the Donner versions.
Again, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
I saw it and really liked it. But, to be honest, Cavill didn't really have to act much, so it's hard to tell what his talents really are. The role was limited in terms of character development and Crowe had a lot more meat to work with.
But I thought it was a very good movie.
The movie was bad. And Cavil did not really have much scope for histrionics. He did fine.
I do want to suck his uncut British cock though...
CGI has made directors and actors lazy. The way a movie looks trumps the story now. Cavill is beautiful to look at, but he's no Reeve or Routh. Hell, he's no Welling.
I don't know why people keep yapping on about Christopher Reeve. He was no Lawrence Olivier and the role was always shit.
Can we stop saying that any Routh-positive post was written by Routh himself? They make up at least 10% of this thread. No one knows how to run a joke into the ground like DL.
"Most of the acting was bad in this new version."
That's because scripts and direction nowadays are focused on GGI, which as others have already pointed out, is completely overused and not as realistic looking as some pretend it is.
The Nolan fanboys are having meltdowns on the IMDB message boards because the world isn't falling at his feet this time.
[quote]Brandon Routh is starring in Partners as a gay.
It was canceled after just a few episodes.
What I hated was the dragged out plot so they can make umpteen sequels.....How can you have a superman story without lex luthor? Unless that scientist is going to turn out to be lex...and they had construction sites with the banner "Lexcorp" Uhhh shouldnlt it be the last name "Luthorcorp" and not the firdt name "Lex"
*HATE the dark Instagram lens that Zack Snyder uses..give me some color and brightness...Amy Adams yick did not care for her in this, the actor playing Jimmy is as old as the hills, Laurence Fish needs to hang it up he is so unwatchable now and boring.
* Diane Lane as a frump? Why? What an insult to the people in Kansas that they are all rubes and frumps. Kevin Costner relegated to wack-offs from masseuses and old man character-parts..
Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.
The best part of the movie was when General Zod made the statement "My sole purpose is to protect my people..and now I have no people" I chuckled a bit there...
Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60.
[quote]Can someone tell me if I am wrong but the dark and gritty mood worked for Batman but shouldn't Superman be different? A little brighter, I'm not talkin sunshine and happiness but the dark and gritty setting should not be for Superman.
With 75 years worth of story there's been many interpretations of Superman and he's been gritty in a few. But even some fans see those stories as anomolies. Batman was forged in darkness (the death of his parents) with Superman forged in light (his parents sending him off in hopes for a better future) and Man of Steel was somewhat hard for me to enjoy because there was no joy or hopefulness. But I'm hoping the sequel can encompass that Superman trait.
[quote]and the flight is far more believable than the Donner versions.
Effects are more advanced now.
I think they spent too much time with the destruction of Krypton. I think they did it to cement his alien-ness but it's not worth it when you have to sacrifice actual characterization or on-screen relationships. I'd rather seen more scenes with the Kents than Krypton.
[quote]The 70s Superman movies are kind of over-rated, IMHO. They're campy, silly, and very VERY dated.
I'll give you that. It does need an update but the one thing Superman 1 and 2 have (and I've not seen 3 and 4 in some time so I can't speak on it) that "Superman Returns" and "Man of Steel" doesn't is great relationships amongst the characters and heart. People can say that Superman is too goody-goody for today's audience and that he's an outdated character but I don't think great characterization and heart goes out of style. "Man of Steel" was too fixated on showing audiences what Superman can do (the fight scenes were pretty great despite being too long) versus who he is and what he's about. And they should've left the Lois/Clark budding romance on the cutting room floor.
Love it or hate it , this movie is doing extremely well at the boxoffice
Now can someone start a thread on when the WONDER WOMAN movie will be made? Thanks
[quote].How can you have a superman story without lex luthor?
Films rely on Luthor too much. Superman has a big rogues gallery to pick from. Also it's an unfair fight. Superman can kill Luthor with one punch. Though Luthor can always use kryptonite to take down Superman kryptonite is too overused. They need to use a villian who is of equel strenght like Darkseid.
quote]and they had construction sites with the banner "Lexcorp" Uhhh shouldnlt it be the last name "Luthorcorp" and not the firdt name "Lex"
LuthorCorp was used in Smallville. The comics always use LexCorp.
[quote] the actor playing Jimmy is as old as the hills,
There wasn't a Jimmy in this film. Lois coworker was Steve Lombard. There was a Jenny, but no Jimmy.
[quote]Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.
It WAS. 2 and a half hours of nothing more than explosions and boring exposition - over and over for 2.5 hours.
The 3D was nothing special either. The leads weren't bad but they weren't given anything to do or say but to look and react to "things blowing up real good!"
"Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60."
He's definitely closer to 60 than 46.
"People keep saying this. I saw no evidence of it in Man of Steel. His acting was fine. He played the role very well. I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you were really wanting from him, when you say stuff like this. Honestly, I'm utterly clueless how you think he could have done better."
Funny how some people here don't even TRY to be objective when it comes to rating the talent of dreamy (but far from gifted) actors. There are still people here who insist that Keanu Reeves is some sort of Olivier-level genius
Finally saw it and yeah I didn't enjoy it very much, it isn't a bad movie to me but certainly not a great one to revive the character like the Iron Man or Batman Begins was.
Cavill doesn't really bring a lot to role, just like Immortals I am not really impressed with him though I wish I was. He is incredibly gorgeous and has a good look for the part though. They wisely didn't really have him do too much.
Amy Adams is also disappointing as Lois and I normally really like her. She isn't bad but doesn't really bring the character to life and pop like I hoped she would.
Agree that Crowe gave the best performance.
[quote]"Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60." ... He's definitely closer to 60 than 46.
He was a farmer. It's a tough life, it ages you.
The film is a massive success. Whatever they did, it worked. It'll blow the previous films out of the water box office wise. They've already pegged it as a new Superman for this generation. Cavill will own the role. The sequel is in development, and he'll continue on in Justice League. He's set for life now. Hope he gets a cut of the merchandise revenue.
I understand that they've already green-lit Man of Steel 2
Making a lot of money on the first weekend or overall doesn't mean it was good, unless you think the Transformers are good movies. I wanted to like it and didn't and the people I saw it with felt the same way.
I don't begrudge Cavill his success, plenty of mediocre actors have found success in Hollywood. Honestly the real problems with the movie have little do with him, the crafting of the movie was o and there was little effort put into telling a compelling story about good characters
Good superhero movies manage to do that and not just rely on a bunch of CGI.explosions.
[quote]Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60.
That's an actor's vanity for you. Costner is 58 and looks it.
R105 They were talking about a Woman Woman TV series for the CW. This was after the failed NBC pilot mind you. There's further talk that Aquaman and Woman Woman will become films spinning off of the Justice League film. Warners/DC should get someone like a Joss Whedon to do it instead of their usual suspects.
Joss is busy with The Avengers 2.
"Man of Steel 2" is being fast tracked, and will likely come out as early as 2015.
They're talking about trying to get a Wonder Woman movie made in the same time, but I don't see how that can happen that quickly.
They're also talking about rebooting Batman (again) in 2016, and the possibility of each of these characters having cameos in each other's movies, leading up to Justice League in 2018.
Brandon Routh was fine. Not the best Superman, we all know who that was, but he did the best with what he got for the part. He got a raw deal from the media. They all figured out how he supposedly got the part so their mission was to shoot him down and they pretty much succeeded because he is now relegated to playing tv roles.
I'm happy to have a potential Wonder Women/Justice League movie but I hope they don't look at Man of Steel as the template for bow DC movies should be.
They should look at the very fair complaints many critics had and address them in future productions.
Snyder and Nolan created a particular rendition of Superman. They were not gonna create some 1960s/ 70s campy, corny Superman. As such, they made their casting decisions with their vision in mind. Cavill was cast to embody that vision. And he did a great job of it.
I wish we could put to rest the rumors of Brandon Routh fucking Bryan Singer to get the part. Anyone with any knowledge of Singer knows that Routh is not his type and was way too old at the time for Singer.
R117, thanks for clearing things up...Brandon.
Sean Cody's Brandon for the next Superman!
Brandon's reputation on OLTL not the best.
[quote]Brandon Routh was fine. Not the best Superman, we all know who that was, but he did the best with what he got for the part. He got a raw deal from the media. They all figured out how he supposedly got the part so their mission was to shoot him down and they pretty much succeeded because he is now relegated to playing tv roles.
Umm.. no. The media, critics.. all seemed to like Routh. They even said Routh's Superman was one of the few things in the movie that they got right. I didn't even think the movie was that bad.. I loved it. But I can see why it people didn't like it.. it was far from perfect, sloppy writing and convoluted plots. That said.. none of it was Routh's fault. He did the best he could with what he got. The material wasn't exactly top notch.
Whatever.. Routh made a better Superman than Cavill ever will. Cavill is just a man in a cape. Routh embodied Superman. It was just so right. Cavill on the other hand.. not so much.
[quote]Routh made a better Superman than Cavill ever will.
While I agree with your praise of Routh's Superman, I completely disagree with the above statement. Cavill was perfectly fine. I honestly don't get the criticism leveled at him. He was very good. He really felt like an "alien", trying to find his way on Earth, scared of being rejected, traumatized by the death of his earth-Father.
I can't imagine what he could have done differently, given the material, that would have been any better.
That's right, R124/Brandon!
You tell 'em!
Brandon Routh deserved a fucking Oscar for his Superman!
Fuck "Fat" Cavill!!!
The young actors who are hired to play superheroes--Ryan Reynolds, Henry Cavill, Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, etc.--always look stiff and uncomfortable in their beefcake bods. No wonder the performances they give in these films are rarely any good--and not worthy of serious discussion.
You really thought his cry of anguish after killing Zod was great? When he tried to sound authoritative and give orders to the military it actually carried any weight? Cavill came out without looking too bad but it is very clear he isn't that good of an actor.
They didn't even give him that much to do because clearl didn't hire him to show off his stuff a la Downey for Iron Man.
He has a great look and he comes across rootable and as a good guy so he works, similar to Tom Welling for Smallville. Not a knock on Cavill, but just how I see it. Just was hoping a new franchise would have someone who would really breathe new life into the character.
Am I the only person that misses some camp and comedy in superheroe movies? All this Nolan dark and angsty bullshit is getting tired.
I also felt the agenda to present Superman as a Christ like figure went to far was the scene where he goes to a priest for guidance necessary?
It's a frigging COMIC book film for crying out loud, add some COMIC effect.
It ain't Shakespeare
I'd never thought I'd miss the days when a Superman film had Richard Pryor skiing down a penthouse skyscraper in a pink table cloth and "bad" Superman playing little pranks like getting drunk at a corner bar and flicking peanuts and blowing out the Olympic torch and deleaning the Tower of Pisa.
Have a sense of humor and fun with these movies
Shakespeare and Comic aren't mutually exclusive.
R129, it was more than good enough. And that's the point. His performance doesn't deserve the bashing it's getting from some quarters. It really doesn't.
R50 is adorbz and puzzling in his need to describe his film watching habits.
It seems a lot of people here missed the fact that Superman is a hero in a comic. They seem to have expected King Lear.
sorry but camp is way out of style. it is not 1966.
It's important to buy a ticket for Man of Steel next weekend to support Henry, even if you don't go to the showing. It's for the greater good.
"The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?"
r20, that's exactly the stretch I find hard to swallow. A man who can walk through fire, fly, see through things, stop bullets with his flesh has no fucking right to complain about anything. It just all comes off as narcissistic self-serving whining, which is the way of the world right now.
reply 137, did you even SEE the movie? The climax of the movie is Superman having to decide wether to KILL Zod to save the human race or let him live and sacrifice himself so the race of Kryptons in his blood could repopulate the earth. It was a defining moment for him, much in the way a person who doesn't believe in killing might have to do so in self defense. I took my son and we both see ALL of the comic book movies and we both liked the Hell out of it. As a gay person, how could you not identify with his "outsider-ness"? Glad to hear that part 2 is in the works, we will be there.
R130, I completely agree.
[quote]Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.
That's not encouraging
me to see this incarnation of Superman.
I finally saw the 42 min. version of the 2011 pilot. I was pleasantly surprised. Most of the David Kelley-Ally McWonder touches had been redacted. Not a "sad" Wonder Woman but clearly one who wanted a private life. She did look like a different person as Diana Prince like a nerdy student, and the interaction with her neglected cat was cute. So was Steve Trevor. (No, Justin Breuning is hot, not cute.)
It had, in the 42 mins. I saw, a nice mixture of a new, darker WW (she kills and tortures perps) and the kind, vulnerable Diana.
I hope that if WW gets another chance, they get a marketable version of her, be it on TV or as a theater film.
[quote]It's important to buy a ticket for Man of Steel next weekend to support Henry, even if you don't go to the showing. It's for the greater good.
Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck has he done for the gay community?
Maybe idiots like you should try supporting OPENLY gay actors instead who actually make a difference.
Camp out of style? Maybe in America, which has never been comfortable with it, but in the UK its part of the national character! Children absorb it with their first panto.
Only 30% loved.
[quote]Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck has he done for the gay community?
Supporting Henry isn't about the gay community. It's about supporting someone who is good looking. If you want to keep seeing Henry, you need to buy a ticket.
Cavill was great as lusty Brandon on The Tudors, but Brandon Routh owned the Supes roll.
We only saw Cavill as "Superman" not as bumbling reporter Clark Kent.
Clark Kent is who humanizes Kal-El. I guess they had to save something for the next one. So Cavill had to be stiff and not very approachable. He's scared of how the world will react to him. He can't be all buddy, buddy especially dealing with the military. He is gorgeous, though.
It's interesting that they didn't show Clark as a teenager, young adult. Only as a little kid and then an adult.
The destruction was a bit too, too, too much.
Nice nod to Smallville with Pete Ross, and (Whitney)Fordman and Lana Lang.
Wtf were Meloni and Schiff doing there? They took me completely away from the story for the scenes they were in.
I liked it and look forward to the next one.
R145 = Bryan Singer.
Routh looked like a gogo boy Superman wearing too much foundation. Cavill is the masculine Superman the role deserves.
Oh the irony about how they kept going on about how the world would feel if they knew Superman existed. The whole time I kept thinking about the public's reaction to Henry being gay.
I love Amy Adams but she was miscast as Lois. Are there anymore brunettes in Hollywood with vulnerability? A blonde and redhead as Lois ain't cutting it!
r141, I believe it was a joke.
No more coffee for you.
YOU'RE the one who's really awful, OP!
One of the silliest hater comments I have read about MoS is that it had, and I quote, "too much destruction and fighting".
It did. It was like playing a video game or watching a Transformers movie.
The real miss in the movie was casting Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Granted, the role was poorly written, but her performance was just flat
Henry Cavill did a pretty good job. The cast overall was great. It is good to see it is such a huge box office hit. Cavill is stunning onscreen. People gasped when he was shirtless.
Mmmmm, soup rolls
"Yes [[R37]] but the 70's Superman was marketed to children, specifically. A saturday afternoon popcorn movie."
R66, if you were alive and living on Earth in 1978, then Superman the Movie was marketed to you. The 78' marketing makes the MOS marketing look like a paper from a community college business course.
You didn't spend 50 million in 76'-77' to make a children's Saturday afternoon popcorn movie...
Superman killed over 300,000 people. All because he so stupidly sent out a distress signal to lead Zod to Earth. How could anyone forgive him or even think he is a hero?
R142, we are not talking about the UK. Americans dislike camp.
Saw it yesterday. Nothing but two and a half hours of special effects and explosions. The big battle at the end was just ridiculously long and overdone.
Final word? I didn't hate it but can't say it's a great flick either. Just okay.
Why do Americans dislike camp?
I'm going to gasp again later this week when I go for a repeat viewing of MoS.
I pity the petty fools who don't like MoS. For Christ sake, enjoy it for HENRY!
[quote]Why do Americans dislike camp?
Perhaps because they're not brought up with it, like the Brits. They get panto as kids, plus there's always been a string of hugely popular high camp figures in their mainstream culture that are almost totally unknown in the US - from massive screamers like Larry Grayson, Kenneth Williams, and Danny La Rue to today's Julian Clary, Alan Carr, Paul O'Grady/Lily Savage, etc, etc.
Terrible pacing and editing. The (too dark) set design of Krypton was wasted. Schamaltzy, cynical writing. Superman killing people is a disgrace. Superman is also supposed to be super-smart, not an "in a pinch" murderer. In general, aside from Shannon and an okay Cavill, the performances were poor. Had me missing Margot Kidder's "fuck this, I'm getting a story" energy. The ending, with Lois "knowing" who Clark is, was the last straw.
I liked it. It was a thrill-a-minute roller coaster ride. I actually thought Superman Returns stuck more to the legend and "felt" more like a Superman film, but I still liked MOS.
There's only one Superman in this culture. Someone who took a stand on behalf of us all and talked truth to power. But Americans now prefer the rule of law, however corrupt, to truth and justice, and so they disowned him. And so he flew to Moscow.
I thought the film was pretty good, it was entertaining and the last half was action packed just how I like it.
My only complaints are that it. Was a bit too dark and lacked humor and the music kinda sucked
Did Superman even have a Main theme? Zimmer is no John Williams, they should have at least kept the classic Williams theme.
Of the 6 Superman movies, this is my ranking
1. Superman : The Movie
2. Superman II
3. Superman III (mo joke, I really like this movie and the comedic/campy tone)
4. Man of Steel
5. Superman Returns
6. Superman IV (an abomination)
If he used his time changing powers to save Lois why didn't he use it to save 300,000 people?
I didn't care for this. I haven't seen Cavill in anything else, so I don't feel qualified to judge his acting, as he had barely any to do in the movie. I feel like most of the other characters had more dialogue than he did. For a movie that was called Man of Steel, everything seemed to be happening around him while he was simply along for the ride.
I would have been more interested in watching a prequel with Russell Crowe as Kal-El that culminated with him sending his newborn child off. At least those scenes involved talking and acting, and made me wonder about the characters.
Cavill was just sort of there throughout the whole thing. Kevin Costner & the rest of the supporting cast also gave good performances that were wasted in this movie.
Too late. The train has left the station. The media and public have hailed MoS as a major hit. That is all that matters now.
I thought Diane Lane was great.
I saw it this weekend, and I can vouch for the OP. It was AWFUL. Too much action, weak plot, not enough comedic moments. Horrible dialogues too.. the script was a fucking joke. Some of the things they said.. my mouth dropped. It was incredibly lame. And tell me again WHY Henry Cavill is a critically acclaimed actor? He can't act for shit. He's the most wooden actor I've seen in a while. At one point in the movie it looked like he was reading directly from the script.. completely flat with no emotion behind it. This isn't the first movie I've seen Cavill in either.. he sucked just as much in the other movies too.
Oh, and HOW many people did Superman kill while fighting Zod for 30 minutes at the end? I thought Superman was supposed to MINIMIZE casualties? It was UNNECESSARY to destroy a whole fucking city. And I don't even understand why he was fighting Zod for so long if all it took was for him to break his neck anyway. This movie certainly proved Superman to be a mass murderer, with no concern for the people whatsoever.
It was just endless action over and over and over again. The story itself was incredibly weak. It's like the producers knew what a weak story it was, so they ordered lots of action scenes, to drown out and camouflage it.
May I add, r172, that this dreadful movie was TOO long. The producers could easily have shaved 40 minutes off it.
I groaned audibly when it became apparent that Superman and Zod were going to fight right at the end of the movie.
I thought the thing had finally finished after NY was almost obliterated... but no.
Didn't care for all the flashbacks either.
Henry Cavill is certainly good looking, but he's a lousy actor. Everyone else ran rings round him.
[quote]WHY Henry Cavill is a critically acclaimed actor?
It's been said before and I'll say it again: Cavill is Greg Brady aka Johnny Bravo. He fit the suit.
I'm glad you agree, R173. The fanboys still praise his acting. I'm just baffled. He's so incredibly wooden and dull. It's not just about Henry Cavill though. This movie had too many issues.. the editing was bad, as was the pacing.. but that's not all, the story was not very strong, the dialogues were cheesy, and there was simply too much action. IMO Superman should have a mix of comedy, drama and action.. but this movie dedicated two hours to the action, and 30 minutes to the rest. I just felt like it was totally unnecessary to have Superman fight Zod at the end, it wasn't exciting, it was just dumb. The action scenes weren't even that good, it got incredibly lame and boring. I totally agree with what someone said upthread.. it didn't feel much like a Superman movie.. it didn't even feel like it was about Superman. It was almost like he was just thrown into the story, while the other people were the main characters. It was just odd.
Meanwhile, everyone's saying he's going to be the next James Bond and that he was supposed to be Bond but Craig got it. My question is... forget his questionable acting skills, wouldn't he have been too young for Bond anyway? How would it have come down to the two of them?
I mean is this just some bullshit story they've been passing around as truth?
umm, no, r124. Had Routh received better reviews, he would be Man of Steel.
Must be a bullshit story r177, Henry would have been way too young at the time Casino Royale was shot.
When Daniel Craig leaves, however... who knows. But I doubt it, he'll be Superman for however many movies they can squeeze out.
And after that, his looks will be fading so he'll fade into obscurity.
"The movie was well done, exciting, and interesting...Over-all, I enjoyed it, and I'd totally see it again. It wasn't nearly as stupid as the Star Trek movie."
R11 = idiot.
"I thought the film was pretty good, it was entertaining and the last half was action packed just how I like it."
The "last half" was "action packed?" The whole fucking thing was "action packed," if by "action" you mean one explosion, fight-to-the-death, or city (or planet) being destroyed after another. I guess you're at the intellectual and emotional level where that sort of thing appeals to you.
Superman thinks about the consequences of his physical actions. The opening scene of Superman Returns has him setting the 747 down in the middle of the baseball field to minimize the damage. Yes, he might not be able to choose the battlefield, but all the buildings crashing down just made me think of the WTC.
[quote]but all the buildings crashing down just made me think of the WTC.
Which is what I've heard (ie. 9/11 imagery) and exactly why I'm not paying to see it. Such bullshit on the part of the filmmakers.
I liked the movie but thought it was too similar to a recent superhero movie called The Avangers. It grouped all the superheros Iron Man, Hulk, Thorax, Spider-Man, Caption America, and Wonder Woman fighting aliens in NYC with buildings falling down. The final battle scene was just like that.
R178.. unfortunately he was a casualty of the film's failure. Had the movie done better, I'm sure he would have been in a sequel. I still prefer Brandon Routh in the role.
R184? Caption America? Okay:
A great experiment that has lost its thesis due to the rise of the corporation.
over $285 million now
R187 Why are you so excited? It's not like you'll be seeing a penny of that money.