Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Who's planning to see Man of steel?

It's coming out soon. I'm so totally going to go. Anyone else going?

by Anonymousreply 6606/17/2013

I'm going . There is this cunty old friend of mine who has badgered me to go and see it so I'm there. Though I'll make Queen Cuntbag wait a week and make them suffer a bit.....

by Anonymousreply 106/09/2013

depends on reviews

by Anonymousreply 206/09/2013

The more I see the less I like. I'll probably pass.

by Anonymousreply 306/09/2013


by Anonymousreply 406/09/2013

Will wait for the DVD (Redbox or Netflix).

by Anonymousreply 506/09/2013

Nope. I don't do "superheroes" movies.

by Anonymousreply 606/09/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 706/09/2013

I enjoy good superhero films and this looks promising. As long as I have expectations for a decently entertaining action movie, I know I won't be disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 806/09/2013

Nolan produced it and I think it will be good so perhaps yes.

by Anonymousreply 906/09/2013

Any shirtless Kevin Costner scenes? If so, I'm there.

by Anonymousreply 1006/09/2013

How many times have we seen this movie already?

Enough with the "episode 1" superhero movies!

by Anonymousreply 1106/09/2013

Everyone has an obligation to buy a ticket in order to support Henry Cavill. It doesn't matter if it's good or not.

by Anonymousreply 1206/09/2013

I've always loved Superman, so I plan on seeing it. I'm actually impressed with the look of it, and the trailer. It looks like it will be well done. Good cast, too. I like Amy Adams and Michael Shannon. As for Henry Cavill, he's gorgeous, and I think he looks the part. I first noticed him when I was watching The Tudors.

by Anonymousreply 1306/09/2013

Why does everyone have an obligation to support Henry Cavill? Is he an out gay actor?

by Anonymousreply 1406/09/2013

I am, OP!!

by Anonymousreply 1506/09/2013

[quote]depends on reviews

It's a already getting raves.

by Anonymousreply 1606/09/2013

[quote]Why does everyone have an obligation to support Henry Cavill? Is he an out gay actor?

You're not gay, if you don't support Henry Cavell. Otherwise, you might as well turn in your gay card.

by Anonymousreply 1706/09/2013

No review at Rotten Tomatoes.

by Anonymousreply 1806/09/2013

I don't give my money to people who want to take from the gay community, yet refuse to come out.

Plus I don't give a shit about a movie based off of a comic book.

by Anonymousreply 1906/09/2013

I hate the fake muscles built into the suit. What's the purpose of that? Are they supposed to be another symbol of "hope" or something? Adolescent cool bullshit

by Anonymousreply 2006/09/2013

Yes, seeing it opening weekend, in IMAX and 3D. Some Hard Candy for the Hub and I, strong female character for my daughter and plenty of explosions and action for my son. Perfect Summer movie.

by Anonymousreply 2106/09/2013

It's okay OP. I'm going to see it to. May even wear a trench coat to feed the "dirty old man" vibe I like to project.

by Anonymousreply 2206/09/2013

I'll see it if the reviews are good, or a friend wants to drag me. If not, it's in my Netflix queue.

The thing is, I ADORE the 1980/82 versions with Chris Reeve and Margot Kidder so much, that no matter how good the new version is, it'll still suffer by comparison. I'm just impossible to please, with Superman films.

by Anonymousreply 2306/10/2013

Going to a free screening Monday afternoon. I love the Reeve/Kidder/Hackman versions and even thought Routh was good in the otherwise forgettable "Superman Returns." I haven't been impressed by the trailers for this new one, but for free I'll check it out.

by Anonymousreply 2406/10/2013

How many of these are they going to do?

by Anonymousreply 2506/10/2013

As many as make them money.

Or in the case of "Man of Steel," as many as they must to protect their rights to the character.

by Anonymousreply 2606/10/2013

Been there. Done that

by Anonymousreply 2706/10/2013

Just got back from the screening. It was okay but ultimately disappointing. There are way too many flashbacks to tell the Smallville part of the story. The Krypton scenes look like "Flash Gordon" meets "Star Wars." The battle scenes look too much like a video game. Maybe there was just too much going on but it was hard to get invested in the characters or story so there was no real excitement or tension.

On the plus side, I finally get what everyone has been saying about Henry Cavill. Beautiful man and quite good as Clark/Superman. And kudos for not shaving the chest - you frequently see hair poking out of his Superman suit. Amy Adams was okay as Lois but kind of gets lost in all the chaos. When she and Superman finally have their kiss after he saves her for the umpteenth time, it doesn't feel earned. There's very little sense of budding romance or heat at all between them.

But I'm sure it'll make a fortune and the Nolan and Snyder fanboys will adore it.

by Anonymousreply 2806/10/2013

So sick of hearing/reading about this movie.

by Anonymousreply 2906/10/2013

I want to be over the top excited about this movie and I almost am------until I SEE Henry Cavill. He is so vacant. He doesn't FEEL like Superman to me. Christopher Reeve was so manly and in charge. Henry is playing Superman like an angsty teenager.

His Clark Kent/Superman seems so soft and vulnerable. Yuck. If I wanted to watch Supergirl, I'd just go watch Supergirl.

by Anonymousreply 3006/11/2013

I won't go to the midnight show on Thursday, since I'll fall asleep and hate crowds, but I'll be at the first morning matinee on Friday.

by Anonymousreply 3106/11/2013

@24/28 = Joe Manganiello still harboring a grudge for being passed over for the role of a lifetime.

by Anonymousreply 3206/11/2013

I'm definitely seeing it on opening weekend, I have an embarrassing crush on Henry.

by Anonymousreply 3306/11/2013

The review from the AP wire says it's not that good. That it drags and is "leaden." But I like the trailer. I do have another question. How the hell did Zack Snyder get so lucky? To have Christopher Nolan executive produce and to get the financing?

Fine. I know he did 300, and it made a fortune. But 300 was his first feature length movie. He enjoyed some success as a video producer, and he was a visual artist by trade, but how the fuck did he get more than $60 million in financing, and the backing of Warner Bros. on such a slender, unproven resume to even make 300?

After 300, he did Watchmen and it stunk. It was a flop at the box office, too. It was a complete flop. So now he comes back with Superman and his cool big buddy, Christopher Nolan?

Is he special to someone? I know of too many really talented connected people who haven't had his luck.

by Anonymousreply 3406/11/2013

The Hollywood Reporter review compared its aesthetic to AVENGERS and TRANSFORMERS. Overly solemn CGI bam bam bam, short attention span theatre. Ugh.

by Anonymousreply 3506/11/2013

[quote]Is he special to someone? I know of too many really talented connected people who haven't had his luck.

He got the job because WB knew he'd be able to deliver the movie on time. Due to the continued legal battle over the ownership of Superman, they were under a time constraint.

If it turns out to be a great movie, that's a bonus, but their primary motivation was making sure they didn't lose the rights to make a Superman movie in the future.

by Anonymousreply 3606/11/2013

Man of Steel = Stalin

This film sounds like Communist propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 3706/11/2013

Da, R37. It's why we cut the red undies from the uniform. Too on the nose.

by Anonymousreply 3806/11/2013

Sequel has been green-lighted (green-lit?) and fast-tracked.

by Anonymousreply 3906/11/2013

[quote]Is he special to someone? I know of too many really talented connected people who haven't had his luck.

It has been widely reported that producer Christopher Nolan handpicked protégé Zack Snyder as the director of Warner's upcoming Superman reboot Man of Steel.

by Anonymousreply 4006/11/2013

EW gives it a C. It sounds like a.) everything I dreaded it would be and b.) a big potential hit with the Ain't It Cool crowd.

by Anonymousreply 4106/11/2013

Crave Online's Witney Seibold goes further, labelling Snyder's reboot a "painfully soulless enterprise" which desperately lacks the warmth and wit of the Richard Donner/Richard Lester movies. "[It's] just another boring bloated action blockbuster in a long string of boring bloated action blockbusters," he writes. "There is nothing in the film to raise the pulse, even a little bit. It's an impressively constructed, awesomely designed, and completely forgettable entertainment that is indistinguishable from its peers. It's the first proper misstep in a long string superhero films that, I sense, the public may be finally tiring of."

by Anonymousreply 4206/11/2013

R42, Thank you for your post. That's exactly why I loved Superman II. It was a really fun, light, romantic flick, and exactly the opposite of the stereotypical recent Hollywood movies that claim to be family friendly. Will definitely see this version as well but am forewarned.

by Anonymousreply 4306/11/2013

[quote] the stereotypical recent Hollywood movies that claim to be family friendly.


by Anonymousreply 4406/11/2013

As I said, I wonder how Snyder got 300 in the first place. He had no resume to justify giving him that huge budget and the responsibility of the film. He succeeded but it was mostly on visual effects certainly not on Gerard Butler's acting or on a script.

And how did he get to be Christopher Nolan's protégé in the first place. Their paths didn't cross before 300. I repeat: Was he special to someone? Because Watchmen, the film he dud after 300, was hideous.

by Anonymousreply 4606/11/2013

R46, Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is arguably one of the better remakes to come out of Hollywood in the past decade. Stands on its own as a dumb but entertaining film. Plus it had some great visuals. Hence the job on 300.

300 was also a modest budget - 60 million or so. Those green screen films like Sin City, Sky Captain etc etc don't cost as much to make.

by Anonymousreply 4706/12/2013

[bold]'Man of Steel' review: finally, the Superman we deserve[/bold]

[italic]Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder deliver a superhero for the modern era[/italic]

Superman is probably the superhero least in need of an existential crisis, but leave it to Christopher Nolan to give him one anyway. As the producer and co-writer of the story for Man of Steel, the auteur who put the dark in The Dark Knight strips away the character’s unassailable integrity and moral certitude and gives us a Kal-El who’s far more man than super. He’s paired with dyed-in-the-wool fantasist Zack Snyder, who’s spent the better part of his career deconstructing superhero mythology (and mythology itself), and the two make for strange but oddly complementary bedfellows. Together, they reinvent the great-grandaddy of funnybook strongmen as a struggling orphan whose destined-for-greater-things future is framed — and forged — by the influence of not one, but two sets of parents.

The film opens on Krypton with the birth of Kal-El, the planet’s first natural-born child in centuries. Kal’s father Jor-El (Russell Crowe), a scientist, has warned the planet’s elders about an imminent environmental catastrophe, but a civil war engineered by Michael Shannon’s General Zod has distracted them from dealing with it until it’s too late. With mere hours remaining before the planet explodes Jor-El ships Kal off to Earth, both to save him and to protect the last vestiges of Kryptonian civilization, which he’s packed away in the newborn’s spaceship.

Decades later, Kal has become Clark Kent (Henry Cavill of The Tudors and Immortals), a migrant worker who keeps to himself as he attempts to figure out his place in a world he knows is not his own. His Earth parents Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) have encouraged him to hide his gifts until he figures out what to do with them, but his innate sense of justice — and a desire to help others — repeatedly exposes him, and eventually forces him to move on to another job and another remote location. But after rescuing reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) during her investigation of an alien spacecraft, he finds it increasingly difficult to remain anonymous — especially after she tracks him down at his childhood home in Smallville.

Despite having stumbled across the story of the century, Lois shows Clark compassion when he explains why he’s stayed out of the limelight, and she decides not to disclose his identity to the rest of the world. But when General Zod contacts Earth demanding that its leaders turn Kal-El over to him, Clark is forced to choose between two worlds — the one from which he came, and the one he now calls home.

In a culture that seems as eager to tear down heroes as it is to build them up, it feels like there’s no longer a comfortable place for the pure idealism of Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman, nor even the nostalgic romanticism of Bryan Singer’s flawed but underrated Superman Returns. Nolan utilizes the same technique he used in Batman Begins, grounding everything the character does in a semblance of believable “reality,” while Snyder uses that reality as a foundation for recreating the Superman that audiences know and love — by the end of the film, anyway. Since moviegoers have never seen how Kal-El came to terms with his destiny as Earth’s protector this reverse-engineering approach works even better than it did in the Batman films. The tactic creates a hero’s journey that possesses enormous amounts of human relatability even as it crystallizes the persona of the resolute, incorruptible Superman audiences know and love.


by Anonymousreply 4806/12/2013

That said, Man of Steel occasionally feels like a dirge precisely because Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer allow Superman so few opportunities to enjoy his principles. (The “Superman has fun saving people” montage that has appeared in every previous film is absent here, and most of his acts of heroism are met with admonishment from his earthly parents for “exposing himself,” so to speak.) Formerly best defined — if not immortalized — by Christopher Reeve’s dryly funny but invariably earnest interpretation of the character, Superman’s natural, wholesome buoyancy is mired here in self-consciousness and insecurity. He’s as fearful of not using his abilities when they’re needed as he is of having them discovered by humankind, and his relentless introspection sometimes becomes as tedious a burden to viewers as his powers are to him.

Despite the subject matter’s natural suitability to Snyder’s sweeping, larger-than-life aesthetic, Man of Steel is his most measured and realistic work to date, both in terms of its stylistic vocabulary and its dramatic pitch. But even as he resists every impulse to inject the material with the same sorts of visual flourishes that served as directorial hallmarks in 300, Watchmen, and even Sucker Punch, the film’s visceral edges are as aggressive and affecting as the action in almost any recent blockbuster. Though the director’s slow-motion deconstructionism and his fetishization of ideal physical forms are gone Snyder’s staging remains impeccable, enabling Superman’s coming-of-age to unfold on the largest possible canvas while also retaining substantial emotional weight.

Moreover, he solves the problem the Wachowskis struggled with in the Matrix trilogy: how do you keep a fight exciting when it’s between two people who cannot be hurt? The answer isn’t quite as simple as “point-of-view punching,” which does actually become an important (and awesome) part of the climactic showdown between Superman and Zod. Even if the characters themselves are incredibly resilient, Snyder maintains a palpable sense of cause and effect by depicting their fight’s impact on the landscape around them — both in terms of the escalating property damage that reverberates outward from each battle and the larger cultural implications of a superhuman who exists in an otherwise human world.

Where Brandon Routh’s performance in Returns felt like a sense-memory tribute to Christopher Reeve’s iconic interpretation, Henry Cavill aims for something more troubled and complex, which fits Man of Steel’s ponderous tone perfectly but fails to supply the character with more than a perfunctory, bland sort of charm. That introverted charisma similarly undermines the budding, inevitable romance between Superman and Lois Lane, but Amy Adams’ intrepid and yet compassionate take gives the reporter newfound cinematic dimensionality even as she hints at a more profound connection between the two — as best friends rather than lovers. Meanwhile, Costner’s performance as Jonathan Kent is so steeped in heartfelt American self-determinism that it should be accompanied at all times by the strains of Aaron Copland, even as Crowe circumnavigates comparisons to Marlon Brando’s Jor-El by underplaying the character with hopeful pragmatism and a quiet nobility.

As General Zod Michael Shannon possesses none of the theatricality that Terence Stamp brought to the role, but Stamp didn’t have as well-written a part as Shannon does, either. From start to finish Zod is a gratifyingly rational and sympathetic adversary — tactics notwithstanding, his motivations are pure, sincere, and well-intentioned. But even if Shannon doesn’t quite descend into the sort of eccentricity that made many of his past performances so irresistible, his magnetic consternation as Krypton’s would-be savior lends the character a melancholy authority that dovetails nicely into Superman’s ascendant self-actualization.


by Anonymousreply 4906/12/2013

Even though its cathartic confrontation between Earth’s first defender and Krypton’s last excludes it from earlier timelines, Man of Steel feels like a lost but worthy chapter in Superman’s origin story that could easily fit into Donner’s original without skipping a single bound. After multiple adventures where the same details were repeated about his birth and his adulthood, this — like Batman Begins — compellingly uncovers the intervening years of exploration and self-discovery that led Superman to become the mythic icon we’ve always known.

All of which suggests that this is probably the last origin story for Kal-El that we ever need to see, even as it paves the way for more movies about Superman. And even if its weighty self-importance sometimes seems overwhelming in the context of a franchise that has historically felt more wholesome and light-hearted, the sophisticated foundation it creates allows future installments to function as more than victory laps without requiring them to adhere to a purely melodramatic tone. In other words, thanks to Man of Steel, Superman has truly earned the right to have fun saving people again, precisely because his two sets of fathers — both on-screen and behind the camera — decided to take him seriously.

by Anonymousreply 5006/12/2013

I'm probably going to get hard watching him. Oh well.

by Anonymousreply 5106/12/2013

It's down to a 62% rating on RT.

by Anonymousreply 5206/12/2013

Now 60%.

by Anonymousreply 5306/13/2013

Well, I wouldn't give that much credence considering that Hatchet III is currently rated at 80%. Less than 100 reviews have been submitted and there's still a definite possibility that the next hundred or so could have a more positive slant.

by Anonymousreply 5406/13/2013

^^^^^^^^Romney Campaign pollster

by Anonymousreply 5506/13/2013

I'm going to see it tonight. I actually like the last Superman film but the actor who played Lois was horribly miscast. Parke Posey should have played Lois.

by Anonymousreply 5606/13/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 5706/13/2013

I came out disappointed. The script was not that great. Too many holes in the story and it deviated too much from the Superman Lore i know. Cavill makes a great modern Superman though.

by Anonymousreply 5806/14/2013

It's a Superman for this generation. The film isn't perfect by a long shot, but for once I wasn't bored to tears by the whole origin story. The flashback reveals work well to keep things moving, and the new take on Krypton kept that part interesting. The last part is filled with loud destruction, which the audience I saw it with really liked. This is a summer superhero movie, a different take on things, and does what it's supposed to do. No, I have nothing to do with promoting it, but just think it was more fun than what is being said here.

by Anonymousreply 5906/14/2013

[quote]Going twice tonite!

Oh, bullshit.

This site is getting so stupid now with all the PR trolls.

by Anonymousreply 6106/15/2013

I didn't like Heath Ledger in his role as "Joker".

by Anonymousreply 6206/15/2013

Not seeing it.

by Anonymousreply 6306/17/2013

[quote]Not seeing it.

Me neither - doesn't interest me at all. I find it a bit strange how grown men still want to watch superhero movies.

by Anonymousreply 6406/17/2013

I find people like R64 tedious.

by Anonymousreply 6506/17/2013

So stupid I laughed out loud during his Lois Lane scenes. The best part of the film is the Russell Crowe scenes in the beginning.

by Anonymousreply 6606/17/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!