Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Man of steel


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 25 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Jun 2013 06:24:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2013 06:27:36 BDT
Watched this yesterday and thought is was brilliant.

This film has so much action that it really shows up Bryan singers superman returns as the limp wet lettuce that it was.

What we have here is a take on superman that is more down to earth and more gritty than we've ever seen on on film. Don't get me wrong it's no dark knight in terms of grit and darkness but at the same time there's very little humour and the film does take itself seriously.

The acting is top notch. Loved Russell crow as jor-el and the open scenes in krypton were breath taking. I loved how we saw more of the kryptonians advanced technology and their history. How much of it is spot on or changed for the film I couldn't tell you. I've been reading graphic novels for years but only dipped in and out of superman so some of the stuff we find out about kryptons history was new to me.

There's more action and destruction in this film than even the avengers. The last hour when general Zod and his army arrive on earth is like one long action set piece. This is no bad thing as this is the first time on film we have ever truely seen what can happen when someone with the strength and power of superman is fighting beings of equal power.

Overall this is a fantastic action blockbuster that is sure to satisfy the comic book fans and appeal to a broader film fan aswell.

Overall I'd give this a 9/10. It loses 1 point as I would have liked to have seen a bit more about the young Clark growing up as this is a reboot and origin story. We see young Clark and Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent only in flashbacks but what we do see is good and just makes you want to see a lot more.

Posted on 16 Jun 2013 13:05:47 BDT
Personally I thought it was a massive disappointment, the original first 2 superman films had action set pieces that were interspersed with plot and humour so when the action happened it had more impact. the final hour of man of steel was like watching a computer game, it just dragged on and on and you became insensitised to it - the avengers was the same. Although it was an ok film th biggest indictment is that it just made me want to watch superman 1 and 2 again

Posted on 16 Jun 2013 13:16:52 BDT
Also.....
How come Superman told Zod that the X-ray vision didn't bother him because he had spent all his life on earth to get used to it...then Zod gets used to it in 5 minutes?

if superman didn't want to kill zod , why didn't he just cover Zods eyes with his free hand when Zod was using laser vision on the family instead of breaking his neck?

If superman and zod were both strong enough to break each others necks surely the battle would have been a lot shorter? After all the punches etc would have had the same effect on them as if 2 normal people were fighting? Surely one of them would have been in that position before.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2013 13:50:59 BDT
SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on 16 Jun 2013 16:13:25 BDT
Shazzerman says:
It's no surprise to me that "Man of Steel" was terrible. It was "directed by Zack Snyder. 'Splosions galore, how original. Zoom crashes became an annoying "directorial" tic after the first dozen uses... No real personal involvement from any of the characters WHATSOEVER (except maybe for the 5 minutes of screen time given to Pa Kent), all because the script was DIRE. And did the film really contain a scene where a female US army employee has to ask her male "superior" what a word meant? Yes, it did.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2013 18:47:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2013 18:54:06 BDT
I'll admit there's a fair bit of the plot that needs you to either just accept what's going on with no questions or to use your imagination. Personally speaking I was fine with most of it. One or two niggles aside.

**SPOILER**

I'll try to answer some of David's questions above as some of them were explained in the film.

"How come Superman told Zod that the X-ray vision didn't bother him because he had spent all his life on earth to get used to it...then Zod gets used to it in 5 minutes?"

The part about how kryptonians were breed for purpose using the codex was completely made up for this film. This was the first bit of the film that had me scratching my head as I never remembered this. Turns out after a bit of google searching this was new stuff, so....

Kryptonians are breed for specific purposes, some as scientists some as warriors some as workers etc, etc. just before the climatic battle between zod and superman zod does say something to superman about how his sole purpose in life was to lead an army. He said he's been trained from birth for war and leadership and its these skills that enabled him to cope with his new found powers quicker than other kryptonians could. Yes it's a bit of a stretch but that is what the explanation was. Personally it's something I could accept.

"if superman didn't want to kill zod , why didn't he just cover Zods eyes with his free hand when Zod was using laser vision on the family instead of breaking his neck?"

I don't think superman didn't want to kill Zod. The intensity of the final fight showed that not only did zod have to be stopped but that it was nigh on impossible to stop him. They could have carried on trading blows forever as neither would get tired. I took supermans cry of anguish at the end of the fight to signify he'd done what he had to and couldn't see any other way to stop him and was obviously distraught that he had to take a life.

It's only silver age superman from the early 1960's to the mid 1980's that would never under any circumstances take a life. That was due to the comic book code that was introduced in America to water down comic books to near campy levels of violence as it was feared they were to impressionable to the youth of America. Golden age superman (1930's to 1950's) was never as goody too shoes as as the silver age portrayal and in recent years superman (along with a lot of other comic characters) has toughened up and become much more mature. Superman has taken a life in the comic books but only when absolutely necessary.

Don't forget superman hasn't had full control of his powers for long before zod arrives on earth. It's quite clear he had never even tried to fly before he got the suit. He had no idea if he could withstand a blast from zod's heat vision.

"If superman and zod were both strong enough to break each others necks surely the battle would have been a lot shorter? After all the punches etc would have had the same effect on them as if 2 normal people were fighting? Surely one of them would have been in that position before."

This is a common misconception. Just because zod and superman have the same powers doesn't mean they cancel each other out and the effects are the same as two humans going at it. Think about it, bullets bounce of them yet they can give each other a black eye, nah! Because they are so strong when one of them lands a punch the other will feel the force of it and react by being violently thrown backwards but they can't penetrate each others skin so no cuts or bruises. This goes back to my first point. The only realistic way to stop zod is to break his neck as with enough force it is plausible that superman could twist zod's head violently enough to snap a bone.

Again it's one of those things you either accept or you don't.

The only niggles for me plot wise is like I mentioned in my OP, not enough Clark as a child origin. I also wasn't happy that so many people have seen him do stuff in or out of the costume and lois shouts out Clark to him in front of other people when he's in the costume. Superman already has the worst disguise in the history of comic book characters now I don't see how people wont know who he is. He even tells the army general he grew up in Kansas. Won't take them long to do some digging and uncover stories of a young boy who was witnessed doing extraordinary things and put two and two together. It was mentioned in the flashbacks that several kids saw him save the school bus and witnessed him do a few other things.

Overall I enjoyed the film and bar one or two niggles plot wise which I've made my peace with I thought the film was superb. Come on, we always new with zack Snyder at the helm this was gonna be one big action fest and I'm happy with it.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 15:24:11 BDT
I just thought that the whole film was incredibly simplistic , the scenes on Krypton were reduced to "gunfight at the OK corral" for no reason other than to have some more special effects, the destruction of the planet and billions of people was a bit of a footnote. "they will look on him as a God" Kal-El said...er, well no not really because by the time he turned up there was the little matter of a big spaceship threatening the Earth. The army etc didn't seem that surprised or bothered by him to be honest! If they wanted to portray that humanity would look on him as a God , they should have looked at the subtlety of the first film, that iconic moment when he appears to Lois on the balcony and her internal monologue as she flies with him... subtle and a beautiful scene. The scenes when he appears out of nowhere to catch the helicopter leaving everyone to wonder who he is but cheering him as he saves the day . Superman does not have a "dark" side , he is fundamentally good and a beacon of hope not some petulant brat.
In Superman 2 he defeated Zod not by strength or fighting or breaking his neck but by OUTWITTING him, similar in Superman 3. Not in this film , no there had to be an hour long CGI fight! In Superman 1 despite all his power he is faced with a terrible choice and sacrifices the woman he loves only to defy the rules to save her.. In this film he frowns for a bit , knits his brow and shouts a bit at the end. Simplistic nonsense, do cinema goers not have an attention span anymore?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 15:41:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2013 15:45:21 BDT
"Superman does not have a "dark" side , he is fundamentally good and a beacon of hope not some petulant brat.
In Superman 2 he defeated Zod not by strength or fighting or breaking his neck but by OUTWITTING him, similar in Superman 3. Not in this film , no there had to be an hour long CGI fight! In Superman 1 despite all his power he is faced with a terrible choice and sacrifices the woman he loves only to defy the rules to save her.. In this film he frowns for a bit , knits his brow and shouts a bit at the end. Simplistic nonsense, do cinema goers not have an attention span anymore?"

And here lies the problem. It seems your only knowledge of Superman comes from the films and while I suspect that's the same for a lot of people it really isn't the only facet to his personality. If you have any familiarity with the character at all from the comic book world the you would know that he does have a dark side, look at superman 3 for example. He's not just a beacon of hope. The goody too shoes silver age superman was portrayed in the earlier films but that's simply the path the filmmakers wanted to go down. The new film chooses to explore more of the other aspects of not only supermans personality but of his whole story and universe. The original films are not gospel and superman can be different.

Superman of the comic world is a deeply flawed individual. He strives to do the right thing all the time but is very naive as to what exactly is the right thing and can make mistakes. He's never ever been portrayed as the bumbling fool at the daily planet that Richard donner turned his version of Clark into (although I must admit Reeve's portrayal of Clark is great and makes you believe him and superman are two different characters).

Man of steel is the first time I have seen a comic film made with the comic fans at the forefront of the thinking and casual fans secondary.

Honestly how did superman outwit Zod and the gang in superman 2? Oh yes, the filmmakers made up a load of new powers that superman has never had before or since. The stupid big S symbol he throws at Non and the ridiculous disappearing multiple supermen. As for the molecule chamber, I could telegraph that move coming the moment I saw superman step inside the machine himself so he could be with Lois. Honestly some people need to take their rose tinted specs off. The original films were great but had plenty of flaws themselves.

Look, one thing I don't get is that we all hated superman returns as it was too much of a homage to the original donner film with very little action. Now we get the complete opposite people still moan.

The original films are what they are. The first 3 Reeve films are great in my opinion with number 4 a lost potential due to a lack of budget. If you hold these films up a pedestal that's too high then you'll never enjoy any other superman film ever again.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 20:16:08 BDT
Matthew says:
This movie has made 200 million dollars in 3 days in the box office, its clear this will be huge.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 20:31:28 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Yep, "Transformers" huge. "Twilight" huge. It's a shame that, these days, good cinema is such a niche market.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 20:33:15 BDT
Matthew says:
Dunno, it all comes down to opinion at the end of the day. There is no right or wrong answer there. It's just amazing how much this movie has grossed in one weekend, it has beaten pretty much every film out recently lol

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 20:47:00 BDT
Shazzerman says:
Yes, it is all a matter of opinion. I saw the film on Friday and didn't like it much.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 21:25:15 BDT
I stand by moy original comments.. The trend to make superhero films "dark" and serious is ridiculous. By their very nature comic book stories are , well a bit silly , the best films are the ones that know that and have fun with it. The original superman and batman 89 films had their serious parts but also had fun with the concept. The new batman films for instance were dreadful po-faced nonsense.... Trying to be all dark and "ooh isn't batman this cool anti-hero" and now they've sone the same with superman.. These films aren't and never will be grown up...that ok , we all need to be kids sometimes but please don't pretend it's otherwise! My main problem with the film is the same as with Avengers.... Far far too much cgi....less is more!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 22:54:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2013 22:55:03 BDT
Shazzerman says:
I agree with you. I much prefer the Burton Batmans - the second one pretty much gets the comic book to film transfer down perfectly - than the Nolan ones. Peter Griffin was wrong: it isn't "The Godfather" that insists on itself, it's Nolan's Batman films.

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 09:05:29 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 18 Jun 2013 09:13:47 BDT]

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 12:54:47 BDT
ha , excellent thumbs up for the Family Guy quote... anyone who quotes the wisdom of Peter Griffin is ok by me!!

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 19:56:14 BDT
Just seen the film and enjoyed it,on the plus side it was completely different to the original but on the negative it felt more like Avengers and Thor,the finale is like both the Avengers and Transformers 3.Massive spaceships hovering over and blowing up skyscrapers and how does he keep is disguise now everybody knows who he is.
But it's entertaining and overall i came away saying it's good BUT.Still be buying it though.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2013 20:36:59 BDT
I personally prefer Singers RETURNS I get goose bumps when the film & iconic music starts, that did'nt happen with Man Of Steel, dont get me wrong I still enjoyed it even though its a mish mash of Avatar, Avengers & Transformers 3.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2013 06:54:33 BDT
For me the music is the best thing about Returns but it is a sequal to the others.The film overall was too much a love story.
This new 1 as good as the action is as you say it's like Avengers and Transformers.It just didn't feel like you were watching the most popular superhero of all.
Also Zimmer's music is for me too much like his Dark Knight scores.The days of the theme being stuck in your head as you leave the cinema seem a long time ago.
A lot of action films these days lack a memorable theme.

Posted on 23 Jun 2013 09:27:54 BDT
R. Woolmer says:
super-man just dosnt make for a good super-hero, he looks daft and his powers are too much.

Posted on 23 Jun 2013 19:56:50 BDT
I've just watched Superman 1 and 2 again and , having reminded myself how good they actually were , I have downgraded my opinion of the new film from mediocre to 'awful'.
Those films made me smile and I enjoyed them so much more , plus the appeal stretched to a wider demographic than 14 year old geeks

Posted on 23 Jun 2013 22:33:15 BDT
I hev never seen any photos of Joe STALIN { steel } wearing his underpants on the outside.

Posted on 24 Jun 2013 19:41:44 BDT
John morris says:
Unless you have not seen Richard Donner's Superman 2 then there is little to spoil in this new movie.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jun 2013 15:42:02 BDT
Was not that Impressed with Lois Lane, but she could grow in a sequel.

Rest of cast was spot on, but looking forward to seeing more of mild mannered Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent for some lighter moments in the inevitable sequel.

Have to say my worries about the Williams Theme tune were unwarranted, Zimmer scored it fantastically for me.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jun 2013 15:45:01 BDT
Gotta admit that Im not impressed by snyder in General I think he was the worng choice and the film would have been far superior if Nolan had directed it himself, which he should have done.

But it was still good, not classic, not epic, just good and still a whole mess better than Returns
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the action discussion forum (522 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  25
Initial post:  16 Jun 2013
Latest post:  26 Jun 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions