Theme Layout

[Wide]

Boxed or Wide or Framed

[Wide]

Theme Translation

Display Featured Slider

No

Featured Slider Styles

[Fullwidth]

Display Grid Slider

Yes

Grid Slider Styles

[style1][caption3]

Display Trending Posts

Display Author Bio

Display Instagram Footer

Man of Steel (2013)


Man of Steel

In origin many superheroes make us think of silly heroics and even goofier costumes, so why is it then, that audiences fall head over heels for them? No matter the antics or that they emerged from series of comic books, there is something noble and patriotic about a hero rising up to save mankind – no matter if he is a red-caped crusader in blue tights. 

(This review won't reveal any "major" spoilers but if you want to see the movie unbiased, there will be honest opinions of the pros and cons.)

The planet of Krypton was once a peaceful place. New councils have changed laws making it no longer a place where people can chose their destiny, instead it is a place where life is predestined. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) cannot stand by and see this happen. The son he and his wife have just had is the first natural child on Kryptonite in years and just as General Zod (Michael Shannon) is about to destroy what’s left of the planet, Jor-El and his wife smuggle their son to safety – to planet earth, to live among mankind.  

Some thirty years later Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is drifting from place to place, working odd jobs blending in after years of feeling the outsider as the son of Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner, Diane Lane). Middleclass farmers from Iowa, the Kent's couldn't love Clark more if he were their own. As a child, Clark grew up bullied but under the wise advice of his father knowing when he was thirteen that someday he’d be destined for greatness. Everything changes when he discovers an odd piece of aircraft in the Canadian mountains and nosey Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) turns up just before Clark begins his journey to finding out where he came from… and the role he was born to play.
 
Popular are movies that ask the viewer to sit through two hours of destruction at the expense and loss of something more precious; character development and by proxy, a human angle on the story. Dubbed a re-boot or “origins” story, Man of Steel has been promoted to the hilt and obviously enjoyed a budget that allowed for five or more action sequences. Perhaps its biggest failing was Zack Snyder directing this movie. A man whose prior films would suggest a unique eye, I felt like his “creativity” was misplaced here. He seems to be all about the “bigger picture” – thinking of his next angle and action set-up rather than the “people” of the story. Should a sequel be made (which seems likely to happen given the record breaking numbers), I would love to see a different director in the chair as I think the series has promise and infinite potential. Minus one or two action sequences and better pacing, this movie would have been golden. As it stands, there were some nearly irreversible mistakes made in the set ups of these scenes and it wore thin to have so much of the screen time busy leading Clark into his next battle – battles that nearly always land him on the losing end. Worse than Avengers or Captain America (the explosions and ruin), this movie was in sore need of a reality check.  

FILM REVIEW | Superman Returns (2006)
 
Man of Steel

Given my basic knowledge of this legend, I didn’t feel upset or cheated out of not “feeling” more from the characters (I respected, liked and rooted for most of them). Also working in its favor, where Superman Returns was more of a “sequel,” ‘Steel’ is a re-boot of the well-loved series, hence the more familiar journey, plays and villains of Clark Kent working to save the human race as Superman is yet to come (Cavill is signed on for two more sequels should the studio decide to option them so this seems inevitable). Much ado has been made that Amy and Henry have no sparks, which is, in fact true in the overt elements. I didn't view this as a "love story" so a kiss in the final moments coupled with the lack of conversation doesn't bother me. The best is yet to come with blossoming friendship and romance. With time, this will all blossom and grow into the Lois and Clark icon of a relationship we know and love.  

Unexpected moments of humor creep into the script – such as seeing Superman in cuffs or his smart replies to the military personal, offering a bit of reprieve from all the noise. Given what they had to work with, the actors did a bang-up job with their respective monikers. Henry is brilliant in the role of Superman – both his looks and acting although much to the dismay of my father (and myself), he was beaten one to many times by the bad guys. I mean… really!? While watching a movie in which the good depicts as the “savior” of humanity, a discerning viewer would like to see more. Likewise Amy is adorable and it was pleasant to see the cute ending starting the era of alter-ego Clark Kent, reporter.

Man of Steel

We often ask writer’s to take creative liberties and Man of Steel did, therefore I am one reviewer who cannot be too critical. Changing things up, using flashbacks rather than a timeline of Clark’s youth or watching as Superman is forced to take a life to save others because a.) Clark was being destroyed himself b.) the lives of others were at stake. He had a split second to decide. This may not have been executed to its potential but I give credit.

Respectful of other reviewers and opinions, I thought this was a solid start to a new franchise minus the one glaring offense of “too much” oblivion. Giving more purpose to this icon are the parallels so many relate to Christianity. They are there, however as a moviegoer, I've never put as much stock in them as perhaps I could have. Regardless, it brings up poignancy and deeper meanings of what sacrifice means – and even gets in some good conservative values (*happy dance*) when we come to fully understand everything Jor-El fought to reestablish and protect. In a society that is selfish, that’s something to respect – and Clark Kent stands taller than most even if his character does lose something in translation.

…and now the comments section is open to you all!
If you aren’t bored stiff discussing Man of Steel, I’d love for you to share your opinions.
 
QuickEdit
Rissi
34 Comments
Share :

34 comments:

  1. First off, I like the new look! ;)

    Second, I haven't seen Man of Steel yet so I'll hold off reading your review until after... lol I hope to see it next week. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Rosie! Still love the header before this one but... well, I couldn't resist this cute photo. ;)

      Totally understand - once you do, let me know what you thought. :) Hope you enjoy!

      Delete
  2. Yaaay, loved the review, and totally agree. I told my brother the same thing...I saw it more as a prequel building up to the second film than a film "missing" stuff. I didn't have a problem with the rebooted characters because personally, I like when characters we love are put in situations that challenge what they would normally do. And I'm all about angst-ridden characters, so I liked that in Superman. :)

    I loved the ending!!! Squealed like the fangirl I am right in the theater. Loved all the casting...never, ever thought I'd see a Superman I liked as much as Christopher Reeve, but it happened! Not to mention on a completely superficial side that he looked deliciously amazing in the part. ;) I've never liked Lois Lane because of Margot Kidder's portrayal, so Amy was a breath of fresh air. Loved Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe, too.

    And honestly, while the campy, corny 70's film will always have a special place in my heart, I loved the realistic feel of this film. Yes, I'll miss the element of Lois' oblivion of who Clark is, but I'm ok with that. There was a bit too much action, but I liked Superman fighting...and honestly, I liked the fact that he kills General Zod. I am not a fan of the trend of making heroes practically pacifists (looking at you, Doctor Who), and I liked the fact, honestly, that Superman did kill him. It was defending others and it was not a senseless killing, and he was upset that it had to be done. So I liked that.

    So, going against popular opinion (which I tend to do often so that's ok ;)), I loved this film. And I'm glad to find someone who actually liked it, too. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES! This comment deserves a high five. :)

      ( So, going against popular opinion (which I tend to do often so that's ok ;)), I loved this film. And I'm glad to find someone who actually liked it, too. :) I do this often as well – going against popular opinion – it’s normally the better way.)

      Hey, Alexandra - glad you stopped by (and thanks bunches for taking the time to read this)! Seeing your comment (prior to watching this) over on Charity's site made me giddy since I was beginning to think no one else liked the film. :) …and then there were three of us! (Krissi Dallas also liked it.)

      Since Superman wasn't actually, well... Superman yet (or really even the "familiar" Clark Kent), I definitely enjoyed this as a prequel/origins/re-boot sort of story and it worked if you go into it with that in mind. Where critics were harsh of so many things about the movie (*sniff* It had such bad reviews in magazines and the like), that should “excuse” a lot. Kindred spirits, Alexandra - I like characters to be challenged also, so long as it doesn't turn repetitive. (Some I've met continuously lose loved ones or are constantly beaten, then there lies a problem.) Oh, yay! Loved Cavill in the role as well and since I hadn’t ever seen Christopher Reeve in the role, I cannot compare him (did you see the “sequel,” Superman Returns?) but with time (i.e. better scripting) I think he and Amy could be brilliant as characters; in addition to looking the part. ;)

      (Costner and Crowe were excellent – agree! Also liked Diane Lane.)

      Outing who he really is to Lois does take away some of the “fun” of the future relationship between Lois and Clark BUT given his lack of disguise I always was incredulous that Lois didn’t already know who he was! To me, that made her seem a bit… silly. Either way, I admired things being “different” since viewers often dismiss re-boots because they follow patterns. Right or wrong, like you, I wasn’t bothered by General Zod’s death either – nor that it came at the hands of Clark. I mean, far too many shows/movies bring back villains and we have to be given some victories! If they put villains in a black hole and threw away the key, that’s different. Somehow, if left alive, they always reemerge. That cliché is way overused. Heroes need opportunity to become the “better man” and while no one likes violence, it’s a necessary to protect innocents – and Superman made that judgment. His anguish explained he wasn’t proud.

      Oh, gosh! That ending… so cute! Understand why you squealed. ;)

      Okay, now I’ll stop rambling! Just enjoyed your comment – glad to find another fan and am anticipating what movie number two shall bring. :)

      Delete
  3. Not actually reading this review since I like to go into a movie without any prior opinions...but just wanted to say I can't wait to see it soon! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally understand, Kellie - that's why I made a comment at the beginning that there wouldn't be spoilers, but there would be honest pros and cons.

      Once you see it, I'd enjoy getting your conclusions. :)

      Delete
    2. Okay, so I watched this last night finally...and I LOVED it. I'm still not sure why it's gotten so much flak from a lot of people, since I thought it was fabulous, with only a few minor quibbles.

      Of course, I've never followed the Superman fanchise. I saw "Return" quite a few years ago and honestly didn't even understand what was going on at all, since I wasn't familiar with the Superman story line to begin. And so, between then and now, I've successfully forgotten most everything I knew (other than he was a reporter, his girl's name is Lois, he's super-strong and Kryptonite kills him or something like that, haha). So I went into it, a super-hero fangirl to the bitter end, without any expectations of standing up to any of the "old" ones.

      So, yah, loved it. Will buy it when it comes out and proudly put it up alongside my other superhero movies on my (overcrowded) dvd shelf.

      But despite my starry-eyed opinion of it, I'm not so starry-eyed that I wasn't able to see some of those same flaws that you pointed out. Yup, there was really NO development of the Clark/Lois love story, so the kiss was slightly premature, but since heck, we all knew it was coming, that's ok.

      Biggest flaw was easily the super-extended battle sequences. ALL THREE OF THEM. First the Krypton girl and the big metal thing. Then the massive battle of destroying the ships and AGAIN battling the Krypton girl, but the minor scenes with the Planet reporters down in the rubble. And then, out of the ruins, Zod STILL manages to come out completely unscathed (seriously, not even a drop of blood or dirt on his face) and once again, Clark and Zod go at it AGAIN. For a LONG time. I inwardly groaned when I saw Zod coming out of the ruins. And by the time that fight was over, I'm not sure there was enough city left to defend, since that fight pretty much wiped out everything.

      So yah, there ya have it. LOVED the movie, but yes...I'll admit the ending was way.too.long.the.end. At the end when the army captain is driving down the road and that thing crashes in front of him, I actually started getting mad, because I was like "seriously?? ANOTHER fight??." Then I realized it was Clark and that made it more okay. But yeesh...yes. I forsee that I'll probably be fast-forwarding the ending battles when I re-watch it later on. :)

      But despite it all, I still loved it and felt that everything else was really good. Perhaps a few less references via crude slang to male anatomy and the use of "effing" could have been left out (*pushing pushing*), but I can deal with that.

      Oh and ahem....I agree with that army girl at the end. He was pretty hot. Just sayin'. You've probably seen that pin on Pinterest where it shows the still of Lois asking "what the 's' stand for" and the next still is Clark "saying" it stands for "sexy." I laugh at that...because seriously? What girl wasn't thinking that? ;)

      Delete
    3. Can I just say, Kellie… this is a fab, thorough comment. Like, ever! Appreciate you taking the time to share all your thoughts and stopping back by – been curious to know what you’d think.

      Going into a movie with no expectations is better. I only read through one blog post and saw a couple Twitter comments prior to seeing it and then, I tried to write this before reading more. Sometimes that's the best way to go...

      I agree. I don’t think this deserved all the criticism it had heaped on it. But then, much like the book conversation we’ve had recently, everything is subject to personal opinion and many people who saw the “original” Superman series find this despicable because he’s different in this re-boot. Since (as I said), I watched this through the eyes of someone who’s only ever seen ‘Returns’ (which was cute!) and as an origins story, I thought it was quite good. My mom liked it also, my dad… not so much. (He isn’t a big sci-fi fan though, so…) Depending on how the story shakes out in the sequel, I was okay with no romantic development in this movie. The kiss didn’t equate being “in love” in my opinion, rather it was kind of a sign they were attracted to each other (completely feasible) and an “in the moment” kiss. (Either way, writers aren’t going to not have a kiss, so like you say it was inevitable!)

      Those action sequences were never-ending. I mean, it builds excitement but good grief! The same affect could have been accomplished minus one or two of them – trust us, Zack Synder, we wouldn’t miss them! (Given Zod wasn’t about to give up, his death was kind of “needed” to put all this to rest even if it did torture Superman since killing goes against his moral code.) This was its greatest flaw and much as I liked it, I can be objective and recognize it had some flaws. I’ve got hope that a sequel will improve on those and come back to SHOCK everyone by its awesome-ness. Just sayin’ – ya know, it could happen. :)

      Darn! I knew there was a funny scene I was missing when I was trying to remember the humor while writing my review; that was it! The smile on the girl’s face and matter of fact comment, “nothing, sir. It’s just… he’s kinda hot!” Yep, that made me giggle. Truth has to be spoken. ;) Haven’t seen that pin yet. Now, I’ll have to go check it out.

      (Do you know, I totally blacked out about writing a "content" portion of this review - I'd posted it and realized I didn't share that and then my mind went blank like: what was in the movie that I need to share!?)

      I see myself buying this once it arrives this fall also. I think it earned itself a place alongside all those epic Marvel superheroes. ;)

      Terribly glad you weren't disappointed!

      Delete
  4. I think having Nolan's name attached to this did it a disservice, because he did such a fantastic job with the Batman franchise, we kind of expected him to do more with Superman. Instead, you wind up comparing this disjointed, emotionless film with the much, much superior Batman Begins -- both set up their heroes and villains, both engage in epic battles, and both are origins stories, but Superman falls flat whereas Batman resonates (or at least, did for me!). Some part of that has to do with the director (and yeah, I'm not sure Synder was right for this -- he does great on epic, multi-layered, CGI-heavy plots like Sucker Punch or 300, but can't seem to do "emotion" or "character development" very well) -- the rest has to do with kind of a "meh" plot that really just moves from point A to Action Sequence every ten minutes.

    I didn't think it was awful by any means, but I also thought it was a bit... dull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charity - in all likelihood, yes. Nolan's trilogy was LOTS darker than any of the other superhero films. That being said, I see it as more of a disservice to have "darkened" this story more than comparing them to the Batman films; those are in a league all their own. :)

      For me, the problem was more the director given his history - I mean the second 300 movie advertised at the beginning of Man of Steel and it looked like nothing but... dudes marching into and dying in battle (which Snyder wrote). From the looks of things, Zack will be directing the Superman sequel but I read an article about what he wants to do in the sequel and it was all like "YES!"

      The greatest failing was the action scenes - one or two, that's doable but to the extreme sequences included here? That was overkill. If a movie is going to be over two hours, the time needs to be used wisely!

      Agree! It wasn't awful (by any means) and I'll be one who will watch it again. Already want to see 'Returns' a second time to coincide with the DVD of Man of Steel. Yes, I am weird. ;)

      Ruth - Charity's comment summarizes the flaws/movie very well. :)

      Delete
  5. I thought the movie could have used a bit of work, but I still really enjoyed it. There were times when I thought it needed a different development here or there, but the effects were beautiful and I really loved Henry Cavill as Superman. I thought he was a much more moral Superman then the previous ones. He (character wise) was like the original superman was intended to be.
    I also thought the relationship between Lois and Superman needed a bit of work. I never got their connection. It felt kind of forced. The movie was decent. It was entertaining. I enjoyed watching it even if it could have used a bit of work. I think it was better than the previous ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much as I liked/appreciate Man of Steel, yes I admit it had one too many flaws to endear it as "epic." The action sequences number too many which is its most glaring fault. This I track back to the director given his credits.

      Henry was great as Clark (as was the entire cast). I liked seeing the character in a "new light" - less geeky. As for Lois and Clark's relationship, I totally understand your take on this. It didn't bother me because this was an "origins" movie and I have every faith that the best is yet to come. Whether it be the cute friendship (romance) of Lois and Clark or Clark actually becoming Clark Kent, reporter, I see only good and uphill stories from here on out. :)

      Have you ever seen Superman Returns? It's more of a sequel and features more "familiar" elements.

      Glad you didn't mind it, Joanna! :)

      Delete
  6. I have seen Superman Returns. I liked the familiarity....but Henry Cavil was a better, more moral superman, in my opinion. Also, I liked the special effects in Man of Steel better than Superman Returns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really liked that version too, Joanna - it's more lighthearted I guess I'd say. However I agree; Henry was WAY better. Brandon was too... well, he just wasn't "right" for the role.

      Having now seen Man of Steel, I plan to re-watch 'Returns' also... just because. :)

      Delete
  7. I saw it the second day it was out. I loved Henry as Clark Kent/Super man. Couldn't STAND Amy Adams. And there was TOO much action towards the end there...I love action, but not repetitive. It was like they were running out of cool moves. And seriously?? How many buildings can you smash? And windows can you bash? Helloooooo!!

    Anyway, whew. Okay. Rant over;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Henry was AWESOME as Clark - way better than Brandon methinks. ;)

      Sorry you didn't like Amy in the role of Lois - I sure did! But then, I like everything she stars in. I think with time, both of these actors will own these characters. First...

      This director NEEDS TO GO. If he would follow through with what he claims for the 2nd movie, then I'd be cool with him in the chair. If not... then get a new name. Recognition isn't everything. That was the crux of the problem - the action sequences. I think when you look at Snyder's track record, everything is made clear.

      Feel free to share one of your "rants" anytime, Raquel. Anytime. :)

      Delete
    2. @Raquel- I totally agree about Amy Adams. While she is a brilliant actress and I think she is lovely, I wasn't sure that the role of Lois Lane fitted her. I mean besides the obvious, "Lois Lane is a brunette" (which really doesn't matter. Movie-makers get the liberty of choosing her hair colour)....her character didn't seem to match with the original character of Lois Lane. I thought she was sort of dull for the fiery Lois Lane we've all known for years. Maybe it's just me, but I thought there was something seriously lacking there....but I still liked Amy Adams. She's by no means terrible. I thought she did well, and if they make another movie after it, I hope they develop her character more. But I've loved every other movie I've seen her in. She's an amazing actress!

      Delete
    3. It's my hope, as you say, Joanna that with a sequel, Lois will become the more "familiar" character fans know and love. I think Amy has the potential to step into the iconic role, she along with Henry Cavill just need a better script - one that's character driven not focused on oblivion.

      Delete
  8. "Minus one or two action sequences and better pacing, this movie would have been golden."

    Love this ^^^ Exactly my thoughts. Too many flashbacks and tediously long action sequences. Those are my few criticisms. Besides that, I just loved it. My brother tells me "300" is an extremely violent film, and I think I remember the previews saying Snyder directed that. Maybe that explains the extended action scenes. I'd be happy with a director switch as well, I'd hate the series to get bogged down and everyone dislike it for this little reason.

    "I saw the entire script as more of the “set up” than a disappointment that the two didn’t have more time to flirt or grow as individuals. With time, this will all blossom and grow into the Lois and Clark icon of a relationship we know and love."

    YES. ^^^ Watching Clark walk in with clunky glasses at the end gave me this "woohoohoo" feeling of excitement for things to come.

    I also enjoyed the film's drama/humor balance. I don't like films that can't ever have a serious moment, and think you have to laugh all the time to enough yourself. I felt "Man of Steel" did that.

    For all my little criticism, I really overall completely loved this movie. It wasn't perfect, but I'm certainly glad I went and saw it early with no preconceived ideas. I wonder if I would have liked it if I had read the reviews first, I might have focused on the flaws to much to enjoy it (but I guess that's the case with reading ahead on any film).

    Let's just say I tell my acquaintances I loved it and they should give it a try. ;) I'm sure it will make it into my DVD collection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is where the crux of the problem was, Camille – all that destruction was just… ridiculous. Yes, there does *have* to be some action sequences in a movie of this style/genre, but to this extreme, it was a bit… overdone. My impression would have been exactly what your brother told you; 300 looks insanely violent. The sequel looks like it will follow in that pattern and I believe it’s written by Zack. Because of that, I think Zack’s direction in Man of Steel was a problem – more hindrance than help. So far, it looks like he is going to helm the sequel but if he delivers on what he says he wants to do in movie number two, I’ll be a happy camper. :)

      Once the ending rolled around, it was made even clearer just what this movie was trying to do – it was trying to “set up” the story for all the more familiar events and character idiosyncrasies. If done right, I think it will be spectacular although I respect all my friends’ opinions on the movie and understand where they are coming from. (Spoiler: so many were disappointed that Superman killed someone in the end. I get what they are saying but while no one likes or craves violence, I understood and respected why, in the situation, he made that choice. I mean, sometimes bringing back villains for the umpteenth time is enough to drive viewers crazy – writers can only get so much tension out of one villain/hero relationship. End Spoiler)

      Seeing Clark walk up to Lois as his iconic “geeky” self was adorable – is the sequel out yet!? ;)

      Subtle though it was, the humor was amusing. I mean, really!? Putting Clark in cuffs… that is just silly! Some movies are hilarious for about 1/3 of the movie and suddenly get straight-laced and serious. That balance never works.

      No, you are right; this wasn’t perfect. It met some of my expectations and sadly, disappointed with some of its other silly mistakes. Regardless, I enjoyed it also. I read very little about this prior to seeing it – I did read Charity’s thoughts (and saw comments on Twitter) but beyond that I didn’t read “official” reviews. Of late, I’ve made the decision not to read reviews for the reason that I don’t want to mistakenly adopt that perspective in my own reviews – most the time, it’s just a thought in the back of my mind and I don’t even realize I am doing it! I think another viewing will make more “sense” in which elements were really brilliant and which should have been scrapped and like you, a DVD will probably find a spot on my shelf eventually. :)

      Delete
    2. Agreed, bringing back villains repeatedly has been severely overdone. I personally don't mind when a villain is killed (justifiably), in fact, I usually find it more irritating when they are not. Not just because I'm inwardly rolling my eyes ("why won't the writer's get rid of him"), but because I find it morally ridiculous that villains should not be punished for their actions.

      Obviously, Superman is a comic-book hero, and should be painted as one who attempts to reconcile conflicts through non-fatal methods. But, I do appreciate it when the films give a bit more realism to the original hand-drawn character by fleshing them out with plausible endings (including removing reprehensible characters).

      Went and saw "Lone Ranger" - now THAT film would have benefited from some justice. I liked how it ended, with the hero finally getting up the gumption to use a gun by the end, but it would have been a much more enjoyable film if Archie Hammer's character had learned his lesson earlier on.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Oops, sorry for the sidetrack, back to "Man of Steel."
      Yes, yes, Clark in handcuffs . . I loved that moment!!

      I'm so glad you enjoyed it, so many didn't, and it's nice to read a happy review. Realistically evaluating the films' faults - yes - but giving me a bit of gushing to. ;)

      Delete
    3. For sure, Camille! Revisiting past conflicts between two characters is overdone and it wears thin after so long... and WOW! How you put heroes killing villains is VERY well said - love how you said it. So long as it's justified, a villain should die. I think writer's are "afraid" of killing them off because of the potential ramifications - what if there's a sequel, etc. Methinks scripters should get more creative and bring in NEW conflicts or ideas. Duh!

      Knowing Superman is the "good guy" who wants to reconcile things peacefully is good and well (I like that - no one wishes for "war" yet it's a necessity) BUT sometimes it's tiring to experience the heroes putting down weapons or letting a villain walk away because inevitably that baddie ALWAYS comes back to haunt the hero or to take the life of a loved one or just generally wreck havoc. It's a cliché that makes a story less compelling than it otherwise may have been. (This also tracks back to society's view and raising of men/boys today, but I won't get into that. Not today. ;D)

      Oooh! Glad to get some thoughts on The Lone Ranger - thanks for sharing. I've heard "bad" things about it but my cousin saw it and said it was great so I'll rent it. Love Johnny Depp and his weirdness - even if his characters are becoming a stereotype. My dad won't like that Archie Hammer's character is "weak" - that drives him nuts.

      Love your gushing. :)

      Delete
    4. Johnny Depp's oddness has grown on me. Films I had absolutely NO interest in have been reconsidered when I overhear he is in the cast. I don't normally end up loving the films or rewatching them ever, but I enjoy the first-time because of his performance (example, the new "Alice in Wonderland" or "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory").

      When you rent it, you'll have to let me know about your thoughts on "Lone Ranger." I think it would fit into the same category as "Alice" or "Charlie" IMHO. But that's a whole other post topic.

      Delete
    5. Johnny is weird. (Sorry, there is no other way to put it.) But, I think that's what makes him such a grand performer. He is BRILLIANT as Captain Jack (even if Disney doesn't know when to stop) as well as the Mad Hatter. I've not seen the new 'Charlie' movie - it looks fun though.

      Did you ever see The Tourist, Camille? My mom and I always enjoy that film and it's one of Depp's more "normal" roles. :)

      To be sure! I'll probably write an overlong review on The Lone Ranger once it releases. Cannot seem to stop myself. ;)

      Delete
  9. I would love to watch this movie this summer!
    Gotta love superhero movies:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, Ella! Superheroes are the best to meet. :)

      Lovely to see your comment - enjoy Man of Steel if/when you see it!

      Delete
  10. I had the chance to see this last night with some of my family. I've never seen the Christopher Reeves movies so the only thing "Superman" that I've seen is Smallville, but I tried not to compare too much because movies and tv series have such different pacing.

    Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, but I definitely echo the "too much destruction" sentiment. I think as a whole it would've been better with 20 to 30 minutes of the destruction cut out. (My mother said it needed an hour cut out, LOL!)

    I really liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane. She is just so cute, and I just felt like it really worked. Yes, I would've liked a bit more character development, but hopefully that will happen in the sequel. Looking back, I think the last 60 seconds were my favorite. It hinted at what the sequel could be, and if done right, I think it could really be awesome, provided they focus a bit more on the characters and a bit less on the destruction sequences.

    Overall, I'm still more of a Spiderman girl, but Man of Steel was mostly enjoyable. For some reason Henry Cavill occasionally reminded me of Matt Bomer on White Collar, which definitely was not bad. ;) I really appreciated that the movie stayed fairly clean, aside from a couple instances of language. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s only fair, Valerie. It’s hard not to compare something when you’ve already “fallen” for an iconic character or story in a different canon. I think it’s understandable that pacing would be drastically different in Man of Steel vs. Smallville; the former had 2 ½ hours to share the origins of the Superman legend and Smallville had a week-to-week time slot to let it all unfold.

      Depending, I think the movie could have gotten away with cutting an hour – or close to it! There was far too much oblivion to make the movie seamless. That being said, like you, I enjoyed it tremendously.

      Definitely! The biggest improvement we need from a sequel is more time with Lois and Henry, both as would-be-lovers and individuals. Some fans are disappointed that he revealed himself to her as Superman but given I was always a bit incredulous that no one knew who Clark Kent really was, it doesn’t really bother me either way. That ending was superb – cute and fun, plus it hints strongly at the “beginning” of more familiar territory. That is the best part.

      I can see a slight resemblance between Matt and Henry…

      Spider-Man was good also. I preferred the new version more than the “oldies.” Plus it was fun to see Peter with Gwen instead of MJ – she was kind of spoiled. ;)

      Delete
  11. Thanks for the comments EVERYONE! Going to be by in the next day or two with replies. Enjoyed each one and am looking forward to chatting with you more next week. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I didn't read the full review as I hope to watch the movie at some point (likely on DVD at this point, lol; I'm so lazy to haul myself to the cinema, lol) but glad to hear that you thought the movie was pretty solid. Leading up to the release, I was really hoping that the movie would take off, not only because DC needed the boost (I've pretty much established myself as a Marvel girl at this point) but also for Henry Cavill and his career. I'm not a huge HUGE Superman fan (I always thought he was a tad bit super-powered, lol) but this reboot looks intriguing.

    Also, I love the theme song Hans Zimmer put together for this movie (or at least the song "What Are You Going To Do When You Are Not Saving The World"; I think someone said that that was the theme song). Sure, it's not the classic theme song, but I feel like it reflects the movie nicel :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally understand, Lianne. :)

      Nothing wrong with waiting for the DVD. Sometimes my family actually prefers watching films from the comfort of home. Plus, there's no need to "shush" each other. ;)

      Despite the flaws (and there were plenty), this movie was good. I mean, if you watch it as more an "origins" story as opposed to all that is familiar in this saga, things click more and it's easier to take all the changes. Marvel has some fantastic heroes - I still think Captain America is probably the most selfless hero ever - no matter the branding. Ironically, I think DC Comics is planning an ensemble movie also - hmm... wonder where they got that idea!? ;)

      Didn't even mention the score here but... it was very good! Hans Zimmer is obviously a talented musician/composer.

      Cannot wait for your blog post about this, Lianne - I will for sure read it once it comes. :)

      Delete
  13. Totally agreed with a lot of what you said here! Good assessment... and yes, I think the best is yet to come in this franchise! A good restart for sure. :) I'm rooting for more character development and comic relief in what follows. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh how I hope that winds up being true, Krissi! I so wish for this franchise to blow everyone away with its sequel - I think it has the potential to be terrific.

      100% agree; this was a good start of an "origins" story. :)

      Thanks bunches for dropping by - appreciate your comment and that you took the time to read these ramblings. :)

      Delete

Have a thought? Don't be shy, go ahead and leave one... or two... or three! I reply to every comment. If you're new to the blog, please don't hesitate to introduce yourself and your blog - we love chatting around here!

Feedback and every comment is appreciated and read - I always leave a response; your opinions are respected and I ask that you show mine the same courtesy.

(If you post under “anonymous,” please leave a name. If you don't have a Google account, you can type your name into the Name/URL and if you have no site, just leave "URL" blank.)

If you are still reading my ramblings, thank you for following this little blog and for being one of its supporters. I’ve enjoyed getting to know each of you, friends!

[name=Rissi] [img=Your Image Url Here] [description=auburn-hair. #bookblogger. downton abbey. inspys. internet-photo-shy. silver petticoat contributor. writer. the aspiration is to someday write professionally. a girl can dream, right?] (facebook=https://www.facebook.com/FindingWonderlandBlog/) (twitter=https://twitter.com/rissijc) (instagram=https://instagram.com/rissi006) (bloglovin=https://www.bloglovin.com/blogs/dreaming-under-same-moon-3249983) (pinterest=Pinterest Profile Url) (tumblr=Tumblr Profile Url)

Follow @Rissi006