Man of Steel

[johnnygobbs]

Not to say the movie will be devoid of emotion. You have listed some scenes already - the bus rescue for example. But it's the frequency of such scenes. If melancholy/sad/emo took centre stage I'd be a little turned off, to tell you the truth.

Superman stories do carry a certain poignancy, especially their endings. All Star Superman - flying off into the sun to return one day. Birthright - Lara and Jor-El embracing while Krypton blows up. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? - depowering himself to live happily ever after with Lois after traumatic events.

I'm not about people flashing smiles every second or rattling off puns all the time. But tonal balance is always a good thing. Being Superman isn't all poor old me. I think Birthright captured this balance quite well. We''ll just have to wait and see.

You make some good points.  I also think one of the most powerful moments in the 1978 Superman film, the death of Jonathan Kent, was all the more poignant because it came in sharp contrast to all the fun breezy scenes of young Clark testing his powers and zooming around Smallville, outpacing locomotives and so on, that preceded it. 

The sad moments were particularly powerful in that film because something was at stake.  Like you say, it can't be just relentless misery.  There has to be light and darkness, good and bad.

[The Dark Knight]

Exactly. Oh, and I just read this:

"Man of Steel" takes a more self-serious approach, constructing a sullen tale involving Superman's emerging commitment that (perhaps due to producer Christopher Nolan's "Batman" influenced hand) almost never cracks a smile. Superman's inviting persona has even been drained from the title. Here, the dreary atmosphere underscores unremitting commitment to a brooding storyline that creates the illusion of meaning behind the abundant CGI.

At first, "Man of Steel" attempts an outstanding fusion of pricey imagery and narrative finesse. By the end, Henry Cavill's subdued performance in the lead role is the sole element of restraint left onscreen. It's an excessively dreary affair that lacks any sense of Superman's personality. Instead, he's just another fancy effect from Snyder's bag of tricks.

[The Joker]

On the flip side, sites like AICN, IGN, Collider, Latino Review and others are apparently giving the film favorable reviews. If it is indeed true that SR was tracking better at this time back in 2006 than MOS, one would eventually theorize exactly how many of these negative reviews for MOS is coming from, but perhaps not solely, a reluctance to let go of the Reeve/Donner films ...  and if that's the case for some, I would consider that a positive to be perfectly honest. As that was one thing, from the get go, I DID NOT want MOS to be. Yet another retread. Different please. Thank you!

[The Joker]

I've checked the movie out twice now, and found it to be a pretty outstanding film, and one that Snyder, Nolan, Cavil, and everyone else associated with making the film should be proud of. As it achieved in getting audiences away from the Donnerverse, and creating something much more different and revitalizing that, in all honesty, has been long overdue. Pay no attention to that tomato BS. This was a great movie! A great Superman movie that's been a long time coming.

[Paul (ral)]

I saw MOS again this morning with the family.

We all loved it. Really grows on you the second time...though my minor quibbles still remain.

[The Dark Knight]

I've spoken about the po-faced tone fears, but another thing I am uneasy about is the destruction, which one review puts so eloquently:

As Zack Snyder absolutely destroys Metropolis, Superman is lauded a hero, despite the massive casualties and damages that had to have been incurred during the melee. These things are apparently inconsequential. By the way, Kal-El is only referred to as Superman once in the film by my count, because you know, calling him by that name would just be uncool and expected.

http://www.examiner.com/review/movie-review-man-of-steel-the-latest-disappointing-take-on-an-iconic-hero

Destruction with these types of characters is unavoidable, but it just makes me feel like Superman is a jerk. Like dropping the Daily Planet globe onto a car or leaving a plane on a baseball field in SR. Apparently in MOS Metropolis is in ruins and emo-Man decides to embrace with Lois. Meh.

I hope he cares when he fights. But I won't hold my breath. If he had chances to limit destruction but kept throwing through buildings, flying through petrol stations and and such...well...

[The Joker]

I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle? 

In any event, I'm starting to wonder if some of these guys went in with the notion that if things get too shaky, that Donnerverse goodness can re-insert itself, and Supes can spin the earth backwards once again? Having viewed the film twice, I found the latter half of the film to have a tone of urgency, a serious tone of urgency, which doesn't let up in the slightest. And Superman's plight to save not only Metropolis, but various military soldier's battling Zod's unrelenting kryptonian group, who are depicted as about to go in for the kill before Superman's interference, are conveyed quite effectively. There are casualties in this film, that's a certainty. However, it's not due to a lack of trying on Superman's part. That's pretty clear as well.

[gordonblu]

Saw it today, wasn't overly wowed but didn't hate it either. The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed. I didn't like Michael Shannon as Zod either, almost every time he spoke the delivery felt off (although his speech about Krypton toward the end was his pretty good). I thought Cavill did fine, and Amy Adams rose above her material, but Christopher Meloni was one of the best aspects of the film. 

Best part was the Hobbit trailer! 

[The Laughing Fish]

I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle? 

To be fair though, there was nothing that the Avengers could do to avoid the destruction of New York since the Chitauri and Loki was looking to invade at all costs. Though I do wonder if that reviewer had any problems with Batman destroying Gotham City every time he drove the Tumbler and Batpod in the first two Nolan movies?

I'll admit that I'm far from Goyer, Snyder or Nolan's biggest fan, but I'm still willing to give this movie a chance. The worst case scenario I could possibly find is the story might be mediocre, but the visual effects and action should make up for it and offer some sort of entertainment value. After all, Snyder knows how to make a movie look good, I'll at least give him credit for that.

[johnnygobbs]

I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle? 

Didn't the end of the Avengers show that the response to their intervention was quite mixed?  Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scene where Maria Hill expresses her disgust to the politicians over the reign if destruction left in the Avengers' wake.

Also, isn't there a difference in MOS because I've read in some reviews that Zod and his minions were alerted to the existence of earth because of Kal El's presence on the planet?