Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Discussing Published Hooks & Books » Man of Steel Review

   
Author Topic: Man of Steel Review
Jed Anderson
Member
Member # 9863

 - posted      Profile for Jed Anderson   Email Jed Anderson         Edit/Delete Post 
Having a father who's loved Superman since he was a toddler, I was raised on the Christopher Reeve's Superman movies. With the villains portrayed by the likes of Gene Hackman and Terrence Stamp, you watched the noblest super-hero of all time battle Lex Luther(Superman) and General Zod(Superman II). Both movies go down as two of the greatest and most iconic comic book movies of all time. Any true fan of comics and super-heroes will tell you this.

Superman III, while entertaining was not very good. Richard Pryor as a computer-genius and an accidental villian was amusing, but the story itself did not help the actual legacy of Superman.

Superman IV was an attempt at having Superman save the world from itself. Filmed during the time of the Cold War, we can see why the writers chose to go down that route. It was the ultimate fantasy of the time, to rid the world of all nukes. The movie was not the strongest of the four, and the villian, created by sociopathic-genius Lex Luther, portrayed again by Gene Hackman, was not the greatest. But, in the end, the movie was still entertaining.

In 2006, the release of Superman Returns came about, in which Brandon Routh took up the role and threw on the tights and cape. Rather than recreating an origin story for Krypton's Last Son, the film took off five years after Superman II. Kevin Spacey as Lex Luther was wonderful, and Kate Bosworth was a convincing Lois Lane. At the end, it hinted at a sequel, but, the movie did not do as well as most thought it would've, this could be blamed on the time of its release, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest was the following week. While the four previous Superman movies are still spoken of, Superman Returns is regrettably forgotten about.

This brings me to the newest Superman movie, The Man of Steel. This newest edition to the Superman Legacy completely revamps the entire story. It shows a darker side of Superman, and shows a different aspect to the characters involved.

In the tradition of Warner Bros. and Christopher Nolan, the recreation of the character was to be expected. As the premise of the story goes, The Man of Steel could be looked upon as a remake of Superman II, battling General Zod and his henchmen. The difference? Production value, computerized special effects, and a few more henchmen. But, it still comes down to Superman only having to fight Zod's two main lieutenants. Amy Adams is a different type of Lois Lane, far more serious than her predecessors. Michael Shannon as General Zod is a perfect casting job. He takes the role once held by Terrance Stamp and turns Zod into a passionate man who will do anything to preserve the race of Kryptonians, you cannot help but feel pity for the man, even though he wants to destroy the human race.

Diane Lane and Kevin Costner work well as the Kents. Laurence Fishburne is a solid Perry White, Russel Crowe does Marlon Brando proud in the role of Jor-El. Crowe does not have the voice of Brando, but he makes up for it with his strong and passionate presence.

Now, I come to the leading role, Clark Kent/Kal-El, (who doesn't go by the name of Superman through the entire movie) Henry Cavill. Hairier than his predecessors, he managed to pack on the muscle and squeezed into the tights and uniform of Kal-El. In this reprise of the story of Superman, Cavill does a stand-up job. He has the charisma that is needed, the boyish face that is to be expected, and presence that is called for.

If you are expecting to see an actual remake of the previous Superman movies, look else-where, for The Man of Steel is not it. Comparing this to the originals is the same as comparing Christian Bale's Batman to Adam West's. This is a is darker and grittier story, and gives you the same a sense of "reality" you fell when watching The Dark Knight. For almost two-and-a-half hours, you will not get bored. Granted, your rump might start to tingle and fall to sleep, but you will not. Shift as much as you need to in your seat, but try not to distract those around you.

Posts: 90 | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
The Christopher Reeve Superman was just a little past my generation...it was the George Reeves TV series that engaged my attention, and perhaps it was too campy for modern day viewing and a more serious treatment might be called for. (The comic books never engaged me; I only picked up a few in the era, being heavily involved in finding and buying SF and fantasy paperbacks.)

Some online reviewer pointed out that this Superman takes the modern tack in movies---setting up the hero by setting up a villain so evil and rotten that it's a pleasure for the audience to see the hero kick his butt. Not my kind of thing, definitely---the online reviewer pointed out that Superman was into saving people (stopping dams from bursting, catching people falling from zeppelins and helicopters, and so on); that he came across as never wanting to hurt anybody. This would be at odds with the scenario of the movie as I've seen described.

I'm not crazy about the notion of "rebooting" franchise movies, that every five years we get another movie describing their origins. In particular, I think Superman is well known enough to drop in a story without a terrific amount of backstory. Do they think their audience is that ignorant?

Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jed Anderson
Member
Member # 9863

 - posted      Profile for Jed Anderson   Email Jed Anderson         Edit/Delete Post 
This reboot origin story did kind of upset me. They changed the way Jonathan Kent died, and rather than Clark spending a few years in training at the Fortress of Solitude under the tutelage of Jor-El, they turned him into a vagabond. It all comes out the same, but it's the beginning that I didn't like.

I think the Zod in this movie was a great villian though. Passionate. Dedicated. Remorseful. And driven. I don't think he was over the top in any way.

And, as I said before, we get to see a darker side of Superman near the end of the film.

Posts: 90 | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Melanie Vera
Member
Member # 10072

 - posted      Profile for Melanie Vera   Email Melanie Vera         Edit/Delete Post 
I grew up with the original Superman movies and at the time found them to be good movies. I did find Lex Luther silly and the one with Richard Pryor strange, also the one with him fighting himself kind of strange.

I really liked the "Man of Steel" far better, reason being that they added more about where he came from to the movie so a back drop to what was going on with his planet. I also liked the way they used flash back about how he grew up instead of making that be the main focus at the beginning of the movie. His character was so much more convincing to how he had a hard time deciding on what he needed to do. His earth parents, the Kent's, where much more convincing then the original movies portrayed them as and played more into Superman's character building. The whole thing on how Lois met Superman was more intriguing. Overall This definitely was an action packed adventure full of all kinds of surprises and I cannot wait for the next movie.

Posts: 37 | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I've gotta say it---the "original" of the Superman saga is found in Action Comics #1. Details are perfunctory (the origin story is just a couple of pages out of sixty-four, I gather), and sometimes just plain different (it's the Daily Star, not the Daily Planet)---the saga hadn't gotten the layering-on of details that would go on through more comics, a radio series, the TV shows, and, of course, the movies. "Man of Steel" is just another version of this.

(I hunted around to see if I could get a link to a reproduction of the story, but could only find descriptions and sites with a dozen or so pages. It might be out there somewhere in the 'Net---or is it the Web? The Cloud?---and maybe somebody else could find it.)

Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wise
Member
Member # 9779

 - posted      Profile for wise   Email wise         Edit/Delete Post 
I liked "Man of Steel", but I'm not a big Superman fan, so I didn't have any real attachment to the original comic book version or previous film versions. I liked that this film had more of a sci-fi feel to it instead of a comic book feel.

I enjoyed the scenes on Krypton because it made me more connected to Superman's history. However, the character didn't feel any real connection, which puzzled me. Like Jed Anderson above, I missed the training sessions in the Fortress of Solitude. I also was a little disoncerted by the fact that Lois knows who he is from the start. The fun of the comic book version is that she is fooled for a long time, though she is suspicious. It builds up romantic tension between the two. In "Man of Steel" all of that is missing.

I didn't like that Superman snapped someone's neck, even if it was the bad guy's neck. It's very un-Superman. "Dark" is all good and fine, but let's not take it too far. But overall, I was entertained and I enjoyed the style of the directing and cinematography.

In that regard, it's pretty much how I feel about the new Star Trek films. I'm a big ST fan in all its translations, but I love the classic ST. These younger directors don't have the connection to the original versions of the universes they're reworking, so they get things "wrong". They have different perspectives, so we can appreciate their visions even if we disagree with their interprtations. Makes me wonder what's going to happen to the new Star Wars films.

Posts: 95 | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jed Anderson
Member
Member # 9863

 - posted      Profile for Jed Anderson   Email Jed Anderson         Edit/Delete Post 
Disney now owns that those rights, so Star Wars in ****ed, even more so than what the newest three did to the Original Trilogy.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2