Man of Steel
Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 14, 2013
7.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 4158 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
3,023
Mixed:
701
Negative:
434
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
4
SupR_GJun 16, 2013
Poorly paced, poorly directed mess of a film. Snyder was a bad choice for this. The CGI battle scenes were gratuitous and unnecessarily long, the Clark/Lois Lane romance felt forced and rushed, and Snyder's use of the shaky-cam wasPoorly paced, poorly directed mess of a film. Snyder was a bad choice for this. The CGI battle scenes were gratuitous and unnecessarily long, the Clark/Lois Lane romance felt forced and rushed, and Snyder's use of the shaky-cam was distracting and silly. If you want to watch Superman fly around and punch people into buildings without any care or consequence to anyone, you're in for a treat. Otherwise, wait till DVD/Blu Ray. Oh, and please see it in 2D, 3D is not worth the extra cost for this.… Expand
50 of 124 users found this helpful5074
All this user's reviews
5
psycrosJun 15, 2013
(Has minor spoilers:) Zero emotion, no humor, no soul, you care about absolutely no one in this film except Clark as a boy that kid damn near carried the film. Cavill is totally unconvincing. Its a combo of maudlin flashbacks and boring(Has minor spoilers:) Zero emotion, no humor, no soul, you care about absolutely no one in this film except Clark as a boy that kid damn near carried the film. Cavill is totally unconvincing. Its a combo of maudlin flashbacks and boring effects sequences. After you've seen 4 or 5 skyscrapers topple over (LOL, F science) you just don't care anymore. Every FX gimmick is stolen directly from an earlier film or video game. The Kryptonians apparently contracted a Reaver from Mass Effect, because they have one. Jor-El the great scientist is somehow also a badass who can take on a platoon of soldiers singlehanded. The Kryptonians haven't discovered color TV yet they use low-res liquid metal for their communications.The horrible "action news" cinematography has no place in a superhero film...or ANY film, honestly. While there were a few clever effects shots, mostly it was Michael Bay levels of CG for 3D's sake here. So many things go unexplained that it feels like Dark Knight Rises all over again. When we DO get cause-and-effect, the story contradicts itself so many times that its obvious Snyder and Nolan had no idea which version they wanted to go with. I heard so many "huhs??" from the audience at each new realtime reconning that it I couldn't help laughing at it after a while. The mood at credit role was somber. The loyalists in their capes walked out staring at the floor wondering the same as myself if we'll ever get another good DC superhero film, let alone a good Superman one. Oh, and did I mention that there was a MAKING OF mini-documentary that ran right before the movie started?? I kid you not. At my Regal Cinema they also ran the Pacific Rim trailer *twice*. It was a painful experience that gave me a greater appreciation of Smallville. Bottom line: everything this film contains you've seen before and done better. I truly hope this movie starts a backlash against gratuitous CG. Mark Hamill is right: its a big reason that Hollywood refuses to do anything original.… Expand
18 of 45 users found this helpful1827
All this user's reviews
5
crilstyJun 18, 2013
I had an amazing time watching it, all the action was far superior than any other movie I have seen, but what critics and some fans are saying that the movie is too "dark" and heavy it's true, but avoiding it would be wrong too, because life,I had an amazing time watching it, all the action was far superior than any other movie I have seen, but what critics and some fans are saying that the movie is too "dark" and heavy it's true, but avoiding it would be wrong too, because life, real life, is way darker than that, we all face heavy moments, impossible moments and that's what we have in the movie. What really have trashed superheroes movies is the way most companies have them done for kids.… Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
5
MysteriousRageJul 22, 2013
This movie suffers from piss poor pacing. It's slow in the beginning and at the flip of a dime becomes a massive in your face action spectacle. It's has some cool action scenes but ultimately goes way too far with it. Most of the charactersThis movie suffers from piss poor pacing. It's slow in the beginning and at the flip of a dime becomes a massive in your face action spectacle. It's has some cool action scenes but ultimately goes way too far with it. Most of the characters are uninteresting (having an excess amount of supporting characters that don't go anywhere) and even Superman has no personality. Everyone conversation to him is 'what it means to be a hero' or 'your purpose in life with these powers'. There is no real dialogue. The story does the Batman Begins approach having flashbacks to parts of his life, giving insight on the character's past and doing the beginnings of him becoming the hero. It doesn't do as well and while some flashbacks are well done, most become rather boring.

The special effects and a few good action scenes before it becomes too much are the only things that hold this movie up. This movie fails to reach to the true potential of what it promised and what it could have been.… Expand
10 of 15 users found this helpful105
All this user's reviews
6
kaizidokillerFeb 13, 2014
Man of Steel is highly overrated, it's a decent film at best because it's not the definitive Superman movie. Henry Cavill is no Christopher Reeve but at least he's an improvement over Brandon Routh. It's a long-overdue reboot for theMan of Steel is highly overrated, it's a decent film at best because it's not the definitive Superman movie. Henry Cavill is no Christopher Reeve but at least he's an improvement over Brandon Routh. It's a long-overdue reboot for the franchise but I'm really disappointed by the lack of character development and the movie spends nearly an hour and a half retelling the origins of Superman that we all know to well. Kal-El is born, Krypton gets destroyed, Kal-El is sent to Earth to save their species, ponders his existence, finds out who and what he is, finds out about his parents and where he comes from, finally has a purpose in life, becomes Superman, saves people, Lois, people generally accepts him. There's really no need to spends hours telling a story that everyone is already familiar with, even the reboot of Spider-Man got the origin story over and done with within minutes and we got to see all the other characters in action. This is the problem with Man of Steel, it spends so much time telling this story that they completely forget about all the other characters in the film; even Lois feels diminished. On the other hand, I do like how the story is told. Whereas most action or superhero movies go from one action sequence to another (which can abruptly interrupt with the story), Man of Steel tells the whole story first before they overload on set pieces and CGI effects. I just don't understand how at the end of the fight, the whole city looks like an apocalypse and they're able to fix it so quickly. But I'm guessing with the help of Superman, anything is possible. The amount of action is absurd and buildings falling down is so cheesy but I enjoyed every minute of it, especially when Zod uses some machine that can lift up cars and smashes them back down (that was pretty epic). But obviously, the special effects doesn't any significance to the film. Overall, it's an above-average film. I was a bit disappointed though because we were long-overdue for a Superman film and I really expected better. Whoever tells you that it's better than the first two Superman films, and even Superman Returns, is lying to you. That's how overrated this movie is because a lot of people would go as far as to say that. Man of Steel is better than Superman 3 and 4 obviously (because those were terrible) but it's the weakest "good" Superman entry in the franchise.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
MrMovieBuffMay 31, 2015
I am probably going to get some hate for giving this movie such a low score, but here's what I think of 'Man of Steel', the superhero reboot of the "Superman" character.

Directed by Zack Snyder ("300" and "Watchmen") and produced byI am probably going to get some hate for giving this movie such a low score, but here's what I think of 'Man of Steel', the superhero reboot of the "Superman" character.

Directed by Zack Snyder ("300" and "Watchmen") and produced by Christopher Nolan ("Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight"), the movie stars Henry Cavill in the title role as he attempts to fight his greatest enemy, General Zod (Michael Shannon).

The movie opens pretty much similar to the original 'Superman' (1978) which starred Christopher Reeve, in that Krypton is about to be destroyed and Jor-El (Russell Crowe) is the father of a newborn Kal-El who is sent to Earth while the original home planet is destroyed. An angry Zod is sent away but plans to stop Kal at his tracks and wants to bring Krypton back.

The movie is told straightforward in present day, but there are a lot of flashbacks in the first two acts of this movie. We see Clark as a young child trying to adapt and get used to his powers, he can hear voices, his vision goes out of control...the lot.

Kevin Costner and Diane Lane play Jonathan and Martha Kent respectively, in committed performances, they care for their young, adopted son and want him to be okay and fit in.

Oscar-nominated actress, Amy Adams plays Lois Lane, a Pulitzer prize winning reporter who meets Clark when she is in danger and instantly wants to know more about him.

That's the most development we get from this movie. I think it's fair to say that 'Man of Steel' is probably the most controversial "Superman" movie since Bryan Singer's 'Superman Returns' (2006), in that it has divided many people who have seen it.

This movie, I feel, delivers all too well on its promise to show us some spectacular action scenes, they occur early and often, and while this proves that there is no shortage of special effects artistry, it's amazing as to how I grew tired and impatient, just exhausted from watching everything getting destroyed in its path. There is a total of three action scenes in this movie, and they go on for roughly 20 - 30 minutes (at least that's how they felt), I couldn't help but feel like asking myself "When will this movie end?", and couldn't Zack Snyder just sacrifice at least one, long action scene for more character development? Just asking.

All in all, this is NOT a bad reboot, but it will divide many audiences who watch it. If you either grew up with or loved the Christopher Reeve "Superman" installments, you are more than likely to feel underwhelmed with this movie. However, if you are a teenager who has never seen any "Superman" movies before and you want to see your very first "Superman" movie, then this could win you over.

I feel like this movie was better than the bleak 'Superman Returns' (2006), but this movie didn't have to be dark and serious like 'The Dark Knight' (2008), Batman needed a dark and gritty movie, Superman is too light-hearted for this tone. It felt very depressing and underwhelming, and the action scenes were just exhausting to watch after you've seen it for five minutes.

Too much action layered over better story-writing, and far too serious to even have fun. 6/10.… Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
6
KadeemluvmusicJan 28, 2016
Man of Steel, in my opinion, is a decent but not quite as better as the original Superman movie. I felt that Zack Synder tried to recapture the atmosphere and brilliance of Richard Donnor's 1978 version, but with little interest on why the DCMan of Steel, in my opinion, is a decent but not quite as better as the original Superman movie. I felt that Zack Synder tried to recapture the atmosphere and brilliance of Richard Donnor's 1978 version, but with little interest on why the DC Universe movies haven't been a gamechanger throughout the years (The Dark Knight Trilogy doesn't count). I was feeling a bit nervous why they chose Henry Cavill donning the red, yellow cape and spandex with the iconic "S" trademark because Superman just way past his prime. Even though Superman Returns was pretty good, but Man Of Steel is less but kinda bland Superman. The movie's ending went horribly wrong (I saw the whole thing, no spoilers), the whole CGI thing is pointless, Kevin Costner's performance as Clark Kent's own father sucked, the action scenes were inspired unless you make the movie for 2 1/2 hours long. And that's the problem.

I'm a little worried for what's to come during 2016's sorta "Man Of Steel" sequel, "Batman vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice." Will the movie be any good? Can Batfleck (Ben Affleck) be a better Batman than Christian Bale? Can the movie be as much darker as Marvel's "Captain America: Civil War"? Or can it become the highest-grossing movie of the year? I'm predicting that it's going to get near the 60's at Rotten Tomatoes (or below 50s), but 2016 is full of too much superhero movies. So I might have to wait on that, but as for Man Of Steel, good movie, flawed script, acting is pretty decent, but it's worth a shot.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
star_gazingNov 12, 2013
As much as I wanted to like this movie, it was terrible. Not a funny terrible, but a forgettable atrocious experience. Acting's off in many scenes, green screen is large and destroys the epic flight scenes, everything about this movie thatAs much as I wanted to like this movie, it was terrible. Not a funny terrible, but a forgettable atrocious experience. Acting's off in many scenes, green screen is large and destroys the epic flight scenes, everything about this movie that could've been good is squandered by this need to go beyond what was necessary. The saving grace is it's potential, but it ultimately falls flat. I go with the critics on this one; it wasn't great by any means.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
MatthewToddNov 14, 2013
This looks like a (similar) job for Superman! Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Super… Excuse me. For a big budget motion picture remake of perhaps the most recognizable comic book superhero Man of Steel is a tamelyThis looks like a (similar) job for Superman! Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Super… Excuse me. For a big budget motion picture remake of perhaps the most recognizable comic book superhero Man of Steel is a tamely run-of-the-mill effort. It is generic blockbuster personified, and is a bleak, characterless, lacklustre, uninspiring, disjointed and overly rigid entry in an intermittent franchise, which ironically struggles to take off. What's the "S" stand for? Well in my world it stands for Super-Serious as opposed to Superman. Never before has a superhero been so unwilling to express any discernible passion for their cause, simply maintaining an impassive poker face the whole time. The fate of mankind hangs in the balance, Superman to the rescue! Screams excitement right; however, Zack Snyder has somehow turned this tried and tested premise into a dreary, rather monotonous exploit, even if the visuals and set pieces verge on stunning; more dull and lifeless than dark and gritty. Henry Cavill is cool, calm and collected as Superman; however, he comes across overly reserved and emotionless far too often. Cavills' steely resolve is rarely visibly tested even if the goings-on impart otherwise, rendering his portrayal of Superman a tad difficult to adhere to on a humanistic level. In addition to this, he appears sound in the fabled suit but his rendering of the celebrated superhero comes across too deliberate and noticeably premeditated, although he does find his feet towards the end when the movie is given a much-needed shot of adrenaline. Man of Steel lacks fluidity, it is apportioned with often brisk and abrupt scene changes, and provides an unkempt collation and abstract composition of extracts and gestures to scenes from other movies. It is also complacent on character introduction, being naive in thinking we all know about the characters enough to not have to shed too much light on them; notably a lackadaisical introduction to Lois Lane and her backstory, further marred by a romance kindled out of thin air. All in all, Man of Steel supplies a moderately attention-grabbing experience, albeit unhurried and void of any palpable sentiment. In addition, it does not break any new ground and sets an overstatedly grim-faced tone that future installments in the notoriously up-and-down series that has experienced its fair share of highs and lows in the past will have to address if they are to garner the widespread approval of the audience.

Maybe somebody should have gave Superman's cape a tug and told him you're doing it wrong.

For more movie reviews visit: http://toddsmoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
loxDec 10, 2013
Not sure if I'm in the minority on this one, but this movie was overall a disappointing mess. Being at least produced by Chris Nolan, I expected so much more. Instead what I got was a snobby Lois Lane who had terribly modest and even cheesyNot sure if I'm in the minority on this one, but this movie was overall a disappointing mess. Being at least produced by Chris Nolan, I expected so much more. Instead what I got was a snobby Lois Lane who had terribly modest and even cheesy dialogue, a "Superman" who was developed in a rather sloppy way, unintentionally hilarious moments, and a villain who yelled at the camera half of the time. Not to go overboard, I will simply say that I did not like this movie. I can acknowledge some pros though: the Super suit was cool, Zod's "purpose for which I was born" monologue in the final act was cool, and the sequences in space were breathtaking. Still, Man of Steel had nearly NO CROWD PLEASING MOMENTS....the comic relief moments spread in the movie were a hit-or-miss and would gain maybe one chuckle or a laugh out of the audience. And don't get me started on the action sequences....don't get me wrong, I love a good action movie, when it's well served. I highly enjoyed Fast 6 because it didn't try to be more than what it was, a simple mindless action-packed popcorn flick with well-placed humor and overall solid pacing. However Man of Steels action....boy was I bored by it. Explosions and skyscrapers collapsing left and right and even some annoying shaky cam in certain sequences that voided any chances of my investment. One of my friends mentioned two Easter eggs in the film: A Luthor truck and a satellite in space owned by Wayne Industries...BUT... since I WASN'T invested in the movie thanks to a sloppy and awkwardly paced script, I didn't notice these Easter eggs at all unfortunately. I personally felt also that the opening in Krypton was cool at first, but soon became over-extended. Am I the only one who felt that the special effects in this film weren't that impressive? If I am, so be it. Clark Kent/Kal-El's development was rather modest...it could've been done much better and more depth could've been put into it. Instead, the scenes of his upbringing would come in awkwardly and they felt kind of intrusive at times. This movie felt very inconsistent in terms of writing. Man of Steel's pacing was incredibly sloppy. One scene Kal-El was in a ship, then he was in a bar, then he was in the north pole, then he was suddenly Superman. Yeah, not very consistent pacing if you ask me. Overall, I was incredibly disappointed by this film. I really wanted to love Man of Steel. I wanted an excellent Superman flick with a terrific origins story that resembled the quality of Batman Begins. Man of Steel was hyped up well, but terribly under-delivered.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
ExKingNov 29, 2013
man of steel was the most over-hyped movie of the entire year,
so was it worth it you might ask and the answer is very easy, NO.
i actually felt bad and disappointing because i was so anticipating this movie, and i felt stupid afterward,man of steel was the most over-hyped movie of the entire year,
so was it worth it you might ask and the answer is very easy, NO.
i actually felt bad and disappointing because i was so anticipating this movie,
and i felt stupid afterward, cause there is so much plots mistakes it's almost unwatchable,
unless you the kinda guy who ignore major details to have fun, i can't do that, cause for me everything have to make sense
and this movie unfortunately does not make any, i mean i felt mad after watching iron man 3 because of plot mistakes,
after this i can gladly make iron man 3 my favorite movie of 2013.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
jamessNov 13, 2013
Talk about failing upward. Zack Snyder's three previous films got exponentially worse. From 300, to Watchmen, to the almost unwatchable Sucker Punch, how Mr. Snyder was given the brass ring of rebooting the Superman franchise is beyond me.Talk about failing upward. Zack Snyder's three previous films got exponentially worse. From 300, to Watchmen, to the almost unwatchable Sucker Punch, how Mr. Snyder was given the brass ring of rebooting the Superman franchise is beyond me. His visual style is unquestionable. There are frames that could be hung as artwork, but as a storyteller Snyder is ponderous and dull. Granted, Man Of Steel is his best work since 300 (I feel Dawn Of The Dead his best so far), and the set pieces are spectacularly staged, but 2 and a half hours of earnest, EARNEST material about a flying alien Christ figure is a bit much. The only hint of humor is the refusal to even say the name "Superman" (maybe spoken twice during the whole movie). I'm not saying we have to dive into the overdrawn characters of the Donner version, or people speaking in witty banter like The Avengers, but a little humor goes a long way. The acting across the board was fine..hey, I actually didn't hate Crowe, as I have most of his roles lately. And the technical credits were all first class.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
dyshpoJul 30, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't like when a movies are shouldn't be such blatant PR for Christianity at least not so drench in holy water. Over used main villain but praise to city busting fight scene finally superman has his powers back… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
lordcsxOct 20, 2013
This movie is head on mediocre, there is nothing exceptional in it, no matter how the fan boys proclaiming it as the best superman movie ever. There is a big plot hole issue, and also a quite disturbing Stockholm Syndrome like connectionThis movie is head on mediocre, there is nothing exceptional in it, no matter how the fan boys proclaiming it as the best superman movie ever. There is a big plot hole issue, and also a quite disturbing Stockholm Syndrome like connection between Superman and Lois Lane.
Although the CGI is quite spectacular in this piece, it can't bare the weight of the entire production on its shoulders.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
joao1198pedroOct 27, 2013
for me this was the most awaited film this year, my expectation about this movie was on top, but this movie was another big disappointment for me as it was iron man 3.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
Indy_BonesOct 25, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Incredibly average reboot that relies on excessive CGI (a' la Transformers) to try to make an impact, but misses the mark script wise in so many ways.

Zod is badly cast and nowhere near villainous enough to be a compelling main enemy, Kent's parents are shocking role models, and Lois Lane was wetter than a mermaid's brassiere...

Also, I still don't quite get why they felt the need to cast Laurence Fishburne in the role of Perry White, he was criminally underused and the job could just as easily have been played by any old actor they'd simply pulled off the street and thrown a script!

Whilst the CGI is ok, the plot and overall pacing just don't work, with the laughably poor 'disguise' to end the film, being the crowning turd in the water bowl.

If you're into the typical action popcorn flick that seems to have taken over modern cinema these days, then chances are you'll find it fairly entertaining, but die hard comic fans and anyone who doesn't clap at the end of a movie in the cinema can find more interesting fare in many other places...… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
mrjoneseznDec 1, 2013
Others have described this film as having a "businesslike" tone, and I would agree. there are numerous plot holes, enough to keep this from a rating of 7 or 8. As a comic-book nerd, I'm used to seeing different takes on Superman's origin,Others have described this film as having a "businesslike" tone, and I would agree. there are numerous plot holes, enough to keep this from a rating of 7 or 8. As a comic-book nerd, I'm used to seeing different takes on Superman's origin, and I really enjoyed that aspect of this film. The first 30-40 minutes are less superhero flick and more sci-fi.
If you can deal with something different than the Christopher Reeve films, and can ignore some holes and inconsistencies in storytelling, you'll enjoy this one.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
RollerKid2020Nov 30, 2013
This movie is a great new look on Superman, this movie is a terrible look at superman. This movie is a great new look at cinema while it also is said to have killed movie. This movie is so controversial that I say it is just meh. The peopleThis movie is a great new look on Superman, this movie is a terrible look at superman. This movie is a great new look at cinema while it also is said to have killed movie. This movie is so controversial that I say it is just meh. The people who like it don't see the problems while the people who hate it don't see the good side. To me with every good thing there is a bad thing. This is a movie I shall 4 times and never again.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
KaptainHutchinoDec 12, 2013
May not have much heart or many surprises, but the outstanding visuals and pummeling fight scenes make up for that. It's a well deserved modern reboot for the hero.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
masseyJan 17, 2015
Man of Steel is more of an action film, not a superhero film, and departs a lot from the Superman character. Yes, Krypton is there, the Kents are there and the Daily Planet is there but the film does nothing to develop Superman or Clark as aMan of Steel is more of an action film, not a superhero film, and departs a lot from the Superman character. Yes, Krypton is there, the Kents are there and the Daily Planet is there but the film does nothing to develop Superman or Clark as a character; only really being fleshed out when we see Clark growing and using his powers for the first time.

The first half of Man of Steel, though too dark in tone for my liking and especially for Superman, is quite good, showing the building of character relationships and some emotional moments between them. Any sign of 'heart', however, is just thrown out of the window and through several buildings in Metropolis at the very moment that Zod begins his 'alien invasion', leaving the viewer to sit through mindless action that just goes on and on, with little to no progression, making the story go nowhere.

My biggest issue with Snyder's film is that it just does not feel like a Superman film. Where is that Superman magic that the first Donner film entailed? I appreciate the "updated" origin story and that we're essentially seeing Superman starting out but we never get to see him save someone in the suit. Henry Cavill was a great choice for Superman but he was just not given enough to do in the film, making his character, and a lot of the characters in the film, very empty, never letting the audience care for any of them (apart from perhaps Mama and Papa Kent).

Man of Steel is all style and no substance.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
MattBrady99Mar 26, 2015
This movie is more stronger then steel. This movie was far better then superman returns, I mean the actor who played superman was really good and the score was epic.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
mrdr4gonNov 15, 2017
Somewhat underwritten, the visceral nature of the action scenes paper over the cracks and make you overlook the sheer excess of it all for the most part.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
ReubenIsAGodJan 6, 2014
SO for me with flicks, I've kinda been trying to be more critical and think, more so, about how this film has affected me, how has it moved me, or affected me on an emotional spiritual level. Did it stand the test of time and make me go WOW,SO for me with flicks, I've kinda been trying to be more critical and think, more so, about how this film has affected me, how has it moved me, or affected me on an emotional spiritual level. Did it stand the test of time and make me go WOW, so fantastic, and how much do i remember enjoying. I actually really enjoy many elements of this flick. Its kinda just really entertaining, and I actually really enjoying seeing Zack Snyder's vision...But its very very very bland. Like, eh, the actual script is quite the mundane clique superhero story. It's alright. It's just light entertainment really.… Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
5
Prodigy2013Jun 16, 2013
Man of Steel is finally here and what can I say… it was as entertaining as it was disappointing. In this film Clarke Kent seeks answers about t his home world, Krypton, and tries to grapple with his responsibilities here on Earth. Of-course,Man of Steel is finally here and what can I say… it was as entertaining as it was disappointing. In this film Clarke Kent seeks answers about t his home world, Krypton, and tries to grapple with his responsibilities here on Earth. Of-course, while all this is going on, the evil (and programmed) General Zod threatens Earth’s very existence. The first part of the film is filled with some excellent Clarke Kent and Krypton back stories that were elevated by the performances of Kevin Costner (Jonathon Kent) and Russell Crowe (Jor-El); the two father’s of this film. I must give Henry Cavill a hand for maintaining the win streak of fantastic Superman performances. While Christopher Reeve captured the charm of Superman and Brandon Routh did a slightly brooding interpretation, Cavill excelled at capturing the physicality of the Man of Steel. With all these high marks remaining constant; the beautiful introduction gave way to bloated, explosive action sequences. The action was unhinged and needed some serious taming, because it didn’t afford the filmmakers anytime to develop our other characters or elevate the plot. And the story itself, as effective as it may be, didn’t really cover any new ground. This Zack Snyder is a director who can always create a nice looking film, the world of Krypton in particularly is brought beautifully to the screen. He’s also always able to focus on those minute visual details like those frame-for-frame shots from Watchmen and 300 that were taken straight from the comic book. In this case I-Hop restaurants and other familiar settings litter the background of every scene to make the audience aware of the ‘real world’ setting in which this movie takes place. These are all nice splashes, but ultimately he is never able to look at the big picture: Story, Plot and Character! These are the things that truly determine the strength of a film, everything else is secondary. It’s unfortunate that the action and aesthetics took precedence, but this was decent summer entertainment that should be seen on the big screen.… Expand
8 of 21 users found this helpful813
All this user's reviews
5
McParadigmJun 15, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Easy steps to a better movie:

1. Don't try to pack so much stuff in on Krypton. Put the societal and environmental decay in the background, as context. Then, have Zod and Maximus argue about the best way forward, give us some touching dialog between the man and his wife with the mismatched accent, and then have Kal's Superpod lift off to a backdrop of the pseudo-nuclear beginnings of civil war. That way we don't see Zod LOSING both militarily and in a fist fight against a scientist in the first 20 minutes of film. Fill in the other stuff with the hologram and Zod's speeches later.

2. Have little Clark try to help, somehow, and screw up. If the bully had bothered other kids, and Clark had decided to scare him or respond when nobody was looking only to accidentally almost seriously injure the kid...it would have added a lot of weight and gravitas to both Bill Durham's otherwise alarming speeches and the kid's later frustrated efforts to remain passive. The oil rig would then be a pivotal moment in his character growth. "Oh, wow....I really can save these people, if I'm careful."

3. Make it rain. Even in Kansas, tornado out of nowhere is not a typical event. Why was it deemed a bad idea to have it be raining? Also, when has there even been that much traffic in a place where a Kevin Costner character might believably live? I grew up in South Dakota, and not even a high school football game creates that much traffic (and that's about the biggest thing that happens in those areas). Does he have a field of dreams opening up nearby, perhaps? Put a storm in there, lose half the cars from the shot, and have his foot get caught when the approaching disaster whips a car while he's helping the mother...the whole "going back at the last minute to save the dog" stuff is as tired as it is corny. Please.

4. Shoo the kids away from the closet. It's bad enough that the teachers just let them stand around gossiping while the child has a breakdown....but then his mom doesn't care, either? It's a weird backdrop for what could be a very touching scene. It's not like Clark couldn't HEAR and SEE them mock him if they were in the classroom, right? You gained nothing from having them there.

5. Have somebody else kill Zod. Maybe, as Zod taunts and dares him to finish him off and Superman howls in frustration, torn between not wanting to kill and needing to save that family, Lois Kryptoknifes the guy and resolves the issue. That gives us somewhere to go in the next film. If Superman is willing to kill when the need arrives, you've really just ditched one of the primary psychological facets that informs his internal drama (the other being his loneliness, which you've also ditched). Now, all he has is a fear of cloudy days and a whole lot of superpowers.

6. Reduce the destruction by 50%. If you only wrecked 11 buildings, and only killed a baker's dozen of soldiers and civies, none of us would have walked out going "Wow...lame!" How are you going to up the stakes in a sequel? You've killed thousands (at least), had Superman purposefully end a villain with his bare hands and make choices in battle that intentionally put humans at risk (including grabbing a bad guy from a remote location and willingly hurling him through various populated buildings in a nearby town). What's left to do?

7. Don't explain everything. The scene with the scientist looking at the circle (earth, natch) and the squiggly lines and immediately intuiting (with lots of scientific babble) that they were terraforming earth was a Michael Bay-level cheeseball of a moment, and unneeded. The machine is called something like a World Engine or something. You've already told us what it does. Don't try to explain how...please. And don't tell us how Zod modded his ride to get to earth, either. It's a spaceship, built by a race that colonized the stars. We wouldn't have rolled our eyes if you'd left that out. All the explaining helped make "alien weird" look and feel a lot more just "future earth"y.

Do these things, and you'd have a much better movie methinks.… Expand
9 of 27 users found this helpful918
All this user's reviews
5
dijavantewowJun 18, 2013
This movie had great special effects, but the plot, the characters, the acting, the rest was all just meh. I don't ever feel like I care about any of the characters. There was no amazing performance by any of the actors to blow someone awayThis movie had great special effects, but the plot, the characters, the acting, the rest was all just meh. I don't ever feel like I care about any of the characters. There was no amazing performance by any of the actors to blow someone away like Heath Ledger as The Joker. This was just a summer blockbuster to make money, not a good movie and kickoff of a franchise.… Expand
8 of 24 users found this helpful816
All this user's reviews
6
loadstone007Aug 5, 2013
I didn't like the movie, which is a real shame since I really love Superman. The story told has a nice twist to it but the potential was left dead on the floor. Henry Cavill was a really bad casting choice he's just not good at this partI didn't like the movie, which is a real shame since I really love Superman. The story told has a nice twist to it but the potential was left dead on the floor. Henry Cavill was a really bad casting choice he's just not good at this part (and come on close shots of him with his chest hair flowing out of his suit?).

Superman Returns was a much better film that made me feel really excited about Superman and the people he protects. The new film is just a disappointment. Watch this at home.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
BairdoNov 19, 2013
Yeah, this was not very good at all, and a borderline Turd. I payed $5.99 to watch it, and I'm still not able to look in the mirror. Too many cheeseball lines, that couldn't be saved by good actors. In the middle of a catastrophic battle withYeah, this was not very good at all, and a borderline Turd. I payed $5.99 to watch it, and I'm still not able to look in the mirror. Too many cheeseball lines, that couldn't be saved by good actors. In the middle of a catastrophic battle with aliens on a main street, was it necessary for Superman to say "Stay inside, it's not safe"?. No, it wasn't. Also, Dad...if you ever read this review, I want you to know that you can count on me to save you from dying in a tornado I don't care if they find out I'm really fast.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
SpangleJul 18, 2015
Man of Steel, the first film in the new DC Cinematic Universe, is certainly a very flawed film, but for me, I think there is enough in the "pro" category to outweigh those negatives. Firstly, I really liked the acting and the castingMan of Steel, the first film in the new DC Cinematic Universe, is certainly a very flawed film, but for me, I think there is enough in the "pro" category to outweigh those negatives. Firstly, I really liked the acting and the casting throughout. Some were unhappy with Amy Adams' Lois Lane, for both the way she was portrayed and for her not looking like Lois Lane, but as a person who is not a huge comic book guy, I did not really care. She's a great actress and it is able to show in this film to a degree. In addition to the acting, the special effects were spectacular and the cinematography was stupendous at times. There were some seriously gorgeous shots in this one and it is one of the few superhero movies where I really noticed that area. However, I will say that it does try to do a lot and struggles from typical origin story pitfalls. The pacing can be extremely bad at times and the dialogue is pretty horrendous at times and middling at best. Overall, Man of Steel is a slightly above average film that succeeds in some areas and fails in others, but overall does a nice job setting up the new Superman story and the new universe.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
JonjonjSep 11, 2013
This film could have been a great movie had they cut half of the action scenes which, by the way, were poorly directed and clumsily paced. I left the theater with a weird feeling of confusion...was it Superman or did I end up going to aThis film could have been a great movie had they cut half of the action scenes which, by the way, were poorly directed and clumsily paced. I left the theater with a weird feeling of confusion...was it Superman or did I end up going to a Godzilla movie by mistake...… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015
"Man of Steel" is not a masterpiece, it is just okay. It's slightly better than Superman Returns, but I wish it had more brighter colors... I do think Henry Cavill is a brilliant choice for Superman, and I hope future installments can improve"Man of Steel" is not a masterpiece, it is just okay. It's slightly better than Superman Returns, but I wish it had more brighter colors... I do think Henry Cavill is a brilliant choice for Superman, and I hope future installments can improve upon this film.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
Laekerson95Jan 31, 2014
Unfortunately, Man of Steel has severe structural problems amidst it's wonderful coming of age and child story of Clark, and rockets with nearly half a film of yawning action lacking emotion and motivation to care. It's an inspiring visionUnfortunately, Man of Steel has severe structural problems amidst it's wonderful coming of age and child story of Clark, and rockets with nearly half a film of yawning action lacking emotion and motivation to care. It's an inspiring vision breaded for 14 & under, but the editing and execution in post-production squanders the potential for a smoothly paced, build-up to heroism and the mystery within. Altogether, it's no Kinder Surprise.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
supermann234Mar 18, 2014
well,this movie's action really beats every action movie i've ever seen,the 3d effects were awesome and the suit is cool.the theme was not bad but did not fit a superman movie.I did not really like the fact that people thought superman was awell,this movie's action really beats every action movie i've ever seen,the 3d effects were awesome and the suit is cool.the theme was not bad but did not fit a superman movie.I did not really like the fact that people thought superman was a villain at first.it was also weird to see zod jumping all the time. it also missed 2 iconic symbols of superman. 1. Suit change 2. Supes saving people. nonetheless this movie is not bad… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
adpirtleJun 20, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Man of Steel isn't a bad film by any means. It's just not the thrilling adventure film it should have been. Everything starts off well. The opening 20 minute retelling of Kal-el's escape from dying Krypton plays like its own epic action short. The setting is so wildly rendered and Jor-el (Russel Crowe) makes for such a compelling hero that I found myself wishing that was the focus of the picture, particularly after I'd seen the rest of it.

The rest of the film's first hour focuses on young Clark Kent's upbringing, and his struggle to discover, control and conceal his powers, and it's less successful. Part of this has to do with director Zack Snyder's (and producer Christopher Nolan's) gritty, realistic approach. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane do great work portraying Clark's adoptive parents, but something just doesn't feel right about Pa Kent telling Clark that "maybe" he should have let his schoolmates drown rather than risk revealing what he could do, or Clark's allowing his father figure to sacrifice himself years later in a twister rather than use his powers to save him in front of a crowd of people.

However, it's the third part of the film that really comes off the rails. I actually enjoyed watching Superman and Lois Lane confront Zod and his minions right up to the point where Supes lost his cool, the result being the leveling of Smallvile. The Superman I know wouldn't have put all those lives at risk by bringing his fight to main street. Then, when the proverbial feces really hits the fan, Metropolis itself is heedlessly decimated. Finally, the ridiculous scenario staged to "make" Superman kill Zod actually made me laugh out loud.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
4
RobobobNov 28, 2015
I guess the DC fans are working very hard to improve the score of this movie. Notice all of the recent glowing reviews for a movie that's a couple years old. Truth is, that it is a very average movie. Usually when I rate a movie I think ofI guess the DC fans are working very hard to improve the score of this movie. Notice all of the recent glowing reviews for a movie that's a couple years old. Truth is, that it is a very average movie. Usually when I rate a movie I think of a list of things I 'like" against things I "dislike." With this movie I can only think of 2 likes. Henry Cavill is a great Superman and I like the art style and design choices for things like the opening act on Krypton. Other than that I can list many things that don't make sense but a fan online will just argue with you or make grand assumptions. How can Superman be negatively affected by atmospherics (is that a word?) when he can survive in space without breathing? How is Superman powered by our "yellow" sun when it is actually white but our atmosphere changes it's color throughout the day? How does his father just conveniently disappear into a tornado instead of gets tossed around like a semi-truck? How can Zod adjust to Earth in mere hours when it took Clark years of his life? How can Lois Lane survive Arctic weather in a small coat when the Army guy said she would easily freeze overnight?
Too many silly questions that get an easy pass by the super fans.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
shpreaJun 24, 2013
There is one word that best describes this movie. Disappointing.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. It's actually quite good. The issue is that this movie was meant to be a revival for the Superman franchise, one that excited itsThere is one word that best describes this movie. Disappointing.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. It's actually quite good. The issue is that this movie was meant to be a revival for the Superman franchise, one that excited its audience and built a lot of anticipation for a soon to follow sequel. Instead, it just acts as another normal superhero movie. That's all.

There are a few things that are outstanding in this movie. For example, the sound design is amazing. Everything from the music to the sound of buildings collapsing and lasers firing was spot on. It really helped to add more depth to the action scenes, which were numerous and awesome. This, however, is one of the issues with the movie. There are way too many actions scenes. It's odd, really. Usually one would think that the point of an action movie is to have a lot of action all the time. However, Man of Steel just takes it way too far. The basic formula of the movie is actions, flashback, action, flashback, action, flashback, so on and so forth. It got to the point where the action scenes began to bore me, which is never a good thing.

Another flaw with this movie was the acting, which was at times laughable, especially due to some rather awkward one liners, such as "evolution always wins". This is more a gripe with the movie and less an actual complaint, but it is something I noticed.

The other minor issues involve spoilers, so I won't bother.

All in all, the movie is definitely worth seeing. It is a good movie, no doubt, hence the score of a 7. It just doesn't quite live up to the quality of other movies in the same genre.… Expand
4 of 13 users found this helpful49
All this user's reviews
4
njlakeJun 17, 2013
When the teaser trailer hit, i was interested. When the full trailer hit, i was really excited. Then i saw the movie, which I was looking forward to as being one of the best of the summer. What a disappointment. The action is boring andWhen the teaser trailer hit, i was interested. When the full trailer hit, i was really excited. Then i saw the movie, which I was looking forward to as being one of the best of the summer. What a disappointment. The action is boring and overly-long. The plot is only there when it needs to be. The acting is sub-par at points. The writers took the plot from The Matrix, added in some Avengers action scenes and called it a day. This movie is mediocre at best.… Expand
11 of 37 users found this helpful1126
All this user's reviews
6
rmz76Jun 14, 2013
If you like action films and could care less about character development, pacing or good acting you'll love Man of Steel. If however you cringe when seeing trite motifs then you will likely come to hate Man of Steel before baby Kal-El evenIf you like action films and could care less about character development, pacing or good acting you'll love Man of Steel. If however you cringe when seeing trite motifs then you will likely come to hate Man of Steel before baby Kal-El even launches off Krypton… Knowing the power and past works of the creative minds at the top of this project I just expected a lot more than was delivered. The positive take away is that it's not a bore, the action does not stop. Just don't expect to really care much at the end.… Expand
7 of 25 users found this helpful718
All this user's reviews
6
MarkEMarkJun 15, 2013
Just going to say it was an okay movie. I had a high expectation with man of steel but this movie is good to see it once, and i say that because story line was confusing, boring and the actors were bad. especially The actress who play luisJust going to say it was an okay movie. I had a high expectation with man of steel but this movie is good to see it once, and i say that because story line was confusing, boring and the actors were bad. especially The actress who play luis clark amy Adams) i almost slept the whole movie. But the positive part about the movie is the action. The fighting part got me awake and got me interested. it was good. other than that my last sentence to say is that man of steel movie was okay.. I would only see the movie once, to only see superman but to be honest NO DC comic Super hero Movie can top the batman movie the Dark knight. Thats why i gave it a 6… Expand
4 of 16 users found this helpful412
All this user's reviews
6
JacobJun 15, 2013
While Man of Steel promises to have a good story and characters instead we get a lot of action and not enough story. Had the film given us a more character driven film and focused less on the action we could have really had something greatWhile Man of Steel promises to have a good story and characters instead we get a lot of action and not enough story. Had the film given us a more character driven film and focused less on the action we could have really had something great here. As it is Man of Steel is good. It has some fun action, some epic moments, and a couple nice character moments. While it may not have wowed me as much as I thought it was it did keep me more engaged than Superman Returns. If you are a fan of action movies and just want to see Superman beat the sh*t out of guys for the majority of the movie, or at least it feels like it, I think you will enjoy Superman. If you are looking for a more character driven superhero movie then go watch X-Men,Spider-Man 2,The Dark Knight Trilogy, and Superman I & II and even to a certain extent Superman Returns, which while lacking in action does have a story. As it is though Man of Steel is entertaining with enough action, epicness, and character development to make it worth a watch for any superhero fan.… Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
5
aaronobrienJun 22, 2013
Man of Steel is a generic summer blockbuster with Superman attached to it. It was entertaining, but I didn't take much out of it. The characters & relationships are 2 dimensional, the story is uninteresting and the villain is just plainMan of Steel is a generic summer blockbuster with Superman attached to it. It was entertaining, but I didn't take much out of it. The characters & relationships are 2 dimensional, the story is uninteresting and the villain is just plain boring. The cast don't even bring anything interesting to the table, which is a surprise since the cast includes Michael Shannon and Amy Adams. The effects are amazing looking & the action was fun, but even the action felt repetitive and tedious after a while. Man of Steel fails to distinguish itself from other blockbuster films and just ends up being a shallow & generic, but entertaining film.… Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
6
grandpajoe6191Aug 27, 2015
"Man of Steel" is a refreshing new reboot of the old superman days with flashing action and eye-catching visuals. The plot does wander off to uncharted territory at times, but overall a good movie to watch during one's spare time.
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
tubguyinloveJul 30, 2013
Man of Steel attempts to tackle profound and interesting concepts in a world with a realistic, overly emotional Superman, yet in the process scorches some of the character's foundation. There are some truly touching scenes, but it all feelsMan of Steel attempts to tackle profound and interesting concepts in a world with a realistic, overly emotional Superman, yet in the process scorches some of the character's foundation. There are some truly touching scenes, but it all feels like trailer content making these feel like a sizzle reel for a possible Superman movie. These are the golden source to an otherwise disjointed construction of cinematic stupidity, but there is enough pretty visuals and those touching scenes do help carry the final product.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
FranzHcriticNov 12, 2013
Devoid of any real relation with the previous Reeve classics,but Amy Adams and Henry Cavill are an interesting couple for future films, and Michael Shannon's decent dramatic role helps with the scripts plot holes, which are more numerous thanDevoid of any real relation with the previous Reeve classics,but Amy Adams and Henry Cavill are an interesting couple for future films, and Michael Shannon's decent dramatic role helps with the scripts plot holes, which are more numerous than should be, and tedious pacing. I liked it, didn't love it.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
PulpNonFictionSep 16, 2013
remember a time when having your main character make jokes wasn't something just reserved for iron man? sigh... me too

is man of steel a good movie? yes. is it THE superman movie? no. in my opinion, the best superman movie will probably beremember a time when having your main character make jokes wasn't something just reserved for iron man? sigh... me too

is man of steel a good movie? yes. is it THE superman movie? no. in my opinion, the best superman movie will probably be reserved for one of those DC films that they release every year. you know, the ones that they only have on netflix and are drawn by the guys who made the justice league show? the one where the black green lantern was in a relationship with hawkgirl?

getting back on track, Man of Steel is the big movie for DC this summer, and boy does it fall flat on those accusations. from the very beginning of the movie, i was instantly hooked in. the shots that they showed of planet krypton were beautiful. i loved the creativity with such an alien world and how the technology and society had a very organic metallic feel. everything was fun to watch and even more fun to see other characters interact with them. after what you all expect to happen, spoiler krypton won't be found on any maps anytime soon, the movie takes a very intelligent step by making the next 20 minutes or so all about clark being the hero that he is supposed to be. it's about him realizing that his powers are meant for good and that he has the possibility to do great. he isn't in a costume, he isn't flying across the sky, he is just a man.... of steel (i couldn't help myself)

after that however, the movie takes a turn for the worse. once supes gets into his new suit, you'll realize that the filmmakers had a fondness for the color gray. every shot, every scene, every character has a grey color pallet. i'm sorry, but this is superman. this is a figure known globally as a figure of freedom, justice, and the american way. seeing him in this dark and gritty world is extremely out of place. is it nice to see that man of steel (hey, the don't call him superman in the movie...) doesn't have to be as dull as a gallon of cement? yes, but it makes later scenes of man of steel doing uncharacteristically dark actions even more out of place and awkward.

in the end of the day, if you are a fan of superman (of steel), there could be worse superman films to watch (looking at you, superman returns...), but if you were really waiting for something great and original, better wait for the sequel.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
4
WhiteTalpaJun 16, 2013
Boring
12 of 50 users found this helpful1238
All this user's reviews
5
notaworryJun 17, 2013
Quick Review:

Compared to Dark Knight series, not as good. Plain and simple. Lois Lane is annoying, and if she was not in the movie, the plot would have been exactly the same. One point of the movie Lois Lane's boss is trying to save anQuick Review:

Compared to Dark Knight series, not as good. Plain and simple.
Lois Lane is annoying, and if she was not in the movie, the plot would have been exactly the same.
One point of the movie Lois Lane's boss is trying to save an intern that the audience has no idea who she is, nor does the audience care for them, and it is just a stupid scene.

There are plenty of awesome action scenes in this movie, but if you want to see this movie because of the story, you are going to leave the theater empty handed.… Expand
4 of 17 users found this helpful413
All this user's reviews
6
FozzyJul 3, 2013
Man of Steel is a fairly good film. There's no saying that it's a great film, because it undeniably isn't. Some of the acting is somewhat wooden and flat, and it jumps from scene to scene, plot point to plot point, rather absent-mindedly andMan of Steel is a fairly good film. There's no saying that it's a great film, because it undeniably isn't. Some of the acting is somewhat wooden and flat, and it jumps from scene to scene, plot point to plot point, rather absent-mindedly and not in a memorable fashion. This results in the film falling down slightly from what it could have been. The fact that this film had Christopher Nolan (of The Dark Knight fame) involved meant that some people were expecting more, another Dark Knight, but that doesn't happen in this film because of the cast, both main and supporting, and the way it casually jumps between plot points without anything really holding them together, making it a rather difficult film to follow. However, on the whole this is a good film and, though it doesn't live up to expectations, it isn't exactly unwatchable and, as well as being a solid entry in the franchise, may very well be one of the best films of the lot.… Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
6
reddave2Jun 29, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Man of Steel is by no means a bad film but it clearly is too loaded, especially for a film which is bound to have the benefit of one or more sequels. Imagine the batman trilogy but with all the plot points established in a week. Clark Kent (well played in all fairness by Henry Cavill) goes from saving kids on a bus as a teen, to saving workers on an oil rig to... destroying towns and cities while battling a small army of similar strengthed supermen. Entertaining, yes, but its all too much. The film suffers from some silliness in trying to get its emotional beats particularly during the final scene where Zod is about to kill four innocent people despite both he and Superman levelling much of metropolis without a care in the world during a (has to be said) visual stunning fist fight.

All that said, Man of Steel is an enjoyable re-spin of Superman and sets up the main characters well. Maybe I would have warmed more to it if the threat of Zod (Michael Shannon is quite good in the few scenes we get with him) was merely introduced, and left for the sequel. But its overlong and I cant help but feel that maybe DC or Warners wanted something to rival Avengers a bit too much. I look forward to a sequel but part of me wonders how they can up the stakes on what happens in this first movie.… Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
6
moonman1994Jul 15, 2013
This movie is certainly entertaining but it's actions sequences are so long that it begins to become boring. Honestly my criticism of this film can be summed up to the fact that it takes itself far to seriously.
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
6
JcdbengalsJun 29, 2013
Hmm. My opinion may not be the popular one, but here goes. I can't say in words how excited I was for this movie. Previews were epic, cast is amazing....this movie just didn't seem to have a soul. My girlfriend hated it, but I thought it wasHmm. My opinion may not be the popular one, but here goes. I can't say in words how excited I was for this movie. Previews were epic, cast is amazing....this movie just didn't seem to have a soul. My girlfriend hated it, but I thought it was good, just not great. I just didn't care much for many of the characters I was seeing, such as the reporters who somehow seemed to be the only people who survived the entire city being destroyed...too much action and not enough character for me. Also, this movie seemed very corny in spots. It was more Avengers popcorn fun than Batman serious fun, if that makes sense. I WANT to love this movie but I just don't. I do however think the sequel set up was great and looking forward to seeing the other half of the superman alter ego that was missing from this one and provide maybe SOME comic relief.… Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
6
jjvanderlindeJul 14, 2013
I really looked forward to the movie especially when I saw Christopher Nolan was involved. The big problem for me is the big time lapses that occur in the film. It almost felt that they had this great story to tell us but the film would haveI really looked forward to the movie especially when I saw Christopher Nolan was involved. The big problem for me is the big time lapses that occur in the film. It almost felt that they had this great story to tell us but the film would have been too long so they deleted a few scenes which left a few holes for me. I really enjoyed the filming techniques the used especially in the flight scenes. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Just expected a bit more. Enjoyed the childhood scenes and felt Kevin Costner did an outstanding job in the portrayal of Clarke's dad.… Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
4
TheQuietGamerJun 14, 2013
Another super-hero reboot movie, however this one falls short. It's way too serious for its own good, trying to mimic the tone of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies to no success. It focuses too much on being melodramatic and that brings theAnother super-hero reboot movie, however this one falls short. It's way too serious for its own good, trying to mimic the tone of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies to no success. It focuses too much on being melodramatic and that brings the whole movie down. The action is interesting at times, mostly when Super Man is fighting his foes in mid-air, but ends relying on huge explosions and disasters rather than satisfying fights. It ends up being too noisy both visually and aurally. But by far the worst thing about this movie is how it doesn't feel like a super-hero movie, but rather some generic alien invasion flick. I never cared about what was going on, the characters failed to grab me in any way, and outside of the occasional cool action scene this movie ended up being a waste of time. It's all so disappointing because this was supposed to bring Super Man back with a new tone. If this is how the rest of the Super Man movies are going to turn out they need to just stop now. It even makes me worry that, if one ever gets made, the future Justice League movie will fail.… Expand
7 of 33 users found this helpful726
All this user's reviews
5
BHBarryJun 21, 2013
“Man of Steel” is, as everyone knows, the new Warner Bros. entry using this previously tried and true franchise about the native from the planet Krypton who finds a new home on Earth. Unfortunately, wearing a cape and an S on the front of his“Man of Steel” is, as everyone knows, the new Warner Bros. entry using this previously tried and true franchise about the native from the planet Krypton who finds a new home on Earth. Unfortunately, wearing a cape and an S on the front of his shirt is where the similarity ends. Starring Henry Cavill in the title role (an intentional Chrstopher Reeve look-alike), the film also boasts of a cast consisting of Kevin Kostner, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishbourne and Michael Shannon. Directed by Zack Snyder and co-written by Christopher Nolan and David Geyer, the failure for the film to work must rest with one or all of the aforementioned gentlemen.. Certainly the writing is the main culprit with a plot that is too complicated and a story that lacks total credibility. As a result, the viewing experience is deeply marred by this overly long movie.. The film’s action scenes are excessive and don’t allow for the story, what there is of it, to be told. Being a fan of the old Superman comics and films, I found this movie to do a tremendous disservice to the property and the image of this almost legendary and timeless superhero. I give the film a 5 because it just doesn”t live up to the potential and hype which preceded its opening day. … Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
5
DarkCriticJun 22, 2013
Man of Steel is a new reboot for the next Superman series which was done by director, Zack Snyder and the production was hold by Christopher Nolan after he accomplished his Dark Knight trilogy. Before I discuss about the new reboot, thisMan of Steel is a new reboot for the next Superman series which was done by director, Zack Snyder and the production was hold by Christopher Nolan after he accomplished his Dark Knight trilogy. Before I discuss about the new reboot, this movie is very different like most other classic Superman films. Superman and Superman II are very memorable and most other three Superman movies are quite disappointing and pretty weak. I would say that the movie is very underwhelming. The new story is about Jor-El (Russell Crowe) from Krypton is sending his son Kal-El (known as Clark Kent/Superman) to the planet Earth, which he'll turn into a super strength superhero with energy source, until General Zod (Michael Shannon) will capture the son and the planet Krypton is been destroyed. After that, the son grows up as a new Superman (Henry Cavill) to fight over General Zod and his men to destruct the entire world. As a follow up like most other Superman movies, this movie is pretty weak. The situation is that the story is too complex with too many cut scenes, the acting wasn't that great, and the plot is too rushed. The characters are also forgettable and I would say that the Superman movies or the animated series from the 90's are well done with memorable characters, take time with their motivation, and acting is good. But the new characters in this reboot are too cliché with throwing too much stereotypes into a wooden dialogues. Henry Cavill portrays the new Superman is okay, but not that memorable and this protagonist is an obvious hero who is here to find some answers and act like he is brave or what? There is an obvious Lois Lane (Amy Adams), there is an obvious military soldiers, there is an obvious henchmen, and there is an obvious people from the city or in the small town of Smallville. That is except for two characters like Jor-El play by Russell Crowe and General Zod play by Michael Shannon. Russell Crowe did very well as the father of Superman with good character development and some good back story about him. Michael Shannon is having fun for playing the over the top villain and acting like Terrence Stamp's performance. But like I say the story and the characters are kind of bland and too forgettable. The movie is not that horrible or bad, it's just that the movie is too underwhelm with confusing back stories, the shaky cams are too fast, and the characters are pretty weak. At the same time, this movie is a minuscule of average superhero flicks. Thumbs Down.… Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
6
DodgerJun 21, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It is by far the best superman movie, but to be fair that not saying much. There are moments in this movie that are very good, like the battle in Smallville. But the story line in places could of been much better like destroying the world to re-colonise it...why? If they left it as it was they would of been unstoppable as they would all be as powerful as superman... Also Zod is a trained soldier who has been bred and trained his entire life to fight and yet was beaten by somebody who has actively avoided fighting his entire life...

But anyway not a bad movie, worth a watch, but not the best superhero movie.… Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
6
Tbrown15Jun 17, 2013
Man of Steel

Director: Zack Snyder Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner Runtime/Rated: 2hr. 28min/PG-13 ‘Man of Steel’ was my very first Superman movie I have ever seen. So,Man of Steel

Director: Zack Snyder

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner

Runtime/Rated: 2hr. 28min/PG-13

‘Man of Steel’ was my very first Superman movie I have ever seen. So, how did it far with me? Did I enjoy it? Can it be better then ‘The Dark Knight’ films? Well, let’s get started!

The story starts at Superman’s home planet called Krypton, where we’re introduced to Jor-El, (played by a good Russell Crowe). Jor-El is at the council talking to the elder people and mentions that their world is in danger of being destroyed, I don’t know why this is happening, I don’t know if its because they didn’t explain it, or maybe I just didn’t hear it. I don’t know. Then General Zod comes zooming in, (played be Michael Shannon who is one of the main reasons why I some what liked this movie). Zod comes in and starts causing havoc, and saying this planet is DOOMED!! Again, I don’t know why its DOOMED?!? After this encounter with Zod, Jor-El breaks away from him and goes to his son and sends him off to Earth as Krypton is being destroyed. Then for about a good hour of the film we have half ass character development for Clark Kent. It’s told through to many tedious flashbacks and monologue talks from his father and mother (played by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner). Finally, after sitting their an hour of painful and dull acting and character development, General Zod comes back to save the day! From here, the story kicks back up again and Zod wants to transform Earth into the next Krypton.

One of the main reasons why I didn’t love this movie is the poor character development. Using Flashbacks as a tool to show development for Clark Kent didn’t work for me. When you first see Kent, he’s already a man, so the film jumped their story about 25 years later after the events on Krypton. Then the movie takes you back years later for when he’s a kid. That’s the development for Superman FLASHBACKS most of the flashbacks were all the same anyways, Clark saves the day by using his power, then has a long speech with either his father or mother. This happened four times in the movie. Another big problem I had with this film, which is a huge one, is the emotions I did not feel between the characters. The whole relationship between Kent and Lois Lane felt extremely fake, it felt like there was no connection through those two characters. Most of their interactions felt dull and stale this might have felt like this because of the very bland Henry Cavill but even with all of the other relationships between the characters, i still didn’t feel any real emotions. I would say that the only relationship that I connected with was Kevin Costner’s and Henry Cavill’s, which felt very real. The ending also was dull. When Superman takes the first punch of the movie, and I mean first REAL punch, that’s when you feel the most adrenaline pumping through your body, but that fads pretty fast, and by the end of the film you’re more excited for it to end then it to keep playing.

‘Man of Steel’ defiantly has plenty of flaws, but with saying that, I still enjoyed the movie. I loved the visuals and effects, which could very be the best effects I will see this whole year. Most of the action was nice to look at, especially when Superman is whooping everybody’s ass. Like I mentioned before, Michael Shannon had a brilliant performance and stole the show every time he was on screen. The true summary of ‘Man of Steel’ is, “it looks to par, but lacks the emotional depth that it NEEDS to make it stand out then all the other generic action summer blockbusters”. Also, I would like to mention that Zack Snyder has a great visual approach to his movies, but when it comes to story, he’s one of the worst.

To answer the question if i enjoyed my first Superman movie or not, i would say that yeah, i enjoyed a good chunk of the movie, but for the most part was extremely disappointing.

See this movie as a matinee showing.… Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
5
zombox5000Jun 17, 2013
Lengthy, slow and toiling at the beginning the movie retells the Superman origin unnecessarily. Once the lead actually becomes Superman the movie picks up some steam, but by then I had already given up hope for being engaged. Further, this isLengthy, slow and toiling at the beginning the movie retells the Superman origin unnecessarily. Once the lead actually becomes Superman the movie picks up some steam, but by then I had already given up hope for being engaged. Further, this is a bleak, dark film which does not suit Superman thematically. The character is best used when he creates hope, justice and honesty. A reflection of the best ideals on humanity. While they took a stab at this it comes off as whiny and vacillating as opposed to firm and inspiring.… Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
6
EmuChickenSep 14, 2013
Superman for the new age, how does it rate? Honestly, quite good- but I feel that this movie shot itself in the foot.
The story is pretty much a reboot of Superman, how Krypton blew up, a baby was put on a rocket and fired away. NothingSuperman for the new age, how does it rate? Honestly, quite good- but I feel that this movie shot itself in the foot.
The story is pretty much a reboot of Superman, how Krypton blew up, a baby was put on a rocket and fired away. Nothing new really, but I liked how it replayed "Supermans" life through arty flashbacks. Nice.
Great cast, no complaints, all good. Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner (both who played Robin Hood!) also added to well played roles.
My main complaints are them stretched out blurry action sequences that have no real reason for being there. It reminded me of the sequels to the 00's Spiderman movies where nothing much really happens. I watch movies to see good acting, not sub-par blurred CG with lots of explosions and smashing windows... These sections droll on so it gets monotonous rather than stays "fun".

All in all, its a "good" movie, but it could have been made GREAT!
A lot of movies seem to fall into the same trap, more quality control is definitely needed to cut down on these 2 hours 30 minute bore fests. Cut off 30 minutes, make a "directors cut" and leave it, PLEASE!… Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
5
GreatMartinJun 15, 2013
“Man of Steel” could have/should have been called “Superman: Everything You Know About Him, Everything You Don’t Know About Him Along With Many Things You Didn’t Want To Or Need To Know About Him!” Should you be familiar with the comic book“Man of Steel” could have/should have been called “Superman: Everything You Know About Him, Everything You Don’t Know About Him Along With Many Things You Didn’t Want To Or Need To Know About Him!” Should you be familiar with the comic book Superman or his many TV shows and movies the only reason for seeing this movie is to feast your eyes on a new, hunky, extremely well built, dazzling actor, named Henry Cavill, who flies into stardom with this role which will lead to interesting comparisons of Cavill versus Christopher Reeve. Along those lines I can picture a panel at a future Superman convention not only discussing the Supermans but Margot Kidder versus Amy Adams as Lois Lane, and Marlon Brando versus Russell Crowe as Jor-El, Phyllis Thaxter, Eva Marie Saint versus Diane Lane as Martha Kent and who would win as the better adopted father Glenn Ford or Kevin Costner, the latter in the latest version. Perry White has gone from Jackie Cooper to Frank Langella and now Laurence Fishburne not to forget the question of how does the latest film score by Hans Zimmer stand up against John Williams scores?

The Superman movies have never been known for memorable villains, say like Batman, and Michael Shannon, also from the planet Krypton, does a good job but he is over- shadowed by the mayhem that ensues his battle against Superman. The last hour is glass shattering, cars being tossed around and crushed, buildings being destroyed, shootings, killings and all that makes a movie soar during the summer and it isn’t even summer yet!

After seeing “Iron Man 3”, “Oblivion”, “Fast and Furious 6”, “Star Trek Into Darkness” and now “Man of Steel” there isn’t much in the way of CGI effects that the remaining ‘blockbusters’ can offer so, unless you are a glutton for punishment you can avoid “After Earth”, “World War Z”, “Elysium” and “White House Down” just to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with “Man Of Steel”, except its 2 hour and 23 minutes running time, but there is nothing new in the screenplay by David S. Goyer while the direction is pedestrian. The film goes back and forth between Superman’s childhood on the planet Kyrpton, his being a child in Kansas and the present day. All the actors do good jobs and the film will definitely make Henry Cavill a star. Did I mention how well Superman’s outfit fits him? Or how hunky he looks bare chested?

Oh yes, a reason for seeing this movie may be that you don’t know what you think is an S on his costume and if Lois Lane knows who Superman is. You may or may not know the answer to the first and you may not be sure of the answer to the second but do you really want to know?… Expand
3 of 16 users found this helpful313
All this user's reviews
4
FamousdogJun 29, 2013
Hmm. A mixed bag, this one. The Lord of the Rings style Krypton in the Prologue came as a bit of surprise but not an unwelcome one. The film really came alive, however, once baby Kal-El made it to earth. The growing pains and adoption issuesHmm. A mixed bag, this one. The Lord of the Rings style Krypton in the Prologue came as a bit of surprise but not an unwelcome one. The film really came alive, however, once baby Kal-El made it to earth. The growing pains and adoption issues of the first act were beautifully handled and the relationship between Clark and his (human) father and mother was really very touching. But then... well. What happenedin the next two acts? I'll tell you what happened. What happened was that chauvanist arse of an executive producer, Jon Peters (ex-hairdresser to Barbara Streisand) finally got his way after trying to screw up the Superman franchise with his lame-ass, ill-conceived ideas and lack of any real love for the Superman mythology. Peters has wanted for years to re-jig Superman's suit ("too apparently) and have Kryptonians bashing the hell out of each other (and Kansas... and Metropolis...) for a whole hour or more of my (and your) paid-for cinema-going time. The second and third acts of this film are like Independence Day kicking seven bells out of Battleship while Transformers stamps on the Matrix Revolutions' head. This might be a 14 year old boy's idea of a good movie. But it ain't mine. Come back Bryan Singer, all is forgiven.… Expand
2 of 11 users found this helpful29
All this user's reviews
5
fahryabrusJun 18, 2013
The first 10 minutes I already had a feeling this movie is going to be bad. Zack put a lot of actions but still doesn't help. The fighting scenes many have said its mind blowing. Like anything never seen before. Those people definitely forgotThe first 10 minutes I already had a feeling this movie is going to be bad. Zack put a lot of actions but still doesn't help. The fighting scenes many have said its mind blowing. Like anything never seen before. Those people definitely forgot that Matrix Revolution did the same thing a decade ago.… Expand
2 of 11 users found this helpful29
All this user's reviews
4
FortysevenJun 22, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Henry Cavill is the one major thing that makes this movie worth seeing. He’s vulnerable, but when the scene warrants it, he somehow brings exactly the amount of intimidating gravitas needed. For that reason, the interrogation scene with Lois at the mid-way point of the flick is easily my favorite it’s the moment that ultimately sold me on Cavill in the role. In that scene Kal-El is respectful, but he also carries himself in such a way that it makes you believe it when it’s noted that the military could never even hope to control him. To me, he is utterly believable, and a worthy successor to Christopher Reeve.

Despite being a glorified Jedi Knight, Russell Crowe made a decent father figure for Kal-El. The amount of screen time he had after being murdered was actually rather startling. No doubt because “Russell Crowe”.

I’m not entirely familiar with Michael Shannon, but as a bad guy he did his job proper as the Shouty Evil Madman. He’s no Terence Stamp, but this a different Khan. I mean Zod.

The rest of the cast was pretty much transparent. Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, and Diane Lane seem to exist only to fill the required spaces in the script. None of them brings anything especially memorable to the table. I don’t blame them, as actors, because that’s reflective of the movie in general aside from plot issues, this version of Superman’s world is as dry as a saltine. In contrast, Margot Kidder and Jackie Cooper had immense personality. These same characters in the Man of Steel universe are largely forgettable.

Much like Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel starts out pretty good, and then around the half-way point, things just begin falling apart. Once Zod re-enters the story, the whole thing descends into an almost endless sequence of fighting, explosions, and raw carnage.

Honestly, I’m half surprised Michael Bay didn’t get an Executive Producer credit.

During the numerous battles, Superman takes absolutely no care to keep people from getting killed…until it’s time for his close up at the end, of course. We see him purposely thrust his foes violently through seemingly occupied office buildings and causing gas pumps to explode. This version of Superman, at this point in his life, simply does not give an actual ****

If this was woven into a larger narrative about the consequences of unchecked power a hard, guilt-fueled lesson for Kal-El to learn this might almost be forgivable. But it’s never addressed, and nobody even blinks.

On one hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the exploration of the vulnerable Kal-El an outsider dealing with heavy childhood issues, raised in a harsh world not his own. But on the other hand, it really needed some moments of levity to balance things out. The movie is so friggin’ deadpan. I’m not asking for comedy, just a little something to take off the edge.

Because of this, it’s not fun. Batman is the one who’s story is supposed to be grim and serious. The flick only really loosens it’s sphincter at the very end, with the female soldier noting how hot Superman was. I let loose a small smirk finally but it was too little, too late.

On a more practical level, visually, the special effects are nearly flawless (but in 2013 that’s to be expected nowadays, movies can no longer coast on amazing visuals alone). But those visuals are bogged down by that dark, depressing, gritty, undersaturated, high-contrast, usually blue-tinted tone present in so many movies of this era. The “shakycam” look got tiresome pretty quick, as well.

The style might have worked if it was just limited to the childhood flashbacks, but it’s used everywhere. At the very least, the style matches the tone of the movie. But that’s definitely not a complement.

There was a lot of potential for something seriously great here, and we may, some day, see such a movie. A sequel with a better story, starring Cavill, could easily hit it out of the park if done right… but as it is, this was an ominous start to DC’s multi-film “Get Us Some of That Sweet Marvel Movie Cash” arc.

Worse, this movie seriously damages my optimism for the inevitable Justice League movie, and as a guy who tends to enjoy DC comics characters more than Marvel, that hurts quite a bit.… Expand
2 of 12 users found this helpful210
All this user's reviews
6
smaug87Jul 22, 2013
A movie filled with repetitive action which got boring very quickly. The first hour was good as we saw a gradual build in Clark's character as well as flashbacks but once the action starts it does not cease and kept me looking at my watch andA movie filled with repetitive action which got boring very quickly. The first hour was good as we saw a gradual build in Clark's character as well as flashbacks but once the action starts it does not cease and kept me looking at my watch and relieved once the film was over. Russell Crowe and Kevin Kosnier are great as well as Diane Lane but no one else really stood out to me.

Hopefully the sequel can bring someone a bit new and refreshing.… Expand
2 of 12 users found this helpful210
All this user's reviews
4
BertrandHebertJun 16, 2013
My youngest son fell asleep before the end. After Avengers he told me it was the bes t movie ever My oldest one told me that if they were not blowing up a building every few seconds at the end he would have probably fell asleep too. WhyMy youngest son fell asleep before the end. After Avengers he told me it was the bes t movie ever My oldest one told me that if they were not blowing up a building every few seconds at the end he would have probably fell asleep too. Why not let the material speak for itself used bad guys that were never on the big screen before and DC might get a shot at this. Those movies are sci-fi stories they are human stories. Warner should be hand off and create a DC movie division and let them do what they do with their cartoon movie. Is it that hard Marvel has given them the formula and they can't get it right … Expand
2 of 13 users found this helpful211
All this user's reviews
4
D-macdaddyJun 24, 2013
Action sequences drag on and are extremely repetitive. I watched identical looking buildings collapse and superman vs zod and company fight in seemingly identical action sequences too many times throughout the entirety of the movie. Plot wasAction sequences drag on and are extremely repetitive. I watched identical looking buildings collapse and superman vs zod and company fight in seemingly identical action sequences too many times throughout the entirety of the movie. Plot was very cliché and acting was mediocre. If you are looking for high end cgi action sequences, that is about all you will get from watching this movie… Expand
2 of 13 users found this helpful211
All this user's reviews
6
revealer99Jun 14, 2013
The Good: Occasional realism, and I repeat... OCCASIONAL. Cool special effects. The Bad: Bad Actors, plot scenes that should be rushed are dragged, and plot scenes that should be taken slower are rushed. Overall, I it's clear by watching theThe Good: Occasional realism, and I repeat... OCCASIONAL. Cool special effects. The Bad: Bad Actors, plot scenes that should be rushed are dragged, and plot scenes that should be taken slower are rushed. Overall, I it's clear by watching the movie what Nolan was "trying" to do, and for that I applaud him... But somewhere it all got lost. I really wanted this movie to be the best, unfortunately it is an OK movie. I think the main flaw of the movie is the bad acting, and the plot rushes...… Expand
3 of 20 users found this helpful317
All this user's reviews
5
spiljJun 14, 2013
This film explored the emotional issues of Kal-El very nicely. This is a signature mark of crafting by the awesome producer, Nolan. Somehow, the interaction between the alien world and humanity is a little less entertaining. This story canThis film explored the emotional issues of Kal-El very nicely. This is a signature mark of crafting by the awesome producer, Nolan. Somehow, the interaction between the alien world and humanity is a little less entertaining. This story can be hard to adapt to more realistic terms like Batman so, do not expect that. I'm not a big fan of Snyder. His vision doesn't bringing to life the challenges that Superman faces.… Expand
4 of 28 users found this helpful424
All this user's reviews
5
walterwJun 22, 2013
I liked Superman, Lois Lane, Perry White, Mama Kent, and a few of the supporting characters. Overall, the cast was not one of my issues with this movie. The exception being Zod, who was really one-note and shouty, despite having a prettyI liked Superman, Lois Lane, Perry White, Mama Kent, and a few of the supporting characters. Overall, the cast was not one of my issues with this movie. The exception being Zod, who was really one-note and shouty, despite having a pretty understandable motivation for doing what he was doing. He could have been an interesting character, but they didn't go that route, which is pretty disappointing. But he wasn't the sole disappointment. Another thing that didn't work for me was the prologue on Krypton. It was too long and way more science fiction-y than I was expecting, criticisms that I suppose could be extended to the entire movie. I'm fine with science fiction, but I really think they should have downplayed some of the alien-ness of Krypton. I don't think we needed Russel Crowe riding around on a dragon. It's already ludicrous enough that they're on a different planet yet are identical to us in appearance. You don't need to highlight that by showing the vastly different morphology of Krypton's wildlife. Makes suspension of disbelief a good deal harder. And to be honest, I'm not sure what level of reality they're shooting for in this movie. By making Lois aware of Superman's identity, they've basically conceded that it would be ludicrous for her to be fooled by a pair of glasses. But what about the rest of the world? We see in the last scene that he's working at the Daily Planet (It's real easy to become a reporter at a major metropolitan publication, right?). Not the sort of below-the-radar drifting that he had been doing previously. Seems like just about anyone who has seen Clark and Superman would put two and two together. And I know this is an inherited piece of ridiculousness. It's from the comic books, it's from the previous movies, and they couldn't tear everything to the ground. But the reason it wasn't an issue in previous media (I can only speak for the films as I've not read the comic books), is that they always had an air of campiness to them. Suspending your disbelief wasn't hard because it was clear that the world of Superman didn't really operate on anything resembling real world logic. That's not the case in the dour, self-serious world of Man of Steel. I feel like Superman's identity would be known in about 5 seconds flat. Okay, I'm out of good transitions, so another thing that bothered me was Pa Kent's death. I get that he didn't want his son to reveal himself by saving him, but why didn't he just let Clark get the dog in the first place? He could've done that without raising suspicions. It was just kind of a clumsy way of setting up his death. Also, though I liked Superman and Lois on their own, I thought they had very little chemistry together and their kiss was completely unearned. I'm sure there were other things that bothered me, but I'm not thinking of them right now.… Expand
1 of 7 users found this helpful16
All this user's reviews
6
a7xfanJul 7, 2013
I felt that they built this movie up too much to really enjoy thoroughly. It felt like they were trying to use the Dark Knight Trilogy's style but it didn't work for this movie. The story flashbacks were too short and happens every so often.I felt that they built this movie up too much to really enjoy thoroughly. It felt like they were trying to use the Dark Knight Trilogy's style but it didn't work for this movie. The story flashbacks were too short and happens every so often. The new superman: Henry Cavill, makes it better than Brandon Routh did that is for sure. It is too long of a film to really pay attention too, for it's quality. I will still see the sequel if they make one which they probably will.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
Gamed2longJun 16, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have never been a big fan of Superman. I even would go so far as to say he is my least favorite superhero. Is it being heroic to risk nothing to save an ant? Not quite. And to superman we would all be ants. So any movie about him has traditionally played up his two weaknesses most of the time. This movie does a good job of not making Lois Lane a weakness at all. As to the krypton stuff. There were no glowing green rocks in this one although that got substituted for a "foreign atmosphere" thing which, in a way, is more believable.
The villain general Zod is both logical and convincing. His "evil" plot is not overly complex and is rational at all times. So even if the actor brought nothing extra to the role it would be "good enough" in the villain department. Certainly a lot better than some previous films that don't deserve mention.
The bulk of the film is a smash fest with Superman and general Zod's army of 5 or 6 loyal henchmen duking it out. Quite often while they are being shot at by people from the army who don't realize after the first clip how ineffective bullets are. People who came to watch destruction are sure to get their fill.
I also have to give top marks to the scenes at the beginning with Krypton. They do a good job making the world alien but still familiar. The technology and politics are top notch sci fi and not some cheesy throw away as they have been previously.
With regards to supporting cast Kevin Costner does a good job playing Superman's "dad." He almost gives more to the roll than Russel Crowe puts into his surprisingly large roll as Jor-El. Both of them are a credit to the film. Laurence Fishburne is also a surprising face playing Lois's boss (name?) though he is little more than a bit player in the film he adds warmth to it. Him and Costner are the only two to do so.
That would be my main criticism of the film. It's cut together OK. Shot a bit stylistically, but visually quite good CG'd up the wazoo. Top marks to the 600+ artists who worked full time on that. But in the end all the flashbacks add sadness and darkness for the most part and are not the inspirational warmth they are intended to be.
It may be the impossible, a "good" superman movie. But it isn't great and I have a hard time imagining it spawning any sequels. Although I wouldn't mind seeing a prequel starring Russel Crowe.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
5
dannygroganJun 19, 2013
Man Of Steel shows some promising aspects but is flawed. the relationship between Kal-El Henry Cavil) and Lois Lane Amy Adams) seemed unnatural and forced the battle scenes were repetitive and the climax was exceedingly disappointing andMan Of Steel shows some promising aspects but is flawed. the relationship between Kal-El Henry Cavil) and Lois Lane Amy Adams) seemed unnatural and forced the battle scenes were repetitive and the climax was exceedingly disappointing and didn't stir any emotion within me apart from boredom Kevin Costner's touching performance as Jonathan Kent was the highlight of the film.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
HJRodrigoJun 16, 2013
I feel this movie was lacking in heart and wholesomeness, something that I would have expected to find in a Superman origin story. This adaptation completely failed to immerse me into, or even introduce me to, the world of Superman... and byI feel this movie was lacking in heart and wholesomeness, something that I would have expected to find in a Superman origin story. This adaptation completely failed to immerse me into, or even introduce me to, the world of Superman... and by "world" I mean Metropolis and Smallville. The destruction of Metropolis and death of Pa Kent failed to illicit any emotion out of me, as the movie did not develop these key elements of Superman's life. The audience is just expected to care about these occurrences by default. However, these are not my primary issues with the movie. For a first installment of a franchise, this movie went overboard on its plot and action. DC should have had this movie's plot take place on a smaller scale, therefore giving a sequel sufficient room to up the ante. Marvel did this very well with their superhero franchises. Marvel started their hero's initial movie on a fairly small scale and increased the threat level in subsequent films till it reached the high level of world destruction we saw in the "Avengers". Unfortunately "Man of Steel" has already desensitized the audience to the world being at risk of destruction; therefore, the only way a Justice League movie can up the ante is now with the destruction of the galaxy or universe. I don't even know how a sequel to the "Man of Steel" can up the ante properly. Zod is arguably the only villain to be Superman's true equal as they are both Kryptonians. The ridiculous level of collateral damage done in this movie, due their battle, was way over the top and made the fight between the Hulk and Abomination from "The Incredible Hulk" look like child's play. In order for a sequel to top this movie, Superman will have to face somebody on the scale of Doomsday, Darkseid or Brainiac. In future installments, A villain like Lex Luthor would seem too tame in comparison to Zod. How could a villain like Lex Luthor compare with the total annihilation of humanity? In my opinion, Lex Luthor should have been the first villain introduced and the story should have started out on the smaller scale of stopping the villain from taking over the city or country.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
5
MercentJun 16, 2013
Strength: Visual Effects
Weak: Kyptonian Society Premises.
The has the best Kypton Myth and i concur but it could have been better if the script writers made kept closer adherence to the concepts of Plato, which would have made theStrength: Visual Effects
Weak: Kyptonian Society Premises.

The has the best Kypton Myth and i concur but it could have been better if the script writers made kept closer adherence to the concepts of Plato, which would have made the Kyptonian Society much more viable. Instead, we have Russel Crowe mouthing haphazardly a single line, without justification, about the demerits of Krypton, like a sales person brushing off claims of excellence of his rival's products, and Superman, with visible lack of compunction, ripping apart Krypton's solution to the questions asked by all intelligent being about existence (the Genesis chamber ship) with his EYES (who can blame him? It is unlikely for twelve-year olds to be able to read beyond Plato's words). Anyone with a smattering of understanding about Plato's thoughts would have winced and railed at such scenes.

Of course, it is the intention of the script writers to pitch freedom against societal pre-destination, with Superman, bastion of freedom, choosing to do Good and besting the best warrior of the totalitarian Krytonian society, who did 'Evil' in his attempts to fulfill his purpose of protecting his people.

In the end, General Zod's death speech bespeaks a grander character in the man than in that of an alien in tights parroting about freedom and choice, as he is brought up to do.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
5
DeadmanLimitJun 17, 2013
If you go in with no expectations, and you can make it past the beginning, the movie is decent. It's not amazing. Three really good fight scenes trying to carry an otherwise boring movie that raises questions to people not familiar with theIf you go in with no expectations, and you can make it past the beginning, the movie is decent. It's not amazing. Three really good fight scenes trying to carry an otherwise boring movie that raises questions to people not familiar with the story in almost two and a half hours isn't helping the case.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
JordReimerJun 23, 2013
I have been anticipating this movie for sometime now and can't help but feel disappointed. For those wanting a solid story look elsewhere. The action/special effects made up for what could've been a disaster.

Pros: + Action + SpecialI have been anticipating this movie for sometime now and can't help but feel disappointed. For those wanting a solid story look elsewhere. The action/special effects made up for what could've been a disaster.

Pros:

+ Action
+ Special Effects
+ Good Casting For Superman

Cons:

- Story
- Plot Holes… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
5
ArmaleimJun 23, 2013
I don't quite know how to put my experience of this movie into words.

Probably the funniest movie I have seen in a long time, even though i'm not sure it was intended to be. A distinct lack of acting and emotions rivaled only by The RoomI don't quite know how to put my experience of this movie into words.

Probably the funniest movie I have seen in a long time, even though i'm not sure it was intended to be. A distinct lack of acting and emotions rivaled only by The Room or Nicholas Cage at his best. The story had no direction or narrative as well as some of the cringiest lines in holy wood, yet I wanted to laugh out loud at every one, towards the end having to use my fist to stifle the giggles.

I think a friend best described as either, the worst film ever made or a new form of post-modern comedy that we are incapable of appreciating at this time.

I would thoroughly recommend everyone go if they have the spare cash and a few hours to kill and are up for some so-bad-its-good gold. Alcohol may help get through the slower sections.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
UnknownCriticJul 7, 2013
This was a movie I wanted to like, and the acting, story, and special effects were all good. That being said, it was missing something I assumed would be a given for a superhero film, that feel good feeling you get when the hero wins. I'mThis was a movie I wanted to like, and the acting, story, and special effects were all good. That being said, it was missing something I assumed would be a given for a superhero film, that feel good feeling you get when the hero wins. I'm not sure if it was the script, or the editing, but I found myself not caring if Superman would win (and it felt like he didn't care either). Lois was in only because she needs to be but didn't add the film. Overall I am glad I seen it, and you may love it, but it could should have been better.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
KhalakkaJul 15, 2013
Man Of Steel Is visually nice the scenario is ok not over the top but it's ok the script was the messy point for me i laughed my ass off sometime some battle or extremely long for no reason

Cool movie to watch but aint that good
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
4
DarthBullydogJul 23, 2013
I went to go see Man of Steel with no expectation, mainly because of the last Superman movie. As hard as i tried to like Man of Steel, I just couldn't. There were some enjoyable parts of the movie, but overall, it wasn't worth the price ofI went to go see Man of Steel with no expectation, mainly because of the last Superman movie. As hard as i tried to like Man of Steel, I just couldn't. There were some enjoyable parts of the movie, but overall, it wasn't worth the price of admission.

The Good:

The Casting- I thought that the actors that they chose to play the parts were perfect. Especially superman, Henery Cavill fit the role of superman very well. I thought Amy Adams and Michael Shannon were well placed as well. Including others

FX- I thought the special effects were well done as well. They weren't spectacular, but the were good. Especially the fighting scenes. I really felt the power behind the punches. I thought they did that well. They flying scenes were pretty enjoyable too.

The Bad:

Script- Corning and uninteresting. It was hard to care about what was happening because first off there didn't seem to be any basis on why anything was happening in the movie. This was my biggest negative point in the whole movie. It was hard to get into because i didn't make the connection as to what is going on and why, and i think that is the scripts fault. Maybe there is back story in the comics, but i don't read those, so i have nothing to go off of. And there were several lines said in the movie that were like, really, you couldn't have thought of something better to say. The script wasn't all bad. There were moments in the story were I was engaged, but that didn't last long.

Pacing- I felt like this movie was all over the place. Especially the fighting scenes. They were cool at first but the intensity slow faded, and i felt that nothing new was really offered to make any new encounter different. Another problem was the main spectacular fights happened at the middle of the movie making the final fight scene more of an annoyance then something i actually wanted to watch.

In conclusion, this movie wasn't terrible, don't get me wrong. It just isn't the crazy awesome movie people are saying it is. It was mediocre at best. It did somethings right, but many wrong. I would recommend this movie as a RENTAL, just to experience the good moments of the movie, but do not waste the money to see it or buy it when it comes to DVD.… Expand
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
BossukJun 24, 2013
This film felt like 2 completely different films mashed together and I'm still not sure if it worked.
The first half dealing with Clark as a young boy and krypton was excellent. It felt well paced and gave depth to parts of the supermanThis film felt like 2 completely different films mashed together and I'm still not sure if it worked.
The first half dealing with Clark as a young boy and krypton was excellent. It felt well paced and gave depth to parts of the superman story previously ignored.
But the 2nd half with the fights against Zod were I felt not handled as good as they could. The fight choreography was very poor and at no point did I really feel like I was getting into a true fight between 2 supermen. Camera angles were all over the place, and sometimes I didn't know who was hitting who and who was winning The focus on the destruction of the buildings took away from the true essence of the fight. Felt like the fight scenes in Transformers. If you are going to have a 1h long fight, then you need to make it a damn good one.
I did enjoy the film for the most part, but it could have better.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
4
SmeeJun 29, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Apart from the impressive effects really nothing to watch in this movie .First half is more like a documentary that totally mismatch to comic book. Christopher Nolan is always poor and he did great part of ruining the superman as well.Its so stupid that miss Lane appears right after superman kill the General Because before that they were fighting and moved away from her in a lightning speed.I believe Super man returns is far more better movie than this.Also absence of defense Secretary and President is a mistake,Writers were assumed that target audience is brain dead and that a kind of mock to their awareness.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
4
TheRubixGamerJun 21, 2013
Making a movie for Superman must be very hard but I think that they did a pretty good job at it. It is great to see a next gen Superman but to be honest I don't think fans of the original Superman movies are gonna like this as Superman doesMaking a movie for Superman must be very hard but I think that they did a pretty good job at it. It is great to see a next gen Superman but to be honest I don't think fans of the original Superman movies are gonna like this as Superman does not keep his identity much of a secret. It was great to see what Superman's younger life was like as I don't think that has ever been addressed before. The fight scene effects where great but after seeing him fly threw 3 building it quickly gets dull and this really makes the movie drag. The movie is not terrible but you could easily give it a miss.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
4
CannonBlasterJul 20, 2013
I will admit that the special effects are nice, ut overall the plot and dialogue is mess. The characters are made out of wood, and just boring action scenes. This movie was made for trailers not an actual cohesive movie.
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
5
RiukkuyoJun 24, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie in the beginning after he was sent to Earth felt rushed to the point he found out he's from another planet and then after that it dragged out. You never got to see his childhood expect in flashbacks, which is another thing I didn't like about the movie. I would have loved to see his human parents finding him and showing him grow instead we saw him saving people on a boat, in the water, then somewhere else. I'm at least glad they showed his childhood though, the actors and actress were a good pick, they did well. The part in the movie where you see Clark watching his human father die was sad and well done, I almost cried. Overall I liked the movie in a sense that it was okay, but it will never live up to the original movie and comic books.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
5
funkymooseJun 24, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was underwhelming considering the names associated with it. Much of the plot felt rushed and haphazardly pieced together. The relationship between Lane/Clark was severely underdeveloped, I really didn't feel their connection at all. There probably could have been about 30 minutes less of CGI in the ending.

It was still entertaining, which is why I still gave it a dead-smack-in-the-middle 5. Lots of action, a pretty interesting story. I just expected more from the likes of Nolan and co.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
6
roger202Jun 30, 2013
Man of Steel is a decent beginning to a new series of films. The film is action packed, with a semi-boring back story and a Superman that does not feel quite like Superman
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
6
joshbeldonJul 5, 2013
What the film does well is set tone and deliver a story that is equally grounded, interesting, and enjoyable. Unfortunately, the film suffers from a number of technical shortcomings that may break the experience for some. After the film'sWhat the film does well is set tone and deliver a story that is equally grounded, interesting, and enjoyable. Unfortunately, the film suffers from a number of technical shortcomings that may break the experience for some. After the film's opening sequence on Krypton, the Man of Steal focuses on Clark's journey to find a place in the only world he has ever known. To show the hardships that young Clark endured, flashbacks are used, generally showing different points in Clark's youth as he struggled to deal with his differences. The film then jumps back to adult Clark, as he wonders the United States, looking for some clue as to his origins and what his purpose in life may be. While both the past and present stories are interesting, the movie never stops to allow the audience time to really take in what is happening on screen. The scenes between young Clark and his Earth father are particularly endearing, but the audience is never really afforded time to absorb and appreciate the importance of their relationship. Instead, viewers are allowed a small sequence of dialogue, before they are jarred back in the present where adult Clark is in a completely different situation than he was the last time we saw him. In fact, the film plays leap frog over itself through half of the movie, trying to tell two stories at the cost of making both of them feel hollow.
The second half of the movie is much more focused but highlights another major flaw in The Man of Steel: The action was disappointing. Some time in the production of the Man of Steel, Snyder and Co. decided that they needed action. Lots and LOTS of action. Bigger is better right? In this case, no. What starts off as over the top fighting, soon becomes a series of monotone action sequences lost in a white noise of fallen buildings and explosions. There came a point in the film's final battle where I became completely bored with the demi-gods that were battling on screen. Instead of fighting hand to hand, the Man of Steel's Superman (and its villains) generally just throw each other around. Usually through sky scrapers and chain restaurants. Seriously, if you watch it, count how many times somebody throws someone else through, into, or at a building. Though there is always a place for over the top action in the Super Hero genre, the inclusion of more technical hand-to-hand fighting (In addition to the 'splosions) would have broken up the action while making Superman seem like more of a fighter and less of a brutish brawler.
So, action and story aside, who is the Man of Steel's Superman? To my surprise, he was surprisingly human. Though he is 100% good guy, Superman is not the virtuous boyscout you may know from other versions of the hero. TMOS presents a Superman that is man first and extraterrestrial super-hero second. He isn't completely sure of himself nor his actions. This leads to one of the most surprise (and controversial) endings to a Super Hero movie to date. Superman's ability to be fallible adds a texture to the character that is rarely seen and becomes easily one of the most enjoyable parts of the film.
All in all, The Man of Steel is an Okay movie. It gets a lot of things right but never seems to overcome its glaring flaws. Superman has never been more relatable and perhaps with the origin out of the way, the next outing by Snyder and DC will be much more enjoyable.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
6
SegaSailorJul 6, 2013
The terrible hype machine has played to much into this movie for me. I watched the movie in 2d and thank god I did the shaky and mass debris really put me off the action in man of steel, the story was done differently than expected and hasThe terrible hype machine has played to much into this movie for me. I watched the movie in 2d and thank god I did the shaky and mass debris really put me off the action in man of steel, the story was done differently than expected and has its up and downs some good some bad, i felt the story tried to do to much and cram in way more than it could chew and clearly can see some rushed parts if they spaced it out and kept in one story mode, basically its the original Christopher reeves movies 1 and 2 meshed up and it suffers from being crammed into one movie. The acting was solid and holds the movie together and the cast deserves praise especially Antje Traue who completely stole it for me, while it would make a great blu-ray movie I cannot say this was the rip roaring summer blockbuster it was meant to be and if they didn't fill so much in so little time it would of made a great superman movie however my biggest memory of this movie was the debris factor so much flew around i couldn't make out what was happening to whom and where and since superman is about action i felt quite disappointed in what should be its strongest sequences and scenes the biggest problem is reviewing what is most likely going to be a series of movies and the development of Louis and Superman or Clark Kent not alot was hit upon on its starting settings which will be built upon in its blatant sequels. This isn't a bad movie but it isn't the new awesome superman that seemed to be promised this isn't what the dark knight movies did for batman but its not to far off but if a definitive sequel is made it will have to surely deliver more or suffer the same fate as the transformers.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
6
hoops2448Jul 9, 2013
Most people loathed Superman Returns, I didn't, I loved its symbolism and its attempt to carry on the Richard Donner universe despite its lack of fun loving heroics that made the originals so enjoyable. So I have to say Man of Steel hadMost people loathed Superman Returns, I didn't, I loved its symbolism and its attempt to carry on the Richard Donner universe despite its lack of fun loving heroics that made the originals so enjoyable. So I have to say Man of Steel had something to prove. The film tells the story of what happens when far away planet Krypton starts dying and Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his son Kal-El (Henry Cavill) to Earth so he may live. When he arrives he is raised in secret by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and learns to become a hero people can believe in as reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) gets closer to uncovering the truth behind this mysterious hero's true identity. The feeling I had when I left the cinema was one of disappointment sure but not for the reasons I expected. I expected an emotionless sequence of beautifully framed rubbish, what I got was so much more than that. Man of Steel is excellent science fiction, its smart, its beautifully realized and it shows a part of Superman's mythology that has never really been touched upon by the films. It's a good 30 minutes before we are introduced to the titular hero as we see the collapse of Krypton and how their society broke down enough for Jor-El to send Kal to Earth in the first place. The rest of the film is a pretty conventional origins story but unlike Zach Snyder's previous films Watchmen and Sucker Punch, Man of Steel has an understanding of its characters and the emotions that drive them and brings out some excellent performances in Henry Cavill, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Michael Shannon as fellow Kryptonian and lead villain General Zod. The film looks brilliant, it tells a captivating story and it has well thought out characters except for Adams' Lois Lane who pales in comparison to Margot Kidder's interpretation of the woman (although Adams is better than Kate Bosworth's version of the character but that's not hard as a reasonably well trained dog could play her better than Bosworth did.) The main downside however is not an acting problem its the films ending, not for the surprise twist I imagine a lot of people are talking about but because that final hour is just a long sequence of destruction that could be 20 minutes shorted and would still bore me to death. The action looks good and in sections of the film when there is actual story its good to see it accompany the story but the end of the film lacks any real reason for this ridiculous over the top violence and the story is nowhere as strong as it is in the first hour and a half. In fact that was my main qualm, the fact that the first hour and a half, the tale of how Clark Kent becomes Superman is almost perfect Sci-Fi and it is almost ruined by a blockbuster ending, a conclusion based on what other blockbuster superheroes have done recently and not what this character should do, something Snyder should have picked up on but unfortunately didn't.… Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
5
IninteligibleJun 14, 2013
Con un inicio prometedor, la historia cae lentamente hasta el hastío, las peleas se tornan repetitivas y aburridas, el tema compuesto por Hans Zimmer queda muy lejos del que hizo el legendario Jhon Williams.

Para ser un reinicio, quizásCon un inicio prometedor, la historia cae lentamente hasta el hastío, las peleas se tornan repetitivas y aburridas, el tema compuesto por Hans Zimmer queda muy lejos del que hizo el legendario Jhon Williams.

Para ser un reinicio, quizás debieron elegir una historia más breve, recuerda un tanto a Transformers 3, invasores extraterrestres queriendo recrear su mundo en el nuestro mientras de paso destruyen una ciudad.

"Easter Eggs" apenas si son visibles, hay que estar muy atentos.… Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
5
thecolonel23Jun 16, 2013
While I'd hoped for an intro to an outstanding trilogy to die for which director Christopher Nolan succeeded to do in his making of "The Dark Knight" Trilogy, I got in return a 143 minute movie that contained 60 minutes of origin story, 60While I'd hoped for an intro to an outstanding trilogy to die for which director Christopher Nolan succeeded to do in his making of "The Dark Knight" Trilogy, I got in return a 143 minute movie that contained 60 minutes of origin story, 60 minutes of a plot outline, 20 lousy minutes of fighting, and 3 minutes of Clark Kent's future life as the lover of Lois Lane and a citizen of Metropolis. All in all, I would say to wait for the movie to come out on DVD if you do however have interest of even seeing the movie at all.… Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
5
TokyoTheReviewJun 20, 2013
I find too many things wrong with this movie and not enough right.

1) Movie isn't in chronological order, which is fine, but not when the scenes with the most emotion were put in the trailer. 2) Everyone loves an action scene that showsI find too many things wrong with this movie and not enough right.

1) Movie isn't in chronological order, which is fine, but not when the scenes with the most emotion were put in the trailer.

2) Everyone loves an action scene that shows intense struggle with a realistic turn around. In this case the action was over extended and leaves of feeling of exhaustion.

3) Graphics are cool, but it doesn't make it cool to use it on everything. Clark Kent's body wasn't real, all the action looked more like a video than a movie, and it takes away a feeling of reality which is what a move of this nature should be about.

4) The overall story line wasn't too bad, but they ruined it by making 30% of the movie based on action scenes that didn't contribute to the story.

* At the end of it all, it had potential, great story line, and nice plotting. It was a shame that Znyder went with a more 300 approach than a Dark Knight.… Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
6
OckthnielJun 25, 2013
I went into this movie REALLY wanting to love it. All of the teasers made it seem like it was going to be the best Superman movie and possible one of the best comic book movies of all time. To my dismay, I was sadly mistaken.

All of theI went into this movie REALLY wanting to love it. All of the teasers made it seem like it was going to be the best Superman movie and possible one of the best comic book movies of all time. To my dismay, I was sadly mistaken.

All of the changes that were made to the origin story didn't bother me like they did some people. That wasn't my gripe. My gripe was what seemed like a lack of character development and relationship development. The movie gave me no reason to care about the relationship between Clark and Lois. There was no development of it, just all of the sudden they are gazing into each other's eyes.

There was a severe lack of development of the relationships between Clark and his parents. We get little snippets here an there, but again, not enough to make me believe they had any impact on him at all.

Lastly, there was no development of Superman at all. Its like he just wakes up one day and he is Superman.

Don't get me wrong. The world the movie takes place in is big, the scenes are big, the action is big. But Nolan set a new bar with the Dark Knight Trilogy on what it takes to make a good Comic book movie. You need all of the action with a great story that makes you connect with the characters and care about their relationships. This was all missing from Man of Steel.

Here's hoping that the next one takes the time to do all of these things write. I believe they have all of the write pieces in place to make a truly Epic Superman Franchise, but I must say, I feel it is off to a slow start.… Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
6
KimomarudotcomJun 14, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I became of Zack Snyder fan with Watchmen, a film that is very near and dear to my heart. I was totally excited when I heard that he was making MOS, and became more so as the trailers were trickled out. MOS is an unusual movie and part of that feeling may come from its otherworldly music score. It wastes no time at all and gets to the meat of the story quickly, giving it a kind of dense feel. However, there are points in the movie that are hard to digest. The plot always finds a contrived way of getting Lois Lane in all of Superman's set pieces on board a space ship, in the tundra, in Kansas she never far behind. She might as well have been in the Zod fights. Also, Superman's never flown until the events of this movie?! I give Snyder huge credit for making this movie all his own, it's different in the same way Tim Burton made Batman in his own vision. I had fun, see this movie but don't nit pick its odd parts.… Expand
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
4
philliesphan626Jun 24, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I so wanted to like this movie. It's hard to explain how much I wanted to like this movie. Superman Returns had nearly killed the franchise but this was my hope for a redemption. I watched closely at Rotten Tomatoes and the Metascore for this movie, and then dismissed them. Even though the critics didn't love this movie didn't necessarily mean that it was bad. I didn't read any of the reviews and went into the film wanting to defy them. Then, I saw the movie and my heart sank.

This film is a tremendous disappointment that looks good, but is only skin deep. Man of Steel introduces itself as a new version of Superman for this modern age. However, it feels the need to spell out every aspect of an origin story that everybody already knows with few bizarre changes to feed its predictable story. While I liked parts of it: the visual effects are stunning (in 2D) and the character interaction can be good, when the script allows the characters to have fun, I have to conclude in the end that this is a bad movie.

There are some parts of the film that I enjoyed, so I can't completely pan this film. First of all, I did like the special effects, especially on Krypton and during the flying sequences. They are well done and quite stylized and a good use of Zack Snyder's talent. Some of the flashback sequences are good for the character, especially the first one in which young Clark is hiding in the closet. Michael Shannon is glorious as General Zod, bellowing every line in villainous contempt in a suitably over-the-top performance that fits the grandiose Zod. (He doesn't hold a candle to Terrance Stamp, though.) Russell Crowe is surprisingly good as Jor-El who is in much more of the film than you'd expect. Finally, I can't say that I wasn't excited once Zod began to fly in the final battle and trade punches with our hero, an occurrence that Superman fans have been waiting for ever since there have ben movies about the Man of Tomorrow.

Unfortunately, the film totally collapses under the weight of its own screenplay with tremendous actors having little-to-nothing to do. Amy Adams' redheaded Lois Lane is generally a bland character with little chemistry with Cavill's Superman. After the halfway point she serves almost no purpose to the plot, only being there because she's Lois Lane (apparently) and needs to be in the movie. Lawrence Fishburn has nothing to do as Perry White, although the film cuts to him every once and a while, though the audience has little reason to care what happens to him. We watch him try to evacuate the Daily Planet as we have to assume thousands of people are trying, and failing to do the same in nearby buildings.

The characters in this movie are uncharacterized, poorly characterized, or mischaracterized. The film seems to be upset with the concept of Superman while not really making us care about Superman the person. He has little opportunity to show any of the charm that Reeve brought to the character, robbing Man of Steel of some of the fun. I also couldn't get over the characterization of Jonathan Kent in this film. While Jonathan Kent is, and should be, highly protective of Clark and his secret, he doesn't do so in a constructive way. Jonathan Kent is meant to be a tether that binds Superman to the human world and teaches his son the value of life. Otherwise, this Superman really shouldn't care about the people, and cannot really be the savior he needs to be.

The movie is filled with plot holes, questionable judgments, and stupid characters. Why do the Kryptonians, especially Lara allow Zod to be imprisoned in space when the planet is about to blow up? Where is the rest of Zod's army when he lands on Earth, there only seem to be three or four that exit the ship? Why does Superman choose to fly to the other side of the earth to destroy the world machine, while he can do more good fighting the machine in Metropolis and save lives doing it? Most importantly, why does Superman not try to limit the damage done to Metropolis during the final battle?

Now I could forgive this, all of this, and call this maybe a six out of ten movie, if not for the final factor. Superman KILLS Zod. He just murders him, snaps his neck to save a family of four. First of all, after the thousands of deaths your fight has caused, why do those people matter so much? I kid, Superman is supposed to protect all people, but also never supposed to kill anybody. He is supposed to be able to find a way out, that why he's SUPERMAN. He is a symbol and an ideal, something to strive toward, which we can't and shouldn't do if Superman falls to what we would do in that situation. The idea that this makes him more modern shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the character by Goyer and Nolan. Superman is supposed to be better than we are, in mind and body, to say that he would do that, and that someone could give him no choice is an insult to the character. To the inevitable sequel, I say this, SUPERMAN DESERVES BETTER.… Expand
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
6
OnAnarchyJul 2, 2013
i had rather high expectations for this, and I must concede myself disappointed. The movie does not flow as a well-made film should, and there are many innaccuracies and oversights that make the fi;m difficult to watch. Coupled with thei had rather high expectations for this, and I must concede myself disappointed. The movie does not flow as a well-made film should, and there are many innaccuracies and oversights that make the fi;m difficult to watch. Coupled with the overlong running time, ridiculously extended battle scenes, and the 3 separate 'final' battles, you end up feeling like you just want it to end. As an action movie, it's a decent one at best.… Expand
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
6
ThatJimmyBondJun 14, 2013
The acting is universally good. The script is choppy as hell. The action is well staged, though the devastation wrought and Superman's indifference to it is horrifying. WBros obviously took to much to heart from the criticism of SupermanThe acting is universally good. The script is choppy as hell. The action is well staged, though the devastation wrought and Superman's indifference to it is horrifying. WBros obviously took to much to heart from the criticism of Superman Returns.

I wanted more Clark Kent, and Pa Costner. Amy Adams is robbed of screen time.

I wanted less CGI fighting, and more reasons to care. I was aghast at the casual treatment of the terrible destruction wrought and Superman's indifference to it. Oh look, I'll just punch General Zod through a building and murder thousands of people. WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE.

Still, Russell Crowe is very good, even with the ridiculous hand waving at doors. Michael Shannon is very impactful as Zod. Cavill is great as Supes and I rooted for him. The flashbacks are where the lost heart of the movie reside.

Not sure if I want Snyder back for MoS 2. Perhaps Brad Bird might be available?… Expand
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
4
reepiceepJul 8, 2013
What a disappointment, this film had such potential. Why is it the trailer contained all the beauty and humanity (and none of the inane action that the film did?) I should have known. There's a reason I don't see action movies (especiallyWhat a disappointment, this film had such potential. Why is it the trailer contained all the beauty and humanity (and none of the inane action that the film did?) I should have known. There's a reason I don't see action movies (especially comic book ones) any more (I think the last one I saw was the first Iron Man). Story and great character development sacrificed to show us special effect CG characters hitting and banging and crushing and so on. I mean, how many buildings do we have to see Superman and his enemies get thrown through? The action sequences are what ruins this movie hands down. And WHO decided a shaky, vomit-inducing hand held camera was the best choice for the earth family human sequences? Will we ever turn back? Oh wait..."Pacific Rim" is just around the corner. Yeah, let's rush out to get in line...… Expand
1 of 11 users found this helpful110
All this user's reviews
5
Apotheosis34Jun 14, 2013
The cinematography was excellently done, with beautiful sweeping shots of gorgeous environments and very professionally done CGI. The soundtrack was fairly well done by Hans Zimmer, but was nothing too spectacular in comparison to some of hisThe cinematography was excellently done, with beautiful sweeping shots of gorgeous environments and very professionally done CGI. The soundtrack was fairly well done by Hans Zimmer, but was nothing too spectacular in comparison to some of his other efforts.

The film was a origin story, and yet could have been so much more had Snyder and Nolan attempted to flesh out the character of Kal-El, Clark Kent, and Superman. Instead the film and its makers settled for an action flick that required hardly any depth in dialogue or plot. Rather than creating a deep and engaging, character driven film complemented by the action that is to be expected from a Superhero film, Snyder relies on impressive explosions and fight sequences that leave much to be desired.

The acting is to be praised. Henry Cavill does well enough with his character, but the most passionate performances come from Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent. Their relationship and the relationship with Clark could have been a fascinating story arc, but unfortunately was pushed aside for the action sequences and the "save the world" story arc that plagues superhero film tropes. Michael Shannon adequately fulfills his role as Zod, the villian.

Ultimately this film will leave serious film goers disappointed, as it has little character driven story arcs and shallow dialogue. The film will attract those interested in a decent superhero story in comparison to Marvel's takes and who don't mind an action flick that relies on little else.… Expand
1 of 12 users found this helpful111
All this user's reviews
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

55 Critic Reviews

7.6 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL