‘Man of Steel’ Review

Published 1 year ago by , Updated August 30th, 2014 at 1:42 am,

Man of Steel Review starring Henry Cavill Amy Adams Michael Shannon and Laurence Fishburne Man of Steel Review

Man of Steel re-imagines the legend of Superman in modern movie fashion – beginning with the story of his home planet, Krypton. We first witness the miraculous birth of Kal-El, son of prominent scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara Lor-Van (Ayelet Zurer), who happens to be the first naturally born Kryptonian (i.e., not genetically engineered) in a long time. Unfortunately, Kal’s birth comes just at the time when Krypton’s society is fracturing under the fear inspired by Jor-El’s prediction that the planet’s end is nigh.

An attempted military coup by General Zod (Michael Shannon) sets into motion a series of fateful events that see young Kal-El raised on Earth, where he is warned by his adoptive parents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) that his god-like alien powers will one day force him to make a choice about how he will change the world for better or worse. And when Zod and his minions suddenly appear in Earth’s orbit, ready to finish what was started on Krypton, Kal-El/Clark Kent realizes that his prophesied moment of choice has now arrived.

Michael Shannon and Antje Traue in Man of Steel Man of Steel Review

Michael Shannon and Antje Traue in ‘Man of Steel’

As was hoped for by many, Man of Steel is a fine marriage between the rich character-centric storytelling of Dark Knight Trilogy architects Chris Nolan and David S. Goyer, and the signature visual talents of director Zack Snyder. The movie is very much “Superman Begins” in terms of its narrative approach and structure; however, in terms of themes and tone the film achieves its own identity as an insightful, reverent and effectively relatable Superman story. Are there liberties taken with certain details of the costume, origin story or character relationships? Of course. But then again; this is a fresh start to present a new Superman to a modern world – and in that, Man of Steel ultimately succeeds.

Visually, this is Snyder’s most impressive film yet – and it looks pretty stunning in 3D. Everything from Kryptonian culture and technology to the way Superman’s powers (and the impossible physics surrounding them) operate looks on point and believable (enough) in a real-world context. Add to that an abundance of visual iconography and head nods to both the comics and Richard Donner’s seminal films (in particular Superman II) and it’s clear that Man of Steel‘s director has true love, understanding and appreciation for the subject matter at hand.

Man of Steel Full Trailer Spoilers Man of Steel Review

The action sequences – while at times a bit too CGI-heavy – are pretty epic in nature and certainly deliver on that perennial fanboy desire to see a film that depicts how super-powered beings would look and feel battling it out in a real-world setting. The wonderful pacing, editing, smart selection of scenes and abundance of action make this two-plus-hour ride go rather quickly; although by the climax, seeing flying men get punched through buildings over and over again might have you checking your watch. The score by Dark Knight composer Hans Zimmer is phenomenal and heightens the film every turn, while also establishing yet another new-age superhero theme to replace a classic favorite (John Williams’ Superman theme from the Donner films).

Script-wise, the story moves at a nonstop pace and should be wholly familiar to fans of Batman Begins in terms of structure; while comic book fans will also recognize several modern Superman stories that were mined for this film’s plot. A lengthy prologue introduces us to the world of Krypton in detailed and imaginative fashion, before we break into that signature Nolan non-linear scene montage format, covering Clark Kent’s life on Earth, past and present. The second act settles back into linear character and plot development (the re-introduction of General Zod), while the third act takes things into a full-on, over-the-top, super-powered showdown.

Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel Man of Steel Review

Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent in ‘Man of Steel’

In terms of quality, the script definitely has strength and heart in terms of characterization and themes; Nolan and Goyer seem to understand Superman and his origins as well as they did Batman’s, as well as the similarities and the distinct differences between the two characters. The film contains some powerful moments and character beats – particularly where Clark Kent and his human parents are concerned.

At the same time, Man of Steel  is not without some noticeable narrative flaws. The script can be very “comic-bookish” in some scenes of dialogue, and the jumps in time and place during the first act are not as cohesive as they were in Batman Begins. Clever editing and speedy movement earlier on often comes at the price of effective narrative development. In short: if you were one of those people who were hung up on the question of how Bruce Wayne made it back to Gotham after escaping prison in Dark Knight Rises, you’ll find similar gripes with Man of Steel. Thankfully, the studio and filmmakers pull the same magic trick they did with the Batman franchise by casting an impressive array of highly-talented actors, who help elevate the weaker points of the script.

Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne in Man of Steel Man of Steel Review

Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne in ‘Man of Steel’

Henry Cavill’s role is pared-down and restrained much of the time, which, combined with the talent of his co-stars, helps to overcome any deficiencies in his performance and sell him as the new Superman for a new era. By the end, he locks down the role and franchise as his own. Amy Adams (even with her different hair color) and Laurence Fishburne (even with his different skin color) both nail their respective characters of Lois Lane and Perry White and have great chemistry with each other, and with  Cavill. Michael Shannon was the perfect left-field casting choice for General Zod, as he and Antje Traue (as Zod’s lieutenant, Faora-Ul) manage to ground all of the alien fantasy with no-nonsense performances that steer well clear of comic book villain campiness.

Meanwhile, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe add Oscar-caliber gravitas and heart to the film as Superman’s two sets of parents. Crowe gets a substantial amount of screen time to really flesh-out the character of Jor-El like never before, while Lane and Costner totally carry the family drama subplot, which is the most moving and beautiful element of the story. Even military side-characters like Genearl Swanwick, Colonel Nathan Hardy and scientist Emil Hamilton get a boost from being portrayed by fine actors like Harry Lennix (The Matrix 2 & 3), Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: SVU) and Richard Schiff (The West Wing), respectively.

Henry Cavill as Clark Kent Kal El Superman in Man of Steel Man of Steel Review

Henry Cavill as Superman in ‘Man of Steel’

On the whole, this movie is exactly the sort of experience that many Superman fans have been asking for, with the added benefit of having some smart storytellers providing fresh insight into why the character is one of the most iconic fictional creations out there. Like Nolan and Christian Bale’s first Batman outing, Snyder and Cavill’s first crack at Superman isn’t a homerun (we’ll call it a triple), but having succeeded in re-introducing the franchise to the masses; crafting a satisfying summer blockbuster; melding real-world sensibility with sci-fi fantasy (better than Green Lantern ever did) AND leaving the door open for an entire DC superhero universe to follow behind itMan of Steel has more than earned its keep, and deserves to be THE iconic Superman movie for a whole new generation. (Sorry, Bryan Singer…)

…And, if the Batman franchise is anything to judge by, imperfections will be corrected and the best is still yet to come with the inevitable Man of Steel 2.

517747031 3 620 439 Man of Steel Review

[poll id="629"]

________

Man of Steel is now in theaters. It is 143 minutes long and is Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.

Want to discuss the film without SPOILING it for others? Head over to our Man of Steel Spoilers Discussion. If you want to hear the Screen Rant Editors discuss the film, check out our Man of Steel special episode of the Screen Rant Undergound Podcast.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5
(Excellent)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: superman, superman man of steel

662 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. They couldn’t even get the costume right. What’s up with that? That’s not good. That’s not Superman. 8(

    • How would you design it with trunks Boo. The suit is the best out of any made Reeve’s was a Halloween costume routh’s was generic.

      • Reeves and Rouths costumes were real Superman costumes based on the character. This new gay actor dude playing the so-called Man of Steel is dressed like a Nazi pickle, for fk sakes. A NAZI FKN PICKLE!!!! That’s NOT anyones Superman, and you know it!!!! STOP TROLLING!!!!

        • Trolling ha. You like those? That’s a good one. I can’t stop laughing. At least they expanded on why it’s the way it is and has function.

        • A Nazi pickle?

          I don’t even… I… what? How does he look like either? I mean, a Communist banana, maybe, but a Nazi pickle? Come on, dude.

  2. Ladies and gentlemen, I give…SUPERMAN.

    • Ladies and gentlemen, I give…F*A*GG*TMAN!!

      That’s what you really mean, isn’t it? Yes, it is.

      • Actually, no. What I meant to say was…
        Ladies and gentlemen I give YOU…SUPERMAN.

        See, I forgot the ‘you’ ,but thank you for asking. Otherwise I might not have noticed my previous error.:)

        • Ladies and gentlemen, I give YOU…F*A*GG*TMAN!!

          That’s what you really mean, isn’t it? Yes, it is.

          • You’re offending your people.

  3. I do believe though not perfect (almost impossible to accomplish), this film embodies everything Superman is meant to be: the ultimate “American” hero (leaving the fact he is not even from this planet, but moving on…) I do believe some are going way to over-the-top with their reception towards it: it’s a movie about a comic Superhero, what the heck do you expect form a summer blockbuster? I do not recall The Avengers having the best script ever, but it was a true cinematic experience; same with this one. I enjoyed it and I ignored its flaws, mostly because in this type of film the perfect balance between story and “in your face” entertainment is way to hard to reach (TDK did not have a strong story, but it was thought as a trilogy and that sets a huge difference)…Let’s embrace the new Superman and forget about the blah of IM3.

    • Can we PLEASE stop worshipping this slack-jawed excuse for a CBM? It was Iron Man 2.5 for me. Considering that Iron Man was good, but not amazing, Iron Man 2 was a dissapointment, and Iron Man 3 was, apparently (just about everyone said it was a bad movie) an outrage, that’s not even saying much.

      Man of Steel, if nothing else, is ambitious.

      Point out to me someone who WORSHIPS The Avengers that is NOT a Marvel-fanboy. This is generally rare.

      I feel that, on the other hand, Man of Steel was so good that you don’t even need to be a DC-fanboy to enjoy it.

      Just about every Marvel movie I have seen has been “Okay” or just a little past “Okay.” Guess what? I used to be a huge Marvel fan-boy. You know what ruined it for me? The movies, because whenever I watch a Marvel movie, it feels like they’re doing the bare minimum or close to the bare minimum to make an “Okay” or just a little past “Okay” CBM instead of trying to make the best MOVIE that they can.

      Yes, Man of Steel has it’s cheese comic moments. Just like it has moments directed towards female audience members. I wonder why in the world a movie studio who is trying to make money would do this…oh, right…$$$$$. But quality before $$$$$.

      Movies seem to always compromise in some way to me to please target groups, because that’s Hollywood, baby, but with Man of Steel, I feel it’s more “let’s focus on quality before we compromise” and with Marvel it’s more “Okay let’s throw in as many references as we possibly can for the CBM fans, make this one character really hot, add in some kiddy humour… and worry about money after.”

      Take my argument even loosely, and you’ll see what I mean.

  4. It’s funny, I see quite a few very negative reviews in the comments here, but judging by the votes ,this movie was overwhelmingly successful in the eyes of the fans.

    • I read you here a lot il prince what did you think of it, or haven’t you seen it yet?

      • Saw it this morning and quite enjoyed it. Judging by the applause of the full theater I attended I would guess that many of the people there did as well. I was involved the entire show, at no point did I feel like it dragged on. The action was intense and, I felt, really showed how truly scary that must be for the average person when individuals with this level of power are destroying everything during their fights. I thought the scenes of Clark as a child were moving, well done and conveyed sympathy for what it must have been like growing up while always trying to hold something back. Even the scenes of an older Clark drifting around helping when he can and being ostracised for it, help you empathise with him. Personally, I think this film hit all the marks on characterization and action. There were very few instances where I didn’t see where he was coming from.
        And Michael Shannon did an excellent Zod. His back story was well done as well. You could see his point of view, even if you could not agree with it.

        • Good to hear and spot on with the way I feel. Now can you answer me why so many are crying over it? Like you said judging by the votes it looks like MOS is a success.
          Now I kinda wish the Donner films never happened. And I love them.

    • Those who’ve really seen it tend to leave comments but those who are just Superman movie fans tend to vote right away without any reason and without having really seen it.

      • Thats quite an assumption… You basing that on anything but wishful thinking?

  5. There’s far too much negative buzz on this mainly unappealing movie and it’s been nowhere near being financially successful enough to generate sequels, let alone big production sequels. It’s a stand alone one-up experiment that failed badly, worse than any Superman movie in the least. This franchise is over now. If they try returning to Superman in the forseeable future it will be to give the public the Superman the public really wants, not a mutant degenerate monstrosity version that turns off the masses appreciation and their wallet cashflow and is praised by no one but dire daytripping geek fans and marketing trolls. Superman will come back new and improved someday. It needs to after this disaster if they want the character to continue.

  6. There’s far too much negative buzz on this mainly unappealing movie and it’s been nowhere near being financially successful enough to generate sequels, let alone big production sequels. It’s a stand alone one-up experiment that failed badly, worse than any Superman movie in the least. This franchise is over now. If they try returning to Superman in the foreseeable future it will be to give the public the Superman the public really wants, not a mutant degenerate monstrosity version that turns off the masses appreciation and their wallet cashflow and is praised by no one but dire daytripping geek fans and marketing trolls. Superman will come back new and improved someday. It needs to after this disaster fiasco if they want the character to continue.

    • WTF are you talking about? This is one of the all time highest grossing movies ever…not to mention they’ve already agreed to the sequel so stfu

      • Might be sarcasm. If not this guy is really stupid.

  7. Is the fact that this is a superhero movie the reason that a lack of plot continuity, or basic motivation for the films villain wanting to terraform Earth so easily overlooked by people?

    Just because a movie deals with fantastic characters regularly performing impossible feats… doesn’t mean that the writer and director should be given a free pass to contradict their own “rules.”

    Obvious Examples:

    1) Superman isn’t super unless he’s in Earth’s atmosphere… what? This fundamentally made 0 sense, and was regularly contradicted. Although he’s rendered useless on Zod’s ship, he can apparently function fine in SPACE. Given that Zod’s henchmen are super while on Earth, even when wearing respirators… I suppose we are supposed to believe that Kryptonian atmosphere is THAT much thicker? That can’t be the case though, as Lois doesn’t seem inconvenienced moving through it at all.

    2) Earth’s Atmosphere is not able to support a “new Krypton.” This is the basic motivation for Zod’s desire to terraform the world, despite the fact that the current atmosphere apparently gives all Kryptonians Superman-esk powers immediately. The one line of dialogue explaining the need for terraforming (Zod in essence saying it will take a long time and much suffering to acclimate) is forgotten by the last act, as it is more convenient for the villain to not be wearing a mask.

    3) Why is Earth the ONLY planet capable of sustaining a new Krypton? General Zod has a terraforming machine, a genesis chamber, and the DNA of an entire race… and for reasons unknown decides that Earth (the only planet in the solar system with a sentient race capable of fighting back)is the only option. Why wouldn’t Mars have sufficed? The obsession with terraforming Earth seems utterly contrived.

    A common defense is that criticizing a movie for plot holes like these is just “nit-picking,” or that I am supposed to “suspend my disbelief.” First of all, these are major plot points that impact WHY things are happening int he movie. Nit-picking would be pointing out how silly it is that a ship 20,000 years old just happens to have a Superman costume on it.

    I am ALL for suspending disbelief, and am a HUGE science fiction and fantasy fan. Suspending disbelief and ignoring obvious contradictions or “duh” solutions to a movie’s problems is entirely different.

    The fault isn’t entirely with Hollywood though, despite their OBSESSION with CGI, and belief that it can be substituted for quality writing. The problem is people like the author of this article, who validate sh*tty writing and directing by giving this mediocre attempt 4/5 stars.

    • The points you made I don’t see those as plot holes however. From what I remember from the movie IMO the way I see it:

      1) How is it hard to believe that Superman isn’t super unless he’s in Earth’s atmosphere? It’s the Sun that gives him his powers and the closer to the Sun he is, the more powerful he becomes. The same would holds true for Zod and his henchmen So even if they were all on the moon they would still be powerful. Inside of Zod’s ship, is set as if it were under Kryptonian atmospher. Inside it, Zod and his henchmen function normally and aren’t super. Superman wouldn’t need a helmet on to survive on the ship because he is still Kryptonian but he is just weaker than normal because he is use to having super powers and it will take time to get used to him being so much weaker in only a matter of minutes the same way you see Zod learning he is growing stronger on Earth’s atmospher in a matter of minutes.They wear the helmets on Earth because they don’t know how Earths atmospher would effect them if they were to take off the mask. (Zod accidently learned he is stronger on Earth just like Superman accidently learned he is weaker on Krypton) In the movie it was explained they wear the mask under any new atmospher, where ever they had traveled. Lois of course, has to wear the space helmet because she is in space. Who knows how she would function on Krypton but Superman would function normally on Krypton, it’s just that sudden change that made him appear weaker than he is use to, having only the regular stength of a normal peron would on Krypton, as you can see when he was struggling to break free when his hands were bounded to the surface but not crippling weak.

      2) you also have to take in account that at this point when Zod is saying all of this he really had no idea how Earth’s atmospher would affect him and other Kryptonians. he is not fully aware of this until the circumstance he felt the need to remove his mask when on Earth. it was only then he realized he had super powers. Like I said earlier he found out all of this info accidentally.

      3) You may have a good point there and I won’t argue with you on that, since I only saw the movie once and can’t quite remember those exact details. Does Zod have the DNA of an entire race? I though that was still inside of Kal-El and by then Kal El had escaped the ship and is back on Earth. I do remember Zod’s “plan B” was to terra form Earth where Superman lives.

      • “How is it hard to believe that Superman isn’t super unless he’s in Earth’s atmosphere? It’s the Sun that gives him his powers and the closer to the Sun he is, the more powerful he becomes.”

        1) The difference was very obviously the oxygen, as he regained his power on the ship the instant that Jor-El changed the composition. The atmosphere argument makes no sense because, as I said earlier, he has his powers IN SPACE. The proximity to the Sun doesn’t matter, as the difference between the Moon and Earth is negligible. The whole idea that he can survive in SPACE doesn’t make sense, given the limitations they established. Why do Kryptonians need “atmosphere” at all, if their bodies can apparently function without it, or within one that is as different from theirs as Earth’s is?

        2) I SUPPOSE that’s possible, although how an advanced race of aliens with terraforming technology AND a case study to go off of wouldn’t have an IDEA of how their race would do in the Earth’s atmosphere is pretty stupid. Humans can make a pretty accurate guess based on atmospheric composition TODAY, so it stands to reason that Zod could have as well. That goes back to the “duh” solution point I made. It may not be a “hole” in the plot, but it certainly shows how poorly thought out it is when there is an obvious solution.

        3) This just shows how poorly written the movie was. Zod’s character is supposed to end up being “humanized” by the fact that he was just trying to save his people… but he operates for the entire movie like a crazed super villain.

      • 3) You may have a good point there and I won’t argue with you on that, since I only saw the movie once and can’t quite remember those exact details. Does Zod have the DNA of an entire race? I though that was still inside of Kal-El and by then Kal El had escaped the ship and is back on Earth. I do remember Zod’s “plan B” was to terra form Earth where Superman lives.

        The Codex was in Kal-El.

    • Man you hit the nail on the head. Me and my fried went to go see this and throughout the movie we were going back and forth pointing out those plot holes. I can’t say this movie was a disaster, but it definitely wasn’t good. The best thing about the movie, which I’m starting to believe is why people like it so much, was the action. We finally got to see Superman fight, and it was pretty spectacular. The rest of the movie was underdeveloped and dull. Like they used the second draft of the script and were like “Yeah this is good enough. Through some cg in, a dynamic music score, and blow some stuff up.”

  8. It bored me, I felt nothing and it was below average

  9. Four stars!? I couldn’t stop from laughing out loud at some parts cause the movie is so horrible! Seriously the worse movie I’ve seen in theaters in a long time. I still can’t believe how bad it was, and I had low expectations. Justice league is dead.

    • It was a great movie. The entire theater applauded at the end. I am telling everyone I know to go see it in theaters and I have never done that.

      • where are the cinemas where people applaud? I live in England it never happens.

  10. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I agree with the 4 stars. The theater was packed today and it sounded like most of the audience clapped.

    • Since when is a theater being packed an indication of a good movie?

      The fact that Hollywood keeps making piles of money on films with cr*ppy writing, little character development, and an emphasis on over-the-top CG scenes is just proof of how little quality it takes to entertain the average American moviegoer.

      • I have to agree here. I find it a little odd when people talk about “the audience I saw it with loved it/clapped/gave the film a standing ovation”.

        I’m not sure that’s much of an argument for the film if one audience at one theater enjoyed it. The audience I saw it with didn’t clap. They shuffled exhausted from the theater. They chuckled some at the tornado scene. They chuckled when Superman was floating with whales. There were no gasps or “oohs” or “aaahs”.

        There was clapping and gasps and sincere laughing at Iron Man 3. I’m not sure the audience reaction really says anything about the quality of either movie though.

        I disliked both of them, for very different reasons.

  11. I am so glad they rebuilt the Daily Planet before the end of the movie.

    • I’m just glad that building didn’t hurt Jenny Olsen.

  12. They really should’ve reconsidered hiring Michael j fox for the camera work

  13. They really should’ve reconsidered hiring Michael j fox as cameraman

  14. Ok I knew I had to read a lot of these reviews to see what I’m up against here. Not that it really makes a difference to me. But I saw Man of Steel Sunday and I was totally unprepared for the movie I watched. After seeing the same trailers, well mostly the same, for months, it s=gives you the feeling that you’ve seen the whole movies, though you know you haven’t.
    I had a smile that wouldn’t stop, kind of like when I saw Iron man for the first time or The Avengers. To see a Superman film finally made the right way, a Superman movie that is more or less based in more recent comic stories, was incredible to watch. The placement of individual flashbacks, put in at certain times in scenes requiring, them was very enjoyable. Id was hoping that we didn’t have to got thru the whole child hood thing right away. Been there and don’t that. The origin was finally fleshed out in a way that explained everything easily. The Phantom zone was done on a scale grander than just having the old fashioned phantom zone projector.
    Cavil certainly was the right choice also. He has the demeanor and profile of the true MOS, yet he makes the character his own. Something that Christopher Reeve never did even after 4 movies.
    With the scenes of him thinking about his past at crucial times especially near the end when he thought of himself with the cape and his mom and dad watching him, well like all those scenes, they were all touching and needed.
    The action, SFX, and pacing were incredible and just right. I saw it in 3D and im glad I did. For me, the movie more than worked. it was like I was seeing Superman for the first time after waiting for many years.
    I know that there are things I could knit pick about, but nothing that is worth even mentioning. Anyone that was expecting to see a superman movie based on the comic of the 50′s and 60′s with the standard story line and costume is living in the wrong age. I have been reading comics for a number of years mostly DC mind you, and seeing this Superman brought to life is the beginning of DC’s run to an open and shared superhero universe.
    I know that MOS2 is already in the works, and I can see a brief cameo of the shadow of the Bat jumping across the metropolis skyline, and superman just seeing it out of the corner of his eye. That will probably be the extent of seeing Batman in MOS2. But it will open things up some, we just have to be patient.
    Oh and for those that are so angry and saying that the film companies just want to take our money. Yeah they do, that’s how they make more of these movies. If your going to b**** moan and complain about every super hero movie you see, and you “fans” know who you are. Then why bother watching any of them at all. its ok to voice opinions, but god, to go so far as to say it was the worse “F***ing movie ever or POS, I don’t think its called for. voice an opinion, but don’t try to offend those that like something as much as you hate it.

    Lets just hope for JLA, Flash and another Green Lantern movie that tells the story of the Blackest Night which could lead into the JLA. just wishing thats all.

  15. Wow! Didn’t think this film would divide opinion so much! Yeah it has it’s flaws and plotholes but didn’t think itd be called a pos etc! thought it was a good summer popcorn movie personally :-)

  16. Didn’t like it, The flashbacks got on my nerves. The tornado scene actually made me chuckle. Really, I thought it was a humourless incoherent mess.

  17. For those criticizing MOS its just the beginning of a new generation, lets be positive for the sequel I`m sure the next one will be better … I give it a 4/5 stars

  18. ok, so i just saw this movie tonight, and i need to know what some of you have been smoking to be saying it was so good! I honestly wanted this movie to be great, but its good/okay at best. things i liked: the actors were well chosen and the action sequences were really great, those are what save the movie. what drags it down and keeps it from working i place on goyers script, it lacked heart and the pacing was bad and jumped around too much. the scope was so big that you hardly got to connect with any characters besides superman. it picked up in acts 2.5 and 3 a bit, but act 1 was crap storytelling once the pod leaves krypton. and people are saying this was better than IM3? in what reality is that? not this one, thats for sure. this is an undeserved 4 star review. its kinda good, but not nearly 4 star good. its a 3 star movie, maybe 3.5 at its very best. no way a 4. i usually agree with kofi too, dont understand why he were so generous with this movies review.

  19. Was pretty disappointing. Snyder lacked gripping story telling style as was expected. His film was awesome visually with great action pieces.But the emotional build up was zero to none. Snyder failed there. And we did not expect this failure as Nolan was in on the film. Nolan should have directed it. But i guess they could make a better MOS2. It was a first movie with all the plots and all so maybe we could forgive them this once and look forward to the next. Add some humour and also more gripping narrative style. Action in the climax was one styled with them flying through buildings all the time!! I know its superman but come on…Snyder needs to face some criticism now so he could deliver a better MOS2.

  20. A great movie was expected but a good movie was delivered. Disappointments are rife and justified.

  21. 2.5 stars. C-.

    There were a lot of things I didn’t like about the story and script, acting was unconvincing, the music was assualting. But I can almost forgive those things. That’s not uncommon for a SH movie. I like the new costume, and I really liked some of the Krypton ideas.

    I’m going to blame the director. He fumbled it. Introducing a new Superman, with new concepts isn’t the best time to experiment with some non-linear storytelling. But IF you choose that route, que the audience that there are these transitions. Cut to someone waking up, or looking thoughtful, something. I know enough to have figured out what was going on, but what about the vast majority of casual moviegoers? This was obviously a Nolan influence, and that guy thrives on dense non-linear stories. Eats them for breakfast. Snyder is not Nolan, and it was a bad idea to turn him loose on a Nolan idea.

    I don’t mind action, but that action was so muddy. Way too many close-ups. Again, you’ve got these wierd sci-fi machines. How about some clear establishing shots? Instead it was Cavil thrashing about against wild metal arms, or simple light and wind. So it was unclear and uninteresting.

    Then all the silly goofy stuff. Kevin Costner see’s young Clark running around in a red “cape.” What is that supposed to conjure in a world that doesn’t have Superman?

    Disappointing. Better than Green Lantern but way, way short of even the weakest DK movie.

  22. @Kofi Outlaw

    How is the 3D of the movie? Which format would you recommend bro?

  23. Kofi, I most always agree with you and saw your review grade of the film prior to seeing the film yesterday (which is why I kept an open mind and went in enthusiastic) but have to say that I was TOTALLY dissappointed with the outcome of the film.

    First off, this website gave Amazing Spiderman 3.5 stars, Dark knight Rises 4 stars, Avengers 4.5, and Iron Man 3.5 stars…all of which I agree with….but how could you possibly compare Man of Steel to those films? No way was this movie better than Iron Man 3 or Amazing Spiderman…NO WAY.

    Why? Let’s start.

    Not judging the fact that this was more of an alien invasion movie than a superman movie, the beginnnig of the movie was totally fragmented and the pacing was totally off. Besides the opening scene in Krypton (which was overdone and too long IMO) there was no scene that last more than a few minutes- which was a primary reason as to why there was a lack of substance, heart, character development, emotional investment, and story continuity in the film.
    While I do understand that a lot needed to get said and done, many parts of the movie felt rushed and most all of the great and powerful lines that were delivered in the poor dialogue lacked context and substance; I just felt that the lines were thrown in there.

    The main problem with this movie was the way that it was laid out, jumping from the present to different points in Clark’s younger life and then back again. Just was not done right. Also a lot of the movie just didn’t make sense and too many things had a very poor explanation (if any) given.

    What did work?
    -The cast. This cast was well picked and I though Henry Cavill did a great job playing Superman, something that many other pl seem to disagree with
    -The idea. Exploring Superman from this perspective was very interesting and while the deliveru of the story failed for me, the idea was very bold and very cool to think about
    -The action: We all knew the action would be good here. This is what Snyder is known for.

    To conclude, while the film was not a total disaster, I would by no means give it higher than 3 stars (and I think that 3 stars is pushing it here).
    This was a good popcorn flick that was on a mega grande scale but overall it lacked heart and laid out the story poorly…..and there were many times where I felt that movie suffered from the same faults of the Matrix Revolutions….sometimes less is better

  24. Now what we have here in comments is what happened to Rotten tomatoes mixed reviews, that’s why this move got an average rating,

    Fine the story or writing could be crap, The producer and Director might have made some omissions,

    but seriously this is what was needed for the franchise, because if in any way man of steel failed DC would be as good as dead, nothing good will come from them in a long time, so they had to take a risk and all hands had be on deck, and give it all they got, based on sound scoring and Kick ass action ETC.

    So they did it, and now the dust has all settled they can recline into their seats and take their time to bring out some good stuff in the future,

    seriously those haters don’t know what it is to ensure you deliver under serious pressure, that’s what happened to the MOS team,

    personally I loved the movie though it had itS short comings, it’s only gonna be a wake up call for them at WB/DC

  25. “…And, if the Batman franchise is anything to judge by, imperfections will be corrected and the best is still yet to come with the inevitable Man of Steel 2.”

    You did see The Dark Knight Rises, right?

  26. I have just gotten home well about three hours ago from watching Man of Steel and to be honest with you i thought it was a great film, i enjoyed it and spent some of the time looking for the little easter eggs and found most of them, i would like to know if anyone else saw the Christopher Reeves moment, i dont want to spoil it but its during a part where Superman sorry Man of Steel is in the beam of light and preparing to fly. anyway, for me the film was good and i liked it but one thing that has bugged me was the whole 3D part.

    I never thought much of 3D and to say that the glasses were the problem is one thing but i think it destroyed the film more and took me out of the moment at some points. things moved way to fast and the glasses either struggled to keep up or the way it was filmed screwed up. i do now regret going to see it in 3D and would be happy to watch it again but in 2D.

    oh and the whole 3D thing needs to pass hopefully very very soon. i think thats what destroyed it for me and yes i know i didn’t have to see it in 3d but i wanted that to be my first cinema style 3d film and first cinema film in nearly a decade and other than the 3d thing i think it was a good/great film.

  27. I have now seen this film three times and have immensely enjoyed it each of those three times. In fact, I will likely go again this coming weekend. Not only is it an excellent reboot (very much needed) of the Superman film franchise, but it also is an excellent superhero comic book film and a great action film. Action aside though, I also appreciated its quieter moments and the expressions of the characters which managed to convey a great deal of emotional impact in the various situations in which the people, both human and Kryptonians, found themselves. It was these emotional times, expressed through both speech and body language throughout, that made the film for me. Despite what some of the more clueless viewers (if such they even are…viewers, NOT clueless) may continue to parrot, the film managed to show a hopeful, serious, extremely entertaining, necessarily updated origin story for THE superhero that, in fact, gave us the “super” part of this increasingly popular cinematic genre.

    Bravo…VERY beautifully done.

  28. Do you think in the prequel comic, that Dev-Em could be zack version of Doomsday? You know the whole ten years alone in space, the killing of his own people…being mad….

  29. Looks like 8% or the audience just don’t get it. Man of Steel is phenomenal.