Man of Steel

If there were more skyscrapers in Manhattan, this film would’ve taken three hours. Man of Steel is megalomaniacal, overwhelming movie that arouses wonder and enthusiasm while masking all of its flaws. It is a poetic and epic, sometimes intensely sensitive, sometimes fetishistically destructive colossus that undermines itself when it kills the fragile realistic feeling of a fatal clash of the two worlds it has managed to build up so far with an over-digitized skyscraper climax. But how can you not like a movie in which the father of the main character is Russell Crowe and his stepfather is Kevin Costner? Add in the likable Henry Cavill and powerful villains headed by Michael Shannon who feel strongly superior towards the human race, their perfect costumes, H.R. Giger’s vagina-like spaceship interiors, and the explosive music by Hans Zimmer, after which you will feel like you’ve drunk five cans of Red Bull in quick succession. Personally, I was also delighted with the elaborate Krypton mythology, and the disappointment over the improperly cast Lois Lane (Amy Adams) was mitigated by newcomer Antje Traue in a sexy helmet. (06/20/2013)

All pleasant memories of this film in the future will only be connected with the first half, when Clark is finding his place in the world, discovering his abilities and some emotions are thrown in. The rest of the runtime can be described in two words: Digital mess. Nevertheless, Henry Cavill is a likeable guy and the real Superman, I wouldn't be opposed to a more sober sequel with him. The potential is there. (06/22/2013)

Donner’s original Superman was open to New Testament interpretations, so it is not surprising that Snyder didn’t hesitate to use the budget for Man of Steel to make a modern Biblical epic. The apocalyptic climax, which evokes the feeling that two ideologies have clashed and the whole world is facing destruction, is merely the inevitable spectacular culmination of an epic story that follows the successive inceptions of Kal-El, Clark Kent and Superman. The other two narrative units are deliberately “broken up” by numerous flashbacks (like the whole Watchmen film), which hold our attention by clarifying new facts and aiding character development (at least for our basic orientation in space and time, we have to keep in mind from where we have jumped back to the past). In addition to rhythmising the narrative, the flashbacks also help to exploit the storytelling potential of the supporting characters, who are not entirely overshadowed by the main protagonist thanks to comprehensible parallels (Lois cannot write the truth about Superman; Superman cannot boast about his abilities). Lois Lane, who represents an unusually strong female protagonist (not only in the comic-book adaptations), undergoes the most significant change. Though she does let herself be led by a man (or the voice of God?) in the film’s least spectacular (and, in my opinion, best) action scene, she otherwise definitely does not just dully wait around to see what will happen to her and who will rescue her, and thanks to what she knows, here presence is even a necessary condition for good to triumph over evil. Man of Steel doesn’t say much that’s new (only the concept of Krypton – which incidentally resembles the art of H.R. Giger – as an “ideal” Platonic society, which Superman, as an “American hero”, ultimately rejects in favour of American democracy, is elaborated upon to some extent), but at least it gathers together and distributes old information in an original way. Like Batman Begins and Skyfall, Man of Steel goes back the roots of a heroic myth, while at the same time attempting to confront it with reality, of course within the realm of possibility that the genre offers. Besides the pseudo-realistic indie style of the directing, this is apparent particularly in the loss of the previous films’ sense of levity. Of course, Superman is still a guy who can fly and lift a school bus, but now he has to flex all of his muscles, grit his teeth and work up a proper sweat. Thanks to the fact that the film’s air of ancient tragedy is actually believable, Cavill’s strained expression during the difficult physical performances is not unintentionally funny. Thanks to its actors, the emotions that it evokes and especially the pathos of which it is not ashamed, Man of Steel is, in my opinion, the blockbuster highlight of the year so far, as it superbly finds a balance between the silliness of Iron Man and the nerds of Star Trek with its heartfelt earnestness. 85% (06/24/2013)

Man of Steel doesn’t follow the path of Whedon’s Avengers or Nolan’s Batman, it goes its own way with a tone that is very different from other major comic book films in recent years. I can’t express in words how much I liked it. It has an incredible pace, spectacular action scenes, perfect casting and even pretty interesting storytelling. The only thing that disappointed me is that it’s not at least an hour longer so there wouldn’t be so many plot jumps, which would slow down the intergalactic pace, but also would allow time to get deeper under the characters’ skin. Regardless, Man of Steel is hands down the best blockbuster of the year (proof of which are also the mixed responses – exceptional films never satisfy everyone), it’s far better than the third Iron Man and the second Star Trek… and though this afternoon I was still convinced that the “biggest” film of the year would be Pacific Rim, now I’m not so sure. Nothing will prepare you for this level of >super< action. Zack Snyder has my admiration and with this movie, he’s probably the best action director alive. 10/10, I hadn’t left the cinema so happy in a very long time. PS: Hans Zimmer also hits all the spots with his soundtrack. (06/18/2013)

I have to admit that the Man of Steel made me quite happy. At a time where every other franchise gets a restart, I would expect anything from this film except for proper filmmaking craft. Although, in the end, it is pretty logical – what else should they use to interest the audience, if not a quality camera, action and great shots, right? However, there is always a but. In this movie it is the story, which was sometimes difficult to handle. While Henry Cavill is a good Superman, I can’t help it, but his transformation into Superman took a hell of a long time. For example, I was really angered by the fact that he takes flight for the first time only after half of the movie. The creators did not explain a lot of things and simply stretched the script as they deemed fit. Well, okay, I enjoyed the film as a whole, but I won’t necessarily watch its second instalment as well. It doesn’t change the fact that there has been too many of these movies recently. Unnecessarily too many. (06/21/2014)

Subjectively: the last time I left the movie theatre this numb was after Sucker Punch, and I must add that Man of Steel is a much better directed film. If I keep my distance from the purely debilitating digital whirlwind of falling skyscrapers and exploding molecules of nothingness, then I must highlight the following: Goyer's attempt to elaborate the Krypton storyline and Superman's mythology. Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon have a huge share in the certain impact that the film has, whose characters are played and written much better than the rest of the film (Shannon's casting was far-sighted). The character of Clark Kent, played by Cavill with the pensiveness of a model whose shirts were all stolen, did not receive similar care and sophistication. The attempt to move Superman / Kent to the plane of one inseparable being, a closed-off and lonely alien, is fragmented by his performance and the fact that, unlike Batman's reboot, there is a lack of character development or some obvious internal transformation / dilemma. Man of Steel and his childhood flashbacks are purely generic, and in terms of content / meaning they don't really deviate too much from the Donner storyline (they just lack exaggeration), Cavill frowns through the stormy sea and finds himself in the inevitable situation where, as God, he overcomes the speed of sound and destroys cities with villains. The duel with Zod forms a surprisingly large part of the film, and if you don't buy into this trick extravaganza right at the beginning, you will literally be beaten by locomotives and tons of reinforced concrete. The hint of perspective comes late, and Superman's seriousness is monotonously persistent, but without feeling in any way dark and problematic. Simply a monolithic and well-produced blockbuster, with which I had only a minimum of fun. (06/14/2013)

Is it a man? Is it a plane? It’s... Big, it’s big, it’ big. It’s hopeless, it’s hopeless, it’s hopeless. Massively effective, but at other times unfortunately just effective. Self-centered, pretentious pathos, interspersed with incredibly opulent action following the maxim “any one second of action when a skyscraper doesn’t collapse or nobody throws a locomotive at anybody else and where there aren’t at least seven cuts and fifteen reflections is a god-forsaken, wasted second of action". Tons of pathos, but no levity or tongue-in-cheek. Just the falling skyscrapers, deathly serious faces, falling skyscrapers, character “psychology" reduced to moralizing two-word sentences, only sounding right from the mouth of charisma-oozing Crowe, falling skyscrapers, falling fighter planes, falling people, flying extraterrestrials and a couple of falling skyscrapers for good measure. If, same as the skyscrapers, you can’t take all of this (and that could easily be the case), this turns into a good movie to laugh at in ridicule, more than anything else. I could take it, but for me to like it, the ratio of the almost non existent down-to-earth storyline to the cold, action (and, purely subjectively, endless and therefore numbing) part would have to be more than 1:5(00); and it really wouldn’t hurt if the creators could lighten up a little. (06/18/2013)

A new generation is entitled to a new beginning, and thus the semi-divine orphan once again descends to us earthlings for the first time. I am glad that he succeeded in a way that only does justice to Kal-El, but as a fan of the more innocent and human adventures of the Man of Steel, I was hoping for something a little more different. I admire Zack Snyder for daring to rearrange the chronology of the sacred origin story, but there were simply too many technical tricks or destroyed blocks for me. Superman has always been different for me precisely because he is well aware of his almost painful superiority and does not fight in a destructive way that you tend to see in superhero movies. I can watch their methods from morning till night, but the savior with the S on his chest naturally flies a class above. The perfect casting, led by the fascinating Russell Crowe as Jor-El, partly mitigates these criticisms, as do those sentimental insertions that may have caused some discomfort in other viewers. But when the screenplay touches on the humanity of the central hero, that's when I almost immediately soften. On my way out of the cinema I ultimately felt a conflicting satisfaction. Due to the devilish pace of the second half, I can't shake the feeling that I was riding an express train rather than a full-fledged reboot, but there were surprisingly enough attractions waiting for me in it. So keep flying, Clark. I hope you'll fly far enough to keep the memories from turning bitter. (01/31/2014)

I've never been to a Superman movie; the capes, red panties, and blue leotard... well, it's not my cup of tea. So I went into it expecting nothing, and didn’t really get anything – just a nice guy acting like a savior. The effects didn't blow me away, the story didn't either, but in a way it was watchable (not so much to listen to, sometimes those speeches sound better on paper) and you were really interested in a scene here and there. I don't know why, but I enjoyed Kevin Costner the most. I must be getting old. A weaker 3 stars. (12/28/2014)

In a regular revamp for the new millennium, Kal-el has set off in the right direction (destruction!) balanced between a realistic approach and a sumptuous fantasy watch. The hero is an unbalanced foreigner in a country that has no understanding for him (Cavill is wonderfully alien, occasionally a little conceited, occasionally naive) and the flashbacks pile up the layers of a torn character who daddy Kent (the excellent Kevin Costner) tries to channel into one - it’s a shame that there aren’t more moments like that and the narrative structure isn’t chronological, but is presented jumbled up throughout the picture. However, Snyder balances the doses of emotional forming of the hero with the action and at the end he lets loose an all-encompassing inferno and Metropolis (and maybe even a few acres of India) is reduced to ashes. Powerful dialogs (with a compulsory dose of pathos) which are more than just the dumb joking around that we know from earlier recreations of this flying cape-wearer, but meditation over the direction taken by nations, their conceit and, at the ending, also stupidity that leads to the end of civilization. The introductory twenty minutes on Krypton is like out of Avatar and the lightly illustrated government disputes are far more interesting than any of Clark searching for his origins. Zod with Michael Shannon’s ugly mug has depth to him and isn’t utterly evil, but he’s just doing what he has to and Superman understands this. And that makes the finale even more crushing. The two fellow countrymen are fighting for a chance for an inferior race (us) and the only thing that stands between them is a difference of approach to the problem. The verbal disagreements between Zod and Jor-el are nicely gradated and fateful, like everything in the movie, in fact (yes, this is at the expense of humor and irony, but that doesn’t matter at all). One thing that matters sometimes is the unnecessarily “realistic" camera which focuses, jumps and shakes. I really like this approach sometimes, but I would also like to stop and enjoy the shot of the ship as it falls without having to search for the ship on the screen, because it is shot from so far away. The fights with collapsing buildings and general destruction don’t disappoint and there is some invention in the beating (like in the Matrix, we don’t start flying till the very end). Hanz’s music is the diametric opposite to Williams’s and it suits the spirit of the movie perfectly. It’s not so bombastic as they promised us in the trailers, but still, it’s a marvelous new approach that makes sense for this type of character and I’m really looking forward to the next part. (06/20/2013)

Here we go again. Even after 75 years, it’s the timeless origin story of how Clark Kent became Superman. Or was it Kal-El? Either way, it's beautifully confusing how it once again doesn't mirror anything going on in the actual DC comics. The New 52 has been working with the series "Action Comics," "Superman," Supergirl," Superboy," "Power Girl," "Justice League," "Justice League of America," "Adventures of Superman," and "Superman Unchained," while Smallville continues with new series, and Batman/Superman and Superman/Wonder Woman will be joining, and that's just for starters in terms of what's currently available to read. :) I was most pleased with Krypton, and Michael Shannon is a god (he's just as good as he was in Boardwalk Empire). After that, it was just pleasant, but I came to like Lois later, and Perry White with Laurence Fishburne's face? Seriously, though. The important thing is that the film as a whole is much better than Green Lantern and the Snyder Verse can now begin. (06/19/2013)

A modern blockbuster. The collaboration of the two most talented directors of the young generation is beautifully visible, despite Nolan being co-producer and Snyder the director. The intimate scenes, the grandiose, cleverly spontaneous dialogues, the wordplay, the connection of the musical score – that’s Nolan. The visual attractiveness, the production design, the aesthetics (absolute abandon and freedom) – that’s Snyder. In my opinion, perfectly functional. Once again, I see a copies of Independence Day and The Matrix, but these films were so revolutionary that it seems impossible to avoid it in the future. The musical motif is dazzling, you want to see the main hero on the screen over and over again, and from a technical standpoint, it is a complete audiovisual inferno. By the way, I don't think I have ever seen such a level of destruction in any other film. The scenes from Krypton are formally perfect and aesthetically timeless. I don't have much to criticise about the acting because everything is overshadowed by that formal aspect and the lure that this film possesses. It is certainly not perfect, but perfectly tuned in every key aspect. (06/21/2013)

I am starting to like this movie more and more. It grew on me gradually, thanks to how cleverly Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice followed it, which justified (what else could it do with such a subtitle?) the absolute destruction of everything, which bothered me most about Man of Steel. Among the biggest positives are the actors, without exception perhaps the best possible performers, and the more civil first hour culminating in a hurricane. The stunts are often literally unprecedented, only occasionally blatantly digital, the introduction on Krypton is pleasantly novel and even the action is not all that confusing when you know in advance what is happening and who is hitting whom. (06/20/2013)

The first half is awesome. The soberly dosed and spectacular action, the crumbling Krypton, Russell Crowe as a fearless action hero, and finally a completely believable depiction of Superman's childhood and his personality. Add to all this Zimmer's music shaking the whole cinema, a characterful villain in Shannon and, in particular, a hopeful story. But, just like that, the second half destroys everything Snyder had been so skilfully building up to that point, and the famous comic book story becomes nothing more than an explosive mixture of visual excess and Snyder's bout of narrative farting, which hinders the film on all fronts and causes the megalomaniacal action sequence stretched over the final 50 minutes to become progressively boring despite its extremely spectacular setting, knocking the story's potential deeply to its knees. What's more, it's sorely lacking in humour, which, like in The Avengers, would add some variety to the narrative and establish a closer relationship with the characters. What I regret the most is that a new ultra-loud flick that manages to balance the exorbitant action and the popular demolition of New York with a clever and atmospheric plot will only leave in your mind a bunch of expensive effects overshadowing the monotonous and cold narrative. With Emmerich in charge the result might have been exactly the same. :-( First big disappointment of the year so far. (06/22/2013)

Epic, unentertaining, monumental, and boring. That is a deadly combination, especially when you realize the kind of people who worked on it. Compared to Nolan's Batman, it is an unbelievable decline in the quality of screenplay. In comparison to the entertaining Marvel movies that don't try to be too realistic and respect their universes, this is just another attempt to resurrect the greatest of superheroes, who refuses resuscitation. But don't worry, they are already working on the sequel... More: http://www.comics-blog.cz/2013/07/171-muz-z-oceli-man-of-steel-2013-50.html (07/04/2013)

Zack Snyder has made a film where he goes his own way again. Throughout the film, his signature is completely legible, and you can see that Chris Nolan's meddling was completely unique. While watching the perfect opening on Krypton, I kept thinking of Watchmen. The action after that is really crazy and monstrous, but it gets slowly monotonous over time. For example, the scenes at the beginning, where Crowe deals one punch after another, had much more impact on me than Superman's fight against Zod's henchmen on the road, with trains flying through the air. The storyline suffers a lot, too. It is evident that quite a lot was cut out in some passages. Most of the actors were well chosen, but Crowe and Shannon are on another league. (06/20/2013)

Superman is one of my least favorite superheroes. It's mainly because he's the least realistic one (although I understand that the terms reality and superhero don’t really go together). It's just that I find Superman more suitable for comic books than a movie. But then I also had positive expectations and they were fulfilled to the last detail. First of all, I consider Christopher Nolan to be a man who wouldn't waste a second on something that was doomed to fail. His presence is more than apparent, and the experience from the Batman trilogy certainly helped Zack Snyder. Which brings me to direction, which was practically impeccable and, except for some moments, truly masterful. As for the cast - although some characters are not exactly my favorite, during the movie I realized that they fit very well into the whole, so I was satisfied with the choice. I could go on enumerating reasons why I'm giving it 5 stars, but one is definitely worth mentioning. The music composed by Hans Zimmer can only be described as magnificent(!!!). The epicness of the movie simply radiates from it. The music actually sent chills down my spine, which last happened to me a year ago with (surprisingly) The Dark Knight Rises. If the music doesn’t get nominated for an Oscar again, the category will definitively lose its meaning for me. A movie where more skyscrapers are destroyed than in all of the Transformers combined definitely warrants 5 stars. (06/23/2013)