This is topic Man of Steel (2013) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001955
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-15-2013, 10:40 PM:
 
CINEMA: Merle Hay Cinema, Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Soft, washed out picture
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

This 1960's era 800-seat single screen house (originally called the Plaza Theater) ends its run next year when a new brewhouse cinema opens on the other side of the mall. It's our last BIG (designed for 70mm) screen and the auditorium, re-furbished in the early 1990's, still looks great. Even with the bad picture (which, washed-out look aside, was solid as a rock), the once THX certified sound kicks ass. Evening admission is still $7.50 and the same amount will still get you a large soda and medium popcorn. If you find yourself in town before the new joint opens, see a movie here and enjoy an increasingly rare experience. They never sell out, but a couple hundred usually show up for a Saturday night. And you might be lucky enough to get a treat...they played the old 50-second version of Dolby's "Train" trailer on the head of the program.

It's a shame they couldn't incorporate this room into the new multiplex, which will be built on the south side of the mall. But Merle Hay Cinema sits in an odd area that not only isn't expandable, but is obscure. They don't have a mall entrance and they're hidden on the back side from street view. They don't even have a marquee. I'm guessing it'll just sit here empty for years to come because there's no practical use for the space.

THE PLOT: Throw a bunch of action and a few Superman characters against the wall and see what sticks. Wackiness ensues.

While not really as dark as Nolan's "Batman" movies (which I mostly hated), this isn't exactly a fun movie to watch either. There's glances of Kal-El's heritage, a horribly miscast Lois Lane (Amy Adams has absolutely NO business in this role), and lots of WHOMP BAM BAM BOOM BAM POW BAM BAM BOOM BAM action at a feverish pace. That's about it. Although Russel Crowe generally stole every scene he was in. He was awesome. Zod, not so much.

It's basically a brain-dead action movie with a DC franchise sparkled in. It wouldn't have taken any effort at all to re-write this as a Transformers sequel.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2013, 05:49 PM:
 
For a couple of minutes in the big action finale scene I thought it WAS a Transformers sequel or maybe a Spider-Man movie, what with all the liquid-metal-ish snake snapping things trying to pull Supe out of the sky.

This movie was OK from an action standpoint, and it had a story that was miles more coherent that the Iron Man 3 mish-mash, but it was just too dark and humorless for a Superman movie. They could have made a flick unlike all the recent noise-fests, but instead they made a movie JUST like all of them.

They also futzed bigtime with the Superman "canon." Such as, Lois Lane knows who Clark Kent is. Krypton apparently has a great big sun that looks yellow like ours, rather than a "red sun" which used to be the reason Supe had extra powers on earth.

I also hate it when movies take a female character, have her pick up an automatic weapon for the first time in her life while an insanely perilous situation is happening, and "amazingly" she is instantly an expert marksman with this unfamiliar weapon while buildings and stuff are crashing around her.

Why don't they ever look at some of this stuff and say "Naahh, that's just far too unbelievable" and do something less ridiculous? No, they always have to go about 40 miles over the top with this crap.

Not that there was nothing to enjoy. I liked the idea that people would greet this new "hero" with skepticism, especially in this day and age. I liked the way they explained how Supe needed to "train himself" not to hear and see what he didn't want to. I had thought of that before, regarding "x-ray vision" -- how do you NOT see through stuff?

But, sadly, the stuff I didn't like outweighed the stuff I did. There was zero chemistry between Lois Lane and Superman, for example. Why did they need to use General Zod as a nemesis, when there are other characters from the comic books that haven't been in previous movies? Why re-hash a story when there are thousands of other stories available? Did anyone actually go read the comic books or did they just pull this story off the Microsoft Action Movie Plot Generator?

I thought it was stupid the way it made Superman and Zod each seem to weigh about 100 tons. How else do you explain that if Zod knocks Superman across a street, he digs a giant trench as he's moving across it? Oh that's right, it's because we need more special effects.

The biggest problem with this film for me was its lack of humor and humanity. Every version of Superman before this has had some laughs woven through it. This one, like all action movies these days, just can't wait to get to the next instance of blowing stuff up real good. Why do all the superheroes now have to have something "wrong" with them? Can't the movie's villians provide enough "darkness" to the story?

The movie wasn't fun to watch. It was too long. It was also too gloomy, all the way from the story to the color palette to the sound. Superman movies (and the comics) used to be fun, which is what made them unique.

They didn't make this movie for Superman fans -- they made it for Chris Nolan's Batman fans, that's basically the problem with it I think.

My score: 2 out of 5 stars. We watched it in 2-D so I can't comment on the 3-D effects.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2013, 10:13 PM:
 
Something else -- they are fiddling with the earth's gravity, causing cars and water etc. to float in the air and then slam down again, but people still are able to run across the ground. GAAAAAAAHH why does someone like me, a lowly single screen theater owner, think of this crap while these high paid Hollywood big shots don't see it?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-18-2013, 02:33 PM:
 
Umm. if Superman's powers on Earth came from the Sun, wouldn't he be powerless at night? Also, how could he fly to Krypton and back in Superman returns?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2013, 05:25 PM:
 
His powers don't really come from the sun. According to the "old lore," Krypton's red sun was much closer to the planet than Earth's sun is, and Krypton had far stronger gravity than the Earth. Thus his ability to "leap tall buildings at a single bound."

They added a lot of super powers later that he didn't have at first, such as the x-ray vision, heat vision, etc. The catchall reasoning was always that he had these abilities due to various differences between the red sun of Krypton and Earth's yellow sun.

Actually would have made for things to get very interesting if his powers diminished or whatever at night.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-18-2013, 05:51 PM:
 
Although the MAN OF STEEL is getting a lot of negative feedback here and elsewhere, I am still planning to see the movie tomorrow at Regal,s Dole Cannery in IMAX 3-D and will post my comments after I see the movie. I had originally planned to see MAN OF STEEL at the Ward in the Titan XC house with Dolby Atmos but decided on the IMAX because of a very late afternoon and evening screening in 3-D and the stupid reserved seating at the Ward.

-Claude
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-18-2013, 11:39 PM:
 
the plot is a bit all over the place and isn't all that deep, but I thought it was okay - I enjoyed it, I'll be buying the bluray. As for the Dolby Atmos mix, unreal, a bit loud and I really couldn't hear or discern much use of overhead sound effects, but the soundfields circling the audience was off the charts - assaultive and bombastic, but really wild. The 3D was rather pointless if you ask me.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-19-2013, 02:31 PM:
 
It started out to be fairly interesting. I liked Russell Crowe. Then it turned into a visual effects action orgasm. What a waste.

Saw it at the Celebration Cinema in Benton Harbor, MI. Rock solid image. Sound was a bit bright, but not horrible. A lot of low frequency and surround use to good effect. The sound design was actually a lot of fun to listen to. Too bad the movie sucked in the end.

Edit:

quote: Sam Graham
And you might be lucky enough to get a treat...they played the old 50-second version of Dolby's "Train" trailer on the head of the program.
When they close, you should ask if you can keep it or in the very least, somehow preserve it. That's a rare item!

AJG
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-20-2013, 10:21 PM:
 
I agree with most of what has been posted, but think some of you are being generous with the stars.

The tornado scene was beyond stupid.

The only part of the movie that held my interest was the interrogation when Superman turned himself in. And they showed half of that in the trailer.

Fantastic marketing. Lousy movie.

SPOILERS

When Superman snaps Zod's neck at the end, what happened to the family that was pinned down in the corner? Some say they escaped, but some say that by turning Zod's head, Superman killed them.

If they did die, it was remarkably subtle. Especially considering that the rest of the movie never heard of "subtle."
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2013, 11:22 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
The only part of the movie that held my interest was the interrogation when Superman turned himself in.
The most interesting part to me was the scenes where he helped people when he was growing up. Too bad there weren't more of those and less bombast at the end.

I caught a few clips of the 1978 Superman on some TV show doing a retrospective of all the Supermen over the years. What struck me was how much I missed the music from the original. Such an upbeat, triumphant sounding theme. Whereas in the new movie we have this plodding, gloomy dirge-like score. It fits the movie I guess, but again, takes away from what used to be the fun spirit of Superman movies.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-21-2013, 10:43 PM:
 
I saw Man of Steel tonight in 3D.

The movie was everything I was not expecting it to be. I would describe this movie as a science fiction film more than a comic book. What mostly grabbed me about this was the word of mouth and the talk about the movie from the people I know, well, I recommend this movie to orders.

I really enjoyed the story the most and all the flash backs. I also really loved the score.

I thought it was one of the better comic book films I have seen, I enjoyed it and had a great time at the theater.

What was also cool and probably the best thing about it was that it took nothing from the original movies, and that was the smartest move and why it worked so well.

I would give it five out of five stars.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2013, 09:45 PM:
 
I didn't watch the whole movie again but I have been listening to it from the office. I've found that I'm liking the "dramatic" parts of the movie better with time. So I'll stand by my earlier comments about the action scenes...too much the same old, same old blowing stuff up and so on. But as a drama I'm liking it.

I did notice one thing that a lot of movies, including this one, get wrong.... every time a movie shows a character going to a Catholic church and consulting a priest, the priest is always inside the church sanctuary just waiting around. In reality, a priest isn't usually found in the sanctuary itself except during a Mass.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-28-2013, 12:41 AM:
 
I watched it in D-IMAX 3D... It wasn't my actual preferred choice, watching scope content on any IMAX screen is stupid if you ask me.

We were sitting quite close to the screen, pixelfest all over it. And in addition to that, it was goddamn LOUD, it was more like a rock concert right in front of you.

As for the 3D: Totally pointless... Even in D-IMAX it just wasn't there in most of the scenes. Also, this movie contains a lot of shaky camera work, that just doesn't fit with 3D and huge screens. Christopher Nolan was producing, why couldn't he tell Zack Snyder not to use shaky cam?

I've never been a real Superman fan, but I liked this movie version more than the last try. I liked the way they portrayed Krypton and their technology in a somewhat timeless fashion. Also some of the dramatic parts weren't all that bad. Laws of physic don't seem to exist in this movie, but since it's Superman, we're probably supposed to ignore that. He's Superman from Krypton, sure he can do it...

quote: Mike Blakesley
Something else -- they are fiddling with the earth's gravity, causing cars and water etc. to float in the air and then slam down again, but people still are able to run across the ground. GAAAAAAAHH why does someone like me, a lowly single screen theater owner, think of this crap while these high paid Hollywood big shots don't see it?
It obviously only works on metal, as long as you don't have to much fillings in your teeth or are Wolverine, you're fine [Smile] .

quote: Mike Blakesley
Did anyone actually go read the comic books or did they just pull this story off the Microsoft Action Movie Plot Generator?
Maybe it will be part of the new Office, when they will bring back Clippy. You only need to write a sentence or two and he will come up with: "Looks like you're writing a script, click here to let me finish it for you!"

quote: Joe Redifer
Umm. if Superman's powers on Earth came from the Sun, wouldn't he be powerless at night? Also, how could he fly to Krypton and back in Superman returns?
It's not that complicated: At night he draws its power from the moon and while flying to Krypton, he draws it from the stars...
and if that doesn't answer your question: He's Superman!
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2013, 01:11 PM:
 
quote:
It obviously only works on metal, as long as you don't have to much fillings in your teeth or are Wolverine, you're fine [Smile]
No, because at the very beginning of when they activate it you can see water rising too. Another special effect they did just because they could....no matter if it makes sense.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-28-2013, 01:36 PM:
 
Cinema: Harkins Theatres Bricktown 16
Screen: Cine Capris
Format: Christie DLP, 2D, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: Nothing too serious
Rating: 2.5 stars out of 4

I'm just finally getting around to writing a review of Man of Steel. My girlfriend, Cynthia and I watched the 4:00pm show, Sat. June 15, on Harkins Theaters' biggest, "Cine Capris" named screen. Harkins had just installed Dolby Atmos on all the Cine Capris houses in its chain of theaters. I had no desire to watch Man of Steel in 3D since it was largely a 2D-3D conversion job. I was more interested in checking out Dolby Atmos. Watching the movie in a large theater with a new sound process and paying no premium upcharge was definitely a plus. I just wish the movie was better.

What it did have going for it: some pretty cool visuals. Certain things were clever, like the way Russel Crowe's Kal-El digital character could pop in and out of different areas of a spaceship. I thought Hans Zimmer's score was pretty good, but it's not in the same league as John Williams original score from the 1979 movie.

What it didn't have going for it: the movie lacked an emotional core. I'm not sure why. It could be that so much of the dramatic narrative felt like movie clip art cobbled from other scripts. It also could be the overbearing style element squashing the performances, not to mention certain bits of logic. The story was needlessly complicated by a bunch of stuff that didn't even seem at place in a Superman story. The weird flying creatures and skull thing holding the DNA of every Kryptonian just didn't feel right. And then they threw out the very simple things that have been common in all the previous Superman movies, TV shows, comics, etc. Where the hell is the Kryptonite? I didn't mind them doing away with the whole Clark Kent can't be recognized as Superman when he puts on his glasses (because that has always been pretty damn stupid). But they didn't handle the story alternative worth a damn either.

I'm sure a long discussion could go on for many pages here about liberties newer remakes have been taking with story lines. It seems like maintaining the integrity of a story "canon" really isn't important these days. The producers and directors make the big changes anyway and try to gloss over them with visuals.

And how about that dreary, depressing color palette? Were they making a Superman movie or a sequel to Book of Eli?

The two biggest action sequences (fight scenes really) in the movie were big, but they got suprisingly dull very fast. Superman and these super villains punch and pummel each other endlessly and none of the hits make any impact or story progress.
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
I like visually stylized things in movies when the style is done with taste. Ridley Scott and David Fincher are very good at using visual style without losing too much of the emotional focus. Zack Snyder, like so many younger directors, doesn't know when to let up. I started groaning every time I saw that CGI camera zoom in and then zoom closer schtique. That crap was done to death in the Battlestar Galactica TV series. There's little sense doing the same style trick to death years later. Some characterizations played out in the worst senses of "mannerism," like Lara Lor-Van's death. If I looked outside and saw the entire landscape of Lawton and the Wichita Mountains exploding upwards in giant columns of fire & smoke I'd probably be shitting myself. I wouldn't be slowly walking towards it like a fashion model on a runway. But that's just how it goes. The creedo of today's style before substance director: Let's just throw some really cool looking shit on the screen. If it looks cool enough it won't matter if it doesn't make a damned bit of sense!

Speaking of Dolby Atmos, I thought the mix was pretty good. Although, I didn't really hear a whole lot of point source specific sounds placed in 3D space within the room. The Dolby Atmos trailer did a much more clear job of demonstrating all of the wild zig zag surround movement that is possible. The Man of Steel mix did more to fill the space in the room rather than sound like it was merely coming from the walls. At least that was good. My only complaint is the bass level could have been better. But I don't expect huge, stadium seated rooms like the Cine Capris to deliver chest rattling bass like I've heard in certain other standard seated auditoriums in the past.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2013, 01:51 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
how about that dreary, depressing color palette?
Agreed. I think this was a Christopher Nolan contribution and is part of the "Batman-ing" of Superman.

This washed-out color thing is getting to be too common in today's movies. I wonder how many people in the theaters think the "color is adjusted wrong?"

On the other hand, today's TV sets have the color adjusting controls buried into menus to the pont that most people probably never even know they're there.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-28-2013, 03:31 PM:
 
Eastman Color, a single strip color negative system was introduced by the Eastman Kodak Company in 1952 to compete with Technicolor's three strip process and a few film makers started to produce films with a very dull color pallete with this new motion picture color negative process. Among the first to do so was William A Wellman in 1952 with his film TRACK OF THE CAT starring Robert Mitchum. John Huston again did the same with his film MOBY DICK in 1956 starring Gregory Peck. I thought the process was pretty cool at the time but I think it is overused today and I DO NOT LIKE IT! Not only MAN OF STEEL used it but WORLD WAR Z also had it too and watching this movie in 3-D with hardly any color was no fun although the movie itself was very good. I would actually prefer a film to be in black and white instead of this drape color cinematography

-Claude
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-28-2013, 03:42 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
No, because at the very beginning of when they activate it you can see water rising too. Another special effect they did just because they could....no matter if it makes sense.
Obviously it was very healthy mineral water. [Wink]

Honestly, I thought the whole concept of drilling trough the earth and sending some kind of *whatever pulse* trough it to harvest *whatever* energy with it was kind of far fetched...

quote: Mike Blakesley
Agreed. I think this was a Christopher Nolan contribution and is part of the "Batman-ing" of Superman.
I wouldn't call the color palette of Zack Snyder's previous movies too bright either. I don't remember 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch as especially brightly colored movies.

For me, the Nolan contribution was more in the dramatic scenes and the dark and heavy soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-29-2013, 11:14 AM:
 
Is anyone else having sound issues with this movie (normal 5.1 or possibly 7.1). That is, where the dialog to the music/effect balance is far apart so that if one has it loud enough to clearly hear the dialog the music/effects are off the charts?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2013, 11:56 AM:
 
It is a "super" loud mix. It didn't seem out of the ordinary for this kind of movie though. I had no trouble hearing the dialog.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-29-2013, 12:16 PM:
 
It sounded just fine when I played it here. I played it at my usual volume setting and it blew the roof off, just like I expected it to.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-29-2013, 06:59 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Speaking of Dolby Atmos, I thought the mix was pretty good. Although, I didn't really hear a whole lot of point source specific sounds placed in 3D space within the room. The Dolby Atmos trailer did a much more clear job of demonstrating all of the wild zig zag surround movement that is possible. The Man of Steel mix did more to fill the space in the room rather than sound like it was merely coming from the walls. At least that was good. My only complaint is the bass level could have been better. But I don't expect huge, stadium seated rooms like the Cine Capris to deliver chest rattling bass like I've heard in certain other standard seated auditoriums in the past.
I thought the one instance where the Atmos mix created pinpoint 3D imagery was when Zod's helmet started to malfunction - the odd blips, beeps and other electronic noises where emulating everywhere in the soundfield, and put you literally inside his helmet - it was really quite remarkable.

As for the bass, even amongst all the barrage of noise, I agree, the lack of significant oomph was lacking.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2