Man of Steel

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. (21/06/2014)

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. (28/12/2014)

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. (22/06/2013)

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. (18/06/2013)

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. (18/06/2013)