Sam Explains Why Man of Steel didn't Work
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- This is a review for critical, analytical and educational purposes only and is protected under article 17 and 107 in the United States Fair Use Code. This is NOT an infringement on copyright. "MAN OF STEEL" BELONGS TO WARNER BROS. SUPERMAN BELONGS TO DC. Sam's Channel. Snyder Cut.
I think they got it wrong. Superman isn't an outcast because of his alien origins. If you think about it, Superman is less of an alien and more human. He's not Kal-El of Krypton, he's Clark Kent of Smallville. Always have been and always will be. He was raised as a human of the planet Earth despite his Kryptonian origin..so the main point isn't about being an outcast, it's should be about how a regular man cope with having amazing feats and abilities.
Exactly. I mean, goddammit. He has a farm, he had a dad and he still has a mom. Everyone seems to want to write him as a tragic character who is an outcast because his species is dead, while all they had to do is write him as an adopted child.
It's just a different take on the character, I mean it's definitely more interesting, an alternative timeline where he finds out of his powers much sooner and he feels like an outcast, I feel like that's more human than just wearing a cape one day and feeling like you wanna save everyone
People living in this planet today wouldn’t see it that way. Most wouldn’t want him around. Let’s get real. This movie was ahead of its time.
@@jf922 exactly. it baffles me still that people are still thinking that life's gonna go easy with them.
@@Jordan-se2ph The problem is it's supposed to be the foundation of the DCEU and the Superman character is fundamentally wrong.
Superman is not Batman. He's not dark. He's Gee Wilkers. He's hopeful. Gotta get that right. All Star Superman is the best example of the HOPEFUL SUPERMAN.
I think my biggest problem with this movie was the Kents. In the comics they raised Clark to be a normal guy, despite all of his abilities. he was raised to be a good person and never even told any "you'll be special." bullshit. it defeats the purpose and missed basic premise of superman's character. he is a guy with an incredibly strong moral compass due to being raised like he was just like everyone else and being lucky that two very moral and kindhearted people found him. in the movie the Kents just don't seem like good parents, or especially good people. They really fell flat for me.
This film was all over the place and confusing story lines and I was embarrassed for screenwriter and director because they didn't understand the character of Superman. I hope James Gunn will figure out make the film more interesting and exciting for fresh ideas for Superman 😊
You know, between "Dark Knight" and "Man of Steel" I wonder how long it will be until we get a movie called "Wall Crawler"
or friendly neighborhood
Or Big Red Cheese for Shazam
@@xproductions4265 Friendly neighbourhood Spiderman,yeah i can see that as a title
Id prefer something like Spider Man: Great Power
Zack Snyder’s DCEU Movies are for the most braindead and unintelligent moviegoers. My brain nearly fucking exploded just thinking back to that third act. What a waste of an incredible cast.
Man of Steel had no heart. And a Superman movie without heart isn't a Superman movie.
This film has literally split people into 2 categories. The people who LOVE this film, and the people who HATE this film. I have yet to see someone say this movie was "ok". btw I LOVE this film
Gaming 4 Life(Tylerman) well im one of them i liked it enough to buy it used on blu ray
Eh, I think it's OK.
Personally, I feel that _Man of Steel_ is neither good nor bad, just..OK.
Gaming 4 Life(Tylerman) I think there are some very good sections to the movie, but as a whole it doesn't really cohere into a satisfying experience. The final reel in particular is a total mess.
Gaming 4 Life(Tylerman) I thought it was Ok, I would give the film about a C , maybe a C-.
Gaming 4 Life(Tylerman) I think it was okay.
Goyer needs to stop being a writer seriously. He just sucks.
did you like the nolan trilogy ?
MisterGenesis64AK he wrote all of the dark knight trilogy. That's like saying Stephen Spielberg is a bad director because he has a couple of flops out of his mostly good things
But Sam, you don't understand! What about the _obvious, cliché'd, eye-roll-inducing_ Jesus symbolism? I mean... it's got symbolism! That automatically makes it good because I noticed it and it made me feel smart!
Dr Shaym yes
shut the fuck up stupid dog
Dr Shaym um that's not why I like it
Obviously you didnt understand the symbolism. Since its about birth, not jesus.
Or it's just symbolism and it's good to have some more depth in certain aspects to present obvious parallels in our lives to be more relatable and literally down to earth. No biggie.
I have to say I'm surprised at how many people like what can only be descibed as a faliure of a movie. Aside from the dismal tone, terrible plot holes, etc, the worst sin the movie commited was that the character just wasn't Superman.
Does Superman stand aside and let his father be killed by a tornado just to hide his own secret identity? No, because Superman is good and does the right thing. Does Superman ask a random priest what to do about the incoming aliens rather than his father? No, because Superman is not a total moron. Does Superman take petty vengence and dsetroy some truckers livelihood just because he talked tough at him? No, because Superman is the bigger man. Does Superman drag the enemy out from the middle of the cornfields to fight in the middle of Smallville? No, he cares about the safety of innocent people.
You know why Captain America the Winter Soldier was so good, and Man of Steel so bad? Because Winter Soldier showed how a genuinely good person can act as an example to others and help them do the right thing in the face of adversity. Something Man of Steel failed to do entirely.
I'm sorry but your insights are like that of a nerdy & naive 12 yo. Your impressions of Superman are childish, incomplete & wanting. I'm not going on cuz it would be useless. It's clear your understanding of things is linear, immature & sadly lacking in any genuine emotional insight about how ppl work, be they alien, human or Superman. I bet you weren't able to watch the film for 5 minutes without your mind's extraneous thoughts getting in the way of watching what's right in front of you that would have given you all the answers to your questions, even if they don't end up being what you want or like. MoS isn't a failure; it shows off how shallow & unperceptive you are.
karmick
I assume this is you talking about yourself. Once you grow older you'll be able to appreciate why the film lacked depth. I would have thought it was obvious there were large and obvious plotholes that hampered it, and that the tone didn't match the character, or how blatant advertising dictated Superman drag his fellow Kryptonian's out of the corn fields where it was safe to fight tow down town Smallville where they could be featured at IHOP, 7-11, and Walmart. It's ok though. Once you hit puberty things will start to make more sence.
Defenstrator I bet your a teenager. You don't have the intelligence or maturity to understand this movie.
This is what the movie is about:
The name. Nothing else. All it's intended to do is draw in crowds simply because it's got Superman in it. Character, plot, etc....are all meaningless. That's just filler.
The movie itself is the typical "dark" production design, a shaky camera, a washed out look with a blue/grey filter, lots of noise, shitloads of destruction, terrible CGI, and the last 20 minutes of the film turning into a video game where Superman has to defeat the final boss by hitting a reactor/core/generator/obvious weak spot which is glowing.
Just like 95% of all big budget summer "blockbusters" these days.
That's all.
DarthCipient Watch "A Thesis On Man of Steel (Final)"...this movie is mountains more than what you just posted.
Flint Ironstagg Sorry. People can write all they want about this fucking shit. Let me guess, Superman is Jesus right? It doesn't fucking matter. The movie is shit. Just plain shit.
DarthCipient Had a feeling you were gonna reply something like that. Oh well worth a shot.
Flint Ironstagg It's because I've heard it all before mate. Like Star Wars fans who write essays on how Jar Jar is a good character, or how Anakin and Padme is the greatest love story in history.
DarthCipient Those are extreme hyperboles in this case. They are obviously terrible. Man of Steel is split. People hate it, or people love it.
Just watched it again recently and It's still hard to sit through. The tone is so depressing and it's visually dull and mundane.
depressing by having character, conflict, and emotion
+Trevion W. Tell me anything about Superman's character other than than he's Superman and that makes his life hard. What's his personality?
+UltimateKyuubiFox
simple. let's take MoS for example. Cavills clark grow up knowing he's different and tries to find out who he is and what his purpose is on earth. when zod makes the broadcast to the planet for him to surrender, at first he's not sure what to do ( out of fear of what might happen to earth/how ppl would react) but he does it anyway. in an effort to protect ppl. that's the emotion his character goes through , not always knowing what to do because everything that is happening is new to him. but still making the choices that he think is right during that situation. he isn't perfect from the start like the other superman portrayals. always knowing what to do in every situation isn't realistic in terms of character.
+Trevion W. Every movie has character, conflict, and emotion. Those are fundamental aspects of pretty much every story ever told. You can have all those things in a narrative that actually has Superman in it. It's been done many times throughout the character's history.
+Walter Kovacs
But that's just it. You're right. He can have all those elements and still be superman..but not in the 1st movie. You could get away with that stuff 30 yrs ago, but you can't now. An alien superbeing coming to our planet and is semmingly responsible for all the destruction, isn't going to be accepted by the world on the first day. It's going to take time. So he was never going to be "superman", the one we recognize, during his 1st appearance in MoS.
Also Superman is not Batman. He is not a dark super hero like the cape Crusader.
*man of steel isn’t terrible but it’s not perfect either, the casting is perfect but the development and motivations for Superman are very weak. Yes we get that he’s feeling lost without a place on this world but it only shallowly explores it rather than delving deep into it, and the second half of the film IS GIANT ACTION EXTRAVAGANZA TIL THE VERY END without any room for the pl out to further develop. That’s all I have against this movie, the darker serious tone works for me if executed properly which it wasn’t*
The movie wasn't a critical flop. It was critically divisive.
I respect many of the criticisms you brought here, but I didn't like this review overall. Especially the way you try to speak for everyone and state your opinions as fact in the opening. There were other things I found wrong with it as well.
First, you talk about how Superman was reckless towards destruction, but what could he do about that? The majority of the destruction of the fight was from Zod throwing him around. Superman also tried to take the fight to space but Zod pushed him back to earth.
Second, you say that "not even one part of the film has brought up the idea of him killing Zod." Yes it did. During their fight, Zod clearly tells Superman, "There's only one way this is going to end. Either you die or I do."
My last problem is something a little bit off topic, but I find it extremely hypocritical that you as a critic, have disabled ratings. How can you go on about fair use and the right to criticize films, when you yourself have infringed upon other's ability to criticize you?
Nice review. They've got the muscles, the suit and the punches, but no character at all. We see a guy in a Superman suit punching and punching and punching again, eventually destroying the city he was supposed to protect. The genetic code plot is dumb and unnecessary, the Jor-El hologram is a cheap trick to have the character on screen almost as he never died. Not to mention the plot holes: for what reason do the aliens want Lois to enter the ship along with Kal-El? And in the end, Superman could at least look at the remains of the city realising what he's done... No, instead he decides to detroy something more (the satellite). Because bay-splosions is what people want.
That was a drone actually. Anyway, the main problem I had with Man of Steel was that he didn't seem like this great symbol of hope and heroism in his own world like he should. People always use "oh, but this is supposed to be a new, fresh Superman that's still figuring things out." But he doesn't even seem to have the glimmers of that potential inside, or any acknowledgement of all the destruction that occurred. The only thing saying that Superman will be a symbol of hope is the movie itself, constantly trying to say it over and over hoping that you'll believe it.
they wanted lois because she was the one who leaked clarks story online and zod was able to find that out by tapping into earth's computers. Basically, they wanted to see if she knew anything about the codex zod wanted
MoS works awesome to me.
Nutriox Then just like any other Blockbuster film that aims for marketing strategies to please their audiences, it worked
Nutriox I can't receive critique from people with an extra chromosome so give it a rest.
That movie sucked the Christopher Reeves movies were good 1 + 2
Yes it's underrated
I hate the DC fanboy narrative of defending this movie like it's their mothers honor. Why? If you liked it then fine, but lets face it. Why would so many people have a negative opinion on the film if it was really good? DC fanboys act like everything bad said about it is just haters being jealous of this Matrix/Dragon Ball/Batman/Independence Day rip off. To me it's like if fanboys spent 3 years rabidly defending Transformers Age of Extinction or Amazing Spiderman 2 because that's how bad it is.
Well...to be fair, fanboys DO spend an inordinate amount of time defending TASM 2.
Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
To all the people that liked this film, it was garbage. Wasted Cavill as Superman and its budget. Man Of Steel is a terrible film and a terrible Superman adaptation that tries to fix too many things that were never broken with Superman and throws the baby out with the bathwater in the process, and sees its characters as the problem rather than the bad movies they were in, and misses the point of the character completely. A Superman that has to steal, kill, and let people die because they tell him to in order to learn not to do those things and give into ultimatums in order to learn not to do those things is a deeply cynical approach to the character and completely against what Superman is. Blanketing all of the destruction porn, recklessness, and downright wrong things the character and the movie does with saying "it's his first time out and he isn't Superman yet" is bullshit and a complete cop out as his morals and character do not change because he suddenly puts a costume on and someone gives him a name now, in fact, in the comics and cartoons, it is ONLY because of that character and those morals he puts the costume on and becomes Superman in the first place, NOT because he's a tool and space dad "God the father Obi Wan Jor El" told him he's preordained to be space Jesus and the savior of mankind. All of this is made even worse by the fact that this movie was not sold to us as the first of a greater story, but as a 'Superman" film, not a "Superman in training" film, we were never "promised" a "follow up" from the start, it was always in wait and see mode, up in the air, and even then it wasn't sure what it wanted to do. The Jesus analogy doesn't even make sense for the character as unlike Jesus, Superman was a character sent here to save himself and what he did with the powers was a result of his upbringing with the Kents, whereas Jesus was a character sent here to save us and fulfill the will of his heavenly father, complete opposite of Superman. Keep it in church. The movies have always done this garbage and it is at its worst and most blatant in this film. I suppose that's the difference between getting the writer of The Godfather (Superman: The Movie) instead of the writer of Blade Trinity (MOS). If there is anything close to a biblical parallel with Superman, it is the character Moses, who was sent to save himself, adopted, and fights an enemy who is bald and built a civilization, much like Lex Luthor and how he built Metropolis. Like I said, Superman fundamentally isn't Christ like as he is a character sent to save himself and not sent to save people like Jesus. It doesn't even make any sense that as Jor El's family and planet is about to be destroyed around him, Jor El is like: "I'm going to send you to earth so you can save that planet and be the space messiah and elevate yourself above them, son - oh and also you won't die here". That's like me being on a planet where food is dying, and sending someone to another planet to make sure their grass is blue. Fortunately it was never like that garbage in the comics and has been something they've always tried to add in the movies, and as I said, is at its worst and most blatant in this film. The Christ parallel was only misguidedly added in the original 19'78 film because it was coming out in a time where people still didn't quite take superheroes seriously and still associated them with the old Adam West Batman show, so in an attempt to get audiences to take the character more seriously, they decided to take something they knew people took seriously and project it onto the character, that being religion. People take Jesus seriously, so if we draw a parallel to Superman with Christ, people will take him seriously too went their thinking. I admire the intention to get audiences to take Superman seriously, but I disagree with the execution of it because Superman can be and is great on his own, he is great as himself and doesn't need religious allegories to be taken seriously. You don't see me putting capes on crucifixes, so stop turning Superman into Jesus. Keep it in church. To reiterate: if there is a biblical character that Superman is like at all, it is MOSES, NOT Jesus, everything from being sent away for his own safety, to being adopted, to growing up and being a hero to the people, even to being brothers with a man who would one day be his enemy, there is a parallel there with Pharaoh and Luthor because in one version Lex and Clark were friends and knew each other in Smallville as children, and aside from that Lex Luthor is a villain who is bald like Pharaoh and is also responsible for building much of Metropolis, also like Pharaoh and Egypt, as I said. Any way you look at it the Christ analogy is horrendous and makes no sense and needs to be done away with for the character. Let Superman be Superman for a change.
Anyhoo...
The very fact that there exists an apologist site that tries to explain and justify much of the film's poor development and stupidity only serves as a further testament of how poorly the
film did its job.
We should not need a thesis and manual to understand and enjoy a movie and its characters, so kudos, Snyderbots and WB sychophants, for further proving my points.
These apologist videos remind me of all the Phantom Menace and prequel apologist sites that tried REALLY HARD to like the movies after they came out, lol. Oddly enough, MOS has a WORSE approval rating than both Phantom Menace, a movie many consider to be the most disappointing film of its decade and perhaps of all time, and the Robin Williams Popeye, and even more odd is that it deserves it. (Youch!)
Have fun in your delusions about it being the "perfect" Superman film. Some of us saw the movie and are able to accept it for what it actually is and lay our hopes and expectations and years of waiting aside and see reality. I fail to see why a character who can fly must be completely joyless.
you shut up you idiot face you have a cow brain and a birds heart and it isvery black like you were smoking all the way of your lifeeee now shut up and eat shitz
Netman0007 Wow, that's some "Grade A" rant material there. A bit congested at the beginning, but still a pretty accurate assessment of some of Man of Steel's problems. Well done.
Preach!!! I don't understand why everyone is getting worked up about Affleck featuring in the sequel? Who cares it's not like it's a sequel to the Godfather trilogy. I think your assessment of it being the same standard of art as Transformers is spot on. It confuses me how comic book fans think the film is any different to that garbage.
I've gotten plenty of VERY abusive comments for not liking this movie and I think that says a lot about its audience. You can like Man of Steel and that in itself doesn't make you a bad person or stupid but frankly what this movie is mostly appeals to the kinds of people who make those comments. Not all that bright, angry at the world, petty, and refusing to see the reasons why people don't like them and then address those by changing. You see the same hateful comments spawned by not liking this movie as you see from MRAs, racists, antisemites, conspiracy nuts, and 12-year-old angry virgins. I think that speaks volumes. This movie is a series of surface-level attempts at seeming insightful and generic CGI action. I've noticed a ton of people have said the same thing I said. The more I think about it, the less I like it. And I walked out of the theater mostly disappointed. I'm a lifelong Superman fan. I've even got every episode of the 80s Superboy series, for God's sake! I wanted to love it. I wanted so badly to love it. But I just can't. And that sucks. But back to the point, a movie should get better when you think about it and watch it more. You're supposed to notice more and gain appreciation. Not the other way around. There are a few lofty-sounding speeches, some grandiose posturing, and that's about it as far as intelligence goes. If that's enough to satisfy you, okay, but I want a little more depth. And the action isn't even that great. It's the same thing you see in every disaster flick nowadays. Transformers has been doing it for over a decade now. It's really nothing special when you get down to it.
Essentially what you have here is a shallow experience that tries to be deep that mostly appeals to shallow people who try to be deep. If you just want some brainless entertainment in which you watch people hit each other and blow stuff up, okay. But let's not pretend it's anything more than that. It wasn't. Some people are only as smart as the script of this movie. So I can understand how it appeals to them. But those of us who have a little more horsepower up there, that I can't see. Not on a meaningful level, anyway.
+Hezekiah Ramirez as a fan of the movie, I would like to apologize on behalf of some of my fellow fans of said movie for verbally abusing you over a form of entertainment. no one deserves to be ridiculed for such a thing thats aimed to simply that; entertain. there are some logical thinking fans who liked the movie that are glad to help others understand certain points. Its just the, how should i say, more eager ones speaker much louder and like to jump first without thinking.
+Hezekiah Ramirez Every once in a while I come across conceited comments that make me laugh out loud. This is one of the funniest ones I've read in a while. You have every right to your opinion but don't be so condescending and dishonest with yourself. You didn't like the movie and you were hurt by rude comments, fine. But you are now guilty of the same ad hominems that you are accusing others of. The truth is people in general like shallow things. That has nothing to do with Man of Steel. Man of Steel by design is a blockbuster movie aimed to please as wide of an audience as possible. Most superhero intellectual properties, whether in comic book format, tv serials or giant blockbuster features such as this are popular entertainment. You can't hate something for being what it was designed to be. Moreover just because you don't find something to be particularly stimulating doesn't mean that it in fact lacks intellectual depth or philosophical gravitas. Humans are limited beings with vastly varying life experiences which result in different preferences and perspectives. So just because something doesn't appear "deep" to you doesn't mean it isn't in fact deep or meaningful. I liked the movie and found it to be a refreshing take on a character who for years has been subject to very one-dimensional storytelling. What exactly do you mean by "shallow experience"? Can you appropriate an experience from an entire audience? Are you insinuating that somehow if you don't find meaning in something then it automatically must be beneath your level of intellect? How absurd.
There are a lot of themes explored in this movie that I think one with such an intellect as yours ought to appreciate. How would one feel if they grew up knowing they came from another planet. We all know what it's like to be at the mercy of bigoted hate speech... But let's say for example what if one of those with "a little LESS horsepower up there" were given superhuman power. How could you reason with them? What would you do to stop them? Are these not deep questions that touch the heart of every person? At any rate, just some food for thought from a lesser mind than yours. My sincerest apologies for those of my kind that may have said things to hurt you in the past. All the best.
SOG323
agreed. there's plenty of answers and thought provoking meanings in the movie for people who have problems with if they stop and look or even think. this movie doesn't spoon feed everything and respects the viewer to put the puzzle pieces together.themselves and if they dont want to, well you can always direct them to manofsteelanswers youtube channel. I believe this is one of those movies you have to see multiple times to understand, which isn't even a bad thing.
+Hezekiah Ramirez It´s a bad movie- funny how all these people abusing you have superman as their hero. you should ask them what Superman would do?
+Hezekiah Ramirez Way to generalize .
God... this movie. I went into this movie with no expectations, and had no idea what I was in. This film gave me one thing: the worst theater experience I've ever had. When watching this train-wreck, I had moments of sleepiness, annoyance, and nausea. Yes, this film made me sick, and after viewing it, I had a massive headache. That was how bad my experience was.
As for Man of Steel itself... bleh. Man of Steel is very much like Amazing Spider-Man to me. The reason I say that is because I feel like Man of Steel doesn't know what it wants to be. Does it want to show that Superman is an outcast? Does it want to show that Superman has potential to do great things? I don't know. The tone is one of my biggest problems with the film. One thing I didn't like about Returns was the depressing nature of it. Superman, to me, works better with a whimsical, happy, and over-the-top tone. I don't care if it was trying to be realistic. I don't feel that Superman works in a realistic setting. The acting was boring for the most part. Cavill is a perfect Superman, but every other character was boring and dull to me. The action is my biggest issue. Apart from making me sick, you summed them up with the AVGN and Nostalgia Critic duking it out, with explosions and destruction everywhere.
I know I'm going to get bashed for this, but out of all the superhero films I've seen, this is the worst one that I've ever seen. There are films like Spider-Man 3 and Batman and Robin in which I hate with a fiery passion, but they can be entertaining and fun to riff on. Man of Steel isn't fun to riff on, nor is it entertaining. It's a void, where nothing happens, and nothing matters. I am still not looking forward to the Superman/Batman movie on a story perspective.
I have to agree with you: MoS is if not the worst, one of the worse superhero movies I've watched. There's also X-3 and Green Lantern, so I'm not pretty sure.
Hi, which parts were annoying or boring? I would say maybe 90% of the entire movie, mostly because of the very poor character development, all the characters were one-dimensional. Yes, there are comic book movies with well developed and charismatic characters, Man of Steel in not one of them. Anyway that's my humble opinion but I'm very respectful of yours. And yes, I read comic books since I was a kid. But I expect more that "good guy kicks bad guy ass" action in a comic/movie.
***** Well, I thought that the action was fucking boring and repetitive for starters. The characters were also paper thin. I may not have seen this movie since I saw it in theaters, but to compare, I saw Avengers in 2012 and almost haven't seen it since the whole way through and can still remember good about it. This movie, almost 2 years later, left a sour taste in my mouth, and much like my good friend said, a headache. I disliked a majority of it; the tone pissed me off most. New rendition? Okay, that's cool. But why make a fucking movie about an alien superhero realistic? It just feels so mixed. At least in Batman, making it realistic is justified, because it deals with more characters that can be portrayed as actual human beings with personality instead of walking taglines. That's not to say that Superman can't, but that Batman's character and portrayal in things we acknowledge with his name on it reflects the tone. In Man of Steel, everything's just bleak for the sake of being bleak in the attempt to paint a picture of what it wants to be instead of being it.
shut up you jelly ass it was a great movie
Anyone else fall asleep in the theater during the fight scene?
Man Of Steel DOES work! ITS THE BEST SUPERMAN MOVIE EVER MADE!
"THE SUPER PUNCHES CLEARLY AREN'T WORKING!! TRY SOMETHING ELSE!!"
Superman is supposed to kick ass and this is the first movie he did.. I found all that wrecking and ass kicking quite enjoyable watching it in 3D in the cinema.
I don't care what you say, I found it entertaining. the action was really good in my taste
***** *Entertaining wise*
***** everyone has their opinions,please stop
+Matthew Adiotomre I do accept. I just don't share the same views. I liked the movie and he didn't, I don't get why you're still arguing.
+Matthew Adiotomre I'm just telling you to stop because there's nothing else to argue about.
+Alex De La Rosa if you did not care about what he said, then why did you click on a video about why he thinks it's bad, a bit silly isn't it?
I'm sorry that "Man of Steel" didn't work for you. Because it certainly worked for me, much to my surprise.
There is a big reason i prefer Avengers age of Ultron over this:because i was entertained from start to finish.MOS was boring,too long and had no one i could get involved with.Avengers knows what it is and runs with it all the way.MOS was just a mess.
Yeah that's true John Avenger you are right about that
Jamie Grabow I hate that word so much, the word biased is such a hipster word that is used when ppl disagree with another persons opinion.
Yes and it was well shot.
John Avenger Hey pal I respect your opinion but to me Age of Ultron didn't really work because of how overstuffed it was, and for the fact it seemed to really have not much of an effect on the universe or characters as a whole. I do however appreciate the fact that the movie re-minds us that they are superheroes who care for the safety of other people, its highly entertaining, and it's thematically ambitious. Now I may be wrong about this or probably didn't remember why but *SPOILER* how come SHIELD comes back? Didn't The Winter Soldier eliminate the existence of SHIELD? Does Age of Ultron fail to capitalize on that and makes a lazy decision to bring them back cause the writers didn't know what else to use for that period of the film? P.S. I like Man of Steel despite flaws. Not because I'm a DC fan who thinks Marvel is retarded and generic, I happen to fucking love The Winter Soldier and The Avengers (2012). I just like Man of Steel as a self-contained film. I don't compare it to Age of Ultron. To me Age of Ultron hits and misses. Just my opinion.
***** No I haven't. Plus do they really connect? I only will believe it if the movies address it. But thanks anyway though.
Ive watched so many MOS reviews, and yours is the only one that mentioned "we never get told WHY he becomes Superman". It would seem that this would be the crux of the entire film. They failed.
if you wasn't talking in the mi is you would of heard. Good grief at least be somewhat truthful. Watch it again and don't talk during the movie
+Jackie M MOS sticks to the original comic books. superman has killed general od a few times
+Jackie M I thought the film explained why he become Superman. The whole first half is the why.
He became Superman because from a young age he shows a massive desire to help and protect people because he has received that from his earth parents. Jonathan Kent acts as a selfless hero displayed in the hurricane and his mother is very empathetic and loving throughout. He has developed those traits.
He wants to be like his earth Dad in a small scale way, (oilrigs, bars, buses etc) but can't go big time because his father tells him not to let people know.
Then his genetic father Jor El replaces Jonathan's fear message with Hope, and this gives a greater scale for his purpose. Rather than 'save people if you must but be more worried you will be found out', it's now 'save people and give mankind hope.' That's the why of MOS.
Zod just tests that scale (wanting to end life on earth) and Kal El's resolve to the task. That's what I got from it, anyway.
+Essop Merrick maybe, but it could have been better written and put together (directed)
+Jackie M yes. I think you're right.
I practically disagree with every single word you spoke in this video but to each their own.
You didn't think there was an excess of exposition and "Oh, he's going to do this," "He's going to do that," "He's going to be great." In my mind I'm just like... actions speak louder than words... no matter how hard you try to bludgeon with them. Heavy-handed...
daChaosKitty you just described virtually every movie in history
@@TheMarine316 Not nearly that badly. Most of the dialogue is either, "this person did this" or "this happened," or "This is what you're going to be."
Showing is always more interesting than telling. Someone can say "you're going to do this," "You're going to be this." Can't I just watch them actually doing or becoming, instead of being told that's what they're doing, without any actual action to that direction?
daChaosKitty agree to disagree
1.Krypton is doomed because they tried to harvest the core of the planet, Jor-El believes they're all doomed anyway, so he sends the codex away. Zod has hope and believes if they just overthrow the council they will find a way to survive. They have the same ideal, while one believes the other doesn't
2. Clark walks around knowing he's alien, and tries to figure out what his place in the world is. He wants to help, but have been told from he was small that humans can't handle it. In flashbacks we see Jonathan Kent struggle to find out what's right for his son, not because he's "the chose one" but because he's afraid of what will happen to Clark if the humans find out he's an alien. We see moments where it was close to him being exposed, but Jonathan still don't think it's time. Clark is strong, but still a child.
3. Lois Lane discovers Clark, and the kryptonian alien ship. Even tho she's know to tell the trouth, Perry white doesn't believe humans would buy that story.
4. Clark discovers who he is, but the only thing he stands with is just more questions, and the choice to still be a secret to the world.
5. Zod appears and wants to re-build krypton, the only way to stop him is to let Clark expose being an alien, not knowing Zot wants to terraform the earth when he gets the codex. Clark exposes himself to the humans first to convince them he's on their side
6. When Zod figures out Clark is the codex, he attacks his hometown, to lure him out. it works, but he fails when his suit stops function. Regardless of being able to walk on earth, they just start the world engine.
7. Clark and the militarily makes a plan to destroy the engine, and succeeds. Zod goes on a rampage, while superman only tries to stop him. Noticing there is no way to stop him, Clark decides to kill him.
8. Clark is exposed to the world, but to keep a private life he takes a job as a reporter to keep himself updated on the world.
I think everything makes sense, and the story is very simple. The main theme isn't "is he the chosen one or not", the main theme is "is the world ready for an alien super being?" Through the film, no one really gives clark the answers, and throughout the film he's not a martial artist who exposes fancy moves, but only bunches brutally, because that's the only thing he knows.
There is no place in this film where he has time to save anybody, but he can only "stop the bad guys". Most of the destruction of the film is Clark being punched, not him deliberately destroying things for destroying it.
The film is about him finding out if the world is ready for him, and what role he wants to have in this world. And how is he going to be able to get the humans on their side? Nobody gives him an answer, everyone only tells him "these are the consequences, and are you sure this is the right thing?"
It's up to him to become the man he wants to be. But he's not superman yet, he's on the journey to become him. And I don't think he will be our superman at the start of Batman v superman ether.
note: This is most likely the reason the film is calls 'man of steel' and not "superman", because the film isn't about the character we all know and love, but the man learning to become the superhero we all know and love.
I agree it would be cool if they would have mentioned the title name in the film, but there are very few films that actually do.
They never gall Mad Max, Mad Max, he's only max, but acts Mad. Just as They never call Clark the man of steel, even though he is as strong as he would be made out of steel
+MarkFilipAnthony Why would you actively send a device (and your son for that matter) that your enemy is seeking and that you know he's willing to kill for, to a planet that is filled with innocent civilians that could easily be caught in the crossfire? Why would you then commit to giving lofty speeches about how he is going to save them and be a jesus like figure to these people on this far away planet? Were you trying to say the codex, or were you trying to send earth a space jesus? One or the other.
Run Dos Run
He didn't know Zot would follow after Kal, since Zod was supposed to be imprisoned, Zod did that all by himself.
Earth was the closest safe place for Kal to live, but Jor New he would be stronger and more powerful compared to humans, both he and Jonathan new that humans would treat him as a god/savior, and choose to prepare him for it, by telling him that "this is how humans will see you".
Jonathan throughout the film told Clark that he had to choose himself what type of image he wanted to give to humans. Good, bad, or maybe even nether.
Jor was sending his son and Kryptons future to Earth for survival, but he had to take humans nature in account.
Jonathan tried to keep Clark a secret as long as possible, because he was afraid for how humans would react.
Zot became the reason Clark had to "come out of hiding".
Clark was never "meant to be a Space Jesus", humans made him a Space Jesus, Jor and Jonathan only foresaw that it would happen sooner or later, and prepared Kal/Clark in their own ways for the day to come, where he had to present himself to the world. Better to present himself as an ally, a "Jesus" figure, instead of a freak/devil figure.
This is shown very clear in the film, I don't see why I would need to explain this to you
MarkFilipAnthony
He repeatedly said, over and over again, 'I will find him'. Pretty sure that means he's determined to go after your son and putting some device that he wants on with it is just encouraging him to bring destruction to a planet that's doing fine without this supposed 'savior'. Not only that, he tells him after the fact that Krypton shouldn't be saved this way anyway! So why put the device on the pod in the first place?! Shoot it out into space, stick it on mars, just do anything BUT bring it to earth where millions will die because of it.
Ok, fine, and that idea is perfectly acceptable on it's own. The planet's blowing up, so in a last ditch effort to save your son you put him in a pod and send him off to be saved, ala Moses. Adding the codex subplot just makes it overly complicated and destroys whatever simplicity the story has.
I'm aware of the moronic lofty speeches, I don't need them explained to me. Having characters give expository speeches about how great your character is is possibly the WORST way to make your character relate-able. Not only that, Kevin Costner's character tells him contradictory things, first saying be a farmer and then saying be a hero, and then kills himself for no reason other than to add contrived conflict. The whole concept of what they wanted to do with the message is a muddled mess.
Damn right he isn't an ACTUAL space jesus, he destroys half of the city with no concern or consideration for people's safety or well being. He does nothing to protect people.
Again, you didn't answer, what were Jorel's motives? Was he trying to save the planet's USB memory stick, or was he trying to bring a super powered space jesus to earth? Either way, you know some maniacal crazy person wants to find and destroy your son, so both are not a good idea unless you have a contingency plan in mind, and he didn't.
Like I said, Zod ws imprisoned, a lot of prisoners scream for revenge, Jor didn't "know" he would escape and go after Cal. If he new that he would've most likely killed him
Jor plan wasn't, "make him their Jesus/savor/God" or similar. But he said "He will be like a God to them". Which is a totally different thing.
Why would he send the Codex and his son to a dead deserted planet? The whole point of sending them away in the first place is to let them survive. So send them to a planet that is a live. It just happened to be hat Cal would become overly strong. He only said "this is what will happen, because of this and this, not "I'm sending your to become this"
Millions would not die, if Zod hadn't escaped his prison. The whole point is that Zod escaping was never part of the plan. When a person is in prison, they can say many threats, one does not "assume" that he'll get out, that's the whole point of imprisonment
The Codex subplot is fine, to raise the stakes. to give Zod a reason to show up in the first place, and give Crypton a false hope. A boy becoming a god/superman isn't that interesting plot, but a boy forced to become a god/superman to save people is a more interesting one. The Codex is the main plot drivie to drive the story forward.
Jonathan Kent, never told him contradictory things. He says: "you are the answer to why we are alone in the universe", and "I don't think the world is ready for you"
He tells Clark that there will come a time where he has to find out what kind of man he wants to be. Instead of telling Clark what to choose, he only says "maybe" and "it's not the right time yet"
Maybe you had to let those people die to keep it a secret.
The audience know "He will be superman", the characters don't know this yet. The only thing they know is that he's an alien, and super strong. And they put 2 and 2 together, and know therefore "he's destined for great things". What great things, they don't know.
Jonathan killed himself to keep Klark a Secret as long as possible, for his own safety.
When Clark starts to fight Zod, he tries very hard to protect people, but he is the weaker one, and gets thrown into buildings, and doesn't know his own strength.
If you look at the film, most of the destruction is made my Zod and his soldiers, and the world engine. Clark fights with no experience, and higly emotional. He is not ready to be superman yet, but still tries his best to fight.
Of the things they did wrong in my opinion was to already call him superman, he hasn't stepped into that role yet at the end of the film. He's only a unknown alien in this film.
It worked for me.
They really don't humanize Clark Kent at all so it makes it impossible to care about his character. It is almost like Superman is wearing the disguise of Clark Kent. Christopher Reeve's version of Clark Kent made him feel more relatable, because he seemed clumsy, shy, awkward, and had other such weakness in how he acted making him seem more human. You can't make a character relatable by making him broody about being a godlike alien, and that seems to be the route they went. This newer version of Superman, is just so perfect, that other than the dark feeling of him not fitting in, he never seemed human. How are we suppose to relate to a character that's biggest problem is that he is better than us?
It didn't help they had the adult actor, play the part of the teenager, when his father was killed, instead of just using the child actor. That decision just confused audiences, because they didn't know how young Clark was suppose to be. It gave people another reason not to like his character, because they couldn't understand why an adult Clark Kent wouldn't save his father, just to protect himself. It was a horrible decision not to use the child actor for that part of the movie.
how dare you invade my exact thoughts on Cavil's Clark Kent
Oh Sam, I'm not angry, though I do disagree. I think Stuckman's B+ and Jahns's Bluray were accurate ratings, great movie, not amazing or anything. I'd give it an 8.5/10. I think it's a VERY different movie from The Dark Knight Trilogy, and saying "oh they just tried to make it Batman" is quite pretentious and incorrect.
The opening sequence on Krypton was GREAT too.
+Wesley Tomsky agreed. although i will say the other critics like say doug walker are pretty harsh and love to plug their ears only believing what they want to believe without listening to the other side, in fact look at the other side as morons to an extent.
Man Of Shit: the most soulless and unoriginal superhero film ever.
Hell. Frozen did a better job at the "hide your powers because the world's not ready for it" because you actually cared about the characters and what they're going through. You can truly feel the passion put into Frozen while Man of Steel is obviously a result of a terrible mix of direction from Nolan and Synder, all combined with a desperate attempt to try and make Superman "realistic".
You felt bad for her having powers
Yes and the story is just so damn heart melting with characters that you actually care about, while Man of Steel was just so...bland.
Melting....ha
Or should I say heart thawing... :)
I wish this film touched more on humanity, Super-man reducing the damage during the climax to show he's a hero, limit it to a fewer Kryptonian enemies (let's say 3), Super-man lure the villains into space for the fight instead, more character development for the villain side kicks and human characters. Wish there were more explanation and expositions on why couldn't they terraform neighbouring planets instead of earth. Was it because Martian Manhunter defending Mars? Or the ship was running low of Kryptonian fuel?
Also, I wish during Jonathan's death scene, Clark decided to rescue him anyway from the tornado, even though he rescued his father, that super human speed triggered his heart attack. Clark rescuing his father, indirectly caused his father's death. It kinda shows no matter how much of a god like ability he has, he still couldn't conquer death.
Final scene, I didn't mind Super-man killing Zod which happened in Super-man 2. But there could be a bit more drama to it. Super-man tries to freeze breath Zod, Zod's heat vision melted the ice, then Super-man snapped Zod's neck, but Zod could heal himself. Super-man tries to readjusts his neck, but Zod refused and said Super-man had doomed his own race.
Dude we need to chill with all these directors in the comments. Go make a film then otherwise take what you can get or don't pay them anything. All these screenplays and scene edits are funny af.
Zod was only on earth because that'd where the codex was, they were terraforming it because clark had the dna inside hi
The zod scene was good you can cry however you want to but it was good and needed to be done for the story
it was fitting for the story
I am absolutely convinced that you and everyone behind you in hating this film are morons who really hate the Superman character in every way and you lag in everything for him.
Nothing of what you say is worthy of honest dialogue and or discussion. You are absolutely lost on this character and ethos and pathos that builds him.
Navrix
After he killed
Other
Kyptonians without hesitation.
Man Of Steel was a piece of shit. Zach Snyder needs to stop making comic book movies and just disappear.
Man of Steel was absolutely great :D
Nightsilver Didn't know it was a critical flop, I liked it. If it wasn't for this video I could have gone my entire life thinking it was a good movie. Thanks TH-cam with out you I wouldn't know what I liked and didn't like.
Tom R Banditcourp's video was prety good though
+Tom R because a 7.2 on imdb is a "critical flop"
That's where I guess I differ from you I decide what I like and what I don't care for. It takes little work sometimes but well it.
+Danex21 People on IMDb are not critics dumbass, real critics think this movie is trash.
I'm a fangirl... comic book fangirl, DC fangirl... SUPERMAN fangirl. However, that doesn't mean I'll just take whatever DC/WB throws at me. I am a _discerning_ fangirl. I agree with pretty much everything you said. This movie made me sad... and angry... soooo angry.
'People fear what they don't understand"
Great analysis, Sam! Very intelligent and very logical. I agree with you in all aspects. WB tricked us into believing this would be a great movie. Hell, the trailer was awesome. But when you watched the movie, you fall silent. And when it end, you start to wonder why you have this disturbing feeling. Why was it boring, yet why is it so full of disaster scene? Later you come to the conclusion that this movie was not a Superman movie. Damn! the protagonist doesn't even consider himself Superman. Clearly, the producers didn't want this movie to be based on the comics.
Finally, a person who actually gets it. This is exactly the reason why Christopher Nolan says that this isn't his movie but a Zack Sander's film. I totally agree with you, you said everything that I said that when I first saw the movie. I was so disappointed with it but I also agree it appealed to the mass majority but forgot the essence of the character... I was quite shocked when he killed Zord but honestly, right after that I lost respect for the main character in general...
Snyder doesn't understand Superman,he just wants to make a SuperBat
I didn't really like that this movie made Superman into a lost little lamb who couldn't make any decisions on his own, which results in Pa Kent committing tornadocide.
I couldn't disagree with ur review anymore. I thought man of steel was the best superman movie of the modern era. I have a feeling ur just giving a good action super hero movie a bad review just to get attention.
He was simply expressing his thoughts on the film. Get over it.
Aside from the scenes after the neck break, I want to see eye to eye you Sam. But we see things differently. You see mindless action made for cash, I see a hero almost failing to save everyone and yet rises up to save the day at the end. But hey that's what I think.
*****
That's not what he said at all. He didn't even make that implication. If that's what you took from his statement then you're kinda dumb.
***** the hero almost failing is cliche? yeah right... get out of here with that
ANTIMKrebirth
Haha right? He might as well have said having conflict in a story structure is cliche.
i actually disagree with you sam. contrary to the tone and color pallet of this movie, this is a very optimistic piece. the depressing characters are a result of a depressing world. jor-el is a man who sees this and wants for his son to become the beacon of light in the galaxy that he knows is missing. and the people of earth share this optimism as well. this is a film about hope, sacrifice, loving thy neighbor, and doing what is right, even when it isn't popular. yes the sci-fi is heavy...but it's superman...a character born out of sci-fi. besides, if you'e watched the JLU series, the destruction shouldn't put you off one little bit
"This movie knew more what it didn't wanted to be, than what it wanted to be."
That is the PERFECT explanation for every problem in this movie. Well said.
Can u explain
niktej 111 nah
@@niktej1114 Basically, Zack Snyder doesn't like Superman, so he knew that he wanted to change the character. This mindset led to him rejecting a lot of Superman's core themes and ideas but never replacing them with new ones beyond vague platitudes and hollow sentiments.
@@brycebitetti1402 LISTEN . YOU ARE WRONG
To all the people arguing about how the movie looks on paper, I think Sam's biggest criticism (and mine, among many other's disappointing view of the film) is not of the plot or story, but of substance and narrative.
There are plenty of films that work great on paper, they're called film adaptations of books, but there's a far cry from being a great film on paper and a great film in execution.
My biggest problem with this film's story is the way that it was presented to me. The tone, the dialogue, the sound editing, the editing, the bloody sound design and the camera work were all maddeningly mundane or incoherent. Sure, it was pretty to look at, and on paper it sure does seem great when people explain how the world that we're told about works, and about the plot, but what does it all mean when I'm actually watching it?
I think it's a bloody mess of certainly great ideas.
You complain that Superman killing Zod meant nothing because the movie didn't set up Sup's morals, but isn't it already wrong to kill someone? Why do we need legitimate reasons for Superman to not like killing? Isn't killing someone a horrifying act for anyone and not just Superman?
I only saw the first half at my school, and I couldnt go through it. There is a difference between a movie with "smart talking" and a movie that Im not interested in. People need to understand the difference
Minus the idea that superman doesn't kill. He has killed multiple times in the comics. This fictional 'superman doesn't kill' shit is really pissing me off.
+Colby Lossing That's sort of not true. Superman has been around a long time, and has killed in relatively few instances. And to be honest, those times were often designed to address sales slumps or part of some sort of really huge DC-wide event. He's not the Punisher, and the image that people have of the character is for the most part accurate, namely that Superman does not kill.
Though more importantly, Superman cares about human life (in all iterations. If you have instances where he doesn't I'd love to hear about it. That he would let his father die when he could have saved him was totally nonsense, as was the way he fought Zod, with a total disregard for anyone else other than himself).
His killing Zod was the least of the problems with Man Of Steel; though turning him callous and selfish were pretty high on the list.
Superman doesn’t kill end of story
Ummm did you even watch Superman 2
Even in that movie back in the 80s he kills zod
It can still be debated if Superman actually killed Zod in Superman 2 because of the deleted scenes
Man of Steel was the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater in my entire life.
That a huge exaggeration
halochampion342 How do you know? It was the least entertaining movie I've ever seen in a theater in my entire life. I'm 24 years old, I've seen some bad movies in theaters, including King Kong (05) and Rob Zombie's shitty remake of Halloween. Those are my top 3, but Man of Steel is #1 and will probably always be. There was not one redeemable quality throughout the entire thing, I started falling asleep about 10 minutes into the punch fest and by the time metropolis was being turned into rubble I was BEGGING for the shitflick to be over. I asked for my money back and got it. The lead looks the part but does nothing of interest or note to show his worth in the role, Amy Adams was hard to like, Zod was the only relateable character throughout the entire fucking movie and he was reduced to a wimp with a worthless throw away bland death. The entire movie was shit. Entire. All of it. Without any room for debate.
Man of Steel isnt good, i get that but i can list 50 movies in 2013 that are much worse, at least Man of Steel tried but some movies dont really give a shit about the audience
halochampion342 I said IN THE THEATER. I also usually don't watch terrible movies. I saw both TASM 1 & 2 in the theater and enjoyed them both 10x more than Man of Steel. I saw Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and The Dark Knight Rises in theaters, all were looked upon as bad, and I wasn't particularly crazy about TDKR, but all were far better than Man of Steel.
Nobody plans to watch a terrible movie, its a risk you take. I get what you're saying now I thought you were saying Man of Steel was the worst movie you ever saw. Oh and TDKR is a critical success so im not sure what you mean by "looked upon as bad"
Man of Steel followed a lot of the comics. It "knew" what it wanted to be.
Wow, you perfectly described my feelings towards this movie. I`ve been trying to describe why the tone felt uncomfortable and depressing, and why the Superman character felt hollow, and you just made it all a lot clearer. Thanks.
PS. I so agree with you about the great cinematography ruined by shitty direction and editing. I had the same problem with Die Hard 5. And yes, the trailers were amazing
***** what? Did not connect at all.
TDRK had plot holes, but viewing it as a story it`s a triumphant sprawling masterpiece with psychologically complex characters in a well constructed, lived in environment. What the hell did Man of Steel have?
I feel like every character in every Zack Snyder movie "feels hollow".
Totally agree with you. This movie was one big disappointment. Apart from a few nice scenes the whole movie was dull.
U have no knowledge about movies ..watch Tom and Jerry at home
@@beerussama4798 huh?
@@beerussama4798 Imagine replying after 7 years🤡. Also imagine insulting Tom and Jerry 🤡
Best review I've seen for this. You said it perfectly
i disagree nearly everything you say
Aw boo boo hoo
You obviously aren’t looking hard enough.
To all the people who complained about Man of Steel, what exactly do you want to see instead of Superman being super and battling supervillains? More real estate scams from Lex Luthor? Gus Gorman skiing down a skyscraper? Supes getting drunk off bad Kryptonite and being a superjerk? Otis?? Nuclear Man?!?
Just think about what you're saying. People have bitched since 1983 about how the Superman movies are weak because he basically never punches anyone or does much other than lift heavy things. Now, we get a movie that is a direct response to 30 years of Superman movies (60 if you go back to George Reeves) where he doesn't do a god-damned thing.
I've come to accept how nerds are always going to be greener on the other side of the crowd. Nothing will ever make you happy. "The movie was too serious!" What, so we need more cutting room floor Richard Pryor stand-up and slapstick routines in the opening credits? More "rebuild the Great Wall of China rays" coming out of Superman's eyes? Big celophane S's being hurled off of Superman's chest and turning into big plastic nets?!? I mean really, listen to yourselves.
Is Man of Steel perfect? No, absolutely not. But is it good? Yes. Was it made with a love and respect for the character? Yes. And there is nothing in this movie that people have been bitching about instensely that wasn't in the original Christopher Reeve movies. That thing about what happens with Zod in the end... Yeah hate to tell you, but it also happened in Superman 2 (both versions I might add), and way worse, in a manner that made Supes out to be way more of an asshole, to be honest.
Was it too long? Maybe, but it's the same length as the Richard Donner version, which as much as I love, I find way more of a snooze to watch these days.
Everyone says "It's a fucking hour before Clark puts on that suit!" Again... way longer in the Donner version. At the one hour mark, Clark's stil hanging around Smallville... a Smallville we DIDN'T get the benefit of being abridged... just one straight long-ass shot. Same with Krypton, yeah, they both take up a half hour at the beginning, but the first time in 1978, it was a half-hour of standing around and mispronouncing "Krypton".
Lois having no real business in the second act... Hell, in Superman Returns, Lois has no purpose in the entire narrative at all, except to be a loathsome attempt to market her as the ultimate single mom working girl, despite that not being anything close to what Lois Lane is all about.
I could go on and on, but my point is if all of you are going to whine and complain about things in this movie, you *MUST* hold the older films responsible as well when they do the exact same thing. It's the same argument that can be made about the Amazing Spider-Man film from 2012. Fine, dislike the choices they made, but don't stand there and go on about how perfect the originals are when they do the exact same shit.
I do hate that reboots and remakes lately force people to take such a strong stand that you can only like one or the other. I love the originals, but I feel myself having to bash them to defend my point against the people bashing the new one. It just seems stupid to me. I think people need to start being happier things aren't as bad as they could have been and stop bitching how it wasn't as good as you wanted.
Well put. I'm a huge superman fan, loved every movie but a lot about them I didn't. I'm sure in twenty or thirty years I'll be that's the best like I'll say about man of steel. Yes, there were a few plot holes or things that didn't make sense like...why did zod's cape burn up and not superman's? The fact another member of the house of el placed his suit in the scout ship, how with kryptonian technology, did the scout ship get trapped in the water or glacier? But..the film was excellent
Man of Steel was great. End of story.
I dno about that neither, the original superman films were terrible, corny, cheesy, terrible sfx, they might have been new for the time, and a lot of people love it for nostalgic reasons, but those chris reeves films were shit. I love superman as a character, and more as an idea like everyone else, and that's why his movies aren't very good. The idea is better than the movies. We're yet to see a really good superman film. I'm not hating, man of steel was ok at best, but we haven't seen a truly great superman film......yet.
Alexandre Tanguay Your both wrong. End of story. Ahhhhh......maybe since other people are going to comment on your comments and mine.....maybe it isn't end of story. Weeellll.....maybe if you say end of story enough, that will make it true. Lets give it a try. My opinion is the only opinion, END OF STORY! I'm going to be a millionaire in 2 seconds, END OF STORY. AHHH....guys, I don't think this is working. I wonder why people say end of story so much here on youtube, when ....well, obviously that is so meaningless.
larry potter Well, I did not say that to be mean or anything.
Harree Siraj You know that Superman ( the original one ) was created in 1978, right ? It was the most true to the comic book at the time.
With that said. I enjoyed more Man of Steel, because I did not grow up with Superman. That's the only reason. And I totaly understand why people did not like Man of Steel. One of the reason is the DESTRUCTION. But guess what ??? They are now playing on that in Batman V Superman : Dawn of Justice !
+Harree Siraj YOu're kidding, right? The special effects for the Richard Donner's original Superman were awesome FOR THE TIME. In fact, it can be easily said that they were state of the art. If you're going to dislike a movie based on special effects modern films (no matter how weak the story happens to be) will win every time.
I strongly disagree with everything you have said
Very well done, such a articulate review, I agree and I love Superman, desperate for this to be great but wasn't.
I don't get what people don't like about this movie. It was fucking great. Definitely the best Superman. The action was non stop, special effects were incredible, they finally did Superman''s abilities justice, the casting was great....yeah it wasn't perfect , very little is, I think people have become too spoiled, especially millennials.
+The Flayed Man As an old school Superman fan, I was disappointed in the film. It was a good sci fi/action film. It was not a very good Superman film.
No mention of the story? I wonder why...
+Gameultraman7 exactly. "Great action and great special effects"... But who the hell is this guy in the suit or these other characters? I'm not made to care about any of them, nor made to know the motivations of the main character. The story was full of plot holes that jarred me in the middle of the film."if they have world engines, why can't they take them to Mars? If they have super powers on earth the way it is, why would they want to change the atmosphere?" The writing was silly crap. GREAT action, but silly crap writing.
Something I think is very wrong with Snyder’s approach to Superman - and even the Donner movies aren’t entirely blameless in this regard - is his fixation with Kal El being Christ-like. As much as the movie insists on Kal El being half god and half man, it’s clear Snyder sees him as the first half way more than as the second one. Clark almost never really FEELS human. Therefore the message that passes, at least to me, is that Superman is the proverbial “perfection that teaches to hope”. The only reason why he doesn’t fit in is that WE aren’t ready. He’s godlike, he’s perfect, we can only humble ourselves and learn from him. Snyder’s Superman is, as Quentin Tarantino once wrote, a critique to the human race. We suck, this alien being is better than us, we should be more like him. We should be thanking him because he lowers himself to our level.
And that is SO NOT the point of the idea behind Superman.
The idea behind Superman is that Jor El and Lara weren’t two godlike beings who sent us a messiah. They were two parents who wanted to save their kid. Period. The man Kal El eventually became, a paragon of virtue and hope, the greatest hero on the world, an inspiration for countless people both in his fictional universe and in the real one… all that came from the HUMAN BEINGS that surrounded Clark Kent while he was growing up. From Ma and Pa Kent, from Lana, from Jimmy, from Perry, from Lois. Superman is one of the greatest heroes in the universe, and WE. MADE. HIM. Humanity made him, in every possible sense of the phrase, and that is something we should be immensely proud of. That is something Clark himself is immensely proud of.
This story should not make us feel ugly and inadequate in comparison to a perfect being. It should not make us want to change ourselves to be more like Superman.
It should make us remember that, at least in potential, we *already are* Superman.
I wholeheartedly agree with the review, Sam. That said, this movie still has one purpose, even if unintended: it is like a skill tester for cinema fans. It's one of the best movies ever to check if someone has an attention span and/or can recognize good storytelling or is just a droolling mindless fanboy.
Yeah like Sam a drooling mindless fan boy
nah those are michael bay movies
Jorge antunes
Superman fanbois are dumb
I don't understand why people still defend this bad movie.
"Humanity"
And where is it presented??
Simple answer: it isn't. The whole movie is basically a mess with super charged fight scenes and lack of character development. Superman never gets to choose what he wants to become.
His adoptive father tells him to be normal and just live a normal life. His original father
Jor el
Tells him to be a God to humans
And
Then he changes that and acts as if
Kal el is supposed to be some kind of a stage of human progression. A goal that humanity can achieve.
But again none of that is covered in detail. The movie just throws good ideas but never really executes them.
A shallow pool that appears to be deep.
Is this a movie about human progression?
Well there is no human progression.
Is this is a movie about a saviour?
Well superman killed millions.( it doesn't matter whether it was voluntary or involuntary; superman killed multiple kyptonians with no regrets, but when he killed zod, he suddenly started feeling regret?? LMAO)
Did kal el
Choose to be superman
Or to be Clark Kent?
No he didn't, he was thrown into it and he simply didn't get to choose anything
He was just dragged into it. And then fight scenes occur
And T A DA.
The movie ends. Did he have a choice?
NOPE!
Did he help in human progression?
NOPE!
Did he become a normal farmer
Like his good father wanted?
NOPE!
did he become a saviour?
Well he kinda didn't.
he just remained the same old jerk he was at the start of the movie.
That's it
The movie is faulty
And there are multiple reasons why this movie is considered bad.
“People hate what they don't understand"
Why do you praise Batman Begins but ignore the fact Batman left Ra's to die? Batman's archetype doesn't kill either so be fair and rip on both equally otherwise you just come off as bias.
Batmans Moral code is fully established before he leaves Ras. And that moment actually completes a character arc, he let this man live before and he almost wiped out gotham, he cant make the same mistake twice but at the same he cant abandon his moral code. That what we call characterization, Man of Steel has none and Zods death has absolutely no meaning in the context of this film.
He left Joker live in the sequel so no it's not.
The whole point of Dents death was to prove that Batman is now corrupt and has taken advantage of his absolute power. He is no different than the joker in the end, so there is an actual narrative reason for that death. TDKR has a lot of issues, but they didnt try to make her death such a big deal with no real setup or payoff. Thats exactly what happened in MOS, Zods death means nothing because clark wasnt characterized well enough to know what kind of moral code he lives by. How can there be a change in a code of ethics of it was never really established? That scene was inserted because it sounds "cool" not because it makes narrative sense, the fact that Zack Snyder directed is big sign the scene was all style no substance
Kingslayer64 exactly, it was all explained pretty well in the video so i am kind of confused as to why I had to explain it again. Also Superman here isn't a character that actually takes initiative which leads him to tough situations, he is purely a reactionary force
But, it did work. For me, it's tied for 2nd for DC movies.
And honestly if u hit superman hard enough it dose hurt him
I know, the problem is the movie never *shows* it. Neither of them get bloody, tired, or drained which means I never have a reason to worry for the character considering he seems to take the punches like they mean nothing. They don't try to make you give a shit about the fight until the final 20 seconds with the endangered family.
Ya sorry man think this is a great movie and im not the people that post mean crap on us channel I just really like the moive
Fair enough, man. I wasn't taking your response as abusive or mean-spirited, just thought I should explain my point a bit better :)
Ya:)
Sams ChanneI Kal snaps Zods fucking neck, I'm pretty sure thats not invicibility.
I feel like Man of Steel is one of the most critically divided movies. Many people loved it as a beautiful dark superhero movie, while others hated nearly everything about it. And then you get the stupid people that only dislike it because Superman kills. I liked the film a lot and I guess I don't really get why others don't, but it interests me to find out why.
Yeah, it's crazy how divided people are about this movie. Whoever thought a Superman movie would be so polarizing? It's SUPERMAN! I thought it was alright. I finally got to see Superman punching the shit out of somebody. But I guess that makes me an asshole.
Fantastic review. You nailed it bro. I never connected with MOS as much as Batman Begins. You mentioned the reasons. Let's hope they do not screw up for Batman vs Superman. I love Marvel. They're delivering movie after movie.
To me, this movie is about an inexperienced good-hearted man face off against the worst of evil.
We see how Clark asks for guidance from his mother and the priest, telling him to take a leap of faith.
I really like the destruction that happened in Man of Steel. Not for the violence, but for realism. What happens when a man who has never fought in his life, who has been taught to hide his powers and keep them a secret, be forced to fight in order to save the planet he was raised in?
Well, irrational thinking is what happens. *INSERT JOKES ABOUT NECK SNAPPING HERE*
Man Of Steel (2013) number one Problem=Zack Snyder
The Donner films should NOT be held as a gold-standard for Superman movies. You have to admit it, upon looking back at them, they haven't aged well.
Alternative title: Why I thought Man of steel didn’t work.
Well, I disagree with you on pretty much everything but I won't be abusive.
I've never watched Man of Steel from beginning to end, I got to the part where Louis was chasing him in the arctic and finally had enough. Jesus I didn't realize he was basically the reason that city fell apart. He took him right into it and destroyed buildings. Man of Steel's version of Superman is awful, he really is.
Why this doesn't work?
Independence day was able to find hope and optimism amid the very literal end of the world.
Man of steel, a movie about a character who is hope and optimism in corporeal form, is depressing and defeatist as fuck.
+Burkutace27 Are you a 12 year old? ID is terrible as well.
unknown unknown ID may be simple but it knew what it wanted to be and succeeded.
Man of steel has no idea what it wants to be; it only knows what it doesn't want to be.
huh? take your nostalgia out of it. Plus this isn't your 60s Clark Kent
gohanson27
Why the fuck does he have to be so depressing and defeatist? This is a character all about hope and optimism; why did they have to do that? There's no reason for it.
+Burkutace27 your right he is about hope. But let him get there. We don't want him to be that "boyscout" just yet. This is Clark first fist fight ever. First fist fight in the air also. Against beings that can hold their own against him. Better fighters but weaker in strength. Look at it this way. This us not issue #84. Its issue #1. He has to become the boyscout. Remember they was calling him the alien throughout the movie.
Man of Steel didn't work because people want to see Guardians of the galaxy dancing on an 80's song.
this was before guardians tho........ and ppl like the dark knight, logan and joker
@@WL1264 yeah this guy's argument makes no sense. Snyder fans are pure cringe
@@shill7852 and the Snyder fans haven’t changed even today. In fact they’ve gotten even worse because of you know who
The most reasonable DC fan be like
I love the footage of Nostalga Critic punching AVGN.
He nailed it. This just isn't Superman. Forget killing Zod. That's not the problem. We don't know anything ABOUT this Superman as a person. Superman works because of one character Johnathan Kent. NOT Jor El. With fewer scenes in the Donner movie they establish the whole point of Superman. Yes your an alien, yes you are from somewhere else,but your morals make you human. The same reason the first Spiderman movie works. Ben Parker. You don't humanize Superman. YOU SHOW the WORLD Clark Kent. Once you understand Kent you have humanized Superman. Superman is just Kent in a costume doing what Kent from Kansas would do. Batman is the opposite. Bruce Wayne is the mask Bat Man wears. Superman is the disguise for Clark Kent.
The 1978 movie also had fairly-long, at least far from quick, prologues in Krypton and then young Clark in Smallville.
Nice one man, you pointed out all the main flaws with this movie. It seems like many people who like this movie really read way too much into trivial scenes and think they have some weird extremely deep philosophical meanings. Superman returns was a better movie overall.
I'm surprised you didn't address the differing opinions and controversies regarding the tornado scene.
No Way Home did what Snyder could’ve done
Hey FunnyGuy9000!!! I agree with you.
@@sodium285 glad you agree
@@TheFunnyGuy9000 No problem mate :)
This is a review of the film maker's intentions that exist in Sam's head, more than a review of the movie itself
I liked the Opening sequence on Krypton. We've never really seen what the place looked like and it gave us a look into the issues of their world and why it ended. The politics in the movie reminded me of how the US government works; A bunch of people making stupid decisions for the supposed 'greater good'.
I pretty much agree with this video right down the line. Agree or disagree, Sam makes his points smartly, backs up his opinions with well thought out arguments, and always points out what works for him, In other words, he's fair. For the people who keep saying "this is a new interpretation of Superman, a fresh take", I say this: a new interpretation is fine; wholesale change is not. I simply don't want to see a version of Superman where he is DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. We all want action and drama in our Superman films, but the sheer amount of death and destruction was ridiculously high. Action? Yes. Destruction porn? No.
I strongly disagree with you Sam.
The only reason why this movie and even the Amazing Spider-man 2 didn't work was because everyone has a mixed understanding of 2 of the most popular comic characters in comic history. There have been so many different interpretations of Superman since his original run in the 40s, and now everyone thinks they know everything about Superman. The reason why Superman Returns didn't work was because the makers of that movie tried so hard to resemble Christopher Reeve and the Donner's interpretation of Superman, and tried so hard to show what Superman was back in the old days, but not once tried to bring a modern feel into the hero. Even the feel of the film felt like I was in the 60s. Not to mention that Kevin Spacey was a lil weird about Lex? Even he tried too hard to resemble the original Lex actor (can't remember his name for the life of me) and because of that, flopped. I also didn't know where Brandon Routh was going with what his intentions were. It was almost as if he was trying to introduce the fact that he's Superman to Metropolis again, but kept getting reminded that he already introduced himself as a superhero once before. Not to mention the costume was extremely out dated. I've tried watching that movie more times then enough to see if I'm just being blindsided, but have given up trying with that movie because it was just so outdated and all around bad. Compare that to Man of Steel, you have a movie that, for once, you see the last days of Krypton and why Superman was sent to Earth in a way that doesn't look cheesy (I thought the Krypton scene in the Reeve's movies and even throughout Smallville was a lil corny and out of it's time) and set of actors who played an incredible job as Jor-El, Lara and Zod in a way that is very relatable to what us humans are doing to Earth. But aside from all that, You look at what Goyer was trying to accomplish and compare that to to any other Superman film and what he was trying to set up, he gave a final interpreation about Superman that leaves to speculation. You wonder if this Superman is even the good guy, just like the people do in the movie, wonder what side he's actually on. I put my money on the fact that this will get touched upon in Batman v Superman, and show a side of Lex that no one has ever seen on the big screen before.
I laugh at the comments from people that dont kno a god damn thing about movies
haters need to think about what they say instead of blatantly insulting this jesus
critical flop? according to who? if you refer to Rotten Tomatoes a 56% is very far away from flop. The movie is masterpiece that is polarizing to say the least. The only and sol argument people have is that its not SUPERMAN. But who is Superman. Over 80 years of background and canon and interpretation. Your Superman is very different than my mom's Superman and her mom before that. Superman is an ideal, a symbol. Clark Kent doesn't have to be interesting in order for Superman to be interesting. People hold on to that notion that Superman is this boy scout and when Brian Singer gave us that, people bashed him. Zack Snyder gave the people what they want and guess what they BASHED IT harder. People don't know what they want until it's given to them. Superman Returns had barely any action, bashed. MOS gave you actions on steroid, and realistic to say the least, when we're speaking about 2 GODS going head-to-head. What happened, BASHED it. Sick and tired of people hating on this movie for the wrong reason. You hate it, thats fine. Movies are subjective. But enough with the He isn't Superman argument. This is 2013's version of Superman let go of the old one's. Nolan's Batman was the complete opposite of any incarnation before that. Yet nobody batted an eye.
This is what happens when you're a small channel making a review about a movie that's divisive. Lots of angered fanboys and not enough subscribers to save your video from butthurt downvotes and hateful comments.
The question nobody asks; Why would Zod want to create a new Krypton when Earth gives them super powers?
So he wouldn't say to himself "Kal El is from Kyrpton and has super powers on Earth, therefore I would have those same powers because I'm also from Krypton"? That makes perfect sense.... said no one ever. A five year old can figure that out. Unless of course that five year old is Zack Snyder or David Goyer.
I'm sorry, but a lot of the defense of this film just seems to be an attempt to justify lazy screenwriting.
Spot on. Also, people forget the fact that, aside from the whole flawed ideology of a pre-determined service to society that had been drilled into their heads since birth, Zod was a military man, so, logically, he would think militarily. Him gaining superpowers on Earth was viewed more or less in a tactical standpoint from where he's coming from rather than anything desirable. Bringing back Krypton was his first priority, everything else secondary. And I actually liked that unlike most generic villains, Man of Steel's General Zod is a selfless, objective-minded man who's concern for his people comes before anything else (he stated this multiple times). Instead of being a power-hungry despot as Superman II's General Zod was, Man of Steel's represents an honorable but misguided man out to do what he genuinely believes is right. However, I do think a more legitimate complaint would be General Zod's extremely poor strategy in the film, if you could even call it that. Obviously this represents one of the more minor flaws in the movie, but I noticed it instantly. I won't list them all, but among the biggest mistakes he made was taking the scout ship which contained the genesis chamber out to the frontlines to defend the Black Zero. Why use the key to your race's survival as a warship when you should be safely "securing" it, as he told Faora he was supposedly going to do.
booste30 I understand that Zod wanted to bring Krypton back to life. But if he wanted to do that and only that. Why did he have to pick Earth. If Krypton's resurrection was his only goal. Why not just take the codex and go to another planet ?? I mean they had the technology, that much was established. They could have gone to Mars for God's sakes. Bring back their planet, and still maintain the power of Gods
There was no reason for them to believe that they could survive in Mars. You are looking at it from the perspective of a fan who already knows ( or thinks) they can live anywhere, but they clearly were effected by earths atmosphere and superman theirs. These Kryptonians needed to be able to breath.
From a strategic point if view, it would be much easier to bring up a new race, remember, most of them would be infants in a place that already had some forms of infrastructure, architecture, and media, primitive as these may have seemed to them.
hexum7 Even if they needed to be able to breathe. it was still established that they had the space technology to travel just about anywhere. and Set up a colony as well. The fight as a whole, simply was not necessary no matter how you look at it. The minute Zod realized Superman would oppose him, easy went right out the window. At the end of the day, Zod had the option of just taking the Codex and leaving. There's no getting around that fact, it's not like Kal was particularly dead set on keeping the thing.
This movie had sooo much potential!
Personally, I think the entire movie should have taken place entirely in Smallville with the Krypton bit at the beginning. Save Metropolis and Lois for the sequel. This way they could have developed Clark better along with how people perceive him. The fight with Zod could have been much more personal. They could have had a scene where Clark has the opportunity to kill some thug but chooses not to, that way killing Zod would have had a bigger impact.
There's just so much unnecessary crap. Like Lois being everywhere somehow and the military being involved.
If you're wondering why I replied to my own comment it's because I can't edit on my mobile.
Just because you dont like it, doesn't make it a Disappointment.
This video is illogical.
No it's not. It makes perfect sense.
he said
"it tried to appeal to the DUMB masses with the fight scenes".......
his just nothing but a hater i agree on some of his oppinion,but hate the fight scene? that's just pure stupidity and hate in its purest form
+MrFraggleSpock for an idiot.
+gohanson27 oh well done, just resort to insults. That'll convince me…
+MrFraggleSpock convince you about what? Liking the film? To each is own. I just find it funny that people really think Sam made strong valid points to why MOS is not a good Superman movie. He stated Superman Returns tried to make a good Superman movie. Try to watch that movie again. It's hideous. As soon as he stated that I knew he was judging and comparing MOS to his overall knowledge/view of the character. Which is Superman. Basically comparing issue #87 to issue #1. Your not coming to have a experience Superman with all his cool powers.
Avengers was better
Man of steel was still better than the first avenger
Garret1912 No!!
As a DC fan, it pains me to agree with you on that one.
Destiny Film Productions nah
Hands down one of the best SuperHero movies ever!! A well deserved superman film can't wait for the sequels and more!
This comment didn’t age well.
I hope you were happy with BvS
Why it worked: Made nearly $700m coming off the stench of Superman Returns, the majority of fans rated it highly (not critics who are .02% of the GA), and its getting a sequel with a better writer and team at production level, which will financially do good enough to guarantee the JL movie. Its a good time to be a DC fan.
Superman kills Zod in the comics. Not a big deal at all. AT ALLLLLL.
Oh and, Man of Steel is the Superman from the New 52. Look it up, this is the CLOSEST a Superman movie/show has came to the comics.
Guess what. I don’t care! I do not care if the movie is acurate to the comics if it is a bad movie!