m4st4 wrote:From IMDb, sadly, I agree:

It's pretty depressing that his movie has an 8.0+ rating. What this says to me is that it's merely sufficient for most "fans" to be fed the next "edgy-with-dark-color-palette superhero reboot" complete with obligatory chest-beating moments and all the cgi trimmings, though any concept of actual storytelling be damned. TDKR for example, while being generic (Nolan after all is king of effective generic cinema) at least had competent storytelling that you could connect with and regardless of your feelings about the quality of said storytelling, you felt a forward movement, step by step, that took you along for that ride.

Man of Steel on the other hand fails at even the most basic levels of storytelling, each segment being more convoluted than the last. Constantly jumping forward and back, never allowing a single character or character relationship to progress or develop, causing everything which occurs to feel utterly contrived and greatly in haste (to finally build up to the team-america-esque battle scenes); for example, Jonathon and Martha Kent merely reduced to awkward cameos, Louis being a meddling journalist who initially roots out Clark's secret and thus by association is automatically "romance material". You get the feel that all of this was outlined on paper to be "edgy" and "different", but in the great behemoth machine that is hollywood, it was never truly understood and felt by the director himself, and is why it came out feeling so flat and dead and meaningless.

Then there's just the insultingly bad writing like Clark's father haphazardly sacrificing himself for the dog in the Tornado and Clark refusing to save him in order to safeguard his secret - yet not soon after in that chronology he saves those people in the oil rig, revealing his superman abilities in plain sight, and later, even totals some losers truck in a bar for spilling beer on him - both being worth it - yet saving the man who brought you up on this earth with only a couple people present, and in the chaos of tornado to boot - was not worth it. There are dozens more examples like this.

Well, at least they got our money. So they won in the end, right?

Just... Why? I needed to bump my TDK Trilogy Blu-ray viewing just to forget about this whole mess.

Sandy wrote:Doomsday

Doomsday

Doomsday

Thedarknight628 wrote:Maybe you could try a second viewing of it. Some think it helped the movie improve.

m4st4 wrote:

Thedarknight628 wrote:Maybe you could try a second viewing of it. Some think it helped the movie improve.

I hope it will. It's in my head for two days straight now and the way I see it now... Okay, it definitely wasn't on par with Batman Begins, that was the goal in my head, that kind of level. So yeah, in a way it was a disappointment. But today I was thinking in terms of movies I enjoy watching on Blu, you may call them guilty pleasures, stuff like ''Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon'' (yeah, I like that movie a lot and it doesn't bother my that people trash on Transformers because its Michael 'Splosions Bay; Jablonsky was spectacular, but so were the set pieces in T3, I can still remember the highway sequence, soloing Starscream, vertical drop from a skyscraper or the squirell squad - those action sequences were memorable and not simply thrown at my face). If MOS turns out to be ''a pleasure'' after my second viewing, with my expectations leveled out with reality, I might add prefix ''guilty'' and call it a nice lookin' movie ride, cause it WAS beautiful to look at, I DID enjoy every second of part 1 and 2 and all the actors did a pretty decent job, except for some side characters that made me cringe, due to one man to blame - David Goyer (at one point, that ''Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions'' dude, general character, says: ''This is only speculation from my part, but I think that ship is here to make a big entrance'' - WHAT? First you're all professional, then you hit us with a cheap one-liner? Or, Superman destroys Small Town USA along with Faora and that creepy hulking henchman, he's standing in the center of all that ruble and chaos, and army guy says what exactly? ''I believe this man, he's a good guy.'' Or similar, in the very center of ground zero, death all around, Supes SMILES and cracks a joke about first kisses with miss Lane). All the minuses aren't in Snyder's hands, guy knows how to make a visual beastie, but in the hands of a man who did amazingly stupid storytelling decisions.

m4st4 wrote:From IMDb, sadly, I agree:

It's pretty depressing that his movie has an 8.0+ rating. What this says to me is that it's merely sufficient for most "fans" to be fed the next "edgy-with-dark-color-palette superhero reboot" complete with obligatory chest-beating moments and all the cgi trimmings, though any concept of actual storytelling be damned. TDKR for example, while being generic (Nolan after all is king of effective generic cinema) at least had competent storytelling that you could connect with and regardless of your feelings about the quality of said storytelling, you felt a forward movement, step by step, that took you along for that ride.

Man of Steel on the other hand fails at even the most basic levels of storytelling, each segment being more convoluted than the last. Constantly jumping forward and back, never allowing a single character or character relationship to progress or develop, causing everything which occurs to feel utterly contrived and greatly in haste (to finally build up to the team-america-esque battle scenes); for example, Jonathon and Martha Kent merely reduced to awkward cameos, Louis being a meddling journalist who initially roots out Clark's secret and thus by association is automatically "romance material". You get the feel that all of this was outlined on paper to be "edgy" and "different", but in the great behemoth machine that is hollywood, it was never truly understood and felt by the director himself, and is why it came out feeling so flat and dead and meaningless.

Then there's just the insultingly bad writing like Clark's father haphazardly sacrificing himself for the dog in the Tornado and Clark refusing to save him in order to safeguard his secret - yet not soon after in that chronology he saves those people in the oil rig, revealing his superman abilities in plain sight, and later, even totals some losers truck in a bar for spilling beer on him - both being worth it - yet saving the man who brought you up on this earth with only a couple people present, and in the chaos of tornado to boot - was not worth it. There are dozens more examples like this.

Well, at least they got our money. So they won in the end, right?

Just... Why? I needed to bump my TDK Trilogy Blu-ray viewing just to forget about this whole mess.