Man of Steel

A new generation is entitled to a new beginning, and thus the semi-divine orphan once again descends to us earthlings for the first time. I am glad that he succeeded in a way that only does justice to Kal-El, but as a fan of the more innocent and human adventures of the Man of Steel, I was hoping for something a little more different. I admire Zack Snyder for daring to rearrange the chronology of the sacred origin story, but there were simply too many technical tricks or destroyed blocks for me. Superman has always been different for me precisely because he is well aware of his almost painful superiority and does not fight in a destructive way that you tend to see in superhero movies. I can watch their methods from morning till night, but the savior with the S on his chest naturally flies a class above. The perfect casting, led by the fascinating Russell Crowe as Jor-El, partly mitigates these criticisms, as do those sentimental insertions that may have caused some discomfort in other viewers. But when the screenplay touches on the humanity of the central hero, that's when I almost immediately soften. On my way out of the cinema I ultimately felt a conflicting satisfaction. Due to the devilish pace of the second half, I can't shake the feeling that I was riding an express train rather than a full-fledged reboot, but there were surprisingly enough attractions waiting for me in it. So keep flying, Clark. I hope you'll fly far enough to keep the memories from turning bitter. (2014-02-01)

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

Whereas the Avengers movies are targeted at nerds and the Batman movies appeal to a broader audience that otherwise doesn’t go for comic-book flicks, Man of Steel is a superhero movie that tries to tread a path that is entirely atypical of the genre. The new Superman is conceived as a chick flick. In addition to the expected shots in which the handsome hero appears topless, this is demonstrated primarily by the narrative, which focuses exclusively on relationship motifs (the family and the hero’s roots, protectiveness, responsibility and sacrifice, as well as the relationship with Lois Lane starting on the basis of mutual respect and transforming into love). Lois Lane herself was characteristically conceived as a truly professional reporter, so this time she isn’t a fragile beauty waiting to be rescued, but an emotionally engaged character representing the ideal role model for today’s girls. The film’s targeting at a female audience is further evidenced by the form of the usual blockbuster shots, which have the purpose of confirming the appropriateness of the target audience’s reaction to the events being shown. Whereas in Transformers we have a boy who comments on the battle between giant robots by shouting “wow”, in Man of Steel we find a number of shots in which Lois Lane and, in particular, Air Force officer Carrie Farris dreamily gaze at Superman and comment directly on his attractiveness. The narrative is basically not arranged chronologically, but thematically, and Snyder’s opulent advertising aesthetics, with which he stylises every shot in order to have the maximum emotional impact on viewers and to stimulate their senses, which corresponds to the targeting of women, transform the comic-book story into an impressive spectacle aimed mainly at the heart. (2013-06-29)

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

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