The Man who Steals Threads (Man of Steel)

I saw MAN OF STEEL tonight.

I wonder why no one yet talked about that new score from that german composer, Hansi Schwimmer something. I hear it´s for a big budget spandex hero movie thingy, Man on Heels something...

Oh, wait, I think I got it all wrong. It was Horner.

Thor, it's just poking. No worries about this thread! This is MT after all.

Don´t you dare delete this thread. I´m gonna see the movie on Friday night and will tell you all about it after the WE. ^^ It´s just too early.

YES! I thought it was an error in the recording!
VERY weird!

Ah, it is to warn us for an extremely long end credits!

Thanks for the review, Tim. Although we differ in our assessment of both film and score, you make some good points.

Personally, I think one needs to embrace Zack Snyder's style to properly 'get' the film. He likes to bathe in excessive form, and I love the powerful, experience-oriented ideology there. He's not really a narrative director, he's more concerned with creating worlds and action setpieces and a myriad of visual ideas inside those. I really dig that. And I thought Zimmer's score was perfect for that kind of visual style.

Hmmmm, i am interested in seeing the film but i think cinema is way too expensive for all these mixed reviews. I think i'll wait to download it.

Maybe on a smaller screen i'll focus less on his man sized package...

I'm looking forward to his package!

I have no idea what it is about people and their expectations. The movie was a spectacle in every sense. I refuse to go into detail here because to me it´s a complete package with no weak points whatsoever. It´s not only a good superhero movie, it´s a great Superman movie, which is something we didn´t have for a long, long time. And yes, that includes the score. I´m really beginning to wonder what the fuck has to happen on screen for people to be completely happy about a blockbuster movie.

First of all, thanks for getting into the details.

As to the specific points you make, they are all, in a certain sense, right . I agree that there is a lot more action than we´re used to get in most superhero movies. The flow is different at some points, which happens when you cut back and forth between flashbacks and the present; and of course it does harm the fun to know too much about a movie by watching all the stuff that´s released beforehands.

But for me all those points are no real weaknesses.

Too much action in a Superman movie is kind of a luxury I´m happy to finally get, if just to forget all those abysmal Superman series of the past where they tried to cover the fact that they couldn´t have good or lots of FX work by just focusing on the teenage years or the love story between Lois & Clark instead of the Man of Steel in action. Because that´s what Superman comics actually are about, Superman in action.

Which brings me to point two. The movie is structured that way to avoid an hour of Clark growing up before something big finally happens. I´ll give you that the ride is a bit bumpy, but nevertheless way more exciting than the other way around.

Third, of course it´s okay to have a good time. But then say so and don´t focus on all the stuff you didn´t like. If you had a good time in general, then why not tell us about all the stuff you loved? Why all the negativity?

Please don´t take this the wrong way, I´m not trying to single you out or something. I just answer to you directly because you answered to me first. I could do this with almost every critique that´s out there, and guys like Erik know my philosophy for some time now: When I see a movie and want to talk about it later, I tend to look for all the stuff I liked, because I see no reason why I should ruin the fun of a good experience all by myself by focusing on the bad stuff. Hate the story of Star Wars Ep.1? What about the flawless design work? Focus on that one. Just enjoy the good view.

My point is, there is no flawless movie. If you want to find bad things, you´ll find them. But people´s expectations are astronomical now. If they would have shown us a movie like Man of Steel fifty years ago, it would have been the most amazing experience ever. And stuff like that is what we get every week now, sometimes even on TV. People are simply filled and stuffed. That doesn´t make the movies bad.

The other week I read an article about all the plotholes and scientific mistakes in Star Trek Into Darkness. They were all valid, but missing the point. So the Enterprise actually can´t stay underwater. So what? Warp tech doesn´t actually work in the first place, too. "Spock´s Brain", everyone? I don´t watch Star Trek for a science lesson, but for having a great time watching Spock being a cool hardass, McCoy bitching about everything, and Kirk holding all that shit together, while a starship called Enterprise soars in space on mighty wings. And that´s what I got. Big time. A fantastic movie. Only this time they even didn´t forget about the stuff that made TV Trek so great, having a valid story about preemptive strikes, terrorism, and the change of politics in the face of dark times.

I´m not talking about not realising the missteps a movie makes. I talk about just ignoring those and instead appreciating the things a movie does right.

One more point about experience: Watching trailers and spots is a choice. If you know watching them can ruin a movie experience for you, just don´t. My daughter didn´t want to get spoiled for a single bit of the new Trek. And she perfectly managed to do that, even if it meant to close her eyes for a minute or two when a trailer was unavoidable.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn´t movies be better? Of course they should. They could always be better. They should strife for better stories, realistic science, perfect flows, perfect music, perfect acting... the list goes on. And yes, there should be discussions about simplifications and plotholes and brutality in movies and whether we should teach our kids better by having better writing in movies. All those points are valid, and I´m all for it. Make movies better. In the meantime, I enjoy what I get.

What did you like about the movie, Timmer?

EDIT: Forget it, I simply scrolled up.

I think one should completely forget what I wrote at all. Maybe I am too easy on satisfaction. But I don´t consider that a bad thing. I just think it doesn´t get us anywhere complaining. If I ever met the director / writer / producer, I would thank him for a thouroughly entertaining evening, tell him what I liked, and then ask questions about stuff could be improved next time.

Because no one else can actually do something about those points.

????

I've only seen one other Snyder film and that's WATCHMEN which I liked a lot and will champion.

I'm usually easily satisfied too but I didn't come out of the cinema thoroughly entertained by this film, I was continually distracted by what I consider some bad moves in this film ( of which you've already read ), it's like coming out of a restaurant saying 'excellent starter course but the main and dessert were a let down', except unlike a restaurant where I'd complain to the manager I can't just go up and personally complain to Zac Snyder.

Curiously, WATCHMEN is the least "Snyder" of all his films (and the one I like the least, personally).

He's really all about style and wild visual ideas -- sometimes strained in a bit (like WATCHMEN), usually not. It's like a 'stream-of-consciousness' style of filmmaking, where he gets an idea of something, but then adds other elements as they pop into his head. For example -- it's not enough that Superman throws the villain into a train, the train also has to explode and be thrown back! It's not enough that Jor-El flies on an AVATAR-like creature through exploding spaceships, he also has to dive into a sea full of weird plants with human seeds. And so on.

I really appreciate that style of filmmaking -- using the medium to its full force -- but I can also understand how it can feel overwhelming to those that don't appreciate that approach. It is, however, the "key" to getting a film like MAN OF STEEL, IMO.