Video: Man of Steel Spoiler-Filled Analysis

Did Zack Snyder's Superman soar? We talk plot twists, action and more

Man of Steel may be a commercial success (it broke June weekend box office records), but its reaction from critics and cinemagoers has been polarising to say the least.

For as many people who have loved its bombastic mix of CGI action, origin story and Henry Cavill's imposing personification (read: pin-perfect physical replica) of the comics legend, there have been some who have been disappointed by what they perceive to be a loud, souless mess.

The official Total Film review outlines its strengths and weaknesses, but we decided to hash it out in the old-fashioned fanboy way - sitting around a table and debating until our faces turned blue.

But what do YOU think?

Watch the video below, and let us know who's side you're on in the comments below!

Comments

    • Benmorse

      Jun 19th 2013, 19:15

      I hated it. Totally devoid of emotional resonance. The fights were far too long, and with two invincible characters - what's the point? See any movie just focused on the Hulk - movies about invincible characters don't tend to work. Cavill is fine, but there's no characterisation. Snyder instead is more excited with Jesus metaphors and empty visual spectacle. Any "character development" moments were montaged to death with advertising style film-making. The prologue looks like extras from John Carter, the alien SFX were HR Giger ripoffs, (complete with prison d***os - watch that sequence again and you'll see) Costner was good, but again limited. And his exit was ridiculous. The end fight is so over-the-top (the same scale, or worse that required all the Avengers to fix NY) and pornographically like 9/11, only exploitative as it lacked any emotional resonance. And Russell Crowe flies a dragon. It's a piece of c**p. 3/10

      Alert a moderator

    • williamadams

      Jun 19th 2013, 22:58

      The best super hero film ever I cried 3 times the acting an action top class as well as the story telling.it didn't try to bore you with an origin story instead it gave u more that non readers wouldn't have known,the editing excellent back story tied together nicely an Lois knows great ideas solves the glasses we all wanted to see superman show how powerfully he is an always dreaming of what we always only got in comics.funny moments.an each actor really sold the story my fists were punching the air.loved the story about being accepted an no I never watched the review critics bore me.I feel I ave seen finally seen a real hero story.that gave me so many feelings.but imp of all superman is again the daddy.ten stars out of 5

      Alert a moderator

    • jamestaggart

      Jun 20th 2013, 11:05

      The guy in the video who thought it was 'terrible' is clearly just saying that to be different. Films are entirely objective yes, but you cannot label this 'terrible'. It was a really fun film and a good new direction to take Superman. We have the Donner films, why would they have made more of the same? I reckon I would give it 8/10. I have seen it twice, was better the second time round. P.S The Krypton scenes were great.

      Alert a moderator

    • richardwantuch

      Jun 20th 2013, 13:40

      As a huge Superman fan (been reading since I was 7 years old) I was willing to compromise on many things for a film for new audiences. I wanted to love this so bad, having never seen a movie version of Superman that fully satisfies. I left with mixed feelings that over the past week have grown into more of a negative reaction. There was some stuff I loved. The cast were awesome, the fight scenes were executed well, I loved the idea of Krypton's prior connections to Earth in trying to find an alternate home, but so many key elements were glossed over or just plain omitted. The story was really, really lazy, but I think some of it just came down to bad decisions on the part of the creative team. Whereas Superman Returns made the mistake of not being able to break away from the Donner movies, this one has reacted to that too far in the other direction. For instance, while I see it as a good thing that Lex Luthor and Kryptonite weren't a focus in this film, as people want to see something knew, they are STILL elementary to the Superman mythos, the groundwork could have been laid for these in a really interesting way, but nothing (Tanker with a Lexcorp logo on it does not suffice) this is one of the most powerful, wealthiest men in the world, he would be involved in some way. So much potential was wasted. I completely agree with Gav about the hurricane scene. I am sorry but Clark could run in there at normal fast human speed, grab his dad and pull him to safety without suspicion. The hurricane wouldn't lift him off the ground, but it could just be a fluke. Flukier things happen in real life. A bad, lazy way to convey an important message under the guise of deep emotional impact. Sorry, but my heartstrings aren't manipulated quite that easily. There's loads more I could say, but don't want to bore people with my waffle. As a film on its own it was entertaining. As a Superman adaptation and flagship movie for the live action DCU series of films, it left me feeling disillusioned and concerned about the franchise we are going to be stuck with for at least the best part of the next decade. 7/10

      Alert a moderator

    • simonpearson

      Jun 21st 2013, 22:50

      I went to see it thinking I was going to be disappointed as the trailers had really built up the expectations of this being the best movie ever. With Superman The Movie, the tag line was "you'll believe a man can fly". For Man of Steel, it should have been "You'll believe". It was an amazing movie and exceeded my expectations. Great characterisation, great acting and a totally enjoyable movie experience.,

      Alert a moderator

    • JimmyJump

      Jun 21st 2013, 22:56

      I liked the movie, though I also found the main characters to be lacking in depth. There's no reason for empathy with any of them. The reason for this is that character depth was thrown out the window in favour of CGI-sequences -like it so often happens with effects-laden movies. If "Avatar" and other "Dark Night Rises" come in at around or close to the three hour mark, I feel it was wrong to cram such a vast story in just over two hours... Also, the Kriptonites (including the Supe) move too fast. It's nice to want to show that they defy gravity and have a laugh at Newton, but it comes across as highly unrealistic when you have folk stuttering across the screen like rubber magic balls. Okay, so we're talking SF/Fantasy, so realism is always going to get seriously stretched, but within the story things still need to fit... I mean, I think you could hardly choke a guy when he pinches dust from his shoulder after you hit him with a 10-ton construction beam. The way things were presented didn't work for me as I felt we were venturing into cartoon slapstick territory. The effects were great, mind, just a touch silly. The timeline of the movie doesn't help either. Flashbacks are okay, except when used in a mish-mash way and failing to substantially add to the story. So yeah, we get to see what Kent Junior was up to during his trek, but we learn nothing about the consequences -which must carry furhter than a school friend's nervewrecked mother or oilrig colleagues going "gee, look at that"... This being said, I still liked the movie, just a touch disappointed that, because of the toning down on the characters' feelings, the scope of the movie gets reduced to just a run-of-the-mill let's-blow-stuff-up movie. 7/10 JJ

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Jun 22nd 2013, 0:20

      its alright.

      Alert a moderator

    • sandravisser

      Jul 3rd 2013, 12:56

      Totally agree with Jimmy Jump and to a degree with Ben Morse, although he's harsher in his assessment than I was.

      Alert a moderator