Originally posted by NephthysDialogue/screen presence =/= character. That's just being a mouthpiece for the plot. He had nearly zip emotions. So did Crowe. To be fair the rest of the characters were pretty lackluster in that department too, but Costner and Crowe were nearly zombies in their lifelessness.
Understated /=/ Bland. Crowe had as much character as any other portrayal of Jor El did. His character is that he's a strong, wise guy whose planet is exploding. The character isn't more than that and doesn't need to be.Costner had plenty of character. Most of the flashbacks had him in them and he does character stuff in all of them. We see how much he loves his son and how much he worries about him. He's a simple, sedate farmer, he isn't going to be yelling his lines like Zod. Costner went for an underplayed, naturalistic performance. Some people like that and find it highly believable.
First of all, I don't know where you get this idea that Costner can't act. Dances with Wolves was one of the greatest movies ever made. He's not the BEST actor but he's a good one, and an even better writer. Secondly, he was perfect for his role in Man of Steel. His "unemotional" character did something for me (not sexually) and reading many comments about the movie, Costner was one of the best, if not the best in it. Simply by showing very little emotion, he made a splash. At least for me (again NOT sexually).
Also, I don't think anybody is going to say Crowe isn't a hell of an actor. I don't think anyone has but just in case, you REALLY don't want to go there because evidence=
It was merely good, not great imo, but then the only truly great comicbook/superhero film has been The Dark Knight, and it was largely because it burrowed from the comic book mythology but used it to tell what actually felt like an original story unlike what most superhero films do and directly adapt one of the comic book stories. My main problem with Man of Steel was that its storyline was uninspired, became an absolute mess when Zod's plan kicks into full gear, and it lacked the drama and intensity of more masterful serious films, not to mention possessing almost no heart or charm. Not all that bad in comparison to other superhero films but if the same story had been presented in the comics it would just be viewed as another mediocre retelling of the Superman origin story. It's basically just a very good popcorn movie.
Watchmen maybe the most entertaining movie I've ever seen. Visually stunning as well, unrivaled. But the problem with the uninspiring storyline for Man of Steel is exactly why I loved it. It didn't follow the typical superhero format. It was a simple story about a God among men. I don't know if it applies, but K.I.S.S (keep it simple, stupid) definitely applied here.
Originally posted by mike honcholol
First of all, I don't know where you get this idea that Costner can't act. Dances with Wolves was one of the greatest movies ever made. He's not the BEST actor but he's a good one, and an even better writer. Secondly, he was perfect for his role in Man of Steel. His "unemotional" character did something for me (not sexually) and reading many comments about the movie, Costner was one of the best, if not the best in it. Simply by showing very little emotion, he made a splash. At least for me (again NOT sexually).Also, I don't think anybody is going to say Crowe isn't a hell of an actor. I don't think anyone has but just in case, you REALLY don't want to go there because evidence=
Originally posted by NephthysSuperman III sucked. Though at least it was hilariously bad, instead of annoyingly bad.
BTW, for everyone complaining about Superman letting people die in Man of Steel, in Superman III he straight up lets an entire town get destroyed so he could chat up Lois instead.
Originally posted by Nephthys
What didn't you like about it? The brilliant storyline? The profound themes and ideas? The fantastic visuals? The engaging characters? The masterful direction? The great score? The visceral fight scenes? The amazing set and costume designs?yeah it sure was mediocre 7/10 tops
Well I'm a big fan of the comicbook so naturally I agree with a lot of what you just said, but the truth is that I'm rarely a fan of direct adaptations from one medium to another; I didn't like Stanley Kubrick's The Shining and I don't really like the TV adaptation of Game of Thrones either. I can't really give you any specifics as it's been a while since I've seen the film but I recall losing interest during the middle part of the film and just being a little underwhelmed for the most part.
Reminds me of my issue with There Will Be Blood. My hipster elitist snob friends thought it was the best thing to ever hit celluloid, but I thought it was terrible. Excruciatingly boring from start to finish.
A movie's purpose is to be entertaining. The "deepest" and most "cerebral" storyline in the world can't save a movie from being utter crap IMHO.
There Will Be Blood is great though. 😐
Originally posted by noitseuq
Well I'm a big fan of the comicbook so naturally I agree with a lot of what you just said, but the truth is that I'm rarely a fan of direct adaptations from one medium to another; I didn't like Stanley Kubrick's The Shining and I don't really like the TV adaptation of Game of Thrones either. I can't really give you any specifics as it's been a while since I've seen the film but I recall losing interest during the middle part of the film and just being a little underwhelmed for the most part.
Well thats just you being a butt. The movies still great even if its not your thing. Theres a lot of movies I dislike that I'd still admit were great despite my personal dislike.