Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related Man of Steel movie

There are NO extra scenes after the credits, so you don't have to sit through the credits unless you really want to. <<I'm terribly sorry, if anyone considers this a *spoiler*, I'm considering it as a common courtesy.>>

I don't want to read any spoilers (hence my posting in this thread), but I am interested in finding out in general whether those of you who have seen MoS liked it. Was it enjoyable? A waste of money? On a scale of 1-10, what rating would you give it? I am purposely NOT adding, "and why?" to that last question, since I'd like this discussion to be spoiler-free.

I am hoping to see the movie next week, and I was wondering whether I should set my expectations lower than they currently are.

Thanks,
Lynn

A solid 8.5 so long as your expectations are middle of the road. For a Superman movie, definitely a 9 at least.

If this helps any, Hubby and I totally enjoyed the show and it was well worth the money. We just saw the 2D version, so I have no idea what 3D added to it. Even the 2D looked very 3Dish to me.
That said, we also agree about some of the comments about it having 4 endings too many. Destroying Metropolis went on so long that it was getting ho hum, another building down.
The whole American military bit was well done and we had fun identifying all Cheyenne Mountain stuff and the many airplanes they used. It was spot on.
I enjoyed the look at Krypton and its society and the effects were really good. I also enjoyed Jor-El's part. I won't say more because then it would be a spoiler.
And Henry Cavill is 100% hot and is a good actor to boot. So go.
One more point, it *is* PG-13, but I saw young kids in the theater. I think it is too intense for any kid under 10.
I'm looking forward to the sequel where hopefully we get more Clark Kent.

Artemis

I agree that it's at least an 8.5, maybe a 9, out of 10. Points taken off for (surprisingly) too much action, to the detriment of character and plot.

Extra points added on for Henry Cavill being yummy.

On a scale where 0 = Battlefield Earth, and 1 = League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Sadly, I did pay to see both of those in the theatre, and I'll never get those 5 hours of my life back. ) and 10 = Star Wars (the first one, where Luke is a farm boy, *before* Lucas went in and fiddled with it 13K times ). Okay, what am I suggesting? Star Wars is so totally a 15 on a 10 point scale. 10 = The Avengers. I'd say MoS is a solid 8. It's wipes the floor with Superman Returns (a 4, only because of Kevin Spacy's Lex).

MoS *is* entertaining. The acting is solid, even if there are some flaws, story-wise. I'm glad I saw it in the theatre, and I'd sneak off and pay to see it in the theatre again, if I could figure out a way to find someone to watch my kids.

Definitely worth the money. Still, we want to see Perry more.

Thank you all for answering my question. There appears to be a consensus that although it may not be the absolute best movie ever to have seen the big screen, it is nevertheless a high-quality film and well worth watching.

Your comments have made me even more excited about the movie.

Thanks again,
Lynn

Yes, I would pay to see it again and catch more of the detail. I really don't do that usually, so that tells me it was good. And I'll buy the DVD.

Artemis

Agreed again! I'm gonna take my mom on cheap movie day ($6 Tuesdays woo-hoo! :rolleyes: ) and watch it with her, this time just to enjoy it, though. I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, as I believe I've mentioned before, so it's not unusual for me to want to see a movie twice in a row. It is unusual for me to actually pay for it though, as I am still currently the broke college student. So that should tell you something. :p

A followup question. Again, please keep your answer spoiler-free.

For those of you who like 3D movies in general, would you consider this movie one that is worth the added expense to watch in 3D? In other words, do the 3D effects seem like gimmicky add-ons, or do they really enhance the movie-going experience? FWIW, I've only ever seen one 3D movie, and that was a cartoon, specifically "How to Train Your Dragon." It was a fun novelty experience, but I am ambivalent about the 3D experience in general -- if it is used to good effect throughout the show, it might be worth it to me, but if there are only a few scenes where it really matters, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the 3D glasses. (I already wear glasses to begin with; wearing two pair at once is a bit much.)

Thanks,
Lynn

I can't give first-hand experience - never seen a 3D movie, myself. But over on another board, every post I've seen says the 3D is not worth it for this movie. Several have said the 2D is better than the 3D.

I saw it in 2D and I didn't recall anything that jumped out at me as being specifically 3D-worthy (usually you can tell). Granted, I've never seen a modern 3D movie. Hollywood is making everything in 3D nowadays whether or not they really need to. It's another gimmick. I'd say, stick to 2D.

I saw it in both versions and the only things that the 3D really made ANY difference at all was the opening credits and the closing credits. Seriously. For this movie it's not worth it. I've seen movies where there is a difference but this one was most certainly NOT it.

2D or not 2D? That is the question.

Thanks for making the answer an easy one. 2D it will be.

Joy,
Lynn