Man of Steel Review

Usually when I write a review, I try to avoid other reviews until mine is finished.  However, it seems impossible to do so with Zack Snyder’s latest, Man of Steel.  It’s gotten both its fans and its critics all fired up about interpretations of the character, the choices in tone and elements of the ending.  I’m somewhere in the middle.  It wasn’t a terrible movie, despite my issues I’ll get into, but it also wasn’t the tour de force some deem it to be.  Chalk it up to the extremes nerds can wind up in: passion in one direction can be fueled by the passion in the opposition.  Maybe it’s just being in the middle, but I find such an intense debate over a film I’m in no hurry to revisit ever again a little confusing.

The biggest problem this film has is its script.  Screenwriter David S. Goyer unfortunately has to cram in two movies worth of story into one film.  Although the film doesn’t drag, it doesn’t have time to develop the characters or storylines because they want to get to the action.  So when certain members of the Daily Planet are in peril later in the film, I’m not terribly invested in it because I haven’t gotten to know who they are.  The film also has a bad habit of introducing confusing elements and not explaining them until 10-15 minutes after the fact.  Why is Zod on a rampage at the beginning?  What’s the big deal with Superman’s birth?  How does Clark Kent find a key part of his past in the Arctic after being a waiter in the previous scene?  These things end up getting explained later, though why the film withholds these reasons makes it unnecessarily convoluted.  I wonder if this was supposed to be a much longer film but had to get cut down dramatically, hence all the shortcuts they take to get to the set pieces.

As much as I didn’t like the trailers—I felt the first trailer looked like Tree of Life if it were made by the guys who made the “It’s halftime in America” commercial—I feel like the material covered in the first trailer would’ve made a better first film.  Give an entire movie to the origin stuff; it’d give more time to develop the fall of Krypton and Superman’s upbringing in Smallville, then save the Superman’s first battle for the second movie.  I would’ve liked to have seen more from the Kents, played well by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner, and their story.  How do you deal with having an alien life form crash in your backyard and try to help him adjust to life on Earth?   That stuff is in Man of Steel, but more of it would’ve enriched the heart of the film and established the foundation for the character.  I often found myself perplexed about who this version of Clark Kent was, which shouldn’t be for a character as iconic as Superman.  Unfortunately I don’t think a studio would greenlight a superhero movie that’s largely a coming of age drama with much less action.  If you’re going to do an origin story, it should be natural to the story being told and not just something they feel they have to shoehorn in every time a superhero movie franchise is launched or rebooted.

As a reminder, I didn’t have this movie.  I thought the cast worked as well as they could against the material.  Henry Cavill, who I haven’t seen in anything prior, gives a solid performance that could be even better in future installments if he’s given a better developed character.  I also like Amy Adams as the ambitious Lois Lane, though the love story feels tacked on to a film with enough going on.  Of course, Michael Shannon probably has the most fun as Zod, but as I’ve said, I would’ve liked a more three dimensional character (or maybe some more “I WILL FIND HIM!” moments).  I also feel the supporting cast, with Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Richard Schiff and Christopher Meloni, deserved some more.

Another problem that’s come up a lot among critics is the movie’s tone.  Being that the film is directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, two filmmakers not known for having much of a sense of humor in their films, Man of Steel is a darker film than you’d expect from Superman and that doesn’t feel like it was the right call.  “Dark” films have been fashionable in the past decade, especially since the Nolan Batman trilogy, but I don’t think it was the way to go for Superman, a character largely defined as a symbol of hope and light.  The Avengers is proof you don’t need constant brooding to be good (they could also stand to look specifically at how they’ve handled the character of Captain America).  Now that Superman is a viable franchise again, I’d like to see a lighter touch on future installments; less Zack Snyder, more Brad Bird.

Although the dark tone is common in Zack Snyder’s films, this is probably the least Zack Snyder looking film he’s made since Dawn of the Dead.  This may be because his last film, Sucker Punch, flopped and someone was trying to reign in his usual choices.  While I wouldn’t call Sucker Punch “good” in the traditional sense, I can’t help but feel like losing Snyder’s style is a bit of a shame.  Sucker Punch is a much more interesting movie, and the one I’d be more likely to revisit for sure.  Most of Man of Steel could’ve been made by almost any major director.  If you’re going to hire Zack Snyder, let Zack Snyder show up.  Also, for a guy known to constantly use slow motion in his films, that it’s not used during the hard to see fights between the Kryptonians feels like a wasted opportunity.  They could’ve slowed down the lightning fast moves to make it look like real time while the world around them went in slow motion.  I’m sure Snyder could’ve made that look cool.  Instead it often is just a lot of CG characters fighting, which is tough to stay invested in.

Now that Superman made a huge impact at the box office to the point where ideas of a sequel set for release next year have sprung up (something it seems like everyone thinks is a terrible idea) and them going ahead with rushing their Justice League movie, it seems unfortunate that this is the version we’re stuck with until the next relaunch.  By trying to make things dark, they undermined Superman as a character, a character meant to inspire hope and serve as an ideal that we can do better.  Instead they compromise that by trying to accommodate a desire for “dark” material, as well as not fully developing many of those ideas, leaving me hoping the filmmakers can do better next time around.

Grade: C+

Miscellaneous (SPOILERS):

-Yeah, the final battle is preposterous in the level of destruction and the lack of thought given to the human cost of it.  The alien invasion/duel between Zod and Superman was like 9/11 times 40, with several portions of Metropolis resembling an area after a nuclear bomb went off.  Certain people are even theorizing how much that would cost in both damage to buildings and loss of human life.  Yet in the epilogue Clark Kent heads to join the Daily Planet as if nothing happened (hopefully the sequel addresses the aftermath in more detail).  Certainly films I’ve liked more like The Avengers have involved a lot of major destruction, but they at least took some time to address the people on the ground.  Besides the people Zod threatens to blast with his heat ray vision, Superman doesn’t seem that concerned about protecting people who aren’t named characters.  Certainly the “it’s his first day on the job” explanation is valid; it’s just on the screen we don’t see him act concerned about the devastation he’s partially responsible for.

-Superman killing doesn’t work, as many have said.  Superman’s supposed to be better, find a way to solve this problem that doesn’t compromise his moral code.  This could possibly be the reason why he may not kill in future installments, like the reasons why The Doctor on Doctor Who tries to solve his problems without killing.

-This sets up the stage for Lex Luthor to garner a lot of support from the public.  Who would want to have this Superman anywhere near them?

-I think my issues with the destruction of Metropolis could be assuaged if some of this film was dedicated to showing Superman saving people from the destruction and assisting in the rebuilding; not issuing ultimatums to the government not to spy on him like Batman would.

-Between this and last summer’s Amazing Spider-Man, I’m over origin stories.  Can’t we just have established heroes already exist and not have to wait until the second movie for things to happen?

-For the love of all that is good in the world can Hollywood filmmakers get over tinting everything blue?

-Which is the bigger problem with the “I think he’s hot” line: the cheesiness or it being out of place in a movie not interested in humor?

-Lois must be capable of teleportation.  From getting to the ship early on, then to the train station, she seems to be able to get anywhere she needs rather easily.

-And Superman didn’t destroy the terraforming device in the crowded city before the one in the middle of nowhere because…?

-How exactly does Superman destroy the first device?  He flies around it, the defenses put up a fight and thoroughly beat him, then he stands under it for a minute and flies right through it.  Did I miss something?  This movie plays really loose with the rules, not a great sign for sci-fi/fantasy.

-I think it’s funny how some of Man of Steel’s fans have decried its critics for not being able to enjoy anything.  I don’t think a movie as anhedonic as Man of Steel is really where you can make that argument.

-I think the more appropriate product tie-in would be “What would Superman order at IHOP?”

-No post-credits scene?  Seriously?