MAN OF STEEL
*1/2 (out of four)
DIRECTED BY Zack Snyder
STARS Henry Cavill, Amy Adams
Who could possibly have imagined that Man of Steel, the latest attempt to reboot the Superman franchise, would be an even less satisfying superhero saga than such critically dismissed efforts as Daredevil, Green Lantern and (yikes!) The Green Hornet? It’s one massive superbore, with a solemnity so crushing that it makes those earnest Biblical epics from the 1950s and ’60s seem like a Marx Brothers romp by comparison.
Certainly, some will (wrongly) argue that this post-9/11 era has no room for such lighthearted superflicks like 1978’s Superman, which still ranks as the greatest superhero movie ever made. But even such yarns as The Avengers and the Iron Man trio, with all their nods toward world destruction and terrorists (or supervillains) seeking to curtail our freedoms, exhibit a sense of joy in the filmmaking, while the sagas that do wallow in the nihilism, like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, have enough gravitas and dramatic heft to warrant such treatment. Man of Steel, for its part, offers nothing but torturous exposition, heavy-handed symbolism, criminally ill-used actors and a numbing finale that would be right at home in a Transformers sequel.
For what it’s worth — and it ultimately isn’t worth much — Man of Steel tackles the familiar origin story from a different angle than what might be expected. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) still anchors the first reel, futilely warning his fellow Kryptonians that their planet is doomed and they must evacuate before it’s too late. And General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his band of misfits still turn up and are eventually hurled into the Phantom Zone, although the interesting twist here is that Zod and co. aren’t merely murderous egotists but well-meaning anarchists who seek to overthrow the doddering bureaucrats (Occupy Krypton?). Unfortunately, Zod’s means aren’t peaceful — no sidewalk sit-ins for him — and before he’s imprisoned, he swears to track down Jor-El’s baby boy, who’s been hurled into space in advance of the planet’s demise.
That son, of course, is Kal-El, who lands on Earth and is raised by farm couple Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) under the name of Clark Kent. Clark understandably feels like an outsider all the time, and he’s anxious to use the awesome powers he keeps bottled up inside. But Jonathan instructs him to resist the urge, and this advice is largely what leads the adult Clark (now played by Henry Cavill) to wander the backroads with no real purpose, a bearded laborer who takes any job he can find (these scenes, combined with Clark’s shaggy whiskers, bring to mind Hugh Jackman’s wanderings in X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). It isn’t until he meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and squares off against the newly arrived Zod that he begins to find direction in his life. And just to ensure that everything goes according to cosmic plan, the ghost of Jor-El pops up on occasion, doling out advice like some ethereal Obi-wan Kenobi.
There’s a strong possibility that Man of Steel might be the dullest superhero saga ever filmed. It’s not lacking in action, but it’s endless and uninspired, with director Zack Snyder (300, Sucker Punch) maxing out the studio’s credit cards by shooting as much CGI bombast as the hardware could handle before sparking and catching on fire. The scenes that rely on dialogue are no better, with the good guys prone to speechifying and the bad guys reduced to spouting haughty cliches. Of all the actors, poor Costner has it the worst of anybody: Playing a character whose righteousness would put Gandhi to shame, he’s never allowed to utter anything remotely natural, instead delivering every line as if he was reading from a stack of fortune cookies. It’s a pity, because he’s the most perfectly cast performer in the entire production, with Crowe placing a distant second (like Costner, he has to struggle with a sizable number of unwieldy lines). Adams, a great actress, is curiously ineffectual as Lois Lane — while an improvement over Superman Returns‘ Kate Bosworth (heck, even RuPaul would be an improvement over Bosworth), she possesses none of the manic energy or insatiable curiosity of Margot Kidder’s intrepid reporter in the Christopher Reeve entries. And until this film, I thought it was impossible for Shannon to deliver a weak performance, but he’s drastically miscast as General Zod, reducing this towering figure of evil into the equivalent of a slobbery bulldog irritated by mange.
All might be forgiven had the role of Superman/Clark Kent been cast with the right actor, but Cavill is a complete dullard, bereft of any trace of wit or charisma. Much of that might be due to the efforts of the writers (unbelievably, the Dark Knight team of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer) to repeatedly present the character as Christ incarnate (the movie’s a Where’s Waldo? of Biblical proportions, with Jesus references lurking behind every act), but even in the more relaxed scenes opposite Adams, Cavill is more supermodel than Superman. Forget Christopher Reeve comparisons: Cavill doesn’t even come close to measuring up to Superman Returns‘ Brandon Routh. And while we’ll have to wait for the sequel to fully measure his effectiveness at playing the nerdy, bespectacled Clark Kent, his brief appearance in this capacity unfortunately stirs memories of The Amazing Spider-Man, where the makers merely slapped a pair of glasses on Andrew Garfield and asked us to accept this hunky, in-crowd kid as a geeky outsider.
Then again, the inability of Clark’s glasses to disguise his true nature is an apt metaphor, since it doesn’t take 20/20 vision (or 3-D glasses) to see that this Man of Steel is one leaden endeavor.
Related Stories
Summer Movie Wrap: The Heat Is On
Batman v Superman: Doctoring Doom
Suicide Squad: Suicide Prevention
Wonder Woman: A Marvel of a Movie
This article appears in Jun 12-18, 2013.
Seen the film, this review is a prime example of personal expectations before the film not being met = bad movie review. It could only get more acute if one were to say…. ‘reboot’ the bible. While I agree the pace too often leaves too little time for the emotion to set in…it is in there. It’s just we don’t have enough time to sit with it and let those moments sink in. That said, this review is way off at 1 1/2 stars. If superman never existed for this reviewer and this movie was reviewed as a new character I believe, though certainly not Oscar material, the story and plot are very well written and executed. Because of the pace however this is the kind of film that could give more milieage on repeat viewing as the nuances of the scenes becomes more apparent.
This from the same idiot that gave the Internship 3 out of 4 stars………LMAO!!! How did that work out with moviegoers?
The review’s premise was off from the start.
“…Superman, which still ranks as the greatest superhero movie ever made.”
Not even close.
Another in an endless amount of critical reviews by reviewers caught in the past. I enjoyed Donner’s original; I am even entertained by it today, but it is campy and dated. I am glad for a serious reboot more in alignment with DC’s latest stories, without the Donner/Lester campiness.
This so called attempt at a review is a predictable and feeble bore . The MAN OF STEEL is an awesome movie to be seen again and again . More than usual for most movies … the audiences for MAN OF STEEL are totally disagreeing with the naysayers . The critical and financial success of MAN OF STEEL is being decided by audiences … not by the movie critics taking pot shots at an awesome movie in some sort of lame attempt to bring it down .
Thanks for writing, everyone; always enjoy hearing from friends, foes and fanboys. But some of you (specifically, John and Francis) seem to be falling into the trap that a movie’s worth is determined by how much money it makes. Unless you seriously consider, say, ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS and TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN two of the greatest movies ever made, it’s best to stay away from that angle.
Also, there appears to be the sense that I have such high regard for the Christopher Reeve oeuvre that I refuse to enjoy any new Superman movies. But my reaction to the previous reboot, SUPERMAN RETURNS, blows that theory out of the water, as I quite enjoyed that picture. No, the truth of the matter is that MAN OF STEEL is just one more poorly executed extravaganza where the hype conquers all.
Cheers!
One point i wanted to stand out in my post above is that the majority of the audiences have said they like the movie… 82% of the audience on rotten tomatoes liked it with an averaging rating of 4.2 out of 5 for the movie . On IMDB there is page after page of glowing audience reviews from around the world with an average rating of 8.3 out of 10 from over 42,500 audience members versus the less than 100 negative reviews on RT . The popular ratings numbers strongly side with the movie in all cases indicating the majority of viewers strongly like this movie versus those who feel like you do about it . By the way i do realize hype and box office do not make a movie great . MAN OF STEEL is a very well done science fiction comic book character movie with a warm heart at it’s core .
First off I never mentioned anything about box office I was pointing out your shitty taste in movies and ultimately it is moviegoers that determine if a movie is good or not. Of course you love Superman Returns, it was a love letter to the Richard Donner films. They even chose Brandon Routh because the looked liked Reeve.
I’m so happy the fans are supporting this film big time, so you and anyone else that wants to back to 1978 and wear your under on the outside, the short bus is waiting.
Cheers!
It’s almost as this critic and the others want another same superman movie like Christopher reeve’s first movie…. We are done with that era, no more rewinding time and nonsense. If you don’t like this movie you probably hate change and are against gay marriage as well.
Francis:
“First off I never mentioned anything about box office” —-> “How did that work out with moviegoers?” So, yes, mentioning The Internship’s poor grosses is certainly about box office. Plus, calling someone an “idiot” rather than attempting to engage in a serious debate automatically means that I have to assume you’re only 13 or 14.
“ultimately it is moviegoers that determine if a movie is good or not.” —-> “Unless you seriously consider, say, ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS and TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN two of the greatest movies ever made, it’s best to stay away from that angle.” So at least this answers the question of what you consider “good” movies.
Sean:
“If you don’t like this movie you probably hate change and are against gay marriage as well.” —-> Seriously?
”There’s a strong possibility that Man of Steel might be the dullest superhero saga ever filmed”
Sorry it didn’t live up to your expectations, its sad some people are stuck in a past we won’t ever understand and I know Christopher Reeve isn’t here anymore to make superman films to the point his old, but to say this film is the dullest film ever filmed shows you can’t do your job properly.
I was looking for a review that summed up my feelings about this film exactly and behold I’ve found it. Very good write up and completely spot on.
The Superman fans that have been starving for The Big Blue Boy Scout to throw a punch have been clinging to this like mangy dogs on a pretty bone, snapping at any good nature person trying to inform them that what they’re biting on is actually plastic. Perhaps, if it hasn’t been 30 years since we’ve had a good Superman film they’ll be able to take off the blinders and see what those critics “stuck in the past” are seeing. A soulless, dull, pretentious, poorly written, preachy action porn fest trying it’s hardest to be the perfect brainchild of The Avengers and The Dark Knight but falling on it’s face spectacularly by relying on exposition rather than actual wit or gravitas. How Goyer continues to get work (without another writer to edit and reign him in) is beyond my comprehension. My excitement for the Justice League movie has been shot to pieces knowing this hack is going to be on solo writing duty. If WB grants Snyder his wish of wanting to direct it, it’ll be the final nail in the coffin for me.
this is a simple case of me saying the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. Nobody wants to see this movie fail because they needed it to be successful. Hence the insane advertising and trading superman for lots of explosions and punches.
joss whedon should have been the one directing DC too. I guarantee we would have seen way more character development instead of all the bambambam, giant cgi explosions, almost no real acting. Come on Kevin Costners part in the film was dull and the father-son assisted suicide was horrible.
John Ives what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way i do realize hype and box office do not make a movie great . MAN OF STEEL is a very well done science fiction comic book character movie with a warm heart at it’s core .
Its not suppose to have a warm heart. Its a darker version of Superman…….Did you watch the movie!!!!Did you see the end, what was so warm about what he did at the end….In fact from taking film classes they made this film with darker colors not brighter, their trying to make you feel colder.. Superman Returns used alot brighter colors, in doing so made it warmer.
Michael Jay what are you talking about ? I did not say the ending was warm and fuzzy . Since you brought up the end of the movie did you not see SUPERMAN scream in pain after having to kill Zod or were you to busy texting and eating milk duds . The scenes of the parents on Krypton having to say goodbye and part with their newborn son … the scenes of the Kents giving comfort and loving guidance to young Clark … the scene of the fat kid Clarke saved on the bus helping him up after the bullys left …the scene of Jonathan Kent sacrificing his life to keep Clark from revealing his powers . If you felt no emotion during these well directed and acted scenes that is your problem . You saying a dark film can not have warm moments shows a lack of depth in your perceptions and a strong lack of film knowledge . That is like saying because the WIZARD OF OZ had bright colors throughout it did not have dark moments . P.S. I have a masters degree in film making and do not need advice from someone who took a basic film class at a local community college . I been watching and studying film longer than you have been alive.
you cant compare wizard of oz to man of steel. what are you thinking. You just said you have a masters degree in film??? What you said right there says it all. Online “Masters Degree” doesnt count…
I did not compare WOOZ to MOS … Guess you can not read competently along with your lack of film knowledge . I completed film school in a real college classroom in the early nineties before there was as online course available . For the record every film can be compared to every other . It really is not that hard for those of us who have sufficient intelligence . Class dismissed Michael Jay !
Apparently, all these reviewers want to be the “cool kid” by crapping on Man of Steel. Mostly, I think, they are the same people who jerk their knees and give an automatic “Z”-rating whenever they see names like Michael Bay or, uh, Zack Snyder. Everyone wants to be the first to dismiss it. Ultimately, however, all these fools have done is to collectively rank a great movie at 56 % (RT), 22 points lower than the turd-fest called Superman Returns, which has 78 % (RT).
Yeah… you guys sure have credibility.
A note to readers of this retard’s column: MoS is better than all other Superman movies, with the possible exception of the 1978 classic. Absolutely.
I’ve been a Superman fan for years. Both of the comics and the old Reeves movies. And I have to say that Man of Steel has portrayed Superman closer to how every fanboy has ever dreamed he should be.
I must emphasize again: i absolutely LOVED the old Reeves movies. I watched my VHS tapes of them over and over, every single day until my parents couldn’t take it anymore. Did that for a good 2 or years. Those movies have been ingrained forever in my heart and they still bring on fond nostalgia, good times gone by and all that. But for you to say that those old campy films were better than this new one? You gotta be kidding me.
The old ones were meant to be light-hearted, slightly action packed. The plots were in no way profound and the performances were hardly award winning. Gene Hackman did a great portrayal of a bumbling genius Lex, and Margot Kidder was an over the top, feisty gal. But COME ON. It was comedy, romance, sci-fi and action all trying to awkwardly fit in one tiny space. That might have worked 30 years ago but movie goers aren’t into that anymore.
I swear, you rotten tomatoes guys are so far removed from the people who actually read your stuff. You gave Chris Evans’ Captain America a 79% for Godsakes! Have you even seen that abortion? Chris freakin Evans! And you call Cavill dull? Worse than Routh? The Superman that everyone hated? Really?
I’ll stop reading Rotten Tomatoes for box office movie reviews now. Hipsters and contrarians the lot of you.
Atheists should not be movie reviewers.
Spot on review. This movie was boring, flat out. Just one huge snore-fest. Superman deserves far more than this turd-sandwich. Ignore the fanboys. If someone had dressed a squirrel in a superman suit they would be calling it the best movie ever made, which, interestingly, a squirrel and Cavill would be virtually indistinguishable in this movie.
Awful, truly awful movie, wish i could get my money back.
Bob: Maybe you fanboys should get together and pool your insults — according to one of you, I’m a conservative who hates gays, and according to another, I’m a liberal who doesn’t believe in God. I’m actually a Christian liberal, not an atheist, but thanks for presuming!
Michael Jay: “the father-son assisted suicide was horrible.” Not only horrible, but risible. He waves his son away as if he were waving away a waiter bringing him more coffee; never mind that he’s about to leave his loving wife a widow to make a point that could have been made in less dramatic, life-ending fashion. I mean, who cares about her anyway, right?
Dee Dee & Spudboy: Mangy dogs & a squirrel — funny!
Very apt review, sir! Just saw the movie and its truly awful…its no Avengers or Dark Knight trilogy. Both those movie established successfully why humanity needed superheros. Superman, by contrast, simply seemed like an alien civil war gone berserk. Too much reliance on CGI, supporting cast, and a boring story line made me glad that the movie was over. And what was up with the fight sequences??? It was like watching a train wreck, literally, over and over, and over! I wish there were fights scenes where the camera slowed down and superman was still super fast…you know, seeing how is SUPERman…jesssusss…what a load of crap…If I could, I would ask for my money back. What a tragedy done to one of the greatest superheros ever.
This movie was a way too long special effects extraviganza. No plot, no characters, literally couldn’t wait for the one-hour final fight scene to end. I’m not a picky movie-goer. This movie was simply lame and a complete waste of time.
Agreed – Horrible! Imagine Michael Bay took the junk from Transformers 3 and combined it with 2 hours of lame flashbacks… Now add a bunch of corny lines and you have Man of Steel. In all fairness, the first 30 minutes or so were sweet, then it was all downhill (remind you of Looper, anyone?). And what an inactive protagonist! It boils my blood.
Dear Mr. Brunson,
Your opinion about this film could not be more infuriating to the majority of Americans who think this movie was fantastic. Let’s set-aside all the foolish comparisons to the Superman movies of old, because let’s face it, you simply can not compare movies in the 21st century to anything from the 20th century. Marvel films, The Dark Knight trilogy, and Man Of Steel, are shining examples of what the masses want in a superhero film. How can you watch the action in this movie and not get butterflies? How can you begin to say Man Of Steel and bore in the same sentence? I was literally flying on the edge of my seat watching this film. This film stretched my imagination in ways that I can not even fathom, and made it all look POSSIBLE! I’m not saying any of this to sway your opinion, because I know that just will not happen. Rather, I am saying this just to let you know that you sound like a complete fool to almost everyone who reads this review.
Side note: Oh yes, Pa-Kent definitely doesn’t care about his wife. That’s why he made his super-human son make sure that she was safe while he rescued the dog -_- The only problem with that scene is the fact that Mama Kent left the dog in the car in the first place.
Regards,
Spencer
The movie sucked. The writers, directors and producers should be ashamed. They had an opportunity to make an epic movie and they failed miserably. Now, if you like pretty colors and loud noises, then I’m sure you loved the movie. But if you’re a moviegoer that enjoys character development and a movie that uses special effects to ENHANCE the movie instead of DEFINE the movie.. then you’ll hate Man of Steel. If this was an animated TV movie then I would have loved it. But it wasn’t. It was a large scale, huge budgeted movie that put in a C- effort to make an adult story. Look at Lord of The Rings as a benchmark for using the words EPIC and MOVIE together and tell me where you think Man of Steel ranks on that scale. I challenge anyone who liked the movie to sit through it again and not be bored.
Don’t be sheep- Demand Excellence in Entertainment.
I really just do not understand how anyone can hate this movie. Yes, the pacing was not that great. Yes, their were plot holes. Yes, the character development wasn’t quite there. But does that mean that the movie sucked? Absolutely not! It is a visual marvel, and I have never seen CGI like I did in this movie. That alone makes this movie stand out from the likes of The Avengers, which in comparison to Man Of Steel, looks like a small-time middle school play.
I will gladly re-watch this movie again. And again, and again…
Spencer: By your own admission, the film was poorly paced, the script was inconsistent, and the character development was weak. But because it had awesome CGI and looked pretty, that’s all it took to get an unqualified rave from you? And you say I sound like a “complete fool”?
Rob: Your comment that the special effects DEFINE the movie rather than ENHANCE it is spot-on. That would certainly explain why so many fanboys unequivocally love it — it’s the movie to tide folks over until Michael Bay’s next TRANSFORMERS sequel.
I’m a sucker for great visuals. One might say that my generation is being spoiled by the evolving HD nature of TV and film. On the contrary, it simply makes things all the more realistic, and isn’t that what movies and TV are about? Putting our imaginations on the big screen? This movie is what most Superman fans, as well as most people, wanted out of it. This movie took CGI to a whole new level. It also gave a fresh re-take on a classic superhero story, and added layers upon layers of depth that, although do not fit perfectly together, still provide something substantial over the action. The fact that there are some minor flaws does not make this film terrible, and certainly not a “superbore”. All your review did was completely over-exaggerate a few things that could have been better. Critics like you make me sick, because you can’t see anything but your own view.
Hey, I’m all for sharing and debating views in MATURE discussions. But on this thread alone, I’ve been called “idiot,” “retard” and, thanks to you, “complete fool.” I don’t mind in the least — it’s always amusing to see what words people grasp for when they have nothing substantial to say — but it’s hard to engage in a meaningful dialogue with insecure fanboys who feel threatened that not everyone in the world agrees with them on every single movie.
First of all, I have said plenty of substantial things, but you are simply ignoring them in favor of being a hypocrite and hinting that I am a complete fool.
Secondly, I am not a Superman fanboy. I haven’t even read a single Superman comic. It may appear that I am because I act as if I know what Superman fans wanted. I am only saying so because I have heard so from friends who are Superman fanboys who loved the movie, as well as from other forums and comment threads I have read online.
Lastly, you can leave that arrogant, know-it-all attitude somewhere else. Maybe the reason people are being so negative towards you is because of that. Better yet, maybe it’s because they think you’re completely off base about this movie…
You’re doing the exact same thing by calling them insecure fanboys. The fact is the majority of viewers (and there are a lot of them, thank god) enjoyed this movie. The performances, aside from Laurence Fishburne, who I expected a bigger role/performance from (given his acting chops), were all fantastic. I would have to say I strongly disagree with your view about Brandon Routh putting in a better performance than Henry Cavill. Routh seemed to remain quiet and unemotional for the entire duration of the 2006 film, while Cavill did a great job of humanizing a character. I’m not a fan of the way the conflict in this movie was resolved, but in that one scene after the deed is done, Henry Cavill showed more acting ability than Brandon Routh could in the entirety of Superman Returns, so with all due respect, I have to disagree with you.
NIce review, spot on my thoughts exactly!
Reverence: I would never call you an “insecure fanboy” because, unlike Spencer and most of the others, you did not feel a need to hurl personal insults but instead elected to air your opinions in an adult and respectful manner. So thank you for that. Too bad there aren’t more like you commenting on this movie.
Hey, Spencer Rhodes? Leaving this?
“Lastly, you can leave that arrogant, know-it-all attitude somewhere else.”
On this page? This is Matt’s page. It says his name at the top, not yours. You take YOUR arrogant, rude attitude somewhere else, because he can say whatever the hell he wants to on his OWN FUCKING REVIEW. This space is his, not yours, and as shocking as this may seem, the entire world is not waiting on pins and needles for your entitled point of view.
As for the rest?
Matt’s review is spot-on; the movie should have ended with the (*MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON*) climatic Lois Lane kiss. Instead it stretched out for what felt like a hundred hours with a million identical explosions and with Zod’s one facial expression. Yawn. If you like shiny things and moving, soulless visuals, I have a set of keys you can borrow. Jiggle them in your face and save some money.
Great review. I’m a sucker for good Christ-allegory, after-all, sacrificial love and redemption are in every great story, but this was so heavy handed, I thought Superman was going to get saved and baptized. This film was incredibly goofy. It had zero real heart and felt like the writers fished two rejected scripts out of the Twilight pile and the Transformer pile and made a superman/x-man movie. It was bereft of all real Superman mythology and fell short of resembling Superman at all. Even the little temper tantrum with the trucker’s semi-truck fell flat on movie goers. Wolverine doing that? Yes. Superman? No. The whole theater just kind of gave a muted chuckle and then puzzled silence. I don’t know if it was bad CGI or if it was actually little scary and indicative of the film-maker’s subconscious and the weird undertoning of how we deal with aggression in our world today– Don’t actually square off face-to-face in peace or violence, but when they aren’t looking, drone the crap out of them- but it seemed incredibly strange and unsatisfying. The real Superman never “gets even”, he defends and protects.
I suppose the only scene that I liked was the oil-rig scene but that felt too much like a Wolverine film and at one point I had to double-take because he looked so much like Jackman’s Wolverine with the body and facial hair. Other than that, it was too referential in almost every scene… and it didn’t help that their casting department seemed to have mined the Matrix cast for generals and important leaders. I suppose no one saw the similarities in how superman took off and how Neo took off?
As far as mythology goes.. It was almost as if, in their Nihilism, they just couldn’t come to terms with Superman, a man that can do no evil. And this is what makes Superman a different kind of comic book hero, and the most unique of all of them. He is perfection coming down to live with imperfect man, and his man-identity, Clark Kent, is his real secret identity. His super-self is his native form. He wasn’t bitten by a spider or genetically altered by radiation. He wasn’t a rich billionaire with expensive toys and fancy karate lessons in the alps by some mystical Asian guy. Nay, Superman came from somewhere else and from a higher and infinitely more evolved form of man, sent to earth, not as a backup drive for the Krypton population (whatthecrap?), but to be a force of good to a race of similar beings that need guidance and help in such a way that they cannot actually achieve their greatness without outside help. In a sense, humanity, through the mythology of Superman, is hopelessly flawed without the help of a “savior.” And this is why Superman was sent, so that some greater good could come of Jor-El’s line, and this is why it has resonated with fans for ages. But here? Superman is reduced to cracking the neck of Megatron, I mean… General Zod, and passive-aggressively maiming some idiotic trucker’s semi rig and then telling his earthly father that “your’ not my REAL dad” with the sensitivity of a modern-day sociopath. Forget the neck snapping of Zod; in that scene alone, with Clark and his dad, the director robbed Clark of all his “humanity.” He might as well have transformed into a Klingon. I know what they were going for: A Luke Skywalker Tosche Station or Peter Parker moment, but it fell flat and the ultimate sin of a writer is to cause your character to do something out-of-character.
Yes, gentle commenter holding your twinkie crusted x-box controller, the first Superman film is still the greatest superman film ever made because it is actually a film and not a vehichle for the Director to transform Superman into the Dark Knight and to flex their special effects. The cinema photography in the first Superman is beautiful, it is perfectly paced, perfectly cast, and perfectly acted. I even like the special effects better. Shoot, the twister in the Wizard of Oz looked better than this twister.
As far as story, the flash-back narrative is a weak one and a real sign of laziness. As-in: Hey guys, whats the quickest way to write this story so that I can show Superman’s pecs and fists pounding Zod. A strong driving narrative is always better and when you do use a flashback, it should always be a surprise. Flashbacks used in this way are right up there with, “oh, it was only a dream!” Only way it really works is in a film like Memento or Pulp Fiction where the flashback IS the narrative. It’s a character in itself. It’s got to be creatively done. This was by the numbers.
Also, all the obi-wan dad stuff (both his Crowely and Kevinly father) was pretty dumb and felt once again indicative of some kind cultural cry for the modern gen-x man’s perpetual need for guidance because their baby-boomer dads raised a bunch of indecisive crybabies. So, what do we need??? We need dad appearing around every corner and bailing our butts out, telling our girlfriends to dodge like Morpheus with Neo. Daddy Ex Machina, baby. In the original Superman, Cal-El must ultimately make his own decisions and Jor-El is confined to a inactive role in his son’s decisions, thereby forcing Superman out of the nest and to be his own man. But here, we have a more “Halo” influenced version of Jor-El where he is ever-present and actually doing some of Superman’s goodness for him where Superman falls short. Philosophically or subconsciously, one could see how the filmmakers toppled the problem of Superman’s “goodness” by using this device: it was all dumped into Jor-El, who was basically unable to do anything real to help and therefore rendered ineffective. Now that I think of it, in a subtle way, all real good was defeated in this film. Eventually, all good must die and you just gotta kill someone to make it happen. Nihilism sucks. Every 50 years we learn this lesson and unfortunately we learn it the hard way.
Since people seem to think that I am some sort of child, let me back track and try to keep things simple and “mature”.
From the comments, it appears that this film is very black and white in terms of like and dislike. People either love it or hate it. I personally loved the film. I thought the story was original enough, I thought that there were plenty of surprises throughout the film, and the action was simply unbelievable. Personally, it annoys me that people compare this to Michael Bay and any other popular sci-fi film. This film has CGI and action like I have never seen, and I think that’s exactly what they wanted to deliver.
I have no problem with people not liking this film, as long as they can give good reasons for not liking it and don’t go overboard. The reason I was so infuriated initially was because of comments in the review such as, “There’s a strong possibility that Man of Steel might be the dullest superhero saga ever filmed,” or even the title itself. Comparing it to awful movies like The Green Lantern and saying that it is worst is just as frustrating. It just doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t help when other people say things like, “If you like shiny things and moving, soulless visuals, I have a set of keys you can borrow. Jiggle them in your face and save some money.” That literally makes no sense.
All in all, I loved the film, and I can’t wait to see what comes next from this re-boot.
IgnatiusTwain: Wow. That was a superb commentary, bringing up a couple of points I hadn’t even contemplated. Your analysis of the “you’re not my real dad” scene was particularly insightful.
Oh, and “not as a backup drive for the Krypton population (whatthecrap?)” made me chuckle.
Spencer, I haven’t read the thread, so I’m not sure of the other comments, but I don’t think it was as bad as Green Lantern. Very few things are that bad. It is what it is: A film about special effects, loosely based on the Superman mythology. I did think it was about on the level as a Transformer film and not as good as one and 3 of the X-men films. But I actually kind of liked the Transformer films for what they were. Good loud fun. And Transformers (the first one) was at least funny in parts! That was a surprise. Anyways, I thought the flight scenes were pretty great, though the 3-D fell very flat for me. Compared to Into Darkness the 3-D and the last Batman… it was poorly done. A couple of parts popped but the rest… might as well taken the glasses off. But like it or not, Superman is a cultural icon with a deep-seated cultural mythology. And the first film REALLY IS a great film. Remember, in 20 years, the special effects in this Superman will look dumb, too. I’ll admit that Superman 2 is not so great (still campy fun and a better Zod portrayal) and 3 is horrible with a horrible bastardized soundtrack. But Superman the Movie was a film of its time and it was taken seriously by the filmmakers and film-scorer and critics. It was sort of like the first Rocky (which was a great film and won Academy Awards) or Star Wars in that Superman is really a coming of age story, revealing a hidden glory, a veiled greatness. The kind of greatness we all hope we have. You couldn’t make that film today and you shouldn’t try and that’s why the last Superman reboot ultimately fell flat for me, though I enjoyed it in a sad nostalgic kind of way. And then I never wanted to see it again. I have seen the first trailer for it about 500 times though. Probably the best superhero trailer ever made. haha. Most of the gripes that I stated about this film had to do with being derivative, heavy-handed, and poorly cast. It may not be the worst film ever made, but it sure isn’t the best. By a LOOOOOOOONG stretch.
Wow! Thanks, Matt! I have to say, I’ve been trolling the internet for a great reviewer since Roger kicked it and I am thrilled by your stylings! I’m now sifting through your reviews and I’m loving it. Thanks for the props and look forward to reading more!
FYI: The following will probably be the best article ever written about MAN OF STEEL. So hilarious, and soooo accurate.
http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-f…