Review: Man of Steel

We begin on Krypton, with the birth of Kal-El, son of Jor-El (Russell Crowe). Knowing his planet is about to be kaput (insert global warming message here), Jor-El sends his newborn child (the first natural birth on Krypton in ages, by the way) to Earth, so that he can continue living. This angers General Zod (Michael Shannon) who tells Jor-El that he will go to Earth, find his son and end him. Kal-El lands somewhere in Kansas, and is soon adopted by Kansas farm owners the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), who know the infant is special and different but raise him as best they can. Years later, the adult Kal-El (played by Henry Cavill) is a brooding 33 year-old (A 33 year-old destined for greatness? That sounds like a certain carpenter I know) who hasn’t quite been able to deal with being so different and super-powered, coming off as somewhat of a loner. However, his occasional forays into miraculous derring-do attract the attention of intrepid reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who is determined to uncover his identity. Meanwhile, Zod plans on rebuilding Kryptonite on Earth, meaning the end to humanity as we know it. Oh, if only there was someone who could save us! Laurence Fishburne plays Perry White, Lois’ boss at the Daily Planet, whilst Harry Lennix plays a military man.

 

I’m gonna do my absolute best to prove that I’m not a total hypocrite for liking this 2013 Zack Snyder (“Dawn of the Dead”, “Watchmen”) take on the legendary superhero. It’s going to prove to be an interesting exercise at least. If you’ve read any of my reviews on comic book or superhero films, you’ll know that aside from “Watchmen”, I’ve resisted the modern approach of turning these films into mopey psychodramas (“The Dark Knight” trilogy), and just flat-out hate the “Iron Man” films’ mixture of superhero entertainment with real world geopolitics. So why do I give this film such a high rating when it too indulges in these modern tropes? Would you accept ‘Because it works’? No? Oh well, just remember when this exceedingly long essay is finished that I gave you the easy way out and you declined, OK? On with the review…

 

I consider Richard Donner’s 1978 “Superman” to be the standard bearer of all superhero films. It’s a bloody masterpiece of comic book entertainment. So let’s get one thing out of the way immediately: This isn’t that film. At all. And so whilst some comparisons are inevitable, I overall tried not to let it get in the way of my overall assessment of this film. You see, this is the right “Superman” film for the era in which it has been made. It’s not my “Superman” film, but Snyder makes a much better stab at a modern take on the superhero than Christopher Nolan (who amusingly enough co-wrote the film, doing a better job on someone else’s film than his own “Dark Knight” trilogy!), Jon Favreau (“Iron Man”, “Iron Man 2”), and Shane Black (“Iron Man 3”) have with their own superhero films. They tried to do what this film does, but Snyder gets the balance between dramatic weight and action entertainment right. It’s balanced and never too dark that it stops being fun. Even when it seems to evoke real world concerns, I’d argue that Superman can take that weight on his shoulders, as he has always seemed like Earth’s protector (THE superhero, perhaps), whereas Batman was more insular and concerned with Gotham. Sure, this film gives us Smallville and Metropolis and nothing much else, but it’s obvious that the villainous threat here is much, much bigger. So the 9/11 imagery being evoked isn’t merely cheap exploitation. This is Superman and he saves the Earth. Do I miss the charm and romance of the 1978 film? Yes and no. I can still watch the original any time I want, and such an approach wouldn’t really befit a Superman of 2013. I respect Snyder for fearlessly making this his own, and pulling it off. It’s better than expected and the best of the modern superhero films by far.

 

To be honest, the look of the film was the biggest problem for me. The scenes on Krypton were my favourite in the 1978 film, and this fails in comparison. All the CGI creatures here and metallic screen thingies were just unnecessary to me, Krypton just doesn’t look as interesting or unique. The CGI is frankly not very impressive, either, including an unconvincing tornado. The cinematography by Amir Mokri (“Freejack”, “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”) in particular is wildly uneven. It’s unnecessarily shaky handheld stuff at times, which actually looks genuinely amateurish, like it’s a mistake or something. The lens flare epidemic, meanwhile has reached this film too, and worse than ever. We get horizontal lines that look like errors. Why do they do this? WHY? The actual photography is way too muted and filtered for my liking, it’s drab and murky, despite some excellent shot composition throughout. Snyder has a genuine eye, it’s just that it has been ruined by either a too dark palette, digital photography, or some 3D bullshit getting in the way. Whatever the cause (likely a combo of all three), the film simply should’ve looked brighter. The tone of the story is dark enough as it is. The first sight of Superman in full costume is undeniably iconic, and the snowy setting is cool…but the stupid fucking lens flares get in the way of that, too. The Fortress of Solitude, meanwhile, just doesn’t stand out in any way at all.

 

Some will find the action-oriented final act less interesting than the rest, but I think it’s an essential element for any superhero film to have. Some of the carnage is really well-done, with some of the best FX work in the whole film, and thankfully not too chaotic to look at. The film even finds a way to work in the iconic notion of Superman holding Lois in his arms and flying.

 

One thing Snyder and writers Nolan and David S. Goyer (writer of “The Dark Knight”) actually improve upon the original film with is in regards to Superman/Clark’s teen years. The original film was brilliant, but these scenes were the hokiest part of the film, largely because the kid playing teenage Clark was terrible and looked kinda awkward if you ask me, and not in an in-character kind of way. “Man of Steel” does a nifty job of jettisoning most of that period, breaking it up into flashback scenes that save time, give us the necessary bits, aren’t too hokey, and help the film tick along at a pretty nice pace, even if I generally prefer linear structures as a rule for most films.

 

Meanwhile, the cast is quite strong on paper and in actuality. Russell Crowe is a much better Jor-El than I had expected. The original was one of the few times I’ve liked Marlon Brando as an actor, and Rusty wisely plays the role as Rusty would, not Brando. He is one of two reasons why those disappointing-looking early scenes on Krypton work well enough. The other reason is the constantly scowling Michael Shannon as Zod, who I absolutely would not want to face in a staring competition. Shannon has immense, commanding power and charisma as an actor (“Take Shelter”, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”, “The Iceman”) but can be a little hard to rein in at times (His ridiculously unhinged turns in “Revolutionary Road” and “13” spring to mind). The role of General Zod allows Shannon to play big, bold, grim-faced and over-the-top, which he does very well indeed, even if he can clearly do more as an actor. Over-the-top isn’t always a bad thing, it just needs to fit the film. A “Superman” film, even one from a more grim and stark perspective, is certainly a more than acceptable vehicle for that acting approach. He immediately dominates the film, as most good movie villains do and gives the exact performance that the film and the character need. He’s one intense, scary fucker, straight up, no fuss. He’s nothing like Terrence Stamp’s Zod (quite the opposite, really), and that’s perfectly fine. It’s a different film, and a different take on the character (Something I could say about pretty much all the characters here, so I’ll try not to). I think the choice of Zod for the film’s lead villain was a right one too, as Lex Luthor (depending on the depiction I suppose) probably would’ve been a little too cartoony and Bond villain-ish to be a genuine threat in this more real world scenario.

 

If you’re gonna find an actor capable of standing up against the late Glenn Ford as Superman’s Earth father, then Kevin ‘Modern Day Gary Cooper’ Costner is a damn fine choice. He’s absolutely spot-on, showing that here and in “The Hatfields & McCoys”,  he can get it done when the script and role are right. I would’ve liked more scenes with him and the lovely Diane Lane (as Mrs. Kent), but that probably would’ve meant more scenes with teenage Clark, I guess. Something had to give, and that’s fine. How awesome is it that Diane Lane and Lois Lane are in the same film? Yeah, so only a weirdo like me will think of that, but still, it’s cool. I personally think Laurence Fishburne has too much presence and gravitas for newspaper tycoon Perry White, a rather colourless character. He’s fine, but the role is barely there, and he’d be better cast as a citizen of Krypton in my view.

 

I wasn’t initially sold on Henry Cavill in the title role when first hearing of the casting decision, to be honest. Although he might be a year or two too old for the part of Clark, the casting decision otherwise proves to have been the correct one. I miss the late Christopher Reeve and he will always be Superman/Clark Kent to me, but Cavill (who looks a bit like Reeve, actually and seems to channel his facial expressions at times) not only has the gravitas to BE Superman, he sells the weight of having to be Superman. This film definitely nails the burden of being different and special. I cannot deny that Cavill is a better actor than Reeve was, even if my idea of Superman (in movies and in real life as an advocate for stem-cell research and the disabled etc.) will always be the late Christopher Reeve. By the way, I really loved the scene where Superman gets a little too excited with his flying abilities and ends up crashing. It’s interesting and funny stuff.

 

I love Amy Adams but was initially worried that she wouldn’t be anything like the Lois Lane that Margot Kidder perfected in the original series. I quickly got over such irrelevant notions, however. She’s much better and less sweet than I was expecting in the role. I knew she was a great actress, it’s just that I didn’t know she could pull this particular role off. She does, putting her own stamp on the character, though it has to be said that the film isn’t all that interested with the Lois Lane character, which is unfortunate. I admire Adams nonetheless for going her own way with it, whilst not making the character unrecognisable. I initially liked the idea of having Lois investigate Superman as we are introduced to her, however I think I prefer the original film’s more linear structure, as this one ends up having to navigate some tricky waters by the end in order to give us Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter.

 

This is a darker Superman film for a darker time, but it’s still heightened enough to be enjoyed as entertainment. Warts and all, this is one of 2013’s best films at the very least, and although it doesn’t remotely touch John Williams (or even reference that score) it certainly contains one of 2013’s best scores, by Hans Zimmer (“Gladiator”, “Inception”). So I ask you, does all this make me a hypocrite?

 

Rating: B