(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro). Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment. Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman. However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.
Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro). Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment. Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman. However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.
