RDR REVIEW - MAN OF STEEL After months of promotional build-up and years of speculation, Man of Steel has finally been released upon the world and the one question that seemed to resonate with fans was, “did the film live up to the hype?” For some the answer was yes and as expected, for some, the answer was no. Truth be told I cannot recall a film in recent memory where filmgoers and critics were so divided over every aspect of a movie. We were thrilled when we first received word that Superman was getting a reboot treatment from the creators of The Dark Knight Trilogy but when backlash towards The Dark Knight Rises began to surface many began to worry that Man of Steel may follow suit. And now, three weeks into its worldwide release, there seems to be no unified final say on this film. I’m actually glad that my wife and I waited these few weeks before we made it to our local cinema because it gave me time to have the hype settle down a bit and I could enter this film with more of an open mind and after the runtime of 2 hours and 23 minutes I can honestly say that Man of Steel is the best film interpretation of Superman that I have ever seen…but is that saying much? Let’s review. Seven years after the mediocre success of Superman Returns, a direct sequel to the Richard Donner (Superman The Movie) and Richard Lester (Superman II) films, director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) brings to us a retelling of the origin of Superman based on a story by producer Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer. Man of Steel opens, not surprisingly, on the doomed planet of Krypton where the Kryptonian council is being warned by their head scientist, Jor-El (played by Academy Award winner Russell Crowe), that their planet is mere weeks away from destruction. Even though the council seems to scoff at this obvious threat, there is one man who believes Jor-El; enter General Zod (Academy Award nominee Michael Shannon). Both men are after the codex; an ancient artifact that contains the genetic makeup of the entire Kryptonian race but where Jor-El wishes to take the codex and send it off the planet, Zod wants it for himself so that he can repopulate Krypton with only the elite of their race. Jor-El is the first to retrieve the codex as he stores its information in the cells of his newborn son, Kal-El, who is immediately launched towards Earth. This opening sequence is a perfect example of my first issue with this film; the pacing and the editing. While not as offensive as a Michael Bay movie, Man of Steel seems to jump from scene to scene rather quickly and in the process, we are rushed into a fully grown storyline that could have benefitted from taking its time and allowing the audience to get immersed in the world and the characters. This is where Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Trilogy share their biggest similarity; characters are introduced fast, setup scenes and non-action sequences are rushed from one to another and we’re never able to enjoy them with the amount of time that they deserve. This is especially noticeable when we get our first glimpse of Clark Kent. Henry Cavill (The Tudors, The immortals) plays the man of steel himself and while he shines for the majority of the film, it’s this first introduction into Clark Kent’s powers that is rather disappointing. Immediately following the destruction of Krypton we are cut to a deep water finishing boat where Clark is working as a fisherman. Before we are able to set the tone of the scene we cut to an oil rig disaster in which Clark’s boat is dispatched to assist with. Not a minute later Clark is ripping off a door and holding a pillar to rescue the oil workers. It was an amazing sequence but felt rushed so we were never able to put ourselves into the situation and experience the tension and exhilaration. Even when we finally get to see Superman in his famous suit, it happens without a lot of build-up and I was left slightly underwhelmed and it’s this quick action that leads me to my second issue with the film; the destructive action sequences. I’m up for a great disaster movie as much as the next red-blooded American male but I never thought that we could ever classify a Superman film as a disaster film. The ending fight through Metropolis, and even the confrontation in Smallville beforehand, was absolutely breathtaking but it felt like too much and it grew a little tiresome to the point of where you wanted shout to the screen and ask, “How much more of this city is there left to destroy? Did Roland Emmerich direct this?” Now that I’ve gotten my grievances out of the way I can focus on what made this film truly stand out as the best interpretation of Superman I’ve ever seen. Unlike the previous films, the Animated Series, Lois & Clark, and Smallville, Man of Steel is gritty and realistic and doesn’t allow its characters and locations to become too cartoonish and burdened with the lighthearted humor that made the former titles rather obnoxious at times. This is most affective when we see flashbacks of Clark discovering his abilities because they are not met with a sense of wonder and awe but rather fear and confusion. I’m certain we would love to have Superman here in our world but suppose he actually appeared; how would we truly react? This is what Man of Steel manages to get across that no other version has been able to do; our actual emotional reactions to something that could be plausible yet unbelievable at the same time. However, Man of Steel shines best with its heart. It doesn’t allow the music to carry certain scenes, although Hans Zimmer’s score is quite amazing and emotional in its own right and serves as a wonderful companion to the scenes it supports. The action sequences are all the better because we believe in the dimension of each character involved and it’s the characters, for once, that dominate a Superman film. Amy Adams’ portrayal of Lois Lane is spot on and rather than play the damsel in distress or the hardened reporter who will stop at nothing for a story, she dances between both roles seamlessly and this gives her an air of believability not yet seen in a Lois Lane. Michael Shannon seems to wear the role of Zod like a glove. Unlike Terrance Stamp in Superman II, Shannon gives Krypton’s general a mysterious façade that is welcoming and charming before it becomes downright terrifying and unsympathetic. Zod is a tailor-made warrior and Shannon can rightfully stand as one of the great cinematic comic villains. The two biggest stand outs for me were Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent. The story of the Kents is primarily told in flashbacks as we get a sense of two individuals who want to protect Clark and his abilities as much as they wish to see him use those abilities to better mankind. Costner tends to steal every scene he is in and when his inevitable death finally comes, he never shows anything less than great poise and true love for his adopted son. Diane Lane plays the Kansas farm mother almost like it is second nature. Lane’s Martha Kent is mid-west tough when she needs to be but is never far from her maternal instincts (any parent could relate to her heartbreak when she comforts a scared Clark who is hiding in a school utility closet after his senses and abilities become heightened and he’s forced to flee his classroom). Even the supporting cast of Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Antje Traue as Zod’s second-in-command, Faora, Christopher Meloni as Colonel Nathan Hardy, and Richard Schiff as Dr. Emil Hamilton have their own depth and add more to the film than they do subtract. Finally, there is Henry Cavill in the role of Clark Kent/Kal-El (the name of Superman is mentioned only once as a nickname being kicked around by the military personnel). While I may not find the Christopher Reeve films all that spectacular, Reeve will forever be the standard by which all other actors who portray the character must be held to and Cavill fits the cape perfectly. His Clark Kent is not bumbling and comedic but rather a kind and self-searching individual who you wouldn’t be able to spot in a crowd; not the mild mannered reporter we’re all familiar with but a gentle Kansas-raised farm boy who is haunted by his spectacular powers as well as the loss of the only father he’s ever known. Cavill’s Superman, while inherently good, is confused, scarred, and at times unsure of himself. Superman has always been born of the story of Moses and in a rather touching scene where Clark confides in a priest as to whether or not to turn himself over to Zod to protect the people of Earth, we see a glimmering similarity to the story of Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane shortly before his crucifixion. These two parallels help to give this Superman a depth that we’re not used to seeing with the character and it is very refreshing to see this angle being taken. Also, the filmmakers no longer play out the sin of hiding Superman’s identity in the guise of Clark Kent. Yes, we the audience know exactly who he is and for decades it has driven us to the point of insanity that no one in the films or comics can figure this out because of a simple pair of glasses. At the end of the film, not to give too much away, is where we see Clark finally take the job as a reporter and while Perry White and rest of the Daily Planet staff may not know who he truly is, Lois sure does. After all she kept calling him Clark throughout the entire course of the film. Hopefully the sequels will continue this and not try something as insulting as the “memory erasing kiss” that we saw in Superman II and IV. So now we return back to the original question of did the film live up to the hype? In my honest opinion; no but that’s not a bad thing because I truly enjoyed this movie and for all of its faults Man of Steel showed us what a good Superman film can really be. In addition to the films, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Superman comics (my wife, however, may be the foremost Superman expert and biggest fan that I’ve ever met) because when I really stop and think through the legendary status that is Superman, I kind of find him to be quite boring from a storyline perspective. I was never impressed with Lex Luthor as a villain, or any of the other villains in his limited rogue’s gallery, and the fact that Superman is virtually indestructible doesn’t give us much to work with. His truth, justice, and American way of thinking have become almost passé. But this is not why Superman remains the most popular character in the history of pop culture. Man of Steel reminded me that the creation of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster is much more than ink and pixels on a page or screen. Sure, he was raised in Kansas and as Clark says, “I’m as American as they come,” but Superman is an example for the entire world. When we feel that friends, family, governments, businesses, and even religion fails us, we can take refuge in Superman and we’re able to realize that perhaps it wasn’t these things that have failed us but rather we who have failed them. Man of Steel reminds us that he was sent to Earth to show all of mankind our true potential and what good we can all do and the world is in dire need of that reminder right now. The “S” logo is the most recognized symbol in the world second only to the Christian cross and it is that logo and this film that carry the same meaning; hope.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:38:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015