Man of Steel
I shouldn't be surprised. There were two things working against it. For one, it was directed by Zack Snyder, one of my least favorite directors (he made 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch, all of which angered me). Second, I've never been much of a Superman fan. He always struck me as dull, while Batman and the angst-riddled Marvel superheroes were far more interesting.
Still, Man of Steel has some good parts. It's a straight up retelling of the origin story. We start on the planet Krypton, which has overmined its resources and is now crumbling. Jar-El (Russell Crowe) attempts to warn the powers-that-be, but the meantime there is a coup by the military leader, General Zod (Michael Shannon). Before the planet is destroyed, Crowe's baby is shipped off to Earth, and Zod and his co-conspirators are imprisoned in some sort of ever-wandering spacecraft.
We flash forward some years. The baby is now Clark Kent, raised by a famer and his wife (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). The lad has shown remarkable, inhuman abilities, such as super-strength and lasers shooting out of his eyes. The Kents have had him hide his powers, for fear he will be an outcast, but when he finally finds out his heritage (from his father, who though killed by Zod lives on in a computer program) he understands that he can save humanity from Zod, who has come looking for him.
Superman was created by two Jewish kids in the shadow of the Nazi menace, and so there has always been a diaspora quality to him. His origin story is very similar to Moses', after all. But this film gives him a Christ-like quality, from his age (33) to his being a savior. If we didn't get the point, Snyder even has Kent wandering into a church, with Christian images etched in stained glass all around him.
This makes for an interesting film, theologically speaking. I also liked some almost poetic shots, almost throwaways, such as a butterfly on the Kent family farm. But a Superman movie has to have action, and this is where the film lets us down.
Once Shannon and his minions come to Earth, he and Superman battle it out in exhausted, overheated fight scenes. They are badly edited, unable to resonate in the mind, so they just come off as hurly-burly. The ending features Metropolis being all but destroyed, and I'm weary of these scenes of mass destruction, which have been featured in too many films lately. Post 9/11, can we watch these without wondering about the loss of life? In this film, Daily Planet editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and an attractive young intern try to outrun a falling building, which I'm not sure is possible, and we endure wondering if they are safe. Sure, while hundreds of thousands are dying, let's make sure the character we don't even know the name of is okay.
This film has a good cast. Costner and Lane are very good, and Amy Adams is the venerable Lois Lane as the perky and persistent reporter. Shannon, a very good actor, manages to chew the scenery without losing his dignity. Henry Cavill is Superman, and he didn't really have much to do but look pained most of the time, as if suffering from irritable bowel syndrome. Cavill was very good in The Tudors, and looks great with his shirt off, but he wasn't really convincing as a man who's dealing with all the shit he would have to go through.
So, Man of Steel is not a total disaster, and not as brain-dead as a Snyder film usually is, but I'm still waiting for a really good Superman movie.
My grade for Man of Steel: C
Comments
Post a Comment