Movies: Man of Steel

Score:  *** out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  The most anticipated superhero film of the year, Man of Steel reboots the famous Superman character.  With Batman all done, DC surely hopes to have a new franchise to compete with Marvel's uber-successful Avengers.  Unfortunately, Man of Steel gets the Clark Kent origin aspects all wrong, and the superfluous addition of The Daily Planet bogs things down.  If you came for the action, though, you likely won't be disappointed.  This fledgling franchise is certainly salvageable, but it's off to a rocky start.


After a few other (disappointing) films in other genres, it's back to the good ol' summer blockbuster with Man of Steel.  When it comes to superheroes, they don't come much more famous than Superman and, like Batman, it's always interesting to see a new adaptation of such a classic character.  The first trailer was subtle but really got me excited for the movie:  Christopher Nolan, the mind behind the newest Batman trilogy, was producing, and the style seemed fresh.  I really didn't even look at the reviews for this much before going to it, since I was going to go see it anyway and I didn't want my expectations to be set.  Man of Steel was directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) and stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Michael Shannon.

On a distant planet, an advanced civilization stands at the brink of extinction.  A scientist, Jor-el (Crowe), tries to convince Krypton's leaders to preserve what they can of their species.  His plans are interrupted by a coup from General Zod (Shannon), however.  Before Zod can catch him, though, Jor-el sends his infant son into space along with a special item.  By the time Jor-el's son, Kal-el, reaches Earth, his home planet is obliterated.  The young Kal-el is taken in by a Kansas farming couple, the Kents, who raise him as a human and try to have him suppress his superhuman abilities (afforded him by the difference in atmospheric conditions from his home world).

Driven by an innate need to do good, however, Kal-el (known as Clark; Cavill) still ends up showing brief displays of his power and having to keep moving on.  Clark eventually finds another crashed Kryptonian vessel and, using a computer chip that his father sent to Earth with him, discovers his true origins.  Just in time, too, because General Zod, having escaped the destruction of Krypton and his prison, is out for revenge and.... something more.

Man of Steel has a good cast, but the performances are often hampered by the script.  Henry Cavill, a young British actor (apparently also in The Tudors TV show which I haven't seen), is the latest brawny guy to don the blue-and-red suit.  He seems to have potential but... despite being the main character, of course, we don't really get to know this new Superman.  It should be noted that for a number of scenes Clark is portrayed by other actors during flashbacks.  The most distinct characteristic that we get of Cavill's Clark is a sense of patience and restraint but there's much to be fleshed out in what I assume will be several sequels.  Michael Shannon plays the villain General Zod; he does a good job as an evil dude, but despite having what seem to be an intriguing, complex history/motivations, is fairly one-note (I'm blaming the script over the performance here).

Playing the new Lois Lane is Amy Adams, a much more recognizable name than the new Supes.  She's a good actress and has plenty of screen time (I would argue too much), but beyond a few plot points, is really unneeded in this film.  Like Cavill, I can see her doing well in sequels, but it seems she's in the movie because the filmmakers thought Lane had to be in it and worked her in somehow.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner play the Kent parents; two big names, of course, but boy does the script let them down.  Their scenes are pretty much little variations of the exact same thing; I have to assign them a little of the blame, too, though, as they aren't able to squeeze anything out of the script, either.  Lawrence Fishbourne is fun as the new Daily Planet boss Perry, and I look forward to seeing him in sequels.  Finally, Russell Crowe is also very watchable as the noble Jor-el (although he acts much more like a knight than a scientist).

Despite being such a popular, recognizable character, Superman is not easy to make a film around.  As he is virtually invincible, it is difficult to generate a compelling threat for him.  Interestingly, Man of Steel succeeds pretty well at this task - but fails in several other ways.  Most notably, it botches the origin story.  I am not referring to the scenes on Krypton, but rather growing up as Clark Kent on Earth.  The introduction of Clark's powers happens way too soon and frequently.  While some are cool in themselves (especially the oil rig), they are so isolated and without context that there is no real meaning to them other than showing off.  Only later do we get more subtle scenes of young Clark's struggles, which by then seem insignificant compared to prior displays.  I've already mentioned the repetitive, go-nowhere nature of the Kent parents' roles (a tornado scene is especially bad).  Finally, while it can be very effective to interweave the origins through the present-day plot, it is poorly, jarringly done in this film and further hurt by the above strange choice of sequencing.

An area of more mixed result is that of action.  On the positive side:  the scene where Clark learns to fly is pretty damn cool.  Also, the first big fight really takes superhero action to a  new level of power, yet the CGI holds up and it feels reasonably plausible (for a Superman movie).  It is quite entertaining, and there is a healthy degree of suspense despite the mass destruction.  In the finale, however, we are treated to the same basic kind of action - just on a bigger scale and with little of the previous creativity.  Additionally, in the battle to save Earth a whole bunch of people are killed (you don't see them individually, but it's not hard to imagine) and this seems out of place for Superman, who is better designed to save people than wreck bad guys.  A few final notes:  the film does not often try for humor, although it has a few scant laughs (including one great scene aboard Zod's ship).  Hans Zimmer (from Nolan's Batman films) did the score; it doesn't stand out like some of his previous work, but is pretty good.

***

All in all, Man of Steel is a disappointment.  After reading more about it online and thinking back to the film itself, it seems clear that DC/Warner Brothers hoped to make kind of a combo Batman Begins (with its darker tone and origins component) and Avengers (with epic stakes and action).  The Begins half failed pretty spectacularly - despite even having the same writer as Begins, it's by far the weakest part of the film.  As I heard one fan muse, they should have left out the Daily Planet crew - including Lois Lane - entirely; perhaps they would have had more time to better develop the rest (not that the film is short; it's 2.5 hours).  It's true that you'll find this kind of spectacular action and effects in only a handful of films each year, but I think that less of it would have made a bigger impact here.  I will say, however, that the movie does at least have a good ending - in the way Superman defeats Zod, and the set up for sequels.  They have a talented core - Cavill, Adams, Fishbourne - that, with so little real development in Man of Steel, ironically gives them a lot of room to grow moving forward.  If you're craving a big action spectacle, this should satisfy you; otherwise, you might want to wait for the DVD (where you can skip to the fun parts!).