Man of Steel Review

 

        I was excited for this film back in 2013. The only Zack Snyder film that I saw was his film adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel 300. For the most part it is a visual eye candy with intense action. Everything else is mostly not thought out much. It was concerning as to why he would helm a new Superman film. Overall, I was hooked when I saw the trailer and Christopher Nolan being attached to it. What could go wrong? I watched this one with my Dad at the AMC theater in San Antonio, I was excited for the most part. When the credits hit, I wasn’t a happy camper throughout the day. SPOILERS will appear in the review. 

1. Story

        Since this is another interpretation of the Superman mythos, we begin in Krypton. We actually see Kal-El being born. In fact, they state that his birth was the first natural one in Krypton. We then transition to his Dad Jor-El played by Russell Crowe, pleading to a political counsel that the planet will explode, and everyone has to evacuate. As the council scoff at his proposal, General Zod played by Michael Shannon, barges in and attempts a coup. 

        I feel that this moment in Krypton goes way too long. I get that we have to introduce the villain since it’s a trope in comic book films. Even though the point is that Krypton explodes and Kal-El is rocketed to Earth. In between that, Jor-El grabs hold of a special skull called the codex and has it beamed on to the baby’s body. I thought it was an explanation as to how he got his powers. Later it’s established that the codex is a registry to give newborns an assigned duty. Which explains why the father wants Kal-El to bring in new Kryptonians that have free will instead of having a predetermined existence. Bottom line, this part doesn't go anywhere.

        As the planet is destroyed and Zod and his cronies are jailed to the Phantom Zone, the baby makes it to Earth. We then transition to the Deadliest Catch, really, Clark is now grown up and working as a crab fisherman. I’ll explain how this method of flashback and forward doesn’t work later. I can go on about the bloated story since it’s supposed to be about Clark Kent. You know, the Man of Steel? Why is there focus on Lois Lane, mind you she does a lot but it feels too convenient that she’s everywhere in the film. Like why exactly does Zod want to do with Lois Lane? 

2. Superman

        One of the problems is the actual hero. Played by Henry Cavill, he looks like he leapt from the panels and onto the screen. He has the body and can have the charm and charisma like the character. The problem is that he doesn’t. We’re mostly told through his two Dads, which I’ll get into after this, that he is destined to do great things. As Jor-El states and quote "Be an ideal to strive towards". Like he is being told what to do. 

        I think there wasn’t a moment where he thought about anything than being completely lost in the film. This interpretation of the character has always been compared to Christopher Reeve’s interpretation in his Superman films. Reeve's take on the character has so much depth that no one needs any imagery that involves religious icons to emphasize anything. I won’t say Cavill's take is the worst since there may be a film in the future where he can shine and be Superman. Here, he’s just a handsome guy in a Superman suit.

        The biggest missed opportunity is to have Superman try to be the exact opposite of those around him. Like in the first Superman film, having him be a completely different character when he is either Clark or Superman . Now, I can understand not repeating things since it would be derivative. The best Superman stories has always been about him being able to show his humanity in the midst of a cynic world. Having him come to terms of the outside world but have the humble mentality of Smallville, Kansas would’ve been welcoming for the most part. Depth is not Zack Snyder's strong aspect.

3. Two Dads

        I think this is one of the only heroes to have two Dads, one from Earth and from another planet. They contribute to the overall problem with this interpretation of Superman. In the beginning and when he appears, Jor-El is the more idealistic father who wants his son to be the bright light in the end of the tunnel. Johnathon Kent played by Kevin Costner, chastises Clark for almost revealing his powers. The scene which this is brought up is when the school bus that Clark is in has a flat tire and crashes to a body of water. Clark escapes from the bus, but rescues all of the kids in the bus including his bully who was under the depths. 

        Clark then asks his Dad if he would’ve let the kids drown and Johnathon says maybe. That part rubbed me the wrong way since why would he say that? I think in one lazy way to do it, is that to say maybe but ask if it felt good to save people. It would’ve redeemed his character. Another thing is when Pa Kent shows Clark the rocket he was brought in. He explains that Kal might’ve been sent for a reason, but it doesn’t go further than that. 

        I feel that the overall vibe I got was that Jor-El is supposed to be the idealistic one spouting glowing sayings that feel like a beginners philosophy class, while Johnathon is the cynic one. Especially since Johnathon contradicts himself. Such as when the flashbacks establish that he needs help with the family farm and Clark rebukes him. Then later saying Clark has to decide who he wants to be. Like, was there a lapse in character when he said that or did the writer intentionally wanted Pa Kent to be gray about it?

        The way Johnathon died didn’t make sense. Again, I might as well say that Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie is the definitive film about the hero. Since in that one, Pa Kent’s death is supposed to symbolize and remind Clark that despite all his amazing powers, he can’t rescue anyone. In Man of Steel, both Johnathon and Kal argue while a literal tornado is forming in front of them. They get out of the truck but forgot about the dog. The Dad rescues the dog and Clark is ready to rescue him. Johnathon holds his hand to stop him and dies by the twister. 

        I feel that the theme of choice is such a half assed way to develop Superman since this theme is tossed out since he rescued some oil drillers in a rig that was on fire. Having shown that scene and the father’s death does a poor job to show the character his morals. Or lack thereof. Clark just feels like a passive character since he never has a moment where he commits to be a hero. Like, this isn't the right way to show a hero's growth at all. It's like he's hesitant on being a hero.

4. “Batman Begins” or How To Copy What Worked But Missing The Point

        I feel like not watching Batman Begins was the thing I never noticed while watching this one. I was so confused as to why the film switched between the present and the past of Clark’s life. It got annoying and broke the flow of the film. Zack Snyder must’ve watched Nolan’s take on Batman and completely missed the point of why Nolan chose to have a nonlinear beginning of the caped crusader. For one thing, it was to show how Bruce got his morals and how he was able to adapt in a foreign land which leads to him becoming Batman. To think that Snyder’s take of the the dark knight was to have him be raped in prison to establish a broken man. I’m not making that up, he said it. 

        Here, the film shows Clark growing up while his powers pop up and getting a lecture from his Earth Dad about hiding his abilities. I feel it’s very sloppy since like I said in the last part, it’s supposed to show us the idea of choice. With the rescue in the beginning and the school bus scene, Clark made it an inherent choice to rescue those in danger but have that squashed by his Dad to tell him to not do that. It doesn’t connect and makes the character frustrating to care about since it feels like he has to do it instead of just doing it. 

5. The Third Act

        Any who, this part is bereft with wanton destruction that is evocative of the September 11th attacks. General Zod has his ship split in two to change the planet’s mass to be like Krypton. His ship lands in Metropolis, while the other one lands in the other side of the planet. Both ships turn into a dubstep machine and increase the gravity around the vicinity, resulting in everything being squashed. The Army sends the fighter jets to shoot missiles to the craft, only to have the missiles be misdirected and hit the buildings in the city. Even the damn jets fly too close to Zod's ship and crash to the buildings, like really? Did Michael Bay have something to do with this?

        It’s so damn loud like so many things going on including Lois Lane joining the Colonel character to stop Zod’s planet changing plan. My favorite part is when she’s struggling to input a jump drive stick to Clark’s rocket, but it won’t go through. Only when the scientist character Abraham Erskine decides to slightly nudge the thing then the stick goes in and ready to explode. And one would think that’s how Zod would go down, by being sucked back to the Phantom Zone as he was before. 

        No, we have to have a final fight. It’s standard comic book stuff but the destruction and me not caring for Superman since there’s no stakes since no one is getting injured just keeps going. Christopher Nolan actually wanted the ending to have Zod be sent back to the Phantom Zone but Zack Snyder overruled him and we have a big dumb action scene. 

6. Neck Snap

        Back when it was released, there was numerous articles about this one moment in particular. As the final bout winds down, Superman is holding on to Zod, he almost lasers a nearby family. He tells the mad Kryptonian to stop, he says never. Clark, with all his might and strength snaps Zod’s neck. I read every comment to see what people thought about it. Some liked it, some hated it. For me, with this new interpretation of Superman, I feel it was an easy out since the plot worked its way to the situation. 

        The film didn’t have to go this route. It would’ve been refreshing to not have a big dumb fight but to valiantly save the day. I can imagine this is Zack Snyder’s way to have a “grown-up” version of the hero by giving him a no-win option. Thus resulting in this scene. I feel indifferent since this isn’t how Superman is supposed to be. I can be open to any interpretation of the hero but any route the character takes has to be justified and earned. 

7. Overall

        This is probably one of the most disappointing films I have seen. I was so thrilled to see this one since I want a Superman film that is comparable to what my parents grew up with in their youth. What I got instead is a shallow interpretation of a beloved icon that is riddled with loud explosions with little depth to care about. The ultimate sin is having Superman be compared to Jesus Christ. That shot in the scene where he asks a priest for advice instead of going to see Jor- El for advice about someone who is like him would’ve worked. Instead, shoving and showing not so subtle imagery that you could have text appear saying that Clark is the Lord. This made me not like Zack Snyder’s directing style, but it gets worse than that. He made a follow up film. 

        Man of Steel gets a two out of five.