MAN OF STEEL - A Retro Review

Warning – Here be Spoilers, but look, this movie came out three years ago, and if you haven’t seen it, then you’ve brought this on yourself. And may God have mercy on your soul.

I honestly can’t think of a superhero movie as divisive as Man of Steel. And I think I’m starting to understand why. Not that I agree with the people who dislike this movie (I don’t – I think it’s a flawed movie, but certainly enjoyable) but I can see why people would feel like, as one friend put it, “this is not my Superman”. It's one thing to say you don't like Zack Snyder's visual sense - I can understand that, even if i don't agree. It's another thing to criticize the story, written by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the gentlemen who brought us the greatest superhero trilogy of all time. That, I think, boils down to expectations and the audience's collective idea of who and what Superman is.

But before we get to all the divisive stuff, let’s just talk about the movie itself.

I am going to gloss over plot summary, because again – the movie came out three years ago. You’ve probably seen it. Bottom line – Krypton opening sequence, Clark drifts across America like Caine in "Kung Fu", discovers his Kryptonian heritage, meets Lois Lane, is hunted by the US government and Zod before a final showdown in Metropolis, as Zod tries to destroy the Earth and everyone on it. Zod is killed, Metroplis is left in ruins, and Superman's existence and power are revealed to the world.

Visually, I love this movie. Long gone are Richard Donner's vibrant colors and exuberant style. I know Zack Snyder’s aesthetic isn’t for everyone, but I think his muted color palette and avoidance of bright lighting, except in a few key scenes, fits the story arc of the movie. Superman is not the red, yellow, and blue hero yet, so the movie shouldn’t look as if everything is hunky dory. It’s a film chock full of conflicting and shifting emotions for the main character, struggling to find his place in the world, and the gloom that follows him everywhere is evident on the screen.

Acting-wise, everyone does a fine job, though some better than others. Henry Cavill is definitely a little stiff at times, but his look is absolutely perfect. Amy Adams has been better, but at least you get a sense of her impulsivity and tenacity as Lois Lane. It's the supporting cast, however, that really shines.

Though he doesn’t have much screen time, Laurence Fishburne delivers suitable gravitas to his role as Daily Planet editor Perry White. Diane Lane brings a warmth to her very maternal Martha Kent. The scene where Clark reveals he has found his alien origin is heartbreaking. You can see she is happy for him, but terrified he may no longer feel the same way about his adoptive mother as before.

Opposite Lane is Kevin Costner, who plays Jonathan Kent. At first, I wanted to say this was a rather one-note character, and though he’s playing Clark’s adoptive father believably, I wanted to say, I thought he could have done better. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the depth of his “one note”. Clark’s protection is his top priority. He contemplates whether or not letting a school bus full of kids drown to keep Clark’s secret is the right thing to do, and even forbids Clark from saving his life in the midst of a tornado, lest his secret be exposed. Costner plays Jonathan with such surety and love that you know there is nothing he would not do to protect his son.

Kneel, bitches.

On the other hand, Michael Shannon’s General Zod is an enjoyable villain, ruthless, and completely dedicated to carrying out his mission. While he could have been developed more, given more dimension, his death still has poignancy because of what we know about him by the end. He’s a soldier who cannot exist without a war, or people to serve, and he would rather choose suicide-by-Superman than an existence without purpose. His sidekick, the Kryptonian Faora-ul is played absolutely badassly by German actress Antje Traue. Zipping from victim to victim in the blink of an eye, Faora is just as ruthless as Zod, and even faster than Superman.She exudes the confidence of a warrior who goes into battle knowing victory is a foregone conclusion.

The action scenes deliver the appropriate thrills, and even a few emotional punches. Superman's first attempt at flight is at first a bit comic, then exciting, and ultimately absolutely thrilling. He circles the planet, traveling from an icy wasteland to the African wild in seconds with a look of utter joy on his face. And this scene in particular brings me to my next point.

Antje Traue - my future wife, I assume

The musical score is outstanding. Hans Zimmer’s work in key scenes really does its job perfectly. Superman’s first flight is made even more exuberant by the music, and the climactic battle in Metropolis, especially the final standoff between Superman and Zod is made all the more devastating by the quiet, doleful music in the background.

The film does make liberal use of flashbacks, and there are at least one too many of them. Almost all of them have to do with Clark struggling with his power in his youth, and that's a point that is made over and over again. However, none of the criticism I’ve laid out, whether it be stiff acting, a lack of some character development, or being too light in the editing bay are deal breakers. “Man of Steel” is an exciting movie, and a solid introduction to a completely different kind of Superman. Which is kind of the point I’ll make now, while I try to identify what causes such contrasting reactions to the movie.

Yes, people had problems with the utter destruction and chaos leveled upon Metropolis. But when you’re fighting for the fate of the entire world, even if Metropolis had been completely destroyed, the math is still on your side. And I submit that if two beings with the powers that Superman and Zod possess did go toe to toe, they’re going to leave a crater wherever they fight. However, I think it’s the fight’s ending that is one of, if not the biggest point of contention.

Superman kills Zod. “He’s not my Superman!” fans cried. Actually, yeah he is. Superman has killed before. Just in the handful of Superman comics I’ve read, Superman has killed Doomsday (twice!) and Mxyzptlk, and Brainiac. If you count alternate histories, he killed a shitload in Red Son, Flashpoint, and Injustice. In film, Zod , Ursa and Non are killed in Superman II (they’re rendered powerless and dropped off cliffs). Superman Returns shows him lifting a continent filled with kryptonite (uh huh) which causes earthquakes that kill Lex Luthor’s henchmen. So yeah…he’s still your Superman, even though he’s forced (and make no mistake, Zod FORCES Superman to kill him – that’s his intention) he doesn’t do it lightly. His anguished yell exposes his pain at killing the last of his species.

Divisive - adj. see film, Man of Steel (pictured above)

Let's rewind a moment and also take a look back at the 1978 film. In that film, Clark comes home one day and finds his father dead. That instills in him a childish idea; his power cannot save everyone. That it took the death of his father to teach him that lesson shows that he thought it was possible. Childish, yo. Then, Lois dies and Superman turns back time to save her, regardless of the potential consequences. Now, in "Man of Steel", Jonathan dies to keep Clark's secrets hidden. And in his battle with Zod, Superman is faced with a real moral quandary - stick to a no-killing policy, or let a human family get incinerated. The math isn't easy and there is no "right" answer. Either way, you leave with blood on your hands.

But aside from this plot point, perhaps this was just too different  a Superman, and Superman movie than people were expecting. Maybe audiences were not anticipating the somber tone or the slow, contemplative moments mixed in with the action. Like “The Dark Knight”, it’s the first Superman movie that didn’t have the word ‘Superman’ in the title. Why? Because the story isn’t about Superman. It’s about Clark Kent, and his journey from man to superman. We see through multiple flashbacks that he thinks of himself first as human, and even blames God for his gifts. When he isn't sure what to do, he goes to see a priest, not Jor-el (or that holographic Jor-el avatar) Even at the end of the movie, Clark fully embraces his kryptonian origin and takes his role as 'Superman' and 'hero' to heart. Yet, he still tells an army general “I grew up in Kansas…I’m about as American as it gets.” His body may be Kryptonian, but his heart and soul are very much human.

But to the audience, he’s always been the archetypal superhero. At peace with his power, fully confident in his actions, “the big, blue boy scout” had never been portrayed with any insecurity, a pinnacle of perfection in power and manner. Donner’s 1978 "Superman" emerged from the fortress of solitude as a fully formed hero; humble, quaint, a little bit goofy, a little bit childish. “Smallville” showed a Clark Kent who hid his power, but was comfortable with it, and even eager to show it off. He hadn’t yet put on the tights, but was still regularly performing heroic acts. He was Superman without the dual identity. As an audience, we've been conditioned to keep Clark and Superman separate in their identity, "Man of Steel" integrated them more than ever before. And perhaps audiences just weren’t ready for this more human and reluctant version of Superman.

I really do hope that the DC Extended Universe works out for everyone involved, the fans most of all. I hope Batman v Superman is wonderful. And I hope that with enough time, people will realize that this is not a terrible Superman movie. It’s a great prelude to what is coming next, certainly not perfect, but still very entertaining and true to the heart and spirit of the characters.

FINAL SCORE 7.25/10

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the follow-up to this movie, hits theaters tomorrow night.