SUICIDE SQUAD - A Movie Review

Worst heroes ever, yes. Worst movie ever? Naw, son. Naw.

SPOILER WARNING - duh.

Before I actually get to the movie review portion of this article, I want to talk about some other stuff first.

A few days before 'Suicide Squad' opened, the review embargo lifted, and those suckers came pouring in, and they...were...savage. I didn't read them, because I didn't want them to influence how I watched the movie, and I still haven't, because I don't want them to influence how I write this article. But I've seen the movie twice now, and I honestly don't get the level of vitriol leveled at this movie. It's not perfect by any means, but it's damn sure not bad, either. I did see one blurb that said Suicide Squad was worse than 'Fantastic Four' and that is just utter nonsense. But it proved to me that there is some degree of bias out there - whether or not it's against DC or Warner Bros, superhero movies in general, interconnected movie universes, or whatever. When you turn to using ridiculous statements like that, you're showing a deliberate desire to be negative and an attitude that says "I went into this movie with a chip on my shoulder."

And I do think there is something rotten at the core of film criticism today. There are great ones, sure - my favorite happens to be Matt Zoller Seitz, editor-in-chief of RogerEbert.com and Dallas homeboy. But for every one of him, there's twenty who come in with hyperbolic overreaction, either positive or negative, and reduce what should be a nuanced and articulate appreciation of what works and what doesn't in a movie into something that can be reduced to a blurb on Rotten Tomatoes. And when you do that, to me, you're reducing the film itself to something trivial instead of art. And yeah, some movies are easier to call art and others are easier to call mere entertainment, but hell...the same thing goes for any medium. For every Van Gogh, you have a million generic hotel paintings. For every Rodin, you have a thousand stone cherubs pissing in your garden. For every Frank Lloyd Wright, you have the guy in charge of designing the PlayPlace at McDonald's.

Remember how much flak this got?

My point, though, is this - every piece of art isn't for everyone, and I get that. There are going to be movies that you don't like because they just rub you the wrong way. But critics should do their best not to bring their own prejudices, expectations, and demands into every movie you see. That way lies disappointment, and watching everything through a filter of what you expect/demand/want is bad for criticism in general. I'm not saying I don't do those things, or that I'm above that sort of bias, I'm saying that's my goal. And I think that should be every critics goal. Go into a movie with an open mind, try to see what the filmmakers were attempting and judge them on how much they succeeded in that endeavor.

Anyways, that's my treatise on the shabby state of film criticism today and how it sours the public on a movie before it even gets a fair shake. So...shall we get to 'Suicide Squad' now?

Despite the crappy Tomatometer (a term that just screams class, doesn't it?) score, 'Suicide Squad' is not a bad movie. In the two weeks since its release, more and more details have emerged about the behind the scenes drama that should have rendered this movie an unwatchable mess. But it's not. In fact, it's a rather fun and exciting movie. Thrilling, sardonic, quickly paced and never boring, there are shortcomings to be sure, but none of them ruin the movie. None of them made me walk out going "wow...what a disaster". I walked out with a great big smile on my face, honestly.

To start off, there are a few things I want to point out as being really great; Margot Robbie, who absolutely became Harley Quinn, Will Smith, who did a solid job at making Deadshot more of the pragmatic killer that I've seen in comics than just a cold blooded murderer, and Viola Davis who...well, who just fucking was Amanda Waller. Tough, smart, and completely ruthless to the point of practically being a villain. The rest of the cast had smaller roles, but all performed admirably; Joel Kinnaman, Cara Delavigne, Karen Fukuhara, and Jay Hernandez all seemed totally at home in their roles and acted very naturally. Adewale Akkinnuoye-Agbae, though just not having much to do, certainly looked like Killer Croc and did have some good lines, And Jai Courtney, who had a sort of rakish charm as Captain Boomerang, made me smirk every time he opened his mouth.

You may notice that I didn't mention Jared Leto as the Joker. That's not because he's bad, and not because he's good. It's because he's really hardly in the movie at all. Oh, he's important to Harley Quinn's portion of the story, but you don't get enough of a feel for who he is apart from her. In the plus column, though, you do buy their relationship in the film, and especially her love for him. He comes across as a gangster-cum-rap star, who obviously has a lot of history, almost none of which we're seeing. It is definitely one thing I would have liked to see more of, but not something that is a serious detriment to the film, considering his limited role in the main story.

Dr. Quinzel and patient Puddin'

Speaking of Harley and the Joker, though, my absolute favorite scene in the movie is when the Enchantress shows the surviving squad members their deepest and most honest desires; Deadshot sees himself killing Batman; Diablo sees his dead wife. But Harley...Harley sees herself living a completely normal life, raising a family with a Joker who is no longer the Joker (Jared Leto, sans makeup, looking every bit like his movie star self, and nothing like the clown prince of crime). It is revealing and heartbreaking and shows you how deeply Harley really does love the Joker. She loves him enough to put herself through all the physical torture, the incarceration, and the constant psychosis, when clearly what she really wants is the everyday button-down life. It's an idea that has been explored in comic stories like "Mad Love" and "Injustice" - the idea that Harley only acts like Harley to keep the Joker's attention, and not because she's actually insane. It's a wonderfully poignant bit of storytelling that shows you the depth of character development we might have gotten if certain studio executives had just trusted the damn director.

Back to the main story, though, which is actually pretty simple; Amanda Waller wants to assemble Task Force X to combat any extraordinary threats that may crop up now that Superman is dead, and before too long, one arises and the Suicide Squad is deployed. But what makes the story interesting, aside from the likable and entertaining characters, are the twists that are revealed halfway through the movie; i.e. Waller is their rescue target, and she is also directly responsible for every bad thing going on in Midway City. So when I say she's a borderline villain, I'm not just talking about the fact that she smoked a room full of innocent people because she considered them loose ends. It's the sort of thing that undermines everything you've been told about a major character to this point, and it's a pretty solid twist. And the fact that the Squad is being lead by Rick Flag, who appears to be more or less used to Waller's vicious streak, without condemning or condoning, shows you the very thin line between the "heroes" and "criminals" of this story.

That's a face you don't fuck with

But while Waller may be the root cause of all that ails Midway City, it's the Enchantress and Incubus who are really causing all the mayhem. I do wish these two had been fleshed out a little bit more, especially since Enchantress is sharing a body with Flag's paramour, June Moone. Even if they were simply motivated by a desire for revenge against Waller, who manipulated the witch into doing her bidding, it would be nice if that was explicitly explored rather than simply implied. Instead, all we got was a single line about being bitter at the fact that humans forgot who they were and now "worship machines". Is Enchantress mad at smartphones? I'd rather she be mad that something as low as a human sought to control her. But that's kind of nitpicky, so not a mortal sin.

Yet even though that is a weak spot in story telling, for the most part, the story that's on the screen is pretty solid and might make a whole lot more sense if it was arranged in a more cohesive way. See, the biggest problem with 'Suicide Squad' isn't the acting, or the direction, or even the writing - it's the editing. And now that we've heard repeated (and all but confirmed) rumors that WB head Kevin Tsujihara panicked mightily after the critical drubbing that 'BvS' received (also unwarranted, if you ask me, especially once you see the Ultimate Edition) it becomes very easy to see the clumsy fingerprints of studio interference all over this movie.

Deadshot's story could have hit harder with better editing.

The first half of the movie is fun and exciting, full of black comedy, some really great musical cues, and is seriously loaded with flashbacks. The second half is a more-or-less straightforward action movie. The two halves aren't so disparate that the movie makes no sense (like, say 'Fantastic Four'), but it is noticeable. And having seen it for a second time now, it is quite obvious that some of the flashbacks we saw in the first 30-40 minutes were supposed to be revelations saved for the latter half of the movie. Harley and Diablo both have flashbacks toward the end that give you a glimpse this original structure. And Deadshot's arrest and showdown with Batman, instead of being shown within the first ten minutes of the film, was almost certainly meant for the moment toward the end when Flag surprises Lawton with a stack of his daughter's letters. 

I feel like you can tell the nearly exact same story, only rearranging certain scenes, and you'd have a movie that, if not good reviews, might have at least gotten a lot less bad ones. Some other changes I'd make would be to develop the villains a bit more, and show more interaction within the squad itself so that when Diablo and Harley both act during the climax out of loyalty to their new buddies, it seems far more believable. I do feel like some of the squad members are short changed as far as character development, but that's not necessarily a fatal mistake. A solid backstory for Killer Croc would have been icing on the cake, not the missing link. It would have been nice to see more from them, and to give the squad more of a dynamic, if dysfunctional, "family" feeling, but I don't think it would change the movie too drastically.

Yet for all the flaws in editing, and the short changing of some of the characters, 'Suicide Squad' is still a funny, chaotic, and exciting movie. It's over two hours, and yet never feels like it. I had a good time with it, for sure, but what I respect most is the ambition. David Ayer tried to make a movie without a legit superhero, starring a bunch of comic characters who, besides the Joker, had never been on a movie screen before. And he did it in way that felt organic and believable within the constraints of the world that's been built by the DCEU: Task Force X was conceived the moment Superman died, and the person running it is so immoral, that her actions bring about the very threats she's trying to avoid. It's the kind of story I could easily believe sprang from the pages of a comic book - a really good comic book.

I have said before that I never want this site, or my criticism, to just turn into an anger free-for-all in which I vent my nerdrage. That's mostly because I never want to walk into a movie with the expectation that I'll walk out angry. I never want to write off a movie without thinking about it for a while and really considering what works and what doesn't. And I don't want to heap praise on something while ignoring its shortcomings. I honestly think that once people look past their own prejudices, expectations, and demands and try to see past whatever immediate disappointment they may feel, they'll realize that a movie that has been lambasted as awful is actually pretty good.

'Suicide Squad' is one of those movies. It deserves a better critical response than it's getting.


FINAL SCORE - 7/10

'Suicide Squad' is currently in theaters, and does directly tie-in to the events of 'Batman v Superman' so if you missed that, check it out. 

JUSTICE LEAGUE, SUICIDE SQUAD, DOCTOR STRANGE TRAILERS DROP!!

SDCC is the con that keeps on giving with the surprise release of a Justice League trailer, a new, full length Suicide Squad trailer, and the second Doctor Strange trailer.

Justice League, y'all. Justice League. 

UPDATE: The Lego Batman movie trailer added, too!

THE FIRST WONDER WOMAN TRAILER IS ONLINE!

As all six of you know, SDCC is in full swing. the WB panel is going on right now, and we've been treated to the first trailer for Patty Jenkins' 2017 'Wonder Woman'!!

Here it is!

Holy. Living. Frak.

WOW.

As we can see, Gal Gadot (who totally stole the show in 'Batman v Superman') is back as Diana Prince in a prequel of sorts - this movie is set about a hundred years before 'Dawn of Justice'. Having lived her entire life on the home-island of the Amazons, Diana travels to the outside world for the frist time and finds herself caught up in World War I.

The trailer showcases the first man she ever meets - the marooned soldier Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) and shows us glimpses of a few WW staples - Connie Nielsen as Diana's mother, Hippolyta, and Lucy Davis as Diana's buddypal Etta Candy.

Most exciting for me is the trailer seems to point toward keeping that badass theme for WW we first heard in BvS!! Awwwww yiss!

'Wonder Woman' is out June 2, 2017.

In Defense of... BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

Delaying it a year didn't help matters.

Spoilerish Warning - there won't be explicit spoilers up in hurr, but I'm also not going to be careful about talking about the broadstrokes of the narrative of this movie. So...you're forewarned.

So remember last week when I wrote that 'Man of Steel' was super divisive? Well, the reaction to that film is basically a group hug while singing Kumbaya compared to the shitstorm that has unjustly descended onto 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'. I've seen the movie now. And while I do understand some of the criticism leveled at it, I do not understand the hyperbolic vitriol that has been hurled at it from all angles. And so here we are again, talking about a Zack Snyder superhero effort, it's poor reception, and why it's grossly misunderstood. There are no lukewarm opinions here. My stance is red-hot. Like Wonder Woman's bracelets! Let's get started.

Most of what I'll be discussing here isn't the movie itself, but its public perception. And to quote the criminally underrated film 'Sneakers', "the world isn't based on reality...but on the perception of reality." And perception has never been on this movie's side.

'Batman v Superman' is not a bad movie. I'll admit, it's not a great movie. It's a better than OK movie, with some really ambitious and great ideas behind it. It has some final act issues, one really problematic performance, and a few other minor things that just annoy me as a viewer. But the bottom line here is that it's a flawed, but still very entertaining movie. None of its two and a half hour length feels boring or slow at all. In fact, there are distinct periods where I wished it would slow down. There's a three hour cut that's going to be released this summer and that is what I will review when the time comes. For now, let me say that I'll give the movie a 7/10 score, and say that it sometimes has better ideas than it knows what to effectively do with them.

I honestly can't remember another movie (not named 'Star Wars') that was followed so intensely from the moment it was announced through the weekend of its release. And right from the jump off, it seemed like people were suspicious of this enterprise. It was announced at SDCC in the summer of 2013, when Harry Lennix took the stage at the WB presentation and quoted from the graphic novel 'The Dark Knight Returns'. Batman and Superman on the big screen together. And the general audience response? Yay! Happy! Cool, but...DC is just trying to copy Marvel.

Negativity from the outset

And then what was once just mildly dismissive got much worse when Ben Affleck was announced as Batman. Nevermind that he was fresh off two films, The Town (2010) and Argo (2012), that earned him a ton of critical acclaim; in the comic nerd world, his name was still mud because of the ten year old bomb that was 'Daredevil'.* I went to local comic-cons and saw t-shirts for sale that not-so-subtly begged for a recasting. And it struck me because I'd never seen a shirt among the generally happy crowd of nerds that was so overtly negative. Of course there was some defense of him. People mentioned the time the nerds cried out against the casting of Michael Keaton. Against the casting of Heath Ledger. Against the casting of Anne Hathaway. But this was stronger. More hateful. And though logic suggested it was well within the realm of possibility that the nerdy public could be wrong again, I felt a palpable sense that, though it was years away, people were very worried about this movie's chances of being good.

*I've seen Daredevil - both the theatrical cut and the director's cut - it's a bad movie and Ben Affleck is bad in it. But there are a lot of problems with that movie, and his acting is far from the biggest one.

Time passed. The movie went into production, and then got delayed by a year, moved from May 2015 to May 2016. The Marvel Cinematic Universe grew, with hit after publicly beloved hit. And while this should have no bearing on the goings-on of a completely separate movie studio, public perception thought it should. Pressure seemed to mount on WB to compete with Disney/Marvel on a massive scale. "Give us a successful interconnected universe with Batman and Superman, and...wait, what? Wonder Woman?? You're putting Wonder Woman in this movie already? Now you're just forcing it!!"

Jason Momoa was cast. "Great, now Aquaman is in it?" Ray Fisher was cast. "They don't even care about this movie, do they?" Ezra Miller was cast. "Why aren't they using Grant Gustin? Oh no! This movie's going to be too full! Why is the whole Justice League in the first movie???"

Dang, even the extras fought this movie being made.

I saw these questions on movie sites, comic book sites, blogs, YouTube videos. Despite the public's desire for a competing DC cinematic universe, the public felt WB/DC was trying too hard. And here, I think, is the root of the problem. When you view something as a competition, invariably, you're going to view the participants as winner and loser. And though neither party has explicitly stated they're in competition, Marvel's mastermind, producer Kevin Feige (and seriously? who even knows producers' names?? that alone is a sign of their branding success - we know the name of the producer who oversees the MCU) has repeatedly and publicly acted with the confidence of a winner. They've branded themselves as the leader of the pack, the pioneer, the one to be emulated. Marvel used to announce movies at SDCC. Now they have their own event-style press conferences. And when it became clear that Marvel wanted to stick a finger in WB's eye by scheduling the release of the then untitled third Captain America film for the same weekend in May 2016, WB blinked and moved BvS to a March release. Marvel behaved as if they were in direct competition.

The real star of the MCU

When you walk around acting like the winner, by default, people start to look at your competitor as the loser. Every single image, minor production news, or trailer released for BvS was met with mixed reaction. Dubious scoffs. Bloggers complained "It's too dark!" "Great! Zack Snyder's gonna ruin this, too!" "They're never gonna catch up to Marvel!" "Aww! Why would they release their movie teaser the same time as the Star Wars teaser??" "They gave away Doomsday! Why would they spoil that in a trailer?" It wasn't just mild disappointment people expressed. It was pointed anger. And this anger doomed the perception of the production from the start. All because it didn't have the same look as the winning team.

More time passed. The movie was actually completed. March 2016 drew near. This would be it. The public could see and judge the finished product. Then the movie opened. And things got so much worse from there.

Reviews were described as "dismal". "Overwhelmingly negative". The words "critically panned", "boring" "dull" were tossed around freely. Headlines kept the public informed as the Rotten Tomatoes score fell. And yet, by Friday, there seems to be a disconnect between critics and the public. Holding a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, BvS still opened to 166M over the weekend, making it the largest March opening ever. And with it's 240M overseas haul, it's the biggest opening for a comic book movie in history. It's also sitting at a healthy 7.4 user rating on IMDb, which seems to indicate viewers don't hate it as much as critics. Yet despite the undeniable fact that this film has a sizable portion of fans, the negative voice is still crying out. The angry nerds still beg to be heard. But why? Why does it seem like people are actively, even gleefully rooting for this movie to be bad, to fail?

For some websites, they're chasing clicks, so they portray a situation as worse than it actually is to draw in readers. The need for an audience also applies to the movie critic community, which is ever-expanding with web-based journalism. (I mean how many of the reviewers listed on Rotten Tomatoes are actual employees of published periodicals, and how many work for smaller websites like "joeshmoelovesmovies.com"?) But too many reviews seem to be kneejerk reactions based on their expectation of what the movie should be, rather than what it is, or what the director intends it to be. So when you see a criticism that states "this movie is too dark!" that's a subjective opinion, and yes, all criticism is is an opinion, but that states nothing about the film itself. That's a critic dismissing a movie because it doesn't conform to his or her personal preferences. And I don't believe that's what film criticism should be. But the critics are just one aspect of the negative reaction.

In the week since the film's release, more stories have come out. Reputable sites are picking up stories about a very small minority of moviegoers circling a petition to remove Snyder from further involvement in the DCEU. Writers cry out "he's ruined everything Superman stands for!", "he's tarnished Batman forever!". Why? Because this whole circle - critics, bloggers, internet journalists - feeds on hyperbole. It's not enough to just say "eh...it's not that bad, but it's not that good either." It has to be the WORST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER!!! (which, please... Amazing Spider-Man 2 has far more serious problems than BvS) Then you get a loudmouth like Kevin Smith, who comes out and says that Snyder has a "fundamental misunderstanding of both characters" which is A) not true, and B) irrelevant. To say there's a fundamental misunderstanding implies that there is only one interpretation of Batman. Even if there was only one singular incarnation of Batman, instead of the literally dozens of comic writers who've put their own stamps on the dark knight, even if we didn't have several movies, and multiple TV series' set in Gotham City, Snyder is still making his own movie. He's the director, and he and the screenwriter have not only the freedom, but the duty to bring Batman and Superman to the big screen in a way that differs from most, if not all, of what's come beforehand. If all we got was a straight adaptation, he'd be criticized for that, too. Don't believe me? Read critiques of Watchmen, where Snyder was incredibly faithful to the source material. Nobody was happy with that one, either.

It is increasingly difficult to be both ambitious in your storytelling AND be a universal crowd-pleaser. The MCU may be so popular, its branding so successful that people are willing to forgive and forget its mistakes. (Iron Man 2 & 3, The Incredible Hulk, Thor: The Dark World, Avengers: Age of Ultron) But they've really only taken a risk on one movie - 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. And the only reason that was taking a chance was because the characters themselves were largely unknown. Story-wise, there was no risk involved, as the film has the same basic narrative of 'The Avengers'. And it still followed the prescribed MCU formula of being lighthearted and broadly comedic. Because Marvel doesn't want to rock the boat. They want to keep making people happy, keep the Marvel brand alive and well. Don't believe me? Why did Edgar Wright quit Ant-Man? Why did Joss Whedon quit making Avengers movies? (don't get me wrong, I'm totally glad he did - I don't personally like his sensibilities).

Look, Zack Snyder didn't ruin anything. He didn't tarnish the reputation of fictional characters. He didn't even make the worst comic book movie ever. He failed at making a perfect movie, but we shouldn't fault him for that. He wanted to give us something different, and something new, and play with these characters in a way we'd never seen before. And for the most part, in that endeavor, he succeeded.

I'm a few weeks into writing for this blog, now. And I'm trying to keep things largely positive. That doesn't mean I won't ever be critical, or I won't ever dislike something. I'm sure I will. It's inevitable. But the one thing I really don't want to do is feed into the Angry Nerd stereotype. I don't want to toss around phrases like "they ruined Superman!" or "so and so ruined my childhood!". I don't want my critiques to turn into nitpicking sessions, wherein I'm never satisfied with the movie, and I can't even enjoy watching stuff I already know I love because the Angry Nerd tells me I'm not supposed to like it. I don't want to be angry. And I don't want to force my angry opinions on whoever reads this blog. The obscenely negative reaction to 'Batman v Superman' is the result of the Angry Nerd mentality run amok. WB tried to make a superhero movie that was thoughtful and subverted typical ideas and expectations, and no one ever seemed willing to give them a chance. The Angry Nerd was against it from the start. And I never want to walk in to a movie theater with the expectation that I will be angered by what I see. Because if that happens, then movies WILL have been ruined for me. And I absolutely never, ever want that.

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.