Man Of Steel Review: Not Bad…but not Magic, Either
Originally published at Radio Free Tomorrow. Please leave any comments there.
No real spoilers here. I don’t really have to talk about the plot to talk about my thoughts about this one.
In terms of Franchise Films this summer, we’ve had three major franchises represented: the Avengersverse in the form of Iron Man 3, JJTrek in the form of Star Trek Into Darkness, and DC’s Superman in the form of Zack Snyder’s franchise-rebooting Man of Steel.
Iron Man 3 was bloody brilliant. I really ought to be reviewing that first, both because it was released earlier and because some of what I have to say about Man of Steel is a comparison. But that’s not what’s happening just now.
Star Trek Into Darkness was…well, you’ve already heard me tell you what I thought it was. My initial review gave it 7 of 10. It got worse on a second viewing and reviewing, going down to 6 of 10, and frankly, the more I think about it, the madder I get, so expect it to get very little mercy in the future.
Man of Steel was…better than that. It wasn’t fantastic. It wasn’t bad. But most crucially…it wasn’t magic. Despite solid performances, beautiful effects, and a script that had no more plot holes than the average comic book film, it just lacked something.
While it’s probably an oversimplification, I think the main thing it was missing was humor!
So, Here’s the Thing: I know that audiences want a certain amount of realism in their Big Explosive Action Films these days. Grittiness is still the going fashion, and nobody’s really happy with easy answers and easy victories. It has to be difficult, there have to be consequences, even if the Good Guys Win Big.
However… Iron Man 3 managed to hit those marks and still be funny. In fact, one friend described Iron Man 3 as something like “a domestic comedy with superheroes” and that’s not really wrong. Iron Man 3 is a hilarious film that also manages to be as realistic film as you can manage when your protagonist is a billionaire genius playboy philanthropist with 42 different suits of semi-autonomous flying armor and the antagonist is pumped full of nanotech. It’s realistic in how events affect the protagonist and the people around him and in the consequences he’s still processing since Avengers. In fact, the theme of the entire piece can be summarized as, “Actions have consequences, dummy!”
Man of Steel…has none of those qualities. There’s very little humor in it, in keeping with Christopher Nolan’s apparently very grim outlook in the universe. There’s very little warmth to it, as if somehow the production never quite left the North Pole even when it’s summertime in Kansas. It’s a film that’s trying so very hard to take Superman as a concept seriously that it forgets almost entirely to have fun!
Now, that said, Man of Steel gets some things right. Thanks to modern special effects, the battle sequences between Kryptonian characters on Earth finally give us a sense of the destructive scope of multiple demigods pounding on each other. The backstory for Krypton’s history and ultimate destruction is more fleshed out than in the Richard Donner Superman and Superman II from the 1970s, and Jor-El is much more than a cypher (although Lara, sadly, fares no better). The crises of young Clark’s childhood are more fully fleshed out and realistically portrayed than the Donner films, as well, I think, and of course, brought into a more modern time, since the adult Kal-El is meant to be our contemporary.
Kal-El’s other father, Jonathan Kent, played by Kevin Costner, is also surprisingly well portrayed. Which is not to say that the viewer is likely to agree with a lot of what he has to say, necessarily — a lot of the criticism the film has received so far revolves around Jonathan Kent’s willingness to let people die — and ultimately to die himself — to keep Clark’s secret safe. But Costner, for once, is actually acting!
The main reason I even went to see this movie — I didn’t really feel we needed another Superman film just now — was the starring role of Henry Cavill as Kal-El/Clark Kent. I had seen a lot of Mr Cavill in The Tudors, where he portrayed Henry VIII’s best friend and only real confidant, Charles Brandon, eventual Duke of Suffolk, and played him note perfect. I found him an odd choice for the role of Kal-El and wanted to see how he would do.
The answer is…pretty well, if you’re OK with the subdued, introspective personality the script bestows upon its titular character. This Clark Kent is not a bumbling fool, thank heaven, but even when he’s in Hero Mode, he’s a very troubled man with a lot to think about and not a lot of reason to be outgoing. Cavill plays the character, as written, spot on…but that’s almost the problem. This Clark Kent is a little bit cold, a little aloof. Only Diane Lane’s Martha Kent and Amy Adams’ Lois Lane really crack his shell at all, leaving it somewhat ambiguous just what sort of hero he will ultimately be.
I wish I had more to say about Ms Adams’ turn as Lois, but…i find I don’t. In fact, I think she, more than any other single character, exemplifies my issue with this movie. There’s nothing really wrong with how she plays the character, but there’s just no real magic, no spark to it, either. There are one or two moments where you can see a hint of magic, but it never actually takes root in the story.
And lastly, we come to Michael Shannon’s turn as General Zod. Here, in my opinion, the script actually does some real justice to a character, although others might disagree. The Richard Donner era Zod was simply an egomaniac, as nearly as we could ever tell, whose sole motivation was power. The Zod we see here is a much more interesting character who honestly believes that he is the hero of the piece! He is the one who will save Krypton, one way or the other, or die trying. Other than Jor-El, he is the only character in the entire film whose motivation is clear both to himself and to the audience from the very beginning.
In fact…maybe that’s part of this film’s problem. To some degree, the battle throughout the film is not really between Zod and Kal-El, but between Zod and Jor-El, with Kal-El as something of a proxy and even pawn of plans laid by the holographic ghost of his father. Kal-El doesn’t even fully appreciate what the fight is about a good chunk of the way through the film.
Still, for all its flaws, this film is a visual treat. I am deeply enamored of the unique visualization technology the special effects people came up with for Kryptonian technology, and how consistently it’s used throughout. Of particular note is the nearly art-deco sequence in which Jor-El’s hologram quickly sketches in for his son the history of their doomed world. These visuals are simultaneously alien and yet a beautiful homage to the artistic styles of 30s, when Superman first appeared.
The good news is that Man of Steel held up reasonably well to a second viewing. The bad news is that it still only gets a 7/10.