Michael Bay presents: Super Man
The years haven't been kind to Superman. After the ill-fated Brandon Routh vehicle in 2006, he was due for the mythos reviving reboot treatment given to Batman (who, let's face it, fell much further than "The Quest for Peace"). So Warner Brothers pulled out all the stops, handed a gritty Nolan-penned script to Zach Snyder (you know, the genius behind "Legend of the Guardians" and "Sucker Punch") and gave the green light. If the same formula worked for the caped crusader, then surely it would work here, right?
I'll be honest, I heard the word "masterpiece" thrown around a lot during the lead-up to this movie. While I won't deny that the promos promised a "Dark Knight" approach, complete with the conflicted anti-hero and grayscale color palette, unfortunately darker doesn't always equate to better.
From the get-go, "Man of Steel" dons a cape of perceived self-importance. After introducing us to the dying world of Krypton and it's doomed inhabitants, the movie immediately jumps forward a few decades to a nomadic Clark Kent, aimlessly traveling through backwoods Americana like Bruce Banner. Sure this setting is essential for establishing the doubting hero before he comes into his own, but the movie doesn't seem to know how to properly set it up. Through flashback, we see an unwavering pattern of Clark being told that he is meant for greatness one way or another. His biological father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) predicts that the people of Earth will rally behind him, while his adopted father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) believes that mankind will fear his powers. Sounds like an ideal platform from which to begin a classic hero's journey, right? Unfortunately, "Man of Steel" falls prey to sloppy execution. There is long, exhausting conjecture about Superman's supposed greatness, but little is done to capitalize on it. When he isn't cracking Kryptonian skulls in action scenes that look pre-rendered for a video game, he never interacts with the people he's supposedly protecting, the only exceptions being Lois Lane (Amy Adams), his mother (Diane Lane) or the military. Because of this, there is a feeling of constant disconnect. How can he truly be a beacon of hope when the plot – involving the hostile takeover of Earth by the surviving Krypton army – isolates him so drastically? He is a shell devoid of any real connection to humanity who readily accepts his lot in life, giving the audience little to resonate with or gravitate towards. As a result, we're left with a big, loud, hollow movie that confuses its downbeat tone and pretentious dialogue for true depth.
One of the problems might be that too much was crammed into the film. Factoring in the destruction of Krypton, Superman's backstory, and the introduction of a pivotal villain, this plays a lot like a "Batman Begins" / "Dark Knight" double feature that was edited down to two and a half hours. Not enough time is dedicated to any of these components, so none of the characters are fleshed out the way they should be. Superman comes into his own without question or growing as a person, Lois Lane exists solely as a plot device and the evil General Zod (a coasting-on-autopilot Michael Shannon) is sadly flat, railing against our hero without many surprises. Expecting the Joker may be asking a bit much, but he should have at least been as memorable as the Scarecrow or even Ra's Al Ghul from "Batman Begins." Sadly he won't make it to any memorable villains lists.
At the end of the day, "Man of Steel" feels a lot like a Michael Bay movie hidden under a thin Chris Nolan disguise. It is full of exquisite scenes of mind-numbing violence, but has little to offer beyond that. Hopefully, Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston will be able to breathe some life into the sequel, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Written December 25, 2013
I'll be honest, I heard the word "masterpiece" thrown around a lot during the lead-up to this movie. While I won't deny that the promos promised a "Dark Knight" approach, complete with the conflicted anti-hero and grayscale color palette, unfortunately darker doesn't always equate to better.
From the get-go, "Man of Steel" dons a cape of perceived self-importance. After introducing us to the dying world of Krypton and it's doomed inhabitants, the movie immediately jumps forward a few decades to a nomadic Clark Kent, aimlessly traveling through backwoods Americana like Bruce Banner. Sure this setting is essential for establishing the doubting hero before he comes into his own, but the movie doesn't seem to know how to properly set it up. Through flashback, we see an unwavering pattern of Clark being told that he is meant for greatness one way or another. His biological father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) predicts that the people of Earth will rally behind him, while his adopted father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) believes that mankind will fear his powers. Sounds like an ideal platform from which to begin a classic hero's journey, right? Unfortunately, "Man of Steel" falls prey to sloppy execution. There is long, exhausting conjecture about Superman's supposed greatness, but little is done to capitalize on it. When he isn't cracking Kryptonian skulls in action scenes that look pre-rendered for a video game, he never interacts with the people he's supposedly protecting, the only exceptions being Lois Lane (Amy Adams), his mother (Diane Lane) or the military. Because of this, there is a feeling of constant disconnect. How can he truly be a beacon of hope when the plot – involving the hostile takeover of Earth by the surviving Krypton army – isolates him so drastically? He is a shell devoid of any real connection to humanity who readily accepts his lot in life, giving the audience little to resonate with or gravitate towards. As a result, we're left with a big, loud, hollow movie that confuses its downbeat tone and pretentious dialogue for true depth.
One of the problems might be that too much was crammed into the film. Factoring in the destruction of Krypton, Superman's backstory, and the introduction of a pivotal villain, this plays a lot like a "Batman Begins" / "Dark Knight" double feature that was edited down to two and a half hours. Not enough time is dedicated to any of these components, so none of the characters are fleshed out the way they should be. Superman comes into his own without question or growing as a person, Lois Lane exists solely as a plot device and the evil General Zod (a coasting-on-autopilot Michael Shannon) is sadly flat, railing against our hero without many surprises. Expecting the Joker may be asking a bit much, but he should have at least been as memorable as the Scarecrow or even Ra's Al Ghul from "Batman Begins." Sadly he won't make it to any memorable villains lists.
At the end of the day, "Man of Steel" feels a lot like a Michael Bay movie hidden under a thin Chris Nolan disguise. It is full of exquisite scenes of mind-numbing violence, but has little to offer beyond that. Hopefully, Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston will be able to breathe some life into the sequel, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Written December 25, 2013