The character of Superman has been branded a myriad of ways since his inception back in “Action Comics #1” in 1938, so the notion of there being a ‘definitive’ version of the character is moot, as far as I’m concerned. Still, what Zack Snyder, David Goyer, Chris Nolan and crew have done with Superman this time around seems to fly in the face of his lineage. Whether this is a good thing or not may depend on how forgiving you are as a viewer.
The production team behind “Man of Steel” seems insistent on recreating the character of Superman in the image of other contemporary comic book heroes, especially Nolan’s own Batman creation. I find the “Dark Knight” trilogy to be atrocious, heavy-handed and laborious, with too many characters who monologue and philosophize about the ‘way of the world’ and whatnot.. Every scene is like that scene from “The Incredibles” when Syndrome catches himself blabbing to Mr. Incredible, traps Mr. I once again and mutters to himself “You sly dog, you caught me monologuing!”
To clarify – I did not hate “Man of Steel.” I think it is superior to Nolan’s “Batman” films, as well as, possibly, Whedon’s “Avengers,” of which I have little love for as well, but I’m sure this opinion is in the minority. Perhaps it’s my general cynicism with comic book cinema, and the leaps of logic and faith that I am forced to make as a non-fan viewer. It seems that fans will always have some logical inconsistency to complain about – Superman would never kill! Superman always wears red tights! – and as an obsessive “Star Trek” fan I can empathize up to a point. I recognize that J.J. Abrahms’ take on “Star Trek” is radically different in tone and scope than the original series or any of the spin offs (“Next Generation” is my favorite, but I love “Deep Space Nine” as well). But I accept that 21st century Hollywood is a galaxy away from late -80’s prime time television, and certain changes must occur to maintain a brand’s relevance. I’ll take an entertaining and engaging story over brand universe consistency most times.
In the case of “Man of Steel,” I would say this approach worked reasonably well.
Onto the plot. The opening scene in Krypton was the strongest part of the film, in my opinion. Here we have a staggeringly huge sci-fi opening reminiscent of this years’ “Star Trek Into Darkness” (a superior sci-fi action film), with whooshing ships and creatures flying every which way while Kal-El and Zod and the ruling council argue over the fate of their planet in kind of a ham-fisted way, but it works enough. Quick cuts, sweeping flying shots, tense atmosphere – solid action sci-fi filmmaking, which isn’t so impressive in 2013 as it may have been ten years ago, but I’ll take the face-value entertainment when I can get it.
The second act of the film, which doesn’t start until a long way in, maybe twenty minutes or so, tells the story of Clark Kent aka Superman aka Big Papi, from various points of his childhood and adolescence, up until present day as he is just discovering the truth of his powers. It’s all entertaining enough if you don’t think about it for too long. As with most Hollywood films nowadays, the logic of events has to be taken at face value. Things happen, characters interact, the screenwriter hopes we care about them enough to be invested in their fates … etc. Everyone does a bang-up a job, truth be told. Kevin Costner does his thing, Amy Adams is cute, Laurence Fishbourne is onscreen for five minutes. Michael Stoppard is having a good time as Zod. I believed him when he said things. However, Mr. Russell Crowe was the standout for me. That man seems to be having a lot of fun recently. I didn’t see “Les Mis,” but I did see RZA’s bad-good kung fu homage “Man with the Iron Fists,” where Crowe plays a roguish British soldier who befriends RZA’s blacksmith and macks it hard with the ladies of the brothel. Here, he brings charisma and an understanding of what the film is going for tonally to his performance, and he actually ends up as one of the more engaging aspects of the film.
The dialogue was mostly passable, and most of the relationships among characters seemed genuine enough. I still tend to prefer the way Damon Lindelof structures his screenplays and his characters (“Prometheus” being an exception … somewhat), to Goyer’s weighty, blunt style. But I didn’t mind most of the second act. The third act, however …
Action can be done so many ways onscreen. Just this year there have been many exciting examples of action scenes in film done well. All the action scenes in this year’s “Star Trek” are gorgeously shot and thrillingly executed, with the emotional resonance of the characters consistently providing subtext. Even “Fast and Furious 6,” though much clunkier in general when it comes to plot and dialogue, had some heart racing chasing and action scenes, directed by Justin Lin, who also helmed the equally riotous “Fast Five.”
The action in Man of Steel, which takes up the full third act of the film, is a little harder to objectively enjoy.
First of all, there’s the collateral damage that Zod’s gravity machine, and later Superman and Zod, create, which no doubt killed thousands if not millions of citizens of Metropolis. I can usually let sequences like these slide in my mind – Star Trek included a scene where Mr. Bad Guy’s ship crashes into the big city on the pier, but terrorism against the Federation was already setup as a plot point, and much less of the entire city was destroyed. In “Man of Steel,” Superman punches Zod through building after building as high rises fall and crush pedestrians. I thought Superman was against that sort of thing.
Secondly, I did not understand the point of most of the hand-to-hand combat. Both Superman and Zod’s soldiers are so super-strong that normal punches to the skull don’t work, and yet we are treated to scene after scene of futile fisticuffs. It’s shot with panache and technically it’s all very thrilling, but without the logic underneath I couldn’t remain invested. When Superman later fights an enormous terraforming device, we are subjected to many cuts of him attempting to … find a weakness? I’ll buy it, but it feels like a scene penciled in to give the digital compositors a seasonal project.
I’m contractually obligated to at least mention Han Zimmer’s score for this movie, so I’ll go ahead and mention it. It was there, and if you’re into his shtick I’m sure you’ll enjoy this too. I’m not a complete Zimmer sourpuss – I did quite enjoy his “Pirates” soundtracks – but even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. I suppose it’s fine enough for the style. It’s a long way from the triumphant John Williams fanfare from the original “Superman,” but then again that movie is tonally in a completely different place. Technically the score succeeds in providing adequate emotional swell where appropriate. It doesn’t stick out during the action sequences like in the “Dark Knight” films, where every action scene was punctuated with mindless string stabs and overbearing, epic instrumentation. Here it works more with the sound design and the action on screen, a more emotionally and technically fulfilling combination.
Ah, the sound design. Here is where the film really works as big-budget, cinematic entertainment. The sound of Superman, Zod and his soldiers make when they lift off into the air is grand, tight and thick and just how you’d imagine Superman to sound like as he rockets off the pavement into outer space. The sound design in general is quite stunning; from clanking machinery and flying beasts on Krypton, to buildings toppling all over Metropolis, it is almost worth the price of a matinee admission to hear the destruction of all sorts of things. At least, if you’re into that sort of thing, as I am.
All in all, “Man of Steel” isn’t some sort of abomination or sacrilegious thing. Nor is it particularly noteworthy in many respects beyond the aforementioned technical merits. It is technically proficient, brain-dead Hollywood cinema with a few creative people sprinkled in to give it a bit more personality than your run of the mill muck. I find it hard to get too riled up about it one way or the other, and perhaps that is its damning fate.
-Thomas J
Stomachache: Music & Culture from the Gut 