Has there ever been a more divisive comic book film aside from Man of Steel? Ironically, the only movie that's provoked more discussion from a "love" side and a "hate" side is Man of Steel's own sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. But before I see Batman v Superman, I wanted to look back on Man of Steel, to refresh myself with the introduction to the DC Extended Universe, the characters that we know so far, and Zack Snyder's style. That last one is the most important factor because Snyder is essentially DC's Kevin Feige; the person overseeing the story, although not to the same extent as Feige.
I don't really think that he should be in charge.
I really don't enjoy Man of Steel. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that I hate it, but there's so much in it that I dislike. It's hard for me to define that dislike specifically; whether I'm annoyed, angered, bored, or all of the above. I have a problem with almost every major idea in the movie, and in many ways, how the movie itself is put together. It's so frustrating, because there are moments that show a lot of potential, but never deliver anything truly satisfying.
Let's start with the focus of the film, Superman. Or, at least, Zack Snyder's idea of Superman. I am a self-confessed non-fan of Superman, because I haven't enjoyed many of his stories, and I've never been able to really understand or relate to his character. On the other hand, as a fan of DC Comics in general, I do have some expectations for the character, and this Superman is not my Superman. I've never really "had" a Superman outside of a few comics, but this one is even further away. This movie tries to make Superman relatable, and a more down-to Earth, human character.
It fails. Miserably.
We see Superman go through some conflict here and there, but there's no tension. We're shown Clark Kent's whole backstory, in a series of confusingly ordered flashbacks, but I still don't really know what to make of him. He's just presented as "the good guy", but that's not enough. There's also numerous Jesus parallels, with the most ridiculous one happening literally inside a church, where the shot is just Superman's head is right next to a picture of Jesus. It's hilarious. I don't even know what I'm supposed to think about his character's motivations, because he just seems to do a bunch of random crap. The character's blandness isn't helped at all by a very wooden performance by Henry Cavill, who has been good before. He has very little to work with, but he's so one-note, even in moments where he has to show emotion. Visually, and at certain (very few) times, he does shine through as a good Superman, but I wasn't really clamouring for more.
I don't care about any of the characters, because none of them give me any reason to. I think the worst element of this movie is the relationship between Clark and Lois, one of the most iconic relationships in comics. It comes out of nowhere, and has absolutely no development. This movie never captures any real sense of emotion, and when Clark and Lois kiss in the middle of the dusty remains of Metropolis, it just feels like smushing two boring blobs together. It's shocking because Amy Adams is so talented, but here, she's almost a blank slate except for a few moments.
I guess "bland except for a few moments" is a good way to sum up all of the characters. And the movie.
Even Clark's interactions with his parents don't summon any feeling. Jonathan Kent is a man who tells Clark that he maybe should have let a bunch of kids die, and then Clark lets him die in a tornado. They could have done so much more with Jonathan Kent if they'd given him a different viewpoint; rather than trying to hide every aspect of Clark's powers, he should have helped him to develop both sides of his life. I'm not a huge Superman comics purist, but they seem to have gotten his entire upbringing wrong. Zack Snyder went on for so long about how he "understands Superman", but he really doesn't seem to. He seems to change whatever he wants for the sake of it fitting into his story. I understand that things need to change for adaptations, and I'm not "that comic book fan" who thinks everything has to be the same. But if you're going to change things, don't change them and tehn claim that aren't.
Jonathan Kent definitely shouldn't have died in a tornado, it should have been the heart attack. The whole idea of Jonathan Kent's death is to make it something that Superman, with all of his powers, couldn't stop. Instead of something that Superman, with one of his powers, could stop. The movie seems to treat this moment like Jonathan dying for his beliefs and protecting Clark, but all I can think is "he doesn't need to die, though." Clark comes out into the world as Superman a few years later anyway, so his death really means nothing, aside from giving Clark something to mope about.
Speaking of moping, the tone of this movie is not at all what it should have been. Superman isn't an inherently dark or realistic character, so it's strange that they decided to go in this direction with him. It's without a doubt because the success of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, but the tone of those movies fit because Batman is called "the dark knight". Darkness and grit are called for, because the world of the comics could be so grimy and real at times.
Its kind of sad when Green Lantern has a more appropriate tone than your movie.
Superman's world is supposed to be brighter and more colourful. Metropolis should be a gleaming, advanced wonder, not just a city. They were starting the DC Universe fresh with this film, so there was no reason why they couldn't have done something different. This movie feels so much like a Nolan Batman movie, mainly because the script seems like David S. Goyer just recycled Batman Begins and added Superman. The structure of the story, especially with the out-of-order flashbacks, is almost exactly the same, but it just doesn't work here. The movie is so self-important and serious. I feel like Zack Snyder thinks he's brilliant, but serious is not the same thing as smart. Just because cool stuff happens in your movie doesn't make it a good movie. Lois Lane, Perry White, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Jor-El, the soldiers; they all just talk about how great and important Superman is.
I also just don't like how the story is put together. There's a large section of the movie's beginning that takes place on Krypton, which is extremely weird and sets up about six different subplots, all related to Superman. I really don't like that Superman has "extra destiny" added to him, by not only being the first Kryptonian born naturally in generations, but also having all of Krypton's DNA inside of him. It's a layer that doesn't need to be there, all to make Superman more special (as if he wasn't already). The movie is all boring drama for the first hour and a half, and the last hour is all action.
The way the movie is filmed also bugs me. I really dislike shaky-cam, and Snyder's use of it to make something feel more "realistic" doesn't work at all. It's almost hard to watch, because when two people will be sitting and talking, the camera will be shaking all over the place, and it's really distracting. I don't know why Zack Snyder refuses to invest in tripods so vehemently, but he does.
I actually don't mind General Zod. He's pretty one-note as "crazy, evil bad guy", but Michael Shannon gives a pretty solid performance. Shannon has always nailed the crazy eyes, and the only moments where he really loses me is when he starts screaming. In his more quiet moments, he's legitimately threatening. He's also kind of stupid, because he wants to terraform Earth into Krypton, even though that would mean that the Kryptonians would lose all of their powers. It would have been more interesting if Zod's people just decided to rule Earth, because then Superman choosing to side with humanity would be more of a choice. As it stands, when Superman says "Krypton had its chance" and then destroys all traces of his world, I was on Zod's side.
I don't hate the ending of this movie because Superman smashes a city down and causes the deaths of thousands, though that certainly doesn't help. What I really dislike about it is that it just goes on and on and on and on and ON. They smash through one thing, they smash through another thing. You can only see two invincible beings smash into each other for so long before it gets boring, and Man of Steel loses my interest about ten minutes into the fight. There's no sense of tension for Superman because he's invincible, and the only mildly interesting idea is how he'll stop Zod.
The most controversial aspect of this movie was its ending; Superman killing Zod by snapping his neck. I don't care if Superman kills. If anything, Zod is the one person I'm fine with him killing, because it makes sense. Zod was never going to stop until he killed Superman or ruled Earth, and he had already shown that . It was Zod or Superman in the end, and Superman got the upper hand. Zod was a rabid dog and he needed to be put down. Superman was forced to take the life of the last Kryptonian in order to save humanity, and that's a clear metaphor for him choosing a side.
It's cool to see the two Kryptonians go toe-to-toe, and how much damage they can cause, but that's not really what i wanted to see Superman do. A big defence of Superman that fans of this movie like to repeat is "It's his first time as Superman, cut him some slack". Well, he threw Zod through the buildings and vehicles about fifty times, and maybe after the first few times he should have realized that that doesn't work too well. I wanted to see Superman try some different strategies, or try to get Zod away from the people.
Really, what I wanted to see was Zod get punched into the Sun. How great would that be?
The real problem with this movie is the director, Zack Snyder. Snyder has shown repeatedly that he's good with visuals, but he has a lot of trouble with bringing in little things like character and emotion. This movie looks pretty most of the time, but there's no emotion behind any of it. What's so great about superhero movies is that we can see these larger-than-life characters face challenges, grow, and evolve. There's none of that in Man of Steel, just a series of things that sounded and looked cool, but don't make you feel anything. Snyder wants this movie to feel grand, epic and important, but it's just bland and boring.
The only thing that comes even close to elevating certain moments is the incredible score by Hans Zimmer. Zimmer is nothing less than a musical genius, and I listen to the Man of Steel soundtrack a lot. Ironically, it actually works a lot better when it's not in the context of the movie itself.
In the end, Man of Steel was a disappointment in every single way. It didn't really inspire a lot of confidence in Zack Snyder or the future of the DC movie universe. After this movie came out, the future of that universe was very much in doubt, but now that DC has a more solid plan, the overall story of the universe will be better.
Until I see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, I won't be able to tell for sure. Batman v Superman hasn't fared to will with audiences, as expected, but maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe Suicide Squad will be much better, and maybe the movies coming in the future will set DC back on track. I don't know at this point, but I do know that Zack Snyder's continued involvement has me very nervous, and I don't really know if "doing something different from Marvel" turned out to be a good decision for them.
I don't really think that he should be in charge.
I really don't enjoy Man of Steel. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that I hate it, but there's so much in it that I dislike. It's hard for me to define that dislike specifically; whether I'm annoyed, angered, bored, or all of the above. I have a problem with almost every major idea in the movie, and in many ways, how the movie itself is put together. It's so frustrating, because there are moments that show a lot of potential, but never deliver anything truly satisfying.
Let's start with the focus of the film, Superman. Or, at least, Zack Snyder's idea of Superman. I am a self-confessed non-fan of Superman, because I haven't enjoyed many of his stories, and I've never been able to really understand or relate to his character. On the other hand, as a fan of DC Comics in general, I do have some expectations for the character, and this Superman is not my Superman. I've never really "had" a Superman outside of a few comics, but this one is even further away. This movie tries to make Superman relatable, and a more down-to Earth, human character.
It fails. Miserably.
We see Superman go through some conflict here and there, but there's no tension. We're shown Clark Kent's whole backstory, in a series of confusingly ordered flashbacks, but I still don't really know what to make of him. He's just presented as "the good guy", but that's not enough. There's also numerous Jesus parallels, with the most ridiculous one happening literally inside a church, where the shot is just Superman's head is right next to a picture of Jesus. It's hilarious. I don't even know what I'm supposed to think about his character's motivations, because he just seems to do a bunch of random crap. The character's blandness isn't helped at all by a very wooden performance by Henry Cavill, who has been good before. He has very little to work with, but he's so one-note, even in moments where he has to show emotion. Visually, and at certain (very few) times, he does shine through as a good Superman, but I wasn't really clamouring for more.
I don't care about any of the characters, because none of them give me any reason to. I think the worst element of this movie is the relationship between Clark and Lois, one of the most iconic relationships in comics. It comes out of nowhere, and has absolutely no development. This movie never captures any real sense of emotion, and when Clark and Lois kiss in the middle of the dusty remains of Metropolis, it just feels like smushing two boring blobs together. It's shocking because Amy Adams is so talented, but here, she's almost a blank slate except for a few moments.
I guess "bland except for a few moments" is a good way to sum up all of the characters. And the movie.
Even Clark's interactions with his parents don't summon any feeling. Jonathan Kent is a man who tells Clark that he maybe should have let a bunch of kids die, and then Clark lets him die in a tornado. They could have done so much more with Jonathan Kent if they'd given him a different viewpoint; rather than trying to hide every aspect of Clark's powers, he should have helped him to develop both sides of his life. I'm not a huge Superman comics purist, but they seem to have gotten his entire upbringing wrong. Zack Snyder went on for so long about how he "understands Superman", but he really doesn't seem to. He seems to change whatever he wants for the sake of it fitting into his story. I understand that things need to change for adaptations, and I'm not "that comic book fan" who thinks everything has to be the same. But if you're going to change things, don't change them and tehn claim that aren't.
Jonathan Kent definitely shouldn't have died in a tornado, it should have been the heart attack. The whole idea of Jonathan Kent's death is to make it something that Superman, with all of his powers, couldn't stop. Instead of something that Superman, with one of his powers, could stop. The movie seems to treat this moment like Jonathan dying for his beliefs and protecting Clark, but all I can think is "he doesn't need to die, though." Clark comes out into the world as Superman a few years later anyway, so his death really means nothing, aside from giving Clark something to mope about.
Speaking of moping, the tone of this movie is not at all what it should have been. Superman isn't an inherently dark or realistic character, so it's strange that they decided to go in this direction with him. It's without a doubt because the success of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, but the tone of those movies fit because Batman is called "the dark knight". Darkness and grit are called for, because the world of the comics could be so grimy and real at times.
Its kind of sad when Green Lantern has a more appropriate tone than your movie.
Superman's world is supposed to be brighter and more colourful. Metropolis should be a gleaming, advanced wonder, not just a city. They were starting the DC Universe fresh with this film, so there was no reason why they couldn't have done something different. This movie feels so much like a Nolan Batman movie, mainly because the script seems like David S. Goyer just recycled Batman Begins and added Superman. The structure of the story, especially with the out-of-order flashbacks, is almost exactly the same, but it just doesn't work here. The movie is so self-important and serious. I feel like Zack Snyder thinks he's brilliant, but serious is not the same thing as smart. Just because cool stuff happens in your movie doesn't make it a good movie. Lois Lane, Perry White, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Jor-El, the soldiers; they all just talk about how great and important Superman is.
I also just don't like how the story is put together. There's a large section of the movie's beginning that takes place on Krypton, which is extremely weird and sets up about six different subplots, all related to Superman. I really don't like that Superman has "extra destiny" added to him, by not only being the first Kryptonian born naturally in generations, but also having all of Krypton's DNA inside of him. It's a layer that doesn't need to be there, all to make Superman more special (as if he wasn't already). The movie is all boring drama for the first hour and a half, and the last hour is all action.
The way the movie is filmed also bugs me. I really dislike shaky-cam, and Snyder's use of it to make something feel more "realistic" doesn't work at all. It's almost hard to watch, because when two people will be sitting and talking, the camera will be shaking all over the place, and it's really distracting. I don't know why Zack Snyder refuses to invest in tripods so vehemently, but he does.
I actually don't mind General Zod. He's pretty one-note as "crazy, evil bad guy", but Michael Shannon gives a pretty solid performance. Shannon has always nailed the crazy eyes, and the only moments where he really loses me is when he starts screaming. In his more quiet moments, he's legitimately threatening. He's also kind of stupid, because he wants to terraform Earth into Krypton, even though that would mean that the Kryptonians would lose all of their powers. It would have been more interesting if Zod's people just decided to rule Earth, because then Superman choosing to side with humanity would be more of a choice. As it stands, when Superman says "Krypton had its chance" and then destroys all traces of his world, I was on Zod's side.
I don't hate the ending of this movie because Superman smashes a city down and causes the deaths of thousands, though that certainly doesn't help. What I really dislike about it is that it just goes on and on and on and on and ON. They smash through one thing, they smash through another thing. You can only see two invincible beings smash into each other for so long before it gets boring, and Man of Steel loses my interest about ten minutes into the fight. There's no sense of tension for Superman because he's invincible, and the only mildly interesting idea is how he'll stop Zod.
The most controversial aspect of this movie was its ending; Superman killing Zod by snapping his neck. I don't care if Superman kills. If anything, Zod is the one person I'm fine with him killing, because it makes sense. Zod was never going to stop until he killed Superman or ruled Earth, and he had already shown that . It was Zod or Superman in the end, and Superman got the upper hand. Zod was a rabid dog and he needed to be put down. Superman was forced to take the life of the last Kryptonian in order to save humanity, and that's a clear metaphor for him choosing a side.
It's cool to see the two Kryptonians go toe-to-toe, and how much damage they can cause, but that's not really what i wanted to see Superman do. A big defence of Superman that fans of this movie like to repeat is "It's his first time as Superman, cut him some slack". Well, he threw Zod through the buildings and vehicles about fifty times, and maybe after the first few times he should have realized that that doesn't work too well. I wanted to see Superman try some different strategies, or try to get Zod away from the people.
Really, what I wanted to see was Zod get punched into the Sun. How great would that be?
The real problem with this movie is the director, Zack Snyder. Snyder has shown repeatedly that he's good with visuals, but he has a lot of trouble with bringing in little things like character and emotion. This movie looks pretty most of the time, but there's no emotion behind any of it. What's so great about superhero movies is that we can see these larger-than-life characters face challenges, grow, and evolve. There's none of that in Man of Steel, just a series of things that sounded and looked cool, but don't make you feel anything. Snyder wants this movie to feel grand, epic and important, but it's just bland and boring.
The only thing that comes even close to elevating certain moments is the incredible score by Hans Zimmer. Zimmer is nothing less than a musical genius, and I listen to the Man of Steel soundtrack a lot. Ironically, it actually works a lot better when it's not in the context of the movie itself.
In the end, Man of Steel was a disappointment in every single way. It didn't really inspire a lot of confidence in Zack Snyder or the future of the DC movie universe. After this movie came out, the future of that universe was very much in doubt, but now that DC has a more solid plan, the overall story of the universe will be better.
Until I see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, I won't be able to tell for sure. Batman v Superman hasn't fared to will with audiences, as expected, but maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe Suicide Squad will be much better, and maybe the movies coming in the future will set DC back on track. I don't know at this point, but I do know that Zack Snyder's continued involvement has me very nervous, and I don't really know if "doing something different from Marvel" turned out to be a good decision for them.
Comments
Post a Comment