One of my favorite films is Richard Donner's "Superman". In all it's dated, hokey charm I love this film and can watch it until the cows come home (most likely because as a young boy it wasn't dated when I saw it). And I'm apparently one of the few people who liked Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" (kind of like how I'm one of the few people who liked "The Two Jakes", "The Godfather Part III" and "Texasville" -- maybe I have a soft spot for sequels that come out decades too late). For all that it did wrong, it did many things right. So I've been waiting patiently for Superman to return to the big screen for some time...enjoying things like "Superman: The Animated Series" (good from start to finish) and "Smallville" (good for a while, then silly, then good again) and J. Michael Straczynski's "Superman: Earth One" (go read them now). So is Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel" the Superman movie we've all been waiting for? Yes and no. Like "Superman Returns" there are things it gets right and things it gets so very wrong (spoilers ahead if you haven't seen the film).
I'm not going to recount the plot. You know Superman's origins (and if you don't you've obviously been living on Krypton). This time we spend more time on Krypton than ever before in a film. And this is not the cold, snowy Krypton of all the previous films. This is John Byrne's comic book sci-fi, class structured Krypton in all its glory (well...minus any real color or joy...cause let's face it we kind of jump into things in the middle of a Civil War just before the planet explodes). I was really shocked at screenwriter David Goyer's going balls to the wall sci-fi and staying on Krypton for the story as long as he did. It sets up things nicely for what is going to come next.
Once on Earth, we pretty much skip over the Kents bringing up Clark in Smallville with the exception of some flashbacks. Some of these are good as they set an interesting tone for how they brought up Clark. But two of them are troublesome and infuriating. If you've seen the trailers then you know that Jonathan Kent tells Clark who has just saved his schoolmates from drowning in a bus that he should have maybe let them die to keep his powers secret. I could get over this...it's out of character for Jonathan Kent, but understandable as a father...and it's presented as a "maybe...next time be more careful" kind of thing. What I can't get over is how the handle Pa Kent's death. They essentially "Ben Parker" him.
In all previous incarnations of the stories...on film, TV and in the comics...Jonathan Kent dies because he is human...heart attack, old age, etc...there is no way for Clark to save him even with all the powers he has. It is a moment in which an all-powerful being learns the concept of helplessness. In this film, he's swept away by a tornado and Clark could have easily saved him if he wanted to (Jonathan essentially tells him not to...to keep the secret???). So now we replace helplessness with guilt? Bullshit. That's not Superman. Not when it comes to Pa Kent. Clark essentially kills his dad by his inaction. And Superman NEVER kills (yes...I'll get to that in a bit).
Once the Kryptonians arrive, the film turns into the action packed film everyone accused "Superman Returns" of not being...and it doesn't let up. The last hour of the film is exhausting as Superman and the Kryptonian exiles from the Phantom Zone beat the living shit out of each other through every IHOP and Sears in Smallville before the fight moves to Metropolis so they can level an entire major metropolitan area and kill off untold amounts of people (with a bit less "Leonard Part 6" style product placement). I know we're seeing Superman's formative years here as this is his first appearance, but this is where his "boy scout" aspect has always come in with previous stories. Here, there isn't enough time to get Superman to think about all the death and destruction his actions may cause. We need to get right to the action, death and destruction be damned.
There is very little humor in the film...when it finally does show up towards the very end, it's not quite enough to alleviate what you've just gone through. In the comics (well...in current continuity...well...post-Crisis, pre-New 52 continuity)...Superman has killed once...Zod (well...a pocket universe version of Zod)...and it was such a heartwrenching decision for him, he never did it again (unless he has and I don't remember -- I know the pocket universe version of Zod has stayed dead unlike the Zod of this universe or Doomsday, but I digress). Here, he's forced into a similar situation but we get no real explanation for his feelings afterwards (nor any guilt or regret from having leveled a city)...just a scream...is it because he feels guilty he killed another Kryptonian (cause he's the only one left aside from those sent back to the Phantom Zone or anyone else who may have survived the destruction that we don't know about yet like in the comics where it eventually always seems like there was no one left on Krypton when it exploded)? Is it because he's tired (I know I was exhausted from that four hour fight...it felt like four hours)? We don't know...no discussion, no introspection...and it was needed (by me at least).
Don't get me wrong...the film isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination...I haven't even touched on the fact that we get supporting characters played by amazing actors who are barely name checked and then sidelined into story points that really only add to the length of the film without adding to the depth...I point you towards Jenny Olsen, Daily Planet intern who we really don't give a shit about when she's trapped in rubble and trying to be saved by Perry White and Steve Lombard ("Who?" I hear all you non-comic geeks asking -- right). The chemistry between Lois & Superman is barely there (though Amy Adams as Lois Lane works pretty well in and of herself...beyond her apparent super power of being able to teleport into any situation...she gets around)....where was I...I digressed too much...Henry Cavill does well as Superman/Kal-El, but we barely get to see his Clark side...hopefully we'll get more of that next time.
The technical aspects are all over the place. Hanss Zimmer's score didn't annoy me, but that's probably because I know John Williams' score so well I could run that through my head at points while watching the film (hmmm....new project...put together a cut of the film replacing Zimmer's score with Williams' score). The cinematography was too dark at times, coupled with fast moving CGI and your eyes really need to keep up with things. I'd praise the costume design & art direction for the work on the Kryptonian segments of the film, but that means praising the use of the "New 52" design of the Superman costume...which I really hate (though it's a nitpick here in regards to everything else going on).
The acting is what it is. No one really has much depth of character, but everyone does the best they can with what they're given. Michael Shannon is pretty formidable as Zod (and delivers a great bit towards the end explaining who he is and why he does what he does), but beyond him and Faora (his 2nd in command), the rest of the Kryptonians remain nameless and pointless as they wind up back where they started (potentially to be dragged out for a sequel if need be).
Right, the film isn't perfect, but it is good in places (I hate to use the word "fun" because it isn't with all the dark, death and destruction...and that's another thing we miss, Superman should be "fun"). What it gets right, it gets right...what it gets wrong is infuriating (though the whole Pa Kent situation didn't annoy me as much as the Khan situation in "Star Trek: Into Darkness"). And it does give us a jumping off point for a much better Superman film...kinda like "Superman Returns" did...
Where do they go from here? How do you follow up a story where Superman fights people who are his equals? You take the death and destruction they've caused and bring in the one character who can really be the hero, clean it up, rebuild and focus it all on the one person left to blame it on...let's see Lex Luthor use his billions to rebuilt Metropolis, use his scientific genius to attempt to create an adversary/weapon (Bizarro, Mettalo, the Parasite...all three) to destroy this alien among us who could turn on us at any moment and make him not only the villain that he should be (with all his human errors to help teach Superman some more lessons) but the supporting character he really is and was sorely missing from this film (although where you shove him in beyond a cameo of Lexcorp oil trucks is beyond me right now).
"Man of Steel" is successful as a comic book movie in that it gets a number of things straight from the comic books and puts them on the big screen in all their glory. As a film, I'm not sure it works as well as it should (while it can rely on an audience knowing certain things about Superman before they come in, they shouldn't have to know everything and there are times it feels like you need a class in comic book history just to know who some people are). But Warner does have the starting point they have so desperately desired to get a "Justice League" franchise off the ground (though one could argue "Green Lantern" could have done that as well since it has similar problems and concerns...got lots right, got other stuff wrong...didn't make enough money being the biggest sin...just like "Superman Returns" -- but that's all politics and bullshit)...so at least we have that and a sequel to look forward to and hope they correct the mistakes instead of overcompensating from the last film's mistakes.
Until next time...be seeing you...
No comments:
Post a Comment