Man of Steel

Donner’s original Superman was open to New Testament interpretations, so it is not surprising that Snyder didn’t hesitate to use the budget for Man of Steel to make a modern Biblical epic. The apocalyptic climax, which evokes the feeling that two ideologies have clashed and the whole world is facing destruction, is merely the inevitable spectacular culmination of an epic story that follows the successive inceptions of Kal-El, Clark Kent and Superman. The other two narrative units are deliberately “broken up” by numerous flashbacks (like the whole Watchmen film), which hold our attention by clarifying new facts and aiding character development (at least for our basic orientation in space and time, we have to keep in mind from where we have jumped back to the past). In addition to rhythmising the narrative, the flashbacks also help to exploit the storytelling potential of the supporting characters, who are not entirely overshadowed by the main protagonist thanks to comprehensible parallels (Lois cannot write the truth about Superman; Superman cannot boast about his abilities). Lois Lane, who represents an unusually strong female protagonist (not only in the comic-book adaptations), undergoes the most significant change. Though she does let herself be led by a man (or the voice of God?) in the film’s least spectacular (and, in my opinion, best) action scene, she otherwise definitely does not just dully wait around to see what will happen to her and who will rescue her, and thanks to what she knows, here presence is even a necessary condition for good to triumph over evil. Man of Steel doesn’t say much that’s new (only the concept of Krypton – which incidentally resembles the art of H.R. Giger – as an “ideal” Platonic society, which Superman, as an “American hero”, ultimately rejects in favour of American democracy, is elaborated upon to some extent), but at least it gathers together and distributes old information in an original way. Like Batman Begins and Skyfall, Man of Steel goes back the roots of a heroic myth, while at the same time attempting to confront it with reality, of course within the realm of possibility that the genre offers. Besides the pseudo-realistic indie style of the directing, this is apparent particularly in the loss of the previous films’ sense of levity. Of course, Superman is still a guy who can fly and lift a school bus, but now he has to flex all of his muscles, grit his teeth and work up a proper sweat. Thanks to the fact that the film’s air of ancient tragedy is actually believable, Cavill’s strained expression during the difficult physical performances is not unintentionally funny. Thanks to its actors, the emotions that it evokes and especially the pathos of which it is not ashamed, Man of Steel is, in my opinion, the blockbuster highlight of the year so far, as it superbly finds a balance between the silliness of Iron Man and the nerds of Star Trek with its heartfelt earnestness. 85% (24/06/2013)

Subjectively: the last time I left the movie theatre this numb was after Sucker Punch, and I must add that Man of Steel is a much better directed film. If I keep my distance from the purely debilitating digital whirlwind of falling skyscrapers and exploding molecules of nothingness, then I must highlight the following: Goyer's attempt to elaborate the Krypton storyline and Superman's mythology. Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon have a huge share in the certain impact that the film has, whose characters are played and written much better than the rest of the film (Shannon's casting was far-sighted). The character of Clark Kent, played by Cavill with the pensiveness of a model whose shirts were all stolen, did not receive similar care and sophistication. The attempt to move Superman / Kent to the plane of one inseparable being, a closed-off and lonely alien, is fragmented by his performance and the fact that, unlike Batman's reboot, there is a lack of character development or some obvious internal transformation / dilemma. Man of Steel and his childhood flashbacks are purely generic, and in terms of content / meaning they don't really deviate too much from the Donner storyline (they just lack exaggeration), Cavill frowns through the stormy sea and finds himself in the inevitable situation where, as God, he overcomes the speed of sound and destroys cities with villains. The duel with Zod forms a surprisingly large part of the film, and if you don't buy into this trick extravaganza right at the beginning, you will literally be beaten by locomotives and tons of reinforced concrete. The hint of perspective comes late, and Superman's seriousness is monotonously persistent, but without feeling in any way dark and problematic. Simply a monolithic and well-produced blockbuster, with which I had only a minimum of fun. (14/06/2013)

If there were more skyscrapers in Manhattan, this film would’ve taken three hours. Man of Steel is megalomaniacal, overwhelming movie that arouses wonder and enthusiasm while masking all of its flaws. It is a poetic and epic, sometimes intensely sensitive, sometimes fetishistically destructive colossus that undermines itself when it kills the fragile realistic feeling of a fatal clash of the two worlds it has managed to build up so far with an over-digitized skyscraper climax. But how can you not like a movie in which the father of the main character is Russell Crowe and his stepfather is Kevin Costner? Add in the likable Henry Cavill and powerful villains headed by Michael Shannon who feel strongly superior towards the human race, their perfect costumes, H.R. Giger’s vagina-like spaceship interiors, and the explosive music by Hans Zimmer, after which you will feel like you’ve drunk five cans of Red Bull in quick succession. Personally, I was also delighted with the elaborate Krypton mythology, and the disappointment over the improperly cast Lois Lane (Amy Adams) was mitigated by newcomer Antje Traue in a sexy helmet. (20/06/2013)

I've never been to a Superman movie; the capes, red panties, and blue leotard... well, it's not my cup of tea. So I went into it expecting nothing, and didn’t really get anything – just a nice guy acting like a savior. The effects didn't blow me away, the story didn't either, but in a way it was watchable (not so much to listen to, sometimes those speeches sound better on paper) and you were really interested in a scene here and there. I don't know why, but I enjoyed Kevin Costner the most. I must be getting old. A weaker 3 stars. (28/12/2014)

In a regular revamp for the new millennium, Kal-el has set off in the right direction (destruction!) balanced between a realistic approach and a sumptuous fantasy watch. The hero is an unbalanced foreigner in a country that has no understanding for him (Cavill is wonderfully alien, occasionally a little conceited, occasionally naive) and the flashbacks pile up the layers of a torn character who daddy Kent (the excellent Kevin Costner) tries to channel into one - it’s a shame that there aren’t more moments like that and the narrative structure isn’t chronological, but is presented jumbled up throughout the picture. However, Snyder balances the doses of emotional forming of the hero with the action and at the end he lets loose an all-encompassing inferno and Metropolis (and maybe even a few acres of India) is reduced to ashes. Powerful dialogs (with a compulsory dose of pathos) which are more than just the dumb joking around that we know from earlier recreations of this flying cape-wearer, but meditation over the direction taken by nations, their conceit and, at the ending, also stupidity that leads to the end of civilization. The introductory twenty minutes on Krypton is like out of Avatar and the lightly illustrated government disputes are far more interesting than any of Clark searching for his origins. Zod with Michael Shannon’s ugly mug has depth to him and isn’t utterly evil, but he’s just doing what he has to and Superman understands this. And that makes the finale even more crushing. The two fellow countrymen are fighting for a chance for an inferior race (us) and the only thing that stands between them is a difference of approach to the problem. The verbal disagreements between Zod and Jor-el are nicely gradated and fateful, like everything in the movie, in fact (yes, this is at the expense of humor and irony, but that doesn’t matter at all). One thing that matters sometimes is the unnecessarily “realistic" camera which focuses, jumps and shakes. I really like this approach sometimes, but I would also like to stop and enjoy the shot of the ship as it falls without having to search for the ship on the screen, because it is shot from so far away. The fights with collapsing buildings and general destruction don’t disappoint and there is some invention in the beating (like in the Matrix, we don’t start flying till the very end). Hanz’s music is the diametric opposite to Williams’s and it suits the spirit of the movie perfectly. It’s not so bombastic as they promised us in the trailers, but still, it’s a marvelous new approach that makes sense for this type of character and I’m really looking forward to the next part. (20/06/2013)