Movie Matinee: Superfilms

Movie Matinee

Superfilms!

I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.  I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old.  The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.

Man of Steel (2013)

Finally to the point of all of this. If you couldn't tell already, I think that Superman could due with a cinematic course correction.  When Looking back at the other films, aside from a nostalgic desire to say they're great, they aren't so much:  plots are dicey, character development is weak, and, aside from Reeve, the other characters just aren't particularly interesting.  So I felt, going into Man of Steel that the filmmakers needed to completely forget what had been done on film before.
And they pretty much did.

(Spoiler Alert)
Just one look at this film and you can tell that it does not belong with the others.  The produstion design and filmography give off a less mythological and more science fiction-y vibe.  Gone are the crystals and glowing clothes of 1978 and here we have a futuristic medieval society with capes.

I like the look of this new world, mostly because it gives the supersuit a source. Krypton also looks like it's actually habitable and not an ice-ball in space. Also, I couldn't help but notice the shattered moon in the Kryptonian sky; I have to assume that this is an intentional comic book reference.  It's too specific not to be.  Well done Goyer.

I liked how director Zack Snyder tended to focus on details for his cuts and scene transitions.  An emphasis was made on the small sounds associated with things, which I felt related to Supes superhearing. In general, appreciated the films balancing of galactic scale with humility.  It made me feel comfortable in the story.  Superman has a big story to tell, but to me, Clark Kent is where all the heart is.

But Let's just get into it.  The movie is an origin story/first adventure for Superman.  We get an interesting view of Krypton as a once great civilization in its last decadent days. The choices made here in Krypton's representation are refreshing.  In no way is it a Utopia, at least by the time it comes to its end.  Clark's mission to save Earth from the mistakes that destroyed his homeworld gives his mission here more directness and less of a "I shall use my abilities for the good of all for some reason." 

Zod and evil Kryptonians were great.  They were a mix of Darth Vader/storm troopers and Independence Day style alien menace. The scene with the TVs was super creepy.  Faora was a great character as well.  Very imposing and vicious.  Their best feature was their consistency: They were bred for pure tactics and to defend Krypton's interests.  In that respect, I completely understand Zod and his motivation.  He's just a criminal who wants revenge.

I could go on for a long time about the specifics of this movie, but for your sake and mine, I will be more direct.  I really enjoyed this movie.  I liked Cavill as Supes, I liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent, and I liked Amy Adams as Lois.  Finally a Lois on the big screen that I actually like.  It tells a good narrative and looks good doing it. It is by no means a perfect movie, or even a "perfect" Superman movie, but for me, it is Supes strongest cinematic entry, possibly ever...
Ok, so I do have more to say.  Both positive and negative.

One of my favorite aspects of the movie was its non-linear narrative.  I liked how it created relationships between what had gone before and what was happening now.  My favorite of these was school bus scene.  It was just so "Superman." 

Another great bit of side by side cuts were between Superman and Perry white. When Metropolis is on the brink of annihilation, and Superman is struggling to stop the world engine, we cut between a strained Superman and a brave Perry White standing beside a trapped co-worker.  This scene, I thought, showed what strength there was in being human.  That was what gave Superman the strength to defeat the destructive Kryptonian engine.  His earthbound humanity.  It was really well done.

 Now for some destruction.  There was alot of it.  That has been a point of contention for many people.  And some of the same people say that Supes didn't do enough to save people.  I have three things to say about this.
1. There was a great deal of destruction.  But that happens in all superhero movies.  The Avengers destroyed a large portion of New York City, just like Metropolis.  In both cases, the city and its people were at the mercy of an alien invasion and the hero(es) trying to save them.  Cinematic-ly, destruction in these and other movies is meant to convey the gravity of the situation, that there is a great challenge ahead, that "This shit just got real."  I feel like this was the first movie where Superman appeared to be legitimately challenged.
2. He saved people in the movie: a bus full of kids, an oil rig full of workers, a waitress, soldiers, and every living thing on the planet from the world engine and the Kryptonians.  In the other movies, when there was trouble, Superman answered the threat first then cleaned up later: when a bomb goes off on the fault line and California is rocked by an earthquake, he dives into the fault and lifts up the shelf before he fixes broken dams and pushes falling buses to safety.  He acts no different in this movie.  They eve say that is the world engine isn't stopped the planet is still screwed.  So, he did good by me.
3. It was a bit much.  I get what they were doing.  I understand the need for a grandiose scale, but they could have reigned it in just a bit.  To be honest, when Superman and Zod were fighting, I was instantly reminded not of a Superman Comic, but of Image comics' Invincible.  One Issue in particular came to mind.  All I'll say is they should have taken it back a notch.

 A final point of contention in the movie is its controversial ending: specifically the death of Zod.  To be honest, I had no problem with it... whatsoever.  It happened before, in the comics as well as in Superman II.   And 1980 Zod didn't do as bad of stuff, but he still ended up dead.  It was treated as triumphant and not at all morally troubling.  In Man of steel, it is the toughest decision that he instantly regrets.  It is a painful moment where he needs to choose who lives and who dies.  It was an intense moment, and one that I felt was done well.

I'll finish this.  I liked it.  I thought it was great that they severed ties with all that went before.  With a character like Superman, people have much invested in him (their favorite stories, their first encounter of the character, what they think is essential to the character, etc).  Basically, there were many egos that shouldn't have been imposed onto the movie. I think that's unfair, and it keeps this movie from being viewed more objectively.  I like the universe they have set up with this movie and I am looking forward to whats next.  I am hoping for a stronger emphasis on Character, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and his role as a peaceful protector as well as likable human being.

Up, Up, and Away!