My Thoughts on Man of Steel (2013): A Review

imdb

Having just come home from watching Man of Steel, I hope my thoughts on the film are still clear in my head. The film, directed by Zack Synder, is a much anticipated reboot of the famous superhero epic that seems to be cursed with falling short every time. I liked his previous child Sucker Punch, despite it's generally negative response. What this film delivers? An array of elements, some outstanding and others quite terrible- all of which have left me rather confused about how I feel about the film.

(remember to click 'read more' to continue reading!) 

I think this is one of the very rare times after watching a film, where I truly do not know whether I like it or not. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite obsessed with superhero films, epics and such. All I know is that I really wanted to love it, it had everything going for it, but somehow I just felt rather empty after my initial viewing. I should preceed my comments by saying that I do understand the action movie tropes, and that we as the audience really don't go into these types of films expecting it to be award-winning. But I can't help but wonder when my expectations of something different other than loud banging will be met. We'll get back to that later though.

The film goes straight into an action pact sequence on the planet Krypton, relaying the backstory of Clark's origins and serving up to us the premise of the film. Kryptonians are a dying species facing their demise. In order to explore other planets, they have exhausted their own resources, altering their planet's core (foreboding much?). People are born artificially through some magical device- aka a glittery black skull- known as the codex. The codex 'programmes' every person born on Krypton: their roles and job, who they will be, and how they will function as a member of society. Zod, a born military leader needs the codex as he believes artificial creation is the key to his species' survival, whilst Clark's father Jor-El (Crowe) believes that Clark will be the beacon of hope Kryptonian's need as he is the first naturally-born Kryptonian in centuries. He is free to choose his own path and is sent to earth as Krypton is destroyed. Years later, Zod warns earth- they have 24 hours to surrender Kalel to him or they will face the consequences. Loud banging ensues.

Man of Steel covers a very vast era of Superman's timeline, ranging from the creation of Krypton to the death of Zod (SPOILER: but who really didn't see that one coming?). But most of the film was spent building up elaborate fight sequences, with a guarantee of loud clashes and banging that is supposed to impress the audience. My main problem was that it tried to cover too much. The film wanted to be dark and gritty, serious, action packed but also attempted to insert comedic scenes when none of it was necessary. I have too many mixed feelings about this pastiche of genres to even express my thoughts coherently.

Teen Kent

The film started off exceptionally, although the cuts of Krypton were very rushed, they were interesting. Fastforwording some twenty years, I was surprised with how much I enjoyed the way in which Clark's backstory was expressed. The "human" parts- Clark's life- were breathtaking shots of not only of this silent, sombre world occupied by his alienation and restraint, but of Cavill himself- who you can't deny looks like a Renaissance statue carved by God himself.

you cannot tell me he doesn't look godly perfect.

I really loved the cinematography, even a shot of a bucket being slowly showered with rain expressed the mood and developed the character of Clark subtly but succinctly. Every flashback scene exploring Clark's childhood was exceptional- emotional and charged without being overtly loud or fast. I honestly would even prefer a movie just about Clark's mundane life on earth and his struggle with his identity over any sort of action.

baby Supes in a beautiful field of flowers...

I felt like the fighting sequences condensed these beautiful scenes that built on characterisation and actual plot. What else would I expect though? This film is full of cliches and other tropes even though you could tell they were trying to differentiate from other superhero movies with the tone. Like I said, it was empty, even silent at times. I loved these moments, but the fact that they tried to mesh this style in with a typical action film really detracted from it's quality. The first hour was blissful almost, although there were certain flaws that really brought me out of my immersion into the film's world. Cliches and overdone shots such as some goofy ass surveillance guy being shaken up by some action that's about to take place, ominous panning over cities around the world with civilian's frozen in shock/fear. I really hated those. It almost felt like they were trying too hard to be an "epic". We were also assaulted with a plethora of obligatory smashing, crashing and banging that felt too long winded and overdone. There were about three points in the film where I thought it had finished, only to be met with another action sequence. All in all, it felt like the obligatory final fight scene was over an hour long, ala Transformers sequels.

Man of Steel is host to prominent names such as Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner and Henry Cavill himself. I loved the cast, all in all they did a very good job with what they were given. No real complaints with their performances, in fact, I would praise them for combating some of the really negative aspects of the film. I think that the film's strength really lies in their performances and without them, the film really would just be an empty shell.

Supes, is that you?

 With such an iconic character as Superman, it's hard for audiences to unanimously agree on casting choices, but I have never heard a complaint about Cavill. He's the embodiment of  Clark Kent/Superman- his mannerisms, the way he walks, talks, and most obviously, the way he looks. He is Clark Kent as much as Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man to us. Great interpretation of Clark and the characterisation was done well. There's something about him that I personally really like, and honestly, he saved the film for me. On the other hand, Clarke's counterpart, Lois Lane, although not entirely your typical helpless love-interest, was not utilised well and lacked in character development and depth. Then insert the obligatory hero-kisses-girl kiss scene and it was all too random for my liking. Again, I feel like this was extremely disappointing as there was potential for more.

Something that surprised me was the character of Zod, who funny enough, was constructed in a way that we sympathise with him. He's creepy, and even crazy in the beginning, but by the finale, we can't help but feel for his cause. I couldn't hate him. I even thought he was doing the right thing in the end. I really enjoyed the character and the villains- they were done well without being over the top. One thing I did hate in the film was the civilians. I couldn't even count how many times I sighed at how people are portrayed. It was just outright stupid. Endless shooting at entities that obviously cannot be harmed by shots and people simply standing still, gawking at the chaos infront of them? Running towards danger?! I definitely facepalmed a couple of times. It seems to be the trend with action films these days though. It really draws away audience immersion into the world when such illogical instances are depicted. That was a really weak aspect of the film, and probably most action films these days. The shitty forced jokes and one liners also came from the humans, and all I can say about that was cringe. I shouldn't expect anything more but the first hour drenched in great acting and drama left me wanting so much more. And even though my favourite parts were the "human" parts, my least favourite parts were also the "human" parts. Wtf?
I guess my feelings regarding the whole film can be expressed this way. It was a very mixed bag with strengths and weaknesses clashing head to head constantly. The things I wanted to like, I ended up totally disappointed with, and the aspects I thought would be weak ended up being surprisingly well done.

yes, US Army.. keep shooting at things that are clearly immune to bullets..

Now that was an awkward segue into my thoughts on the technical aspects of the film. I honestly liked the flying. It's easy to get used to, so smooth that it's peaceful even. What I can say is that the clouds were damn beautiful. Unfortunately that's about all I liked as the design elements within the Kryptonian world were extremely typical and lacked any sort of creativity. The space craft and structural components of alien devices were very similar in style to what we've seen in previous films such as Avengers and Green Lantern, and despite being cohesive, didn't have any wow factor. Similar colourings, toning and the general aesthetic felt like it had been done before. They weren't executed exceptionally and in the end left the film in the shadows of its hero predecessors. Again, kind of disappointing, but for all I know, they could be true to the comics and be exactly perfect. Not sure who to fault in this instance.

strangely familiar design...

So to conclude this convoluted expulsion of thoughts, I enjoyed it but was greatly disappointed with what it amounted to be. I left the theatre with so many mixed opinions due to the fact that certain elements of the film were so polar in strength. I couldn't even decide whether I liked it or not and the overall concept felt like it had no direction, or too many directions. What was enchanting was the atmosphere of the real world, the dramatised story of Clark and how it felt like it wasn't deliberately trying too hard to be "dark and gritty" but achieved a sombre cinematic tone. But it was that same seriousness that didn't exactly work with the supernatural, "goofy" elements that were mushed together with horrible attempts at comedy, ruining the previously-mentioned atmosphere that was done so well. It felt like the timeline was just too expanse, and in that regard it was too ambitious, yet not ambitious enough as I wanted more and a more diverse approach to film-making rather than a typical action film.
 With such a strong cast, the opportunity to create a fantastic film felt missed and even though individual elements were greatly enjoyable, as a whole, the film felt almost empty due to a lack of balance in quality of different aspects. The aspects that lacked were exacerbated by attempts to replicate the wow-factor of other flashy superhero films. But these elements lacked originality so their impact was weak. Nothing was surprising. It felt like I had seen this movie before even though I had attempted to avoid most promotional material in order not to spoil the film. Thematic elements were also weak and inadequately explored. I still don't know how I feel about it.

Do I recommend you see it in theatres? yes, if you are an action/Superman fan

Do I recommend you see this in 3D? If the above answer was yes, then yes.
Would I watch it again? Probably not (unless my eyes need a Henry Cavill fix)

✯✯✯/
✯✯✯✯✯