Man of Steel

Mark and I saw Man of Steel in theaters this past weekend. It's a pretty low budget indie film that you may have not heard of. Especially in this season of over-the-top blockbuster superhero movies. It is a coming of age story of a boy from a broken family struggling with his identity, in a cruel world.

Viewer(s): Both of us

Time Elapsed Since Release: 10 days or so

Dylan: Finally a dual review for a theatrical release. You know, I should really apologize to our readers. I had predicted a month or two ago that this would be a big summer for movies and that we’d be seeing and writing about a lot of them. That hasn’t really been the case. But don’t blame us, blame Hollywood; it has sort of turned out to be a crappy season for movies, as you may have learned from our Iron Man 3 and Star Trek into Darkness reviews. Or better yet, maybe you went and saw some of them yourself.

Dylan: So today we’re looking at Man of Steel. Man, I’m really getting tired of these moniker titles. Since everything is constantly getting rebooted, I guess they think it’s cooler to either use a hero’s epithet, or the original comic title. The AMAZING Spider-Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, The Wolverine, The First Avenger, etc. As if a more elaborate name means a better movie. It’s already overdone. But anyways, Man of Steel is the new Superman movie, duh. And we try to determine if it lives up to all the hype.

Mark:  You know we’re off to a good start with a review when the first gripe that’s brought up is the title.  Which I agree that making the title Man of Steel is just latching onto the trend that all of the movies are going with.  Which Nolan kinda started, but it reflects the gritty reboot process that everyone is doing.  And they really work for the gritty in this.  Sometimes it works to add tension and build the setting, but other times it takes things to much darker places than we’re used to with Superman.

Dylan: You might be right. I guess I don’t really know the other Superman films that well. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the original Christopher Reeve movie at least once from beginning to end. But one thing I can’t really agree on is when people say that this is a more realistic take on Superman. They compare it to what the Dark Knight trilogy does for Batman, which is bullshit. Sure, the movie is incredibly long, and modern special effects allow us to see more outer space and alien tech and what not. But it’s no more grounded in reality than any other Superman movie. And a lot of the plot devices call back to the cheesiness that we’re all familiar with. I was praying there wouldn’t be a scene in which Superman puts on a pair of glasses and suddenly is unrecognizable. But of course it happened. The whole idea of Superman is inescapably silly, no matter how much Nolan gets to toy with the script.

Mark: Well it’s certainly darker than the original Superman movies, which had more of an emphasis on an awkward Clark Kent and his banter with Lois, and obviously since they didn’t have the technology, the action was fairly limited.

Dylan: There was plenty of banter this time around...

Mark: Well when I say banter, I mean between Lois and Clark that created the initial chemistry that would grow between them.  And on how out of place Clark acts in the big city, how he acts so timid with Lois to hide his identity.  Goyer doesn’t do banter, not with this movie.  They just talk and try really hard to make me think there’s chemistry there.

As for the darker tone, I really just put it in with all the destruction and death that comes from Zod and his plan concerning Earth and all the humans.  It’s not like with Batman, where we focus on how corrupt and horrible Gotham is once you peel back the rich aristocracy that Bruce is from.  And we watch him descend into the underworld to fight it.  The world is big and bright in Man of Steel and suddenly goes ridiculously dark in the third act.  Though it did look really fucking good.

Dylan: So you think there should have been more banter, is that what you're saying? Becaues I agree. Instead, Lois and Superman pretty much fall in love just because that's what we expect them to do. And that's that. Also, didn’t Superman end in Lois dying (temporarily), or was that the second one? Just curious.

Mark: That was the first one.  But then he flew around the world really, really, really fast and turned back time, allowing him to save Lois and stop Lex from even firing the nukes.

Dylan: Haha, right. Well that’s kind of dark. And the physics and logic of this movie are only slightly more respectful to human intelligence than they were back then. I’d like to give some examples but I don’t want to spoil anything. I’m thinking of when Superman goes to destroy that machine. It’s Kryptonian so it weakens Superman (which, by the way, pissed me off. I had read that there wouldn’t be any Kryptonite because the writers thought it was too much of a cop-out. So they say that the alien crafts and shit have a ‘Kryptonian atmosphere’, and instead, that weakens Superman just the same. So in fact they did use the plot device that they originally said was too convenient.) And the alien technology beats the shit out of him. How do we see him being affected by this? He coughs. How does he overcome the challenge? ...well, he just does. There are the necessary shots of him losing, and then he just stops coughing and wins.

I’m trying hard not to be nitpicky. But it is definitely that kind of movie.

Mark: Well, yeah, I didn’t read anything about them not wanting to use kryptonite, but the whole different atmosphere thing did ring pretty much the same concept.  And my only way of looking at it is that he used all the power he had at that last moment to deal with the machine.  Up to that point, we had no idea he could do such a thing, but I’d chalk it up to him really utilizing his powers.  But that’s just me defending what is a very obvious hole in the story.

But one thing I want to point out about the story is in the original, when Lois “died”, there was real emotional weight, cause we’ve spent the whole rest of the movie setting these two up.  Giving them plenty of time to interact in human ways, as both Clark and Superman.  So when her death came, and it was a slow death, it was really shocking.  But in this, the relationship between Lois and Clark/Kal is kinda forced.  She gets a couple of super serious conversations with him and suddenly it's love.  They set it up to do this for the second movie, but they rushed into it for this one.

Dylan: Yea, I was wondering how much they glazed over, assuming that we would know it from previous films and not want to see it again. You’re right, they were pretty much immediately in love. I also felt like the Daily Planet characters -- Perry White (who, creatively, is now black) and Jimmy (read: Jenny) Olson (who, creatively, is now a girl) -- were thrown in there because we needed to see them. And when they were put in danger in the third act, I really didn’t feel like enough attention was given to them for me to care. I mean, sure, what was happening to that city was pretty fucking scary. But the dynamic between Perry, Jenny, and that other dude meant nothing to me. Was it a love triangle of some sort? I couldn’t figure it out.

It’s the same thing with people’s acceptance of aliens. A whole movie could have been dedicated to a realistic reaction of the world to this kind of knowledge. But they pretty much accepted it right away. Lois and the military didn’t seem all that fascinated. And then Lois told Perry, and rather than him saying something like “this isn’t a tabloid. You’re fired, you crazy bitch”, he’s like “Lois, this world is not ready for something that huge.” Well, you’re taking it pretty well yourself, old man. And so does the world, five minutes later, when they find out too.

Mark: Well I put the acceptance thing as shock.  Like you’re too stunned at the revelation of it and the devastation of it to really stop and think about what is happening.  Again, this seems to be set up for a sequel.  Now that the threat is gone, they can focus on the fact that it happened; that aliens exist, and that one of them is still here.  And he’s from the same race that just annihilated half of Metropolis.  So, that’s my take on that.

As for Perry and gang, they were there for cameos.  It’s a Superman movie, they have to show up, even in their new forms, because it’s iconic.  I think it would have been a big move to not go to the Daily Planet, just have Lois.  You know she works for them, but it won’t come into play until the sequel.  And when they were in danger, much like how Star Trek Into Darkness didn’t have the balls to pull the trigger on it’s characters, neither would Goyer and Nolan.  That would be too dark.  But really you don’t fuck with canon.  Not unless you’re willing to take the fan backlash for taking a chance, and with how DC is trying so hard to become something like Marvel, they won’t risk it.

Who do you think were the strongest performances?  Or at least you’re favorite?

Dylan: Is that a serious question? The obvious answer is Michael Shannon, and even he was just making the best of what he had to work with. Some of his lines were just laughable. And there were a hundred obvious flaws in his diabolical schemes. But he made me believe he was the bad guy, for sure.

But before I forget, in response to what you just said: I think a slower, more intelligent sequel would really bring things back around. We’ve managed to throw in all the necessary players (with the obvious exception of a new villain, which will probably be Lex Luthor), now it’s time to give them some depth. That’s where the realism and humanity comes from. Not by trying to make a more sensible origin story.

It’s unfortunate, but these movies are starting to have very predictable and obviously similar setups. This one will of course be compared to Batman Begins. But it’s also like The Amazing Spider-Man, Star Trek, and Captain America; rebooted origin stories that only serve to line us up for a sequel that may or may not be better. Because personally, I was not a huge fan of Batman Begins. For me, and I think a lot of other people, it was The Dark Knight that really made me fall in love with the trilogy. So hey, maybe Man of Steel 2 will do that for me.

Mark: I agree mostly with you.  Shannon has proven time and again how great he is (see our last couple of reviews).  Whether it’s being serious or just going over the top, like with Zod, he’s just so enthralling in his acting.  And I thought Christopher Meloni was one of the few who was able to bring out more emotion in the story.  How his character arc goes throughout is one of the more interesting, especially when he faces off with Faora.  And I actually thought, regardless of how little time he had, Costner had a hell of an emotional presence whenever he was on screen.  Cavill is good as Superman, but he’s not given anything to go with to give him depth or anything.  Which is kinda the problem all around.  Goyer created his crazy story and tried to be all gritty, but without the Nolan brothers writing too, it didn’t have any of the depth or complexity to it.

And yeah, it’s in the sequel that we should see the depth.  I have to assume that now we’ll get Lex Luthor to come into play.  And this will create the conflict of the mind rather than the conflict of strength, like with Zod.  And we got plenty of that conflict.  I swear, the only thing I could think of during that punch up with Zod was how insane the fighting got.  It was the cartoon fighting we’ve always seen, what with them punching each other through buildings, across the city, into fucking space.  It was a blast to watch, but it just went on.

Dylan: One thing the sequel needs to do is get rid of Costner and Crowe. Every time we should’ve seen Cavill have some sort of deep moment, it was just externalized by a scene where one of his fathers explained out loud exactly what he was going through.

But yea, the fight scenes were just what I would want. And somehow we have yet to mention him: Zack Snyder does a damn good job. 

...and now I’m already regretting that sentence. Because a lot of his techniques piss me off big time. But the fighting at the end was pretty nuts. And just like you said, it was still cartoonish, but it worked.

Mark: Well I’m fairly certain you’ll get your wish about Costner and Crowe.  But what do I know?  And yeah, Snyder was actually a lot better than I thought.  I mean, his action scenes are still as over the top with gorgeous CGI explosions as ever, but when the camera slows down, and you get those intimate shots, like with little Clark running around with the red cape, that was actually just great.  One thing with Snyder is that he can do a lot of different film styles, what with the aforementioned CGI  stuff, but then the different composition with the flashbacks, and it’s like someone else has taken the helm.  And I appreciated getting a different feel when things changed tempo.  He’s much better than I’ve ever given him credit for.

Dylan: Sometimes I wonder how much of that is luck. Not to discredit the guy, but I think of 300. I really like 300, and I don’t really know anyone who doesn’t. But the same techniques he used to make it unique and awesome are the ones that, if you watch it again, you find kind of annoying. And this is kind of the same way. There are certain things he kept doing over and over again when he approached the action sequences. Some of it worked, at least for a time. But once you caught on to it, it got pretty irritating. In 300 it was the ramping. In this, it was the quick zoom-ins and the shaky cam.

Mark: I agree.  I’m not saying it was perfect, far from it. But he did a good job with what he had.  And I also put some of it in that Nolan was right there.  It was very much a group effort, just not everyone in the group was pulling their weight.  But at the end of the day, I’d recommend it.  It’s a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and it’ll keep your attention without ticking you off like some other blockbusters have.  At least for us.

Dylan: This is probably a stupid question. Was it scored by Hans Zimmer?

Mark:  Yeah.

Dylan: I figured. He is obviously the next generation’s John Williams. So I guess it’s appropriate.

Anyways, the movie is entertaining. It’s essentially a checklist of things the writers think we want to see and DC needs us to see so that they can move forward with the next step of their extended universe. But that seems to be the case with all of this summer’s action franchises. This one just does a better job of it.

Mark: Speaking of extended universe, did you catch the little easter egg in the film?  Or at least the one I did, I don’t know if there were more.

Dylan: I caught two. A Wayne Enterprises satellite and a LexCorp truck. (In addition to about a hundred product placements.)

Mark:  Where was the truck?  Oh sweet jesus, the product placement.  IHOP anyone?  Maybe 7/11.  God, it wasn’t even trying to be subtle.

Dylan: Amazing how no matter how much flame and debris clouds the air, and how every building is destroyed, you can still see the Sears logo shining bright. The truck was just something that was quickly destroyed or thrown into a building or something. I’m sure if you googled it, you could find a blurry screenshot.

Mark: Oh, ok, so it wasn’t setting anything, just putting it in there for gits and shiggles.  Well, wanna know something cool I found out?  Before they got Shannon for Zod, they were gonna go with...pausing for effect...Viggo Mortenson.

Dylan: Wow. That would have been interesting. And I can kinda see it. But Shannon was just fine.

Mark: Right, cause all I can picture is his character from Eastern Promises.

Dylan: Yea that's the image I had as well.

Mark:  Right?  Like that’s the one character he’s done that fits what Zod would be like.  Zod as a Russian gangster.  Super violent and intense.

Dylan: And then we’d get an epic naked wrestling match (hopefully through space or something) between Zod and Superman. And what self-respecting American wouldn't want to see that?