Man of Steel Review (WARNING SPOILERS)
Spoilers ahead for review of MAN Of Steel
Spoilers
Man of Steel:
Overall thoughts: Would have been a mildly entertaining (though plot-hole riddled) CGI explosion-fest were it not for the fact that it WAS NOT Superman.
I want to start this off, by saying that although I haven’t read all the comics, I am familiar with the history of the character and Superman has always been my favourite Superhero. That being said, Hollywood has yet to produce a GOOD Superman film (and yes, I am including the much beloved Christopher Reeves films in this statement). I will acknowledge that the closest Hollywood has come has been the Reeves film, though I did not like the way they presented Superman as the real “personality” and Clark Kent as the “disguise”. The “Superman Returns” film was so poorly miscast it wasn’t even funny (with the exception of Lex Luthor), so I was really hoping this film would finally get it right where others have failed.
The trailer looked interesting, but unfortunately the film itself failed to deliver on its promise. I think my main issue with the film overall, was that it felt so ponderous, dark, and ultimately not a very hopeful film. As I say later on in the review, Superman is supposed to be the ultimate good guy - a beacon or a symbol of what mankind can someday accomplish. I didn’t feel uplifted coming out of the theatre - rather, I felt weighed down. That’s not to say the entire film was awful, but it didn’t feel like Superman. I will break it down into the things I did not like, and the things I did. Since there was more bad than good, I will start with the bad.
Things I didn’t like:
1. The ridiculously convoluted beginning sequence with Krypton’s destruction. First of all, was there any reason (other than justifying the 3D price tag) to have the big battle sequence at the beginning? It was far longer than it needed to be, not to mention a little bit silly. Honestly, when I picture Krypton, I don’t think of a Star-Warsesque battle sequence with characters flying around on dragons that look like they have been ripped straight out of Middle Earth. I get that it was meant as a set up for the rest of the film, unfortunately all it does is bore the audience.
2. The reasons behind sending Kal-El to Earth. Russell Crowe does a good job as Jor-El, but there are enough plot holes in this first sequence that his performance gets lost among the questions. Krypton’s destruction should be a pretty straightforward plot point - hard to screw up. Except this one does - big time! In the Chris Reeves films, it is established early on that although Jor-El knew the planet was dying, nobody believed him when he tried to convince the other leaders of the planet. He was trying to build a space craft for him, his wife and his son but simply did not have enough time to do it. He could only manage to save his son before the planet was destroyed. In that version, time is the biggest enemy. He miscalculated on how long the planet had, the political leaders thought him a crackpot, and could not manage to save everyone. That makes some sense even in the modern context. We are currently slowly destroying our planet but refuse to acknowledge it, so why should it be so hard to show that in film??? Unfortunately the way they did it in Man Of Steel, had MASSIVE plot holes in it. When Jor-El is explaining that the planet is doomed in this version, not only do the leaders believe him, but they claim that they have weeks before the planet implodes! Hell, one of the leaders even suggests evacuating the planet, but this is brushed off by Jor-El as not being possible. My question: WHY? They know weeks in advance that their planet is dying, they have established that they have space crafts capable of interplanetary travel (not just the craft they send Kal-El in, but the ship they send Zod and the other prisoners in as well), and they have done so before in times past (as mentioned by Jor-El when he references their ancestors ‘taking to the stars’). If there was some valid scientific reason why they couldn’t at least attempt to evacuate key political members and some families, they never say. They just give a half assed answer of ‘our time is over’. REALLY? I don’t know about you, but if I was on a dying planet and there was a chance I could escape and find a new world, I would take it. There is no real reason given why Jor-El and Lara can’t at least attempt to follow their son. They even have the co-ordinates of Earth on hand - they have sent ships there before. So…again, I say….WHY????
3. Zod’s banishment. This is another moment that makes little to no sense. I hate to keep going back to the Reeves versions, but at least their plot made some sense at least in this respect. In the Chris Reeves version, Zod and co. were banished to the Phantom Zone by the planet’s leaders before Jor-El told them the planet was doomed. It didn’t matter because they didn’t believe him anyway, so it made sense that they would see exile as a fitting punishment. In Man of Steel however, it’s not a punishment - it’s a reprieve and that makes NO sense. He is a war criminal. They KNOW their planet is dying. They don’t want to try to evacuate themselves, but they will waste a ship to send a bunch of criminals off the planet as a punishment??? Umm, how is that a punishment exactly? They are all doomed to die, yet the bad guys get to survive??? We as the audience know they will get out of their little pod thingys (as it turns out it happens right after Krypton explodes so they spend a total of about 5 minutes of screen time imprisoned).
4. The Codex was never fully explained. I get that Jor-El ‘uploaded’ it into Clark’s DNA, but to what purpose? Is Clark supposed to ensure Krypton’s future by procreating with the human race? What was Zod going to use it for? They hint that he intended on killing the human population, but never really say how or why it was necessary. I am getting a bit ahead of myself, but even when he attempts to destroy Earth with the terraforming machine, it makes little sense. Why would you want to make the planet more like Krypton when you have all these powers and abilities? Wouldn’t you want to keep them? Wasn’t Krypton a harsh environment? Why would you want to copy its topography? Wasn’t the entire purpose of the scout ships to find habitable worlds less harsh? Would you still have the powers after terraforming? Yeah it was a bit difficult for Zod and co. with the super hearing and super sight, but we saw it took him all of 10 minutes to figure out how to focus properly so you would think they would want to leave Earth as-is. Unless the only purpose was to kill off the humans? I know he is all about genetic superiority and an almost Plato-like belief that everyone has a specific role in society, so maybe that’s it. Still, it’s never really made that clear
5. The Scout ship with the suit inside that miraculously fits him perfectly. Really? That was the only way they could introduce the suit? That’s worse than killing the guard and finding that his clothes are a perfect fit. Also, if the scout ship came there almost 20 000 years ago, then how come his magical USB key fits in perfectly with the technology? Are we to really believe that Kryptonian technology did not advance at all in 20 000 years? And how convenient it was that the ship as piloted by someone from the House of El….
6. Some of the casting choices, notably Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Diane Lane as Martha Kent and Henry Cavill (though my issue with him is more the writing than anything else). Amy Adams is a wonderful actress. I really enjoy her work in other films. But once again they really mess up when it comes to casting an age-appropriate Lois Lane. She is 10 years Henry Cavill’s senior and it SHOWS. But it’s not just her age I had a problem with. She just fell very flat as Lois. Lois is supposed to be a feisty take no crap kind of person and normally Amy Adams is great with those kinds of parts, but it almost feels like they deliberately subdued her. She was incredibly soft spoken and did not come across as determined and hardened - more like, tentative and unsure. Not to mention that after she finds out who Clark is, she spends the rest of the film following him around like a lost puppy with little or no purpose in the film other than to remind us she is still there. She literally pops up behind him after every battle sequence but has nothing of note to offer the scene other than to fawn all over him. This is actually a running issue with all the women in this film.
7. My problem with Diane Lane was not so much the acting, as it was the poorly done age make up in an attempt to make her look far older than her 48 years. She is 18 years older then Henry Cavill, so technically old enough to be his mother if she had him very young, but they clearly weren’t going for that and the age make up was done poorly as were her attempts to act like an “older woman”. I just wasn’t buying it.
8. My issue with Cavill was more that the material he was given was very clichéd and lacked any real depth. We didn’t get to see much of who he was. Most of his character development took place in his childhood. As an adult we know very little, other than he is wandering around trying to find his “place” in the world. I feel like he could be a good actor but he needed to get past the wooden stilted dialogue and lack of character development first.
9. …..so, we’re just doing away with the entire secret identity thing altogether? This is one of the reasons why I was very skeptical of Christopher Nolan’s involvement. It seems to be the trend lately in Superhero movies for everybody and their brother to find out who the hero is. It has worked in some cases, but in this case it takes a lot away from the character. Part of the charm of Superman (and the silliness) is the fact that he wears no mask and yet still manages to fool those he is closest to. In the earlier incarnations of the character, Superman was the main persona and Clark was a disguise he used occasionally. However, in the modern incarnation of the character, it was the other way around. It was established through the origins of his life in Smallville, his connection to his family, etc. that Clark Kent is who he is, and Superman is simply what he can do and that is what appeals to me. This very HUMAN non-human who only wants to do the right thing and build a life with those around him. The interaction between him and Lois when he is Clark Kent and then again when he is Superman was part of the charm of the character and that is all gone in this version. By the end when he appears at the Daily Planet with the glasses, she already knows who he is and that playful flirtation is gone. I think it is why (for me) their scenes together felt very forced. The chemistry of that early meeting, the flirtation and the confusion between the two men is gone. Christopher Reeves (even though not my favourite Superman) was probably the best at physically portraying the differences between the two men. He managed to make you believe that a pair of glasses, different posture and body language could be a disguise in and of itself…but again, they took the idea that Clark was merely the disguise and Superman the true character and I really dislike that. I love the humanity of this character and maybe Henry Cavill would have been really good at showcasing that duality but he never gets the chance.
10. The wanton destruction of EVERYTHING in the film in favour of BIG. CGI. EXPLODE-YNESS! This was one of my biggest gripes about the film to be honest. The character of Superman has always been one who sticks up for the little guy and tries to protect the innocent above all else. The Superman that I know and love would have done everything he could to move the battle as far away from the major population centres as possible in order to avoid unnecessary loss of life. This Superman, however, charges at Zod like a bull in a China shop with no problems whatsoever levelling buildings and destroying the bulk of downtown Smallville and almost all of Metropolis in the process. There was no subtlety to it whatsoever. It was just a punch for punch slugfest between the two characters that went on FAR too long, again presumably with the purpose of showing off the CGI and the 3D. Once again I am annoyed by modern film makers who seem to think that in order to be “EPIC”, the film has to be LONG. Not true. They could have EASILY cut about 40 minutes of unnecessary battle sequences (both at the beginning and at the end), and still have the film with a decent running time. If the plot warrants the length, that’s one thing, but this film had a very thin plot that could not justify its 2 hours and 23 minute running time. By the end I was checking my watch every five minutes hoping it was almost over.
11. Jor-El’s “consciousness upload”. This was just silly. I get that they wanted him around in order to provide exposition, but if you can’t somehow include that information in the plot without Supes’ daddy following him around like King Hamlet’s ghost, then you clearly don’t have a very good plot to frame your film around to begin with. Also, why not Lara as well as Jor-El being uploaded?? Oh that’s right, she’s a woman and her character existed only to have the baby and die.
12. Which brings me to my next issue: The treatment of women in the film. Lois Lane is woefully underused and ineffectual. She’s reduced to the damsel more in this version than in any other. Lara exists solely as a baby factory who then just sort of stands there as the planet explodes around her. Then there is the female army Captain that comments on how “hot” Superman is. REALLY? This is what we are doing with our female characters? Films like this are so “male heavy” to begin with, that we very rarely get women in positions of power or combat and the few they do introduce seem to be there solely to either get in trouble or comment on how “hot” the hero is. Speaking of getting in trouble, we also have Jimmy Olsen…sorry, Jenny the intern. Yup, they gender-swapped Jimmy for Jenny. On the best of days it annoys me when shows or film deliberately gender swap male characters into female characters. Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to see more strong women in film and television but changing the gender of already established male characters just feels cheap and gimmick-y to me. We need more NEW stories with women, but that’s a whole other rant. So they have changed Jimmy into a woman…what do they do with her? Nothing. She exists to get trapped in the rubble and Perry has to try to save her. They gender swap her, then turn her into a damsel.
13. SUPERMAN. DOES. NOT. KILL! (Cue the nerds commenting and reminding me that once upon a time, he did kill) but that was the Golden Age of Superman, and the more modern incarnations he has been a character that (with a few exceptions), avoids killing. It is one of the most admirable traits about the character. He does everything he can to preserve life, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. The end sequence where he snaps Zod’s neck ran false for me on several levels. Note to Snyder, Nolan and co: This is NOT Batman! This is Superman! He is a noble, good, boyscout of a hero. He does not brood and mope and angst. He is supposed to be a beacon of HOPE. It’s funny to me that they would blatantly ignore this, especially since they went through all that trouble to point out that his ‘S’ supposedly means ‘Hope’. Instead they gave us a character that was not very hopeful at all. Yes, he seemed pretty upset afterwards, but where did this darkness come from? Why do film makers assume that the only way to make a character interesting is to make him dark and gritty? The thing I love about Superman is that he is SUCH a force of good in the world. He stays true to his principles of justice and right and wrong, regardless of the shades of gray around him. To me, that IS interesting. It’s far more interesting to try to do the right thing when everywhere around you is morally decaying than it is to be a dark hero in a dark world and yet so many people have difficulty with that concept. And I know people will then point out that he couldn’t do anything other than kill Zod…that he was forced into it. Yes, he was…by crappy writing. The writers put him in that position with the sole purpose of giving him something to angst about. Not cool.
Things I did like (though not nearly as numerous):
1. Laurence Fishburn as Perry White. Awesome casting choice. Not who I would have ever pictured, but just brilliant nonetheless. He came across as professional, yet intuitive. Brusque, but affectionate. He gave a very nuanced performance with the time he had.
2. Oddly enough I really enjoyed Kevin Costner’s performance as Jonathon Kent. I am not the biggest fan of Costner. For the most part, I don’t think he is a very good actor, but I thought he was VERY effective as Jonathon Kent. He came across as a loving, but also frightened parent. I know many had issues with the scene in the trailer in which he suggests to Clark that maybe he should have let the kids in the bus die, but I think that was incredibly well handled. Here is a man who desperately wants to protect his son and at the same time instill in him a sense of right and wrong. I don’t think he meant it when he said maybe - I think that he said that because he too was trying to figure out what the right thing to do was and that is important. His parents, after all, are human and as such are subject to the same moral confusion as Clark. It is Clark that ultimately must decide how he can reconcile the two sides of himself - the human and the super. His death scene was silly, however.
3. The scenes of Clark’s childhood were well done. I liked the context they tried to create with his character. It makes it all the more frustrating that they did not translate to the rest of the film. These small, almost vignettes gave a really good window into the character’s inner development. It’s a shame the writing staff could not manage to show that later on in the film.
---
Spoilers
Man of Steel:
Overall thoughts: Would have been a mildly entertaining (though plot-hole riddled) CGI explosion-fest were it not for the fact that it WAS NOT Superman.
I want to start this off, by saying that although I haven’t read all the comics, I am familiar with the history of the character and Superman has always been my favourite Superhero. That being said, Hollywood has yet to produce a GOOD Superman film (and yes, I am including the much beloved Christopher Reeves films in this statement). I will acknowledge that the closest Hollywood has come has been the Reeves film, though I did not like the way they presented Superman as the real “personality” and Clark Kent as the “disguise”. The “Superman Returns” film was so poorly miscast it wasn’t even funny (with the exception of Lex Luthor), so I was really hoping this film would finally get it right where others have failed.
The trailer looked interesting, but unfortunately the film itself failed to deliver on its promise. I think my main issue with the film overall, was that it felt so ponderous, dark, and ultimately not a very hopeful film. As I say later on in the review, Superman is supposed to be the ultimate good guy - a beacon or a symbol of what mankind can someday accomplish. I didn’t feel uplifted coming out of the theatre - rather, I felt weighed down. That’s not to say the entire film was awful, but it didn’t feel like Superman. I will break it down into the things I did not like, and the things I did. Since there was more bad than good, I will start with the bad.
Things I didn’t like:
1. The ridiculously convoluted beginning sequence with Krypton’s destruction. First of all, was there any reason (other than justifying the 3D price tag) to have the big battle sequence at the beginning? It was far longer than it needed to be, not to mention a little bit silly. Honestly, when I picture Krypton, I don’t think of a Star-Warsesque battle sequence with characters flying around on dragons that look like they have been ripped straight out of Middle Earth. I get that it was meant as a set up for the rest of the film, unfortunately all it does is bore the audience.
2. The reasons behind sending Kal-El to Earth. Russell Crowe does a good job as Jor-El, but there are enough plot holes in this first sequence that his performance gets lost among the questions. Krypton’s destruction should be a pretty straightforward plot point - hard to screw up. Except this one does - big time! In the Chris Reeves films, it is established early on that although Jor-El knew the planet was dying, nobody believed him when he tried to convince the other leaders of the planet. He was trying to build a space craft for him, his wife and his son but simply did not have enough time to do it. He could only manage to save his son before the planet was destroyed. In that version, time is the biggest enemy. He miscalculated on how long the planet had, the political leaders thought him a crackpot, and could not manage to save everyone. That makes some sense even in the modern context. We are currently slowly destroying our planet but refuse to acknowledge it, so why should it be so hard to show that in film??? Unfortunately the way they did it in Man Of Steel, had MASSIVE plot holes in it. When Jor-El is explaining that the planet is doomed in this version, not only do the leaders believe him, but they claim that they have weeks before the planet implodes! Hell, one of the leaders even suggests evacuating the planet, but this is brushed off by Jor-El as not being possible. My question: WHY? They know weeks in advance that their planet is dying, they have established that they have space crafts capable of interplanetary travel (not just the craft they send Kal-El in, but the ship they send Zod and the other prisoners in as well), and they have done so before in times past (as mentioned by Jor-El when he references their ancestors ‘taking to the stars’). If there was some valid scientific reason why they couldn’t at least attempt to evacuate key political members and some families, they never say. They just give a half assed answer of ‘our time is over’. REALLY? I don’t know about you, but if I was on a dying planet and there was a chance I could escape and find a new world, I would take it. There is no real reason given why Jor-El and Lara can’t at least attempt to follow their son. They even have the co-ordinates of Earth on hand - they have sent ships there before. So…again, I say….WHY????
3. Zod’s banishment. This is another moment that makes little to no sense. I hate to keep going back to the Reeves versions, but at least their plot made some sense at least in this respect. In the Chris Reeves version, Zod and co. were banished to the Phantom Zone by the planet’s leaders before Jor-El told them the planet was doomed. It didn’t matter because they didn’t believe him anyway, so it made sense that they would see exile as a fitting punishment. In Man of Steel however, it’s not a punishment - it’s a reprieve and that makes NO sense. He is a war criminal. They KNOW their planet is dying. They don’t want to try to evacuate themselves, but they will waste a ship to send a bunch of criminals off the planet as a punishment??? Umm, how is that a punishment exactly? They are all doomed to die, yet the bad guys get to survive??? We as the audience know they will get out of their little pod thingys (as it turns out it happens right after Krypton explodes so they spend a total of about 5 minutes of screen time imprisoned).
4. The Codex was never fully explained. I get that Jor-El ‘uploaded’ it into Clark’s DNA, but to what purpose? Is Clark supposed to ensure Krypton’s future by procreating with the human race? What was Zod going to use it for? They hint that he intended on killing the human population, but never really say how or why it was necessary. I am getting a bit ahead of myself, but even when he attempts to destroy Earth with the terraforming machine, it makes little sense. Why would you want to make the planet more like Krypton when you have all these powers and abilities? Wouldn’t you want to keep them? Wasn’t Krypton a harsh environment? Why would you want to copy its topography? Wasn’t the entire purpose of the scout ships to find habitable worlds less harsh? Would you still have the powers after terraforming? Yeah it was a bit difficult for Zod and co. with the super hearing and super sight, but we saw it took him all of 10 minutes to figure out how to focus properly so you would think they would want to leave Earth as-is. Unless the only purpose was to kill off the humans? I know he is all about genetic superiority and an almost Plato-like belief that everyone has a specific role in society, so maybe that’s it. Still, it’s never really made that clear
5. The Scout ship with the suit inside that miraculously fits him perfectly. Really? That was the only way they could introduce the suit? That’s worse than killing the guard and finding that his clothes are a perfect fit. Also, if the scout ship came there almost 20 000 years ago, then how come his magical USB key fits in perfectly with the technology? Are we to really believe that Kryptonian technology did not advance at all in 20 000 years? And how convenient it was that the ship as piloted by someone from the House of El….
6. Some of the casting choices, notably Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Diane Lane as Martha Kent and Henry Cavill (though my issue with him is more the writing than anything else). Amy Adams is a wonderful actress. I really enjoy her work in other films. But once again they really mess up when it comes to casting an age-appropriate Lois Lane. She is 10 years Henry Cavill’s senior and it SHOWS. But it’s not just her age I had a problem with. She just fell very flat as Lois. Lois is supposed to be a feisty take no crap kind of person and normally Amy Adams is great with those kinds of parts, but it almost feels like they deliberately subdued her. She was incredibly soft spoken and did not come across as determined and hardened - more like, tentative and unsure. Not to mention that after she finds out who Clark is, she spends the rest of the film following him around like a lost puppy with little or no purpose in the film other than to remind us she is still there. She literally pops up behind him after every battle sequence but has nothing of note to offer the scene other than to fawn all over him. This is actually a running issue with all the women in this film.
7. My problem with Diane Lane was not so much the acting, as it was the poorly done age make up in an attempt to make her look far older than her 48 years. She is 18 years older then Henry Cavill, so technically old enough to be his mother if she had him very young, but they clearly weren’t going for that and the age make up was done poorly as were her attempts to act like an “older woman”. I just wasn’t buying it.
8. My issue with Cavill was more that the material he was given was very clichéd and lacked any real depth. We didn’t get to see much of who he was. Most of his character development took place in his childhood. As an adult we know very little, other than he is wandering around trying to find his “place” in the world. I feel like he could be a good actor but he needed to get past the wooden stilted dialogue and lack of character development first.
9. …..so, we’re just doing away with the entire secret identity thing altogether? This is one of the reasons why I was very skeptical of Christopher Nolan’s involvement. It seems to be the trend lately in Superhero movies for everybody and their brother to find out who the hero is. It has worked in some cases, but in this case it takes a lot away from the character. Part of the charm of Superman (and the silliness) is the fact that he wears no mask and yet still manages to fool those he is closest to. In the earlier incarnations of the character, Superman was the main persona and Clark was a disguise he used occasionally. However, in the modern incarnation of the character, it was the other way around. It was established through the origins of his life in Smallville, his connection to his family, etc. that Clark Kent is who he is, and Superman is simply what he can do and that is what appeals to me. This very HUMAN non-human who only wants to do the right thing and build a life with those around him. The interaction between him and Lois when he is Clark Kent and then again when he is Superman was part of the charm of the character and that is all gone in this version. By the end when he appears at the Daily Planet with the glasses, she already knows who he is and that playful flirtation is gone. I think it is why (for me) their scenes together felt very forced. The chemistry of that early meeting, the flirtation and the confusion between the two men is gone. Christopher Reeves (even though not my favourite Superman) was probably the best at physically portraying the differences between the two men. He managed to make you believe that a pair of glasses, different posture and body language could be a disguise in and of itself…but again, they took the idea that Clark was merely the disguise and Superman the true character and I really dislike that. I love the humanity of this character and maybe Henry Cavill would have been really good at showcasing that duality but he never gets the chance.
10. The wanton destruction of EVERYTHING in the film in favour of BIG. CGI. EXPLODE-YNESS! This was one of my biggest gripes about the film to be honest. The character of Superman has always been one who sticks up for the little guy and tries to protect the innocent above all else. The Superman that I know and love would have done everything he could to move the battle as far away from the major population centres as possible in order to avoid unnecessary loss of life. This Superman, however, charges at Zod like a bull in a China shop with no problems whatsoever levelling buildings and destroying the bulk of downtown Smallville and almost all of Metropolis in the process. There was no subtlety to it whatsoever. It was just a punch for punch slugfest between the two characters that went on FAR too long, again presumably with the purpose of showing off the CGI and the 3D. Once again I am annoyed by modern film makers who seem to think that in order to be “EPIC”, the film has to be LONG. Not true. They could have EASILY cut about 40 minutes of unnecessary battle sequences (both at the beginning and at the end), and still have the film with a decent running time. If the plot warrants the length, that’s one thing, but this film had a very thin plot that could not justify its 2 hours and 23 minute running time. By the end I was checking my watch every five minutes hoping it was almost over.
11. Jor-El’s “consciousness upload”. This was just silly. I get that they wanted him around in order to provide exposition, but if you can’t somehow include that information in the plot without Supes’ daddy following him around like King Hamlet’s ghost, then you clearly don’t have a very good plot to frame your film around to begin with. Also, why not Lara as well as Jor-El being uploaded?? Oh that’s right, she’s a woman and her character existed only to have the baby and die.
12. Which brings me to my next issue: The treatment of women in the film. Lois Lane is woefully underused and ineffectual. She’s reduced to the damsel more in this version than in any other. Lara exists solely as a baby factory who then just sort of stands there as the planet explodes around her. Then there is the female army Captain that comments on how “hot” Superman is. REALLY? This is what we are doing with our female characters? Films like this are so “male heavy” to begin with, that we very rarely get women in positions of power or combat and the few they do introduce seem to be there solely to either get in trouble or comment on how “hot” the hero is. Speaking of getting in trouble, we also have Jimmy Olsen…sorry, Jenny the intern. Yup, they gender-swapped Jimmy for Jenny. On the best of days it annoys me when shows or film deliberately gender swap male characters into female characters. Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to see more strong women in film and television but changing the gender of already established male characters just feels cheap and gimmick-y to me. We need more NEW stories with women, but that’s a whole other rant. So they have changed Jimmy into a woman…what do they do with her? Nothing. She exists to get trapped in the rubble and Perry has to try to save her. They gender swap her, then turn her into a damsel.
13. SUPERMAN. DOES. NOT. KILL! (Cue the nerds commenting and reminding me that once upon a time, he did kill) but that was the Golden Age of Superman, and the more modern incarnations he has been a character that (with a few exceptions), avoids killing. It is one of the most admirable traits about the character. He does everything he can to preserve life, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. The end sequence where he snaps Zod’s neck ran false for me on several levels. Note to Snyder, Nolan and co: This is NOT Batman! This is Superman! He is a noble, good, boyscout of a hero. He does not brood and mope and angst. He is supposed to be a beacon of HOPE. It’s funny to me that they would blatantly ignore this, especially since they went through all that trouble to point out that his ‘S’ supposedly means ‘Hope’. Instead they gave us a character that was not very hopeful at all. Yes, he seemed pretty upset afterwards, but where did this darkness come from? Why do film makers assume that the only way to make a character interesting is to make him dark and gritty? The thing I love about Superman is that he is SUCH a force of good in the world. He stays true to his principles of justice and right and wrong, regardless of the shades of gray around him. To me, that IS interesting. It’s far more interesting to try to do the right thing when everywhere around you is morally decaying than it is to be a dark hero in a dark world and yet so many people have difficulty with that concept. And I know people will then point out that he couldn’t do anything other than kill Zod…that he was forced into it. Yes, he was…by crappy writing. The writers put him in that position with the sole purpose of giving him something to angst about. Not cool.
Things I did like (though not nearly as numerous):
1. Laurence Fishburn as Perry White. Awesome casting choice. Not who I would have ever pictured, but just brilliant nonetheless. He came across as professional, yet intuitive. Brusque, but affectionate. He gave a very nuanced performance with the time he had.
2. Oddly enough I really enjoyed Kevin Costner’s performance as Jonathon Kent. I am not the biggest fan of Costner. For the most part, I don’t think he is a very good actor, but I thought he was VERY effective as Jonathon Kent. He came across as a loving, but also frightened parent. I know many had issues with the scene in the trailer in which he suggests to Clark that maybe he should have let the kids in the bus die, but I think that was incredibly well handled. Here is a man who desperately wants to protect his son and at the same time instill in him a sense of right and wrong. I don’t think he meant it when he said maybe - I think that he said that because he too was trying to figure out what the right thing to do was and that is important. His parents, after all, are human and as such are subject to the same moral confusion as Clark. It is Clark that ultimately must decide how he can reconcile the two sides of himself - the human and the super. His death scene was silly, however.
3. The scenes of Clark’s childhood were well done. I liked the context they tried to create with his character. It makes it all the more frustrating that they did not translate to the rest of the film. These small, almost vignettes gave a really good window into the character’s inner development. It’s a shame the writing staff could not manage to show that later on in the film.
---