What a turnaround it has been in recent years for both comic
book movies and Marvel Studios. In the early years, they sold the film rights
to their best-selling titles to studios such as Paramount, Sony and Fox. In
doing so, Marvel often saw their franchises treated with disdain or
indifference by major for decades. For every excellent X2 or Spider-Man, there
was a Ghost Rider or a Fantastic Four that would ruin
everything you might have liked about the characters. But while Marvel still
doesn’t own the rights to some of their biggest comic titles, their
perfectly-executed “Phase One” plan reversed their fortunes almost immediately.
By taking several of their titles and placing them within the same overall
universe and timeline, they created a force of nature that started with 2008’s Iron Man and finished with The Avengers, not only one of 2012’s
best movies but the biggest blockbuster not directed by James Cameron (coming
to a rest third on the worldwide box office behind Titanic and Avatar).
Between that and Marvel’s purchase by Disney, the studio is locked in to
deliver more greatness with their “Phase Two”, which began this summer with the
extremely popular Iron Man 3.
What a day to not be wearing shorts! |
DC Comics, meanwhile, would love that kind of success right
now. Once seen as the creative superior to Marvel when it came to the film medium,
their output the past decade has consisted of two-thirds of a great Batman
trilogy (thanks to director Christopher Nolan) and a string of disappointments
that includes Catwoman, Watchmen, Jonah Hex, Green Lantern and arguably the
biggest bust, Superman Returns. A
sequel to the first two Christopher Reeve classics (and ignoring Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace), the Bryan Singer-directed Returns was in fact moderately
successful. Unfortunately, moderately successful doesn’t cut it with a film
that costs over $200 million to put together, and plans for two future sequels
were scrapped as a result. Now DC (and their resident film studio Warner
Brothers) has attempted to recreate the success they had in rebooting their
Batman franchise with their other major comic superstar, giving Supes a
grittier, more grounded origin and dripping the story in emotional layers in Man of Steel. In doing so, they want to build the DC film
universe to the point where they can answer Marvel’s challenge and issue their
own superhero-team flick with The Justice
League. And while the director they assigned this task – Zack Snyder, of Watchmen and Sucker Punch infamy – wouldn’t seem like quite the right guy for
that job, DC did good by getting Christopher Nolan to produce, placing the best
director they’ve ever hired just behind the shoulder of the flashy,
style-over-substance Snyder.
Is he getting jealous? |
The result of this pairing? Well, it’s good, for the most
part. Man of Steel has some great
moments, especially the early flashbacks of a dying planet Krypton and
scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) saving his infant son by placing him in a
rocket and sending him to the distant planet Earth before his home can be
destroyed. Growing up knowing he is different from the people around him, Clark
Kent (The Tudors’ Henry Cavill) travels around the world, helping people through his
actions (and enhanced strength and abilities), and trying to discover where he
comes from and his purpose in life. In flashbacks, we see how Jonathan Kent
(Kevin Costner) encouraged his adopted son to keep his powers a secret, feeling
that the world would be unprepared to accept Clark’s abilities. These are
beautifully captured moments, mixings of bittersweet emotion, artistic
camerawork, and excellent CGI when required (not just when it would look cool).
Looking back, with the exception of the fall of Krypton, there isn’t a real
action sequence until almost the last act of the movie, and the fact that you
can forget and forgive that transgression from a supposed Summer blockbuster is
a testament to how invested we become with the characters themselves.
Absolutely terrifying. |
Those characters are the backbone of the film and its
greatest resource, and Snyder (with perhaps some cajoling from Nolan) does an
excellent job of using them to the best effect. Cavill and Amy Adams (who plays
tough-as-nails investigative reporter and intergalactic love interest Lois Lane)
are excellent both together and apart, with Cavill showing (often without
dialogue) that he is an actor on the rise. Adams has arguably never done a bad
performance, and her veteran presence is not only the best-ever interpretation
of Lane, but a stabilizing agent for the up-and-coming Cavill. As for the rest
of the cast, both Crowe and Costner do excellent jobs as Clark’s biological and
adoptive fathers, respectively. Crowe seems born to play Jor-El, and Costner’s
homesy look and drawl make for an excellent Papa Kent (Diane Lane however is kind of boring as mother Martha). Michael Shannon takes up
the Terence Stamp’s mantle when he plays the Kryptonian General Zod. To look at
Shannon on paper, you wouldn’t expect him to be so frightening a character as
someone with all of Superman’s strengths and none of his morals, but the
veteran actor really carries Man of Steel
in the second half. As a result, he’s definitely going to be a tough act to
follow in any potential sequels. My only disappointments in the cast were
located in the Daily Planet, Lois Lane’s newspaper. Lawrence Fishburne plays
the first ever African-American version of Editor-in-Chief Perry White, while
Rebecca Buller plays intern Jenny Olsen, obviously the adaptation of the comic
books’ Jimmy Olsen. The problem I have is that these characters are largely
pointless, taking part in some expository scenes but otherwise not contributing
much to the overall movie. I don’t care if Perry White is black or if Jimmy
Olsen is a woman; I just wish that wasn’t the beginning and end of their
character development.
Lois Lane: Kicking ass and taking names since 1938. |
But Man of Steel’s
biggest problem is not its development of poorly-scripted secondary characters or
even the strangely wide-open plot holes that are scattered about the script, but
an abrupt change of pace in the final act. That’s when the action strikes, and
while it contains beautiful imagery, excellent CGI and character-defining
moments, it’s just not that much FUN.
Snyder’s direction has always been visually-appealing, even when the product
was the mind-numbing horror of Sucker
Punch. I’ve said before that Snyder should direct music videos, as his
ocular palette works wonders in spurts a few minutes at a time. By the time
we’ve gotten through twenty minutes of action sequences involving bright beams
of light, explosions, rescues, destroyed buildings and a ton of violent acts,
we just want the whole thing to be over with. The filmmakers also make the
questionable choice of changing a major aspect of the caped crusader – in other
media, you’ll never see Superman put defeating the bad guys in a higher priority
over protecting innocent bystanders in big fights. Here the term “bystander”
appears all but ignored in the script, resulting in simplistic good-vs-evil
battles that never break the mold, and feeling almost like a typical Jerry
Bruckheimer production. The film never gets Great
Gatsby boring, but there’s still no excuse for such beautiful action that is
so generic that we almost don’t care about the outcome.
Maximum security just got an upgrade. |
The limp finish is really the only major thing wrong with Man of Steel, but it’s still enough to
turn a potentially great film into a merely good one. I’ll give credit where
it’s due: Snyder, Nolan and their crew succeeded in creating a Superman movie
more grounded and realistic than anything done before them, and it’s the
next-best thing in the DC film universe to Nolan’s first two Batman projects in
terms of quality. Obviously Batman Begins
and The Dark Knight are high
watermarks to cross, and expectations of the like from Man of Steel are definitely unwarranted, though you can still have
a good time should you see this on the big screen. In the battle of Marvel vs.
DC, Man of Steel is a long way away
from being as iconic as The Avengers
or Iron Man, and is probably closer
to Marvel’s second-rate Captain America movie. That’s not a
bad place to be, however, and if the folks at DC and Warner Brothers can build
upon its early successes (and bypass its weaknesses), then this might just be
the first step in its own “Phase One”. Can a Justice League movie be far in the future? Give me a Wonder Woman I
can get behind, and that’ll be a step in the right direction. Just like Man of Steel.
1 comment:
The biggest problem I had with "Man of Steel" is the ending.
And no, it's not the massive loss of life and buildings that their battle causes Metroplolis. Though I need to admit that I got so bored with the action scenes my mind began to wander and I kept thinking about how the country would deal with the 9/11 scale loss of life (times a hundred) and about the billions and billions it would cost to restore the city instead of paying attention to the story. But I blame that on Snyder. TOO much mindless action is dull.
And no it's not ...
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
… the fact that Superman actually kills Zod.
No, it's that he was ABLE to kill Zod. The script and Snyder's direction spends at least 10-15 minutes of showing the audience that Kal El and Zod were both evenly strengthened, evenly indestructible. Both men could pulverize each other for hours, days, months, and they'd still be evenly matched. They beat each other so badly, but because of their indestructibilities, neither cut, or bruised the other. Snyder painstakingly shows us this.
Then SUDDENLY, he proves that he was lying to us. Kal El breaks Zod's neck. How? He couldn't break a finger, arm, leg, etc…, he couldn't break Zod's skin, yet now he can somehow break Zod's neck?
It's a cop out. It's poor scripting. It's a cheat.
It didn't make a lick of sense and frankly, it ruined the film for me.
I don't like filmmakers taking us down one path, showing us the rules, than suddenly making a left turn, breaking those rules.
Post a Comment