Was Man of Steel more "The Matrix" or "The Matrix Revolutions?"
Or was it mostly "Spider-Man?"
Hear me out...the prologue was out of this world, literally...and I almost didn't want that to end (it's a lot to take in, but puts the Marlon Brando prologue, 35 years ago, to shame), but our hero just had to grow up, and the story becomes so distracted with "Superman" mythology staples that I didn't understand where we were going.
This feels-like-a-montage introduction to Superman's capabilities becomes the first half of the movie. A similar technique to the act 1 story-telling of "Batman Begins." The difference is purpose. In "Batman Begins," we are shown how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and we are shown why Batman begins. "Man of Steel"'s first act has nothing to show...although we see him get back at an ass-grabbing bully, a cinematic attempt at humor that falls flat, and the whole concept of why Kal-El (that's Superman, you nerds) must become Clark Kent, all thanks to his "father," Jonathan Kent.
(SPOILER: The ending has a charming introduction to the Clark Kent we all know).
I couldn't help but think the whole thing was poorly structured until Act II finally came when General Zod (villain from the prologue and "Superman II") finds Kal (Superman) with a warning to Earth concerning the suffering of all humans (this was my favorite scene, played out like a horror movie), especially including typical superhero-leading-lady Lois Lane, who, at times, travels almost inexplicably fast as Superman. She is always...there!
The concept of the film becomes "What would humans do if Superman was real?" (like Batman was "real," of course) but I was wondering why even Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) was taking it so seriously at first. He dismissed the idea of a super-man, although I agreed Lois Lane didn't really have a story. Women in comic books is an old-fashioned technique to appeal to bigger audiences. I'm not certain it's required anymore. While we're at it, Jameson from "Spider-Man" should be hired as editor of the Daily Planet instead of Perry White (Fishburne).
The film raises a lot of questions, much like "Why do we fall, Bruce?" but I'm thinking these questions go unanswered...until inevitably-for-granted sequels:
"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?"
Alas, Michael Shannon, I'm afraid, is the most impressive aspect of all as General Zod, doing more with this role than what I felt should have been possible. The villain forces Superman to be "Superman" (that's what "the people" call him) for all to see and just uses him to destroy buildings and break things. People die. It's pretty cool.
I was actually rooting for Zod, not only because "Men of Steel: Man of Steel II" would be great if Earth were more like Krypton (Kal-El's original home planet, as seen in the awesome prologue), Michael Shannon is a fantastic villain, and I don't see the world really needing Superman without Zod's threat. This is why Kal-El needs to be Clark Kent...which I feel would be the heart of a sequel. Also, love-interest have an actual love-story (the most memorable part of the first superhero films 35 years ago). And definitely Lex Luthor, like The Joker, who would bring chaos to Kent's world in a personal way..
I wouldn't say this film was far from what this superhero deserves in a movie, but a lot of credit goes probably to the director of "300," Zack Snyder. As he is still one of my favorites, I blame the downfall of Act 1 on one of my least favorites, David Goyer. This man should quit while he's ahead (and Jonathan Nolan, "The Dark Knight" screenwriter should do the sequel). Some cinematography and probably the most iconic imagery since the original comics is what makes "Man of Steel." Also, I am happy seeing Robin Hood and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as Kal-El's and Clark Kent's father figures, respectively.
...and the destruction is really cool, thanks to some awesome badguys.
| | Back to Top
Quote of the Day: