Thursday, 11 July 2013

New film review #7: Man of Steel

The more a franchise has been around the more we grow nostalgically attached to it whatever medium format it may be in.  Personally, I am nostalgic towards game franchises like Battlefield and Jak & Daxter, book series' like The Horus Heresy and Alex Ryder, comic/manga series' like Spider Man or Love Hina and movie franchises such as Rush Hour and Mission Impossible.  The reason why I am bringing this up is that the movie that is the subject of today's film review is part of an undeniably long and popular franchise that stretches way back to the inter-war era between the end of World War 1 and the start of World War 2 (1918-1939).  If a franchise has been around for longer and therefore possibly rooted itself more strongly in popular media and culture then there is the very strong likelihood that it will be more recognisable to those who see works attributed to the source material and adaptations of such works.  Case in point, the recent (and hopefully strong in the far future) reboot of the superman movie franchise in the form of the reasonably well-acclaimed Man of Steel directed by Zack Snyder.

Now as with any franchise that has been around as long as it has, the superman franchise has faced its fair share of both damn fine moments (e.g. Superman (1978) and Superman 2 (1980) and the original comics from the 30's and 40's) and moments that have tarnished this franchise with a shit-covered paintbrush made out of odd and poor decisions and executions (e.g. Superman 4 the quest for peace (1987) and Superman Returns (2006)).  Some could argue that this recent reboot which sees the aptly named 'man of steel' face off against the legendary superman villain General Zod many decades after the death of his home-planet Krypton has given some much-needed boost to the image of not just the superman franchise but also the superman character himself after the debacle of the movies brought out in 1987 and 2006.  But do I think this film is as great and much-needed as others do?  On one hand I definitely think that this film is much-needed as the superman franchise was in desperate need of some boosting after the 2006 reboot but on the other hand I may not see it in as positive a light as others may do so.  This isn't to say that Man of Steel is a bad film however, oh no indeed, in fact its actually quite good particularly in regards to the action, the exposition by Russel Crowe  as Superman's real dad (Jor-El), the aforementioned directing by Zack Snyder and the portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent/Kal-El himself by Henry Cavill.

Anyway, enough with my own exposition, lets get down to the plot which coincidentally is really anything that you'd be forgiven for taking for granted from the source material.  When Superman is a little mite being born out into the world of Krypton it is revealed to us that while he is the first newborn in centuries of Kryptonian history, his monumental birth is marred by the fact that the planet is on the verge of collapse due to the fact that the natural resources are so depleted that the structural integrity of Krypton is wavering.  As Superman's father Jor-El tries and fails to persuade the typically-ridiculously-over-dressed high council of Krypton to find more economical methods of powering Kryprton's energy systems and technology, General Zod (played by Michael Shannon) of the Kryptonian military stages a coup to deal with the council's indecision and find a solution to Krypton's energy crisis pronto.  This coup fails and Zod is thrown in an awesome-looking cryo-tech jail for several decades along with his personal guard while Jor-El is killed by Zod but not before implanting the Codex of Krypton ( the genetic coding of the entire Kryptonian species) within lil' baby superman and shooting him off in a space pod towards earth days before Krypton explodes from sheer instability.  As Superman is discovered on earth by Johnothan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane respectively) he grows up into a world where he must use his rapidly developing super powers sparingly or else alienate (ba-dum-tish) himself from the population of earth but where he must use them increasingly as he goes on in life and crosses more and more dangerous situations like holding up a falling oil rig that's on fire (y'know, the kind of stuff we all help out with normally).  This in itself reaches its peak as General Zod finally discovers where Superman has been all these years and aims to track him and the codex down in order to rebuild Krypton regardless of the damage he causes along the way which brings him into conflict with Superman over the fate of the human race.

Now if that doesn't in itself raise some important questions about morality, what we should prioritise first and the importance of re-usable energy sources in a world where fossil fuels are running out fast then I don't know what does (except half of the major blockbusters of the last 13 years such as The Last Samurai (2003) or Avatar (2009)).  Regardless, the matter of re-usable energy is put across surprisingly effectively in the first 10 mins while the rest of the film is taken up by the conflict between Superman and Zod about what is a greater priority between the preservation of the population that already inhabits earth or the creation of a new Krypton through the destruction of humanity.   And much like the morals being explored in this film as well as the plot, the rest of the film is also relatively straightforward and simple allowing for the audience to be easily drawn in and subsequently understand what the film and its individual characters are trying to convey to us through action, speech and expression.  particularly relevant to this aspect is the central argument and conflict between Cavill's Superman and Shannon's Zod.

This is a bad thing in some films where the characters need an ample amount of character development but there is not enough of a complicated or complex plot to base this progress off of (e.g. see The Losers (2010) or Rambo III (1988)).  However, given the fact that Superman is a characteristically straightforward fellow this actually works not too bad in Man of Steel as Superman's aim is to simply stop Zod from killing everyone on planet earth.  Accompanying this simple expression of conflict and telling of Superman's back-story we also have fight scenes that are strikingly different in the sense that they cover a sprawling amount of destruction caused by the clashes between Zod's forces on one side and the combined might of Superman and the US national guard and air force on the other on both small and huge industrial and urban areas in which the hectic nature of Superman's struggle to preserve American lives while also fending off the equally strong attacks of Zod's lieutenants is shown.  Particularly this is shown as Superman begins to realise that while he is singularly outnumbered and out-trained by Zod's forces, he has a moral superiority over the bad guys and couples this with a greater capability to focus his powers and senses in order to gain advantages in one-on-one fights with Zod's troops.  This aspect of the action in itself is given considerable time throughout the film and is used as both an expression of Superman's connection with both his dead/real parents and his adopted ones and his right to power on account of being the only live Kryptonian who won't do evil with his powers unlike Zod and his troops.  Therefore, some aspects of the action not only serve to grip us to our seats and squeeze our cups of icy lemonade in anticipation but also serve to convey a limited albeit compelling sense of character development in Cavill's adeptly-played role. furthermore on top of all this good stuff, the comedy of Man of Steel is well-placed and not over-used throughout the film unlike in Superman IV: the quest for peace where comedy was the soup of the day and was done so disconnected and poorly that it made Superman IV feel like a drunken dane cook sketch which only made the film worse than it already was (not taking into account the awful special effects and the bizarre villain Nuclear man).  On top of the great action scenes and the well-placed humour, Zack Snyder also treats us to some truly beautiful cinematic scenes of destruction in the form of the death of Krypton at the beginning of the film and the destruction wrought on the fictional American city of metropolis near the end of the film by Zod's terraforming machine during his final gambit to turn Earth into Krypton.

However, taking this all into account and respecting the hard work of Snyder, Cavill and the marvellous exposition by Crowe not to mention the commendable visuals throughout the film, there are some aspects of Man of Steel  that just stuck out a little too uncomfortably for me like the spotty sun-rashes that I got on my feet during my holiday to Greece.  The highest point on this particular list is the fact that the film itself is so simple and straightforward that while the raising of the ethical points I mentioned earlier are done compellingly, they did not have the fullest impact on my views on the subjects of recyclable fuel and prioritisation of pressing issues according to either a conservative or ideological mindset.  Furthermore, despite the visual beauty of the destruction wrought throughout the film, the possibility of thousands of deaths isn't addressed after the battle is won and remained a niggling issue in the back of my head for a while afterwards, something that is particularly the case when metropolis gets the shit kicked out of it by Zod's terraforming machine.  Subsequently, the bad guys are not all that threatening despite their clearly superior numbers and training in comparison to Superman.  Shannon tries his best to make General Zod appear in a perpetual state of anger and misplaced hope throughout the film but instead makes Zod look and sound a little like he's eaten a dozen boiled eggs and half a dozen meatball subs with three bags of toffees and is now having constipation problems while the lieutenants of Zod's forces seem like they went to the Kristen Stewart school of acting.  Lastly, it doesn't take very much for the US military to ally itself with Superman near the climax of the film despite the fact that the US military feared him throughout the majority of the film for the possible destruction he could and does end up causing.

So all in all this film is good but flawed.  Like I said earlier, its good but has some technical flaws and some changes in certain characters just happen way too easily, not to mention the actors who play the main characters don't seem like they care much while Shannon seems like he took acting coaching from the legendarily over-the-top Jeremy Irons (see the first Dungeons and Dragons movie).  However, I would still recommend this film as it stands out from most other modern remakes as being quite good and has admittedly injected the superman movie franchise with some much-needed life after the wet farts that were Superman IV and Superman Returns.  

In conclusion: see this movie if you like superhero films (particularly Superman), good action scenes and Amy Adams dashing good-looks but beware of some hammy acting and lack of a real rounding-up to the 'moral of the story'.

P.S. I'm going away to Whales next week so I'm going to do another 3 posts over the weekend, hope to see you lot soon!

No comments:

Post a Comment