How does one review the Man of Steel? With a bit of Kryptonite between one's teeth. That is how I suspect the director has directed this film, too.
Superman's story has always been one from the human's perspective. Even the Krypton narratives have traditionally been done pretty human like. But Zach Snyder wants us to forget the past and learn about Superman in a new way. His way, Nolan's way. The doomed planet and the shenanigans of those that occupy it take much of the movie' more than needed in my view. Flipside is Russel Crowe gets to do much more than Marlon Brando got to in the 1979 flick. Only difference is Richard Donner was way more successful a director than Snyder is. But that's not an issue here. but its a realisation that sticks.
The cinematic similarities between Star Trek and MOS are riveting. Doomed Planet check, high council check, Earth's core in peril, check. Villians from space, check. Not just this list but General Zod's very grey character has never been clearly shown as evil. But he got the bangs. Julius Ceaser himself hadn't got this as good.
I love the depiction despite the similarities ringing in my mind. But what I could not fathom was why have the cross processing that gave the film a shot in the deep freezer look. Everybody is paler. but the clotheslines sequences are pure magic. seen it in the trailers but even then. And check out Fishburne hamming a restrained Perry White. Yes he's done it.
Amy Adams succeeds in being completely ignorable in her role. Zod's henchwoman though is hot. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are superbly cast in their roles but Kent Sr's death is too 'filmy' for my liking. Smacks of unnecessary drama. After all this is Kansas, not Sparta! Lane does little with the few opportunities she got. Maybe its that kind of film.
So it brings us to the hero of the film. Like any action, sci fi superhero movie, its the effects and camera work. The true hero of the movie is speed and nothing else. So much so that most of the time you don't get much of what is being shown.
Half the movie goes before Clark dons the blue suit. And when he does, its missing the trademark red briefs. How can you have Superman and not have red chadds? That to me smacks of desperation on part of the makers to reinterpret Superman. Did they sit sround saying things like "He is ridiculous in that red thing. His cape is red, his boots are red and thats it. No red briefs" What they dont understand is that he is going to look ridiculous either ways. What they don't understand is he doesnt care. And unlike all other superheroes Superman has no dark sides. He is a clear, one sided chap. He doesn't have doubts in his mind. He doesn't have to....And the forcefully inserted darker elements that this movie tries to depict all fall flat.
There is another chap in the movie, Henry Cavill, now what role did he play? Honestly,for all the cheesiness, I'd take a Christopher Reeve over him any day or even a Brandon Routh. But this guy is too square jawed... Too stiff and too expressionless. In my book he is useless. And by making Superman kill someone they made him go bad...not a good thing. Henry, dear lost boy, you may be a demi god but not a Superman. Definetely not without the red undies.
