Don’t miss The 602 Club review!
Superman is one of the most popular characters in pop culture and his “S” shield is said to be the second most recognized symbol in the world next to the Christian Cross. It is no wonder that Hollywood has struggled for years to bring this character back to the silver screen. Superman had languished in development hell for years and gone from iteration to iteration with some of Hollywood’s most popular names involved; JJ Abrams and Kevin Smith are just two examples. This year Man of Steel, from the minds of Zack Snyder, David Goyer and Christopher Nolan, finally arrives and gives us the Superman movie that we have always wanted to see. These men have weaved a story that is relevant, real, heartfelt and powerful.
Superman has been called boring because he is nothing but a “big blue boyscout”. Dana Stevens of Slate sums up the issues people have had with Superman when she says,
“Superman’s saintliness is part of what makes him so hard to pull off in our era of dark, brooding, morally conflicted superheroes. Like Mary Poppins, Kal-El aka Clark Kent is practically perfect in every way: honest, pure, brave, compassionate, filial. He can easily come off as a goody-two-shoes when not played by someone as endearingly modest and self-evidently human as Christopher Reeve, whose hold on the character in the public imagination (or at least mine) has never really let go since Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman.”
How do you make this kind of character relevant to a pessimistic, skeptical society that sees truth, justice and the American way a thing of the past?
To do so the creators ask these core questions. If someone like Kal-El existed on our planet how would the world react? Would we accept him or would we reject him out of fear? Would we reject someone who could help us just because we can’t control him? Each of these questions are at the heart of this movie and in doing so the creators have found a way to make Superman relevant for the 21st century.
Different to the Core:
Another way the writers have made Superman relatable is to look at what it would be like to be this person. Kal-El is different and set apart from human beings. This creates an alienation and separation between him and the rest of the world. This sense of estrangement is something that so many of us feel in our lives. We struggle to know where we fit in, that we are loved and accepted and that we are here for a reason.
Jonathan Kent loves his adopted son with a fierce passion and will guard his son’s secret at any cost. He implores Clark to hide his unique abilities until he is ready to shoulder the weight. He fears that the world will reject his son. Yet, in it all Clark trusts this man who is willing to die to protect his secret. Much has been made of Jonathan Kent being out of character in this film but for anyone who has been a father or seen a good one in action, he is right on the money. He tells his son, “You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be Clark. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it’s going to change the world.” Jonathan accepts Clark for who he is, encourages him and teaches him restraint and forbearance, giving him the wisdom that he will need in his life as a man. It is a beautiful picture of unconditional love, very much at the emotional center of this film driven by Kevin Costner’s phenomenal performance.
On the other side is Jor-El. He and Lara send their son off into space to save Kal. They have given him all that they can to ensure his survival. They send him to a world where he will be indestructible, a god to us. He sends his son as someone who will be a guide to humanity, “You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall, but in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.” Jor-El hopes that humans will not make the same mistakes his people have and that Kal-el will be a beacon of hope and a force for good in our world. Clark’s fathers give him a sense of purpose, teach him morality and how one person can be a beacon of hope to the world.
Nature vs. Nurture:
One of the most interesting aspects of the movie is the Kryptonian use of genetic engineering as artificial population control. Krypton was once a planet just like ours with children born naturally and given free choice in who they will become. It lead to a great empire of hope, spreading across the galaxy. To control the population they introduce genetic creation. Children are no longer born of two parents, they are engineered to be soldiers, leaders, workers, teachers and the like. There is no choice, life is predetermined. This lack of adaptability has lead to the destruction of Krypton.
Kal-El is the first natural born Kryptonian in generations. His ultimate strength is not his fists but is adaptability. Zod and his forces cannot change or acclimate, it goes against their very nature. Zod was created to protect Krypton and this blinds him from seeing any solution other than what has always been done. Zod cannot see the wisdom in taking the difficult road of acclimation to earth’s atmosphere, living alongside humans and create a new society. All he can do is act in his nature which cannot adapt or evolve and it is his ultimate undoing.
This point is further driven home in the fight Clark has with Faora. She is taunts him, telling him that his morality holds him back. She expounds on the virtues of how amorality has given Zod’s people an evolutionary advantage and that history has proven that evolution always wins. She is proven wrong when Clark’s morality, his sense of purpose as well as his hope and commitment to the love of others spur him on at his weakest moment. It is a strong argument for value of a virtuous life spent serving what is right even in the most difficult circumstances. It also reinforces the power of choice.
Clark chooses his goodness. He and Jonathan have an argument where he talks about wanting to do something productive with his powers. He wants to help others. His upbringing by the Kents and the morality of the Bible-belt America have instilled in him a desire to be force for good. He willingly chooses to put on the suit and turn himself over to the military (who is portrayed very well in this film), knowing that they will then hand him over to Zod. This movie is about the choices we make and how they define who we are. It is our actions not our words that prove what we believe. We have the choice to do good or evil, to serve ourselves or others and it is these choices that grow us into heroes or villains.
Clash of the Titans:
When Superman Returns came out the fan community as well as the general movie going audience was disappointed with the lack of action and punching. This movie is exactly what was needed, something super. Much has been made in reviews about the destruction levels that are seen in the last 3rd of the film, that it is completely excessive and unnecessary. What do the reviewers think happens when a gravity weapon starts to reshape our planet or two gods fight each other? The destruction that happens in this movie made it realistic. When two beings like Zod and Superman fight, this is the result. The Avengers is a wonderful movie, but the final battle in New York is weak. There may be a lot of action yet the lack of destruction never has one as worried as you are for Metropolis in this final confrontation.
There is another good reason for the destruction we see and that is to justify the choice that Clark makes in resolving the fight with Zod. Many fans have been in an uproar that Superman kills in this film. I believe that this film earns the right to have Superman make this choice. First, Superman does not have a Fortress of Solitude in this film and after the crash of the ship that Zod is in, as well as the loss of the other Kryptonian ships to the Phantom Zone he has no other place to hold or contain Zod. Second, Zod has promised to make the humans suffer and with the destruction that he and Superman wreck in their fight, give us a glimpse at just how bad it could be if he is not dealt with. Third, Superman is responsible for the Kryptonians showing up. If he had never activated the Kryptonian scout ship, Zod and his army would never have shown up. Fourth, if Superman does not kill Zod, he will never give up his quest to destroy humanity. Is it not morally right to kill one person who desires the destruction of the world to save billions? This is the choice before Clark and he makes the right one. The creators had this to say,
“I guess for me–and in the original version of the script he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone–David and I had long talks about it and Chris and I talked long about it and it was like, ‘I really think we should kill Zod and I really think Superman should kill him,’” Snyder explained. “And the why of it was, for me, that if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something, just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet or any of the other things that you’re sort of seeing for the first time that you realize will then become his thing. I felt like, if we can find a way of making it impossible for him–like Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out–I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again, right?’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture and he is responsible for it and he’s just like, ‘How could I kill ever again?’”
He said that after Zod’s purpose was taken from him, he was nothing but a killing machine, and there was really no putting him in jail and walking away. He compared Zod’s actions to “suicide by cop,” tying it back to the repeated use of “a good death is its own reward” in the movie. The warrior bred, Snyder said, felt that if Kal-El was capable of killing him, then that was an honorable way to go after having failed his people.
He also said that in potential sequels, Superman having killed Zod will keep the audience from becoming complacent and thinking they know Superman’s limitations.
“I think that when you really put in stone the notion that he won’t kill, it erases an option in the viewer’s mind,” Snyder said. “That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t now have a code that ‘I just won’t do that; I have to find another way.’”
This is a learning experience for Clark, his coming of age story. As Jonathan told him, he had to choose who he was going to be. Clark chooses to put his faith in humanity and give us a chance to survive. Clark makes the hardest choice anyone can by taking a life for the good of the many.
Heart and Soul:
The heart and soul of this film are the characters. Diane Lane, as Martha Kent, nails it. She is supportive and loving as a mother who is making it up as she goes in caring for an alien child. Her consistent, steadfast belief in her son gives him constant strength. Amy Adams is Lois Lane. She is smart and pugnacious in her search for this mystery man of wonders. Her belief and trust in Clark bring out the best in him and their connection is something that you buy. You never for a second question why these people would be attracted to one another. It is her trust in Clark, her belief that he is here for good that help enable him to put his faith in humanity. Michael Shannon and Antje Traue embody the power hungry Kryptonian warriors with a menace and barbarism that is truly frightening to behold. Lastly, Henry Cavill made you feel everything Clark goes through; the alienation, the loss of his father and the weight of the choice at the end. Cavill carries the film and makes you believe in and root for Superman the entire movie. Casting in this film is spot on for everyone.
There are so many emotional gripping scenes; Clark being loaded into his ship but Jor-El and Lara, his conversation with Jonathan about who he is, Martha lovingly caring for her frighted son. All of these making you truly care about the people and what happens to them. For all the action in this film, it is the emotional resonance that carries you through from the beginning on Krypton to the final moments as Clark dons the glasses at the Daily Planet. Snyder and Goyer have finally given us Superman in a way that makes us believe that he is the king of superheroes. The DC universe is here and this reviewer cannot wait for Man of Steel 2 and the Justice League. This film is rated 9 ½ shields of hope out of 10.
22 thoughts on “Man of Steel – Review”
really loved this movie, i think it was a great start to redo the franchise. great post heres mine on this https://wellthatsdifferent.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/man-of-steel/
I’ll look it up soon!
Great review, Matthew! Though a spoiler alert before the “Clash of the Titans” section would have been nice since I haven’t had the chance to see the movie yet. 🙂 I was hoping to this last weekend but was just too busy, but hopefully I’ll have the chance this weekend.
Anyhow, the more I see/hear about this movie the more interested I become in it. Superman Returns is the ONLY Superman I’ve experienced, and it was quite boring. The story didn’t interest me and Superman himself was so vanilla. I don’t think it was even that he was a goody-two-shoes, as I love a good nice guy (like Steve Rogers/Captain America), but that Superman was not cutting it for whatever reason. I’ve been hopeful with the overseeing from C. Nolan though that this version would be much better. And I’m fascinated with the back story of Kryptonian that you mentioned! Looking forward to seeing it!
I think that this one will be right up your alley. Sorry about spoiling it for you.
That’s alright; when I think about it, something like that shouldn’t even be a real spoiler, though several superheroes do choose to not kill the villain.
That’s true. Most of them are in the DC Universe, Marvel heroes don’t usually have a problem with it unless its Spider-Man
Great review. You managed to put into words how I felt after seeing the film.
Thank you! I’m glad you liked it!
Great review, and you get it! this is a superman for a new generation. I maybe in my forties, but it made me feel like a kid again…
I’m with you, this movie is fun!
Great review, Matthew! I especially liked the way you made this point – “His ultimate strength is not his fists but is adaptability.” I do wish, though, that the movie had made more of Zod and Faora’s inability to adapt because it seems to me that makes them tragic figures. They literally could do no other. Zod talked about it some, but it didn’t really come through in either of their performances, for me. The filmmakers should have explored that more, maybe with a scene in which Superman pleads with Zod to use his powers to help him rebuild Metropolis or something – “You can be more than your biological destiny,” etc. – the triumph of the free will over genetic determinism. “Biology is not destiny,” as one of my seminary profs was fond of saying. It might have a been a more daring choice to redeem Zod instead of snapping his neck (and I say that is one who is more or less okay with how the fight went down – but more creative options were out there).
I’m still deliberating whether Jonathan Kent is on target in this film or not. More or less, I think so, yes, but I do not get the feeling that he imparted any strong moral worldview to Clark — that he gets his moral bearings more from Jor-El, which is a major departure from the standard mythos.
It is true that we can’t force our children to grow up as we would wish, and so there is certainly room for telling them about self-determination — “You have to decide what kind of man you’ll be, Clark” — but “Train up a child…” and all that, as the Kents surely do in other versions. On the other other hand (he said, sounding like Tevye), I can suppose that Jonathan taught Clark by example, and actions do indeed speak louder than words. (I think his death in the tornado was terribly contrived, though. Oh, well.)
Anyway, I agree with most everything else you said (especially about Diane Lane – GREAT Martha Kent!- and Amy Adams – GREAT Lois! *Finally* one who can be Superman’s confidante and partner from square one). Thanks for this!
PS. I once heard that the most recognized symbol in the world, just above the Christian cross, was McDonald’s Golden Arches! Heaven forfend!
I think that Jonathan is so worried about his son in this movie because he knows the world and how fearful they would be of Clark if he does not wait for the right moment to reveal himself. He tells Clark that hitting that other boy would not make him really feel better. Clark was reading Plato at that point and Plato said about the Philosopher KIng
“I need no longer hesitate to say that we must make our guardians philosophers. The necessary combination of qualities is extremely rare. Our test must be thorough, for the soul must be trained up by the pursuit of all kinds of knowledge to the capacity for the pursuit of the highest–higher than justice and wisdom–the idea of the good.
The good is to the intellectual faculty what the sum is to that of vision; it is the source and cause of truth, which is the light whereby we perceive ideas; it is not truth, nor the ideas, but above them; their cause, as the sun is the source of light and the cause of growth.”
Clark was raised to know what is right and wrong by the Kents. He wants to use his powers for good, you see that in his argument with Jonathan in the car (very Birthright). You can also see it in his surrendering to the humans and allowing himself to be turned over to Zod. Clark has learned that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Those are good points. I am sure, once I see the film again, I’ll pick up on a lot more that I missed the first time around. Thanks!
It really does help to see it multiple times, there is a lot that is going on and I think it is better done than what people have given it credit for.
I know what the critics has said. They complained about too much action, superman being too serious, lack of romance, etc. Since Zack Snyder directed this movie, I don’t think he cared about the critics. Don’t get me wrong, he DOES care about the fans’ opinion. Seems like he really wanted to really satisfy the fans. I see why critics complained about too much action. For me it’s just his way to satisfy the viewers. This is the kind of movie that is just really satisfying. When the movie ended, I got that ‘satisfying’ feeling instead of the ‘wanting more’ feeling. It’s like it was really enough.
Even Snyder’s best movies (before this) which were 300 & Watchmen didn’t have more ratings than 64% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think the fans should have anticipated the bad reviews. His style is actually what critics hate. The over the top action and CGI is actually his trademark. So, even from the beginning, I think this is actually the kind of movie the producers wanted. About the lack of romance, I really do think it’s saved for the sequel. The sequel will definitely explore more about the relationship between Clark and Lois. This film focused on 2 aspects: the origin (krypon,struggle finding his place) & the action (Zod and his army). Don’t expect humor or romance.
The visuals were spectacular! What’s best about this movie is its action scenes. The action were just relentless. I think the fans would not be disappointed at all. Yes, I know there is only a very few humor this movie but that actually doesn’t even matter. The battle between Superman & Zod will definitely ‘wow’ everyone but the critics. I mean who cares about the critics opinion? A superhero movie MUST NOT be judged by the critics opinion, what’s more important is the audience’s opinion about the movie and especially the fans’. I think the movie really delivered. Most people will definitely like this movie. I am really sure that many fanboys will consider this as the best comic book of all time. This is a MUST SEE for people who like action movie. The action were better than last year’s The Avengers.
The sequel really have a great potential. Considering the minimum amount of romance in this movie (since they just knew each other, and superman was also more focused on Zod), the next movie could explore more of that. One of the things missing from the movie was also the presence of Clark Kent at the daily planet. It’s one of the trade marks. But, I believe the sequel will show more scenes in the Daily Planet which is interesting to see.
As a conclusion, I think Man of Steel is so far the best action movie this year. This movie really is a Snyder movie. But it also has a quite lot of nolan-esque feel to it especially in the around first 45 minutes.
If this was compared to Iron man 3, if Iron man 3 was a 7, this movie is a 8.6.
More information about the movie you can also find it here
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I wish more people replied like you. I agree with you. I thought that this was a satisfying movie that left me excited about Superman! I might have left satisfied but I also wanted more Superman, which for me was a sign that the movie did what it needed to do, make people interested in Superman again.