You know what the problem with Superman is? It's not that he's OP, or a boy scout, or that he isn't as nuanced and "deep" as other superheroes are. That's actually why I love him. In an irony that has become much more obvious as time goes on, the character who is seen as the poster-boy for generic, bland superheroes that popular culture has been trying to get away from is now refreshing in comparison to everyone else. In a world where every superhero has to be complex or "edgy" or whatever the kids are saying nowadays, the idea of a nice guy using what he has to help people is, and has always been, appealing.

 

Not to say that Clark Kent is easy to write or to "get" as a character. Far from it. But I think people misunderstand why that is. Most would say it's because he's too powerful to be relatable, and that we have to restrict him or add more to make him more relatable.

 

Superman's problem is that we keep coming at him with this mindset, and that's a terrible mindset to have when writing Superman. Instead, the perfect example of this type of character done right is Captain America: The First Avenger. What makes Steve Rogers such a great hero, much like Clark Kent, is that he's relateable because he's likeable. They're the kind of people we want to be like, and we care about them not because we can see them happening in our world (realism is not an indicator of relatability), but simply because we want them to succeed.

 

Superman was never about a hero trying to achieve his full potential; it was about a guy who already did and serves as a role model to mankind, both as a hero and as a good person.

 

While I get the argument that Superman being as powerful as he is may get boring, keep in mind that it isn't as big a problem as many think it is. People only think that because of the movies, where there's just Lex Luthor and he's just catching some boats or something; there's always worthy challengers in his stories. Plus, watching a guy that powerful do his thing is always really fun to watch.

 

I bring all this up because while I think director Zack Snyder get's that, particularly the whole "this guy can do anything, so let's make this bigger than any other superhero movie can manage" thing, I don't think Christopher Nolan or writer David S. Goyer got it. At all. They briefly touch on the whole "beacon for humanity" thing, and it's kind of interesting seeing how a 21st century Earth would respond to a Kryptonian, but the whole thing is just bogged down with questions about Superman's role as a protector and explanations of the story's mechanisms.

 

Maybe I've been spoiled by The Avengers and Iron Man 3, and odds are most normal people are gonna dig what is the most badass Superman movie yet, but if any character was an excuse to just cut loose and make an awesome, fun superhero movie, it would be Superman. By no means do I mean it should be cheerful 100% of the way through (his origin story involves the death of nearly his entire race), but after forty minutes of a muted, desaturated world where Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is wondering whether he should actually use his powers to help people at the risk of incurring the fear and mistrust of a species not ready for it, you wish they'd just get on with it and have fun.

 

But the most "totally-not-getting-it" feature of the movie is that it's constantly reminding us that Clark is an alien outsider. The youngest we see the character is when he's struggling with the fact that he can see through people's skin while his classmates comment on how weird and insular he is, and pretty much every Clark scene after that is him struggling not to contain his alien-ness. Fact is that he's Clark Kent and a human first, a Kryptonian second. Instead, we get a movie that probably uses the name "Kal-El" more than "Clark".

 

On a related note, they only say "Superman" two or three times in this two and a half hour movie. You know, because Gawd forbid a superhero movie not be ashamed of the sillier or cornier elements that made it a superhero tale in the first place. Again, probably spoiled by Marvel's Cinematic Universe.

 

Clark Kent's origin story hasn't really been changed all that much, except for some added details to set up the plot for the movie. Krypton still blows up, but it now happens due in part to a complete draining of its resources by its inhabitants and a short but violent civil war instigated by the Kryptonian military class, led by the ruthless General Zod (Michael Shannon). His intention is to save Krypton through the genetic cleansing of his people, essentially leaving only the bloodlines he deems worthy of survival. Zod's former colleague, Jor-El (Russel Crowe), instead wants the opposite: an abandonment of the laws that selectively breeds Kyrptonians and places them into per-selected roles, instead promoting free will and chance. As such, Jor-El's son, Kal-El, is the first natural Kryptonian birth in centuries.

 

Zod won't have any of that shit, but he's unable to stop Jor-El from launching his son (who holds the key to Krypton's future due to somewhat vague and complicated reasons) into space, while Zod and his gang of ruffians are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone hours before Krypton is destroyed.

 

So Kal-El lands in rural Kansas, is discovered and raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), named Clark, all that good stuff. Eventually Clark decides he needs to travel the world to figure out who he is and how to interact with humanity. Eventually he discovers his Kryptonian origins via an alien craft buried in the Arctic, along with the iconic suit and a new sense of purpose.

 

Wait, no, he's still trying to determine how he should interact with humanity.

 

 

The timing of his discovery comes only a few days before General Zod and his crew, having escaped the Phantom Zone, show up on Earth to capture Kal-El and use the planet as a stepping stone for rebuilding the Kryptonian Empire in their image. Superman won't have any of that shit, and the rest of the movie becomes a battle to save the Earth, with the help of reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and the occasional words of wisdom from his Ghost Dad.

 

The cast is putting forth a lot of effort, even if the characters they play never give them a chance to really stretch their legs (with one notable exception). Cavill seems to have a handle on Superman, but he only ever gets to play either confused Kal-El struggling to find a purpose or Superman being pissed off. We only get a taste of the classic Superman we all know and (hopefully) love, and we never get to see him just be Clark Kent.

 

Adams is trying her darnest as Lois Lane, but the writers never give her anything to do except snoop around a bit in the second act. But worst off all, she doesn't seem to have any chemistry with Cavill, and seeing as how important that relationship is to the character (and popular culture as a whole), that's tragic.

 

Crowe is pretty solid as Jor-El. Maybe a bit too similar to Marlon Brando's version of the character, but he has a presence and the right combination of emotion and Spock-esque coolness.

 

Costner and Lane are great as the Kents, bringing a lot of warmth to a movie that really needs it, though I wish Jon Kent would dial back the "you're gonna change the world, son" speeches.

 

Then there's Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and the rest of the staff of the Daily Planet, where Lois--actually they don't really factor into this at all. In fact it feels they were here just because it's a Superman movie. Moving on.

 

Surprisingly, some of the best moments in the movie come from Colonel Nathan Hardy (Christopher Meloni), the military man who interacts with Superman the most. His character, again, doesn't have too much to do, but when Meloni needs to deliver an important line, he gawddamn delivers an important line.

 

But by far the best performance and character is Shannon as Zod. Shannon is one the best character actors out there (

), particularly excelling villain roles. Zod is no different, with Shannon effortlessly balancing intensity and a commanding presence with pure rage. It certainly helps that the writing really picks up with Zod; he's cruel and vengeful, but believes with every fiber of his being that what he's doing is the right thing.

 

There's this fantastic scene near the end where Zod is pushed past his breaking point and goes into full on evil mode, delivering a speech that comic book awesomeness is made off. It's cheesy (one line in particular is corny as all hell), but it's sort of poetic and the kind of over the top superhero dialogue I've been wanting this whole movie, so whatever.

 

In the end he's the only character who really ends up being compelling by himself, unfortunately. For me, at least.

 

So at this point it probably feels like I found the movie disappointing and mediocre. Yes, it was disappointing in many respects, but despite all the things I felt they did wrong, I highly recommend it, even going as far to say that if you plan on watching it, see it in theaters, because the battle sequences are awe-inspiring. It's the best descriptor I could think of.

 

It's kind of like how people say that you should see Transformers just for the action, but unlike in those movies, these action scenes aren't shitty. Far from it. Not only are they just around well directed and put together, but they're on a scale and visual level that's second to none. Punches and kicks land with enough force to level a city block. The battles are fought at supersonic speeds, but last several minutes instead of ending quickly, creating a constant assault on your senses. A lot of thought was obviously put into visualizing what characters of such immense powers trying to beat each to death would look like, and it's probably as close as we're going to get for a while.

 

You can see where all the budget went in this movie, and it's here that you see Snyder really excel at his talent as a director. If I was more invested in what was going on, I'd name the fight scenes (the climatic one in particular) the best superhero action scenes ever (The Avengers and Spider-Man 2's brawls still take the cake).

 

If I have one gripe with the content of the action scenes is that I wish there was more scenes of Superman doing his thing: breaking off from a fight to save people caught in the crossfire, or redirecting the battle away from the population. That's the kind of stuff I love about the character. Instead, he doesn't really seem to notice the citizens who are stuck in the middle of it all, and aside from one or two moments, he doesn't really make an effort to actively help people or contain the violence. In fact, the reason one of the fistfights breaks out in Smallville is because Superman actually seem to draw them there, and by "drew them there", I mean he flat out threw Zod through a gas station full of people.

 

But that's a nitpick (I think), and in the end, it's satisfying to finally get a Superman movie with such a display of raw power, and it ain't just restricted to the fight scenes, or even scenes with Kyrptonians. Whether it be something as simple as a school bus falling off a bridge or a (rather random) tornado flipping cars and debris all over the place. When the movie isn't contemplating humanity or something, it's as big as a movie can get.

 

Also, it looks cool. Snyder is one of the best visual directors out there, and Man of Steel is no different. The muted tones (which actually work well here), the depiction of Superman moving at Mach 11 speeds, the H.R. Giger-esque design of Krypton, it all just looks great.

 

I absolutely love the music too. It's not John Williams, but it works as a new theme for a new generation. It's big and triumphant, and it fits the character well.

 

It may not really grasp why Superman is so great, but Man of Steel is worth it just for the visuals and the spectacle.

 

And while I am always against a movie trying to get away with skimping on a satisfying experience with a promise that everything will be better/be explained/the promises made for this movie will be kept next time, there's enough enjoyment here that I can overlook that the movie implies the Superman movie I wished this was will happen next time.

 

Do I think it works as a movie that best represents 75 years of stories and why the character has endured as long as he has? No. But I had a good time once the bing-bangy scenes started dropping, and if this movie succeeds and inspires Warner Bros. to get off their collective asses so they can do the DC Universe (at least the parts that are not Batman) cinematic justice, than I can dig it.

 

7/10

 

P.S. I like Christopher Nolan and love his first two Batman movies, just to be clear. I just don't think his approach the Dark Knight Trilogy took was appropriate for Superman at all. The only reason he's attached to the project at all is because Warner Bros. wants him to be the godfather of the DC Cinematic Universe, when he'd rather not.

 

P.P.S. The costume looks alright overall. I rather the colors were a bit more vibrant and the texture is distracting, but the CGI cape looks good and I love the emblem.

 

P.P.P.S. Why is Jimmy Olsen a lady now? I don't mind, but I also don't really see the point. Ah well.

 

P.P.P.P.S. The little fist fight between Jor-El and Zod was pretty cool. I wish Snyder had directed the Bane fights in Dark Knight Rises.

 

P.P.P.P.P.S. At least this Superman movie can safetly claim it has more implied dead fetuses than any other movie in the franchise.