Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel gets so much right that it makes it that much more frustrating when it fumbles the most basic elements. It’s a frenetic, thrilling exercise in style and outsized-action, but I can’t help feeling that somewhere along the way they missed the point.
On the dying planet, Krypton, chief scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his infant son, Kal-El (played as an adult by Henry Cavill) to Earth, after downloading the ‘Cortex’ into his DNA and shortly before he (Jor-El) is killed by General Zod (Michael Shannon), the military commander of Krypton who intends to conquer another world to preserve their race. After Krypton explodes, Kal-El’s little ship lands in Kansas, where he’s raised by farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Developing god-like powers from Earth’s sunlight, young Clark Kent (as he’s now named) travels the Earth searching for a purpose. Meanwhile, General Zod and his followers have survived Krypton and are searching for Jor-El’s son to continue their plans…
First, I suppose, we should talk about what the film gets right. It’s marvelously cast: Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman/Clark Kent. He doesn’t redefine the role, like Christopher Reeves did, but he’s certainly a good fit. Even better is Amy Adams as Lois Lane, who is easily the best big-screen version of the character to date (even though her Lois is much less feisty and sarcastic than most depictions). Russell Crowe brings his effortless dignity and sympathy to the role of Jor-El (which here is greatly expanded, more on that below), and Lawrence Fishbourne, despite his reduced screen-time, is an absolutely perfect Perry White. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are good choices for the Kents, and Christopher Meloni more or less steals the show as the distrustful Colonel Hardy.
The only cast member I’m not sure of is Michael Shannon as General Zod. His performance varies wildly from hammy over-the-top scenery chewing to cold, calculating menace. How much of that is Shannon’s doing and how much Snyder’s is open for dispute, but I’d say he’s probably the weakest of the main cast. He’s at his worst in the early scenes and improves as the movie goes on.
On the other hand, taking the character simply as a character, Zod makes an imposing villain, and I applaud the filmmakers for saving Lex Luthor for a possible sequel.
The action is excellent; just the kind of huge, outsized combat we have always wanted from a Superman movie. Previous films have either been too hampered by technology or by a curiously reluctant script to give Superman his due, but here the filmmakers cut loose and show us just how powerful he and the other Kryptonians really are. Characters fly through the air, smash through skyscrapers, hurl locomotives, and blast each other with eye-beams.
Some revisions to the classic storyline make sense, especially their decision to drop the much-mocked inability of Lois to recognize Clark because he puts on a pair of glasses. Here they meet before Clark joins the Daily Planet and he doesn’t really try to hide his identity from her. This leads to a nice moment where they talk about why Clark hides his identity and Lois decides to drop her investigation into him and leave him be. I also like the idea of Clark drifting from place to place like David Banner in The Incredible Hulk, though the film doesn’t make of this what it might have (contrast Clark’s rather impersonal interactions with Bruce’s familiar, friendly relationship with his foreman and fellow workers in Letterier’s Hulk). In particular, an interaction with a bullying trucker plays out all wrong and makes Clark out to be much pettier than he ought to be.
What happens is this (I’m going to describe it in detail because it’s a good sample of how this version goes wrong); Clark’s working as a bus-boy at a diner when he sees a drunk trucker harrassing a waitress. He stands up for her, asking the man to leave, and the trucker gets in his face and dares Clark to make him. Clark responds by turning in his apron and walking away, even after the guy hits him and throws a beer bottle at his head on the way out. Later, the trucker comes out to find his truck smashed and impaled on the logs he was hauling.
There is so, so much wrong here. First of all, how does destroying the man’s truck an hour later teach him any kind of lesson? Would the man even connect it with his treatment of the waitress? And it gets worse the more you think about it; the man didn’t own that truck or those logs, they were someone else’s property, which he was only employed to transport, and which Clark just destroyed in what appears to be a temper-tantrum. How is destroying something that belongs to an uninvolved third party any morally superior to beating up a lewd bully to defend a woman? Clark can’t be worried about losing his job: he quits. If he’s worried about keeping a low profile, I think a semi-truck impaled by logs is going to attract more attention than a run-of-the-mill bar-fight. Moreover, Clark ought to have the control to beat the guy enough to teach him a lesson without either seriously injuring him or revealing his powers. Any other version of Clark would know which was the right choice without hesitation (heck, the Christopher Reeves version did it even without his powers. He got beaten up for it, but still).
And that’s the biggest problem here: the framework – set-up, casting, etc. – is great. It’s the details that are wrong. The filmmakers took on one of the most morally-centered and honestly-good superheroes in the world, but it’s pretty obvious they had no clear idea of what an honestly good person would look like. A truly good person, like Clark ought to be, would either have fought the jerk to protect his coworker, or just walked away entirely. One thing he wouldn’t do is take out his anger in an act of petty vandalism. Throughout the film Clark keeps making morally dubious choices; stealing clothes, for instance, or making no effort to move the cataclysmic battles out of populated areas. It doesn’t feel like the filmmakers were consciously trying to compromise him, but that they honestly didn’t stop to consider these factors.
On that note the character of Jonathan Kent is particularly troublesome. Kevin Costner gives a good performance, and he has some of the most moving scenes in the film (especially when he reveals to Clark his true heritage) while also projecting exactly the kind of honest, simple masculinity that the character requires, but he also has some of the movie’s worst moments as well. I’m sorry, but I cannot accept any version of Jonathan Kent who would suggest that it might be better for Clark to let innocent people die than to reveal his true nature. Or any version of Clark who would follow such advice. Pa Kent’s exit is the film’s nadir and threatens to derail the whole thing.
Contrast this with Captain America, which also featured an iconic moral hero its center. In that movie Steve Rogers did things like demanding respect for soldiers serving overseas or trying to keep civilians out of harm’s way, even if meant possibly failing in his mission. Clark never does anything like that here; the closest he comes is yelling to people to get inside as he battles the evil Kryptonians. Clark’s still a nice and polite guy, but he’s not the icon of goodness that he needs to be.
Oddly enough, there is a character here who evinces just the kind of selfless heroics that Clark should; Col. Hardy. I must say, it’s wonderfully refreshing to see a mainstream Hollywood movie – and one in which the military is often at odds with the hero – that presents a prominent soldier character who evinces real heroism, honor, and even chivalry. In one scene, when the Kryptonians come to take Superman to meet with Zod, they unexpectedly demand to take Lois as well. Hardy unhesitatingly steps in front of her and says that’s not happening. When the Kryptonian envoy threatens to tell Zod that the humans aren’t cooperating, Hardy looks her in the eye and says “I don’t care what you tell him.”
It’s only the first of several times that Hardy shows the kind of courage and moral fiber that Superman, alas, never really gets the chance to. On the one hand that’s to be expected: Hardy’s an ordinary man who can die, Superman is effectively invulnerable, so Hardy has more scope to demonstrate true courage and self-sacrifce. But it doesn’t really help Jor-El’s claim that Superman will be an ideal for humans to strive for when humanity already seems to be producing heroes of at least equal moral caliber. I’m not saying I wanted humanity to be presented more unfavorably, but that Superman needed to be better to create some contrast.
I do like that Clark embraces and seems proud of his American heritage. When a high-ranking general asks how he knows Superman won’t act against America’s interests, Clark answers “I’m from Kansas, General; I’m as American as it gets!”
Though, in light of the rest of film, this assertion falls somewhat flat. Clark’s alienation and sense of not belonging are highlighted so much here that he loses most of his small-town, boy-next-door charm. I don’t mind Clark being bullied at school, or feeling restless and disconnected from normal humans, but those can’t be his only – or even his primary – attributes. Those are the feelings that come out when he’s alone or isolated, or when he has to done the suit and go into action. In normal, everyday life he ought to have more friends, be more outgoing, fit in better. Clark as a complete social-misfit is, to my mind, a terrible misstep. It loses the idea that Clark represents the best of both worlds: Kryptonian power coupled with a small-town American character. Here he keeps the power, but loses the character.
Compare this displaced, introverted outcast with, say, Christopher Reeves in the original films. Or the animated version, yelling for Ma Kent not to put the star on top of the Christmas tree because “that’s my job!” and lamenting that all the presents are wrapped in lead so he can’t peak. Or even Dean Cain from TV’s Lois and Clark gushing about the Smallville corn-festival. I understand that this is supposed to be a reinterpretation of the character with specific emphases, but, well, there’s good and bad reinterpretations, and this version is, to me, much less interesting and likeable than most. There’s too much alien and not enough human. In short, I think, in the midst of all the style and action and angst and all the rest, they missed the essentials of who their protagonist is.
On the other hand, the Christological themes of the Superman story are presented here in a respectful and fairly intriguing manner. Pa Kent’s line about Clark having “another father” could, as other critics have pointed out, been said by St. Joseph himself. Early on, during his wandering days, Clark wears a beard that gives him a Christ-like appearance, and at one point he even goes to a priest for advice, his face framed by a depiction of Gethsemane (the priest himself is well-portrayed, especially his deliberate non-reaction to Clark’s confession that he’s the alien everyone’s talking about). Likewise, repeated speeches about Superman being the ‘ideal to strive for,’ being sent to ‘elevate’ humanity, and so forth can’t help but remind one of humanity’s true Savior.
The expanded back-story of Krypton gives an intriguing critique of ‘designer babies’ and artificial reproduction. Jor-El rightly points out that such things infringe upon the rights and freedom of the children so produced, because it removes their ability to choose their path in life. Here Kal-El is presented as the first natural Kryptonian birth in centuries, something that Zod decries as ‘heresy!’ The pro-life angle, with natural conception and birth contrasted favorably with artificial conception and the evident love and care that Kal-El’s parents have for their infant son, is well-done and much appreciated.
On Earth, I really liked Diane Lane’s Martha Kent and her relationship with Clark (furthering the Christological resonances, I couldn’t help thinking of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother). There’s a touching scene in which Clark tells her about meeting Jor-El, and she tries to be happy for him, though is clearly saddened by the new complication in their relationship. She also has a great scene where she faces down General Zod himself, which not only showcases her steely courage, but also gives Clark a rare and satisfying opportunity to really go berserk.
I mentioned some of this before, but I do like that almost all the characters – Ma and Pa Kent, Jor-El, Lois, Perry, Hardy, and even Richard Schiff’s Dr. Hamilton – get opportunities for heroics. One of the complaints of the Superman story is that he’s simply too powerful and the other characters – especially Lois – just have to sit around and wait for him to save the day. On the other hand, here it’s almost the reverse, with Superman nearly getting lost in the sea of heroism and the only thing separating him from anyone else is his powers. There were times when I caught myself wishing for a movie featuring the adventures of Hardy, Hamilton, and Nameless-Cute-Female-Captain without bothering about Superman.
Regarding Jor-El, his role has been broadly and rather clumsily expanded, either because they wanted to make use of Russell Crowe, or for some other reason. Here Jor-El not only gets action scenes in the opening on Krypton (riding a giant dragon-fly, sword-fighting Zod, etc), but even later, after his death. He even rescues Lois at one point! While I’m the last person to complain about Russell Crowe’s presence, I think this somewhat revisionist decision was a mistake. It further lessens Superman’s impact (what kind of ultimate hero needs his dad to come up with his master plan for him?) and, honestly, just feels kind of silly.
I’m also not sure how I feel about the style of the film; the repeated artsy close-ups and flashbacks. Non-linear storytelling worked wonderfully in Batman Begins, but I’m not sure if it works here, at least coupled with Snyder’s directorial style. Christopher Nolan shot the flashbacks essentially the same as the rest of the movie. Snyder goes for a dreamy series of extreme close-ups, silent imagery, and haunting music. I’m not a big fan of this type of direction at the best of times, and in a superhero adventure – especially a Superman adventure – it feels jarringly out of place.
All this makes me wonder whether Zack Snyder, whose films are often more stylish than substantive, was really the right director for a Superman movie. His direction feels too self-indulgent, too consciously artistic for the material, which I think demands a lighter, or at least a different touch. Someone like Jon Favreau, Joe Johnston, Brad Bird, or even Nolan himself would probably have been a better fit.
Then there’s the fact that the scope of the villain’s threat is so large that I really have to question where a sequel could possibly go. What could Lex Luthor do that would be a larger threat than what Zod does here? How could anything the next movie provides be anything but a let-down without just blowing up the planet? I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but certainly the filmmakers have left themselves a very difficult task if they plan to turn this into a series (which they obviously do).
Finally, at the very end of the movie, Superman does something that fans of the character will find extremely problematic. The act is arguably both moral and necessary, given the circumstances, but it doesn’t feel apiece with who Superman is and ought to be. Besides, even if (like me) you don’t find what he does morally suspect, you can’t help thinking that Superman really should have been clever and resourceful enough to resolve the situation by some other means.
I don’t want to sound too negative. Even with all its flaws, Man of Steel is a worthwhile experience, filled with well-executed set-pieces and clever conceits. The sensory overload that Clark – and later Zod – experiences when his powers first begin to manifest is a good example of the thoughtfulness the film put into his powers. I also like the fact that when he first tries flying, he ends up plowing through a mountain. The interrogation room scene, where Superman obligingly goes along with such obviously inadequate measures as hand-cuffs and a one-way mirror, is smartly written, as is the first meeting between Clark and Lois, where he (of course) saves her life, though he has to perform a little cringe-inducing first-aid to do so (Lois seems to have a truly staggering ratio of ‘danger-to-actual-injury’ in most other versions, doesn’t she?). Lois herself is one of the highlights of the movie; driven, courageous, a little foolhardy, but ultimately honest and self-sacrificing. It’s easy to see why Clark is so taken with her (and, traditionalist that I am, I was cheered by the fact that they made Lois a strong, independent woman while still requiring her to be rescued quite a lot).
But the great Superman movie remains to be made. The first attempts had a perfect Clark Kent/Superman in Christopher Reeves, but were too light and cheesy and hampered by miscasting among the supporting players. This one has a good cast and spectacular action, but is too dark and grim and misses who Clark Kent is and ought to be. Somewhere in between lays the essential Superman adventure. For now, Man of Steel is an entertaining enough attempt, but I’ll take it as a signpost directing future filmmakers to something better.
Final Rating: 3/5. Entertaining and occasionally spectacular, with much-appreciated themes, but fumbles the character and his story at their core.
