Man of Steel

Subjectively: the last time I left the movie theatre this numb was after Sucker Punch, and I must add that Man of Steel is a much better directed film. If I keep my distance from the purely debilitating digital whirlwind of falling skyscrapers and exploding molecules of nothingness, then I must highlight the following: Goyer's attempt to elaborate the Krypton storyline and Superman's mythology. Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon have a huge share in the certain impact that the film has, whose characters are played and written much better than the rest of the film (Shannon's casting was far-sighted). The character of Clark Kent, played by Cavill with the pensiveness of a model whose shirts were all stolen, did not receive similar care and sophistication. The attempt to move Superman / Kent to the plane of one inseparable being, a closed-off and lonely alien, is fragmented by his performance and the fact that, unlike Batman's reboot, there is a lack of character development or some obvious internal transformation / dilemma. Man of Steel and his childhood flashbacks are purely generic, and in terms of content / meaning they don't really deviate too much from the Donner storyline (they just lack exaggeration), Cavill frowns through the stormy sea and finds himself in the inevitable situation where, as God, he overcomes the speed of sound and destroys cities with villains. The duel with Zod forms a surprisingly large part of the film, and if you don't buy into this trick extravaganza right at the beginning, you will literally be beaten by locomotives and tons of reinforced concrete. The hint of perspective comes late, and Superman's seriousness is monotonously persistent, but without feeling in any way dark and problematic. Simply a monolithic and well-produced blockbuster, with which I had only a minimum of fun. (2013-06-14)

Donner’s original Superman was open to New Testament interpretations, so it is not surprising that Snyder didn’t hesitate to use the budget for Man of Steel to make a modern Biblical epic. The apocalyptic climax, which evokes the feeling that two ideologies have clashed and the whole world is facing destruction, is merely the inevitable spectacular culmination of an epic story that follows the successive inceptions of Kal-El, Clark Kent and Superman. The other two narrative units are deliberately “broken up” by numerous flashbacks (like the whole Watchmen film), which hold our attention by clarifying new facts and aiding character development (at least for our basic orientation in space and time, we have to keep in mind from where we have jumped back to the past). In addition to rhythmising the narrative, the flashbacks also help to exploit the storytelling potential of the supporting characters, who are not entirely overshadowed by the main protagonist thanks to comprehensible parallels (Lois cannot write the truth about Superman; Superman cannot boast about his abilities). Lois Lane, who represents an unusually strong female protagonist (not only in the comic-book adaptations), undergoes the most significant change. Though she does let herself be led by a man (or the voice of God?) in the film’s least spectacular (and, in my opinion, best) action scene, she otherwise definitely does not just dully wait around to see what will happen to her and who will rescue her, and thanks to what she knows, here presence is even a necessary condition for good to triumph over evil. Man of Steel doesn’t say much that’s new (only the concept of Krypton – which incidentally resembles the art of H.R. Giger – as an “ideal” Platonic society, which Superman, as an “American hero”, ultimately rejects in favour of American democracy, is elaborated upon to some extent), but at least it gathers together and distributes old information in an original way. Like Batman Begins and Skyfall, Man of Steel goes back the roots of a heroic myth, while at the same time attempting to confront it with reality, of course within the realm of possibility that the genre offers. Besides the pseudo-realistic indie style of the directing, this is apparent particularly in the loss of the previous films’ sense of levity. Of course, Superman is still a guy who can fly and lift a school bus, but now he has to flex all of his muscles, grit his teeth and work up a proper sweat. Thanks to the fact that the film’s air of ancient tragedy is actually believable, Cavill’s strained expression during the difficult physical performances is not unintentionally funny. Thanks to its actors, the emotions that it evokes and especially the pathos of which it is not ashamed, Man of Steel is, in my opinion, the blockbuster highlight of the year so far, as it superbly finds a balance between the silliness of Iron Man and the nerds of Star Trek with its heartfelt earnestness. 85% (2013-06-24)

Is it a man? Is it a plane? It’s... Big, it’s big, it’ big. It’s hopeless, it’s hopeless, it’s hopeless. Massively effective, but at other times unfortunately just effective. Self-centered, pretentious pathos, interspersed with incredibly opulent action following the maxim “any one second of action when a skyscraper doesn’t collapse or nobody throws a locomotive at anybody else and where there aren’t at least seven cuts and fifteen reflections is a god-forsaken, wasted second of action". Tons of pathos, but no levity or tongue-in-cheek. Just the falling skyscrapers, deathly serious faces, falling skyscrapers, character “psychology" reduced to moralizing two-word sentences, only sounding right from the mouth of charisma-oozing Crowe, falling skyscrapers, falling fighter planes, falling people, flying extraterrestrials and a couple of falling skyscrapers for good measure. If, same as the skyscrapers, you can’t take all of this (and that could easily be the case), this turns into a good movie to laugh at in ridicule, more than anything else. I could take it, but for me to like it, the ratio of the almost non existent down-to-earth storyline to the cold, action (and, purely subjectively, endless and therefore numbing) part would have to be more than 1:5(00); and it really wouldn’t hurt if the creators could lighten up a little. (2013-06-18)

I have to admit that the Man of Steel made me quite happy. At a time where every other franchise gets a restart, I would expect anything from this film except for proper filmmaking craft. Although, in the end, it is pretty logical – what else should they use to interest the audience, if not a quality camera, action and great shots, right? However, there is always a but. In this movie it is the story, which was sometimes difficult to handle. While Henry Cavill is a good Superman, I can’t help it, but his transformation into Superman took a hell of a long time. For example, I was really angered by the fact that he takes flight for the first time only after half of the movie. The creators did not explain a lot of things and simply stretched the script as they deemed fit. Well, okay, I enjoyed the film as a whole, but I won’t necessarily watch its second instalment as well. It doesn’t change the fact that there has been too many of these movies recently. Unnecessarily too many. (2014-06-21)

All pleasant memories of this film in the future will only be connected with the first half, when Clark is finding his place in the world, discovering his abilities and some emotions are thrown in. The rest of the runtime can be described in two words: Digital mess. Nevertheless, Henry Cavill is a likeable guy and the real Superman, I wouldn't be opposed to a more sober sequel with him. The potential is there. (2013-06-22)