Author's Note: This is going to be the first in a two part review for Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel'. Part 1 ( see below) will focus on my critique of the movie itself, while part 2, will focus on the broader sociological and cultural implications that the film presents (written at a later date).
To quote my favorite fictional archeologist..."Spoilers."
Man of Steel...Feet of Lead.
Superman was a big part of my childhood. I grew up in the 1980's, so my first real exposure to Superman was through the VCR (video cassette recorder, for you youngsters). As a child with a disability, when I first laid eyes on "the big blue boy-scout", I was hooked. Superman was not only my first superhero, but it was the first time I dreamed about being something more, beyond the physical limitations that were in front of me. Limitations that I believed shackled me, and made feel worthless. When I saw Superman, for the first time, I strived to want more, to be better. Like him, I wanted to soar. I can not count the number of times I made my parents rent and watch the Christopher Reeve Superman series (Probably about as many times as my nephew has seen Car 2...which is to say A LOT). I even had a home-made Superman costume that I wore everywhere. As you may assume, I have a lot of reverence for the character of Superman both personally and as a cultural Icon. However, Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel' is such a bloated, shaky, incoherent mess, it robs Superman of his majesty, grace, morality, and above all...hope. Snyder "accomplishes" this through a disjointed plot, two- dimensional/underdeveloped characters, poorly written dialogue and sloppy direction.
The story begins on Krypton with Lara Lor-Van in labor. This is where the problems start. The birth of Kal-L (AKA Superman) is the first natural childbirth in centuries on Krypton. We are never told why this is important. Are we to assume that it is this "naturalness" that allows Kal-L to be infused with the codex ( a "key" that holds the genetic code of all Kryptonians)? Or are we to assume that this trait makes him more powerful than the other "synthetic" Kryptonians? Though we are lead to believe his authenticity is significant, it is a plot point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately this "road to nowhere" becomes a running theme through the whole film.
Not only has the planet of Krypton had an embargo on natural childbirth, but each of the "synthetic" Kryptonians is grown for a single purpose: "Some are warriors, others are scientists" we are told. But two minutes later, we see someone who is both a scientist AND a warrior. I do not have a problem adding to, or changing aspects of a story from its source material (especially one so rich as Superman's) but at least stick to the rules that you set.
Detracting more from the origin that even the general public is familiar with, Krypton's destruction does not come at the hands of a supernova, but through resource depletion. This change IS one of significance. It reduces the tragedy of Krypton from one of great loss (a civilization wiped out by an unavoidable astral event) to one of ecological retribution (strip the planet bare and pay the consequences) Added to this is the unnecessary change of Krypton's star NOT being a RED sun. Visibly, the sun looks YELLOW and in the film it is heavily implied (though never stated) that Krypton's sun is Yellow but older than the sun on earth. It is this difference which allows Kryptonian physiology to absorb its radiation...granting powers). As these significant and unnecessary differences began to mount, I started to get angry.
That anger would not be swayed by the film's non-linear story structure. Now being a BIG Christopher Nolan Fan, I am used to non-linear story structure. When it is done well and it serves a purpose, it can make a good script great. In 'Man of Steel' however, it makes it worse. From a shot of the rocket ship hurling past the moon toward earth, we flash forward 33 years to loner Clark (AKA "Hobo-Superman") on a shrimp boat. These time skips do not just happen once, but several times throughout the film. Occurring inexplicably out of nowhere, these flashbacks are out of sequence even with themselves! Some characters are in one flashback and show up again a couple of flashbacks later. One character even dies (in a "scene" that falls flat) and then shows up again later. Superman's story told in this way leaves the audience caring for no one. So little time was spent with each character ( especially with Clark in his formative years) that I found myself devoid of feeling for any of the faces I saw on screen. That is, if I could see those faces during the film's battle sequences.
The action/fight/battle sequences of this film can be explained as a hour long demonstration of CGI technology. Additionally, the fast cutting and computerized quick zooms are so frequent that it makes it difficult to follow the action, and any attempt leads to nausea. Thirdly, these action scenes do not have any consequences. We do not see (or are supposed to care about) the potentially tens of thousands of people who where killed during the battles of Smallville and Metropolis. Also, immediately after the final battle, we are treated to Clark's introduction to the Daily Planet with no one having ANY repercussions from what they've just lived through. Finally, the constant barrage of action (without breaks) leads to fatigue. I may be in the minority here, but I can see "God-like Beings" fight for only so long before it becomes repetitive. I am all for action, but show me something different. Superman gets his cape used against him so many times in this film I would think he'll get rid of it for 'Man of Steel 2' (Yes, that's happening). Besides, if I don't care about the characters (or who they're played by) why do I care if they are in danger.
I have never sat through such a horrible film with such a star powered (and usually) talented cast. None of the characters had ANY chemistry with each other, especially Cavil and Adams. Watching their "blossoming romance" unfold on screen was about as passionate as watching paint dry. Rounding out the main cast is Michael Shannon's General Zod (giving a one note stereotypical villainous turn) and Russell Crowe's Jor-L (which is equally monotone). Trying to support these performances is The Daily Planet staff ( which besides Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) I can't remember their names) and the Kents. Diane Lane ( Martha Kent) does the best job, far better than Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent who, rather than be the origin and focal point of Clark's morality, teaches his adopted son fear and paranoia just before being killed needlessly by a tornado. Given the combined body of work of many of these actors; I have to blame writer David Goyer and Director Zack Snyder for not giving them much to work with in regards to script and direction.
As well as David Goyer is supposed to know Superman, I am shocked at how much his script is a misstep. For a 2hr 23min film there is a shocking lack of dialogue. When characters do speak it doesn't seem authentic to the world the filmmakers are trying to create. It is stilted, with character's speaking in faux-philosophical platitudes, scene chewing one-liners, and hammy clichés (e.g. "I know you want to know where I hang my cape."). Secondly, The structure of each scene is clearly to get to the next. The pace of the film is so brisk that it gives the audience little chance to breathe. This makes the film lack a focus, which is compounded by Snyder's (lack of) direction.
I hate Zack Snyder as a director. I think he makes poor films. His effort on 'Man of Steel' solidifies that belief for me. As many other reviewers and commentators have said, Snyder is "all flash and no substance". But in 'Man of Steel' that "flash" has the intensity of a sparkler. He does not know where to put the camera and when he does place it somewhere, it is shaky. In fact most of the final product is poorly edited that it lacks any emotion at all.
A perfect example of just how bad Snyder is as a director, is the death of General Zod. First off, it was NOT in the original script. Snyder added it after the eventual (and contentious) acquiescence of Writer David Goyer and Producer Christopher Nolan. Snyder used this as the source of Superman's code against killing. A unnecessary change if Jonathan Kent was given a more positive role in the development of Clark's morality. Furthermore, a Superman who kills ( regardless of who it is) does NOT bring hope to the people he protects. Also, the way the scene was constructed presents Superman and the audience with several ways Zod could be stopped without being killed. Ultimately it comes down to the killing of Zod being an example of Snyder's sloppy filmmaking. Supporters of Snyder's decision have been saying "If you only subdue Zod, then what?" to which I say A) Look at the source material and B) That is not the point. Killing Zod has more to do with Superman than it does Zod as a threat. Killing is easy, choosing life is more difficult, and it's always the choice Superman makes, at least MY Superman.
All in all, this film is awful, I can't believe I paid to go see it ( especially $12). I do not recommend it to anyone, fan or general public. I hope this is the last Zack Snyder film I ever see, even more so the last film he makes. However, given 'Man of Steel's somewhat surprising box office success I don't think that is likely. Please Stay Away.
Look for Part 2 coming soon.
