Movie review: 'Man of Steel' reinvents Superman

Thirty-five years after Christopher Reeve first donned the red cape, “Man of Steel” soars into 21st century cinemas with a buzz and flurry worthy of Superman himself. And why not? At the age of 75 years young, the character is still one of the most recognizable in all of pop culture and, with seven years having passed since the divisive last attempt (2006’s “Superman Returns”), the time was ripe for a reboot.

 

Rocketed from the dying planet Krypton as an infant, our hero-to-be is found by a kindly Kansas couple, the Kents, who raise him as their son, Clark. Growing up, the boy discovers that he possesses powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men, but is forced by his adoptive parents to keep them a secret, for fear of the consequences should his true nature be revealed. 

 

As an adult, Clark wanders the world in search of his place in it, all the while serving as an anonymous force for good in times of trouble. Unbeknown to the young man, the two halves of his heritage will collide when General Zod (a lisping, scenery-chomping Michael Shannon), an old enemy of his father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe, using a variation of the English accent he used in “Gladiator”), comes seeking long overdue retribution.

 

As far as origin stories go, Superman’s is as ingrained in popular consciousness as the mugger that ruined Bruce Wayne’s childhood or the irradiated arachnid that bit into Peter Parker. That familiarity, combined with Superman’s good mannered, near-invulnerable nature has always made the last son of Krypton a difficult one to write for, and one has to admire director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David Goyer for taking up the challenge.

 

While today’s visual effects are leaps and bounds past anything that was available to filmmakers 35 years ago, “Man of Steel” director Zack Snyder (“300”, “Watchmen”) and screenwriter David Goyer (“The Dark Knight” and “Blade” trilogies) had the seemingly insurmountable challenge of making Superman relevant to a modern audience weaned on a glut of superhero films. 

 

So, with all that having been said, how does “Man of Steel” stack up against the 1978 classic, which, moments of camp and slapstick aside, held for its protagonist a reverence and verisimilitude against which all subsequent superhero films have been judged?

 

On many levels, Snyder and Goyer have succeeded by taking the “Batman Begins” route, which is concentrating on the character’s formative years. In exploring the period between Superman’s corn-fed Kansas upbringing and Clark Kent’s adult life in Metropolis, we are provided a look at the character that we haven’t yet seen on the big screen. As a result, the story is one that is familiar, but strikingly different. Especially inspired is the decision to treat Earth’s reaction to the existence of Kryptonians as a true first contact story. Where Snyder stumbles is his inability to balance meaningful character work with elaborate set pieces, the same shortcoming that hurt his previous film, “Sucker Punch”.

Snyder notwithstanding, the main difference here, and one that may prove just as contentious among longtime fans as the manner of Zod’s ultimate denouement, is the substitution of pathos for any sense of wonder or optimism. Where Superman has traditionally been a symbol of hope and virtue—the perpetual light to Batman’s dark—the hero we are presented with here is so conflicted and moody, one would be hard pressed to tell him from the Dark Knight. 

 

What’s missing here is heart.

 

We are never entirely sure where this Superman’s infallible sense of right and wrong comes from; traditionally, it was from his adoptive parents’ homespun values, but the few glimpses we get into his childhood here consist of Jonathan Kent repeatedly telling him to hide himself away from a world that will hate and fear him for being different. 

 

As the adult Clark, Henry Cavill (“Immortals”) conveys, somewhat woodenly, his character’s burden of wanting to help people with the knowledge that he must never reveal himself to the world at large. Cavill’s eyes paint a passable portrait of Clark’s desire to find himself, but his Superman is nowhere near as, well, charismatic or grounded as the outlandish costume demands (his personal trainer, however, should get a raise; the ladies—and some of the men—at the press premiere were not disappointed). Ultimately, the woodenness hurts in the light of some of the superhero performances we’ve been treated to recently, and nowhere is this more apparent than Cavill’s lack of chemistry with costar Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

 

As Lois, four-time Academy Award-nominee Adams gets her character’s penchant for getting into trouble absolutely right. Unfortunately, while Adams is capable as ever, her take on the role is hardly that of someone who could believably look a Kryptonian warlord in the eye. Where the film succeeds is in its portrayal of Lane’s intelligence; what she accomplishes in the space of a montage should silence those who have always wondered how the world’s best investigative journalist could be foiled by a pair of glasses. 

 

Of the secondary cast, Laurence Fishburne is appropriately hard-nosed as The Daily Planet’s now-African American editor-in-chief, Perry White, but the real standout here is Russell Crowe as Superman’s birth father, Jor-El. Crowe owns the opening sequences of the film that see him, in no particular order, become a dad, defy authority, commit treason, go swimming, ride a flying dragon and kick some ass. 

 

Thankfully, whatever issues I have with the script and execution, the action in “Man of Steel” is top tier, thanks to some truly jaw-dropping visual effects work from Weta Digital. It is without exaggeration to say that you have never seen superhuman fisticuffs on this level or scale—ever. For everyone who complained that Superman’s last big screen outing lacked anything particularly “super”, the sheer destruction on display here as he and Zod go head to head is beyond astonishing, making the similarly city-set alien invasions of “The Avengers”, the “Transformers” films (or even the original confrontation with Zod in “Superman II”) look tranquil in comparison—just don’t dwell too much on the collateral damage.

 

All told, “Man of Steel” has concepts that are ingenious for their reworking of notions and characters that have been around for decades but, in equal measure, it also contains portions that are perplexing for their being completely devoid of necessity (don’t get me started on the tornado). Where films like “Skyfall” and “The Dark Knight” trilogy masterfully deconstructed their heroes while paying tribute to everything that audiences loved about them, this film seems embarrassed by its source material. 

 

With a hope and optimism borne from a literal lifetime of following Superman and his adventures, I will maintain that, given the groundwork laid here, whatever follow-up this film spawns has the potential for greatness, or at least, to be less uncomfortable with what’s come before. After all, the final dialogue exchange that closes “Man of Steel” is, admittedly, kind of brilliant.

 

Hopefully, the sequel will be, too. —KG, GMA News

 

Mikhail Lecaros is a professional magazine editor and freelance writer. The views expressed in this article are solely his own.