Man of Wood: A Man of Steel Movie Review

Let me preface this review by saying that I encourage everybody to watch the movie for themselves and forge their own opinions.  My opinions are my own, and while I hope that many of your share them, I understand that many others may not.  That said, I don’t see how anybody, comic fan or no, could take much away from this film, poorly written and conceived as I found it.  Before I start digging into my complaints, let’s start with a little bit of praise.

Amy Adams’ turn as Lois Lane was one of the best I’ve seen so far, and a major upgrade from Kate Bosworth in Superman Returns.  Adams was a Lois with some spunk to her, full of open defiance in the face of authority, whether to the military men on assignment in Canada or in the bullpen, facing down Daily Planet Editor-in-Chief Perry White (played by Larry Fishburne, in a fine, but mostly forgettable portrayal).  Where Bosworth’s Lois was weak-willed and demure, Adams’ Lane showed a strength and beauty combination that is necessary to transcend the boundaries of “Superman’s Girlfriend,” instead creating a fully realized, three-dimensional character with room for development beyond a relational identity.  Margot Kider’s Lois in the original Superman film franchise showed some (inconsistent) signs of similar traits, but, to this fan, was always surrounded by an air of doe-eyed innocence and mild fear that seemed out of place for a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.  

The two major “Easter Eggs” in the film were a nice touch.  Look closely at the satellite Zod and Superman crash into when they’re fighting, and you can see a Waynetech logo, creating a sense of shared universe between Batman and Superman, presumably for future use.  And while the lack of a Lex Luthor in a mythos-creating Superman film felt like a poor decision, at least the Lexcorp logo on an oil tanker establishes that Luthor does exist in this new universe, even if he doesn’t make an appearance. 

The young boys that played Clark in the flashbacks deserve at least a cursory shout-out, as they were the only Clark Kent’s in the film that felt genuine in their performance, so thank you to Cooper Limberline and Dylan Sprayberry for their work at reminding us that Clark was raised to have a sense of moral responsibility, duty, and honor; work that, thanks to the script was completely nullified by Henry Cavill’s older Clark.

One final note of praise—the effects looked sufficiently expensive, if not necessarily always appropriate.  Way to at least spend some money polishing this turd, Warner Bros.

Now that I’ve had to resort to backhanded compliments in my praise of the film, let’s get to complaints, shall we?  I’ve broken down my complaints into three categories.  First, I’d like to look at the plot from both a film fan and, separately, a comic fan stance.  Then, I’d like to highlight a few film details that I feel illustrate the lack of respect the production team showed towards the audience.  Finally, a rundown of a few nit-picky items, that in the grand scheme of my review are not really a big deal, will round out my review. 

It is difficult for me to switch hats from comic fan to film fan when it comes to high-profile comic book adaptations, but I feel like it’s worth a go in this case, so bear with me.  Evaluating the plot of this film, I find that there are a handful of holes that trucks would have no trouble driving through, and the underlying messages of the film are unsettling at best.  The most egregious of plot holes comes in the film’s open sequences on Krypton, in the poorly conceived dialogue between Jor-El, Superman’s father, and the film’s main villain, General Zod.  What the audience witnesses in these scenes are two men who have come up with plans for their planet’s survival in the face of imminent doom, two plans which seemingly hinge on this mysterious codex that holds the key to Kryptonian genetics, however neither man seems willing to disclose said plan to the other.  It would seem that the plans both center around finding a new planet to populate.  Why, if both plans hinge on the same general ideology, are the men at odds?  As the film progresses, the question of how Jor-El intended to propagate the species becomes increasingly ponderous.  Lacking any true explanation of how he planned for survival by sending a single male child to Earth with the genetic codes for future Kryptonians embedded within his cells, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Jor-El and Zod’s plans only differ in that Zod mentions weeding out some hereditary lines, the lines he believes are at fault for Krypton’s destruction (I’ll come back to this in the comic plot section).  Two men, who are hinted at as having been friends, with the same basic idea, are forced to fight to the death, for what purpose?  The rest of the plot centers on the different actuation of these two plans, without ever revealing Jor-El’s plan in full, leaving the audience with two choices: ignore and disregard that the center does not hold in favor of blind acquiescence to the production team’s vision, or sit through a nearly 2 ½ hour film extremely confused, and at least in my case, moderately pissed off.

If you stand with me to this point and accept that the premise of the film is flawed from the jump, then follow me a little deeper into investigating what message this film is conveying (and major kudos to my wonderful wife, Bailey White, for making this section possible by pointing out some of the critical details).  We truly meet Clark for the first time as an adult, glossing over the oft-told origin story of how a young alien child comes to be raised by a childless farmer couple in Smallville, Kansas to become Earth’s mightiest superhero.  Instead, we are treated to snippets of flashback sequences showing a variety of traumatic experiences in Clark’s life that lead to a 33-year-old Clark living in isolation, fighting to hide his true abilities from the world at large.  Through these flashbacks, reinforced over and over again by Jonathan “Pa” Kent, is the notion that Clark must hide his talents under a bushel for his own safety, fears that he will not be accepted by the world if he shows anybody how different he is.  In Pa’s death scene, Pa is so vehement about his belief that Clark should hide for his own safety that he would rather die himself than allow Clark to risk the potential of somebody finding out.  In an era of world history marked decidedly by equality movements, the message I found underlying the entire film was how dangerous it is to be different—that if you are different, it’s best to not let anybody else know.  Keep to yourself.  Hide.  Get back into that closet.  They will hate you.  

By itself, this message is exceptionally regressive, but consider as well the Biblical Christ parallels between Jesus and Clark, and the message begins to turn into something more.  While the Christ parallel has always been present in the Superman mythos, never before have I seen it be used as such a central thematic in the story that the stories become inseparable.  Both Clark and Christ’s narratives move from infant birth to adulthood (both aged 33) with very little information on the years in-between.  The conscious effort by the screen-writer David Goyer to inform the audience of Clark’s age seems indicative of the importance between the two narratives.  When both Christ and Clark reach 33 years of age, they begin on their messianic missions.  Both men surrender themselves without struggle to be turned over to those who wish to kill them.  Where the two differ (other than the fact that one is killed and the other is not) lies in the fact that leading up to his condemnation, Christ performed his miracles in the light of day, where others could see, while Clark attempted his miracles in the shadows, hoping to not be noticed.  Moving back to what I see as the central undercurrent of hiding difference, I cannot help but consider whether this critical difference points to an indictment on Clark or Christ.  I’m sure I’ll spend a fair amount of time thinking about this point over the next few years, and some of these ideas are only vaguely sketched out, but if nothing else, it is simply one more strand of the plot to consider when critiquing this movie.

Now on to the fun part, where I get to discuss why as a comic fan, I spiraled into a full-on nerd rage during this movie!  I keep coming back to the phrase “change for change’s sake.”  Krypton is destroyed when its dying sun explodes.  This is a story so embedded in Americana that few are unaware of at least the vague story, whether they read comic books or not.  What purpose is served in the film by making the planet explode because the Kryptonians have destabilized the core through mining?  It may seem like a minor detail, but it is a detail that foreshadows changes to be made for no other reason than to change them.  The lack of a Jimmy Olsen (god help me if that intern Jenny turns out to be Jenny Olsen), Clark’s series of odd-jobs rather than working at the Daily Planet, the Fortress of Solitude being replaced by an ancient Kryptonian scout ship, the substitution of Kryptonite for the difference in Krypton and Earth’s atmospheres, and numerous other changes simply serve no purpose in the plot other than to make it different from previous film and TV plots.  With each change, the fan audience is further alienated from the film, and while I realize that We the Fans are not the target audience, what is there to be gained by ignoring us completely?  

As for making the primary villain General Zod, I admit that I have been wary of this decision since the news first came out.  I can understand the team’s decision to not make another version of the same old Lex Luthor story, but part of what made Superman II work was the fact that the audience had seen Superman triumph against a foe before, only to now be challenged by somebody on the same level as him from a sheer power standpoint.  By first establishing supremacy and then challenging it, the story is simply more dynamic.  It didn’t have to be Luthor; Superman has fought countless enemies in his comics over the past 75 years.  Pick one.  Parasite?  Lobo?  Metallo?  Brainiac?  Maybe you make a film without a true supervillain, like the early Superman stories, where Clark is forced to take on corruption.  Something he can’t simply punch his way through.  If the goal was to make a relevant Superman movie that appealed to adults, why not have him take on issues we face today as a global society?  As for Michael Shannon as Zod, I must say I expected better.  I like Shannon as an actor, but his Zod seemed over the top, a maniac, and out of control.  To me, Zod is a character that is meant to be cold and calculating.  As with many Superman villains over the years, Zod believes that what he is doing, he is doing because it is right and just and for the good of his people.  It is logical.  And while there is always an element of revenge in his motives, it never seems (to me at least) to be his driving force.  So to recap, I think he was the wrong villain, at the wrong time, and wrongly portrayed. 

***Spoiler Alert***

Because of this maniacal version of Zod, the plot seemed forced in a direction where Superman would have no choice but to kill Zod, in this case by snapping his neck to prevent Zod from killing a handful of people “trapped” in a corner.  Let’s gloss over the fact that Zod couldn’t move his head to use his heat vision on the people in the corner, and the fact that a corner, by definition, has two ways in and out, so those people could have just, I don’t know, walked away.  Let’s instead focus on the fact that Superman, as a character in general, operates on a moral code based on “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” and because of this moral code, he does not kill his enemies, but instead delivers them to be tried for their crimes.  Once this concept becomes abandoned, the character ceases to be Superman.  Even in the instances where he has killed enemies, never in my recollection has that been the result of a conscious effort to kill them, but rather the occasional accident or happenstance.  We saw in the Nolan Batman Trilogy several of Batman’s villains die, but never because Bruce killed them.  Rather, he failed to save them.  On the spot execution is not, and has never been, the American Way.  It has happened, of course, but it is never encouraged in ideology.  In Man of Steel, we as the audience have lost a superhero, and instead gained a vigilante.  If Superman has indeed become judge, jury, and executioner, I find myself terrified for what the next film could bring. 

 

I think that might have been the only potential spoiler in the film.  We all know the rest, right?  Superman wins, he gets the girl, he goes on his way.  So let’s talk a little bit about how stupid the filmmakers think we, the audience, are.  I am willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept that a man can fly, but even I have my limits.  The physics in this movie are appalling, and two distinct moments stand out above all else.  First, why on Earth would Superman have contrails when he flies?  In case you aren’t aware, contrails are the trails you see coming off jet wings in the air, and are usually the result of water vapor caused by the jet’s engines.  Superman is oddly lacking engines, and should also be lacking contrails.  But they look so cool, don’t they?  Nobody in the editing room said that contrails simply don’t make sense?  Nobody at all?  Or did somebody notice and speak up, only to be met by an executive telling them that nobody in the audience will notice?  A minor bitch, I know, but I still feel insulted.  Along the same lines, there is a scene where a singularity (basically a black hole) has been opened, and is clearly pulling everything in the vicinity towards it, as singularities are wont to do.  Except Lois, who is falling away from it.  Concrete rubble on the ground is being lifted towards the singularity, but a 110 pound woman is dense enough to fall?  Are we that stupid?  I’m not.

Speaking of stupid, Captain Farris, United States Air Force (which means she has a college degree, mind you), asks what terraforming is in a briefing room.  She knows, but because the audience is too stupid to piece it together, the kind Mr. Goyer went ahead and wrote it into the script.  I’d like to believe that even if the word was foreign to the average movie-goer, the context was enough to get the general idea, but maybe I’m wrong.  And on the topic of the military in the film, why didn’t anybody grab a parachute (or an airsave, as Bailey assures me they not only have, but would have handy) when the door of the C-17 was opened up?  It wasn’t opened by accident, where they didn’t have time to prepare—no, they opened it themselves, apparently unconcerned with the fear of falling out of the damn plane and falling to their doom.  Oh, and apparently, when aliens land, there will be no efforts to evacuate the surrounding area, so you had best make your own plans to get the hell out of Dodge.  It is not recommended to behave like the Metropolis citizens and simply stand in the street, slack-jawed and mouth-breathing, while buildings start falling around you.

I realize this rant has run a little longer than I intended, but stay with me for just a couple of last notes. 

 

-         - Colonel Nathan Hardy uses the call-sign “Guardian” on his plane.  There is a character in the comics named Guardian (real name Jim Harper) who lives in Metropolis.  Why not just change the Colonel’s name to Jim Harper and give the comic fans something to talk about at the water-cooler?  Opportunity lost.

-         - If Krypton is a science-based society tens of thousands of years more advanced than Earth, why did their tech look so ugly and inefficient?  And on that note, I always imagine Krypton to be beautiful, and that was basically the worst environment imaginable.

-          - The Kryptonian’s had those breathing helmets when they were on Earth that could retract to show their face while keeping the environmental protections in place.  The effects team must have been really proud of the retracting effect, because they used it over, and over, and over again.

-         -  The Phantom Zone Projector used to banish Zod and his crew was a much bigger production than I’ve seen in any version of Superman before.  So big, that they were forced to include enough equipment for some brilliant Kryptonian military members to reverse engineer and provide a way out.

-         -  I missed the iconic image of Clark’s ship escaping Krypton in the nick of time.  Instead, it looks like Krypton had a few days to evacuate, with enough time for a trial.  Nobody left but the malcontents.  Not the actions of a highly advanced race.

-          - Who hires a 33-year-old reporter who has no experience or degree in the field?

-          - At the end, we see a child Clark playing in the yard, and clothes-pinning on a red cape, as many of us did as children.  Except we all did it because Superman had a cape.  What was that kid’s motivation?

-          - Pa Kent always dies.  I hate seeing it every time.  It was extra cruel to make Clark watch it too, especially in the efforts to save a dog.  A dog that isn’t saved.  And is later replaced.

-         -  Making the absolutely gorgeous Diane Lane play Ma Kent was rude.  I’ll never be attracted to her again.

-          Why was Pete fat?  He could have been a bully if he was just big.  Are there just no 13-year-old redheaded kids that aren’t fat?  That guy marries Lana Lang in the comics.  Just saying.

-         -  Zod repeatedly says he is doing everything he does for Krypton, but always puts himself first when he says “I and my people” and the like.  Benevolent narcissist?

I could keep going, but I think you all get the point.  In my final evaluation, Man of Steel was a lot like one of those fake coins.  On the surface, it might seem at first to many people to be a valid form of currency, but when you bite into it, it’s just a worthless piece of wood.