Superman, as a character, is both delightfully complex and wonderfully simple. He's an amalgam of the original Siegal and Shuster car lifting creation, expanded through the cold war as an unstoppable living symbol of benevolent omipotent American nuclear power, diminished and capped in the late '80s, revisited as a modern Greco-Roman god in Ross and Waid's beautiful Kingdom Come, been the subject of both a romantic drama and a romantic teen drama. The Superman we come to in Man of Steel must be viewed through this lens.
The Goyer, Snyder, Nolan Superman is a good-hearted Kansas boy with a complex and difficult childhood, struggling to understand his differences and his growing powers, given strength and focus by adopted parents trying their best to keep their son safe, show him right from wrong, but give him the agency of choice. He's a young man struggling with identity, hidden and overt, and with the gift and burden of the choice the Kents endowed him with. He's a complex hero, drawn towards good, but frustrated with his hidden identity and the shackles it puts on him to stop wrong in the world. He's Hercules struggling through god-sized labors.
This character is beautifully revealed through a series of easy-to-follow flashbacks and connections to the Clark of the present, bedded on one of the best scores I've heard in a generation. It's a natural evolution of Zimmer's Inception musical language, given subtlety through constant plays on a few lietmotifs, the theme of right and the theme of wrong -- so well structured that the same motif is used in a quiet inspiring single-note piano theme hinting at the coming of power, then seamlessly expanded into triumphant horn blasts, electric guitars and intense percussion to shake the firmament. The expanded soundtrack also includes a stunningly beautiful half-hour sketch that shows some different directions the score could have taken. I have a feeling that this is a soundtrack that will reward repeated listens over the next few months.
Like music, the film is structured to start slow, visiting Krypton and giving motivation for the antagonists. Then visiting with the different Kal-Els as he comes to terms with the different stages of his life -- the one we know will result in the hero Superman, but beautifully told. How young Clark, in the end, couldn't choose but had to follow the path of good. This is all revealed in a series of non-linear pieces from different time periods of Clark's life, slowly opening like petals, each offering a piece of the whole. From there it crescendos into the kind of epic battle of the gods that Superman deserves to have put down on film. A man that can throw a train without breaking a sweat has the power to destroy a city block, an enemy space ship, a bank vault and more. We see the what super powered beings of this nature could really do if let loose in the middle of a populated city.
The action is fast, and huge, but unlike recent Michael Bay movies, is coherent and easy to follow. Super-powered mega punches are followed with Newtonian ballistic trajectories, military equipment moves in a way that makes sense, and when it doesn't make sense it still makes sense.
The bad guys, bred and trained warrior Kryptonians, Zod (Michael Shannon) and Faora-Ul (Antje Traue) and some cronies are magnificently played. Traue in particular exudes a kind of exotic icy cold ruthlessness that's damn near terrifying next to Shannon's more expected rage filled heat. Faora-Ul is the cold winter that freezes you to death while Zod is the hot fire that will burn you alive. Major supporting cast are credible, decent, warm people. Costner's earnest Kent was easily the actor's best performance in years, and beautifully played. Adams' charming Lane is the reporter you want to know better. Diane Lane plays a doting mother, Russell Crowe a powerful and conscientious Jor-El figure, Harry Lennix a very serious General Swanwick, Christopher Meloni's honorable Colonel Hardy and on and on. Great performances from even minor characters.
And then Cavill performs what will be the new template for the character. He derives and owns the part, finally breaking it away from the Reeves portrayal. He's a dash of the Kingdom Come Superman, but freed of the late 80's power caps. He struggles with his labors, but doesn't know his limits. There's no tossing of islands full of Kryptonite into space. We're literally finding out what Superman can do as he does. His Clark is relatable, with a light humor, a trustworthy guy you want to know, but with hidden struggles.
And then it's over, and the film decrescendos, strings are tied off, sequels are set up and we end introduced to Clark Kent post crucible. His identity struggles sorted out as he's decided to embrace both Clark and Kal-El, but as two sides to one man, pulling in the same direction instead of in conflict.
It's not perfect, there are issues, minor quibbles really: the macguffin that drives Zod and his cronies to Earth is almost as dumb as midichlorians (even if it does give Zod a raison d'être), the fall of the Kryptonian civilization after the destruction doesn't make any kind of sense upon close inspection, the Kryptonian's new weakness (gone is Kryptonite as a plot device) is weak, Jor-El as a mainframe virus is inconsistent, Zod's pirate TV station broadcast is mostly unnecessary, some of the plot is told through ham fisted dialog, Jor-El is a surprisingly kick-ass scientist, there's some significant rewriting of Superman canon...aaaand....that's about it.
So why am I frustrated? Let's try an experiment:
- Watch all of the Man of Steel trailers
- Go to Rotten Tomatoes and click a random review
- Read the review, is there anything reviewed that doesn't come from the trailers?
If so does it follow on the following complaints?:
- There's too much action...in an action film.
- There's not enough Romance between Clark and Lane.
- The story uses flashbacks and apparently reviewers are confused about this technique having never seen it in a story ever in their lives.
- Superman wasn't funny. Seriously.
- Clark Kent wasn't a bumbling fool, a characterization which only exists in the 80's movies.
- Clark isn't a complex character.
- Endless whining about it being too long.
Some of the reviews are factually incorrect: I've seen reviews that mix up Jor-El and Kal-El, claim the Clarks come from Texas, that Zod destroyed Krypton and on and on.
At this point I'm pretty sure that almost none of the reviewers have actually watched the film. The days of well written, well considered reviews a la Ebert really are gone.
Some examples:
- Here's a review by the Atlantic's Christopher Orr that literally doesn't make any sense. For reference here's his gushing review of Superman Returns. I mean really, which is the better movie? Orr vs. Orr comes down firmly on the 2006 movie's side, which as any person who actually likes movies would find abhorrent.
- How about Newsday's Rafer Guzman? "...this reboot skimps on fun and romance..." and "Krypton is needlessly refashioned into Middle Earth, with dragons and wizards" I don't think I need to say anything else. Guzman really just wanted to see a 90 minute Lois & Clark movie.
- Kaplan vs. Kaplan: A review written by people who really honestly just hate seeing action on screen and pine for longer romance and family relationship scenes (which decidedly don't involve Superman doing super things) and can't sit still for an entire 2 and a half hour movie and can't get over why there's no Lex Luthor in this movie.
Disgraceful
For reference: Rotten Tomatoes viewer rating is over 80% and IMDB viewer rating is at over 8 out of 10.
Here's a discussion I think is well considered, reasonable panel review, with dissenting opinions I can even understand and get behind.
I can't wait for the sequel.