Man of Steel

"What does the 'S' stand for?"

"It's not an 'S'." (IGN)

Fans of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies - beware. A stylistic and post-modern telling of the last son of Krypton's story has arrived, and you may be slightly caught off guard by the newest take if you swear by the 1978 original. But just because it's new and different doesn't mean it's bad.

In yet another attempt to reboot the Superman franchise, Jor-El sends his infant son Kal-El to Earth, just as their home planet of Krypton is about to be destroyed. At the same time, renegade General Zod tries to dethrone his overlords, only to be banished to the Phantom Zone. As a result Kal-El, General Zod, and a few of Zod's banished followers are the only ones who remain after the planet's destruction.

With giant beasts on the ground, birds that Kryponians fly on to get to their destinations, and a planet made solely of special effects, one would think that the opening scene took place on Avatar's Pandora, not Krypton. Zack Snyder's over-the-top, artistically stylistic choices didn't work that well here. 

After Kal-El's spaceship crashlands in the field of two Kansas farmers, he is adopted and raised as Clark Kent. However, Mr. Kent believes that if anyone were to discover Clark's secret, nothing good would result, and gives his life defending that idea. It was an interesting choice to show the story of the younger Clark through flashbacks. Post-modernism is rare for a Superman movie, but was likely included as a result of the success of Batman Begins. Whatever the reason for their inclusion, these occasional flashbacks gave the movie a nostalgic and emotional feel during some of its more dull moments. However, the flashbacks did play a negative role later in the film, as it left crucial plot points temporarily unexplained, making it difficult to pay attention to the scene that was at hand. 

Eventually, Zod is freed from the Phantom Zone (How? Well, here's one of the questions that remains unanswered for too long), and arrives at Earth with his army to find Kal-El, capture him, and use his corpse as a seed for the new Krypton, with Earth and its inhabitants being used as the foundation. Here's where the majority of the actions scenes are found. While all of these scenes started out as fierce and fun, they eventually reached the point of diminishing marginal returns. It seemed that the behind-the-scenes crew repeatedly asked themselves "How many times can we throw these Kryptonians into stuff and have an explosion?" Overall, I liked Man of Steel, but noticed the film's feel didn't always match up to its sleek and enjoyable superhero-movie look. 

The casting polarized me. On the down side was Amy Adams, who is an amazing actress. However, she's no Lois Lane. Margot Kidder and Erica Durance delivered no hesitation with their snarky, sassy and hilarious portrayals of Lois. Adams held back, and thus seemed too patient and too nice. If Lois Lane is "too much" of anything, it's definitely not too nice. Laurence Fishburne didn't add anything to the Perry White character, and just basically played who he always does - the old, short-tempered, no-nonsense guy who has seniority. On the plus side was Russell Crowe's haunting portrayal of Jor-El. Henry Cavill made a great Clark Kent, and more importantly, a great Superman, even though the screenplay occasionally didn't give him much to work with. Michael Shannon, who played General Zod, gave a possible career best.

I'm someone who has seen all of the previous Superman movies, as well as all 200+ episodes of "Smallville." I very much appreciated the nostalgic tone that was present during young Clark Kent's childhood. I loved seeing glimpses of Pete Ross and Lana Lang, the bridge crash where Clark showed his powers for the first time, and the Lexcorp logo, which are are all major staples of the TV-series that entertained millions for a decade. The actors who portrayed the younger versions of Clark couldn't have had a closer resemblance to "Smallville's" Tom Welling, and Cavill bears a similar resemblance as well. The sincere performances by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent were very reminiscent of John Schneider and Annette O'Toole. I noticed much inspiration from "Smallville," which is probably one of the reasons I liked this movie. I think another reason is because I went in with a more-than-basic knowledge of the Superman saga, which means I (almost) saw past the many points where the film shied of character background and development, most notably with the two main characters; Lois and Clark. 

Having said all that, there's still one very important question I'd love to ask the filmmakers of both this movie and the 1978 original. Was it absolutely necessary to show baby Kal-El's penis? 

Rating: 4/5