MAN OF STEEL (Zack Snyder/Chris Nolan 2013)

I had wondered about the use of animal forms for use as by other beings to flying. How I quickly made sense of such animal use as opposed to machines is the idea of ecological balance and embrace of the natural environment instead of destroying it and just taking it over with machines. It might be consistent therefore that advanced alien races may have merged with its animals as part of their living environment instead of destroy them.

Thanks for all your comments. I'm out of my depth with comic book superhero movies. I think I wrote betteer reviews recently of SHADOW DANCER and THE EAST and of DIRTY WARS and WE STEAL SECRETS. Those contain material I'm more at home with and qualified to speak about.

Market considerations. Cinemabon ends at a good point with the quote from David Edelstein about China and the world market. That has a lot to do with MAN OF STEEL's structure leading into a major final action sequence. Remember Soderbergh's STATE OF CINEMA speech at the SFIFF this year? The focus is on big budget movies with huge returns. The big money in the world market comes from action, not dialogue. Jane Austen they don't want.


We differ on the parts that we like. In these things I tend to like the parts that take place on earth, against the ones set up in fantastical space in elaborate Giger costumes. I didn't mean to imply Michael Shannon's acting fails to measure up. Rather this role is not suitable for him. Crowe is more of a regular in this kind of material. But he seems past his best work. His showing in LES MIZ was unimpressive. As for other recent superhero movies, I'm in love with Andrew Garfield myself and was already a fan of his work when SPIDER-MAN came along; this is one reason I prefer that recent comic book reboot.

"Grandeur" and "epic." I didn't mean to say the movie is "of biblical proportions." Just that it hints at a link between Cal-El and Jesus this time. It was just a thought. Forget it if it doesn't work for you. I am thinking of Johann and his great love of this movie when I consider its grandeur and epic quality. I think it has the seriousness as well as humanity that merit a basic reboot of a favorite superhero story, one of our popular myths. It does not lose that.

Epic is an interesting topic. When I think of epic I think of the great original ones that represent the ideals of a people, notably Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Aeneid. I was thinking of them in connection with the flashback structure, but it was a bit complicated to explain in a review. It's characteristic of Beowulf and Homer that there are long flashbacks at certain points. A characteristic of epic is that it's slow-moving. It takes its time. And when there's a characteristic of the hero that needs expanding on, or a background story that the audience needs to be reminded of, an expansive flashback comes. I originally learned about this from Erich Auerbach's discussion of the Odysseus' scar passage in his chapter on Homer in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. I learned more in studying oral formulaic poetry. According to students of oral formulaic composition, the bard slows down his narrative at key points and expands the audiences' understanding of the hero and the story through introducing flashbacks. The structure of MAN OF STEEL seen in these terms seems natural and in keeping with traditional epic. However I can understand people not liking it, wanting whole real, successive chapters on Clark at 9 and Clark at 13 and moving forward to Clark at 25 or 30 chronologically, instead of jumping right to him at that age. However, at risk of being a pedantic bore, I might point out that beginning "in medias res," in the middle of things, is a characteristic of epic and is the MO of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid.

Instead of the post I made, I'd like everyone who comes to this site and reads our words go to this link instead and listen what screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has to say about life and writing...

https://soundcloud.com/bafta/charlie...edium=facebook

I see much earlier on this thread Johann wrote:

Quote:

---

I've read reviews that say they changed Superman's mythology too much, and, like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, makes Superman too Christ-like.

---

So the Christ thing isn't just me: others see it. I don't see how the comix creators being Jewish has anything to do with this, and Jews in Hollywood have made some major "Christian" movies. See this list. Anyway that doesn't really matter because they're making a new movie version. And as I said, I am not wedded to this idea, so you need not try to refute it.

tabuno:

Man of Steel is probably the only movie I have "reviewed" on this site that I feel is safe from harsh criticism. You can dislike this or that, but in totem, Man of Steel is virtually flawless to me. Criticism is being levelled at it all over the web. That's to be expected. But I think people are not stepping back far enough from the film to see how truly awesome and Epic it is as entertainment.
That's my main point.
Is it violent as hell? Yes.
Is it full of characters that are almost too crazy to believe to be true? Yes.
It's a MOVIE, but it tries to depict what it would be like if we had Super-Humans like Clark Kent and General Zod land on our blue orb.
The emotional resonance is powerful to me- the very human elements give it a grounding amidst all that CGI and sci-fi bombast.

I think it needs to be viewed multiple times to grasp how wonderful it really is.


Thanks for your review too Chris- always great.

I have to add, my roommate is of Greek descent, and he loves the history of the Spartans- his favorite movie is 300, also directed by Zack Snyder, and he told me/taught me that Superman is in part based on an archetypical Spartan.
AND,
if it wasn't for Leonidas stopping the Persians at the Hot Gates, the human race wouldn't have DEMOCRACY.
He told me that before Spartans, there were only Kings and Slaves on earth.
Sparta and Spartans spawned Democracy.
Make of that what you will...I'm not trying to brow-beat anyone here. Form your own opinions please and thank you...

Not only that, but ADOLPH HITLER wanted to raise a new race of men just like the Spartans- it's in a speech clip apparently where Hitler mentions Sparta and their indominable will.
Bless Frank Miller for telling that story the way he did, and thanks again to Zack Snyder, a director I would love to meet and chat with...

Superman's heat vision was done Awesome.
Anyone else like his heat vision?
He ATOMIZED!

I also like how they made Superman THINK. Just like in the comics, he always has to think about his powers and how to employ them without harming innocents. I read another (ignorant) review that said Superman appears indifferent to the people dying and suffering as a result of Zod's gravity havoc. We'll just ignore that, shall we?
Anyone with a brain knows that Superman has DEEP CONCERN for the human race, and the cause & effect aspect of his actions.

This movie shows how we humans would probably react to aliens pretty damn well.
First we'd blame Zod, then we'd blame Superman.
Then we'd put a pox on both their houses and tell them to leave us alone, that we don't need their "help" or their "wars".

You bet your ass we'd blame them.

I would also like to recommend two Superman graphic novels:

All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison & art by Frank Quitely- pure GENIUS in the comics medium. Two Scots who deliver GENIUS!!
Sun-Eaters! Superman is at grave risk of dying due to too much solar exposure. He battles baddies on Bizarro World, shared billing with Samson the Time-Traveller & Atlas, and Lois Lane gets Superman's powers for one day. (AND her own Super-costume!) READ IT. BUY IT.

and one I like even more:

Red Son by Mark Millar and art by Dave Johnson. Superman is a Communist in 50's Russia, Loyal to Stalin. He crash-landed in Russia as a boy, Not the Good 'ol USA. So the results are quite different. YEARS in the making (in the 90's) and it is just a really cool ELSEWORLDS tale, a must-buy if you are a comic book nut.

I'm intrigued by Johann's little reminders of various elements of Man of Steel. Interestingly for me it's not about "stepping back" from the film as Johann suggested but becoming more immersed in stepping 'closer' to the movie. Using Johann as a guide, he can enhance the particular moments of the film that emphasize the "entertainment" and "violence" depiction, and the contrast between normal humanity and super-humanity. While I probably will never be able to appreciate and become so enamored with this movie as Johann because of the way this movie was shot and edited, Johann's helpful pointers do enhance the memories of the movie and I can endorse these bits of comments that he has described about the movie.

Stepping closer is great! See it as many times as you can tabuno! Get as close as you can.
This movie is a jewel in a sea of crap.
I'm so tired of by-the-numbers movies, especially popcorn movies. Audiences are fairly savvy now I think.
We can handle more out-of-the-box and unique ways of telling stories with a camera.
I think MAN OF STEEL is an up-sized value meal, and a lot of people just groan at the weight of the action scenes.
Again, I wonder what people think they are going to see when they buy a ticket.
And I'm pretty sure you can get your money back if you leave the theatre within 30 minutes. (at least you can here in Canada).

I'll see it a few more times this summer and post more concrete "opinions". I don't really write reviews, as you all know.


And I have obtained the gorgeous WHITE Man of Steel poster- that HUGE one. It's gonna cost me to frame it- it's bus shelter sized- but what a piece of film art to hang in my livingroom! It pays to have a Superman tattoo.....

Armond White has highly praised the movie, said it's unfairly underrated; considers the Iron Man films snarky and overrated.

Chris- you mention the action scenes as being similar to TRANSFORMERS- I've thought about the CGI effects too, and I think that is the standard nowadays. It's the best way to do action on the screen. How else are they gonna do it?

Zack Snyder was in an interview where he said Superman can no longer be done with wires, as it was in Superman Returns, where Brandon Routh was hooked up to wires- even to place the Daily PLanet globe onto a car a la Atlas). Superman has to CRUSH a car he picks up to throw- he has to appear indestructible, all-powerful, compared to human beings. That's why I think some people laugh at it or scoff at it.
But that's what movies are, aren't they?
They take you out of your reality. (If they are any good).


And re: Michael Shannon. I hear you how this may be a waste of his talent due to other work he's done, but I think he's in the top 3 of best things about this movie, the other two being how they made Superman fly and the fight between Supes and Zod's minion chick.

I don't know if it's a waste of Michael Shannon's talent. Ask him. I guess there was a good paycheck. It doesn't seem a role he's ideally suited for, though one can see generally why they thought of him for a villain. He plays villains. See him in THE ICEMAN, which I've seen and ought to review. A very unpleasant film. I still think he was absolutely perfect on stage in the play, Bug (filmed by Friedkin).

As for CGI, of course when they can afford it they'll use it. That's the trouble. Which is better, grandiose classic productions by Abel Gance, D.W. Griffith, or Cecil B. DeMille, Joseph L. Mankiewicz -- or Marc Forster doing WORLD WAR Z? CGI can mask directorial mediocrity, but only for a while. Without CGI if you have a low budget you can do lo-fi sci-fi, and it can be mind-bending and fun like SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED or Shane Carruth's PRIMER. CGI means nothing seems real any more -- though sometimes it is; sometimes actors do their own stunts.

I'm sorry I missed Primer. I've heard nothing but raves about Carruth's latest.
And I'm kicking myself for missing ROOM 237, a full documentary on what people theorize Kubrick's THE SHINING is all about.
It only played one week along with The Shining at the TIFF Bell Lightbox.
It is not endorsed by Kubrick's estate or Warner Brothers- it said so right on the poster.
I guess I have to wait for it on DVD....

Good point about CGI masking mediocrity.
Someone could argue DeMille is better than Marc Forster, that's for sure.
I read a review in NOW! that said the lighting on WORLD WAR Z was terrible. They said the lighting designer should've been fired.