MAN OF STEEL (Zack Snyder/Chris Nolan 2013)

[Chris Knipp]

I am a film enthusiast, not a critic. You have never heard me say I am a critic and you never will.

Of course that is what I was trying to tell tabuno and cinemabon.

But even masterpieces have flaws, or even when they don't, masterpieces desserve intelligent analysis, informed praise, which is also criticism. If one loves something surely one will enjoy talking about what makes it good.

[Johann]

Yes, ALL films have flaws. Not one is 100% PERFECT.
They're made by human beings, after all.

But some are about as perfect as you can hope for.
And MAN OF STEEL is that for me.

[Chris Knipp]

As they say in Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I guess you're saying this new guy is the best, most appropriate Clark Kent/Superman ever?

[Johann]

Yes I am.
Henry Cavill is Clark Kent/Superman. He played the character perfect. Truly perfect.
Monte Hellman is right that this film is well-cast. (He particularly liked Lawrence Fishburne's Perry White performance).

I hear what people are saying about the movie descending into a miasma of explosions but I loved it. It all works.
I have nothing but praise here, and I will not apologize for it. NEVER. My fanboy flag is FIRMLY planted on this.

[tabuno]

It's nice the way Johann describes the Man of Steel's Kryton. I can appreciate the set design and the visualization of it. The costumes also work. I also comprehend and share in the shock value of Zod at the beginning. I also like the natural birth idea revealed in this movie, making the contrast between genetic manipulation and humanity's on proclivity natural birth, and it also raises a contemporary and relevant contrast between sci fi and reality and how the two are beginning to intersect in this world as well. I enjoyed Johann's diving into morality and religious philosophy because it did help to remind me of the deeper levels that this movie embraces at times and the much under-rated Kevin Costner getting an opportunity to act in a wonderful scene with such resonance.

But at the same time for me, Zod's character remains two-dimensional like the cartoon strip in a 3-D world design. Towards the end of the movie there is an effort to justify Zod's character as genetically endowed which in some ways makes sense. Yet, it would have been much more layered if there had been some corruption of genes that would have allowed Zod some awareness of his own lack emotional empathy so that the audience could have had some ambivalence towards him...these black and white, all or nothing characters make it all to easy to ignore them. I don't even buy into the notion that Zod is "off the rails" at all, it was his manipulated destiny - Ken Russell's character in Soldier (1998) or Louis Jourdan portrayal of Dracula in Count Dracula (1997) both of whom presented a compelling duality of duty versus humanity or nature versus humanity.

Lastly, when my comments aren't responded to with a simple "not warranted", I get the impression that they have such validity that there isn't any way a oppose them and therefore they have more truth than otherwise. John Stuart Mill, the British philosophy and political scientist indicated that the best way to discover truth is to be courageous enough to make a statement and see if it can withstand criticism otherwise it is just a straw-man ready to fold at the moment one just touches it. So far Johann hasn't touched them at all. It's an interested way to live life by just telling another person that a response isn't warranted. But the message being sent to the other person is that one isn't important or another person risking a comment isn't valuable or worthy of consideration, which in my mind is pretty disrespectful.

[Chris Knipp]

Well said, tabuno, and touché, cinemabon. But tabuno, aren't you making Johann into a "straw man" here now? You know he's not going to reply in kind. Alll I can say is wait for me to see and review the movie and then we can debate it.

Meanwhile go to the Forums and read my new review, of Zal Batmanglij's THE EAST, a thriller about anarchists and the corporations that hate them, with an adorable cast of Brit Marling, Patricia Clarkson, Ellen Page, and Alexander Sarsgard, and others.

[Johann]

:)


Ostriches are noble beasts.
They lay the largest eggs of any birds.
Let my shit hatch.
They're also the fastest running birds- up to 70 km an hour.
They can't fly, but they are the largest bird in the sanctuary.

[Chris Knipp]

That ostriches bury their heads in the sand is a myth.

[Johann]

That's absolutely correct Chris.
Glad someone has my back.
But I think you won't like MAN OF STEEL.
Just a hunch.

[tabuno]

At least Johann knows how to make me smile. At most, who knows?

[tabuno]

I just read Johann's review of Oblivion and I find it curious that his insistence on non-criticism doesn't seem to apply when it comes to other movies, especially Oblivion. He seems to have a lot more to easily criticize there than Man of Steel (as if criticism like bullets would just bounce off Superman's chest).

As maudlin as Johann found Oblivion, I guess one could use the same argument as Man of Steel, especially as Cinemabon seems to have a strong case for comparing the storyline with Spiderman (2002). As with Oblivion and Johann's comments about special effects, the same can be applied to Man of Steel, as I've persistently mentioned that there will also be more new and creative and awesome special effects to top the last movie and Man of Steel is no exception. I will continue to admit that Man of Steel has moved the bar a little higher especially for the franchise.

Personally, it is the strong intimate love theme that resonates most with me, likely due to my personal experiences with the emotion and thus Oblivion wasn't maudlin to me. It was deeply personal and brought up some strong associations and empathy. As for Man of Steel, perhaps, my association with Kevin Costner as a father, was muted by my own personal experiences and therefore didn't connect with me as deeply. Interestingly, there really wasn't that I found new in terms of sci fi plot outline here with Man of Steel and I found Oblivion more refreshing and daring.

How can Johann and I be so different...? My childhood wasn't pervasively filled with comic books as opposed to sci fi paperbacks. Anybody have any ideas?

[Chris Knipp]

I'll have to see, Johann. There might be something in it that appeals to me.

[Chris Knipp]

If you pan this movie, you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies. You go to movie jail. Minimum 6 month sentence.
Better yet, get into a Phantom Zone pod and blast the fuck off!

How can one possibly take that seriously and be offended by it? It's pure hyperbole and meant to be fun. Let's move, on, shall we?

As for the arguments about MAN OF STEEL's faults, I'm ready to enter the fray, I have seen the movie now and will write a review. But I can say beforehand that I think though there is much that I would do differently, if it makes any sense to say that, you have to take MAN OF STEEL on its own terms. On those terms it is grand and works well enough as an original, cleverly written re-thinking of the origins of Superman.

MAN OF STEEL is an epic story. The new Superman star is perfect looking, dashingly handsome yet human, and very appealing. I'll discuss the other casting later. The visuals are beautiful, the long final battle sequence, not to my mind unlike THOR, or various TRANSFORMERS movies, not to mention (maybe the ultimate model of blockbuster success) AVENGERS, is nonetheless beautifully done in its way. I'm not qualified now to compare it with the 1978 Clive Donner vesion; I don't remember it. My guess is just that the new version accurately reflects current tastes. But I have a few other ideas to put forth. . .

[Chris Knipp]

Zack Snyder: MAN OF STEEL (2013)


HENRY CAVILL AND AMY ADAMS IN MAN OF STEEL

A savior, who fights

In the big summer blockbuster, Man of Steel, the Superman origin story has been rethought. Hollywood blockbuster script writers draw on so many stories, it's not surprising that this time the child from Krypton seems like Jesus. The plot hasn't been changed but this aspect is just hinted at more in the scenes. The baby Kal-El is sacrificed by his father high above and sent down to Earth in futuristic swaddling clothes as a double savior -- of humankind, and of the fading Krypton world. It's at the age of 33, like Jesus, when his great sacrificial role is bestowed upon him. Even as a child those around Kal-El, now called Clark Kent, know that he is not an ordinary mortal but a special being with marvelous powers destined to save the world. This is what his earthly father (the warm and humble Kansas farmer Kevin Costner) keeps saying. Up above there is a war between the forces of good, represented by Kal-El's Kryptonite father, Russell Crowe, (not, alas, as memorably other-worldly as Marlon Brando in the 1978 version), and evil, embodied in Zod, the role handled by Michael Shannon. Despite his demonic intensity, Shannon isn't quite right either. His skill as a hyperactive neurotic ill suits him to play a declamatory Satan. If you've watched him in Revolutionary Road or Take Shelter on screen, or Bug or Mistakes Were Made on stage, you'll realize he's wasted here.

But watch the grown up Clark Kent, and you'll know that the handsome, hunky Brit Henry Cavill is the perfect new Superman. He makes the movie work, and he's ably supported by Amy Adams as Lois Lane, now freed of ditsyness and a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, whose platonic romance with Clark begins, in this version, with full knowledge of his special powers, long before Clark goes to work on The Daily Planet. We're not going to see Clark working at the Planet. That just begins in the last scene.

Though it is a titanic battle of Good and Evil, Biblical texts are less of an influence when the epic battle with Zod comes along, and as Kal-El, AKA Clark Kent, must unleash his full powers against Zod, the New Testament is less important than borrowings from such current box office material as Thor, Transformers, and, top gun in the field, The Avengers. Man of Steel has to go somewhere, but this is in the nature of an elaborate, battle-rich prequel whose grandiose action sequences have little of the human interest of, say, the new Spider-Man series reboot with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.

It's full-on science fiction, as well as a war of the gods, inter-planetary war fought out by proxy between two supermen, with the usual supporting players of street crowds, cops, and minor characters. Zod wants to take over Earth and turn it into a replacement of Krypton, over not just the dead bodies but mountains of skeletons and skulls of the human race. Clark/Kal-El may be a Krypton boy, but he grew up in Kansas, imbued with a strong moral sense, and he has to save Earth for the Earthlings.

Before that, the film has jumped from Krypton down to a twenty-something Clark, with flashbacks to show him repressing his special powers, but sometimes forced to utilize them, like when, as a mere schoolboy of nine (Cooper Timberline), the bus runs off a bridge, and his classmates are threatened with drowning. But these are just quick sequences, the grown man looking back. This is the writer's way of avoiding a lengthy slog through Superman's childhood and too much time spent away from Henry Cavill. That's not unwise, but the only trouble is it makes this seem an origins story that's a bit reluctant to dwell on the earliest of those origins.

It has to be admitted that the machinery of Krypton is a bit of a mess, its dark biomorphic gadgets over-complicated standard issue variations on the imagery of H. R. Giger. The way Crowe keeps coming back to deliver lengthy speeches despite being dead is a bit confusing. As in the latter part of Thor, I kept wondering why the hero who is saving mankind has to destroy so much real estate, in this case prime locations in Manhattan, in the process. Are the other four boroughs going to take over, the way Krypton was going to take over Earth? Moreover, isn't it a bit odd that as Zod and Clark, now in red cape and unitard (the "S" stands for "harmony": did we know that?), crash deep holes through skyscrapers, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams, and others of the newspaper staff, hover on the street, in piles of gray rubble, commenting on the action, yet never harmed? Isn't it a bit odd that so many buildings are partially demolished, yet we see no human casualties? Couldn't Superman have kept the fighting outside of town? But this is a Transformers kind of battle sequence. The destruction and the unharmed characters is a received current convention of the genre. You see it in Branagh's Thor too. The promise of the earlier story is sacrificed to provide a great show of spectacular action, a titanic conflict we know very well who is going to win.

Obviously the writer, David S. Goyer, is following a formula rather than being true to the origins story of Superman, turning the second half of the movie into the most advanced and expensive high-speed CGI-assisted violence and nothing more. But still and all, Man of Steel does maintain an epic feel. The humanity gets rather buried in the grandeur as time goes on, but the grandeur is always there.

Man of Steel, 141 mins., opened in the US and UK 14th June 2013.

[tabuno]

Maybe Johann has worn me out as I find Chris's comments nice even when I disagreed with some of them and none of them stirred me to intense reactive opposition.

I preferred Russell Crowe's performance Kall-El's Kryptonite father over that of Marlon Brando in the 1978 version which as I recall seemed rather emotionless and dry, almost as if Brando was just reading his lines, it seemed shockingly almost amateurish. I almost felt sorry and embarrassed for Mr. Brando. I sort of agree with Chris and his opinion of Michael Shannon as Zod, but perhaps for different reasons and wonder how much the script left him down rather than his acting. I had more problems with the script's two-dimensional characterization of Zod than the acting. I can appreciate with Chris's comment on Henry Cavill's fit as Superman and enjoyed even more now that Chris made a point to remind of of Amy Adams as Lois Lane without the ditsyness and the appropriateness of the timing of budding platonic romance at this point in the movie franchise. Adam's characterization avoided the distracting nature of the stereotypical, gender bias of earlier Lois Lane's incarnations.

While I acknowledge the compulsion of "the nature of an elaborate, battle-rich prequel whose grandiose action sequences have little of the human interest of, say, the new Spider-Man series reboot with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone," I don't believe it's necessarily established that the human interest must be needlessly sacrificed and felt that even Tobey Maquire's character as Spider-man in the
2002 version was much more accessible and enjoyable as a everyman-boy, more down to earth than the more idealistic he-man version of Andrew Garfield projected into his 2012 version. Though maybe the female audience movies could have easily fallen in love with such handsome, strong-willed perfection of Mr. Garfield. Unlike Chris. somewhat, the movie for me seems to descend more into fantasy magic with wizards and knights using magic to do battle with only a thin veneer of science fiction to define this movie as a sci fi movie.

I have more of a problem with the "quick sequences" of flashbacks than Chris who seems to accept the writer's avoidance of slogging through Superman's lengthy childhood past which in these contemporary times is perhaps some of the most important and compelling interpersonal and bonding moments of anybody's life for it defines that person. Too often Americans take their history for granted, having albeit a very short cultural history compared to both European and Asian cultures that extend back thousands of years and thus is much more appreciated.

Unlike Chris, I really liked Krypton in this updated movie version, much more so than Brando's which seemed cheap and artificial. The almost natural alien feel seemed to offer a rich and convincing strange and foreign ambiance that enhanced these beginning scenes.
And not being a particular fan of Russell Crowe, it also appreciated, unlike Chris his coming back to deliver lengthy speeches despite being dead which reflects many psychological superego states that people in the real world can quite identify with. Crowe's presence lent a bit of stability and needed assurance in the chaotic turmoil that would beset the second half of the movie.

I agree with Chris that it's "a bit odd that as Zod and Clark, now in red cape and unitard...crash deep holes through skyscrapers, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams, and others of the newspaper staff, hover on the street, in piles of gray rubble, commenting on the action, yet never harmed? Isn't it a bit odd that so many buildings are partially demolished, yet we see no human casualties? However, I don't know if "The destruction and the unharmed characters is a received current convention of the genre," as it sanitizes and maybe dangerously desensitizes its audiences to violence and mayhem as the optimum solution. Tom Cruise experienced much human death in the 2005 War of the Worlds alien invasion or the current action thriller Olympus Has Fallen (2013) which by the very headcount increased the audience emotion ire and patriotic bonding to this movie. And yes it does seem as Chris writes, "the second half of the movie into the most advanced and expensive high-speed CGI-assisted violence and nothing more."

Whereas Chris is willing to state that "Man of Steel does maintain an epic feel," even while pointing out that "The humanity gets rather buried in the grandeur as time goes on," I'm a bit more reluctant to maintain. For me what makes an movie "epic" is its ability to incorporate and retain as a lasting and indelible element of an epic movie is its very "humanity." It is the relational theme as such that makes epics out of Doctor Zhivago (1965), Forbidden Planet (1956), Excaliber (1981), Memoirs of a Geisha (2005), The Godfather (1972), Schindler's List (1993), Twelve Monkeys (1996), Dances with Wolves (1990), How The West Was Won (1962), The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951).