web
counter

the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel / liveblogging the 90s


Man Of Steel Review: I'm Looking To The Sky To Save Me

By TK | Film Reviews | June 14, 2013 | Comments ()


MAN-OF-STEEL_612x380.jpg

There is a long and troubled history to Superman movies. How do you create challenges and struggles for such a man, a man who is both more invulnerable and more powerful than anyone on Earth? More specifically, how do you do so without resorting to the now-decades old tropes that have become such a conventional part of the contemporary cultural understanding of the character? Superman is, and should be, so much more than Kryptonite and real estate scams. (I'm looking at you, Bryan Singer). Superman is supposed to be vast and massive in scale and scope, a man whose choices have far-reaching and planet-shaking consequences.

Man Of Steel, Zack Snyder's reboot of the franchise, seeks to tackle these questions and conundrums with mixed (though mostly positive) results. The reboot aspect of Snyder's film is one fans are most skeptical about. But after watching it, I can easily see why it is necessary -- and why it ultimately works. Thankfully, for the most part, Man Of Steel doesn't go down the "dark and gritty reboot" path, but it modernizes and grounds the son of Jor-El in a way we've never seen before. And perhaps in order to do so the origin must be told, if only to give us an understanding of Kal-El/Clark Kent's place in the natural order of things.

The film begins on Krypton, and for once the homeworld of Kal-El is given more than a passing introduction. Parents Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara (Ayelet Zurer) fire their son into the stars in an effort to save him from their doomed world, just as the zealous madman General Zod (Michael Shannon) attempts a coup d'etat to try and save Krypton through brute force. Infant Kal-El escapes, and Zod and his compatriots are banished just as the planet begins to devour itself. Cut to years later, and the story begins anew on Earth, as we find a grown Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) traveling the world, trying to find his path, while sharing the occasional flashback that tells just enough of his history and Earth parents Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan (Kevin Costner) without spending too much time away from the story at hand.

That story is, of course, that General Zod and his cronies, including Faora-Ul (Antje Traue), have found the last son of Krypton and are seeking a technological marvel called a Codex that ... well, let's not get too spoilery. Suffice it say, what Zod wants would have far-reaching consequences for both Superman and our planet and, as a result, he must be stopped. Of course, this is still very early in Superman's career -- early enough that this is the world's first encounter with him, as well as his introduction to intrepid reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who doggedly tracks him down after a harrowing encounter.

What follows is a breathless, deafening, and hugely enjoyable series of action set pieces that barely ever slow down, a cacophonous string of battles that become almost exhausting after a while. Yet, that actually works in the film's favor because it succeeds in doing what so many Superman projects have failed to do in the past, and that is to show us just what the Man of Steel is capable of. Superman battles a small host of other Kryptonians and the results are devastating, as it should be. Whole cities and towns are destroyed, railroad cars are flung like rocks, and the destruction is wholesale and absolutely, positively breathtaking. Director Zack Snyder has always had a gift for visual flair, but one of his greatest weaknesses has always been that his films never feel real. Films like 300 and Watchmen, in addition to occasionally being clunkily directed, blur the line between reality and animation and often feel like a clumsy combination of the two. Man Of Steel has none of that. It's short on lens flare and completely absent of slow-motion. That works in the film's favor because, along with its terrific effects, it allows us to finally fully grasp what the character -- and the antagonists this time around -- are fully capable of in terms of power and speed. Much like the climax of last summer's spectacular Avengers, Man Of Steel showcases what you can really do with a superhero movie in the modern era. Yet the action is also smooth and fluid enough to avoid the sort of nauseating hyperactivity that has also plagued Snyder's previous works. All of this is aided by some brilliant cinematography and an outstanding, pulse-pounding score by Hans Zimmer. As a result, whether it's set in a small town in Kansas, a spaceship in orbit, or a devastated Metropolis, the action is huge and, frankly, amazing. (I'm not including the entirely too-CGI'd Krypton, which felt a little Avatar-ish at times.)

The key players involved (Cavill, Adams, Shannon) as well as the secondary characters -- Christopher Meloni and Harry Lennix as steely military men trying to decide whether or not they can trust Superman, and Costner and Lane as the forces that shaped his moral compass -- are all, for the most part, terrific. Cavill plays the role with a sense of wistful loneliness, a man who has resigned himself to the fact that he will always be apart from humanity, even as he tries to save it. Shannon is a psychotic force of nature, a megalomaniacal fury who sees nothing but what he has convinced himself is right, and he'll destroy anything in his path. Adams, meanwhile, is given curiously little to do once her investigative stint is over, and instead she spends the second half of the film being thrown from high places so that Superman can catch her (although she's redeemed with a critical role in the film's resolution). That said, for the first half the character is a shrewd investigator and overall, she's a thoroughly likable character.

But all of that would be for naught if the story couldn't hold up, and here's where the question of complexity and nuance comes in. In the wake of the Batman films of Christopher Nolan (who also executive produced the film and allegedly served as a sort of "godfather" to the production) and the films in Marvel's Avengers franchise, the expectations are staggeringly high, especially on as large a production as this. And while the actors themselves are all solid, the same cannot always be said of the story. It's a fairly uncomplicated tale, and in all fairness, we can't really expect the same from a Superman story that we'd expect from, say, The Dark Knight. In part, that's because there's little mystery to Superman. Sure, there are his shadowy origins, but that's his mystery to unravel, not ours. Zod's plot is massive and sinister but hardly complicated. The story sticks pretty closely to the Superman canon (although that's a bit of a moving target in and of itself), but also succeeds in occasionally injecting some originality that, while a little jarring now and again, often works in the film's favor.

That said, many of the film's expository moments feel empty, as if there wasn't quite enough story to fill in the cracks between the action scenes. It's also strangely devoid of humor, which I found to be a little disappointing, and the rapport between Lois and Clark starts off very strong but then rushes towards a forced intensity that falls a bit flat (in part because she figures out who he is very early on). As a result, it feels surprising when it eventually comes to a romantic head because, frankly, there's probably only been about 15 solid minutes of conversation, between Clark punching Kryptonians through buildings and saving her from being splattered all over town.

Man Of Steel is unquestionably an enjoyable superhero movie. It's stunning in its breadth, and right from the onset it sets a breakneck pace and rarely lets up. That pace serves it well because when the writing (mainly provided by David S. Goyer with an assist from Nolan) slows down, it gets a little clunky. There is, however, an exhilarating joy that's perfectly captured in so many moments that you desperately want to forgive the film's little foibles. Cavill's expression when he first truly flies, the looks of awe and fear on peoples' faces as they see him in action, his first full-scale brawl with a Kryptonian villain -- these things feel more like the page come to life more than any Superman film ever has, and for that sensation alone, I'm truly grateful for it. For the Superman fan, something wonderful can be found, a real sense that what you are seeing on the screen -- narrative inconsistencies be damned -- really is Superman. The film may drag a bit, and some major characters are practically ignored (Laurence Fishburne's Perry White is practically an afterthought), but when it fires on all cylinders? That's Superman you're seeing up there, and you will absolutely believe.







Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • None

    Not good. That's all it deserves.

  • Abu

    Idris Elba as Lex Luthor. That is all

  • viremia

    I would watch the hell out of that movie. I would watch the hell out of anything with Springer Bell in it.

  • southworth

    SPOILERS AHEAD

    I loved it, I just... I really wish Superman had at least TRIED to draw Zod away from the city before they fought. Granted, it wouldn't have worked (Zod would just have purposely put innocents in danger), but at least that token effort would have demonstrated that Clark was thinking about the bystanders. As it stands, he apparently thought nothing of knocking down 50 goddamn buildings and killing GOD KNOWS how many people. And then, at the end, he has the nerver to freak out when Zod threatened to melt a family of four? You guys just murdered SO MANY PEOPLE in the last 5 minutes.

  • monte

    Maybe this could be clarified for me. Why couldn't Zod just terraform Mars or one of a million other planets? Would Superman object to him restarting the Kryptonian race there? Superman's objection was that Zod wanted to kill everyone one Earth - which I don't really see the purpose. It also seemed that although Zod only wanted to save some family lines, Jor-El was condemning all Kryptonians except for his son.

  • Littlejon2001

    You speak so many truths sir. I think the harder we look at the story the more and more it falls apart. I didn't even understand why Jor-El spoke to the council. "What are you saying? We should evacuate the planet?" "Nope. Everyone here is already dead." - Wait, why? Clearly there was time to evacuate the planet...or at least some of it. Why didn't he try to save more people than just his son? Why does HIS son get to live and no one else's? It didn't seem like he tried very hard to save anyone...

    Zod at the end of the movie proclaims, in terribly cliche fashion, "My whole purpose is to preserve my people. Our race." Ok dude. If this is true, and if you waited 33 years to find Superman, you don't think you can wait a few more days to try and figure out a reasonable way to coexist with humans? I think at one point he even says..."we have to wait for years of adapting?!" Uh yea dude, your race was wiped out. So why can't you wait? Is there harm in waiting other than inconvenience? A sign of weak writing is that they have to literally spell out a character's motivation instead of showing it. That's because they didn't show it. It made no sense.

    Anyways. The action was wicked awesome.

  • BlackRabbit

    It's pretty simple. Zod didn't care about peace. Why should he get his ass to Mars when he has Jor-El's son, a perfectly good planet and superpowers all at the same place? Why co-exist when we have nothing he wants and he's all Superish? He was a dick.

  • crispin

    "Man of Steel" is the totally bra version of Superman. It guzzles a Monster energy drink in the parking lot of a 7-11 while listening to Creed.

  • trixie

    My friends and I decided that the moviemakers used sound to deafen us into submission. It is quite possibly the loudest movie I have ever been to. Also, sad to say, one of the most boring. The action sequences were derivative and too long. Towards the end my friend said to me, "he may save the world, but he can sure trash a city!" Even the die hard comic book geek in our group didn't like it.

  • crispin

    It really is that terrible.

  • kG

    The movie has zero plot,a rehashed story that has become total cliche and outdated. But no matter how many crappy movies Snyder makes he will always get more work because of the vile and racist portrayal of Persians and Africans in 300. He and to a great extent Nolan's Dark Knight series propagate the neo con and neo fascist view of the world that is coming out of Jewish controlled Hollywood. As long as they vilify Israel's "enemies" in their movies they will work and make a great deal of money in America!

  • TK

    Holy fuck.

  • kG

    Fuck it! I am tired of the shit coming out Hollywood. Snyder's big claim to fame is 300 and that movie was beyond racist. Every director making a big movie these days is either called Abrams or Snyder. They are not that good! It's the worst kind of clannish nepotism in the world!

  • 'Avengers' was the biggest movie to come down the pike in a coon's age and it was directed by Joss Whedon.

  • BlackRabbit

    "coon's age"?

  • Guest

    That is an understatement.

    Guess KG and free"man" could now keep prejudiced bigoted company to one another.

  • That cocaine is a hell of drug, isn't it son?

  • kG

    Yes it is and half of Hollywood is on it! Including this guy who keeps making these super crappy movies. But u sound like you know a lot about the subject,

  • 'Course I do. Who do you think controls the Jews who control Hollywood? The Man, that's who. Drugs are one of my best weapons.

  • space_oddity

    What are you smoking?

  • kG

    I think I am the only one who thinks and speaks the truth here, and thus the only one who is neither smoking nor drinking the Hollywood cool aid! Space oddity? If there is stoned name I have ever heard....

  • SJ

    I have to say, props to Snyder/Goyer/Nolan or whoever it was that decided to not hand Lois Lane the idiot ball when it comes to Superman and Clark Kent being the same person. Canonical or not, it severely undermines her characterization as a crack journalist. In fact, the way the movie has her following Superman's backtrail to discover his origins actually reinforces her journalistic credentials rather than calling them into question.

  • ankali

    That has always been my biggest problem with any Superman story, and though I felt lukewarm about this movie in general, it delighted me that they completely avoided it here.

  • BlackRabbit

    Did I have issues? Sure. I felt Shannon was too hammy, that most of the puny humans didn't have much to do. As usual, I felt that Superman was a little too perfect. And that Jor-El was kind of a huge jerk (and where did he learn to fight so well for a scientist) by sending his son to Earth in the first place. Supposing someone other than the Kents had found him? Earth might have been screwed. The flying effects were a little much at times.

    But all that aside, I liked it. The acting was pretty decent all around. This was a Superman movie that lived up to the name to a huge extent, and a fairly firm foundation for DC to build on.

  • Enarra

    I generally really enjoyed the movie. The final fight scene was about 3 minutes too long, but that's a not a big issue, the rest left me smiling and happy to be watching. My friend, who is a bigger Superman nerd than I (I'm not at all), was positively giddy at the end. She had one canon issue, but otherwise was super happy. The general consensus was "I liked it!" and "Better than I thought it would be". Plus Henry Cavill is unreal pretty and a perfect Superman.

  • abell

    I loved it, Also, I think it's pretty good. There's some issues, but, hey, that happens. I recommend it.

  • crispin

    And I must now assume that you breathe from the mouth.

  • Grimm

    We get it, you didn't like it. No need to be an asshole about it.

  • People who like things really are the worst kind of people, aren't they?

  • ferryman

    "Laurence Fishburne’s Perry White"?

    I'm out...

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Why? And if you mention race, I swear to God...

  • I loved it...absolutely loved it. The third quarter got a little carried away, but that seems to be the way of movies these days--action until you feel you can't breathe anymore. It was the human side of Clarke and the stories with his families, as a kid and as a young man, that really got to me. I'm not ashamed to say I teared up several times, and for a movie like this to do that to me; well done ZS. But mostly well done, Henry Cavil, because he just nailed it.

  • NateMan

    Dude, the last scene of Clark as a kid... My eyes were filled with tears. So well done.

  • mdm

    D+. Sit-throughable. Good casting, decent Cavill/Adams chemistry, fine score. Everything else positive I can say about the film, I have to add a "but [something negative that all but annihilates the positive]."

  • Theo

    This movie was a huge disappointment. I went in expecting at least a Batman Begins, but they decided to deliver a Transformers 3.

  • superasente

    We're alive! Let's kiss!
    (Not only cuz that happens in the movie, but also because that's how I feel about the movie in general. It works on a couple of different levels. Try to keep up.)

  • DehydrationStation

    This was the best IHOP commercial ever!

  • Jez

    I'm gonna go ahead and give this movie 2 stars for 2 reasons: 1) What kind of Superman movie is this that doesn't have Jimmy Olsen? 2) Why doesn't any Superman movie use "Jimmy Olsen's Blues" by Spin Doctors during the credits roll? I think I've written a much more concise and to-the-point review for you right there. Let me know if you need another movie review writer, because I just cut to the chase!

  • gepeto

    Where was jimmy olson are you such a nob churner you went into a superman film looking for jimmy olsen stick to disney fluff

  • jennp421

    I thought they gender flipped it - I thought Jenny was "Jimmy Olson"

  • manting

    those are not very good reasons and this is coming from a guy with a pocket full of kypronite.

  • dammitdamian

    I dug the flick, but with that said... Take SUPERMAN out of the film and any other Superhero could have made this work. It's an amalgam of so many different films of the past few years. It worked fine and I enjoyed it, but the opening when Clark is trying to keep to himself and hide from the world is The Incredible Hulk. When Supes is battling the Krytonians in Smallville, it's pretty much straight from THOR. The battle scenes reminded me of Independence Day with Superman instead of Will Smith. This film could have worked just as well with some tweaks and could have been any of those superheroes from space movies.

    Still, I enjoyed it for the popcorn movie that it was. It was better than anything Michael Bay could have done and I was really impressed with Snyder's work. I especially enjoyed the flashback scenes and vibe. I think Snyder has an indie flick in him somewhere that I'd like to see. God, even typing that seems ludicrous, but some how I mean it... haha

  • dammitdamian

    Oh and while I don't mind the product placement, the adverts for Sears, 7-11 and IHOP were a little distracting. Does Smallville not have any Mom and Pop stores any longer?

  • RilesSD

    The mom and pop stores were all of the other ones not labeled Sears, IHOP, etc. Which was quite a few. It did get a little distracting, but it actually reflects reality more than we like to admit.

  • Enarra

    Nikon was the one that popped out for me. The others didn't really bother me so much.

  • DeaconG

    With my friend in the theater watching the scene where Lois breaks out the D3S and I go "She's shooting Nikon. Poor baby."
    My friend turns to me and goes "Obviously you shoot Canon." As he full well knows I do...

  • manting

    no - as a mater of fact it doesnt. Walmart and Home Depot drove them out of business

  • Maguita NYC

    Can we get a tad superficial for a moment: Is Henry Cavill better looking on screen than in the pictures we've seen so far of him?

    Because truly, in pictures, I find him a tad cheesy. The greasy black hair, the blue eyes, the hugely squared jaw, the tight pants. And I'm not talking here about Superman, but rather my impression of red-carpet events of the past month or so.

    Does Henry Cavill mesmerize on screen? Inquiring superficial minds need to know!

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    I would say yes...sort of. He doesn't do anything for me in pics but I was taken with him enough in this. It may be the muscles. Jesus god the shirtless scene...

  • Maguita NYC

    With the hairy chest????

    I hear Mrs. Julien dropping everything to hear your minute details. Please, let me insist for the both of our sake, on MINUTE details.

  • Mrs. Julien

    I want you to know, Maguita that I wasn't going to read the comments here. They can't be included on EE, so I just read the Cavill parts of the review and moved on. But then I thought: Cavill. Body . OH MY GOD, I WONDER IF MAGUITA NYC POSTED ANY PICS ON THE REVIEW and started scrolling like a mofo. No pics so far (I saw my name and stopped) but you did cover the bases nonetheless, and I want to know the answer to all the questions you asked because he is almost too pretty to be sexy, or something, and if one really wants to know if a man looks like he walked out of a romance novel, you've got to see him in motion.

    To sum up: You are my new best friend. Call me every five minutes!

  • Maguita NYC

    Damn the pressure! Now I'll have to jump every 5 minutes and think of posting Cavill pictures.

    Here are a few while waiting for my own (ehrm) "review". Hopefully I'll be experiencing the luscious manfur on the big 3D screen this coming Thursday. Or whatever newly loud theater experience is presenting the Superlush chest fest.

    *The last pic has no manfur, but looking at it, you would obviously appreciate... the hint at the Promised Land.

  • Mrs. Julien

    Though I'm much obliged I kind of like it when they show up unexpectedly. No pressure. And thank you.

  • calliope1975

    It was a glorious hairy chest. Attached to a glorious body.

    I did find it weird that straight on I thought he was gorgeous. But when he was shown in profile, I thought he was goofy looking. Hmm.

  • crispin

    Great way to judge a movie, 38 year old.

  • calliope1975

    Hey! I have over 5 months before I hit 38. Don't take away my enjoyment of every single day 37 is offering me.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Kinda the opposite of Brandon Routh, I guess, who looks goofy to me straight on.

  • crispin

    Routh has ten times the charisma and like-ability that Superbra has.

  • Maguita NYC

    "... and like-ability that Superbra has."

    Why? How? What?

    What did a Superbra ever do to you???

  • Sara_Tonin00

    You seem pretty passionate about this, but I wasn't commenting on Routh's or Cavill's charisma or likeability - only that Routh looks goofy to me face on (reminds me of Jason Schwartzmann)

  • Maguita NYC

    Routh's charisma was all about the voice: He had Christoper Reeve voice. And it brought chills for we were still mourning his passing at the time of Superman Returns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    Oh god, I can't even remember if it was a hairy chest. I just remember forgetting what I was even watching or what he was doing and just focused on the immense pecs. I possibly even gasped. I was not expecting that response, put it that way.

    It happened again later when he had a shirt on but you could see his rippling biceps.

    That may not be enough minute detail for you. I've lost all sense just thinking about it. :)

  • Dariuss

    Anyone know if there's a post credits scene?

  • None.

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    There isn't. Though we had a trailer for the Lone Ranger which I didn't stay for.

  • the_wakeful

    Reports are no.

  • Fredo

    Tickets for tonight. Here's hoping.

  • LensFlare

    Short on lens flares?? What movie were you watching. There isn't a shot in the entire running time without a lens flare!

  • Yeah I noticed it more than I did in Into Darkness. I get that it was the sun and there's probably some symbolism there. But it got annoying.

  • John W

    I was going to see this movie but I decided against it because they're basically once again just rehashing the Donner movies.

    It's the same reason I didn't run out to see Star Trek Into Darkness because they're just rehashing the same ol stuff from previous movies.

    When they move on beyond Lex Luthor and his quest to be the best real estate agent (always be closing) and Zod let me know.

  • gepeto

    Stick to disney fluff its more happy you wussy

  • Deidra

    Exactly. Because when you've seen one Hamlet, Les Mis, Glass Menagerie, Phantom of the Opera, Christ allegory, etc. etc., why would anyone ever both to watch another interpretation ever again?

  • John W

    That's not a fair comparison.

    Hamlet is not an ongoing series with different writers and artists who have had their chance to add to the mythology.

    Hamlet is one story written by Shakespeare. It is redone over and over by different actors yes but it still basically the same story. And there's nothing wrong with that, but we're talking about an ongoing serialized story.

    You can't compare that to comic book stories where there are different stories and villains to choose from and yet they still go back to the same stuff over and over.

    Where is Brainiac? Where is Darkseid? Where is Doomsday? Is real estate the only thing Lex Luthor concerned with? Will there ever be a dramatization of the wedding of Lois Lane and Superman?

    Or are we destined to relive the origin story over and over.

  • If it follows the same kind of path that the Batman movies did, Brainiac will show up in the second one, and Doomsday will cap off the trilogy.

  • Fredo

    Any remake of the origin story would be rehashing Donner's movies.

    Then again, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight rehashed Burton's Batman. But I don't think people minded.

  • John W

    I actually enjoyed Nolan's Batman because of the differences to Burton's Batman. (Not that I hated the Burton movies)

    Nolan dipped into some of Batman's other stories like Year One to expand on his origin.

  • foolsage

    So by the same logic you should give this movie a chance, instead of prejudging it.

  • For about the first half of it they had me. I enjoyed the flashback stuff and him kind of wondering around trying not to be discovered. I think I could have used more of that. The last half didn't connect with me as well. It didn't follow through emotionally. And it might be the same old problem, which is I didn't feel any tension in the fights. I hope a second viewing changes my mind.

  • OH THANK GOD.

  • lowercase_ryan

    Kind of a relief to read this review.

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    I was skeptical given my feelings towards Snyder, but I really enjoyed the film. My boyfriend works for one of the special effects companies and has been banging on about the film for about a year, so we had to see it the day it opened. I am thankful I liked it, since if I hadn't it might have been the end of our relationship. :)

    The review pretty much sums up my feelings. It's not perfect, I found the flashbacks jarring and some dialogue hammy, but overall it was excellent. Cavill was great as Superman (a little less so as Kent) and that's a very hard role to do. I found Russell Crowe really awkward, I didn't like him in this at all. Same goes for his wife, so I'm not sure if that was just an issue with Krypton as a whole.

    Also, I saw this in 3D and I usually hate 3D, but it didn't ruin my enjoyment and actually looked great. Pleasantly surprised all round.

  • Temmere

    "It’s a fairly uncomplicated tale, and in all fairness, we can’t really
    expect the same from a Superman story that we’d expect from, say, The Dark Knight."

    Yes, we absolutely can. Superman's world can be vastly more complex than Batman's, and if they don't explore that, it's the fault of the writer, not the character.

  • Emmet O'Cuana

    Agree completely. I think writers/critics who focus on Superman the comic character's invulnerability and powerset miss the core appeal of the character, which does lend itself to story complexity - which is that he is an immigrant who really wants to belong. He is alien on a fundamental level, but does everything he can to help and protect his adopted home. There's a lot to work with there.

    Whereas Batman could just as easily be reduced to a cosplaying billionaire who likes rough trade. But that's another adaptation.

  • Vi

    Absolutely agree with this sentiment, I've definitely seen enough well written and complex superman stories that I'm entirely unimpressed when people default for the deus ex machina plot.

    It's honestly not much of a step up from elementary school writing classes where the boys depict punching every other paragraph and then wrap up the story with "the girl he liked fell him love with him because he was an awesome puncher".

    Even the 30 minute superman cartoon from the 90s had more plot than this movie.

  • I'm going out on a limb by saying that I agree that Superman's world could be way more complex than Batman's (he is an alien after all), but I am not sure it would translate well in movies that are trying to reach a mainstream audience. I loved comic books as a kid but the DC universe with all of its aliens and other planets and dimensions just took it to a level that was boring to me. It's a nice balance when you can combine superhuman's with our ordinary world. Aliens fighting aliens over alien planets just doesn't resonate with me.

  • Vi

    I understand that DC has a tendency to make the storyline completely incomprehensible for anyone but the fanboys, especially when they involve his alien origins. But I was actually referring to works like Red Son, Birthright, Luthor, or the novel: It's Superman by Tom De Haven.

    It is always too easy to give into the fact that superman is overpowered and write a plot around that, but giving into the urge is lazy.

    The point of superman isn't about how his abilities is the ultimate solution for everything. The reason why Luthor hates Superman is the same reason why we hate people who feed wild animals and said wild animals become dependent on humans. He's not supposed to be a crutch, but he is, because mankind is full corruption and troubles.

  • I havent seen the movie yet, but if they focus more time on Clark Kent and less on Superman, I'd be fine with that. I think the meat of the Superman story would come from Clark's struggle with being Superman vs Superman being all powerful. What kind of strain does being the Man of Steel put on the human Psyche? Batman had events in his life that drove him to take on the superhero mantel. Superman doesn't get to choose. If you really think about how Clark has to live his life, would anyone really want to be Superman?

  • Subversable

    If I'm remembering this correctly (saw it earlier today) he was only even referred to as "Superman" once, and that was towards the end. The credits listed the character as "Clark Kent / Kal El."

blog comments powered by Disqus