It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... a slightly disappointing "Superman" movie! "Man of Steel" is wildly entertaining, yet suffers a rushed pace and lack of development.

Rating: 5/10 (29 November 2013)

A few years ago, after Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" became a billion-dollar hit and a critical darling, I noticed a trend: Everyone on every message board I went to declared that Nolan should be responsible for every new film coming out. Someone was discussing a new "Die Hard"? Someone else would immediately say "Nolan should do it!" Someone was discussing a "Fantastic Four" reboot? Someone else would chime in with "How about Christopher Nolan directs it?" Heck, I'm pretty sure people would've suggested Nolan for a new "Teletubbies" TV show.
The fact was, Nolan's dark, gritty, socio-political, realistic take on "Batman" hit home for many audiences. So it seemed like a logical choice for Nolan to produce and co-write the newest entry in the "Superman" franchise- a reboot entitled "Man of Steel."
But I had reservations. Don't get me wrong, I adore Nolan's films. I think he's one of the finest directors working today, along with Paul Thomas Anderson, Guillermo del Toro and a few select others I hold in very high regard. And his body of work is an impressive sight to behold- every film almost unanimously adored by critics, fans and general audiences. But I do think Nolan's style shouldn't be applied to certain characters and films.
And I do think Nolan's dark, gritty influence is one of many problems plaguing director Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel", which Nolan co-wrote with his "Dark Knight" trilogy co-scribe David S. Goyer. (Goyer was also responsible for the fantastic "Blade" series, another dark superhero franchise)
The film follows Clark Kent/Kal-El (Henry Cavill), an alien who was blasted to Earth as an infant when his home planet was destroyed. Raised by a kindly old farmer and his wife, Clark has been searching his life for a place in the world and the secrets to his own past, all while trying to conceal his almost inhuman super-powers from others. When an award winning reporter named Lois Lane (Amy Adams) begins to learn more about him, and a villain from his planet's past comes to claim him from Earth, Clark is forced to embrace his destiny as a protector of Earth and become a superhero known as "Superman."
The film does have a lot going for it, but it suffers from many, many issues.
The cast is decent, although very mixed. Cavill certainly looks the part of both Clark and Superman, though his character is all but completely undeveloped, so Cavill isn't really given room to show off his acting chops. Adams shows much potential as Lois, but again, is undeveloped enough that we can't really get a feeling for how good she could potentially be. Michael Shannon as the villain (General Zod) hams it up suitably, and is able to provide a compelling enough baddie for Superman to duel. And supporting roles by the likes of Laurence Fishburne and Kevin Costner are actually surprisingly well- played and developed for secondary characters.
The direction by Snyder is also a fairly mixed bag. Snyder has adopted a common directorial style with this film- that of the gritty, shaky, "realistic" pseudo-documentary camera-work. You know what I mean- where the camera is almost always hand-held and very shaky to try and give the film a more realistic, tense style. It works and it doesn't work all at once. It actually does make the action feel surprisingly intimate (even when it's anything but as Zod and Superman throw each other through buildings) and some of the more tense dialog exchanges are made more urgent. However, it becomes hard to watch at times, and many of the scenes become shaky, confusing messes. It's a case where Snyder's style works half the time, but fails miserably the other half.
The script is also mixed, and is the source of both the main strengths and the main weaknesses of the film. The strengths include some great moments of complexity, particularly earlier in the film, where we see a young Clark interacting with his human father, as well as the wonderful building of suspense later in the movie. However, the weaknesses of the script lay in something mentioned above- a severe lack of development. And this lack of development is compounded by the script's other major flaw- too fast a pace.
This movie tries to do far too much for it's own good, and the cost of that is the fact that our two lead characters- Clark and Lois, go all but completely undefined and undeveloped. This is a film of "Stuff happening", and thus we never really learn what motivates Clark or makes him tick, nor do we see why Lois is so dedicated to her work. And it hurts not only the performances, but also the story, as we just don't care about what's going on as much as we ought. And the pace makes it hard to connect with the events transpiring, because it's just too much moving too quickly.
But those big complaints being said- this isn't a total loss. Those early scenes are fantastic, and the action is absolutely heart-stopping. There are also some surprisingly complex developments later on, including a controversial ending, which I won't spoil. But I will say- it's a moment that will redeem the film for you, or ruin it. And it actually helped redeem the film for me.
Despite some seriously flaws, "Man of Steel" still has enough to like about it that I cannot dismiss it. And thus, I am giving it an average 5 out of 10. Go in looking for a fun action-fest and you shouldn't be too disappointed.