Undeniably flawed, but the good eclipses the bad

Rating: 8/10 (29 June 2013)

This film came from a creative dream team. Christopher Nolan's godlike storytelling abilities and his extraordinary talent for making fantastical tales believable and relatable combined with Zack Snyder's great visual strength seemed a match made in heaven for the awe- inspiring tale of Kal-El. Yet, if mainstream criticism is to be believed, it has resulted in a film which is merely OK. Well? The truth is that Man of Steel houses both good and bad, so let's break it up into what worked and what didn't.
The Good: Henry Cavill as Superman: Right off the bat I feel obliged to call this one of the best examples of casting in superhero film. It is on par with Hugh Jackman as Wolverine or Michael Keaton as Batman. Here is an actor who perfectly embodies every aspect of the iconic character they're portraying. Is he better than Christopher Reeve? Well, he's different. His Superman is more real, more firmly grounded. Whereas Reeve played an unshakable beacon of hope and light (and he played it damn well) Cavill gives a real sense of why Clark Kent grew to be the man he did - Superman is no mere act put on by Kal-El, he was the fundamental core of this man. He is tortured and conflicted by his tragic origin, but remains no brooding Dark Knight. He is in every sense the Superman we know and love, but his psychological journey and motivations in becoming this character are fleshed out, enthralling and believable. This is my favourite incarnation of the title character yet.
The story: I endeavour to give nothing away, suffice to say that Christopher Nolan's influence is plain to see. From start to finish, the world in which Superman exists is of prime importance. The Kryptonian mythology is brilliantly reinvented, and young Clark's Earthly journey from infant to hero is presented realistically and believably. All characters' motivations are clear and clever, from Zod's to Lois Lane's, but again, it is Kal-El's journey which steals the show.
Other good stuff: Hans Zimmer's score is unbelievable - better than any of his considerable work on the Dark Knight Trilogy. It easily holds its own with John Williams' iconic themes. Snyder's direction is excellent - here is a man who has a very good sense of how to visually choreograph a movie. The performances by much of the supporting cast are delightful - Russel Crowe, Kevin Costner and Lawrence Fishburne are particularly notable.
The bad: Here things start to get a lot less wonderful. The film possesses only two major flaws,but they are BIG ones.
Number one: The first two thirds of the film are wonderful set up which develop the story better than any other film about the Big Blue. The last is an obligatory action climax. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Action can be beautifully done - Lord knows both Nolan and Snyder have demonstrated this time and again. But it doesn't feel like either of them directed this action sequence. No, this torturous, thirty minute long, cartoonishly over the top abortion of a climax owes far more to Michael Bay than either of the above. It is especially gruelling when one considers that all the brilliant set up of the first 90 minutes is tarnished by an action scene which goes too long and too far for me to even care about the characters anymore. I know Superman will win. What is interesting is watching his development and reactions to the circumstances around him - that is why The Dark Knight is so great, and why I loved the first two thirds of this film.
The other is perhaps an even bigger issue. Lois Lane is atrocious, and I can't pin it on anyone but Amy Adams. She comes across weak, timid and uncomfortable. Her delivery is awkward, as if she doesn't wish to say anything that may challenge authority. When she stands up to her boss, she barely does so, cowering at his instructions and slinking away reproachfully. She pouts, she fidgets, she glances around nervously - and not just when her life is actually in danger, but throughout the entire film. And this timid little thing who would look more at home on the set of Mad Men than Man of Steel is supposed to be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Please. Lois Lane is smart, sassy, cynical - her personality establishes her as the co star of the Superman universe because she is the perfect foil for the titular character. The funniest thing is that, looking at the story, this is how it appears she was written. Her character is well rounded, devoted a lot of time to and genuinely important to the film. But Adams' performance undermines all that, which is perplexing considering that she is one of the best actresses working in Hollywood right now. I simply cannot fathom the reasons for her performance, but it's easily the worst thing about the film. All I can say is that I'm disappointed, and I hope that Adams develops the character far better in the inevitable sequels.
All in all, I would say it's worth seeing for the first two thirds alone. I admittedly walked out of the theatre with a bitter taste in my mouth as I thought of the notable flaws, but on reflection, this is not what stays in my mind. What I remember is the beautiful cinematography, the intelligent script, the magnificent Henry Cavill and the ingenious reinvention of the most iconic superhero of all time which somehow feels both totally new and entirely faithful to the original mythology. What Man of Steel has done is put Superman in the real (realish) world. They have given us a brilliantly written and performed lead character and the best superhero origin story since Batman Begins. The flaws can be fixed in the follow ups. The good will remain with me forever.