Spectacular Failure

Rating: 5/10 (15 June 2013)

Superman 1978 is an almost perfect movie. It has an epic scope, unbelievable pacing, heart, romance, adventure, grief, remorse, loss, redemption, humour, perfect cinematography, unbelievable casting and - the music, well, it is just one of the most end to end enduringly entertaining films ever made.
Superman II was also a very good movie, but suffered a little at the hands of Richard Lester who tried to up the comedy elements, but still - Superman II remains an excellent movie, not least for Zod. For an adventure film to truly engage its audience, it is important to have an antagonist with gravitas and for the action to have meaning.
Superman III, IV, Returns were all wasted opportunities, and so we have been waiting many years for a movie worthy of the potential shown in these first two movies.
Well, let me start with what I liked about MoS.
1) The casting was very good, in particular, Henry Cavill, Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner. HC is Superman. He's just perfect for the role.
2) The scene at the end of the movie where Superman is struggling to uphold his values at all costs, then must ultimately compromise in a no- win situation was handled perfectly. Killing is not something that Superman does, and it was right for Superman to look so full of remorse at the end of it.
Now, for what I disliked:
1) The flashback narrative structure gets in the way of connecting with Clark and establishing the excitement of discovery that was integral to the 1978 adaptation.
2) By only flashing back to Clark's childhood we never get to really experience the love Clark had for his adoptive father. There are far too few scenes of Clark with Jonathan, and those scenes that there, although excellent, are far too short.
3) Shaky cam does not suit cinema at 24 fps. The action was far too fast for 24 fps and even if the camera would have been steady, this would have been a problem. The action was often incomprehensible. Epic action on a large scale requires either a static camera or a camera on a smooth path.
4) Bleaching out of colours is not the same as realism. The colour palette could not have been more bland.
5) Editing. When Metropolis is being approached, we see citizens in the street just staring up, not running. In the third act, every few minutes a new building is destroyed, and at that moment it cuts to people on the street, only just then getting out of their cars, then starting to run at the point the building starts to fall. Mid way through the final act, after many buildings have already been destroyed, the daily planet decides to evacuate. Any reasonable viewer would have expected an evacuation of all buildings immediately after the first building starts to fall in the city, and mass panic on the streets immediately after that. But the streets are empty for the most-part, aside from bit- parters from the DP.
6) Co-incidences everywhere. It seems that when superman falls to earth he always lands near someone he knows.
7) Punch punch, kick, kick, smash, smash, punch, punch, kick, kick, smash, smash; for 45 minutes, with the narrative crawling forward. Unfocused and without any kind of progression of narrative. Humans are punched by beings with enough strength to topple skyscrapers and they manage to get up without even a broken bone. The action was never satisfying because action needs to have a goal in order to be satisfying. We never understood Superman's goal when engaging the Kryptonians. How could he neutralise them? It's exciting if you are willing the protagonist to win, but it doesn't feel exciting when their adversaries seem to feel no pain and appear to have no weaknesses. Jor- El's solution was a method to end the sheer boredom of watching one set of pixels collide with another set of pixels without consequence.
8) In the 'gritty' new world of this Superman, are we supposed to believe that a pair of glasses conceals superman's identity. Christopher Reeve was masterful in that he played CK completely differently to Superman, and was not so muscular that it was obvious how strong he was, plus in that adaptation, CK's identity was safe by default and it was Superman that was introduced to the world. I felt that this adaptation would just ignore the alter-ego, as it is simply not believable in the world they created, and with his past already revealed to a large number of people already.
9) Zod and his followers are boring antagonists, and also suffer from having a legitimate grievance with Jor-El over Jor-El's unilateral decision to doom the Kryptonian race with a single exception. The best antagonists exude charisma but should be entirely self-serving. Zod's cause was just at the beginning of the movie. Later, after deciding to modify earth in such a way that it would wipe out humanity - their cause is obviously unjust but the dame is done - you sympathise with the antagonist, not bad in itself, but in a movie that asks you to be invested in action scenes, you cannot enjoy progress in a battle to which you are indifferent. Loathing the antagonist is essential to enjoying action movies.
10) We are told that Clark is 33 years old (the age that sacrificed himself for humanity). Add to that, JK's sacrifice for his son, and Superman's explicitly stated symbolism of hope, and its as if you're being hit over the head with a bible.
Such a disappointment. Heavy handed, self-important religious subtext, shaky-cam instagram cinematography, bombastic score and precious few character moments, weak antagonist, a ridiculous introduction to CK the reporter (that hold the same posture and acts the same as CK/Superman), action for action sake without goal, mcguffins, terrible editing, the list goes on.