Just another big loud blockbuster, lacking in heart

Rating: 4/10 (27 July 2013)

I had seen the trailers for "Man of Steel" and the artistic shooting style and inner monologue made it seem like this was going to be a Terrence Malick-style take on Superman, which made sense to me. Superman is no doubt the most clearly spiritual of all famous superheroes. A film that charts Clark Kent's origins and growth into Superman, focusing on deep love for mankind and the sacrifices that he makes for them could be powerful and moving. So I was excited to see this.
Unfortunately, I was very disappointed. Don't get me wrong, "Man of Steel" is still an enjoyable film, but ONLY if you take it as simple testosterone fun akin to the Monster Truck Rally or something like that It's far more Michael Bay than Terrence Malick. If it did try to go deeper it failed miserably. I'm not a big superhero fan but I do like DC's two big ones: Superman and Batman. Superman is a decidedly different kind of hero compared to Batman and he should be treated differently as well. Batman is all about being broody and traumatised and living in a world of darkness. Superman, however, is not. He is a symbol of hope, of all the very best that mankind can aspire to. He is a simple all-American farmboy from Kansas raised by loving parents as well as the most powerful man alive. He should make you feel warm inside.
The old Superman movies got this. "Superman Returns" got this. "Smallville" got this. Even "Lois & Clark", in all its deliberate cheesiness, really got this. "Man of Steel", however, tries to "Batmanify" Superman. Instead of the warm colours and romantic sunsets of previous entries, Zack Snyder goes for what's currently cool, which means grim faces and washed-out colours which wouldn't be so bad, considering there are some gorgeous visual designs here, but Snyder ruins it for me by shooting the entire film in completely unnecessary shaky-cam and applying exaggerated lens flare effects that put JJ Abrams' "Star Trek" to shame, in extremely fast-paced scenes where no shot lasts longer than a few seconds. The scenes that are supposed to shed light on Clark Kent's youth and his relationship to his parents are so brief and so few that he seems to be completely detached from them. The budding romance between Superman and Lois Lane is handled like an afterthought. Even the moment when Clark finally learns who he really is and gets to speak to his real father is simply used as a piece of exposition that ultimately amounted to little more than dad telling his son "here's your costume, now go and be super and stuff", never stopping to contemplate how all of this makes Clark feel.
Some of the characters do get some motivation; in particular general Zod, the villain.. But even then, Zod was still just a straightforward bad guy you've seen in a thousand other movies before. Most other characters are not just one-dimensional, they are there as nothing more than mechanistic plot devices, with Jonathan Kent as the worst example. Clark's foster father is reduced to a sickeningly cold and detached man who at one point even tells his son it would probably have been better to let a bus full of children die a terrible death than to risk anyone knowing he has special powers. It was one of several "What??" moments I had during the film. And I'm usually a very forgiving guy. I forgive stories that don't make logical sense as long as they make emotional sense. Unfortunately, several key moments in this movie don't make ANY kind of sense.
There is no sense of joy here, unless it be the "joy" of destroying things and making lots and lots of noise. The action scenes are exceedingly long and over the top. Superman seems to actually have fun smashing into buildings and causing as much collateral damage as possible (how it is possible to still excite people with this kind of imagery as something "fun" in post-9/11 America is beyond me). While, sure, I get it, the mayhem is cool, it does get REALLY exhausting and worse: it focuses on Superman's powers as a violent force, rather than something noble and beautiful he actually uses to save people.
There were still good things, though, that earn it the few stars I did hand out. For one thing, I loved the visual look of the opening scenes, showing the final hours of Krypton. The designs were suitably fantastical and rich and it really felt like an epic space opera in which big and important events were happening.
I really liked Henry Cavill as Superman. He has the look, the voice and the quiet inner strength that the character needs. His acting is reserved but he radiates a sense of nobility that really works with the character.
I thought it was nice that the story didn't feature any Kryptonite, which I am kind of sick of by now.
And I enjoyed Hans Zimmer's memorable score, which evokes the promise of something epic going to happen the whole time. Unfortunately, I still have to criticize even this aspect, because, yes, it feels like something epic is GOING to happen the whole time, but it remains stuck in that mode. It never quite really soars, and in my opinion, it ultimately completely pales in comparison to John Williams' majestic symphonic themes I thought this film had enormous potential and some incredible talent behind it, and I believe it could have been so much more if it had focused on the people more and if it had given them heart and humour and warmth. If it had just told the story, building anticipation to that great moment when Clark Kent accepts his destiny and becomes Superman, instead of pasting that moment almost randomly in a patchwork narrative. If it had dared to NOT be "edgy" and "gritty" like everything these days.