Steel Man

Rating: 8/10 (18 June 2013)

Just like the reboot/remake/sequel/whatever that was 'The Amazing Spider-Man', 'Man of Steel' chooses to retell an origin story. Except unlike that movie, this one at least has a good excuse: the original 'Superman: The Movie' came out in 1978 and is ripe for reinterpretation. First off, let's be honest: the late great Christopher Reeve was a brilliant Superman. He was also a brilliant Clark Kent, having the talent to thread a fine line with a performance that was at once comedic and sober. For some, he will always remain the quintessential Man of Steel. Rather like Sean Connery in the Bond franchise before him, he is the original and all who come after-wards have to stand in his shoes and be compared to him And admittedly, they are rather large shoes to fill
They had previously attempted to fill those shoes in the 90s on TV with Dean Cain in 'Lois and Clark' and failed. They had tried it again in the 21st century in 'Smallville' with Tom Welling, which while being a huge improvement over the Cain version, was still missing something. The fact is, just like Batman/Bruce Wayne, Superman/Clark Kent is an extremely hard role to get exactly right. You can usually get somebody to do one or the other, but it's rare that they can do both. Among the things they got right this latest retelling of the story of Kal-El is the casting of Henry Cavill as the Man Of Steel. He is without doubt the best actor to don the cape since Christopher Reeve.
Whereas Brandon Routh's rendition in the 2006 movie 'Superman Returns' is an honorable failure, the biggest problem with his interpretation of Kent/Superman seemed to be he was doing an impression of Christopher Reeve. Spot on as it was, he was channeling Reeve (probably at the behest of director Bryan Singer) to such extremes that you wondered why they even bothered. Another issue with that movie was Routh looked too young in the role: it's not Superboy/Boy of Steel, its Superman/Man of Steel, and as such, Cavill – even though he would have been in his late 20s during the time of shooting - brings a maturity and gravitas to the role unseen since Reeve's heyday. Rather than doing an impersonation, Cavill brings a fresh approach to a role that could have been one-dimensional - yes, he's THAT good.
Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) produced this and it's easy to see his influence. The movie is meant to be rooted in reality with a gritty sense of realism. For one thing, check out the title: it's not called 'Superman' but the 'Man Of Steel'. So dedicated it is to this realistic approach that when the character is called Superman by someone, they are interrupted before they can finish; when we do eventually hear Cavill's character being called 'Superman', it's with an apologetic – almost embarrassed – tone. Seriously, what is wrong with it, and why couldn't they just have called this movie 'Superman'?
No expense has been spared on this production and they have got a terrific cast. While the 1978 movie was great, it wasn't perfect. Terence Stamp's rendition of General Zod was slightly one-note; Michael Shannon in this gives a more three dimensional performance. And the growing romance between Lois and Clark here is done much better. But the unsung hero in all of this, it has to be said, is Kevin Costner playing Clark Kent's dad. His screen time may be minimum, but his impact is huge. Just like the greats of the past – Marlon Brando/Glen Ford playing the Kent's dad in the original - he casts a large shadow and his scenes with the young Kent as he reaches maturity are brilliant, genuinely touching, and heartfelt. Even after his arc of the story is completed, his ghost seems to loom throughout the remaining picture, with Kent/Superman carrying his legacy. Russell Crowe might be equally as good in his role as the father of Kal-El, but Costner leaves a lasting impression. Do they give Oscars for super hero movies? Just saying because, honestly, this movie needed more Kevin Costner in it.
There are some small issues: the Krypton here is a vibrant, active world that seems very much alive; at least the Krypton in the 1978 version looked like it was already in the throes of death. This Krypton is also so hi-tech – you can see space ships - that you just have to wonder why Jor-El and wife don't just jump into a ship and escape with their baby? Similarly, what exactly is going on with Superman's breathing: he breathes in space; no, he can't; wait yes, he can
But the obvious question is: is it as good as the original 1978 movie? Is it even fair to compare the two? It's inevitable comparisons will be made but the simple answer is no, it's not as good because the original had a magic that isn't really present in this newer, rawer take. While there is no question that Messrs Cavill/Costner/Crowe/Shannon are definitely on par with the originals in the 1978 movie, somehow the wonder that was in that movie is missing here. For one thing – obviously attempting a 'clean slate' - they eschewed the brilliant John Williams composed theme. No musical themes here leap out and grab you the way that did. Furthermore, the effects in the original – dated though they are – have a realness to them because they were all done practically. This movie, it has to be said, turns into a CGI fest to a massive extent. While the CGI is more effective in the background - for example, when buildings are falling etc., - it's a bit less effective during the superhuman-on-superhuman bouts. Still, overall it is a worthy and spectacular watch. It beats Bryan Singer's entry in spades and is a more than deserving addition to the Superman cannon.