Flawed reinterpretation

Rating: 7/10 (19 June 2013)

Infant Kal-El is sent to Earth by his scientist father Jor-El as their home planet Krypton is destroyed. Found and brought up by decent farming couple Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark (as they name him) feels increasingly alienated as he begins to manifest strange abilities throughout his childhood and youth. When other surviving Kryptonians, led by zealot General Zod, seek him out, he is forced to embrace his alien heritage and fight them for the future of his adopted planet.
Let's get this straight: I discovered Superman at the turn of the 1960s, my DVD shelves are creaking with Superman-related movies and TV series, and there are literally thousands of Superman comics in my house. I do not need convincing, I already belong to this particular club. It also means that I am well aware of the fact that a character who has been in serial fiction for 75 years is subject to, and can withstand, multiple reinterpretations, which are necessary as the real world changes. And let me state at the outset that I thoroughly enjoyed Zack Snyder's Man Of Steel. There was much in it which I really liked, Also there was a fair amount which I didn't so much like as was prepared to tolerate. And there were several plate-sized chunks which I didn't like at all. Not one bit.
Starting with what I liked, I felt the origin sequences were well done, I liked the fact that Clark became Superman because he was forced into it (reactive rather than active), I liked the fact - spoiler! - that Lois knew who he was right from the start (even though that goes so strongly against canon, it seemed organic and natural). I thought Krypton was well realised, and I enjoyed finally seeing what happens when two people with God-like powers have at it. I liked most of the casting, and I loved Michael Shannon's Zod: impassioned and single-minded, and so much better than Terence Stamp's spaced-out hippie in PVC fetish clothing.
I was OK with Superman's trunks-less onesie (although see comments later), and I was OK with the story being essentially the origin followed by the Superman II showdown updated to present day with modern effects.
Now to things which I didn't like.
1. Much as I like Amy Adams, her Lois Lane did little for me, and had no chemistry with Henry Cavill's Kal/Clark/Superman.
2. I didn't like the camera-work. Most of the action was filmed with hand-held close-ups, and it was often difficult to register what was going on. I understand the use of hand-held camera-work to establish immediacy, but I found myself crying out for tripod-based medium and long shots so that I could actually see what was going on during the incredibly noisy action sequences. I wanted to see, and couldn't. Snyder can deliver visuals, and has done so much better than he did here.
3. I am a 3D fan, and the 3D was completely useless.
4. I thought Cavill was good, but there are elements of Superman - humanity, humility, nobility - which weren't really captured, but I suspect that was more the script than Cavill. This goes as deep as the fact that the film eagerly embraced something which (with the exception of John Byrne's misconceived pocket universe episode) the comics have eschewed apart from the very early days: Superman and Batman do not kill. Ever. They Find Another Way.
5. More than anything, I deplore the Nolanisation of Superman. I know it is difficult to argue with the box office success of the Dark Knight trilogy, but Superman is not the same as Batman. Where Batman is night, Superman should be day, where Batman is dark, Superman should be light, where Batman reflects hopelessness, Superman should reflect hope (as specifically acknowledged in this movie). Batman can successfully take on a grim and gritty reality-based presentation: grim and gritty reality simply does not suit the man of steel. Snyder is quoted as saying that they tried to use the red trunks but couldn't make them work, yet they worked perfectly well in all the earlier films. But the rooting of the thing in reality meant that the trunks - a small element of iconography - had to go. And that aspect of this interpretation lies behind so much of what displeased me.
This film, for me, held no "Yes!" moments on a par with previous iterations (compare this with The Avengers, which was full of them). It had no heart and no joy (compare this with The Avengers, which was full of both). I repeat: I enjoyed it and will happily see it again - many times, I suspect - and I look forward to the sequel. But, ultimately, I confess to being disappointed.