The problem with “Man of Steel” is that it has been done successfully before. This new attempt to reboot the famous character tries mightily to breathe new life into the once flagging franchise. And it works probably better for younger viewers who are less familiar with the iconic Donner films and the classic Superman mythology.
This new take on the Superman legend starts in Krypton where a Jor-El (Russell Crowe), Kal-El’s father, warns of a great catastrophe coming. Apparently, Krypton has harvested its planet’s core and made it unstable. When the elder leaders reject Jor-El’s plan to evacuate Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) takes violent action. Such sets in place plan B where Kal-El, still a baby, is sent to Earth to escape the implosion of his home planet. General Zod and his rouge military team survive because they’ve been exiled prior to the apocalypse.
Kal-El travels the light years as a baby and is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), who raise him on their humble and wholesome farm. Jonathan understandably keeps Kal-El’s origin a secret and the couple rename him Clark instilling in the boy a mild manner befitting of the future Superman. In time, Clark will learn who he is and struggle to learn his purpose. This journey of awakening will lead General Zod to Earth where our existence is threatened.
“Man of Steel” is beautifully shot and uniquely told. Director Zack Synder, who has had great success with comic book and graphic novel adaptations as marked by his terrific “Watchmen,” works from a smart script by the “Dark Knight” team of David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan. This means that everyone plays it deathly serious but, at times, “Man of Steel” is just too darned heavy. The tone of the narrative leaps from intimate moments between the younger Clark and his Earthly father to overblown events where sky-scrapers are cut in half and crash mercilessly to the ground of a crowded city. This makes the film uneven and exhausting. But it never seems to drag and even at its reported 143 minute running time, it zips by without making you look at your watch.
Everyone in the film are excellent. But Kevin Costner comes off best as the honest, hard-working farmer who raises the future Superman. And because the movie is largely humorless even the somewhat campy name of Superman is muted here. That “S” on his costume, we learn, really means hope. Amy Adams plays the investigative reporter, Lois Lane. And there is a hint of the Margot Kidder version as Lois downs a neat glass of whiskey in a city bar. But as resourceful as the Lois of the 1978 Donner version was, this Lois is a product of the new interconnected age. Lois seems to travel the world at will and when she writes something, her publisher or editor, Perry White (Laurence Fishburne), won’t even print it. One wonders how Perry is able to justify the expenses to the Wall Street shareholders who in this reinvisioned story probably own the Daily Planet.
Henry Cavill fills out the suit well. He’s also got the morose personality required by the script down. Unfortunately, he never occupies his alter ego, the mild mannered Clark Kent, long enough to give us a peek into that side of the character. But should the film launch a new franchise, Clark Kent will likely be a major character.
Gifted actor Michael Shannon makes a fierce Zod. But so much of the performance involves being beat up by Kal-El that it largely relegates the performance to a one note series of growls, yells, and angry moments. And it is Zod’s rampage on the city of Metropolis that almost throws the film completely off the rails.
There is so much destruction and comic violence in this film that it may overwhelm some viewers. Sky-scrapers are literally cut in half and topple into one another, as Kal-El, Zod, and Zod’s minions fight through such buildings and on rubble covered streets. Strangely, in a city named Metropolis there hardly seems to be any people present. It is impossible to imagine that an evacuation of the city could have occurred. But at no time, did I see evidence of death within all the destruction and desolation. This sanitized approach undercut the credibility of the film with me.
Clearly, the producers felt the pinch of Marvel’s “Avengers” and wanted to match the destructive grandeur of that spectacle. But “The Avengers” was funny and very self-aware. By contrast, “Man of Steel” is trying the “Dark Knight” approach, and wants to be about something real and tangible. Unfortunately, it comes off as nakedly pitched to bring in the popcorn crowd while courting those that seek out drama sandwiched into their comic book epic. It almost works, but unlike the transcendent “The Dark Knight,” “Man of Steel” plays more like “The Dark Knight Rises” and is slightly less entertaining.
Like “Batman Begins,” “Man of Steel” may get a pass as it constructs the building blocks for the sequel that will likely be a superior film.