Man of Steel is already one of the most polarizing superhero movies that has come out in a long time. Critical reception has been very mixed. Some fans have loved the movie while others have hated it. Unfortunately, I have to say that Man of Steel was a major disappointment for me.
(Before reading further, be aware that this review is full of SPOILERS!)
The acting is solid pretty much all around. Any gripes I have with the characters in this film are more about the writing than the performances. From the time Amy Adams was announced as Lois Lane, I had my doubts. After watching Man of Steel, I still believe that she was miscast. Don't get me wrong. I like Amy Adams. I think she's a good actress and with the help of a better script, could have been a pretty decent Lois. However, her soft voice felt a little too gentle for the character and even in the few Lois Lane-eqsue moments when she shows some attitude, Adams' version of Lois lacked the kind of spark that makes the character fun to watch.
Casting Henry Cavill was the best decision this movie made. He has a great voice for the character. The way he speaks and carries himself overall is very dignified. Cavill's performance as Superman definitely conveys a sense of power. However, like the rest of this movie, it lacks warmth. He's not stoic 100% of the time, but his version of the character didn't have the comforting presence that Superman should.
The action and visual effects are great. For me, the visual highlights of the film were the beautiful opening scenes on Krypton. While the movie did deliver the kind of big-budget action scenes Superman fans have been waiting for, it got a bit tiresome toward the end. Some of it has to do with how it's structured. The final fight scene felt like the equivalent of throwing in another action scene after Luke blew up the Death Star in A New Hope. My main gripe with the visual aesthetic of this film is the washed out color palette. A lot of the movie just had a very drab, lifeless look to it.
Hans Zimmer delivers a satisfying score that works well for a modern Superman movie. I do still kind of wish he modernized some of the iconic themes of the John Williams score and incorporated them into this one (like Michael Giacchino did with the Star Trek score). However, it is certainly respectable work and helps to give this film its own identity, which is what they were going for.
When it comes down to it, I'm all about story. Tell me a good story and I can forgive quite a bit. Man of Steel doesn't really do much with the Superman origin story that other versions haven't done more effectively.
In the hopes of making my arguments clear, I've separated them into general areas I had issues with.
The Kents Throughout most of Superman's history, Jonathan and Martha Kent have been held as the character's moral foundation. The idea is that Superman is a force for good who uses his powers selflessly because he was raised by people with strong values. Man of Steel's version of the Kents are certainly good, caring parents. However, the movie didn't convince me that the way the Kents raised Clark would make him a much better person than the average man. In fact I felt that Jonathan's talk with Clark after he saved the lives of the kids on the bus seemed like it discouraged Clark's natural concern for the well-being of others. Instead of being proud of his son for saving several lives, Jonathan scolds him for not being discreet enough. When Clark questions if he was supposed to just let the people die, Jonathan tells him "Maybe." Uh... what?!
I understand the point Jonathan was making about what the revelation of Clark's powers would mean to the world, but he doesn't have a clear idea of what would happen and he wasn't able to explain why preventing this turn of events might be worth the deaths of several people. Jonathan talks as if he's concerned about the greater good, but overall he seems more concerned about protecting his son. I'm not faulting him. That's any parents highest priority. That said, the Kents are supposed to be these amazing parents who protect their son and manage to teach him to be a great man. While their caring and protection were evident, their teaching and guiding left much to be desired.
Jonathan's "maybe" represents a moral uncertainty that doesn't seem befitting of the man who raised Superman. Superman is idealistic with a clear sense of right and wrong. The preservation of life is always one of his top priorities. In any person's life, there are situations when there isn't a clear-cut right or wrong. That's why it's so important for someone like Clark to have a strong moral compass that will guide him to make decisions for the greater good. Here, in Clark's formative years, his conscience told him that saving lives was more important than keeping his own secret. Jonathan's response to this situation doesn't help Clark to be more sure of himself and trust his own judgment. Quite the opposite. The takeaway message from Clark's talk with his father seems more like it would steer him away from being Superman rather than serve as an important milestone on the journey toward that destiny. Given adult Clark's lifestyle at the beginning of the story, it would seem that Jonathan Kent succeeded in guiding his son away from doing something special with his life.
An examination of the Kents wouldn't be complete without addressing Jonathan's death. On a basic level, I can get on board with the idea of Jonathan Kent sacrificing his own life to protect his son's secret. His willingness to do this did help me to see him in a better light, since we can clearly see that Jonathan considers even his own life less important than keeping Clark's abilities hidden. However, this dramatic, sacrificial death scene just felt very contrived to me. The Kents and other families are in the process of fleeing from their cars when they realize they've left the dog behind. Clark starts to go back, but Jonathan tells him to get his mother to safety and goes back himself. Let's analyze this. Getting Martha to safety meant running about 50 feet away while holding her hand. Saving the dog meant going toward a quickly approaching tornado. Which task should the invulnerable alien be doing? I get that Jonathan doesn't want Clark to save the dog because of the risk that his secret might be revealed, but come on. This decision is just stupid. Jonathan must have believed he was capable of rescuing the dog and getting back alive. If Jonathan Kent, a man in his fifties, can conceivably rescue the dog, I'm pretty sure no one would question seeing a young, fit Clark doing so without making any obvious use of his abilities. (especially considering the fact that all these people were probably a bit preoccupied with trying to avoid being killed by a tornado) Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure Jonathan could have handled getting Martha to safety.
So who is the man Jonathan and Martha Kent raised? He's a good person, but the movie doesn't do a good job of showing him to be the extraordinarily good person that Superman should be. When I watch the early scenes of Captain America: The First Avenger I feel like there's something very special about Steve Rogers. Through both his actions and his words, it's clear that this character is remarkably courageous and pure-hearted. Man of Steel's Clark Kent doesn't really feel like a remarkable person and it's partially because we don't get to see his parents teaching him to be that.
Clark's Journey Despite the division among fans over the movie's quality as a whole, the general consensus seems to be that it could have used some more character development. This is one of my main gripes. As the origin movie, Man of Steel shouldered the responsibility of communicating what Superman is all about. In order to do this, the audience needed to understand who Clark Kent is and connect with him. Great superhero origin movies are stories of personal growth. You begin with a character that is lacking something, then show that character's struggle to attain whatever it is that is missing from his life.
One of the problems with Man of Steel is that it's not clear what Clark wants at the beginning of this film. Superman fans who have read and watched several retellings of the origin may argue that when we see adult Clark on that fishing boat, he's searching for his place in the world and seeking a purpose. However, I believe these fans are filling in the gaps of this story with their own knowledge and giving the film's script credit for things it didn't flesh out. What we are shown is a lonely man wandering the world, just trying to lie low. He's dissatisfied with this life, but he's not actively looking for a change.
Compare this to Batman Begins, in which Bruce Wayne clearly states "I seek a means to fight injustice." This pursuit is what the entire first half of the movie is about, culminating in Bruce's first appearance as Batman. By contrast, the wandering Clark Kent happens to find out that the military is digging up an alien spacecraft. He makes his way onto this spacecraft and encounters the Jor-el artificial intelligence, who explains the backstory, presents Clark with the Superman costume, and tells him he can guide humanity as a symbol of hope. Now Clark is Superman! Yay? The problem is that Clark putting on the Superman costume doesn't really feel like a culmination of any sort of journey so the moment doesn't have the emotional payoff that it should. What changes has adult Clark gone through that have made him a better, stronger man than the person we saw on the fishing boat? How has he earned this?
Clark spent years lying low and not using his powers for any great purpose because his adopted father wanted it that way. Now he's going to dramatically alter his lifestyle. He's going to put on a colorful costume and attempt to become a symbol... because his
biological father told him to. Let's analyze this. I believe the Superman origin works best as a coming of age story that depicts Clark's decision to put on a costume and help people as that of a man who has discovered his life's purpose. Man of Steel
sort of does this. However, this version of the origin doesn't fully work as the story of a man coming into his own because Clark Kent is only able to break free of the confines of a life governed by the wishes of one father by beginning a life guided by the hopes of another. What does
Clark want? What has all this wandering led him to realize about his place in the world? How does he intend to help humanity? This leads me to my next point.
Superman: The Symbol For years I've found the idea of doing a new Superman origin movie very appealing, partially because of the possibility of realistically exploring how the world would react to the debut of someone like Superman. Imagine that the concept of superheroes does not exist. All of a sudden there's this man in a costume who displays abilities that defy our perception of what is scientifically possible. Saying that this would create an uproar is an understatement. Stories like Birthright and Secret Origin have taken this angle and shown Clark Kent struggling to make Superman into a symbol of hope that people can trust.
Man of Steel feels like it's going in this direction, then it alters course. Much like Marlon Brando's Jor-el, Russel Crowe's Jor-el tells Clark that he can be a force for good and guide the human race to be a better people. This sets the stage for Clark to take his new costume and attempt to become this beacon of hope, but before Clark can make his costumed debut or even decide how exactly he wants to go about making a difference, Zod and the other Kryptonians come onto the scene. It's almost like we've jumped to the conflict of the sequel. Think about any of the best superhero origin movies. Superman: The Movie. Spider-man. Batman Begins. Iron Man. In each, the protagonist goes on a journey that leads him to become a superhero in order to follow a certain personal calling. Then there's some time to begin establishing himself as he comes into this role before he's faced with the main threat. Man of Steel does not give Clark any time to establish some sort of public identity before he is swept into this conflict with Zod.
In one of the flashbacks, Jonathan Kent tells young Clark that he's the answer to "Are we alone in the universe?" In most versions of the story, Superman provides that answer to the whole world, instantly making his public debut one of the most significant events in human history. In Man of Steel, Zod communicates to the people of Earth before Superman does anything, stripping away most of what could have been done in a story about the world reacting to its first alien/ super-powered being.
Like Batman, Superman is one of the characters whose status as a symbol is almost as important as his actions. Superman represents bravery, selflessness, kindness, and hope. By attracting so much attention by the nature of what he can do and embodying such noble ideals, Superman serves as an inspiration. Batman Begins showed Bruce Wayne succeeding in making Batman into a symbol and what he was able to accomplish in a short time as a result of this. Man of Steel's conflict didn't allow for Clark to even begin trying to make Superman into a symbol, which misses a fundamental part of the character's story that's integral to a proper telling of the origin. Without this part of the story, he's not the world's hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark kni- Oh. Crap. That's the wrong character, isn't it? To put it simply, there's something very wrong with a Superman origin movie in which the character doesn't inspire people.
The Last Son of Krypton Aside from the issue of the other Kryptonians distracting from the debut of Superman within the world of the movie, I feel that bringing them in as the threat for the first movie lessens the dramatic impact of their arrival. From a character journey standpoint, I find that it makes the most sense to have Clark coming to terms with his place in the world over the course of the first movie by accepting that he is unique but realizing that he doesn't necessarily have to be isolated because of this. After the audience has watched this and settled into the idea that Superman is the last survivor of the Kryptonian race, it would be pretty dramatic to introduce another Kryptonian later on because it's a major shift from what they've come to see as one of the most fundamental facts about Superman and his story. Therefore, the revelation of a character like Zod or Supergirl in a second or third movie potentially carries much more weight.
You also have to think about the action and the spectacle. With superhero movies, the audience generally hopes and expects to see the threat escalate as the series progresses. Obviously, bigger is not always better. The Dark Knight is the perfect example of a sequel that tops its predecessor with a deeper, more complex conflict rather than simply improving the action. However, I believe that given the nature of Superman's powers and his villains, the appeal of a Superman movie franchise is inherently more about the spectacle than a Batman movie franchise. Because of this, the appeal of a Superman sequel comes partially from presenting a more powerful threat that can provide a conflict on a greater scale. Man of Steel hits you with a villain as powerful as Superman that threatens the entire human race right from the beginning. Even with more powerful villains like Brainiac and Darkseid, you can't really get much more threatening than that. Also, the idea of Superman fighting someone like Metallo or Parasite (both of whom could have worked within the first movie if used properly) now seems pretty underwhelming.
So now we're limited to choosing one of the super powerful villains or Lex Luthor. Let's say we go with one of the other powerhouses. What are they going to do? Threaten all life on Earth? Been there, done that. How about Lex? While many people seemed resistant to the idea of Lex Luthor being the main villain of this movie, a lot of these people seem enthusiastic about seeing him as the sequel villain. People argue that Lex provides a different kind of challenge. He's a brilliant schemer whose use of his intelligence and resources makes him a formidable opponent. I completely agree. Which is why he should have been in the first movie! I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent so maybe I'll argue this point more thoroughly in another article. However, I will say that I believe that the rejection of Lex Luthor by both the creative team behind Man of Steel and many fans is more due to the shortcomings of Superman Returns than a belief that his exclusion was actually the best thing for the story.
For now, let's just pretend that they did it my way and put this potentially great Lex Luthor conflict at the heart of the first movie. If they shifted the Zod conflict to the second movie, I really believe several aspects of that plot would have been enhanced. A battle to save humanity feels more epic if Superman has already established himself as the world's protector. Superman fighting Zod over Metropolis carries more weight if he has made this place his home. Then there's the conclusion to that fight. Many have debated whether or not it was appropriate to have Superman kill Zod. Some say it's out of character and that he would have found a way to end it without resorting to that. Others cite examples of times when Superman has killed before and point out that killing Zod was for the greater good. I don't think you can look at this as a simple question of should he have killed Zod or not. The better question is should Superman have killed anyone in the first movie, and the answer is no.
As I've argued, the focus of this movie should have been on Superman establishing himself as a symbol of hope and giving people an ideal to strive toward. Look at Batman Begins. Oddly enough, this Batman origin movie is more hopeful than the Superman origin movie we were just given. Bruce Wayne begins his war on crime and the story establishes that he intends to operate on a no killing policy. In the end, he's able to win a major victory and he does so while adhering to his ideals. Imagine a Superman origin movie that works similarly and puts an emphasis on how important the preservation of life is to the character. He overcomes the main conflict without killing and we get the happy, hopeful ending that a first Superman movie should have.
Now we move to the sequel. Superman feels comfortable in his role and capable of handling any challenge that comes his way. Along comes General Zod who tests Superman in a way that he never thought possible. Superman struggles through the entire movie to defeat the Kryptonians while sticking to his now well-known no killing policy. He puts the Kryptonians back in the Phantom Zone and it seems that he has won another clean victory. Yet Zod remains on Earth. Things play out similarly to Man of Steel's final battle, making it more clear that Zod was making the considerable amount of collateral damage unavoidable and that Superman was painfully conscious of the toll this was taking on Metropolis. Now you use exactly the same idea of Zod directly threatening innocents, forcing Superman to make a very difficult decision with little time to think. With that kind of build-up, keeping Superman untainted for almost two whole movies and making his refusal to kill an important element of the story, the aftermath of the fight would be truly heartbreaking. As he dropped to his knees and screamed, the audience would understand that for Clark, this represented his first failure as Superman. Then, imagine him surveying the half destroyed Metropolis, looking deeply saddened and defeated. In the end I'd have Lois console Superman, telling him that the world still believed in him and that the people of Metropolis would need him to stay strong to get them through the aftermath of this tragedy.
As much as I believe that Lex Luthor should have been the first villain and Man of Steel's Kryptonian threat felt like a second or third movie conflict, it would be pretty closed-minded to think that there was no way of making a good first movie that featured Zod as the main villain. I believe well-written superhero movie conflicts take the internal struggle that the hero is going through and use the villain as a way of exploring that. It didn't really feel like the writers attempted to do this with Man of Steel. This is a story partly about Clark Kent overcoming his feelings of loneliness and isolation. Aside from the decision to destroy the Genesis Chamber, this story didn't capitalize on the opportunity to use the Kryptonians to appeal to Clark's desire for a sense of belonging. Given the loss of Jonathan Kent and the absence of Jor-el, Zod would have made for a much more interesting villain if he attempted to manipulate Superman by positioning himself as a replacement father figure.
Going from there, we still have the issue of the film not really exploring Clark's process of figuring out how to help humanity. If Zod wants to rule Earth, he could appeal to Clark's desire to be a force for good by suggesting that they lead the people and use their power to "fix" the world. At first Superman goes along with this since he is in search of purpose and Zod seems to be helping people. Then, as he realizes Zod's true intentions to make himself into a dictator, he breaks away from the other Kryptonians and must figure out a way to defeat them. I think this direction for the story could have been a good explanation for why Superman chooses to help the world by serving as an example for others to follow rather than forcefully making the world into what he wants it to be. It's certainly not my ideal Superman origin story, but I think it provides a more interesting conflict and character journey than Man of Steel.
The Daily Planet The final scene of the movie features Clark Kent assuming the disguise of his mild-mannered reporter persona and joining the staff of the Daily Planet. I understand the idea of holding off on bringing Clark fully into his role as Superman by saving the dual identity until the movie's final moments. It certainly does help to make Man of Steel unique among Superman movies. However, I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives of this approach. The dual identity is a huge part of the character, so a movie that doesn't really address it fully is only selling part of the concept. Special effects technology is now at the point where it's not a difficult feat to make moviegoers "believe a man can fly." However, a Superman movie that could make people believe a man can put on glasses and become unrecognizable would be pretty impressive.
I really wanted to see the construction of the various aspects of this persona such as the appearance, personality and mannerisms. I'd be a bit more forgiving if Man of Steel delivered a mild-mannered reporter persona that really felt like a different person. However the Clark Kent we see in the movie's final moments just seems like pretty much the same guy with glasses on. He's not wearing loose-fitting clothes to disguise his muscular build. He hasn't adjusted the pitch of his speaking voice. He's just the same Clark Kent wearing glasses. Also, unless I'm mistaken the movie makes no mention of Clark having a background in journalism before getting a job as a reporter at a major newspaper.
Because Clark wasn't at The Daily Planet throughout the movie, we didn't get to see him develop relationships with anyone on the staff aside from Lois. As a result, Man of Steel doesn't really give us a cast of supporting characters to be interested in seeing more of. The presence of a more light-hearted character like Jimmy Olsen would have been very welcome in this assortment of serious characters. I could imagine him providing some appropriate comic relief as sort of a little brother character to Lois and fanboy of Superman later on. Instead we got Jenny, who served little purpose within the story and was completely devoid of personality. In a way, not showing Clark as part of that familiar ensemble of characters held Man of Steel back as a Superman adaptation because it didn't feel like the character's world was brought to life with him. While freshness is important, there's something nice about having familiarity too.
I also find it disappointing that we won't get to see the classic Superman/Lois love story play out since Man of Steel has Lois discovering Clark's secret pretty early on. Depicting an established relationship is almost like depicting a well-known character's personality because the dynamics between two characters can really give their relationship a characteristic and unique charm. How often do we get to see a love triangle between two people? Even if they didn't want to keep Lois oblivious, they could've gone the Iron Man route and not put the characters together romantically until the sequel. Lois should be the kind of person that's irritating, but eventually grows on Clark. Having some friction between them at first gives the audience a chance to get to know them as they come to know and care for each other.
It's probably safe to assume after the cliche, climactic movie kiss they shared, that Clark and Lois are pretty aware of their romantic feeling for each other. Now there's really no exciting anticipation of wondering when Lois will find out Clark's secret or hoping to see them finally get together. Man of Steel didn't even have a proper romantic build-up within the story. There wasn't a definite chemistry or yearning on either side that would've given the audience a sense of satisfaction when they kissed near the end. To sum it up, Man of Steel rejects the classic Superman-Lois-Clark dynamic in favor of a lackluster romantic subplot that doesn't really give the writers much to play off of later on.
Miscellaneous Annoyances •Jor-el (a scientist) defeats Zod (a general) in hand-to-hand combat.
•The writers felt the need to have Zod kill Jor-el even though Jor-el was going to die along with the rest of the planet in only a few hours. This just felt like contrived drama thrown in to give the audience a reason to hate Zod.
•Clark just happens to hear about the Kryptonian ship.
•What exactly was Jor-el's plan for the genetic codex? He gave Clark no means of locating the other Kryptonian ship that contained the Genesis Chamber and the technology that enabled him to communicate with hologram Jor-el. Even so, unless I'm mistaken the genesis chamber would have just made a bunch of Kryptonian babies. What was Clark supposed to do with all these babies?
•While showing Lois's discovery of Clark's secret did earn her some credibility as an investigative reporter, my main thought afterward was "Wow. Clark is screwed." If Lois can trace Clark back to Smallville by looking into reports that seem to involve a super-powered rescuer, wouldn't it be pretty easy for the government or Lex Luthor to do the same given the resources and technology at their disposal?
•The flashbacks could have been ordered and implemented better. It didn't necessarily need to present them chronologically, but the decision not to do so wasn't really justified by the end result. Batman Begins introduces us to adult Bruce Wayne near the beginning of the film, then uses the flashbacks to show how he got to that point. Man of Steel's flashbacks serve as a window into Clark's youth, but there's not really a culmination that bridges the flashbacks to the present in a way that makes us feel we've seen all we need to. Unless I'm mistaken, after the tornado flashback there's another flashback that seems like it would have occurred soon after the bus incident. Inserting another Clark/Jonathan scene after showing Jonathan's death is somewhat awkward. (The final flashback scene of Jonathan watching young Clark in awe works because it can represent the idea that Jonathan proudly watches over his son even after death). I also found that telling the audience that Jonathan had died before showing the flashback of his death lessened the drama of that scene. Instead of fearing for the character and hoping he would somehow make it, my feeling while watching the death scene was "Really? This is how he dies?"
•The first time we hear the word "Superman," it is spoken by a random soldier. If they wanted to hold off on that moment for so much of the film, they should have made it worth the wait. Have it spoken by a significant character at an important moment.
•Superman tackles Zod from an open cornfield into a small town, bringing the fight there and placing the townspeople in unnecessary danger.
•Superman kisses Lois amidst the ruins of Metropolis, not seeming to be bothered by all the death and destruction that the city has suffered.
•Why couldn't Zod take the codex, the genesis chamber, and the world engine to an uninhabited planet and create New Krypton there?
•As expected, the title "Man of Steel" doesn't really have anything to do with the plot or themes of this movie. Given the significance of Kal-el being a naturally born Kryptonian, "Superman: The Last Son of Krypton" or just "The Last Son of Krypton" would have made much more sense.
Is Man of Steel an awful movie? No. I'd probably give it a 6 out of 10. However as someone who has been waiting for a great Superman movie and can imagine everything this could have been, I find Man of Steel to be a great disappointment. Fortunately, the shortcomings of this movie aren't the type that would hold a sequel back from being a great Superman movie. I just hope the writers are aware of the weaknesses of this film and address them as they move forward.
Please check out the video version of this article below! It's mostly the same content, but more condensed with a lot more pretty pictures. (And I know you like pretty pictures) The video serves as a nice alternative for those of you who didn't feel like reading the whole thing and would prefer to casually listen as you go about your other business.
If you enjoyed this article, please help me out by clicking the like button and leaving a comment. If you completely disagree with me, I'm always open to a respectful debate.