The story of course starts on Krypton, where Kal-El is the first naturally born child on Krypton after centuries of artificial breeding. Being a natural birth, he is much more special than most others born. But Jor-El, his father, informs the High Council of the destruction of Krypton. Soon General Zod arrives and stages a Coup D'etat and plans to take over the planet. Jor-El escapes and evacuates Kal to another planet. Zod is defeated and imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. But on Kal's ship, to preserve the knowledge of Krypton a codex is imprinted into his blood. Landing on Earth, he is raised by Johnathan and Martha Kent and his identity is kept secret. Growing up he realizes and relates to humanity, growing among them and soon, he will come to save them. And that day comes as Zod escapes the Phantom Zone to recreate Krypton on Earth.
Of course we all remember the infamous Superman Returns and how it wanted to revive the series,well unless we revive the Superman Series, we won't get a Justice league movie and therefore we will not get a new Batman movie. And we all know we want more of those. But the idea of a darker and more mature Superman was welcomed by most, even fans of the cheesy 1970's films.And of course it had that great lacquer vision which made the colours stand out more, all courtesy of director Zack Snyder.Upon release I was hyped to see it, I kept up with all the new trailers and screenshots and what happened, I had to go to America. I missed it's initial release and all my friends saw it leaving me with an empty seat. And seeing it, what did I think of it.
I kind of think it's underrated as a superman film. Does it have flaws, yeah it does, but it is at least entertaining to watch. There is no moment in which I wanted to turn it off or say "wow, this scene should really have been done better". The parts I admit to problems, I won't lie, can be distracting (if only momentarily). The opening for example I felt it was a bit cluttered, and I felt we didn't get a real good look at Krypton. But compared to the "original" it was a huge improvement. From neon ice fortress to a fusion of Pandorica, Halo and Aliens. Nit-picking about designs aside (Ahem, penis shaped pods,ahem), the idea to place the villains on a prison ship after the planet is being destroyed is kind of strange, why didn't they use the same technology to escape. But I have a theory that the Kryptonians were just...stupid. Well, not stupid exactly, maybe pride and a sense of continuity among their people. They must have known they were doomed, so continued as life goes on. But they were quite idiotic and maybe that's the joke, that these guys couldn't save themselves in the comics, on television or in the last movie. In each form of media, the planet is always destroyed by it's inhabitants own doing and none of them had the idea to save themselves based on their own incompetence. Every planet has it's time and all planets die.
Then there is the action scenes. Yeah, they are quite numerous, repetitive and they can get old pretty quick. Some of the action scenes no doubt are very good, like the prison ship escape and the end battle between Zod and Superman. Yes they're good, but after ten explosions it can be quite boring. And yes it cut's into some moments that could be used for character development. And while were on the subject, I think the Avengers caused way more damage than Superman. The plowed through all of Manhattan, the Helecarrier, India and Germany. Each one of those must have cost either billions in repairs or repercussions. But the constant causing of death in a movie about a superhero is not uncommon. He's starting out, so he is allowed to make mistakes. Only fools place their fate entirely in a untested source with little to no experience or back up (That's why I hate Scientology), so in the future, when we see the Justice League formed, then we have faith in their ability, because combined they can prevent too much destruction unlike the Avengers. In fact, everyone is so concerned with how unrealistic films can be. Have you ever heard of suspension of disbelief, No, well of course you wouldn't.
You know what else. That's all I hate about the film. The acting of Henry Cavill makes for an interesting spin on the character. He is more moody and reclusive, that it takes the investigative attitude of Amy Adam's Lois Lane to inspire and befriend him. Other's like Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, Russel Crowe and Diane Lane are excellent in their roles, giving such small characters strong portrayals by good actors. And I will point out that Superman and Zod are well developed in a sense. Through their actions we get an idea of who they are and why they must do what they do. Zod is obviously a megalomaniac, but is in a way, patriotic and militant. As a military man he has dedicated his life to the preservation and love of his planet (as would any other good soldier) and seeks extreme methods to preserve and maintain purity. Then the character of Superman is lonesome and unsure. His years of solitude and self containment of anger and pain can torture a man like any other. He needs to stop himself from destroying a cardboard world and so gets to know it much better. But all that rage bottled up can damage a man and so he is more darker because he needs to keep himself hidden. Have you seen the world when it discovered something new. The Large HydronCollider in CERN caused major panic because the pursuit of something might have damaging effects on society. John Kent knew that, so he stopped Clark from exposing himself to a world that wasn't ready. When the time was right, then the world would welcome him and what do you know, they did.
I also liked Michael Shannon as Zod. His manic portrayal was memorable and his presence is noted as being intimidating and professional. His military portrayal is a nice change to the line up of comic book villains we have been getting. While he may not be Luthor or Joker, he is an interesting villain. As for the death, I don't mind it. In Superman II he killed Zod, in Batman(1989), Batman killed the Joker and the fact that a hero won't kill when necessary I find it shows a sign of weakness when we really need someone to end the reign of terror that has caused so many to die. If everyone hates when a hero kills a villain, why doesn't anyone flip when a cop kills, like a, drug dealer. He's helping society. If someone has all that power, then they should use it (Just like when a plane doesn't go full speed and when they report they are running behind schedule that they need to travel faster).
One scene in particular I thought was a good change was at the end. When Clark finally applies for a job at the Daily Planet, he and Lois are on the terms that everyone else doesn't know, but we do. His bespectacled identity is no longer that obvious running gag of idiocy that causes so much annoyance for me, they no it's a bad disguise, but only Lois knows close up what Superman looks like, so it's no longer inconspicuous to Lois where Clark runs off to.
So in my opinion, I find that while the film has flaws, it has some good ideas, great action, interesting characters played by great actors. I actually enjoyed the out of order storytelling and I feel it can have great effect on stories like this. I think this is destined to become a Cult Classic. While it did well in the Box Office, critics and Fans were split down the middle. That one half will develop this into a cult film before declaring once and for all that this is one of the best Superman films of all time. Is it the best, I don't know, I liked it more than the 78 version and it's sequels.
As for a certain controversy about certain imagery in superhero films, I'll be back soon with a report of my theory about the Messiah Protocol.
No comments:
Post a Comment