'Man of Steel' not that super, storywise, for some in audience
By Cary Darling
Published: Thursday, June 13, 2013, 8:53 p.m.
For its first half, “Man of Steel” is well on its way to superhero-movie greatness.
Dark, turbulent and not at all campy, it casts the young Clark Kent as a perennial outcast, a boy trapped between the wishes of his adoptive father, who demands he keep his strengths secret, a world that shuns him when he shows any evidence that he is different, and his gnawing desire to be who he really is.
Using alienation as a theme is familiar to the comic-book world, of course. But it's new for the cinematic “Supermans,” at least to this degree. No surprise then that Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the men behind the gloomy “Dark Knight” movies, co-wrote the story and Nolan co-produced.
But it's director Zack Snyder (“300,” “Watchmen,” the “Dawn of the Dead” reboot) who pulls it all together. His hellish vision of the planet Krypton in its end times — where Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his newborn son, Kal-El (later known as Clark Kent) into deep space to be raised on Earth — and Clark's tortured road to manhood is ripe with despair.
But then the constraints of being an estimated up-to-$225 million film, with all the weight of box-office expectations that number brings, begin to tie the filmmakers' hands in bonds that not even Superman can break. By the end, “Man of Steel” has mutated into just another superhero action movie.
That's too bad because, until the point where it turns into a routine exercise, “Man of Steel” has so much going for it.
When we are introduced to the adult Clark (Henry Cavill, “The Tudors”), he lives a loner life, not revealing much of anything to anyone — unless his help is really needed. But when an alien ship from Krypton is found buried near the Arctic — and the government as well as Lois Lane (Amy Adams) are trying to figure out what it is — Kent's private life begins to unravel.
He is forced to make himself public when his dad's nemesis from Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon), shows up looking for Kal-El. It seems that dear old Dad also sent along the seeds for all future generations of Kryptonians. The diabolical Zod wants to terraform and repopulate Earth in the image of his dearly departed Krypton.
Of course, Kal-El, aka Clark Kent (cleverly, the name “Superman” is only hinted at), can't let that happen. And that's when things begin to spiral into the ordinary as the future of Earth hinges on a battle between Zod and his minions and Superman and his newfound government buddies.
“Man of Steel” is loaded with solid performances, starting with Cavill, who not only has the physical presence of someone with a giant “S” on his chest, but also brings the right amount of pathos and unease to the part of a man trying to find himself. (Dylan Sprayberry, who plays him as a teenager, is also quite good).
Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are wonderfully sympathetic as Kal-El's adoptive parents, who want to shield their son from the worst the world has to offer but realize they can't keep him hidden away forever. For the always-reliable Shannon, this could be a breakout role, while Adams' Lois Lane sports a feisty independence.
The special effects are impressive — especially a tornado that sweeps through Clark's Kansas hometown —but, as the climactic battles wear on, they become repetitive, and more-adventurous viewers will feel that a big chance was lost.
But in Hollywood's real-world war for the hearts, minds and dollars of summer moviegoers, “Man of Steel” will, no doubt, be the winner.
Cary Darling reviews movies for Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Jude Law struts his dark side in ‘Dom’
- ‘Haunted House 2’ is too much of a bad thing
- Shady Side Academy teens nab photo with Crowe
- ‘Transcendence’ stuck in tropes
- ‘Skin’ has a lot going on underneath