Man of Steel:
I really enjoyed this iteration of Superman and his origin story. Most of the time when I see a movie that includes another iteration of a character's origin story it seems too repetitive and as if it's only put in for those who have no idea at all about the first time a character's origin was explained/shown. The Amazing Spider-man is one of these instances where it wasn't needed to show Peter receiving his spider bite. In my opinion it wasn't necessary. Why? Because it was already done in a movie that came out within the same decade, just earlier, which isn't really that long of a period. In the case of Man of Steel the last time Superman's origin was shown in a Superman film was Superman: The Movie, which was a few decades ago. This is why in my opinion including a retelling of his origin was necessary whereas in the Amazing Spider-man with Peter Parker it wasn't.
I like that General Zod is included as part of Kal-El's origin and that he had a more involved relationship with Jor-El, whereas in Superman: The Movie it wasn't a major plot point. Michael Shannon did an excellent job playing General Zod and what I liked about his performance was that he wasn't trying to emulate what Terence Stamp did with his version of the character. One of the things I thought was really cool was how General Zod introduced himself to humanity via hacking into their visual and radio communications because it felt eerie as well as imposing and threatening.
What this Superman film had a lot of, which is what Superman Returns really needed, is opponents who are level with Superman's abilities to be more of a challenge for him than what Lex Luthor had been in the previous films. There is a vulnerability to Supes that is more than just Kryptonite and his desire to protect humanity. I also liked the camera movement in the fight scenes and it was great to see what was accomplished with the CG, which is really good in this. As we know CG has come a long way since it's very first use and since the horrible looking Scorpion King monster in The Mummy Returns. There are still films that have CG that isn't as good as it can be now but the Man of the Steel is not one of those.
I have read that some people have had issues with the collateral damage Superman does when fighting his Kryptonian enemies. I can see their point but to me there isn't a majority of moments where Superman is the one who creates damage willfully without regard for human life. Most of the time it is a result of him being attacked or in situations where the fighting is so close quarters that he couldn't possibly dodge every single part of the city in the scene while defending himself against his attackers.
Henry Cavill does an excellent job as Clark and Superman. I felt that he was given a really good screenplay to work with and he fits the profile of the Superman character very well. What helped in this is that he's not bound by other actors who have performed the character. No he's not Christopher Reeve but what he is is an actor who has embodied a Superman that is different because of the time period the audience now lives in compared to the 70s and early 80s. Superman Returns intended to re-capture the essence of the Donner films and I think it achieved that but it also was a product of 2006 and a lot has happened since then in the landscape of Superhero movies with the likes of The Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises etc.
The way in which Superman is treated by humanity at first rings true for the world we currently live in. We would be worried that such a being could destroy us all. But it is also a sad reflection on the fear our society has where we would first think the negative possibility rather than a hopeful one if faced with this situation in reality. I would like to see this explored in more films. The fact that it seems the next film is crammed with other Superhero's part of me is afraid that what was set up in this movie will be overshadowed by the other characters. It could come off as just a desperate move to gain ground against the leaps and bounds Marvel has had over the past decade leading up to The Avengers. It seems too that they feel because they have already had a Green Lantern movie, even if it wasn't received well by some, it still is in recent existence so audiences who weren't familiar with him before would be by now. It also seems they believe because Man of Steel was a success that it means they can shoehorn other DC characters they haven't had any luck with yet, namely Wonder Woman because the success of Man of Steel could somehow shield that character from being unsuccessful. In my opinion including Batman in the Man of Steel sequel isn't an obstacle to what was set up in this film, because screen-time with him and Superman could be balanced quite well but not with Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern included.
Hans Zimmer's score for this film is amazing. The theme composed by John Williams will always be a great and recognizable piece of music. Before Man of Steel went into production when I read that John Williams's Superman theme would not be included in a different form I was a bit disappointed. But fast forward to my viewing of it and I feel that, in line with the tone of this film, the music was done well and was excellent. Hans Zimmer created a wonderful theme for Batman and he has done the same here for Superman.
The director of this, Zack Snyder did a really good job. I have only seen two of his films before this one - 300 and The Watchmen. I enjoyed 300 but in all honesty I couldn't get into The Watchmen when I watched it a few years ago. The Man of Steel is a major improvement over The Watchmen and I think that's a more appropriate film to compare to Man of Steel considering they are both Superhero characters in films directed by the same person.
I give this film 9/10
I really enjoyed this iteration of Superman and his origin story. Most of the time when I see a movie that includes another iteration of a character's origin story it seems too repetitive and as if it's only put in for those who have no idea at all about the first time a character's origin was explained/shown. The Amazing Spider-man is one of these instances where it wasn't needed to show Peter receiving his spider bite. In my opinion it wasn't necessary. Why? Because it was already done in a movie that came out within the same decade, just earlier, which isn't really that long of a period. In the case of Man of Steel the last time Superman's origin was shown in a Superman film was Superman: The Movie, which was a few decades ago. This is why in my opinion including a retelling of his origin was necessary whereas in the Amazing Spider-man with Peter Parker it wasn't.
I like that General Zod is included as part of Kal-El's origin and that he had a more involved relationship with Jor-El, whereas in Superman: The Movie it wasn't a major plot point. Michael Shannon did an excellent job playing General Zod and what I liked about his performance was that he wasn't trying to emulate what Terence Stamp did with his version of the character. One of the things I thought was really cool was how General Zod introduced himself to humanity via hacking into their visual and radio communications because it felt eerie as well as imposing and threatening.
What this Superman film had a lot of, which is what Superman Returns really needed, is opponents who are level with Superman's abilities to be more of a challenge for him than what Lex Luthor had been in the previous films. There is a vulnerability to Supes that is more than just Kryptonite and his desire to protect humanity. I also liked the camera movement in the fight scenes and it was great to see what was accomplished with the CG, which is really good in this. As we know CG has come a long way since it's very first use and since the horrible looking Scorpion King monster in The Mummy Returns. There are still films that have CG that isn't as good as it can be now but the Man of the Steel is not one of those.
I have read that some people have had issues with the collateral damage Superman does when fighting his Kryptonian enemies. I can see their point but to me there isn't a majority of moments where Superman is the one who creates damage willfully without regard for human life. Most of the time it is a result of him being attacked or in situations where the fighting is so close quarters that he couldn't possibly dodge every single part of the city in the scene while defending himself against his attackers.
Henry Cavill does an excellent job as Clark and Superman. I felt that he was given a really good screenplay to work with and he fits the profile of the Superman character very well. What helped in this is that he's not bound by other actors who have performed the character. No he's not Christopher Reeve but what he is is an actor who has embodied a Superman that is different because of the time period the audience now lives in compared to the 70s and early 80s. Superman Returns intended to re-capture the essence of the Donner films and I think it achieved that but it also was a product of 2006 and a lot has happened since then in the landscape of Superhero movies with the likes of The Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises etc.
The way in which Superman is treated by humanity at first rings true for the world we currently live in. We would be worried that such a being could destroy us all. But it is also a sad reflection on the fear our society has where we would first think the negative possibility rather than a hopeful one if faced with this situation in reality. I would like to see this explored in more films. The fact that it seems the next film is crammed with other Superhero's part of me is afraid that what was set up in this movie will be overshadowed by the other characters. It could come off as just a desperate move to gain ground against the leaps and bounds Marvel has had over the past decade leading up to The Avengers. It seems too that they feel because they have already had a Green Lantern movie, even if it wasn't received well by some, it still is in recent existence so audiences who weren't familiar with him before would be by now. It also seems they believe because Man of Steel was a success that it means they can shoehorn other DC characters they haven't had any luck with yet, namely Wonder Woman because the success of Man of Steel could somehow shield that character from being unsuccessful. In my opinion including Batman in the Man of Steel sequel isn't an obstacle to what was set up in this film, because screen-time with him and Superman could be balanced quite well but not with Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern included.
Hans Zimmer's score for this film is amazing. The theme composed by John Williams will always be a great and recognizable piece of music. Before Man of Steel went into production when I read that John Williams's Superman theme would not be included in a different form I was a bit disappointed. But fast forward to my viewing of it and I feel that, in line with the tone of this film, the music was done well and was excellent. Hans Zimmer created a wonderful theme for Batman and he has done the same here for Superman.
The director of this, Zack Snyder did a really good job. I have only seen two of his films before this one - 300 and The Watchmen. I enjoyed 300 but in all honesty I couldn't get into The Watchmen when I watched it a few years ago. The Man of Steel is a major improvement over The Watchmen and I think that's a more appropriate film to compare to Man of Steel considering they are both Superhero characters in films directed by the same person.
I give this film 9/10
