Whenever I am thinking about seeing a movie, there are usually three critics I would go to for their recommendations. Since I am not a professional reviewer, I am at their mercy for first impressions since I can't get into a movie early. Unfortunately, my best go-to guy, Roger Ebert, died this year (RIP Roger). The second is Pete Travers from Rolling Stone and the third was anyone from The Washington Post. Their opinions were best exemplified by Stephen Hunter in the old days and now their new top reviewer, Ann Hornaday. I found that if Roger Ebert liked a movie, Pete Travers liked a movie and if The Washington Post hated it, 9 times out of ten it would be a flick that I would find entertaining. I find the Post's critics to be snooty and too artsy about film. In fact, they are the type of people who call movies films. They seem to have forgotten what it was with which they fell in love in cinema in the first place. Movies take us to places and times and events that we could only imagine. For me, going to the movies is an experience to be savored. I love to be whisked away in the pageantry (for lack of a better word) of it all. Not every film has to be art or a banquet; sometimes junk food is just fine.
Now, I told you all that to tell you this. The Post, especially on crowd pleasers, seems to have an instinctual repulsion to anything that normal people would find fun or entertaining. They seem to only like foreign films, heavy handed message films or arthouse films. So, naturally, they hated Man of Steel. And not just one of them hated it, but two of their critics spent several words trashing every detail. Now, while I am loathe to agree with the Post on anything, I have to agree that this movie is a tad much. Now, I do not hate it, and, in parts, it is quite fun. It just is not great. Now, I did my best to manage my expectations going into the theater. The moment I heard Zack Snyder was going to direct a Christopher Nolan-penned version of Superman, my stomach dropped. First, Snyder's directorial style is getting way out of hand. Its over-stylized, over-the-top slo-mo, jerky-style worked for 300 and less so for Watchmen. But it is now becoming ubiquitous with how many people are copying it. The most egregious example is the teenaged fever-dream fantasy of ancient Rome on TV, Spartacus. I was praying to God Snyder would not repeat this style for Man of Steel. Well, my prayers were answered in that regard (sort of). Unfortunately, he settled into either the jerky hand-held style so popular today (I call it the vomit-cam), or else the post-MTV, rock video hyper-cut style for those with the attention span of a hyperactive chihuahua on caffeine and speed. So, while at least Synder can do something else, he still does not a great directorial style. I found myself pining for the laid-back style of Michael Bay's Transformers or Armageddon throughout the experience, so he still has a long way to go before he can be considered a good director.
But the movie is not Syder's fault, not by a long shot. I place the blame solely at the feet of Christopher Nolan. Nolan's own original movies like Memento and Inception are amazingly original works of art. However, while much has been made about his revamping of the Batman series, I find that on further consideration, I like his version of Batman less and less. Now, I loved The Dark Knight Returns, but that was mostly because Heath Ledger's Joker was so undeniably good. In his take on Batman, Nolan took an already gritty and joyless character and made it grittier and even less fun. Now, this approach actually works for Batman, with the tortured psyche. But it does not not really work for Superman. Both Batman and Superman are archetypes, two faces of the same coin. They are two sides of humanity, Batman representing the darkest and worst of it, Superman represents the best and brightest of it. Neither of them are truly attainable, as they represent ideals. Superman was always meant to be a bit naive, a bit too good to be a superhero. It is something that sets him apart from humanity, other than the fact he is an alien. I don't want to get into a gritty, self-examination of what makes Superman tick, to bring him down to the level of most of the other superheroes today. I want to see something to aspire to, not see him brought down to our level. I know this has been a tendency in movies today, to make superheroes more "real."
I did like unknown Henry Cavill in the role. The producers wisely stayed with an unknown; the big S speaks for itself. They have wisely gone down this road since they cast Christopher Reeve as Supes in the 70s. Reeves, incidentally, is still the best Superman out there. While Cavill looks the role and can act, he does have a problem with expressions. He spends most of the movie looking like he lost his keys with a worried, furrowed brow, giving him a confused, befuddled look. Amy Adams plays Lois, and while she is fine acting in the role, she does not really convince me she is Lois, merely an actress playing her. She did not really own it, merely occupied the space. This is probably not her fault, but rather the script's. The script has Superman and Lois sort of falling in love, but there is absolutely no chemistry between them or impetus for them to fall in love. They do so because the script says so. Michael Shannon chews the scenery in true Shatnerian heights as General Zod, but that really is all the role called for. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are great as Ma and Pa Kent. They actually are high points in the film There is a whole lot of loud, very long fight scenes, with world machines that aren't explained to somehow restart Krypton on Earth. There is a lot that doesn't make sense or is explained, you just go along for the ride. And on top of it all, it is essentially a remake of Superman 2. Now, while I am not opposed to making a remake, at least make it good. I have been complaining for years that Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas, and this movie kind of proves this trend. It is exhibit A on how not to write a comprehensible film.
However, despite all the negative stuff I said here, the movie is fun. It is not great, but it is not bad, either. Go see it for some brainless entertainment. Turn your brain off and go have fun, but manage your expectations or you will be disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment