Remember when the first Man Of Steel trailers were first released, with all that whispering, those soft-focus shots of grass, and a gentle wind whipping both Old Glory and a line of laundry across a grey pastel sky? This idyllic, ethereal tone led many a viewer to (half-jokingly) wonder if the trailer hadn't been accidentally switched with that of an upcoming Terrence Malick film. This isn't how you advertise an action film; much less a superhero story. What's with the butterfly seemingly trapped in the chain? Come on, this isn't the place for pretentious metaphors! Where were the one-liners, the big reveal, or even that ubiquitous 'blinking' effect that we've come to accept isn't going away any time soon? Where was the
noise? And do you remember when, having watched the film this weekend, you found yourself thinking just what Malick's vision of Superman might actually have looked like? There'd probably be a longer prologue, fewer explosions and practically zero shots of flying people being punched through buildings but, still, it would have been quite something. Instead, we have to make do with the man who transformed a trilogy into a billion-dollar industry and, erm, the man responsible for one of the most divisive comic book adaptations ever committed to screen. But really, how could a picture directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan be anything other than Film of The Year? Answer: If it were less of a collaboration and more of a power struggle... Just as Nolan rescued Batman from the fumbling hands of Joel Schumacher, so here he's taking another superhero away from the edge of disaster (Bryan Singer's 2006 'homage' saw a flat and formulaic Superman Returns) and transforming a comic book character into a complex cipher for our times. Yes, this means that our hero is burdened with one existential crisis after another, but we can forgive him; after all, struggling with a dual identity/an overwhelming sense of morality is practically now a requisite for all superheroes, reboots or otherwise. And yes, this means another non-linear narrative but, as the trailers have already shown, these flashbacks offer the film's more powerful and poignant moments. And Snyder, having already toyed with the comic book crowd with his adaptation of both 300 and Watchmen, knows only too well that this could be the film to make us forget all about Sucker Punch. Yet you can't help but worry whether it'll be Snyder's style over substance or Nolan's multi-layered mysticism that will ultimately tip the film in their favour. It has taken Man Of Steel less than a week to surpass Superman Returns' box office takings, but, in the popularity stakes, how does it compare when placed against the film that many believe to be the benchmark: Richard Donner's 1978 original? Is it really fair to invite comparison between Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve? Is Michael Shannon a General Zod to rival Terence Stamp? And just how do Snyder and Nolan intend to make their Superman story stand alone? The answer, it would seem, is to do away with the S word entirely. In fact, Nolan and David S. Goyer's script suggests that it isn't even a letter S to begin with (perhaps the only modification 'borrowed' from Donner's version), and so the term 'Superman' is heard only once in the film. And even this is handled with a modicum of embarrassment; with the speaker sheepishly explaining that the press have come up with the nickname. Indeed, Lois Lane could very well have coined the term, yet her first utterance of the word is interrupted not so much by another character but by the writer himself. Just what is it with Nolan and his shying away from even saying his character's names? Think back to how Anne Hathaway was introduced in The Dark Knight Rises not as Catwoman but Selina Kyle. Or how clumsy the revelation that John Blake was, in fact, Robin. Here, Kal-El becomes Clark Kent out of necessity, yet it is Nolan who begrudgingly allows Kent to become Superman. Despite monumental hype and potential, it would be fair to say that Man of Steel has landed to a mixed critical reception. Personally, I would give the film a three-star rating, but in order to give a more balanced viewpoint, here are 3 features that played to the film's strengths, followed by 3 that struggled to get Supes off the ground.
Contains Spoilers