Tag Archives: Man of Steel

Editorial | Review: Man of Steel

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Overall, I loved Man of Steel.  The visuals were stunning and the sound enhanced the overall feel.  It was nice to go to a movie and not be distracted by sound effects.  I hope that as a genre, comic book movies are moving past the era of ear shattering explosions and crashes.  Don’t get me wrong, I want to hear what is happening on the screen, but I like my eardrums intact.

Unlike others that have seen the movie, I did not have a problem with the final plot “twist.”  As a moviegoer, I found Superman’s decision to kill Zod quite satisfying, considering the fact that the villain had just destroyed an entire city and plotted to wipe out humanity.  The heavy, audible snap of Zod’s neck was a nice touch.

THINGS THAT MADE ME HAPPY BECAUSE THEY WERE MISSING:
  • That bizarre curl on his forehead
  • Crazy outfits and hair on the Kryptonians
  • “Truth, Justice, and the American way.”  [It’s time to retire that phrase]
THINGS THAT MADE ME HAPPY BECAUSE THEY EXISTED:
  • Jor-El.  Wow.  I was blown away.  Did NOT expect Russell Crowe to pull that one off.
  • Slightly crooked teeth and chest hair on Superman [He may be the perfect humanoid, but his physique is not humanly impossible—thank goodness!]
  • A haphazard ponytail with the ponytail holder showing on Lois Lane in the desert!!  This felt so natural and realistic.
  • FLAGS EVERYWHERE!!!!  It’s been a long time since I saw a movie that felt so patriotic.
  • Superman: “I grew up in Kansas.  I’m as American as they come.” [I felt this was a fitting adjustment to his normal catchphrase, see above]
MOMENTS THAT I LOVED:
  • Faora: “Is that what you want me to tell General Zod?  That you are uncooperative?”
    Col. Nathan Hardy: “I don’t care what you tell him.”
  • Superman destroys the surveillance drone, because he’s 100% American.  [I may or may not have fallen in love with him at that moment]
  • Gen. Swanwick: “Captain, why are you smiling?”
    Captain: “I just think he’s kinda hot.”
  • Jor-El: “My son is twice the man you were.”  [According to his DNA structure, isn’t he millions and millions the man Zod is?]
    jor el
PLOT POINTS THAT MADE NO SENSE:
  • Zod declares that either Superman dies or he dies… and then proceeds to remove his greatest strategic advantage by taking off his armor
  • Lois Lane is now one of two people responsible for dropping the “bomb” that will save all humanity.  [Really?!?!  We’re all ok with having a reporter completing a military operation???]
OTHER RANDOM THINGS:
  • Holy product placement, Superman!!!!  I saw Nikon, Ihop, Dodge, Sears, 7-Eleven, U-haul, and the Royals… it’s a drinking game just waiting to be played.
  • “You know what they say, it’s all downhill after the first kiss.”  [Really?  They say that? Pretty sure I’ve never heard that ever.]
  • First moments with both fathers felt campy and forced (Truck bed with Kevin Costner after the bus incident and on the spaceship with Jor-El telling him his history).
  • Also the history sequence was weird and included things that happened at Jor-El’s death.  How did it get programmed onto the drive?
  • The spaceship design was disappointing.  My guess is that artists are trying to make them look like they are of elemental alloys not found on Earth, meaning they must be denser than anything here, but they just look like they’re carved of stone.  There are a million geniuses in Hollywood; surely SOMEONE can come up with a new design.
  • I literally wrote down, “Oh god the monologue!!” at one point when Faora was destroying the Ihop.  It was just a series of grandiose, pathetic one-liners about how weak Superman was [uh, really?] and how they were going to kill everyone he loved, repeated over and over with increasing volume and intensity.
CASTING COMMENTS:
  • I adored Russell Crowe as Jor-El.  He stole every scene he was in.  I was surprised that I could not take my eyes off him [and I’m not a huge Crowe fan in general].
  • Also, Diane Lane did a phenomenal job as Martha Kent.  So often the mothers (or aunts, in Spidey’s case) of super heroes come across as overprotective or a little weak.  Not so.  She showed her own inner steel, facing down Zod and planning to rebuild the Kent home.
  • Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent was only slightly overshadowed by his wife.  After the first somewhat awkward scene with his son, he really shone as a kind, gentle father figure.
  • Henry Cavill himself did a great job as the title character.  He was tall, broad-shouldered, cleft-chinned, and blue-eyed, but I didn’t get the “pretty boy” feeling that I usually do from Superman actors—perhaps it because the forehead curl was gone.
  • Amy Adams was the worst casting call.  I don’t think she was completely awful, but she did not embody Lois Lane in any way.  She made silly decisions, and put herself in harm’s way, not because she could handle it, but because she appears to be too dumb to know any better.  Physically she didn’t fit the part either.  Her face was simply not the full, happy face of Superman’s lady-love.  [And her hair was so flat!!!  Someone grab her a can of mousse STAT!!!]

Considering that I just sat through another 2 ½ hour long Superman origin story…  I loved this movie, and I cannot wait to see the next movie from Zack Snyder.   Four and a half Death Stars from me for this one!

4.5 Death Stars

FINAL THOUGHT:  DID ANYONE ELSE SEE THE SIGN FOR LEXCORP IN ONE OF THE NYC FLYOVERS?????????? 😀 😀 😀

Leave a comment

Filed under Editorial, Movie Reviews, Movies, Tracy Gronewold

Review: Man of Steel

Warning: This review contains spoilers for Man of Steel.

Image

I spent nearly all last weekend humming the theme from Superman.  This was, of course, in preparation to go see Man of Steel last Sunday.  I wouldn’t say I was excited about this movie, but I was certainly optimistic.  Knowing that both Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder were involved gave me hope that this wouldn’t be another disaster like Superman Returns.  So on Sunday afternoon I happily hopped in my car and drove off to see what this latest Superman installment had to offer.

Thankfully, there is plenty of good to say about this movie.  First off there is the casting.  With one exception, this movie boasts an outstanding cast.  Even the small roles in this film were enjoyable to watch.  Regular sci-fi movie and TV viewers will certainly recognize several character actors.  A personal favorite of mine, Richard Schiff of West Wing fame, had a fantastic supporting role as Dr. Emil Hamilton.  A couple of surprise performances really stood out in the leading roles.  Chief among these is Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent.  His performance is all the best of Field of Dreams, with none of the debacle that was Waterworld.  He demonstrates fabulous understanding of his character’s place in this world, acting as a guiding light for the young and unsure Clark.

Russell Crowe also impresses as doomed Kryptonian scientist Jor-El.  Even when he returns as a hologram, Crowe manages to project a solid screen presence.  There was something quite fitting about watching these two outstanding fathers on Father’s Day.

Diane Lane plays a very capable Martha Kent.  Although one scene between Lane and a young Clark in his elementary school was awkward and a bit lacking, the scenes between adult Clark and his mother are fantastic.  One in particular outside their home is both emotionally touching and visually quite appealing, with wonderful lighting from a seemingly endless sky.  Although she is always the caring, loving mother, she is by no means a shrinking violet.  Like many farm raised women, she also has a tough side that is harder than steel, appropriate given the man who is her adopted son.

Image

Is there a barber in the house?!

Speaking of steel, tall and handsome, with a head of thick black hair (minus the Christopher Reeve curl, thank God), Henry Cavill certainly looks the part of the man himself, and convincingly steps into some pretty big tights left behind by a sizeable list of actors.

The role of Superman is always a difficult one to play because in reality it’s actually two very different characters that look identical.  In fact, previous films have considered casting two separate actors to play each half of Kal-el’s nature; but in this film, Cavill captures both personas very well.  This Clark is written less like the Christopher Reeves’ Clark and more like Smallville’s Clark played by Tom Welling.  Personally, I would have liked to see more of the awkward, bumbling, yet oh-so-loveable Clark Kent of the Daily Planet and am looking forward to seeing more of him in future films.  Cavill’s portrayal focused mostly on the alienation Clark feels because his powers keep him from fitting in.  While this was an important plot point in the evolution of Superman, it probably should have been less emphasized and drawn out.

My only casting complaint comes in the form of Amy Adams as Lois Lane.  Instead of having a spunky, devil-may-care attitude, Adams plays Lane with recklessness and disregard that is more than a little alarming.  I regularly found myself asking why in Krypton Lois was doing something that no marginally sane person would ever attempt.  I also found Adams to be an unconvincing romantic interest. Superman and Lois’s relationship is one of the staples of comic romance, and this film made it all feel rather unimpressive.

The tone and visual aesthetic of the film definitely takes its cue from executive producer Christopher Nolan.  While nowhere near as gloomy and sinister as the Dark Knight Trilogy, Man of Steel has a certain somewhat melancholy and muted quality that has not been seen in the other films in the Superman franchise.  At times this makes it difficult to believe in the hope the film tries so desperately to convey.  The one place this visual does work is in the death of Krypton.  Watching the end of Superman’s home planet is truly heartbreaking, leaving me with a “there but for the grace of god” feeling.  The destruction of Superman’s home planet is caused solely by the actions and inactions of its citizenry.  It’s not too difficult to envision humanity reaching this same point if we are unwilling to stop thinking only of ourselves and our own immediate gain.  The obvious hints at current events (some of which were only imagined at the time of filming) only make the message more poignant.

Director Zach Snyder once again brings his own particular visual style to the screen which balances Nolan’s darker tone beautifully.  Although I enjoyed Watchmen and Sucker Punch, they were both overwhelming at times.  Man of Steel kept much of the same feel without the stimulus overload.  The generous, though not indulgent, use of this aesthetic is brilliant.  The best of these scenes was the conversation between Zod and Clark that takes place entirely in Clark’s head.  Quickly shifting settings and costumes provides a dramatic element in what would otherwise just be a boring, clichéd villain monologue.

The plot of Man of Steel revolves around the all too familiar origin of Superman, which at this point has been told and retold countless times.  However, this is one of the best that I’ve ever seen; just short of Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman.  The decision to use General Zod as the villain, instead of the old fall back Lex Luthor (yes, I saw the Lex-Corp signs; nice touch), was inspired.  Luthor, although Superman’s arch-nemesis, is a mere mortal man; not a believable threat to the near demi-god that is the Man of Steel.  Zod, on the other hand, presents a threat that is physically equal to Superman and considerably more experienced.

What I enjoyed most about Man of Steel is the little details.  I loved the total beating that Superman takes at the hands of his fellow Kryptonians.  Throughout his life, Clark has been forced to be a pacifist because of his abilities.  While this eventually makes him the hero we know and love, it also means that until this point he has never been in a real fight.  While Clark manages to hold his own because he has already adapted to Earth’s environment, it is obvious that the professional soldiers squaring off against him have a considerable advantage from experience.

This leads me to watching young Clark acclimating to his powers and then later watching the newly arrived Kyptonians’ laborious on the fly adaptation.  When Clark’s powers first manifested he was hardly able to control them and it took him many years to reach the level of mastery we see him demonstrate in the beginning of the film.  The Phantom Zone prisoners however did not have this lifetime of practice with which to master their newfound powers.  They were forced to adapt on a significantly advanced learning curve.  The progression of Clark’s mastery of his power was made more believable by the Kryptonians’ struggle.  The Kryptonians can’t even fly for most of the movie; instead they are forced to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Since this is a reboot of the Superman film franchise, there were obviously some changes made to the story to make it more relevant to modern audiences and to purge stuff that didn’t make sense or served no real purpose, and I was totally cool with them.  Although it has been a part of the costume since the beginning, I’ve never been a big fan of the red trunks (or red briefs) on the outside of the costume.  I shed no tears for their departure from the Superman mythos.

One change that did disappoint me a bit was the death of Jonathan Kent.  This is one of the pivotal events in the life of Clark Kent; often the one which ultimately leads to him to become Superman. Traditionally Clark’s father dies of a heart attack, something that Clark is powerless to prevent.  In the updated version however, Kent dies in a tornado, refusing to allow Clark to save him for fear of exposing his son’s abilities.  It makes the scene much more touching—the idea of yet another father sacrificing himself for Clark’s sake—but I think something is lost in the change.  In the previous films, Kent’s death reminded the audience that even with his almost god-like powers, Superman is not omnipotent.  Such a deep, personal loss gave us a sense of his humanity.

The majority of the movie was fairly predictable, but for me, the end is where things came apart, all in one rather awful scene: Superman is forced to kill Zod to prevent him from killing more innocent people.  I understand that from the standpoint of a non-fanboy this may have worked and even seemed to be a right choice, but all I could feel was vast disappointment.  I am aware that the Superman of the comics has killed before, when the need has arisen, and that this isn’t that same Superman with seventy-five years of canon to support him.  However, Superman is meant to inspire us to be better than we are; to appeal to those things that are best in humanity.  Being that example means showing mercy.  It means believing that someone can change, even if it comes with the risk that they fall back on their old ways.  There is something decidedly wrong in a comic universe where Superman kills Zod while Batman allows Joker to live.  Certainly both deserve death, and the chance for reforming either is almost non-existent, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.  Maybe I can’t explain why it is okay for Superman to kill Nazis in the ‘40’s but it is not okay for him to kill Zod in 2013, but I do know that it represents a failing of Superman as an ideal.  In killing Zod, for that brief moment, Superman no longer represents what we should all strive to be, but instead shows us the worst that humanity has to offer.  And while maybe necessary, it is still a terrible waste.  To me this plot twist demonstrated a lack of understanding of the character.

Although the ending left a bad taste in my mouth, I, like Superman himself, am hopeful.  There were some absolutely incredible moments in this film that have the potential to make this reboot of Superman everything Geekdom hopes and wants it to be.  With a thoughtful tone and solid cast, this chapter of Man of Steel could finally have the magic that elevates DC films to the next level.  This movie would have gotten a solid 3.5, maybe even 4 Death Stars, but with such a dramatic wrong turn at the ending, I just can’t bring myself to give it any more than 2.5 Death Stars.  I look forward to the next installment of this new franchise with hope!

2.5 Death Stars

Leave a comment

Filed under Andrew Hales, Movie Reviews, Movies

Being A Geek

This is an origin story.  I take quite a bit of pride in being a geek, though admittedly it hasn’t always been that way. When I was young, other kids mocked me for my love of science and my slow evolution into a geek.  As I got older, I started to realize what was cool to other kids and what wasn’t.  I would often make fun of things I loved to in order to try to fit in. Finally though, I came to understand that I needed to embrace who I was and just be myself. As I became more confident in my own identity, I lost any doubt that I was a geek, and I began to wonder what exactly that was, and by extension, what made me one. 

If Prof. Indy say it, it must be true.

If Prof. Indy says it, it must be true.

Indiana Jones himself said that 90% of archeology takes place in the library, so I figured I’d start where all great investigations start:  the dictionary. Sure enough, I found a pretty good definition of geek from Webster’s English Language Learner’s Dictionary:

1 : a person who is socially awkward and unpopular : a usually intelligent person who does not fit in with other people

2 : a person who is very interested in and knows a lot about a particular field or activity

It is the second definition that I found the far more interesting, as it supports my own definition of geek, which is: “a person who exhibits a certain, highly elevated degree of passion for a particular topic, which is often outside the mainstream.” For me, being a geek is about learning about and doing the things that I love—regardless of what they are—and finding people that share those same interests with whom to exchange knowledge.

From either my personal definition, or Webster’s, one could infer that any person could be a geek about anything, but that isn’t entirely true. There aren’t exercise geeks or stock market geeks, but there are people who are very interested in and extremely knowledgeable about both (they are called something different).

So what then makes an activity geeky? What allows those that partake in it to proudly bear the title of geek correctly?

The first important characteristic is that it is outside the mainstream of popular culture. This doesn’t mean it has to be way outside the norm, but there does need to be some degree of separation; think the classic stereotype of jocks vs. geeks. For example, playing video games is a pretty common pastime for many people in their teens and twenties—and even some older ones as well. While gaming has become more popular, I would argue that only a limited number of games would be considered truly mainstream, such as Halo or Call of Duty. Though there are millions of casual gamers, Geeks play their games religiously for hours on end, until they know exactly which weapon to use under what circumstances and the exact terrain of every map.

This guy knows every map.

This guy knows every map.

Another great example, and a personal favorite of mine, is comic books. Thanks to movies such as Avengers, the Dark Knight trilogy, and Man of Steel, superheroes appear in our culture and our minds like no other time in their history. I can barely walk down the street or go out to dinner without seeing someone wearing a Batman t-shirt or an ad for Iron Man. But while our society is almost saturated with these characters, the comic books in which they all originate are still largely ignored and in some cases even looked down upon. On the silver screen, these characters are accepted and even adored, but the comic books have never become a social norm.

What separates the average person with perhaps a passing interest in a geeky subject and the true geek, is also the zeal with which they embrace their subject.  There are plenty of people who have read graphic novels such as Watchmen as part of a high school or college class, but unless they became instant fans, just reading doesn’t make them geeks. The geek who deserves the title is the World of Warcraft player who jumps online for a raid, sick as a dog, because there is a slight chance at picking up the rare item he’s coveted for months, or who drives to his local comic stores every week, regardless of the weather, to get his weekly books (I think hurricane conditions are the only ones that have kept me home—a badge of honor.).

I would even have to consider a small, select group of Twilight fans as geeks. This does not apply to most of them. But there are those select few who demonstrate the necessary ardor. Those who pick Team Edward or Team Jacob, talk about the books and movies non-stop, and even ruined comic con for more than a few people. These people are geeks too, albeit annoying ones (Lord, give me strength!). Geekhood is about the passion, and they have it in abundance.

Although the pursuit of knowledge in and of itself is not geeky, a thirst for geeky knowledge is another defining aspect of a geek.  I have seen comic geeks, driven by passion for a particular subject, dig through box after box of back issues just to find a random appearance of their favorite character. The drive needed to persist at this task is impressive (If you disagree, try it for a few hours.  It is way harder than you think. I know; I’ve done it several times). What impresses me even more is that they knew their favorite character could be found in these random and seemingly unrelated titles.  Any ordinary person can read the main comics that focus on their favorite person, but a true geek takes the time and spends the energy to research even non-speaking, background appearances.  To a geek, the acquisition of information is sometimes even more important than the information itself.

Not only do we gather vast storehouses of semi-useless trivia, we also love to share our knowledge, both among those who appreciate it and unsuspecting friends and relatives. There are countless fan sites and forums dedicated to nearly every type of fandom, no matter how seemingly insignificant.  For the consumer desperate to know what was different between the Megatron figure released in Japan and the one in the US, there is someone out there who knows that difference, and will enthusiastically share it.  I myself am quite proud to admit that I own not one, but two different Star Trek Encyclopedias.  My friends have even placed bets on me in a Star Wars trivia contest at New York Comic Con, though sadly I didn’t go nearly as far as they’d hoped.

I have also learned specialized skills, such as dice based probability, that almost completely lack practical application… Except, of course, figuring out the odds of making a successful roll in Warhammer 40K in seconds flat.

The downside of this quasi-savant status, is that geeks have a bit of a “tough love” stereotype when it comes to people who are new and don’t know everything yet.  Reality is that while there are a few jerks with a pathological need to feel superior by belittling people who know less than they, the overwhelming majority of geeks out there are more than happy to share their knowledge and experience, and educate those who are new to geekhood or expanding their existing geek horizons.

It’s the passion that drives geeks to do these things even though they are not something that the rest of society considers normal.  It is important, then, to realize that the same passion that makes a person identify with geeks everywhere should make him proud of his status.  I was once told by a coworker that I shouldn’t mention my love of comics to women because it is creepy. TO HELL WITH THAT! This who I am and I’m not going to hide it or apologize for it just because it’s something that someone doesn’t want to see. We live in a modern society on foundations built by famous geeks—Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for two—and it’s time we stand up and be proud of who we are.  My name is Andrew, I’m a geek, and I couldn’t be happier.

6 Comments

Filed under Andrew Hales, Geek Life