It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...Loud.

The worst thing you can do with a franchise as marketable and branded as Superman is make it generic.  When the story and characters feel like they've been pieced together from stronger sources, it's time to rethink your strategy.  This was exactly the problem with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel; the climax is loud, and unstatisfying, and a lot of the story feels like a retread, nobly intentioned for sure, but rote.  Visually it's a feast.  Henry Cavill is superbly suited for the role of Kal-El and the rest of the cast is top notch as well.  You just have to wish they were given better material.

My problems are these: Superman is so well defined and known in the American (and now Worldwide) mythology, so why waste such an impressive budget on an origin story?  We live a narrative saturated world, I was once told, and writers don't have the luxury of exposition anymore.  If something is known, you don't have to state it.  So much time in Man of Steel is dedicated to telling us things we already know.

Also, there's only so much you can blow up or knock over before you lose the humanity of your characters.  But Superman isn't human, you say?  Well this movie does a fine job showing us that he really is as much human as he is Kryptonian.  The reason Superman is a compelling character, as I see it, for two reasons: 1.  He's an alien trying to live as human being and 2. He's an immortal being while all the people he loves are mortal.  These two paradoxes create symapthy for a character that is basically invincible and make him someone we can root for.  There is a lot in this film that gives us cause to cheer and weep with him.  The moment when Pa Kent (wonderfully played by Kevin Costner) reassures a young Clark that he is in fact his son, is touching.  Jor-El (another strong performance in Russell Crowe) telling Kal he can be the best of both these worlds is inspiring.  So why then do you waste these beautiful moments of mythology with a bombastic ending that could have come out of Transformers?  Two alien "robots" duke it out amongst the ruin of a city that is suddenly devoid of human life.

Which gets me to my third and biggest gripe with Man of Steel, how can you justify that much destruction in a movie about a being who represents a Savior?  There was no real world cost to Supe's and Zod's slugfest.  I told a friend, if, in the sequel, they don't address the fact that over half of Metropolis is destroyed it will be criminal.  That statement is partially a moral one and partially a narrative one.  There has to be a cost for this "victory."  If they do account for it in the next one (and yes, there will be a next one) it could be a huge opportunity for Mr. Kent to reflect on what his choices (huge theme in this film, more on that later) mean for those he loves and those he has sworn to protect.  Until then, I stand by the fact that the third act (the final showdown) is just too much.  Too much blowing up, too much punching, too many buildings collapsing, too much noise.  Maybe I'm just an old fart now, but I left the theater with a slight headache.

I also had problems with the story, but I also enjoyed great parts of it.  The overall story is a bit convoluted.  Something about Zod creating a new Krypton and something called a Codex (there's an awful lot of technobabble).  That's ok, I could follow it for the most part.  One thing I found myself really taking note of was the dialogue, and lack thereof.  I feel like a lot of the filmmakers working today are of the film school variety where you're told, "Don't say it.  Show it." And because of this we have a generation of people who think characters scowling into the sunset has meaning.  This happens a lot in Man of Steel.   For the most part this is ok, but I like dialogue.  I LOVE dialogue.  Good dialogue sends shivers up my spine.  So wasting all your dialogue on exposition shouted by military men of various intergalactic races only to have your lead character hardly say a word seems like a waste.  I understand that this was supposed to be an introspective film for Clark, Kal-El and Superman (all the same person, in case you didn't know), but give the guy some stuff to work with I think Henry has it in him and when you've got David Goyer as the writer you can do great things.  I mean, this is one of the guys responsible for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Now I need to be fair, I've only discussed the films weaknesses (as I see them), but there is also a lot to like about this film.  And I did like it.  I may have even loved it.  Repeat viewings might be needed to fully come to terms with it, but only after my headache goes away.

First of all, I really like what they did with Lois Lane.  Her trying to track down Clark is great.  I like that he's become a vagabond while he has been finding himself.  I wish that were more of the movie.  The "relationship" between the two happens a bit quick, but I like that they cut that corner and didn't waste time on a love story we all know already exists.  If they followed this example with the rest of his origin, it may have helped.  I think that Lois Lane is also one of the great things in the mythology of Superman that humanizes him.  And it's the human moments, like Perry White and his staff as they look death in the face, or Clark finally understanding why his father hid him from the world, that make the movie really soar.

I also love the themes in the film.  The biggest one that stood out to me was that of choice versus destiny.  David Goyer does a great job of creating a conflict inherent in Superman of what his choices are and what his destiny can be.  Without giving anything away, the conflict between Zod and Superman is the conflict between what is expected of us by our society and our ability to choose whether or not to live up to those expectations.  Again, if the sequel is done right, Superman's choices will haunt him and cause him to question his destiny.  I was worried that this movie would become a Nolanification of a superhero that represents hope and optimism, but I think a lot of hope is given while not overlooking the difficulty and Catch-22 nature of being Superman.

And above all the film looks great!  The design and the cinematography and the effects are all top notch.  Some of the fight scenes were a little concussive and I wish Mr. Snyder would have brightened some of the hues, but overall the film is spectacular to watch.  Not just the design and look of the film, either, but the actors.  I think this is one of the best cast superhero films ever.  Each part was played well and everyone looked great doing it.  Oh and the ending!  Sublime.  Even though I still wonder, do the glasses really fool anyone?

So while the film had a lot of issues, I think the good stuff won out for me.  Like Superman himself, this movie struggles to understand what it wants to be.  As I reflect, I see that its aspirations may exceed its grasp, but that doesn't make the aspirations any less noble.  Just as the Man of Steel is trying to find his place on Earth, Man of Steel tries to find its identity in an overwhleming sea of superhero movies and, hopefully, the next film will show us that this rocky step was worth it.