***Spoiler Free Impressions of: MAN OF STEEL***

With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for, once it's gone, it may never come again.

**********************************************************************

No, I wasn't blown away by the movie. Usually, when one's expectations aren't so high, this works in the film's favor. It may not be fair to gauge one adaptation by your experience with another (especially since you are also, unwittingly, comparing markedly different periods of your own life, and your own capacity for artistic appreciation). All I know is that after seeing one movie in my youth, I left the theater feeling as if I myself could fly. Total exhilaration. After seeing the other movie this weekend, I left the theater decidedly more-- grounded. Must all films about this character make me wish to soar? Of course not. I am open to the character becoming nearly as malleable as his darker counterpart (to a point!). But I would be remiss if I didn't admit that something was missing, something vital, while there was far too much of something else (Take a guess.).
Opinions tend to adjust upward or downward with time, and upon repeated viewings. But, as it stands now, it's only a good experience, and a mediocre film. That may be enough to get the film franchise going again, as well as the team-up extravaganza for which many have so desperately clamored. And yet, one might have hoped for a much more auspicious and inspiring (re)start.

They got some things right, both old and new. They came up woefully short in other things, and THESE things may make a difference in the long run. Always begin with a sincere heart, a solid and charming crux to the story, and the character. You can surround this with the special effects, the gimmicks, the overdone design and camera moves, the grittier tone, and excessive noise afterwards. Never skimp on what is crucial just because you've concocted a clever new spin on old material. That old material still works for a REASON.

RECOMMENDATION: See it if you like your movies VERY heavy on action, and too light on almost everything else. Entertaining, but not enthralling.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Cheers!

***UPDATE CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!***

Okay, the writers of MAN OF STEEL deliberately constructed that story to achieve a specific directive.  It wasn't as if they stumbled upon a situation which called for a decision to be made concerning homicide.  They intentionally arranged all the elements so that Superman must kill Zod.  After all, they removed Kryptonite from the equation.  They eliminated the possibility that Clark would have much more experience dealing with the "no win scenario" by totally eviscerating the character of Jonathan Kent.  Basically, this was less than a viable NEW approach to the character than it was a sloppy conspiracy to undermine the traditional Superman in order to make him unpredictable, and more marketable (For those last couple lines, it would be ironic if you imagined Kevin Costner's voice as Jim Garrison from the film JFK.  Heh.  If not, try reading it again, just for kicks!).

Now, I say "sloppy" because even within this objectionable context, their own plan just doesn't make any sense.  I've already illustrated elsewhere the hypocrisy of their Jonathan Kent, as well as the egregious inconsistency of the Christ analogy (which Snyder utilizes more heavy-handedly than anyone previously!).  Everyone has keyed in on the grand finale, as Kal-El seems incapable of maneuvering the battle to safer grounds, and the awkward build-up to the final homicide, rescuing a nondescript group of people (Perhaps this should have been Lois Lane, which might better justify Kal's crisis of choice, and thereby alleviating the confusion as to why Kal would care about THESE innocents after allowing so many others to perish.  Having it be Lois would also create interesting character complexities down the line in sequels:  How does it affect Superman's conscience that Lois was the only person that he killed to save?  His guilt would hang over their relationship, while it would better enforce Superman's inner vow to never kill again, and to treat EVERYone fairly, value all life EQUALLY forevermore.  See?  I can write the grim-tone, too, if need be.), while appearing not to show adequate concern for so many other victims.

But in the aftermath, as the filmmakers choose to let the air out of the tension with flat humor, the resolution rings so drastically hollow.  Superman admonishes the army general about spying on him, and the female aide remarks on Kal's attractiveness.  We're all supposed to laugh now, after all that we've seen  (*cue the "Sad Trombone" sound effect ).  And finally, we get the introduction of the familiar version of Clark Kent as he lands a job at The Daily Planet.  Meanwhile, nothing is mentioned or shown of the death, dying, and devastation which must surely exist just outside those office windows.  There were no scenes of Superman assisting in search and rescue operations, no efforts at repairing all the damage, no addressing the media with messages of contrition, appealing for the world's trust now that he has been revealed, and he has proven his loyalty to humanity.  None of what would seem the logical thing to include.  Instead, it suddenly reverts to being just a comic book movie, and we're expected to forget all the darkness of tone, forget all the realism.  Because, in this more realistic world, surely Lois Lane wouldn't be the ONLY person who could see through Clark Kent's lame eyeglasses disguise.  The audience applauds at the long-awaited depiction of Lois as nobody's fool.  But that only magnifies the idiocy of the rest of the world.  Sloppy.

All will be sorted out in the sequel, and all these dangling plot threads and character discrepancies opens the door for a more insidious and opportunistic Lex Luthor.  No, the sequel will answer for its own mistakes, should they arise.  THIS film failed to meet the responsibilities to which it was beholden for this audience.  Granted, the agenda was "set in stone."  I understand that they felt compelled to restructure the Superman property for a modern fan-base, and in the interests of expanding said fan-base.  But I think they could have done a better job of it, instead of just an "okay" one.  And I also deplore the "over-Marvel-ization" of the DC characters and legends, depriving the market of some measure of variety in their choice of superhero fantasy.

~JKM