What were they smoking? My reaction to all those critics who hated Man of Steel

Man of Steel, guilty of failing Superman?

And it gets tiring really. I don't get it why the critics (and some bandwagon pseudo critics) are lambasting the Man of Steel. I mean, I do understand that the majority of them are pining on the nostalgic 1978 Superman movie starred by Christopher Reeve. It's even a shock to me that many are preferring Superman Returns (the one starred by Brandon Routh) over Man of Steel. But clearly, Man of Steel is not the Superman for that 70's generation where times were more innocent. Below are some of the comments that I would like to answer.

"Gone … are any of those lighter moments, fondly remembered from Supermen past, in which our hero – in or out of disguise – used his powers for decidedly non-super feats and, by doing so, grew closer to his fellow man, One longs to see this Superman change a flat or rescue a kitten from a tree or take Lois for a flight around the block." Variety's Scott Foundas wrote.

Superman, grounded?

Man of Steel is grounded in realism, in a post 9/11 world where threats to humanity is a serious threat. The appeal of the film for me is that it does not gloss over Superman's presence in this world as a charming alien. Because truth be told, we don't react kindly to the things unknown to us. We don't accept aliens with open arms. When Superman in 1978 first appeared, people in the film embraced him readily without curiosity or fear. There was a sense of amazement and wonder. But that generation is still yet to experience real fear. Or to put it more succinctly, Amercia does not know fear and terrorism yet. In Man of Steel, we are shown a mirror of our reflection of how we react to aliens like Superman. An alien just can't quickly charm a woman and convince her to fly with him. Our world don't trust easily.

However, IndieWire's take on the movie was less enthusiastic, with Eric Kohn writing, "The dreary atmosphere underscores unremitting commitment to a brooding storyline that creates the illusion of meaning behind the abundant CGI."

Too dark?

That dreary atmosphere was what made Man of Steel so emotionally arresting. Clark's journey in finding his place in this world and the flashbacks shown of his growing up years tugged my heartstrings that even a number of my friends shed man tears. It was an essential mood to bring out an inspirational story of how one's uniqueness could someday chart a greater destiny. Clark Kent was a brooding traveler who never had a connection with people (except his adoptive parents) because he was so unsure of himself. He didn't know if he could trust people. And as that Priest he visited said, he has to take a leap of faith before he can find out which one of those who he can really trust. That leap of faith is a courageous decision not different from the decision to fight for Earth. These were not put on the movie just to satisfy those who would be looking for more meaningful scenes beyond the explosive action. This was an integral part of Superman's being. Not a lot of people understands Superman's character. But Superman is not Super because of his powers. He is for me Super because of the values that he chose to upheld.

"It all started really strong with the scenes in Krypton and then suddenly we are rushed into an adult Clark while doing a lot of flashbacks that frankly affected the pacing."

Cavill in his best Clark Kent form from the movie

The pacing of the movie is quite fine. You can't cram all of the important scenes together because this is not a TV series. This is one whole movie. I am already very thankful that we were not given a bland Krypton that just appeared on the film because it had to. Krypton became alive in this movie. And if there was some lesson to learn from this, it's the lesson that we should take care of our environment lest we would want our planet to suffer the same fate as Krypton. So how do you forward a movie without boring the audience with an origin story that they might not get interested in because they came to see Superman, not a young Clark Kent? You give them the now, and you give them the what had been. The flashback were a great tool as it took all of the best parts of Clark's growing up years and made us understand why he chose to be the wanderer that he had turned into. His evolution into becoming Superman comes in full circle when he finally embraced his Kryptonian roots.

 And the efforts to make Amy Adams' Lois Lane a journalist first and a love interest second have not pleased everyone; as Andrew Pulver wrote in the Guardian, "You're left with the nagging feeling that you just can't work out what the central twosome see in each other. And for Superman and Lois Lane, that's hardly ideal."

"By having Lois discover Clark’s true identity so early on, “Man of Steel” relinquishes the halting romantic chemistry between the two characters that brightened previous versions of the tale"

Journalist or just plain love interest?

Lois Lane in the comic books did not automatically swoon for Superman the way Lois Lane was portrayed by Margot Kidder in the first movie. Man of Steel had to establish that Lois is not your damsel in distress because truthfully she isn't. How can she be underused when she played a big part in the movie when she (along with Col. Hardy and Prof Hamilton) was able to send those Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone. Is being Superman's love interest first and reporter/heroine second more important than giving Lois her own legs to stand with or without Superman? Lois is given a bigger role in the movie, more than just being Superman's love interest because it brings depth to the character. Her scenes with Professor Hamilton and Col. Hardy were plain awesome because this was just like your average alien/disaster movie where the humans collectively do their part in triumphing over a disaster. It uplifts the human spirit that we are not as helpless as we thought to be in the face of these disasters. And no I don't accept the idea that "By having Lois discover Clark’s true identity so early on, “Man of Steel” relinquishes the halting romantic chemistry between the two characters that brightened previous versions of the tale". Because there is still the very real question of what would happen if you fall in love with an alien? This is what would make their romantic chemistry halting because Lois will have to deal with the physiological reality that Superman is not human. They just can't have sex and think that nothing is wrong with that. Superman and Lois in the current comic book continuity (as Superman is romantically involved with Wonder Woman) aren't even lovers. I know this caused a lot of outrage with the fans (me included) but it is what it is. At least with Man of Steel, they made an effort to have both Superman and Lois romantically attracted to each other.

"Too Dark, Too Big, Too Loud, Too Much"

Too much action scenes like this ain't fun?

What would you expect from a Superman film? All dance numbers and comedic spiels? Superman had evolved over the years. Nothing has been the same since Superman died at the hands of Doomsday. For sure, a lot of fans would still cling to the smug and smiling confident Superman of the silver and bronze age. This is not your Superfriends' Superman. The battle sequences are epic in nature because that's how it's supposed to be played out. You don't pit two Kryptonians against each other and expect minor dents to the surroundings. For me that was what made this movie amazing. Those buildings crashing down, ground shaking, and all of the necessary destruction are epic in scale because it shows us the clear threat of a battle of the gods. Honestly, I still would have preferred Superman for the more innocent times, but we no longer live on those times. Man of Steel is what this generation needs, just for Superman to gain the respect that he deserves. Superman 1978, despite it's stature as an epic superhero movie, has become the laughingstock of this Marvel dominated audience. It felt campy and ridiculous to the modern audience when compared to let's say Iron Man. Nobody respects Superman anymore. Man of Steel is clearly a clear and present threat to Marvel's superhero film making formula. Superman needs not to be subtle in his introduction in the modern world. Back in 1938 in Superman's first appearance to the world, he was not quite subtle as his appearance totally changed the way comic books were written.  

"Cavill's performance is less memorable for his introspective brooding than for his six-pack (a fetish for Snyder, the director of "300"). He's handsome and capable, but one can't help missing Christopher Reeve's twinkle. At least he smiled."

Henry Cavill v.s. Christopher Reeve

What does Cavill's Superman need to smile for? An alien world that is of your heritage is invading your world that you consider home. Should you smile about that? Cavill's Superman lacks the confidence of his character because he was still in his growing pains. Superman should not became a confident hero overnight. Specially not when you are going up against your fellow race. There were no reason to smile for during those intense moments of the journey, the invasion, and the battle. Sure there were a couple of lighthearted moments, and Cavill delivered those when needed. But Man of Steel is just an intense and serious film that it's crazy to think that he would just broke out a smile like Reeve's. Reeve's Superman again was released in a period where Superheroes were more revered for their fantastical powers than their personal issues with their lives. We can't let Superman be stuck with his fantastical powers because that's what made him a very difficult character to write in the first place. Chris Reeve's Superman was hated by Batman and Marvel fans because he was smug. Man of Steel adapts a more conflicted and human Superman and still it gets burned for that. Sadly, this makes Superman in a no win situation. Highly opinionated individuals who either are 1.) die hard Superman fans of the traditional Superman or 2.) Individuals who really don't have a clue about Superman's character are I guess the ones who are complaining about the movie. Me, I'd rather have a progressive Superman than a Superman that sticks too much to his tradition to the extent of extinction. Man of Steel delivered without sacrificing the core values of Superman.


"He's not Superman because he never attempted to save anyone during that battle in Metropolis, he allowed people to die"

Man of Steel is basically Superman Year One. He basically is yet to learn how to be more strategic in his battles. During the Metropolis battle scene, he was too occupied to stop those ships that was terraforming Earth to New Krypton. If he kept his focus on saving the people in Metropolis, then maybe after all the saving, there would no longer be a Planet Earth. The so called "Old" Concept of Superman was never changed. Man of Steel just brought a more plausible tale to Superman's story than having him appear out of nowhere and then automatically earn everyone's praise. And do you actually believe in wars/battles with that magnitude, there would be no collateral damage? I think not. Avengers or Incredible Hulk is a joke if they actually made us believe that they were able to save all the people during their battle scenes. 

Well this will be my last piece of opinion for the controversial ending and Superman not saving people or not taking the battle to a secluded place... For those who are railing about this, can't you guys understand that this is a Superman ORIGIN story. Meaning this is YEAR ONE. Heck it's not even a year. How about SUPERMAN WEEK ONE. Let's give the guy a break. He is still inexperienced with this Superhero thing. The Superman that you keep on comparing to him already had years of experience under his belt. Surely there was a more solid reason why he now usually takes the high road. And if you think about it, MOS has planted those seeds. This is not a one shot movie. All will be explained in due time. And for those who are complaining about Superman's demeanor after (where he traded banter with Swanwick), we don't even know how much time had passed by before that scene. But I agree that that immediate scene could have been better. 

Bonus: What the!?! Superman is not suppose to kill

Superman's lone killing act in the comics

Well it did happen. And in the comic book, there was one instance where Superman killed. But that instance made Superman suffer a consequence that was too much for him to take. He had to exile himself. Since then, he had vowed to never take a life again.  For more about that, visit this site
As a Superman fan, I'm not supposed to be okay with that scene specially since this is going to be presented to a larger audience who might not be ready to accept a Superman that kills. But I understand where this would be heading. This can be a very good plot device for someone like Lex Luthor to use as he rallies the human race against Superman. This I believe should be explored more in the sequel as his killing of Zod is the most significant image in the movie. You could see Superman's raw emotions after he killed Zod. Screaming in pain to have realized that he has broken his moral code and had taken away a Kryptonian life, perhaps his last remaining link to his alien roots. And also that image (before Superman snaps Zod's neck) of a father trying to protect his family from Zod's heat vision must have struck a cord in Superman as he should never again want anyone to lose their life under his watch (like how he was rendered helpless when he couldn't save his father). It's a pivotal moment and shocking ending. I know Superman fans will be talking a lot about it. But whatever Snyder's reasons for doing that, I hope he could utilize it as a tool in the sequel.

Which among them is really the best Superman for this generation?

I know there are a lot more criticisms out there and I can't possibly answer all of them. But simply put you can't appreciate Man of Steel if you continue to pine for the Chris Reeve Superman. That conundrum is pretty much like how people used to pine for George Reeves (Superman TV series actor of the 50's) as the best Superman when Superman the movie first came out in 1978. I think this is a generational thing. Most film critics still have not gotten over Reeve's portrayal of Superman. So much so that the 2006 Superman Returns movie garnered good reviews from the critics since it was a pseudo sequel to Reeve's Superman movies. Which is very much like how I still haven't gotten over the fact that the Superman that I knew and grew up with in the comics is no longer around and is now replaced by a younger Superman in the New 52 continuity. Reeve and Routh's Superman sadly are no longer acceptable for this new generation of movie goers. They have been spoiled by the big action sequences that Marvel had popularized in their comic book movies. Man of Steel is a good blend of Reeve's Superman and the Marvel way of doing comic book movies but amp up 100 hundred times more. Man of Steel's action sequences trumps Marvel's Avengers'. This might have upset the film critics who wanted a more grounded Superman. For whatever opinion formed about the movie, Man of Steel for me is the perfect reboot for this new generation of viewers. All of those who say otherwise will have to deal with the nostalgia of the older Superman movies and just watch reruns of those on the DVD. Whatever versions you prefer, Superman is here to stay.

By the way my Film Review is posted here:

http://actionfigureplanet.blogspot.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-movie-review.html