Review - Man of Steel - with Spoilers

I just published a Micro-Review of the movie Man of Steel, and I said very, very little there.  It's a micro-review, after all.  What I did say, however, is that it needed a longer review.  So here it is. My longer review.

But.

The review has Spoilers.  I am going to Spoil things.  I am going to talk about stuff which is supposed to be surprising in the movie.  After reading this, if you see the movie, you won't be surprised.  Pleasantly or unpleasantly.

So, you're warned.   Because, honestly, if you think you might want to see this movie, you should see it "un-spoiled."

But if you don't mind spoilers, or you've already seen it, here is my review.

Man of Steel is the latest reboot of the Superman story on film.  Directed by Zack Snyder, and starring Henry Cavill in the lead role, this film has action as only modern fx can bring to the screen.  From the opening scenes on Krypton, where Superman's father (played by Russell Crowe) had to fight the destruction of his planet and a fanatical General Zod (played by Michael Shannon) in order to launch Kal-El on his journey to Earth, we're immersed in destructive spectacle.  Or spectacular destruction.  Or both.

As a stand-alone story, this is a good one.  If I had never been exposed to the Superman mythos, I probably would have loved this movie.  We get interesting memorable characters, portrayed very well by their respective actors.  Henry Cavill is a great looking Superman -- though these days we have no way of knowing how much of him is CGI and how much is really the actor.  Amy Adams surprised me by being a serious and intelligent Lois Lane - thank goodness.  Russell Crowe was used more extensively as Jor-El than I would have expected, and I liked him.  I personally thought Michael Shannon's General Zod was perfect for the part he had to play -- completely and intensely driven.  I simply loved the character of Faora-Ul (Antje Traue), Zod's right-hand woman, and the coolest part of the contingent from Krypton.  And, in addition to the characters, we get science fiction and action and super-powered fun. 

But, this movie cannot be taken out of its mythic context.  It is a Superman movie.  So it needs to deliver Superman.  How well does it do that?

The story mostly unfolds as we'd expect - all the basic plot points from the origin story are there.  A young Clark Kent has to get used to being "super" and hiding it from the world.  An adult Clark has to figure out a way to fit in with his adopted planet.  And people must be put in danger so that Clark realizes he needs to become a protector.  It all happens.

But.

The Superman we are left with at the end of the movie, and at points during the movie, is not Superman.

Now, when Zack Snyder got involved, we knew there would be a darker vision for Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman than were in previous incarnations.  Snyder gave us 300 and Watchmen, after all - both dark visions of heroism.  Beyond that, Christopher Nolan was one of two writers who are credited with the story, and Nolan gave us the most recent Batman / Dark Knight series, which was dark; brilliant, but dark.

So, when a teenage Clark Kent, fully aware that a tornado is about to kill his adoptive father (Kevin Costner), lets the death occur, I expected it.  I don't think that's how it happened in the comics, and I don't think that's what a "traditional" teen Clark Kent would do.  But I was willing to accept (and expect) it because this Clark is trying to honor his father's wishes that Clark keep his superpowers a secret, and Clark knows that Jonathan Kent is such a man of integrity that he is willing to give his life to protect his son.  It's darker than Superman normally gets, but we have Snyder and Nolan involved.  Let's see where it takes us.

Well, it took us the wrong way.

As the movie comes to its three major fight scenes between Clark and General Zod's forces, a huge amount of destruction occurs.  For the first two -- in Smallville, and the initial attack on Metropolis -- there isn't much Superman can do.  Zod doesn't mind ruining buildings and killing humans, and Clark cannot possibly stop it all -- these are alien terrorists, and just like human terrorists, if they want to use terrible powers to kill and destroy, there's going to be death and destruction.

But how does a hero react to this?  Specifically, how should Superman react?

There should be some pain.  There should be sorrow.  There should be a recognition that, as these buildings are coming down, people are dying.  I did not see any of that in the film.  Snyder gave us 9/11-esque destruction with very little acknowledgement of the horror.  When we see skyscrapers topple, we know there are people in them. We know they will not have gotten out.  Simply showing us that the few Daily Planet characters we've known for two or three short scenes have survived does not give us the feeling that everyone else survived.  And if hundreds or thousands are dying, Superman should care.

So, does he?  Does Superman care?  Well, finally, in the ultimate fight scene, General Zod is personally threatening real, visible innocents -- about to fry them with his heat vision.  Superman has Zod in a choke hold.  Zod will succeed in killing these specific humans if Clark/Kal-El/Superman doesn't stop him.  And what does our hero do?

He freaking kills Zod!  Snaps his neck!

This is not Superman.

Superman never kills.  Never.  That's part of what it means to be Superman.  He always, always finds a way to stop the bad guy without killing him.  Shoot, even Nolan's Batman has this code.  A hero puts himself in danger to save a villain.  The hero cannot always prevent a villain from being destroyed by the villainy, but never, ever does the hero kill the villain.  And this is especially true of Superman.

Think about the consequences of this.  Now that Zod is gone, every foe Superman is likely to face on Earth is human.  If someone evil -- say Lex Luthor -- threatens to kill people, what's to stop Superman from just squashing Luthor into jelly?  The real Superman has a moral code against killing.  This new "Superman?" 

In the end, I am giving this movie a 68/100.  Because, really, it's a fun movie.  There are some very interesting interpretations and modifications of the story.  I like the fact that, at the end when Clark gets hired by the Daily Planet, Lois Lane is clearly aware of Clark's identity.  I like Superman's tense relationship with the military.  I appreciated the overt "savior" metaphors, because they have always been a subtext of the Superman origin.  And the effects were cool.

But I can't bring this movie into the 70's or beyond.  If you're telling a Superman story, you have to decide what's at the core of Superman, the character.  And it is not his origin -- it's what he becomes.  And Superman does not become a killer.