Man of Steel Movie Review

A couple of years back, someone decided to ignore the Superman 3 and 4 movies because those were terrible, and pick up the Superman movie franchise where it left off. Superman Returns was a pretty bad attempt at picking up the franchise. So, rather than continue beating a dead horse, Zack Snyder directed a series reboot. Man of Steel (2013) restarts the whole story from square one. While I'm not really a big Superman fan, I think this is the Superman movie we've needed for some time.

The planet Krypton faces imminent destruction due to its unstable core, resulting from years of exploiting Krypton's natural resources. The Ruling council is overthrown by the rebel military leader, General Zod (Michael Shannon), and his followers. Scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) launches his infant son Kal-El on a spacecraft to Earth to escape Krypton's annihilation, though Zod swears to hunt down the boy. Kal-El is found and raised on Earth by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Kiane Lane) who give him the name Clark Kent. Due to Earth's sun's radiation having unusual effects on young Clark's alien physiology, he develops extraordinary powers which he keeps secret for fear of how Earth's people will react to him. As an adult, Clark (Henry Cavill) roams the earth trying to find out about his mysterious origins. Along the way he encounters firecracker reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who is also researching unusual occurrences for The Daily Planet. But before long, General Zod finds Kal-El on Earth and begins an invasion, meaning to wipe out its inhabitants.

We've never had a Superman story like this. The previous Superman movies revolve around a normal human who has pitiable physical abilities compared to Superman's god-like powers (usually Lex Luthor) who is trying to manipulate Superman or get him to break his unbreakable willpower. The issue is never "Can Superman stop him?" it's more like "Can Superman stop him fast enough to keep casualties to a minimum?" While that is an interesting problem for Superman to face, it's all that has ever been done in Superman movies. They've also remained very terrestrial; we are told briefly that Superman is an alien, but it isn't really expounded upon or explored.

Man of Steel starts out on Krypton, and we get to see quite a bit of it. We don't just get a glimpse; we get to understand the political climate, we get a feel for the culture and history, and a sense of what Kryptonians are like. Later when General Zod invades Earth, we see spaceships, weapons, and all sorts of crazy alien technology. I like how the reason for why Kryptonians develop super powers is established and how the sensory overload really disturbs and weakens them until they learn to adapt to the physical changes. In a flashback we see young Clark Kent in school when he is overcome by his x-ray vision and super hearing. The boy curls up in a fetal position, coving his ears, and tries to block the sensory overload. It looks a lot like an autistic child having a meltdown. The setting is so much more detailed, and it is developed steadily throughout the movie. That alone shows how well Man of Steel was written.

The characters were well written, too. Kal-El isn't really called "Superman" in the movie, which was a delightful detail. Kal-El is a very human character and is very easy to relate to. He was raised by some very good parents who instilled in him a strong sense of morality and  righteousness, but they also encouraged him to keep his powers a secret because none of them knew how the people of Earth would react to him being so different. This really illustrated the "alien immigrant" nature of Superman's character, the fear and uncertainty about being different is something anyone can relate to. In spite of his moralistic upbringing, Kal-El is faced with situations that no parents from a farm in Kansas could ever have prepared their son for. Trying to figure out what is the best thing to do isn't easy, and we get to see that realistic weakness of character in Kal-El. Also, never ever threaten Clark Kent's mother. Just saying.

It was also neat how the human characters acted as heroes, not just weaklings incapable of defending themselves. One of my favorite scenes is when Lois is being advised by the holographic program of Jor-El on the Kryptonian spaceship on how to avoid or defeat the Kryptonians as she makes an escape. Lois is not a damsel in distress; she's a strong, brave, and a very intelligent woman who is able to hold her own even when up against god-like aliens. Kal-El might have been able to stop the villains, but since the human protagonists help and support Kal-El, more people are saved even if they cannot confront the villains themselves.

My only real complaint about Man of Steel is the amount of action sequences there were. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes were great and have the magnitude that a Superman movie deserves. But there was very little time for the audience to recuperate after an intense action scene. It's like there's a crazy action scene followed by a crazy action scene which is followed by yet another crazy action scene. They were good, no doubt about it, but at some point the novelty of seeing these super powered people being flung through buildings wears off and it left me thinking that the movie could cut back on the action scenes a bit and that it doesn't have to make everything so exaggerated and crazy. There's even a point in the movie where everything has basically been resolved and the movie could come to an end, but yet another over-the-top fight scene begins. There is lots of story to tell and some great characters to develop, but if an action movie actually makes you stop and think, "Really? Another fight scene? Is this scene even necessary?" then the movie has probably gone too far. The action is great, but I feel as though less could have been more in this case.

Man of Steel showed us an expanded Superman universe, the likes of which we have not seen before and probably was not possible until recently. It's a decent movie that focuses on setting and characters. It's well written and manages to tell the story logically and gradually. It is a bit choppy at the beginning, but doesn't lose the audience. The action is great and lots of fun, but the movie would have benefited from cutting back on the number of the action scenes. Man of Steel is worth catching in theaters. I'm not even a Superman fan and I enjoyed it. I was teetering on whether or not it's worth buying a copy, but I think I can safely say this is worth owning on Blu-Ray.

There have been a lot of actors who have played Superman. Christopher Reeve is easily my favorite. Who is your favorite Superman? Comment below and tell me why!

Les Misérables Movie Review

Les Misérables is a story that has been told through the medium of film many times before. It's a classic novel by Victor Hugo and has had at least two film adaptations per decade since 1907. But the 2012 version is the fist film adaptation of the stage production. Les Misérables brought all the power and emotion of the longest running Broadway Musical ever to the big screen.

After 19 years in prison (five for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, and the rest for trying to escape), Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is released on parole by the policeman Javert (Russell Crow). After a merciful Bishop (Colm Wilkinson, who famously played Valjean on stage) gives Valjean some precious silver to sell for money, Valjean turns his life around and makes himself a wealthy factory owner and mayor of a town in France. Javert is still hunting for Valjean since he did not meet parole. One of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), has a fight when the other workers discover she is sending money to her secret illegitimate daughter. When Valjean discovers that Fantine has resorted to prostitution to care for her daughter, Valjean swears to the dying mother that he will rescue and care for the girl himself. Valjean takes the young Cosette away from The Thénardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen & Helena Bonham Carter), and she grows into a fine young woman (Amanda Seyfried). Later Cosette falls in love with a young man named Marius (Eddie Redmayne) who is deeply involved in the French Revolution. It is through Marius's friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks) that Marius discovers Cosette. In the interest of keeping Marius alive for the sake of Cosette, Valjean aids the young rebels in their revolt while being ever vigilant to avoid Javert who remains hot on his trail.

When you see Les Misérables on stage you're watching singers act; but in this movie you're seeing actors sing. Several of the actors had some musical background, while others clearly did not. Russell Crow is a great actor, but not much of a singer. He sounds like he stifling a yawn while singing; but given his lack of vocal training, he hit the notes right and did a descent job. Eddie Redmayne's singing sounded nasal, and you could see his jaw and neck trembling with his vibrato. That's not necessarily bad, but it was distracting and an indicator of lack of vocal training. Hugh Jackman was phenomenal! He has Broadway experience and he did a great job singing this iconic role. I think the best performance was from Anne Hathaway. She did very well singing, but her emotional delivery simply blew me away.

Fans of the Broadway play will be head over heels in love with this movie version. As mentioned above, this is actors singing. The classic Broadway music is secondary to the story; the opposite of what happens on stage. I've heard these songs countless times before, but seeing an actual context for them made them much more poignant. In Les Misérables, we are shown close up images of the emotions and pain the characters are experiencing as the story progresses. I've heard “I Dreamed a Dream” before, but Hathaway's delivery made you really think about the lyrics and the pain the words are portraying. That whole song was filmed in one take; the camera doesn't move from her as she weeps and sings of broken dreams and abandoned love. It was powerful, and brought me to tears.

Possibly one of the things that made Les Misérables so good was that is was recorded live. Normally for a filmed musical, the individual actors sing the parts ahead of time in a studio before gathering together to film the scenes and lip-syncing to their own recorded voices. This causes the actors to have to make any acting decisions months before ever seeing their costars face to face. That removes some potential for the actors to act off of each other and generate emotional depth and realism in their delivery. For Les Misérables, the actors sung their lines as if it were the script and later had the music added. This allowed the actors to create a real sense of emotion and projection with their characters that has not been done before in a musical movie like this.

The sets were numerous and gorgeous. The bigger sets were probably enhanced with computer graphic additions, but it was so seamless. We got a feel for the French locations with sweeping exterior shots; it didn't feel confined to a stage. The historic costumes were so detailed and believable. The muskets fired at the barricade looked authentic and even the foley art was excellent.

There was very little actual spoken dialogue; the whole script was dependent upon the songs from the Broadway play. This made the interactions between characters seem unrealistic from time to time. The shots between songs were rushed; for example, one song ends and we see two or three short shots of the unconscious Marius being taken to a hospital, a doctor tending him, Marius walking again, and then suddenly he's at the old tavern where he and his friends used to hang out before starting in on his next song. That should take a lot of time, but we're thrown a couple of shots to suggest the passing of time in a matter of seconds to lead into the next song. While it's clear what has happened, it made the flow of the movie a bit choppy and rushed.

If you enjoy musicals, you will enjoy Les Misérables a lot. This was a powerful rendition of the Broadway classic, and it brings the story and characters to life on a level of reality that cannot be done on a stage. It's a classic story of broken dreams, unrequited love, passion, sacrifice, redemption, and the survival of the human spirit. I've never seen Les Misérables on stage, but this version does the story and music justice. If you don't enjoy musicals much on general principle, you'll likely be waving a white flag of exhausted defeat well before rebels wave the French tricolors. I think this was a beautiful movie and easily one of the best films of 2012. Not many movies can cause me to tear up multiple times, and Les Misérables certainly did. Go see it in theaters while you can. I recommend that you consider buying a copy for your home collection as well.

What is a Broadway Musical that you would love to see made into a major motion picture? Comment below and tell me why!