Batman V: Superman Dawn of Justice

[stip]

Who would win in a three way fight?

Since Smaug would have destroyed Vader before he would have the chance to kill superman I'd have to say superman.

[LoathedVermin72]

Its pretty funny you challenged LV to an essay off but it was a nice write up Stip.

The sad truth is that I remember so little of those movies that I don't really know what to say without rewatching them.

well I'm asking you to defend man of steel. I just chose to write about the Nolan movies because you were dismissing them earlier.

Oh I know. I still plan on doing the Snyder write-up.

[BurtReynolds]

Its pretty funny you challenged LV to an essay off but it was a nice write up Stip.

The sad truth is that I remember so little of those movies that I don't really know what to say without rewatching them.

Crucially, that's you, not the movie.

[nyquillyn]

[stip]

Its pretty funny you challenged LV to an essay off but it was a nice write up Stip.

I just wanted to cite rotten tomatoes and be done with it

[bada]

Its pretty funny you challenged LV to an essay off but it was a nice write up Stip.

The sad truth is that I remember so little of those movies that I don't really know what to say without rewatching them.

well I'm asking you to defend man of steel. I just chose to write about the Nolan movies because you were dismissing them earlier.

Oh I know. I still plan on doing the Snyder write-up.

Drew McWeeny is one of the more vocal defenders of Man Of Steel I imagine some of his thoughts and LV's might intertwine.

Original Review:

EMOTIONAL, BEAUTIFUL, AND FILLED WITH BRUTAL BATTLES, THIS IS A WINNER TOP TO BOTTOM
By Drew McWeeny @DrewatHitFix | MONDAY, JUN 10, 2013 11:00 PM

"Man Of Steel" is the Superman movie I've waited my whole life to see.

In the film, the most important struggle that Clark Kent aka Kal-El (Henry Cavill) has to overcome is the tension between his Kryptonian nature and his Earthly nurture. He is the last remnant of a once-vibrant race, and he is also fully human, a nice kid from Kansas. From that small description, this film spins a story so epic, so powerful, that my first viewing of it left me dizzy.

Growing up, I was much more of a Marvel fan overall, and of the DC characters, Batman was the one I really dug. I always thought Superman was okay, but somehow perpetually corny. It occurred to me as I was preparing to write this review that the most fundamental difference between DC's two flagship heroes comes down to one important detail: Batman is defined by his missing parents, while Superman is defined by his surplus of parents. Batman's grey moral code and his brutal, cold nature make sense based on his formative experiences, while Superman's optimism and his belief in the good inside people is completely due to the example given him by Pa and Ma Kent.

The release of "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II" made the character live and breathe for me in a way that the comics never did, and I loved the way those films made me feel. Revisiting them over the years, I'm amazed at how uneven they are, and how much the seams show from where the Salkinds played their behind-the-scenes games, eventually forcing Richard Donner to walk away from the unfinished second film. I find myself deeply conflicted when I look at the films now. I think the chemistry between Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty is hilarious, and much of their dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny. But is that really what I want from a Superman movie?

Snyder's film, written by David Goyer and starring an impeccably cast ensemble, is remarkable mythmaking, a canny spin on the oft-told details that have defined the character over time. While there is plenty about it that can be be described as new, the bones of it are instantly familiar. Make no mistake; this is Superman. For my own personal sensibilities, this is the most interesting, emotionally-satisfying, richly imagined version of the story. Ever. Comics, TV, animation, live-action… doesn't matter. Even the novel that l have often mentioned as "the perfect version," Tom De Haven's gorgeous "It's Superman!", seems to me to be overshadowed now by my excitement about what this movie does, how it does it, and what it means for the character as a whole.

The film opens with the birth of Kal-El. We hear his mother Lara even before the image fades in, crying out in pain, and we hear the heartbeat of the baby being born. It's a private moment, attended only by Jor-El, played by Russell Crowe, Lara's husband and the proud father of the baby. It has to be private because the birth is a crime, an event that hasn't happened on Krypton in a thousand years. Babies are engineered, not conceived, and nature births are unheard of. Each person on Krypton is created with a specific purpose in mind, a role in society that they spend their lives fulfilling. Jor-El's heresy is the idea that a child should be allowed to choose their own destiny.

We spend a surprising amount of time on Krypton at the start of the film, and the way the planet has been realized is breathtaking. Right about the time Jor-El jumps on the back of a giant winged beast and takes to the skies to avoid a group of warships, I realized that Snyder isn't doing anything by half-measures in this film. There's more visual imagination on display before the rocket containing the baby is fired into space than we see in other entire films. While the film takes its time on Krypton, it jumps forward immediately to the adult Clark Kent as soon as the rocket touches down on Earth. We see that he's a drifter, trying to make sense of his powers, never staying in one place for long. There's a thrilling sequence on an oil rig where Clark acts with no regard for his own safety, and once he's managed to save as many people as he can, he disappears again. Turns out, this is the life he's chosen for himself, and while he thinks he's doing a pretty good job of staying anonymous, there's someone who has started to put the pieces together.

One of the film's biggest pieces of revisionism is the way they've imagined Lois Lane, and I don't think I can praise them enough for what they've done with her. One of the things that has always driven me slightly crazy about Superman stories is the idea that this investigative reporter who is supposed to be great at her job could work side-by-side with Clark while also spending close-up time with Superman and yet didn't immediately know they were the same person. In this film, Lois (Amy Adams) is on his trail from the very start of the film. She doesn't know who she's looking for, but she's sure there is someone out there at the center of these mysterious stories. She's two steps ahead for the entire film, and it makes her so much more appealing as a character.

Clark's childhood is handled largely in flashback, and it's used to explain just how difficult his journey has been. Seeing him as a boy struggling to understand his x-ray vision and his super hearing and seeing how it makes him look like a crazy person, you have to feel for this poor kid. He has no idea who he is or why these things are happening to him, and it's not easy for his father (Kevin Costner) to help him make sense of things. The hardest thing for Pa Kent to explain to him is how to balance his sense of moral obligation with a sense of self-protection. Kent knows that there's more at stake here than just his son's happiness. After all, Clark is an alien being, and his very existence both answers certain questions and raises others. I'm guessing that Goyer's initial pitch hinged on this approach, because it's something we really haven't seen in any Superman film so far. Once he reveals himself to the world, nothing can ever be the same afterwards. We know at that point that we are not alone in the universe, but more than that… we know that we are helpless against these things. That's a terrifying thought.

When Clark finally comes across a long-buried artifact that helps him make sense of his own origin, he begins to evolve into the Superman we know. These are early days for him, though, and before he can get comfortable in the role, he accidentally sets off a beacon that brings General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his troops to Earth, and there is a very specific reason that Zod wants him. While it would be easy to make Zod a simple comic book bad guy, the film doesn't play it that way. Instead, Zod is what he was made to be, a tireless protector of Krypton, firm in his belief that anything is justified if it will help him bring back some piece of their long-dead home world. This is where the film's difficult moral terrain becomes most interesting. At no point does "Man Of Steel" make things easy for Clark, and learning who he really is only complicates things further.

I could spend page after page talking about what I love about this film. First and foremost, I am blown away by the sheer scale of it. Marvel's biggest film so far, "The Avengers," looks like a charming episode of the Bill Bixby "Incredible Hulk" by comparison, and while size doesn't always make something better, if you want to sell the idea that these are godlike beings battling, then the only way to truly sell that idea is to show what they would do to our planet in the process. No one has ever staged superhero action like this. No one. The climax of the film begins about halfway into the movie, and then it just crescendos bigger and bigger, and Snyder more than proves himself to be one of our most ingenious visual stylists. It's not just the big stuff, either. There are boundless small details that sell all of this as "real," and I was shaken by just how aggressive and percussive it all is.

I was equally impressed by how moving the film is. Almost from the start, I found myself completely hooked in, and there were several places where it broke me. I'm not surprised that Kevin Costner crushes it in scene after scene, and he features in what may be one of the most painful scenes of the summer. Diane Lane as Ma Kent is equally good, a figure of quiet strength who also lands some of the biggest emotional punches. The movie understands that in order for myth to really work, we have to have a human, emotional stake in what's going on, and unlike the Donner films, there is a consistency of tone that builds over the course of the film's running time. There is a sense of urgency that just keeps building and building, and yet even when the film is at its most epic, Snyder keeps bringing the focus back to the personal. The fights, for example, are not just about kinetic motion. Each one has an emotional rhythm, and they mean something. You see Superman and Zod testing each other, and you see Superman slowly starting to realize what he's capable of, and what that means. Because the fights are all driven by character, it never deteriorates into the random chaos and noise that so many modern action films are guilty of.

Perhaps the highest praise I can offer to Henry Cavill is that I never once thought of Christopher Reeve during the entire running time of the film. One of the things that turned me off completely about "Superman Returns" was the almost slavish devotion to Donner's films, and while I think Brandon Routh was fine in the role, he was handcuffed because of what Bryan Singer was trying to do. The reason there's no comparison to be made here is because this imagines a totally different version of the character. The same is true of Amy Adams, who doesn't seem to be drawing on anyone else's interpretation of Lois. The chemistry between the two of them is very strong, and it sets up a very promising dynamic that I look forward to seeing play out in future films.

Michael Shannon and Antje Traue also do great work in the film as Zod and Faora-Ul, and I particularly like the way Faora is part of the action and not just relegated to the sidelines. She's terrifying precisely because of her lack of conventional morality. Anything they have to do to accomplish their goals is allowed, and that distinction gives them the edge. Shannon is the last guy in the world I would have imagined in the role of Zod, but seeing how he approaches the character, I can't imagine anyone else playing it now. His fanatical devotion to the civilization that banished him before being destroyed doesn't make sense on a logical level, but when you take into account his genetic programming, Shannon does a great job of playing the damaged soul of this warrior.

The supporting cast is strong across the board. Russell Crowe is very good as Jor-El, and when you see how he's brought back for the middle of the film, he makes some very interesting choices. Ultimately, the way Kal-El/Clark incorporates the teachings of both of his fathers is what makes him stronger than Zod, and when you see how he wrestles with every choice he makes, and one in particular, it's apparent that this is not a superhero on cruise control. Everything he does, he's doing for the first time, and he is still struggling to figure out who he wants to be. The face of the regular humanity impacted by these events is ably represented by Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff, Christopher Meloni, Laurence Fishburne, Rebecca Buller, and Joseph Cranford, and it's important that they connect in their relatively brief screen time because it establishes who it is that is ultimately affected by this clash. Yes, there are stakes for Superman and for Zod, but when you see Buller, terrified, about to be destroyed as mere collateral damage, it makes it all feel more real.

Hans Zimmer's score is an exercise in dynamics, and while there may not be a theme as instantly iconic as the famous John Williams one, it fits this film perfectly. Amir Mokri's photography is rich and moody, and it serves Alex McDowell's bold production design quite well. And while I agree that the new Superman suit, designed by James Acheson and Michael Wilkinson, is a departure from what we're used to, by the time the film was done, I completely bought it. I think that may be the thing that Snyder and his team did best. While there's nothing inherently more realistic about Batman than Superman, it's always seemed like there was more you had to accept to buy into the Superman mythology. With this version, Snyder's done far more than convince me that a man can fly. For the first time, I believe that Superman is the most important hero in the world of this movie, and that we need him, not just as a protector, but as a symbol of what we can be when we are raised by the right people and given a chance to find our way in the world.

Oh… and the last exchange of dialogue in the film? Perfect.

Then his end of the year movie list thoughts.

16. "Man Of Steel"

More than any superhero film in recent memory, this one serves as a defining point in the way expectations and nostalgia can derail enjoyment. I am as fond of the Richard Donner "Superman" films as anyone else, but that isn't the only acceptable way to make a Superman movie. Zack Snyder's film is a top-to-bottom re-imagination of the character, which seems to be why the main criticism I've heard is "Superman wouldn't do that" or "Superman can't do that" or "Superman never does that." Never mind that he is a fictional character and imposing hard and fast rules on what he can or can't do seems silly. Even within the tradition of what he has done before, the complaints I've heard simply don't hold up.

While we have certainly had more than our fair share of origin stories, it's not often that these films genuinely explore what it is that defines someone as a hero. "Man Of Steel" is about one pivotal moment in the life of the person who eventually becomes Superman, but he's not Superman yet. No film so far has dealt with his struggle to figure out how he fits in our world with the clarity or the urgency that this one does, and it is by far the most character-driven Superman film ever made.

I'm also willing to totally cop to the notion that the film's ideas about parentage and what it is to be a father hit me dead-center. I'm adopted, and this film grapples with the idea of what it is that we get from our genetic parents as well as what it is we take from those who raise us, and how important both of those roles are. I've read complaints that Kevin Costner's Pa Kent instills fear in Clark as he raises him, but that's the point. Yes, it's easy to write a character who does everything perfectly and who is a flawless role model, but it's more interesting to explore what happens when we try our best for our kids but that best isn't good enough. It makes sense that Kent would try to keep his adopted son safe and protect the truth about who he is and where he comes from, and he knows full well that revealing that truth will change our entire relationship with the universe. How many things are that big or have been that big in the course of human history? Learning for sure that we are not the first intelligent civilization in the universe would be one of the biggest moments ever, and Kent fears that our reaction would take his son from him, even as he deals with his growing suspicions that his son is meant to change things. His advice is that Clark needs to wait for the right time to reveal himself, and while Clark tries to follow that advice, we also see that he is compelled to use the powers he has. He can't just sit it out and wait. He does good not because he was told to, but in spite of being warned against it. It is his nature, and that seems more interesting to me than someone who is pressed into service.

Ultimately, when that call to action comes in this film, he is pressed into a moral corner. After all, what Zod wants is nothing less than the rebirth of Krypton, an event which would give Clark a home, a people, a connection to something larger. It would come at the expense of the home where he was raised, though, and it would destroy the people who raised him. Clark has a choice to make in this film about who he is: the person he was born or the person he was raised to be. The fact that his debate on this issue is handled through an apocalyptically-scaled fist-fight that nearly destroys the world doesn't change the fact that this is the most personal crisis Superman has ever faced on film. And since it is also the first time he has ever been challenged, this isn't a case of Superman breaking some rule that he's had set in stone. Instead, this is someone learning why he needs a rule like that in the first place, and having to deal with the hard lessons that lead to those rules.

Perhaps the thing that makes me craziest when I hear people attack the film is this insane notion that he doesn't do anything heroic in the movie. Never mind that we see that he spends his life anonymously saving lives for no credit and without most people even knowing he had something to do with it. Never mind the fact that he chooses Earth over Krypton, passing up a chance to connect to his heritage in favor of the place he calls home. Never mind that when he flies around the world to the spot where the World Engine is hard at work, he throws himself into a conflict that he can't know the outcome of, and he steps directly into the path of what looks to be an energy beam strong enough to endanger our entire planet. Time and time again, he earns the right to call himself Superman because of the complete selflessness of his actions. He never hesitates, and he never stops to worry what will happen to him. He does what he does because he has to.


None of this even addresses the way Snyder shows us superhero action on a scale we've never seen before. One of the reasons it is impossible to take Fanboy Nation seriously when they gripe is because there's no logic or consistency to what upsets them. I remember when "Thor" came out and people were grousing about how small the climax of the film was, how obvious it was that they built one small section of one small town to blow up, and how low the stakes seemed to be. Now we see an unnervingly realistic example of what would most likely happen to a major metropolitan area if two beings of unlimited power genuinely clashed in the middle of it. I'm not sure what control people think Clark has over the battle between him and Zod, but simply stating that he should have flown away is ridiculous. There's nothing in the movie that remotely suggests that Zod is aiming to simply attack Clark. There is a larger goal here, and one of the things I love about Zod as a character is that there is a real sadness to his purpose. He was made to do one thing and one thing only, and when that thing is threatened, he will do anything it takes to make it happen. It's almost an attack on the notion of "destiny" as it normally gets thrown around in these movies. I can't think of anything more oppressive and awful than being "the chosen one." It eliminates anything heroic from who a character is and simply makes them a mechanical piece of a pre-determined course of events. Superman is not Superman because he was pre-destined to be Superman. He is Superman because he makes decisions about what he wants to be to this world, and he is compelled to do the right thing.

"Man Of Steel" dared to take Superman seriously, and to portray him as a real person grappling with the history and the powers of the character that we already know, and it offered Zack Snyder a chance to create some of the most outrageous images of his career. Deeply misunderstood and unfairly maligned, this is superhero cinema on a truly epic scale, and the way it manages to tell a personal story that treats one of the most famous characters in pop fiction seriously in the grandest possible terms is why this one will grow over time. I get why someone might not like this version, but just because it's not a take you like doesn't mean they did it wrong. They made big choices, exactly what we claim we want people to do when they work with these giant iconic characters, and those choices are there to help define what it is the character has to say about our world and about who we are. I like the personal journey that Cavill plays in the film, I buy it, and it makes me invest in Superman in a way that I haven't in the past. It's that simple.

[stip]

I remember thinking the first half of man of steel was quite good. I've only seen it once.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I'm afraid i started this, now this whole thread has become a little too tl;dr for me.

[LoathedVermin72]

i really don't want to agree with drew mcweeny

[BurtReynolds]

i really don't want to agree with drew mcweeny

Sooner or later you're gonna have to accept the fact that, one day, you are going to have to agree with someone.

[LoathedVermin72]

i really don't want to agree with drew mcweeny

Sooner or later you're gonna have to accept the fact that, one day, you are going to have to agree with someone.

i agree with zack snyder

[Orpheus]

I remember thinking the first half of man of steel was quite good. I've only seen it once.

Yeah, I liked the first part. Good examination of the character. Second half sucked kinda hard though.

[BurtReynolds]

I like the guy, but this isn't avant-guarde cinema. The director is clearly trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision. Characters, dialogue and plot are essential when the artist is using precisely those tools to express himself. How then can we ignore them when he fumbles those tools? Just because the artist does other things capably, does that mean we should overlook the parts that are dedicated to character or plot? No.

If you don't care about that stuff anyway, isn't it time-killing filler for you? I don't have that kind of time to waste. If I think plot is irrelevant, why would I sit through all that plot?

Great, so Snyder is a solid visual stylist (I like him more times than not), but is that all he uses here? Of course not, and his visuals in MoS don't offer enough compelling reason to ignore those other elements he uses to express himself. I also don't think it's inherently more cinematic (though I don't even think that matters).

Criticizing plot holes and character inconsistency is perfectly valid when the artist is using plot and character to express himself. The fact that its about 9/11 doesn't change that. The fact that it does a few other things well doesn't change that. Execution matters.

I have the same problem with defending Dark Knight Rises. Whatever depth there is underneath the hood isn't worth much to me if I have to muddle through watching incompetent execution.

Yes, it matters when an army of unarmed cops rush a bunch of heavily armed criminals through a narrow alleyway and don't die horribly. This affects the quality of the film. The movie would be better if it didn't have such idiocy. But at least DKR had some depth. I'm not convinced MoS has nearly as much.

[BurtReynolds]

There should just be an art criticism thread, so we don't have to bore people who just want to watch Batman punch Superman like a normal goddamn person.

Music criticism: pointless
movie criticism: corrupt
fine art criticism: lol

[Orpheus]

I'm honestly at the point where I just don't really get LV's taste, and I think I never will. And that's cool, do you man. I've just kind of thrown up my arms at this point.

And I thought DKR was the best of the Batman movies, so fuck all y'all. The Bane fight scene and the ending were both fucking LIT.

[stip]

DKR may be my favorite as well though I agree with Burt that the big cop/criminal fight (at least the start) was hard to swallow.

[bada]

I remember thinking the first half of man of steel was quite good. I've only seen it once.

I think Winter Solider is the only superhero I've seen more than once. You guys have such strong opinions about movies I can barley remember. Sometimes I worry I'm in the early stages of alzheimer's but then I forget about it and my mind is free to dream about barbarians and boobs.

[Kaius]

bada bing bada boom

[LoathedVermin72]

I like the guy, but this isn't avant-guarde cinema. The director is clearly trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision. Characters, dialogue and plot are essential when the artist is using precisely those tools to express himself. How then can we ignore them when he fumbles those tools? Just because the artist does other things capably, does that mean we should overlook the parts that are dedicated to character or plot? No.

No, you're right. But I never suggested we should. I was just disagreeing with the larger statement t2b said.

If you don't care about that stuff anyway, isn't it time-killing filler for you? I don't have that kind of time to waste. If I think plot is irrelevant, why would I sit through all that plot?

This is exactly why Marvel movies bore the hell out of me.

Criticizing plot holes and character inconsistency is perfectly valid when the artist is using plot and character to express himself. The fact that its about 9/11 doesn't change that. The fact that it does a few other things well doesn't change that. Execution matters.

Agreed.

[nyquillyn]

I like the guy, but this isn't avant-guarde cinema. The director is clearly trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision. Characters, dialogue and plot are essential when the artist is using precisely those tools to express himself. How then can we ignore them when he fumbles those tools? Just because the artist does other things capably, does that mean we should overlook the parts that are dedicated to character or plot? No.

No, you're right. But I never suggested we should. I was just disagreeing with the larger statement t2b said.

I was not making a "larger statement" about anything. My statement about "characters, dialogue and plot" was in relation to Snyder's use of those elements.