ByTed Sar, writer at Creators.co
I do weekly movie retrospectives. It doesn't matter. None of this matters.

Man of Steel

Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by David S. Goyer

The filmography of Zack Snyder is universally polarising. Some see him as a visionary genius that's largely misunderstood, others see him as an ADD-riddled buffoon that can't tell a story to save his life. 2013's Man Of Steel is no exception, essentially dividing the audience upon release. Where do we stand, and how will that reflect on the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice? Let's find out...

Although, if you can't be assed listening to the review (which is understandable, given that you've probably been programmed from birth not to do so), here's the abridged version:

The Negatives

  • Visually bland art-direction.
  • Plot hinges on too many questionable decisions by characters.
  • Poorly directed, poorly constructed villain.
  • Film undermines its drama with poorly utilised supporting cast (mainly Jor-El and Lois Lane).
  • Weak climax, lacking weight and needlessly drawn out.
  • Conspicuous lack of Superman actually saving someone (that doesn't directly move the plot forward).

The Positives

  • Tremendous Score by Hans Zimmer.
  • Great performances.
  • The scenes with Clark, particularly in Smallville are extremely emotionally resonant.
  • This is an effective new take on Superman that brings a new level of pathos to the character.
  • Focus on civilian element adds layer of depth to the story overall.
  • Powerful Sound Design that works in tandem with the score.

PRO CON RATIO = 6:6

Next week, we'll see if this all pays off with Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice. It'll be interesting to see how the movie addresses this film while integrating it into the larger DC Universe.

Thanks for reading/listening.



ALTERNATE TAKE

What if Zod and Kal-El actually managed to come to a mutual agreement during their fight, with Zod seeing the error of his ways and accepting Kal's offer to find another planet to rebuild Krypton on?

Then his Kryptonian allies turn on him, believing him to have been corrupted by the same baseless conjecture that he himself accused the Kryptonian council of being at the start of the film. He fights off his brethren; leaving Kal-El to decide whether to help Zod or save the civilians below from the collateral damage.

He decides to go and save the people, while Zod is overcome and brutally murdered the way he killed Jor-El at the start of the film.

That way, you can still have Zod die and Kal-El feel guilty for it because he still has to make a devastating decision in which Zod dies due to his inaction, but it's not as cognitively dissonant as him snapping Zod's neck. Also, it's more consistent for Zod's character, which is that he's doing everything he can to protect Krypton's future no matter what, instead of just making him a violent sociopath. Not to mention, his death would mirror Jor-El's, which is nice. Plus, it would then make sense why Superman would be a symbol of hope. Instead of just making the big-bad thing go away, he would be actively interacting with and helping the people.

Anyway, just something to think about.

Trending

Latest from our Creators