Man Of Steel: Movie Review

I can count on one hand how many superhero movies I’ve seen. I’m not “big” into the genre and never have been. I can enjoy it (see: Captain America), but I’ve always been more of the history/fantasy kind of person.

That said, I am now going to make a shocking statement. Man of Steel was the best movie I’ve seen since Valkyrie, and that was the best movie I’d seen since Les Miserables. It is also one of my new favorites, right up there with the first three Rocky movies (and those are worthy of another review entirely!).

It. Was. So. Good.

ea_manofsteel_poster

Prepare yourself for a long review; I’m sorry, but when you get so much out of a movie, it’s hard to keep a review short (*coughmyLesMisreviewcough*).

Please be aware of a few other things. One, I haven’t read the comic books so I’m not familiar with Superman canon; don’t kill me if I commit some unpardonable sin against said canon!

Two, Man of Steel came highly recommended to me from a friend and from our family’s favorite radio talk show host, Steve Deace.

And three, I saw this after I saw The Avengers and much preferred this one. (*digging in heels against barrage of flying tomatoes*)

Okay. Review starts now.

Synopsis

Man of Steel begins with the birth of a baby, the first natural birth in centuries on the decaying Planet Krypton. The baby’s parents, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara, didn’t want their child’s future to be genetically engineered by the totalitarian government, so they’ve conceived and delivered their baby in secret. With Krypton about to explode, they decide to send him to safety on Planet Earth.

Before sending Baby Kal off, however, Jor-El steals the Codex, which contains the entire genetic identity of Krypton, and embeds it into his son. When the scheming General Zod discovers this, he’s enraged; he is attempting a coup and wants the Codex so he can rebuild the Krypton race by the same artificial means used by the government he wants to overthrow. In his fury he kills Jor-El, and although he’s finally arrested, he swears he’ll find Baby Kal and claim the Codex again.

Kal, meanwhile, crash-lands in a little Kansas town. He is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) and named “Clark.” The rest of the movie is about

1) Clark’s quest to find out who he really is,

2) His struggle to understand what he was created to do,

3) His relationships with his adoptive parents, with his biological father’s “preserved consciousness,” and with Lois Lane,

4) And lastly, his fight against General Zod, who pursues him in order to find the Codex and take over Earth for his own evil purposes.

What I didn’t like about Man of Steel 

Anyone who’s been reading me for a while knows I always like to give my disclaimers and caveats first. That’s because I don’t want you to think I’ve watched this with my brain turned off (no matter how much I enjoyed it). It also counterbalances (somewhat) the big bouquet of very nice things I’m about to say about it.

After instructing Clark to encourage the people of Earth not to make the same mistakes the people of Krypton did (big government, genetic engineering, etc.), Jor-El tells him that “The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good. That’s what you can bring them.” Well, the concept of “every person having the potential to be a force for good” is humanistic if the grace of God on that person is not involved; we humans can do no good apart from the Lord. This was my big worldview caveat with the film.

There were also a few bad words–but just a few and nothing that made your ears bleed.

What I liked about Man of Steel

There is a strong pro-life message of protecting the defenseless and valuing babies. We have a flawed but noble, compassionate hero and a flawed but courageous helpmeet-heroine. Between said Hero and Heroine, you have a good, clean romance that actually develops over time rather than it being love-at-first-sight.

The villain is truly villainous and the lines are clearly drawn between good and evil. There is an unashamed pro-freedom, anti-tyranny message. God is acknowledged either in dialogue or in a symbolic setting. We hear that every individual has a purpose. The Biblical family is upheld as a precious thing. Fatherhood is revered. You see two fathers (one biological, one adoptive) giving up their lives for their son, and the son later showing the same self-sacrifice.

The Characters

Clark Kent/Superman

MAN OF STEEL

Clark (perfectly–per-fect-ly–played by Henry Cavill) reminded me a lot of Steve Rogers/Captain America, just on a grander scale. He isn’t perfect, not by a long shot. There’s one scene where, after having most of his clothing practically burned to shreds in an accident, he steals some clothes; in another scene a few minutes later, his temper gets the better of him.

In spite of his flaws, however, he’s very admirable and Christ-like. He defends women and children. He really tries to be self-controlled and usually succeeds. He’s oh-so-kind. He loves America and his family. He’s a gentleman (with not a breath of effeminacy about him). And he is prepared to die so others might live.

In my personal opinion, the “goodness” of Clark was part of why liberal critics spewed so much vitriol over this film. I think that’s why they were so disgusted with Captain America, too. This kind of hero challenges the secular-humanist-postmodern system and bears too much affinity with the Christian worldview for comfort.

ku-xlarge

One of my fears, however, was that they were going to take the Christ-like aspect of Clark’s character too far and make him out to be God or God-like in a blasphemous way. There are, after all, certain things about him, his character, and his history that are similar and even parallel to Jesus. He’s sent to Earth as a baby, he gives himself up for the sake of mankind, etc. But at NO point is he worshipped or omnipotent. Jor-El says “He’ll be a god to them,” but in the context of the scene, he’s talking about how Kal/Clark will be invincible, NOT a deity. And Clark certainly doesn’t save Earth spiritually.

Clark is a defender of good and a physical savior; that is all. As I said in my caveats above, Jor-El does say that Clark can show people “the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good,” and I didn’t like the humanism of that statement. But in the same scene, Jor-El also instructs Clark to encourage the people of Earth not to make the same mistakes the people of Krypton did (big government, government controlling the destinies of citizens, etc.).

man-of-steel

So, Superman is not saving people from their sins in this film–au contraire. Superman is showing people that freedom is a priceless gift that they’d better protect at all costs. And his purpose is to help them protect it when they are up against superior forces.

On a related note: throughout the movie, the God of the Bible and His Providence are acknowledged, which further nullifies any idea that Clark is God or some kind of sovereign power. When Clark rescues a school bus as a boy, a friend describes it as “an act of God” and “Providence.” Clark, frustrated as a child with his “weirdness,” asks his adopted father, “Why did God do this to me?” And later in the movie, when Zod is threatening the earth, Clark goes into a church and receives counsel from the minister/priest, with the cross and a stained glass image of Jesus in the background, foreshadowing Clark’s own sacrifice a few minutes later.

The concept of each person having a purpose is also an over-arching message and one that Jonathan Kent is always hammering into Clark.

Lois Lane

MAN OF STEEL

Lois Lane (played by the adorable Amy Adams) is a wonderful heroine! She’s smart, adventurous, and feisty, but gentle and kindhearted as well. She’s also the kind of girl who grits her teeth in the villain’s face and defends herself against his cronies. Yay!!!

I’m sure some people complain because she needs rescuing on three major occasions, but let’s admit it, anyone would need emergency help if they got shot in a God-forsaken Arctic wasteland. And if you were falling off a plane you’d need rescuing, right–and who’d be a better rescuer than the guy who can get there the fastest and flying to boot?

In all seriousness, Lois proves herself so useful throughout the movie that the rescues didn’t bother me–and you know I hate useless crybaby heroines. If she was always waiting to be rescued, I’d feel differently. Lois, however, is a capable, intelligent heroine who does a lot for herself and for others.

tumblr_muc5gb3rsu1si3ly1o1_500

But here’s the best part about Lois’ character: she is a true helpmeet-heroine. Lois believes in Clark. This gives him motivation and strength to carry out the hardest part of his mission. She encourages him, she’s determined to help him in any way she can, she’s considerate of his need for secrecy, and she comforts him at his lowest point.

By the end of the film it was very clear that this romance was going places. I was thrilled out of my mind to hear Amy Adams will be in the sequel. May Clark and Lois get married and live happily ever after, hallelujah amen.

Jor-El

MAN OF STEEL

“And I’m Javert! Do not forget my name! Do not forget me, 24601!”

Hehehe. No, seriously, it was wonderful to see Russell Crowe playing a nice man after Les Mis. Jor-El was my third-favorite character after Clark and Lois. He won my heart as soon as I saw him holding his baby son for the first time; my admiration was secured when he stood up to tyrants with such calm boldness.

For most of the movie he’s appearing to Clark and Lois in spirit-form a la Obi-Wan Kenobi, but he’s still a rock of calm and wisdom for both of them. I loved it when he helped Lois get out of General Zod’s ship, giving her cool, concise directions on where her enemies are lurking so she can quickly dispose of them. It was very awesome.

General Zod

MAN OF STEEL

Zod (Michael Shannon) was . . . disturbing. There was no Loki-like charm about him; he was cold-blooded and brutal. Zod was also very Machiavellian, believing the ends justified the means. “I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the sole purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people.”

Interestingly, General Zod and his cronies are big proponents of evolution. This isn’t specifically a Zod line, but in one scene when his female sidekick Faora is fighting Clark, she says:

You are weak, Son of El, unsure of yourself. The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage. And if history has proven anything, it is that evolution always wins.

So evolution, big government, population control, and dictating the lives of individuals from babyhood–these are upheld by the villains–while the good guys believe in God, liberty, valuing life, and self-government. Methinks this is a conservative film.

BIG SPOILERS: apparently the scene where Clark kills Zod was controversial; some people thought Clark shouldn’t have done it because Superman is supposed to be a pacifist. Huh? Clark only killed him in order to protect innocent people Zod was about to murder. How was the fight going to end anyway? Either Clark or Zod was going to die; Zod said so. I mean, come on. His death was plain old-fashioned justice.

Jonathan & Martha Kent

MAN OF STEEL

Last but not least, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) and his wife Martha (Diane Lane) were wonderful characters. I think Jonathan was probably too over-protective of Clark, but he was also wise, encouraging Clark to wait until the proper time to reveal his strength. And he loved his son so much, he died so Clark could keep his secret. That scene was very moving for me; I know some people thought it was stupid but I didn’t think so watching it.

Martha made me laugh. Sometimes she reminded me of my mom: very practical, yet warm and loving. It was especially fun to see Diane Lane again after watching Secretariat. And yes, she’s supposed to be in the sequel too–yay!

Conclusion

Man of Steel, while it had its flaws, was a wonderful film that blessed and excited me on a long, tiring plane ride. I think the fact that I watched it twice in a row says more about it than anything 2,000+ word review I could write. Maybe writing a space opera of my own increased my appreciation for it, I don’t know–but the film resonated with me and I can’t wait until it comes out on DVD in November, when I can finally share it with my family.

 

0f73ff1f9b30618ed45945d086079432

Rating: 4.9 out of 5 stars.

Age Recommendation: Man of Steel is rated PG-13, but I think mature 12-year-olds could easily handle it, especially if they’ve already seen Marvel films.

P.S. I’m supposed to get the soundtrack today. Hans Zimmer, peoples! If you want a taste of the awesomeness, go to iTunes and listen to the sample of “What Are You Going To Do When You’re Not Saving the World?” There was no after-the-credits scene like in a Marvel movie but I watched the credits (twice) just so I could listen to the music 😉

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Man Of Steel: Movie Review

  1. An excellent review, of course. 😛 I highly approved. Highly approved of the message (SO pro-liberty/anti-socialism!!!!), the casting (HenryCavillHenryCavillHenryCavill), just…everything about it was wonderful. It wasn’t campy/corny like the original Superman film (one I loved for years but couldn’t deny was extremely corny), it was really deep, it just was SO good.

    Superman *is* based off of Christ/Biblical stories, so I was happy that they kept faith elements in the story. I loved that he *was* flawed, though…I’m not a fan of the perfect hero and was afraid they would try something like that with him. Lois was an awesome heroine! She was gutsy and strong and capable and a wonderful balance – neither “too” over-the-top, but not a wimp at the same time. I adore strong heroines, and she was definitely a great one!

    AND RANT MOMENT…I *loved* the fact that a hero actually killed someone. Okay, that really sounded wrong. Let me rephrase. The current trend is for the protagonist to avoid killing literally at all costs. Which, I mean, I’m all for violence being the last resort. But it gets reaaaaally annoying when they won’t kill a villain and something bad happens because of it. Like, there is such a thing as self-defense/protecting others. So honestly, when he did I was like, YES! Because it was clearly a case of defending others, he was remorseful about it afterward, and it wasn’t like he just went around randomly killing people. I was really ticked that it was such a huuuuuge issue.

    Anyway, fantastic review! 🙂

    Like

    1. When I saw you had commented, I admit I sat down with a look of giddy delight on my face. The fun level on this post officially went past all legal levels, hee-hee!

      The pro-liberty message hooked me within the first twenty minutes of the film–especially since it reminded me so much of “The Giver,” one of my favorite books, where the government basically maps out your life from beginning to end. And while I HIGHLY approved of Russell Crowe, approval ratings hit the plane ceiling when Henry Cavill showed up. “It was really deep,” you say–and that was EXACTLY what I told my mom when I called her after our plane landed!

      I appreciated that they included so much Christian symbolism, too–and I don’t even mind that there are certain parallels with Jesus. After all, some of those parallels are shared with other Biblical characters like Moses (“endangered baby sent away to safety”), and we love fictional heroes for their similarities with Jesus’ character. I was just glad the movie didn’t glorify Superman to *deity status*. From what I’ve read of the Christopher Reeve movies (I saw them a loooooong time ago), there was a lot of that kind of thing, a lot of making Clark out to be a spiritual savior. But you didn’t have that in this film AT ALL.

      YAY, someone else who likes Lois! I was so glad you got to see her relationship with Clark develop, so that by the time they did get around to, you know, a kiss (finally), you knew this wasn’t a superficial romance. They’d been through a lot together and they were going to stay together!

      I totally understand what you’re saying about Clark killing Zod and I agree 100%. I knew there was some kind of controversy while I was watching it but couldn’t remember what it was; by the time the movie ended I was scratching my head because I didn’t see ANYTHING controversial about it. Life makes so much more sense when you look at things in black and white, not fifty shades of grey.

      Like

  2. I MUST see this movie. It sounds really good- and this was a perfect review, by the way. Makes me really want to see it. I saw some older superman stuff, and didn’t really care for it- I never liked Lois Lane. That’s why I was excited about this movie: I figured, if anyone could get me to like Lois, it’d be Amy Adams!

    Oh, and did you know that Superman was originally created by a Jewish guy? Apparently, Superman’s origin and upbringing was inspired by Moses. I heard that somewhere recently.

    Can’t wait till this comes out at the redbox!

    Like

    1. Oh thank you for such a compliment–I really appreciate it! I had great fun writing this 🙂 Yes yes yes, Amy Adams was PRECIOUS. There was one scene where she said a rather crude word but for the rest of the movie I loved her to bits.

      AH-HA!!!! Moses! Of course! I wondered about that when I heard the original story was written by a Jewish man.

      Like

  3. I was just thinking about this movie yesterday and wondering if it was worth watching, I’m glad to hear you think so highly of it! I will now go add it to my movie watch list…. 🙂
    Yes! Hans Zimmer is awesome!!!!! 🙂
    I found your blog ’cause you comment on Jamie’s and I thought I’d check yours out…you mentioned you’re an INTJ, which I am too! 🙂
    ~s

    Like

    1. They say INTJ’s are the rarest personality but I’ve met too many for it to be all that “rare,” haha! Anyway, thanks so much for stopping by! I will go and check out your blog as well 🙂

      I hope you enjoy Man of Steel! Less than a month to go till the DVD is out 😉

      Like

  4. I skimmed read this since I haven’t seen it yet but I liked all the pictures you picked. *squints eyes rather slyly* I am getting a particular vibe that you seem *very* pleased to like Man of Steel more than The Avengers. Darn it, you need to watch the rest of the Avengers/Marvel movies (in order, now!) and then rewatch The Avengers! We have to be able to properly fangirl together about them all!!! That said ( ;P ) I am looking forward to seeing Man of Steel from Netflix and fangirling about Superman too. 🙂

    ~Jamie

    Like

    1. (*laughing*)

      Please–please don’t excommunicate me! I *liked* The Avengers (and shall hopefully do a review soon). But let me explain it this way. I watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark” after I watched Rocky I-IV, and I told my brother that I had the same feelings for RotLA as I did for The Avengers, while I had the same feelings for Rocky (the ASDFJKLADSFJKL feelings) as I did for Man of Steel. I *liked* Raiders of the Lost Ark, and I *liked* The Avengers, but as my baby sister says (in that most serious tone of a four-year-old going on twenty-four), “I didn’t really *love* it.” But I’m not an Avengers hater, I assure you! 🙂

      Also: I agree in complete honesty that I was at a disadvantage for having only seen Captain America before I saw The Avengers. Thankfully I *did* know a LOT about each character (thanks to sisters Emily and Carolyn) so the movie did make sense, I wasn’t confused, I got it. But I really had no attachment to anyone but Steve–Coulson being the big exception. I’m going to be angry at Loki forever for killing him!! 😛 How are they explaining him surviving that, by the way? Isn’t “Agents of SHIELD” supposed to be post-Avengers?! I do not understand. Enlighten me!

      And lastly, I am very much looking forward to you seeing Man of Steel as well because I truly think you will enjoy it. It’s fate, it’s destiny: if you like Steve Rogers you will like Clark Kent. You simply reserve the right to love Steve more than Clark if you so desire 😉

      Like

      1. I personally have to agree with you on Raiders of the Lost Ark, I was actually disappointed on a whole level because there was NO character development *sobs* and I really wanted to love that movie!

        Still, knowing about the character and actually getting the know them yourself is a whole different level of emotion and understanding–while Thor wasn’t favorite hero for how he behaved in most of his own movie, he completely won my heart when I saw his return in The Avengers because you could *really* see his character development. See?!

        As to Agents of SHIELD, they’ve not really revealed the real truth about Coulson yet. There’s little hints and I think there’s going to be some big reveal near the end of the show…. I really don’t care, though, because he’s one of the best characters; he’s had so many little spots in the different movies, it’s about time he got the spotlight!

        ~Jamie

        Like

      2. I KNOW–there was very, very little character development in Raiders of the Lost Ark! And I really wanted to like it more too!! There were some things I did like about it but others…meh. I mean, why was Marion running around in her nightdress half the movie? Seriously?

        Yes yes, totally get what you’re saying about Thor. Speakin’ of which, I had actually been hoping “Thor” would be on the plane. Out of all the Marvel movies, it looks like the one I’d enjoy the most after “Captain America.” I’m following “Thor 2” closely 🙂

        I will also follow Coulson’s progression through “Agents of SHIELD” because I’m extremely curious as to his fate!

        Like

    1. Both our wee hearts must calm, LOL! I hear rumors that it’s somewhere online but I REFUSE TO SEARCH FOR IT. I will come by the DVD honestly 😉

      Like

  5. “Huh,” is probably the best reaction to pacifism; the only real response it deserves. It is fundamentally hypocritical (I had an article on this topic for class so I thought it out recently…it drives me NUTS). Yeah, pacifists really do expect you to stand by and watch violence done…they call that virtuous. In a word they are idiots. The article was amazingly awful; it tried to use the Bible to justify it…the Bible uses violent language to describe the Christian life…as Spiritual warfare. The Bible expected murderers to be punished with capital punishment. Also the article discussed the amazing unpatriotic actions of American pacifists during WWII the bloodiest, cruelest thing which if people (ahem, Neville Chamberlain) had been more assertive would not have had to occur. If you stand by and watch something you are condoning it and that is what pacifists don’t get (besides human depravity…). Sorry for the rant. Your blog is thought provoking.

    Like

    1. That article does sound amazingly awful! I’d be hopping mad if I was the one reading it, haha! You’re right, if you stand by and let others die at the hands of a crazed murderer (whether he be a thug menacing your neighborhood, or a vicious dictator a la Hitler), then you are as guilty as the murderer. Which was why I thoroughly approved of Clark killing Zod. When I found out that people actually took objection to it, I was horrified!

      Your comments are thought-provoking as well and I thank you for them 🙂

      Like

  6. In general, a good review, but I do have one little quibble. You state that the belief that each person has the potential to be a force for good is essentially a humanistic one. And while it is true that it would be a core belief of humanism, it is not exclusive to humanism and indeed is embedded deeply in many profoundly Christian ways of viewing man. Yes God’s grace is necessary to achieve any good, even to exist, but I don’t think it really can be considered a great sin to leave that everyday grace unspoken in the context of a film since usually we often use the term grace to be synonymous with redeeming grace which is distinct from being a force for good in the world.

    Further, I am not sure there is not an implicit acknowledgement of God in Jor-El’s statement. The ‘S’ is the symbol of the House of El. El is a Hebrew word for God. Generally in Superman literature, no effort has been made to separate El from the given parts of Jor-El’s and Kal-el’s names. Whether intentional or not, this focus on the “House of El” calls attention to El in isolation. In a sense, therefore the S is the symbol of the House of God.

    Like

    1. Thanks for the comment! Especially the latter part…while Kal-El isn’t a perfect/complete allegory of Christ I do appreciate how he mirrors certain aspects of the Greatest Hero 🙂

      Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: