Man of Steel Attempts a Batman-Like Reboot with Christopher Nolan as a Producer but Fails to Provide Joy to the Franchise

Man of Steel (2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen)

Written by David Goyer (Blade, Batman Begins)
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, and Russell Crowe.

It's a bird, it' a plane, no it's reinvention man.  I swear, Superman has been reinvented more than Madonna, and the two have one thing in common most of their new material just can't hold up.  Back in 1938 with the first appearance of Superman in Action Comics; he was just man a who could leap tall buildings, and had super strength.  Eventually Superman could fly, and his origin story from Krypton was explored.  In 1978 Superman hit the the big screen for the first time (in live action form) with newcomer Christopher Reeve.  In the 1990s and 2000s Superman came back to television, with one incarnation being teenage Clark Kent battling his development as Superman along with his teenage years.

In 2006 director Bryan Singer attempted the first reboot/continuation of the old comic book film starring Brandon Routh.  Singer's interpretation was much more in line with classic Superman blending humor, and action to tell the tale.  While Kevin Spacey was great, and the direction nothing which reinvented the wheel, critics were mildly approving, but fans felt that this version no longer fit within this era of comic book films.  Enter producer Christopher Nolan, screen writer David Goyer, and director Zack Snyder.

Man of Steel is a clear reboot, starting with the birth or Kal-El.  As the planet Krypton faces destruction Jor-El (Crowe) goes before the elders of the planet begging them to try and change the way things are run.  Soon after Zod storms in, and the beginning of the end for Krypton ensues.  Before the planet is destroyed by internal planetary forces Jor-El and his wife Laura send their baby boy to planet Earth where he must navigate the uncertainty of his own existence, does he reveal himself, save humans, fight back, protect loved ones, and embrace both his human, and alien nature?

Without giving the plot away there is not much plot to this film, other than the beginning, which is the destruction of Krypton, and the continuing flashbacks, which help Superman (Cavill) or Clark explore the evolution of him finding himself within this hero.  The other thing missing from this film is character development, this falls flat on that level never letting you feel a part of the world of anyone.  I want to know more about these people, Lois, Zod, Martha.  Goyer's script wanted everyone to know these people, but in a reboot (even Superman) shouldn't audiences get the opportunity to know these characters once again, and if they are going to change thing around, in new context?  Goyer's misses the mark, he does let some heart and emotion out, but misses the added whimsy.  There is one joke where Lois and Clark are sitting talking about the "S" on his chest, but this is one of the few light moments of this film.  This is a Nolan produced DC film after all.

Christopher helped write the story (different from the screenplay), and produced Man of Steel, and it's honestly pretty obvious.  One of the few successful aspects of the film, was the flash backs, which showed Clark as a young boy harnassing his powers, saving children on a bus, and working through what it meant to be a super hero.  Powerful stuff, considering the past films and television series rarely explored this character on such a deep level.  The other problem with this film, and the Superman character today is that he is not Batman, and giving him a Bourne like bad ass make over does not work in the same context it did for Nolan's Batman franchise.  Enter the constant action sequences.

Put screenwriter Goyer with famed 300 and Watchmen director Zack Snyder together, and what do you get a film so action packed you often wonder where is the dialogue?  Snyder's direction style is interesting, one which values style over substance.  Look at 300 and Watchmen, they are shiny objects meant to distract and entertain, and never delve deeper into their subject matter.  This was a shame for Watchmen, especially since the graphic novel is one of the best books I have ever read.  I will applaud Snyder for growing within his direction, this is better directed than both 300 and Watchmen; he does delve somewhat deeper into the context of the back story, and made me care about Superman, a super hero I have never followed, or enjoyed.  I think that's where this film succeeds, it tugs on emotional heart strings, making you mourn the challenge this outsider, or well alien faces.

I would say that's where the successes begin, but also diminish.  I re-watched Singer's 2006 Superman Returns in preparation for this film, and while I think that film has flaws, it still captures the essence of Superman much better.  The flaws within that film resonate in Man of Steel as well, namely some of the casting.  Brandon Routh was probably the most miscast Superman, cast mainly for a resemblance to the former Man of Steel Christopher Reeves.  Cavill has no opportunity to convince me he is Superman because there is little or no joyless dialogue does not allow him to convince movie goers.  I think Cavill has the magnetism, and if given a better script could pull this off.

In the 2006 version Kate Bosworth attempts to be tough, but boy does that fall flat, even Teri Hatcher was a better Lois Lane.  In this version Lois has evolved into much more than a "Girl Friday" she is a hard hitting tough as nail journalist who is along for some of the action herself.  Progress.  Yet with progress always comes some regression.  Adams looks uncomfortable in the role, never giving off enough charisma, or chemistry with her leading man.  Adams is a great actress, but this is a case of too much action, and not enough for her to sink her teeth into.

The rest of of the cast feels as though they are along for the ride.  I love Michael Shannon, but Snyder's villains always feel too close to moustache twirling caricatures rather than well developed characters.  Lane is wasted, Costner does the best with what he is given, and Crowe looks bored; he needs to amp up his energy.  Everyone looks and feels so serious, and while I like the darker emotional exploration, there needed to be some joy and levity, to make this film series ring true.  The only joy I got was seeing the tanker which said LexCorps explode proving that Luthor will be next villain.

Oh and if you were wondering, what other companies were sponsors of this film than look no further than Sears, 7-11, Nikon, I-Hop, and many more.  This film's fight scenes were blatant ads for these companies, hosting more product placement that I have noticed in a long time.

I can get past the product placement, but when I walked out of this film, I just did not know how to feel.  There were moments where I was moved, the visual effects were cool, the flashbacks were neat, but there was something missing from this film experience which did not leave me wanting more.  Sure the ending was cute, and made sense, anyone could have seen that happening.    There are things to respect about the films ambitions, but the film does do enough to help re-energize the franchise.  Superman has not returned (again), this film feels like its just trying to fit within a canon of darker comic book films, rather than be true to roots of the hero himself, and adapt accordingly.

While Uneven Les Miserables is an Entertaining, and Emotional Experience Saved by Solid Performances (minus Russell Crowe)

Les Miserables (3 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)

Written by William Nicholson (Gladiator, Nell, Shadowlands)

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Sascha Baron Cohen, and Helena Bonham Carter

Making this project looked like a labor of love.  The stage version is one of Les Miserables is one of the most popular, and most acclaimed stage shows of all time.  The film was made into a live action film, without singing back in 1998 with Liam Neeson as the lead.  Without music this film missed the mark in every way on achieving the Hugo's goal.  When this project was announced, fans screamed with utter joy, and as the cast list came out, people exclaimed with even more joy.  With such high expectations there was bound to be both excitement, and disappointment.   This film is an entertaining ride, but there are also flaws in the direction, which prevent it from being truly great.

The film follows Jean Valjean (Jackman) who has been imprisoned for 19 years after stealing a loaf of bread.  As the day of labor ends prison gaur Javert (Crowe) informs Jean Valjean he has been allowed parole, although he will always be seen as scum by others.  When Valjean is finally taken in by a priest he robs him, but the priest grants mercy on him helping him transform his life.  Years later Valjean is mayor of a small town under a different name.  One day while a fight between some women breaks out a factory in his town and worker Fantine (Hathaway) is tossed out, and fired.  Fantine eventually gets taken advantage of to support her daughter Cosette (Seyfried).  The film centers on Valjean's escape from his past and being chased by Javert, along with Cosette.  

Les Mis is based on the novel by Victor Hugo, which has been adapted numerous times in a variety of way.  This version, with William Nicholson's screenplay (one of a dozens) is the most faithful, which helps hit all of these right notes.  Nicholson's screenplay does not reinvent the wheel, neither hurting or adding to the film experience.  Without giving too much of the plot away (if you have not seen the show) those are the basics to the film set to the second part of the French Revolution. The film balances the intense drama of love, war, mixed with the humor perpetuated by innkeepers Thenardier (Cohen) and his wife Madame Thernardier (Carter).  The comedic helps balance out the heavy drama, which sometimes becomes to overwrought in the film.

Director Tom Hooper is the reason Les Mis becomes often overwrought.  Hooper who directed the Best Picture winner The King's Speech (and won director for that film) was guilty of that same crime in his directorial style.  In The King's Speech the direction hit hard so often at the characters emotions that you often lost the nuances of the story.  With King's Speech solid acting saved the film (although I thought King's Speech was beyond over rated).  Hooper hits hard at the emotional here as well.

Hooper hits the emotions so hard he wanted his actor's to sing live while listening to an ear piece of a piano being played.  With this method actors are able to perform while singing rather than letting digitally enhanced voices to determine their actions on camera.  In Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" this method is beyond successful. Hathaway is brilliant with her performance stealing the film in her brief role; she emotes so well, and the camera focusing on her without cutting away works.  I would add that this also works incredibly well in with Eponine's (Barkman) soliloquy "On My Own."

The problem here (for the most part) is the direction, and not the performances. Hooper strives to capture every emotion, sometimes forcing the emotion, without cutting away in every song.  Hooper has not learned the lesson that this style can detract from the impact of the material.  Hooper did not learn because he was not slapped on the wrist for his direction of King's Speech; he was rewarded with a Best Director Oscar.  Hopefully he will heed these words for future projects.  Hooper needs to let the performances speak for themselves.

As mentioned above Ms. Hathaway is the true standout of the film, namely because her version of "I Dreamed a Dream was one of the most poignant parts of the film, giving me chills.  This was Hathaway's first time singing in film, although she has proven her talent on the Oscar stage.  Jackman the film's lead has done Oklahoma, and The Boy from Oz.  Barkman has done Les Mis in the anniversary version of the show.  Seyfried did the pop musical film Mamma Mia.  Cohen and Carter were both in the film version of Sweeney Todd.  Redmayne is no stranger to the theatre winning for the play Red.  Together these performers know how to bring a musical to life, and they inhabit their characters well.

Jackman proves he does his best while singing, carrying the emotional complexities of Jean Valjean well, along with the physical journey.  After Jackman's tour de force performance, the true standouts were Redmayne, and Barker.  Redmayne has started to get larger film roles, and his performance here has proven he is going to be a sought after man in the next few years.  If you kept a dry eye during his "Empty Chairs" soliloquy you are heartless.  The same can be said for Barkman's "On My Own" and her performance, a star on the rise.  These two actors better get ready for a lot of job offers!

The main problem in the acting department was Crowe's Javert, who after two decades of playing "tough guys" came across as an incredibly whiney and weak Javert.  Crowe is also another reason singing to the music failed.  Javert's "Stars" misses every mark, and the intense relationship between Valjean and Javert is weakened.  

While this has a significant effect on the film, the film was still entertaining.  Many critics are going to say "I hate this film" and "this film was bad."  Neither are true.  While the film is not the best of the year, there are moments which bring you to sheer excitement.  "Do You Hear the People Sing?" is the best number of the film, making you want to stand up raise a flag and join the cause.  Even though Hooper hammers at the emotions too hard, I often got swept up with the ride, and let it take me away allowing the film to remain successful.  While uneven Les Mis is an entertaining, and emotional experience saved by great performances (minus Russell Crowe).