Man of Steel

I don't get all the hate heaped on Superman Returns.  Granted, I don't think I've seen it since it was in theaters, but it's not a bad movie.  If you want a bad movie based on a DC comic character, there are plenty to choose from --- ignoring the low-hanging fruit of Superman IV and Green Lantern, do you remember Steel?  Superman Returns' only real crime was being a movie that didn't act as a proper tentpole for a franchise.  It was designed to look and feel like a Richard Donner Super-film, and it succeeded in that regard.  That doesn't make it very exciting to watch, maybe, but it wasn't bad.  DC and the movie producers were not shy about their intentions for Man of Steel; if this movie was successful, it would be the first in a string of DC superhero movies, culminating in a Justice League film.  Basically, they saw what Marvel did with The Avengers and thought, "We should probably do that, too."

Aside from Superman being a hitchhiking hobo and direction from Sucker Punch creator Zack Snyder, the trailer looks pretty good.  I was curious as to whether or not they would explain what Superman uses to shave, since even flames don't affect his body hair, but that is a fairly minor point.

SPOILER ALERT: they don't

Man of Steel begins on the planet of Krypton.  Actually, we spend a surprising amount of time on this world, following Jor-El (Russell Crowe), the preeminent bodybuilding scientist on the planet, as he tries to convince the ruling class that their world is going to end.  They don't believe him, which turns out to mean absolutely nothing because they are promptly murdered by Krypton's preeminent shouting soldier, Zod (Michael Shannon).

"Kee-rist, Zod!  Inside voices, please!"

So what's the point of these scenes?  Well, Jor-El takes some desperate chances while Zod's forces battled the government; he grabs something of great importance to Krypton's people (a skull) and does something questionable with it (dissolves it over his infant son), because science.  Sure of his apocalyptic conclusions, Jor violates almost every FAA rule and sends his baby boy to Earth, via rocket, all by his lonesome.  And then Zod kills Jor and Krypton explodes.  Not before Zod and his forces are overcome and punished by being trapped in another dimension, though.

Zod looks like the sort of guy who types with the caps lock key on

On Earth, that infant grows up to be Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), and his alien physiology makes him different from normal folks in a variety of ways: super-strength, heat vision, super-speed, etc.  You know the super-drill.

Or maybe this super-drill is a little more angry than what you're used to

Clark was taught by his adoptive father (Kevin Costner) to keep his head low and hide his extraordinary abilities.  The logic to this being that people fear what they do not understand and...um...a super being might get his feelings hurt?  Whatever the reason, Clark grows up to be a do-gooding drifter, helping random people out whenever he can and then slinking off into the shadows before they can ask him any questions.  Eventually, Zod and his minions come to Earth, looking for the son of Jor-El.  Their entrance is dramatic, and they essentially offer to spare the Earth if their fellow Kryptonian turns himself over to Zod.  But what does Zod really have in mind for the people of Earth?  And what does this mean for Clark?  Where does Clark fit in, as the child of two worlds?  What kind of "man" is he?  (The answer is "super.") 

The acting in Man of Steel is all pretty much above-board.  Henry Cavill carried the angst of his character very well; this is easily the best acting I've seen from him.  Cavill also looks fairly tough, so the concept of him being able to punch through your face seems a little less far-fetched than some other actors who have played the part.  While Cavill's Superman was certainly sympathetic --- I would argue he gave the most vulnerable Superman performance on film to date --- he doesn't show much personality beyond the angst; but that is more of a script issue than a fault in Cavill's portrayal.

"Alright Henry, for this scene, imagine that your iPod has nothing but Morrissey on it"

Superman's love interest, Lois Lane, is played by Amy Adams, and this is the best Lane we've seen on the big screen.  She actually seems strong and intelligent, like an award-winning reporter should.  Almost as important, her "plucky reporter" bit wasn't obnoxious.  I thought Kevin Costner did a pretty good job as an overprotective parent; Costner can be a little one-dimensional in this role, but it was refreshing to see anyone in this movie look genuinely concerned over Superman's well-being.

"Son, just calm down...and please don't murder me and your mother"

I have some serious issues with the writing of his character, but Costner did a fine job acting.  Diane Lane was also okay as Clark's mother, although her part is pretty conventional.  I will say that it felt odd seeing her play a part that was a touch too old for her.  Russell Crowe was good as Jor-El; he was suitably stoic when he played a hologram, but his action hero turn on Krypton seemed a little un-scientist-like.  Still, he was in a lot more of the movie than I expected and wasn't bad by any means.  Ayelet Zurer had a small part as Superman's Kryptonian mom, but it didn't really amount to much.  Michael Shannon's work as Zod was tough for me to rate.

And, at times, identify

Yes, he was suitably intimidating.  Yes, he provided a physical threat to Superman, something that most Superman villains do not do.  I think my issue has less to do with Shannon's performance than with how the character was written; when given the opportunity, Shannon made this awful monster sympathetic --- but we have to wait almost the entire movie to get to that point.  Until that moment of insight, he comes across as a gigantic asshole.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Antje Traue was Shannon's right-hand-woman, and she was decent; I liked what I saw, but she didn't really do much more than glare.  Christopher Meloni had a fairly substantial part and he played an aggressive authority figure.  Go figure.  I like Meloni, but his movie roles have been pretty bland lately.  Richard Schiff and Laurence Fishburne did very little aside from lending their familiar faces to bit parts.

I have to admit that Zack Snyder didn't do a terrible job directing Man of Steel.  Snyder curbed his tendency to throw needless slow-motion in every scene and instead played to his strength: visuals.  This is a fantastic-looking film.  The set and costume designs were good, the cinematography felt epic, and the super-battles were suitably huge.

Above: epic super-fart

Snyder still can't direct his actors to do much more than shout, but that's less noticeable in a superhero movie.  I did start to get bored during the action sequences, though.  Superman and Zod knocked created a lot of collateral damage, but a lot of it looked awfully similar.  The important thing is this: Snyder is a director with visual flair, and he made a gorgeous Superman movie.  He didn't write the movie, though.

That was the work of David S. Goyer and, to a lesser extent, Christopher Nolan.  This screenplay certainly achieved one of its goals; I can definitely see this film spawning sequels and tie-ins, just as Iron Man set the stage for the films leading to The Avengers.  It also told a solid origin story and left some plot threads dangling that will doubtlessly be used in the inevitable sequel.  From a branding perspective, I suppose this script also sets the DC movie universe apart from that of the Marvel universe; there is a distinct science fiction vibe to this superhero movie, and that could open a promising door to some of DC's other characters.  Having said all that, I must admit that I didn't actually like the writing in Man of Steel.  For every character that was done well (Lois Lane, Jor-El), there were three or four that took everything with straight-faced indifference.  I don't blame the actors or the director for that.  The script leaves very little for them to do, aside from pose and look upset.  The worst case of this was Zod, who was a raving lunatic for 90% of the movie and then, finally, had a humanizing moment, although it came an hour too late to make up for his behavior in the rest of the film.  But that's not the biggest problem with Man of Steel.

My biggest problem with Man of Steel is with the tone.  To say that it is "dark" doesn't do it justice.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Superman's Earth-Dad straight up tells his son to not save people.  Hell, his character basically commits tornado-assisted suicide just to teach his son a lesson.  What's worse is the fact that our Superman-to-be lets it happen.  He could have easily saved the life of his adoptive father, but he opts not to.  That is not exactly the sort of thing you typically see in a movie with a hero in it, super or otherwise.  Of course, the back story is also pretty bleak.  The Kryptonians had colonies spread across the galaxy, equipped with terraformers to make hostile environments suitable for their settlers.  When Krypton decided that they did not want to expand their empire, they sent out a bus to pick everyone up and bring them home cut off provisions to those colonies, and everybody died.   Later, when Zod is preparing to end the human race by terraforming the planet, he ignores the fact that Kryptonians can, over time, get used to Earth without killing every living creature on the planet.  Why?  Because he would rather eliminate an entire species than be patient.  Of course, he also could have used the terraformers on any of the other dozen former colonies that he visited, but that would have robbed him of the chance to destroy all human life.  That's pretty bleak stuff.  And then there are the approximately three million civilian casualties from the Superman/Zod battle.  The city of Metropolis is ruined.  Completely.  Most of those collapsed buildings had to have people inside them, and that ignores all the people running for their lives as their world fell on top of them.  

Yeah, hold on to your coat.  That will help you.

Similarly, Smallville will take a decade to recover from Zod's visit.  The nameless Asian city off the coast of where the terraformer was probably took a lot of damage in the form of tidal waves, too.  Some people have issues with Superman killing Zod, but it makes sense in the context of this movie.  Zod was going to kill those stupid people in the railway station, and Superman did all that he could to stop it, because those random people were more important than the several hundred he punched Zod through during their battle.  Actually, I was a little surprised at Zod's execution, but there weren't many options, and that thematically confirmed Superman as a citizen of Earth.  Still, the presumed off-camera body count in Man of Steel is mind-boggling.  And that sort of destruction could work in another movie.  But in a Superman movie...?  I'm not so sure.  Hell, I'm not sure that more than one of those depressing-ass factoids makes sense in a Superman movie, much less all of them.  There is usually a sense of hope and optimism accompanying this character that can sometimes come across as corny Americana.

Not this time.  Man of Steel feels like someone saw what a gritty tone did for the Batman franchise and decided "If they like gritty Batman, they'll love gritty Superman!"  And I suppose they gave the people what they wanted, if the box office numbers are to be believed.

As a standalone film, Man of Steel is decent.  It was a relief that this movie didn't completely suck, and I hope to see more DC movies in the future, thanks to the success of this film.  Amy Adams and Henry Cavill are a solid core for this franchise and I wouldn't even mind Zack Snyder returning for another movie.  I honestly believe that they're going in the wrong direction with this, though.  Sequels have to up the ante, and the angst, death and destruction in this movie are already turned up to eleven.  Man of Steel was well-executed and impressive, but the questionable thematic choices kept me from truly enjoying it.

Blood Creek

Blood Creek sounds like a can't-miss horror movie.  It features up-and-coming actors Michael Fassbender and the next Superman, Henry Cavill.  Young, hot actors are usually a good sign, right?  The story manages to fit in Nazis, the occult, zombie horses, and rural West Virginia (state motto: "The Inspiration for Deliverance").  Even if it's not genuinely good...it has zombie horses!  How can this movie go wrong?

When we first meet Evan (Henry Cavill), his life sucks.  He has a stressful job (paramedic) and no social life, because he spends his free time taking care of his father, who hates him.  Why?  It seems that Evan went fishing in the West Virginia wilderness with his war hero brother, Victor (Dominic Purcell), and managed to lose him.  Victor hasn't been seen in the few years since, and Evan blames himself.  So does his dad and maybe Victor's wife and child do, too.  One night, Victor returns.  Hooray!  Time to tell the family, right?  Not so fast.  Victor makes Evan promise not to ask any questions and --- after a quick shower, shave, and haircut --- the two grab some guns and head back to the wilderness.

Sometimes, brotherly love is distributed one barrel at a time

It seems that Victor has spent the last couple of years as prisoner on a farm; he shows off some nasty scars on his back, but he doesn't explain anything more to Evan.  Torturing and killing a family, including a mother and daughter, doesn't sit well with Evan, but he shouldn't worry.  You see, the family in question was featured in a short prologue, set back in the 1930s; the family members were visited by a Nazi scientist, Herr Wirth (Michael Fassbender), and they don't appear to have aged a day since.  Why did Victor come back?  Who is he looking for?  Here's a hint: if the family hasn't aged, I wonder what Wirth is up to...?

Answer: not exfoliating

You might have noticed a complete lack of the occult and zombies in that brief synopsis.  It turns out that the Nazi, Wirth, that visited the farm in the 30s was studying ancient Nordic runes.  By studying them, he had gained the power to raise the dead.  Fast forward seventy or eighty years, and the family apparently keeps Wirth locked in their cellar, which he doesn't like, and I suppose is a reasonable reaction.  He's fairly super-powered (and ugly) at this point, so you would think he could just tear the family apart, right?  Well, the farmhouse is covered in rune markings that protect the family from Wirth.  That is, until some brothers intrude, leave a few dead bodies in their wake and let Wirth free.  Now, Wirth is on the loose, with the dead bodies of people, a dog, and some horses to play with.  Oh, and tonight just happens to be a very important night for occult blood rituals.  Hey, Victor, maybe you should have just gone home to your wife and kid, eh?

I don't necessarily expect the greatest acting in films that feature zombies, but I was let down by Blood Creek.  The acting wasn't wretched, but I wanted more than I was given.  Michael Fassbender spends most of his time on the film shrouded in shadow, with the majority of his dialogue being guttural whispers.  In other words, he wasn't used very well.  Dominic Purcell is as monosyllabic as ever and the interactions between him and Cavill are generally just shouting matches.  I did find his I've-been-gone-for-a-few-years long hair and hobo beard to be pretty funny and obviously fake; I'm still baffled by his choice to shave his head and trim his beard down to stubble, but not actually shaving his face.  Who does that?  Henry Cavill doesn't impress here, either, although his character is pretty nonsensical, so that might just be the weakness of the writing showing through.  Emma Booth was mediocre as the character that explains everything to Cavill, Purcell, and the audience, but it was a thankless role.

His X-ray vision looks deep into your soul

My biggest problem with Blood Creek has to be the direction of Joel Schumacher.  I suppose I still hold a grudge against the man for ruining Batman for the better part of a decade, but he has made a few good horror movies in his time, so I was expecting this to be better than it was.  The premise is cool enough, but Schumacher makes some odd choices throughout.  My main gripe is that we don't get a clear glimpse of Herr Wirth for about an hour.  We see his shadowy figure, wearing a surprisingly nice leather duster, sprinting across the farm in the darkness, and we get a few quick looks at his face, covered in black bandages, but there are so many questions left unanswered.  Why does he need bandages if he's an undead occult Nazi?  For that matter, why does he need a groovy jacket?  Exactly why have Wirth's looks been so drastically affected by his magic, but the family, who benefit from his spells, look normal?  How did Wirth get those rune symbols legibly carved into the back of his skull?  Sure, he looks cool, but that appearance is wasted in the darkness. 

The only time you see Fassbender's actual face

There are a lot of dumb moments in the film that should have been caught by the director, but were not.  Why does the undying farm family have only one picture on display in their house, and it happens to have a date written on it?  That's ridiculously stupid.  It's even stupider than the weaknesses in the script, like the concept of Evan promising to not ask questions, and yet that's all he does.  Or the fact that Wirth's zombies can enter the farmhouse, but are not under instructions to break the runes that keep him outside.  Ugh.  So much stupid.

There are some good things going on in Blood Creek.  I really liked the basic idea of Nazi occult beliefs.
As other movies (the first and third Indiana Jones series, for starters) have shown, having Nazis and occult themes in the same picture can make for great films, and it is an idea that is terribly underused.  I also liked that the zombies created by Wirth weren't the flesh-eating variety, but the voodoo type, raised by a master and doing his bidding.  The special effects were pretty good and the gore was solid in both quality and quantity.  I'm still divided on whether or not the zombie horse was hilariously awesome or just plain bad, but I'll put it in the "win" column for now. 

For being a more-or-less direct-to-DVD release, Blood Creek is pretty good.  I don't grade on a curve, though.  There are some solid ideas here, but too many stupid moments and poor choices for me to recommend this.  There was some promise in the premise, but promises are made to be broken.