Something old, something new, something blue and red.
When going to see another Superman flick one cannot expect a masterpiece without falling hard from high hopes. Keeping this in mind, “Man of Steel” is a pretty entertaining piece, especially in comparison to its predecessor, even if I can´t get it out of my head that Stalin means man of steel.
So, we have a new Superman movie out and I trust we all know the general story: Superman´s/ Kal-El´s (played by Henry Cavill) home planet Krypton is destroyed and his parents sent him to Earth in a capsule. He grows up on Jonathan (Kevin Costner) & Martha Kent´s (Diane Lane) farm in Kansas and learns to hide his superpowers in order to keep up his façade. The movie concentrates more on the destruction of Krypton and his biological parents, as well as his coming in terms with his powers on earth. As a last note, General Zod (Michael Shannon) of Krypton is not quite done with Kal-El and Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is on the hunt for Superman.
As a general notice, the actors were pretty good, or satisfactory. Russel Crowe and Michael Shannon rarely fail to impress. This begs the question: How is the new Superman? Well, he wasn´t bad, but not brilliant either. The only definite thing is that he was better than the last Superman, as was the film in general –which is not too difficult. Even though the special effects –especially the flight sequences- were executed incredibly well, there is the feeling that it was already been done in “Transformers” and “Matrix” among others. Thus the film doesn´t really offer anything new, just an improvement. To the fans of 3D it must be said that you´re up for a rollercoaster of fun.
As far as the storyline goes, there are some strengths and weaknesses. First of all, props for killing one of the main characters! A rare thing in the cotton candy Hollywood world. Next thing is, that as cool as the gargantuan fight sequence was, they should have learned from movies like “King Kong” that the longer it is, doesn´t mean the better it is. Especially as over two hours is too long.
In the end, I would not have been disappointed about having to pay ten bucks to see it, just because the film is that much better in a theatre–especially since it´s quality relies on special effects.