Most Shared

LIVE NEWS

LIVE NEWS

Entertainment

Entertainment

 
text size

Two Takes On Man Of Steel

Updated: Friday, June 14 2013, 07:16 PM CDT
Take 1: Bettie Cross - Bettie's Box Office

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a blockbuster!

Unless you've been living on another planet, then you know that Superman is back in Man of Steel. In this reboot the cast of characters is familiar, but the faces are all new.

Buff British actor Henry Cavill is perfectly cast as Superman. He is the best-looking hero, yet. Beyond the blue eyes and square jaw is a body so conditioned you might think it's computer-enhanced. Cavill is also able to convincingly convey modesty, turmoil and, eventually, great strength. Amy Adams plays Lois Lane, a savvy newspaper reporter who is on the trail of the mystery man who saves her life. Russell Crowe is Jor-El, Superman's biological father from Krypton, while Kevin Costner is Jonathan Kent, his foster father here on Earth.

The movie is technically brilliant. It's hard not be impressed as you watch the beautifully crafted planet of Krypton disintegrate. There are incredible action scenes, especially the floor-by-floor collapse of a skyscraper that almost seems ready to topple onto the audience in 3D.

Clearly there's a lot to like about Man of Steel. If the film has its own Kryptonite, it's that it focuses too much on the Super and not enough on the Man, especially in the second hour. While the action scenes are great; there are just too many of them and they're too long. By the time I ran out of popcorn, the combinations of explosions, fist fights, hurtling cars and collapsing buildings had become almost numbing.

Still, Man of Steel is a promising reboot to the franchise. Go in knowing there's less playfulness to this re-telling of the story, so it feels very different from the Christopher Reeves movies of the 70's and 80's, and even from the Brandon Routh movie (Superman Returns) in 2005. But, it's a change in tone I find refreshing.

Take 2 - Ken The Critic

My thoughts on Man of Steel consist of way more cons than Bettie's take on the film. First of all, Superman has been around since the 1930s and there's been hundreds of graphic novels of the hero. Therefore, if we are going to revisit him time and time again in the movies, then why can't we have some original content on the silver screen instead of revisiting storylines that involve General Zod, which was covered in Superman II in 1980. Michael Shannon did an excellent job as Zod, but they stick to a safe script. We all know the origin of Clark Kent. We don't have to reestablish that he is from Krypton and that he has powers. Even though some of the scenes of him as a child are some of the better ones, let's move on. Henry Cavill is perfectly cast and the suit's update is one of the best this decade with a velvet cape and a rubber suit with muted reds and yellows that shine in the right light. However, these things do not prevent the overall movie from just seeming like an extended trailer. It was never conceived in 3D, post-converting it in the end, which is just a waste of time and the viewer's money. In the end though, we all want to be in that suit for a day. Or at least, I do.

Get a closer look at Man of Steel: http://manofsteel.warnerbros.com

Man of Steel is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.Two Takes On Man Of Steel


Advertise with us!

Related Stories

 
Advertise with us!