Just Because You Can Throw a Train Carriage Through a Shop Window..

..doesn't mean you should. The recent trend of mindless action and city-destroying mayhem as an exciting third act/finale to a superhero film disturbs me. Actually, it bores me. Having just watched 2013's Man of Steel film for the first time, I'm worried about the future of the action blockbuster. They weren't always this banal, were they? I'm guessing that the advancement of technology and CGI is to blame for these rubble-producing scenes, but they're unnecessary. It's overkill. It's tedious. I found myself willing the film to end. Why do these movies have to nudge the two and a half hour mark now? Why is the CGI looking more and more fake? Why do the people who make these things think we need non-stop action sequences? Now, let me just add this little disclaimer...

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Honestly, this film could have been so much shorter. I think there's a fairly decent movie in there if it was shaved down to maybe 90-110min. It took twenty minutes to leave Krypton, for crying out loud! Did we need to see Russell Crowe flying a dragon? He did a pretty fine job in the role of Jor-El, but a huge action fight scene was not really needed, I feel. I just wanted the plot to progess, and get to Earth! Granted, I might have been expecting more of a similar plotline to the 1978 classic, but come on! Fire the baby into space already! And General Zod and his cronies possibly should have jettisoned to the Phantom Zone before "the last spacecraft on the planet" was used for baby Kal-El. 


I also feel that the movie would have benefited greatly from a linear narrative. When the little Kryptonian capsule was hurtling through space I was expecting to see it land. Or rather, crash. However, the next shot was an oil rig in the middle of the ocean somewhere, and dang me if we didn't get introduced to Clark Kent in the most throwaway fashion. It isn't until he's on fire and rescuing workers after an on-board accident that we realise who the character is. I didn't recognise Henry Cavill, as I'm not very familiar with him. I was waiting to see an extraterrestrial vehicle disrupt the life of the Kents, not some over-the-top oil rig disaster!  

Anyway, the bits in between Kal-El's arrival on Earth and his wandering the globe get given to us via the odd flashback sequence. The best thing about these scenes, in my opinion, is Kevin Costner who fabulous as Jonathan Kent. I know there are some who dislike this portrayal of Clark's Pa, John Schneider for one (Bo Duke from The Dukes of Hazzard and Smallville's Jonathan Kent), but I think he is trying to protect Clark from the fickle attentions of humanity. This is a Superman for this age after all, but Pa's advice is possible misguided, and fails to make Kal-El the best Kal-El he can be. Diane Lane is great as Martha Kent, but it's Costner as Clark's (mis)guiding star who shines brightest. I have to say that his death scene was horrible though. Again, an action sequence for the sake of an action sequence. Death by tornado? Ouch.
 
As the film moves on Kal-El finds not a Fortress of Solitude, but rather a crashed Kryptonian spaceship, and is reunited with his dead father via awesome Kryptonian hologrammatic technology. He meets Amy Adams' Lois Lane in this icy region as well and so begins the digging into the mysterious alien's background. I thought Laurence Fishburne was a great choice as Perry White, but he feels somewhat wasted in the role.

To cut a long story short, the film reaches its messy conclusion with General Zod coming to Earth to create a new Krypton; so Kal and Zod and his cronies proceed to throw each other around like all get-out. Metropolis cops a fair hiding, and no doubt many innocent people died as a result. Not that you see a single civilian death. Michael Shannon's Zod stands well on its own, and doesn't owe anything to Terence Stamp's iconic portrayal in the Richard Donner films. He does get a little chompy on the scenery though, occasionally comes across as a melodrama villain.

I had issues with the movie from the very start, but it well and truly lost by the last forty-five minutes or so. Gah! And if that wasn't enough, we decided to punish ourselves further and watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as well! Hahaaaaa!! I did enjoy BvS:DoJ a bit more than MoS though. It still could have been forty minutes shorter though. Once I got over the fact that Lex Luthor was a manchild, I quite enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg's twitchy turn as Superman's nemesis. Superman was his usual moody self, and while I think Henry Cavill does the best he can, the writing lets him down. Superman comes across in both films as a mopey and reluctant superhero. That's no fun.

I really liked Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne and Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Great casting, and they worked well together. Affleck's take on an aging, world-weary Wayne was pretty great, and I think his Batman was as good as anyone else, although we didn't see much of him. There was one fight scene between Batman and a room full of cronies that was arguably the highlight of the whole movie. Both Rhona and I exclaimed "Alright! Here we go!", but that was about as good we got. For a superhero movie, there should way more of those moments.

The showdown between Superman and Batman was good, not great, but one of the better scenes in the film. It's made me want to thumb through my old copy of The Dark Knight Returns. Wonder Woman's appearance was another big highlight, but it just took too long for her to arrive! When the three heroes get down to battling Doomsday, I thought we were headed into the same smashy-smashy direction, but it seemed a little more restrained this time around. 

I am hopeful that the remaining DC Extended Universe (DCEU) movies will be a big improvement on the first two. I thought that Wonder Woman was much better than either MoS or BvS:DoJ; and it was on the strength of that film that we went back and endured the other two. Even WW descended into smashy-smashy territory by the third act, but it was easier to handle. While the third act was the weakest part, it didn't overwhelm the whole movie, thankfully. Gal Gadot does a wonderful job in the role, and although her costume is quite drab, the excitement of seeing her in action is pure cinematic joy. That's what you go to the movies for. That's why it was so refreshing to cheer at the screen in The Force Awakens and Rogue One.

Having grown up in an era of classic action/adventure and superhero films, it's a bit easier to be let down by today's blockbusters. The original Star Wars trilogy, the Back To The Future trilogy, the Indiana Jones trilogy and the, um, first two Superman movies all hold up very well. The character development and story lines are far superior too. In the last few years the box office has been ruled by sequels, action, reboots, action, CGI, 3-D and more action! The New York battle scene at the end of The Avengers is one of the biggest offenders of overkill in recent memory. Of the limited number of Marvel movies I've seen, I don't think any of them have outdone the first Iron Man. 

Maybe that's the difference between Marvel and DC here. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films were borne out of the success of Iron Man, but the DCEU has been constructed from the outset. The little peaks of The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman were quite enticing, and if the DC movies improve on the trend they're currently on, we could be in for some cool flicks. I don't think Zack Snyder is wholly to blame for the failings of the first two films, but having Patty Jenkins direct WW was certainly a step in the right direction. Snyder did helm 300 and Watchmen, both of which I enjoyed immensely, particularly the latter, but I'm hoping he learns the principle of 'less is more' for the next installments. 

So there.