MAN OF STEEL (2013 - Cert 12A)

Now this was a superhero reboot that I'd been looking forward to. Not like last year's perfectly decent but unremarkable and pointless The Amazing Spiderman. Surely it wouldn't have done any harm to try to do something a bit different with Peter Parker? Perhaps that was the problem with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. I actually really liked that film, and many people claim to still do so now, but perhaps it's desire to channel the spirit of the Donner originals meant that it just wasn't different enough and ultimately didn't connect with audiences at the time and that the numbers didn't really add up.

Cue Christopher Nolan. Not satisfied with his incredible vision for Batman becoming the template for art house blockbusters and making the studios realise that it is possible and acceptable for a big budget summer event movie to be both intelligent and succesful, he wanted to take on DC Comics' other big name. Enlisting his regular Batman collaborator David S Goyer to flesh out the story into a screenplay, this was to be the thinking man's Superman. Donner and Singer's versions were never exactly stupid, but we all hoped that this was going to a step up, something grown up....

Then the cast was announced. Aside from the relatively unknown, but perfectly suited, Henry Cavill as Kal El, we had a veritable smorgasbord of big names, proper actors with some real thespian clout. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Superman's Earth parents, Russell Crowe as his Krypton dad, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as the editor of the Daily Planet and Michael Shannon as General Zod.

It's all there in place for this to be the darkly perfect, broodingly cerebral Superman for our generation, and then you see that Zach Snyder is directing.....excitement turns to anxiety....





To be fair, his Dawn of the Dead remake (in my view his best film) was very good and it marked him out as one to watch. 300 has a bit of a cult following but even it's biggest supporters will probably admit that although it looks good, it's about as deep as a Saharan puddle. Watchmen wasn't exactly the film that I wanted from such an incredible book, but after a couple of viewings it's a much better film and adaptation than I first gave it credit for. Again there was potential. Then the unforgivably awful, nonsensical, idiocy that was Sucker Punch. I've tried to watch it again but I just hate it more than anything (yes, even The Holiday).

Snyder's career actually reflects Man of Steel perfectly. Frustrating.

Some of it is excellent. In fact most of it is excellent, the first two thirds certainly are. The first thing that struck me is that it's much closer to a full on science fiction film rather than the usual superhero fare. The opening on Krypton is huge, something George Lucas would have been proud of, perhaps what John Carter might have looked like had it not been Disneyfied to within an inch of it's life. Spaceships, droids, holograms, Russell Crowe in a space suit riding a flying dragon to evade spacecrafts, Man of Steel has clearly not forgotten that the roots of this story lie in a galaxy, far, far away.

Even when the action shifts to Earth, there's plenty of space ships, Codexes and a 'World Engine'. Also, in a neat rethink, Superman's Fortress of Solitude is a giant spacecraft buried under the ice. Man of Steel is closer to Star Trek than Batman.

This continues thematically too: one of the most interesting parts of the story focuses on Superman being an alien and how people would react to that fact. I'm sure that we wouldn't immediately embrace him just because he can fly and see through walls, we would greet him with suspicion and fear. When the villain, General Zod, (more on him later) addresses the people of Planet Earth, he starts by telling them 'You are not alone'. A really nice touch I thought, using the question that is constantly asked when considering extra terrestrial life.

The quandary of whether we are ready to accept an Alien is asked of the characters too, notably Clarke Kent, his Earth parents and Lois Lane during an interesting middle section that replaces the usual origin tale we've seen before in previous films and Smallville. We jump between flashbacks and the modern day as Lois Lane, an investigative reporter, tries to track down a mysterious man with superhuman strength who can't keep himself a secret because he just can't resist saving people's lives. We see a young Kent at school, saving his classmates, (even the bully), as their school bus crashes into a river, a slightly older Kent rescuing people from a burning oil rig. The best elements of this section are when his dad (Kevin Costner in arguably his best role to date) is trying to explain that staying a secret is more important than helping people. It's a real moral tussle that Henry Cavill really manages to pull off, culminating in the film's most, and probably only, heartbreaking and heartfelt moment.

Then General Zod finds Superman and it all really kicks off. First things first, Shannon's Zod is a good villain, not a classic by any stretch, this isn't the Joker, it isn't even Bane. But there is some depth and intrigue there. His motivations and borne out of his love of his home, he really believes what he's doing is right. Plus he is played with intensity by Shannon (as I'm sure you would expect), but his steely determination and anger, although good for getting the job of being a baddie done, only really make enough for a two dimensional character.

Anyway, once he turns up and transmits his message to the whole planet, it reminded me a bit of the way The Joker hijacked TV channels, and even slightly of Bane's speech at the football stadium. That is where the subtleties and similarities end though, because when Zod gets angry, Man of Steel becomes big, very big and incredibly destructive. This is where the film lost it's way for me. It all becomes a little boring. Superman has a fight with a couple of Zod's mates, but in order to make it more interesting, Snyder and co have decided that every time a punch lands, the recipient has to fly backwards and destroy a building or blow up a petrol station. It is a bit of a spectacle the first time you see it, then after blow after blow, it all becomes a bit much,

Then the World Engine starts up and an entire city is destroyed within minutes. Thousands, if not millions, of people would have died, except not once are we meant to worry about that. We do see the staff of the Daily Planet trying to get out, as long as they are ok, that's the important thing. Big special effects are fine, but they must have a context, it's boring just to smash things up for the sake of it, these things become exciting when there is some peril involved, an emotional attachment to it.

Once that all comes to an end, it feels like the film should stop there. It was a big enough finish to have got away with it. But no, it felt the need for one more big ruck, between Zod and our hero. Punch, Zod flies into a skyscraper and out the other side, glass smashed, top of building collapses, Zod gets one into Superman's chops, into a petrol tanker, huge explosion. Apart from the strange fact that they managed to find a clean couple of square miles of buildings that weren't destroyed or even touched by the World Engine, it becomes a needless 20 minutes of crashing, banging and walloping. To be fair, the moment when Superman saves the day (that isn't a spoiler, don't pretend you expected Zod to win) is another moral crossroads handled well by Cavill, but it's the thudding nonsense before that which makes it more of a relief than an emotional end to the story.

Except that isn't the end again, there's another bit that sets the film up for a sequel (again, no one will be surprised that there is going to be more of these). The problem with all of this is, when I left the cinema, all I could think about was the skull hammering last third, I had forgotten about all that went before that. I had been pummelled into submission. Which is a massive shame, because up until the point it became like Transformers or the end of Iron Man 2 and 3, it was interesting, it was doing something different, it was sci-fi and superheroes, it was asking interesting questions. It had Kevin Costner being brilliant, Amy Adams being perfectly fine, Russell Crowe being a bit Obi Wan (Alec Guiness, not Ewan McGregor). Then the film decides that the best way to answer a question is to bludgeon someone or blow something up. Lots and lots of times. Then do it all again.

Still it is worth seeing, but brace yourself for that finale, it's loud, long and just won't give in.

THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)

I was lucky to go along to an advance screening of Russell Crowe's forthcoming film, The Next Three Days. Released in January 2011, it is a remake of a a French film, Anything for her (Pour Elle - 2007), and has been adapted, written and directed by Paul Haggis, who is quickly developing a bit of a name for himself having written Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, The Quantum of Solace and having made a very good job of directing (and writing) The Valley of Elah.



Crowe plays John Brennan, happy family man, living the perfect life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and their little boy. Then one normal, weekday morning, their lives are torn apart as Lara is arrested for the murder of her boss. Three years down the track, Lara's final appeal is rejected and John is left a desperate man, so he seeks out the advice of an expert jail breaker (Liam Neeson in an irritating cameo) who advises him how to plan his wife's escape. We then reach 'The Next Three Days' as the plan is put into action.

Russell Crowe is in fine form here. He has played some very big, macho characters, but he entirely believable as a suburban father enjoying the perfect, yet quiet life. It's the first part of the film (it is broken up into three parts - the next three years, the next three months and finally the next three days) where he is at his most impressive, coming to terms with being a single parent, trying to give both his wife and his son hope, but knowing that there really is no cause for optimism. The most touching and upsetting scene is where he goes to visit prison to tell Lara that the appeal has been unsuccessful, no words are spoken, he says it all in his eyes. I struggled to keep it together. It is also worth saying at this stage that Elizabeth Banks plays her part as well - left vacant by her ordeal, resigned to a life behind bars, desperate to be with her son who shows no emotion or recognition when he is with her. It's almost a moody, family drama and very moving it is too.

The Next Three Months sees a shift in the film and also in Crowe's character. John leaves the comfort zone of suburban life behind as he tries to get the resources to make the break possible. He encounters a whole host of nasty characters and subjects himself to violence and the drug abuse of dangerous local neighbourhoods. The thing I like most about this element is that Crowe constantly seems out of his death, nothing goes as he wants it too and you I really got the impression that he is a man on the edge and things are spiralling out of control. Haggis shoots it all in the now familiar shaky cam, grainy image way. Very Bourne, but it gives it a very authentic and watchable feel.

Then we have 'The Next Three Days', and, frankly, it all falls apart a little bit - unlike John's plan. The final act is what might have happened if Tony Scott directed Ocean's Eleven. It's just about thrilling enough, engages you so you don't get bored, but you're never really on the edge of your seat. And it's because you never really worry whether they will get away with it and Russell Crowe resorts to type and becomes the action hero again, out of kilter with his portrayal of John before. Have no fear Maximus will save the day. It's a shame because the rest of the film is very unpredictable and it deserves something better than the ending gives it. I also felt let down because I thought the film wasn't going to insult the viewer by spelling out Lara's crime, I thought it would leave it all unanswered, which would have been brave, very brave, but it is needlessly addressed in the final moments.

So two thirds of a good film, an almost great performance from Crowe, ably supported by a good cast (Banks and Lennie James in particular) and proficiently directed by Paul Haggis again. The Next Three Days had me under lock and key, until cliche broke out and escaped.