MOS isn't the worst superhero film I've ever seen, but it is something of a disappointment. It actually has a lot of the same issues that Superman Returns had--that is, what to keep from the comics and the Reeves films vs. what to do differently, plus story bloat.
The choices that get put up on the screen in MOS leave me shaking my head. There were so many things done well and yet so many things aggravatingly awful. I think where it really goes wrong is in what is supposed to be the exciting climax vs. Zod.
I like Henry Cavill as Supes, but I think he would make an even better Wolverine. Brandon Routh looked better as Superman in SR's version of the updated tights, in my opinion. Cavill looks more like the guy from Twilight or something in a sculpted body suit (which he doesn't need because his body is so sculpted anyway).
I'll give this a slight edge over Superman Returns. I thought SR had more satisfying moments and was more visually interesting in terms of giving us the world in which Superman is supposed to exist. But the homage to the first two SM films got tiring, and Lex Luthor as the ultimate villain is too under-motivated to take up so much film time. They should have spent more time with BR as CK and/or SM. And they should have made much more of his trip back to Krypton (stuff that was basically cut from the release).
I know many fans will say MOS is more original--because it doesn't draw on the first two Reeve films at all. But visually it seems to recycle a lot of ideas from Dune, Aliens, Spielberg's War of the Worlds, Avatar, even Transformers (and that is not good), etc. The depiction of US military forces doing their thing, done to death in how many films anyway, is just tedious.
I realize that films like SR and MOS are really huge collaborations, but as with the recent ST films, perhaps the producers and directors are bringing in TOO MANY different pieces and visual coherence suffers. It was supposed to be a more 'realistic' Superman, but instead what I saw was this very jarring shift from an intergalactic civilization (that would belong in Green Lantern) to a world that looked like it was filmed more cheaply than Smallville and then to a world that gets destroyed (seriously did Metropolis really look like a real city to anyone, even before it got levelled?).
There just was no really believable social realism to the film (something for example Spielberg got so right in the first hour of War of the Worlds). It did look like he was walking around as a fugitive in the landscape where they filmed the last X-files film.
Another strike against originality is just how much this film draws on Superman Returns--the use of flashbacks to childhood, holographic projections of the dead father, Christ-like imagery in presenting SM--and even in the climactic action of doing something really titanic and confusing with something going on in the ocean that was titanic and confusing, while his powers are being zapped.
And then there is the implausibility of the story once you accept the fantasy reality scenario that is given you--basically the destruction of Krypton. I guess the writers (including Nolan?) subscribe to some sort of theory about civilization collapses, but why Krypton would need Earth and why it couldn't survive in all its previous colonies is beyond me.
Might have worked better had they done a parallel story of two Kryptonians--Supes and Zod. A sort of Abel and Cain story or something?
Click Here For More Information About Steel Blu ray UltraViolet Combo Pack
0 comments:
Post a Comment