Man of Steel

It can be all too easy to find massive plot-holes in most movies. I have a simple take on them. If they don’t occur to me when I’m watching the film, then they’re of no relevance.

If a movie interests me, grabs my attention and entertains me, then I simply won’t notice them as the film has me hooked. On later reflection, if I suddenly realise the implausibility of one or several scenarios, I’ll shrug my shoulders, think it didn’t bother me at the time so why should it now? I imagine that along with most people, it’s only when a film is dull and fails to engage, that I sit in a theatre and shake my head at ridiculous developments.

Man of Steel is riddled with plot-holes. Machine gun riddled. It has more holes than the Japanese flag following the Battle of Iwo Jima. You could plough a tractor through its holes. But I failed to think of one of them as I sat enjoying its good story telling.

Actually, come to think of it, I did spot one very early on in the piece but quickly forgot about it. Jor –El, Superman’s father played with good pitch by Russell Crowe, is in the throes of getting his infant son off the doomed planet Krypton. He dives into the sea, swims down a water channel through a glacier into a chamber holding the Codex – a skull-like object which holds the DNA of one billion Kryptonites (or is it Kryptonians?) He makes off with it. Straight away it struck me that there was very little security surrounding this recorder of Krypton life – no barbed wire, no infra-red rays, no unbreakable glass surround – not even a couple of minimum wage Group 4 Security guards. I imagine Sir Don Bradman’s bat and baggy green cap has greater security at the Bowral Museum in Australia’s outback than Krypton’s biological memory.

So with the Codex, Kal-El/Superman – soon to be Clark Kent, is jettisoned toward Planet Earth in a space-age Moses basket and the adventures begin.

Being the first film in this re-boot of the Superman franchise, it is clearly required to spend some time setting up its characters and establishing its identity. But it does this not at the expense of moving the story along and never gets bogged down in background detail.

On current evidence, the injection of humour is not high on the producers’ agenda. And why should it be? Those behind this franchise appear to have confidence in their project and are not embarrassed to be telling the tale of Superman, despite a reluctance to name him so – even the ‘S’ symbol on his suit is explained as the Krypton for hope. The need for Roger Moore 007 one liners with a wink to the camera is not to be their style. The film in concept bears much similarity to the most recent Batman series, undoubtedly the influence of British film maker Christopher Nolan who was the driving force behind Batman and was instrumental in the development of this re-vamped Superman. Despite the lack of jokes, it never becomes pompous or overblown in its own importance.

Henry Cavill who up till now is probably only best known for the roles he nearly but didn’t quite secure – James Bond, Edward Cullen – seizes his opportunity and excels in the lead role, exuding boyish charm as the young Clark and square-jawed determination as the cape wearing super hero.

Overall, the cast was effective although Michael Shannon as chief villain General Zod is slightly underwhelming and I would have liked to see Amy Adams display greater gravitas as Lois Lane – she was just a bit too demure to be convincing as a hard-nosed investigative journalist. Hopefully she’ll raise her game for the sequels.           

The action scenes and CGI were impressive – I saw the film in 2D and, as with The Great Gatsby, a few shots were a little askew betraying its dual format.

One more feature of the film is its religious symbolism – there’s probably more Christian allegory than any film since The Narnia Chronicles. Russell Crowe is shown mostly as the spirit of Jor-El, living on after his physical death; Clark Kent refers to his ’33 years on this planet’ – 33 being the number of years it is widely believed Christ was on earth; General Zod appears to be an incarnation of Satan – his battles with Superman determining whether good or evil will triumph over the world. And the most blatant example was Jor-El on a spacecraft imploring Kal-El to return to earth with the words ‘You can save them son, you can save them all’ at which point Superman holds his arms out as if being crucified and falls through space down to the blue planet below. Had I paid more attention in Sunday School all those years ago, I could probably have picked up further visual metaphor. The film does not preach and I doubt this aspect will impinge on the enjoyment of card-carrying agnostics.

The film is a marvellous start and I hope the sequels will expand and develop.

4.5 stars.

 In the House (Dans la Maison)

The premise behind the French film Dans la Maison was sound. A bored, middle-aged school teacher who has lost his will to inspire his pupils is reinvigorated when a talented teenager starts submitting essays regarding the life of a fellow pupil and his family into whose home he is slowly ingratiating himself.

The teacher initially gives guidance but as the stories become more explicit he is torn by his intrigue in conflict with his ethics: his voyeurism generally wins the day.

This could have been either a wonderful black comedy, or dark psychological thriller. Sadly, it was neither and had  a tendency to drag. The film stalled early on and never really gained traction. There was no great twist or anything of any particular surprise. It was obvious one of the main protagonists would be outed as a latent homosexual and I picked the right one early on.

The acting was competent with Ernst Umhauer particularly effective as the young man intruding into another family’s life and Kristin Scott Thomas effective as the arty wife of the dull teacher.

2.5 stars.