Let me start off by saying that as much as I enjoyed James Gunn's Superman movie, both as a showcase for the world first real superhero and as the foundation for a rebooted shared universe for DC comics characters, my favourite iteration of Kal-el remains his portrayal on the Justice League aninamted series. (The same goes for Batman and I adored Matt Reeves' noirish take!)
After nearly a century of storytelling I think it has become apparent that, whatever the medium, is it not difficult to write a Superman story. He has an extensive array of interesting powers, many of which lend themselves well to a dynamic medium like film or television. He has an extensive and largely well-known lore and backstory, as well as one of the best rogues gallery in comic books.
So writing a story with one of the most beloved fictional characters is not supremely difficult - it is estimated that there are over 50,000 indiviudal comics featuring Superman.
The challenge is in writing a good Superman story; one that is compelling and original and surprising. And although I have some problems with the how of it, I think James Gunn has done this with Superman.
In the interest of avoiding spoilers, I will be avoiding detailed discussions of some of what I felt were shortcomings. Some of them are nitpicks and couel of them really aren't, and I felt that each of them could have been written around.
The most critical thing they got right is the heart of Clark Kent himself; a midwesterner committed to helping people and doing the right thing. Not just beating up bad guys, but saving people (and more than a couple of animals).
They also got the casting and the supporting cast spot-on, from the journalists of the Daily Planet (especially Rachel Brosnahan in what feels like a very Margot Kidder-influenced Lois Lane) to the other heroes in the 'Justice Gang' (esp. Nathan Fillion's arrogant Green Lanter Guy Gardner). But special mention has to go to Nicholas Hoult for portraying a Lex Luthor with all the smarts and savvy of past interpretations and then infusing him with a roiling core of anger borne out of jealousy and perceived inadequacy.
This acrimony lefd to some surprisingly mean-hearted moments that, even for a megalomaniacal and selfish tool like Luthor left me a bit surprised, but I respect the boldness of the choice. There are a few bold choices in the film, not all of which I agreed with, but all of which I think I understood.
Some of the best things about Superman is what they didn't do, however.
- They didn't make it an origin story (thank Gawd)
- They didn't have him straight up murder anyone, or let someone die to preserve his secret identity
- They didn't make his dog smarter than they majority of other characters - in fact, notwithstanding the superpowers, Krypto is maybe the most realistic dog in movie history
- They didn't get rid of the red trunks, a bag part of Superman's iconic look
- They didn't make Lois a patsy for Superman, challenging him instead
As a comic-lover, there was a lot for me to like in this film. As a movie lover, Gunn gave all of Superman's weaknesses an opportunity to be exploited, from the well known mineral ones to the less-explored social ones. He gave one of the most powerful characters in fiction multiple (maybe too many) opportunities to be vulnerable and a great assortment of characters to play his strengths and weaknesses against.
The action sequences are dynamic for sure, Gunn's trademark humour is given many places to shine, but the best thing about Superman is its intrinsic belief about good - not that good will always triumph over evil, but simply what good is. The rest is nitpicking.
This is the Superman I have been waiting for for 45 years. Welcome back, Clark.
No comments:
Post a Comment