Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (January 23, 2025)
After 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace essentially killed the franchise, WB waited 19 years to bring Superman back to the big screen. A lot changed in the meantime, as a few superhero flicks like 2002’s Spider-Man and 2005’s Batman Begins jump-started the genre.
In addition, Begins demonstrated that fans would return to a franchise damaged by a crappy film. 1997’s Batman and Robin hurt that series just as much as Quest for Peace harmed its own, but Begins showed that viewers would return for a “reboot”.
Which 2006’s Superman Returns provided – in a way. Unlike Begins - which retold Batman’s origins - Returns acted like a semi-sequel to 1981’s Superman II. That was an odd choice – and a fairly unsuccessful one, as the movie turned into a moderate disappointment.
Rather than continue along the Returns path, WB went back to the drawing board and came up with a true reboot via 2013’s Man of Steel. This one follows the same path as the 1978 film and tells the character’s origin story, albeit with some twists.
On the planet Krypton, scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) warns folks that the place will soon go kablooey, but they ignore his warnings. In the midst of a coup staged by General Zod (Michael Shannon), Jor-El struggles to save the planet’s “codex”, a repository of genetic information that could allow Krypton to begin again on another planet.
While stuck in a struggle with Zod, Jor-El and wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) manage to jettison the Codex away from Krypton – along with their infant son Kal-El, the planet’s first “natural-born” child in centuries. They send Kal-El to Earth, a planet similar enough to Krypton to allow the child to survive – and prosper, as its yellow sun will give him strength and powers above those of ordinary humans.
Before Krypton goes boom, its leaders punish Zod and his followers with banishment to the Phantom Zone, a form of prison in an alternate dimension. When the planet’s destruction alters their path, they eventually head to Earth, where they can attempt to use the Codex to restart Krypton.
And deal with Kal-El, as the vindictive Zod promises before his banishment. In the meantime, we meet Kal-El as an adult, a drifter named Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) who attempts to find his purpose in life.
Via flashbacks, we learn that when he landed on Earth, he wound up in Kansas and lived with adoptive parents Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane). They raise him as their own and teach him to keep his powers hidden lest the world freak out when they learn of the super-being in their midst.
Back in present day, newspaper reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) goes to the Arctic Circle to investigate a mysterious object buried beneath the ice. Along the way, she encounters Clark when she sees him walk in the deadly cold without protective clothing. Eventually all these stories interconnect as they lead toward Clark’s status as Superman and a fight with Zod to protect his adopted planet.
It’d be a mistake to say I went into Steel with high expectations, as I admit I had a bad feeling about the project. Nonetheless, I did maintain high hopes for a variety of reasons.
For one, I loved the Dark Knight Trilogy, and Steel featured a number of its primary participants in significant roles. Christopher Nolan worked as both producer and co-author of the flick’s story, and David S. Goyer created its screenplay.
The presence of Zack Snyder as director caused some apprehension, but given that I liked what he did with 2009’s Watchmen, I hoped he’d rein in the excesses that marred 2007’s 300 and do right by Superman. Add to that a solid cast and Steel should’ve been very good, if not great.
Unfortunately, Steel isn’t great. Or very good. Or good. Or even mediocre.
It’s awful – ding-dong, stinkin’, doo-dah awful.
How did this disaster go so wrong? From the very start, something seems amiss.
Krypton looks like a combination of Middle-Earth and Naboo, with an odd mix of science-fiction items and flying lizards. We wonder more why the Kryptonians wear such goofy clothes than we think about the characters or their fates. No, Marlon Brando and company didn’t look great in those flowing robes, but at least they didn’t come across as quite so silly.
Matters don’t improve from there. I’ll say this for Steel: at least it avoids the standard “origin story” of the 1978 Superman and most other comic book films.
Once baby Kal-El lands on Earth, it jumps around different time periods to illustrate his life while it avoids the straight chronology we’d usually find. That adds a little creativity to the movie.
But just a little, as the remainder of the story becomes a mess. Many folks criticize the Dark Knight films due to their alleged lack of humor and self-seriousness.
I defend the series because a) I think there’s more levity than many want to acknowledge and b) it’s Batman – he’s supposed to be grim.
The same can’t be said for Superman, a character who was always intended to be the straightest of all possible straight arrows. We don’t expect such gloom from this franchise, as Superman should deliver a certain lightness and positivity.
As they say, this isn’t your father’s – or grandfather’s – Superman, and I don’t regard the change as a good thing. Who thinks it makes sense to turn the relentlessly optimistic Supes into such a monotone mope? Nolan’s sense of darkness and reality worked great for Batman, but a similar tone just doesn’t fit Superman at all.
Indeed, one might wonder why they bothered to call the character “Superman”, as they take so many liberties. No, I don’t require that a movie remain totally faithful to the source, so I’m fine with changes from the source mythology as long as they make sense.
Unfortunately, none of the alterations in Steel seem even vaguely logical. In this universe, Lois learns Superman’s real identity right off the bat, and this robs us of much potential fun.
The comic and earlier movies used Lois’s quest to find out Superman’s alter ego to great effect. Instead, Steel completely undercuts that tension, and for no logical purpose I can discern.
In addition, the characters bear little resemblance to their predecessors. Instead of the emblem of truth, justice and the American way, this Superman seems more like a brooding whiner.
Lois is a total waste as well. Instead of the daring, intrepid reporter, we get a dull nobody who shows no investigative skills whatsoever.
Never mind that Adams seems entirely wrong for the character. She’s a perfect Lana Lang: she looks like Lana and can do the “sweet girl next door” thing in her sleep.
But the hard-bitten, cynical Lois? That’s not Adams, and she sleepwalks through the undeveloped part.
Cavill looks great as Superman but can’t do anything to expand the role beyond his muscles. Granted, as is the case with all the characters, the script undercuts any possible exploration, as it makes Superman generic and without personality.
Nonetheless, Cavill seems like a cipher and he makes next to no impression. He’s handsome but free from charisma or a heroic vibe.
Once again, the story bores. Sure, it gives us a literally apocalyptic scenario as Zod wants to incinerate all humans, but we never feel much real threat.
It doesn’t help that the narrative often seems like a warmed-over rehash of Superman II. Heck, the Faora-Ul and Dev-Em roles provide obvious substitutes for Ursa and Non.
Even with a better plot, the film would be undercut by Snyder’s visual choices. By five minutes into the flick, I wanted to yell “hold the frickin’ camera steady!”
Steel doesn’t suffer from the persistent “shakycam” that marred movies like Battle: Los Angeles or the Paul Greengrass Bourne efforts. Nonetheless, it still uses way too much handheld.
Why? I have no idea. As annoying as that style can be, it makes sense for some films, especially those that work within the faux documentary framework.
But that seems illogical for the world of Superman. As I’ve mentioned already, Supes doesn’t fit within a context of grit and darkness, so the choice to give the camerawork a hyperactive sense of “reality” flops.
Instead, we’re left with a camera that can’t stay still for even the most sedate, simple scene. It jerks and jumps in basic dialogue shots, and none of this makes a lick of sense.
Not only does it fail to fit the material, but also it becomes an active distraction. When I can’t focus on the speaker because the camera bobs and weaves, I find it tough to concentrate on the material.
Steel comes packed with similar visual miscues. When it should get exciting, Snyder’s choices doom it to failure.
The action sequences end up as a mix of bad CG, weak fight choreography and terrible camerawork. What should excite instead annoys and disappoints.
Steel ends up as a long session of foreplay that never goes anywhere. For the first hour, I thought to myself “this is terrible – when will it get good?”
As the movie continued, I realized the answer was “never”. The film starts poorly and doesn’t improve.
I never imagined a Superman movie could make me look back fondly on Returns, but Steel achieves that goal, as at least Bryan Singer’s film “felt like Superman”.
Steel nods in the direction of the Superman series but doesn’t connect with it in a meaningful way. It winds up as a slow, messy, boring, pointless dud.
