Man Of Steel

Cinema is right in the middle of a major superhero boom at the minute, and deep, dark, moody anti-heroes have been raking it in. The success of the Dark Knight and Iron Man franchises alone prove just how much the modern audience loves the Byron-type. So how will a movie telling the story of the most clean-cut superhero in the history of men wearing pants in unorthodox manners; welcome back to the big screen, Superman, Man Of Steel.

We all know the basic Superman story by now, don't we? Super-powered alien baby is sent to Earth, raised by farmers, discovers he is in fact an alien after all, decides to use his powers for good, and takes up the mantle of the protector of humankind. And that is largely the idea of Man Of Steel, but with a great more detail given to the final days of Superman's home planet, and more a passing reference to the bumpy childhood years of our hero (probably due to it being done to death in Smallville). Attention particularly focuses on General Zod, the military leader of Krypton, who has Nazi-levels of genocidal passion for "pure blood" society for his people, who is ultimately solely driven in a quest to track down Superman, and bring him to what the general sees as justice. So our hero is faced with the decision of fighting what it probably the last surviving members of his species, or letting the planet which raised him fall to the General's wrath.

The man chosen to play Clark Kent was Henry Cavill, who apparently missed out on the same role for the absolutely terrible 2006 Superman Returns, so I imagine he had more than a point to prove when it came to being handed the red cape for himself. He does the role justice too, with a pleasing amount of All-American, slightly corny, all clean honesty. It may not be hard to play Superman, when you really think about it, but he carries it well and with a sense of humour borrowed slightly from Chris Evans' take on Captain America. Michael Shannon provides a menacing and utterly psychotic General Zod, and his performance is very pleasing, as you actually almost begin to fully sympathise with his reasoning for wanting to destroy all of mankind, which is slightly worrying when you think about it. The part of Lois Lane is played by Amy Adams, and she's shown as less the ever-in-danger damsel in distress, more of the career-driven, strong willed power woman. Not entirely sure which is a more reoccurring movie cliche, in all honesty, but it's still sort of annoying. Russell Crowe has a good turn in a supporting role as Jor-El, Superman's father, and it's his display of resilience and high morality which allows the audience to buy into why Superman eventually decides to take up the fight for good. There are also strong supporting roles from Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who play the Earth parents of The Big Blue Boy Scout. It was sort of nice to even remember Costner existed, really.

The film is laden with explosions and special effects which would make Michael Bay squeal with delight, but are largely used responsibly (that's a weird sentence, I know). A climactic battle scene sees the destruction of an enormous part of the city of Metropolis, and it's absolutely spectacular to watch. Similarly, the scenes depicting Krypton are heavy with CGI, to the point of reminding us all a little of Avatar. Like I said, these are used largely to give you a feel of the magnitude of the technology and super-human powers of Superman's race, even if there comes a point where the level of destruction becomes almost ridiculous, we have to remember that this is a film based on a comic.

However, therein lies the main problem of the film. Thanks to the astronomical success of the Batman reboot, pretty much every superhero movie since has been following the idea of having a great deal of gritty realism. This is applicable to Man Of Steel, arguably due to the involvement of The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan as a producer, and also the fact that the director is Zak Snyder, who also gave is the massively moody Watchmen, so we should have expected no less. But the problem with having gritty realism in a superhero movie is that you need a superhero who is somewhat believable in that universe. I'm not saying that the likes of Thor are any more convincing, and it's arguably the viking god's inclusion in the Avengers series which threatened to make the franchise a bit ropey. But Marvel got away with it, because they're Marvel, they're a much more fantasy and superpower based series than the DC universe of Batman and Superman (in my opinion, at least). Trouble is, Man Of Steel keeps switching between the grittiness, and showing a man in a cape flying around, shooting lasers from his eyes and recovering from being hit with trains as if nothing happened. There's only a certain amount we can actually suspend our disbelief by, and Man Of Steel blurs the line far too much. Furthermore, the film seems to rely too heavily on coincidence, seen particularly by Lois Lane's ability to transport herself over stupendous distances in seconds in order to arrive at the convenient location of Superman.

3/5 - The film is an enjoyable watch, very much so. However, it is exceptionally confused by itself, trapped by the need to be realistic (or even having an ounce of realism), whilst recognizing that the hero is one of the most over-the-top characters in comic book history. But at the very least, it's so very far ahead of Superman Returns that we'll actually look forward to the sequel.

The Great Gatsby

It may seem an extremely critical view of the current state of big cinematic releases to note that the market is somewhat saturated by adaptations of novels, graphic novels, comics and even games. So when it comes to the cinematic imagining of one of the most well-known and celebrated novels of the last century, everyone involved in the film really needs to make sure they're doing a good job of it. So, this time it was the turn of Baz Luhrmann to bring the life of luxury and excess of 1920s New Yorkers to the big screen, in his vision of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel The Great Gatsby.

So the basic upshot of the plot is that our narrator, Nick Carraway is a writer-turned-bonds salesman who takes up residency in the extremely wealthy area of Long Island, New York, becoming neighbour to a Mr. Gatsby, a mysterious millionaire, who throws parties of legendary status at his enormous mansion every week. Gatsby reveals himself to Carraway, telling him that his the presumed-dead former lover of Carraway's cousin, who is now married and lives across the bay from Gatsby's home. Gatsby has spent the previous few years accumulating wealth and possessions to please Carraway's cousin Daisy, on the day when they are finally reuinted. However, things do not run smoothly, as Gatsby and Carraway must not only negotiate Daisy's husband Tom Buchanan, but also the increasingly shady side of 1920s New York.

The part of our narrator is played by Tobey Maguire, his Carraway is a gentle natured man who is being slowly exposed to the life of debauchery and excess led by the wealthy inhabitants of New York. He is welcoming and loyal to his friends throughout, and Maguire portrays this with a simple warm face at all almost all times. Even when he is thrust into situations which immediately make him uncomfortable, Carraway has the manner of a man curious to explore all that life has to offer him. The role of Daisy Buchanan is filled by Carey Mulligan, and she manages to give a performance which captures the spirit of a woman trapped and unsure, innocent and yet wise, she's the damsel in distress who seems oddly capable of saving herself anyway. But the star of the film is undoubtedly Leonardo DiCaprio, playing the eponymous Jay Gatsby. A notable moment comes upon Gatsby's revealing of himself to Carraway, complete with the memorable "smile" line from the novel; the smile delivered by DiCaprio is one which immediately imprints the entire nature of Gatsby on all who look at it, audience included, and such a feat is something worthy of serious praise, as it simply makes you happy to have seen it. DiCaprio portrays the character as a man ready to explode with passion and emotion, but who almost always keeps his cool, sophisticated front, all in the name of being the gentleman. He always looks genuine, even when we are not sure what his intentions are, or indeed who he really is; he immediately strikes us as somebody we would like to know, and who we would trust.

Stylistically speaking, there's one thing that needs to be pointed out straight away: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. The same Baz Luhrmann responsible for Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge!, so of course The Great Gatsby has it's own phenomenal sense of style about it. There are times where the movie has a film noir feel to it, particularly the scenes involving the "valley of ashes" and other seedier areas of New York. But the most impressive atmosphere-shaping feature of the picture is the use of music. Again, in true Luhrmann style, he takes songs which would never even be thought of in the time the story is set, and blends them into the action, meaning that the high class debauchery of Gatsby's parties is made instantly relevant, thanks to being soundtracked by what I can only call ridiculously cool remixes and covers of extremely modern music.

The story itself is both touching and gripping in places, although I must admit, I did find myself growing a little weary about how long it seemed to be taking for any form of resolution to plot to unfold. And this is the main criticism I had with the film on a whole; it seems to get lost in just how good it looks and sounds, that it is occasionally guilty of forgetting that it has a powerful story to present. The conflict between riches and romance is key in the plot, and yet we are sometimes left instead to gaze in awe at Gatsby's home, or to simply be captivated by the man himself. It could be argued that this is also the point of the character in the first place, as he has spent years of his life moulding himself into a perfect, successful gentleman, but it does ultimately prove a minor distraction from the actual content of the story.

3/5 - Enjoyable, and spectacular to see/hear, however, it is guilty of forgetting to actually get on with the point of the story, dragging out the process a little too long. DiCaprio is fantastic though, and is almost worth paying the price for your ticket by himself.