Thanks for this excellent and nuanced review. I have not seen the film and now feel like I’ve had the best preview.
What this brings to mind is watching the early TV series of Mission impossible on our old black-and-white set in the 60s.
In every almost every Episode each Saturday night, the good guys arranged for the bad guy to perish either by his own hand through an arranged illusion or at the hands of other bad guys who are led to believe something like that the first bad guy betrayed them, which wasn’t true but too bad for him.
For me this pointedly demonstrated how to arrange a death without pulling the trigger yourself — and that this was the best way to deal with a bad guy.
I remember bringing this up in my social studies class and the teacher agreeing and being impressed. We all had the war on Vietnam on our minds then, as it was graphically reported on the television every day.
This was just a few years before the invention of Fox News by Roger Ailes who worked for the White House back then.
So the weekly moral Pretzel twisting on Mission impossible made a strong impression on me which comes to mind again while reading your good review.
I've never seen the TV series, so this is very interesting for me to learn. It definitely corroborates my belief that the killing-by-other-means approach is a pretty well-worn trope.
"it presents Eve Tessmacher as little more than a clueless bimbo, reduces Kat Grant to busty, walking eye-candy"
I haven't seen a lot of other Superman stuff to compare to, but isn't that how these characters are usually presented? Especially Kat (who I don't think had more than two lines in this movie, unfortunately)...maybe I was adding in context from the other sources I've seen them in to fill out their characters. Neither of those bothered me, honestly (especially since Eve was shown as actually pretty smart by the end by using her stereotype to collect all that collateral on Lex). I did have a gripe with Lois, though - her scenes with the Planet are great, but she has so few scenes with Clark that the majority end up being arguments or kissing. It felt like they didn't give her relationship with him much depth.
You brought up some interesting things to think about with the film. I also found it a mixed bag, but hadn't thought about the implication of the Krypton parents. One of the main issues I had with the movie (that sort of bleeds into all the issues) is that it assumes that you know all the backstory. The whole film takes place during an "abnormal" time in Superman's life, but it doesn't show how he acts/what his relationships are like normally, so it's hard to figure out what's a one-off for the character and what would be done the same regardless of the situation. I didn't connect the way that the parents were described until you pointed it out, though, so that's an interesting layer to add to everything else. Also interesting how you bring up the Kents as an almost negative comparison - again, they've always represented classic midwestern American values in any iteration of the character, so it seems like you're more upset at how the new portrayal of Krypton imbalances the parent comparison (I hope I'm not misconstruing your view). I liked that the Kents were a part of the film, but was a little disappointed that they were so...well, stereotypical (especially with their use of phones).
I like how you mentioned his threatening the leader of Boravia. I really enjoyed that scene because the way he spoke about it ("I smashed up some of his tanks" etc) really felt like a child playing with action figures. He's definitely not thinking about the global implications because he doesn't have ill will, and you also get the impression that this type of meddling is kind of new for him. But that sort of newness/immature attitude doesn't really get addressed afterwards. Like you said, there were a lot of implied character inconsistencies that are mostly held together by the strength of Corenswet's performance, but which make themes get pretty muddled.
Enjoyed reading your take. It does suspiciously sound like you are defending Man of Steel, which are fighting words in my book, but I liked how you brought up that each Superman film has been a "response" to the previous iteration's portrayal. That's interesting to think about. Do you think Superman Returns also has the same relationship to Superman IV, or are Reeve's films the kind of shadow that all the films are responding to whether they want to or not?
And would you watch the sequel to this one, or has the experience dampened your interest?
"I haven't seen a lot of other Superman stuff to compare to, but isn't that how these characters are usually presented?"
Not in my experience. Eg. Tessmacher literally had more agency and character in the 1970s Superman movie, while Grant was a main character on the Supergirl CW series for at least two seasons.
Regarding the parents - I've seen different incarnations of the Kents with different levels of character depth. The one here though seemed largely devoid of it and used them more for symbolic or contrast purposes in relation to the Els. So, I don't like how both sets of parents lack character and the ideological implications of their contrasting depictions.
And yes, there is a sense that the film brings up potential issues, like the geopolitical debate with Lois, only to never actually explore them.
Finally, I would indeed defend Man of Steel. I don't think it's a perfect film but I find it gets a lot of undeserved flack, especially for daring to be different or going against expectations of what Superman is or should be. This to me is a problem, for there simply isn't a single definitive take on the iconic character. He has changed over time getting shaped and reshaped by different media and the individuals working on him.
Great review! I haven't seen misogyny brought up prior (admittedly I'm not a huge reader of superhero movie reviews). I am considering seeing this film, but now I'm on the fence.
It's a good movie. If you want to complain about things, how about that he almost died by having the oxygen blocked from his lungs, but then ge relaxes on the moon with Krypto?
Thanks for the advice, Rob. But I'm not really bothered much by minor plot holes. (In fact, I don't think this constitutes one - for all we know he can survive without air for a really long time.) I explain why here: https://textualvariations.substack.com/p/emotional-realism
Thanks for this excellent and nuanced review. I have not seen the film and now feel like I’ve had the best preview.
What this brings to mind is watching the early TV series of Mission impossible on our old black-and-white set in the 60s.
In every almost every Episode each Saturday night, the good guys arranged for the bad guy to perish either by his own hand through an arranged illusion or at the hands of other bad guys who are led to believe something like that the first bad guy betrayed them, which wasn’t true but too bad for him.
For me this pointedly demonstrated how to arrange a death without pulling the trigger yourself — and that this was the best way to deal with a bad guy.
I remember bringing this up in my social studies class and the teacher agreeing and being impressed. We all had the war on Vietnam on our minds then, as it was graphically reported on the television every day.
This was just a few years before the invention of Fox News by Roger Ailes who worked for the White House back then.
So the weekly moral Pretzel twisting on Mission impossible made a strong impression on me which comes to mind again while reading your good review.
Thank you.
Thank you for the response!
I've never seen the TV series, so this is very interesting for me to learn. It definitely corroborates my belief that the killing-by-other-means approach is a pretty well-worn trope.
"it presents Eve Tessmacher as little more than a clueless bimbo, reduces Kat Grant to busty, walking eye-candy"
I haven't seen a lot of other Superman stuff to compare to, but isn't that how these characters are usually presented? Especially Kat (who I don't think had more than two lines in this movie, unfortunately)...maybe I was adding in context from the other sources I've seen them in to fill out their characters. Neither of those bothered me, honestly (especially since Eve was shown as actually pretty smart by the end by using her stereotype to collect all that collateral on Lex). I did have a gripe with Lois, though - her scenes with the Planet are great, but she has so few scenes with Clark that the majority end up being arguments or kissing. It felt like they didn't give her relationship with him much depth.
You brought up some interesting things to think about with the film. I also found it a mixed bag, but hadn't thought about the implication of the Krypton parents. One of the main issues I had with the movie (that sort of bleeds into all the issues) is that it assumes that you know all the backstory. The whole film takes place during an "abnormal" time in Superman's life, but it doesn't show how he acts/what his relationships are like normally, so it's hard to figure out what's a one-off for the character and what would be done the same regardless of the situation. I didn't connect the way that the parents were described until you pointed it out, though, so that's an interesting layer to add to everything else. Also interesting how you bring up the Kents as an almost negative comparison - again, they've always represented classic midwestern American values in any iteration of the character, so it seems like you're more upset at how the new portrayal of Krypton imbalances the parent comparison (I hope I'm not misconstruing your view). I liked that the Kents were a part of the film, but was a little disappointed that they were so...well, stereotypical (especially with their use of phones).
I like how you mentioned his threatening the leader of Boravia. I really enjoyed that scene because the way he spoke about it ("I smashed up some of his tanks" etc) really felt like a child playing with action figures. He's definitely not thinking about the global implications because he doesn't have ill will, and you also get the impression that this type of meddling is kind of new for him. But that sort of newness/immature attitude doesn't really get addressed afterwards. Like you said, there were a lot of implied character inconsistencies that are mostly held together by the strength of Corenswet's performance, but which make themes get pretty muddled.
Enjoyed reading your take. It does suspiciously sound like you are defending Man of Steel, which are fighting words in my book, but I liked how you brought up that each Superman film has been a "response" to the previous iteration's portrayal. That's interesting to think about. Do you think Superman Returns also has the same relationship to Superman IV, or are Reeve's films the kind of shadow that all the films are responding to whether they want to or not?
And would you watch the sequel to this one, or has the experience dampened your interest?
Thank you for the long comment!
"I haven't seen a lot of other Superman stuff to compare to, but isn't that how these characters are usually presented?"
Not in my experience. Eg. Tessmacher literally had more agency and character in the 1970s Superman movie, while Grant was a main character on the Supergirl CW series for at least two seasons.
Regarding the parents - I've seen different incarnations of the Kents with different levels of character depth. The one here though seemed largely devoid of it and used them more for symbolic or contrast purposes in relation to the Els. So, I don't like how both sets of parents lack character and the ideological implications of their contrasting depictions.
And yes, there is a sense that the film brings up potential issues, like the geopolitical debate with Lois, only to never actually explore them.
Finally, I would indeed defend Man of Steel. I don't think it's a perfect film but I find it gets a lot of undeserved flack, especially for daring to be different or going against expectations of what Superman is or should be. This to me is a problem, for there simply isn't a single definitive take on the iconic character. He has changed over time getting shaped and reshaped by different media and the individuals working on him.
Btw, there's a really nice article from CHUD that talks about how the film was a reaction to Bryan Singer's 2006 take here: https://chud.com/147909/franchise-me-man-of-steel/
Thank you for the long reply (and the extra article! It was a neat read).
You're right, Eve definitely had more agency/depth in the 1970s film. Didn't know Grant was on Supergirl!
I wonder if the next installment will reference/deal with the implication of Hawkgirl's actions or act like consequences were nonexistent.
Great review! I haven't seen misogyny brought up prior (admittedly I'm not a huge reader of superhero movie reviews). I am considering seeing this film, but now I'm on the fence.
It's a good movie. If you want to complain about things, how about that he almost died by having the oxygen blocked from his lungs, but then ge relaxes on the moon with Krypto?
Thanks for the advice, Rob. But I'm not really bothered much by minor plot holes. (In fact, I don't think this constitutes one - for all we know he can survive without air for a really long time.) I explain why here: https://textualvariations.substack.com/p/emotional-realism