Bug and The Hunted - Crazy Michael Shannons Everywhere

William Friedkin’s later work has fascinated me for years, and I’ve already written about these two films in my article about his Inadvertent PTSD Trilogy (I included Rules of Engagement as the first film in the trilogy). But when Kino Lorder released 4K versions of Bug and The Hunted, I had to write a little more about both films.

First off, the new discs contain only the existing special features. The main draw is the new transfer, and both films look great. It’s simple, if you enjoy these movies, as I do, then these are the versions you should own. 

Now, for the film’s themselves, I just wanted to enjoy them on their own. With The Hunted, I loved how streamlined it was. This is a relatively simple film with no fat on it, featuring some great knife fights and great performances from Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro. 

The bookended Johnny Cash readings and the inclusion of “The Man Comes Around” always bring back memories for me. This is what spurred me to become a Cash fan. I even remember immediately going to the store after watching this to buy a copy of American IV, and I’ve been a massive fan ever since.

I won’t claim “they don’t make movies like this anymore,” but I will say that they don’t make movies like this with such skill and brevity any more. Either there’s a film similar to this but it’s a half hour too long, or there’s a film like this but it gets bogged down in mediocre action. The Hunted is a relic in that way, and it’s one I revisit regularly because of that.

Bug is a very different movie, and it’s the first of Friedkin’s two Tracy Letts adaptations (the crazy Killer Joe is the second). It’s easy to focus on the PTSD of Michael Shannon’s character, what with his claims of the drugs he was given while enlisted and the helicopter hallucinations and whatnot. 

Putting that on the back burner for this rewatch, I was instead captivated by what Shannon’s psychosis means in today’s world. It’s hard to look away from Shannon’s crazed eyes in this, but Ashley Judd is the main character for a reason: she’s the dangerous part of society. There will always be crazy Michael Shannons out there spewing their nanobug nonsense and pulling their own teeth. It’s the Ashley Judds that buy into that shit that are truly scary. 

In the film, it’s a chance encounter that leads to their deathly downfall. Locked in a hotel room with him, Judd succumbs to his psychosis because she’s a broken person subconsciously crying out for some conspiracy to buy into. What makes Bug more frightening today is the fact that this is all happening on the internet now. 

It’s pretty rare to come across a friend of a friend who ends up crashing on your couch and makes you end up believing that you are the “super mother bug.” That’s a freak occurrence. But now every other asshole online is a crazy Michael Shannon, and other, weaker-minded dildos are falling for this shit scrolling through TikTok. Our phones have become the seedy motel rife with enough conspiracy theories to break your brain.

Bug reminded me of what actually terrifies me about the internet. It’s not that it’s become so pervasive in our lives that we are essentially enslaved to it (though that sucks, too). It’s that stupid fuckheads have become so emboldened by it that people are much more likely to buy into the crazy shit that used to get them laughed out of the room but are now so common that they’re considered “normal.” It’s enough to make you do a Michael Shannon thousand yard stare and pull out your teeth. 

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done - "Razzle Dazzle Them."

There’s no rhyme or reason for why I write about certain movies right now. I have plenty of articles planned, but even those are poorly timed. For instance, I’m currently working through every single James Bond movie and plan on ranking each Bond actor’s set of films. But why now? Craig ended his run over nearly two years ago, and who knows when the next Bond will be announced? But it’s what I’m doing because I watched Casino Royale a few weeks ago, and I decided to just keep going. For this article, it was because I came across a YouTube video of Michael Shannon picking out movies from the Criterion Collection’s closet. Anyway, I just felt the need to kind of explain why I write about some of this stuff at seemingly random times.

“Razzle Dazzle Them.”

I first noticed Michael Shannon in Tigerland, and something about the edge in his voice and the intensity of his face has stuck with me ever since. So when I found out he was going to be the star of a Werner Herzog movie, I was very excited. This happened when my love of Herzog was at its apex. I had just gotten into his Kinski movies, and I loved Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (which Shannon also had a small part in). In other words, My Son, My Son came out at the perfect time for me. And the plot, based on the true story of a mentally unstable man who killed his mother with a sword after becoming obsessed with a play (Orestes) he was in, seemed perfect for Shannon’s intensity and Herzog’s dark sense of humor.

This is very much Herzog’s film, but Shannon is the main draw for me. Like most people aware of Shannon, I am a fan of his darker, angrier roles. While he gets to yell all kinds of crazy shit in this movie, it’s actually the more quiet, strange moments that are lasting. Herzog decides a couple times in the film to just bring things to halt and have the characters just exist in the scene, sometimes staring into the camera. It makes no sense, but it’s perfect somehow because Michael Shannon simply staring at you through the screen is effective.

Shannon’s entire performance is surprisingly understated despite the loud moments of the film. Yes, he yells and pivots wildly from emotion to emotion at times. But the moments of his performance that stick with you are when he’s staring off into space, trying to work out what is happening in his head. Playing crazy can be an easy performance for many actors the same way playing a villain can be: you get to be loud and bold. Nuance can go out the window. But a truly great insane performance will feature both. 

As much as I would like to see Michael Shannon marching around a house jabbering away while he holds two flamingos hostage (that is actually a major portion of this movie), it’s the quiet moments with Shannon trying to work out his insanity that stick with me. 

Not as Weird as You’d Think, but Still Pretty Fuckin’ Weird

The true story of this film is enough to make it weird, but when Werner Herzog became attached, this truly became a weird project. Then it became a “David Lynch Presents” film, and my weird expectations went through the roof. But when faced with the crazy possibilities of a Herzog/Lynch team-up for a true story of matricide, the actual project ended up being shockingly coherent.

First off, this is much more faithful to the true story than you might expect, so there is a little devotion to what actually happened. Second, and more importantly, David Lynch was only involved in helping finance the film; he didn’t write anything, and he was never on set. 

I was not disappointed by the lack of Lynch. I like some Lynch, but I’m a bigger fan of Herzog. And it’s not like Herzog has ever been labeled as a normal filmmaker. He’s all the weird I need for a film like this.

Herzog definitely brings some oddness to the film. There are the aforementioned flamingos, and most of Shannon’s dialogue is classic “crazy guy” stuff. Then there are the pauses in which the characters either freeze or just stand there staring at the camera. I found it all to be effective rather than just weird for weird’s sake, however. 

More important than bringing weirdness to the film, Herzog brings his usual dark humor to the project. This is tricky since this is based on a real murder, and it’s in poor taste to make light of that. Thankfully, the humor has nothing to do with the murder. Most of it is just the result of a much needed relief to Shannon’s insane intensity. You need to be able to laugh at some of this stuff or the tension would make it unwatchable. A lot of the humor comes from the idiosyncrasies of Shannon’s performance. But the comedic heavy lifting falls on Dafoe and Michael Peña as the detectives responding to the murder. 

They feel like they’re in a different movie that collided with this one. Dafoe’s straightforward handling of all the crazy shit going on makes for some funny moments. And Peña plays an overzealous rookie who tries multiple times to do some stupid shit, like lacing a pizza with sleeping pills or offering himself up as a hostage, and he gets shut down immediately. 

If you don’t like this movie (first off, how and why the fuck did you find this article?), then it probably seems like I’m trying to make excuses to like this movie. Because, typically, when two characters seem to be in a different movie than the main character, that would be a problem. But I sincerely believe that Herzog is going for some absurdity of life shit here, and I find it more funny than baffling. 

I like weird movies as much as anyone (and I know it’s lazy to keep referring to this film, and Herzog and Lynch films in general, as “weird,” but I am lazy, so there), but there has to be some enjoyment involved, as well. When David Lynch goes all in, like with Inland Empire, it’s just not for me. It’s too inaccessible. So the “David Lynch Presents” being a bit of a misrepresentation was a relief to me, while I imagine others were disappointed that the movie was surprisingly straightforward. But I prefer Werner Herzog’s type of weird, and there’s plenty of it in My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done.

Random Thoughts / Favorite Quotes

“And Brad Dourif as Uncle Ted” is one of my favorite “And”s in recent memory.

Don’t know why, but a disgruntled Michael Shannon sitting at a drum set he refuses to play makes me laugh.

“He’s claiming his name is Farouk. He shouts about God and tosses oatmeal at us.”

I’m not sure any actor can transition from rage to gentleness in the same scene as convincingly as Shannon.

“This Jell-O looks hideous.”

If you only watch one movie in which an ostrich tries to eat Udo Kier’s glasses, make it this one.

No way would I drive Michael Shannon around while he’s holding a fucking sword and quoting the Bible.

It’s nice that the movie has a few moments when the actors stand still, sometimes looking directly into the camera, that give you a chance to decide if you want to keep watching this wacky shit.

So Brad Dourif had a plan: he would buy a tiny horse (think Lil’ Sebastian from Parks and Rec), which a little person would ride, and his giant chicken, Willard, would chase the horse around the biggest tree in the world. This was going to be a commercial, though Dourif doesn’t know for what, but it would make a “lot of money.” I watch a lot of weird shit, so I’m pretty used to the idea that creative people come up with some nonsensical shit. But this is one of those rare moments that make me stop and wonder, “How the fuck did someone actually come up with this scene?”

According to Wikipedia, Herzog and Shannon went to China to film a scene in a market without permits, and the scene has nothing to do with the story aside from it being a scene in which Shannon’s character feels uneasy. This is the kind of nonsense that makes me love Herzog.

IMDb claims Dave Bautista is one of the SWAT guys at the end, but I couldn’t spot him.  

The Inadvertent William Friedkin PTSD Trilogy: "Rules of Engagement," "The Hunted," and "Bug."

William Friedkin is most famous for his early work, mainly The Exorcist and The French Connection (he also made the excellent Sorcerer around this time), yet I don’t own any of those films. Friedkin is largely forgotten today, even though he’s made some interesting and entertaining films in the last two decades. In fact, the only Friedkin movies I own are films he made after 2000.

I’m not sure if this is intentional, but Friedkin made three movies in a row between 2000 and 2006 that dealt with PTSD with increasing intensity: Rules of Engagement, The Hunted, and Bug. They are three very different films, and none of them were considered all that great upon their release. Bug is the closest, with a 61% on Rotten Tomatoes, but Rules (29%) and Hunted (31%) aren’t even close to being considered critically successful. I happen to love (or at least like) all three. Initially, I was only going to write about The Hunted because it showed up in the same YouTube video that led me to rewatch Constantine. But when I looked at my collection, I saw that I had all three of these movies and the PTSD connection occurred to me. I doubt that Friedkin chose these projects just because of that, but it’s still an interesting way to revisit these three films. First up: Rules of Engagement. (As always, there will be SPOILERS, but I’ll try to keep them minor since these films are lesser known and certainly less popular than Friedkin’s other work.)

Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement is about the court martial of Col. Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) who ordered his men to open fire on a crowd of protesters during a peace-keeping mission in Yemen. Childers relies on his lifelong friend, Col. Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), to defend him.

It’s a very complex film that deals with loyalty within the military, politics in war, Vietnam, PTSD, and Middle East relations. It’s a film without easy answers. It’s unclear for the first half of the film whether or not Childers was justified, and that ambiguity makes the film work quite well, as we’re left to rely on his own stressful memories of the event and the testimony of others who either couldn’t see the crowd or might be covering up to avoid to a larger military conflict.

Unfortunately, it is revealed via a security tape (major SPOILER) that the crowd did have weapons. But the tape is destroyed by a corrupt National Security Adviser. It doesn’t ruin the movie, but according to the IMDb trivia section (so take this with a grain of salt), Friedkin initially wanted to leave the content of the tape out of the film. Leaving that open would make this movie so much more intriguing and powerful. It’s still a very thought-provoking movie, but I think it would have been received more favorably if things were left up to the audience to decide.

The PTSD elements make make a more lasting impression, especially since they are never directly addressed (at the time of the film, PTSD was not the common topic it is today). So viewing it through today’s world makes it an even deeper film regarding military service and what is justified in combat situations. And it seems like Friedkin recognized this after the fact. He doesn’t mention anything in the DVD interviews (which are mainly promotional fluff), though he may have mentioned something in the commentary (I didn’t listen to it because Friedkin seems like the type to explain what you’re watching rather than elaborate on it). Either way, PTSD isn’t the showcase here, but it is immediately prominent in his next film, The Hunted. I don’t think it’s a stretch that he may have looked back on Rules of Engagement and decided to focus more on this aspect of the film for his next movie.

Even with the misstep with the ambiguity, Rules of Engagement is a movie that stuck with me. I’ve watched it at least five times at this point, and will most likely watch it again. There are complex issues brought up in this film, and it handles them in a smart, convincing manner. That, coupled with strong performances from an amazing cast, make this a movie I am proud to own. Rules of Engagement is a movie that is unfairly lumped in with other military thrillers (as evidenced by my own placement of it within my own collection next to other military thrillers). If you haven’t seen it, or you dismissed it the first time around, give it another chance.

I’ll finish with my random thoughts for this film before moving on to The Hunted.

Random Thoughts

Jones has issues with not being able to live up to his father’s legacy, and he has survivor’s guilt from Vietnam, but the PTSD is there, as well. When he visits Yemen, he has a moment on the rooftop where he reacts as if he’s under fire. On his way home, he has memories of Vietnam in connection to the dead and injured victims in Yemen, and it causes him to drink.

The old man fight, which has shades of They Live, is a bit odd tonally, since it plays for laughs at times, but I liked it.

Jackson’s PTSD is evident when he has a flashback while watching the flag being lowered.

It’s clear that Jackson’s experience in Vietnam shaped the kind of leader he became, for better or worse. Jones’s experience sticks with him, as well. Jackson’s hardened his resolve, while Jones’s softened his. All over a coin flip. Both develop drinking issues, and Jackson has a short temper. And a lot of the film is about whether or not you should severely punish someone who has devoted their life to their country. How do we deal with soldiers when aspects of PTSD lead them to make mistakes on the battlefield?

“Murder, sir?” I don’t know why, but this quote stuck with me. I still either say it or think it when I hear the word “murder.” It’s partly due to Jackson’s delivery, but it’s also because they advertised the hell out of this movie, and that line was in every preview.

“Are these the muthafuckas?” Guy Pearce’s delivery is amusing, but it’s made that much better when Jackson answers with an angry, “Yes!”

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are perfectly cast, even if it is a bit strange that they play themselves in the present and in Vietnam.

The embassy sequence is extremely tense. Friedkin does a great job of placing you there in this chaotic situation, adding to the complexity of the film. In hindsight, the wrong call was made, but when you see it in the moment, you can understand how Jackson could make such a decision.

Strange to see Philip Baker Hall playing Jones’s father, since he’s only fifteen years older. Not impossible, of course, but seems unlikely. Jones just seems perpetually seventy years old, so it’s weird to see him with a living father.  

This is one of those odd movies that is completely fictional, yet contains text at the end letting the audience know what happened to certain characters later. This actually made me think it was based on a true story the first time I watched. Watching it now, it seems like test audiences felt that certain things were left too open, and there wasn’t money or something for re-shoots.

The Hunted

This simple, straightforward film is a mix of Rambo (a veteran on the run that cannot function in the normal world) and The Fugitive (Tommy Lee Jones hunts him down).

The Hunted is almost too straightforward and simple. Benicio del Toro plays the troubled veteran, who was basically a hit man for the military. He goes AWOL and kills two hunters (who are most likely there to hunt him), starting a manhunt. Jones was his trainer, which is why he is asked to help catch him. It’s fine and simple enough, but there are so many intriguing elements to the story that get left out.

For one thing, Del Toro is described as having “battle stress,” which is obviously another term for PTSD, but this isn’t explored nearly enough. Instead of elaborating on that with flashbacks or dialogue, it’s left vague, and he’s pretty much treated as a dangerous monster, rather than a sympathetic victim of his history in the military. To be fair, there are a couple moments that humanize him, but overall he’s just a man on the run who needs to be caught.

Jones is similarly affected by his past, even though he didn’t serve in the military. He just trained people how to kill effectively. This is another interesting aspect that only gets touched on. Here’s a man suffering because he knows his training led to a lot of death and violence.

But Friedkin, as he admits in an interview on the DVD, is not interested in exploring any of this. He thinks action thrillers have become too complex and bogged down in plot. He wanted to give the audience a bare bones, violent chase film. In that regard, he succeeds.

The Hunted has lengthy moments without dialogue. And one chase sequence takes place for nearly a half hour (the movie is only an hour and a half long) through multiple locations. If the film is only judged on its effectiveness along those lines, then it should be considered a success. But if we only judge films based on them accomplishing what the filmmakers set out to do, then how can we criticize anything. Also, it’s not like everyone knows Friedkin’s goals when they watched the movie. So when I look at this film through the PTSD angle, it’s a failure. I still enjoy this film for action thriller aspect, but I can’t ignore the missed opportunities. Also, a foot chase is only interesting for so long…

The film does focus more on PTSD, though. It’s mentioned directly, and every scene with del Toro makes it very clear that this man is struggling with his past. It’s just unfortunate that none of the characters even consider helping him. Instead, it’s just used as a plot device to explain why this trained killer needs to be caught. This also confirms that Friedkin is not actually interested in PTSD, at least not as a major focus. He refers to del Toro as “losing it,” which is not how you would refer to a character you are sympathetic to. That doesn’t take away from the fact that this is a movie about PTSD. The director’s intention doesn’t matter when someone can watch the finished product and focus on the PTSD.

Random Thoughts

I kind of hated this movie the first time I watched it, but the spoken word performance by Johnny Cash that bookends the film (and the use of “The Man Comes Around”) for the credits, made me give it another chance. I was going through a major Cash phase at the time. The use of Cash has less of an effect on me now, but I still like the use of it.

According to IMDb trivia (remember, take some salt) Jones made 20 million for these. If that’s true, it’s insane.

Good knife fights. In fact, there’s a moment I love. You know how literally every knife fight in a movie has that moment when one person tries to stab and the other person grabs their hand and they struggle until one overpowers the other? Well, in this film, del Toro simply drops his knife when this happens, catches it with his other hand, and slashes Jones. Awesome.

There’s a father killing a son thing a la Abraham and the Johnny Cash lines, but there’s nothing to it onscreen. The flashbacks are nothing but knife training. Was that supposed to establish a father-son bond? If so, do all of the trainees think of Jones as their dad?

An odd Del Toro performance: he speaks clearly throughout. It’s off-putting.

Strange scene when he visits Irene. They say each other’s name in every sentence. Try doing that in your next conversation. It’s an unnerving way to talk.

After writing all these complaints, I watched the special features and Friedkin explains most of them. I thought it was too short; Friedkin says thrillers are too long and too drawn out and should be simpler. I wanted more father-son stuff established; Friedkin says the letter scene at the end showed that Jones had received the letters but had no answer. Basically he had failed as a father to Del Toro, which is why he had to kill him. I can see all this, but I think it could have been made a bit more clear in the film. You wouldn’t need to add that much more to the run time for it to work.

Bug

Ashley Judd plays Agnes, a waitress down on her luck living in a seedy motel. She is introduced to Peter, a drifter that she has an immediate connection to. After moving in with her, they become convinced that the motel room is infested with bugs.

This is definitely the strangest film of the trilogy, and damn near the strangest of Friedkin’s career (I think Killer Joe is weirder, though both films are based on Tracy Letts plays). I’m not sure that there were going for a dark comedy vibe, but I find this movie funny at times, mainly because of how quickly the psychosis both characters share ramps up.

From the PTSD angle, this movie opened my eyes a bit. I was only focusing on military-related PTSD, but PTSD can affect anyone. Peter does claim to have military service, and he also claims they did experiments on him. So it’s easy to say that’s PTSD from military experience. But the problem is that he is shown to be very unreliable. It’s possible he’s suffering from a mental illness and was never even in the military. This made me question including this movie, until I considered Agnes. She lost a child (who was kidnapped while she was distracted at a grocery store), and her life has been terrible ever since. She also has an abusive ex (Harry Connick, Jr.). So it’s fair to say she’s suffering from PTSD, and this is what makes her so susceptible to Peter’s delusions.

Once again, this is not directly stated, and the focus of the film is on the delusions of the main characters. Perhaps this can be the theme that ties all of these films together: PTSD exists and leads to troubling behavior, but there’s not much that can be done about it; you either deal with it, or it consumes you. That’s a depressing way to look at it, but since these films came out before PTSD was focused on, it’s a legitimate statement about the disorder. Back to Bug, specifically.

I love this movie for the performances. Ashley Judd is great in a refreshingly complex role. But Michael Shannon steals the show. I had known a little of his work before, but this made him stand out to me. He always looks a little unhinged in general, but he’s set loose in this film. His reveal after the room has been covered in foil and it lit by bug zappers, is equal parts horrifying and hilarious. Once again, maybe I’m the one who’s messed up, but I always laugh at that moment.

From a directing standpoint, Friedkin does a great job at creating paranoia. The stuff inside the motel is already there from the source material. But Friedkin is able to use exterior shots that seem to be closing in on the motel room, as if there really is some conspiracy happening. It adds another layer of “what’s real?” to the film. And as far as that goes, it’s left up to the audience what’s real and what’s not, for the most part. That ambiguity allows the film to transcend the other movies in this trilogy, making it the most interesting of the three.

Sure, Bug is another Friedkin film that focuses on the effect of PTSD rather than the cause or treatment, but that doesn’t make it any less compelling or powerful. And the style of the film shows that Friedkin, even late in his career, is capable of growing as a filmmaker.

Random Thought

Ashley Judd working through the conspiracy with Shannon is a standout scene. The “I am the super mother bug!” line is a bit much, but her crazed thought process coupled with Shannon’s manic coaching, is great.

Last Thought on the Trilogy

There seems to be a pattern to the handling of PTSD in these films. In Rules, there are plenty of scenes establishing what has happened to the characters, but the PTSD is minor. In The Hunted, there is only the opening scene to establish what happened, but the PTSD is major. In Bug, we get almost no info (that we can trust, anyway), and the PTSD has turned Shannon and Judd completely insane. Even though Friedkin probably did not choose these films based on the PTSD elements, he still created a connected trilogy that is possible to analyze on a PTSD level while also working as standalone films about completely different issues. They also work as a good reason to own films, even if they're not my favorites. I was able to revisit these films and look at them in a completely different way than before. I would not have done that if I had to pay to stream one of them (not to mention that I used the DVD extras for the article). Instead, I was going to look at just one film and realized I could look at two others that I own. My collection mainly collects dust, but situations like this make it worth it to keep it.

"Man of Steel" Is No "Superman Returns," for Better or Worse...

Directed by Zack Snyder, written by David S. Goyer, story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan, starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburn, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, and Michael Shannon - Rated PG-13

 

The Kurgan is not a fan of humanity, but even he didn't kill this many people with his collateral damage...

 

 

 

 

Superman has had a rough (and strange) go of it in Hollywood over the years.  The promising start in the late 70s quickly fizzled out into arguably one of the worst movies ever made with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  In 2006, the franchise was revisited with Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer’s ode to the Richard Donner films. Returns was a critical and commercial success but somehow was not good enough to spark the franchise.  So here we are again with Man of Steel, a, for lack of a better word, grittier and more sci-fi influenced entry.  My gut reaction to this new version from Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is positive.  Man of Steel is a big, action-packed summer movie and it never slows down during its lengthy 140+ minute running time.  So if you want the short review, quit reading after this paragraph.  Man of Steel is worth the price of admission.  Now, if you want to know how it stacks up in the series (or you’ve seen it and you want to see if we agree or disagree about certain elements), keep reading, because that’s a trickier issue.

 

I referred to Man of Steel as a “gritty” movie above, and that’s a good starting point.  I didn’t want to use that word because it has become so unoriginal in modern cinema.  Gone are the days of a hero wearing a costume simply because that’s what he wore in the comic books.  Now we need a “realistic” hero that wears a uniform almost solely for its utility.  I’m actually okay with this approach if done correctly.  The best example of this is the recent series of Batman films.  I just don’t think this is completely necessary for every hero.  Superman has always been that squeaky clean hero (he still is, for the most part) that stood apart from the rest.  Man of Steel does not make Superman stand apart in the cinematic world; he is on the same level as Batman.  That’s not a bad place to be, but it’s not a different place, either. 

 

The grittiness of Man of Steel isn’t that major of a problem, and a squeaky clean version might have been a disaster.  But I can’t help but look back on Superman Returns and think that that is Superman done right.  No big deal, though; if I want that version of Superman, I have a DVD player. 

 

Man of Steel’s more realistic look is simply awesome, however.  Zack Snyder and his team (including Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan serving as a producer) have crafted detailed and interesting worlds.  From a purely visual standpoint, this film is far and above the best of the series.  That goes for the action as well.  While some of the sequences bordered on exhaustion, they were all impressive and showcased both Superman’s and his enemies’ incredible power.  That showcase of power might leave you feeling a little troubled, though (more on that later). 

 

Great action and visuals can be enough for some people (it certainly goes a long way for me) because of the entertainment value therein, but the casting of Superman and his opponent can also make or break a film like this.  Henry Cavill (Immortals) does a great job as both Clark Kent and Superman.  He is believable, looks natural in the uniform, and, most importantly, he’s likable.  Michael Shannon as General Zod is equally impressive.  I’ve been a fan of Shannon’s for years, but this is most likely the first time many viewers have seen him in a major role (although fans of HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” are already aware of his talent).  Shannon brings his usual intensity to the role.  This is an actor who can convey so much with a stare.  He’s not going to get an Oscar nomination or anything like that, but at least Man of Steel will showcase his talents to a larger audience.  The rest of the cast is just as strong, just in more limited capacities.  Amy Adams turns in yet another good performance as Lois Lane.  Russell Crowe holds the first twenty minutes of the film so well that I almost wished that had been its own movie.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner provide the emotional impact of the film, most notably Costner in some scattered fatherly advice scenes (perfect timing, by the way, releasing this film on Father’s Day weekend).  Maybe it’s the memories of the father-son moments from Field of Dreams, but I found his scenes to be very effective.  And Laurence Fishburne provides some much-needed comic relief as Perry White, the editor of the Daily Planet.

 

I haven’t mentioned the plot yet because, well, it’s not terribly important to a film like this.  Like most, if not all, superhero movies, the safety of the entire world is at stake.  General Zod wants to turn Earth into a different planet that can sustain life for his nearly extinct race, and Superman must stop him.  Pretty simple, really.  Although there are quite a few moments and elements that might confuse you, it isn’t that big of a deal because it’s all done so well.  Of course, if you don’t care for the movie, then nitpicks about character motivation and inconsistencies will bother you much more.  I enjoyed the movie enough to lose focus on those elements and say, “Well, it is a comic book movie…”

 

Man of Steel does stretch a bit into the science fiction world, though, and that might be an issue for some.  I was surprised by how far into Krypton the movie went.  The portion of the film that takes place on Krypton is actually my favorite part, so I was definitely okay with seeing this new world and its technology brought to life.  It might be too much for some viewers.  But hey, The Avengers had an alien invasion and that was popular, so maybe audiences in general dig sci-fi more than I give them credit for.

 

The alien element in general was fine with me, but whenever a powerful enemy to earth is introduced, destruction must take place.  In the past, superhero movies were mainly about preventing death and destruction.  Now, it seems like killing unseen thousands (maybe millions) of people in a film is okay.  Not to spoil anything, but mass amounts of a large city are destroyed in this film, and it’s ridiculous to imagine that everyone made it out safely.  Multiple skyscrapers topple to the ground, yet we only see Superman get upset about humans dying when he has to actually see people in harm’s way.  I know that the audience doesn’t technically see any death happening in these action sequences, but anyone who thinks about it a little is bound to be troubled by what is happening off camera in these scenes.  I don’t know…I know these summer movies have to keep upping the ante with the destruction, but it leaves a bad aftertaste when that destruction involves buildings filled with innocent people.  This is where that “It’s just a comic book movie” line should help me out, but this part was just too much.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that I like the Superman of Superman Returns a little more.  There was less collateral damage in that film, and it’s a feel-good movie, which is what a Superman film should be like.  Man of Steel is cooler, more action-packed, and more entertaining, but it doesn’t feel any different from all the rest of the superhero/summer movies out there.  This is not to say it’s a bad film.  I’m glad I watched it, and I plan on buying it on video and watching it many times again.  It’s just that it didn’t blow me away.  Perhaps this is simply a result of hype.  Man of Steel is the movie of the summer, what with all of the random product tie-ins (“Try the Super Bacon Burger at Hardee’s!  And be sure to check out Man of Steel!”).  I just got my hopes up way too high.  So I didn’t love Man of Steel.  I merely liked it…a lot.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is just a comic book movie, after all.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

As always, the IMDb boards are a minefield of lovers and haters of the film, and they've covered any complaints I might have with the film.  But I still feel like airing some of my grievances here.

 

I had no clue if the Kryptonians were automatically superhuman when they got to earth or if they had to be exposed to the air.  I know that Zod changes when his mask is off, but the others who weren't exposed still seemed to possess Superman strength.  So was it the suits?  It's not that big of a deal because all the fights would suck if Superman just knocked them out with one punch, but it still left me a bit confused.

 

The biggest question I had after the movie was over was why Lois Lane was asked to board Zod's ship.  Someone on the boards said that it was because she could lead them to the codex.  I'll have to watch it again to see if that's ever stated or implied, but at the moment it seemed like she was just there to make sure Superman got out of a jam and he would've been screwed had she not been there. 

 

Speaking of the codex, all that business of genetic engineering and no natural births on Krypton had to be explained a bit too quickly, which is why I would love to see more of the story from Krypton.  That first part of the film is great, but soooooo much is going on that I feel like I need to watch it a few more times to pick up on everything. 

 

Back to the destruction.  Between this and Star Trek into Darkness, I've seen millions of people killed this summer.  I just don't understand why skyscrapers and entire cities have to be demolished in all of these movies.  Is everyone drinking the Roland Emmerich Kool-aid? 

 

I was hoping the whole Clark Kent wears glasses and Superman doesn't gimmick wouldn't come into play with this incarnation, but I guess some things are sacred.  Can't take Batman out of the Batcave, right?  (Although that facility he was in in The Dark Knight wasn't much of a cave, per se, and people love that one more than all of the others...but whatever.)  I just figured they would abandon that because it's supposed to be a bit more realistic.  I mean, it took Lois a day or two to figure it out?  How hard could it be to identify him in this world they have created?  At least make Superman grow a beard or something when he's Kent.  Speaking of which, anyone else notice that when Clark saw the suit in the ship he had stubble, but he was clean-shaven the very next scene as he was flying around?  So can he grow and discard facial hair at will?  Was there a Bic on the spaceship?  (Or a Gillette?  Is that the tie-in for this?)  All joking aside, there should be more to it than just glasses and a slightly different hairstyle.  If everything else gets the gritty new realistic upgrade, then this aspect should too.

 

Finally, just because I prefer Returns doesn't mean I think Routh is a better Superman.  (Honestly, the goofiness of Returns and Kevin Spacey's performance is what put me over the edge.)  I think both Routh and Cavill are great as Superman in their respective films, but neither would work as well in the other film.  Routh is better for the goofy Clark Kent stuff while Cavill makes for a more believable powerhouse.  Perhaps Cavill could work in Returns, but no way would Routh fit in Man of Steel.