Embrace your creed

This is the main event on my list; a movie with high expectations and anticipation!

Expectations

A writing innovation is what I'd expect from Man of Steel; much like The Dark Knight trilogy.  No, I didn't wanted it to be too grounded.  I wanted Superman's fictional history to be treated as a mythology; respecting the source material while having a smartly written narrative.  As I expected, and thankfully wanted, the film centers Superman as a wondering alien and not that prime example of an old school superhero.  And with that, the film started out with good reactions from me.  This is gonna be a long post.

The star power of this film is really powerful; even Laurence Fishburne plays as a minor character (Perry White) and his status is very big and talented.  Amy Adams as Lois Lane was odd; considering that Miss Lane is infamous for having black hair.  However, her performance was superb as to what I'd expect from this talented woman.  Henry Cavill as the man of steel himself was spot on.  I love him and he was definitely bad ass.  Though I can't help to think that Christopher Reeve's influence still impacts to this day.  Cavill's nose, blue eyes and jaw had some strong similarity to Reeve's.  Michael Shannon, whom I loved in Boardwalk Empire, brought his own flare with General Zod which fit just nice in the universe.  To be frank, I don't bother to write about actor/actress's performances because, at most times, they'll perform nicely.  But I just feel like I have to due to the enormous names being involved. 

Aftermath

Let's continue with the positive, which is how I feel for this film, I love the innovation in general; where they are going with the story is what I'd expected and, thankfully, loved.  Superman's story was told from the aspect of a wondering alien which haven't been done before in film.  Although it would be new to the general audience but it's somewhat of an old story for hardcore fans.  I definitely love the suit, no complaints. 

As I indulge in the story, I love the scenes where Clark was with his parents.  It should have been emphasized more and, yes, the film lacked those heartfelt scenes as it was overshadowed with CGI madness.  Clark's scene with Jonathan Kent was one of the highlights in the character developments and I hope he'll return in the sequel; of course, in a form of a flashback.  It's kind of funny, you see, because I watched Superman II (For the first time) on that very night after watching Man of Steel.  Yes, we can't compare those two due to the gap of years; the technology and mentality.  But it's interesting to see the development of General Zod in the 80's to today's Zod.  Where 80's Zod was a curious and somewhat arrogant tourist on earth, today's Zod is a man on a mission.  That typical conquering alien motive is still there but as we travel deeper in the story, Zod is not a shallow villain; he only wanted the best interest for his people and you could really see that motive being portrayed as humanly as possible.  Like Dr. Connors in The Amazing Spiderman (Though a badly written villain), General Zod was the perfect villain to start and expand this new Superman universe.    

Having writing all those positive aspects of the film, it's time to point out the flaws and, yes, the flaws are big enough to withhold it's potential of being an epic film.  The biggest problem I had was the CGI madness; it overshadowed the character developments.  To be more specific, Metropolis was bashed and battered worst than Manhattan in The Avengers.  And the characters were almost A-okay with the destruction at the end of the film; there were no trauma or character developments.  That bothered me because it did effect it's full potential.  Also, the story gave some unnecessary amount of screen time to classic but minor characters.  Perry White, Louis Lane's boss, was important but the scene where he and a few of his employees ran for their lives (In the chaos of Metropolis being attacked) didn't help bringing the climax to its fullest potential. 

Yeah, I am aware the mainstream critics aren't a fan of this film as a whole.  And I always consider the critics.  Though frankly, I had a good feeling of satisfaction when walking out of the theaters and that's where it counts.  Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (Gemma Arterton is so stunning!), The Last Stand and Fast and Furious 6 are examples of this year's films I've watched that didn't gave me satisfaction; especially FF 6! Man of Steel didn't live up to it's hype; that's the reality.  It didn't gave me that 'Epic' feeling like The Dark Knight Rises did.  So, with these two outcomes of mine, here's the verdict:

Man of Steel, this year's main event, earns a 3.5/5. Lesser than Iron Man 3 (Aww [ =( ] ) and The Dark Knight Rises .  That rating is for it's right path of innovation; of where the story should be and the lack of character developments from most characters except for Kal-El and Zod.     

This Space Opera is also on my must watch film's list.  I have this habit of  categorizing things and this film is in the new genre section of the list.  Others include sequels (Iron Man 3), new titles and animations. 

What I like about this reboot of the original TV series is the smart writing; the way it utilizes the universe's fictional history.  Like Superhero films, this particular film has a lot of room for me to study.

The reason why Star Trek is in the new genre section of the list is because I am not fond of Science Fiction (Specifically Space Opera); the spaceship dogfights just doesn't stimulates me as much.  Heck, I watched the first installment of this reboot on TV.  But I am aware of it's huge fandom, both the film and genre, thus leading me to take some note.

First things first, I just have to start with the villain.  It is due to a film that I watched two days before this; Fast and Furious 6 was just bad for me.  It was spontaneous and I thought 'why not' since I don't do that much often.  It is that typical action-popcorn flick that I don't go for in theaters (Making me uninterested in writing a review for it) and I have highlight this one particular point to make you understand my next point regarding Star Trek.  I hate the villain.  The villain in FF 6 was so forced; trying to make him this bad ass, cold fella who's somehow always 3 steps ahead of the heroes (For the sake of the plot of course).  It gives me this idea that people in Hollywood are desperate to make a bad ass villain like the joker because it sells.  Whether it's true or not, it was just too forced.  That what I was expecting from the villain in Star Trek into Darkness; another planner as the villain.  Thank god, he wasn't! (Hence, why I chose the poster with him being highlighted) 

Khan, which is an awesome name, is the villain in this year's Star Trek; a re-imagine character from the TV series.  He wasn't a  cliche' villain, he--maybe the best word to describe him is 'perfect'; specifically perfect in the universe.  Khan, at first, simply wanted the safety of his captured crew which has a reflection of a small part of what the story revolves around; a captain's responsibility for his crew.  It really hit me when he cries in his prison...man, that was a good scene.  Another aspect that I see is that the film, technically, have two villains; the Fleet Admiral Alexander Marcus.  It's almost like watching a superhero film because it's the genre that highlights two antagonists very well.  The existence of the Admiral helps making Khan's presence more of a multi layered character rather than just a one dimensional villain. 

Another point is Spock and Kirk's chemistry.  It really is the center of the film and I can see why the two are very popular in pop culture.  I, especially, preferred Spock because the idea of him being an alien that thinks emotions are irrelevant is shown very well.  It's not easy to do write such things, the slightest error in the dialogue might diminished that idea.  And his character development of accepting his human half; of being afraid of death is just so awesome.  What about Kirk's death? It was used well but it was very cliche'.  Perhaps, that's the only big flaw of the film to me.  Kirk's death was too cliche'.    

On a side note, I am aware that each of the crew has a place in the fan's hearts.  As a series, the opportunity of highlighting each of them are wider compared to movies.  Interestingly, Nyota Uhura, Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, Scotty and the rest were presented well; each having their own strong amount of screen time.  The Klingons made an appearance...very interesting.  I'm not a Trekkie.  I knew this pop culture phenomenon through the documentary.  Through that, I knew that the series produced and actual alien language that now has been used to translate a few books.  So, yeah, it was interesting to see them.  We even get to here Zoe Saldana speak some Klingon. 

       

In summary, the film is an okay introduction for me to the Space Opera genre and I hope I get to write some good science fiction story in the future.  I give Star Trek Into Darkness a 3/5 for a damn smart writing.