Cavill is fine as Superman. It's all the writing and plot to blame. He's playing a sad, sad Superman with a barely-there character written into the script. He does his best, frankly.
Isn't Clark Kent in general, cross decades, always been a bit of a... barely-there character? The main reason a lot of the superhero movies do well is because a lot of the characters can be written with light and shade. Outside of being an alien, Clark is a corn-fed, all-American boy with little to no angst and essentially invincible. That's the depth of his character. There's not a lot to mine out of him. Most Superman movies spend time either incapacitating him so he can be realistically beaten, or pulling equally powerful enemies out of nowhere so he's challenged. Smallville in particular had to play the particularly exhausting game of Where's The Kryptonite? for ten seasons just so the episode wasn't over in five minutes.Cavill is fine as Superman. It's all the writing and plot to blame. He's playing a sad, sad Superman with a barely-there character written into the script. He does his best, frankly.
I enjoyed the movie. It is what it is: a big dumb comic book on the big screen.
I doubt we'll see a sequel though. We'll have to make do with Affleck's bland Batman and Gwenyth Paltrow playing Catwoman, knowing our luck.
His strength as a character is basically generosity and a kind of "American socialist" spirit that was explored well in All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison. Compared to most male characters, he is almost "maternal" and doesn't project that kind of anti-social, gritty masculinity that most superheroes trade in. Probably not compelling for a pew-pew superhero movie though.
Oh Lord. I can accept all the accusations about plot holes, messy characterization etc. but the one about 'fun' is absurd. Do all superhero movies have to be candy colored kiddie flicks with cheesy one liners every two seconds like Marvel movies?
I find the aesthetic criticisms the least convincing of the lot. Yes, there's bit of an overload on Snyder's hyper-stylized slow motion shots, but in general, until the Doomsday fight, it's a good looking film. And Marvel is already doing the 'candy colored' thing.
But Marvel isn't candy-coloured - the DCEU is just desaturated to fuck then smeared with a brown filter. Let's not get to thinking MCU has it's heroes in costumes like Kick-Ass or something - it's all still diluted colours-meets-armour-meets-street-clothes, y'know? DC try to go slightly more "costumey", but at expense of vibrancy of any kind.
It's not a criticism, more like if you want that, you can always go to the Marvel movies. I appreciate that they went for something more epic and broody here. At least they attempted to tackle some weightier themes.Exactly. The Marvel costumes are very toned down and more grounded in reality than the DC ones, and the movies are far from "candy coloured". I don't understand why a comic book movie would be criticised for being colourful anyway...
Pretty much all of these superhero films tackle the same themes. American exceptionalism. Good triumphing over evil. The power of the state v the power of the individual v the power of corporations. Rinse and repeat.At least they attempted to tackled some weightier themes.
Then these "people" are delusional.People are doubting that Henry will ever get to play Superman again. They see this film's bombing resulting in Justice League being pushed back, solo Batman being pulled forward, and Superman gone bye-bye for many, many years.