Film Review: Jason Bourne

"You're never going to find any peace. Not till you admit to yourself who you really are."—Tommy Lee Jones
--------------------
We know his name. Jason Bourne has a whole book and movie series to his name, cementing Matt Damon's performance as an iconic character on par with Daniel Craig's Bond or Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer. From The Bourne Identity to The Bourne Ultimatum, Jason Bourne went through a complete story arc that focused on his struggle to understand who he is, as a lost ex-spy and as a human being.

Now, we have a fourth film in the arc (fifth if you count the stand-alone Bourne Legacy, which I barely remember and has no bearing on this film). Jason Bourne finds the man off the grid again, drifting place to place as if in a trance, making ends meet through the exquisite art of bare-knuckle boxing. Of course, something happens that pulls him back into the CIA's crosshairs. He's forced to run from Greece to London to Vegas, outrunning and outsmarting spies and assassins as he searches for the truth. Again.

There's absolutely nothing new to Jason Bourne. For a movie that bears the man's full name, as if to suggest this will be a definitive character-defining adventure, it's rather disappointing. There's only one relevant point to the movie that makes it relevant: another piece to Bourne's past. This revelation serves solely to villainize the villains and give Bourne a reason to kill them. It doesn't change anything before or after: Bourne is nothing more than a golem in this movie who smashes his enemies and comes out totally unscathed and unchanged. There is no real danger or peril to be felt, and there's little-to-no reason to cling to Bourne as a character (other than sheer badassery). He's a total rock, who confronts equally-flat characters.

The story itself seems to prove that all the Bourne movies now have a formula: movie starts with Bourne off the grid, something happens, he gets chased, he chases and outsmarts people, then repeat five times in five different countries until he confronts the guy in charge. The end. Guess what? That's pretty much all that happens here: the movie goes through three or four different repetitions of the exact same spy game with big setpieces in exotic locales, but it amounts to a predictable outcome. The only stakes at hand is the threadbare piece of personal history. The movie crams in some current issues ripped from yesterday's headlines (such as mass surveillance conspiracies, finding back doors in communication technology, name-dropping Snowden ad nauseam), which gives some fairly interesting social stakes, but it comes off as stuffy and droll. It's a thrilling experience in the moment, but when I take a step back, I have to ask, this is it? Didn't we see this stuff already with Supremacy and Ultimatum?

Fans may be pleased to know that with Paul Greengrass back in the director's chair, the film is on-par with previous Bourne entries. That means, for better or for worse, an onslaught of hyperkenetic action scenes with horrendous camera shake and rapid-fire editing. When the camera isn't shaking, the film is as dark and drab as they come, and most shots are quite pedestrian. Fortunately, performances are decent. Matt Damon still embodies Jason Bourne with impressive physical and emotional intensity. Tommy Lee Jones is fitting as the stiff CIA director. Alicia Vikander can't seem to hold an American accent, but it hardly bothered me—I enjoyed her performance just as well as the rest of the cast. Vincent Cassel is just as menacing here as he was staring in Mesrine. Writing is fairly understated—dialogue is scant, but does its job aptly of giving information and letting the story and characters fill in the blanks. This production is one of the most creditable-looking spy movies around: all the locales, sets, props, and costumes look gritty, realistic, and palpable. Music is okay (although, despite my adoration of Moby's work, "Extreme Ways" continues to grate on me personally, even with a new remix).

In fact, the end-credits song may as well embody what this movie is all about: the same old thing with heavier beats. But while the original three movies had a character arc worth exploring, this movie draws out a rather thin thread to string the formulaic plot along. And in the end, I realize there's little reason for me to care about Bourne or what happens to him in this pointless entry in the series.

If you're a fan, see it, by all means, you might love it. But unless filmmakers break out of the standard Bourne mold, the original three movies will remain where the series begins and ends for me.

2.5/5

Video Game Review: Doom (2016)

"Weaponizing demons for a better tomorrow."—UAC slogan.
---------------------
Video games have come a long ways in 23 years. In the 90s, Doom was one of the biggest game-changers of the industry. It was a smooth, rip-roaring demon-slaying experience, with its own unique texture and style. It paved the way for hundreds more FPS games to follow in its wake. Isn't it strange that after all this time, there's only been two official sequels? Since the release of Doom 3, shooting games fell into a pretty generic niche, thanks to a plethora of military-themed titles. We've seen more innovation out of Bioshock, Tomb Raider, The Last Of Us, Heavy Rain, and other odd places. Where has Doom been all this time?

As it turns out, Doom 4 was in development for a while, but had to be scrapped because it just wasn't cutting it. Developed from the ground-up, 2016's Doom is made as a return to form. It's not the harrowing horror/survival ordeal that game #3 was, this was designed to tap into the energy and spirit of the original saga. So the question now is, did id and Bethesda succeed?

I was honestly afraid to play this game, remembering how unsettling Doom 3 was. I wasn't sure I could handle the new Doom, especially after hearing that many levels would force you to clear out hoards of demons in large arena-style levels before being able to move on. It sounded punishing.

It's not. Like all great games, 2016's Doom is empowering—the game offers you immense firepower, speed, and abilities to turn you into a fast and vicious demon-slayer. It's challenging, but hardly impossible—the game is smooth and fast, and you have to stay fast to make it past each area. You get a pretty nice arsenal of guns (everything from a puny pistol to a chainsaw to the Super Shotgun to the BFG and everything). You get upgrades that can make you a faster and better marine. You get powerups at key spots. One really wicked feature that makes this game even more empowering is "glory kills," which allow you to rip demons apart with your bare hands. The game might seem imposing when you start, but once you unlock weapons and upgrades, it's a breeze (unless, if you're a real hardcore gamer who craves a challenge, you can always play the campaign on nightmare mode). Each level is immaculately detailed and well-designed, with secrets in many interesting corners, and a lot of awesome scenery to behold. Populated by so many recognizable creatures (everything from imps to the Spider Mastermind), the game is a massive throwback, but its experience is genuinely fresh and awesome.

The games wastes little time in developing its story. From the opening onwards, you snap into action, finding yourself in the middle of a ruined Martian base overrun by demons. As you progress, you'll catch on to what happened. There are just a few characters to the game—there's not much development to them. I wish there could be more substance to the story, but for Doom, it's fine for what it is. Just like the original two games, story is not the main draw, its just a way to string levels together. In this case, the story's a little better than the original game, but not quite as complete as Doom 3.

On top of that, the game offers a few solid multiplayer options. The classic game modes—deathmatches and such—are available and are fine for what they are. It's pretty standard: you join a match, you shoot people, you level up and keep going. You can choose some loadouts, but it's far simpler (and less refined) than a Call of Duty game. A far more interesting feature is the Snapmap mode, which allows you to construct levels with modular tools. The array of rooms and objects available is limited, but logic tools let you design games with countless possibilities. It can be quite adventurous and intriguing to see what inventive levels users have published using these simple features.

The game itself looks pretty sharp and polished. It sports decent textures, lighting, rendering, and very smooth animation. Sounds and voices are good—music is smashing. This game is well-written, more in the sense that the game shows you its ideas through the gaming experience rather than dialogue.

Just when I thought Doom wasn't for me, this game comes along and reminds me of what it is that made the originals so appealing. Far less clunky and more polished than its predecessors, I'd say this is the best one of the lot. It successfully empowers and immerses you in the hellish fantasy of a demon-stomping marine. It can't get much more awesome than that.

4.5/5

33rd Birthday Reflections

Last Friday, my 33rd Birthday came and went. This year, I was fortunate to have the day to myself—I was the only person at work all week for our department, but my supervisor made arrangements to make sure I could take the day off. If I had to work, it certainly wouldn't have been the end of the world or anything. There's nothing particularly special about this Birthday. However, everybody deserves a day now and then to themselves, to splurge and treat oneself a little. After nearly several months of consistent stress, I was grateful for the opportunity.

What did I do that day? Wasn't really anything spectacular, but after touring numerous places over the past couple of months, I was in no mood to travel anywhere exotic. I merely slept in a little, then jumped in the car and started driving.

My first goal was breakfast, of course. Though I make my own nearly every day, I had a free reward to claim at Starbucks, so I resolved to visit the closest one to me and claim it. It was a small place located in the middle of a grocery store. When I got there, I was a little dismayed to find that specific one didn't allow me to claim rewards (and strangely, this is the second time I've run across a Starbucks place that doesn't take the reward card—the second being the lobby of the Marriott in Provo. It seems that these smaller places connected to other establishments don't cut it—I needed to find a real, dedicated Starbucks shop). It was a minor inconvenience, but I still needed food—I ordered coffee and a sandwich regardless. Starbucks breakfast is not exactly the greatest in the world, but it was warm and tasty enough for me.

Next, I drove to the library—I had been visiting libraries more often to check out more movies and music, and I needed to return a number of items. This library I went to was larger and always had a shelf of things for sale. This time, I was amazed to find a deal going on: ten items for $1. I decided to grab four CDs (mostly soundtrack music), five novels (stuff that caught my eye: Shane, Grunts, Touched by an Alien, Saltation, and The Ophelia Prophecy), and one Amy Winehouse documentary on DVD (why not?). These ten items may be the cheapest things I ever bought. On top of that, I perused the library's catalogue and checked out more music.

For lunch, I stopped at a place called Pirate-O's, which specializes in selling imported foods. I had a turkey sandwich there for lunch (which was great), before looking at their selection. I pretty much always walk away with British candy—having spent 14 years in England, I found it gratifying to find English-brand sweets and other goodies in the middle of America. The place has a fine selection of the usual Cadbury chocolates, but on this day I opted for Digestive-brand cookies and an Aero bar. Fentimans drinks are available there—I couldn't leave without their fermented lemonade. I stopped short in the drinks aisle when I saw something I hadn't even seen or thought of in years: Lilt soda. I typically avoid soda, but I was compelled to treat myself—I remember Lilt being quite refreshing, and it brought back memories of English commercials and English groceries stores, which in turn correlated to the overall England experience I treasured so much.

Moving on from there, I drove west a little ways to hit Gamestop: I had a fistfull of PS3 games to trade in, and I wanted to browse their used games aisle. The combination of trade-ins, cards I had from before, and their rewards point card netted me about $25 worth of savings. I picked up the Assassin's Creed Chronicles collection (because I'm a franchise fan), and The Talos Principle (because I yearned for a good puzzle game).

In the same vicinity was Best Buy, so I swung through there to browse a while. I had a $10 coupon from their rewards program. I happened across the Collector's Edition of Manhunter on Blu-Ray, and a Rhianna album from their bargain bin (in retrospect, the two things couldn't be more different). Thanks to the coupon, I only blew $15 on these.

I checked my phone and wondered what was playing at the Cinemark, which would have been on the way home. I went through the motions of driving up the road, walking to the kiosk, and selecting the showtimes for the Ghostbusters remake. Why not? Reviews from average moviegoers claimed it was funny. But I had to stop and ask myself if it was worth $11 for a 3D XD matinee showing. I decided to walk away—in a few more days, I could see it for more than half the price. If I want to see it at all. My enthusiasm for Ghostbusters remains lacking—it's Star Trek: Beyond I want to see the most right now.

Turning around, I went north and finally claimed that free Starbucks reward at an actual Starbucks joint. As hot as it was outside, I opted for a vanilla cream iced coffee. The girl behind the counter said it was good. It was, and it was especially refreshing in the July heat. It lasted all the way home, where I unloaded my various purchases. I ate dinner, had a piece of cake (on clearance from the grocery store—is it me, or am I starting to sound like a cheapskate mentioning all these sales and coupons and things?). To psyche myself for the next Trek movie, I watched the 2009 Star Trek film in the evening. Then, I popped in that Talos Principle game and just couldn't stop playing it for a long while.

So, it was nothing but some shopping and eating and TV and gaming this year. Nothing particularly special, and not a whole lot of human interaction involved. I imagine some people crave attention and can't stand to be alone for an occasion like a Birthday. I personally found it laid back and gratifying in its own right. I value my time alone and am grateful for all I have and have experienced. In 33 years, I've worked for my entire adult life and visited several countries along the way—there are people who have seen and done less in the same amount of time. 

In the 30s, some people might look back and wish they were young again. In my youth, I was always looking ahead and wishing I would grow up already, to move on from school and become a responsible working adult with free agency. At this point, I feel I've achieved that, and I'm right where I want to be. I don't want to relive any part of my life, I'm happy to simply live. And there's still plenty to look forward to—especially with all the Birthday goodies I got for myself (in addition to what's above, I also had a number of novels on order that I really wanted to read—Ready Player One, Fight Club, Solaris, Roadside Picnic—plus Papillon on Blu-Ray).

In between living year to year, everybody needs time to themselves to stop and eat some cake.

Film Review: The Neon Demon

"She's a diamond among a sea of glass."—Alessandro Nivola
--------------------
There is an industry for beauty, and people are commodities. Many films have explored the exploitation of young people by businesses, and they are often bleak, compelling tales. The Neon Demon goes through the same motions as Black Swan and Mulholland Drive, but it reaches a far more unpredictable conclusion.

True to the standard of other films by Nicholas Winding Refn, the film drips in exquisite style. This is one of those odd films where there's a lot of white space in between the scant pieces of dialogue. Very little is expressed or told to the audience. Instead, the whole story is shown through the meticulous unraveling of expressionistic imagery. Some scenes go by without explanation and don't really fit in the scant plotline. The film merely paints its picture and lets the audience determine what's going in in the characters' heads and what's really going on with the story.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of a young girl breaking into the fashion biz and becoming corrupted, and perhaps even broken, from it. I believe most of that still applies—the bulk of the film's conflict is an extremely subtle rivalry between Jessie and all the other established models, who recognize her potential through her beauty and see it as a threat. Just when you think you have the movie figured out, everything suddenly changes in the last act. It hits with all the subtlety of a knife thrust, before the final scenes reveal that this isn't your typical diva drama—it's a horror movie in disguise, and its has its own set of unspoken rules. Thus, the film overall is a slow-burning build to a massive sucker-punch. The ultimate point of it all is not so much the corruption or pretension of the business, as I initially predicted—this is more of a modern-day fable warning us of all the viciousness and bloodthirst that could exist in any industry. For the world of fashion, it goes hand-in-hand with the exploration of what beauty means and how far people will go to achieve its optimum peak.

The funny thing about a film harping on the threat of beauty is that the film itself is as beautiful as they come. Photography is top-notch, with purposeful staging and composition resembling a Kubrick movie. Editing is very solid, juxtaposing images in a way that allows viewers to connect the thought process without exposition. Acting is great: Elle Fanning is lovely and nuanced in her role. Most of the other characters are menacing to some degree (including Keanu Reeves, who seems to be playing the biggest jerk in the world). Writing is interesting—it offers enough so that the plot can be followed (much easier than Refn's previous film, Only God Forvies), but still leaves so much mystery open. It's a tough balance that will entice some viewers and leave others confused. This production uses fabulous sets, props, and costumes—they all give the film visually-punchy textures and patterns. Lighting is often very vivid (especially during a few scenes illuminated by strobe lighting). Music by Cliff Martinez is very evocative—modern and electronic, but with a kind of new-wave class, just like the movie itself.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of a model's rise and fall—I came out realizing it's more of a puzzle with more aspects of a monster movie than a mere drama. I knew going in that this would be a strange, glacial experience that requires more focus than usual. I personally found the film as thought-provoking as it is visually stunning. I expect most other viewers may be confused, upset, or unimpressed. Caution is recommended.

4/5

Film Review: Mother (Madeo)

How far can a mother go to protect her son? In the Korean film Mother, we are shown the full extent of a mother's unconditional love, which dives into a dark world of sleaze, secrets, and perhaps murder.

The film presents a sobering and fascinating case: a mother's mentally-impaired son gets drunk one night and follows a girl to a dark alley. The next morning, she's found dead on the rooftop, and the son is charged with murder. What's a mother to do, especially when lawyers and police won't help?

What makes this film so rich and compelling are its characters. From the opening scene onward, the film is packed with nuances that bring each character to life, and each detail contributes to the overall story in very subtle ways. A lot of it are clues that tie together into a complete picture in the end. But it's the motivations and impulses of the characters that drive the story through all its twists. The climax is a series of revelations and resolutions that tie everything up sublimely, but will haunt you with its simple, underlying premise: there is no limit to how far a mother will go.

This film strikes a pretty even pace for its entire two-hour runtime. Some subplots linger, but most of the picture remains engrossing thanks to its style, editing, and story. With the way it packs in so much, the film feels longer than it is. It's hardly a bad thing: it is a sublime picture with superb photography (save for a few very shaky scenes), snappy editing, and plenty of very real-looking settings, props, and costumes. The music score is decent too.

All the characters are brought to life perfectly by their respective actors, but Kim Hye-ja dominates the spotlight as the title character. She not only looks motherly (to the point where she could represent anybody's mom), she also brims with emotion and vitality. In the end, it's her character that gives the film its bittersweet heart: whether it's the opening image of her dancing in the field or lashing out violently at someone, it's always evocative, knowing that everything she does is out of unconditional love for her son.

This is one of the finest examples of a character-driven mystery thriller. It's bleak, often disturbing, but also poetic and dense. If you can handle the tone, this film is highly recommended!

5/5

Film Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men...cruel. — Jeremy Irons
--------------------
Batman. Superman. They are two of the most recognized superheroes of all time. Both have been in the pop culture psyche as far back as the late 1930s, and have remained at the top of the DC Comics food chain ever since. With regards to this film, two questions immediately come to mind: why are they fighting, and how can Batman possibly stand a chance against the Man of Steel?

The answer to the latter is painfully obvious, because it's been done before: make Superman weaker. The film's execution of this aspect is fair and makes sense in the film, trust me. It's the former question that begs the most attention, and the film spends most of its time answering it. Part of the answer is personal — during the events of the Man of Steel film, Bruce Wayne lost many employees while Superman and General Zod duked it out across Metropolis. Wayne was there to see the carnage first-hand, and like every other human being caught in the devastation he saw the potential for Superman to become a godlike tyrant with no moral regard for people. Superman, on the other hand, sees Batman's brand of justice and finds it appalling. Both heroes represent two sides of a coin — one comes from a dark world where pain and death has molded him into an uncompromising vigilante, and the other comes from outer space and is still struggling for acceptance. Matters become even more complex when a certain maniacal millionaire — Lex Luthor — purposefully sabotages events to pit the two heroes against each other. The combination of personal and social stakes escalate until an actual fight inevitably happens.

In spite of this, the film's first half is devoted to the storytelling, and the last act is entirely action. Both halves couldn't be more different. Even though there's only sporadic bursts of excitement in the first half, the film's visual style is potent and elegant, in the same way Watchmen was. Some of the most awe-inspiring scenes show dramatic heroics and surreal dreamscapes with a fantasy-painting quality, and it is often as invoking as it is gorgeous. If the film maintained this level of artistry, it could have become one of the best and boldest superhero films of them all.

Unfortunately, the last act becomes a brutal assault on the senses, where the action becomes relentless and hard on the eyes. As epic as it is, it's exhausting. Worse of all, any storytelling nuance is suddenly lost — reasons for the fight suddenly cease to matter, and the entire climax becomes a shallow spectacle. At least with Man of Steel, there was always a focus on characters — here, they merely go through the motions. The ending ultimately left me with mixed feelings — it's obvious that there will be more to come, but on its own the film felt rather bipolar in nature.

Perhaps in spite of this, the film's story feels rather convoluted. The actual sequence of events is quite loose, and the matter is further complicated by the way it shows its broad ideas rather than telling them outright. I personally value and admire the imagery at times, such as the Day of the Dead scene, or Batman's bizarre dream in the desert — images in these key moments say much more than all the words in the film combined. It also makes the film very surreal, and it demands that audiences make connections on their own. Plot issues are further compounded by various holes and stretches that might be too hard to stomach.

It is a dark, no-nonsense film. Batman is as brutal as ever, thanks not only to his merciless fight scenes, but also to Ben Affleck's convincing performance. Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Diane Lane reprise their roles quite aptly. I've also warmed up more to Laurence Fishburne's performance as Perry White. The real wild card in this cast is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor — he channels both Heath Ledger's Joker and his own portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network to provide a twitchy, rambling, maniacal performance. It's nothing like the classic megalomaniacs we're used to seeing out of Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacey, but I found myself enjoying Eisenberg's take on the character a lot. Jeremy Irons might be my new favorite Alfred — he inhabits the character with plenty of dry wit and class. Gal Gaddot definitely looks the part as Diana Prince. The film's writing has plenty of decent lines and ideas, but some of it comes off as blunt. This production utilizes some decent-looking sets, props, and costumes — there are plenty of cool things to behold, but very little that wowed me the same way Man of Steel did. Music score by Hans Zimmer and JXL is noisy, as expected, but the themes are quite distinctive and invigorating.

There's half of a great movie in this. If it was consistent in its style and narrative, it could have been a great film on par with Watchmen. While certain moments in BvS have captivated me, I felt lost and disconnected by the final fight. Regardless, it is a grand vision worth seeing for any superhero fans, which will elicit thought, controversy, and talking points. It might even be the start of a thrilling and bold new cinematic universe that could rival Marvel in the end.

3.5/5

Film Review: Man of Steel (Revisited)

Click on poster to buy / rent.

"You can save her, Kal. You can save all of them." - Russell Crowe
--------------------
Superman has always been one of the most quintessential superheroes of comic-book lore. It's hard to top a man who can fly, zap things with his eyeballs, see through walls, move faster than a speeding bullet, jump over buildings, survive just about everything, and live for centuries. On film, the Man of Steel has been treated with varying degrees of class and cheese — Richard Donner's films are iconic in themselves, and Bryan Singer's film has its moments. Given the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, it was only inevitable that filmmakers would try to put a more earnest, serious, heavy-weight spin on the saga of Superman.

Unfortunately, this is still not a perfect adaptation. Many critics and film-goers have written this film off as stylistically gaudy, crammed-full of gargantuan action scenes with one too many camera zooms and shakes and a wonky narrative. It has become the biggest love-it-or-hate-it film of 2013.

I, for one, love the film, despite all its excesses and problems. The action continuously blows me away — its sheer scope and velocity blows most other superhero films out of the water. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most gut-wrenching scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It is rather exhausting, but this is the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: an epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

A lot of the film's momentum can be attributed to its narrative, which is purposefully mixed-up so that it doesn't waste that much time covering old ground. The relevant parts of Superman's origins are covered in flashbacks inserted at key moments. This does create a jarring shift that may throw viewers off, but I feel the pacing is perfect — the drama never overstays its welcome. What really matters are the characters, which are at their strongest. The film intimately explores the title character, not only through the snippets of the origin story, but also in exploring him as an outcast full of emotional vulnerabilities. The film shows what he learns from living among humans, the importance of moral strength and moderation, and his struggle to find his place in the world. There are also some deviations that I think benefit the story (Lois Lane is no longer a total ditz, General Zod has phenomenal motivation that makes him a villain to sympathize with, and there are no more silly games being played with secret identities).

There are still a few nitpicks that even I can't shake off, however. I never did get used to the notion that Superman can be seen as a threat to humanity (perhaps because I've been spoiled by the older films, where Superman saves people and is cheered — here, he saves people and gets into trouble). The fate of Jonathan Kent is a rather manipulative scene that I feel is quite daft. The most critical viewers would also make the same complaints as with Zack Snyder's other films: too cold, not enough depth. Although I can understand the same complaints for Sucker Punch and Watchmen, I feel that Man of Steel is the warmest film Zack Snyder has made to date. It does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

As mentioned before, the photography can be rather gaudy, with frequent use of zooms, some camera shaking, and some scenes with bright flashing lights. Personally, I never found it all that problematic — most of the film still looks pretty solid, and I think the drama scenes boast some of the best shots, with intimate close-ups of specific characters and objects. Editing is pretty interesting, for better or for worse. Acting is a surprising treat: I think Henry Cavill is superb as the title character, and everybody else is pretty decent. Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe steal the show repeatedly — Shannon is especially menacing and intense, for perfect effect. I appreciate Amy Adams' and Diane Lane's performances. Didn't mind Kevin Costner — I can take or leave Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White. For some reason, I'm enamored by Antje Traue playing Faora — she's wicked and intense enough to put Ursa from Superman II to shame. Writing gets the job done — there are some good lines, but some of it feels rather blunt to me. This production has great-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales — it's especially cool how organic and unique all the Kryptonian technology looks. Special effects are plentiful, some looking phenomenal and others looking a little too glossy or cartoony. Hans Zimmer's score, much like the film itself, has been criticized for being too much shallow noise, but I personally love the music for its simple themes and powerful spirit.

In fact, that pretty much sums up my stance on Man of Steel: it's noisy, but I still find it moving. It may not be a perfect film, but it does pack a heck of a punch in many ways. It has power not only in the action scenes (of which there is plenty), but also in the characters and their struggles to find strength and a place in the world.

5/5