'Man of Steel' packs a punch

A serious drought of creativity or misplaced sense of loyalty (or perhaps sheer greed) has led to Hollywood remaking more than 75 movies in the past few years, some of them coming out barely after the original ones rolled their end credits (I’m taking to you, “Amazing Spiderman”).

And if you think about it, even a first-time movie adaptation of a novel or comic is in itself a “reboot” of the original source material, transferring from one medium to another. So it makes a film critic pine for a plain old “boot” of a movie once in awhile.

Speaking of boots, we now have the cinematic return of a pair of red ones in “Man of Steel.”

This latest incarnation of the iconic American-as-apple-pie superhero is more colorful (”Superman and the Mole Men”), less campy (”Superman I, II, III, IV”) and much, much, much less putrid (I’m talking to you, “Superman Returns”).Despite movie theaters sagging under the heavy tread of reboots, “Man of Steel” is admittedly a well-conceived vision executed superbly by its filmmakers. Producer Christopher Nolan (the genius behind “Inception” and the Batman, uhm, reboots) has his handprints (or rather, footprints) all over the movie.

Nolan, along with writer David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder want to make sure we don’t think this is just a simpleton’s comic movie.

The film, while obviously a summer blockbuster action flick, also covers a liberal arts education’s worth of topics — environmentalism, immigration, existentialism, xenophobia, predeterminism. All that’s missing is a future job as a barista at Starbucks.

And Snyder, despite his up and down track record as a director (“300” and “Sucker Punch”), knows how to build a sci-fi universe, especially in the opening scenes on Krypton, which is reminiscent of some of H.R. Giger’s best work (“Alien”).

The action sequences are massive and striking. The largess of faster and faster computer processing is obvious in the meticulous and flawless articulation of comic book violence. Once again, Snyder steps up his game, although some of the battles do last a bit too long. And to no fault of the director, the 3D forced upon the film is utterly superfluous and likely a cynical cash grab.

Moving from the high tech to the humans in front of green screens, we start with the title character. Henry Cavill (”Immortals”) has the physical accessories (dark hair, cleft chin, PED body) for the role, as do probably an army of folks working restaurant jobs in places like Silver Lake and Westwood. However, he brings a terrific, angsty existentialism to the role. Superman has never been about uncertainty and self-questioning. Of all the superheroes, he has always been confident, self-righteous, oaken in his beliefs. (And yes, fan boys, I realize in the comic or some esoteric graphic novel he appeared in, it may have been different, but I’m talking about the mainstream.) So this humanization of Superman is intriguing.

Adding to that are ongoing flashbacks to his childhood. We see him growing up on a Kansas farm, as he deals with and questions his place in the world and how best to interact with the normal (that is, non-superpower wielding) populace of which he is now a member.

The supporting cast is yet another massive hoarding of acting talent: Russell Crowe (Krypton dad “Jor-El”), Kevin Costner (earth dad Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (earth mom Martha Kent), Amy Adams (Lois Lane) and Laurence Fishburne (Perry White). I’m sure they would have cast Daniel Day-Lewis, too, if he weren’t busy cobbling shoes or something.

On the side of evil, we have Michael Shannon (”Boardwalk Empire”), who plays Khan, I mean, General Zod — I’m getting my reboots mixed up. Shannon plays the heavy as he is paid to do. He tries to add a little nuance to the role, but it does not come through amidst the Pacino-esque (I’m talking to you, “Scent of a Woman”) scene-chewing.