After the disappointment of
Sucker Punch with its
wayward non-existent story, my hopes were high that Man of Steel would combine the visual flair of Zack Snyder with the superior writing of David S. Goyer and Chris Nolan. Where Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns was very much in the style of the original movies and would comfortably slide right in among them, Man of Steel is very much a re-interpretation of the mythology. As was expected from a film written by Goyer and Nolan, Man of Steel is far more “grounded” and “down to earth” than other Superman films, and whether you like it or not it is certainly spectacular.
However, it is this “grittiness” that throws up some of my dislikes. I thought there was too much shaky cam, particularly noticeable at the beginning. I think this was to introduce a documentary feel to proceedings, but it gave me a headache; especially when Jonathan was talking to Clark on the back of a pickup telling him that he shouldn’t save drowning kids from buses - the camera was all over the place for no reason. I also felt that it was over-edited, particularly during fights, presumably for dramatic impact; but it just ended up looking a bit Michael Bay ish!
Speaking of directors, Man of Steel doesn’t look like a Zack Snyder film. There were none of the trademark quick-slow-quick sections; there were a lot of fast zooms with the camera taking a second to focus. This gave the movie far more of a Joss Whedon feel than anything else.
I really enjoyed the first half of the film; the events on Krypton, the non-linearity of the story with flashbacks to Clark’s childhood, as well as seeing him drift through life as he tries to find himself. Though this wasn’t usual for a Superman film, it worked for me and seeing Clark struggle with who he was was OK by me. I liked the update to the destruction of Krypton, the relationship between Jor El and Zod, and by extension the natural feeling that Zod really should be the antagonist in a Superman genesis film. However, when Zod and his cronies arrive on Earth (my heart yearns for Terence Stamp) the film seems to concern itself with huge explosions and destroying as many buildings as possible. While this is initially quite fun as Smallville is wrecked (and the sequence is really spectacular), it soon gets boring.
Boring when Metropolis is also wrecked, and pointless when there is some attempt at creating a sense of peril as Laurence Fishburne’s Perry White and two co-workers are in “danger” of being killed in the ruins of a building. We've hardly seen White, and I’ve no idea who the other two are, so I really didn't care what happened to them.
Boring or not, these sequences didn’t disrupt the flow of the film. What did pull me out of the movie was some of the sloppy writing that is not expected from Goyer and Nolan. I’m sure there were some questions raised in the Krypton intro, but I actually really enjoyed that sequence, so I didn’t notice too much. However, Jonathan Kent’s death was rubbish, it was quite possibly one of the worst things they could have come up with. There’s nothing like scarring someone for life by making them watch your father die when it was completely preventable! I also thought it daft that it took Kal-El 30 years to discover all his powers on Earth, but Zod seemed to manage it in a few days. I mean, HOW long did it take Clark to learn to fly in Smallville? But Zod seemed to figure it out quite quickly.
Finally Kal-El kills Zod (not a spoiler, we all know it happens), and suddenly he is anguished that he had to kill what could be the last living Kryptonian other than himself (think The Doctor having to destroy The Master). Except that there wasn't any build up to this at all; previous to this they were throwing each other through buildings, presumably killing lots of innocent people (way to go Superman). I certainly didn’t notice
this many plot holes, but the story wasn’t as great as I was expecting.
Henry Cavill is a good enough Superman, and Russell Crowe is a good Jor-El; certainly Snyder got more value out of him than Richard Donner got out of Marlon Brando. Amy Adams might be a good Lois Lane, but in all honesty her character isn’t really important. No really. If you cut Lois out of the film, I don’t think anything would missing from the plot; which is just silly. Lois is integral to a Superman story, whether you're in 1978, 2006 or the Smallville series; so to make her as pointless as Perry White or the other two suckers trapped beneath falling buildings is nonsense.
Despite all this negativity, I did enjoy the film, just that thinking about it afterwards you start to realise that it wasn’t everything you hoped it would be. One thing that was done really well was Hans Zimmer's excellent score. It was obviously a concious effort to avoid any of the typical Superman themes, and I thought that was refreshing and worked really well. Certainly a very spectacular and cinematic film (even in the glorious 2 dimensions in which I saw it), I feel I may not have enjoyed it quite so much had I seen it at home without the big screen experience. But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.
Having cut his teeth as a producer for Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn has made an amazing transition to the Director's chair. His first film was the excellent Layer Cake; very much a crime caper in a similar vein to Lock Stock or Snatch, which oozes cool and has a hell of a cast. From there he hasn't looked back, taking him all the way to the great X-Men reboot and even rumours linking him to the new Star Wars films. 
There is no doubting Zack's visual flair, he has made the slow-quick-slow camera work a very distinctive trademark; and I for one love it. He created a very enjoyable remake of Dawn of the Dead, but it was when he brought Frank Miller’s graphic novel 300 to our screens that we took notice. It strikes me that Zack is at his best when interpreting other works, because when he wrote and directed Sucker Punch it looked phenomenal but the story was woeful. So having said that, I'm really looking forward to Zack's Man of Steel which is written by David S Goyer and Chris Nolan. 
There is nothing that this man has directed that isn’t superb. From the simple but very very clever Memento through to The Dark Knight Rises, he hasn’t missed a trick; and I haven’t missed a film (apart from Following). Not afraid of making people think, he doesn’t pander to the lowest common denominator. Memento didn't let you lose concentration for a second, The Prestige kept you guessing, Inception is a total mind-bender, and the Batman films have no right to be as clever as they are. He has done a truly remarkable thing, he has actually made intelligent blockbusters, proving that you don't have to leave your brain at the door to enjoy spectacular films. 
Born Zowie Bowie, Duncan obviously wanted to distance himself from his famous father. This guy is definitely the new kid on the block in this list having only directed two feature film; the superb Moon, and Source code. He has also made a short film called Whistle which is also well worth a look. Of course he doesn’t have a very long CV, but it's pretty good, and I'm excited as to what he'll do in the future.
Del Toro is probably the one director on this list that I am least familiar with, however I love the films I have seen and there is no doubting that he has a very distinctive style. Usually a lot of eyes are involved! Whether it's the beast at the end of Hellboy, or The Angel of Death in Hellboy 2, or the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, eyes are important to him. I'd love to have seen his Flies and Spiders if he had directed The Hobbit! Similar to Chris Nolan, the Hellboy films are much cleverer than you would expect, and Blade 2 (though I haven't seen it for a long time) equally so. Hellboy is a great fantasy film, the second one in particular is fantastic and has Del Toro's wonderful style all over it; Pan's Labyrinth even more so. As I say, I'm less familiar with much of Del Toro's work, but I now have Blade 2 to watch again, Cronos is on my LoveFilm list, and I am hoping that he brings his quality to Pacific Rim, because it looks spectacular, but could so easily be rubbish in someone else's hands. 
Often referred to as a very visual director, Ridley Scott has made some tremendous films. I only really understood what was meant by being a visual director when I watched some of the extras on the Body of Lies DVD. To explain on set how he wanted a scene to look, he would grab a pencil and paper and very quickly draw the storyboard so that the crew instantly knew what he was thinking. Often it seems like he is the only one on set who is calm and knows exactly what he wants. Amid the carnage of filming Black Hawk Down, he was the one unfazed by all the explosions; an oasis of serenity. All this allows him to concentrate on how best to tell his story, and he is excellent at that; and usually his films are visually stunning. 
Kubrick was a real artist, everything he did was deliberate and had a reason. He was also a perfectionist, often leading him to do many takes of any particular scene. Of course this sometimes led to clashes of personalities on set, but there is no doubting that the finished product was always tremendous. As an artist he produced works of art, and nowhere is this more evident than 2001:A Space Odyssey. Not a film for everyone, but I think it is a joy to watch; utterly captivating and a sublime piece of film-making. Even the "Ultra - violent" Clockwork Orange has moments of beauty. Widely regarded as one of the best directors of all time, having watched eight of his most celebrated works I can certainly see why. 
Generally known for making violent films with a lot of bad language, Tarantino nevertheless has demonstrated over and over that he can write and tell a great story. Perhaps he should be better remembered for his great characters, their development and the irreverent script he usually writes for them. Who can deny we really understand Vincent and Jules when they are discussing "Le Big Mac". Equally, we get a real sense of Kiddo's desire for revenge as we learn about the characters that wronged her. And of course witnessing the superb Christoph Waltz's "Jew Hunter" in Inglorious Basterds, we understand why Shosanna goes to such desperate measures at the end of the film. A brilliant writer and certainly also a great director. 
