Follow TV Tropes
Having seen this movie on opening weekend, I can say that it is a fantastic movie and honestly the best Superman movie in decades. There are a lot of great things about this movie like the humor that feels authentic, the villain who isn't a joke, and the foster family. However, I would say that this movie's true accomplishment is giving us a hero who can be petty and selfish yet ultimately all-loving and idealistic.
At a glance, Billy Batson seems a lot like Clark Kent in the DCEU. They are glum and aloof in their civilian guises and they end up causing property damage. Yet the main difference is that Billy's flaws make sense and he grows as a character. It makes sense that he starts out selfish and petty because he is a foster teen who doesn't have the experience or parental guidance to be a real hero. Yes, he abuses his powers, but he actually learns from his mistakes and grows into the selfless hero we all know in love. Most importantly, he learns to use his intelligence and becomes more altruistic to win the day, showing how much he has grown.
In the end, Shazam! is a terrific film that wins thanks to its character. This character manages to be both fallible yet admirable, juvenile yet mature, and dumb yet smart. If you want a modernized Superman who is both relatable and inspiring, here's your movie.
Took them some time to become mundane, predictable and cheap (though some reshoots that shall not be named showed the way before). Here we are. And this is not a Superman movie by any stretch of imagination.
People complain how Clark Kent in Man of Steel was angsty. The problem isn\'t the presence of angst so much as how it is used. Clark starts out a mopey dick and ends as a mopey dick. Here, Billy goes from a mopey dick to an all-loving ideal hero like the classic Superman. He\'s a better Superman than the one Snyder gave us. Also Mark Strong as Dr Sivana puts Jesse Eisenberg to shame. Sivana is genuinely scary and he isn\'t a discount Joker.
\"Mopey dick\" - More like a genuinely good guy in a world that has trouble to cope with him and ends up sacrificing himself to save that world. It\'s quite understandable that he wouldn\'t want to live in such a world, yet he never becomes a dick towards it. He finds heroic resolve to save that world, and his sacrifice then return make that world more accepting of his kind, hence Billy/Shazam having it easy to amaze and be admired.
And Superman isn\'t a kid in a grown man\'s body who shows off and throws - or rather (shaz)hamfists - genre savviness in our face (I swear some dozens of \"superhero - supervillain\" dialogue could be written off and the movie wouldn\'t suffer of this). Sivana was written like a one-off villain, not even part of a movie arc like Luthor, whose craziness had an external reason to be.
The problem I have with Superman\'s depiction isn\'t that he is morally confused and alienated. The problem is that the movie never gives us a compelling reason why we should empathize with Clark Kent\'s problems or show him evolve as a character. Diana gets mansplained, Arthur faces racism, and Billy has parental abandonment. Why does Clark act so angsty when he has all superior powers, a loving family, and a hot girlfriend? Also, there is no organic character development in his origin movie. Humanity never accepts Clark after he severs his ties to Krypton nor does he become an idealistic hero.
Also, Dr Sivana is better than Lex Luthor. He has a clear motivations, has a menacing presence, and isn\'t a shitty Joker-knockoff.
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More