Most Disappointing Film of 2013

Rating: 3/10 (23 June 2013)

In terms of sheer disappointment in a highly-anticipated movie helmed by otherwise great leadership this probably will stand as the worst movie of the year. I'm actually spellbound by all the overly high praises so many people are singing of this misfire. Not being a huge Superman fan, I still enjoyed the original 1978 Donner film like any other kid. And I value The Dark Knight as the best superhero movie to date. So when I heard Nolan was one of the front men for this reboot I was thrilled at the prospect of another great superhero movie, especially one that could amp me up over a character I didn't particularly identify with. Boy was I let down! Here is all the bad in topical fashion...
PLOT: As what original films give us, we are presented with the sole survivor of an age-old, dead alien race in the care of foster parents who grows up to be Earth's savior from sadist, murdering villains of Krypton. My single sentenced explanation is far more linear than the story we get. The pacing of this movie can be described in one word- "choppy". Flashbacks are out of order, scenes jump around too often, and we never spend enough time getting to know any one character. If there's any real dialog it's interrupted by another scene. This entire movie feels like one big extended trailer. Oh and speaking of characters...
CHARACTERS: What characters? The ones that the film spent time on were not the ones we were supposed to care about. Most performances felt dehydrated and flat. To unpack that: (A) First, the Man of Steel himself is cast appropriately, executed nicely, but written poorly. Let me be clear, Henry Cavill is a good actor, but he wasn't given a lot of dialog. He just...reacted. I really can only remember 5 lines from the movie he delivered; and be honest so can you. If this is an origins story we need to get to know the main character. (B) For Lois, Amy Adams is, well, Amy Adams. The script probably had her name in front of all her lines instead of "Lois". She is terribly miscast because of her A list status, not really acting but just playing herself. Plus, they give her way too much to do in this film. In one instance she's in the arctic, in another she's on a C-17--both with nothing to do except be in the scene. It's distracting and just plain unrealistic. (C) As for Supey's foster father, Costner is as dry as burnt wood, with emotion equivalent to a dead fly. Also, his character's logic is insanely flawed: why give your gifted kid the notion of dooming a school bus full of children? Also, why in blue Earth would you risk the weight of the world, along with acceptable blame, all on your son by death from a tornado? I'm surprised Clark didn't develop mental issues after that incident, or how his mother didn't disown him for doing flat-out nothing. (D) Gen Zod. Shannon is a respectable actor but he is just not right for this part, or he didn't try hard enough to be despicable. And is that a speech impediment I detect? Even though I like the complexity added to his character, Zod's endgame reasoning for doing what he's doing is inane in nature, insulting to his supposed intelligence, and ultimately frames his own demise. Your commitment to Krypton is noble but riddle me this, *General*: why rebuild Krypton on an already inhabited, sentient, and totally capable planet?? Did a man of military brass not think of possible retaliation? The Moon could have been an acceptable, bloodless compromise, no? (E) Jor-El. Crowe is always a commendable actor. But why is Jor-El given more to say than Cal-El; and why do I keep seeing him? It was surprising to see him incarnated once more, it was even more surprising to see him again and again force-feeding us the same speech laden with Christ motifs.
ACTION: This is after all an action movie. The film makers completely overcompensate with this feature over any semblance of a story. The third act became a seizure attack of over the top action sequences as if it were to contest a Michael Bay creation. Mounting death and demolition does not a movie make. Again, WHERE IS THE STORY?
ONLY THINGS I LIKED--One for each star--(1st Star): The look of the film. The CGI is top notch. The sequence on Krypton was an odd feel for an advanced world but still well done. And the action scenes despite exceeding the point of blandness will indeed be hard to rival in future productions. Finally, I like Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel, he just looks the part perfectly; and they traded in the outdated tights for a slick super suit. That always bothered me in other iterations. Is his outfit "super" too? At least in this film there's the benefit of the doubt since it's given to him, albeit in a heavy-handed, entitled kind of manner. Want coffee with that suit too, Cal-El? We've had it ready for you for 20,000 years. Ya know, because we knew you would want cream and sugar with your red cape... Stupid, but at least he doesn't look ridiculous anymore. (2nd Star): The attempt at making Zod a more complex character. I love multi-dimensional villains with a complex modus operandi. Zod's duty to Krypton's survival at the expense of challenging Superman was an awesome thought, and could have made a good plot point, but fails in development. Again you can't commit your actions against a whole planet and expect to succeed. (3rd Star): The concept of young Clark struggling with his newfound abilities is novel; and the best scene in the movie is the one with the most heart where Mrs. Kent comforts her son at his school. This scene is a stark contrast to everything to do with immoral Kent Sr.