This movie has no soul

Rating: 4/10 (20 June 2013)

I was really excited to see this movie considering all the creative and successful names that were attached to it. However I came out of it more frustrated than anything else. I really wanted to like this movie but I couldn't, and here are some reasons why:
Straight from the beginning, I couldn't help but notice that the movie was trying too hard to be similar to recently successful sci fi films rather than trying to find its own style (Avatar, The Avengers, Batman Begins and the Matrix come to mind). Then there were the minor plot holes, inconsistencies and lack of believability or followthrough that would have brought that extra touch of realism. But the real downfall of the film was the matter-of-fact and detached style by which it was presented to the audience. This left the movie emotionally empty and with no one to identify with. As the movie continued it became more of the same going through the motions (ok now this happened, and now this happened, oh and now this is happening) to the point where I didn't really care about the movie or characters any more, I just wanted the monotony to be over. This is the reason it felt rushed and long at the same time, like key elements were underdeveloped and missing. This is a great example of how you can have the most massive, amazing grandiose scale special effects and world altering events on screen but without the proper build up and audience investment I didn't really care about the characters, and continued to grow bored until I just wanted it to end. The trailers were more suspenseful than the actual movie for crying out loud.
I'm not sure whose fault it was- the editor, the director, the script, post production but a little more than half way through it started to feel like it was dragging. You can walk out of a really enjoyable film after 3 hours and not realize how much time has gone by. I would not have minded if the movie was 15 minutes longer but had the slightest bit of suspense, emotion or character development in it. It felt like it was cut down to its bare bones- you cant omit that stuff to make room for more special effects, if that is in fact what they were doing. No amount of action can ever replace good story telling. Instead what we got was clichéd one liners and characters going through the motions interacting with themselves so to speak instead of playing off each other, like in a bad video game. Even great acting from Michael Shannon and Russel Crowe wasn't enough to elevate their characters from appearing as one-dimensional cliff notes. It's not being too picky when you want something essential and basic that every movie should have and when many people didn't like the movie for the exact same reasons. I also found the writing to be lazy, and without giving too much away, certain plot elements could have been used to show that Superman was not just all brawn but brains as well. Plus, Lois knows and thats just boring.
It seems to be a growing trend in blockbuster movies these days, while trying to make the movie more modern, technologically up to date and fit for a younger audience, story telling takes a back seat to cheap thrills and special effects to get more people into the theater. It's a shame then that this movie feels like an attempt to mash together as many unoriginal blockbuster genres with as much mindless action special effects as humanly possible, most likely in an attempt to compete in the 'how big can we make this' superhero franchise. I like special effects and I know its good for business, but does the movie making process have to suffer to such an extent as a consequence? Even the Avengers with its multitude of characters was able to pull of an engaging thrill ride compared to this.
To those trying to undermine the critics I have a few things to say. I like Snyder's previous films and particularly enjoyed Watchmen, so I would have had no problem with a darker of more serious version of Superman, except this movie was none of those things. I feel a lot of people who will defend the movie don't have much to say besides 'superman was a badass compared to other movies' and 'it was visually impressive'. They refuse to see the whole picture and realize that a shiny toy is just a shiny toy. The critics didn't rate this movie poorly because it was serious, dark or they didn't like Snyder's style- it was because the movie didn't have a unique character, or any style Snyder is famous for. While that 'satisfied feeling' you had at the end of the movie instead of the 'wanting more' feeling really shows how mundane it really was. A movie of this magnitude should leave you wanting more, for a sequel or at least for a second viewing. After watching this movie I had no desire for either of those things. Just because a film has amazing special effects does not automatically make it a good movie.
What this movie did was ironically give me a new appreciation for Superman Returns. While Bryan Singer's approach to the character and story was somewhat dated, it was a polished work that (while it didn't appeal to everybody) was executed very well in all aspects, especially story telling. The difference is that people didn't like MOS not because it had a unique style, but because it wasn't a complete film, and the difference shows. An ideal Superman movie in my opinion would combine the best aspects of both films. A modern approach with exciting and relatable character development and story telling that Superman deserves. Just felt like I needed to express my disappointment and frustrations at this squandered potential.