Hardly Improves Upon Anything

Rating: 4/10 (6 March 2017)

Though few and far between, there are movies (or movie franchises) that absolutely repel the notion of being re-made or re-imagined. For instance, it would be asinine to remake Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (e.g. they are now the definitive version that will stand the test of time). Or, imagine the heresy in trying to recreate the "Back To The Future" series. Those same problems are part of the reason why "Man of Steel" will not fully take flight. It just so happens that the 1970s Christopher Reeve version of the character might never be improved upon. It is just tough for movie-goers to believe this notion regarding a movie made in the 70s.
For a basic plot summary, "Man of Steel" basically uses the familiar story (from "Superman II") of Superman's (Henry Cavill) battle with General Zod (Michael Shannon) of Krypton. The film serves as yet another origin story (though this time with many key differences from traditional canon) with Clark Kent interacting with human father Jonathan (Kevin Costner), human mother Martha (Diane Lane), Lois Lane (Amy Adams), and Kryptonian father Jor-El (Russell Crowe).
In analyzing why this movie will be viewed as somewhat of a failure (despite not being all that terrible standing on its own) I will now have to use some spoilers. You have been warned.
The trouble with "Man of Steel" is primarily two-fold:
First, this is not as "deep" of a movie as what was expected (or what we were lead to believe in the trailer). Despite my sincere hope that Christopher Nolan could pull off a "dark, gritty Superman" character like he did with his "Batman" trilogy, it just doesn't work. One can easily liken this film to "Batman Begins", except whereas "Begins" felt so natural to the Batman character, "Man of Steel" feels forced.
Secondly, most of the changes made to the Superman canon of previous material are changes for the worse. For example (here come some spoilers...)
-Clark letting father Jonathan die in a Kansas twister so as not to reveal his powers -Lois meeting Clark very early on in the narrative and discovering his true identity -The look and feel of Krypton (dark and gloomy) -Transformers-esque fight scenes that stimulate all senses but the mind/emotions.
Now, granted, this film did enough things right to be decent. The character of Zod is given (in true Nolan "develop the villain as much as the hero fashion") a much better backstory in this installment than any previous. It is fascinating to contemplate the notion of why exactly he is so ruthless and bent on restoring Krypton. Also, the acting is pretty solid as well. Even lacking great script material to work with, all the principles perform solidly.
When it comes right down to it, though, "Man of Steel" might be the "proof in the pudding" that Superman's definitive version was created by Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve in the 1970s. In "Superman Returns", Bryan Singer had a great kernel of an ideal ("Superman returns to a world in need of him") but couldn't correctly navigate the logistics to pull of even a decent film. In "Man of Steel", Nolan gets the procedural stuff right but completely loses the heart of the story in the process.