Man of Foolishness

Rating: 2/10 (29 August 2014)

First, a disclaimer: I have grown up reading Superman and Batman. I am more of a DC person than a Marvel one. That being said, here is what I think of Man of Steel.
Man of Steel is a slow, relatively inert film with wooden characters and lame special effects. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, Ayelet Zurer, Laurence Fishburne and Antje Traue were under-utilized. Let's not forget Kevin Costner and Diane Lane too.
While Henry Cavill looks like Supes, the biggest disappointment was Mike Shannon as Gen. Zod. He sounded like Rob Schneider from The Hot Chick. The villain should be a scary dude - like Darth Vader. There should have been a theme music for him, like Magneto had in X-Men: First Class. With a lame-@$$ voice like that, no doubt he got it shoved big time where the sun don't shine. Krypton was a complete disappointment. I expected a gleaming city of shining spires and ascetics (remember Kenneth Branagh's Thor?). Instead, we get a filth-ridden scene with garishly dressed weirdos who looked like they had just been fired from a Dune remake. I mean, what was it with the color saturation? Even Earth looked the same. They should have shown the atmospheric contrast - here's an idea Zack. Not every movie needs to look like Sucker Punch. You could have easily contrasted the shining quality of Krypton/sexless austerity of the populace with the grime/earthy quality of this mudball. But no, you had to turn that over its head.
And, what's with all the property damage??? Every comic today, from Avengers to Justice League, are ALL conscious of the effort it takes to build something. And you expect me to believe that all the buildings that were getting smashed by Supes and Zod were already evacuated??? What dumb@$$ logic is that? It looked like Doomsday had hit town. Metropolis has gotta be the least safe place to live. Heck, I am sure Darkseid would be laughing his nuts off if he saw this film. He would want Supes as his successor.
And why the heck would you name the film Man of Steel - it sounds like a porn flick for cryin' out loud!
Speaking of porn, let's cut to the chase and talk about the most important part - where was Superman's red jocks? This is non-canonical! There was a reason why Seigel and Shuster had included it. The era in which Superman was created, he was a symbol of masculinity, of male power - something that was symbolized gladiators of Rome and by the circus strongmen of a carnival. If it were such a problem, then Curt Swan or Carmine Infantino or Neal Adams would have redesigned the costume. Heck, how many times did the S change over the years? Google it and see for yourself. But, the overall costume remained the same - in Red Son, Earth 2 and all that multiverse stuff. I mean, DC had a good chance to redesign his costume after Supes came back to life after the Doomsday epic. But they didn't. And, don't even get me started on this New 52 stuff.
Lastly, lets talk about Superman himself. Kal, son of Jor-El was to become "a God" on earth. Truer words have never been spoken. The implications are huge in that - maybe Zack did't even realize it. Superman is someone who can lift islands out of the ocean, fly in space without having to breathe, soak up the solar prominences from a distance that would kill a planet. That god-like feature was missing. Mind you, I am not saying that he should have been less human, but what makes him different were his eyes. You should read Superman: Birthright by Leinil Francis Yu. The whole book focuses on his eyes - and Martha Kent says that his eyes are an unearthly blue. Where was that in the film?? There should have been a simple scene of Amy transfixed by Supes's eyes. It would have been a romantic scene, no doubt. But, it would have been an incredibly powerful scene if shot correctly. This is why I miss Mr. Christopher Reeves. I wish he were here.