Almost Super

Rating: 6/10 (14 June 2013)

Superman has been a part of our culture for nearly 70 years. There has always been a Superman franchise/project for each generation and Man of Steel is the project for the new generation of moviegoers.
But is Man of Steel worthy of the Superman title: In the 70's Christopher Reeve was the perfect Superman. He was likable and he brought character and life to the character. Over the years there have been many who tried: Tom Welling, who was likable but surrounded by a dreadful cast and terrible teenage scripting; Brandon Routh who was the worse Superman in history; Dean Cain who was alright, but did not really get the Clark Kent persona; and George Reeves the original Man of Steel. How does Henry Cavill compare? Cavill is the first actor since Christopher Reeve to be a very likable and believable Superman. He has the screen presence and performance you would want from your Superman character. His portrayal is one of the positives of the movie.
Lois Lane has been a fixture in the Superman mythos since it's inception. Margot Kidder was a wonderful choice as Lane in the 70's, but she was followed by dud after dud after dud: Erica Durance is dreadful as Lane; Kate Bosworth was an absolute joke; Teri Hatcher was only there for her look and now there is Amy Adams. Adams is the best Lois Lane in the entire franchise. Adams is believable, she isn't overbearing (Bosworth), she can act (not like Hatcher) and she is a human being (not like the super woman Durance tries to become). Adams is another positive to this movie.
Superman villains have never been introduced into the movie world well. Most movies focus on the tired, old, boring Lex Luther. It was a treat to venture into General Zod -- who Terence Stamp made a spectacular movie villain in the past. Michael Shannon is just excellent as Zod. Shannon is a great super villain and he plays so well off of Cavill and the Superman character. Shannon is another positive to this movie.
There are a bunch of good things about this film: Antje Traue, Lawrence Fishbourne, even Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe. But there are the usual negatives that come with a superhero movie--the unbelievable that is ignored for the sake of special effects. The 70's Superman was a more believable story (except for the time changing fly-bye at the end) because he was concerned about human beings --check out Superman II to see what the character should bring to the alien vs human plight. In this movie, there is so much destruction that thousands upon thousands of people were inadvertently killed (in the story) and ignored. You felt that he would have taken the fight out of the city where bystanders would have been out of danger--what happens in Superman II.
The script was just average. It is rare for a superhero script to be great -- the Nolan Batmans (first two) were above and beyond what the normal is; the first Iron Man superseded expectations; and The Avengers was so well written that you can ignore the same ending fight scene you basically have in this movie.
Overall this is a very good movie--8/10. It is definitely one that I will buy for my collection. The negatives are minor and the performance of Michael Shannon would dictate watching this film even if Adams and Cavill did not measure up to their roles--but they do and that allows for a nice summer movie.