Nice action movie, terrible superman movie

Rating: 4/10 (26 July 2013)

For me this was the most disappointing movie I saw in the movie theatre this year. The trailer really appealed to me as it gave me the impression it would be a very Terrence Malick-like approach on the story of superman, a story that is spiritual with some religious threads and corny cheesiness. After all this is what a superman movie should be like (cf. Smallville or Lois and Clark, the crappy and complicated love stories and unfortunate sudden brain loss by characters who find out about Clark's 'secret' not taken into account). It's only logical a story about a man who has unlimited power and one tiny (rocky) weakness should not focus on his physical strength but on his sense of morality and emotional strength. If you don't like that, you should be a batman fan or some other superhero's fan.
I am not surprised to read a lot of positive reviews from people mentioning "I don't usually like superman that much BUT". They prove my point.
But I do consider myself a superman fan as he really is my all time favourite superhero.
I thought Man of Steel - why pick a meaningful title like that for a Michael Bay-like action movie anyway – was a 'nice' action movie but no better than say Transformers. I did, however, think it was a terrible superman movie. If they wanted to make a movie like this, they should have kept their hands off the superman character and they should have taken another superhero struggling with his superpowers, being tempted by the dark side, yada yada. That could have made an interesting movie.
What I did like about this movie were the scenes on Krypton. I really liked the suits, the ships, the general look and feel of the planet. What I didn't like about it is a bit more extensive. I won't nag about all the plot inconsistencies and gaps though as they are very obvious. I mean: one baby carrying all the Kryptonian DNA, really? What I will nag about are the characters and the script.
Take Jonathan Kent for example. Not only is he suggesting Clark should have let the children die on that school bus, he's just a very bitter and hard man overall. The point of this superhero story is actually that he could have turned out misusing his powers if it hadn't been for the great 'simple farm boy' upbringing he got from 'saints' Jonathan and Martha Kent.
Jonathan dies when he's trying to save his dog. He risks his life for his dog. Really. And still, say I accept that this version of Jonathan Kent (who would let some kids in a school bus die but not his dog) would do such a thing it still doesn't make any sense! Because his tragic eye contact moment during which he tries to convince Clark not to reveal his powers by letting him die takes so long he could have saved himself by that time by walking back to Clark very slowly.
Lois Lane should have been called LOIS LAME in this movie. She was nothing like the Lois we all know, just a shy girl taking the roller coaster ride against her will.
Zod was just 'some very evil guy'. He could have used some nuance. Also, superman would never have killed him! And as the movie ended with the big epic Zod battle I was thinking: "Wow, if they still want to make a sequel, what story can they still possibly tell to top that up?!" And this is what I heard: They're going to make a superman vs. batman movie that is 'dark and gritty', "as it should be". Seriously, if I hear the construction 'dark and gritty' in a positive review one more time, I'm going to get sick. Ever since the Dark Knight got so overrated everybody seems to be into 'mature' 'dark-and-gritty-ness'.
And superman himself (admittedly, they cast a great actor, he just got the wrong directions) was just NOT superman. Superman wouldn't kill Zod,superman wouldn't crash some random buildings just because it's cool.
What bothered me most about this movie were the dialogues (and monologues). Sometimes it was like they were written by a child. Jor-El is basically just the guy who appears out of thin air to explain the whole thing. His monologue is uninspired. It probably even would have worked better if he'd said: "I am your father. Here is your suit son. Go save (or crash) the world." It would have made the movie a bit shorter anyway, which probably would have been an improvement.
And after the very poor build-up of a relationship between Clark and Lois - Was there a build-up at all? - that kiss was really meaningless. Superman might as well have said there: "Did I tell you I get really horny after smashing a lot of buildings?"
So, yeah, I was entertained and very annoyed at the same time. I probably wouldn't watch it again. I'm still waiting for that Terrence Malick-like more spiritual superman adaptation or maybe a very cheesy over-the-top funny one, but please... no more of this.