Good cast, but not a very good movie

Rating: 5/10 (3 July 2013)

Man of Steel was a dour, dark, hopeless, bleak version of Superman that robbed me of my ability to sit back and have fun. They keep on saying in this movie that the "S" stands for hope, but I saw none of that hope embodied in this film. What I saw instead was a glorified world of paranoia and distrust, not just from the humans, but from Superman himself. This Superman is unhappy and brooding, a characterization that is far more fitting for Batman. When the critics say this is joyless, I have to agree. Despite deviations from what we have come to expect in the world of Superman, not one scene in this new movie inspired awe in me at all. To put it succinctly, this new film is missing heart and soul.
The film opens on Krypton, which seems to be patterned after Middle Earth more than anything. Here we are introduced to Russel Crowe as Jor- El and Michael Shannon as General Zod. We get lots of actions scenes with Jor-El leaping off cliffs and flying on the back of his pet dragon while never truly being drawn into this world that is about to die. Some dialogue lets the audience in on the fact that Krypton is about to explode, but none of the characters truly seem to care, and neither does the audience. It's too busy setting up scenarios that will come into play later on to be bothered with making the viewer feel any emotion at all. This version of Krypton was a let down on nearly every level and felt very out of place in a Superman movie. It was too medieval and too focused on action to amount to anything worthwhile or impressive.
The cast was good and Henry Cavill is believable as Superman, but he is given very few moments that allow us to delve into his character and instead spends far too much time brooding and getting lost in action scenes for us to care much. And since Superman as Space Jesus has been done to death, I'd like to ask why they felt it appropriate to shoehorn this theme into the movie again. It really didn't serve much of a purpose, seeing as the character isn't allowed to earn his place as a hero with the audience before General Zod arrives thanks to the way they chose to tell this origin. There is no learning period or even training for this angst-filled Superman, only years of coping and then being thrust into a situation much larger than he is.
Speaking of Zod, I did not care for Shannon in the role. I think he was a one-note villain who grimaced and was angry throughout the entire story. I was never on board, understanding, or sympathetic to his cause in the least. Shannon is a great actor, but I feel he was wasted here. I understand what they sought to do in making Zod have a real motivation that mattered more than anything...preserving the future of Krypton...but it ultimately just fell flat for me. I actually liked Amy Adams as Lois and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White. We just don't get to see enough of their characters to really buy into them. We are teased early on with some great material at the Daily Planet as Perry berates Lois for a story she has written about this miracle man that no one believes in. This is the sort of thing that entertains and shows us a nice glimpse of what these characters can offer, but before long they are reduced to merely reacting to CGI destruction.
Jonathan Kent was a real problem in the film. The man was too cynical and played right into one of my main issues with the film, the paranoia and distrust that defines not only the humans, but Superman himself. The pivotal scene where his character is killed by a tornado was absurd and a low point in the film. The man does not offer hope to either Clark or the audience, even going as far as to suggest that young Clark should have let a bus load of kids die rather than possibly outing himself to the untrusting world. He later sacrifices himself while Clark watches, refusing to be saved in order to drive home his point that Clark must not reveal himself. His sacrifice is supposed to be poignant, but it instead comes across as ill-conceived on nearly every level. Maybe the same cynicism that was so apparent in this movie is what made the film makers bend over backwards to avoid using the name "Superman" more than one and a half times, and not allowing the name "Metropolis" to be uttered at all.
Overall, this was a film I really care nothing about ever watching again. It was too much action and effects, all things that I have seen in other and better movies. I am disappointed that the team of Nolan/Goyer/Snyder couldn't seem to distance themselves from the Batman template here. Yes, Superman needed a change, but it needed to be a fresh change and not a stale regurgitation of Batman themes that have no place in the world of Superman. On a positive note, I think the movie sets the stage for a good franchise overall if they develop everything properly. They have a great cast in place and it did set up Clark by the end of the film to play a more classic role in the story. I think some good things can be done with the franchise if they avoid the pitfalls of thinking that the sequel has to be even more action to top this one. Next time, though, ditch the shaky camera! Hasn't that been done enough already in other movies for the last decade?