For serious comic book fans.

Rating: 5/10 (26 November 2013)

What made the 1st Star Trek remake so good? Humor. Why was the Christopher Reeve Superman series so entertaining? Humor. Why are Sean Connery and Roger Moore James Bond films vastly more entertaining than Daniel Craig drivel? Those actors played Bond with What is Man of Steel totally bereft of? Even the tiniest giggle. The special effects in the circa 1978 Reeve/ Hackman movie look hokey today, but the movie still entertains thanks to Hackman's deliciously hammy Lex Luther. Man of Steel has nothing to recommend it BUT special effects and 35 yeas from now it'll still be a stupid movie. Why did they need Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Lawrence Fishburn? They bring nothing to the movie but name recognition. Amy Adams is all wrong for Lois, sweet instead of smart. This movie is about as clever as Honey Boo Boo. Why is it that in every action movie of recent memory superheros who should have a better method of dispatching the enemy keep battering them about the head and mouth with their fists? And isn't Michael Shannon getting over exposed? He is in every other movie I see and his tortured loner shtick is incongruous as Zod. Actually the only standout performance is Henry Cavill as Clark, though his embarrassment at being called Superman seems tacked on. Anyway I sat through it like I sat through Pacific Rim and The Dark Knight Rises, hoping for interest or cheer, experiencing only regret at time wasted. There's a reason they're called "comic books."