Entertaining

Rating: 8/10 (23 June 2013)

I'm not sure what I can add to the 1,200+ reviews that have already been written about this film, except to say that I enjoyed this retelling of the origin of Superman.
The filmmaker shows us a very strange and very beautiful Krypton. Advanced alien technology plays an important role in the film. This is not an aspect of the original comic at all -- but it worked well for me.
I even enjoyed the city-destroying fight scenes between Superman and the rebel Kryptonians. The terraforming machines were suitably monstrous and terrifying. However, I do not like this usually and at times I felt there was too much of it. Very loud; very fast. This is not why I go to the movies. They could easily have made this a very different kind of movie, without all the shebang.
I suppose you need a blockbuster like this now to entertain a game-obsessed generation. Our youth seem addicted to sensation. (As an older person, I kept thinking about how much the collateral damage would cost to repair, and how the insurers would go bankrupt. I also kept thinking that the people still hanging around the city after all of the destruction had progressed were incredibly stupid and deserved what they got. Note: if a huge alien object appears in the sky, get the hell out of town...immediately.)
Because most of the movie is based on an alien world, and on massive city and world destruction scenes, the movie itself is largely the product of computer-graphic animation. It's astonishing to see what they can do now with that.
But at times the movie slowed down and became a proper drama. These were the parts I liked the best.
Henry Cavill is an impressive Man of Steel. He really gives the impression of not being an ordinary man. I suppose part of it is his sheer beauty. I have to admit I was disappointed by the final scenes. Henry Cavill as Clark Kent doesn't quite work for me (yet). He is the lobsterboat type.
The filmmakers decided to give this character a psychological edge and an initially dubious reputation. It felt right to me, but this is more Batman and Spiderman territory. I think they should have stayed away from that for Superman, who is a fundamentally different kind of character.
Michael Shannon was a suitable villain. He is an actor with remarkable range. I last saw him in "Take Shelter", in a completely different kind of role.
I was moved at times. The writing and acting were pretty good. The fathers (Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe) added depth to the film. I'm glad they included that. Amy Adams (as Lois Lane) was fine; however, I felt the relationship between them developed too quickly. That part didn't feel right.
A few times I thought, "this would never happen this way" (eg the hurricane drama); however, I was willing to let that go and move on.
I would see this one. I'll certainly go to the sequel. I'd rate this film around 8.5, but I'm going to round it down because of the emphasis on destruction.
By the way, I write this review as a long-time fan. My first Superman was George Reeves! I used to run home from school to be on time to catch the programme. I also used to spend 12 cents every month for the latest comic.