Man of Steel - mixed feelings (I was wearing Man of Steel tee for the movie)

Rating: 4/10 (15 June 2013)

-Non-spoiler mostly.-
It's a bird, it's a plane.. It's my childhood-till-adulthood-favourite superhero who was joined by the caped crusader when Nolan made a trilogy based on him. I'd rather you infer that I like Batman because I like Nolan's trilogy. Another story.
But this review is about the movie on the Man of Steel, Last son of Krypton or Superman as he is fondly called. Man of steel does more than justice to the things superman is capable of doing and is completely action-packed(yes completely). If I didn't know any better about films, I'd say 'this is it!'. Thankfully, that's not the case.
NOTE - The goods and bads are kinda intermingled here 'coz i'm too lazy to sort it that way. This is just a movie buff's review about how he felt during the movie. Write your own when you are done watching it. Hope you read further.
I expected a more coherent script from Goyer and Nolan and a better story telling by Snyder. Appeared as if the focal point of the movie was to, for the lack of a better word - 'exaggerate' what Superman(vis a vis Zack Snyder!) could do with his powers (for the aforementioned vis a vis guy - if he is funded abundantly under a huge production house!). I mean I am willing to overlook plot-holes like how Bruce made it back to Gotham after breaking free from the Pit(prison) and stuff, if I am being told a story that keeps me engrossed during its flow. I wouldn't care for those not-so-important bits if the main story is gripping enough. This one's just okay-ish on that front. I found this movie 'choppy' in between once it shifted from Krypton to Earth until the final showdown began. I don't really have complaints with the cast or the way they graced their characters. Henry Caville looks the part. Suave and well built for the role and the expressions make his character more human like. Amy Adams has spark like Lois Lane should. Russel Crowe and Kevin Costner both play their roles with gravitas. Michael Shannon doesn't evoke a fear in the audience. Laurence Fishburne's character could have been fleshed out more though. Underutilized. The development of the movie was missing. My principal issue is I was getting a feeling as if I was seeing the highlights of the movie which was switching back and forth in time which took its toll on the flow of the story.
Of course Memento was shown in reverse chronological order, but one never feels they are losing track of the plot if they put enough attention. But that's Nolan. And as Penny would say, 'Nolan has ruined my ability to tolerate idiots!'. Okay, she said that for Leonard not Nolan. It's also a stroke of genius on Nolan's part as a director that he allows the audience to connect to his movies and get involved, no matter how intermingled and complicated they look on the surface. Too bad he wasn't the director here. Hope I don't get to say this again when the sequel comes. Man of Steel, however, had me feeling as if all the scenes were dots which were just connected in an attempt to score the home run(if you will)! That is to say, traversing the scenes, as an audience, felt non-smooth. And its not like, Nolan is the only wise guy in storytelling. Peter Jackson does this brilliantly in his LOTR and Hobbit movies. In-spite of the movies being unusually long, not for once the audiences feels left out. I could name my favourite directors, but that's not the point.
Snyder, who was trusted to 'resurrect' Superman on screen, attempted to do so, yes, but not through character development, story and intensity build up and a gratifying finish. It was attempted through amazing the audience with visual spectacles, literally larger than life fight scenes and CG effects and "cool" back and forth(non coherent, no that's not cool) storytelling. Elongated and full blown, not in crescendo climax (in contrary to The Avengers'), had me looking at my watch at times. If the movie was to show what Snyder could do to create a visual marvel, I have no bones in accepting that this movie is right up there with the likes of Avatar(some would disagree, be my guest), The Transformers movies(haven't seen those, except for scenes containing Megan Fox for obvious reasons) and The Avengers and the movies which are the build-up to it. It felt like an attention seeking flick in the era of superhero portrayal on screen with never seen before VFX in almost all of them. It does brilliantly well in that department but the movie doesn't stay with you when you leave the theater.
CG imagery, perhaps too much of a good thing, would require WB shelling out a butt-load of money for the sequel, if there is one, to topple the VFX they had in this. Wonder what backdrop will they choose to show it on after this! This movie was made at a whopping 225 million dollars budget(as per IMDb) which perhaps is the norm for a movie of this scale.
I'll have to, although I didn't want to, agree with Scott Mendelson of Forbes that this movie doesn't drain you on an emotional level. That said, I didn't want to cry or anything. Just that connect with the movie was missing. My ratings won't matter as different people seek different things out of a movie.
If I had to, maybe a 3 and a half out of 5(mostly because of the VFX). Recommeded watch though!
Aakash