Man of Steel Reviews

Una de las mayores críticas a esta película atacan todo lo que tiene que ver con su estética, pero junto a esto, se cuestiona mucho la intención de hacer un "Superman realista". Creo que, en general, es porque no se quiere ni al personaje "viejo y ya anticuado" (el éxito de la reciente serie animada no contradice esto, si acaso, lo confirma) ni se quiere tomar el riesgo de apostar por nuevas visiones (por temer a que salgan cosas como Injustice).

Man of Steel habla sobre el miedo. O, más bien, sobre tener fe frente a él. Krypton es retratada como un futuro distópico de la humanidad que ha renunciado al riesgo y a dar un paso a lo desconocido (con temas muy alusivos a historias como Gattaca o Interstellar). Este mismo tema es reiterado con la presencia de Superman en la Tierra y todo lo que esto implicará para la humanidad: un cambio de paradigma, un sueño que bajará de los cielos. Los simbolismos religiosos son duramente criticados, desde el lado de verlos como "ridículos y descarados" y también desde lo "descuidadamente ofensivo". No sé si me pueda denominar "creyente" del todo. Pero sí puedo afirmar lo increíblemente reverencial que es esta película con las imágenes bíblicas, y especialmente con la figura de Cristo.

Superman no representa a Jesús solo porque en comparación al ser humano sea poderoso. Al contrario, cuando llegan los kriptonianos, es cuando más limitado y vulnerable se ve en todo sentido. Lo simboliza porque en el fondo es humano, padece, siente la pérdida, y teme a la muerte. El superhéroe es eso, el héroe clásico siempre fue sobre el potencial del ser humano. Reza una antigua frase, de tiempos cuando aún se creía, aún se soñaba: "Creerás que un hombre puede volar".

Man of Steel is not the disaster as others claim and it is certainly much better than Superman IV: Quest for Peace(almost anything is) but for me in a number of ways it was underwhelming. Granted the special effects are absolutely great, the climatic action sequence is the most genuinely thrilling the action gets and makes that of Avengers Assemble(which on the whole had much better-executed action and was a vastly superior film) seem tame in comparison, the flying scenes are cool and the scene of the sensory overload causing his powers is interesting. There are a few good performances, the best coming from Russell Crowe who plays Jor-El with dignity, Kevin Costner whose performance is very heartfelt and Michael Shannon who makes for a legitimately fierce villain. Henry Cavill is also very well-cast, he looks the part and is very reserved yet charismatic, he does a good job at showing Superman's pain. The rest of the cast are not as impressive, Amy Adams very shockingly is a blank as Lois and she is not helped by that she has nothing to do. Laurence Fisburne and Chris Meloni do their best but their characters are almost pointless, and while Diane Lane is charming she also has little to do. While the special effects are great the cinematography and editing are not, often having a dizzying and overblown effect with excessive shaking, in-your-face close-ups and abrupt zooms. Zack Snyder's style is not for everyone but his directing is leaden here and his style doesn't really come through. Hans Zimmer's score is disappointingly pedestrian and rather one-note mood-wise, very over-serious and with an attempt to be epic but never soaring. The sound is loud and noisy and often is so much that it induces a headache. And while I do like superhero films and action when done right, Man of Steel is a case of too much action that on the most part is too long-winded and rather repetitive in execution. There is a complete lack of emotional connection(even in Jonathan Kent's father's death), the romance is contrived, the characters are standard clichés with little personality or development and much of the dialogue is forced. The story is filled with overlong exposition, as admirable as showing Superman's origins are in flashback it does cause the film to lose momentum, and is so scattershot in structure and jumps around so much it is not always easy to decipher what's happening. All in all, not a terrible film but a long way from super. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I watched this movie back when it came out and only now I'm writing a review. I'm so embarassed. I'm a huge Superman fan and I think this is not only the best Superman movie ever, it is also one of the best superhero movies ever.

After the mediocre Superman Returns, I hoped a sequel would make up for it, so I wasn't particularly excited when I learned Warner Bros. would reboot the franchise. Fortunately, I was mistaken.

''Man of Steel'' reintroduces several classical elements from the Superman mythology to modern audiences, such as Krypton's decadent state or humanity's attitude towards aliens with superpowers. All of these were actually seen in comic books, but movies are meant for a wider audience, even those who haven't read a comic book in their lives. The story has a good pace and establishes the characters fairly quickly. It doesn't take its sweet time to explain things because the Superman franchise is one where everyone already knows what's what and who's who. Instead, the characters are free to do their own thing without being constrained by exposition.

I actually enjoyed the movie's tone. It's not as "dark" as other people claim, but it is definitely serious. The characters remain their normal selves and react the way you would expect them to in such environment. In the end, it makes for a more enjoyable experience.

Henry Cavill was a valiant and dignified Superman. He would have a hard time measuring up to Christopher Reeve, but he certainly prove he has what it takes to be the Man of Steel. I enjoyed the sense of humanity the film introduced for him, making his heroic actions more believable. At first, I had my doubts about a British actor playing an American superhero, but then again, it worked for Batman and Spider-Man. And boy did Cavill deliver.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane was a major hit for the movie. I also had my reservations about Adams, what with the age difference between her and Cavill and her red hair, but when I saw her on-screen, she was just natural. She and Cavill had great chemistry on-screen.

As for the villain, we have Michael Shannon as General Zod. After his appearances in Superman II and Smallville, I was getting tired of him but Shannon's performance made the character interested in him again. Zod also has very sympathetic reasons to do what he is doing, but he is also quick to remind everyone that he is a bad guy and Superman has a good reason to fight him.

Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne are undeniable bonuses for the movie. Their characters allow us to see different sides of the Superman universe. The movie benefits from their development.

As a Zack Snyder movie, the visual effects are nothing less than extraordinary and really bring the action sequences to life. The music, made by Hans Zimmer, is appropiate for Superman.

The action sequences were great. A lot of people complained about the excessive action, but after five movies, it felt good to see Superman use his powers to their full capacity.

This is a great movie and I definitely recommend it.

Superman was never been my kinda superhero. I think the first time I liked him because of this grand presentation which commercially feels good. The old one was more drama kinda movie than the heavy stunts. Compared to 70s superman, this movie had computer technology with it to make every impossible things to possible and that was the highlight of 'Man of Steel'.

Like I said it was a heavy graphic movie and I loved it to the core. Tell me if you are a graphic geek then how could you not like Zack Snyder's movies, ahh?. The stunts and all were the massive. I knew Henry Cavill can pull this movie but the surprise was Michael Shannoni. He was the best villain I have seen in any Superman movie, a backbone to 'Man of Steel's success. Others like Amy Adams, Russell Crowe and Diane Lane's supported very well.

This reboot was dumped deep details of the superman from the old movie. They retained only main storyline and went straight to the 'Superman II'. Hope the its sequel will tell us the superman's job at the press company and affair with Lois Lane. I eager to see the clash of Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck in Zack Snyder's 'Batman vs Superman'.

Wow this was bad. My head still hurts after all the brain torture. The first half was tailor made just for the trailer to exist, the last half was made just for testing that headache pills works. I'm gonna take a couple now to check if the existent of this film was worth it.

If there’s any incredibly iconic but difficult to adapt figure from the modern era, it’s probably Superman. Despite being at the forefront of comic book and super-heroic iconography, despite the vast number of radio programs, television shows, films, toys, video games, collectibles and general presence in the pop culture psyche, he’s still looked upon as something of a relic. A carbon-dated hero from the optimistic Eisenhower era, an antiquated hero who sees the world in black-and-white, as wholesome and Americana as apple pie and baseball, and it’s an unfair image, for he is a vastly more complicated and interesting hero than that.

There’s a core of sadness and isolation within Superman – the alien who walks among us. So it is with great joy that I can say, while imperfect, Man of Steel manages to bring out the human qualities and darker emotions bubbling beneath the surface of the character. He’s finally gotten a movie in the modern era which doesn't completely suck. It does suffer from many of the same problems that other comic book adaptations fall into, but there’s a good foundation to finally go off and explore the more unique and intergalactic villains in his rogues gallery.

Producer Christopher Nolan and director Zack Snyder don’t exactly seem like a matchmaker’s ideal pair, and to be honest, their styles are sometimes clashing against each other. During various sequences one can practically feel Snyder trying to let his penchant for slow-motion action sequences out to play while Nolan scolds him away from it. But more often than not, they seem to have a middle-ground to play in. And it kind of works, sometimes.

A lot of the heavily lifting in making this world believable falls upon the actors. And Snyder and Nolan have assembled a fantastic team. I was originally apprehensive over Michael Shannon being assigned the role of Zod, partially out of character fatigue and because Shannon doesn’t seem terribly bulky and large enough to knock around Cavill’s Superman, but Shannon invests the character with an unhinged, despotic quality that brings something fresh to Zod. I always had faith that Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Henry Cavill would nail their roles, and I was right. Costner and Lane bring a lot of heart, spunk, homespun charm and realistic parental anxiety to the Kents. Adams is perfect as Lois Lane, headstrong, spunky, smart and tough. As for Cavill, he’s long been my fan favorite dream choice for the role, and he fits the role as perfectly as Christian Bale inhabited Batman. By bringing in a pretty tony cast, the list of Oscar, Emmy and Tony nominees and winners is pretty astonishing, the filmmakers really helped us believe in this murkier, unformed world of Superman, even as the script frequently goes off the rails.

The problems occur when the things need to fall and/or blow-up real pretty like. The action sequences seem to go on for forever, occupying valuable space that could have been used to flesh out some of the peripheral characters or given us a stronger connection between Lois and Superman. Or, hell, they could have even given more time to Clark Kent, who is the real person unlike, for example, Batman in which Bruce Wayne is the created identity.

The action sequences display a tremendous amount of craft and the special effects are top notch, but they just drag on and on and on. The tremendous amount of destruction also brings up images of 9/11 New York and I’m not sure how I feel about any superhero property tapping into that imagery for so primal a reaction. It feels a little sleazy and unearned. After a while watching artificial versions of Superman and Zod punching each other through building after building while the music swells and the sound effects roar doesn’t hold all that much charm. Call me crazy, but I much prefer the scenes in which we follow Clark Kent traveling the world, discovering himself, his powers and his purpose. In other words, I prefer the film that Nolan was clearly trying to steer DC towards making.

Except Nolan was also trying to foster on many of the eccentricities and character-specifics of Batman onto Superman. I don't think Snyder's vision is what's best for adapting the character, and Nolan's clearly has major problems as well, so I propose a third way. There's plenty of interesting tidbits and ideas brought up, but they're quickly tossed aside in favor of watching Superman destroy buildings by having extended fights with the same three people, over and over and over again. There's a better middle ground to find between these two extremes, and that is where DC needs to mine for future Superman films.

This blanket process of "grim and gritty" for all comic book characters doesn't work. Not every single character fits neatly into that mold. Superman is a lighter, happier character, generally speaking. While I appreciated that they took the time to explore the more humane elements of the character in the beginning, the heavy-leaning on Jesus symbolism is a bit tone deaf. Superman is clearly a symbol of Moses, if one must look towards the Bible for symbolic allegories. But if I had to chose between this messy new franchise, and the nostalgia-tinted, immensely forgettable Superman Returns, I suppose I would chose this one. At least this one feels like there's more stories to explore within the assembled universe.

With nothing more then an Origin story to be told, director Zach Snyder makes Man of Steel perhaps the most impressive visual film yet out of any comic book adaptation but the lack of unpredictability leads Man of Steel into familiar territory.

After Kal-El is sent to earth as a baby from his dying home planet of Krypton, he is taken in by Martha and Jonathan Kent. The Kent’s help him hide his secrets from the rest of the world but ultimately know one day he will have to reveal himself. This day comes when General Zod threatens human existence unless Kal-El gives himself up.

Man of Steel has a surprising amount of action right from the start, which is a typical Zach Snyder trait. The problem is there always needs to be substance before there is action strewn about the screen. The opening of this film too me was just too much to start with. Opening with a nice quiet picturesque scene at the Kent farm and a crashing spaceship would have been nice, then flashback to what happened on the planet Krypton.

The film does redeem itself rather quickly as the scenes of Clark travelling are rather well shot and realistic. These scenes completely capture what it is like to be an outsider and how lonely the world was for Clark Kent because of the secret he was holding in all these years. These scenes are distant for a reason, which is the perfect way to introduce the powers of Superman. He helps people, leaves to never be heard from again. These were probably my favourite scenes from the movie, because they held an important key to Superman’s character, his humanity.

Enter Lois Lane, who ties the entire film together really. She meets Clark during an expedition to the glaciers where the two of them are aboard a kryptonian ship. She writes about it for the Daily Planet but everyone dismisses it. So naturally she digs deeper and begins to learn the true story of Clark Kent. This was perhaps the part of the movie that I dislike the most. It was reliant on the same back story we had already heard, it featured no forward progress to the plot and was just an excuse to have more scenes featuring the iconic character of Lois Lane. Amy Adams did a great job portraying the feisty attitude of Lane, but at times during the middle act nothing seemed to happen that was valuable to the end result. At least not until General Zod re-appeared.

Michael Shannon. Let me say that again. Michael Shannon. What an amazing villainous portrayal and such a fun one to watch. His ruthlessness and entire design was to stop at no cost to save Krypton. Watching every ounce of sanity drop from this character was fantastic and Shannon becomes the heart and soul of this film. His fine acting is accentuated by the character’s inability to feel empathy and compassion for anything but the greater good of Krypton. When Shannon was on the screen, the scene itself was five times better because of his presence.

Shout-out to Lawrence Fishburne’s portrayal of Perry White and how he used the performance to pay respects to long time legendary CBS reporter on 60 minutes Ed Bradley. Fishburne’s character of White even had his ear pierced paying homage to the late great reporter.

With all that being said and my wishy-washy feelings towards this reboot of the Superman franchise, there is potential that the sequels be more game changing a little less formulaic then this.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

Okay, I know I'm late to the game on this one, but I went to see Man of Steel yesterday. And I… didn't like it.
First of all, it fails in the same ways as many other modern bad blockbusters. The acting across the board is astonishingly wooden, and it's shot entirely in shaky cam, making it impossible to tell what's happening at times.
On top of that, the characters aren't given any humanity at all. Any attempts at character development are quickly glanced over to move on to another loud, abrasive action sequence. It's completely shallow. I think Mark Kermode said it best: the movie gets half the title right, but it clearly doesn't care at all about the man, only the steel.
And, as other people have pointed out, it does not properly represent the character. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I still understand his virtues and ideals. This movie does bring them up, but completely betrays them. I could rant on about this for hours, but I'll just let this sum it up: in the massive final battles in Smallville and Metropolis, Superman isn't making any effort whatsoever to prevent all the destruction! It seems all the movie cares about is the destruction.
I hate to say this, but honest to God, this is like if Michael Bay did Superman!
Overall, because of the unconvincing effects, universally wooden acting and complete lack of substance, I was bored stiff throughout.

My rating: 30%

"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

Unlike Bryan Singer's largely derisive Superman Returns, which endeavoured to exist in the same continuity as the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, 2013's Man of Steel is a straight-up reboot, going back to the beginning to explore the iconic superhero's origins once again. Warner Brothers pulled out all the stops to ensure Man of Steel effectively resuscitated the Superman film franchise, recruiting David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan to handle the script and story. And in the hands of accomplished visual director Zack Snyder, this is an exhilarating blockbuster implemented on a grand scale, yet it still understands the value of small, intimate moments in between the scenes of destruction. While imperfect, Man of Steel dexterously reinvents the character for a new generation, bringing Superman back to life with finesse and confidence. And it's about time.

With the planet Krypton on the brink of destruction due to mismanagement of natural resources, scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) places his infant son Kal-El in a ship bound for Earth, along with data that could regenerate Kryptonian life on another planet. General Zod (Michael Shannon) leads a coup against the Kryptonian council, but fails, and is imprisoned in the Phantom Zone as punishment. Years later, on Earth, Kal-El is adopted by caring farmers Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), who name the boy Clark (Henry Cavill). Although it's clear that Clark has superpowers, he's advised to conceal them out of fear of humanity's reaction. As an adult, Clark draws the attention of Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who witnesses his powers and sets out to reveal the alien's identity. However, she develops respect for him, as Clark is revealed to be a decent, loving individual. But Earth is soon threatened by the arrival of General Zod, who has come to commence war on the planet and destroy the human race. Clark is compelled to reveal himself to the people of Earth to emerge as their saviour, ultimately putting his life of care and secrecy behind him.

The extent of Christopher Nolan's involvement has been contested since the feature's inception, with Nolan acting coyly when speaking about the subject. Besides the palpable tonal influence, Nolan's fingerprints on the picture are minimal, as his modus operandi is self-serious chatter and minimal action. According to Nolan, this is Snyder's film, and you can tell. It would seem that Nolan's name is all over the marketing merely for the box office boost.

To distinguish the picture from its predecessors, Goyer's script is non-linear; key events (like baby Kal-El's craft being found) are not shown, and Clark's background is conveyed through flashbacks intermingled with the narrative proper. With this device, Man of Steel does not feel like a structural clone of 1978's Superman, which is essential. What's notable about the movie is that it's more of a science fiction story about aliens rather than an outright fantasy adventure, which gives the narrative a realistic foundation and emphasises that, indeed, this is the story of an alien trying to ingratiate himself into Earth culture. It's a brand new tonal perspective for the franchise, which is refreshing. However, Goyer's script has its weaknesses. Clark is not humanised enough; his mild-mannered alter ego is not introduced until the very last scene, hence Clark spends the entire film as a sullen hero. The 1978 movie did a better job of portraying Superman, giving him more character and personality. He's a bit bland and generic here, though there's room to rectify this in the inevitable sequels.

There is an underlying stream of psychological complexity and emotional weight to Man of Steel that prevents it from being just another soulless CGI demo reel. Superman abstains from killing, yet something happens during the climax that tests his ethical standpoint, leading to controversy online (where else?) about a decision he is forced to make. This, along with another pivotal scene involving Pa Kent, adds a layer of moral wrangling not often glimpsed in blockbusters of this ilk, suggesting that being the hero sometimes means letting a few people die for the greater good. Fortunately, Man of Steel does not collapse under the weight of pretentious self-importance, a trap that Nolan's Batman films fell into. Snyder keeps the film focused and disciplined, although some of the action could've been scrapped in favour of further character interaction to enhance the picture's humanity.

To further distance itself from previous Superman features, Man of Steel carries a unique visual design. Krypton is reimagined as a vast, fantastical world (think Pandora) with flying creatures and advanced technology, while Superman's suit is redesigned, and Zod is heavily armoured. Snyder is a filmmaker renowned for action sequences, and he goes for broke here, acknowledging that both the hero and villain have the power of Gods, resulting in tremendous scenes of conflict. Watching Superman soaring across the globe and going toe-to-toe with Zod is riveting, and the destruction on offer here is spectacular, with the film excelling in terms of shot construction and digital effects. The CGI (courtesy of WETA Workshop) is out of this world, and Snyder goes nuts in his depiction of the devastation suffered by Smallville and Metropolis. Some have complained that Superman would not stage a war in such densely populated areas, but he did not have a choice, and the vast number of deaths continues to up the stakes as the ruthless Zod aspires to conquer the planet.

Although Cavill is no Christopher Reeve, he's a charming, dignified and engaging Superman, and his insanely muscular physique (that is not digitally enhanced) is spot-on. Cavill is an English actor, yet you wouldn't know it as he convincingly comes across as American. Meanwhile, Adams is a wonderful Lois Lane, exceedingly beautiful and with the right mixture of intelligence and vulnerability, though she doesn't quite have the feistiness that characterised Margot Kidder. Goyer and Snyder smartly avoid the contrivance of Lois being too stupid to realise that Clark and Superman are the same; she finds out right off the bat, which deepens their relationship. It's not an aspect previously explored, making sequels a tantalising prospect. As Jor-El, Crowe is suitably expressive and measured, with gravitas and charm that would make Marlon Brando proud. Also in the cast is Michael Shannon, who makes for a ruthless General Zod. It's a sinister role, and Shannon ran with it. Rounding out the main cast are Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who provide strong, warm support as Clark's parents.

Man of Steel is touted as a dark vision of Superman, but this does not mean it's brooding or dour; instead, it is a serious take on the character, but Snyder still delivers joy and wonderment. It's a genuinely visionary interpretation of the character and his world. Luckily, the film doesn't spend a great deal of time setting up unanswered questions or untapped story beats for sequels, nor does it set out to establish the rumoured DC Comics Cinematic Universe. Rather, Snyder's film establishes a compelling new cinematic world for Superman to explore. The big question on everyone's minds will be whether or not it's superior to Richard Donner's beloved 1978 movie. It's a tough call to make, as 1978's Superman carried a superior screenplay while Man of Steel benefits from a flawless cinematic treatment that was just not possible three decades ago. There's room enough for two Superman origin tales to exist; both films are flawed but fantastic. Man of Steel is definitely better than all other cinematic incarnations of the character, and that cannot be debated. Competently executed and with a top-flight cast, Man of Steel is probably Snyder's best and most mature film to date. It's a hopeful start for what could finally be a strong Superman film series.

8.5/10

Even though I really enjoy watching superhero films, I'm not a fan of them and I don't read the comics as well. So I don't know anything about them at all, except from what is being depicted in the films. A couple of days ago I watched Man of Steel in the big screen and I felt somewhat whimsical watching it. The trailer is giving pretty good impression, but unfortunately the film is not. I was going to watch a blockbuster film so generally I expected it to be just so-so, entertaining or even 'bad', those typical summer blockbuster film. But sadly, this film surpasses the 'bad' expectation I had, it's slightly worse. When I write this, IMDb gives it 8 and Rotten Tomatoes gives it 56%. I have to agree with Rotten Tomatoes.

This film has a huge potential to be great and amazing but here are the bad things:
Bad writing. Maybe not a giant plot hole, but tiny plot holes everywhere. What's with the back and forth story telling? It's unnecessary, hasty and hampering the characters to develop.
Also it lacks of emotional atmosphere or attachment. As we can see in the scene where Clark's mother were persuading little Clark to get out of the room? They're talking private conversations in front of the whole class. Now that's unlikely and strange and makes me can't really relate to the characters.
The other emotional thing that is missing is the chemistry between Clark Kent and Lois Lane; it's zero chemistry. Whenever the scene just depicting the two of them I prayed for them not to kiss, because it'll ruin the film even more. And yep they did kiss in the end. Duh. No chemistry or romantic background whatsoever. It seems to me that both Henry Cavill and Amy Adams acted their parts appropriately, but the script is just forcing them to kiss.
And the other scene that is strange for me is when the Daily Planet's officers (one of them is Laurence Fishburne) were trapped in the ruins of the building and seemed so desperate, so what? The writing is so poor, that I can't feel any emotional attachment to the characters, I just don't feel for them. Everybody just feels like cameos.
The Christianity notion also quite disturbing. I don't mean the church scene, just the overly stated fact that Clark Kent is not human, he's not from this world, but he feels for the humans and willing to sacrifice himself to save the humans' lives. And plus he's 33 when doing all of this, that before showing himself as Superman, he's lost, wandering here and there, looking for himself and just unknown to the rest of the world. A little bit Jesus-y but maybe it's just me. Hehe.
Overload fighting and destroying buildings are unnecessary; it belittles the lives of the humans/civilians around in my opinion. What's so superhero about that?
The story that Lois Lane looked for Clark Kent and found out about him and his past is also odd. Is it that easy? If Clark Kent was helping people and disappearing here and there plus there were witnesses, why didn't the other also tries to find out the truth about him?
The other ridiculous scene is when Clark's father died because of the tornado, sacrificing his life for a dog and banned Clark to save his life (and Clark agreed). Overall, the story telling is lack of soul, warmth and reality. It blended too many themes to one film, like superhero, sci-fi, alien invasion, disaster, etc and sadly not succeeding in doing so. The story doesn't really flow. There isn't any 'peak' of the story that left me breathless and gaping.

Great cast? It is actually a great cast; Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne among others. except maybe for Amy Adams, who is talented and lovely as she is, maybe appears a little bit too old for Henry Cavill's portrayal of Superman. I can't say whether Henry Cavill is a good Superman or not because this is the first time I watch him acting and I never really watch a superman film before. Great cast but destroyed by the writing of the film.

Great music score by Hans Zimmer, but unfortunately and disturbingly overplayed throughout the film.

Many and obvious brand replacements.

I enjoy Zack Snyder's 300, but for this one, it's just too much CGI and too many zoomings. The fighting doesn't look real.


Finally, the good:

The starting scene with the destruction of the Krypton is quite nice, also for the whole concept of natural birth, absorbing the earth, trying to dominate the earth by placing the machines in the north and south of the earth, etc.
The human side of Superman is properly depicted, even though a little bit dull. At least Henry Cavill can deliver the act that makes me realize that Superman/Kal-El is really not a human, he's an alien. And I guess one of the decent scene is when he let out a scream after killing Zod. At first I didn't understand why did he have to be that sad. After a few readings, people said he was sadly screaming because he had to kill his own kind, his own people, that was not much left in the universe. I also agree that Kal-El's best moments were when he was portrayed as human/Clark Kent, not as Superman in the film.
Michael Shannon's portrayal of Zod is great too. He's not only evil and powerful but he had a background; his loyalty, determination and ultra-nationalism for Krypton made him like that.
The ending. A couple of minutes before the film ended is in my opinion, one of the best parts. It feels like the film found its grip and started anew. When the film ended, I was partly disappointed by it because it feels more like an absolutely dragged-trailer than a film, like the whole film is only an introduction, and right after the ending, it should be where the film begins. The ending is partly makes me can't wait for the sequel. I do hope they'll have a better script and everything for the second film.

Of course I need more viewings of this film, but that's all I have for now.