User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2528 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 3, 2013
    6
    Man of Steel is a fairly good film. There's no saying that it's a great film, because it undeniably isn't. Some of the acting is somewhat wooden and flat, and it jumps from scene to scene, plot point to plot point, rather absent-mindedly and not in a memorable fashion. This results in the film falling down slightly from what it could have been. The fact that this film had Christopher Nolan (of The Dark Knight fame) involved meant that some people were expecting more, another Dark Knight, but that doesn't happen in this film because of the cast, both main and supporting, and the way it casually jumps between plot points without anything really holding them together, making it a rather difficult film to follow. However, on the whole this is a good film and, though it doesn't live up to expectations, it isn't exactly unwatchable and, as well as being a solid entry in the franchise, may very well be one of the best films of the lot. Expand
  2. Jun 15, 2013
    7
    The movie suffers from its own arrogance really. It simply tries waaaay too hard to be epic in almost every scene and honestly it really takes away from the story. The plot is a sort of modern day twist on superman 2 and uses flashbacks to tell superman's past/childhood. The whole scheme really doesn't work all that well. In any case the move is overly dramatic to the greatest extent. It's as if the director, writer, and producer were so caught up in their idea that the movie would be sooo epic that they looked past the fact that it really wasn't epic at all... Expand
  3. Jun 17, 2013
    6
    Man of Steel Director: Zack Snyder Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner Runtime/Rated: 2hr. 28min/PG-13 ‘Man of Steel’ was my very first Superman movie I have ever seen. So, how did it far with me? Did I enjoy it? Can it be better then ‘The Dark Knight’ films? Well, let’s get started! The story starts at Superman’s home planet called Krypton, where we’re introduced to Jor-El, (played by a good Russell Crowe). Jor-El is at the council talking to the elder people and mentions that their world is in danger of being destroyed, I don’t know why this is happening, I don’t know if its because they didn’t explain it, or maybe I just didn’t hear it. I don’t know. Then General Zod comes zooming in, (played be Michael Shannon who is one of the main reasons why I some what liked this movie). Zod comes in and starts causing havoc, and saying this planet is DOOMED!! Again, I don’t know why its DOOMED?!? After this encounter with Zod, Jor-El breaks away from him and goes to his son and sends him off to Earth as Krypton is being destroyed. Then for about a good hour of the film we have half ass character development for Clark Kent. It’s told through to many tedious flashbacks and monologue talks from his father and mother (played by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner). Finally, after sitting their an hour of painful and dull acting and character development, General Zod comes back to save the day! From here, the story kicks back up again and Zod wants to transform Earth into the next Krypton.

    One of the main reasons why I didn’t love this movie is the poor character development. Using Flashbacks as a tool to show development for Clark Kent didn’t work for me. When you first see Kent, he’s already a man, so the film jumped their story about 25 years later after the events on Krypton. Then the movie takes you back years later for when he’s a kid. That’s the development for Superman FLASHBACKS most of the flashbacks were all the same anyways, Clark saves the day by using his power, then has a long speech with either his father or mother. This happened four times in the movie. Another big problem I had with this film, which is a huge one, is the emotions I did not feel between the characters. The whole relationship between Kent and Lois Lane felt extremely fake, it felt like there was no connection through those two characters. Most of their interactions felt dull and stale this might have felt like this because of the very bland Henry Cavill but even with all of the other relationships between the characters, i still didn’t feel any real emotions. I would say that the only relationship that I connected with was Kevin Costner’s and Henry Cavill’s, which felt very real. The ending also was dull. When Superman takes the first punch of the movie, and I mean first REAL punch, that’s when you feel the most adrenaline pumping through your body, but that fads pretty fast, and by the end of the film you’re more excited for it to end then it to keep playing.

    ‘Man of Steel’ defiantly has plenty of flaws, but with saying that, I still enjoyed the movie. I loved the visuals and effects, which could very be the best effects I will see this whole year. Most of the action was nice to look at, especially when Superman is whooping everybody’s ass. Like I mentioned before, Michael Shannon had a brilliant performance and stole the show every time he was on screen. The true summary of ‘Man of Steel’ is, “it looks to par, but lacks the emotional depth that it NEEDS to make it stand out then all the other generic action summer blockbusters”. Also, I would like to mention that Zack Snyder has a great visual approach to his movies, but when it comes to story, he’s one of the worst.

    To answer the question if i enjoyed my first Superman movie or not, i would say that yeah, i enjoyed a good chunk of the movie, but for the most part was extremely disappointing.

    See this movie as a matinee showing.
    Expand
  4. Jun 29, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Man of Steel is by no means a bad film but it clearly is too loaded, especially for a film which is bound to have the benefit of one or more sequels. Imagine the batman trilogy but with all the plot points established in a week. Clark Kent (well played in all fairness by Henry Cavill) goes from saving kids on a bus as a teen, to saving workers on an oil rig to... destroying towns and cities while battling a small army of similar strengthed supermen. Entertaining, yes, but its all too much. The film suffers from some silliness in trying to get its emotional beats particularly during the final scene where Zod is about to kill four innocent people despite both he and Superman levelling much of metropolis without a care in the world during a (has to be said) visual stunning fist fight.

    All that said, Man of Steel is an enjoyable re-spin of Superman and sets up the main characters well. Maybe I would have warmed more to it if the threat of Zod (Michael Shannon is quite good in the few scenes we get with him) was merely introduced, and left for the sequel. But its overlong and I cant help but feel that maybe DC or Warners wanted something to rival Avengers a bit too much. I look forward to a sequel but part of me wonders how they can up the stakes on what happens in this first movie.
    Expand
  5. Jul 15, 2013
    6
    This movie is certainly entertaining but it's actions sequences are so long that it begins to become boring. Honestly my criticism of this film can be summed up to the fact that it takes itself far to seriously.
  6. Jun 29, 2013
    6
    Hmm. My opinion may not be the popular one, but here goes. I can't say in words how excited I was for this movie. Previews were epic, cast is amazing....this movie just didn't seem to have a soul. My girlfriend hated it, but I thought it was good, just not great. I just didn't care much for many of the characters I was seeing, such as the reporters who somehow seemed to be the only people who survived the entire city being destroyed...too much action and not enough character for me. Also, this movie seemed very corny in spots. It was more Avengers popcorn fun than Batman serious fun, if that makes sense. I WANT to love this movie but I just don't. I do however think the sequel set up was great and looking forward to seeing the other half of the superman alter ego that was missing from this one and provide maybe SOME comic relief. Expand
  7. Jun 23, 2014
    2
    I couldn't finish it. The effects are great and Shannon and Crowe were definitely into it, but the storytelling is awful. The movie is clearly rushing towards its precious action sequences that it ends up undermining the entire movie. The pacing is terrible, time skips nonsensical, many plot points don't make sense or serve the plot in any way, character development is awful, and the movie has a bad habit of telling rather than showing. Even during some of the admittedly astonishing part of the movie, I was unmoved and was never awestruck. This movie apes at The Avengers or the Nolan Batman movies and fails at both. It never establishes a coherent tone, and all its action sequences are undermined by poor pacing and storytelling. One of the worst movies I've seen in a while. Expand
  8. Jun 19, 2013
    0
    With one repetative fight scene after the next. Poorly utilizing Crowe and Costner and no character development of any kind for a number of key people in the movie. This gives you a joyless superman with no charisma or charm even from the man of steel. I was hoping for much more than just your average popcorn action movie. I love action movies but i understand others when they said the action seemed to dull down other elements such as who the characters are, why they are important, and why they do what they do. Expand
  9. Jan 3, 2014
    7
    Disappointing but a good movie overall. Zack Snyder make the same mistake which he made in 300, the same thing over and over again in a fight scene. But that's at the end so it's alright. Overall Man of Steel is a good film even if it did not live up to my expectations.
  10. Jul 11, 2013
    2
    Overall this so called "blockbuster movie" is a pretty big waste of your money. Id wait until it comes out for rental and get it then.
    Wasn't impressed at all.
  11. Apr 21, 2014
    8
    A truly exciting reboot to an iconic pre-established icon. Henry Cavil is a great Superman, Michael Shannon is a stoic yet entertaining zod, and the Snyder provides us with a adrenaline fueled look of a Kryptonians powers. Even though there may be one too many many action scenes, Amy Adams is a flat Lois Lane, and the lack of reaction from Superman witnessing 1000's being killed is not very 'Man of Steel'. It was still a very enjoyable popcorn flick. Expand
  12. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    Man of steel doesn't need the typical introduction that I usually give a film, because this is just a retelling of the original tale. Although the main difference is the villain; who is General Zod, and is told in a different way. I was excited for this movie for a while, but when the trailers started showing up; especially the: "How does Superman shave?", I started loosing interest. Seeing in how it looked like it was more focused on visuals than stories, and I wasn't too far off. With that said, this is pretty epic. Of course the visual effects are very pretty to look at, the planet Krypton is both mystic and futuristic. However the effects for the action scenes are the major problems. For a while I enjoyed watching them, but after seeing over a half an hour of superman punching people and them punching back, it gets really old and doesn't look convincing. Mainly the chick that hangs around Zod the most does this sort of super dash, which is annoying. Speaking of Superman, the actor they got was ok. He doesn't do anything that makes him likeable; I'd better explain myself before I get hated. I know he saves people which make him instantly likeable, but he doesn't have a interesting personality. Sure he protects people, but when he's not he is just sort of this serious boring guy. The other actors however were better; in my opinion, especially the guy they got for General Zod. It's a good performance; he does take some traits from the original: Terence Stamp, the character is a bit different though, but for the better I thought. It is strange in how I think they shouldn't have changed Superman's personality and yet changing Zod's is good, but at least here it makes him into an understandable villain. He was raised to be a warrior by the Kyptonian way, and is now protecting the future of the Kryptonian race. Also it's funny that Russel Crowe is like Marlon Brando from the original, in that there big stars only in minor parts, and he does okay. He doesn't take up the scene, but he does have this wise man routine down pretty well. The other supporting cast like Lois are fine; in that she doesn't male any negative impressions, but nothing great. With all that said, I still enjoyed watching this movie. I like the action at certain parts, the drama is good and is even great at times, and the actors do an okay job overall. This is definitely worth your money. Expand
  13. Jun 17, 2013
    5
    Lengthy, slow and toiling at the beginning the movie retells the Superman origin unnecessarily. Once the lead actually becomes Superman the movie picks up some steam, but by then I had already given up hope for being engaged. Further, this is a bleak, dark film which does not suit Superman thematically. The character is best used when he creates hope, justice and honesty. A reflection of the best ideals on humanity. While they took a stab at this it comes off as whiny and vacillating as opposed to firm and inspiring. Expand
  14. Jun 22, 2013
    5
    Man of Steel is a generic summer blockbuster with Superman attached to it. It was entertaining, but I didn't take much out of it. The characters & relationships are 2 dimensional, the story is uninteresting and the villain is just plain boring. The cast don't even bring anything interesting to the table, which is a surprise since the cast includes Michael Shannon and Amy Adams. The effects are amazing looking & the action was fun, but even the action felt repetitive and tedious after a while. Man of Steel fails to distinguish itself from other blockbuster films and just ends up being a shallow & generic, but entertaining film. Expand
  15. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    The two huge issues I had were the over-glorified destruction and death of millions, simply played for entertainment, and the poorly developed, half-baked romance between Kal-El and Lois Lane. Other than that, I really enjoyed it. It had very poor pacing as well, but a fun summer movie none-the-less.
  16. Jun 28, 2013
    0
    I was so looking forward to seeing it after all the great looking trailers, but this is a mess and the worst movie i have ever seen. Everything was a mess. Long, boring and predictable like every other stupid summer blockbuster.
  17. Jun 18, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Cavil não um ator a altura do homem de Aço achei ele pouco frio as vezes robótico, Ele matar o Zod aceitável, não da forma que dizer por ai "mimimi Ele precisou matar pra aprender que nunca mais deve fazer isso", ele não nenhum menininho sem consciência do que faz, fica melhor dizer que ele matou por que não tinha escolha e mesmo assim não um explicação muito boa, Eles destruirão boa parte da cidade, derrubando prédios e explodindo coisas, Superman parecia não se importar nenhum pouco com isso, mas nenhum pouco mesmo, tava nem ai.
    Não curti também o fato dele não ter ajudado o senhor Kent.
    Enfim eu esperava bem mais do filme, passa longe de ser do nível da trilogia Batman do Nolan!
    Expand
  18. Jun 16, 2013
    4
    My youngest son fell asleep before the end. After Avengers he told me it was the bes t movie ever My oldest one told me that if they were not blowing up a building every few seconds at the end he would have probably fell asleep too. Why not let the material speak for itself used bad guys that were never on the big screen before and DC might get a shot at this. Those movies are sci-fi stories they are human stories. Warner should be hand off and create a DC movie division and let them do what they do with their cartoon movie. Is it that hard Marvel has given them the formula and they can't get it right Expand
  19. Jun 16, 2013
    2
    I walked into this movie with high hopes provided I love a good movie. Being produced by Christopher Nolan and a huge fan of generally speaking all of his work, I really expected alot from this movie. I came in expecting a movie that really dwelved deep into superman's character, but unfortunately none of my hopes manifested themselves. It ended up being a movie where the important character development was explained in its entirety in promotional trailer of the movie. Another problem I had coming into this was my expectations for a modern superhero movie with semi-interesting plot and some character development, but instead felt as though I was left with 300:Superman Edition. The first 40 minutes kept throwing new information at me that I hoped would go somewhere. Hope that it would become something more, but those hopes quickly died. after the first 40 minutes the movie turns into that epic battle scene that lasts 2 hours too long. Beyond that, the story was faced with many plot holes, a superman that fails to be connected with, an a love interest that feels forced and rather stale. If you go to a movie simply to see a plethora of CGI, by all means, this is the movie for you, but if you are looking for a movie with any level of development your money would be better spent purchasing rope and an afternoon in your garage. Expand
  20. Jun 17, 2013
    7
    Man of Steel is something I give the benefit of the doubt, why I still prefer the likes of Christopher Reeve flying around with a toothpaste commercial smile in a story reminiscent of Kal-El's innocent upbringings in small town Kansas I was constantly reminding myself in my seat "This is a modernization", but does it hold up to what we expect from a superman story?

    Short and personal
    answer no. I found myself hoping it would take on the form of it's impressive teaser trailer back in 2012, majestic shots, large choir orchestra sounds and heavily inspiring words of wisdom on right and wrong.

    What we got was Zack Snyder's best film to date given the talent who was involved i.e Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer respectively, Zack's Filmography is a puzzle to me, he's an extremely talented man in the visual department and I loved the look of all he's previous work regardless of story and some minor casting calls but ultimately none of them manage to carry the weight and depth when tackling something so large on scale such as Superman.

    But I wont lie Man of steel looks fantastic, for it's flaws which are many, the spectacle of the movie is in it's destruction scenes be it Krypton or Earth, they outweigh all of what we've seen from Superhero Movies so far. the flying looks spectacular and as stated before Zack manages to bring scope and something much larger to screen then many could envision, even myself with my expectations was still very impressed with the routes they ultimately took and the consequences that follow.

    Which brings me to the weight and depth point I mentioned earlier, half the characters are generally not that interesting, big names with small parts who should've had a lot more screen time, I really wanted to see more of Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne and hell you make Jimmy Olsen a female called Jenny which I'm all for but she says and does virtually nothing that emphasised her character or the story that mattered at all (I know that the last thing isn't to big a deal because Jimmy is underplayed in all the movie series but it's why I bring up the next point). I found the exposition in this film startling, it goes from one scene to another so fast any interaction from the landscape or human interaction isn't really well executed, like the characters the audience is expected to just go with it, quick explanation, next scene.

    What does work is aside from effects is that Henry Cavil makes a welcome change for Superman, though the films ideal was to hit a darker tone such as the recent Batman Trilogy, Batman and Superman are both different for obvious reasons emotionally and ideology, so to see Superman (Cavil) go Batman is new for a superman story, but it just doesn't fit for my personal expectations, that said I did enjoy his performance to an extent and would definitely like to see him play the character again in more familiar superman traits.

    Ultimately though Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon steal the show entirely, Crowe's Jor-El gets a lot more screen time than I thought we would see but it's a wonderful performance that comes off more real than just comic book commodity, and with that holy hell Shannon's performance as Zod is so terrifying fierce and soulless to me it rivals that of Heath Ledger.

    So after covering both Performance and Visuals how was the story? well that's it there isn't one, one that's particularly memorable anyway. Superman trying to find himself, to an extent does, finds bad guys, puts them down, done the end, typical superhero flair, character motives are basic never bigger than what's explained or seen from the actual characters, so when the visuals are great, acting in some areas solid or flat and overall average story (y'know Zack's trademarks?) why does Man of Steel make the grade?

    Because and ultimately it's different, plain and simple not different from the directors standpoint sure but for superman it's both familiar and unfamiliar like a reboot should be. but does that mean it's good? I kind of know the target audience who will really enjoy this movie will be the ones who don't know that much on Superman, trust me I'm no stellar fan yet I've read John Byrne & Grant Morrison serials religiously and watched all the old films regardless how bad the later ones got, am I the only one who thought "Superman Returns" felt way too "Smallville"?

    Man of Steel to me got alot of things right and wrong but ultimately it's succeeds in it's mission of Modernizing Superman, I would happily watch it again no doubt and I love the set up for hopeful future instalments but as an introduction to one of America's greatest fictional characters? do yourself a favour and look for the real deal. 7.5 Thanks for Reading.
    Expand
  21. Jun 17, 2013
    3
    I had doubts about the movie at first. And I was right. It didn't feel like I was watching Superman, but a guy who had his powers. He was a gloomy character and seemed more like a over powered irritated babysitter than a a protector of good. And through out the whole movie all kept saying to myself is why did they do that or why didn't they do this. I guess Nolan and Synder thought that by adding a ridiculous amount of special effects and destruction that it would carry a movie with a horrible story. But one plus about the movie is that the kid inside me loved it. But I have been a grown-up for a while. Expand
  22. Jun 18, 2013
    5
    The first 10 minutes I already had a feeling this movie is going to be bad. Zack put a lot of actions but still doesn't help. The fighting scenes many have said its mind blowing. Like anything never seen before. Those people definitely forgot that Matrix Revolution did the same thing a decade ago.
  23. Jun 19, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Man of Tin

    As you can guess from the title of my review, I did not enjoy “Man of Steel.” It had great effects and the scenes that took place on Krypton were awesome. But overall the MoS was poorly paced, poorly directed, and didn’t provide characters that I could really connect with. The action sequences also lacked a sense of peril because the combatants were invulnerable.

    I’ll start off tin what I liked about MoS, Krypton. Krypton was amazing in this film. It looked and felt completely alien. There was a giant flying creature that Jor’El rode on at one point. The structures and plains in the background were uniquely designed. Krypton in this movie was a breathtaking sight to behold. The narrative on Krypton flowed better than the rest of the movie also. Major plot points are setup masterfully on Krypton but soon begin falling apart once the story moves forward to Earth.

    On to Earth, and the bad aspects of the film. MoS does a poor job of telling Superman’s origin story and establishing him as a character that we can root for and care about. We get to see Clark Kent roam around aimlessly with a big depression beard, while throwing in flashbacks of his childhood. This part of the movie wasn’t horrible but the pacing was odd. He’s a man, then a boy, then back to a man, then a teen. The individual scenes were good but they were linked in an uncomfortable, schizophrenic manner. The movie begins with Clark’s birth on Krypton, so how about maintaining a linear structure throughout the rest of the movie. Clark discovers his true identity and becomes Superman in a rather matter the fact way also.

    Which brings me to another and the most problematic aspect of the movie, unnecessary subplots and superfluous characters. There’s a constant cutting away from Superman to give screen time to characters and subplots that could’ve easily been cut from the movie. Uninteresting shots of military personnel meticulously setting up they’re gear and they’re guns. Scientists who reiterate plot points that General Zod just explained two scenes ago. Lois Lane’s search for Clark after seeing him use his powers really fell flat. All of these subplots detracted from Superman’s story and character development and he felt like a significantly underdeveloped character by the end of the film when we’re supposed to be really rooting for and empathizing with him.

    When this movie was first announced I was really put off by the darker tone, but it turns out they stayed true to what and how Superman is supposed to be. Well…. Up until the very end. When the writers put Superman in an impossible situation and he’s forced to do a very Un-Superman like act to save lives.

    The villains were not interesting at all in MoS. General Zod is no Joker, Bane, or even Loki for that matter. Zod has zero charisma and he’s completely uninteresting when he’s on screen. I didn't care about what his evil plan was, his fist fights with Superman lacked impact because they were both practically invincible, and his minions were of a dime a dozen seen’em before variety. Zod was the absolute pinnacle of mediocrity. So he fit the rest of this mess of a movie perfectly.

    So…… Since Superman and Zod can’t really hurt each other, everything around them gets destroyed. They manage to almost completely level Metropolis during the last 30 minutes of this movie (in between uninteresting shots of military personnel meticulously setting up they’re gear and they’re guns.) I haven’t been this bored watching things blow up since Transformers: Dark of the Moon. I ended up just feeling sorry for all of the fictional people who were going to get stuck with rebuilding Metropolis and cleaning up this mess. During the final battle in Marvel’s Avengers there was destruction, but it was mainly cars and parts of buildings. You didn't feel like there was a catastrophic loss of life during the final showdown in the Avengers. MoS feels like a hundred 9/11s are happening all at once. It felt a little sad, because if city blocks are being completely leveled left and right, you just logically assume that thousands of innocent people are dying during this dumb slug-fest.

    That’s my opinion on MoS. It feels like another failed Hollywood attempt to bring Superman to life. Made by people with no respect for the franchise or the comic book art form. Superman’s story has been told correctly in animated form and re-imagined in countless comic books for years. But the director, Zack Snider, and the writers of MoS thought they were all smarter than all of the people who have brought this character to life successfully. Sad. But this movie is still going to make a billion dollars because you people don’t care. You just want mass destruction and explosions. You don’t even care if the plot makes sense or if the characters are fully developed..
    wheregeeksgotodie.wordpress
    Expand
  24. Jun 24, 2013
    4
    Action sequences drag on and are extremely repetitive. I watched identical looking buildings collapse and superman vs zod and company fight in seemingly identical action sequences too many times throughout the entirety of the movie. Plot was very cliché and acting was mediocre. If you are looking for high end cgi action sequences, that is about all you will get from watching this movie
  25. Jun 27, 2013
    0
    First off, screw the critics, I've lost any respect I had left for them, MOS is a masterpiece, THE greatest comic book film made, this is what Superman fans have been begging for and it was delivered with perfection! Stunning visuals, gripping story and the best action fight scenes I've ever seen, it was brutal! It made the The Dark Knight trilogy look like the Brady Bunch, I also loved the Sci-Fi aspect of it as well, Krypton and the spaceships were unreal, thankyou Mr Snyder for this amazing movie and please don't listen to the critics they don't have a clue, they still want Superman in red tights saving cats out of trees! MOS smashes 1978 Superman in every area, it's how a Superman film should be, absolute carnage! I was blown away by this and if the critics think it was so poor then why did the whole cinema I went to cheered and clapped in the end? I've never seen that before with any movie! Man of Steel is the new benchmark for superhero films now, It's way better than anything marvel has brought out, if I could rate it more than 10 then I would, EPIC in everyway possible!!!! 15/10 Expand
  26. Jun 27, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Minor Spoilers Below

    Man of Steel is the biggest disappointment of the year. What makes it such a letdown is that despite the interesting ideas it presents it fails completely with the execution. Take for example, the character development of the main character. Henry Cavill is a fine actor but you wouldn't know from this film. Clark Kent in MOS is a very poorly developed character. He has no personality and a severe lack of character development. And when I say personality, I don't mean that Clark has to be glib or witty, I mean that we as an audience don't get a sense of his point of view. We don't really see how he feels or where he stands. We don't see him develop a sense of morality or a sense of purpose. And this is largely because he spends most of his time listening to exposition of other characters of what he should be doing. We don't see him make any important decisions as a result. Instead he spends much of his life wondering from one place to another until through a very contrived circumstance; he overhears the discovery of an alien craft (Seriously?!) And when he finds the ship, he is told again through exposition of what he should be. Thus when he finally becomes a superhero (which in other origin films-ex. Batman Begins- is one of the most triumphant moments of those films) it is very flat and uneventful. The other main character Lois Lane, doesn't fair much better. Amy Adams is again a fine actress, but she is not a very interesting character because much of her presence is contrived. She often shows up in the film inorganically and is forced into situations with Clark and the other characters to keep the plot moving. As a result, she has really little chemistry with Clark because their relationship feels forced. Thus when (small spoiler) they finally kiss at the end, it comes off very flat and uneventful. The other characters are suitable but if the two major characters are bland and dull, that is a major issue.
    The film also struggles to develop its themes. In the beginning of the film two major themes are introduced: hope and faith. The film suggests that Superman will be a symbol of hope and how he will be the one find a way, do the impossible, defy the constraints etc. The film also introduces this idea that Superman will have a reciprocal relationship with the people of earth: he will have faith in them in making the right choices and they will in return have faith in Superman in saving them in their time of need. Only, these themes, as interesting as they, are again developed very poorly. Superman is hardly a symbol of hope in this movie because he simply doesn't do anything really hopeful. We don't see him inspire people to be better. We don't see him try to do the impossible. In fact, in the last scene of the movie, when superman has a chance to deal with the main antagonist in way that defies expectations (hence hope), he instead opts for the lazy and predictable way. As for faith, this theme is poorly developed for the simple fact that we barely see Superman interact with the people of the world. We don't see them "stumble and fall" or "join him in the Sun" because the film simply didn't care to develop these ideas. If you notice a pattern in my criticism, its that the film likes to introduce ideas but has either no idea what to do with them or the film decides to distract you with action.
    Which leads me to another major issue, the nonstop CG action in the final 40 minutes of the film. About a little more than half way through the film, the movie forgets about the character development and themes(which it handled so poorly already) and decides to show 40 mins of pummeling and tiresome action. If you are fan of Dragonball Z or the Matrix films you may be amused for a while. But there is only so many times that I can see someone be thrown through a building before it becomes tiring. And during these ridiculous action scenes, Superman forgets to do the one thing he does in every other version of Superman (comics, cartoon, Reeve's films): saving people. So many building are destroyed and so many people are injured and yet we barely see Superman even acknowledge his surroundings. Snyder was more interesting in topping the previous action scene than providing the proper balance of Superman fighting and saving.

    This last point is indicative of the problem of the film: style over substance. The film gives the illusion of depth by introducing interesting ideas but does such a poor job developing these ideas. Instead the film tries to distract you with expensive CG action scenes, but even these scenes ring hollow because there is nothing beneath the action. If you are looking for film with interesting and relatable characters, quality storytelling, and good thematic development look elsewhere. If all you care about is action, you may enjoy the last half of the film.
    Expand
  27. Jun 27, 2013
    0
    the "S" must stand for stupidity. They spent so much time with the cinematics that they forgot the plot. It was weak, corny and absolutely predictable. It had the essentials in there. But they were just slapped in with no real focus. There was no originality, it was just a remake. The only thing special about this movie was the special effects. If they are going to remake these movies they have to do it differently.

    Superman? or Moral:
    of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

    I could tear this movie apart into tiny pieces and then tear those tiny pieces into more tiny pieces.

    I wanted to leave the cinema halfway through this "blockbuster".
    An absolute shocker.
    Expand
  28. Jul 2, 2013
    1
    I was very upset when I left this movie...expecting that this was the rehash of Superman as we know it, the writers and director decided to change the entire history of Superman to fit their overblown, overkill, over detroy whatever city they were in, and change all of the known facts of Superman, like Lois Lane knows that Clark Kent is Superman right away??? and Clark's father, Jonathan Kent, is killed by a tornado and NOT a heart attack??? And after he lands on earth, we go straight to 33 years later and he has a beard and works on a crab ship?? Why are all these hollywood types think that they are better than the original authors!!!! And all the KILLING!!! I almost walked out. I like Henry Cavill as superman but pleaaaaaaassssseee get someone who KNOWS superman history to write the next story and stop with all the special effects. A few are needed but not all the destruction. And where was metropolis??? Expand
  29. Jul 22, 2013
    6
    A movie filled with repetitive action which got boring very quickly. The first hour was good as we saw a gradual build in Clark's character as well as flashbacks but once the action starts it does not cease and kept me looking at my watch and relieved once the film was over. Russell Crowe and Kevin Kosnier are great as well as Diane Lane but no one else really stood out to me.

    Hopefully
    the sequel can bring someone a bit new and refreshing. Expand
  30. Jul 14, 2013
    6
    I really looked forward to the movie especially when I saw Christopher Nolan was involved. The big problem for me is the big time lapses that occur in the film. It almost felt that they had this great story to tell us but the film would have been too long so they deleted a few scenes which left a few holes for me. I really enjoyed the filming techniques the used especially in the flight scenes. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Just expected a bit more. Enjoyed the childhood scenes and felt Kevin Costner did an outstanding job in the portrayal of Clarke's dad. Expand
  31. Aug 5, 2013
    6
    I didn't like the movie, which is a real shame since I really love Superman. The story told has a nice twist to it but the potential was left dead on the floor. Henry Cavill was a really bad casting choice he's just not good at this part (and come on close shots of him with his chest hair flowing out of his suit?).

    Superman Returns was a much better film that made me feel really
    excited about Superman and the people he protects. The new film is just a disappointment. Watch this at home. Expand
  32. Nov 19, 2013
    5
    Yeah, this was not very good at all, and a borderline Turd. I payed $5.99 to watch it, and I'm still not able to look in the mirror. Too many cheeseball lines, that couldn't be saved by good actors. In the middle of a catastrophic battle with aliens on a main street, was it necessary for Superman to say "Stay inside, it's not safe"?. No, it wasn't. Also, Dad...if you ever read this review, I want you to know that you can count on me to save you from dying in a tornado I don't care if they find out I'm really fast. Expand
  33. Jun 14, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have a very love/hate relationship with this movie.

    This movie was by no means bad, but it was definitely held back by character and environmental inconsistencies. For example: Faora, the female Kryptonian, claims their race is superior due to the evolutionary loss of morality with the blatantly false comment, "We have no morality". This completely reduced the complexity of the Kryptonians character and was borderline contradictory to their main purpose, to preserve Kryptonian culture.

    There was a lot of moments in the film that were extremely contrived. I kept thinking, "Gee, it sure is convenient Superman is RIGHT there, otherwise that could have been bad." or, "Man, it sure is great that machine with tentacles stopped attacking Superman long enough for him to destroy it." OR EVEN "Wow! It sure is amazing that the laws of gravity CEASE to exist when Lois is being sucked into this vortex at the end of the movie." Seriously, with that last one Superman even has a difficult time breaking free from the vortex, but for some reason when Lois was free falling it was like it had zero effect on her (she has gravity powers?).

    Also at the end of the movie was a retarded comment made by a certain government agent who says, "You caused over $2,000,000 dollars in damage to that drone you brought down!" Forget the fact that he completely decimated an entire city of idiots (who stare at buildings falling on them) causing probably billions of dollars worth of damage. Forget the fact that Earth owes him a life debt. Same freaking thing with that dumb broad at the end, "He's kinda hot"? Really? Forget the fact that you've probably never seen this magnitude of incredibly not-human feats.

    Don't even get me started on that ridiculous tornado scene.

    The ONLY redeeming factor for this movie was the incredible fight scenes. Even the villain's fighting styles were super dynamic and versatile. When Zod was wearing that heavy armor, he reflected that with an almost beast-like fighting style. That was awesome!

    Overall I'm glad I went to see it, but if I was given a chance to go back in time, I probably wouldn't have gone to the midnight showing. It was ok; it was Super-over-hyped.
    Expand
  34. Jun 17, 2013
    3
    What???? Superman is Jesus??? Who would'a thought it Jesus/Superman is a naturalised American bought up in Texas.
    So, let me get this straight, Jesus/Supermans' nemesis is the Super Villain Zod/Bin Laden who is trying to change America by destroying buildings and changing the environment to make it habitable for his Race???
    To add to this heady mix, it seems that Jesus/Superman is a
    Superhero by way of Twilight. Bland sexless uninteresting and 2 dimensional, but at least the American Military love Jesus/Superman and he loves them. Which is sweet.
    I would also like to thank the Producers and Studio for letting me know what make of camera I should be buying. The product placement in this movie was better than the Hol(e)y plot line.
    Lois Lanes' character was as fleshed out as a skeleton on a diet, and her relationship with Jesus/Superman was as wet as a wet thing on a wet day in wet land.
    Bad acting
    Overlong tedious and dodgy CGI.
    Apart from that the movie was pretty bad
    Expand
  35. Jul 29, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A refreshing new take on the Man of Steel.

    What I liked about this interpretation of Superman is their original take on Krypton and their Kryptonian technology and history. I like the idea of the genetically engineered Kryptonian society. The eugenics explains why Zod and his army are so "evil" and how they are able to adapt to the new environment so easily. Zod and Faora simply kicks ass, and the action sequences are amazing. (Although I think it's a bit too much)

    This is not exactly a traditional Superman story that we are all used to, so a lot of people might not enjoy it as a 'Superman' movie.
    The problem with Superman is that he is so powerful that he becomes unrelatable. What this film did was, they focus on the fact that Kal-El is an alien trying to fit in. By doing so, they made him seem human. He's not an outsider like Zod and his army; he's a guy who grew up in Kansas, who just happens to have these abilities, and has to deal with it.

    They also got rid of a lot of the Superman mythos that can be quite ridiculous and unrealistic.
    (such as Kryptonite, the red underwear, etc.)
    What I really enjoy about this movie is how they explain everything in a scientific manner. (Kal-El's abilities, Zod adaptability to his new abilities, Zod's motivations, etc.) This really grounds the story (as science-fiction instead of fantasy), and it allows me to accept the story easier. Also, they made the Kryptonians seem like a real civilisation with their own history, culture, and technology. I like how much attention they have on developing their culture. (such as the chest symbols of the different houses)
    The way they approach the story just makes them seem realistic and believable.

    What I didn't like about the movie is the pacing; it's just too fast. There's too much action/information, and not enough character development. Some of the fight scene just seem unnecessary and feels like information/sensory overload.
    I felt that the relationship between Lois and Clark is going too fast, and they didn't have much chemistry together. They shared a kiss that seemed unnecessary/premature. The relationship is just not well developed. I mean, sure, they had many scenes together, and they seem to get along well; however, they didn't seem like lovers, just good friends.

    There's also some ridiculous dialogues (i.e. "evolution always wins") and some religious undertones/allusions to Superman being Christ. It doesn't really bother me all that much, but they shouldn't do it too much.

    I liked the new theme, it's not like John William's iconic march, but it's still a good theme for Superman.

    In conclusion, it has it's strengths and it's flaws; there's room for improvement and can be quite disappointing (might not reach expectations), but it's still pretty good.
    Keep in mind that this is just the first movie in a new universe of movies; there is just too many things to set up.

    I'm looking forward to the next installment in the series. (Even more so now that it's announced that it's going to be Batman vs. Superman)
    Expand
  36. Nov 15, 2013
    3
    I did not like this movie. Watching (nearly) indestructable people throw each other into objects is pretty boring. Then Superman simply breaks the bad guys neck...like why didn't he just do that in the first place. Looking back on it I wish I could go back in time and stop myself from watching it. I like some of Zach Snyders other movies, this screwed the pooch in my opinion.
  37. Jul 9, 2013
    6
    Most people loathed Superman Returns, I didn't, I loved its symbolism and its attempt to carry on the Richard Donner universe despite its lack of fun loving heroics that made the originals so enjoyable. So I have to say Man of Steel had something to prove. The film tells the story of what happens when far away planet Krypton starts dying and Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his son Kal-El (Henry Cavill) to Earth so he may live. When he arrives he is raised in secret by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and learns to become a hero people can believe in as reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) gets closer to uncovering the truth behind this mysterious hero's true identity. The feeling I had when I left the cinema was one of disappointment sure but not for the reasons I expected. I expected an emotionless sequence of beautifully framed rubbish, what I got was so much more than that. Man of Steel is excellent science fiction, its smart, its beautifully realized and it shows a part of Superman's mythology that has never really been touched upon by the films. It's a good 30 minutes before we are introduced to the titular hero as we see the collapse of Krypton and how their society broke down enough for Jor-El to send Kal to Earth in the first place. The rest of the film is a pretty conventional origins story but unlike Zach Snyder's previous films Watchmen and Sucker Punch, Man of Steel has an understanding of its characters and the emotions that drive them and brings out some excellent performances in Henry Cavill, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Michael Shannon as fellow Kryptonian and lead villain General Zod. The film looks brilliant, it tells a captivating story and it has well thought out characters except for Adams' Lois Lane who pales in comparison to Margot Kidder's interpretation of the woman (although Adams is better than Kate Bosworth's version of the character but that's not hard as a reasonably well trained dog could play her better than Bosworth did.) The main downside however is not an acting problem its the films ending, not for the surprise twist I imagine a lot of people are talking about but because that final hour is just a long sequence of destruction that could be 20 minutes shorted and would still bore me to death. The action looks good and in sections of the film when there is actual story its good to see it accompany the story but the end of the film lacks any real reason for this ridiculous over the top violence and the story is nowhere as strong as it is in the first hour and a half. In fact that was my main qualm, the fact that the first hour and a half, the tale of how Clark Kent becomes Superman is almost perfect Sci-Fi and it is almost ruined by a blockbuster ending, a conclusion based on what other blockbuster superheroes have done recently and not what this character should do, something Snyder should have picked up on but unfortunately didn't. Expand
  38. Aug 9, 2013
    0
    whiny depressive sad over a thousand 10,9,8, eh metacritic. How sad This movie is just a sad mess-and the fanboyisms showing up here is proof. Nothing in this movie works and the fact the so many have come to scream their disapproval is typical of the fingers in the ears approach to life. When 2 comes out, it had better be a far better movie, but with Nolans on the last 2 dcu films, I doubt it. Expand
  39. Jun 21, 2013
    1
    Why did they change Superman? What was wrong with him? I feel like its the same as with the Dark Knight Rises... So different from the source that it may as well be something completely different.
  40. Sep 17, 2013
    3
    It kind of breaks my heart to see anyone give this movie a high rating, it means that two-dimensional, formulaic movies are more important than character and story. And when you're talking about an iconic character like Superman, I think that's almost a crime. From the get-go, when CGI monsters are attacking Krypton, I knew things were off. The introduction of an "S" as meaning something Kryptonian is also just silly. There's not even a breath of the Clark Kent many of us grew up reading and watching in film and movies this is a total 'reimagining' this Kent is charmless and dour, and ruled largely by fear in this movie. Fear of being found out, fear of being different. A Superman crafted of these elements tells a totally different story it was never Superman's though. It was Batman's, Spider-Man's, and a ton of other heroes, but never Superman's. The dialogue is so stiff and cheesy, which might work in a comic-book interpretation but here they're trying to make Superman into something emo and pouty, so it just comes off as contrived. The effects are okay and the action works, but that's where all the attention went and for a movie about the origins of a superhero, such a lack of character development is surprising. Then there's just stuff like people wandering around in arctic climates in just a coat, no problem that sort of thing. But the biggest sin of this movie is that instead of being thoughtful, soulful fun built around very solid characters, like the Christopher Reeve movies, this one tries to make huge over-the-top action sequences be the 'fun' part. I just feel it falls short on so many levels. We're not supposed to think of Superman as badass. We're supposed to think of him as our greatest advocate and defender a man of unwavering character who doesn't have to think twice about motive or intent. He always does the right thing, the good thing. He's SUPERMAN. Here he's just an 'every guy' trying to make it in this world with superpowers. Superman was always bigger than that. It is in fact what set him apart from all the Spider-Mans, Wolverines, Green Lanterns, Avengers, etc etc etc. Oh sure, he played cat-and-mouse with his identity (a single pair of glasses magically managed that for him for decades), but I don't think the intent of the story was ever to feel bad about his role, almost like he's a victim. Superman always was, and always should be, a representative of the opposite of that he's the guy who never thinks twice about his role or place and just always strives to do what's right by the human race and does it with a smile. All while being a nerdy reporter on the side. I don't know where any of this went. Expand
  41. Jan 30, 2014
    4
    In the year's biggest disappointment Man Of Steel manages to give us the trailers, hype and intimate story we like being from Chris Nolan. However everything you saw in the trailers have been mashed into a superhero epic that has pacing problems, narrative problems and it's an unfortunate mess. There are a few things to like here, but it's in the final hour of excrutiating overlong action that is the regurditation of a draining party. Expand
  42. Jun 24, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I so wanted to like this movie. It's hard to explain how much I wanted to like this movie. Superman Returns had nearly killed the franchise but this was my hope for a redemption. I watched closely at Rotten Tomatoes and the Metascore for this movie, and then dismissed them. Even though the critics didn't love this movie didn't necessarily mean that it was bad. I didn't read any of the reviews and went into the film wanting to defy them. Then, I saw the movie and my heart sank.

    This film is a tremendous disappointment that looks good, but is only skin deep. Man of Steel introduces itself as a new version of Superman for this modern age. However, it feels the need to spell out every aspect of an origin story that everybody already knows with few bizarre changes to feed its predictable story. While I liked parts of it: the visual effects are stunning (in 2D) and the character interaction can be good, when the script allows the characters to have fun, I have to conclude in the end that this is a bad movie.

    There are some parts of the film that I enjoyed, so I can't completely pan this film. First of all, I did like the special effects, especially on Krypton and during the flying sequences. They are well done and quite stylized and a good use of Zack Snyder's talent. Some of the flashback sequences are good for the character, especially the first one in which young Clark is hiding in the closet. Michael Shannon is glorious as General Zod, bellowing every line in villainous contempt in a suitably over-the-top performance that fits the grandiose Zod. (He doesn't hold a candle to Terrance Stamp, though.) Russell Crowe is surprisingly good as Jor-El who is in much more of the film than you'd expect. Finally, I can't say that I wasn't excited once Zod began to fly in the final battle and trade punches with our hero, an occurrence that Superman fans have been waiting for ever since there have ben movies about the Man of Tomorrow.

    Unfortunately, the film totally collapses under the weight of its own screenplay with tremendous actors having little-to-nothing to do. Amy Adams' redheaded Lois Lane is generally a bland character with little chemistry with Cavill's Superman. After the halfway point she serves almost no purpose to the plot, only being there because she's Lois Lane (apparently) and needs to be in the movie. Lawrence Fishburn has nothing to do as Perry White, although the film cuts to him every once and a while, though the audience has little reason to care what happens to him. We watch him try to evacuate the Daily Planet as we have to assume thousands of people are trying, and failing to do the same in nearby buildings.

    The characters in this movie are uncharacterized, poorly characterized, or mischaracterized. The film seems to be upset with the concept of Superman while not really making us care about Superman the person. He has little opportunity to show any of the charm that Reeve brought to the character, robbing Man of Steel of some of the fun. I also couldn't get over the characterization of Jonathan Kent in this film. While Jonathan Kent is, and should be, highly protective of Clark and his secret, he doesn't do so in a constructive way. Jonathan Kent is meant to be a tether that binds Superman to the human world and teaches his son the value of life. Otherwise, this Superman really shouldn't care about the people, and cannot really be the savior he needs to be.

    The movie is filled with plot holes, questionable judgments, and stupid characters. Why do the Kryptonians, especially Lara allow Zod to be imprisoned in space when the planet is about to blow up? Where is the rest of Zod's army when he lands on Earth, there only seem to be three or four that exit the ship? Why does Superman choose to fly to the other side of the earth to destroy the world machine, while he can do more good fighting the machine in Metropolis and save lives doing it? Most importantly, why does Superman not try to limit the damage done to Metropolis during the final battle?

    Now I could forgive this, all of this, and call this maybe a six out of ten movie, if not for the final factor. Superman KILLS Zod. He just murders him, snaps his neck to save a family of four. First of all, after the thousands of deaths your fight has caused, why do those people matter so much? I kid, Superman is supposed to protect all people, but also never supposed to kill anybody. He is supposed to be able to find a way out, that why he's SUPERMAN. He is a symbol and an ideal, something to strive toward, which we can't and shouldn't do if Superman falls to what we would do in that situation. The idea that this makes him more modern shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the character by Goyer and Nolan. Superman is supposed to be better than we are, in mind and body, to say that he would do that, and that someone could give him no choice is an insult to the character. To the inevitable sequel, I say this, SUPERMAN DESERVES BETTER.
    Expand
  43. Nov 10, 2013
    7
    "Man of Steel" is decent enough. Yes, there are problems in this 2-1/2hr epic but overall it gets its job done. My main problems are with the casting of all the major characters (Henry is great but he's too pretty, I wanted a grittier Superman and Zod was not menacing enough), the wholesome childhood, the lack of emotional reaction when he finds out he's from another freakin' world, and how Lois Lane can't stay out of scenes. Then there's the very final scene where he joins the Daily Planet which makes absolutely no sense in the context of this re-telling, I mean, the dude just saved the entire planet from some very bad characters so now he takes a menial job at a newspaper. I guess they have to adhere to canon but it's just so unmotivated in 2013. Expand
  44. Jun 24, 2013
    7
    Pretty good movie. Story is familiar. Lois Lane is ok. The chemistry between her and Superman is a bit weak. Good popcorn movie. Action was great. It's superman. You gotta see it.
  45. Jul 7, 2013
    6
    I felt that they built this movie up too much to really enjoy thoroughly. It felt like they were trying to use the Dark Knight Trilogy's style but it didn't work for this movie. The story flashbacks were too short and happens every so often. The new superman: Henry Cavill, makes it better than Brandon Routh did that is for sure. It is too long of a film to really pay attention too, for it's quality. I will still see the sequel if they make one which they probably will. Expand
  46. Jun 22, 2013
    1
    Man of Steel is in essence a hollow two hour music video featuring a caricature of Superman. The plot is wafer-thin, utterly incoherent, and instantly falls apart where even an iota of thought is applied. The so-called characters are one-dimensional, lacking any depth, development, or motivation. Nothing and no-one makes any sense. It would seem that the loud and flashy visuals were cranked up to 11 in an attempt to disguise or compensate for this. Shame then the visuals themselves are also quite poor.

    In terms of Superman's world-famous conscience and moral values, both the movie and the portrayal of Superman himself are also repugnant. I find it very difficult to believe that even the most casual of Superman fans would fail to miss the utter disregard for human life displayed. I won't say anything more about this to avoid providing spoilers.

    Fans of Superman or just of decent films in general should avoid this.
    Expand
  47. Oct 18, 2013
    7
    Man of Steel is probably Christopher Nolan's weakest film he has been apart of, but that takes nothing away from the shear beauty of the film. Even with moments that drag, Man of Steel soars on all other levels.
  48. Jun 19, 2013
    3
    This movie does a lot of things well and a lot of things REALLY BADLY. Single scenes are inspired, Jor-El's role in assisting Clark oppose Zod is very well-written and acted, and the production of the film is stellar. Yet plot holes abound, Cavill obviously interpreted Clark as a cinder block in a cape, and the entire second half smacks of typical Zack Snyder trash, all action, no thoughts, hero and villain punching each other from set piece to set piece. The bipolar film careens from intelligent, interesting and boisterous to utterly imbecilic and back again, sometimes all in the same scene. Sadly, this movie is not worth the price of admission as the sum of its parts are less than the individual brilliance of certain ideas.

    You spend the first half dealing with garbled backstory, presented via flashbacks. The actors playing Young and Teen Clark convey a good deal emotion, which is to say they do a whole lot more in their limited screen time than Cavill. The character of Jonathan Kent is laughably stupid (Seriously, the theater laughed at him in nearly every flashback) While the individual flashbacks mostly work, they are jarring in the course of present-day plot and make the entire first act feel disjointed. One has to wonder if this is where a better director would have helped, as the movie lacks a cohesive feel. It harms the slower pacing and bores the viewer. Overall, the film attempts something similar to Bruce Willis' Unstoppable: the creation of a superhero in the modern world. It's not a bad idea and there is some merit to the film's attempt but it comes across as a mediocre sci-fi film (much like Unstoppable). It certainly doesn't feel like a superhero movie, which doesn't seem so bad until compared to...

    ...the special effects-laden, seemingly endless punchfest the second half devolves into. Given Zack Snyder's track record of making over-produced soulless action flicks, I suppose this should have been expected. It's almost as if one of the producers helmed the first half while Snyder yawned and interrupted all the talky scenes with incessant one-liners and cries of "Booo-ring" like a highly paid high school student, then snapped to attention and started making race car noises when it was time to choreograph the action scenes. There's not a lot to say past that. It's highly produced action, non-stop, until the end of the movie. Some of it is smart, some is moronic, there are highlights and lowlights, but with no serious plot behind it, it feels weightless.

    This movie does a lot of things, though none entirely well. At points every aspect is great and at others terrible. As such it can only ever top out as a mediocre movie: an action movie that bores you to tears for half the time or an interesting plot device riddled with holes and a mind-numbingly stupid ending. No matter which side you pick, you wind up disappointed.
    Expand
  49. Jul 3, 2013
    7
    Man of Steel was okay. Not great, nor bad. I think Henry Cavill was the strongest part of the film. They really went overboard with the action, as if they were trying to make up for Superman Returns. I found it sorta exhausting after a while.

    I've seen a lot of different problems pointed out about the movie. I have a few but my biggest is how was General Zod, who was the foremost
    warrior on his planet and bred to be the best, so easily beat by Superman's father, the foremost scientist of the planet. Then he loses to the man's son, who's genes were completely random. I'm just saying General Zod really sucked at his job if you ask me. Expand
  50. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    This movie wasn't bad, but wasn't great. It definitely doesn't rise to the level of Nolan's Batman trilogy, but it does return Superman back to the upper echelon of superhero franchises (we can officially forget Superman Returns).

    With that said, there were many moments that the movie got painfully slow. The dialog and plot movement lacked a spark that the Iron Man series possesses,
    and simultaneously lacked the "take me serious" edge that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight clearly held. It's not either of those, but it is more enjoyable (and even more plausible) than The Dark Knight Rises.

    The movie rates a solid 7, however, because the action sequences and creative elements take Superman in a new direction. This is not a remake of Salkind Superman series from the 70s. It definitely transforms itself into a legitimate 21st century film approach of porting a comic book.

    My hope is that with the sequel (and we know there will be one), that we avoid the Transformer-esque "destroy everything" and get back to some of the fun, humor, and ride that has always made Superman so fun. I never thought I'd say this, but I kind of missed Lex Luthor.
    Expand
  51. Jun 19, 2013
    5
    Find the postivie reviews by users odd for this one. I had high hopes for the picture however the story fell very very short. Michael Shannon as Zod was amazing. Great acting. The story regarding Lois Lane was awful (knowing how to shoot a gun, from another planet, 2 seconds after being handed to her is just one example). Special effects were amazing, however movie was an easy 30 to 45 minutes too long. The only way I can see users liking this is because it is a "Superman Movie". I think in 3-4 years people will look back and say this is a disappointment. Expand
  52. Jun 16, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have never been a big fan of Superman. I even would go so far as to say he is my least favorite superhero. Is it being heroic to risk nothing to save an ant? Not quite. And to superman we would all be ants. So any movie about him has traditionally played up his two weaknesses most of the time. This movie does a good job of not making Lois Lane a weakness at all. As to the krypton stuff. There were no glowing green rocks in this one although that got substituted for a "foreign atmosphere" thing which, in a way, is more believable.
    The villain general Zod is both logical and convincing. His "evil" plot is not overly complex and is rational at all times. So even if the actor brought nothing extra to the role it would be "good enough" in the villain department. Certainly a lot better than some previous films that don't deserve mention.
    The bulk of the film is a smash fest with Superman and general Zod's army of 5 or 6 loyal henchmen duking it out. Quite often while they are being shot at by people from the army who don't realize after the first clip how ineffective bullets are. People who came to watch destruction are sure to get their fill.
    I also have to give top marks to the scenes at the beginning with Krypton. They do a good job making the world alien but still familiar. The technology and politics are top notch sci fi and not some cheesy throw away as they have been previously.
    With regards to supporting cast Kevin Costner does a good job playing Superman's "dad." He almost gives more to the roll than Russel Crowe puts into his surprisingly large roll as Jor-El. Both of them are a credit to the film. Laurence Fishburne is also a surprising face playing Lois's boss (name?) though he is little more than a bit player in the film he adds warmth to it. Him and Costner are the only two to do so.
    That would be my main criticism of the film. It's cut together OK. Shot a bit stylistically, but visually quite good CG'd up the wazoo. Top marks to the 600+ artists who worked full time on that. But in the end all the flashbacks add sadness and darkness for the most part and are not the inspirational warmth they are intended to be.
    It may be the impossible, a "good" superman movie. But it isn't great and I have a hard time imagining it spawning any sequels. Although I wouldn't mind seeing a prequel starring Russel Crowe.
    Expand
  53. Sep 4, 2013
    3
    this movie is a pretentious ego trip for david goyer, christopher nolan and zack snyder.
    it has little to no character development or structure, it's all symbolism and talk with vary little substance and the product placement was just sad
  54. Jun 29, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Apart from the impressive effects really nothing to watch in this movie .First half is more like a documentary that totally mismatch to comic book. Christopher Nolan is always poor and he did great part of ruining the superman as well.Its so stupid that miss Lane appears right after superman kill the General Because before that they were fighting and moved away from her in a lightning speed.I believe Super man returns is far more better movie than this.Also absence of defense Secretary and President is a mistake,Writers were assumed that target audience is brain dead and that a kind of mock to their awareness. Expand
  55. Nov 12, 2013
    4
    As much as I wanted to like this movie, it was terrible. Not a funny terrible, but a forgettable atrocious experience. Acting's off in many scenes, green screen is large and destroys the epic flight scenes, everything about this movie that could've been good is squandered by this need to go beyond what was necessary. The saving grace is it's potential, but it ultimately falls flat. I go with the critics on this one; it wasn't great by any means. Expand
  56. Jul 19, 2013
    7
    Great special effects, some decent fighting scenes, shaky plot and writing (imo) and good acting. I did find it interesting to see a more "real" feeling put in for superman. The movie focuses a lot on Clark Kent's identity crisis as well as his struggles to find purpose in his life. I never really got invested in it though the opening scene wasn't done very well and it didn't really draw me in. Add to that some questionable moments written to make the plot work better that detracted from my experience and this is simply an okay movie, instead of a good one. Marvel is still top dog in terms of superhero movies so far, sorry DC Comics. Expand
  57. Jan 10, 2014
    7
    Convincing and reasonably intelligent re-imagining of how Superman became Clark Kent. Rather more of a piece than the earlier Christopher Reeve films. This time Henry Cavill dons the cloak and tights, in what is a good choice for the comic book hero. The special visual effects are numerous and outstandingly good. Michael Shannon is a fearsome villain in a cast which also includes the ubiquitous Amy Adams (somewhat coasting it here) as Lois Lane. Expand
  58. Jun 22, 2013
    5
    I liked Superman, Lois Lane, Perry White, Mama Kent, and a few of the supporting characters. Overall, the cast was not one of my issues with this movie. The exception being Zod, who was really one-note and shouty, despite having a pretty understandable motivation for doing what he was doing. He could have been an interesting character, but they didn't go that route, which is pretty disappointing. But he wasn't the sole disappointment. Another thing that didn't work for me was the prologue on Krypton. It was too long and way more science fiction-y than I was expecting, criticisms that I suppose could be extended to the entire movie. I'm fine with science fiction, but I really think they should have downplayed some of the alien-ness of Krypton. I don't think we needed Russel Crowe riding around on a dragon. It's already ludicrous enough that they're on a different planet yet are identical to us in appearance. You don't need to highlight that by showing the vastly different morphology of Krypton's wildlife. Makes suspension of disbelief a good deal harder. And to be honest, I'm not sure what level of reality they're shooting for in this movie. By making Lois aware of Superman's identity, they've basically conceded that it would be ludicrous for her to be fooled by a pair of glasses. But what about the rest of the world? We see in the last scene that he's working at the Daily Planet (It's real easy to become a reporter at a major metropolitan publication, right?). Not the sort of below-the-radar drifting that he had been doing previously. Seems like just about anyone who has seen Clark and Superman would put two and two together. And I know this is an inherited piece of ridiculousness. It's from the comic books, it's from the previous movies, and they couldn't tear everything to the ground. But the reason it wasn't an issue in previous media (I can only speak for the films as I've not read the comic books), is that they always had an air of campiness to them. Suspending your disbelief wasn't hard because it was clear that the world of Superman didn't really operate on anything resembling real world logic. That's not the case in the dour, self-serious world of Man of Steel. I feel like Superman's identity would be known in about 5 seconds flat. Okay, I'm out of good transitions, so another thing that bothered me was Pa Kent's death. I get that he didn't want his son to reveal himself by saving him, but why didn't he just let Clark get the dog in the first place? He could've done that without raising suspicions. It was just kind of a clumsy way of setting up his death. Also, though I liked Superman and Lois on their own, I thought they had very little chemistry together and their kiss was completely unearned. I'm sure there were other things that bothered me, but I'm not thinking of them right now. Expand
  59. Nov 14, 2013
    4
    This looks like a (similar) job for Superman! Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Super… Excuse me. For a big budget motion picture remake of perhaps the most recognizable comic book superhero Man of Steel is a tamely run-of-the-mill effort. It is generic blockbuster personified, and is a bleak, characterless, lacklustre, uninspiring, disjointed and overly rigid entry in an intermittent franchise, which ironically struggles to take off. What's the "S" stand for? Well in my world it stands for Super-Serious as opposed to Superman. Never before has a superhero been so unwilling to express any discernible passion for their cause, simply maintaining an impassive poker face the whole time. The fate of mankind hangs in the balance, Superman to the rescue! Screams excitement right; however, Zack Snyder has somehow turned this tried and tested premise into a dreary, rather monotonous exploit, even if the visuals and set pieces verge on stunning; more dull and lifeless than dark and gritty. Henry Cavill is cool, calm and collected as Superman; however, he comes across overly reserved and emotionless far too often. Cavills' steely resolve is rarely visibly tested even if the goings-on impart otherwise, rendering his portrayal of Superman a tad difficult to adhere to on a humanistic level. In addition to this, he appears sound in the fabled suit but his rendering of the celebrated superhero comes across too deliberate and noticeably premeditated, although he does find his feet towards the end when the movie is given a much-needed shot of adrenaline. Man of Steel lacks fluidity, it is apportioned with often brisk and abrupt scene changes, and provides an unkempt collation and abstract composition of extracts and gestures to scenes from other movies. It is also complacent on character introduction, being naive in thinking we all know about the characters enough to not have to shed too much light on them; notably a lackadaisical introduction to Lois Lane and her backstory, further marred by a romance kindled out of thin air. All in all, Man of Steel supplies a moderately attention-grabbing experience, albeit unhurried and void of any palpable sentiment. In addition, it does not break any new ground and sets an overstatedly grim-faced tone that future installments in the notoriously up-and-down series that has experienced its fair share of highs and lows in the past will have to address if they are to garner the widespread approval of the audience.

    Maybe somebody should have gave Superman's cape a tug and told him you're doing it wrong.

    For more movie reviews visit: http://toddsmoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk
    Expand
  60. Jun 21, 2013
    4
    Making a movie for Superman must be very hard but I think that they did a pretty good job at it. It is great to see a next gen Superman but to be honest I don't think fans of the original Superman movies are gonna like this as Superman does not keep his identity much of a secret. It was great to see what Superman's younger life was like as I don't think that has ever been addressed before. The fight scene effects where great but after seeing him fly threw 3 building it quickly gets dull and this really makes the movie drag. The movie is not terrible but you could easily give it a miss. Expand
  61. Oct 5, 2013
    0
    Truly dreadful. I was amazed at how bad it was. I had medium to high expectations when I decided to finally watch it, and maaan was I disappointed. Truth be told, I fell asleep during the movie, and had to watch the rest of it the next day. I am very sad that I did. It sucked!
  62. Jul 1, 2013
    7
    If we think of a super hero, almost ninety percent of us will think about Superman. When I think of one of the best movies this year, I personally think about "Man of Steel". But just because it's a great movie doesn't mean it's flawless. Some emotions feel forced, forgotton, or simply ignored, and from one moment to another, Clark Kent simply becomes Superman. There's no building tension to him realising, discovering and exploring his posiblities as a super hero, they just throw the costume into his hands and bam, you have Superman. This is one of the biggest downsides of the movie, but that doesn't mean it's a complete mess. Expand
  63. Jun 19, 2013
    3
    There are more holes in this shoddy story then in a pair of fish net tights.The pace of the film is stupid.The story makes no sense at points.Like Lois just randomly climbing across an ice mountain edge just because. Its a joke.Like its the first film I have ever wanted it to end so I could leave the cinema.
  64. lox
    Dec 10, 2013
    1
    Not sure if I'm in the minority on this one, but this movie was overall a disappointing mess. Being at least produced by Chris Nolan, I expected so much more. Instead what I got was a snobby Lois Lane who had terribly modest and even cheesy dialogue, a "Superman" who was developed in a rather sloppy way, unintentionally hilarious moments, and a villain who yelled at the camera half of the time. Not to go overboard, I will simply say that I did not like this movie. I can acknowledge some pros though: the Super suit was cool, Zod's "purpose for which I was born" monologue in the final act was cool, and the sequences in space were breathtaking. Still, Man of Steel had nearly NO CROWD PLEASING MOMENTS....the comic relief moments spread in the movie were a hit-or-miss and would gain maybe one chuckle or a laugh out of the audience. And don't get me started on the action sequences....don't get me wrong, I love a good action movie, when it's well served. I highly enjoyed Fast 6 because it didn't try to be more than what it was, a simple mindless action-packed popcorn flick with well-placed humor and overall solid pacing. However Man of Steels action....boy was I bored by it. Explosions and skyscrapers collapsing left and right and even some annoying shaky cam in certain sequences that voided any chances of my investment. One of my friends mentioned two Easter eggs in the film: A Luthor truck and a satellite in space owned by Wayne Industries...BUT... since I WASN'T invested in the movie thanks to a sloppy and awkwardly paced script, I didn't notice these Easter eggs at all unfortunately. I personally felt also that the opening in Krypton was cool at first, but soon became over-extended. Am I the only one who felt that the special effects in this film weren't that impressive? If I am, so be it. Clark Kent/Kal-El's development was rather modest...it could've been done much better and more depth could've been put into it. Instead, the scenes of his upbringing would come in awkwardly and they felt kind of intrusive at times. This movie felt very inconsistent in terms of writing. Man of Steel's pacing was incredibly sloppy. One scene Kal-El was in a ship, then he was in a bar, then he was in the north pole, then he was suddenly Superman. Yeah, not very consistent pacing if you ask me. Overall, I was incredibly disappointed by this film. I really wanted to love Man of Steel. I wanted an excellent Superman flick with a terrific origins story that resembled the quality of Batman Begins. Man of Steel was hyped up well, but terribly under-delivered. Expand
  65. Jul 20, 2013
    4
    I will admit that the special effects are nice, ut overall the plot and dialogue is mess. The characters are made out of wood, and just boring action scenes. This movie was made for trailers not an actual cohesive movie.
  66. Nov 29, 2013
    5
    man of steel was the most over-hyped movie of the entire year,
    so was it worth it you might ask and the answer is very easy, NO.
    i actually felt bad and disappointing because i was so anticipating this movie,
    and i felt stupid afterward, cause there is so much plots mistakes it's almost unwatchable,
    unless you the kinda guy who ignore major details to have fun, i can't do that, cause
    for me everything have to make sense
    and this movie unfortunately does not make any, i mean i felt mad after watching iron man 3 because of plot mistakes,
    after this i can gladly make iron man 3 my favorite movie of 2013.
    Expand
  67. Jun 17, 2013
    7
    Well... this was... I´m kind of confused here. Going into the theater I had enourmous expectasions for this movie. I was pumped and ready to go into a new emotional take into the famous story of Superman. And what I got was more or less forty five minutes of that and the other hour and a half... well let´s say it didn´t stik with my that well.
    The way the trailers made me expect this
    movie was more of a slowly dedicated and emotionaly striking version of the man of steel (especially the third one, damn!). Still the fourth trailer was more focused in action than in story and that´s how saw this movie at the end.
    The beginning of the movie which takes place in the exotic planet of Krypton, (yeah, when I say exotic I mean giant alien rhinos and really got me emotionaly atached to Jor-El (Superman´s dad). It actually pulled on my parents strings! Seeing the planet implode in such a way was breathtaking and kind of harsh!
    Then came the stretch of the movie which I actually feel confused about: The becoming of Superman. From Kal-El beeing sent to earth it immediatly cuts to him all grown up and going. I felt good about this decision, it gave us the feeling of mystery! Then came the flashbacks and these were reeally good! I felt the confusion of Clark and his attachement to his earth parents, the Kents. But then when this ends, (mainly at the reveal of the Fortress of Solitude) I felt that they were going too fast and the buildup lacked something. Then immediatelly Zod shows up! And I was like "Woah! I espected this farther into the movie! I´m not ready!" And then from the first attack on Smallville everything goes crazy! At first I thought the effects where amazing! and the fast paced action was dynamic. But then the scene dragged, and dragged, and dragged. And I felt overwhelmed and kind of bored. I was praying for an break to get into the deeper aspects that the movie had shown us at the beginning! Then it stopped! I was relieved and interested about where it would go from here! And then more action... and more action. I saw that they where going in with those world tearing machines that I saw in the trailer and actually felt worried for the character of Perry running from the destruction! But those scenes dragged even more! The action was spectacular but it lacked substance! Except for one part where Superman can´t destroy the machine across the globe and Perry is trying to save the other chick. That was intense. That was... Nolan! Finally! I found you! And then... guess what!! More empty action sequences... Damn, someone went haywire with the effects. The fight between Zod and Clark began with a good setting of... well ash. It was nice to see something new. That fight I really liked but maaan, content pleease! Then the movie ends and Clark goes to work at the Daily Planet and and yeah, the second half of the movie left me so mind numb that I didnt give a about the ending. Otherwise I would be cheering for that scene.
    An aspect that I want to highlight is the relationship between the Kent mom and Clark. I really felt something in that mother to son relationship.
    Henry Cavil also lacked some emotion. Russel Crowe and the Kevs Costner were pretty good and inspiring in their roles.
    To summarize my experience I cried more in the trailer than in the movie. That beeing said, it was not BAD! I only expected something greater.
    Expand
  68. Nov 13, 2013
    6
    Talk about failing upward. Zack Snyder's three previous films got exponentially worse. From 300, to Watchmen, to the almost unwatchable Sucker Punch, how Mr. Snyder was given the brass ring of rebooting the Superman franchise is beyond me. His visual style is unquestionable. There are frames that could be hung as artwork, but as a storyteller Snyder is ponderous and dull. Granted, Man Of Steel is his best work since 300 (I feel Dawn Of The Dead his best so far), and the set pieces are spectacularly staged, but 2 and a half hours of earnest, EARNEST material about a flying alien Christ figure is a bit much. The only hint of humor is the refusal to even say the name "Superman" (maybe spoken twice during the whole movie). I'm not saying we have to dive into the overdrawn characters of the Donner version, or people speaking in witty banter like The Avengers, but a little humor goes a long way. The acting across the board was fine..hey, I actually didn't hate Crowe, as I have most of his roles lately. And the technical credits were all first class. Expand
  69. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    And yet again, Superman franchise is reborn! The best thing about this movie is Henry Cavill, fits his role perfectly, actually all actors did amazing job! Main plot is good, but the story progression isn't. Action part is probably the best this year so far. It's a ok start for Superman saga, even though it's not flawless!
  70. Jun 14, 2013
    5
    The cinematography was excellently done, with beautiful sweeping shots of gorgeous environments and very professionally done CGI. The soundtrack was fairly well done by Hans Zimmer, but was nothing too spectacular in comparison to some of his other efforts.

    The film was a origin story, and yet could have been so much more had Snyder and Nolan attempted to flesh out the character of
    Kal-El, Clark Kent, and Superman. Instead the film and its makers settled for an action flick that required hardly any depth in dialogue or plot. Rather than creating a deep and engaging, character driven film complemented by the action that is to be expected from a Superhero film, Snyder relies on impressive explosions and fight sequences that leave much to be desired.

    The acting is to be praised. Henry Cavill does well enough with his character, but the most passionate performances come from Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent. Their relationship and the relationship with Clark could have been a fascinating story arc, but unfortunately was pushed aside for the action sequences and the "save the world" story arc that plagues superhero film tropes. Michael Shannon adequately fulfills his role as Zod, the villian.

    Ultimately this film will leave serious film goers disappointed, as it has little character driven story arcs and shallow dialogue. The film will attract those interested in a decent superhero story in comparison to Marvel's takes and who don't mind an action flick that relies on little else.
    Expand
  71. Jun 14, 2013
    7
    It's a DISASTER to put Nolan's name in Zack's film. They are in different league! One of the biggest disappointment in 2013. But I should give perfect score for Hans Zimmer!
  72. Jun 18, 2013
    7
    This score is generous and based on entertainment value. DO NOT walk into the theater ready to compare "Man of Steel" to the "Dark Knight" trilogy, because you will only leave disappointed. Having said that, this movie is entertaining. It serves up a massive amount of action, and the special effects are killer. My main issue with the movie was the fact that I never really felt like Superman was being legitimately threatened. The plot issues in every Superman movie are consistent; Superman is literally just better than everything. But hey, at least he is the most humble superhero in modern film. #seeit Expand
  73. Jun 19, 2013
    5
    Man Of Steel shows some promising aspects but is flawed. the relationship between Kal-El Henry Cavil) and Lois Lane Amy Adams) seemed unnatural and forced the battle scenes were repetitive and the climax was exceedingly disappointing and didn't stir any emotion within me apart from boredom Kevin Costner's touching performance as Jonathan Kent was the highlight of the film.
  74. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    Good, but not perfect. A decent Superman movie at the very least, but i've seen better superHERO movies. If I could give you one tip? Don't expect too much from Lois Lane. She's basically there to be stared at.
  75. Jun 14, 2013
    6
    The acting is universally good. The script is choppy as hell. The action is well staged, though the devastation wrought and Superman's indifference to it is horrifying. WBros obviously took to much to heart from the criticism of Superman Returns.

    I wanted more Clark Kent, and Pa Costner. Amy Adams is robbed of screen time.

    I wanted less CGI fighting, and more reasons to care. I was
    aghast at the casual treatment of the terrible destruction wrought and Superman's indifference to it. Oh look, I'll just punch General Zod through a building and murder thousands of people. WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE.

    Still, Russell Crowe is very good, even with the ridiculous hand waving at doors. Michael Shannon is very impactful as Zod. Cavill is great as Supes and I rooted for him. The flashbacks are where the lost heart of the movie reside.

    Not sure if I want Snyder back for MoS 2. Perhaps Brad Bird might be available?
    Expand
  76. Jun 14, 2013
    5
    Con un inicio prometedor, la historia cae lentamente hasta el hastío, las peleas se tornan repetitivas y aburridas, el tema compuesto por Hans Zimmer queda muy lejos del que hizo el legendario Jhon Williams.

    Para ser un reinicio, quizás debieron elegir una historia más breve, recuerda un tanto a Transformers 3, invasores extraterrestres queriendo recrear su mundo en el nuestro mientras
    de paso destruyen una ciudad.

    "Easter Eggs" apenas si son visibles, hay que estar muy atentos.
    Expand
  77. Jun 16, 2013
    6
    I feel this movie was lacking in heart and wholesomeness, something that I would have expected to find in a Superman origin story. This movie also failed to properly immerse me into, or even introduce me to, the world of Superman... and by "world" I mean Metropolis and Smallville. However, neither of these are my primary complaint. For a first installment of a franchise, this movie went overboard on its plot and action. My main complaint is that they needed to start on a smaller scale and give the sequels room to up the ante. Expand
  78. Jun 16, 2013
    5
    Strength: Visual Effects
    Weak: Kyptonian Society Premises.

    The has the best Kypton Myth and i concur but it could have been better if the script writers made kept closer adherence to the concepts of Plato, which would have made the Kyptonian Society much more viable. Instead, we have Russel Crowe mouthing haphazardly a single line, without justification, about the demerits of Krypton,
    like a sales person brushing off claims of excellence of his rival's products, and Superman, with visible lack of compunction, ripping apart Krypton's solution to the questions asked by all intelligent being about existence (the Genesis chamber ship) with his EYES (who can blame him? It is unlikely for twelve-year olds to be able to read beyond Plato's words). Anyone with a smattering of understanding about Plato's thoughts would have winced and railed at such scenes.

    Of course, it is the intention of the script writers to pitch freedom against societal pre-destination, with Superman, bastion of freedom, choosing to do Good and besting the best warrior of the totalitarian Krytonian society, who did 'Evil' in his attempts to fulfill his purpose of protecting his people.

    In the end, General Zod's death speech bespeaks a grander character in the man than in that of an alien in tights parroting about freedom and choice, as he is brought up to do.
    Expand
  79. Jun 16, 2013
    5
    While I'd hoped for an intro to an outstanding trilogy to die for which director Christopher Nolan succeeded to do in his making of "The Dark Knight" Trilogy, I got in return a 143 minute movie that contained 60 minutes of origin story, 60 minutes of a plot outline, 20 lousy minutes of fighting, and 3 minutes of Clark Kent's future life as the lover of Lois Lane and a citizen of Metropolis. All in all, I would say to wait for the movie to come out on DVD if you do however have interest of even seeing the movie at all. Expand
  80. Jun 17, 2013
    5
    If you go in with no expectations, and you can make it past the beginning, the movie is decent. It's not amazing. Three really good fight scenes trying to carry an otherwise boring movie that raises questions to people not familiar with the story in almost two and a half hours isn't helping the case.
  81. Jun 18, 2013
    1
    Although Cavill himself proves to be a perfect match for the role, the movie is destroyed by a horrific script, painfully bad camera work, and no understanding of human emotion or logic. DC's live-action movies continue to suffer from a lack of quality and continue their desperate need for a major overhaul.
  82. Jun 19, 2013
    2
    When I first found out about Man of Steel, I quickly assumed it's place in the world of cinema was to fill the void left behind by the recent, and also brilliant, Batman trilogy. While I didn't particularly expect something similar from a film with the same producer, I did at the very least expect something with a fraction of the quality.

    I found Man of Steel to be a rather soulless
    affair, missing that certain quality that drives you to feel for the plot and those within- a low standard easily achieved by the decidedly bland acting from the majority of the cast, lack of development in the characters, and the poor screenplay riddled with clichés.

    That said, the special effects were superb throughout, with only the camera shake effect becoming far too jarring and over-employed. It is for this reason that Man of Steel can only be described as a film that embodies the notion of style over substance. If you like the sound of a film that is overindulgent in explosions and tiresome action action sequences, this may be just the thing you're looking for.
    Expand
  83. Jun 19, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, I was very excited for this movie. Very excited. The opening scene was well done. They changed a few aspects of the storyline, but I am really okay with this. However, a lot of that changed once the story shifted to Superman and his background. All of the dialogue was extremely cheesy and hokey, very little made sense, most of the plot and scenes seemed thrown together in fact, although I was bored, I felt as though this was supposed to be a 4-hour movie that had someone cut random scenes out. It was actually that disconnected.

    Zod was probably the most redeeming aspect of this film, and Russell Crowe wasn't too bad. But there are too many poor aspects of this film to make it enjoyable for me, including the extremely overblown CGI and action, which actually made me feel that the director was trying to distract me from the rest of the movie, rather than entertain me. Here are some questions I pose.

    Was this movie really directed by Michael Bay? I've never seen so many explosions, and I saw the first Transformers movie 3 times in theaters.

    Amy Adams kept teleporting everywhere. Is she Nightcrawler?

    How come Superman has just met this woman, and is immediately in love with her? Is this the Notebook?

    Superman was struggling for (what we assume is) 20+ years with his power. One pep talk from his "dad" and now he has everything under control and can fly? How? And how come Zod just went "GRRR I'M A WARRIOR" and then could automatically fly? There was no learning curve, build up, or well... any logic, even in the fictional sense of logic. I guess my real question here is ...why?

    Three superhuman aliens are fighting, and one is protecting you. Why is our military wantonly shooting (with no effect) all three of them? And then declaring HE IS NOT OUR ENEMY like some 1984 computer? And on that note, how come nobody in the movie made mention of the weapons having no effect? "MORE BULLETS." Is this what we've reduced our military to? Pathetic.

    How come everyone in this movie magically knows what's going on? The plot seemed to move along so quickly and without consequence. Amy Adams makes this discovery. Her boss believes her but also ascertains she's right to keep quiet. Superman is satisfied with this result. Zod shows up. All within, what, 2 hours?

    The part that killed it for me, where I absolutely knew this movie was ruined, was when one of the chief officers of NORAD says, about a U.F.O. they know nothing about, including if it's a manned spacecraft, "Whoever's at the helm of that ship, he's lining up to make a dramatic entrance." Dumbest. Line. In the World. And this movie had many of them.

    Keeping in mind, there were some redeeming qualities. The action, although overblown, was somewhat entertaining although the "climactic" scene wasn't actually the "final" fight, and that next fight was dumb and reminded me of the Family Guy chicken fight. Some of the actors did okay, and.. that's about it. The opener was well done, too. But I already said all of this.

    If you loved Transformers 2, you'll love this. If you didn't, avoid this movie. And thank Michael Bay for the inspiration.
    Expand
  84. Jun 19, 2013
    3
    I wanted to like this movie, and it started out promising with some interesting development into Clark's past. Unfortunately, it quickly devolved into a completely boring, formulaic, unintelligent, twist-less, and one-dimensional good guy/bad guy movie, with about 60 straight minutes worth of repetitive action scenes that reminded me of Transformers 3 (which also, not coincidentally was well-reviewed by the mindless public, but despised by critics). Might be worth seeing for the first hour, but certainly at least wait for the dvd, or don't see it all. Expand
  85. Jun 20, 2013
    5
    I find too many things wrong with this movie and not enough right. 1) Movie isn't in chronological order, which is fine, but not when the scenes with the most emotion were put in the trailer. 2) Everyone loves an action scene that shows intense struggle with a realistic turn around. In this case the action was over extended and leaves of feeling of exhaustion. 3) Graphics are cool, but it doesn't make it cool to use it on everything. Clark Kent's body wasn't real, all the action looked more like a video than a movie, and it takes away a feeling of reality which is what a move of this nature should be about.

    4) The overall story line wasn't too bad, but they ruined it by making 30% of the movie based on action scenes that didn't contribute to the story.

    * At the end of it all, it had potential, great story line, and nice plotting. It was a shame that Znyder went with a more 300 approach than a Dark Knight.
    Expand
  86. Jun 20, 2013
    1
    Visuals: one of the best I've seen (espec in a blockbuster)
    Cast: ok, althought the actor of Superman has too big imho
    Storyline: same as 99% of blockbusters, this got me really sad. Imagine if they really put a GOOD, not braindead story with these visuals.. wouldn't that be magical? -3 points for griffindor for that.
    i think I'll add one more thing: if you have control of the
    spaceship, WHY on earth don't you simply remove the athmosphere and kill all the villains? Expand
  87. Jun 30, 2013
    0
    this is the worst superman i ever seen. this is not superman at all. the story is so far off from the original film.
    and he is so geeky, trying to be mucho. the original superman is more charming, brave, heroic.
    the new superman never saves anyone, he is crashing buildings and dont care about the people, that is not superman. NO, THE MOVIE WAS JUST STUPID!!! the only good in it was
    the special effects. Expand
  88. Jun 23, 2013
    1
    This movie is absolutely awful. The actors are all right, but the story has so many plot holes it just makes me angry. The action scenes are dull at best, and extremely repetitive. I almost walked out of this movie, and was happy when it ended. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
  89. Jun 23, 2013
    6
    I have been anticipating this movie for sometime now and can't help but feel disappointed. For those wanting a solid story look elsewhere. The action/special effects made up for what could've been a disaster.

    Pros:

    + Action
    + Special Effects
    + Good Casting For Superman

    Cons:

    - Story
    - Plot Holes
  90. Jun 23, 2013
    5
    I don't quite know how to put my experience of this movie into words.

    Probably the funniest movie I have seen in a long time, even though i'm not sure it was intended to be. A distinct lack of acting and emotions rivaled only by The Room or Nicholas Cage at his best. The story had no direction or narrative as well as some of the cringiest lines in holy wood, yet I wanted to laugh out
    loud at every one, towards the end having to use my fist to stifle the giggles.

    I think a friend best described as either, the worst film ever made or a new form of post-modern comedy that we are incapable of appreciating at this time.

    I would thoroughly recommend everyone go if they have the spare cash and a few hours to kill and are up for some so-bad-its-good gold. Alcohol may help get through the slower sections.
    Expand
  91. Jun 24, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie in the beginning after he was sent to Earth felt rushed to the point he found out he's from another planet and then after that it dragged out. You never got to see his childhood expect in flashbacks, which is another thing I didn't like about the movie. I would have loved to see his human parents finding him and showing him grow instead we saw him saving people on a boat, in the water, then somewhere else. I'm at least glad they showed his childhood though, the actors and actress were a good pick, they did well. The part in the movie where you see Clark watching his human father die was sad and well done, I almost cried. Overall I liked the movie in a sense that it was okay, but it will never live up to the original movie and comic books. Expand
  92. Jun 24, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was underwhelming considering the names associated with it. Much of the plot felt rushed and haphazardly pieced together. The relationship between Lane/Clark was severely underdeveloped, I really didn't feel their connection at all. There probably could have been about 30 minutes less of CGI in the ending.

    It was still entertaining, which is why I still gave it a dead-smack-in-the-middle 5. Lots of action, a pretty interesting story. I just expected more from the likes of Nolan and co.
    Expand
  93. Jun 24, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This review may be a bit biased since I've never been a huge fan of the Superman comic book however, as a film I found this one in particular to be completely uninspired and unoriginal. Hope this doesn't count as a spoiler but, the fate of Superman basically rests on a flash drive. Also the outdated CG made every character animated through it seem like rubber. Expand
  94. Jul 6, 2013
    6
    The terrible hype machine has played to much into this movie for me. I watched the movie in 2d and thank god I did the shaky and mass debris really put me off the action in man of steel, the story was done differently than expected and has its up and downs some good some bad, i felt the story tried to do to much and cram in way more than it could chew and clearly can see some rushed parts if they spaced it out and kept in one story mode, basically its the original Christopher reeves movies 1 and 2 meshed up and it suffers from being crammed into one movie. The acting was solid and holds the movie together and the cast deserves praise especially Antje Traue who completely stole it for me, while it would make a great blu-ray movie I cannot say this was the rip roaring summer blockbuster it was meant to be and if they didn't fill so much in so little time it would of made a great superman movie however my biggest memory of this movie was the debris factor so much flew around i couldn't make out what was happening to whom and where and since superman is about action i felt quite disappointed in what should be its strongest sequences and scenes the biggest problem is reviewing what is most likely going to be a series of movies and the development of Louis and Superman or Clark Kent not alot was hit upon on its starting settings which will be built upon in its blatant sequels. This isn't a bad movie but it isn't the new awesome superman that seemed to be promised this isn't what the dark knight movies did for batman but its not to far off but if a definitive sequel is made it will have to surely deliver more or suffer the same fate as the transformers. Expand
  95. Jul 7, 2013
    3
    For a film that included non-stop building destruction and overblown fit-for-children violence, Man of Steel not only manages to be uninteresting and dull, but partly laughable in stages.

    An unholy amount of back story and flashes drags the first half beyond reason, and the outrageous amount of fist fights between immortals and half of America's army in the second only further points
    the movie toward tedium. The scale and enormity of the violence is laughably trivial, that I had to wonder if I was watching the blockbuster version of Dragon Ball Z, where the violence never ends due to the borderline immortal characters.

    Except, a film must end. And ignoring the awful cast and characterization When a German actress playing a side role outdoes everyone else, you have a problem the final scene of action is so hilariously trite. Despite causing Billions of dollars worth of damage and no doubt killing thousands in the process, they tag a moral scene on at the end for Superman Yes, that is your name, despite the film's idea of subtlety which is not only irrelevant, but insulting.
    Expand
  96. Jul 7, 2013
    6
    This was a movie I wanted to like, and the acting, story, and special effects were all good. That being said, it was missing something I assumed would be a given for a superhero film, that feel good feeling you get when the hero wins. I'm not sure if it was the script, or the editing, but I found myself not caring if Superman would win (and it felt like he didn't care either). Lois was in only because she needs to be but didn't add the film. Overall I am glad I seen it, and you may love it, but it could should have been better. Expand
  97. Jul 8, 2013
    4
    What a disappointment, this film had such potential. Why is it the trailer contained all the beauty and humanity (and none of the inane action that the film did?) I should have known. There's a reason I don't see action movies (especially comic book ones) any more (I think the last one I saw was the first Iron Man). Story and great character development sacrificed to show us special effect CG characters hitting and banging and crushing and so on. I mean, how many buildings do we have to see Superman and his enemies get thrown through? The action sequences are what ruins this movie hands down. And WHO decided a shaky, vomit-inducing hand held camera was the best choice for the earth family human sequences? Will we ever turn back? Oh wait..."Pacific Rim" is just around the corner. Yeah, let's rush out to get in line... Expand
  98. Jul 11, 2013
    2
    This movie was good...about 10% of the time. The plot was confusing and jumbled, the characters were pretty dumb and most of them had 2 second screen time and had no meaning to the story of Superman at all, the acting was too overexaggerated and most of all, the movie was so boring that I would've enjoyed the Lone Ranger a lot more!
  99. Jul 11, 2013
    0
    this is the single worst thing I have ever seen in the theater. It's nothing but a bunch of noise and smashing around for at least half of the movie; the other half was incredibly slow; The two best acting jobs in it are Russell Crow and Kevin Costner; there's pretty munch no meaningful dialogue what-so-ever and none of the characters give you any reason to care about them. The best thing to do is wait until it comes out on video, then wait a little longer for it to air on TV, then change the channel and watch something else. Expand
  100. Jul 11, 2013
    1
    What a bore! Overblown, soulless, unimaginative, uninteresting, dull, dull, dull. You would be more entertained if you watched a couple of the Dean Cain Superman tv series. I couldn't make it to the end, and I was not he first to walk out of this movie tonight. Really, don't waste your time.
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 47 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 47
  2. Negative: 3 out of 47
  1. Reviewed by: Glen Weldon
    Jun 14, 2013
    60
    What it fails to supply much of — surprisingly, it must be said — is fun. This is serious business, Snyder seems always to be saying. This is badass. And given the sheer logistical size of the spectacle on display, it's a position that's hard to argue with.
  2. Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    Jun 14, 2013
    75
    The most striking and curious aspect of Man of Steel is the way it minimizes and even shuts out women.
  3. Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    Jun 13, 2013
    75
    David Goyer, who wrote the script for Man of Steel from a story he concocted with Christopher Nolan, found a new way to make us care: The title character is disturbed by everything in his adopted home.