I would still enjoy the Man of Steel.

    I'm writing this as a reply to all the film critics out there that are saying less than stellar things about the new film Man of Steel.  I'll have to admit that I do have a bit of a bias when it comes to enjoying all things Superman.  Though as a faithful fan of the "Boy Scout" I should probably dislike this film.  Some Superman fans have been angry at the changes made to Superman with this new film.  I think this film is a nice change of pace to all previous incarnations of the Blue Bird.  Though the critics seem to think, that he's been made into just another brooding outsider.

   This is my take away from watching the film.  There was very little strong character development in this first film.  I am sure that can be said about lots of films that were made with hopes for squeals to follow.  The character development of the first Star Wars film was very lacking.  How can you criticize something like character development when you've been living with the culture of Superman for years and years before.  Saying that there isn't any character development to the film like this one is like saying, you upset with the fact that you ordered a pizza, but were not told that there was cheese and tomato sauce along with the toppings you ordered for it.  There are things that you should know as a given when going to see a film that already has a history to it.   I actually found more character development in this film for the villain, General Zod, than in Superman 2.  Both characters I found have their place in the stories they are in, but I found there to be much more depth in this Zod, than in the one from the 80s.  There is more of a focus on what the world of Krypton was really like, and a little less of what earth is like.  Which is something all the previous Superman films lacked severely.  This film did an excellent job of bringing to light the world that Krypton was, and how it crumbled. Giving an important lesson in it that power and decadence will ultimately destroy a civilization.  The current quotes I am reading seem to skip over that aspect and focus mainly on how they think this is some kind of "The Dark Knight" clone.

Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly:"'Dark Knight'-style makeover never quite comes together. Sure, Superman is still faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive. ... But he's been transformed into the latest in a long line of soul-searching super-brooders, trapped between his devastated birth planet of Krypton and his adopted new home on Earth. He's just another haunted outsider grappling with issues."

    This kind of view in that quote is kind of a "I want my cake and to eat it too."  All my life I have been laughed at for being a bigger fan of Superman and not Batman.  Batman is the dark brooding mysterious hero.  So much depth so much struggle with his emotions and moral code.  Where all I hear about Superman is, he's boring.  He's good, he never dose anything bad he just  has no depth like Batman.  So when I see a film that gives that similar dark moral struggle that Batman has, given to Superman, people complain that it isn't like Superman.  Well you can't have it both ways people.  You want Superman to stay Superman "boring" as many have said?  Would you like him to be given a bit of depth and focus on his own moral struggle, which is that he could just as easily become the planet's ruler instead of its protector.  You can't have both, so when you go with one people complain about the lack of the other. If you put out the stigma that no one likes Superman because he's too goody of a good guy, you can't complain when some one tries to tarnish the sparkling image to give him some depth.  There is even more depth given to Kal El at the very start of the film.  His birth, it was very different from all the other living Kryptonians.  I'm not sure if anyone else really thought of that aspect of it.  If you're confused, I suggest you watching the film it is subtle if you're not really thinking about it.

  Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: "Given the 'Dark Knight' trilogy's Nolan and Goyer's involvement, it's no surprise that 'Man of Steel' is conceptualized in the Batman mold, a dark end of the street extravaganza where, theoretically at least, epic vision would be joined with dramatic heft. It hasn't worked out quite that way.

   I feel that critics of this film seem to focus mainly on the films they know of Superman and not the depth he is given in his comics.  They complain that this isn't the same kind of light heated silly Superman that it was in previous films.  Which is almost laughable to say.  What do they think a "re-boot" "re-imagining" is suppose to be?  Just spit shine Superman and Superman 2, and put them back in theaters if that is what they were hoping for? No wonder they dislike this film.  What happened to the Superman films is the same thing that happened to the Batman films, the first two that Tim Burton released were fairly Gothic and dark in nature, but gradually they got more and more cartoon like and silly, until Batman Begins.  I'm sure if the Man of Steel was just as lighthearted and silly as the previous Superman films, the critics would complain that nothing about the concept of Superman has changed.  This film had everything I was hoping for the film to be.

Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian: "This is a great, big, meaty, chewy superhero adventure, which broadly does what it sets out to do, though at excessive length. What I missed were the gentle, innocent pleasures of Superman's day-to-day crimefighting existence.... Due to the cataclysmic battle in this film, much of the Man of Steel's mystery and novelty have been used up. Subsequent adventures may lose altitude."

 I think the grand scale of this is prefect for Superman.  The massive cataclysmic fighting and events unfolding in this film are the same kind that took place in the first two films.  The splintering of the North American continent in the first film and the attack of the 3 Kryptonian criminals in the second film. In fact it is both of them combined if you look at it. I'm not sure where this, not enough day to day crime fighting, is coming from that this critic is pointing out.  There are a few places where Superman is simply rescuing innocents.  If you where hoping to see him to rescue a cat from a tree for a little girl, that is probably why it isn't in the film, because it was something you were expecting, clearly they were trying to avoid that kind of silly lighthearted heroics.  Maybe they will give that more of a focus in the next film before the main threat arrives.  Given the way critics are treating this film thought I don't know how likely there will be a second film.

Stephanie Zacharek, the Village Voice: "'Man of Steel' is a movie event with an actual movie inside, crying to get out. Despite its preposterous self-seriousness, its overblown, CGI'ed-to-death climax, and its desperate efforts to depict the destruction of, well, everything on Earth, there's greatness in this retelling of the origin of Superman, moments of intimate grandeur, some marvelous, subtle acting, and a superhero costume that's a feat of mad mod genius."

The massive threat to the Earth and the grandeur of the fighting at the films ending is necessary, how else is this alien suppose to gain the trust, all be it shaky, of the planet, if he hasn't saved it from utter destruction?  If the final fight looked more like a boxing match; than two beings with unimaginable strength fighting at the end of the film, it would be very Super would it?  Saying that there is too much Super Power fighting and effects in this film is like saying, There are to many cowboy hats in a Clint Eastwood western.  I didn't see this kind of criticism pop up in the Avengers Assemble film.  There was just as much CGI fighting and effects in that film as this one.

 Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post: "The chief problem here is one of rhythm and balance in the storytelling and directing. The movie swings between destructive overstatement and flat-footed homilies."

I'll have to agree with some of this, the pace of the film was a bit off.  There were events in the film that, rather being a slow build up to a grand action scene, it was inter mixed in with flash backs of story development.  This caused the tempo of the film to feel choppy and a bit melodramatic when it should be moving at a faster pace to keep up with the action it was just displaying.  That aside think the breaks in the film added a moment of reflection to think about what exactly was happening, and why it was happening.  For me it was a moment to think about the perspective of General Zod,  I found myself looking at him as less of a villain and more of just some determined to see his race survive.  This was the same dream that Jor El had for this people, but unlike Zod he understood that due to the nature of their lives, they could not be a part of that new world.  I found this to be the most tragic and sad thing about Zod, he just couldn't see past his given destiny.  Unlike Kal El, he was a slave to the Kryptonian past. Something that Jor El knew and was a well placed plot device to explain why he did not escape Krypton with his son.

This is my conclusion, this film was a perfect start to a re-imagining of the character of Superman,  one that struggles with his morality, who is more human than Kryptonian, which being raised as a human would have the same emotional traits as one.   Although he is Kryptonian physically his heart and soul are rested in the love of his adopted planet.  The feats he preforms in this film to save the planet are what earn the trust of the American government to not be consider a out right enemy of the state.  Though it is clear that they still hold their complete trust back, at the end of the film.  I would hope and love to see more of this story unfold,  I think it is being misjudged by critics, and I normally find most of their opinions to be agreeable.  My advice would be to go see this film, it is very good,  I found myself weeping, laughing and even silently cheering to myself through out the film.  I'm normally one for the evil side of a story,  I've constantly find myself cheering for a villain over a hero, and quietly sad when I see them fail.  Though I have always found Superman to be my most revered of super heroes.  This is because he has the ability to take over the planet on a whim, yet he instead defends and protects the planet as if he were the same as its inhabitants.  The restraint in that power has always fascinated me.  Love it or hate it, go see it and judge for yourself. This is just my perspective and concepts of this film, I'm just a scoundrel.

Ian