New Superman Movie

[detourne_me]

I've been thinking a bit more about this new status quo for superman...

Spoiler

Lex Luthor should be able to salvage chunks of the Kryptonian scout ship and genesis chamber in order to make a Bizarro clone...
OR
The corrupted Jor-El AI from the scout ship could become Brainiac
OR
Brainiac could be another AI from one of the old outposts that returns to see Krypton destroyed.  It then goes into zealous archivist mode and begins scouring the universe for civilizations to record...finally coming upon Earth
OR
Obviously the 'Kryptonian Atmosphere' was a way to get around the Kryptonite problem, perhaps Brainiac's mothership includes 'bottling' facilities that would replicate the atmosphere, causing strife for supey.

[Shogunn2517]

Wait you preferred the 2nd Batman movie to Begins or Thor or Captain America? Those didn't quite sit right. Wow! we really really are on a different wavelength. That's cool though everybody's different.


Well, I'm seeing again on Tuesday with the wife and maybe Wednesday. Its doing well so a sequel has been greenlighted. I'm happy.

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

I mean, that notwithstanding, I like Batman Begins.  I definitely liked Thor and Captain America.  But the Dark Knight was on a whole other level.  So was The Avengers.  And that's not just with me.  Man of Steel is a good movie.  But there are problems with it.  Whether it's the script or the editing or character development, they stand out to a LOT of people.  Very much unlike The Avengers and The Dark Knight.  Despite that, this movie will make a lot of money, but it's Superman.  He's an American icon.  Even Superman Returns made a lot of money.

But wavelengths are wavelengths.  Not only do I NOT think The Green Lantern is the worst comic movie ever, but I thought Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies are among the greatest(like next to Avengers).  I didn't find out until recently that not only people prefer the last one(which agitates me greatly), but they didn't like Raimi's Spider-Man at all.  And that's even excluding the mess of the third one.

[steamteck]

Yep , I'm one of those few who intensely disliked the Dark Knight and can tell you its flaws for hours. I disliked it so much that Nolan's involvement with Man of Steel really really worried me. Benton is a Dark Knight fan compared to me. I've tried watching it multiple times but nope. I know its not the popular stance but that's me ( and fortunately my wife and best friend have the same opinion. ). My son and older daughter  consider it OK at best
.
I however really liked Rami's first two Spider-Man films  and think Amazing was fine but not quite up to Rami's

Green lantern had lots of decent moments and elements but they never quite came together for me. Hector Hammond should have been ones movie and the league the next one IMO. Mark Strong was a great Sinestro. I doubt there will be a better one.

[BentonGrey]

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha...

[Tomato]

For me it's a question of hindsight... at the time Dark Knight came out, I absolutely loved it. It did justice to one of my all time favorite batman villains (Two-Face), it had a crazy new twist on the Joker, it had crazy new gadgets and a complex story I thought was brilliant at the time. But, in retrospect, I've started to see all the cracks and plot holes in the film... I still enjoy it as a movie, but I'd place it at the same level as Iron Man rather than at Avengers level.

[Podmark]

Personally I love The Dark Knight, it's a thrill every time I watch. One of my favorite movies. Not saying it's perfect but there's nothing in it that bothers me.

Still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard some interesting things.

[detourne_me]

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha...

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

[BWPS]

Wow this movie was  incredible,  finally a really great Superman movie. I  was expecting to like it but was still blown away. The action was. really  something awesome and new,  and Henry Cavill was perfect.  I didn't even mind Amy Adams in this movie, she played Lois very well.  The Kryptonian  technology and planet and everything really added a lot.  I'm so excited to see what happens next,  they could do great stuff with other DC characters,  possibly even Wonder Woman.  Anyway, DC  needs to throw as much Christopher Nolan as they can afford at every movie they make,  and the same goes for Zach Snyder. His style is perfect for superhero movies that aren't Watchmen.

[steamteck]

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha...

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

I'll give you its the popular opinion. It doesn't make our long time  criticisms go away though.  It just means folks ( I really pray this isn't true) don't see them or like everything so much they don't care. The Dark Knight terrified me when it was so popular because I thought its plot hole ridden darkness and villain victory ending would become the norm but then we had thw marvel movies and , for me , the Superhero genre was saved. man of Steel , anyway, met or exceeded all my frankly pretty high expectations.
My wife and I are going to see it again today.

[steamteck]

For me it's a question of hindsight... at the time Dark Knight came out, I absolutely loved it. It did justice to one of my all time favorite batman villains (Two-Face), it had a crazy new twist on the Joker, it had crazy new gadgets and a complex story I thought was brilliant at the time. But, in retrospect, I've started to see all the cracks and plot holes in the film... I still enjoy it as a movie, but I'd place it at the same level as Iron Man rather than at Avengers level.

I actually envy you. it never wowed me and the plot holes and problems were evident from the first. I actually left the theater pretty angry. I try to watch it fresh every 6 to 9 months but it just seems to be worse than I remember each time while Batman begins has staying power with me. Obviously it spoke to lots of people though so it did something right.

[BWPS]

TDK is the greatest movie of all time.  Was it perfect? Yes.  Were there plot holes? No.

[martialstorm]

I enjoyed the TDK, but felt it was a little too Dark (and no I'm not after a recreation of the Adam West version), as far as an overall great experience and a choice for my kids to see, I'd rate Avengers no.1 and Batman Begins number two.

Sadly we don't get Man of Steel till June 27 over here.

[BentonGrey]

*Ignores BWPS*

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha...

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

If that's true, it makes me very, very sad that professionals would be so bad at their jobs. 

TDK is not a bad movie, but it's, as I've always sad, a pretty cripplingly flawed one.  It's got pretty amazing parts and has a lot going for it, but it's also a mess under the hood.  It's nowhere NEAR the best superhero movie, and nowhere NEAR as good as The Avengers.  In fact, I'd stack most of the Marvel offerings against it in terms of polish and completeness, not to mention mass appeal, but The Avengers is on a whole other level.

As for Man of Steel, I've heard enough good stuff about it, including from one of my best friends who is a massive Superman fan, that I'm going to bite the bullet and see it tonight.  Here's hoping it lives up to the hype!

[Talavar]

Man of Steel was pretty good, very good really - it's definitely the best Superman film (though IMO, that's a low bar to step over).  The major issue I had...

Spoiler

was in the brutally destructive final fight between Zod and Superman, there's almost no thought given to the human cost.  Are these buildings being destroyed left and right full of people?  You'd expect so, but there's no sign of it or mention, except for the folks at the Daily Planet, who we see escape, and the group of people at the end who Zod tries to incinerate.  All it would have taken is a line about the city being evacuated, or some apparent effort on Superman's part to take the fight out of the city.

Beyond that, I really like the Lois/Clark situation they've set up here.  It neatly curtails 2 of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years about Superman as a franchise - his glasses fooling Lois, who's supposed to be such a smart reporter, and the fact that this champion of truth and justice lies to everyone close to him constantly.  Lois being in on the deception reminds me of the best parts of them married in the comics, with her running interference for Clark to go off and be Superman.

Since we seem to be using thoughts on the Dark Knight as a taste barometer, my thoughts: TDK was a really good movie, and a pretty good Batman movie.  Is it the best superhero movie ever?  Debatable.  Maybe as a film, that happens to be about a superhero, but it's certainly not my favourite.  Is it the best movie of all time?  Certainly not.  Objectively not.

[detourne_me]

I'm of the same mind as you guys when it comes to TDK vs. Avengers too... Just pointing out popular opinion.
I think Talavar's analogy is pretty spot-on.... Low bar and all.
Although I'm thinking of revisiting the animated Superman movies again, particularly all-star and the Manchester Black one.  I really liked the Doomsday animated movie when I rewatched it recently too.

[BentonGrey]

I liked Superman and the Elite quite a bit.  All-Star is very ambitious in story, but it's just so strange and full of oddness that I'm still not quite sure what I think about it, though I enjoyed it.  The movie actually smooths out some of the rough spots of the comic, in my opinion, since it is forced to move at a faster clip, you don't notice some of the more confusing bits as much.  I actually recently used both of those as examples of good treatments of Superman that show his viability as a solo character.

I really want to get my hands on the Timm Superman series.  It was great, but it's been ages since I saw it.

Folks may like TDK, but I think any attempt to elevate it to the status of the greatest superhero movie ever is laughable.  Maybe if it had come out in the 90s, but the field is crowded with far too many better and less flawed movies.

[Shogunn2517]

That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

[Talavar]

That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

Re: the Dark Knight' vs the Avengers at the box office - I disagree.  The Avengers made more money than the Dark Knight both domestically and worldwide, by nearly 100 and 500 million dollars respectively.  The Dark Knight may have seemed to do better over a longer time, but I put that down to timing more than anything.  The summer movie season is always front loaded - the Avengers came out the first weekend in May, with major releases coming out every following weekend.  TDK on the other hand, was the last big movie of its summer, and competed for the following weekends with the dregs of the summer movie season, so it remained the "big movie" in the media for a longer time.  Despite that, the Avengers had a financially bigger 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th weekends than TDK.  Beyond that, their trajectories were very similar.  The Avengers is still the leader when you correct for rising ticket sale prices in the intervening 4 years.

Also: Timm's Superman, like Timm's Batman, is still the best interpretation of the character.

[BentonGrey]

Yep, Timm created the best of all superhero worlds.   I love what his Superman did with Brainiac, Metallo, Bizarro, and many others, though not quite as much with Darkseid, since Supes was able to go toe-to-toe with him, but that's still a very minor quibble.  His Clark was believable, his Superman interesting and exciting, the action was great, his Lois was absolutely PERFECT, and his Lex, as we all know from Superman and JLU, became the perfect version of the character, just as his Joker, Riddler, and Mr. Freeze in Batman.

[Shogunn2517]

That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

Re: the Dark Knight' vs the Avengers at the box office - I disagree.  The Avengers made more money than the Dark Knight both domestically and worldwide, by nearly 100 and 500 million dollars respectively.  The Dark Knight may have seemed to do better over a longer time, but I put that down to timing more than anything.  The summer movie season is always front loaded - the Avengers came out the first weekend in May, with major releases coming out every following weekend.  TDK on the other hand, was the last big movie of its summer, and competed for the following weekends with the dregs of the summer movie season, so it remained the "big movie" in the media for a longer time.  Despite that, the Avengers had a financially bigger 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th weekends than TDK.  Beyond that, their trajectories were very similar.  The Avengers is still the leader when you correct for rising ticket sale prices in the intervening 4 years.

Also: Timm's Superman, like Timm's Batman, is still the best interpretation of the character.

Not to be argumentative(because I probably ultimately liked the Avengers more anyway), I think what I was talking about can be illustrated here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=avengers11.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=darkknight.htm

Obviously, I know the Avengers made more money domestically and worldwide than The Dark Knight.  However, The Dark Knight not only was in the top 10 longer than The Avengers, but it also had a long box office run than the Avengers.  I know we're effectively splitting hairs at this point.  And you may be absolutely right about the timing of the releases(The Avengers had to compete with The Dark Knight's sequel to boot).  What you're attributing The Dark Knight's longevity to there being nothing else to see, I attribute it to being more appealing to more audiences than general summer movie fans or comic fans.  You might be right, so I'm not prepared to argue this.

Benton, I agree with a lot of what you said, but in regards of the Superman/Darkseid fights(which were wildly entertaining), Darkseid set the bar by absolutely punking Superman in "Apokalips Now" but throughout it, I agree with you.  Dana Delaney doesn't get enough credit.  Actually all of this Timm talk is making me want to rewatch all three(or five depending on how you see it) series Batman(Batman and Robin), Superman, Justice League(Justice League Unlimited).

[BentonGrey]

Shogunn, I may be misremembering the Darkseid episodes a bit, so that may be.  I just seem to remember Superman showing a bit too well against Darkseid, throughout the Timmverse...but then again, Darkseid's power levels have fluctuated since Kirby created him.  Either way, I definitely agree that the fights and appearances with Darkseid in both series were fantastically entertaining!

[steamteck]

In the Timmverse, Superman was definitely the underdog vs Darksied until the final episode and the "world of cardboard" speech moment. I'm not opposed the Superman winning but he should feel he barely scraped by and the next time could easily go to Darksied and he should not defeat him regularly. I made the big sacrifice and rewatched the Darkseid  battles in Justice league and Superman TAS.

[steamteck]

That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

I can behind that. The time he had to develop and get more complex ( pretty amazing in a cartoon) and his interactions with the rest of the cast and the league were amazing.

[oldmanwinters]

Hey, folks, just call me a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Man of Steel after party.

I liked the movie, but I didn't love it as I hoped I might.  I'll confess I'm a big fan of the Nolan Batman movies (especially Dark Knight), but I don't necessarily want to see all DC movies forced into that mold.

I'm actually polishing off my own blog post critique of Man of Steel, so I'll share it here for the sake of opening myself up to criticisms from more seasoned comic book aficionados:

Spoiler

Snyder's Man of Steel takes place on an ambitious scale; there's epic battles that take place in the glistening skyline of Metropolis, a little farm in Kansas, the frigid wasteland of the Arctic, and a galaxy far, far away.  But for what feels like an hour, all the locales kind of blend into one another as Superman's various super-battles seem to take place simultaneously.  At one point, I was confused on where exactly Superman was supposed to be while all the action was going on someplace else.  He was off risking his life trying to destroy some death machine in a remote spot over the Indian Ocean while a building almost fell on some key staff members of the Daily Planet.  But suddenly, he was conveniently back in Metropolis in time to catch Lois Lane who just so happened to be falling out of an airplane.

The plot featured some fantastic moral dilemmas for Superman such as whether he ought to secure the survival of his Kryptonian race or else doom them to extinction because such a fate might be in the best interests of the the Earthlings.  That's some pathos almost worthy of Shakespeare!  Regrettably, all the emotional weight of that decision was thrown by the wayside in the name of packing the movie with seemingly endless fight scenes and "disaster porn" (that was legendary DC scribe Mark Waid's term).  We never really had time to worry about how Superman would solve his no-win situation; there was always another building toppling over to distract us from feeling any anxiety.

This movie had the right idea on how to do Superman "different but good" in the year 2013. However, I can't help but think that Snyder may have decided to quit work early on this flick and just entrusted the CGI wizards to finish out the 2.5 hour run-time with oodles of action that doesn't necessarily have any point to it.  That mentality has become the industry standard for most big-budget action movies in the last couple of decades, and that's too bad since Superman deserves better.  Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner famously made us believe that a man can fly way back in 1978, while Snyder and crew apparently wanted to convince us that a flying man can single-handedly fight off an alien invasion and devastate a major American city in the process.  Truth be told, Joss Whedon and those plucky Avengers did a much better job at damage control and collateral damage than Superman (and given all their wisecrackin' antics, they probably had more fun doing it too).  And with despite all the flurries of furious fisticuffs exchanged between Superman and Zod, sometimes it seems the characters (and we the audience) tend to forget why exactly they hate each other so much.

Man of Steel is an enjoyable film to sit through once, but I don't really have any compelling reason to sit through it again. It's a movie that hits you in the face with everything on the first ride, and I didn't sense enough subtlety to warrant a closer inspection.  Even though this movie wasn't the film I hoped it would be, I hope it continues succeeding in the box office to lay a sustainable foundation for sequels and the off-chance of a good Justice League movie. Lukewarm "critical" reviews notwithstanding, most people I know who have seen the movie say they like it.

[BWPS]

oodles of action that doesn't necessarily have any point to it.

I can accept that that's your opinion and the rest of my opinion isn't directed at your review but for me, that's what made this such a great movie.

I compare MoS to the widely-panned box office flop/film masterpiece Speed Racer where the action and visuals are their own reward. Critics said that movie was bad because it didn't develop a good plot? Yeah, and the Mach 6 wasn't a good car because it got terrible gas mileage? Similarly, the nonstop action in this movie is literally the best thing about Superman. I really really wanted to see Superman fight and holy crap did this deliver.

Critics are judging a movie on some action movie Rubik that only exists because of Star Wars. They decide what the movie should be beforehand and tick the boxes, nevermind that it had enough of the first column to make your brain explode and a new category that you haven't seen. It has to have the balance of a rugged wisecracking character, it has to have a twist, it has to have someone have some kind of redemption and blah blah yadda etc. Those things are great and all, but different kinds of movies actually exist.

The other critique that I hear all the time is that Superman isn't human or that he isn't interesting or (basically) that he isn't Batman. This really makes my nuts ache. Superman is a good guy, and good guys are awesome. I was worried that the tone of the movie would be reflected in the character, changing part of what makes Superman so awesome. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. Supes was perfect in this movie at being such a handsome and strong fighter and a really nice guy who just wants to help people with his laser eyes and head-punching skills. Batman is awesome, but Superman is a different character. Martian Manhunter is ridiculous and will never get a movie. Once again, if you don't like Superman, or over-the-top action, or not having a [Han Solo/Indiana Jones/John McClane/Tony Stark]-type character to root for, that's okay. But it doesn't make it a bad movie and critics shouldn't have such a narrow-minded approach to action movies.

Wow I am so smart about movies, you guys are welcome for the treasure that is made in my brain.

[oldmanwinters]

Heh, fair enough, BWPS.

I did LIKE the movie for all its special effects craziness, but I simply couldn't love it.

And when it comes to my ideal movie template for a sci-fi "Revenge!" movie, I actually had Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan in my mind a little more so than Star Wars.   

I liked Superman and the Elite quite a bit.  All-Star is very ambitious in story, but it's just so strange and full of oddness that I'm still not quite sure what I think about it, though I enjoyed it.  The movie actually smooths out some of the rough spots of the comic, in my opinion, since it is forced to move at a faster clip, you don't notice some of the more confusing bits as much.  I actually recently used both of those as examples of good treatments of Superman that show his viability as a solo character.

Hey, I recently saw Superman Vs. the Elite for the first time and really appreciated it!  Now I really want to track down Action Comics #775 which inspired the adaptation!

And I really like All-Star Superman; I think DC was bold to adapt the story into film, and it's probably my favorite of the DCU Animated movies.

[steamteck]

I watched again  it tonight with the wife and two younger girls everybody loved it. The theater was packed and the audience was very reactive. Everyone actually clapped at the end of the film.
on the Superman isn't human thing. He may of been like a god physically but he seemed very human to me.

[oldmanwinters]

on the Superman isn't human thing. He may of been like a god physically but he seemed very human to me.

Hey, the guy grew up in Kansas!  You can't get much more American than that!

[BentonGrey]

Alright, I just got back from seeing this.  Until the end I was prepared to say that this was the best Superman movie we've gotten so far, though that is, as others have mentioned, a piteously low mark to shoot at.  However, the climax left me furious.  How dare they.

Quick thoughts:

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
-They once again managed to produce a Superman movie that was boring in spots.  That's impressive.  Lots of action in the beginning doesn't make up for pointless and aimless meandering in the middle.
-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.

Overall, I would be mildly disappointed, though hopeful for a sequel, if not for the unforgivable ending.

[Shogunn2517]

Thanks Benton.  I figured you'd see some of the same problems I did.

However, I will say this:

Spoiler

Clark not saving his dad, I think, was essential to his persona.  He was so dead set on keeping his identity secret and being so unSuperman he'd even let his own father die to protect his identity.

So why were they so cavalier with the secret identity through the movie?