Celebrating 17 Years of Film.Biz.Fans.
by Eric Kohn
June 10, 2013 11:00 PM
  • |

How 'Man of Steel' Makes Every Other Superman Movie Look Like an Indie

Henry Cavill in "Man of Steel."
The opening minutes of "Man of Steel" depict a very expensive world. Krypton, the ill-fated planet that even people who actively avoid pop culture recognize as Superman's birth place, comes alive in the prologue of Zack Snyder's snazzy update with some of the finest special effects this side of "Avatar." A single virtual camera pan across Krypton's golden vistas reveals an intricately defined fantasy land filled with remarkable details: braying alien livestock, towering structures and airborne spacecraft instantly define a Krypton unlike anything achieved in 80 years of comics, movies, TV and videogames, but the story can't keep up. Instead of making a blockbuster Superman movie, Snyder has turned the Superman narrative into yet another modern day blockbuster.

Impressive in parts, scattered and blandly familiar in others, "Man of Steel" attempts to rejuvenate its hero with a whole lot of big ideas stuffed into a dense assemblage that alternates between visual wizardry and complicated non-linear plot ingredients, some better than others. However, in contrast to the Richard Donner films that practically invented the guidebook to superhero movies, "Man of Steel" is practically a reinvention of the Superman mythos. The earlier entries in the franchise enlivened the character with genre elements like comedy and romance that -- as with Joss Whedon's delightful "The Avengers" last year -- balanced off the demand for extreme spectacle. Even Bryan Singer's unfairly maligned 2006 take, which bored audiences who obviously wanted a more explosive good time, nobly placed the colorful nature of Superman's plight ahead of the action.

While certainly the most dazzling Superman movie to hit the big screen, the 143-minute "Man of Steel" is also the longest, and it only justifies that heft because it leaves room to keep the effects coming.
"Man of Steel" takes a more self-serious approach, constructing a sullen tale involving Superman's emerging commitment that (perhaps due to producer Christopher Nolan's "Batman" influenced hand) almost never cracks a smile. Superman's inviting persona has even been drained from the title. Here, the dreary atmosphere underscores unremitting commitment to a brooding storyline that creates the illusion of meaning behind the abundant CGI. Unlike its predecessors, it would be impossible to imagine "Man of Steel" without the excessive production values, which start to take hold after the unquestionably compelling first hour and eventually subsume other, more promising ingredients hinted at during that time. At first, "Man of Steel" attempts an outstanding fusion of pricey imagery and narrative finesse. By the end, Henry Cavill's subdued performance in the lead role is the sole element of restraint left onscreen.

While certainly the most dazzling Superman movie to hit the big screen, the 143-minute "Man of Steel" is also one of the longest, and it only justifies that heft because it leaves room to keep the effects coming. David Goyer's screenplay establishes a high stakes showdown between Superman and the menacing General Zod (Michael Shannon on autopilot, his creepiness downgraded to a half-interested scowl), another surviving Kryptonian whose emergence from prison following the planet's destruction leads him to try and destroy Earth in the hopes of making room for a new Krypton.

In the early scenes, Zod is revealed to have murdered Superman's dad, Jor-El (Russell Crowe), in the days leading up to Krypton's demise. But it's not clear if Superman ever learns this from the digital remnants of his father who trains him in his arctic headquarters some 33 years later. When Zod shows up, he's just a bad guy that Superman must stop against impossible odds. 

READ MORE: The Playlist Reviews "Man of Steel"

That's a reasonable conundrum for this type of overly familiar fare, but the movie arrives there after establishing an especially intricate scenario in which the naturally intrepid reporter Lois Lane (a decently assertive Amy Adams) discovers Superman's secret and decides to sit on the story while he figures out his origin. Superman's own upbringing down south at the hands of amiable foster parents (a bland Kevin Costner and underutilized Diane Lane) unfolds in several flashbacks that elaborate on the challenges the young Clark Kent faces in keeping his powers to himself. The movie attempts the clever trick of telling both these stories at once with an overlapping structure that would make the creators of "Lost" swoon, but it's still an excessively dreary affair that lacks any sense of Superman's personality. Instead, he's just another fancy effect from Snyder's bag of tricks. It's easy to get swept up in the rollercoaster of buildup, but the climax is just a yawn.

But, oh, that bag of tricks. "I can't print this," Louis' trenchant editor (Laurence Fishburne) says after receiving her first draft of her unpublished Superman scoop. "You could have hallucinated half of it." When "Man of Steel" comes to a close, viewers can relate. And once they come back down to Earth, perhaps warmer memories of the Supermen no longer considered viable will come rushing back. In "Man of Steel," Superman never suffers from exposure to fragments of Kryptonite. His single weakness -- and the movie's, after promising earlier bits drop off to make room for the extravagant conclusion -- is depth.

Criticwire grade: C+

You might also like:


  • Ren | September 5, 2013 3:01 PMReply

    C+ is actually pretty generous considering how horrible this atrocity of a superhero movie was.

  • raphael | June 25, 2013 1:33 PMReply

    fingers crossed!!!!!

  • raphael gouthier | June 25, 2013 1:31 PMReply

    Great review. It somehow is and most certainly believable compared to previous reviews I read. And not to sound mean or anything I dont need a movie review to tell me whether or not I should watch this film. once i feast my eyes on this film i will make my own assessment.

  • Joey1013 | June 13, 2013 10:07 PMReply

    I doubt half the reviewers actually saw the movie. People whoever never saw the movie join the bag-wagon. Obviously no one is comic fan on this site. Superman lost his red tights since 52 reboot for good reason. No reason for him to wear underpants on outside. Every comic had changed this stupid look on all their super heroes (sorry folks but underpants doesn't make them more heroic just stupid looking just saying).
    I will see for myself on the movie. As for reviewer, I doubt he even read Superman comics to even comment on Superman. A lot of Reviewers are just fanboys of Marvel or just hate Superhero movies so they put false reviews. Movie is not officially out until today. I doubt reviewers were at all those special showing of Man of Steel.

  • Jordan | June 13, 2013 9:36 AMReply

    Haven't seen the movie yet but good job sticking it to that idiot below. It always amazes me how Nietzschean concepts bring these morons out of the woodwork - you dispensed with him nicely.

  • goldman | June 13, 2013 7:24 AMReply

    This film distorted and icon with no specific purpose. Great review.

  • KitCon | June 12, 2013 10:24 PMReply

    Agree with you 100%. Excellent review

  • Raymond | June 12, 2013 7:30 PMReply

    It's the costume that kills me. He just doesn't look like superman. I like the way the guy looks, he has a cool look to him and it makes me want to give the movie a shot (I'm not really gay, but comfortable enough with my sexuality to say that) but then I see him in costume and I'm like, nope, never mind. This whole nitty gritty comic book superhero thing worked with batman because the darkness was there already, submerged by years of bad TV and Comic Book adaptations sure, but there, and waiting to be exploited. Superman though, is a shiny super hero ideal super human, that is the whole point of his character. I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on how faithful it was to him on that level, but looking at him it makes me think hollywood has just done it again.

    That aside, don't worry if people say your movie sucks fans, all Hollywood movies suck (gasp! it's true, just accept it). Hollywood movies generally suck hard, the batman films, with the exception of the Dark Knight, all sucked, the spider man films sucked, Iron Man and the Avengers didn't try to aspire to anything so it's kind of unfair to say they sucked, plus, Joss Whedon. But yeah, they weren't exactly great movies. That's fine. Great Movies are generally boring (with few exceptions) so just enjoy your sucky movie and go on with your life.

  • gyna | June 12, 2013 12:36 PMReply

    Great Review Eric.

  • Irene | June 12, 2013 1:59 AMReply

    I am an NYU graduate of American history. Superman encodes our collective target of goodness and ethics. Your review shows that the current man of steel has abandon this coding to produce a mediocre soap opera. Thanks for finding the courage to state this. C+ is generous though.

  • donald | June 12, 2013 1:31 AMReply

    Way to go Eric, Finally a review of the man of steel worth reading.

  • arthur | June 12, 2013 1:26 AMReply

    Finally a reviewer have the guts to state the obvious fact: This is mediocre movie exploiting an icon on Americana to create a new version of a "human" super hero. for US, children of other epochs, who grew up with Superman as the embodiment of selflessness and honesty this film doe not resonate. For children of today, this film has no value content; so... look at the comments below to find out who the producers this film were targeting

  • uri | June 12, 2013 1:09 AMReply

    Finally somebody pays homage to tradition. This is a very lucid review

  • uri | June 12, 2013 1:08 AMReply

    Finally somebody pays homage to tradition. This is a very lucid review

  • ron | June 12, 2013 1:04 AMReply

    From all the reviews I have read about this film, this I by far the most informative, honest and original. Thanks a lot Mr. Kohn.

  • Matthew K. | June 11, 2013 8:14 PMReply

    Interesting review, but it is so long-winded and convoluted that it defeats it's purpose. Just because you've got the space to write anything you want, doesn't mean you shouldn't self-edit and do some smart re-writing and tightening. A good dismissal of this movie can be written well and written smart and written solid. This thing meanders and explains too much and becomes utterly boring, almost exhausting.

  • Julie | June 11, 2013 6:14 PMReply

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Eric Kohn for articulating why I felt sad after I walked out of an early screening of Man of Steel. Although, I thought it was a decent enough film. It just didn't feel like a Superman movie. I love the original 1978 Superman with Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder. As a huge Superman fan in general, I was disappointed. You articulated it best as to what's wrong with the film and why. It's a blockbuster movie. It's not Superman movie. Sigh.

  • Michael Stever | June 11, 2013 4:33 PMReply

    My first instinct would be to steer clear of any film, (or their 'PR' department) that would 'dismiss' all the previous films of its namesake that came before it. It's a COLOSSAL slap in the face on virtually every conceivable level. This film's press-machine really needs to re-think it's strategy where that's concerned. Secondly, I find the general hostility here in the comments section extremely unfortunate, and DOUBLE sad where our 'collective consciousness' is concerned compared to when Richard Donner's epic, truly groundbreaking 1979 'Superman: The Movie' inspired people to believe that a man could really fly.

  • MiltonTown | June 11, 2013 1:18 PMReply

    Worst review ever

  • Reviewer | June 11, 2013 3:00 PM

    Worst comment ever

  • ANON | June 11, 2013 12:26 PMReply

    You people are the most pathetic losers walking the planet. Getting all butthurt because someone didn't like your "precious" Superman movie. Film critics don't have to conform with you fanboy fantasies. The movie is not that good---deal with it.

  • miltontwins | June 11, 2013 12:02 PMReply

    Fanboys/girls bitching because one guy didn't like their movie.

  • Ken Nott | June 13, 2013 5:13 AM

    Yup, and we have Michelle below offering deathless advice on how to write, whilst demonstrating that she can't even control her punctuation.

  • michelle germann | June 11, 2013 1:42 PM

    I never got hurt because he didn't like the movie. I got annoyed because he didn't have a serviceable command of the English language, he didn't fact check and he managed silly mistakes that made the article sound ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, electronic media, should leave him expecting to be corrected.

  • Drew | June 11, 2013 11:49 AMReply

    I feel sorry for you. Haters are gonna hate.

  • fdsf | June 11, 2013 8:31 AMReply

    thanks for the spoiler, you incompetent retard

    if all pretentious film critics like you figured out how to write without fluffing your word count with spoilers, then maybe film critics would be respected instead of laughed at

    please kill yourself, trashcan

  • Ken Nott | June 13, 2013 5:16 AM

    FSDF. And your teacher could have educated you better on punctuation, capitalisations, and the difference between rapier pointscoring and boring ad hominem abuse.

  • Fdsf | June 11, 2013 9:54 AM

    Hey "NO"

    Keep your disgusting, uneducated blue collar mouth shut.


  • No | June 11, 2013 9:36 AM

    What could the reviewer spoil when you know that Superman will prevail? It's A FUCKING MOVIE REVIEW!! DON"T READ ONE BEFORE THE FILM OR ANY FILM, CRY BABY!!

  • comicbookguy | June 11, 2013 6:36 AMReply

    i've read all of the bad reviews like i do with every movie i'm stoked about and in this case they all say the same thing. It's not like richard donners film....... now look i LOVED those movies when i was a kid but as i got into comic books and graphic novels i realized something, those movies were kinda bad. people treat those films like there the superman bible, like you can't have your own idea about superman mythology. in a way it's starting to make me wish those movies were never even made

  • Michelle Germann | June 11, 2013 1:54 PM

    I also fell in love with those two original films, the first was the very first movie that my mom and dad took me to see in the theater. I admittedly didn't find the comics until the early 90s, when I absolutely fell in love with where Superman had traveled to (as well as a lot of other comics). People want to revere Reeves/Donner, and they just don't realize that those movies actually were out of date to some degree by the time they came out. Comics evolved so much in the 70s/80s, leaving me with the impression that most of these people would not believe that stories like The Killing Joke; Man of Steel; Kingdom Come and For The Man Who Has Everything ever happened. The background material for Superman is so rich, but people want to leave that all on the shelf in favor of remembering Christopher Reeves.

  • Joe Hall | June 11, 2013 5:38 AMReply

    After seeing the movie myself tonight, I gotta say, this reviewer is simply wrong in so many ways. This is why brown people do not belong giving opinions on American clasics, they do not understand what it is to be a hero for this country nor do the brown people understand American cultire and what this country was founded on. Snyder does! MOS was the most mind blown movie I've seen in many years!!!! What a horrible review done by a brown nigger!!!

  • Me | September 9, 2013 4:34 PM

    Apply to Brown again next year.

  • ren. | June 24, 2013 8:12 AM

    My bad, I meant I'm with what *ERIC said.

  • Ren. | June 13, 2013 2:01 PM

    Yeah, I'm with what JOE said... congrats on making yourself look like a racist prick, you fucking asshole. Get your internet privileges revoked

  • Eric | June 12, 2013 1:06 AM

    congratulations on being a ignorant piece of shit on the internet. well fucking done.

  • Tim | June 12, 2013 12:34 AM

    Oh good grief! Learn proper grammar! If you are going to have the gall to insult an entire race for what you perceive to be inferiority, at least do it with spell check. Your post is just dripping with irony.

  • roddymartindale | June 11, 2013 12:00 PM

    'Cause racism is just the way to defend a film you've liked. Think you've missed the point of what Superman -- created by two Jewish guys, btw -- is supposed to stand for.

  • comicbookguy | June 11, 2013 6:39 AM

    hey joe hall i won't stoop to your level , but if superman were real he'd use his heat vision on you just enough to give you a tan so you could be brown too. then maybe you could join the rest of us in the sun
    from some brown guy ;-)

  • safichan | June 11, 2013 4:56 AMReply

    this guy...whatever his name is...i am very sure he rushed to make this review...clearly there are many mistakes in his article...just for what?? Just to say man of steel is bad...funny...really funny...how can he become a top reviewer in rotten tomatoes?? He even gave lords of salem B+...gold comedy...

  • logicalwriter | June 11, 2013 3:47 AMReply

    The problem I had with the film was the lazy writing. I'll vaguely touch upon these areas in order not to spoil it too much.


    The entire 3rd act is action. Zod is vanquished in a way that is completely at odds with the character that is Superman. It is completely asinine.

    Finally, Johnathan Kent. What happens to him makes absolutely no sense in a universe in which Superman can easily run near the speed of light.

  • Thomas P | June 11, 2013 3:26 AMReply

    Oh, god, all of these comic-book (thus nihilistic) fanboys commenting on this review, getting angry at the fact that it wasn't positive, really need to get a life.

    It's a negative review. Big deal. You guys haven't even seen the film yet. (Oh, wait, you already know you're gonna love it; you're just that smart.)

  • Maya | June 11, 2013 2:19 AMReply

    This has to be the worst movie review that I have ever wasted my time to read. This "review" just didn't make any sense. The author needs to be informed that he shouldn't review movies if he fills his report with the type of logic that would earn a failing grade on a middle school book report.

  • Frankie | June 11, 2013 1:54 AMReply

    Um, you're faulting the film for not feeling enough like a Superman movie, and you can't even spell Lois instead of Louis (yeah, I know Lois is kind-of an old fashioned name, but at-least it's a... y'know... girls' name) and the name of her editor (Perry White) so on top of the fact that you called Deadbeat Dad Returns "unfairly maligned" I'm afraid I just can't take this review seriously.

    Superman: the Movie was great, and I'll even call the third one a guilty pleasure. But there's nothing wrong with a serious Superman film.

  • Jason | June 11, 2013 1:22 AMReply

    I haven't even seen the movie yet, but you Eric Kohn are an idiot. You are now 1 of 13 reviewers to give this movie a rotten rating. Really? You can't get on board with the modernizing or relating, or most important aspect of Christlike symbolism Superman stands for? It's sad that anyone even reads your reviews. It won't stop the box office success of this, as you call it, "blockbuster." :)

  • Youre_that_guy | June 11, 2013 1:32 AM

    You're like the guy who refuses to enjoy a meal unless he knows that absolutely everyone else enjoys the same thing that he's eating too. You're like the guy who can't love his wife unless he knows that everyone else in the world loves her too. You're the guy who can't accept that not everyone likes to read the same book that you're reading. You're the guy who has a nervous breakdown when one person out of a hundred doesn't like your dog. Your insecurity is far too dependent on what complete strangers say about the things you like. Don't be that friggin guy. Grow up.

  • Jason | June 11, 2013 1:20 AMReply

    I haven't even seen the movie yet, but you Eric Kohn are an idiot. You are now 1 of 13 reviewers to give this movie a rotten rating. Really? You can't get on board with the modernizing or relating, or most important aspect of Christlike symbolism Superman stands for? It's sad that anyone even reads your reviews. It won't stop the box office success of this, as you call it, "blockbuster." :)

  • Tim | June 12, 2013 12:35 AM


  • jc | June 11, 2013 1:15 AMReply

    You're not only entitled to your opinion, you are paid for it. That said, I don't see how there was any way this movie could have satisfied your odd and arbitrary standards. Your critique appears to be purposefully contrary to the many other glowing reviews.

    Also, revising the typos and correcting misspelled names without notation is a little disappointing. It also exposes your lack of attention to detail, but we noticed. For that alone, I won't be back.

  • OhFFS | June 11, 2013 1:09 AMReply

    Yep, here come the fanboys. The floodgates are open. THIS kind of reaction was why the comment sections were disabled on rottentomatoes.

    "Is that dissent? QUICKLY, WE MUST USE THE POWER OF OUR ENTHUSIASM OVER A MOVIE WE'VE NOT SEEN YET TO SQUASH IT!" And then they bludgeon the critic to death with their raging nerd boners.

    Do yourself a favor and do the same. Disable all comment sections for reviews.

  • OHFFS | June 11, 2013 10:52 AM

    COMICBOOKGUY, you're missing the point. The point being that NONE of us should be voicing an opinion about what this critic just said. The critic is the guy who actually saw the damn movie. Everyone else is just looking for reasons to tear the guy down in the delusional hopes that maybe... just maybe, if everyone gets really REALLY annoyed at the critic, somehow all that hate and anger will magically change the movie into something different and better by the time it finally comes out in theaters.

    No, getting angry at a critic is not going to make a movie better or worse. When you see the movie, it will still be the same movie. So don't be such a delusional turd. The point I was making was that comment sections on movie reviews are absolutely pointless.

  • MM | June 11, 2013 10:38 AM

    BLITHERING_MORON, I salute your broad but accurate parody.

  • comicbookguy | June 11, 2013 6:46 AM

    whats crazy is that you don't even have an opinion about what he said you just got on here to bash people. i'll be a fanboy anyday over a troll which by the way....... you are grow up and actually comment on the material and stop being an asshole.

  • Blithering_moron | June 11, 2013 1:18 AM


  • Deedee | June 11, 2013 1:06 AMReply

    who the hell is LOUIS. HAHAHA. You were clearly not even paying attention to the movie when you can't even get the name of the freaking protagonist right and yet you give it a C. GTFO you douchebag hypster

  • safichan | June 11, 2013 12:49 AMReply

    dont worry folks...this eric guy gave LORDS OF SALEM B+ review in rotten tomatoes...hahahahah...what do u expect from him...

  • Tommy Rob | June 11, 2013 12:43 AMReply

    Think it's time to expose this guy to Rotten Tomatoes, please revoke this guys "Top Reviewer" title, NOT because he didn't like MOS, but EVERYTHING else lol

  • Joey | June 11, 2013 12:31 AMReply

    I write for several websites and I must tell you that the above is in no way a review, but a hack job. The horrendous display of grammar shows that you rushed this article to grab "hits" as the people have stated here. You should be ashamed to call yourself a "Top Reviewer"! The simple fact that you took a C+ and made it spoiled on RT, just proves that what you lack in talent, you will make up with deception. Here is a little help since your Editor obviously doesn't keep you on your leash: Kryptonians are the inhabitants of Krypton. Kryptonite is from the radioactive meteorites that was once the planet Krypton after it exploded. In case you missed it, Kryptonite was no where in this movie! This was not an "Indie" film and it should not have been reviewed that way. You are an embarrassment to the profession!

  • Maud Francis | June 13, 2013 5:24 AM

    "I write for several websites" = "I rant, unpaid". You are not part of any profession except Paid Up Nutjobs

  • Wake The Editor | June 11, 2013 12:30 AMReply

    "While certainly the most dazzling Superman movie to hit the big screen, the 143-minute "Man of Steel" is also the longest..."

    143 minutes is more than 154 minutes (Superman Returns)?

    Should I expect this from an article that calls Lois, 'Louis'?

    Just admit it, you don't know what you're talking about and probably didn't want to like the movie before you sat in the seat.

  • Mine is bigger | June 11, 2013 12:28 AMReply

    Hahaha Marvel fanboys are getting worried. Marvel movies are to happy go lucky and very campy. DC movies suck look at Superman Returns, Green Lantern, ect. Comic book movies suck. They all the same pieces of shit.

  • SamC | June 11, 2013 12:41 AM

    ummm....then why you on here???

  • BKB: The REAL BKB | June 11, 2013 12:20 AMReply

    Just another depressing DC movie.. DC will always be 2nd to Marvel..

  • cliff | June 22, 2013 4:45 AM

    Marvel is kiddy campy tripe. DC is for grown ups.

  • iFail | June 11, 2013 12:26 AM

    Amazing Spider-Man 2 will be better.. Man of Steel will be ok but Iron Man 3 is the greatest superhero movie and Amazing Spider-Man 2 will also be very good and show why the older movies weren't that good..

  • Eddie | June 11, 2013 12:18 AMReply

    I stopped caring about your opinion after you admitted to liking "Superman Returns." I just got back from an early screening of "Man of Steel" and it is nothing short of spectacular. When I say spectacular I mean it is on par with The Dark Knight Trilogy aka the greatest superhero films ever made. Like people that gave "The Dark Knight" a bad review you are simply trying to garner attention for your article. It's extremely pathetic.

  • Bapman | June 11, 2013 12:56 AM

    Your point about the critics giving The Dark Knight a bad review is RIGHT on the money.
    Nice to see someone mentioning that.

  • Mr. Louis Lane | June 11, 2013 12:18 AMReply

    "...Louis' trenchant editor (Laurence Fishburne)..."

    I can't believe it's still there. You got most of the other mistakes, now fix this one.

    That or there better be a guy named 'Louis' in this film that Superman is in love with.

  • SteveB | June 11, 2013 12:18 AMReply

    LOL! The REST of the articles on this site have an average of 0-2 comments! LOL!!! No wonder they had one of their pawns write a bad review, whatever they gotta do to bring traffic, sad....

  • Josh B | June 11, 2013 12:16 AMReply

    Omg there is alot of spoilers in this review ....WTF FUCK YOU !

  • IS | June 11, 2013 12:15 AMReply

    Look INDIEWIRE, I don't have a problem with a critic not being a fan of the MOS movie, but AT THE VERY LEAST, please make sure the copy and review make sense, at least before publishing it live on the WWW. It clearly discredits your site as a whole when a representative of your site fails this poorly and then attempts to fix the edits after the comments come pouring in flagging his mistakes.

  • peronix | June 11, 2013 12:15 AMReply

    Fuck this guy :-/ writing a negetive review to get hits. weirdo

  • Jay | June 11, 2013 12:11 AMReply

    Way to be "that guy." Couldn't be more wrong, I saw a sneak preview and it tore the roof off. The movie delivers like no real superhero movie has (Nolan films aside, due to non-superhumans.) This review is a joke, one to bring down numbers and get readers off cheap credit less stabs at a summer movie. Way to be "indie," I take it Spider-Man 3 was good to you too.

  • Mark | June 11, 2013 12:11 AMReply

    Wow what a pathetic review fuk this website just writing this for more hits .

  • Van Cockcroft | June 11, 2013 12:09 AMReply

    Sounds AWFUL.

  • Fay-El | June 11, 2013 12:02 AMReply

    I'm sorry but I have to ask: Are the editors asleep or is the writer the son/nephew of someone important?

    Reading through this was just awful. Like someone rushed it out, just to disparage the film.
    This review was full of spoilers, errors, misspellings and misinformation.

    - Lois (Kal-El falls for someone named Louis? Superman really IS reinvented) is spelled wrong.
    - Kryptonians, not Kryptonites.
    - Prologue comes before Epilogue
    - Did you really have to say what Zod did to Jor-El in the review? Not cool.
    - Superman Returns was longer than this film. Runtime: 154 min

    I know you fixed all of that stuff after going through the comments but this reviews was very juvenile. Indiewire, you should be ashamed of this mess you put up.

  • eli | June 11, 2013 12:02 AMReply

    douchebag hipster - stick to films made for $10.

  • Alex | June 11, 2013 12:02 AMReply

    I don't care about the review, just hope the person who wrote this article knows deep down inside that he is an idiot

  • Shane S | June 11, 2013 12:00 AMReply

    "A Very Non-Indie Superman" LOL!!! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!?!?! It's SUPPOSED TO BE WB'S BIGGEST SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER!! So you gave it a bad rating because it was being good at what it was supposed to be!? Makes a whole loft of sense.

  • eli | June 10, 2013 11:59 PMReply

    Of course this idiot critic is trying to make a name for himself being so maverick - thumbs down your crappy crits.

  • DEasley | June 10, 2013 11:56 PMReply

    hold up, hold up.............you gave "Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning" an A-!?!?

    Wait..why is THIS guy considered a legitimate reviewer?!?

  • Awesome | June 10, 2013 11:55 PMReply

    Who hired this guy to write an article, he needs to go back to school. Such a loser. Bad article, filled with lies.

  • BKB | June 10, 2013 11:54 PMReply

    Very Good.. This move should get a F but the fear made you give it C+.. Man of Steel won't touch Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 will be even better..

  • Dexter | June 11, 2013 12:29 AM

    There is only one BKB. Imposter!!!!!!!!!

  • BKB: The REAL BKB | June 11, 2013 12:16 AM

    Nice impersonation of me and I suppose I should be honored, but under no circumstances have I posted in reply to this gentleman's review, which was bound to happen folks.. Get a grip.. As for the imposter posing as me?? I want fucking Royalties for this hackjob impersonation.. That is all..

  • IS | June 11, 2013 12:11 AM

    IM3?? Really?? I don't understand the Marvel vs DC thing. I love SUPERHERO movies. IM3 was very disappointing as a finale to one of the best franchises EVER. And NO! The amount a movie makes in money does not mean it's a good movie. IM1 is still my favorite movie to date, well at least equal to TDK. But MOS should get an F? Why even bother trolling?? Does it make you feel more important, like you did something for Marvel??? Kudos kid!

  • smd | June 11, 2013 12:02 AM

    Iron Man 3 SUCKS........THOR 2 we will have to wait.

  • Dane Cook | June 10, 2013 11:54 PMReply

    of course all his top rated movies on RT are indie flicks that no ones ever heard of, because that's what REAL movie enthusiasts watch. Whatever keeps you more hipster Eric. But that's right, Superman is not classy enough to fit in with the indie crowd of movies...lol

  • Dane Cook is an idiot | June 13, 2013 5:26 AM

    You mean, YOU haven't heard of any of them because you've been stuck indoors jerking off to World of Warcraft

  • Zod | June 10, 2013 11:53 PMReply

    From the side: "While certainly the most dazzling Superman movie to hit the big screen, the 143-minute "Man of Steel" is also the longest, and it only justifies that heft because it leaves room to keep the effects coming."

    lol, Superman Returns is 154 minutes and Superman the Movie was also 143 minutes. Do some damn research next time before making false claims.

  • Greg | June 10, 2013 11:46 PMReply

    Ill never take a word you write seriouly ever again.

  • Lex Luthor | June 10, 2013 11:44 PMReply

    This guy is an asshole. This movie is epic just another critic trying to make a name for himself. JACKASS LOSER

  • Le pupe | June 10, 2013 11:43 PMReply

    My gawd! Epilogue =/= PROLOGUE... It's LOIS not LOUIS..and so on & so forth... Opinions are like a$$h0les indeed...

  • Fuck you | June 10, 2013 11:42 PMReply

    I know why u gave this a bad review. U work for a web site called "indie"wire. hipster scum