Is Superman: Man of Steel really that good?
Zack Synder's Superman reboot Man of Steel is really good - that's what you've heard right? It's sort of a fresh reimagining with an impressive new lead actor, right? Well, that's what we were hearing at the start of the week, when its Rotten Tomatoes score was riding high somewhere in the mid 70%'s and all was good with the world. Since then, a handful of seriously unimpressed critics have had their say, leaving Man of Steel surging towards the dreaded 50%'s. It's miles behind Superman Returns, put it that way.
Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com said, ""Man of Steel" is second-tier and third-generation Chris Nolan-flavored neo-superhero material," while Chris Cabin at Slant wrote, "All its faux-patriotism isn't played for satire, but instead utilized to align the film with an idyllic, unquestioned vision of goodness." The A.V. Club were thinking along the same lines, writing, "By effectively denying Superman his defining traits-his complex relationships to duty and humanity-the movie robs the character of any depth or agency."
One thing pretty much every critic agreed on was the superb addition of Henry Cavill to the Superman story. The British actor - playing the Man of Steel himself - has superhero good lucks and is a seemingly perfect fit. "[Cavill is] a superb choice for someone who needs to convincingly convey innate modesty, occasional confusion and eventual strength," said Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times. Claudia Puig of USA Today agreed, "Henry Cavill has the strapping good looks of the comic icon, and humanity to match his superheroism," he wrote.
Essentially, nobody has any idea whether this thing is very good or not. Just go see it. Decide for yourselves.
Amy Adams [L] and Henry Cavill [R] At The Superman Premiere
Russell Crowe At The Man of Steel Premiere