Usually when people dislike a movie they have a very good reason for it, but, to be honest, most of the things people have complaining about have sounded (at least to me) completely ridicules. I'm not saying that EVERY reason people dislike the film is ridicules (everyone has their own opinions) and this article isn't intended to insult anyone, however, most of the major complaints people have with this movie sound as if they already pre-judged the film before watching it and are looking for every available thing to dislike the film for. In this article, I will elaborate.
TOO MUCH DESTRUCTION
One thing people keep bashing the film for is the large amount of death and destruction in the film. First of all, THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS ABOUT TO BE TERRAFORMED. I.E all of humanity was about to die. OF COURSE there is going to be death and destruction. Millions of people didn't die while Zod robbed a bank. The entire world as they know it would have been wiped out if not for Superman. The death and destruction is supposed to represent the level of danger if Superman didn't stop Zod's army. As a matter of fact I'm glad there was the large amount of death and destruction because I honestly hate it when the world is supposedly at stake in a film and there's no sense of danger. And I'm not just saying that to back Man Of Steel up. You can go back and read a review I wrote over a year ago of The Avengers. While I gave the film a good review, one of it's flaws (to me) was lack of danger.
OVERFLOW OF ACTION
To be honest, on my first viewing, it did feel like a lot of action but after returning to the film I realized that the amount of action in the film is overly exaggerated. There was no action (well, a little on Krypton) for a LOOOOOOOOOOONG while into the film. It wasn't until the Kryptonians finally came and battled Supes in Smallville that the action started. The reason it feels like a lot is because they push most of the drama and character development at the first hour and so minutes and the action to the rest. Most films just mix it together, if you know what I'm trying to say. But even if it weren't overly exaggerated, "too much action" is a seemingly ridicules complaint in it's self. How does a movie have "too much action?" If you don't want action, why are you watching an action film? These questions aren't rhetorical, either. If someone has an answer, please tell me because I can't fathom why.
On a related subject, one understandable complaint I heard somewhere on this site was "why didn't Superman lead Zod out of the city in the final battle?" I (and I'm not being sarcastic) would find it kind of hard to lead someone somewhere when they're pounding the crap out of you. Superman would have to do some running away and then everyone would be complaining about that and I'd have to remind everyone Supes was leading Zod out of the city.
DARK AND GITTY (SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL)
The film wasn't dark and gritty. Was it serious? Yes. Did it have a lot of action? Yes. Was there a sad scene where Clark watches Jon Kent die? Yes. But the film wasn't dark and gritty like Batman was.
People were calling the film dark and gritty before there was even a trailer and the only reason people are is because of the attachment of Christopher Nolan and David Goyer's names to film. Ever since Nolan's name came out of WB's mouth, the film was dark and gritty as far as many were concerned. Yeah, Superman watched his adopted father die, but so did the Christopher Reeve version. Yeah the film was serious. Still doesn't make it...well..you get the idea.
Superman also wasn't brooding in the film in the same way as Batman or Green Arrow. Yes, there was a scene where he had to recall the painful memory of Jon Kent's death to Lois Lane, but that's because that was a defining moment in Clark's life and the audience had to be told. The point wasn't to make Superman the brooding dark knight of Metropolis.
So many people furious of Zod's death because "Superman doesn't kill" just shows how few people read the comics, where Superman has been put in tight situations (Injustice aside). And that's all this was: a tight situation. Superman didn't kill Zod for the sake of killing him, he did it because if he didn't the family would've died. Yes, Zod already killed millions, but Superman had no control over that and he did his part to save the world. Superman didn't enjoy killing Zod, either. People seem to forget how broken Superman was emotionally by what he had to do. Unlike Christopher Reeve's version, Henry Cavill's Superman isn't squeaky clean, he has more human flaws and this is a more realistic world. But that doesn't change who he is.
And if you don't like Superman killing Zod just because you liked Zod and wanted to see him in a future film, you don't have to worry about that either: Kryptonian death standards aren't the same as humans when under the yellow sun. If they fix his neck, Zod can be revived. And there are other ways to bring him back. Decades ago, DC decided to make Superman the only Kryptonian, so, for the longest period, everytime Superman fought General Zod it was a different Zod from a parallel earth. It wasn't until several years back when Zod was re-introduced into the canon by Geoff Johns and Richard Donner, so WB could always do something like that in a sequel.
EPILOGUE
I'm not calling this movie perfect. I'll even give you an example of a small problem I had with it in caps below. But a lot of the complaints I've been hearing sound ridicules to me.
PROBLEM EXAMPLE (not a major problem but a small peeve): WHY WERE THE SECONDARY VILLAINS (Faora-Ul and Jax-Ur) SCARIER AND COOLER THAN THE PRIMARY VILLAIN (Zod)? I LIKE THIS ZOD BUT STILL.