I just watched the Man of Steel. I have no idea why reviews are so mediocre.

[F0X]

When it quieted down and focused on actually developing its characters, Man of Steel was one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. Henry Cavil pulled off a low-key, reclusive Superman as well as anyone could, and his occasional goofy grin didn't feel out of place. It tackles questions about Superman's background that most takes on Superman are simply too chicken to ask, like how he managed to cope with his powers at a young age, or how he could save people without the world finding out about him. That church scene was fine (love how the guy gulped when Superman said "I'm the one they're looking for"). What's the problem with it? Superman grew up in the Bible Belt. And even if he isn't a believer, he wouldn't be the first to turn to a "higher power" when the going gets tough. Which is interesting, since Superman already is a god among men. But perhaps anything suggesting a Christian/Conservative message in a film must immediately receive hate. Even though as a whole, the movie doesn't go beyond "America > Krypton", which is pretty much the same in the comics.

Point being, the movie gets so many points from me for showing how Superman became a boy scout, that I can forgive several of its flaws (like some of the action sequences going much longer than they should, and the whole intro seeming like a very different movie from the rest of the film, and Lois needing to be saved more than once for no real plot reason). And how it was resolved couldn't have been better - Superman had to do something he would never do otherwise. In a movie about several dilemmas facing its protagonist, the final one is the most powerful of them all.

Now to address some plot points:
Superman doesn't control where he fights Zod and his cronies. Zod and company could simply smash up a city even more while Superman fails to lure them to the Sahara Desert. And that would be an even worse scenario, wouldn't it? At least he helps some of the soldiers not die. That's the point.
The gravity pulse exists to essentially pound Earth into Krypton. Basically, the atmosphere being created around the machine is what would cause Superman some problems, not the gravity pulse being emitted. It's quite possible for him to have flown inside of it - just very difficult and painful. That's the point.
Superman's father would give anything for his son to remain undiscovered. Does that go against how he was in the comics? Perhaps. Is his portrayal effective in the movie? I believe so, even if it harms his likability at times. The point being his views are opposite of Superman's biological father.

As someone well-versed in Superman fiction, the movie has my seal of approval. It's better than most of the Superman-branded crap that's been shoved down our throats (especially in recent times), and it's faithful where it counts. The portrayal of Zod in particular really got to the heart and motivation of the villain, and Krypton was pretty faithful to the source material. If a sequel is done, maybe there will be an equally good Lex Luthor as the villain, more faithful to the comics than his movie portrayals have been. Of course, that means he'd be doing something to fool the entire world into thinking that he's awesome, earning Superman's trust and completely betraying him.