Sometimes RT scores don't reflect how much a movie I liked.

Take SW episode 7 for example, it's just a remake, prettier, new names, that's all, very safe movie by the numbers, yet it has like 90%.

Man of Steel has a 56% btw, and I enjoyed it a lot.

Ditto. Then take Marvel movies. They constantly seem to get like 80+, even the obvious stinkers. While I enjoy them they are very very shallow popcorn movies. Besides Winter Soldier, none of them have any substance. They are fun the first couple watches, then they are background movies. 

I loved Man of Steel, so guessing I will love this too. But I don't trust critics at all. Heck I find those that hate Man of Steel to be moronic hypocrites. Constantly I hear of things it did bad, and how Superman I and II were amazing. 

How about we copmare II, since its so similar for a sec. since everone love that versino of superman and his gerat boyscoutness and everything.

1. Everyone flips a nut because Superman kills Zod in Man of Steel. Um didn't he also kill Zod in Superman II? And when he killed a powerless Zod who could have been easily put in jail, he was smiling. Meanwhile in Man of Steel, he has no way of jailing Zod as he is all powerful still and after he kills him he screams in agony. 

2. Destruction of Metropolis. Ok first of all lets bring up that 90% of the destruction happened before Superman arrived, when he was still on the other side of the world. GO rewatch. The amount of damage that happens during Superman/Zod fight is nothing compared to what the machine did before hand. And bringing up Superman II again. He fought them and caused damage in Metropolis in that movie too.

3. Destroying the truckers truck. This was basically a homage to Superman II. And a much better version at that. IN superman II if you recall, clark gets into a fight with a trucker, and get beat up. After he gets his powers back he comes back to that dinner and beats up the trucker. Good job on revenge there Clark. Showing your boy scoutness again.

Then we had the amazing character of Zod. He actually had a character this time instead of just lets take over earth. Now i'm not dissing the actor of Zod in Superman II, just his character. It was shallow. This one had heart. He spent his whole life trying ot protect Krypton and its people. From his initial rebellion to what he was doing on earth. His speech about Kal-El destroying his Soul after the ship was destroyed says it all.

The parents from Jor, to Marth and Jonathon were all amazing.

My only real complain was the tentacle machine. Was unneeded. They should have just had him fall like he did coughing as he approached and then his attack he did to destroy it. He was unconscious after that for some time as it was, so they could have just had it be longer. THe whole point of the tentacles was to stall superman so that the other side of the world could do their part of ht story. The tentacles were just a bad stalling mechanism.  

Oh I also hated the Tornado part. Not the actual tornado and it killing Johnathon, but the dog. In what world is the dog the last one out of the car. When leaving a car you need to basically tell the dog to stay and close the door carefull to prevent one from jumping out. NO way that dog stayed in the car. 

Oh and Lois/Clark kiss. The romance was hinted at enough, no need to have that kiss. Save for sequal.

Are we really trying to rationalize Man of Steel by saying it was better than a movie that was released in 1981?  People appreciate the original Superman movies for what they were in their cheesy glory.  They were mostly fun early attempts to get a superhero on the big screen.  By 2013 though, superhero movies had improved massively.  

The complaint of Metropolis' destruction wasn't about Superman himself, but about a shittily written plot.  They were trying to make a Superman movie dark and grim, and it just didn't need to be.  Just cause the Dark Knight trilogy was all dark didn't mean Superman had to be.  The Marvel movies have succeeded mainly because they, mostly, get the tone right.  A deadpool movie being full of gratuitous violence is fine.  Same thing wouldn't work for a Spider-man movie.

Whether the destruction was Superman's fault or not, it was just bad.  Superman should be positive and uplifting.  Instead, we had millions of people dying and countless lives ruined all to solve a problem that was drawn to the planet by Superman himself.  Nothing positive happens in this movie at all.  And then Superman stands in the ashes to kiss Lois like he's a rockstar.  Fact is that Superman did nothing to make the Earth a better place and Jor-el fucked Metropolis in the ass.

And in Superman 2, they fought in Metropolis, but that fight was more tame than the average Super Bowl parade.  It's pretty reasonable to think nobody died in that fight.  And if they did, it was like 12 people who were too stupid to realize they shouldn't sit there and watch Superman fight.  Comparing the destruction in Superman 2 to the destruction of Man of Steel is like comparing a BB gun to a nuke.

Zod's whole thing was that he was kind of a douche.  His reason for destroying the Earth was that he didn't want to suffer like Clark did... then when Clark takes his helmet off, he just kind of adjusted in two or three seconds.  What an ass.

As for destroying the truck, that was stupid as hell.  Superman went to such lengths to hide his powers that he let his dad die (which was actually really unnecessary... If Pa Kent thought he could possibly save the dog without dying, then couldn't Clark do it without everyone being like OMG ALIEN!)  Yet instead of just kicking a drunk out of a bar (something that people can do without being super powered aliens) he chose to do something that would require superpowers.  

Of course, you're free to like it.  But, if others don't, maybe it's not because they're moronic hypocrites.  Maybe, it is your opinion that is flawed.