Henry Cavill as Superman in "Man of Steel" (Warner Bros.)

If there’s one area where “Man of Steel” succeeds most (and it may be one of the only areas), it’s visually. Some of the more overdramatic zooming and gratuitous ab-shots notwithstanding, the movie takes care to create a visually enticing universe. It falls short of meaningful dialogue and endearing characters, however.

“Man of Steel” takes the time to emphasize the wonder of humankind and our Earthly residence. With sweeping shots of the intimidating ocean to nostalgic tinted ones of a child running around the countryside, the film puts in a lot of effort to portray what makes Earth preferable to the antagonistic Krypton.

Opposite the visual component, “Man of Steel” sets up an impenetrably serious tone and uses obvious dialogue in an attempt to wax poetic the beauty of humanity. Unfortunately, the film consistently keeps Clark Kent at an arm’s length away from it. He fulfills the moral and physical perfection Superman requires, but falters with a real sense of individual characterization. No amount of deftly constructed worlds and action sequences can make up for a generic hero. 

Attempting to humanize an alien with perfect superpowers (and super body) is a difficult task but a crucial one. Without imperfections through which viewers can develop their interest in the character, Superman needs to have other entrance points for compelling storylines. This Superman incarnation attempts to use his relationships and interactions with human characters—the very people whose existence influences him to save Earth.

As opposed to offering a lot of insight into these relationships, though, “Man of Steel” relies on what everyone already knows about the Superman mythology and expects that to be enough. Yes, the movie spends a lot of time uncovering the origins of Superman. What these flashbacks and prequel scenes contribute in stunning visuals and interesting backstory, though, they don’t contribute in intriguing characterization. Attempting to set this Superman interpretation up against some of the best superhero epics proves too daunting a task.

The most consistent hindrance to character development within the movie is the lack of context for most of the scenes. The jumps through time turn his present-day scenes into isolated experiences with his mysterious powers as the only consistent through-line. For a long time these islands of information blur both the dramatic impetus and any way to get to know Zack Snyder’s Clark Kent as a unique and distinguishable character. 

The generic quality of the characters comes more from the writing rather than the actors themselves. The screenwriter, David S. Goyer, has story-creating ability (most notably in “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises”), but falters in his ability to structure and flesh one out.

The actors work pretty well with what they have. Henry Cavill provides the steely look of heroism as Clark Kent AKA Superman and does manage to offer some heart to otherwise bland dialogue. Amy Adams, as Lois Lane, adds a feeling of competence to her character where the script tries to say otherwise. Michael Shannon (unrecognizable after his most recent persona) serves as the movie’s antagonist, Zod. As the character representation for all of Krypton he embodies the dutiful evil and ends up providing the most compelling character portrayal of the whole cast. 

The story structure and characterization of a superhero epic can normally fall under the radar if the movie offers enough entertaining distraction. “Man of Steel” takes itself overwhelmingly seriously that its underwhelming characteristics stick out. The movie doesn’t have the excuse of aiming for the generic quality it ends with. The film tries to create a serious and affecting experience to rival its own protagonist, but as Superman himself should know, the stronger you attempt the harder you fall.

Watch the trailer for "Man of Steel" below.

Reach Staff Reporter Annie Lloyd here; Follow her on Twitter here.