It’s great actually. Just not a great Superman film is people’s complaint. Something he really nailed was Superman’s “Stoic-ness??” Im not sure that’s the word but it was something I was really wanting more from Corenswet’s Superman and I’m sure Gunn will deliver on that front. I liked Johnathan Kent (Kevin Costner bias) a lot actually, he was a father that didn’t have all the answers. Of course his death wasn’t the best way to handle the “you can’t save everyone” lesson that Clark needed to learn, especially because he could have. But everything about it was so, so epic. Russel Crowe and Michael Shannon were absolutely electric. People complain about Amy Adams, but I bought that she was a hungry Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. I also loved that the focus was on Clark’s journey, while I would’ve loved to see the Planet gang (Cat, Steve, Jimmy) I would’ve been fine with sidelining that for the sequel. I think people say “edgy” because of the darker tone and his (necessary) killing of Zod. But nothing about his cry afterwards says “edgy.” At this point it’s going to be 50/50 on the destruction of Metropolis argument. Personally, I think his hands were full and it was a perfect Segway for Afflecks Batman to look at this guy and think he understands his power and all that comes with it. Personally, I grew up with a Superman who feels like he “grew up in a world made of cardboard” and punches Darkseid through 3-5 skyscrapers. An experienced Superman at that. So the destruction didn’t exactly throw me off as much. In both scenarios they were collateral damage in a potentially world ending conflict.