In major ways.

>I
>feel crucial parts of Clark's journey are missing. Such as
>when did he decide to leave and start his journey?

After his dad died. It's the most reasonable point to make that assumption. But really.... when isn't remotely important.

>How did he
>know the ship would be in ice?

He was in the diner listening to people talk about an anomaly found in the ice. He's an alien. He didn't "know", but that was information absolutely worth investigating.

**************************

Now, on to the critics. Spoilers, obviously.

First, if I hear another complaint about how "joyless" this movie was, I may slap someone. Here's a guy who is an alien and can kill people who choose to torment him because he appears weak, but does not because he's a good hearted soul. As an adult, he literally has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He was raised in flippin' KANSAS, quite literally by Ma & Pa Kent. Nothing about that scenario lends itself to the quipping nature of, say, the Marvel movies.

No, this didn't need snappy one liners. It didn't need to make us laugh. We get that from other movies. In THIS movie, we actually got to experience the full weight of those burdens in ways only Batman has ever truly given us. Spiderman makes a run, but not like this.

Second, FOH with the constant references to the Donner films, or the 30's references I've seen floating around. We've had plenty of THAT Superman. Quite frankly, none of them make any real sense for today. They didn't make sense in Returns, and it was glaring. That iteration is great for what it was, for it's time, and the first two Donner films are rightly treasured. We no longer need that story though. We actually got something different, which is a good thing.

Third, all the revisionist talk. I've seen people talk about how Lois should be. I've seen people in this thread talk about how Kidder was the only real on-screen Lois, or perhaps Hatcher. Those were great iterations that were fairly faithful. Again: We've SEEN that. We now have a new angle on the character that's much more interesting. The S meant hope in the books as well, cry me a damn river on that one. The concept of it being essentially a house crest is excellent. There are many iterations, and seeing all this clamoring by the critics for something closer to the one frame of reference they have is grating.

As to the issue of knowing his identity, I read a great point on the matter: it's absurd to expect a great reporter like Lois to be so easily fooled by a pair of glasses. A few people knowing and being protective of that identity is infinitely more plausible- and adds potentially new wrinkles for further films. Someone in here brought up how nobody put two and two together after the Kryptonians showed up to Ma Kent's house. Did we really need that minor detail resolved that badly? At that point Superman was already in their custody anyways. Did we really need to waste 60 seconds showing the telephone game in Smallville?

The flashbacks fit the narrative perfectly and gave us timely character references to illustrate why Clark was the way he was. It was creative storytelling that was very effective. I could see if the flashes didn't coincide with the real time action, but the two were seamlessly in sync.

A few people I've read didn't like the journey of Supes becoming Clark and not vice versa, but that's an excellent way to present it. In fact, it's the angle that makes far more sense. He's always had these gifts, he's always been different, so how does he fit into this world? That's precisely the way to bring Superman to life on the big screen. It makes him infinitely more relatable than, say, Tony Stark.

No, with this movie it seems many wanted a rinse, wash, repeat retread with a little more action. They got something other than what they wanted, and that's the major unifying theme of many negative reviews I've read. Further, it seems very reactive to the Marvel movies, known as much for their witty one liners as their iconic heroes. I love that brand. This isn't that though, and so many of the reviews I'm reading seem to be reacting more to the jokey-joke nature of that brand in contrast to what they wanted from this.

Yes, people flock to Batman and expect more brooding in that story. Why should Superman be any different? Realistically speaking, his story mirrors Batman. The key difference between them is that Bruce has to dress up and use all this tech to be more than a man; Clark simply IS more than a man. Trouble is, people want Superman to be the high school quarterback with the heart of gold. They want him attending eagle scout meetings. This portrayal makes more sense than any other yet brought to film, whether or not it fits your precepts of who Superman is supposed to be.

Lastly, killing Zod.

Let's see: kill Zod, one of the last remaining Kryptonians, or allow him to incinerate a family of four.

BUT SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL!!!!

Nah, fuck that. I'd rather see a guy with the balls to make such a hard decision. I watched him beg and plead with Zod, and he did what he had to do to save that family. That's honorable. If a cop did that, we'd give him a fucking parade. An actual boy scout doing that would be on the morning talk shows for a month solid. Superman had to murk one of the last surviving members of his own race to save 4 puny humans, and we're upset by that? Bullshit. I don't care what rules were established in the comics. Let's stop acting like he never killed there either.

That isn't to say there aren't valid critcisms, but none of what I addressed here fits that bill. Once in awhile I read reasonable, thoughtful criticisms of movies, but it's usually brimming with trite, paper mache bullshit that crumbles under minimally critical thinking. This movie brought the absolute worst of that element in droves.