I was chatting with some friends about Man of Steel recently, and it’s wild how super polarized everyone’s opinions are. It really seems to be one of those movies you either love or just don’t feel at all. Your take on it seems to depend entirely on what you think Superman should be.

On one hand, some people absolutely rave about the action scenes. I heard a lot of them say it’s the first movie to truly show off Superman’s world-breaking power. The fights are brutal and fast-paced, feeling like what would actually happen if gods were throwing down. For these fans, the serious and more grounded tone was a huge plus. They were tired of the old-school “Boy Scout” image and wanted to see a Clark Kent who was genuinely struggling and worried about being an outsider in a world that would fear him. They see it as a necessary and fresh adaptation.

But the other side’s view is just as intense. A lot of viewers felt the movie was just way too dark and depressing. They went in expecting a hopeful, inspiring Superman and instead got a conflicted, gloomy outsider. Many pointed out that the massive city-wide destruction at the end left them feeling empty rather than thrilled. For them, the movie completely missed the character’s core—he’s supposed to be a symbol of hope, not just raw power.

The biggest point of debate seems to be Clark Kent himself. Is he a deep, relatable character carrying a heavy burden? Or is he a passive guy who spends most of the movie being told what to do? People are firmly planted on both sides of that argument.

Honestly, after talking it all out, it’s clear there’s no right answer. This movie is one of extremes. I think whether you’ll like it boils down to a simple question: Do you want to watch a god learn how to be human, or do you want to see a hero inspire humanity to be better? Man of Steel goes all-in on the first option, and whether that’s a good or bad thing is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.