I think if Superman is willing to dispense justice without appeal to a merely human legal authority, he isn't Superman anymore, he's just an invincible vigilante type hero. The Superman of comics is insanely principled. That is one of his weaknesses, one that is taken advantage of by vilians and is made fun of by other heros in the DC world with different motives. Superman had a morality, a series of guidelines by which he operated, that were an essential part of his character. If you are as close to a god as possible, what is it that constrains you to act in the public interest? The conflict between what reality demands of Superman and his moral belief system is what half of the Superman story is about. I saw none of that in this movie. I guess in the next movie Lex Luthor will find Kryponite and Superman will just hit him with a boulder from a mile out. Short movie but drone strikes only klll bad guys and some collateral damage is acceptable. They never even explored why Superman does what he does other than a ghost told him to. For all practical purposes, he could be an invincible Spiderman or Iron Man. Why didn't Superman just play in the NFL for a while? Why not work for the NSA intercepting phone records if he wants to be where the action is? Isn't covering mundane stories for the Planet 40 hours a week going to get in the way of his Superhero work? How can he justify that? Why did he do anything he did in the movie? What makes him tick compared to other movie superheros? Whatever it is, not covered here. I love character reboots, but you have to know what is core to the character and what is just backstory. I think this movie missed the essential core. Here is where Batman got it really right. Whoever wrote that script did enough research to understand the essential core of the Batman character, the schizophrenia and guilt at the heart of the character that shapes every action. As long as that is present you can change and update the backstory and it's the same guy. I think that is missing here and no amount of random CGI violence makes up for it.
I think the very best reboot I've ever seen was the 2000 Disney version of Tarzan. If you've read the original ERB Tarzan, you know that a true to the book version could never be made today. The book is casually racist and sexist and completley ignorant of jungle fauna. Still there is something in the book about a man using his strength and wits to survive in a hostile environment that is amazingly compelling. The Disney version captured every single core strength of the original character while completely rewriting the story. They changed the villian, the apes, the relationships between all the characters (animal and human) and yet still nailed the original story. That's how you do it. Anyone know if Tarzan is on Netflix?