I cant agree that we didnt see a three dimensional Clark/Superman in this film.
We saw a range of emotions from Clark and Superman, even if we didn't see a balanced range.
We saw his joy, in being with Lois, and his desire to live a normal life. We saw his social work aspect as Clark, when he wanted to stand up for the poor and persecuted and them a voice. We saw the burden that being Superman causes, and his concerns over being seen as a God, and as a meddler.
And we ultimately, if imperfectly, saw all this reconciled at the end of the movie. He decides he CAN be what the world needs, and put aside his personal needs to do so.
Thats not sexy, it's not as "fun" as Superman smiling and saying it's going to be okay, but it is very inspiring as messages go.
This film definitely went darker than MAN OF STEEL. The Empire Strikes Back comparisons are not wrong, and not entirely unwelcome, to be honest.
Because these are the issues that established Superman has struggled and dealt with in modern comics. The statement has been made that Superman does not struggle and mope and brood...that is simply not true. Even back in the Golden Age, Superman had major concerns about his job. This "burden" of his mission is a key part of his character. They need to balance it out better is all.
A lot of people want Superman to have embraced his mission, but forget that this is the first film weve actually SEEN his mission in. He was barely Superman yet in MAN OF STEEL, and he was also reluctant to become Superman, to reveal himself to the world.
The issues he faced were those involved in becoming Superman. Here, the issues dealt with are those associated with being Superman.
I suspect in the next outing, were going to see the issues associated with him being a figure of inspiration, and a leader, which is a natural fit for his evolution into the leader of the Justice League and an inspiration for other heroes.