Superman Returns

[smearbrick1]

Just saw this last night. Not too bad. Kind of rehashing of the original 1978 Superman: The Movie's plot, except with Superman "returning" instead of just appearing for the first time. While Brandon Routh did not bother me like I thought he would, Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane was horrible. She totally lacked every quality that made Margot Kidder a great Lois Lane. The scenes between Bosworth and Routh weren't much better. If the producers were so dead set on using a young actress, why not pick someone a little better suited for the role? My pick: Rachel McAdams. Sure she's been everything recently, but she's got some talent to back it up, and she looks a bit older.

Aside from my complaints listed above, I'm not disappointed with this film. I would like to Brian Singer's ass for ditching X3 (and dumping it in the very uncapable hands of Brett Ratner) and jumping on this film.

Thankfully, producer John Peters' giant spider scene didn't make it, and Superman was not forced to wrestle two polar bears (he eventually kill one of the two and the other would run away so as to not piss off the PETA people.) Sorry to any of those out there that may be disappointed by this news.

[Supreme2k]

I thought that it was alright, just not up to "blockbuster" standard.

I agree that it was basically Superman 1. What I didn't like is that Superman/Clark barely spoke 10 words in the whole film (not including the rehash of Marlon Brando's speech. Lois Lane wasn't portrayed very well. Way too prissy and not tough enough.

My biggest beef with the film would be a spoiler, so I won't post it.

[Epicurus8a]

Visually the film was nice, but the story gets a grade of C-. If you're not a Superman fan save your money for something else.

[doppletwo]

The pacing was weird too.



I thought the whole movie was going to be the pace of the first thirty minutes, but instead the rest was much slower.



I give it a C+ the pacing killed the movie for me, but I guess I just had wrong expectations.

[NiteLite]

why not pick someone a little better suited for the role? My pick: Rachel McAdams. Sure she's been everything recently, but she's got some talent to back it up, and she looks a bit older.

Excellent choice. She would fit the role much better. 30 in October. And talented, I agree.

[spiderman2k1]

As a comic book fan I try to keep a open mind to comic book movies. This Superman movie sucked. Story was weird takes to long for any thing to really happen Lex sucked.

However if this is a parallel word and thing are different in this Superman world it is kind of good in that way. But as just a Superman movie for the mass--nothing all that great.

[g_shocker182]

I liked it. Rachel MacAdams already has too much drama lol the notebook.

[Faustus]

Loved it. Felt like the old films to me. No issues with the actors at all. Not OMG AWESOME, but a good movie in the spirit of the old ones.

In short, no Batman Begins but worth a watch just the same.

[Jack&Water]

Loved it. Felt like the old films to me. No issues with the actors at all. Not OMG AWESOME, but a good movie in the spirit of the old ones.

In short, no Batman Begins but worth a watch just the same.

I feel the same way. It was a real homage to the first two flicks. I was convinced that Kevin Spacey, the kid, or Kate Bosworth was going to ruin the movie. I was pleasantly surprised that neither was true.

[Faustus]

I was convinced that Kevin Spacey, the kid, or Kate Bosworth was going to ruin the movie.

I was never worried about Kevin Spacey, the first shot of him blad and I knew he was the right choice.

[Endless1122]

Cool movie I thought, but if you've never liked the Superman movies in the first place, this one won't change your mind

[Lucifers_Ghost]

I thought the best aspect of this movie was Spacey. He was a much better Lex than Hackman. And Im a HUGE fan of Hackman.

LG

[Jack&Water]

I thought the best aspect of this movie was Spacey. He was a much better Lex than Hackman. And Im a HUGE fan of Hackman.

LG

I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. Hackman's Lex was to be depicted as more humorous and almost fun-loving, though Spacey definitely plays evil better in general.

[StoryDonut]

I was pleased, but it was too long, and it needed a kick-ass, wreck-a-city fight scene. Spacey made a great Luthor.

[Faustus]

t needed a kick-ass, wreck-a-city fight scene.

Maybe they can do another one with a version of the Doomsday story line? That should give everyone their fill.

[yoda313]

I saw it today. I liked it. I agree with others that the pacing was a bit odd.

BUT it was a good movie. It definetly paid homage to the first Superman movie by Richard Donner. It had that feel. I was suprised they used the same font and effects for the opening title credits as the first movie. The music cues were dead on too. They used the right themes from John Williams.

When I got back I watched the first movie with Christopher Reeves again. It was very eerie. The feeling and flow was quite consistent. Though it was weird I think Bosworth is shorter in comparison to Routh (is that who played superman? Can't remember the guys name) than Kidder was to Reeve. No biggie just kind of weird.

Overall it is a good movie. Though it could have used one or two more big action scenes.

I didn't know CYCLOPS was in it! It was strange seeing him without the eye gear

[Epicurus8a]

I was suprised they used the same font and effects for the opening title credits as the first movie. The music cues were dead on too. They used the right themes from John Williams.

I heard the director, Brian Singer, didn't want to do the film unless he could use elements from the Christopher Reeve films (music, fonts, Marlon Brando, etc.) Warner Bros. said, "No problem!"

[adam]

Ok, this thread and movie is old enough that I can throw in a spoiler now.









Luthor's girlfriend has a change of heart and throws out all of his remaining crystals at the end but they all clearly fall into the water. So this must mean that they are a different type of crystal than the one he used to create the new continent right? Otherwise a bunch more continents would have just sprung up.

But if the first crystal was the only one that would create the continent, does that mean it was still growing? Because the plan was to completely "grow" over North America and it barely even reached the shoreline.

Just want to make sure I understand what happened.

[yoda313]

I think you're overanalyzing it adam Yeah you're right though

[teegee420]

Ok, this thread and movie is old enough that I can throw in a spoiler now.









Luthor's girlfriend has a change of heart and throws out all of his remaining crystals at the end but they all clearly fall into the water. So this must mean that they are a different type of crystal than the one he used to create the new continent right? Otherwise a bunch more continents would have just sprung up.

But if the first crystal was the only one that would create the continent, does that mean it was still growing? Because the plan was to completely "grow" over North America and it barely even reached the shoreline.

Just want to make sure I understand what happened.

The way I understood it was that the continent was only created by the crystal because it was encased in Kryptonite. Throwing the naked crystals into the water wouldn't do anything.

[yoda313]

Throwing the naked crystals into the water wouldn't do anything

But what about the test crystal in the basement? That was just a sliver of a crystal that caused the blackout and the growth in the basement.

[adam]

I'm certain the only point of the kyrptonite was to make the continent laced with it, it wasn't necessary to create the continent itself. Luthor says as much when he talks about how crystals will take on the properties of their surroundings. I think each crystal must have just done something different. When he talks about his remaining crystals he calls them "weapons." He knew what they did cause he learned about them at the fortress of solitude, but the audience is never told.

[yoda313]

Well also how can superman carry the continent at all if its caked in kryptonite? Sure he comes at it from below but he gets far enough to launch it into space but nearly dies in the attempt.

Of course thats heroic drama and I guess we shouldn't be too suprised - it is a comic book movie after all

[Faustus]

Ok, this thread and movie is old enough that I can throw in a spoiler now.









Luthor's girlfriend has a change of heart and throws out all of his remaining crystals at the end but they all clearly fall into the water. So this must mean that they are a different type of crystal than the one he used to create the new continent right? Otherwise a bunch more continents would have just sprung up.

But if the first crystal was the only one that would create the continent, does that mean it was still growing? Because the plan was to completely "grow" over North America and it barely even reached the shoreline.

Just want to make sure I understand what happened.

It was the one that they cut that did it.

[adam]

It was the one that they cut that did it.

Yeah I know but that doesn't answer the question.

I guess the continent was just going to keep on growing. It just seems like it was insanely too small and that it would take years before it got as big as it was supposed to.

[Faustus]

It was the one that they cut that did it.

Yeah I know but that doesn't answer the question.

I guess the continent was just going to keep on growing. It just seems like it was insanely too small and that it would take years before it got as big as it was supposed to.

I assumed it was an over time thing.

[Baldrick]

I saw it yesterday, premiere here in Sweden. It felt like the old crappy superman movies...and 1 hour too long...

And the crystals confuses me too...

[Faustus]

I saw it yesterday, premiere here in Sweden. It felt like the old crappy superman movies...and 1 hour too long...

And the crystals confuses me too...

Heynow! those movies were not crappy!

except the last one, it was pretty crappy

[teegee420]

III was none too good as well.