Sprig,
Companies make movies for the LONG haul. That's why some movies, like Waterworld, are considered flops to the general public, but actually very profitable. Foreign sales, DVD sales, movie channel sales, and finally TV sales all add up to making quite a bit off of a movie, in the long run. You have to think like investors. In a lot of investing, it takes a while before you see a return. How long was it before Amazon became profitable?
I saw it, and liked it. I disagree about the acting. I thought Superman did an excellent job. Sprig is right; he isn't as charming as Clark Kent. However, I think that's because of Singer, not because of the actor.
I a lot of superman interpretations, it's projected that Clark Kent is the real man, and Superman (personality wise) is an act. That's why you get tension in shows like Lois and Clark where Clark wants her to love him for himself, not for the cape. However, in this movie, I got the feeling that Singer saw the Superman as the real person, and Clark Kent as an act he puts on to throw people off.
Therefore, the movie didn't focus at all on Kent, and Brandon's acting was quite in line. I thought he did a nice homage to Reeve in his acting, and it was one of my favorite parts of the movie. Of course, Spacy did a MUCH better job, but that was to be expected. Lois, as has been mentioned, was meh.
I very much enjoyed the first act. I loved seeing Superman be Superman, right down to lecturing people after he saves them.
My complaint, then, is the third act. As Ookla said, the evil plot on Lex's part was just plain weak. Then, Superman's great sacrifice to stop that plot fell flat to me. He didn't need to do it. It didn't really mean anything. Plus, add on that that the reason he COULD do it was unexplained...and, well, yeah.
Tell me. Why is it a lot of these Superhero movies stop paying attention to plot in the final scenes? Is it just me? X3 was a very bad offender in this area, and I remember both of the other X-Men movies being weakest at the end.