Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Spriggan on June 21, 2006, 09:24:26 PM
-
The movie is coming soon and I just noticed that the official site has been vandalized by Lex.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/
The best part is the wallpaper section.
Edit: And the japanese website has a trailor that's different then the US one.
http://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/supermanreturns/teaser1.html?id=trailer2&type=windows&speed=500000
-
I don't know. The link to a Lex Luthor Returns myspace page is pretty hilarious.
-
lol. That was funny. Ingenious gimmick.
I rented the first movie from Netflix and watched it last night. So weird how much I've forgotten! Fuuuun. I love Lois' trouble with spelling. "There's no 'z' in brassiere, Lois!"
I still chuckle at the reversing-the-world bit. It cheerfully violates laws of the universe and then breaks its own rule, 'cuz shouldn't time go forward again (thus reinstating the after-events of the quake) when he makes the world turn in the right direction again?
-
Yes, but he takes it far enough back that he can then take it forward without killing her. This is all based on science.
-
you're kidding right? That particular solution was even stupider than The Quest for Peace. It's scenes like this one that make people think comics rot your brain.
Seriously, good movie except for that one detail, which someone pulled out of their backside
-
and, on an similar but unrelated note,
This, my friends, is a hilarious, undoctored log (http://www.saintehlers.com/misc/lds.html) of a chat I had this afternoon in an LDS chatroom on IRC. The only changes I made were formatting for legibility. I cut off irrelevant material from the beginning and removed the time stamps, but I neither changed spellings nor deleted lines during the span of that log.
Apparently, I'm going to hell.
-
No, because you see he went back in time and then changed the future events for himself in a new dimension!
You see, there is still a dead Lois somewhere in another world, and since the Superman of that dimension left his time to go to another time when Lois didn't die, he created two Earths, one where Lois is dead, Superman is gone and Lex rules the world, and one where the opposite is true.
It's all relativity, Time is a continuous forward motion of events. For Superman it continued to move forward even though it appeared to move backward for everyone else to him. While to everyone else they were still moving forward in thier respective times, he just went to another dimension that had the same events in a different part of time for them.
Thus we see that Superman is really willing to sacrifice a whole world to torment and despair as long as he...
A: doesn't have to look at it
B: gets the girl
......Or I guess it could just have been a really bad idea. It could go either way.
-
That log is awesome.
-
It's scenes like this one that make people think comics rot your brain.
Precisely. Not that I'm a science whiz, but it irks me that the story had to fall back on a silly premise like that. Not that I don't think having him confront his failure (Lois' death) isn't a valuable scene in and of itself. Just too bad that the remedy was so... wobbly.
-
Please it's a piece of movie history and an integral part of Fell's and my play to get rich.
-
On the subject of Christ imagery, here's an interesting article from the Journal of Religion and Film.
http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/superman.htm
-
We are going to TRY to go see this movie this Saturday at 1 PM for free at the Wright-Patt base movie theater. We're currently thinking we should should show up about 9 AM.
SE: Which network is that #lds on?
-
Please it's a piece of movie history and an integral part of Fell's and my play to get rich.
Uh huh. No wonder I didn't care for it! ;)
Ookla, you're seeing an early screening? Sweeeet.
-
Jesus already took down Supes in issue #ao-168; Its cannon... Supes is a sux0r!!1! Man of Steel always loses to AO.
-
That log is awesome.
Except that it makes me want to resign from the human race, yeah it's pretty awsome. (People like that just... rawr. I go all green and muscular and start ripping things apart.)
-
Ookla, it's on Undernet. I should note that the RandRob guy is *not* a regular, and everyone else there was excited for the new film.
Anyway, it's not like the movies were the first or last things to make a case for the Jesus/Supes comparison. It's pretty much always been there. One of the best images is on page 31 of Kingdom Come where Clark is repairing/building a barn. He has a beam across his shoulders and a pocket full of spikes. With the beard he's grown, the Christ parallel is hard to ignore.
-
Oooh, Man of Steel with a beard...
/me 's knees suddenly go all weak.
-
seriously, buy a copy, Shrain. It's on my recommended reading list anyway.
-
*nods* Yes, I shall. I'm very curious about this one and a few others on that list of yours.
-
Which reminds me of a questin I've always had and maybe you guys can explain because you know way more about superman than me: Can he cut his hair very easily? Or is it hard to cut like it's hard to cut his skin? Do you have to have Kryptonite around him to weaken him and then cut his hair or what?
-
In the comics, actually, they show him shaving at least once by reflecting his heat vision off a mirror. I reckon the hair is cut in a similar way.
-
Laser cuts--for hair! I imagine he has no trouble with split ends. Does this remind anyone else of how Hercules dispatched that lion with its own claw because nothing else would pierce its hide?
-
As long as we are on the subject, has anyone else noticed that the strength of any given superhero or villian is directly proportional to the strength of their clothing?
Take superman.. if he is in an explosion. And he walks out but his clothes are ok, you know that he wasn't hurt. But, if someone hits him into a wall, and he gets up and there is a rip in his uniform or cape, you know he is hurt.
Isn't that awesome?
-
One thing said about Supes is his invulnerability formed a sort of short-range forcefield around him, and thus tight-fiting clothes would be inside it. Thus any damage to his clothing would be from something that penetrated his invulnerability (and thus able to hurt him). He also could supposedly extend this force to objects he picked up, letting him for example pick up a car just by the bumper or a large building or boat, which otherwise would simply be crushed under its own weight or whatever (b/c its being supported by such a small point, ie one or two human hands rather than the whole foundation or whatever.).
-
Yay! I saw it! It started at 1:00 and we got there at 9:45 hoping we could get in...and we were the first ones in line. We were there so early we got there before the film itself did! They carried it in in three silver film suitcases and had like 10 security guards.
It was a good movie. I was pretty satisfied.
Eric: I used to hang out there ten years ago!
-
Ughh..I hate superman. Fat chance im gonna see this. But it sounds ok from my view.
-
One thing said about Supes is his invulnerability formed a sort of short-range forcefield around him, and thus tight-fiting clothes would be inside it. Thus any damage to his clothing would be from something that penetrated his invulnerability (and thus able to hurt him). He also could supposedly extend this force to objects he picked up, letting him for example pick up a car just by the bumper or a large building or boat, which otherwise would simply be crushed under its own weight or whatever (b/c its being supported by such a small point, ie one or two human hands rather than the whole foundation or whatever.).
This theory would be more accurate of Supergirl/Matrix than Superman, since her abilities are actually telekinetic. Saying it about Superman, on the other hand, smacks of trying to legitimize a physics issue.
-
I've heard the same thing said about Superman SE that EP wrote.
-
I heard the world was flat too.
I read it on the Internet
It must be true.
-
Ya! We're having an Internet argument about a FICTIONAL character. Anyway I didn't read it on the internet I saw it on a Superman show, DCAU, Smallville and Lois and Clark all used those explanations. So if you have a beef with anyone it's with DC for not conforming to your view of the character.
-
and yay! someone's getting angry about it!
show me some specific episodes and I'll believe it.
edit: internet searches reveal several forums and a couple fan sites that indicate this theory. None of them credit any specific reference. Nor do any of them (that I've seen) refer to any episodes of any TV series.
But let me be also clear: even if DC officially made this the explanation, it'd still be stupid. Even for Superheroes. Does *every* superhero do that? Because WOnder Woman does the same feats of strength, as does Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman, and a dozen others. And they all get torn costumes in the same way. Do they *all* have this force field?
It's much easier to swallow as a story telling convention than some weak and insipid "physics" explanation.
-
Eh, I'm not really going to waste my time looking for specific instances, I know it was in Lois and Clark, they had an episode all about why his clothing doesn't blow up, which is where I suspect this idea originally came from if it wasn't in the comics. I actually think their explanation was the "S" on his chest is what allows him to extend his invulnerability field, like some tech that enhances his natural ability.
-
Well, Superman may be invulnerable, but he really needs to call Geico and get some better insurance. See his insurance policy won't cover any damages to his suit caused by natural forces (including explosion, crumbling buildings, and laser eye-beams). But, if he is hit by another person, then the insurance company can sue the other party to get payment for a new clothes. Every once and a while, Supes takes a hit from General Zod or Metallo just so he can get a new wardrobe. It's not like anybody can actually hit Supes unless he wants them to anyways.
See, problem solved. :P
-
Wow, well this will take some explaining... I thought you would know this already SE, being a Supes fan. But for the quick answer, that is how post-Crisis Supes' powers work. Lois and Clark series came out after Crisis, and so it follows that version of Supes (in other words, the show borrowed from the comic, not the other way around).
Okay, the very first Superman would be called Kal-L, this is the Golden Age Supes. Originally he could leap about an 1/8 of a mile, but slowly became more powerful and could fly, works for the Daily Star, etc.
Next you would have Kal-EL, this is Silver Age Superman. He has a significant increase to his power levels, works for the Daily Planet, revealed himself to the world as a teen (Superboy), had met Lex in Smallville before they became enemies, etc. Here is also introduced the idea of the Multiverse. Kal-L from Golden Age is from Earth-Two, while Kal-El from Silver Age is from Earth-One.
After this you have the miniseries Crisis on Infinite Earths (this is where you get pre-Crisis, post-Crisis). This would be in the mid-80s. LONG story short, it explains the origins of the Multiverse and eventually a new singular universe is made that has combined aspects of the different parallel worlds.
Post-Crisis, you get the Modern Age Superman introduced in the Man of Steel series. This is where Supes powers are described as I say, with his force-field and such. In the Silver-Age, his outfit was invulnerable b/c it was made from cloth from Krypton.
After this there is also Zero-Hour, which changes stuff up yet again (but this time it deals with time travel instead of parallel worlds).
And very recently you have Infinite Crisis. Lex jr. and Superboy-Prime have made a dimensional tuning fork from the remains of Anti-Monitor, and tricked Spectre into destroying all magic to create a power source. Then with the fork they begin recreating the alternate earths.
-
I think it's because it isn't a suit. :O
-
frankly, I've seen that explanation. I've never seen it documented.
and, as I said, even if DC came up with it, it'd still be stupid as all heck.
-
Well now you know where its from, it is just standard post-Crisis Superman begining in the Man of Steel series in '86. Its only 6 issues long, you could read it all no prob, but it talks about his 'aura' in issue 1.
There is a lot of different stuff between pre- and post-crisis. For starters, he goes from lifting 5 quintillion tons+ to a 'possibily' he could lift 100,000 tons. From faster than the speed of light to mach 10, etc... and his aura of invulnerability is far from the strangest change, how about the 'birthing matrix' where he is sent to earth not as an infant but as a fetus. The 's' on his uniform was no longer kryptonion but just something Clark and his dad made up. Lex completely changes. Clark only developes his powers slowly while growing up (sorta like the Smallville series), etc.
Actually, this would get to weird to make a good list, you'd have to do all pre-Crisis list and then post-Crisis; and you'd still be missing stuff like Gold Era Kal-L, Superman Red/Blue (lol, maybe we shouldn't go there... for 1 year Supes had sort of eletrical-based powers, and he was split into 2 people). But there you go. Oh, and don't confuse the Man of Steel series with Superman: Man of Steel which came out in the 90s, although it just continues with the same version. There is also new changes to Supes backstory yet again in Superman: Birthright that came out in '04.
-
/me is boggled and wishes the earth could turn backwards so that she would have no memory of this debate.
Ah, if only that were possible...
-
Ebert's only giving the movie two stars.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009
-
I've heard the acting on all fronts is horrible. Though I love Spacy when he's campy so it won't bother me much.
-
I thought the acting was fine, and Spacey was especially good. I didn't find him campy at all.
I thought Lex Luthor's "new continent" plan was campy...sort of...but his character was not campy.
-
Eagle, I've seen the Red/Blue Superman and it is a weird character. He ends up cutting his hair and using all this weird science. Eventually though this phase passes and Superman goes back to his normal self. No more mullet either.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Zakkajj/BlueSupe.jpg)
Yeah... not too sure why he did it. Just know he did. Grant Morrison was the writer for the JL comics I've read.
-
Supes Blue, sweet! Now try explaining this to SE, he had at least 2 different origins to being split into Superman Red/Blue and the different powers. Although I think the best one was he overloaded with energy to the point he became solid energy. Then when Red/Blue teamed up, they lost so much power that they finally recombined into the old Supes. The other main one I remember being that he was slightly out of phase with reality from when Tolos tried pulling him into Kandor (the city in a bottle).
Actually, I will just post a link that explains it rather than try to explain it myself. Its been years since I even read any of the comics about the Man of Energy. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=comics-new_supes
42, you should try making Superman Blue with MnM rules. Or at least a PL 10 version that someone could play.
-
I really liked the move. I thought the acting was good. Though Luther's chickie was obnoxious, I think thats all the actress can play since every time I see her shes playing obnoxious. But she plays it well.
So, for the earlier discussion of Superman/godfigure, the PVP comic did something amusing on that today http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060627
-
actually, the superman blue/red origin *and* correction was *never* adequately explained. Something they did on purpose, I believe. I have ever single issue from that period, and I can guarantee you it wasn't.
as for the power changes, I think it's safe to say almost all of that was retconned out again. He can travel nearly as fast as the flash in most of their team ups (flash can exceed the speed of light). The birthing matrix I know has been retconned -- recent retellings show him a baby when leaving Krypton. I think it's safe to say the stupid force field crap has been recognized for what it was (stupid) and quietly ignored out of continuity (try finding a source in the last 20 years that mentions it).
The "S" origin changes every other week. Sometimes it's still Kryptonian. Sometimes his dad. Sometimes his mom. In "The Kents" its origin was a Delaware Indian glyph for healing (entered the family from a half-Delaware ancestor who married in during the last half of the 19th century).
It's not the only thing that has that issue. "Officially" Superman and Lois can't have children because they're different species. However, in the DC 1,000,000 storyline there is a character who is a descendant of Clark and Lois.
I like how people think things are ever "official" when it comes to comics -- which of the 6 "official" origins of Supergirl is accurate? Go ahead back and read my column on ret-conning.
-
In the end it's a made up subject, so they can also make up their own physics and their own ideas. I think that they just wanted to show you that Superman was hurt.
...that's just me. ;)
-
exactly. Making up a reason is as dumb as trying to explain why Klingon heads look different, or why Starfleet changes uniforms every other season. Or why star wars ships make sound in space... or midichlorians.
-
Well SE, EP's point was that Superman had that power explanation at one time, which you said he didn't, then provided you with issue numbers. I don't think any one here was implying it was "set in stone" since, as you said, comic origins change every few months.
-
and my point is still that it would be dumb.
-
Point noted.
-
Well, Eric Snider gave it a good review, so I guess I'll have to scrape up some money.
-
and my point is still that it would be dumb.
Wait, I'm still a little unclear. How do you feel about it?
-
Ok, I'm sorry, but I don't see what everbody's big beef about this movie is. It's Superman, what more do you people want? I thought that I may miss Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackmen, but I didn't miss either, and I thought that made up for the poor acting on the girl that played Lois Lane. Personally, that's my only beef with the movie. I thought it pretty much stayed true to form. I loved it and don't pay attention to what critics say. I thought Parker Posey was great, though I did miss the "Miss Tesmaker!" remark...
-
Ok, I'm sorry, but I don't see what everbody's big beef about this movie is. It's Superman, what more do you people want? I thought that I may miss Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackmen, but I didn't miss either, and I thought that made up for the poor acting on the girl that played Lois Lane. Personally, that's my only beef with the movie. I thought it pretty much stayed true to form. I loved it and don't pay attention to what critics say. I thought Parker Posey was great, though I did miss the "Miss Tesmaker!" remark...
The beef is, the clothes and force fields and science and things and why they don't get hurt. and why people chnge colors and different dimensions. :)
-
looks likes supes got #8 on all time opening wensday. Not as good as I'm sure WB was hoping but $21 mill on a wensday is noting to sneeze at.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=wed&p=.htm
-
and the review is up! http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1424
-
If people are complaining about this movie from a science stanpoint, than they must have hated the other films, especially "Superman II," where there is gravity on the moon.
-
There is gravity on the moon. ...or did you mean isn't....?
-
I'm guessing he meant "as much gravity on the moon as on earth," but since I haven't seen the movie in many years, that is only a guess.
-
No there wasn't earth like gravity on the moon in that movie, but there was some gravity.
-
So why does 4 stars equal 5 out of 6 clocks? There was nothing negative in the review except perhaps saying that Superman looks a tad cartoony at times.
-
Be cause our movie reviewers are silly. 6/6 for them would be 5/4 stars. It's a discussion we've already had and if you want to comment on it then do so in the appropriate thread please.
http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=suggestions;action=display;num=1134799820
This thread is for discussing the movie itself and not the scoring system.
-
So why does 4 stars equal 5 out of 6 clocks? There was nothing negative in the review except perhaps saying that Superman looks a tad cartoony at times.
Parker,
I agree with you - I think it's a 6 clocker, certainly more than a 5 (in fact, we were commenting on the fact that Superman DOESN'T look cartoony, as opposed to Neo in "Matrix Reloaded," so there's nothing negative at all.). But we've been over this territory before, and certain anal retentive people who have nothing better to do than complain and call people "Silly" when they can pull themselves away from their playstation don't seem to want to discuss this issue anymore, so salavee.
-
No there wasn't earth like gravity on the moon in that movie, but there was some gravity.
It ws close to Earth- like gravity - when Zodd drops the flags, they just drop to the ground, full force, exactly like they would on Earth.
-
A quick reiteration:
The Gibbs brothers give their reviews 1 to 4 stars, and the movie editor (Skar) converts them into clocks as he sees fit. Sprig's comment about 6 clocks equaling 5 out of 4 stars actually refers to my attitude, not the reviewers'--I'm very picky about 6 clock reviews, and put up a big fuss over them.
But please, let's keep this thread about Superman. If you want to discuss scoring systems we have a marvelous Suggestions thread just up the page.
-
Fell, you're silly.
-
You can go sit in the hall, young man.
-
"But he does turn into a cartoon like Neo in The Matrix Reloaded."
Is there supposed to be a "not" in there?
Also, I'm not sure about the "icily" comment. How was her performance icy?
I read Ebert's review, and he commented that no one in the movie seemed to be having fun. That does appear to be true for several people. I mean, the piano playing guy had fun. I think Lex had fun in his evil, not-over-the-top way. But Lois & Superman/Clark? Hmmm. Not really. Lois was very torn. Clark as well. Superman seemed to go out saving the day not because he wanted to but because he needed to. There was a lot of angst in the atmosphere.
Superman did seem to be happy in his house scene monologue at the end, but it's a bittersweet happiness for obvious reasons.
Is this a fun movie? I'm not really getting that vibe. Maybe that's why it was reportedly so difficult to put together. And I don't think the sequel is going to be any easier. But the difficulty was entirely of the scriptwriter's/etc. choosing--all caused by the "Superman has been gone for 5 years" thing.
Anyway, I forgot to mention that when I went to see it, the theater music for the hour before the show was all Superman-related. Those pop songs "If I go crazy, then will you still call me Superman," etc.
-
Yes, there was supposed to be a "not" in there. Our mistake. Anyway, regardless of the scoring system (which is best ignored entirely), I think "Superman Returns" easily stands out as the best popcorn movie of the year to date. I am, howver, conflicted as to whether I want to see a sequel. After the debacle of parts III and IV, it's so great to see the series wrapped up well that I may be happier to see it just end here.
Incidentally, the review should have included the line "this a thinking, feeling person's comic book movie. Spriggan will hate it." ;D
Nothin' but love for ya, man.
-
what? I have to think to enjoy this movie? That right there is sick and wrong.
-
"But he does turn into a cartoon like Neo in The Matrix Reloaded."
Is there supposed to be a "not" in there?
Also, I'm not sure about the "icily" comment. How was her performance icy?
.
Crap. There was indeed supposed to be a NOT in that sentence. My bad.
Who's performance was icy? You must be refferring to a post - we didn't describe anyone that way in the review.
-
Just got back from seeing it. Singer did a good job but it's far from perfect. First off what's up with casting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane? Not only didn't she bother acting in the movie she turned a character that's supposed to be a commanding presence into someone who just acts like an idiot. I think Lucas could have gotten better dialog out of her.
Roth did much better then her but he spent more time trying to be Chris Reeve then Superman and failed horribly. He had the mannerisms down but has no charm at all as Clark Kent. I think if Singer had decided not to mimic Donner's movies so much it would have come off better by letting Roth act like his characters not trying to act like someone else playing those characters. He did a much better job at playing Superman just because he had no dialog, but again he could never replace Reeve so they shouldn't have bothered.
Not sure what's up the the kid, he felt thrown in as an after though but I wont go into that any more since this isn't spoilers. Though it is sad when the 8 year old is a better actor then the leading lady.
Besides that it was a fun popcorn movie, tad long, but it's not an action movie in any way. It more of a drama with a smidgen of action/suspense in it, if you liked Lois and Clark this is a movie for you.
-
It ws close to Earth- like gravity - when Zodd drops the flags, they just drop to the ground, full force, exactly like they would on Earth.
Well Singer had wind in space so you can decide which is worse.
-
So according the Boxoffice Mojo Superman only took in 16 million yesterday (ouch) and with a production budget of around $300 million WB will more then likely loose a lot of money on this. Remember that studios only get about 55% of the box office gross in North America (it's much less for over seas). So that makes me wonder why studios spend so much money on movies? Superman would have to pull in over $500 million to break even and X3 would have to pull in over $400 million. Surely licensing makes up for some extra cash but it seams like these big budgeted movies always loose money.
-
From what I've heard, studios really rake in the bucks when it comes time for DVD sales.
Oh--and CNN's saying that it took in 21 million on Wednesday, which is the 11th best one day opening on record, so that's not awful. I hope it does well--I'd like to see the series back.
-
True, I forgot about DVDs, but it still seams strange that they would gamble making up 100 million or more just in DVD sales.
-
Saw it today, liked it.
Has some really good scenes, and I liked that it makes so many references to the older movies.
Still, Kate Bosworth was horrid. Part of the problem is she's trying to play a person 10 years older. I just never felt she was Louis Lane during the film.
-
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.
-
I think part of the problem with this movie was the actual Luthor plot was always sidelined by the romance and by the time the movie dealt with it you just didn't care.
I'm starting to think all directors need to take a lesson for George Lucas on editing and movie length. He refuses to make movies longer then 2 hours because it forces him to remove things that don't need to be in there and distract from the story. Both Singer and Peter Jackson would be wise to start following that advice, not everything a director thinks should be in a movie should be there for the theatrical release. That's what DVDs are for.
As for reviews for Superman, I think this Box Office Mojo review best describs my thoughts on it.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2102&p=.htm
It also introduces Lois, miraculously younger than she was 26 years ago—and the age difference impairs her character's ability to get swept up by Supe. At the low end of twentysomething, Lois (Kate Bosworth) now drives a luxury car, has a child out of wedlock, lives in a mansion with her boss (James Marsden), to whom she is not married--sleeping with Perry White's (Frank Langella) nephew hasn't helped her afford a haircut or a sitter for the kid--and, by the way, she has a Pulitzer.
Nothing against Kate Bosworth, in stringy black hair, but Lois is too preoccupied being superwoman to pine convincingly for Superman, who has a vague role as the world's savior. Margot Kidder's tenacious reporter had yet to achieve her career highs and she was a bit of a mess, and the contrast with clean-cut Superman added a deeper dimension to the bond. Kidder and Christopher Reeve were magnetic.
Routh's Man of Steel lacks purpose. He returns to earth after trying to find his home planet Krypton. Barely speaking to his adoptive mother (Eva Marie Saint, looking lost), he randomly flashes back to boyhood (and teases his dog in a way that seems cruel) and he eventually shows up at the Daily Planet building as Clark Kent after an absence of years. When he tries to reconnect his relationship with Lois, she snaps: "what relationship?"
Lois is neither the best nor the brightest, leaving her son stranded, taking him on assignment, dragging the child along as she trespasses and delivering him into the company of a serial killer. How can Lois be the world's greatest reporter at 23 and as street savvy as a supermodel? Welcome to the strange new world of Superman, where the tongue is nowhere near the cheek.
...
Like his core principles, described here as truth, justice and something other than the American way, the Man of Steel is ultimately reduced to near-mortal status. Director Bryan Singer tried to have it every which way--soap opera, epic, modern relevance--and ended up with too much movie and not much to say. That Superman is downsized comes with today's cultural territory: he aches and he broods, the hero with hospitalized feet of clay--this is Superman, right?--and, when he does take flight, he's a speck on the horizon; humbled, insignificant and noticeably smaller than life.
-
Who's performance was icy? You must be refferring to a post - we didn't describe anyone that way in the review.
Maybe do a search for "icily" on your review? :)
He is joined by his moll, Kitty (Parker Posey, of Waiting For Guffman) who icily fills the roles of both Miss Tessmacher and Otis.
Maybe that was supposed to be "easily"? It's kind of an odd typo though.
-
I'm starting to think all directors need to take a lesson for George Lucas on editing and movie length. He refuses to make movies longer then 2 hours because it forces him to remove things that don't need to be in there and distract from the story.
Except that all 6 Star Wars movies are longer than 120 minutes. And each one is slightly longer than the one before.
-
I stand corrected, that must be an old quote from him, though his pacing is still much better then most other directors.
It is odd to note that SW EP 3 only had a budget of $113 million and yet had more F/X per sqare inch then either Superman or X3. Must be a perk of non-union film making.
-
Interesting (spoiler-ridden) review over at Locus:
http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Features/Westfahl_SupermanReturns.html
-
Great review. Thanks for the link, Ookla.
-
I saw it ysterday. It was O.K, wouldn't really recommend it. It was too long, and most of the time they were just talking a load of c**p. Superman dies and comes back to live twice for goodness sake, it just so repetitive.
I am Bored with the same endings have someone get killed like superman
-
how insightful. You're use of the more annoying text formatting functions just makes your point all the more convincing.
-
I know, great isn't it! No, No , Give me my award later, I insist!
-
All in all the movie was great, I just wish they'd had Superman and Lane secretly married so five years later she could have been like, "Welcome back dear... oh and that's your son."