Superman Returns

I saw it tonight. Honestly I was kind of dissapointed. Believe me I tried to enjoy it but like knkwzrd said I found lots of it pretty boring. The sappy romance stuff got on my nerves too.

The movie is visually stunning but I dont think its worth seeing because of that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I just came back from it myself, and I must say that I loved the movie. It was a total and complete nostalgia-fest, and it harkened me back to the first Superman movie, making me feel like a kid again. It reminded me of how great a hero Superman truly is.

Spoiler:

As far as the plot holes people are mentioning, for the crystal-land buying scheme, who says they couldn't terraform it? Maybe that was his plan later, you know after it had formed. The Superweapon? Maybe dropping another crystal right next to another continent may dissuade people from doing anything. We don't know Lex's master plan because he doesn't give us anything more than the basics.

The kid was the only thing that I didn't like. I don't like someone giving a reason for Superman to stay on Earth. He does because of his own morals, and having a kid sort of weighs against that, in my opinion. My worry is that Superman 2 and 3 will feature campy sidekick appearances from Superboy...that to me would feel completely wrong.

Visually, the movie was fairly stunning (except for the island scenes, which were albeit a bit bland). More action would have been nice, but in a way I'm glad this didn't have over-the-top fisticuffs in it, like every other movie does. Plus it gives you a reason to wait for a second movie when they introduce another villain who can go toe to toe with the boy in blue.

The understated action of him saving regular joes from natural (or unnatural) disasters made it feel exactly like the first movie, and introducing the next generation to who Superman really is was done perfectly through this. Superman isn't about punching the next big bad guy into outer space; he's about saving people from anything, and like someon said above, never asking for anything in return.

Routh himself pulled off a great Superman. Not on par with Mr. Reeves, but those were some big shoes to fill. Routh's Clark didn't seem "right", but Clark also didn't get much screen time for dialogue and such for it to really show. Lois was alright, a little weak, but better than Margo. The dialogue and story overall were very good for what it was: It made me feel like I was watching a comic unfold. It wasn't epic or dramatic in the amazing sense, but as a translation of an art form, it was near perfect. It didn't take itself too seriously, but also didn't shit on the original format.

All in all, to me it was close to, if not equal, in greatness as Batman Begins. Just remember, it is a different style of movie, simply due to the fact that the heroes are a little bit different in and of themselves. 9/10

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Spoiler:

What gave Lex the idea that anyone would want to buy a house ON A GIANT SHARD OF BARREN MAGICAL GREEN SPACE GLASS? It's not exactly prime real estate. Flimsiest evil ploy of all time.

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

Spoiler:

The other goofy thing is the idea that somehow he'll own this land and be able to sell it. Um... what sort of super weapon does he have at his disposal to make people actually fear him? Once the land appears, any government can just come in and kill/capture Lex. They're not going to put up with any "I own this land" shit.

Did either of you actually watch the movie?

Spoiler:

Ofcourse no one is going to go out and buy up lakelots on his shitty land. However when he manages to flood a third of the world, people are not exactly going to have a choice. They will NEED that land. Governments will have to buy land simply to keep their people alive. It's not out of choice, but necessity.

He very, very clearly stated that he will have weapons far more advanced than anything man has created. He's managed to create his own continent with a space rock. A spack rock from a civilzation thousands of years more advanced than we are. Since those same crystals (with the Fortress of Solitude) contain all the known information on Krypton (including their defense systems), he has easy access to weapons we can't even dream of. He's fully prepared to go to war with the world over this.

That out of the way, I felt it was nothing less than fantastic. They managed to get every single aspect of the Superman mythos completely fucking dead on. They just got it all so RIGHT. His interaction with Lois. His choices to help humanity. The Clark/Superman dynamic.

Routh plays an absolute amazing Christopher Reeve playing Superman playing Clark Kent. There were moments when I honestly thought it was Chris again. He's most definately built a career on this performance. Bosworth was alright. Much better than I expected, but I still feel she was a little young for Lois. Marsden was great as always. Huntington played a PERFECT Jimmy Olsen. Such a man-crush on both Supes and Kent, but too naive to peice them together. Langella was great, pretty much the anti-Jameson. The "Great Cesear's Ghost" made the fanboy in me get all giddy.

Spacey was a good Luthor. Not quite as good as I had hoped, but still great. Leagues ahead of Hackman, but I still wish he was a little less campy and alot more menacing.

Spoiler:

The whole "Son of the Last Son of Krypton" thing worked out much better than I thought. I knew about it going in, and was dead set against it, but Singer handled it great. The scene where Superman gives him his father's speech was amazing.

The effects were great, I imagine this is what Donner was hoping for but wasn't possible back in the 70s.

The entire airplane scene is one of the best things I have ever seen. It was like watching a comic. Hell pretty much every "action" scene was great. Pretty much every flying scene was great. The shot of him in space before the robbery, the landing on Luthor's island, and the end shot of him in space will stick in my mind for quite some time.

I don't know how someone could find this film boring at all. It had just the right amount of action to keep it from being nothing more than Superman punching henchmen. Apparently some people are a little miffed that a comic book tried to tell an actual story. I mean the nerve of them having a romance. It's not like the entire Superman legacy can be boiled down to his choice to help the people of earth and his love for Lois Lane. Damn those central driving forces behind well established characters!

It is possibly the best comic book movie yet. Batman Begins in a close second, and Spider-Man (1) in third. This will not be the last time that I see it before it leaves the theater.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by acid

It is possibly the best comic book movie yet. Batman Begins in a close second, and Spider-Man (1) in third. This will not be the last time that I see it before it leaves the theater.

This comment contains an infinite amount of lies.

Batman Begins is the best super hero movie by far. This movie brought Batman back from the brink of destruction by telling a story that hadn't been told before. Superman Returns doesn't even come close to being better than it. Even if you are a big fan of Supes you have to see the movie for what it is. It was full of cheese, bad dialougue, bad acting, romantic fluff, and repetative and weak action scenes. I still see potential in the franchise though. Like I said before I consider it to be like the original X-Men movie or the original Spider-Man movie. The sequels to those where far better than the original and I see the same thing happening for Superman.

For reasons I have already mentioned Spider-Man shouldn't even be on the list unless it's Spider-Man 2. When you say best comic book movie and not best super hero movie you forget to mention Sin City which was incredible.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Foshi

This comment contains an infinite amount of lies.

Batman Begins is the best super hero movie by far. This movie brought Batman back from the brink of destruction by telling a story that hadn't been told before. Superman Returns doesn't even come close to being better than it. Even if you are a big fan of Supes you have to see the movie for what it is. It was full of cheese, bad dialougue, bad acting, romantic fluff, and repetative and weak action scenes. I still see potential in the franchise though. Like I said before I consider it to be like the original X-Men movie or the original Spider-Man movie. The sequels to those where far better than the original and I see the same thing happening for Superman.

For reasons I have already mentioned Spider-Man shouldn't even be on the list unless it's Spider-Man 2. When you say best comic book movie and not best super hero movie you forget to mention Sin City which was incredible.

I'm 100 times the Batman fan as I am the Superman fan. Batman is my guy. Superman doesn't even rank in my top 5. However as much as I loved Begins (and that was ALOT), I think I may have liked Superman more.

Spider-Man was a huge disappointment. Yeah it had a couple of good scenes, but overall it was just "meh". It felt like I had already seen it. The train fight was immensly cool, which they then managed to fuck up with the dumbest sequence I've ever seen. Spider-Jesus and the "Don't worry Spider-Man! We won't tell anybody!"

Don't talk about cheesy acting and dialouge and then bring up the first X-Men. Was it great, oh god yes, but it too had it's moments. Toad's and lightening, people.

I really want to know what action scenes were weak. Like seriously, because I sure as shit don't know.

And yes, you're right. I should have said best superhero movie to narrow it down. Although I don't agree that Sin City was better, it was a great movie.

Simply put, Superman was so great because I haven't had that much fun at a movie in years. And really, that's exactly what comics are supposed to be.

Spoiler:

This is kind of out of place, but I forgot to mention it in my first post. One thing that I absolutely adored was how they actually acknowledged the existence of other characters. I mean, they made no mention of Daredevil or the Fantastic Four or the X-Men (or the other 60% of Marvel Universe that is based out of New York) in the Spidey movies. It doesn't have to take much. Maybe just a TV in the background talking about "Dr.Richards" or the Statue of Liberty incident. Maybe a newspaper with the Hulk's latest rampage on it. It's little details like this that help immerse the audience in not only this movie, but the entire Universe in which it's set. It connects everything. When the news report was listing off the places he had been sighted and mentioned "Gotham", I nearly jumped out of my seat. Perry White also made a quick mention to "killer clowns" which, atleast to me, only made me think of a certain Batman villian.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Awesome post, acid. I agree with every single thing you said except for it being better than Batman Begins. Superman is just shy of the top spot, if you ask me. I personally feel that Batman Begins is just a much more beautifully crafted film than Superman. A few times in Superman, the CG is just LOLable, and it took me out of the film. For instance, in the beginning when he has his flashback of him jumping around, the shot of him hitting the weathervane.

This isn't a Batman thread, so I won't elaborate any further. Bravo on your post though.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by acid

I'm 100 times the Batman fan as I am the Superman fan. Batman is my guy. Superman doesn't even rank in my top 5. However as much as I loved Begins (and that was ALOT), I think I may have liked Superman more.

Spider-Man was a huge disappointment. Yeah it had a couple of good scenes, but overall it was just "meh". It felt like I had already seen it. The train fight was immensly cool, which they then managed to fuck up with the dumbest sequence I've ever seen. Spider-Jesus and the "Don't worry Spider-Man! We won't tell anybody!"

Don't talk about cheesy acting and dialouge and then bring up the first X-Men. Was it great, oh god yes, but it too had it's moments. Toad's and lightening, people.

I really want to know what action scenes were weak. Like seriously, because I sure as shit don't know.

And yes, you're right. I should have said best superhero movie to narrow it down. Although I don't agree that Sin City was better, it was a great movie.

Simply put, Superman was so great because I haven't had that much fun at a movie in years. And really, that's exactly what comics are supposed to be.

Spoiler:

This is kind of out of place, but I forgot to mention it in my first post. One thing that I absolutely adored was how they actually acknowledged the existence of other characters. I mean, they made no mention of Daredevil or the Fantastic Four or the X-Men (or the other 60% of Marvel Universe that is based out of New York) in the Spidey movies. It doesn't have to take much. Maybe just a TV in the background talking about "Dr.Richards" or the Statue of Liberty incident. Maybe a newspaper with the Hulk's latest rampage on it. It's little details like this that help immerse the audience in not only this movie, but the entire Universe in which it's set. It connects everything. When the news report was listing off the places he had been sighted and mentioned "Gotham", I nearly jumped out of my seat. Perry White also made a quick mention to "killer clowns" which, atleast to me, only made me think of a certain Batman villian.

I don't see the end of the train scene in Spider-Man 2 as being all that different from the hospital scene at the end of Superman Returns. Completely unneeded and stupid.

You are correct the first X-Men movie was a weak film. It is not one of my favorite super hero movies, but X-Men 2 is.

The only well done action scene was the first airplane scene with the space shuttle. Everything else was just a rehash of things I have seen before. Such as, super breath, laser eyes, super strength. I was hoping these things would be more exciting and innovative.

My real problem with the movie is that Superman doesn't have any real villian to fight with. Lex just doesn't do it and his moronic schemes are ridiculous. Like I mentioned before, Bizarro would have been perfect for some awesome action scenes. That way there would be someone on equal level with Superman.

The next Superman will undoubtable be better than Returns as nearly all sequels are better nowadays.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Foshi

The next Superman will undoubtable be better than Returns as nearly all sequels are better nowadays.

Wait hold on. All sequels are better nowadays?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Wojo

Wait hold on. All sequels are better nowadays?

Note the "nearly" in my sentence. I'm only basing it on the fact that X-Men 2 was better than 1 and the same for Spider-Man.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I finally got a chance to see it lastnight, and found it to be very enjoyable on the whole. Routh definitely exceeded expectations in his portrayal of the Man of Steel as well as the bumbling Kent. Spacey was great although I wished we'd seen more of his frustration with his incompetent staff. Those boots he was constantly wearing were killing me... so damn funny. I think that Kal Penn was a poor choice of casting. It wasn't that he did a bad job (he didn't say much of anything) but moreso that I kept asking myself, "wait, what is Kumar doing in this movie?" He just seemed out of place. Also, Jimmy Olsen bugged me. He seemed too plastic and too young. If Superman had been gone for 5 years, then how old was Jimmy when he started working for the planet... 15? Sam Huntington just looks way too young.

Jason's (Lois' kid) hair bugged the shit out of me. What's with Hollywood and giving every 8 year old kid a mop top haircut? Maybe it's just me, but I can't remember the last time I saw an 8 year old boy with a mess of hair like that. Other than his look, the kid was decent.

The special effects were top notch. Despite the CG looking obvious in a few sequences... nobody's ever flown like that before.

The storyline was decent, however I still think they should've started from scratch. It's a difficult task to re-introduce a storyline that's been dormant for 25 years. I thought a lot of it was a stretch to flow off of a plotline that was started so long ago. It also leaves a number of holes in the story that comic nerds will argue about... explaining away for months to come. The benefit to making a sequel to the previous film is that hopefully it will encourage movie goers to go home and rewatch Superman I and II, cause they are kickass movies that should be appreciated.

The score was solid although I wish Ottman would've made more use of the Williams themes. It hit the emotional highs and lows. The sad chiming of that music box sounding track fit really well.

A few places in the movie were too slow paced and lacking in substance as far as dialogue goes.

The dialoge wasn't as witty as in the first Donner movie. There were times where I was expecting more of a comedic element from Jimmy, or bumbling Clark, but it didn't deliver. It seemed as though every funny one-liner was crammed into the trailers. I was glad that they re-used a few of the lines from the first movie like the line about flying being the safest way to travel.

Spoiler:

as far as Jason being Supes' son... ah, I didn't care for it all that much. Hurling the piano was cool, but why didn't he attempt to use his strength at all after that? Hell, they were drowning! Also, instead of Jason, she shoudl've named him John, or Jonathan so he could coincidentally have been named after Jonathan Kent.

Cool, Superman drinks beer? I loved the line in the first movie where he says, "I never drink when I fly."

I wish Superman would've elaborated more concerning his journey to Krypton.

I'm wondering how Superman got his ass kicked by all Lex's henchmen, just cause the landmass was so dense with kryptonite, yet he somehow manages to lift the entire thing and fling it into space. In the old flicks, he'd be basically crippled if you got kryptonite within a 10 foot radius of the guy. Now he can somehow lift an entire continent of the stuff and retain temendous strength?

Singer certainly went out of his way to show Supes as the Christ-head figure what with him dying and coming back to life. They threw the word "savior" around multiple times. When Supes gets beat down by Lex and his buddies... it seemed very Passion of the Christ ... clear down to him being stabbed in the side. Also after he launched that giant land mass into space, he hit that Jesus Christ pose before plummeting back to earth.

His meeting with Jason at the end was good, but Lois didn't seem quite dumbfounded enough at the end. Also, I would've like to have seen him reveal to his mom that he was ok.

Does anybody remember the clip from one of the trailers where Ma Kent is hanging with some old dude and he says, "heard you flew in lastnight." Where was that scene cause I don't remember it at all. Maybe I just completely misssed it.

Overall I'd give the movie an 8 out of 10. It's an awesome comic movie, though it can't touch the Spidey flicks, or Batman Begins. I hope they do another one.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by acid

That out of the way, I felt it was nothing less than fantastic. They managed to get every single aspect of the Superman mythos completely fucking dead on. They just got it all so RIGHT. His interaction with Lois. His choices to help humanity. The Clark/Superman dynamic.

Routh plays an absolute amazing Christopher Reeve playing Superman playing Clark Kent. There were moments when I honestly thought it was Chris again. He's most definately built a career on this performance. Bosworth was alright. Much better than I expected, but I still feel she was a little young for Lois. Marsden was great as always. Huntington played a PERFECT Jimmy Olsen. Such a man-crush on both Supes and Kent, but too naive to peice them together. Langella was great, pretty much the anti-Jameson. The "Great Cesear's Ghost" made the fanboy in me get all giddy.

Spacey was a good Luthor. Not quite as good as I had hoped, but still great. Leagues ahead of Hackman, but I still wish he was a little less campy and alot more menacing.

The effects were great, I imagine this is what Donner was hoping for but wasn't possible back in the 70s.

The entire airplane scene is one of the best things I have ever seen. It was like watching a comic. Hell pretty much every "action" scene was great. Pretty much every flying scene was great. The shot of him in space before the robbery, the landing on Luthor's island, and the end shot of him in space will stick in my mind for quite some time.

I don't know how someone could find this film boring at all. It had just the right amount of action to keep it from being nothing more than Superman punching henchmen. Apparently some people are a little miffed that a comic book tried to tell an actual story. I mean the nerve of them having a romance. It's not like the entire Superman legacy can be boiled down to his choice to help the people of earth and his love for Lois Lane. Damn those central driving forces behind well established characters!

It is possibly the best comic book movie yet. Batman Begins in a close second, and Spider-Man (1) in third. This will not be the last time that I see it before it leaves the theater.

I agree with pretty much everything said here except for the comments about Routh as Superman and Spacey as Lex to a degree. Personally while some of Routh's performance of Clark seemed much like Chris Reeve's version of Clark Kent, Routh made Superman all his own...a more "mature" Superman mostly.

Kevin Spacey seemed to be playing Gene Hackman except without the cheese and little more darker and menacing. The scene for example where...

Spoiler:

Lex and his thugs are kicking the living shit out of Superman, drowning him and pulling him across the floor by his face was just brutal. Almost too brutal at times and seems to be the whole reason why the film is PG-13.

Overall I loved the movie. I mean I'm on a high after seeing it and the IMAX theatre was packed and you could tell the audience was getting a kick out of the film and then seeing them leave you had grandmothers, mothers and fathers and kids talking about the film. If I had any complaints it'd be that some of the FX, mainly the digital double stuff for Routh, looked a little hokey and fake and I wish some of the deleted scenes like Superman exploring the ruins of Krypton and the like were kept in.

The IMAX 3D stuff was pretty good too, not distracting but the 3D stuff does take a little getting used to and sometimes some of the background objects look a little out of focus but I'll be seeing the film again via IMAX for sure.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I saw 2 movies this weekend: Superman Returns and Nacho Libre. Both are really ridiculous, but at least one was MEANT to be.

Everything was really predictable. There was NO SUSPENSE. Lois was about as deep as a spoon, too.

I think Spacey was visually bad for the part of Lex (he reminded me too much of Goldmember), but he turned out to be the best part.

Spoiler:

I was overjoyed Lex stabbed SM's dumbass.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

It seemed to me like the movie made a great effort to be endearing, but given the amount of time (or lack thereof) that was given to dialogue, I'm suprised so many people, including myself, found it to be endearing.

It's not all that surprising, I guess. In your average film, you need the dialogue to become adjusted to the characters. To learn where they lie and what drives them. Not so with this movie, where we know pretty much everyone and how they'll react to any given situation.

So it seems like a lot of the burden that fell on this movie was to make it something that we haven't seen before. The scriptwriters thought the best way to accomplish that was to make enticing action scenes, things that are made interesting by virtue of the special effects used and the visual flare that came out of them.

That is, indeed, what I think the movie accomplished the best. Not the special effects, and not the action sequences, but the visual flare and feel of the film. So many scenes had so little dialogue, but the resulting imagery and atmosphere of the shots seemed to make up for whatever was missing between the characters themselves. The use of light and shadow, of lighting and post-production effects like the scene when Superman gets beaten up, and the colors are all washed out-- all of these things combined made for an intense and beautiful cinema experience. So many of the scenes, it seemed to me, could be posters hung up in a fan's room. There was just so much room in the screenplay for visual feasting.

But I suppose that's where the film fell short as well. Because while it was able to bring out that emotive quality using only visual cues, it left almost nothing to the imagination. One-dimensional is the word Ebert uses, and I think that is accurate, but I think it also discounts a lot of the film's strength, which is to make you feel that these are the characters which, for all intents and purposes, have never left us. Though the actors who play them may change, there is a sense of security in knowing that Superman, the character, has not. It is directly related to who Superman is that he never change; never grow truly bitter or recalcitrant, because if he does, it means he is fallible in a way that kryptonite cannot compare with.

Overall, I think the movie is taking more abuse than it deserves. I'd give it three stars. Good, but I can't say I prefer it to Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by acid

Did either of you actually watch the movie?

Spoiler:

Ofcourse no one is going to go out and buy up lakelots on his shitty land. However when he manages to flood a third of the world, people are not exactly going to have a choice. They will NEED that land. Governments will have to buy land simply to keep their people alive. It's not out of choice, but necessity.

Spoiler:

Presumably, everyone who was living on the land that became suddenly and completely underwater would have died. No one would have been displaced, there would just be a lot of dead folks. Doesn't he say sometime in the movie that "Billions will die"?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Foshi

This movie brought Batman back from the brink of destruction by telling a story that hadn't been told before.

What story is that, again?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Interrobang

What story is that, again?

This isn't a Batman thread, but to answer your question Begins told the origin story. The origin of Batman wasn't told in any of the previous Batman films. We had glimpses but nothing definitive or with any substance. Begins was a great film because it made the whole man in a mask premise believable and wasn't just about flashy effects and big explosions. It actually had a working plot and convincing characters that emoted heart.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Mask of the Phantasm had Batman's origin.

Your comment had me confused, as you didn't exclude comics from your statement.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Mostly decent, but Singer should've made his own movie and not a fanfic-esque followup to Donner's efforts.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Spoiler:

Presumably, everyone who was living on the land that became suddenly and completely underwater would have died. No one would have been displaced, there would just be a lot of dead folks. Doesn't he say sometime in the movie that "Billions will die"?

Spoiler:

Even if everyone who was on said land died, eventually people will start having more people. The population will eventually recover and people are going to have a third of the world less to live in. Room is going to become scarce, and people will be forced to move to his land.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

i watched the movie today and it was one of the best movies in my life.
the plot was clever and visually it really made me feel the speed and the tension through my own eyes like i was there!

AWESOME MOVIE, A MUST FOR ANY DC FAN!!!!!!!! ^_^

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by acid

Did either of you actually watch the movie?

Spoiler:

Ofcourse no one is going to go out and buy up lakelots on his shitty land. However when he manages to flood a third of the world, people are not exactly going to have a choice. They will NEED that land. Governments will have to buy land simply to keep their people alive. It's not out of choice, but necessity.

He very, very clearly stated that he will have weapons far more advanced than anything man has created. He's managed to create his own continent with a space rock. A spack rock from a civilzation thousands of years more advanced than we are. Since those same crystals (with the Fortress of Solitude) contain all the known information on Krypton (including their defense systems), he has easy access to weapons we can't even dream of. He's fully prepared to go to war with the world over this.

Spoiler:

Seriously, though, how exactly are they going to pay him? Gold? Jewelry? Because we know that currency is just about going to be as useful as shit on a plate. Those people are going to be ass-broke when they come onto his magic island, and what is he going to be buying with all the valuables?
Is he going to lord it all over the poor people and spend all day laughing at them and doing absolutely nothing with it? Seeing as to how Superman broke parts of the crystal island off when he rolled around, whatever weapons Lex would make would be pretty useless as thay would have been brittle, right? p.s. Weapons or not, you still need men. You can't be prepared to face the world with just the 4 of them.

Let me get this out of the way. I'm a DC fan and I basically follow alot of Superman. Somebody asked earlier if it was possible to just enjoy the movie for what it was, instead of arguing about continuity and plot holes: The answer is no. Why? It bugs the hell out of me because I know otherwise.

Some random thoughts here. I thought this was a great movie to showcase some great cinematography, along with a maturing of Superman's character. Surprisingly, while the potrayal of some of the characters for the movie were spot on, I was hoping for a little more maturity from the writing. The main plot was horrible. Probably an insult to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch-enemy and what does he do? Try to get rich. That's pretty...lame for somebody who deals with galactic level threats. Now that technology has caught up to the movies, I had wished they would make a "proper" villain for him. There are many in the past that have given him a shitload of trouble. Manchester Black, Doomsday, Mongul, and General Zod are some of the names off the top of my head. In fact, sometimes the writer makes him so powerful that it's hard to create villains that can keep up with him. He spends half the comic musing about the morality and the humanity of it all. The Superman in the movies is less powerful, so I don't think a villain will be a problem for him. Maybe I'm a sucker for titanic battles, but I hope that will not be what will be missing from the Superman franchise in the future.

It seems Lex Luthor will be a recurring villain in the next movie. Great. A little backstory here: In the comics, Lex Luthor is a basically an evil Batman. Somebody who can do everything. From finance to martial artistry. He's been potrayed from a mad scientist to a xenophobic, ruthless businessman to the President of the United States. Personally, I like the businessman one, who is also a techno-futurist in the vein of Tony Stark (The Billionaire Industrialist from Marvel Comics who is also Iron Man). He owns Lexcorp which in turn makes him incredibly rich which in turn allows him to bring to bear his massive resources (Third biggest corporation in the world behind Waynetech and ahead of Sivana Industries) to make life as difficult as possible for Superman. Instead he seems to have fallen to a new low as a genius who can't even make a decent bit of money legally. He's potrayed in the movie as a bit of a bumbling fool as well, which is really a shame.

Originally Posted by acid

Spoiler:

The whole "Son of the Last Son of Krypton" thing worked out much better than I thought. I knew about it going in, and was dead set against it, but Singer handled it great. The scene where Superman gives him his father's speech was amazing.

Spoiler:

I had really hope this rumor would not be true. When I found out it was, I kept thinking of this article "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" and it really threw me off.

Yes, yes, I know that the Superman movies are supposed to be disconnected from the comic, but wouldn't it be great not to have thrown away years of character building so that Superman wouldn't have to deal with what is, in essence, simple bank robbery?

p.s. Alot of credit in this post has to go to Zergrinch for the links and some of the thoughts.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by -Happy-

Spoiler:

Seriously, though, how exactly are they going to pay him? Gold? Jewelry? Because we know that currency is just about going to be as useful as shit on a plate. Those people are going to be ass-broke when they come onto his magic island, and what is he going to be buying with all the valuables?
Is he going to lord it all over the poor people and spend all day laughing at them and doing absolutely nothing with it? Seeing as to how Superman broke parts of the crystal island off when he rolled around, whatever weapons Lex would make would be pretty useless as thay would have been brittle, right? p.s. Weapons or not, you still need men. You can't be prepared to face the world with just the 4 of them.

As I understood it, he was simply going to sell peices of the land off to other random countries. He won't really lord over shit. He owns the property and is simply letting other countries own a part of it for a price.

And while the didnt really explain the whole weapons thing, I would assume that a society that is as advanced as Krypton would have weapons that would be able to stand up to being punched through.

And I'm sure that he would have problem recruiting a small army of thugs. He never has had that problem in the comics.

Originally Posted by -Happy-

Let me get this out of the way. I'm a DC fan and I basically follow alot of Superman. Somebody asked earlier if it was possible to just enjoy the movie for what it was, instead of arguing about continuity and plot holes: The answer is no. Why? It bugs the hell out of me because I know otherwise.

Some random thoughts here. I thought this was a great movie to showcase some great cinematography, along with a maturing of Superman's character. Surprisingly, while the potrayal of some of the characters for the movie were spot on, I was hoping for a little more maturity from the writing. The main plot was horrible. Probably an insult to Superman. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Superman's arch-enemy and what does he do? Try to get rich. That's pretty...lame for somebody who deals with galactic level threats. Now that technology has caught up to the movies, I had wished they would make a "proper" villain for him. There are many in the past that have given him a shitload of trouble. Manchester Black, Doomsday, Mongul, and General Zod are some of the names off the top of my head. In fact, sometimes the writer makes him so powerful that it's hard to create villains that can keep up with him. He spends half the comic musing about the morality and the humanity of it all. The Superman in the movies is less powerful, so I don't think a villain will be a problem for him. Maybe I'm a sucker for titanic battles, but I hope that will not be what will be missing from the Superman franchise in the future.

It seems Lex Luthor will be a recurring villain in the next movie. Great. A little backstory here: In the comics, Lex Luthor is a basically an evil Batman. Somebody who can do everything. From finance to martial artistry. He's been potrayed from a mad scientist to a xenophobic, ruthless businessman to the President of the United States. Personally, I like the businessman one, who is also a techno-futurist in the vein of Tony Stark (The Billionaire Industrialist from Marvel Comics who is also Iron Man). He owns Lexcorp which in turn makes him incredibly rich which in turn allows him to bring to bear his massive resources (Third biggest corporation in the world behind Waynetech and ahead of Sivana Industries) to make life as difficult as possible for Superman. Instead he seems to have fallen to a new low as a genius who can't even make a decent bit of money legally. He's potrayed in the movie as a bit of a bumbling fool as well, which is really a shame.

I do agree that movie Lex holds no candle to comic Lex. Comic Lex would have your father fired, your mother arrested, your dog put down, and your school closed for looking at him wrong. Movie Lex would send Parker Posey and Kumar after you.

However you really cannot fault this movie for that. That was well established back in 78 with the Donner films. I do agree that Lex should have been more ruthless (let some of that Se7en Spacey come out to play), but I don't fault Singer for it.

Originally Posted by -Happy-

Spoiler:

I had really hope this rumor would not be true. When I found out it was, I kept thinking of this article "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" and it really threw me off.

Superman was de-powered and did the hibbidydibbidy with Lois in Superman II.

Originally Posted by -Happy-

Yes, yes, I know that the Superman movies are supposed to be disconnected from the comic, but wouldn't it be great not to have thrown away years of character building so that Superman wouldn't have to deal with what is, in essence, simple bank robbery?

I'm assuming you're talking about the "eyeball" scene. If not, let me know. But I don't see why he wouldn't deal with this. It's never been above him to stop a petty crime if he sees it being committed, and it certainly has never been above him to save the lives of police officers.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Hr. A more long-winded review available here.

Undeniably, the visuals were great. Nice special effects, and bold brass cues when it's time for Superman to do super kind of stuff. I thought the shaking stuff foreshadowing some important event was rather overdone. Many, many scenes about Superman using his powers, which is appreciated in a comic book movie.

The acting wasn't too bad either - I wanted the incarnation of Lex Luthor which was a conniving and corrupt industrialist. I can't deny that Kevin Spacey looks like and played Luthor better than Gene Hackman's comedic routines, but there IS still a bit of campiness. However, the character does improve over the Superman 1 & 2 variants.

Personally, no complaints over Routh's acting, although I thought Lois Lane should e more aggressive than she was. Olsen was well-cast, ditto Richard White. Poor Marsden, however.

Spoiler:

His girlfriend kills him and makes out with another in X3, while he's engaged to a woman who didn't bear his son in this movie

The weakest element in this movie is probably the plot. There are three plot elements: Superman's adaptation to this world used to the idea without a Superman, Lois Lane's story, and Lex Luthor's story. All three were satisfactorily concluded, but the interweave wasn't as good. The movie probably ran 30 minutes longer than it should have.

Spoiler:

As Happy said, some plot elements did not make sense - particularly that of the Super Kid. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex notwithstanding, Superman did lose his powers for a while in Superman 2, so the opportunity to yoink was there. Still, for someone of Supes' character, if he bedded Miss Lane, it would be rather irresponsible for him to take off without saying anything, and disappear for five years.

I give this movie three out of five stars. Nice popcorn, summer blockbuster, type of flick.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

Spoiler:

His girlfriend kills him and makes out with another in X3, while he's engaged to a woman who didn't bear his son in this movie

Spoiler:

He gets fucked over in The Notebook too.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by acid

As I understood it, he was simply going to sell peices of the land off to other random countries. He won't really lord over shit. He owns the property and is simply letting other countries own a part of it for a price.

Well, for whatever reason I can see this not working out. Since he's in the middle of the ocean what would stop other countries from bombing the hell out of it? Well, I suppose "advanced kryptonian technology" would have stopped them or whatever.

Originally Posted by acid

And I'm sure that he would have problem recruiting a small army of thugs. He never has had that problem in the comics.

Problem is that the comic and the movie are totally different. Lex is a much less powerful man in the movies.

Originally Posted by acid

However you really cannot fault this movie for that. That was well established back in 78 with the Donner films. I do agree that Lex should have been more ruthless (let some of that Se7en Spacey come out to play), but I don't fault Singer for it.

I just wish they would do something about that. Not necessily to retcon the writing, but to show a progression of his character. =/

Originally Posted by acid

I'm assuming you're talking about the "eyeball" scene. If not, let me know. But I don't see why he wouldn't deal with this. It's never been above him to stop a petty crime if he sees it being committed, and it certainly has never been above him to save the lives of police officers.

No, I'm talking about Lex's scheme. I was just saying it's the equivalent of a bank robbery, just on a much larger scale. I was saying in comparison with other "more deserving" villains that Singer could have used.

Jam it back in, in the dark.