Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Redjake
I'm very, very surprised at how many people liked this movie. Perhaps a blindfold has been put over many of the members' eyes - a blindfold of feeling 'obligated' to enjoy the movie. this movie just didn't work.
|
It worked more for some than for others. I certainly didn't feel obligated to like it. I didn't care for X3, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, or several other recent comic book movies. This one I thought was pretty good. It's a matter of taste more than anything else.
Quote:
|
ok first. no character development. AT ALL. NONE. you don't even fucking know the characters at the end of the movie. I kept thinking the Lois was Jean Grey because of Cyclops. I didn't even know Superman by the end. He was still a stranger. I didn't care when he almost died. at all.
|
I'd agree that this was the movie's weakest point, though I think I did see a bit more character development than you did. I saw a lot more development of Lois than you did, and the date scene was mercifully short--long enough to get the point across without overstaying it's welcome. I don't understand your Jean Grey/Cyclops comment.
Quote:
|
the pacing. this movie seemed like it was Lord of the Rings 4! It seemed like 3 hours long. I was WAITING for it to be over.
|
2h 34m, so you're not far off. I didn't find the length a problem. I'd rather get a little more for the money. I take it you're not a fan of the LOTR extended editions that add about an hour to each movie. They're better at four hours than three, IMO.
Quote:
|
the movie never did anything to capture my interest. they just jumped right in and superman didn't do anything out of the ordinary. boring. lex luthor with another generic "wouldn't actually work in real life" plot. seriously, does he think the governments of the world would just step aside and let him sell his new land that crystalized out of nothing? oh sure lex, here's 8 trillion dollars. no. he's more intelligent than that.
|
Of course it wouldn't work in real life. Most of the movie wouldn't work in real life.
However, to answer your specific criticism, Lex had the teaching crystals that have the accumulated knowlege of thousands of civilizations. He was going to use that to create alien weapons with which to defend his new continent.
Quote:
|
the generic "come in contact with kryptonite, get beat up, overcome your obstacle, save the day" plot. ugh.
|
Yep, that's pretty much the standard Superman plot, which worked for some 30 years in the comics. It still worked for me because it was well done.
Quote:
the screenplay. the dialogue didn't work at certain parts and the movie seemed to jump around unnecessarily.
the score. I like the superman score but get something new. and don't use fucking marlon brando clips. it made it seem like a remake even though it wasn't. see batman begins for more information. no danny elfman = good.
|
I enjoyed the frequent homages to the earlier movies. Using the Brando clips makes perfect sense to me, because the teaching crystals were recorded by Jor El. I liked that it was a blending of the earlier elements and newer stuff.
Quote:
|
most of the shit in the movie was just there to show graphix. big daily planet ball falling = graphics. minigun = graphics. shooting his eye = graphics. leaping through cornfields = graphics. why have flashbacks if you aren't going to explain his youth? because it was in the first movie? then why did you show it at all? because you got the graphics. oh gosh the graphix are so good.
|
Sure, there were a lot of CGI scenes, some there just for eye candy. They worked for me. The flashback did have an important tie to the current plot, though.
Spoiler:
It showed Clark flying for the first time, which is a reminder that his powers developed over time, not all at once. This ties back into the plot with his son, whose powers are present intermittently, for a few seconds.
the acting was pretty decent. spacy as lex luthor worked but his character was useless.
Quote:
|
I was waiting for a good 45 minutes for something cool to happen in the movie and nothing ever happened. the plane scene was pretty cool, but no emotion was conveyed. I just don't see how Singer could go from one of the best comic movies ever made (X2) to this shit. I think back to Nightcrawler teleporting through the White House, Jean Grey saving the whole Xmen from the dam, and Wolverine pwning Striker and all that and I just think of emotion and a great movie. This movie sucked. Big disappointment. And what was the point of the kid??? Nothing!!!! At least go indepth! Don't just talk about him for 3 minutes and then BAM the movie is over!
|
I liked the opening exposition. I agree that X2 was a better movie, but I don't see the scenes you list as big emotional scenes.
Quote:
|
this movie was just boring. I wanted it to be over within the first 20 minutes. it's fucking SUPERMAN. how can you make superman boring? see this movie. the only scene that captured my interest was the plane scene, like I said. landing in the ball field was reminiscent of the comics.
|
I guess I saw the movie differently. I thought the opening exposition worked very well to set up what happened later.
I liked the plane scene for a couple of reasons.
Spoiler:
It does something new, something I hadn't seen before. Superman has to be careful in how he stops it to avoid hurting the passengers, and messes up at first, ripping off one wing. I liked the detail of Lois being thrown around inside as a demonstration of how dangerous it was, showing why Superman had to be careful. I liked that she was out of her seat because she was saving the spokeswoman instead of looking just after herself.
the actors don't even seem like they are having a good time. neither does Singer. I wonder if anyone actually wanted to make the movie. the action scenes seem forced, as if they had to be put in to make audiences happy.[/QUOTE]
It's a very well made movie, in terms of the craft that went into it. Whether it appeals to you is, I think, a matter of taste moreso than a matter of inherent quality of the movie.
Gilda