My point exactly.

So is anyone else considering cryogenically freezing themselves for 7 days so as to see the movie sooner? Or am I all alone on that one?

The more I hear about it the more I am pumped. I've even had a couple of Kryptonite-ice slurpies from 7-11 now!

Apparently aberkok has attempted to cryogenically freeze his brain with Krytonite-ice slurpees... so, no... you are not alone.

I had much the same response upon reading aberkok's post. Remember to bundle up.

i'm right with you guys. this could be pretty good.

is anyone else thinking about seeing it in IMAX? I'd really like to, but it doesn't appear to be showing in any IMAX theaters near me (the Baltimore/DC area)

I'll be seeing it at 10:00 on the 27th at an IMAX theater. I wonder how the 3D scenes will be.

Just got back from seeing a 10 o'clock showing in Baltimore. Definitely, definitely worth the wait. Some things are revealed that I did not see coming at *all* Spoiler: it's HIS kid? holy shit. Special effects adn action were great, it was well written, and I believed the character dynamics and motivations... which can be hard with such epic characters.

It's not perfect though. The main problem is its length: the movie doesn't seem to know how or when to end. I think it had more to do with the overall pacing of scenes towards the end, as opposed to there being too much story. And I might not have a problem with it so much, but I could sense the audience getting a bit restless, which in turn made me want the movie to end, so that people would like the movie.

And Routh doesn't quite do it for me (he's pretty darn close though), and I think the main issue is his voice. Maybe I'm being petty, but... it's just not deep enough. It doesn't evoke heroism...

But any remote fan Superman or comics or action movies should see this, 100%, don't hesitate.

And Kumar is now on my shit list.

He looks ok but I like the old one from the tv show when I was about 13 yrs old. Dean Cain!!!!! I wish he could be superman again!!! Hes Hotter!!!!!

BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME. I CANNOT FIND WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE JOY IN MY HEART.

Out of a scale of 1 to 10, this movie hits an even infinity. Plus 3. Infinity3. It's a number.

Great movie. Bryan Singer is forgiven for abandoning X-Men.

I just returned from a 1pm screening this afternoon and I have to agree... I think I have a new, "best comic book filmed".

Bryan Singer knows how to tell a story and he knows how to film it.

(PS: I watched Superman I and II over the weekend and this film, with a few exceptions, flow nicely from them. I wasn't sure how smooth the transition would be, but it is nice and smooth.)

You're being petty :lol: Routh totally did it for me, I actually had more of a problem with Lois, the actress was just too young for the part. Now I'm being petty...
BTW Spoiler: Anyone else find it kinda cool when Cyclops saved Superman? :lol:

It just kicked soo much ass...

Another vote for awesome! In light of so many poor decisions being made with comic book movies lately (ahem...X3...Fantastic 4...Elektra), it was great to see so many no-brainer decisions being nailed to the wall.

Should there be a sequel I'm curious to see how they handle the BIG SPOILER WHICH I WON'T MENTION (If you've seen it you know what I'm talking about).

The torch of good comic movies begun its pass with Batman Begins and is now firmly passed over. Looking forward to the sequel "Superman Stays"

so can we talk about the film without spoiler tags now? I'll assume so. If you haven't seen the movie yet, don't read this post.

Spoiler: So yea, the kid. It's Superman's. I had absolutely no idea that was going to be the case; it floored me. Did anyone else here even suspect it at all? And was the kid just pretending to be sickly to cover up his abilities? If not, why is he sickly? I really hope the kid (Jason, right?) is a central part of the next movie, because I was left wanting to know more about him.

Was anyone else really affected by the scene where Lex's henchmen are beating up the weakened Supes, followed by Lex stabbing him? It really got to me... gave me a sinking feeling like I was a kid watching Santa get run over by a truck.

Lastly, the movie did a great job of making me wonder whether they were going to have Superman die. I would have bought it. Actually, I think it would have been great if they made that happen... just to be ballsy.

understood. to his credit, i thought he played the clark kent role perfectly.

Spoiler: I think Jason could really be sick. In the flashback to Superman as a teen, he can't fully fly yet. This would suggest that his powers developed gradually from birth.

Folks, for the benefit of those who haven't seen the film, please use spoiler tags for the next few weeks...

I am sure some of the spoilers will get spilled soon enough, but so far the damn is holding.

_________________________________

I'd also like to add that hearing John William's them music was great. It really added to the flow from the first two films.

I guess I'm the only one who in no way forgives Singer for leaving the X-Men series to rot in favor of making this movie. Does it bother no one else that the classic superman retro look was combined with sleek new audis, flat screen TVs and cell phones? Did the stupid copyboy who I know from Not Another Teen Movie not deserve a slap in the face every time he opened his mouth?

Watching Superman save the day was, indeed, awesome. The movie, overall, looked slick (except for a few random sequences when Superman himself looked really cartoony for some reason). I loved Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Routh performed admirably at an impossible task.

On the other hand, the "spoiler" was trite, predictable and boring. They barely did anything with it! Where's the plot about that?!? Lois and Superman had...something...going for each other, but I'm not totally sure what it was since it definitely wasn't love. I REALLY could have done without the It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's JESU...er...SUPERMAN! crap. Why was Lois so totally unresponsive to Kent's obvious crushing on her? I mean, I know she's involved with two other guys, but she didn't do anything to acknowledge what he was doing, and it was a little hard to dismiss.

It was a solid superhero movie that stuck to the guns of the Superman movie franchise. I enjoyed it and I'd watch it again, but it's nowhere close to Batman Begins or Spiderman 2 in my book.

Spoiler: Here's a question: How did Lois know that the baby was Superman's? As far as she knows, they never had sex. He wiped her memory at the end of SMII. Her memory couldn't have returned or she would know that Clark=Superman. It was the one plot hole that bugged me. Otherwise, unlike Frosstbyte I didn't think it was trite and boring at all. It was handled very well. It wasn't the focus of this film. It was the B or even C story. I expect it will be increasingly important in future films (this is a series after all).

Personally, I think it can stand shoulder to shoulder with Batman Begins and Spiderman II.

I liked it, but it doesn't come anywhere close to making my list of the ten greatest comic book movies. It's only the third best Superman movie IMO.

Gilda

Wow Gilda. You would actually rate Superman II above Superman Returns? I just watched SMII on the weekend and there were some pretty creaky moments in that film (the biggest of which is the "comedy" of people being blown over by Zod and company - just a little too goofy).

this movie was near perfect for a comic book movie. I very much enjoyed it and there was always excitement. two thumbs up for me!

Spoiler: Maybe she was REALLY soar at the end of SM2, and took a wild guess at why she didn't remember the last few days. Heh.

willravel has won the internet. We can all go home now. Thanks for playing everyone. :lol:

But... do we really know how much time there was between Superman II and when he left for Krypton? I assume he didn't leave the *day after* he got rid of Zod, so who knows what could have happened.

And along the same lines, actually, how does the audience know, given solely what's in Superman Returns, the chronology of the movies? I was a little irked by that: I wish they had someone say something like "Yea it sucked that Superman left a year after he battled Zod!" just to make things clear. It seems to me that the average movie-goer (who doesn't peruse dorky web sites like I do) would have no idea this takes place after Superman II.

I really enjoyed it. I don't know that I enjoyed it more than the X-Men (1 and 2, 3 made me puke), Spiderman movies or Batman Begins.

But there was just something. The slightly campy add-ins, that weren't over the top, but just hinted a bit at not taking itself so seriously. It was great, and I think it's part of what makes Singer so good.

And I was worried about the direction Spacey was taking Luthor, but by the end, I just thought his performance actually had some nice nuance to it.

I thought Brandon Routh did fine as Supes. The thing is, as much as we love him, Superman isn't exactly the most deeply-layered superhero...So, if you look like him, and sound all-American, It's a pretty hard job to fuck up. So I'm going to withhold judgement on Routh until I see him in other work.

The only person who really bugged me through the whole thing was Kate Bosworth as Lois. She wasn't, you know, spunky. She was just there. She also looks to young to be a mom. Plus, with dark hair, Bosworth looks like they tried to make her look like Rachel McAdams. And seriously? They should've just gone with McAdams if they wanted a too-young Lois, anyway. She's a better actress. And cuter.

As for the spoiler... I liked it, but my friends and I were glad it wasn't blown out of proportion, just that little section was enough to keep us waning more without fucking it up.

So, overall, I give it a... B+, A- just for a miscast Lois.

Oh, and I can just imagine the phone call from Bryan Singer to James Marsden: "Hey man, I've got another part for you to get shit upon in!"

I just got to see it on the IMAX screen. I finally got the sense that Superman is the most Superhero of superheroes. He's the one that others look up to with good reason.

As for the spoiler that many of you are talking about, I have something to add...

Spoiler: Did any of you think that maybe mixing human DNA with Kryptonian DNA wasn't such a good idea, and maybe that's why he's so sickly? Also, did any of you notice that he finally showed his power shortly after he was exposed to the kryptonite that Lex held up to him, but after the whole piano incident... he was back to being in his normal state. As if the exposure would be like him on the planet Krypton and getting exposed to a red sun?

Regarding the spoiler:

Spoiler: I think it's pretty clear that it was the threat to mommy that triggered his power. The mixing of DNA has never really been an issue in comic book science. Basically, any humanoid can mate with any other humanoid and produce viable offspring that shares the parent's attributes. Right now in Young Avengers, we just found out that Hulkling's parents were Captain Marvel (a superpowered Kree) and the the Skrull princess.

Personally I like the TNG explanation, which was that an ancient race seeded thousands of planets with their DNA millions of years ago to stimulate the development of intelligent life that would all spring up at about the same time, thus ensuring that none of the races would be lonely.

There's an interesting take on the DNA thing in Invincible. The main character's father is from a race of superhumans who invade and take over other planets. The early scenes have some women in them, but later on it appears to be just men. I'm not sure if any of the women survived the planetary war.

Anyway, Nolan, the father, is a Viltrumite. He can produce offspring with any female of any species, and it's a genetic copy of nearly 100% Viltrumite attributes. Early on he disappears, but shows up later on having mated and produced a baby with a giant sentient insect. The baby looks just like him, and ordinary humanoid.

Well, that was half spoiler and half tangent. Heck it's anot even a tangent; it's an asymptote.

Gilda

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.

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.


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.

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.

the generic "come in contact with kryptonite, get beat up, overcome your obstacle, save the day" plot. ugh.


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.

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.


the acting was pretty decent. spacy as lex luthor worked but his character was useless.


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!

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.

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.

That pretty much sums up my exact feelings towards this movie. I just got back from seeing it and WOW was this movie a crapper. About halfway through I just wanted to go home because it was so boring. The movie had no energy. The characters had no energy. The character development was non-existant and I felt like I had no idea who the characters were at the end. This movie is bad.

Where's the struggle? There wasn't a single conflict in the entire movie. No joke. Think about it. Did Superman ever have to test his limits? No. Did he ever have to struggle to overcome a huge feat? No. Did he look realistic, as if he might actually reach his limits? No. All of these are qualities that Spiderman 2 had, definitely the best comic book movie of all time. I want to take a shower after watching this embarassment.

Wasn't terrible. But closer to bad than good, to be sure.

Acting: blech. Supes was so bland that if he died I thought he would burst in an underwhelming explosion of beige. And Lois Lane? That was the most unlikeable love interest I've ever seen in a movie. Throughout the whole movie she systematically acts like a total bitch to every person but her kid. She never smiles, never laughs, never engages in banter, never gives me any reason to believe that anyone could ever stand her, let alone love her. Plus, she refuses to marry Richard, who's practically perfect, and does everything for her.

Plus, how many times is Lex gonna get his hands on kryptonite? I guess every three summers, when the movies come out, Lex will escape from prison and rustle some up. YAWN.

Superman needs to be the ultimate outsider. His personal life can't just be sad - I mean, there's a ton people out there who can't marry the love of their life and have trouble making friends, and not all of them have the advantage of being powerful and famous and beloved by billions - but must be a bloody Greek tragedy.

You want a movie about a superhero who doesn't fit in? Who can't balance his personal life and his work life and his superhero life? Who has a loved one he can never be with? Who identifies with as well has hates his awesome responsibilities? Go with Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. Both movies are far, far better, especially the latter.

is it just me or is anybody else not bothered by the fact that *spoilers - highlight* Lois Lane is a fuckin' lying whore who deceived her common law husband Richard (James Marsden).

What the fuck you think is going to happen when he finds out the son that he thought was his is the bastard child of another man... it would be a totally different story if he had known in the beginning and then willingly adopted him as his son.

and get this; superman left five years ago. superman fucked Lois Lane five years ago. Her son is 5 years old. so Lois immediately jumps in the sac with Richard, a guy she has appearantly just met, and then decides to let him believe he is the one that got her preggers.

Lois Lane is a slut.

does it not bother anyone that the son of superman is a bastard?

The only hero (tragic hero) in this movie is Richard, and not that pussy with superpowers...

not that my opinion matters...

-Mav

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I respect your opinion Gilda, and you make some good counterpoints and comments, but overall, the movie just wasn't good to me. I fail to see how it is a matter of opinion - using the standard schematics of rating or critiquing a movie, this movie just wasn't good. The reason I say this is because I love Kevin Spacy, I thought Brandon Routh was great as Superman, I thought the girl that played Lane was fine, I thought the graphics were great, I thought the score was great, but I still didn't like the movie. A truely GREAT movie will have all of these great aspects and you leave the theater LIKING the movie instead of hating it. A truely great movie leaves you with a smile on your face or emotional or happy or even sad, any of those. This movie just passed on by without me caring. The screenplay and directing just didn't work to please the people who went into the movie wanting to love it. The movie's quality can't be categorized as a "difference of opinion" when I personally have such a broad spectrum of movies I like. The types of movies I like are simply "quality movies." This wasn't a quality movie. It was similar to watching Daredevil, Fantastic Four, or X3. I just didn't care. Perhaps if you are a really huge fan of Superman and comics themselves, you can look past the bad qualities of the movie and enjoy it nonetheless. I can't. :(

Yeah that movie just sucked. When compared to the truly great superhero movies (Spiderman 2, Batman Begins) it's laughable. I thought it over last night and this morning and I just seriously couldn't stand that movie. It was so boring and lacked the energy that the good movies have. During Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins, I had a grin on my face the whole time because of how well the dialogue and screenplay was. During this movie, I was sitting there miserable, even during the action scenes because I just didn't care. The actors didn't have fun during the movie and Singer seems like he directed it without knowing what he wanted to do with the movie.

Note: IMHO


I couldn't stand either of the Spider Man or any of the X-Men movies. Why? Because they weren't true, in my mind at least, to the comic books. I was a Marvel reader for 10 years, and was espically interested in Spiderman. I remember reading Maximum Clonage and Maximum Carnage, and all the other Maximums. I loved it. I remember when Spiderman (a.k.a. Peter Parker, a.k.a. the Clone of the real Spiderman, Ben Riley, etc.) lost his powers and left NYC. The first Spiderman movie was a joke. Willm Defoe, one of my favorite actors, was reduced to a Batman & Robin-esque performance. Why was Green Goblin in the first movie, anyway? No one knew what they were doing, save for Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben. Moving on to Spiderman 2...not one good acting performance from any of the actors. It wasn't true to any of the characters. Mary Jane wasn't brazen enough, Mcguire can play Parker, but he can't play Spiderman, and Alfred Molina really wasn't ready to play a supervillan. Why did his tentacles growl? The only part of those movies I really enjoyed was actually watching the web slinging (and I had to mute it so as not to have to hear Toby going "Wooohoo!!!" in an unconvincing performance). Don't get me started on X-Men...


The reason I loved Superman Returns is it was true to the Superman of the 50s and 60s (maybe into the 70s), my favorite Superman. It was EXTREEMLY true to the first 2 movies. It showed consistency. It was an entertaining storyline. It was believable to someone who read the comic book. Kevin Spacy owned as a villan. Brandon Routh was believable as Smallville Clark, Metropolis Clark, and Superman. Kate Bosworth, not only being hot as the yellow sun, was able to convince me that she was Spoiler: completly thrown and in turmoil about Jason. I was never a Margot Kidder fan, so this was a huge improvement. Sam Huntington's Jimmy Olsen actually made me laugh outloud. While it was sad because it reminded me of Christopher Reeve and his wife, I was glad to see that Spoiler: the film was dedicated to them both, which made my wife cry. I miss being emotionally invested in films. This brought me back to that again. When Spoiler: Superman was stabbed and fell to the ocea, or when he fell from orbit, I really though he could die, making this the final chapter in a Superman trilogy. I knew in the back of my mind that would make the studio crazy, but I couldn't rule it out completly.

Bottom line: some people, yours truely included, think this movie is the best superhero movie, and for good reason.

Judging the movie by comic credentials, including accuracy to the books themselves, accuracy to the older comic book movies, and likeness to characters, this movie was great. All of the characters filled their parts reasonably well (sans a very emo Superman, I enjoyed the more peppy, clumsy but always smiling Reeve better) and the music was reminiscent of the older movies. However, based on standard movie review criteria and my personal feelings after watching the movie, the movie just wasn't good. Something was needed to take the accuracy and effectiveness of the characters and bring it together into a good movie. It lacked that. Perhaps everyone in production was so obsessed with making it true to the old movies and true to the comic books and true to character actions and traits that they forgot to take a step back and see if the movie could hold up by itself.

Before a huge argument ensues about the "quality" of the movie, I'll just agree to disagree :)

Gah! So many things I want to say...

Ok, first:

Spoiler: That is so incredbily unfair and sexist. What would you have her do exactly? Supes knocks her up and flies off into space for five years. Should she expose to the world that she's carrying Superman's child? That's probably nothing short of outright suicide. Instead, she hooks up with Cyclops and gets him to believe it's his kid. Which is probably the absolute safest thing she can do, until Superman decides to show up again.

I think people's opinion of Superman Returns is pretty dependent on your feelings towards Superman in general. He was my idol as kid, and this movie really was a good representation of him on the big screen that didn't ruin my childhood. It gains so much respect for that sole reason.

Seeing Superman save the plane with Lois on it, which pays tribute to the similar situation in the comics; seeing Superman put Kittie's car down in a manner reminisicent of the cover of Action Comics #1; seeing him Spoiler: stabbed with Kryptonite and come to near death.... all these things caused an emotional reaction in me unparalleled by the Spiderman movies, X-Men movies and Batman Begins.

Now, was Superman Returns actually better than those movies? As a film, I'll say probably not. But to just say "It sucks" makes me think you're choosing to not like it at *all*, when there's really so much about it to enjoy.

I don't think the movie was great, either, but I do think it was good. I am a big Superman fan, not the current version, but I liked Silver Age Superman a lot (currently being repreinted in Showcase Superman), and I liked about the first ten years post-crisis.

We also seem to agree on the craft that went into the making of the movie, but had a different emotional reaction to it. That's fine, it's absolutely cool with me. I disagree with some of your points, but I can see why someone wouldn't enjoy it on the same level as I did.

However, it is a matter of opinion whether the movie was good. All judgements regarding art are opinions. Some carry more weight, some are better informed, some are derived from different viewpoints, but they're all opinions.

I'm not attempting to invalidate your reaction. If it didn't move you, it didn't, and there would be no way to convince you otherwise. But whether it was "good" is a matter of opinion. All such judgements are, including mine.

Gilda

I'm not gonna lie, I agree with Maveric here. Lois basically playing Cyclops for a fool, and that sucks, no matter if he is superman's rival love interest. I read an editorial that compared this superman to Paradise Lost, insofar as it casts the "good guys" Superman and Lois Lane in somewhat of a negative light and has you sympathize with Lex and Cyclops to some extent. Being a bit of a milton nut, I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the comparison, but I think the point makes some sense.

PS Gilda, do you teach near SF? I'm going to come audit your class