Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

The first REAL early review of SUPERMAN RETURNS!

Hey folks, Harry here... About 3 weeks ago we got the review of SUPERMAN RETURNS that has begun appearing on a few sites around the web. I felt it was suspicious so we didn't run it. Then Moriarty got his hands on a script, circa about February of 2005, that was a budget draft with a lot of action taken out and a lot of dodgy to terrible scenes left in.

I began contacting some of the people behind SUPERMAN RETURNS to see what they thought. First off - that alleged review? Total bullshit. There are several moments mentioned in that review that never even made it to in front of the camera, but happen to be in the draft that Moriarty read... which means... that reviewer is a liar... flat out, that read an early flawed draft of SUPERMAN RETURNS then set out to maliciously slander and cause harm to SUPERMAN RETURNS.

The draft in question is a draft of this film that nobody in the production was satisfied with. Anyone familiar with Hollywood understands the concept of a "budget draft" which is the draft of the film where you begin cutting out costly scenes that don't directly affect the main plot of the film, but would significantly lower the cost of the film. Having said that, the feeling Moriarty got reading it was genuine and his assessment was correct - based upon that draft. However, that was not the film that was shot. A great deal of that script was shot, but action scenes were added, dialogue changed, the movie evolved.

Now - I have spoken personally with 3 different people that have seen SUPERMAN RETURNS. Two are primary folks responsible for it's creation - they're beaming proud of the film. Of course they are. However, they made the movie and while they've been incredibly honest with me in regards to the film... They are making the movie. The third was an employee at another Comic Company - not DC and not owned by them, who saw an extended cut of the film and it blew him completely away. This is someone that has no direct ties to the film. Who isn't involved in it's creation and who had nothing to gain or lose by telling me his honest opinion as we shared a dinner at Chuy's here in Austin.

Then there's this review. It is FILLED with spoilers. Complete spoilers, but it was written by someone that saw the film and has been frustrated with the negative buzz coming from folks that have not seen the film and have not read a shooting script. In short... This is someone that saw one of the 3 micro-test screenings that have taken place of SUPERMAN RETURNS. This is a WARNING - There are SIGNFICANT SPOILERS throughout this review. SO BEWARE! Personally I have the utmost confidence in this film. It will be something to see.

I saw this movie 2 months ago in South L.A. but I didn’t bother to write a review. But I just saw Moriarty’s mini script review and felt compelled to set the story straight. I really liked this film, long as it was (about 2 and a half hours!) and it kinda ticked me off that it seems to be getting a bum rap. A fake negative review? C’mon. Well I’m going to set the story straight, and that is that this is a very good movie.

This is not Batman Begins, and despite what you might be led to believe, the overall tone is a lot like Superman 2, if not a little bit more serious. It's big and fun, but it has a heart. The love story is the basis for almost all of it’s drama, but what Singer cleverly has done is added a new element, and it is what will make most fans say “wow. Superman really ISNT all that boring”. He’s given Lois Lane not only a boyfriend, but a child! On paper, that sounds AWFUL. Lois lane? A mother! WHAT! Well yeah, that’s how it is, if your really narrow minded. What the child does is cement the fact that lois has MOVED ON and superman’s never ever had to deal with this problem before, and that is what makes us able to relate to him, the fact that we all have dealt with this very problem before. This adds a huge element to the movie and makes a much more mature film than you’d think. Instead of the standard "loves her but cant have her” love story, here’s a story where he DID have her and he blew it, and now he’s trying to rekindle the relationship. I don’t really get why some fans have such trouble grasping that, unless your one of those geeks that’s never been in a relationship so you obviously wont relate to this problem. But seeing Superman being jealous, while it might not be exactly what he does in the comics, makes the movie better. Giving Superman the slightest “edge”, or as some fans have said, making him emo-it all makes Superman much more relatable;he’s no longer just somebody who can do everything he ever wanted to. We know exactly what he’s going though, and Singer really took time to hammer home that fact and it totally pays off. That’s where the film gets really good, when they finally seem to be hitting off again, Luthor comes in and totally messes up everything, and the solution involves a lot of superman.

And ya know, Im not dumb. The fans know Superman is the kids father. But in the movie it is not bad. Your almost wishing he is the father, just because you know he is supposed to be with Lois. Like with Peter Parker and Mary Jane, Peter is taking a backseat to guys like Flash Thompson of John Jameson and you as the audience want Peter to get with MJ even it means hurting his good friend Harry; it’s the same here. You accept he has a kid so he can be with Lois. And people, don’t be surprised. They don’t have to outright say “Lois and Superman had sex” to get the point, either. Basically here Superman takes a backseat to Richard and Jason, and he’s never done that, so it’s very, very interesting and refreshing source of drama for a superman movie. And ya know, there are going to be people who just flat out dont like it. Thats fine.But this not a bad film by any means, and I doubt the public think of it as bad either.

Ok, so now that that shit has been explained and cleared up, I’ll move onto the plot, performances, and the action and special effects. The music obviously was not finished and neither were the fx, but it was easy to tell what was happening in the scenes. The plot is simple. Superman returns to Earth and has to juggle his ruined relationship with Lois while Lex Luthor is trying to kill and kills “billions!”. I’ll be flat, the second half of the film is where it really gets going. The first half is him in space, then in smallville, and then finally returning to Metropolis. Bits and pieces of Luthor and Lois are thrown in but not a lot. Like every other Superhero film with the exception of Batman, it gets going about an hour in when our hero finally…ahem…returns. The airplane/space shuttle saving is really incredible…the fx were not done but you could tell from what was there this will be a very intense and memorable scene. Panic flows from Mission control as the first not-nasa-related space flight seems to be a complete disaster until Superman show’s up. He also saves the plane, and sets down in the middle of a baseball stadium. He goes inside and gives a little speech, and then goes to leave the front door to walk into 1000 cameras…so the world knows: hes back.

Then there was a very enjoyable sequence of Superman doing various jobs saving the world. He saves some mountain climbers, puts out some fires, and finally, he stops a bank robbery that was really cool. Now comes little bits and pieces of Lois and Clark, either in the daily planet, or Superman watching her or some shit, combined with little bits of Luthor and his scheme. He’s kicked an elderly woman out of her mansion and taken her yacht, why we’ll find out later. He robs a museum of it’s kryptonite so he can kill Superman.

Meanwhile, the world is DYING to know where Superman’s been, and Lois is basically forced by White to give him an interview, no matter how much she does not want to. It’s hard, especially for her. They do eventually begin to warm up to each other, and end it with a very, very memorable scene where they go flying. Lois is still nervous, but they kind of fall of in love while they go flying. You wont get it now, but when you see it on screen you’ll know what I mean. It just looks...right.

Other little bits happen, but now here’s the next action scene. In comparison to the first two this is very, very small, and it’s also complicated. Basically, Lois and Jason are…kidnapped would be the word I guess-by Lex and his crew. Heres where we find out his plan-he’s used to the kryptonion technology he got at the fortress to make a new continent. It’s already partially created, and by making it full with this kryptonion missile he has would cause a massive worldwide Earthquake and kills billions!Used as bait, Superman comes, and Lex and his men fight him, using stolen kryptonite to make him powerless. They STAB him with the kryptonite, and he’s essentially dies right before lois as they shove him off a cliff on new krypton.

So, with Superman seemingly out of the way, Lois in tears, Lex locks em up in the boat, and proceeds ahead. What he does not count on is his girlfriend, the weird Kitty Kosloski, thinks he’s nuts and is having a change of heart. Meanwhile, Superman go to the fortress of solitude, where Jor-el gives him his powers back just in time to save the day as the big earthquake hits. I wont spoil the rest, but I’ll just say, it’s good. The very final scene of the film is also, a an instant classic. This film is the ultimate blockbuster-action,drama,comedy. It's got a very happy ending all around.

Now that you know what happens, you can see its not bad. The pacing is good, very similar to Superman 1. Performance wise, it’s all good. Spacey’s a very memorable Lex, and Routh is a very good Superman. His Clark Kent is bumbling with a high voice, while his Superman is powerful and idealistic. Trust me, he’s good. But the real scene stealer is Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. I dunno why, but I just really liked her. Her character is the kind that is hard to not fall in love with. Even when she’s mad, she’s just hard not to like. We can see why Superman is so in love with her.

And now the action. I read in Moriaty’s review that he says theres only 2 action scenes in the whole script-well I’m here to tell you that s a total LIE. Theres 2 action scenes in the way Spiderman had 2 action scenes-or in other words, theres 2 super huge action sequences, and then a lot of other smaller stuff. The plane sequence will be amazing and worth the price of admission. The saving the day montage is classic Superman. The earthquake scene is a 2 parter. Like again, in Spider-man,you have the finale is the bridge and then the fight, but its all one big action scene. Same here. You’ve got the intense Earthquake scene, which has a lot of stuff, from runaway trains to toppling bridges to demolishing buildings. The you’ve got the fight after, including how superman stops new krypton and the fights on the Gertrude,that mega boat.

To sum up, this will surprise you. It’s a way more mature film then a lot of people will realize. In case you haven’t realized it from reading what happens, this is a big, big film that will be very entertaining and it’s also very good. This is not wall-to-wall action which is why I think Moriaty was bummed. But it is action mixed with drama mixed with comedy. Theres nothing to worry about, and no reason to have so much negative buzz. Moriaty said he didn’t like that the pacing almost exactly like Superman the movie-yeah hes right. That doesn’t mean its BAD-that means its good if anything, because it worked for that movie. It worked for Spider-man. It worked for Batman Begins. And it works for Superman Returns. Call me BlackJack, and I’m out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 5, 2006, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Guess what

    by bolvangar

    FIRST!!

  • May 5, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Nothing i have seen so far excites me

    by ChorleyFM

    And this doesn't change that. The movie will still make huge money though, so who cares what I think.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    PS

    by bolvangar

    I love Kerry :)

  • May 5, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Ok someone has to say it...

    by Lightwave7871

    PLANT! Sorry I think that this is just too positive a review... This is extremely enthusiastic on things that most fans have been less than impressed about... the kid... Kate B's Lois Lane... etc... I'll wait for other reviews to come in first....

  • May 5, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    i liked

    by georges garvaren

    when superman crushed the coal and made a diamond. that was SO romantic. arent there more QT fest reviews?

  • May 5, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Supemo!

    by blackwood

    Bet there's a teary sequence with that Evanescence chick screeching in the background about how hard it is to be fourteen.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    ummm

    by Celicynd

    so, it's Superman 1 with a kid?

  • May 5, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Gee, where have we seen this movie before?

    by amrisharmpit

    If that review is accurate, then this is a REMAKE, not a sequel. Let's call a spade a spade.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    He still looks too young

    by Phildogger

    He looks 20 years old. They should have cast Tom Welling, he actually looks like Reeve from certain angles

  • May 5, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    So let me summarize what happened before:

    by chrth

    Superman comes, and then he leaves.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:41 a.m. CST

    for a review that was supposed to set the negative

    by HypeEndsHere

    record straight.... bleh. also, the more stills of Routh they release, the less he looks like Superman.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:41 a.m. CST

    well, whatever

    by R H S C

    So what you're telling me is that it's basically a remake of the first one (earthquakes, light comedy and romance, supes and lois flying, Lex's girlfriend has change of heart and helps save Superman, a long dead relative from Krypton helps out, and Superman saves a plane), with the "edgy" plot line of Lois Lane's kid (setting up future 'Superboy' franchise), and filmed with all the visual panache Bryan Singer can muster (cough, cough)? Doesn't sound like something to hyper-ventilate over....I reserve judgement until just after viewing, but this doesnt sound like something to race out and stand in line during the first couple of weekends for.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:48 a.m. CST

    & one more thing

    by R H S C

    How many more millions would this make if they just changed the title to 'Superman on a Plane' & added some snakes?

  • May 5, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    I already know about all the action sequences.

    by JUSTICE41

    What about the underwater rescue stuff? Why no mention of that? Already knew about The fortress and the Space Shuttle rescue as well as the cruise liner. So basically Singer is copying Spiderman 1 which copied Superman 1??? And That's original? If the movie doesn't get started action wise until and hour in, isn't there a possibility of a Hulk like letdown? Since I have a newborn Baby going to the movies is iffy, Unless I hear some concrete crits of it's quality story-wise I just won't go. It's too much hassle as it is without also worrying about the baby howling in a theater. I didn't like it when others did it I certainly don't want to inflict my child on anyone. So you guys at AICN better get on the ball and get more real reviews. Oh an Mori, you gonna take being called a lying sack of shit by this reviewer?

  • May 5, 2006, 9:51 a.m. CST

    The movie sounds okay. Maybe a little bland, but...

    by Orbots Commander

    What are you gonna do? To paraphrase the Secretary of Defense, you deal with the Superman movie you have, not the Superman movie you wish you had. Although I'll likely end up seeing RETURNS sometime during this summer, like someone above me said, I'm not exactly going to wait in long lines or buy advance tickets for this.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:54 a.m. CST

    So, no super-villains?

    by Human Tornado

    Just this really smart bald guy? Superman agains physics and forces of nature all over again? Give me some Zod, mechas or Brainiac next time.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    You're a jerk!

    by tommyjenkins

    Okay, so that's you're idea of a review, or addressing anybody with criticisms of the decisions??? "You are close-minded and immature if you don't agree with this stuff like I do!" Wow, you're a jerk!

  • May 5, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    I'm waiting for the parents to be appalled

    by Terry_1978

    Superman has a child and he's not married?! My Lord, my children shall be scarred for life.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Hmm, not bad... not bad...

    by moviemaniac-7

    But I never was a big Superman fan. I liked it, but I thought he was too flawless (characterwise)... Batman has his flaws, Wolverine has his, Spidey has his... They're easier to identify with. But I'm waiting with my judgment until I've seen the movie. I trust Singer, but I wonder if Routh does a good job. If it was up to me, I would have given the role to David Boreanaz.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:59 a.m. CST

    final thought

    by R H S C

    and why can't we have either the purple and green suited Lex from the old cartoons, or the billionaire running for president and not-so-secretly evil? why do we always have to have the cuddly comic Lex, with bumbling sidekicks and one liners? Maybe Superman could battle a giant robot, Brainiac, Mr. Mxyzptlk or however the hell it's spelled, Bizarro Superman, old age, constipation, anything, just please give us something we haven't seen!

  • May 5, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    A plant review...

    by RenoNevada2000

    Would never have given so much away spoiler-wise.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    So I'm guessing Luthor isn't from Krypton, then?

    by chrth

    :)

  • May 5, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Yes but does the kid pick up a piano

    by dr_buggerlugs

    ...and smash a bad guy with it?

  • May 5, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Superman's Weakness

    by CrimsonGhost

    so we find out that not only does kryptonite make superman powerless, so too does the power of Lois Lane's hairy taco. damm, I guess his absence from Earth probably put him in that Deadbeat Dad database I keep reading about...

  • May 5, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    this movie is gonna own

    by Rcamacho2278

    thats the bottom line

  • May 5, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Face it, if you STILL think it sounds bad...

    by Lone Fox

    You're hating for the sake of hating. IE, you are 13 years old. Good, sounds like the grown ups can enjoy it in peace. In your whining teenage faces.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Leave your kid at home, JUSTICE41

    by I Dunno

    Get a sitter or don't go. I hate that shit. Just sayin

  • May 5, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    still not feeling it

    by John Dalmas

    The thing that seems particularly dumb to me is that Clark's been gone as long as Superman, and when Superman shows back up, Clark gets his job at the Daily Planet back. Where's Clark been? I'm one of the people that thinks Lois having a kid is really, really stupid. I don't care how it plays in the film, a kid that's half-kryptonian would have kicked through her womb; he'd be flying around and doing all kinds of shit. Superman doesn't have a kid, goddamnit.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:15 a.m. CST

    No, the worst is

    by clockpolitiks

    When Parents take like 4 and 5 year olds to R rated horror movies. That bugs the hell out of me. I just want to call social services right there.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Action Scenes in Batman Begins

    by SeanMiller

    I just watched Batman Begins again (about my 4th or 5th viewing) and I have to say that the fight scenes get better with each viewing. They seem to be slowing down, so I can actually see more and apprectiate how rough and tough they are. This movie is just getting better with age. Bring on the sequel.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Uh, this reads exactly like Mori reported.

    by zerogundamx

    Doesn't sound different, at all.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    "set out to maliciously slander and harm..."?

    by Peven

    you mean the way you have with X3????

  • May 5, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Yeah but, do they take the gayness out of Superman?

    by skycrapper

    Because c'mon, Superman is a rediculous superhero. Boring as all get out... Give me Spider-Man, X-men, and Batman any day over this crap.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Kids in R rated movies

    by SeanMiller

    Some woman who sat down next to me brought her 6-7 yr old daughter to United 93. I was shocked. That movie should not be scene by kids. The violence in that film was too real and gruesome. Oh yeah... TOO SOON!

  • May 5, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Re: This Review being a plant

    by HEADGEEK

    Plants do not give complete spoilers. That is not in the "Studio" or "Filmmaker's" best interests. FYI.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Re: Peven

    by HEADGEEK

    Everything I've reported and said about X3 is based upon actual reports I've gotten from people working on and around X3. AND based upon my opinion looking at the production designs, trailers, posters, etc. However, if you watched that clip that was on Leno - where the white "eyes" in the sky represented a SENTINEL and the ridiculously awful shot selection, terrible execution of the Colossus/Wolverine FASTBALL SPECIAL - including the painfully undynamic in-flight Wolverine. Then the Sentinel head arrives with red plastic eyes - when they were white up in the sky... and you do realize... that's it for the Sentinel. That's it. Well, I guess you love it. And that's a totally valid opinion, that I just don't share.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    darn, i had to skip the spoilers...

    by DECO_DROID

    sooo, what did you order at chuy's? i like their enchilada combos myself, but i just have ice water with my meal. i'm not paying a buck fifty for a can of soda...

  • May 5, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST

    I have to agree with Harry..

    by Turd Furgusen

    that would be the first plant review that I read that had plot points that were more than speculation or rumor.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST

    I thought it was Tom Cruise as Superman

    by speed

    there for a second in that new trailer.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    ehhhhhhh

    by lopan

    Am I the only one who just doesn't give an, ahem, FLYING fuck about Superman? I'll go see it just because it's summer and that's what I do during summer, but I am not pumped for this shit. Or X3, or any of the other lackluster looking summer flicks. I think 2006 is gonna be one disappointing year. Seriously there is not ONE summer movie that I'm actually excited for. I'm not a hater, I swear, I'm just not excited for a buff Jason Schwartzman in tights saving the world.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    I Dunno I've taken him to one movie and he fell asleep

    by JUSTICE41

    Twenty minutes in. He doesn't cry much at all. Even when he's hungry or poopy diapered. He's mellow like me. I also want him to get into comics related materials. I'm an artist who worked in comics very briefly and I would like him to be well rounded. He's 6 months old, he sat and Watched the first two Supes flicks with me and got excited when he should have and jumped when he should have. We'll see. No babysitters until he can walk.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    My problem with the X3 clip....

    by clockpolitiks

    Was that wolverine just walked out from behind the head. Did he hang onto it or what? It was retarded.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I have to agree with most people here....

    by Hunter-X

    This sounds waaaay too similar to the first Superman. The only difference is "Super Bastard". I was hoping for something a little more than Supes dealing with Luthor AGAIN. Also, I like how it sounds like Harry would take a bullet for this movie while he has all but boycotted X-Men 3. If he knows something we don't, it'd be nice if he filled us in.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I disagree Harry, Studios know that spoilers don't hurt

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    the people who read them are still going to see the film or they wouldn't be seeking them out. It's a very positive review of the same screening that Braniac attended. http://tinyurl.com/oors3 and I call for UltimaRex and others to eat their words.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:33 a.m. CST

    What about the inevitable gay subtext???

    by Nate Champion

    Spacey and his fag hag Parker Posey? Fuck the earthquake... tell us what we really want to know. I.E. the kryptonite happens to be in a vaguely phallic shape? Superman's Schumacher-inspired codpiece? No wonder they didn't get into specifics whether Supe and Lois really had sex... it sounds suspiciously blue-state to me, if you know what I mean.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Frankly, I'm all for fewer action scenes.

    by Duck of Death

    Too many movies these days are going for the "more is better" approach, trying to outdo each other with bigger set pieces and wall-to-wall explosions. After a while it just gets numbing and repetitive. The over-the-top thing was fun for a while, but now it's boring. I'd rather see a film that uses those action scenes more wisely and sparingly, instead of just throwing the kitchen sink at you every single time.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Nevermind....

    by Hunter-X

    Harry just chimed in. That Leno bit for X3 seemed like it was cut all to hell like they were hiding some money shots or unfinished FX. I guess we'll see in three weeks....

  • May 5, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Prepare yourself. This movie could suck.

    by DonkeyBalls

    I personally have been on board with Superman all the way. I was always of the mind that if given enough room, almost anyone -- even Brett Ratner -- could make a superman movie. It's such a part of the public sonsciousness that I think anyone could really find the Superman movie within them. Having said that, I'm a little worried. Kate Bosworth is a fine actress, but the casting of her as Lois Lane is terrible. Kevin Spacey bothers me when he hams it up, and he is clearly in full-on ham mode (sir, you are no Gene Hackman.) That douche who plays Jimmy is in full-on doofus mode in the trailer, rather than just being an idealistic kid. And Brandon Routh -- okay, he seems fine and all. But if the story is that SUperman has gone away for years, why are he and Lois seemingly 24 years old? I'm just a little worried about this film now that I have seen the trailer. The things I liked the most were the references to theold movie, and the hints of the Superman score. Can that be a good sign? Sure, I like seeing Superman money shots, like him flying by the sun. But that ain't close to enough. I expected those shots. That's why we want to see a Superman film. But without something more to it, without some truly great performances and some innovative storytelling, this movie could end up being just what people fear a movie like this will be: styled, empty and bland.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Can I get a little help?

    by Turd Furgusen

    I want to start posting under a different username and password but the site, she don't like me. I keep getting an error page. There is another "Turd" on here that is causing some confusion is some of the talk backs. Headgeek if you are still there I would appreciate the help. Thanks.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST

    I will be seeing this ASAP

    by quadrupletree

    Tom Cruise can suck it. I'm not watching that stoopd M:;3&! whatever.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    I'll elaborate

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    Studios are fighting hard against what seems to be a set in malaise a general apathy, dwindling audiences and a decimation of the box office revenues due to downloaded bootlegs et cetera. They need to generate positive buzz and they know that even when whole scripts are available to read there are still ways to bring people in to see the film and that is to keep them talking. It's really a brilliant gamble but I'd bet a copy of Superman IV that this reviewer is a quick study in geekspeak and is on the payroll.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:40 a.m. CST

    I probly should have asked that too

    by clockpolitiks

    I tried to sign up for aicn talkbacks for months, but everytime I went to the page, it said error, so I just got tired of trying, until one random day I tried again and it worked.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah.

    by Turd Furgusen

    I still have a great deal of hope that this movie will do well and better than most expect. I am relatively old for this sight, I think. (35) I get the goose bumps at some of these scenes like I did when I was a kid. If nothing else, I am looking forward to visual specticle on IMAX 3D. Yeah baby!

  • May 5, 2006, 10:44 a.m. CST

    I think it sounds pretty sweet to me.

    by eric haislar

    I have total faith in this film. as long as it captures the same feel and tone of the first one.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Sounds cool

    by movieman742

    I will be there on opening night no matter what. And I'm sure I won't be alone. That being said, has anyone read the JJ Abrams script? I really liked it. I know it was an early draft and there was some stuff that needed fixing but overall I liked it. Having Lex being from Krypton really got me excited. I have to say I never got into comics so I wasn't offended by the changes in characters, it actually got me excited. Abrams decided to change something and I think it worked. I wonder if WB is thinking "What if..." about turning down JJ's script. After seeing the majority of positive reviews for MI3 got me thinking that.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Superman: The Chick Flick?

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    Just what we all were hoping for, a pussy-whipped, metrasexual Superman. Wonderful. Why even call him "Superman" then, when "Deeply Conlicted and Utterly Flawed Man (Just Like the Rest of You)" is a more accurate moniker? Does anyone else out there remember back when heroes (superhero or otherwise) were actually, you know, self-confidently heroic? Apparently, an unbearable sense of hand wringing doubt is the number one qualification for being a hero now.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    movieman742, I'll bet they are.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    You don't have a copy of that script do you?

  • May 5, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    In any form, Superman is....super.

    by Ninja Nerd

    Folks, I'm a lifelong fan of the Man Of Steel. Love Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, and spent many hours (and dollars!) reading a lot of Marvel and DC comics; JLA, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and so on. Still, my favorite has always been the guy from Krypton. Geez, the best dialogue in Kill Bill 2 was Carradine's speech about Superman. (and that's a great take on why he's different from all the rest) I once owned Superman #38 until hard times forced me to choose living under a bridge or giving up some of my beloved comics. I grew up on the TV series in the 50's; loved it even though it wasn't the best telling of the story. When Superman 1 came out, I must have sat through it 5 times the first month it was out. The second film was mostly excellent. The next two were pretty useless, but actually had moments that worked. I don't know if the "new" Superman is going to be an eagle or a turkey, but I will go see it...probably more than once. Any discussion or dissection until then is a waste of time and energy. And if the film does indeed suck high on tit, so what? Superman is still super.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    So, Superman dies...

    by Dave Bowman

    ...and then he goes to the Fortress to get better? Makes perfect sense to me.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    X3 Clip

    by zerogundamx

    It's confirmed fact (Straight from the screenwriters) that the clip showed on Leno was an early version with temp music, brutally hacked to show off some Wolverine highlights. The Sentinel head is final though, but apparently the white headlight eyes have been turned red in post production.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    I see...

    by Tripman5000

    .negative=fake.Postive=genuine. No bias on this site then!

  • May 5, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Regicidal_Maniac

    by movieman742

    I only have a hard copy. I think Harry or Moriarty did a script review of it with alot of the spoilers intact. Ask if they can put the link up to it again.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST

    And I reiterate

    by zerogundamx

    Superman Returns exactly the same coming from this guy as it did from Mori. Two MAJOR action scenes, a few distractions, and pining over Lois. Superbaby still there? Stop acting like Moriarity doesn't have the right to be disappointed by the script he read, the meat and spine of it clearly remains.

  • May 5, 2006, 11 a.m. CST

    I don't get it...

    by Novaman5000

    So Lex Luthor wants to kill "billions" just for the hell of it? Wow, what a complex villain and motive we have here. Is substance too much to ask for? And I, too, wondered how a dead superman could go to the fortress of Solitude. I don't know, it just seems like NOTHING happens in this movie of any significance.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:01 a.m. CST

    movieman742, I read the savage review at the time

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    and I thought the arsetearing it receieved was unwarranted as it was still developing. The irony is that the sucky film that awaits us is entirely the fault of this site so I should think they would have a vested interest in making sure it does well to keep their cred abobe water. The AVP@ savaging was warranted, that script blew chunks but I always liked the idea of a fresh look at Superman instead of a rehashed version Superman The Movie culled from Donner's sloppy seconds. I think it's downright hilarious that this 'genuine' review is exactly the same as the 'fake' negative review. They are both reviews of the same film.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Regicidal_Maniac

    by movieman742

    I found the review. http://tinyurl.com/mdux9 It goes in pretty good detail what happens.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Tripman, lol

    by clockpolitiks

    True.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST

    The WB bought AICN

    by MJayX

    I love how the SAME exact thing was done to X3 - an early review based on an old and flawed script was POSTED on this fucking site - with an open later to Fox shareholders saying that the franchise was in imminent ruin. And now that the film is finished, all the actors glowing about the outcome, with beautiful trailers and commercial spots - AICN reports NOTHING on the film. What Harry did do, is put individual posters together in a hokey collage, and then make fun of it as if it was the actual one - sheet. I call bullshit Did the WB buy AICN??

  • May 5, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Well...

    by adzigjo

    i thought things were a little fishey when he said that Kate "i look 18 but im playing a woman in her mid/late 20's" Bosworth was really good. for that to come out while everyone has been bashing her...i wanted to love this film but the casting is all wrong...they all look to young for their roles....superman looks like superboy and lois looks like shes the kids older sister

  • May 5, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    movieman742, found this also

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    http://tinyurl.com/ntmr5 where someone has gone to the trouble of typing out some of the pages. Good read, needs a polish and some ideas need fixing but I think trhat McG would have knocked this film outta the park and given Warner Brothers a demand for toys that even they would find hard to keep up with. By now we may even have been onto the beginning of the third part of JJ's trilogy. See geeks you did this to yourselves.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    and also about the kid....

    by adzigjo

    Brodie: It's impossible, Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle the sperm? I guarantee you he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back. What about her womb? Do you think it's strong enough to carry her child?...

  • May 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Why Not?

    by adzigjo

    Brodie: He's an alien, for Christ sake. His Kyrptonian biological makeup is enhanced by earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan the kid could kick right through her stomach. Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. The only way he could bang regular chicks is with a kryptonite condom. That would kill him

  • May 5, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Since we have Superbaby

    by zerogundamx

    That means it continues on from Superman 2 I assume? So why the fuck would he abandon Earth for a few years when he sure as shit crystal clearly said he'd never go away again?

  • May 5, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Bah...

    by Thumper2k1

    This review did the opposite of what it was intending to do. Itjust confirms the movie is a rehash of the original Superman movie. Not to mention it reads like a plant. Sorry Harry, but I think the studio would give out spoilers to get people to go see this movie. Especially when this review is for the people who have already been spoiled by reading the script review.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Regicidal_Maniac, cool link

    by movieman742

    if you read both of them you should get a good sense as to the story JJ was trying for. Personally I really enjoyed it. I think I read it in about 2 days, which is really really fast for me. Some parts were dragging but others were amazing. When I heard about the plane sequence in the Singer version I immediatly thought of JJ's version. Sound very similiar.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST

    I know you like to preserve the tone of reports

    by DennisMM

    but would it kill you to correct the spelling? It's bad enough, Harry, that you don't know the proper use of a possessive, but even you know "don't" has an apostrophe, whereas the provider of this review appears NOT to know. This site is supposed to be professional, isn't it? Spend a little extra time on each story and make it LOOK professional.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    The meat and spine clearly remains from what Mori read

    by zerogundamx

    But, he's wrong in forming a valid disappointed opinion of the movie? With X-Men 3 you do the exact fucking thing, only worse, so stop playing favoritism because Superman and WB give you handjobs.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I agree with Thumper2k1, who in turn agrees with me.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    If only JJ's Superman script been allowed to develop instead of being terminated at conception (an odd analogy from me since I'm so pro-choice). Some times I think the whole internet community is doing more harm than good by sticking its collective finger into the batter and declaring that the uncooked cake tastes doughy. (much better analogy, mmm cake).

  • May 5, 2006, 11:22 a.m. CST

    I must be tired. Help me...

    by stlfilmwire

    I read this once but I don't want to read it again. So is the kid really Superman's? Let me know. If he is, then I smell some sort of Jason Gedrick/The Heavenly Kid thing going on. Let me know.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:34 a.m. CST

    blackwood

    by ILK

    You just made me spit out my milk. Holy shit that was funny! Seriously, when will she stop screeching with a Durst clone in the background every time she sings a line repeating it. That shit makes me wanna hear a screamo band, and that's saying a lot. As far as the review being a plant? Nah. I think it'll just be that good.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST

    So Kal's a deadbeat dad

    by Immortal_Fish

    And career-minded Lois is Murphy Brown. Great way to adapt these characters, Bryan. You couldn't manage bring any true semblance of the comic X-Men to the screen and now you screwing with THE comic icon. I wouldn't spit in Singer's mouth if he were dying of thirst.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    well the big quake sequence WAS added at the last min.

    by half vader

    When they realised the film was too 'small'. Will there be another bus? ;)

  • May 5, 2006, 11:42 a.m. CST

    I'm just glad Tim Allen isn't in this movie

    by Orionsangels

  • May 5, 2006, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Someone has to say it.....

    by kdoc13

    "Miss TESSMACHERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!" Sorry, Gene Hackman is now and always will be Lex Luthor.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Supersubtext!

    by Zeke25:17

    "It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am...keeping secrets." Reminds you a bit of X-men, eh wot guvner? I don't think of it so much as "gay" subtext, however; DIFFERENT is what it's all about. Hell, every superhero has a secret identity vs. costume crisis (and I always enjoyed, though did not totally agree with, Carradine's monologue in Kill Bill about how Superman is different from all other heroes because, in his case, it's CLARK KENT who is the "disguise"). Frankly, I applaud whatever subtext is there, simply because it brings the character and story more "into the moment", no matter when that moment happens to be. People have always feared, ridiculed, or been outright hostile to anything "different" from they. Superman is not merely a Christ figure; he is the ultimate alien. Singer did a fine job with the X-Men; I believe he's done right by Supes as well. We shall see.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST

    At least Lex is bald throughout the film.

    by rev_skarekroe

    That prima-donna Hackman.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Harry, your X3 coverage is ridiculously biased.

    by Freakemovie

    You think the director won't possibly be able to pull it off, and you think the heads at Fox don't know how to "properly" nurse a franchise, and you got freaked out that in the draft you read some of the characters actually die. And because of that, every other news about X3 you've posted has been schewed ridiculously negative in an attempt to maliciously discredit the film. And you have enough disciples on this site that it's semi-working. But then Superman comes along, and because you're looking forward to that one, when someone posts an incorrect bad review, suddenly they are the AntiChrist trying to "maliciously" destroy your baby. Even if X3 turns out to be terrible, your handling of X3 coverage will still be the uglier beast.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST

    of course it was a fucking plant

    by Fearsme

    christ, the entire lead up to the review basically tries to dismiss every bad piece of PR out there, then launches into a glorious review. i did enjoy reading about those 'fake' and 'bullshit' superman reviews. because that never happens here. no no, not at all. Hey look, its Gordon having a beer and cheeting on his wife.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    So wait? If the Kids is supermans.....

    by eric haislar

    That means superman was not smart enough to pull out and shoot his load on lois's face and breast. He's not so super now is he!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST

    MJayX and Freakemovie!

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    Amen, brothers!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    then set out to maliciously slander and cause harm to S

    by EUROPA

    Sort of the same way that Harry and half of his staff are trying to do to X3.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Nevermind that erichaislar...

    by stlfilmwire

    I wanna know how Superman's blast of supersperm didn't blast a hole clean through Lois's pelvis. Am I wrong for thinking this?

  • May 5, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Talking of the supersperm...

    by dr_buggerlugs

    ...has supersperm ever been dealt with in the comics? As in an actualy explanation that supersperm could superpenetrate Lois and well sperm her to a penetrating death? Just curious tis'all.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Harry...

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    keep up the hate for X3, oooohhhh it's gonna hurt so bad when everybody else loves it!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:17 p.m. CST

    I think the bigger question is...

    by eric haislar

    if it is green or not.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:18 p.m. CST

    In lois and Clark...

    by eric haislar

    They where able to have sex just fine so i guess it can happen.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:18 p.m. CST

    So basically he confirmed what Mori said.

    by superninja

    The plot sounds absolutely terrible. It's a rehash of everything from Superman 1, and some of it not-so-good at that (like Lex Luthor: Evil Car Salesman). It seems like they went out of their way to be uninspired by the character!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    It seems like they're really just copying elements...

    by superhero

    Of the first two films and just rehashing them. Lex launches another big missile and causes a worldwide earthquake while his guilty feeling moll foils the plan? Superman loses his powers and then gets them back at The Fortress of Solitude? WTF??? Helloooo...Lex already tried that in the first movie with California! Now he just wants to do it worldwide??? What? So much for something fresh. And the kid IS Superman's son? Fuck that I say. FUUUUUCKKK THAT! Wow, the effects may be great but the story just sounds bad. I hope I'm proven wrong here and my lifelong love for Superman isn't destroyed this summer in a 2 1/2 hour span of time. Although Smallville and Infinite Crisis has come pretty close to doing that already anyway...

  • May 5, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Correct, Immortal Fish

    by superninja

    Singer doesn't care because it creates *tension*, despite the fact that it is completely contrary to the characterization. Yeah, the reason I watch superhero films is because they're just like me, ya know? How mundane and cynical a treatment of the characters!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:23 p.m. CST

    How's about being a geek who's...

    by Kid Z

    ... been in a lot of relationships, but sees them for what they are: A) an okay way to waste time & money & have some fun or B) social control mechanism. Or maybe I'm too cynical? Nahh! Anyhow, can't wait to see Supes on the big screen (IMAX!!!)

  • May 5, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST

    X-3 does sound pretty mediocre.

    by superninja

    But with the X-Men films, I can forgive a lot since they are not harmed by the realistic treatment as long as they nail the characterization. 9/10ths of the X-Men is showing new things to do with mutant powers and interpersonal relationships. It is a giant soap opera, whereas Superman is simply bigger than that because he is pure icon.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:25 p.m. CST

    'The addition of Super Bastard'!

    by Lone Fox

    Hunter-X, I salute you. I smell possible spin-off, if I'm not mistaken... The Adventures Of Super Bastard & Krypto!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    This is what we've been waiting for?

    by Darksider

    No super powered villains. Just an over the top Lex and cronies with kryptonite and plans to kill a lot of people for no good reason. And Singer talks shit about Supes 3 & 4? Shit, I'll just buy Supes 2 and watch General Zod again.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    HEADplant, plantGEEK... eh...

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    AintItPLANTnews?

  • May 5, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Regicidal Maniac, they should ignore us

    by superninja

    except when we're right. I really think the first X-Men would've been a total disaster without Tom Desanto on board to make sure Singer "got" the characters. With Superman, I don't think Singer "gets" Superman at all. He gets Donner's Superman I & II, which is not the same thing as understanding the character itself. Batman Begins, for all its flaws, understands the character.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Zod is coming.

    by Hugh Jass

    I am way more excited for next week's Smallville finale. The trailer looked cool, but I just cant let go of my disappointment over the decision to just remake Superman 2 instead of doing something different. The Smallville movie called "Metropolis" about Clark's first adventures in the blue suit would have been so much better.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Superman Procreating

    by MasterShake

    Anyone interested in Superman's difficulties procreating needs to read Larry Niven's short story; "Man Of Steel, Women Of Kleenex". It's very well thought out.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    The whole problem is...

    by Kid Z

    ... Superman never really had any decent villains. Mxyzptlk... yeah, a magical midget with a derby hat... that work real good on screen. Metallo... another boring cyborg. Mongul... big piss-yellow guy (chortle). Lex is the only villain who was in the least bit interesting. Which brings us to problem #2... Bryan Singers overwhelming obsession whith Superman and Superman II. That's why we're getting the same damn plot, same damn goofy Luthor with lame henchmen, etc. I mean, I'm definitely going on opening night, but with the nagging fear that I'm gonna get "Konged" again!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    IndyCollector

    by monkeybrow

    I try not to see Superman II with that nasty hairy-nun muffin Margo in it

  • May 5, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    De-powered semen

    by Sherman_Lives

    The mechanics seem pretty straightforward: when Kal El doesn't have any powers, he can get his rocks off like any mortal man. This is also why Clark and Lana were able to do the nasty in the brief period this season (this season, right?) when he was depowered. Likewise, when Clark went into the molecule chamber and had his powers stripped away in Superman II, he was able to get it on with Lois with no painful ramifications. And as far as his promising he'd never leave again, I really want to believe that this is the sequel to Richard DONNER's Superman II, not Richard Lester's, and no such scene (AFAIK) was in Donner's ending. I may, of course be wrong, but that will be borne out of the upcoming mega-DVD release this fall. Or are they giving Donner's S2 the theatrical release it deserves? That would be a hell of a triple-feature marathon: S:TM, S2, SR. If you haven't seen those alternate ending scenes from Donner's S2, do yourself a favor and click here: http://tinyurl.com/zx5a9 for what I think is a much more enjoyable alternative. I'm not sure if Clark's memory-eraso-hypno-kiss is still in the Donner cut, but if not, it would be fascinating how SR accounts for Lois still knowing Clark's secret. Time will tell, I suppose...

  • May 5, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    uh, you guys convinced me...

    by CrimsonGhost

    superman with Chris Reefs gave him the power to fly around the world really fast to reverse its rotation and go back in time. the WORST ending to a movie ever. Remind me again why everyone likes that dumb ass movie. I know chris Reefs was great as Supes and I felt as bad as the next guy when his horse snapped his spine, but sheesh, if Bryan Singers is basing his love of Superman on the first movie then we are in for one shitty movie. True dat!!

  • May 5, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    What I wanna know is...

    by Kid Z

    ... why does Supes have to "go back to Krypton" anyway? What is the overwhelming need to check out the billions-of-variable-sized-floating-rocks-that-can-kill-him? I think a lot of fans will be pissed because obviously this movie's got nothing to do with Superman as he has appeared in comics for the last 20 years and everything to do with Singer's overly-fond childhood memories of the original 1979 Superman movie.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    A remake of 1 & 2 together?

    by Darksider

    But without the Krytonians? There's even the earthquake and the woman turning on Lex thing again? I think Supes and X3 are going BOTH going to suck. There's always Spidey 3.:(

  • May 5, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Superman has several decent villians

    by superninja

    Luthor, Zod, Braniac, Darkseid, Mongul (read Alan Moore's short story For the Man Who Has Everything). I think Mr. Mxy could be used effectively in an opening sequence for fun, in the same way I'd LOVE a Spidey film to open with him tormenting the Rhino during a battle at a construction site. I don't know why no one ever does this - instead be get Spidey going after ordinary robbers, when they could show how busy he is dealing with colorful criminals that are non-essential to the plot.

  • May 5, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Sherman_Lives

    by monkeybrow

    "Artic Police" ? appears to be pretty lame...I think the version they stuck with worked better

  • May 5, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Actually, I think a Mr. Mxy

    by superninja

    with Gilbert Godfrey done LOTR style annoying Clark at the Daily Planet would be a lot of fun as bookends or a "secret" ending tagged on. After all, the only object is to trick the man into saying his name backwards. There was an episode of the animated series (voiced by Godfrey) that was hilarious.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST

    A real review...

    by nonsensical

    Okay, so the big budget Dr. Evil takes on the Big Blue Soapstar in a battle to save the world and get the girl... and her little boy too. From what this "review" says this superman film follows the now standard formula of superhero film making. Great! I totally wanted to see the same let's take an hour plus to establish the character and then bring the action plotline that we see every time. That's perfect... seriously, I don't know how many times I've found myself wanting to really get to know Superman in all his glorious new angst. This new angsty-edge leaves us the perfect set up to have Supes end up in his black costume, just like Spiderman. Especially, since he now has that emo-edge more people will clearly identify with his broody black wearing "goth" attitude. They'll also cheer him on as the color comes back along with this sunny super disposition. Okay, enough ranting... I'll get back to commenting on this "review". If we break it down the gist of this review is that it's a remake of the first using the formula that makes superhero films work in today's world. It may have different words and action that is up to day for the time, but even down to Lex's girl betraying him to save Superman, this film doesn't excite me. I'll admit, I didn't know that the kid was Supes, but it makes sense since the kid looks like he's six or seven and Superman has only been gone for five years. Nice twist, but who cares. Also, the issue of Supes kids being super strong in the womb... I don't think so. I'll only touch on this in a short line. Kryptonians powers come from the light of the yellow sun and last time I checked sunlight doesn't really penetrate the womb too much. Anyway, the lack of a real super villian is a huge letdown. I expect that Luthor is out to get Superman, but I had hoped that he would be manipulating a supervillian, like say... Metallo into fighting Superman. Of course, we'll get that in the next Superman, providing this one makes 500 million.... it's a little hard to overcome that 250 million dollar hole when starting out. Reading this review makes me wonder where all that money went... since it's so drama heavy. Oh yeah, and if you don't get the Dr. Evil reference then what are you doing on this site? Go watch Austin Powers: Goldmember. Spacey plays a bald villian there too.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:07 p.m. CST

    guess what?

    by isildur29

    not even this guy's real positive review could make me excited...i'll see it but i am far from pumped

  • May 5, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    1979 called...

    by eggrolls

    ...they want their movie back.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    if anyone is looking for the best movie this year..

    by white owl

    It's already in theatres. It isn't gonna be Superman, or X3 or POTC. Since day 1 I've not liked the look or feel of this movie, and I still won't decide to see it until I get more biased and neutral reviews. I didn't like this one.. overly positive about certain things everyone dislikes, like Bosworth or the kid, etc.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    oops...

    by nonsensical

    I meant, up to date... sorry.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    "you're," not "your" . . . dumbass

    by reckni

    This reviewer really needs an English lesson.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    "And ya know, Im not dumb"...

    by SalvatoreGravano

    How deliciously ironic that even in THAT statement, he misses an apostrophe. It would have been only marginally funnier had he written it, say, like this: "I aintet stupit u no an I nos how 2 riet"...

  • May 5, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    I call BULLSHIT on Headgeek.

    by samsquanch

    Oh, you're just telling it like it is with the X3 coverage, huh? That Leno clip speaks for itself? Funny, that Leno clip looks to me to be heavily edited and unfinished, but you probably knew that when you posted it here- the only X3 news in OVER A MONTH! I've been going back and forth to Super Hero Hype, and they've been posting tons of X3 shit that looks amazing! I just saw something yesterday there concerning Iceman that I've been wanting to see since the first movie came out. On AICN, you'll post photos of a goddamn TRUCK from the Spiderman shoots, but there have been 9, count 'em, 9 TV spots in the past couple of weeks for X3, not to mention countless photos, and a new website with some pretty neat stuff, and not a peep over here. Posting that Leno clip was win win for you- it negates the "media blackout" accusation, and at the same time reinforces your position, claiming that the movie will be shit. I just don't get it. Why the prejudice? The X movies aren't without their flaws, but I'll take 5 minutes of X footage over Superman 1 through 4. The blackout was annoying, but your whiny bullshit defense pisses me off. I love this site, but I wonder why I keep coming here.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST

    In the beginning I was exited

    by Harold The Great

    Becouse I expected a surprise villain or plot twist at the third act - like Superman bringing Brainiac back with him accidntaly, or Jason White working for Lex, or a henchman really being Corben/Metallo. But this review really turns me off. Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie is beyond me. I'll go read Red Son now.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    The "kid" has got to go.

    by riskebiz

    Give Lois a child if you want ... but "kids" tend to be precocious in these type of films and I can see him having FAR too big a part in sequels ... and nobody wants to watch a movie where the kid of Lois Lane has hijinks and Superman has to save him. I hope for the sake of story that the kid dies and Lois blames Superman for not saving him. THAT would be interesting to follow in the sequel(s).

  • May 5, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    ... outside of the kid, though ...

    by riskebiz

    The film sounds wonderful. But mark my words about the precocious kid factor.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Oh the irony...

    by the_pissboy1

    FROM THE REVIEW: "And ya know, Im not dumb....Your[sic] almost wishing he is the father..."*************** That's hilarious.

  • May 5, 2006, 1:53 p.m. CST

    So, it's the Donner film all over again?

    by MPJedi2

    Hour of lead up to Superman (I have no problem with that) Missle used to cause an Earthquake...This is not making me confident

  • May 5, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    earthquakes, missiles, etc --- this is a REMAKE!?!!

    by Spacesheik

    what the hell?!!!reviewer contradicts hi9mself says '1 big action' scene and then 'smaller one' then he says moriarty review is a is a lie for saying 2 action scenes...wtf

  • May 5, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Is it just me or did this review...

    by Squashua

    ... sound like the reviewer watched the recent trailer, focused on all plot points in the trailer, and filled in the blanks himself with some dull crap?

  • May 5, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    "General, care to step outside?"

    by KrazeeEyesKilla

    I just watched Superman II again last night on one of the HBO channels. Props to IndyCollector for being the first to correct the SuperBastard/SuperJizz complaints. Since he had turned himself into a mortal before screwing Lois silly on the shiny silver sheets, there was no need for him to pull out the SuperSchlong and give her a Kryptonian Pearl Necklace. However, if I was fucking Margot Kidder, I'd have to flip her over doggie style so I wouldn't have to see her face.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    X3 >>> Superman 2.5

    by Truth0ne

    Not saying it'll suck, but...

  • May 5, 2006, 2:34 p.m. CST

    dstrbo1

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I'm not sure we understand. Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel?

  • May 5, 2006, 2:36 p.m. CST

    IT'S = IT IS

    by la_sith

    Good GOD, Harry. How many years have you been doing this, and you STILL don't proof your own writing? Or perhaps I should say "you're".

  • May 5, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    KrazeeEyesKilla...L ...O..fuckin'...L

    by torpor_haze

    your post pisses me of that we can't have have signatures on talkbacks my friend...

  • May 5, 2006, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Also regarding the "super-bastard"...

    by Truth0ne

    Clark (powerless) bones Lois in the fortress, knocks her up, right? <br> Later in the film, he manages to strip Zod and &#39;nem of their powers on some fluke shit... Is it possible that whatever drained the Kryptonians of their powers to have a reverse effect on the SuperSkeet up in Lois&#39; cervix, thus rendering the child a Super-being? <br> We&#39;re some fucking nerds on this piece, yo... lol

  • May 5, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    This is a rogue plant.

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    Gave away the movie just to put in a good word for it at all costs. His Masters will not be pleased.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    And with that little essay, Harry lost all credibility

    by moondoggy2u

    He can now truly be known as a lying sell-out.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Forget the stupid depowering machine

    by superninja

    forget the kid. Seriously: this is what I mean by Singer adapting the stupidest, most ridiculous parts of Superman I & II when such idiocy is not even consistent with Superman&#39;s characterization and was stupid back when it was on screen the first time. Did NO ONE on this production have an ounce of common sense OR imagination?

  • May 5, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Oh, and one more thing...

    by moondoggy2u

    Everyone is calling this "reviewer" a plant when the real plant of this entire superman debacle is Harry Knowles. Hes been selling out/hyping Superman Returns while shamelessly remaining silent on all things X-men. And judging by Moriarty&#39;s hesitation towards voicing his own doubts, it would seem that Harry has blacked out everyone else, as well. Finally, when there is a negative review that sees the light of day Harry suddenly drums up this review that (he says) was in his possession the whole time. Its obvious that for what ever reason, be it money, favors, or because he&#39;s just plain unethical, Harry has become a mouthpiece for Singer and/or the Superman Returns production. Do not trust his word, his news, or reviews.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Kate Bosworth is the worst bit of casting...

    by beefywhore

    in the past decade... Lois lane is not a ditsy bimbo with a bad wig...everything else looks pretty good to me I just don&#39;t know how I&#39;ll get past this terrible casting mistake... Selma Blair would have been perfect.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST

    moondoggy

    by whatyoufear

    shut the fuck up. X3 is going to stink up the theaters and you know it. take your conspiracy bullshit someone else.

  • May 5, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST

    does anyone know when the donner version of S2 is out?

    by Turd Furgusen

    And how i can sign up under a different username in talkbacks? i want to drop this one.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:02 p.m. CST

    superman vs. x-men

    by whatyoufear

    gee, i wonder which one is going to come out on top? the one that was rushed into wire-fu production or the one that has been treated like a respectable property. you people can bash harry all you want about how he&#39;s playing favorites but in the end it doesn&#39;t fucking matter, in about two months we&#39;ll see for ourselves. god forbid you back something up that looks halfway decent.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Remember, this is just the beginning of a trilogy

    by performingmonkey

    People whining about the lack of supervillains, Lois having a kid, not enough action, Luther being generic and pussy, Singer basically taking Superman 1 and parts of 2 and giving it to us again, should wait around for the sequel which I&#39;m sure Singer has already planned in his head.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    So, by that logic

    by samsquanch

    why review anything? You can&#39;t please evryone all the time. Are you saying that the people who disagree with the staff here about whether or not a movie MIGHT suck means they shouldn&#39;t see any coverage at all? It&#39;s not that I hold the AICN standard to be a pinnacle in objective journalistic principles, but come on, this is the fucking X-MEN we&#39;re talking about! Theories about budgets and schedules aside- (The original Star Wars was rushed and had no budget) There are plenty of grown nerds that count on this site for their fix, and Harry&#39;s been holding out on us. Go ahead and play favorites- your opinions are interesting but they don&#39;t really mean anything to me, I just want my fucking fix.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Haven&#39;t you dopes ever heard of editorial preference?

    by FluffyUnbound

    Harry&#39;s not obligated to obsessively cover X3 if he&#39;s plain old not enthusiastic about it. I think it&#39;s perfectly fair for obsessive coverage to be reserved for those films the site owners are actually, you know, obsessing about. If you&#39;re expecting Harry to act interested in things he thinks will suck, you&#39;ve obviously mistaken this for the People website.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Plant a hint for the coming of Darkseid!!!!

    by Judge Briggs

    Gawd, wouldn&#39;t that be amazing... Singer could pull it off!!!! I want some mean baddass villains in the sequels.....

  • May 5, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m sorry, but that makes me feel worse about

    by GaiustheBrave

    this movie. I&#39;m not gonna judge it until I see it, but that review did the opposite of what it was intended to do. I&#39;ll hope he&#39;s just not a good or coherent reviewer, and the movie is good.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    All I know is...

    by filker-tom

    They can&#39;t sell this shit on its own merits. Hell, they&#39;re still using John Williams&#39; original score in the trailers. (The music credit goes to John Ottman, who is also one of the film&#39;s editors.) I&#39;ll probably go see this for Spacey and Langella, but from everything I&#39;ve seen and everything I&#39;ve read, this simply isn&#39;t gonna do it. Bluntly, it looks as if the best movie of the summer might end up being Over The Hedge.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    "that reviewer is a liar... "

    by Junior Frenger

    "that reviewer is a liar... flat out, that read an early flawed draft of SUPERMAN RETURNS then set out to maliciously slander and cause harm to SUPERMAN RETURNS. " Hmmm... Kinda like Harry and X-Men 3

  • May 5, 2006, 3:18 p.m. CST

    is he obligated

    by samsquanch

    to obsessively prevent any coverage of it?

  • May 5, 2006, 3:18 p.m. CST

    fluffyunbound

    by whatyoufear

    PRECISELY! thank you. and dstrbo, if you&#39;re looking for an x-men fix, why not go to superherohype? they usually update their shit before anyone else does, the only bad thing is the lack of excellent talkbacks. oh wait, i&#39;m a fucking plant now, thanks.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Harry

    by Peven

    no, i didn&#39;t love the Leno clip. but then i haven&#39;t come close to loving anything i have seen from Superman Returns either, and the casting of Routh, who looks much more like SuperBOY than SuperMAN, is at least as questionable as the look of the senitinel&#39;s head, only the sentinel&#39;s head plays a very small part of X3, while Routh is the TITLE character. still, you have been pretty blatantly biased against X3 as soon as Ratner came on board, taking every opportunity to criticize production, while being blatantly bias in favor of Superman Returns, putting positive spin on any news that might be damaging to the point of earning a paycheck from their PR department. but hey, its your site, your rules.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:34 p.m. CST

    The mortal sex theory is wrong...

    by stlfilmwire

    You are only right if you discount Superman III and IV. If those don&#39;t exist (like Singer would like it)... then maybe... but still... According to the script, how long has Superman been gone? How old is the kid?

  • May 5, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Did you know...

    by crazyeyezkillah

    that Christopher Reeve was 26 when he starred in the first Superman film? And Brandon Routh is 27?

  • May 5, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    whatyoufear

    by moondoggy2u

    very well written disagreement, whatyoufear. Oh, and if you think its a conspiracy theory to assume Harry is a mouthpiece for Superman, whether paid for or volunteering, then the joke is on you. Remember when he used to (only assuming he&#39;s stopped) take on various personas and started posting dozens of positive "reviews" for films he thought we should see? I think you need to spend less time telling others to shut up in as crass a manner as possible and simply listen.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    crazyeyedkiller

    by moondoggy2u

    Yes, Christopher Reeve was 26, but he looked ten years older. Routh, on the other hand, looks like he just started shaving.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    You Know...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... considering I didn&#39;t even review the script, a lot of energy&#39;s been expended countering a few off-hand comments. I&#39;ve never said anywhere that the film would be terrible or that the sky was falling, but boy, howdy, my 40-or-so words on this film seem to have set off any number of overreactions.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Superman will be dependable. X3 will Rock!

    by The Founder

    I just want to know what&#39;s looks so bad about x3??? I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s going to be good cause I HAVEN&#39;T SEEN IT YET. I&#39;m sure that Harry and this site is going to give a bad review no matter what , so I won&#39;t even read this biased site. While Superman is one of my favorites i see nothing new being added to the mix except for a kid that it&#39;s been stated many times in the comic that Supes can not have a child because of little DNA issues with humans. i guess that has been thrown out the window. Harry bitches. I have confidence in Singer that he won&#39;t screw it up, but the film isn&#39;t going to be good. it&#39;s just going to be nice and dependable, like a Toyota camry.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Not true, Moondoggy

    by CrimsonGhost

    Routh looks like he has been shaving his balls for years

  • May 5, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Harry trashes X3, but Superkid is ok?

    by The Founder

    Despite the fact that it&#39;s been stated in the comics that human and kryptonian DNA is incompaitable with human DNS. Singer has thrown this all out the window and yet harry doesn&#39;t bitch about the drastic change? So a little issue happens with the Xmen and the change makes the movie an automatic turkey? Harry you really is biased.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Mori, you outright said it was disappointing!

    by performingmonkey

    You can&#39;t take back what you said now we&#39;ve had a positive review! Just like a certain TPM gush couldn&#39;t be taken back once the world and his wife realised how lame it was (although in retrospect it is the best of the Prequels, but don&#39;t quote me on that). I&#39;m seeing this anyhow, review or no review.

  • May 5, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    regarding Routh&#39;s age.....

    by torpor_haze

    I don&#39;t know the average age of the talkbackers, but I think I&#39;m right to assume it&#39;s younger crowd here. It&#39;s possible the Routh&#39;s look has more to do with people&#39;s perceptions than anything else. I think most of us saw the original SUPERMAN at very young age and thought of Reeve older than he was at the time. Now a lot of us are at that age...

  • May 5, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Editorial preference

    by Freakemovie

    Yeah, this is his site and he can do whatever he wants with it. That&#39;s his right. But there&#39;s also something called Being A Dick. He plays favorites, makes assumptions based on everything except the final product, and makes hilariously hypocritical statements like the one about the reviewer "maliciously" trying to hurt poor old Superman. Put simply, he shouldn&#39;t be trusted as a legitimate reviewer. (And by the way, he isn&#39;t really...I can&#39;t remember the article, but he was named one of last year&#39;s top ten "Quote Whores" for movie advertisements.) His coverage of X3 is just plain ugly.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Crimsonghost--thanks a lot I shot O.J. out of my nose!

    by moondoggy2u

    Personally, I think the Superman story sounds pretty good. I like the idea of Superman having a kid--it lends some humanity and growth to the character (something that almost never happens to comic characters). Granted, the Luther part sounds cliche and hackneyed, but this movie seems like a throwback to classic films--which I love. Again, the only reason I&#39;m harping on Harry (lovely movie title) is because of the glaring hypocrisy in his editorial above. And for the record, I think X-men is going to be as good, possibly better, than the last X-film. And if you ask me, I dont think Singer is just an average film maker who hit it big with a hot property. As others have noticed, his direction isnt daring, original, or anything really. Its lukewarm and that&#39;s that.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:08 p.m. CST

    oops. I meant I DO think Singer is just an average...

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 5, 2006, 4:09 p.m. CST

    And with the possible exception of Superman Returns,

    by moondoggy2u

    Singer&#39;s films really do look like television movies.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    NEVER A MOVIE LIKED BY TALKBACKERS

    by Bishop6

    SO WHO GIVES A F*** ITS BETTER THAN WHAT, SNAKES ON A PLANE>>? STFU

  • May 5, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Re: Superman&#39;s sexual compatability with humans

    by HEADGEEK

    LOL - ok - can&#39;t believe I&#39;m addressing this, but let&#39;s see if this makes sense to any of you. I agree - in the comics - it has been stated that Superman&#39;s DNA and that of humans were incapatable. HOWEVER - we&#39;re not in &#39;the comics&#39; - we&#39;re in FILM CANON - and as this takes place - sometime after SUPERMAN II - where Supes decided to "Live life as a human" and stepped into the Kryptonian/Earthling Conversion chamber - and came out all pussy-fied earth man... but then laid down some hot loving with Lois in the Bedroom of Solitude, where he usually whacked off - Ever wonder why that whole place was white? - I theorize that he knocked up Lois at this point. And that&#39;s why she was able to have the kid. Though - I have to wonder if she knows she had his kid, cuz she had that memory swipe kiss that Clark laid on her at the end of Supes 2

  • May 5, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST

    blah blah blah

    by whatyoufear

    i think your problem, moondoggy, is that you&#39;re all ears. i&#39;m not going to rely on one man&#39;s opinion (the one man, in this case, being mr. knowles) to sway my opinion of a film. we all know how harry operates, oh lord do we fucking know how he operates! but thanks for reinforcing it for us. i have no desire to see x-men 3, and the sole reason is because what i have seen so far looks like a fucking high budget fan film from hell. or maybe it&#39;s because harry didn&#39;t talk about it very much. right. your bitching and moaning about harry&#39;s paychecks is really fucking stupid, by the way.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Wow... the story really, REALLY sucks!

    by Ivan_Mtl

    I was actually starting to look forward to seeing the new Superman movie, but that feeling just came to a screetching halt when I read the review. The story is not just bad, it is really bad. When you combine that with the truly awful pics I have been seeing (the latest of Superman and Lois on the cover of Wizard magazine), it certainly does not bode well for the film.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Lex is THE supervillan. I mean what the fuck, man...

    by Larry of Arabia

    You know NOTHING of Superman. NOTHING. Darkseid? In the comics he&#39;s never won. Oh, and who beat him in the end of the animated series? Lex "friggin" Luthor. General Zod? A mostly minor player (but admittedly awsome in the movie). The only one Supes has never, ever been able to get rid of is Luthor. That&#39;s pretty damn supervillan.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:24 p.m. CST

    more geek talk

    by whatyoufear

    if the kid DOES belong to superman, and since superman was essentially "humanized" at the time of conception, does this mean that the kid will in fact be 100% human? no kryptonian genes? this basement is dark. i hope my mom orders pizzas soon.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Whatever, Harry

    by Terry_1978

    You&#39;ve been pondering how he and Lois could bump proverbial uglies just as much as we have if you could come with that theory, dude. ;)

  • May 5, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST

    re: Freakemovie

    by HEADGEEK

    Well that statement has to do with the fact that whoever wrote that review lied about seeing the film, then sent it to several sites all across the internet in the hopes that it would appear across the web... My OPINION on films in advance are simply my opinion based on the pre-info I get access to. In X3&#39;s case - it comes from talks from creatives behind the scenes, people at Fox, the materials that we - the general public can look at - etc. Having said that - I do not want a bad X3 movie. It just looks like that&#39;s what we&#39;re going to get. Hell, I went into ALEXANDER thinking it was supposed to be a load of shit, and I came out loving it... and defending that opinion against a vast majority that hated it. THE NOTORIOUS BETTY PAGE had the worst casting I could imagine with Gretchen Mol as Betty - but then I saw it and WOW was I amazed by her perfection with the role. I thought Keanu was a film destroying casting choice for THE MATRIX - and loved being wrong there. The point is - when I finally see X3, I&#39;m going to hope to God it&#39;s a good movie. Hugh Jackman spent an hour on the phone with me back a few months ago - just to try to tell me to give the movie a chance, that he thought it was on par with the last 2. I hope so. So far - it just doesn&#39;t look good to me. If it looks great to you. Fucking be happy, you have a great X3 movie you&#39;re looking forward to. Wish I had the same sense of calm about it, but I don&#39;t. The film will have to prove it to me, because FOX&#39;s trailer and publicity folks haven&#39;t done a very good job yet of changing my opinion.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Harry hates Ratner and likes Singer.

    by FluffyUnbound

    You don&#39;t have to look any further for an answer to the question of why X3 has been run down and SR has been built up. The problem is that when you act like it&#39;s a conspiracy, or when you act like Harry OWES you positive X3 coverage. It&#39;s not a conspiracy. Harry is just one of those people who makes up their minds early and then sees confirmation of his decision in everything that happens after that. And you know what? When the topic is "Brett Ratner making a superhero film" or "Paul Anderson making a science fiction film" or "Uwe Boll making a video game film" making up your mind early usually isn&#39;t a problem. Hell, I made up my mind about X3 at the same time Harry did. Hopefully they&#39;ll surprise me, but I don&#39;t have a lot of hope.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST

    whatyoufear

    by moondoggy2u

    I&#39;m all ears, huh? If you fail to see the difference between listening and agreeming, and you apparently do, then your desire to tell others to shut the fuck up is completely understandable. This would also explain why you failed to listen to my previous posts. My harshness has nothing to do with Harry&#39;s lack of reporting, but with his duplicity in THIS PARTICULAR ESSAY. Now, if you hate X-men, that&#39;s fine by me. But you cannot deny that Harry, whether justified or not in your opinion, has been behaving in the SAME FASHION AS THE ACCUSED S.R. REVIEWER.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST

    2 things

    by isildur29

    most of the clips from X-Men have dissapointed me but so has EVERYTHING i have read and seen from Superman. I will see them both but my expectations are low (especially for superman&#39;s lame plot) BUT anyone who thinks box office wise Superman will prevail i believe may be crazy...Superman has 6 days to make money because Pirates comes out right after it and will blow it out of the water (money wise)

  • May 5, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    and in harry&#39;s defense (can&#39;t believe i am saying this)

    by isildur29

    its his site he can pimp whatever he wants...if his moonlight walks with singer/robert rodriguez/tarantino/jj abrams influence his opinions of their movies then so be it. I just hope if X3 is good or superman is a dissapointment he owns up and calls it what it is.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST

    you have got to be kidding

    by docwatch

    so this review sounds like a hi-bred of the first two superman movies.. and that is boring.. I mean and earthquake! really? this has got to be fake.. on the other hand Iceman icing up in the new X-men TV spot has got me hyped for that flick again!!!!

  • May 5, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST

    o k, 2u

    by whatyoufear

    did i, or did i not say that i am fully aware of how harry operates? i&#39;m not arguing with you. i think it&#39;s hilarious that you&#39;re bitching and moaning about harry&#39;s alleged new world order corporate takeover paycheck cashing blah blah blah. see how much sense you are making? who cares? just you, baby. and for the record- i do not hate the x-men, i am however not entirely too excited with how the third installment has turned out.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST

    isildur

    by moondoggy2u

    I agree. Personally, I hated, and still have certain problems, with the guy they casted as Supes. After seeing his accpetance speech at the show west conference, I was won over. I still have problems with his costume as well, but all in all, i think I&#39;m really going to enjoy the movie when it comes out. But considering that Pirates of the Caribbean is coming out the very next week, there is slim chance this film will make more than 200 million (domestic) before it goes out to DVD. As far as this film&#39;s pricetag goes, I dont think the actual film costed 250 million. I think the studios are simply attaching the price of 10 years worth of failed contracts, scripts, etc. I think the actual film itself probably only cost between 100 and 150 million. Mind you, thats just a guess.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    ...Does That Poor Bastard Speak English?

    by hipcheck13

    ...hate to nitpick - but Sweet Mother McCreedy, reading that review was headache-inducing. Is English the reviewer&#39;s native language? If so...I fear for our future.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Brandon vs Christopher - AGE wise

    by HEADGEEK

    Brandon Routh is 25 and will turn 26 after the release of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Christopher Reeve was 25 at the release of SUPERMAN and turned 26 a few months after release. -- I agree with the talkbacker that stated that the age issue is more about one&#39;s perception of Reeve given your age when you first saw him. To me, Reeve was a towering SUPERMAN, but then I was 6 going on 7 when I saw the original SUPERMAN.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Sounds unOrigional and confusing...therefore

    by Yamato

    this is a real review. Only a true hollywood studio could make that movie.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Reeve looked like a grown man. Routh does not.

    by superninja

    He had an imposing, mature stature. Routh looks like a wimp playing dressup, or an unconfident Superboy at the least. How anyone can debate this is beyond me. Bosworth is a very charming actress, but she has nothing of the presence one would expect from Lois Lane who is supposed to be a seasoned reporter. She looks like she just turned 21! The casting is utterly ridiculous in that WB television fashion.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:53 p.m. CST

    The future of superhero films.

    by superninja

    This is what passes for a heroic lead in today&#39;s Hollywood - metrosexual males and girls with the physique of teenage boys.

  • May 5, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST

    whatyoufear

    by moondoggy2u

    I dont give a damn why he is biased, what you fear. If you&#39;ll note, i was simply listing all possible reasons, including good old fashion fan enthusiasm. My ultimate point was that he was being hypocritical and biased. Personally, I find it even more amusing that you can agree with my larger point, missread the subtext of my post, and then think im the one who should shut the fuck up. Oh well...

  • May 5, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    superninja

    by moondoggy2u

    I agree. When is the last time a rugged man was cast in the role of a superhero? They all seem to be picking pretty-boy types.

  • May 5, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    or any hero for that matter, not just superheros.

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 5, 2006, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Headgeek: re: super-reproduction

    by smackfu

    I think the issue is more that superman&#39;s super-seed would shred lois&#39; insides, exit from the top of her skull, and proceed across the horizon destroying everything in it&#39;s path.

  • May 5, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Guys, guys, guys? Why concentrate on supersperm??

    by moondoggy2u

    You are all assuming she would be able to even make it through his SUPER THRUSTS. For crying out loud, it would be safer for her to insert the end of a jackhammer inside her and hit the switch. One of his super thrusts would tear into her like my Uncle Frank at a thanksgiving feast. She would literally be 100 lbs of flesh covered goo before he even shot his high callibur super scatter sperm.

  • May 5, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    What A Stupid Plot

    by lynxpro

    Lex Luthor wants to make a continent? Who the frak does he think he is? Serpentor? Ruler of Cobra Island? Totally lame. If I wanted to see this plot, I&#39;d pop in the G.I. Joe DVD discs and watch the source material (ahem, well, the original source would be the G.I. Joe comics, but I digress). Folks, save your money and skip this film. Make Warner Bros. reboot this property in three years like it should have done. You know, like they did with the Batman franchise. Say what you will about *Smallville* but at least Michael Rosenbaum&#39;s acting and how they&#39;ve constructed Lex Luthor&#39;s character is at least interesting. Not to mention Lionel Luther too. You won&#39;t have that in this flick. Lame.

  • May 5, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    by allykatD

  • May 5, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST

    I say supersperm...and they talk supersperm.

    by dr_buggerlugs

  • May 5, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    give credit where credit is due...

    by lynxpro

    I was the one that said that this plotline makes Superman a deadbeat dad and that it was ridiculous to have an actor who is barely in his mid-twenties play a character that was legendary to the world&#39;s public yet disappeared for years and came back looking young. And to see someone else is taking credit for coining "SuperBastard". Bunch of newbie tards.

  • May 5, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    A Remake!?

    by LucienPierce

    The more and more I read/see of this film the more I&#39;ve decided that this is the biggest remake ever...without calling itself a remake. Now that we have an earthquake as well it definitely cements it in my eyes...

  • May 5, 2006, 5:59 p.m. CST

    anchorite

    by moondoggy2u

    Superman may be too epic, but our esteemed Mr. Singer doesnt seem to be...

  • May 5, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    ULTIMATE LEX MOVIE LINE....

    by zathras34

    "Otis..you know what the number 200 has in comon for both you and I ????...Its your weight and my IQ.." That is my ultimate lex line...and I can see Spacey doing that easily..even though he&#39;s going to be more serious.. yes this is the big one Im waiting for...along side X3..but this is a new venture..where the X films..have two in the running..so this is big time...but it all helps me in the wait for "BATMAN 2" Where im still drooling "Take take this villan for example..like you he has a flair for the dramatic..leaves a calling card"..(flips over...Joker....)..Ahhhhh..still love that.... Didnt you get the memo ?...

  • May 5, 2006, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Well nots get carried away now Supes saved everyone

    by JUSTICE41

    He saves A Space Shuttle and an Ocean Liner as well as the plane and the earthquake victims. So let&#39;s not go bashing his lack of epicness(?) Better to just stick to bashing this lame ass rehashing of an older story. Singer swears he&#39;s paying tribute well to me he just pissed on Superman Chris Reeve and Richard Donner. This movie is basically a big nyah nyah and a," I can do a better Superman 1&2 than you".

  • May 5, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Re: Anchorite

    by Neo Zeed

    I agree dude. In my opinion Singer has this tendency to hold back with the big stuff. I mean in X2 you have this team of mutants with incredible powers, and their major threat is Brian Cox and a water dam? HUH? I think he&#39;s talented, but at this stage of his career I don&#39;t think he should still be playing it so safe.

  • May 5, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    WELLING IS THE NEW BROSNAN!!!

    by Shermdawg

    Wait about ten years or so, you&#39;ll see.....YOU&#39;LL SEE!!!

  • May 5, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Singer&#39;s positions have already given me a headache

    by moondoggy2u

    Its not a sequal, but the first and second movies are a loose origin. Routh is supposed to be like Reeve, but kinda sorta not. Its not really a copy of the original plots, but its supposed to remind you of them, its an homage. I swear, Singer has deffinitely mastered the art of politics: say nothing and deny, deny, deny.

  • May 5, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST

    damn enter button

    by moondoggy2u

    Despite Singer&#39;s refusal to be pinned down, this movie is supposed to be a direct sequel, but certain liberties and updates have been made. Also, this sequel is largely derivitive Donner&#39;s plot points because it is far easier to pen a sequal than it is to write something original. Now, as negative as that sounds, i still like it: I think that save for the campy Luther, I believe Donner and co. got it right the first time. This story is, for me, a nice way to finally have some closure to the whole will they/wont they aspects of Supes and Lois in the first four movies. Add to that the idea that Superman actually grows into a father, and I&#39;m won over.

  • May 5, 2006, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Harry has lost all credibility?? WHAT? Say it ain&#39;t so!

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    Thanks for the update, everybody. Throw some of that Cinco de Mayo confetti you&#39;ve got laying around and take a swig of tequila. I believe this marks the eight hundred and fifty four thousandth three hundredth and sixty-sixth time Harry and all of AICN have lost every shred of their credibility. Stay tuned for next time when Harry loses every vestige of credibility nothingness from his black hole of nothing credibility by posting something else on his site.

  • May 5, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Would you like to see a long arm, Otis?

    by moondoggy2u

    Would you like to see a very long arm?

  • May 5, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Sounds good, sounds damn good.

    by Ridge

    I think the thing people have to realise as well is that not everyone has seen the Donner films, younger people that is. I love my Batman AND Superman comics dearly and have to say, that if this is the movie to get them into Superman and not the Donner films? Then so be it, I&#39;m happy for it. And thank GOD they cast an unknown Routh as Superman, he looks fantastic. Two more things would also be that people who have been complaining that &#39;Superman doesn&#39;t punch anything in this movie!&#39; I&#39;ll remind you that he never punched anything in the first movie either! The second thing being that if they use Brainiac, thats the effects extravaganza that will define a new Supes movie, so I say wait til part 2 for it. Or hell, combine Brainiac and Doomsday into one story, having Brainiac bring Doomsday to earth in part 2, Superman fights Doomsday and dies, only to come back in 3 where he finishes off Brainiac... but then, that&#39;s just what I&#39;d love to see happen?

  • May 5, 2006, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Reeves didn&#39;t have a boyish face!

    by Orionsangels

    Even at 25. It had character and definition. I was 5 when I saw Superman in 78. I&#39;m 33 now and I still see Reeves Superman looking like a 30 year old man who commands the screen. This brandon guy looks like a teen. He reminds me of the guy from smallville. smooth face, red lips. But i&#39;m gonna wait till i see the film to make my final judgement.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    supes looks pretty good

    by Rupee88

    They could have screwed this up like with Nicholas Cage, so I&#39;m thankful at least of that even if other stuff is all wrong.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:09 p.m. CST

    there seems to be a lot of X3 talk here, for a Supes TB

    by samsquanch

    Seems like people want an X3 talkback of their own- too bad there aren&#39;t any.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Lex Luthor: over-used villian

    by acroyear77

    Didn&#39;t Luthor want to create a continent out of California or something in the first movie? This one has a boring plot.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:14 p.m. CST

    10th X3 tv spot on YouTube

    by samsquanch

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLFUQm3A3s___________move along, nothing to see here.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:28 p.m. CST

    Just wanted to get my two cents in on Superbaby and etc

    by Mace13

    First off like Harry and a few others posted already. Superman was a normal powerless human when he and Lois did the nasty in Superman 2. So the kid should be normal as well I imagine. But even if the kid were to have powers they wouldn&#39;t actually begin to manifest until after he had been directly exposed to yellow sunlight for quite awhile. Possibly a few years.And even then the powers just gradually build up over time. Superman was not automatically born with them. And neither will his kid. And this whole thing about Supes with his powers being too much for Lois to handle in bed is just stupid. That&#39;s a really juvenile way of looking at it. I know he&#39;s got his powers and everything but c&#39;mon. I think he&#39;d have a lil more control over them than what some of you guys are saying. Personally I wish singer/WB had just restarted the Superman franchise over and not made it a sorta sequel to Supes 1&2 and just acting like 3&4 never happened. That whole idea doesn&#39;t really do anything for me. Singer shoulda just made it more like the current comics are and that would have been great. And I&#39;m not gonna bash Lex being the villian in this movie. But they could at least had another main villian other than just him. I&#39;m thinking Metallo would have been a nice addition. Remember the rumors of Kevin Bacon playing that character? And what the hell ever happened to all that stuff about Jude Law playing Zod in this movie? Did that still happen or not? I know Zod isn&#39;t in this as a major character anywhere now but thought maybe Jude Law plays him in a small flashback or something that no one has mentioned.Oh well. I&#39;ll be seeing this when it comes out regardless. Same goes for X-3.Even though both movies aren&#39;t what I actually would have liked to have seen with these franchises they still look interesting.

  • May 5, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST

    I completlet trust Harry concerning ALL things Superman

    by DoctorWho?

    He knows his shit. His passion for Superman is genuine. It&#39;s amazing how the haters come out of the woodwork to attack Harry AND Moriarty on their motives concerning this film. Chill out. Harry has this under close scrutiny...if there&#39;s anything he thinks smacks of cheesiness, he&#39;ll cry foul.

  • May 5, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Lois Lane had attempted 10 abortions...

    by Rant Breath

    but Superbastard couldn&#39;t be stopped. Next time wear a kryptonite rubber, slut.

  • May 5, 2006, 8:13 p.m. CST

    if there&#39;s anything he thinks smacks of cheesiness,

    by HypeEndsHere

    he&#39;ll cry foul? like van helsing? godzilla? armageddon?

  • May 5, 2006, 8:33 p.m. CST

    There is one more age problem

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Namely, that the makeup makes Routh look younger than he is. I look at Christopher Reeve and see a mature SuperMAN. I look at Routh in his current makeup and see a snotnose who perhaps might pass for a half-superboy party wannabe if he dirtied his chin with ashes - even though he too *can* look mature, as some of his other photos prove. It&#39;s an imbecilic conscious decision, and I shudder to think of the rumored reason. Actually, there is yet another age problem - Lane looks 24-ish or so, but her Dennis the Menace-ish spawn appears to be 6 - so we are apparently led to believe that Superman impregnated her at age 18... or less. Singer&#39;s Superman IV will probably have a teenage cast. "So that we, uh, can shoot sequels in the future, yeah!". Riiight, that&#39;s the real reason, sure...

  • May 5, 2006, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Superman is gonna pwn all our asses....

    by paralyser-pro

    ...but that said, who really gives a fuck about a Logan&#39;s Run remake? In all the shelves upon shelves of sci-fi epics out there that could be made, including the Foundation trilogy, we need that piece of turd revisited? Nah, I&#39;ll pass. If anything, remake Buck Rogers for chrissakes...

  • May 5, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Right, because Knowles was the only critic to

    by FluffyUnbound

    positively review Kong. Yeah, that&#39;s exactly how that went down. And every other critic besides Knowles thought that FF was Citizen Kane crossed with It Happened One Night crossed with Apocalypse Now crossed with Spartacus crossed with The Sound of Music. I remember it that way, too.

  • May 5, 2006, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Man...

    by stalfos

    That was incredibly disapointing. I&#39;ve had such high hopes for this film, but nothing in that review gets me excited. It really feels like Singer missed the mark (again). I&#39;ll still have to see it opening day, though.

  • May 5, 2006, 10:37 p.m. CST

    I sure hope Superman eats pudding in this film

    by I Own You

    "This is some mighty fine pudding!" Yum!

  • May 5, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST

    That Bizarro and Mr. Myzypltk thing...

    by zinc_chameleon

    Is a really good idea in our era of CGI. After Gollum and King Kong, I think Bizarro would be a blast. But truly sinister Mr. Myzypltk (who starts out funny, then goes psychotic) would be worth seeing.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Look, I am not a fan of letting the CGI

    by superninja

    overrun the story - that&#39;s ALWAYS a mistake. But with Superman, a man who can do all kinds of amazing things, the best you can come up with is saving a plane and a series of natural disasters? Which has already been DONE (helicopter in lieu of plane)? Sad, sad, sad.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Ummm, he saves a Helicopter as well if some behind

    by JUSTICE41

    The scenes pics are correct. Looks like a Police chopper

  • May 5, 2006, 11:29 p.m. CST

    What these superhero filmmakers fail to

    by superninja

    do is trust their audience. People get the formula at this point. Why do Bizarro or for that matter, SANDMAN in Spider-Man have to have a backstory and be a lame henchman? Does this REALLY need explaining to the audience at this point, or would a really wild and imaginative five minute fight scene engage the audience and make them feel these characters enhabit a real place with its own rules?

  • May 5, 2006, 11:32 p.m. CST

    If you ever follow comics, superhero characters live

    by superninja

    wildly unpredictable and dangerous lives. But instead what do you get in the movie? The most predictable thing possible.

  • May 5, 2006, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Harry&#39;s Preferences Vs Valid Reporting

    by Silverblade11975

    Granted this is Harry&#39;s site, but if he is going to ever be considered a valid reporter of the truely "cool" as in part of the title, he has to ditch his bullshit bias. X3 clearly is not getting the press it deserves, but then again, Bryan Singer&#39;s advice to Ratner is quite sound... never go to AICN because they are assholes. ALL comic book films should be getting shown on this site, no matter how good or how shitty the owner thinks they will be. How many reviews of shitty movies has Harry, Mori, and crew made that they gave glowing reviews for? How many movies they claimed were shit that turned out to be much better than they claimed? I may have a fanatic zeal for X-Men and other Marvel properties, but if I was running a site, I&#39;d give bullshit shows/movies like Buffy, Angel, Smallville, etc equal time even though I can&#39;t stand teeny-bopper/20-something dramas. Why? Because someone else may consider it "cool" even though I detest it. This of course, if I wanted to be considered a serious critic or reporter. I only come to AICN because once in a while, a semi-decent scrap of news appears here. But I go to other sites that report much more faithfully on all aspects of coolness, Comics2Film for example. I think Harry needs to get his fat head out of his fat ass and save his bias for his blue-state whining reviews. Still it&#39;s his site and reputation to ruin, so I&#39;ll find better and more reliable sources for movie news and information. If I feel like putting up with Joss Whedon&#39;s personal living bidet, then I&#39;ll come here. Honoris Causa... Silverblade

  • May 6, 2006, 12:34 a.m. CST

    hugh jackman took the time out of his day..

    by white owl

    to try and convince Harry that X3 is good? HAHA yeah I can see that happening. HUGH: Please Harry, it really is worth seeing! I&#39;ll do anything if you would just listen! Forget the shitty talk show clips or your superman bias, love me! love the xmen! love brett ratner! please harry i love you! HARRY: get down on your knees and tell me ya love me! HARRY PULLS OUT THE AK and RATTATAT TATAT ATATREATATATAT this is going nowhere

  • May 6, 2006, 12:53 a.m. CST

    cheers silverblade

    by samsquanch

    well said.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    homewrecker

    by whatyoufear

    you piece of shit!

  • May 6, 2006, 1:16 a.m. CST

    my seven cents

    by acebandage

    Even though I have serious doubts that anyone actually reads the talkbacks this far down on the list, I will go ahead and state this here anyway...First off, I hate the fact that talkbackers criticize a person&#39;s reviews based on spelling and/or grammer. Second, I accept the fact that in the movies, Superman is able to procreate with humans and furthermore, since Kryptonians&#39; powers come from exposure to a yellow sun, a Kryptonian fetus could be brought to term inside a human womb since the last time I checked there is very little sunlight that far inside the mother&#39;s body. (Seriously, are you people taking biology lessons from Brodie???) Third, I HATE the idea of Lois Lane having a kid in this film. Fourth, I DO NOT LIKE Kate Bosworth in anything I have ever seen her in, including the previews for Superman Returns. Fifth, I don&#39;t think that from the latest clip you can say that Kevin Spacey is hamming it up throughout the whole movie. Sixth, I agree that, if you are setting the movie any significant time after the events of Superman II, Routh and Bosworth are TOO YOUNG! And FINALLY, (yes, I KNOW it is a grammatical error to start a sentence with "and" so don&#39;t even point that out as evidence that my whole statement is flawed and/or that of a plant)I am actually looking forward to this movie despite all of it&#39;s perceived flaws and my own criticisms, because it looks to me like this might still be entertaining and I still haven&#39;t seen hide nor hair of Lenny Luthor in it. That&#39;s my seven cents! Ace Bandage out! (No I didn&#39;t lift that from Ryan Seacrest, I lifted it from James Tiberius Kirk! GEEKS RULE! NOONCH!

  • May 6, 2006, 1:16 a.m. CST

    10 bucks says...

    by VenomFangX

    10 bucks says Doomsday is in the film.

  • May 6, 2006, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Harry&#39;s not biased. Singer called AICN "sh*t".

    by Darth Bauer

    It&#39;s in an interview with him I just read. He said AICN is full of shit. Something to that extent.

  • May 6, 2006, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Homewrecker, I &#39;preciate bein in your paranoid episode.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    Seriously though I hope this film is enjoyable but I believe that it will make people reconsider the desire to disrupt the creative process by destroying potentially great draft scripts. Yes it has been proven that organised campaigns by geeks can have an effect but I think it&#39;s time to asess what ill effects our role in the process is having upon an increasingly wary studio system.

  • May 6, 2006, 2:11 a.m. CST

    I&#39;m sorry, but

    by samsquanch

    I just watched the X3 spots again at superhero hype, and they look really fucking good. please, someone tell me again why we shouldn&#39;t have a talkback about that here.

  • May 6, 2006, 2:28 a.m. CST

    Dstrbo1...

    by Silverblade11975

    I&#39;ll tell you why there may not be a X3 talkback here. WB owns Harry&#39;s 3 mutated testicles in a jar, stored in a cargo crate, stacked in a massive warehouse of crates of other reviewers testicles, brains, and other organs of semi-importance. Think of the scene from Indiana Jones, but with many crates with burned swastikas on them. X3 may or may not be crap, it remains to be seen either in the theaters or on DVD when it comes out. Still, because Harry didn&#39;t get perks directly from Ratner or the producers, like he does with other films he hypes, he isn&#39;t going to give the movie the time of day unless there is someting in it for him... Like the news media, it&#39;s all about ratings and the agenda he wants to portray. It&#39;s his site to do as he will, like I said previously, which is why other sites will get the scoop or exclusive while he grows more immense and unable to procreate. Look on the bright side though, at least we won&#39;t have to read his strolls down memory lane and mindless mentions of several other movies in his reportoire. There are other sites out there, this site sometimes credits them, go for the goods there I guess. Honoris Causa... Silverblade

  • May 6, 2006, 2:41 a.m. CST

    Supermans kid...

    by MaulRat

    Didn&#39;t schmooperman give up his powers for a while in Superman 2?.. maybe the child was concieved then perhaps... Well I am undecided, so I guess I&#39;ll be there opening night (unless there&#39;s advance screenings around here) and judge for myself.. same with X3.. But so far it looks like a sequel to the old Superman movies.................. OOOhh MAYBE THAT WAS THEIR PLAN??.. Fiends!!

  • May 6, 2006, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Look at this talkback. geez

    by BendersShinyAss

    X3 will suck, superman will rule. Superman wil lsuck, x3 will rule. Superman and x3 already suck, so shutup. Superman & x3 will rock your world. Singer should have stuck with Xmen. Singer is gay. Everyone is Doc Pozusu. Spacey is just pretending to be Gene hackman pretending to be Luthor (???) listen to Routh he sounds just like Reeve (???) this movie will suck because it&#39;s taken the mytho&#39;s of the original films. You people are all whacked in the head. Superman Returns looks fucking great. X3 looks fucking great. I don&#39;t give a shit what any of your oppinions are. As for not liking the prospect of a film because the script isn&#39;t very good. I read scripts before I see films about 80% of the time. Let me tell you, it&#39;s impossible to tell whats going to be good and what will suck. I&#39;ve read scripts to films I thought would be tremendous and they were trash. Likewise - I&#39;ve read what i thought was pure shite and been absolutely delighted with the finished film. you guys need to lighten up. you have power in your talkbacking to actually effect film. think original revamp Superman premise or AVP2. Keep your heads. We&#39;re getting a good Superman film. Dare I say a Good X3 film too.

  • May 6, 2006, 4:15 a.m. CST

    Why box office receipts are dwindling.......

    by Doc_Strange

    If any Hollywood execs are reading this, take notes. Ok first of all, I used to like going to the theater. But today prices to get in are much too high. Ten bucks for a lousy movie, hell, I pay four more to get the DVD, in otherwords, they need to lower the admission price at the BO. Second, the whole movie experience sucks. I think some people enjoy being with others in the theater. When a big summer flick comes, I really can&#39;t stand to be in the same theater as those people. Fucking talking throughout the whole damn movie. Fucking kids talking and crying. Cell phones ringing, people with their damn laser pointers. You expect me to pay ten bucks for that shit? Nigga please. If that&#39;s what the movie experience was meant to be, hollywood deserves to be in decline. Hell, I have a 3000 dollar plasma display that has a better picture as well a kick ass stereo setup with a recliner and no one else to fuck it up. Ask yourself, where would you rather be? Also, the high price for a movie that isn&#39;t worth half that admission, movies like those directed by Michael bay, Paul WS Anderson, and Uwe Boll. Fuck, even matinee prices are way too high. The solution? Quit paying 20-25 million to your two-bit actors who don&#39;t even seem to draw that kind of money. There&#39;s a ton of worthy unknowns that could carry a movie for a tenth of the price. Lower BO admission prices by 3 bucks at least. You&#39;d definitely get more asses in seats by doing that. And Cameron is wrong about the 3-D thing getting people back into the theater. It&#39;s a novelty that will wear off after the first couple of movies that are done that way, namely Star Wars or whatever underwater dreck that Cameron is set to direct next.

  • May 6, 2006, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Harry, please give us an X-Men talkback.

    by Amy's Flat Rat

    There are about 10 X-3 tv-spots flying about on the net, I want to see what my fellow geeks think of them.

  • May 6, 2006, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Superman Gilmore Girls edition

    by redeye2000

    why on fooking earth do we get ROMANTIC movie. i am so angry! stop this nonsence of romance. give the geeks what we want! Action,Real drama, and a great alien evil like braniac for example besides luthor. but no!!! all we get is a fooking romantic movie about lois lane and the child of superman. holy fooking shit. what is this for movie? Gilmore girls superman edition? give girls AEON flux, Ultraviolet etc. and leave superman for the real man under us and not those metrosexual romantic hippies! redeye raise Conans sword and slashes the heads of all who back up this Romantic crap! where are the Real man and Real woman comics to movies adaptions?

  • May 6, 2006, 5:45 a.m. CST

    No ,don&#39;t give X-men a talkback Harry!

    by Shermdawg

    Quite a number of AICN posters, including myself screamed bloody murder for a talkback for a certain couple of shows, and we didn&#39;t get squat, so why should the X3 fans get one when they beg? (This coming from the biggest X-men fan around)But if Mr.HEADGEEK is throwing out talkbacks to anyone that asks (which he ain&#39;t), I&#39;d like some more news on the Dark Crystal sequel.

  • May 6, 2006, 5:50 a.m. CST

    What this movie needs...

    by moviemaniac-7

    ... a fight with a spider at the end...

  • May 6, 2006, 5:53 a.m. CST

    Why did they have to have Langella as White?

    by Shermdawg

    Everytime I see him, I am reminded of the horror that was him runnin away from Jeremy Irons buck nekkid in that Lolita remake. *shudders* It&#39;s a bird... It&#39;s a plane... No, it&#39;s my one-eyed monster!!!

  • May 6, 2006, 5:55 a.m. CST

    VenomFangX

    by Shermdawg

    Theres a better chance of Tom fucking Welling showing up and beating the living dog piss out of Routh than Doomsday showin up.

  • May 6, 2006, 6:05 a.m. CST

    no gay robotic butlers, polar bears or spiders?

    by Spacesheik

    no black costumed superman who cant fly?!? heresy I say heresy!!!!

  • May 6, 2006, 6:07 a.m. CST

    hahaha - 1979 called, they want their movie back -

    by Spacesheik

    classic line classic genius

  • May 6, 2006, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Ignoring the illiterate &#39;revue&#39;...

    by Napoleon Park

    ...thge introductory material before the review states the previously reviewed script - the lo-budget version - was bad, and they essentially made that movie, just added a lot of action sequences not relevant to the plot to it to fun it up. that doesn;t sound encouraging. *** I&#39;m glad someone here read Larry Niven&#39;s "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex". But as repeatedly stated here, Supes was powered wown during the impregnation process, there&#39;s no solar energy getting to the womb and the kids half unpowered Kryptonian, half puny earthling. *** But if Supes powered down, boned Lois, Super-hypno-kissed her memory away and she forgot the boning... does that mean she moved on with other guys, or does she thing she&#39;s the new Vergin&#39; Mary and Superbrat is the new JC or the antiguy? Supes returns to fing Lois moved on, has a kid - and the dad is Jimmy. *** I have to agree though, yet another yawn inducing Lexington Lucifer story, when with modern CGI and SFX, a major budget and the writing talent from JLU they could do a kick-ass Mxyzptlk, Brainiac, Doomsday or Darkseid flick. *** Serious, super-movie-makers, turn to the Darkseid!

  • May 6, 2006, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Just castrate Superman and get it over with!

    by Psychobilly

    A guy who flies around in spandex, jumps buildings and stops bullets with his chest is about as philosophically deep as a mud puddle!! So let

  • May 6, 2006, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Reality - X3 is tracking higher than Superman...

    by genro

    So let the freak out begin. I&#39;m not willing to say Harry has a vested interest in seeing Singer do well, but he has no love for Ratner...

  • May 6, 2006, 9:03 a.m. CST

    and this review is more apologist spin...

    by genro

    Notice how Harry mentions that the reviewer is a comic guy not from DC - but fails to address that Singer knows as many, if not more, people affiliated with Marvel? What Harry calls a "micro-screening of an extended cut" is actually a rough edit for those trusted by the production - meaning friends of Singer. This flick has not been screened for any general audience. And the reason "BlackJack" can&#39;t come clean with his ID is because it will kill the objectivity he and Harry are trying to sell. Knowles knows all of this. Hell, the grammar is so bad, you&#39;d swear Knowles wrote it himself.

  • May 6, 2006, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Here&#39;s The Point Where I Stopped Reading

    by Aquatarkusman

    "On paper, that sounds AWFUL. Lois lane? A mother! WHAT! Well yeah, that

  • May 6, 2006, 10:27 a.m. CST

    The Donner films are sucky

    by Rupee88

    Lemme see...in the first one Supes turns back time by flying around the Earth. In the 2nd one, he can kiss someone and make them forget and he can also duplicate himself into multiple Supermans. My point is that this film will almost certainly be better than those crappy movies which were fun to watch as a kid, but do not hold up to adult viewing.

  • May 6, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    About scripts...

    by SK909

    Ya know, nobody is probably reading this far down, but if what is actually in a script is all that winds up on screen then the director, actors, and crew failed miserably. If you take almost any great 60&#39;s or 70&#39;s movie, the scripts are just about unreadable. Go read the screenplay for the French Connection. This idea that everything has to be in the script so it &#39;LEAPS OFF THE PAGE&#39; is a holdover from the high concept 1980&#39;s, which, sadly, the business still holds to. That adage, &#39;if it ain&#39;t on the page, it ain&#39;t on the stage&#39; is bullshit, because film is a visual medium. Any truly great movie is really made by the director&#39;s visual ideas and the work of the actors - 2001, Raging Bull, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. ,etc. Of course, the basic concept and the way it plays out should be nailed down, but it&#39;s only a jumping off point, and I think WAYYYY too much pressure is placed on the script to read brilliantly. A script can be really boring, again, as is the case with a lot of 70&#39;s films, but then the director knows that that two sentence description of someone walking into a grocery store is going to look brilliant when he puts that whacked out bum that he sees everyday outside the store, when Dustin Hoffman figures out the character, when they put the camera across the street, hidden, and just see what happens... you know what I&#39;m saying? The best example, by far, is taxi driver. The real writers of that script are Jodi Foster, the prostitute that Scorsese and Schraeder came across in real life, the pimp that Harvey Keitel hung out with, the cabbies that Peter Boyle spent time with, Peter Boyle himself, thinking &#39;how do you try to convince a guy who&#39;s beyond hope that things will be alright? How would a cabbie do it?&#39; If you read that script, NONE of that is in there... it&#39;s all concept. So... anyway, that&#39;s my diatribe against this belief that the script has to just read as absolutely brilliant. I understand that since the budgets have skyrocketed and so much is at stake, that need exists by the beancounters, but this site really promotes the idea that if the script doesn&#39;t &#39;leap off the page&#39; then it&#39;s automatically going to suck. I can think of a lot of movies that if this site existed when they were being made, AICN would have had them dead in the water before they were even being shot, only to get egg on their face when they see it and find out that there was a lot that the director and actors were seeing and bringing to the table to make the film great. That&#39;s my two cents on this script thing...

  • May 6, 2006, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Darkseid? Ha!

    by hank henshaw

    No, really!! I shudder just to think about a wimped down version by Singer. Besides, who knows if Singer has any idea who Darkseid is (considering he was not in Superman,Superman II or the Fleischer&#39;s serials)? If I were a betting man, I&#39;d bet we are going to get Zod (almost happened in this one) for the Returns "sequel", and then Luthor and Zod for part III. In other words nothing new. Forget about Darkseid, Parasite, Braniac, Eradicator (which would make little sense in these movies continuity), Metallo, Bizarro, etc. Maybe we will get Prankster who is just a guy in a garish suit (even if they will probably give him a normal business suit for the movie).

  • May 6, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    The &#39;Super-kiss&#39; mind wipe

    by performingmonkey

    I&#39;m thinking Singer WILL be using that in his continuity. There&#39;s no way Lois will know that Clark is Superman. THAT would screw up the series more than Lois having a kid. I hope she doesn&#39;t find out in Returns. It would be quite a shock for her &#39;oh, by the way, 6 years back I gave up my powers and impregnated you by shooting my load up your EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD pussy, then I gave you a kiss that somehow...SOMEHOW made you forget all of it&#39;. It&#39;s too clunky to be brought up. What I think is that Supes will realise the kid is his but won&#39;t tell Lois.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:11 a.m. CST

    The biggest problem with the age

    by moondoggy2u

    Lois obviously looks like she&#39;s in her early twenties. That would mean that five or six years ago, she was a star reporter at the age of 17. As everyone has pointed out, this cast is FAR too young--to the point that its distracting. That said, I will still watch this film--I love Superman.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:15 a.m. CST

    damn enter button

    by moondoggy2u

    But I think this movie is yet another sad example of Hollywood&#39;s obsession with youth. If our current studio heads had their way in the early days of cinema, Casablanca would have stared Leonardo DiCaprio as the experienced, cynical, and tough-as-nails Rick. Can anyone remember the last time a big budget film starred actors above the age of 40?

  • May 6, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST

    actors above 40 who WERENT playing younger..

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 6, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    just to rant some more

    by moondoggy2u

    Its sorta the same problem I have with Gymnastics and skating in the olympics. How can you honestly refer to it as a mens/womens competition when all the usual suspects are about 13?

  • May 6, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I don&#39;t really listen much to reviews these days

    by Snookeroo

    because I feel like most of them are purchased at market value. That being said, I am utterly jazzed about this movie. I&#39;ve seen nothing to date that gives any indication of this movie being any less than fantastic. I would have preferred a story line that is not essentially a revised version of "Superman, the Movie", but that&#39;s still ok with me. The fact that someone who has some semblence of respect for the character is handling this movie is nothing less than a miracle, for which I am extremely happy. I&#39;ve been a Superman fan my entire life, and I have waited for years for movie-making technology to be able to appropriately portray the Man of Steel. I think this movie will be that milestone. I can say with some certainty that I will see this in the theater at least a dozen times. I will buy the DVD the minute it comes out, and I will probably buy much more of the merchandise than I can reasonably afford. Harry, can I have my check now?

  • May 6, 2006, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Superman & Superman 2: an alternate theory

    by Voice O. Reason

    Admitedly, the ending didn&#39;t make a lot of sense, but other than that it was a well-acting, great looking film, with lots of great moments and an enjoyable story with memorable performances. I&#39;ll agree that Superman 2 hasn&#39;t withstood the test of time, despite the great work of Terence Stamp. The Metropolis battle between Superman and the 3 vilians looks corny by today&#39;s standards. However, let me point out an alternate theory on Superman&#39;s extra powers. Did Superman really have extra powers? I say no. He was in the Fortress of Solitude at the time. A Fortress filled with Kryptonian technology. The teleportation, holograms, big S forcefiled-net, could have all been extentions of the Fortress&#39;s tech, not necessarily Superman himself. Did Zod have extra powers before getting to the Fortress? Yes, but its also possible that the yellow sun would effect him different than it did Superman. And what about the kiss that made Lois forget? How do we know it was the kiss itself that made her forget, and not some unseen piece of technology? For those of you purists who can&#39;t accept the films based on these extra powers, there&#39;s your means of rationalization.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST

    wasn&#39;t awed by the trailer...

    by Serious Black

    ...but still looking forward to this movie. It&#39;s Superman for fuck&#39;s sake! How bad could it be? I wanna see all the superpowers, too: lots of heat vision and cold breath. Props go to TV&#39;s &#39;Smallville&#39; for realizing that Superman really does have superspeed, so hopefully we&#39;ll see that this time, too. Just as long as they don&#39;t start making up bullshit like pulling a giant plastic &#39;S&#39; off his chest.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    SK909 You sir are a genius,

    by JUSTICE41

    And moondogg, LOTR had old actors in it. Viggo was over 40 and so is Tom Cruise.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Find the real Supes in S2...

    by Billyeveryteen

    "We used play this game back home" Huh!?! I mean with Zod? I thought Kansas was home. That movie needed a huge cellophane S to throw at your enemies.. oh wait.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST

    I&#39;m gonna be beaten for this

    by moondoggy2u

    But I never had a problem with the first movie&#39;s ending. Its not that he spins the earth backward, thus altering time. Its that he&#39;s flying so fast that he&#39;s traveling back in time. Granted, its a pretty bastardized version of einstein&#39;s theory or relativity, but Jor El mentions it when Supes is hurling through space in his space crib. Jor El even mentions it later in the fortress of solitude when he states that by Earth reckoning, Krypton had exploded a few thousand years ago (which alludes to Relativity). To this day, I&#39;m surprised no one gets that. Its not a made up power at all, its just his super speed. I admit, Donner could have explained it a bit more (or at all), but there were certainly enough clues to pick up on, I thought.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Routh looks like Supes as much as Reeve

    by Rupee88

    I think some of you grew up with Reeve, so you think he "looks" like Superman more than Routh. To my objective eye, they both look (or don&#39;t look) like Superman about equally. And Superman wasn&#39;t so muscular early on in the comics, so I can see how Routh is more in that mold rather than the Alex Ross type version. The rest of the cast is all wrong, which is a shame, but that&#39;s the way it is. I&#39;m just hoping for some cool flying scenes...my expectations are very low besides that. Don&#39;t expect a great Superhero movie out of Hollywood.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Justice 41

    by moondoggy2u

    Yeah, I forgot all about Lord of the Rings. As far as Tom Cruise goes, yeah, he is over forty, but he certianly doesnt play roles, save for collateral, that are close to his age. Excluding Collateral, he&#39;s always passing himself off as a decade or so younger (and he certainly looks it). You are right, though, I forgot about Vigo. Then again, if PJ had had his way, Stuart Townsend (sp) would have played an Aragorn who appeared to be in his late twenties.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:44 a.m. CST

    speaking of age, I recently saw what lies beneath

    by moondoggy2u

    Is it me, or does michelle pheiffer look even better than she did in the eighties? I dont know how much plastic surgery plays a role with her, but she deffinitely amazing in that film.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:46 a.m. CST

    The romantic aspect of the movie

    by Rupee88

    I can&#39;t believe people are asking why this movie has such a strong romantic aspect...wake up...it is just to put female asses in seats. Women love that shit and notice how the majority of movie trailers show a syrupy romantic scene. These movies are totally calcuated for the box office, with little regard to artistic matters unless you get lucky and have great writers (not here) or a passionate director (maybe in this case). But like most of the comic book movies, this one will make at least a few hundred million dollars in pure profit (bo, dvds, toys, etc) whether it is good or whether it is a total piece of shit..just the reality. SR does look to have some redeeming qualities, as does X3, but they will both probably not be very good movies overall, but they weren&#39;t primarily designed to be.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Cruise played his age in WOTW

    by JUSTICE41

    Rupee it&#39;s not that Routh looks young it&#39;s rally the imbalance of his body and his skinny neck. Reeve had big legs but not huge legs and his upper body had a broadness to it whereas Routh looks like a round shouldered, bottom heavy, long torso type. Look how high and narrow Routh&#39;s chest is in that costume. I believe that&#39;s why Singer slapped that tiny S on there, to not bring focus to how bird chested he is.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    by Anti-fanboy

    It sounds like a combination of Superman I and II (losing and regaining his powers back at the fortress), and Byrne&#39;s &#39;86 Man of Steel (with the big debut of Superman after saving the experimental rocket plane). My gut reaction from what I&#39;d seen so far had me wondering if we were going to see more than just Supes doing superdeeds, like in Superman I -- which is fine -- but the geek in me wanted to see some super-powered villains (just like the little geek in me wanted to see them back in &#39;79)... but looks like this tribute/reboot of the Reeve series is saving that for the sequel... like the Reeve series... kinda easy to see how Singer sold his pitch: it had that remake safety factor executives love.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Revealing comments from Singer and the writers

    by amrisharmpit

    I read an interview with Singer in the new issue of Starlog and another with the writers (Dan Harris, Michael Dougherty) in Script Magazine. As I waded through their comments, I was shocked at how lazy and uninspired their creative process was for this movie. Singer admitted that he used little to none of the actual source material - you know, the comic books. He also said he couldn&#39;t think of any other reason to make the movie except merely to get Superman back on the big screen (translation: to restart a money-making franchise for an entertainment conglomerate, please shareholders, and raise the stock price). All three of them confirmed that they based the film on the previous incarnations of Superman - even the Broadway musical, for God&#39;s sake!!!! Did you ever hear Sam Raimi or Chris Nolan talk like that? No. Their movies were successful because they went back to the COMICS, not other media adaptations of the comics. What Singer has done is a version of someone else&#39;s version.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Appearances - Reeves vs. Routh

    by Immortal_Fish

    I can&#39;t believe some of you are so willfully blinded into supporting the absurd theory that simply because one saw Reeves at an early age, well then *of course* he bears a lasting image of a mature appearance. Please. Since forever, certain people appear much younger than they are while others appear much older than they are. There was a kid in my 8th grade class that had to SHAVE. Meanwhile, I&#39;m 35 and got carded as early as last week. Reeves looked like SuperMAN while Routh looks like SuperBOY. Spare the rationalization. Instead, angle for more a tangible reason, such as the unnecessary costume chnages that help make Routh look slimmer. Yet that too would require one to remove their rose-colored lenses.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    I can&#39;t wait for this movie but...

    by jonastheangel

    The one thing that bothers me, is a bit of the "been there done that" feeling. Lex&#39;s big plan is to use missles to create a piece of land that he can use as his own. Which is pretty much what he intended to do in the original, missles to devistate a section of the country he could take over and and rule. No super villian fights, just superman against men, and missles, with an occasional saving of a crashing airplane. With all the Metallo shots from the game I was kinda hoping for some &#39;real&#39; super hero action. And although I still think this movie will be great, I feel kinda cheated by a retread of the original movie plot.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Dasher, "little to none of the actual source material"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Not suprising. He had to do &#39;research&#39; on the source material *after* he was awarded with the contract for X-Men. And considering how those two films turned out, he obviously applied the same methodology with them as for Superman. Singer has a story he wants to tell. This is fine. The problem is he is notorious for wildly altering the base building blocks of the character in order to tell his story.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:29 p.m. CST

    I think Aragorn was 120 in LOTR

    by chrth

  • May 6, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    On the next Maury -- "Mr. Kent, you ARE the father!!"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Even though he looks like us, Kal is an alien. The comics already addressed the matter of incompatible DNA. And a tender moment between two folks in the Fortress of Solitude -- that led you to believe what you wanted to believe -- is now explained away ala midichlorians. But what about his farmboy raising? The Kent&#39;s instilled Kal with old-fashioned moral values. He ain&#39;t called the Big Blue Boyscout for nothing. His upbringing is the entire reason why he ain&#39;t knocking over banks or entire governments. This is an *ESSENTIAL* part of what makes the character. And even if he pissed all that away to be "progressive" and get it on now that he could -- why would he be so selfish as to not think of the consequences and use borth control. Kal has always put everyone else first. Why be selfish when it comes to Lois? Why indeed? Because this is the story SZinger wants to tell. That is goes completely against the character, so what? Welling racked up a hella body count in the first season of Smallville anyway. Our Lady Peace said it perfectly. Superman is dead.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Moondoggy 2u, thanks for bringing up STM time-travel

    by Snookeroo

    I&#39;ve always been a little frustrated that people thought (in Superman - the Movie) that the Man of Steel was literally spinning the earth backwards. That was actually meant to portray that he was traveling back in time. Something he did quite a lot of back in the Silver Age of comics. Of course, something else always empahsized in the comics was that he could travel back in time and change events, but ultimately not change the outcome of things.

  • May 6, 2006, 12:51 p.m. CST

    And another thing

    by Snookeroo

    Although I admire his talent, I hate the way Alex Ross draws Superman to look like an old fat guy. Granted, Brandon Routh looks like SuperBOY, but Alex Ross&#39; Superman always looks like the Earth-2 guy (see: Silver Age). Check out Action comics #1; Superman is in his thirties -- not his teens, not his twenties, and not his fifties.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST

    snookeroo

    by moondoggy2u

    Actually, Alex Ross has drawn a thirty-something Supes, its jut that his Kingdom Come work is his most well known and advertised.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Well, I do think Superman is romantic.

    by superninja

    The Lois/Clark relationship is romantic. But there is genuine romance and then there is wimpy feminization in which Superman must emasculate himself to win the girl (who is really the man). Superman has always had a certain vulnerability to him in the comic books because of his Kryptonian nature - everything he loves is essentially temporary because he&#39;ll outlive it all. But that is different than a RomCom.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    You guys are right about the time travel bit.

    by superninja

    It&#39;s the same thing used in Star Trek where the Enterprise goes back in time using velocity.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Moviemack smokes crack.

    by superninja

    I understand you hate Batman Begins, but there is NO WAY this film will be better. Singer doesn&#39;t even get Superman.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Immortal Fish, the only reason Singer

    by superninja

    researched X-Men and didn&#39;t alter them entirely was because of DeSanto.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    The X-Men were indeed completely altered, imo

    by Immortal_Fish

    With the exception of the Prof and Mags, every last character is not who they were in the book. Not at all. A 5ft ugly 60-something is a 6ft 30-something chick magnet. Devout catholic and swashbuckling Kurt is a self-mutilating, self-exiled introvert. Mystique doesn&#39;t recognize her own son. Kitty regresses in age betweeen X1 and X2. Peter isn&#39;t Russian. Ororo who once thought she was a god herself exclaims, "Oh my god!" I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if in X3, Juggs gets his power from a football helmet that was scientifically altered on the molecular level. This series should be renamed Knifey Boy and his Mostly Mundane Friends.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Desanto Kept Singer in line. And he still screwed up.

    by JUSTICE41

    I remember reading that Singer wanted to Pussify Wolverine down by making him sew or some such idiocy. You could tell Singer had contempt for too macho a character as he had Wolvy get his ass handed to him by two females in the X movies. He&#39;s gonna Pussify Superman down to a whiny, man-boy, pouting as he flies away after being rejected by Lane. That shot screamed of Maury Povich&#39;s shows where the skinny kid who was picked on comes on stage all muscle bound and gets in the face of his childhood torturer and screams, "How You Like Me Now!!" Too bad Donner couldn&#39;t have used the Effect they use in Star trek when they hit hyper-space, to show that Supes was going back in time not spinning the earth backwards. he tried more the George Pal, Time Machine, reverse motion thing. But I guess at that time that was all they had to compare to, aside from Star Wars and the Millennium Falcons Hyper-jump.

  • May 6, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    This and all movies suck compared to MEG

    by LaserMonkey

    Steve Alten says about MEG: "For a solid 6 months MEG was kicking ass at the studio, enthusiastically supported by sales, sponsors, execs, parking lot attendants...and all agreed, MEG was and IS going to be huge...Lord of the Rings huge. The concept alone wow&#39;d them at the American Film Market...New Line still loves MEG and they are still claiming they want to do it. The MEG producers just want SOMEONE to do it, and they are ready and willing to move it to another studio and launch this billion dollar grossing MONSTER. It&#39;d be like saying to an NBA team 14 years ago...we own Michael Jordan&#39;s contract but he wants out of Chicago...any interest? ...this movie has success written all over it. Success? I&#39;m talking TOP 10 GROSSING PICS success, and I&#39;m not the one saying it. EVERYONE who has gotten a whiff of MEG in Hollywood is saying it, whispering it, salivating at it!!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! FUCK SUPERMAN! HITCH YOUR WAGON TO NUNZIATAS DINO SHARK MOVIE!! ALL MOVIES ARE RUINED FOR US UNTIL THIS CANCER-CURING MASTERPIECE BY JAN DE BONT HITS THEATERS!!!!!!

  • May 6, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Y&#39;know what? I can&#39;t be assed...

    by UltimaRex

    SR will rule. You know it and you can bet I know it too. I&#39;ll only eat my words if I have to and it looks like I won&#39;t. Plus, I made Bumwrecker&#39;s list? WOO HOO! Big up Oxford posse! WHOOP WHOOP! etc...

  • May 6, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Super-sex and lateness...

    by UltimaRex

    I think Larry Niven got it slightly wrong. Superman is invulnerable. The dude can tap dance on the sun for crying out loud! So, without getting too graphic invulnerability = stamina . Lois would be worn out long before Superman got close. No orgasm for Supes (knew there was a downside to being him) but Lois will never leave him. Late to the party I know but you know... Work... Life...

  • May 6, 2006, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Moveonmack, please learn to read...

    by UltimaRex

    I said I can&#39;t be assed... I MEANT I can&#39;t be assed... You&#39;re just going to have to learn to think for yourself (I got two bits that say you won&#39;t). I&#39;m sick of doing it for you. Oh yeah, SR will rule.

  • May 6, 2006, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Heres why Harry&#39;s been a bit of an ass the last few day

    by JUSTICE41

    With Good cause Too. read on[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]] April 27, 2006: JCOM back on the woodpile It is unfortunately my duty to inform everyone that John Carter of Mars has been officially put back on the woodpile. Apparently, it&#39;s been shelved to make way for other "similiar" stuff and of course Star Trek in 2008. Here&#39;s what Favs had to say at myspace.com: "Unfortunately, due to the 2008 Paramount production of Star Trek, it looks like Carter is not going to happen in the near future. I assure you that the script and artwork were very well received, but they&#39;ve got a lot of "similar" stuff in the pipeline at the studio. I am trying to help position the film to get made and remain committed to seeing it through. That said, it&#39;s not going to happen this year. Sorry for the disappointment. Believe me, after spending six months trying to make this my next film, I too am disappointed." -- end quote -- I can&#39;t understand how this movie doesn&#39;t get made. Especially with all of the sludge that does get out there. I only hope I&#39;m alive when it gets done. It&#39;s not looking good.

  • May 6, 2006, 4:55 p.m. CST

    "then set out to maliciously slander and cause harm to"

    by teddanson37

    this guy who did the fake review...he&#39;s totally doing what you did to X3, harry. totally. and now you are pissed. cuz you are the one who decides which movies can be considered crap long before any solid evidence is found. and only you. and this guy can&#39;t be deciding that. cuz you&#39;ve already decided supes was gonna kick ass and X3 would suck balls. and that&#39;s your job right? is someone getting to big for their britches? I love what you do here harry. i really do. but you can&#39;t just hate on X3 because of your hatred for the fox execs and that brett ratner character. if indeed it does suck you will blame rothman and ratner, and i probably will too. if the movie is great on the other hand, and yet still no one goes to see it, the blame goes to the ones who started the trash talk before they knew what they were talking about. you&#39;ll be the one with the x-men&#39;s blood on your hands. you will be to blame.

  • May 6, 2006, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Why spoil potential movie magic

    by gonzobob

    I Don&#39;t understand some people. I was strongly tempted to read this thing, but I did not read what came up in front of me. But I have a strong feeling, this is gonna be worth the wait. My advice to everyone is STAY CLEAR OF THIS TYPE OF THING, AND WAIT FOR THE MOVIE.I&#39;m sure we won&#39;t be disappointed!

  • May 6, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    Will see this movie.

    by mrfan

    It is Superman. I cannot wait to see how this movie is. Yes, the Lois having a kid thing bothers me. But what can I do. The only solution would be to make my own Superman movie and I don&#39;t see that happening. No movie is perfect. I gave up that notion a long time ago. Just hoping to get my $7.00 worth for a couple of hours.

  • May 6, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST

    IMO

    by LucienPierce

    The biggest fault with Superman Returns is that it is faithful to the first two movies instead of being faithful to the comic books.... The original Superman movies have always portrayed the Superman universe so very wrong. The ridiculous changes to his superpowers. His villains. Personally I dislike the original Superman suit, it looks like pyjamas. The new suit is obviously much better (will it look daft in 25 years time as well?) but the boots are hideous. They&#39;re so stiff and chunky that Routh looks like a flying mannequin in the long shots. Lex Luthor. Completely wrong. Superman Returns already has him wrong as well. What makes Lex Luthor Superman&#39;s main arch-villain is that even with Superman&#39;s powers he can never touch Luthor because he can never prove anything. That&#39;s what makes Luthor so cool, he&#39;s untouchable. In the original movies he was a buffoon. In the new movie he looks like a typical "comic-book" villain, shouting and frothing at the mouth. Ooh, how interesting! A hero is only as good as his villain. MI3 rocked because Hoffman was such a badass. Lex Luthor WILL suck, compared to what he should be. I trust Spacey but so far it looks like he&#39;s "channelling" Hackman&#39;s Luthor. Supes looks pretty damn awesome (except for the boots). The FX look amazing. The visual design looks spectacular. Narrative looks dull and vapid. Lois looks boring. The speed at which he moves is awesome...But I guess for a truly great Superman story I&#39;m going to have to count on my Kingdom Come TPB & Superman For All Seasons...

  • May 6, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Pissing all over the love story...

    by paralyser-pro

    ...So, you think Superman isn&#39;t a romance series but a balls to the wall action adventure epic? Since when? Certainly the last two television incarnations have been completely about angst and relationship drama. They changed the fecking comic continuity so it wouldn&#39;t clash with the Lois & Clark teevee wedding special, for chrissakes! Remember the Superman Family series? Superboy, Supergirl, Lois Lane, and Krypto the superdog?! If anything, I&#39;d say Singer&#39;s new take is UPPING THE ACTION STAKES CONSIDERABLY! By the way, if they&#39;re planning a trilogy they have to build the peril in stages and not blow their "Ultimate Destruction of the Universe" load in the first instalment. And as for the age issue - They got Routh because he reminds us of Chris Reeve, and he&#39;s young enough that when the third one comes out 7 years from now he won&#39;t look like geriatric Harrison Fucking Ford trying to make Indy 4. Same goes for Bosworth. Frankly, I&#39;m glad they got the Blue Crush mega-hottie to play the part. Supes needs a babe in his league. Though I&#39;d certainly serve a thick one to Teri Hatcher if I got the opportunity...yowza!

  • May 6, 2006, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Do any of you even READ Superman?

    by MattCG

    Cuz, there&#39;s quite a bit of lovey dovey shit in there. Superman isn&#39;t exactly a grim bad ass. He&#39;s a boy scout. YOu guys are all pissed over a movie that never should&#39;ve been. I&#39;m tired of your &#39;girm and gritty and violent&#39; bullshit. Go see this one. If it does well, we&#39;ll see Supes getting into it with Doomsday and Braniac. Until then, shut the fuck up. At least someone is making a semi-respectful movie about him and not "Superman 5: War on Terror!"

  • May 6, 2006, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Oh and ThaSithMaster?

    by MattCG

    You sound and write your age, which I&#39;m pretty certain is ten. As you get older, you will just get worse, I implore you for the sake of whichever stupid cow is going to let you inseminate her with your stupid seed, take a walk across a busy highway for the good of mankind.

  • May 6, 2006, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Looks good, but this is looking a bit Spider-Man 2ish..

    by axelfoley

    Eva Marie Saint as Clark&#39;s Earth mother having a sermon in the beginning. Reminds me of Aunt May. They both talk about how the principal father figures in their lives anticipated wonderful things from them. On top of this and the supposed opening sequence of comic illustrations to recap what went down in the first movie, this has shades of Marvel written all over it. Then again, this was the same guy who left X-Men. Is it my imagination, or does X3 look like complete shit? I loved the second one.........

  • May 6, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST

    The odds of a movie spending this much time...

    by Stan the Bat

    ...in Development Hell and not emerging as an utter mess are very, very small. Just sayin&#39;.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    this is the franchise

    by jethroc

    that can beat Harry Potter. there is no other than Star Wars that I would absolutely must see. IM? nice. i might, but might not. I don&#39;t care how bad the reviews are, I am going to see this. I haven&#39;t said that since Episode 3. Whoe else is this good? Give me another The Incredibles. Cars looks like Bob The Builder in drag -- Ugggh!!!

  • May 6, 2006, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Superman will own X3 @ box office.

    by darthbinks1220

    I think it will even approach Spidey 2 worldwide. Routh is a Reeve-lookalike. Bosworth is a goddess. Wonder if the kid has superpowers? Can&#39;t wait for this movie!

  • May 6, 2006, 11:31 p.m. CST

    They both look terrible.

    by superninja

    But at least with X-Men you knew what to expect. With Superman, it appears they really went out of their way to suck all the imagination out of it.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Moviemack, in all seriousness

    by superninja

    what would it have taken to make you like Batman Begins? There are problems with the film, but you must admit all the other Batman films are worse.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:41 p.m. CST

    I say it ends around just under 500 mil WW

    by JUSTICE41

    Initial confusion will give it good BO but after word of mouth gets around about it being a chick flick it will die at the domestic around 200 million,100 million less than production and marketing. Around the world ? Unless Supes denounces the whole Truth Justice and the American way thing it won&#39;t sell too much plus having a Terrorist blowing up cities in this day and age is a stupid risk singer needn&#39;t have taken. Look at United 93&#39;s BO to see how people feel about seeing terrorists so gleefully blowing things up even if it is campy crap. X3 will make at least as much as the last one and I think a bit more so a 400+million WW take aint bad for a 180 million dollar production.

  • May 6, 2006, 11:56 p.m. CST

    You know, Justice, now that you mention

    by superninja

    that about Singer wanting to do the metrosexual makeover to Wolverine (and being partially successful), it makes sense. There are no classic alpha male characters in X-Men. I&#39;m quite grateful for Hugh Jackman, though, who was a serious find.

  • May 7, 2006, 12:20 a.m. CST

    moviemack

    by Shermdawg

    So I&#39;m a idiot with a erection? A SMALLVILLE FLICK WOULD, AND WILL OWN YOUR ASS!!!

  • May 7, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Craptastic!

    by fiester

    This sounds exactly like the first movie! How about some new villains? Maybe some with super powers to fight Superman (duh!), Bring on Darkseid. This is some weak shit when the JLU cartoon blows it out of the water.

  • May 7, 2006, 2:49 a.m. CST

    i dont believe a review like this comes out of nowhere

    by Spacesheik

    the sith master has a point..the timing of the review and in a way its a slap in the face to moriarty - who also runs the site - this is the second time harry has fucked moriarty over - the first time was over the jj abrams superman script review by moriarty and then harry had to come in and give a good review - if i was moriarty id be fuckign pissed

  • May 7, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST

    fiester

    by Shermdawg

    Of course cartoons are gonna be better, thats because its far easier to adapt a comic in that medium. It&#39;s just like X-men. Evolution (especially there at the end) was a billion times better than what Fox has given us.

  • May 7, 2006, 4 a.m. CST

    What the bloody hell is wrong with you fuckers

    by BendersShinyAss

    Superman is all about his relationship with Lois. It&#39;s not the same, she&#39;s moved on and she tells him to bugger off. I&#39;m interested. Luthor has supermans technology to use against superman and the world. Hey, good! Superman fly&#39;s around. Awesome! The foundation for this film lays in the established universe of the well aged original? Excellent. "People don&#39;t want this film" ??? "This film has bad buzz" ??? I&#39;ve never seen AICN full of such cock sucking shit eating little bitches. You&#39;re so far removed from reality it&#39;s astonishing. bunch of wankers. Here&#39;s an idea, you got some bad things to say about this film - then do it with style. "This film will suck" just doesn&#39;t hold any weight. Give us something! This film looks extremely competent.

  • May 7, 2006, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Cool.

    by coldreboot

    Well I&#39;ll be seeing it. Sounds awesome.

  • May 7, 2006, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Sounds familiar...

    by GrubStreeter

    So Lex&#39;s plan is to use missles to cause earthquakes, and he would have succeed if his girlfriend hadn&#39;t had a change of heart. Hmmm. The plot sure sounds awfully similar to the first Superman, but I&#39;m still jazzed to see this.

  • May 7, 2006, 8 a.m. CST

    STOP IT!

    by xmanse

    I&#39;M FED UP TO FUCK WITH ALL THE NEGATIVITY. THE WHOLE, "This sounds shit but I&#39;ll watch it cause it&#39;s Superman." CRAP. HAVE SOME FAITH. YOU HAVEN&#39;T SEEN IT YET. SUPERMAN ISN&#39;T ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT WHAT IT MAKES YOU FEEL. YOU CAN STILL WATCH THE DONNER FILM AND SAY, "Wow that dudes flying!" ALTHOUGH THE EFFECTS HAVE AGED BADLY. DEAN CAIN WASN&#39;T PERFECT BUT AS A CHILD, HE WAS SUPES. LET THE KIDS DECIDE ON ROUTH.

  • May 7, 2006, 8:14 a.m. CST

    the franchise to beat harry potter?

    by isildur29

    a. No way b. Harry comes out in its own little slot to dominate a month or so of box office superman comes out 6 days before pirates which in my theatre gets a more positive audience reaction so no way will this franchise come close to potter nor will it be #1 of the summer or year

  • May 7, 2006, 8:52 a.m. CST

    the kid is also unoriginal

    by all your base

    why does no one mention lana&#39;s lame bastard child in superman 3? so much for the "new" idea of superman having to deal with fatherhood.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:31 a.m. CST

    The kid isn&#39;t a bad idea...

    by dr_buggerlugs

    ...I know people think inserting a kid usually means trouble (or is it just a lot of people still bitter after Episode I?) but essentially the kid I guess is the manifestation of Superman&#39;s problem. He&#39;s come back and people have moved on with their lives...and more pertinently, Lois has. Lois having a new bloke isn&#39;t really that much of a challenge for Supes, but Lois having a family is...he can&#39;t just walk in and expect her to fall into his arms...it&#39;s not going to as easy as maybe he thinks it would be and that&#39;s what a lot of Superman&#39;s journey will ultimately be about and that sounds pretty dandy to me. But I&#39;m just hoping the kid won&#39;t instantly turn into some scrappy, cheeky, foils the bad guys superkid. Then I&#39;ll be pissed.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Huh? Batman 1&2 are better than BB?

    by Billyeveryteen

    Wow. Just wow...

  • May 7, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Moviemack

    by moondoggy2u

    Well, I understand and respect your opinions concerning BB, but it just seems like Batman `89 suffered from a total lack of detective work and fantasy. Sure, BB explained the batmobile, his suit, and had the kindly old black guy create antidotes, but B `89 didnt explain ANYTHING. It didnt tell us how Batman&#39;s gadgets worked nor his skills. Now, you say you don&#39;t need to have anything explained to you, but I certainly dont like it when Batman&#39;s becomes magical (which it did in the burton flicks). I dont mean this to be an insult but it just seems you are kinda extreme in your need for no explanations whatsoever. I dont mind mystery, but i do mind believability (to a certain extent). As far as made up characters, ehh, Burton similarly drew his characters from thin air and simply attached unrelated names to them (vicky vale). And as far as stunt casting, I think you are reaching a bit considering Bale and the scarecrow guy are virtually unknown actors to mass audiences. Burton, on the other hand, is blatantly guilty of EXTREME stunt casting. A black Robin (he was gonna do it), a short batman, an aged joker, a lunatic catwoman, and a planned Nick Cage Superman. I&#39;m sorry, but it just seems like you are going a bit far in finding faults with this flick by saying the first one werent guilty of WORST things. I&#39;m not saying you have to like the BB, i&#39;m just saying the faults you find with the flick are being blown out of proportion in relation to previous incarnations. Thats all I&#39;m saying.

  • May 7, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Moviemack

    by Wonderboys

    Batman Begins is a good movie on its own, and its better than the previous ones, its inevitable to compare, as they are about the same guy in the bat suit, but comparations arent needed to conclude that BB its a good film... anyway, nobody cares what you think, and your opinion is not going to change everybody else&#39;s opinion of Batman Begins, so, you can take a rest...

  • May 7, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Moviemack

    by Wonderboys

    Batman Begins is a good movie on its own, and its better than the previous ones, its inevitable to compare, as they are about the same guy in the bat suit, but comparations arent needed to conclude that BB its a good film... anyway, nobody cares what you think, and your opinion is not going to change everybody else&#39;s opinion of Batman Begins, so, you can take a rest...

  • May 7, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST

    moviemack

    by moondoggy2u

    ahh, i see what you mean, now. Sorry about that. I thought you were talking about Burton type stunt casting (was gonna smack myself in the forhead, too;) Yeah, that part was a bit lame for us comic book fans. I actually can defend the movie on its own merits, believe it or not. I really enjoyed the film and found it to be ver similar to the animated Batman that I&#39;m so fond of. As far as his memory fabric, ehh, its a bastardization of real memory cloth physics/theories, but i dont complain too much--i&#39;m comfortable with bullshit movie logic. Guess I&#39;m one of the sheep when it comes to that, huh? What I liked about BB was its extremely gritty, realistic atmosphere. For most of my life, I have imagined Batman living and acting in almost the same fashion as they depicted--gritty, yet realistic. True, the film has hollywood logic all over it, but then, so do Lethal Weapon movies, and I like them, too. Basically, like Spiderman 2, it was like watching a live action comic and for me, that made it my all time favorite (tied with Spidey 2) comic movie. I could go on, but this thing is already getting to long. Thanks for the clarification, by the way.

  • May 7, 2006, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Oh, and one more thing

    by moondoggy2u

    I also liked the way they depicted the main characters. Save for the static Fox character, everyone was very human and very interesting. I know it seems stupid, but it seemed as though I were watching a film intended for adults and not children, despite it being a comic movie.

  • May 7, 2006, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Here&#39;s the thing about the first two Batmans and BB....

    by axelfoley

    Let&#39;s get this clear right now. Batman Begins, simply put, owned, paid mortgage, sent out monthly health benefit payments, and supported every single one of you on this board. I have never in my life seen a more throrough adaptation of a comic book that got it right on so many levels. I&#39;m saying this because this was far and away what WB wanted.....a Batman movie finally done right from someone OTHER than Tim Burton&#39;s alternative and weird vision that pretty much would "avenge" &#39;Forever&#39; and &#39;Batman and Robin&#39;. The only downsides here were minimal compared to the Shite-a-licious mediocrity of the 4th one......Where Batman Begins wasn&#39;t going to make Spider-Man money, WB got a little down, but it had a really strong showing at a rather shitty box office and an even stronger presence on DVD. Did I mention that reviewers even slated it among the best of the year? Then another fault? The miscasting of Katie Holmes, whose performance of which was more wooden than the parquet floor used at Celtics home games. Now, back to the Burton movies. I liked them, alot. The first one more though. The second one started this whole trend we see hinted at in comic movies today "Let&#39;s water it down with two villains to make it worse". Burton was pretty much almost......not quite but almost, deflocked (not too unlike Frank Miller and Robocop 2) from the franchise of sorts after Batman Returns. It was a good movie, but just too fucking different for WB to internalize. I&#39;d have to agree because it was a dark and somewhat depression essay on the Caped Crusader. This wasn&#39;t your father&#39;s Penguin, and more people were trying to imagine themselves in Pfeiffer&#39;s catsuit than discover her rationale for being whatever it was she was. The bottom line of all this, in my own humble opinion, when asked about the top five comic book movies that nailed it (meaning was raved by general moviegoers and the fanboys) Begins makes it no problem, but I treat that movie and Burton&#39;s two entries as different leagues of the Batman. Every time I see &#39;Returns&#39; on tv, I don&#39;t say "Whoa, I remember being 12, and that movie is still the end all be all greatest comic book movie!" I look at it, still digging it, but now saying "Hey, it&#39;s Tim Burton&#39;s Batman."--in that it had some cool moments to it, but was more a ballsy interpretation of the character and everything he stood for rather than well, just telling it and be done with it.

  • May 7, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    moviemack

    by moondoggy2u

    Oi vey, dont get me started on Routh. His costume looks attrocious, and he looks like a kid. Its true, he resembles Reeves a bit, but only Reeves as a kid! If they had let him age another ten years, i could probably see it, but overall, im not happy with the casting or, for that matter, the idiotic costume. I do like the idea of superman having a child, so long as it isnt a typical hollywood "woah" brat. In any case, i still think the movie will be good, save for the horrible casting choices, and i will be there front and center opening night.

  • May 7, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Best "comic book" film

    by chrth

    Unbreakable.

  • May 7, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    The problem with wanting a Hitchcock/Godfather Batman

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...is that you couldn&#39;t get Godfather 1 or 2 or Vertigo or Rear Window greenlit today as original films. So what makes anyone think we could get a studio to risk their superhero franchise by shooting a film combining those styles? It&#39;s like hoping for a Batman movie made in the style of a Cecil B. Demille film, or in the style of Taxi Driver. Ain&#39;t gonna happen.

  • May 7, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Moviemack has a handle whose name exemplifies

    by axelfoley

    the cynical, semi-morbidly douchebagian ways of why fanboys or whatever get such a bad wrap these days. Because I&#39;m a 25 year old white guy who likes Beverly Hills Cop movies, this controversial ballbuster has to take it upon himself to do me one better and try, underline--try to make me look like an ass. He probably has me and all of us figured out because he probably looked in the mirror one day, slicked his hair back, put on dollar store shades and said "I&#39;m the mack...Daddy of film." And "It&#39;s going to pay homage to both MOVIES AND FUCKING NOODLES WITH CHEESE ON THEM." From one poster to the next, get fucked will you?

  • May 7, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Superman V

    by Napoleon Park

    Wow, I was reading along in thiis Superman five chat and suddenly it turned into a Batman Six versus X-Men Three debate. *** Heh - any three X-Men could beat six Batmans, as long as one of them was Wolverine. *** Seriously, though, I was always bothered by the "let&#39;s make up nonsesical new super-powers" scenes in supermovies 1 & 2. This talkback helps esplain away some of my reservations. So the Earth never reversed, it was just a symbolic visual of superman going back in time to alter events as many "can;t save Abe Lincoln, superboy" type stories proved he can;t do. Okay, well Puzo wanted to top the comic and the only way to do that was have him do something he could never do in the comics. I get that. but that stuff in Two? okay, S-chest shield flinging, duplication images and teleportation were all done by the fortress technology using telepathic controls, and it was the machine with telepathy, not Supes. That&#39;s not how it looked in the movie, but it kinda works. My favorite, "super-amnesia-kiss" can actually be justified if we remember the many stories where he had things like "super-ventriloquism" and "super-hypnotism". so he boned Lois, changed his mind and hypnotized her to forget it? Well, that doesn&#39;t sound like Superman; no wonder he ran off for five years. Still that covers all the spurious powers except Zod&#39;s "superhot teleportation finger" and, no, different Kryptonians don&#39;t get different powers on Earth, so that still sucks. Sorry, I thought we were on to something there for a minute. Unless Zod, being a Kryptonian super-criminal, already had a "teleportation pointy" power to begin with...? Nah... *** What&#39;s really bad about five is the idea that you can retcon two movies out of continuity. Okay, I wouldn&#39;t have followed Two up with a movie with Richard Pryor, Napoleon Solo and the cast of Benny Hill - and though Annette O&#39;Toole was plenty o&#39;tool, replacing Lois with an adult Lana because Margot was unavailable was weak. And Four: doing a cheap low-budget Superman vs. a Marvel-type villain complete with a Jim Starlinesque Warlock knock-off costume where the best set piece is evil twin Superman vs. Clark Kent in a trash yard was a sad way to close out the franchise for a few decades. So why not start fresh and do a movie based on the comic book character from scratch instead of a sequel to half a franchise? Well, it&#39;s obviously too late to change that now, so I&#39;ll hope for the best and expect the worst. *** Oh, and I think the reason everybody is too young is to cater to fans of Smallboy and the Spider-man movies.

  • May 7, 2006, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Brandon Routh grease

    by Throb

    I can actually remember seeing B.R. in One Life to Live. He played the part of the boyfriend of the scheming long-lost sister, returned to claim her rightful claim to the family fortune. I remember specifically that his acting, even by soap standards wasn&#39;t so great. I don&#39;t know about him playing Superman. He&#39;s just a little too "greasy" if you know what I mean. (wink-wink)

  • May 7, 2006, 6:38 p.m. CST

    dr_buggerlugs "He&#39;s come back and people have moved on"

    by Immortal_Fish

    I hear you and understand where you&#39;re coming from. Don&#39;t want to label you, yet I suspect you only have a pedestrian or passing interest in the pathos of Superman. You see, I could buy this premise if it were Bruce Banner and Betty Ross. Theirs is a history much more malleable to include the possibility of a child out of wedlock. They really wanted to make it work between them if only the Hulk hadn&#39;t gotten in the way. Less understandably so, yet more believable is the dynamic between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. There, she wanted him yet he kept a distance because he didn&#39;t want her to befall the same fate as Gwen Stacy. However, the whole idea of a child betwixt Supes and Lois falls apart from &#39;go&#39;. Lois is a career minded woman, period. Tomboy through and though. Everyday she wakes up, she wants her scoop first and her Pulitzer second. Nothing could shake her until *HE* came along. A man unlike any other who could accomplish anything within a blink. What&#39;s more is that he wants nothing to do with her. He is at a minimum, quite the challenge. Here she is, star journalist with every man falling for her, yet she can&#39;t have *Him*. And as for him, he&#39;s a n oldfashioned, down-to-earth, easygoing, selfless everyman that places everyone before him. He opens doors for women and puts his coat on street puddles so their shoes don&#39;t get wet. And did I write old-fashioned? Now that all this is out of the way, I take great umbrage with how this movie has been assembled. Kal is an alien. Even if he could mate with Earthlings, something the comics have already disproven, ...would he? He is very old-fashioned since upbringing. I sincerely doubt that he would be so selfish with Lois, the last person he would ever place himself before. No matter how you personally stand on this issue, take the politics out of it and consider how the Kents raised this character. He wouldn&#39;t have done this. Furthermore, knowing that she works for a newspaper and knowing that journalists often lean to the left politically, Lois would likely abort before having a child out of wedlock. Perhaps I&#39;m wrong and perhaps she would have had a change of heart given the circumstance. Yet consider, again, this is a character that has long since placed her career before anything. Why not forego parenthood, especially since she doesn&#39;t know who the father is? Singer is taking major, MAJOR license with these characters. I guess he can do that since he&#39;s financed. But that doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s properly adapting characters from the source material. And it certainly doesn&#39;t mean that I have to like it.

  • May 7, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Thanks a lot, moviemack! I just spewed sprite!!

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 7, 2006, 7 p.m. CST

    Batman Begins sucked.

    by Rant Breath

    A page for page translation of Year One would&#39;ve been so much better.

  • May 7, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    moviemack, "because they don&#39;t exist in the film"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Absolutely. Just like the whole idea how a tender moment between a depowered Kryptonian and a human in the Fortress of Solitude led to them bumping uglies. I liked the idea of interpreting that how I wanted. I hate how it will now be explained to me. I hate midichlorians too.

  • May 7, 2006, 7:13 p.m. CST

    "Its" and "It&#39;s" learn the difference

    by grendel824

    You have no business writing anything if you can&#39;t tell the difference between "its" and "it&#39;s." "Its" is possessive. "It&#39;s" is short for "it is."

  • May 7, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST

    where is there anything in the film that is based on 2?

    by half vader

    There doesn&#39;t seem to be anything in the script - it&#39;s all &#39;78 compliant (to the point of almost being the same movie - yes I know that&#39;s been said). And if it DOES follow the second movie then and the kid is mortal then what&#39;s with the SMASHED PIANO?

  • May 7, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST

    sorry meant to say

    by half vader

    that I know they&#39;ve SAID it follows 1 and 2 but there&#39;s nothing in the film itself that alludes to 2.

  • May 7, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Super Action

    by KabutoKoji

    "There&#39;s two action scenes in the way Spider-Man had two action scenes". This reviewer must be refering to The first Spider-Man movie. Because Spider-Man 2 only had one action scene. Yeah. Spider-Man 2 is the best superhero movie ever. Right.

  • May 7, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    moviemack, "I don&#39;t know what a midichlorian is."

    by Immortal_Fish

    Your homework is Episode I. It has Ras Al Ghoul in it. You&#39;ll love it! ;-) BTW, I&#39;m with you on BB, yet part ways with you on &#39;89. The latter certainly did have the detective work in it. Remember the smylex cure? Lipstick combined with other products all a product of Napier&#39;s chemistry schooling. Much better compared to Easy Reader&#39;s ingenuity and the absolute dearth of detective work in BB. It&#39;s all martial arts focus with Gordon driving the batmobile and Bale speaking like a Baldwin brother whenever the cowl is on. BB, for all its striving for reality (something way better aclimated to a Green Arrow adaptation), failed at making the character anything more than Wildcat from the JSA.

  • May 7, 2006, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Half Vader , RE: Superman 2 elements

    by jocutus

    I&#39;ve tried not to read too many spoilers, but from the preview, it looks like Luthor remembers where the fortress is since he was there in Superman 2. Also, I thought a reason for Supes to check out old Krypton was to make sure no more supercriminals were going to come looking for him, so that relates the evil trio from part 2. And, as you said, potentially the kid dates back to that movie, too.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Batman Begins was fun.

    by Freakemovie

    It was a cool story. Well-done. Period. Superman Returns, however, we&#39;ll have to wait and see. Although it doesn&#39;t really look like the story is nearly as entertaining.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST

    check this out

    by isildur29

    First I do not read comics so i&#39;m basing this strictly off of the movies so comic nerds go easy...It seems to me this earthquake/continent/killing billions is a pretty weak premise. Lex is the head of his own compant right? So what I wish the plot was is this... Superman is gone. Lex finds the fortress of solitude and discovers some sort of disease he can unleash on the public he also learns about superman. This disease is from krypton so it doesn&#39;t affect supes. So Lex uses this disease which his company holds the cure for and he climbs his way up up up until the world is like Thank God Lex found that cure. The president likes him the world respects him (but he is evil of course) Superman comes back and has quite a hard time convincing this Lex loving public that Lex is indeed the bad guy. He also finds out Lois has a son. Add in a bunch of awesome Superman scenes until some form of a climax where Lex has used kryptonite or something to weaken superman to shit. Turns out somehow in some battle the disease gets released and Lex, Lois, and her kid who are all there get exposed and begin to die. BUT Lois&#39; kid (which it is implied it is superman&#39;s) is immune to kryptonite (human part) and the disease (alien part of him) so essentially somehow he stops the kryptonite from killing his dad so superman can save Lois and everyone else. Is it perfect? No. Is it very weak? kinda. But its better than earthquakes and it gives the kid a fucking purpose.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Batman begins is what it is, a typical Kung fu flick

    by JUSTICE41

    Every Kung fu flick I&#39;ve ever seen aside from Enter The dragon and even that had the typical young boy with family evil person kills family usually and Uncle, young boy seeks revenge by confronting the villain only to get his ass handed to him, he then goes out to some monastery or shrine to learn how to kick ass. Sometimes the plot has the young man trying to have revenge and having his ass handed to him again but he manages to learn a clue how to defeat the villain. Back for more training and then back to villain to apply some new finger nipple twister move to get the villain to spew copious amounts of red blood. The our hero build back his home or monastery or shrine and teaches new students. Only cliche they didn&#39;t do in BB is teach new students. I liked the flick but I felt that a lot of the Dialogue was used to explain more than as regular back and forth. Just listen to how Falco talks to Bale in the Restaurant or when Bale is explaining to Caine how he needs to be a symbol or some-such thing. It&#39;s almost as if the writer didn&#39;t trust the audience to get what was going on with a balloon with an arrow pointing to it with detailed descriptions of whatever it was pointing to. But aside from that I can live with it. I thought the first bats flicks were awful messes with good sets.

  • May 7, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST

    isildur29 Sounds like the plot for

    by JUSTICE41

    The Incredibles

  • May 7, 2006, 9:53 p.m. CST

    justice

    by isildur29

    kinda i guess, that movie was awesome though

  • May 7, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Buperman, I mean, Satman, aw, screw it....

    by halfmahalfn

    Big surprise moviemack has hijacked this with more Batman Begins wankery. I appreciate the time taken to construct a cohesive argument. Just can&#39;t understand the hate for BB. And Beverly Hills Cop. I&#39;ve got to agree with whoever said that Reeve seems so much older then Routh because we were all so much younger when we first saw the original. Imagine those poor old fellas watching from the days of George Reeves. Until I see Routh, y&#39;know, act (as opposed to a few words in a trailer) I&#39;m ready to give the benefit of the doubt. Youse are the babies, babies.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Sorry - still Batman.

    by halfmahalfn

    As for the whole microwave thing. It seems like it has a lot more potential for happening than much of what we see (like penguins with missiles). Some of the shit the US military (and other armies around the world) are coming up with is ultra-ultra freaky deaky.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Gotta disagree, half

    by FluffyUnbound

    Hollywood now deliberately casts younger-looking actors as a marketing measure. Hair & makeup were also done differently in the past and tended to make younger actors and actresses look slightly older than they were. I mean, LOOK at actors in the past. Charlton Heston probably looked older than Routh when he was fucking 12. Orson Welles could play a huge range of ages when he was in his 20&#39;s mainly because unlike today&#39;s actors he didn&#39;t look like a foetus with shoes to begin with. And Reeve was one of those guys that spent 20 years looking the same "distinguished-looking" age. Things were different in the past, and it only has a limited amount to do with our changing perceptions.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:24 p.m. CST

    One more brief note on actors and age

    by FluffyUnbound

    Brando was about the same age as Routh when he made Streetcar. But you can&#39;t tell me Brando looked like a boy in Streetcar. And you can&#39;t tell me Routh doesn&#39;t look a lot younger in this film than Brando looked in Streetcar. The difference is that in the past actors were expected to look like adults and today they are expected to look like children, so that teenagers will buy tickets.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by halfmahalfn

    I hear what you&#39;re saying. And you&#39;re most assuredly right about Hollywood deliberatly casting younger for a younger demographic (which has a far greater spending power now than in the 60s and 70s) But so much written here seems to focus on this with Superman and... I just can&#39;t fucking see it. The guy looks so much like Reeve. Hair, make-up, whatever. Feel free to call bullshit on Routh if he can&#39;t act the part come release date. But before then peoples gots to realise their own perceptions are affected with age.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST

    New SR footage:

    by Forestal

    http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php

  • May 7, 2006, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Reeve = dad

    by halfmahalfn

    I&#39;m ready to call it when I see it. Monica Potter in Con Air, for instance. I thought she could have played Cage&#39;s daughter with more believability. With such an iconic character as Superman however it&#39;s a little different. Admit it - everyone wants to see their dad. And maybe some of us have maybe outgrown the father figure we were expecting.

  • May 7, 2006, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Forestal, That just made it worse

    by JUSTICE41

    That footage of SR looked like a tv movie, it all looked cheap as hell. Gadszooks man!!

  • May 7, 2006, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Evan Marriot? The underwwear Model? Your kidding?

    by JUSTICE41

    Could that guy even speak? Plus he had a huge mouth. Looked like a monkey.

  • May 7, 2006, 11:45 p.m. CST

    Your Hatred for this flick knows no Bounds HW

    by JUSTICE41

    Although watching Drew run around in tights would be funny.. Whatever happened to him, he just disappeared?

  • May 8, 2006, 1:57 a.m. CST

    name one thing that Bruce Wayne comes up with on his ow

    by DoctorWho?

    ...anger. It&#39;s relly the only thing that needs to define him. Just a hell-bent vengeful wrath and fury that drives him to do what he does. He&#39;s not God. He truly was a rich "snot nosed kid" who needed that mentor character...he wasn&#39;t gonna come up those skills out of a book!I would have liked to see more pure detective work...like a hard boiled film noir character or something. i know the type of film you long for. But i&#39;m not gonna bitch about what it "ain&#39;t". I liked the focus on the anger and guilt of Bruce Wayne...and that is DEFINETLEY what the other films did not have.

  • May 8, 2006, 3:24 a.m. CST

    They should&#39;ve listened to Harry

    by +

    when he said they should hire a swimmer. Instead of David Schwimmer, who Routh looks more like than Superman. This &#39;review&#39; stinks of damage control, where&#39;s the X-Men stuff?

  • May 8, 2006, 4:46 a.m. CST

    Why I LOATHED Batman Begins

    by BendersShinyAss

    Bland. The explanation of Bruce Waynes Rise to Batman was weak. The film feels like a Highlander Sequel. It plays like a straight to video movie. Sure the Shumacher films were camp, But Batman &#39;89 was a great representation of Batman because all we had before it was Adam West. Batman was some sort of pyschotic mad man bent on revenge after the murder of his family. Joker was a crazy dude made even more crazy by betrayal and chemical scaring. The look of the film was somewhere war torn era while Batman stood out like a futuristic thumb. And one thing it has over Batman Begins.... A theme. A fantastic accompanying theme. When I saw Batman returns missed the mark for me. Batman Forever was fucking funny. Batman & Robin was shit. Batman Begins was the complete opposite end of the spectrum in terms of Batman & robin that it literally was JUST AS BAD. I also have issues with this whole concept of it being a &#39;restart&#39; of the franchise. Personally, I think they should have made it more retro, with the grey cut suite and blue underwear and cape with just the simple black bat emblem. I really think people just convince themselves that Batman begins was perfect. It so wasn&#39;t. It could have been awesome. It wasn&#39;t.

  • May 8, 2006, 6:35 a.m. CST

    And Jor-el just gives him his powers backq

    by elab49

    Handy, eh? Isn&#39;t it odd though that, although the reviewer clearly rated the version he saw highly, he makes it sound absolutely bloody awful? And even a Superman film can&#39;t be that bad!

  • May 8, 2006, 7:45 a.m. CST

    i love the premise

    by ZO

    this isn&#39;t batman begins like thats the godfather now

  • May 8, 2006, 8:34 a.m. CST

    I don&#39;t usually read the spoilers...

    by Childe Roland

    ...but, for this one, I felt I had to. There&#39;s just too much negative buzz flying around for me to risk one of the few theater experiences I&#39;m going to have on a movie that might well piss me off. After reading the spoilers, I honestly don&#39;t know if I&#39;m going to be able to do this in the theater. It&#39;s not the radical stuff Singer&#39;s done that worries me. I&#39;m kind of interested in seeing Lex get his own fortress from Kryptonian tech and I&#39;m curious as to how they&#39;ll use the Superbaby thing. No. What bugs me are the way too familiar elements. It sounds like, for much of the plot, Singer essentially cobbled together elements of Donner&#39;s I & II (right down to the earthquake, the semi-evil chick having a change of heart and Superman having to crawl back to his dad yet again to get his powers back). I was hoping for more risks to be taken, I think. For less familiar ground to be recovered. I&#39;m not saying this will suck, because it&#39;s very possible that it will be quite entertaining (I&#39;m particularly interested in Spacey&#39;s take on Lex). But I&#39;m not so excited that I need to rush out and catch what sounds like a story I&#39;ve heard before on the really big screen.

  • May 8, 2006, 8:53 a.m. CST

    So What&#39;s New Superman?

    by Harker-Writes

    Not a lot judging by this review. Lex Luthor, kill &#39;billions&#39; kryptonite, Lois Lane, saving a plane, saving the planet. And these are the spoilers? Hah!

  • May 8, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Batman Begins was a great movie.

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    It&#39;s true. Deal with it or shut the fuck up. Was it perfect? No. It had a couple of embarrasing lines and a plot device that was a bit unrealistic. But then again, it&#39;s a movie based on a comic book. And yet strangely enough, I found it to be mature and occassionaly moving. The themes of fear, anger, and vengeance have never been portrayed better for that character. And for the record, I would rather watch an Adam West "Batman" marathon over any of the Burton or Schumacher flicks. -- Now, I will wait for the obligatory moviemack "Generation Dumbass" remarks...

  • May 8, 2006, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Batman Begins was Meh, imho

    by chrth

    Some interesting things, some lame things, but all in all a film I&#39;m not going to bother watching again. Although to be fair I also think both Spiderman films are over-rated (and I liked the 2nd better than the 1st - but not enough to ever watch it again) and I didn&#39;t like the second X-men film as much as I liked the first. However, I do understand why people like those films, so I&#39;m not going to criticize anyone for doing so.

  • May 8, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Clark Kent is not the Deguise

    by knossis

    I disagreed with Carradine as I was watching Kill Bill Vol 2 and I disagree with the people here who believed Carradine to be correct. The statements made by Bill in the movie were supposed to be Bill&#39;s opinion on the subject. Here&#39;s mine...Clark Kent is not the deguise the glasses are. The Donner movies make Clark out to be a clumsy idiot but Clark hasn&#39;t been played like that in the comics or tv for a while. George Reeves played Clark as a self assured guy who Jimmy Olsen could look up to. Dean Cain&#39;s version was great too. The comic&#39;s have Clark as a pulitzer prize winning reporter who a complete person as Clark Kent not some souless vacant person who doesn&#39;t have a life when he&#39;s not Superman. There would be no Superman without Clark Kent. What makes him Super the powers or how he uses them? Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way because he was raised in rural America, brought up by the Kents to believe in things like justice, loyalty, mercy and sacrifice. These ideals are what make him Super the powers allow him actually manifest his beliefs with great acts of heroism. On the television show Smallville, Clark doesn&#39;t have a costume yet but he still does the right thing because he was raised by the Kents to do whats right as Clark Kent not Superman. Superman is the deguise Clark uses to do things he could never do as Clark for fear of retalition against those he cares about. Clark Kent is a fully realized character with a complete past. Let&#39;s not forget, Superman and Clark always wants Lois to fall in love with him as Clark not Superman. He wants her to love him as a normal guy who was raised in a small town with small town values. Now if Carradine was talking Batman, then he would have been right. Bruce Wayne is the deguise because Wayne has vested a lot more time to become Batman and little time to develop Bruce. He is more comfortable in Costume. Clark is more comfortable on a farm or in a newsroom.He doen&#39;t live his life to be Superman he just does it because it&#39;s the right thing to do. Superman becomes boring when people don&#39;t invest much into Clark Kent. The same way Jesus is boring because people can&#39;t relate to his pretty non existent human side. Did Jesus fart, take a crap, get gas, have an erection, wet dream etc etc? We don&#39;t know cause the stories don&#39;t say so at times people are like, "this bible stuff is boring I can&#39;t relate to this all powerful miracle working dude, what&#39;s this crap have to do with me?" That&#39;s my two cents.... As far as the movie goes. It seems like a retelling of the first and second Superman movies. The earthquake finale is a little too much. Routh just doesn&#39;t look that Super either? I just saw one of those "Got Milk?" ads on the back of a comic and Routh look Skinny as hell. Did the guy even lift weights? I will go and see it but there&#39;s no rush...

  • May 8, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    tb-posters

    by monkeybrow

    "BB was lame" "Spiderman 2 was better then 1..but both still lame" "Superman Returns is going to be lame" "Brandon Routh sucks balls" "Tim Burton licks balls"....would you like fries with that?

  • May 8, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Actually what Singer&#39;s Superman is about

    by +

    is adoption. Both Superman and Singer are adopted. That&#39;s why the plot involves Kal-El returning to Krypton, confronting his dad, his abandoned child and finally his own abandonment issues. He did a similar thing with Wolverine, especially in X2. Can&#39;t believe they are going with this dumb earthquake for property speculation idea again though.

  • May 8, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST

    anyone else notice

    by samsquanch

    how ugly the kid is also? I mean the &#39;munchkin&#39;, not Routh. (I hate that. I&#39;m not ready to think of Superman as "That Kid". I&#39;m not ready to be that frigging old.) Lois&#39; kid is one ugly brat though, sheesh.

  • May 8, 2006, 12:36 p.m. CST

    "Clark Kent is not the Deguise"

    by Shermdawg

    That&#39;s where the movies have failed, and SMALLVILLE has succeeded.

  • May 8, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Anyone who thinks Supes is the real Identity...

    by JUSTICE41

    What moron said Clark is the disguise? Who is this complete idiot who believes that tripe? Everyone with any comic book learning Knows Clark is the real person and Supes is the Job. Much like any other hero he wears a uniform to go do battle.

  • May 8, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    What moron said Clark is the disguise? Bill ...

    by chrth

    Who is this complete idiot who believes that tripe? Quentin Tarantino (maybe)

  • May 8, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Tarantino makes dull movies

    by JUSTICE41

    Tarantino is a moron then. Convicted by his own words and self love. Aside from RD all his movie are sleep inducing bullshit

  • May 8, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    That adoption angle is interesting...

    by Childe Roland

    ...but not interesting enough to make me want to see this as presented above. I didn&#39;t know that about Singer. I do agree with folks who think Singer (and Donner before him) kind of missed the boat on the whole Clark/Supes dynamic. The guys who did Kingdom Come nailed it. When things got rough for superhumans in general (and Superman in particular) he retreated to the comfortable and familiar surroundings of the farm. In fact, Wonder Woman had to use all of the assets at her disposal to convince him to put on the costume again. Because a simple farmer was who he wanted to be and was at his roots. It&#39;s the only take on Superman that has ever remotely interested me and provides excellent back-up for the theory that Batman is a more competent if not more capable superhero. Because Batman lives to be Batman. It&#39;s all he&#39;s ever wanted and he&#39;s pursued it to the neglect of all else, including the shattered shell of his civilian life. Superman has always wanted to be just like everyone else but is constantly called upon to play the warrior/hero/savior...even though the role is ultimately inconvenient and distasteful to him. He&#39;d rather be banging Lois and barbecueing for the neighbors (simultaneously, thanks to his Super Speed). I suppose it could be argued on a psychological level that no, actually, both the Batman and Clark personas are masks that these individuals have donned to hide their true identities from themselves (Bruce Wayne living in denial of the fact that he&#39;s ultimately a scarred and vulnerable child and Kal denying his near-godlike alien heritage), but that kind of duynamic hardly makes for interesting, wathchable (or even readable) conflict...unless you&#39;re a shrink. Closest the movies ever came to getting Superman&#39;s character right was in Superman II during the brief period where depowered, glassesless Clark was getting it on with Lo. But, even then, Clark was played off as bumbling and incompetent when it came to his only real challenge (the diner fight), and he couldn&#39;t get those powers back soon enough after tasting his own blood. I think Singer is approaching this from the "you can&#39;t deny who you are" angle, which could be quite intersting if it dealt with Supes not being able to deny his Clarkness (the relationship with Lois, his mother, the son he never knew, his job, etc.) but, the way it reads above, Singer seems to be playing it more in Donner&#39;s key (the earthly distractions are just that and Supes should focus more on being Supes)...which will just ring flat for a lot of folks, I think.

  • May 8, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Okay moviemack, I feel ya.

    by superninja

    I certainly wouldn&#39;t disagree with any of your complaints. In fact, I agree with most of them. However, purely as a movie I think Begins is certainly better than the other films. As a Batman film is another matter. I also agree with you that the Batman detective movie still has yet to be made and is worthy of the likes of Hitchcock, etc. Someone who perhaps understands the value of a good detective yarn, and the power of urban myth and REALLY GOOD LIGHTING with actual use of shadows (like the only great two seconds of Batman emerging from the puddle in Dead End) I mean, who needs a REALISTIC superhero film anyway?

  • May 8, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST

    anchorite, at the end of the series he&#39;s going to kiss

    by superninja

    them all and make them forget!

  • May 8, 2006, 4:28 p.m. CST

    warrior-poet2

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Shame on you, sir. You are no warrior. And you are no poet.

  • May 8, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST

    anchorite, Actually, they&#39;ve already hinted at it...

    by Shermdawg

    There was a kid who had the power to memory wipe anyone, last season. So theres a chance he may figure into the series finale. (next season?) I&#39;ve wondered about this before, I thought it would be pretty cool if he had some sort of krytonian crystal in his belt that altered his image to others. Whenever you see his picture, it&#39;s actually Reeve. Clark picks a younger Virgil Swan as his alter ego "image".

  • May 8, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Gosh. These TBers have tasked me! They&#39;ve tasked me!

    by Immortal_Fish

    Gaius says BB is a great movie and if I think different I should deal with it or shut the fuck up. On the other hand, Poet says BB is a shitty movie and I should just deal with it. What ever shall I do? Perhaps I should continue to be the first and foremost expert on the things that I know and force others to deal with it.

  • May 8, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Supes looked great on the big screeen. Even if...Routh

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    to quote Tony Soprano; "He&#39;s a faaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaggg" not that there&#39;s anything wrong with that.

  • May 8, 2006, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Shermdawg you f*in moron....

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    Havent&#39; you seen Kill Bill 2. Quentin lays it out beautifully. Clark is the guise to his true "godlike" existance. He chooses to dimmish himself onyl to be assimilated; thus accepted, included in humanity&#39;s eschleon of Earth&#39;s superior beings. When in reality Kal-El is FAR superior to humans in every aspect of characteristic.

  • May 8, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Igotballs...you certainly do Homeboy. How dare..

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    you cay some shit like that. If I wasn&#39;t wasted rightt now I&#39;d virtually slapp the shit outta u. I guess you&#39;ve got no sense of humor, or no trace of following pop-culture. BITCH!

  • May 8, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    People who reverse Superman&#39;s REAL identity,

    by superninja

    which is Clark Kent, Kansas farmboy, tell everyone a little something about themselves. For one, their complete lack of understanding of the character. Second, their desire to abuse power. Which is why they should never be in charge of anything important.

  • May 8, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST

    This discussion about real/fake identity is interesting

    by chrth

    I&#39;m beginning to think the Samaritan is a better Superman than Supes is, i.e. it&#39;s closer to how people see him. Great point about Kingdom Come as well.

  • May 8, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    And further along that thought path ...

    by chrth

    Superman&#39;s reaction to Magog is similar to Lincoln&#39;s to, um, Lincoln in his New Adventures. Which is the real Lincoln, the real or the image that people expect? But at the same time, Lisa tells us that the myth of Jebediah has value too ... Much to ponder.

  • May 8, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Back to Clark Kent as identity (real or fake)

    by chrth

    I can certainly see that Clark Kent the Farmboy/Farmer as a real identity ... but what about Clark Kent the news reporter? I always understood that the reason Clark became a journalist so he&#39;d have more exposure to what was going on via the newsroom, i.e. as a way to support his Superman identity. Maybe we need to identify 3 different identities: Clark Kent the farmer, Clark Kent the news reporter, and Superman -- and only one of these is &#39;real&#39;

  • May 8, 2006, 7:37 p.m. CST

    i like how lex luthor could be a good villian...

    by jig98

    in a screwball or raunchy comedy. because gene hackman never overdid it and kevin spacey looks like he is being good at being bad for something that&#39;s aimed at kids once again. {he did voice hopper in a bug&#39;s life}

  • May 8, 2006, 7:41 p.m. CST

    oh, and how many other people blame tom cruise....

    by jig98

    and his "suri:fully loaded" antics for mission: impossible 3&#39;s 50.7 million opening? WHO THE FUCK GETS PISSED OFF OVER A NUMBER LIKE THAT?

  • May 8, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    The real i.d. is Clark Kent, Kansas farmboy.

    by superninja

    It is more about a state of mind and a certain set of idealized values than a job. Clark is a very simple person. Not stupid, simple, but values simplicity. I never get the impression in his characterization that Clark envisions himself being a reporter for the rest of his life, but rather that is just a different stage in his journey of self-discovery. Granted, he&#39;s sort of stuck in that mode because of iconography, but that&#39;s because of his proximity to Lois. Lois, on the other hand, being a reporter is key to her identity.

  • May 8, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    R.C. the "Wise"....what?

    by Shermdawg

    Seriously what? Why am I a moron? If you wanna call me names, please tell me why you are doing so. What? Is it because I prefer Tom Welling&#39;s realistic Clark to Reeve&#39;s over the top Kermit The Frog impression? I never questioned the importance of Kal&#39;s "Clark" persona. If you didn&#39;t notice, my post was a response to knossis&#39; previous post. Oh and btw, yes I have seen Vol.2, I prefer Vol.1 though. Vol.1 = A musical for straight dudes.

  • May 8, 2006, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Superninja Clark is just a goody two shoes

    by JUSTICE41

    Hey for awhile Clark was a News Anchor for Morgan Edge remember, so there is room for him to grow beyond the Newsroom at the DP

  • May 8, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Clark is the disguise

    by Snookeroo

    At least acording to Segal and Shuster. Read the first Action comic over again. SUPERMAN dons the guise of a mild-mannered reporter to be able to respond to events as they happen (at that time, news rooms were where you heard about crisis first, not the internet, young padwan).

  • May 8, 2006, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Warrior-poet2

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Regarding Immortal_Fish: looks like you and I agree on something.

  • May 8, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Justice, Clark also wrote fiction

    by superninja

    at one point, if I recall. It was actually a good story where he&#39;s coming up with his novel as it intertwines with his role as Superman. But I don&#39;t think he&#39;s a goody two shoes. He&#39;s a much stronger character than Batman, but modern writers just don&#39;t get him. They view his strengths as negatives, or actually turn them into weaknesses. You know, so we can IDENTIFY with the superhuman Kryptonian and all. To make him "realistic".

  • May 8, 2006, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Snookeru, you are correct. One problem.

    by superninja

    The character hasn&#39;t been written that way for decades. There is a reason for that.

  • May 8, 2006, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Best version of Supes was the Animated version.

    by JUSTICE41

    It was closer in story and characteristics to the George Reeve Supes. A good thing.

  • May 8, 2006, 10:48 p.m. CST

    John Dalmas and warrior-poet2

    by VinnyMac666

    JD: I&#39;m thinking that the kid was concieved during Superman II when he became human... that makes the most sense to me... you know that explains the kid not kicking his way out WP2: WHAT?? Wow, man. I&#39;ve never heard anyone speak so lowly of Batman Begins... do you perchance have anything to back what you said, like why you though the plot was weak? or what was wrong with the villians? Because I&#39;m really fucking sick and tired of people who come on hear and say shit like, "That movie was balls. Because it sucked and the villians sucked and the whole thing sucked. because. it did." Nobody anywhere in these talkbacks will ever give your opinions any merrit or understanding if you can&#39;t back them... so please... try to rip BB apart... I DARE YOU.

  • May 8, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    One qualm about BB (just for fun)

    by chrth

    So, Wayne refuses to kill a thieving peasant ... so he torches the place killing most of the people inside (notice he saved the white one) INCLUDING THE THIEF!

  • May 8, 2006, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Cute thing from X3 commercial

    by chrth

    Juggernaut throwing Wolverine through the ceiling and Wolverine coming back down again in the hallway.

  • May 8, 2006, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Another cute thing from the commercial...

    by crazyeyezkillah

    Storm whirling like a top and punching thugs while she spins. Wow. That&#39;s so whack.

  • May 9, 2006, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Slightly more offensive was making Ra&#39;s Al Ghul

    by superninja

    white in the first place. And then wasting Ken Watanabe who was about 1,000 more interesting in his 10 sec. of screen time than Liam Neeson. That really bummed me out.

  • May 9, 2006, 2:25 a.m. CST

    According to Talk-backers every movie sucks

    by andrew coleman

    Come on Batman Begins was alright calm down. The trailer for this makes it looks fun Kevin Spacey seems to be worth it alone. So it&#39;s all good calm down no need to hate everything. I just hope this movie doesn&#39;t bomb we can have a superman movie with Brainiac in it.

  • May 9, 2006, 4:01 a.m. CST

    spectrebeeyatch

    by Shermdawg

    You need to tune in to SMALLVILLE then. Marsters is raisin&#39; all sorts of hell as Brainiac. And this thursday CLARK vs. LEXIAC (?), and the coming of......ZOD!!! So start kneeling.

  • May 9, 2006, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Snookeroo

    by knossis

    Wouldn&#39;t the job be the deguise not Clark Kent the person? People act as if Kal-El was in hybernation on earth for 20 odd years and then burst on the scene with these great powers, but no past, so he had to come up with Clark Kent on the fly. Hell! he grew up believing he was Clark Kent, farm boy before he even knew he was Kal-el from Krypton.

  • May 9, 2006, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Batman damnit

    by BendersShinyAss

    When Batman begins was coming out i had no interest in seeing Batman become batman, yknow. but after seeing batman begins all I wanted was for a whole new movie which shows batman become batman, yknow. It&#39;s fuggin borwing

  • May 9, 2006, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Immortal_Fish

    by dr_buggerlugs

    Yeah, I openly admit to only having a passing interest in the character, but I guess this is the story that Singer has chosen to do and my only real hope is that it does work on screen and more importantly, as a Superman story...I guess it&#39;s not the Superman most people want, but it&#39;s what we&#39;re gonna get. I guess you just have to treat it as an &#39;Elseworlds&#39; idea...what if Superman left and what if he Lois had a child...

  • May 9, 2006, 8:17 a.m. CST

    I don&#39;t think you can just say Superman...

    by Childe Roland

    ..."is a much stronger character than Batman," particularly given the way so many different writers have handled them. Sure, Superman is physically stronger, but in terms of will? I&#39;d argue the normal man wihtout the invulnerability who throws himself into the fray against evil is a stonger, more driven character. Superman (as Clark Kent) is probably a better rounded person, but there is that little matter of his closeted Kryptonian heritage keeping him from being fully actualized and completely comfortable in his own skin. Again, I tend to think the Kansas farmboy is the "real" persona of Clark/Supes/Kal. It&#39;s who he thinks of himself as. Superman is a duty that he feels he has to fulfill. The reporter persona is probably more an attempt to rectify the two disparate parts of his being. It&#39;s a chance for the farmboy AND the alien to get out and see the world they&#39;ve adopted while doing some good in it. I have to say, as a former reporter myself, Clark must be pretty damned good at it for his editor not to need to know where he is and what he&#39;s doing every second of every day. It took me a few years to build that kind of trust in my abilities.

  • May 9, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    On Superman&#39;s "true" identity...

    by UltimaRex

    It varies from story to story. In the original Clark was the disguise. Post-crisis, Superman was the disguise and in the movies Daily Planet Clark is the disguise and farm Clark / Superman are the real identity. Then another story will appear and change it again. trying to set it in stone is foolish.

  • May 9, 2006, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Not every movie sucks, XMen3 looks pretty good.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    Despite that motherfucking ratfuck ungrateful sonofabitch rude cunt Brett (Superman statue smashing arsehole) Ratner. I haven&#39;t even seen the first two Xmen films and I never liked the characters in the comics, not even in their so called Ultimate conception but the third film looks like fun. Pity that Superman a character about whom I care greatly is being given the shaft (ooh unintentional gay pun) by Singer. Batman Begins was boring and lacked the flair of Batman 1989, Hulk was overlong and the editing style began to piss me off upon repeat viewings, still all recent cinematic outings of Bats have put him in rubber suits as opposed to leather or whatever Daredevil wore, didn&#39;t watch Daredevil don&#39;t like the character don&#39;t like Ben Affleck. SpiderMan 1 & 2 are fun despite the fact that Peter&#39;s costume looks like it was made by the costume department of a major Hollywood blockbuster rather than by a teenage boy from Queens. Both Punisher films looked crap, can&#39;t remember the first one and skipped the second. Fantastic Four despite the fact that it wasn&#39;t an especially cosmic film was really very fun and along with HellBoy, Batman Mask Of The Phantasm, Superman The Last Sone Of Krypton, Batman/Superman World&#39;s Finest, Unbreakable, The Shadow, The (first) Matrix and parts of Sin City, it has joined the ranks of Superman The Movie and Superman III as among my favourite comicbook films. I like a film which is both fun and true to the characters. It&#39;s imporatnt that each time the movie is experienced it&#39;s as much fun as it was the first time and it doesn&#39;t matter to me which studio produced the film or from which stable the characters came.

  • May 9, 2006, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Superman IS Clark...

    by Billyeveryteen

    ..and a nice guy. Bruce IS Batman, and a psyco.

  • May 9, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Poor Jon Fav&#39;s...he&#39;s gonna have to deal with TomKat

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    Looks like Tom Cruise is about to play Tony Stark in the new IronMan film. Well, at least the movie will get a big budget.

  • May 9, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST

    One thing to keep in mind about the identity question..

    by FluffyUnbound

    ...is that if Clark Kent is the "real" identity, it&#39;s a fairly alienated and neurotic one. Think about it: every small action Clark Kent takes is a lie. When he walks down the street instead of flying, he&#39;s lying existentially. When he puts on a pair of glasses he doesn&#39;t need to wear, he&#39;s lying. [It&#39;s sort of the reverse of the kind of existential lie that botox or a facelift is.] When he acts like a normal human being and not a superbeing, it&#39;s a lie. What do we call someone who hides the truth about himself behind a mask of deliberately deceptive conventionality, and who does it comprehensively and compulsively in every small detail and facet of life? This puts the ordinary run of the mill "double life guy with two wives in a Lifetime movie" to shame. Those guys are amateur neurotic compulsive liars compared to Clark Kent...if Clark Kent is the real identity.

  • May 9, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by knossis

    So do we defind a person by the special abilities they are born with or their character, how they were raised etc. By your logic, if a basketball player isn&#39;t playing 24/7 or a track star isn&#39;t running, or a quarterback passing, they are living a lie. All Superman&#39;s abilities are a gifts given to him from our yellow sun. They can and are often taken away. When they are we are left with Clark Kent the man if this identity is a lie then what are we left with. A powerless shell of a man who should commit suicide because now he has no purpose. Clark or Kal-El wasn&#39;t born a Superbeing, on Krpton he would have the same abilities your average human would have on earth. In Clark&#39;s mind he is a normal person with the same hopes and dreams as those around him. He&#39;s a down to earth farm guy who spent all his childhood & teenage years in Smallville. He has Small town values and Small town friends. He&#39;s sort of a fish outta water in big city Metropolis. Lois always ribs him for being a Country boy. Clark doesn&#39;t see him self as a Superbeing or God like Character. He see&#39;s himself as a regular Joe with very special gifts, which he uses in a way that would make his Parents Ma & Pa Kent and Jor-El & Laura proud. An athelete has a sport persona and a family persona.If you ask any sports figure where we could view them at their must natural( at home are at the arena) they would more than likely say at home with my family.Clark would possibly reply you&#39;ll find me at my most natural, working the farm with my Ma and Pa or at home with my wife Lois. Fluff, you are right about one thing, if anyone has gifts ( artistic, musically, sports related,) or whatever and chooses to do nothing with them then they are living a lie, not living up to their full potential. Yet their identity shouldn&#39;t be wrapped up in the gifts that they have been blessed with. I went through this myself. I was a very gifted bodybuilder, I ate, slept and drank the sport. I lived for the Gym and couldn&#39;t see a life outside of it. I felt guilty if I missed a workout or drank a beer. But soon...injury after injury pretty much made bodybuilding a thing of the past. I didn&#39;t know what to do because I had no life outside of working out and was devastated. It took me sometime to get over it but I did. I&#39;m lifting again and find that the genetic gifts are still there. I just try to be more well rounded now.

  • May 9, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    R.C. the "Wise"

    by one9deuce

    Pretty funny that you call someone a moron for something you don&#39;t even seem to understand. Quentin Tarantino&#39;s explanation isn&#39;t official or anything, and it merely served HIS purpose for describing The Bride. Kal-El didn&#39;t even exist until Clark Kent was 18. Think about that for a second. He learned of his true heritage AFTER he became an adult. So the answer is that his true identity is neither Clark Kent or Kal-El, but Clark Kent AND Kal-El.

  • May 9, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    to all the haters...behold: the truth

    by teddanson37

    honestly. first x-3 and now supes? you guys would hate on anything. you know it&#39;s true. all you can do is whine. the past six or seven years we&#39;ve been in comic-book fan boy heaven, with movies being made left and right about comic book heroes. whether it&#39;s hellboy or dare devil, we&#39;ve gotten so much brought to the big screen that we were dreaming about a decade ago. so why not support our heroes? why not show hollywood we want more comic book movies by supporting the ones we get. yeah, there&#39;s bound to be some terrible ones come out. but isn&#39;t it worth swallowing crap like elektra if it means more great movies like batman begins, spiderman 2 and X2? i think it is. seriously, if the first spiderman movie or the original x-men came out this summer we&#39;d all whine about how much they suck. cuz they really aren&#39;t that great. but did we complain when they came out? heck no. we loved it. our childhood heroes on the big screen? what was there to complain about? but now we&#39;re spoiled and we can&#39;t enjoy the movies without complaining about every little detail (the boots look wierd. it&#39;s gonna be all lovey dovey. the package is lop-sided. but in the comic book...) this is not the comic book. it&#39;s a movie. singer is not the great director you thought he was. he lucked out with X-men. because the material and the characters are so great and loved. supes is character that is more well known but i would say less loved in the manner that the x-men are. unfortunately singer went with the 70s movies version instead of the classic hero we all know and love. but face it, most people know supes from the movies and from smallville. (i meet people all the time that are like "so smallville is about superman?") but all that being said SUPERMAN RETURNS still looks like it will be one of the best movies this year. you know it. quit hatin&#39;.

  • May 9, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Batman Begins vs. this crap film

    by lynxpro

    I love the film, but I can admit the faults. Fault #1 being Katie Holmes. When they announced her being a made-up character for the film, I groaned. I disagreed with the apologist stance that Batmanonfilm had for that casting decision/role because had she not been in there, they could have worked Talia Al Ghul in as the love interest. I knew Holmes would suck (and she did) just as I know that this cast for *Superman Returns* will suck. Fault #2 Gordon driving the Batmobile. If any character other than Batman was to do that, it should have been Alfred. But regardless of these points, it is the best Batman film that we&#39;ve ever received and the cast - other than Holmes - was great. With a Superman film, we fans should be treated to something similar to *Batman Begins* but instead, we are getting rehash. Cinematic Superman needs a reboot and not some slavish retread to the Donner films that most have forgotten about. And when you have a television show as popular as *Smallville*, you capitalize on that fanbase and you get them to buy tickets by bringing that cast onboard for the film. When *Star Trek the Next Generation* and *The X-Files* "transitioned" to the silver screen, did we get casting replacements? Did Ed Harris replace Patrick Stewart as Picard? No. Because it would have been insane. And yet the morons at Warner Bros. decide to greenlight this retread with an inappropriate cast. Lame. Almost as lame as that JJ Abrams script. Now I want to make one point clear. There&#39;s much to hate about *Smallville*, especially with the plots that have been dished out over the years. But I won&#39;t complain about the casting. It is top notched. And the two areas for the writing that have held up have been with Lionel and Lex Luthor. Excellent stuff, and stuff that we won&#39;t have in this film because the Warner Bros. brass wanted a bald Spacey channeling Hackman in the role. Instead of Tom Welling - who people complain about acting stiff even though it is right on for Clark Kent - we get an actor most famous for being fired FOR BAD ACTING from a soap opera. Yeah, a soap opera. The other thing that *Smallville* gets right is the Byrne viewpoint that Clark Kent is the true identity and not Kal El, even though in the past season the *Smallville* writers/producers have been instructed to change things in the show to better match up with the movies. Superman and Batman should be mirror opposites. Batman is the true identity with Bruce Wayne being the mask, and with Superman it should be the opposite. Same goes for family members. Until *Smallville* was made to kill of Jonathan Kent, it matched *Lois & Clark* by keeping Jonathan Kent alive, just like with the Bryne reboot. That again contrasts with Batman where Bruce Wayne&#39;s parents are dead. I realize that DC Comics invalidated the Byrne reboot a couple of years back, but that does not mean that was a smart move. I still recall Marvel trying to create the "New Universe" back in the 80s and I remember how much of a stupid failure that was too! Point is, when the motion picture can be eclipsed by a television series version, then it should not be made. So if anyone disagrees with the casting/plotline for this film and/or likes the casting decisions made with *Smallville*, stay home and don&#39;t watch this film. Punish Warner Bros. like many of us did with *Batman & Robin* (to which AICN led that protest, I might add, unlike today). If the film tanks, it means Warner Bros. will have to re-evaluate the franchise meaning they&#39;ll turn to the property that currently works...that being *Smallville*. My hope is that they&#39;ll transition the cast, base it in Metropolis (finally) and then hire a decent screenwriter for the task (JMS, is that you?). That is the Superman film I want to see, not this suckfest. And despite what I think of Ratner&#39;s directing talents or the fates of ProfessorX and Magneto, I hope that film buries this flick at the box office.

  • May 9, 2006, 4:54 p.m. CST

    which one is the true identity?

    by lynxpro

    ...Moviemack or Warrior-Poet2? Will we have to wait for the Crisis on Infinite AICNs to find out??? Stay tuned, dear readers. Excelsior!

  • May 9, 2006, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Cruise as Ironman= bad idea

    by finky089

    Turning a net profit will be a "mission: Impossible" if Cruise actually takes the title role. He&#39;s getting quite the box office stigma these days. Check out the "stellar" opening weekend of his latest acting opus. And that was the season&#39;s 1st big action release! The writing is on the wall, Mr. Cruise. Even if it wasn&#39;t Hubbard who scrawled it, you&#39;d better start paying attention.

  • May 9, 2006, 5:35 p.m. CST

    KNOSSIS

    by Snookeroo

    Maybe.

  • May 9, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Smallville Advocates - As Annoying As Whedonites?

    by FluffyUnbound

    Or not? You decide.

  • May 9, 2006, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Poet and Gaius

    by Immortal_Fish

    Sorry, but the fact of the matter is... Myself and others are quite happy with the size of my cock, so I opt-out of your little &#39;brave&#39; pissing contest with strangers. But by all means, please do take your own advice.

  • May 9, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    spectrebeeyach, "Batman Begins was alright calm down"

    by Immortal_Fish

    You are correct. And that&#39;s the thing. It was &#39;alright&#39;. It wasn&#39;t the second coming. Singer&#39;s X-Men movies weren&#39;t either. They were &#39;alright&#39; too. Speaking of comic movies that were &#39;alright&#39;, the FF and Director&#39;s Cut DD movies can also be counted within such a category. But let&#39;s see that garner any truck at AICN.

  • May 9, 2006, 8:04 p.m. CST

    dr_buggerlugs, "treat it as an &#39;Elseworlds&#39; idea"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Excellent! I offered you a constructive counterpoint and you matched me with same. Thank you for being a voice of reason here in the chaos. Elseworld indeed. A shame the general movie-going public won&#39;t approach it the same way. The Lois and Clark TV series took great license and Smallville has taken much more. It&#39;s a shame to lose the roots of the source material. Thankfully, DC&#39;s writers have much more passion for canon than does Marvel&#39;s. There is at least this to cling to.

  • May 9, 2006, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Fluffy, don&#39;t you listen to Five for Fighting?

    by chrth

    "I can&#39;t stand to fly ... I&#39;m not that naive" ... 54F gets it, why don&#39;t you?!??! ;) ... Tom Cruise is a lousy idea for Ironman ... Gravitas!

  • May 9, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Hey. Moviemack...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Will you be seeing the next Batman movie?

  • May 10, 2006, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Thank christ we&#39;re not getting a smallville film

    by BendersShinyAss

    And it&#39;s good to finally work out that the people hateing on this new film are the loyalist to that pathetic excuse for a superman TV show. there is a difference between Smallvillians and whedonites - Whedon actually produces well written quality.

  • May 10, 2006, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Finky089 Cruise will make IM a hit. Minority Report...

    by The Founder

    was also a summer release with Cruise and Speilberg and that made about 135 million with a 100 plus million budget. I have to give credit to another poster who pointed this litte fact out that a lot of people seem to have forgotten. Heck i forgot, but it&#39;s true. Where was all the naysayers claiming Cruise&#39;s career was heading to the craper? Iron Man needs star power and not an unknown. Cruise is fine as Stark, and one of the few if not only superheroes that I don&#39;t have a problem with him in the role.

  • May 10, 2006, 8:13 a.m. CST

    There&#39;s only one man who can play Iron Man

    by chrth

    Vin Diesel. Then he can be both Tony Stark and the black dude that replaced him.

  • May 10, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    I&#39;m hating on this film AND I don&#39;t watch Smallville

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    I did prefer Mark Waid & Lenil Yu&#39;s Birthright to John Byrne&#39;s Man of Steel though. There are things Byrne did that still work well and these are the elements that the Superman Adventures and JLU picked up and ran with but for everything else Byrne just ruined the character. Donner&#39;s Superman was super but it was a product of the time and the comics have moved on twice if not three times since then so a new conception, which this isn&#39;t, is needed. I tried watching Smallville when it started but it was too Kryptonite freak of the week villain for me. Clarks interesting enough without all that crap. it should&#39;ve just been a small town America version of the OC with one character dealing with the fact that he&#39;s an adopted alien. If it&#39;s changed since the early episodes then maybe I should give Smallville another look.

  • May 10, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Regicidal_Maniac, they&#39;ve relied heavily on kryptonite.

    by Shermdawg

    They still do the freak of the week storylines, but there have been quite a few that have been enjoyable. The main draw of the show is its mythology, and shaky relationship of Lex and Lionel Luthor (The awesome John Glover).

  • May 10, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST

    BendersShinyAss

    by Shermdawg

    It&#39;s really hard to take your complaints of Smallville seriously when you are a admitted X1 lover. ;)

  • May 10, 2006, noon CST

    John Glover is seriously awesome, I still remember him

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    from The Chocolate War, the opening of RoboCop2 and as Clamp in Gremlins 2. He was in some show that was on tv late at night a few years back where I think he played the Devil or something? I think it had the same basic premise as the comic books R.I.P.D. and Spawn, can&#39;t remember too much about it except that he was cool. He&#39;s near the top of my list of "Actors I Dig That Noone (except other geeks) Seems To Give A Shit About" others include geek favourites as Michael Wincott, Stephen McHattie, Lance Henriksen and others. ABout Smallville I&#39;d watch it if someone could recommend a core group of stories that weren&#39;t freak of the week and which dealt as little as possible with that annoying Chloe character. Maybe someone could edit together all the cool stuff with Michael Rosenbaum and John Glover, Annette O&#39;Toole, that dude from the original Dukes Of Hazzard and whatshisname who plays Clark, I&#39;m drawing a blank and I could look it up but I&#39;m toooo lazy to Google it, that&#39;s pretty fuggin lazy ah Got it Tom Welling, still can&#39;t remember Jonathan Kent&#39;s name but if they put all the interesting character stuff together I&#39;d love to watch a season of interactions between Clark, Martha, Jonathan, Lex, Lionel and Lana throw her in too coz that chick&#39;s pretty cute whatever her name is. That&#39;s it it just hit 3am and I&#39;m off.

  • May 10, 2006, 1:11 p.m. CST

    I don&#39;t apologize for Smallville&#39;s writing

    by lynxpro

    But I&#39;ve always maintained that is cast is ace. Certainly better than the cast picked for this film. There have been many times where I wanted to chuck a chair at the tv after dealing with the writing of that series, but Rosenbaum, Glover, and even Welling deliver. Its really sad when it dons upon you that Rosenbaum - a tv actor more or less - would definitely give a better cinematic performance as Lex than shaved-head Spacey. Rosenbaum deserves the role. So, to recap, the plots generally suck on *Smallville* but the actors are great and the characterization on many of the characters (Martha, Jonathan, Clark, Lex & Lionel) are right on. But alas, we aren&#39;t getting that in this cinematic outing, just a retread of tired material. Regicidal_Maniac, the show you were watching with Glover as Satan was the cancelled Fox series *Brimstone*. I haven&#39;t checked but it might be available through iTunes since Fox just released content from 16 of their shows through the iTunes Store yesterday.

  • May 10, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Rosenbaum was on American Idol last night.

    by Shermdawg

    Was in the audience (with hair) and gave thumbs up to Taylor "Soul Patrol" Hicks rendition of Elvis&#39; "In The Ghetto". It&#39;s kinda weird they would show him, when most likely the trailer of Superman Returns will air during the season finale of SMALLVILLE, possibly head to head with the seven minute X3 preview. God, there are soooo many links between the X-flicks, Returns and SMALLVILLE its crazy.

  • May 10, 2006, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Just thought I&#39;d mention for the final time...

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    That nobody is buying this review, Mr. Planty McPlantypants.

  • May 10, 2006, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Superman is the psychologically stronger.

    by superninja

    Clark&#39;s whole planet was destroyed, along with his parents and heritage. Bruce&#39;s two loving parents were killed in a random act of violence. Clark is a normal person who adapted and is content with who and what he is. Bruce is emotionally withdrawn and obsessive-compulsive recluse who has an addictive personality (no matter how he excels or the necessity of it).

  • May 10, 2006, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Smallville is fine for a t.v. soap.

    by superninja

    But other than a few flashes, that&#39;s all it is. It&#39;s certainly not movie material. And neither is the cast, sorry.

  • May 10, 2006, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Cruise as Iron Man

    by superninja

    I guess the Iron Man mask will be having giant smiling shiny white teeth, then?

  • May 11, 2006, 1:41 a.m. CST

    P.S. I&#39;m kidding on this one.

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

  • May 11, 2006, 3:57 a.m. CST

    shermdawg. whats wrong with x1?

    by BendersShinyAss

    I liked it - didn&#39;t love it. hated x2

  • May 12, 2006, 8 a.m. CST

    For a positive review, this doesn&#39;t sell me AT ALL.

    by minderbinder

    It looks like a very reverent movie. Pretty, but dull. Seriously, we&#39;re supposed to care about soap opera crap like Lois having a kid? The first trailer had me interested, but the second seemed like they took the script from goofy fanfic or something.

  • June 8, 2006, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns Review

    by Margroks

    Frankly, while the FX may be great, this plot still sucks. Superman doesn&#39;t NEED an edge. And the very idea that this is suposed to be a worthy successor to the Chris Reeve films, (after the admittedly lame kiss of forgetfulness which allowed Superman to remember having sex with Lois but left her clueless and apparently pregnant) is ridiculous. Yes that idea was creepy on its own but made worse by having Supes leave for whatever stupid reason only to return and find her with someone else and with a child. What were they smoking when they came up with this plot? Or when they came up with the dull costume? I&#39;ve probably seen everything in the movies and TV involving Superman ever made and I&#39;ve been reading comics for over fifty years (yes, I said fifty!) and I can&#39;t believe they couldn&#39;t have come up with something better than this. This isn&#39;t what the Lois and Superman relationship is about by a long shot and I&#39;m not at all sure even the FX will make it bearable.

  • July 1, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    What about Lex?

    by margo2475

    Somene, please tell me, did Lex died?