Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty Reviews SUPERMAN RETURNS!!

thanks mori. by irc-Hollywood	Jun 27th, 2006 06:03:31 PM

Good review, Mori by Shawn F.	Jun 27th, 2006 06:09:23 PM
Can't wait to own this movie on Laserdisc2K6! ;-)
Thats a fine review by Wonderboys	Jun 27th, 2006 06:13:19 PM
A bit spoilery for my tastes, but is good... Right now, I dont know what is gonna be my reaction to this film... I want to love it, but I dont know... oh, and SECOND!?
Hmmm by Logo Lou	Jun 27th, 2006 06:14:15 PM
Sounds like a lot of the things I didn't think would work, yeah, didn't work. Glad to hear so much did though.
Why? by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 06:14:50 PM
Why is the biggest complaint from anyone about Clark Kent returning? You're questioning the believability of that with the believability of a character whose disguise is glasses. GLASSES! Many other complaints sound valid, but that was is just stupid. Enjoy the movie, don't over analyze something that's not meant to be over analyzed.
Like by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 06:16:30 PM
Batman Begins was a mixed bag for me because nobody questioned that Batman shows up at the same time Bruce Wayne returned to Metropolis.
.... by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 06:17:04 PM
....I mean Gotham. Catch my drift?
well crap by arhat23	Jun 27th, 2006 06:19:14 PM
harry's reviews are ethereal and broadly pornographic most of the time. the rest of the reviewers on this site are humorous and pretty insightful. but i always go with mori's reviews when i'm on the fence about a movie. this is weird, because i was dead set on superman, and his review put me soundly on the fence. again - crap.
finally something I can trust in reading by white owl	Jun 27th, 2006 06:19:36 PM
I liked the review and I believe the points you made about it Mori. I never wanted a Superman remake to begin with and it does not surprise me one bit that it nearly sucks, or at least does not work. That's Hollywood for ya.. the bad movies are the ones you anticipate and the good ones are those of which you never knew existed. I'll wait for DVD. Now I can't wait for POTC.
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Jun 27th, 2006 06:23:13 PM
This will end up being just a good movie but after Batman Begins, Warner Bros. has lowered the bar with Superman Returns.. Cheers to Summr 2008 and prays for Summer 2009
Interesting review... by vinceklortho	Jun 27th, 2006 06:26:07 PM
While I'm psyched to see this movie, I'm also apprehensive that it's simply just a homage to Donner's original film. It's cool to see the master back in this comic book movie day and age, but I think if Singer goes for round two, we could get a really kick ass Superman movie. Kinda the way Raimi expanded on his Spiderman movie...geeezz, there I go again. Damn Spidey 3 teaser just kicked too much ass.
Why is Supes a dad? by The Dum Guy	Jun 27th, 2006 06:26:41 PM
I think the only major hangup I have on this film is knowing that Supes fathered a kid. What exactly are they going to do with the tyke in any possible sequels? Personaly I would like to see the kid get killed by Doomsday and have that story arc into the Death of Superman, but who knows we might never get to see that on film.
Mori's always honest by covenant	Jun 27th, 2006 06:28:34 PM
That's why I usually like his reviews better than Harry's--Mori offers a more balanced POV on the films he likes, presenting both its strenghts and weaknesses. Even with its obvious flaws, this is a film I want to see BADLY.
Nice review. by TELF	Jun 27th, 2006 06:30:58 PM
This kind of sums up all my doubts. Just because something is not as bad as we all feared doesn't therfore make it great. But yeah, I'll see it.
Praise Allah for a level headed review on AICN by Lando Griffin	Jun 27th, 2006 06:33:06 PM
and not a gushing, cock slobbering gangbang that has been every review on here so far. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE Superman (not an obsession but a healthy love) and have been waiting for this movie since I was a wee boy, I have followed its development all along the way, but the reality check that is Mori's review was defintely needed here to ground some folks a bit. Like Mori said the little things he points out are nitpicky, not huge fanboy gripes (certainly not X3 fanboy gripes) but not enough to take away from the film as a whole, which sounds about the way I will be judging it but at the same time its f'n Superman, can't go too wrong unless its like parts 3 or 4. Although I gotta say the kid issue does bug me a bit on paper, but I may change my mind upon seeing it. The local paper in my area gave it 3 1/2 stars but said the same thing in regards to Singer and Co painting themselves into a corner with the kid. But I have also said before that now that the technology is here Supes needs to go toe to toe with Metallo, Brainiac or Darksied.
Negative by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 06:36:01 PM
Why is it when a movie a gets overwhelming positive reviews (SR is 80% on Rotten Tomatoes), do the negative ones get all kinds of praise?
First! by Lamerz	Jun 27th, 2006 06:36:20 PM
Ah, fuck it. To the guy who said why is Supes a dad ... did you never learn how it works? The whole procreation thing?
A good villain is everything in a movie like this by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 06:37:41 PM
One of the reasons BATMAN BEGINS works so well is that the villain is only revealed toward the end and we understand why he is doing what he is doing, even if we abhor it. There is a demented logic to why and how his evil plot unfolds. I think Singer didn't think it mattered very much about Lex Luthor and clearly gave virtually no thought to this retarded real estate development scheme. As for the kid, if the franchise is to continue--I have only two words: kill him.
So the movie gives off an empty feeling by AlwaysThere	Jun 27th, 2006 06:39:53 PM
I'm waiting for someone to really rip into the film. It's just filled with holes.
I also really wish Spacey had not modeled Luthor... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 06:41:00 PM
on a Virginia baked ham. Seriously, it could have helped.
congrates arhat23... by Datascream	Jun 27th, 2006 06:41:47 PM
..for letting someone do all the thinking for you. Now roll over and play dead. I have to say I trust Mori's reviews more then anyone elses as well. He had some problems with the film. That's fine. Not everyone is gonna have the same problems with it. Or maybe none at all. But it's a fair and balanced review. He still liked the movie, but he didn't love it like the rest of the reviewers. I for one am still eagerly awaiting this movie. Thanks again Mori for the honest review. :)
Clark's absence... by ZeroCorpse	Jun 27th, 2006 06:45:39 PM
In the comics, and in animation, Clark usually goes away on "foreign assignment" for the Daily Planet, thus he hasn't left the job, and he may be away for a long time. Of course, he'd have to file a report every once in a while, or explain that he was cut off for a while, but that's as good an explanation as any.
Mori's review is NOT negative by Lando Griffin	Jun 27th, 2006 06:46:44 PM
but compared to the AICN lovefest that has been going on here for quite a while I can see how one could leap to that conclusion. *** YackBacker, those are some good points. Other talkbackers have called Supes pining for Lois stalkerish or emo-ish, whcih if I think about it and over analyze will irritate me because - THATS NOT HOW SUPERMAN IS / WOULD ACT! But whatever I will see the movie and if its good enough for me to put the irritants aside - it works.
The whole GLASSES AS DISGUISE problem... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 06:49:55 PM
Yeah, it's one of those goofy things that comes with Superman. But the problem could have easily been solved with one simple line uttered by either Superman or Clarke Kent. Are you ready for it? Ok, here it goes: "People see what they want to see. And sometimes they see what I want them to see." Happy? Bryan Singer, if you need some fresh blood to pen Superman Stays, I may be available...
Chick flick? by b3mike	Jun 27th, 2006 06:54:37 PM
My biggest fear about the film has been unveiled. In the words of Darth Vader.......Nooooo! On the plus side, we finally received an honest review. Thanks Mori.
MELTING OWL & UNSOCIABLE HAMMER by Shermdawg	Jun 27th, 2006 06:55:32 PM
Going to see it in a hour or so.
good review by keyserSOZE	Jun 27th, 2006 06:56:29 PM
and Mori brings up the three biggest points of contention i've had going in...the whole thing about how they can possibly explain Clark miraculously reappearing when Superman does, how they'll handle the kid in a sequel, and how Lex's plan actually makes any sense at all. Ah well, I'll still be at the 10pm showing tonight fully expecting to be wowed.
You are correct. It's not negative, but... by AlwaysThere	Jun 27th, 2006 06:57:09 PM
he and many other reviews are giving this movie a free pass. It's the kind of situation that I cant ever remember happening before. There are lukewarm reviews out there that say go see it, even though it's disappointing. Why are certain reviews fearful of been frank and really telling it like it is?
People like these types of reviews as they are balanced by ChorleyFM	Jun 27th, 2006 06:59:00 PM
Nothing is perfect and Mori almost always does a god job of evaluating strengths and flaws to come to his conlusion, in this case it is a good movie but certainly not great (same opinions over at CHUD). Also re Rottentomatoes, the really important piece of info isn't the fresm meter it is the average rating. A film could be 90% frsh if it got almost all 3/5 reviews. To see how good a film really is you have to read all the reviews or look at the average rating.
Why would somebody be on the fence about this? by Monkeybrains	Jun 27th, 2006 07:02:51 PM
You either are interested in these types of movies or your not. I can never understand why someone would actually care about what a reviewer would have to say, and then determine whether or not to go to said film based solely on what someone else says. It
Just deflated my balloon... by Darth Thoth	Jun 27th, 2006 07:11:16 PM
I'm about to leave in a 1/2 to go see this thing. I was so souped after just rewatching all the trailers. Now after just reading this review my excitement has been calmed. Oh well. The honesty is appreciated though. I will go in cautiously optimistic.
The Future "Auteur" hates it, BFD by jegoing74	Jun 27th, 2006 07:11:58 PM
Oh, i'm sorry not hates, kinda likes, but oh it misses the mark and but oh it's barely almost.... it's not quite the masterpiece it should be and it's such a surpise it's any good. Look up in the sky it's a Bird, it's a Plane, it's ba dada dada di ta! a Popcorn Film!
Superman Returns: $250 million // POTC: $400 million by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 07:13:20 PM
My predictions for final BO takes
thank you Monkeybrains... by Datascream	Jun 27th, 2006 07:15:10 PM
my point exactly. If your going to see a movie or NOT going to see a movie based on one persons perspective, then why bother doing anything at all? It's basically a cowardly wayout from seeing the movie in fear that they may actually like it and, god forbid have some fun for once in their life.
ive got a lot of respect for Moriarty but.. by Captain Katanga	Jun 27th, 2006 07:16:06 PM
.. criticizing the film for A) people not noticing that clark and supes have been away the same amount of time and B) clark getting his job back too easily... well, those are pretty ridiculous points. You might as well ask how he gets changed so quickly... I mean really, who cares.
Why nobody connects Clark's and Supes' absences by beelkay	Jun 27th, 2006 07:18:13 PM
Why doesn't anybody connect their faces? Don't ask stupid questions, and you won't get a stupid answer.
I'd watch out if I were you, Mori... by Windowlicker74	Jun 27th, 2006 07:21:17 PM
With reviews like these, you're THIS close from getting the sack. I mean, like HEADGEEK, you should LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the movie!!! btw: I also have one big question regarding superman(mind you, I'm no superman afficionado): Why does no one recognise superman when they see Clark Kent? I mean, he's not wearing a mask or anything. I hope some one can answer that, it's really bothering me.
Hey Mori...... by Seany-Wan	Jun 27th, 2006 07:23:06 PM
You think the "World's Finest" is still doable? After seeing Christian Bale call Brandon Routh Superman, I know I'd pay up for it! Cheers.
All true, Indy by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 07:27:38 PM
but I still like my line.
The Earth didn't spin backwards..... by Hairy Nutsack	Jun 27th, 2006 07:33:10 PM
Why does this keep coming up? Anyway, I don't see how this can be avoided, don't you just see a Rocky V-type story brewing? If the kid were powerless I could understand Clark giving him up, but the kid could knock down Metropolis just by clapping his hands, there's no way he can just let them raise him.
Indy by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 07:34:16 PM
I agree. Superman is going to outdraw Pirates. Pirates has "hip" factor that Supes doesn't have, but the advertising for POTC has been non-existent. Most people don't even know it comes out next week.
A kid?!?! by Dauntless	Jun 27th, 2006 07:37:37 PM
Is there any explanation as to how Superman and Lois Lane managed to have a kid?? Has anyone questioned this? Not to mention that Superman would have never have slept with Lane prior to being married to her. It's all part of the Kansas-upbringing. And is it really so hard to get major characters right?? Luthor is not an insane genius...that's the Joker...Luthor is a homo sapien superior genius. What is so difficult about that?? Damn it I wanted this movie to rock.
Superman Returns will not be that big by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 07:38:26 PM
I predict an enormous opening weekend followed by steep declines. POTC, on the other hand, is likely to be such giddy fun that after its equally huge opening weekend, it will continue to draw in a wide spectrum of moviegoers--couples, families, teenagers, EVERYBODY--for multiple viewings. I could be wrong but that's what I see happening.
SAW IT THIS MORNING by shutterghost	Jun 27th, 2006 07:41:48 PM
My theater got this in last night and the manager let me watch it alone this morning. Just a perk of being able to thread a projector. I am usually on board with Moriarity. not this time. NEXT PIECE DELVES INTO HIS SPOILERS!!!!!! He builds the continent for the reason M states, but the main idea was to have a land mass that would exclude Supes. That is why it was laced with kryponite. I didn't love the scheme but it did seem like something Luthor would come up with. As far as the Clark and Superman disappeareance coincidence. I thought about it for a brief second and then reminded myself that i was watching Superman. The same characters who don't see this as a mere coincidence, are the same people who never figured out Clark as Superman with glasses. If these same characters can't figure out that Superman appears right after Clark has mysteriously dissappeared, then why would the abscence set off any red flags. This is M's review so I'm not going to go into it, but i thought he was being far too picky. It's enjoyable. It doesn't rival Batman Begins, but it is a worthy addition to the DC movie world.
But I am ABSOLUTELY certain of one thing... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 07:42:33 PM
and that is there is no way in hell Superman Returns will make more money than POTC. It simply not possible...WB is right to scared which is why they were smart to push up SR to Wednesday to give it a couple more days before Depp and Co. arrive. Also, my $400 million prediction for POTC is fairly conservative...it could very well do TITANIC-like numbers. But what does it matter? Do any of us have a financial stake in the films? Hell, let's just hope they're both damn good and be happy with that.
Ebert called it a Yawn Fest by zekmoe	Jun 27th, 2006 07:48:34 PM
I bet that has some effect on it's overall take. THese movies have to appeal to both fanboys and the general populace. Look at Hellboy, which was a good comic movie, yet was marginal at the box office. Superman will do well, but won't kill like spiderman unless it gets good overall reviews.
19 year build up = huge opening by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 07:51:07 PM
But does not guarantee legs. Very good point about Phantom Menace but Superman is simply not Star Wars...its fan base is large but SW is MASSIVE. As for POTC, its fan base is basically everyone who saw the first one. As for excitement level, POTC has the edge, sorry...but its true. Its really amazing what small details can make a movie succeed at the BO. I am still convinced that Eugene Levy's utterance of "You've got me straight trippin', boo" singlehandly made BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE a hit. As for POTC, when Bill Nighy exclaims, "Summon the kraken!"....anybody who saw that trailer will be seeing that movie and word-of-mouth will probably top Supes. Forget Kryptonite...it's giant squids and fey pirates that Kal-El needs to worry about.
NOT LAST! by paulh	Jun 27th, 2006 07:53:11 PM
counts minutes until seeing this in Imax at the Franklin Institute's Tuttleman Omniverse theater on Saturday night. There's about 20 minutes of Imax footage give or take, right?
Mori was too pressured/AICN = End of cinema experience by moto	Jun 27th, 2006 07:53:39 PM
It's not a negative review like some people said (white owl). It was nitpicky. And Mori had a lot of pressure from you talkbackers. "Where's Mori's review?" "I'll only trust Mori!" Bunch of followers:) I think he frickin' loved the movie (not that it was perfect) and would have given a less nit picky review had it not been for the building pressure built up in talkbacks. Read the review again and you'll see. He enjoyed the hell out of it, but needed to find SOME things to harp on otherwise you guys would have crucified him. If it would have been a glowing review, you would havce done that. If it would have been a truly truly negative review, you would have jumped on the bandwagon. Yes, AICN = The end of the cinema experience. But God help me because we keep coming back here for more.
I'm not the first to say it.... by Dr. Opticus	Jun 27th, 2006 07:56:38 PM
what ever Harry does behind the scenes over there; that should be his job. No more ass kissing reviews that give false hope to half assed shit setting a predisposed excitement for a film. We depend on a realistic review instead we're misled. Harry, whatever kick back you get from writing a bogus review, put it towards charity. Goid doesn't like liars.
Lex Luthor business by zooch	Jun 27th, 2006 07:57:20 PM
Lex always seems to be obsessive about Kryptonian technology, even to the point where he doesn't think about the consequences of his actions, like whether or not people will be around to buy real estate after.
Superman makes me whet.... by missmichigan	Jun 27th, 2006 08:00:43 PM

Another good Mori review ... although by chrth	Jun 27th, 2006 08:00:50 PM
"If Superman does indeed possess technology from a dozen different worlds that is far beyond our own, and this technology can do amazing things to help our planet, then why doesn
Who said Supe's had the tech. to end world hunger????? by wolack22	Jun 27th, 2006 08:03:12 PM
Supe's may have a lot of tech from several worlds or whatever, but i doubt he was sent to earth with all the answers, maybe some technological breakthroughs... but he doesn't want to give them TO HUMANS.... WTF ARE YOU CRAZY MORI? Look at the world the way it is now... you want us with that kind of technology blowing the shit out of each other even worse than we are now? Who's to say we would use his technology for good... the human species is crapping all over itself these days, Supes is doing the right thing by just ebbing along human evolution, and showing people what compassion, and self-sacrifice really means. hahahaha HUMANS WITH SUPES TECH!!! It's like giving a 4 year old child a high power rifle
I want a Superman IV remake by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 08:04:00 PM
They should give Richard Pryor the same treatment that they gave Marlon Brando in this one. Digitally resurrect that mofo...it would be beyond hilarious. Not for THAT...I will be first in line.
Easy to get out of the corner they've back into... by CatVutt	Jun 27th, 2006 08:05:08 PM
...with the 'son'. You kill him 1/4 to 1/2 way through the second film. Best way to set up a new villain as a real, harrowing threat, and you get rid of that Supes/Superkid dynamic.
moviemack dude, I'm right there with you... by kintar0	Jun 27th, 2006 08:05:16 PM
about Batman Begins. But, c'mon, man, you're the Anti-Plant, the Bizarro Plant. I'm going to see it tonight, hoping to like it, but I get no black and dire feeling of dread this time, unlike Batman Begins. Fuck Ebert, that guys thinks video games aren't art. There's only one opinion that really matters: mine.
You know what I WANT?!? by missmichigan	Jun 27th, 2006 08:06:48 PM
I want a fucking superhero movie that doens't give me three 2.5 minute battle sequences in a 2+ hour movie!!! I want some fucking action!!!!! Goddamn you all to heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllll!!!!!1 11!!1
moto, you are very wrong by Engineer_at_peac	Jun 27th, 2006 08:07:15 PM
If there is one thing Moriarty hates, as evidenced by his commentary on Harry's review of Click, it is people putting their own thoughts in his head and saying what he really thought. He calls things as he sees them, he doesn't review films to please his fans. That's a pretty assholish thing to say, really.
Video games are NOT art... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 08:08:03 PM
And anyone who thinks otherwise has spent far too much time in his mother's basement.
Video Games CAN BE art by chrth	Jun 27th, 2006 08:10:35 PM
Final Fantasy, for example. Get over the fact that asian teenagers whooped your ass in Street Fighter a decade ago.
"we're all going to see it" by Killah_Mate	Jun 27th, 2006 08:12:07 PM
True about Superman, but I do let the reviews I read influence my opinion. That's what they're there for. (And that's why I haven't seen X-Men 3, and don't regret it.) I'm not gonna stick my hand into every hole I see to check if there's anything sharp and rusty in it. Likewise I'm not gonna spend my own actual, real $15 to "see for myself" if a movie is shit. Kudos to rich assholes who can afford that kind of behavior. The trick is simply to find a reviewer you can agree with, someone you know can represent your taste out there in that early screening, and come back to you with worthy information. Moriarty is kinda like that. I always respect his opinion, and in this review he has confirmed everything I've suspected while reading the masturbatory praise in other Superman reviews. I'll see the movie, but I can already tell you that when I come out of that theater I'll most probably agree with him. That's exactly why I trust his opinion.
its nice.... by Seph_J	Jun 27th, 2006 08:13:20 PM
...to have a totally honest review that doesnt urge anyone to see or not see that film. I think a lot of the problems that you had with the film though, are problems with the character and universe of Superman in general... not just this film in particular.
every developed a video game? by zooch	Jun 27th, 2006 08:13:53 PM
ever animated anything? it takes alot of creativity and artistic talent to come up with something like that. that's not art?
I can't believe they didn't address CLark and Supes by I Dunno	Jun 27th, 2006 08:14:46 PM
coming back at the same time. I understand suspension of disbelief but that's just sloppy writing.
BUT by Seph_J	Jun 27th, 2006 08:15:41 PM
you should go and watch Spidey 3 trailer.... because, for want of a better phrase... its going to OWN Supermans ass lol
Ebert by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 08:18:25 PM
Ebert liked X3 and didn't like X1. He's an idiot when comes to comic movies. And SR is topping out at about 80% on Rotten Tomatoes with close to 100 reviews in. So that nail in SR's coffin that was mentioned above? You can shove it right up your ass.
No, the problems he lists are actually handled by Engineer_at_peac	Jun 27th, 2006 08:18:34 PM
pretty well in the Superman universe of the comics. Lex really is an evil genius with a complex motive that is one of distrust and jealousy, and the knowledge that he could do great things if not for the man of steel. Superman's secret identity works because of the "hiding" in plain sight factor, and he's a damn good reporter as well. You'll almost never catch Superman flatfooted against Kryptonite. Superman has poweful foes that really challenge him. When he goes somewhere he has a damn good excuse for Clark's whereabouts, etc.
What will really hurt the movie at the BO... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 08:20:02 PM
(besides POTC) is the idiotic plot of Luthor. Seriously, whenever anyone who is not a fanboy is asked to describe the plot, their description will begin with a laugh and end with "It's kinda stupid but I still liked it"...what kind of business does that word-of-mouth get you for those on the fence?
there is no way on earth superman will do TPM numbers by slappy jones	Jun 27th, 2006 08:21:26 PM
and there is absolutley no way it will make 200 mill by next wednesday.
And I am simply flabbergasted that... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 08:22:57 PM
there is a scene where Lex Luthor pulls a Max Bialystock...wow. How silly can this character get? I hope he doesn't break into song while explaining his evil plans (we all know Kev is a great singer, though).
Slappy by Ky-El	Jun 27th, 2006 08:23:37 PM
I'll see you next Wednesday when you are horribly horribly wrong.
Who the hell really cares about box office take? by Engineer_at_peac	Jun 27th, 2006 08:28:23 PM
Is this some kind of race? If you have any emotional stake whatsoever in who "wins" or how much money a movie makes, beyond simply making enough to get a sequel, then you are pathetic.
Also, comic Lex vs. movie Lex by Killah_Mate	Jun 27th, 2006 08:31:04 PM
In the comics, Lex Luthor is a brilliant man with a seriously large ego, brilliant not just in the "look at my orbital laser that I built 'cause I'm crazy!" sense (but that too), but in the sense that he's very very rich and powerful, because he knows how to handle money and people, and he knows how to make not just evil schemes, but actual plans. Possibly the only character in the DC universe who is a better tactician than Lex is the man himself; Batman. Luthor won't laugh in your face when you're captured and explain his plan in detail - he'll shoot you in the face and go on with his business. His only real weakness is Superman, who drives him insane. A combination of jealousy and xenophobia, plus a bunch of other issues clumped in a tight ball of hate. Basically a very cool character, with a right writer. Read Millar's "Red Son". --- The movie Luthor is a petty crook, which makes me very sad, especially knowing that Kevin Spacey would have been able to play the original in all his glory.
BRYAN SINGER by THE KNIGHT	Jun 27th, 2006 08:32:40 PM
If this movie is huge, will Singer be the new King of hollywood? And yes there is a joke in that statement, but I'm not going there lol
To really love Superman, by JumpinJehosaphat	Jun 27th, 2006 08:33:32 PM
you have to allow for one of the biggest conceits in pop culture: The entire earth doesn't make the Clark Kent/ Superman connection. Sure, there is the occasional plot device where the 8-ton cat almost gets out of the bag, but then it's all back to "hmm... I wonder...." It's the one puzzler that was a joke in Superman's earliest comics. It's actually one of the most entertaining and possibly most telling character flaws in the history of comicdom. How could they not get it?! Generations pf fans have now asked that question. What's really great about it is that it's a flaw which doesn't exist with the hero, but with everyone else around him.
You guys are hoping singer will improve for the sequel? by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 08:38:08 PM
Fat chance of that! Need I remind anyone about what happened to X-men 2? All singer did was remake the first x-men with twice the budget--the story was almost EXACTLY like the first one--just bigger. Which, in x-men's case, was a good thing, but it was NOT original. Same thing happened here: singer and a writing pal wrote this thing during an entire weekend and it shows: its just a remake of superman 1, only bigger. Great originality there, huh?
stupid enter button by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 08:38:58 PM
So just what do you think the second movie will be about?
stupid enter button by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 08:38:58 PM
So just what do you think the second movie will be about?
Spacey has his work cut out for him. by Christopher3	Jun 27th, 2006 08:41:42 PM
Rosenbaum easily is the best Lex and one of the best villains on TV.
Not really by Engineer_at_peac	Jun 27th, 2006 08:45:51 PM
Anyone who actually reads the comics knows very much why people do not "get it" that Clark is Superman. It was ridiculous in the silver age what with Superboy and clark Kent Teen in smallville, and Superman and Clark Kent adult in Metropolis, but it's handled well in the modern age.
I can't believe I agree with Moviemack by Lukecash	Jun 27th, 2006 08:47:59 PM
I loved Batman Begins, personally. I am not going to see this movie for the VERY obvious reason. If you honestly think that Superman would A) Leave earth without telling anyone, B) Get Lois nocked up C) Have Lois run off with another guy with his kid (and lois lying to the poor bastard about it) About 50% of Superman is the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle. This is just a nail int he coffin.. or "contemporizing" Superman. Superman and his cast are NOT about being "Modern" its about people always trying to do the RIGHT thing and winning. Its about the IDEAL not the REALITY. You call yourself fucking geeks, then you should HATE this film.
On Supes leaving.... by Hairy Nutsack	Jun 27th, 2006 08:51:56 PM
It's not in the movie, but when astronomers found Krypton (mentioned in the trailer) is it so inconceivable that Clark flew over to the White House or the UN and announced his plans? Do things really have to be spelled out so plainly for people?
If people were to get suspicious... by Bobo_Vision	Jun 27th, 2006 08:56:01 PM
...about Kent and Superman returning at the same time, he could always just fly around the earth and turn back time by 5 years and just erase his absence all together because in addition to his abundance of powers, he can also go back in time. Also, even if Superman were to go away to look for Krypton, wouldn't it just take him a few hours to come back to earth and say 'Hi' to Lois? I know people who spend more time commuting to and from work everyday...like me. Superman is the superhero for those who are willing to abandon logic, which is why Ebert does not like him. He's a stickler for logic.
lukecash by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 08:56:05 PM
Its been my experience that geeks are rarely idealistic, especially on this site! You and moviemack are right, however: Superman is all about idealism. I honestly do believe it was telling the moment we saw Singer impose the line,"truth, justice--all that stuff." Singer doesnt exactly strike me as someone who gets superman. To Singer, as moriarty shrewdly points out, Superman is about angst and lonliness. I'm sorry, but that just is not superman--thats batman, spiderman, and a million other characters. Superman is the John Wayne of comic heros. Singer, in his infinite mediocrity, play-it-safeism, and new-age cynicism doesnt get that.
Lex by IncompetentNinja	Jun 27th, 2006 08:56:08 PM
They should have dropped the kid storyline, and have Supes come back to find Lex as president (Above-the-law-billionaire Lex, not campy 70s Lex)and fight a super villain (Brainiac, Metallo, Doomsday, ect). For the love story they could keep cyclops, but have him set up as a bad guy for the sequel after being rejected.
Same problem I had with Peter Jackson's LOTR by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:02:30 PM
See, modern film makers, indeed, modern thinking, has led to this idea that conflicted heros are the real heros--that there is no such thing as a decisive character with adamant morality and nobility. I cant tell you how much I abhor seeing modern war movies and many modern "heros" and reluctant leaders. A real leader is Not reluctant, but you'd never notice this if you watch a Brian Singer movie, a Peter Jackson film, or many other similar film makers. Could you guys imagine what a modern Patton film would be like? I shudder at the thought.
The emergence of Batman and return of Bruce Wayne by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 09:04:30 PM
at the same time was handled quite well in BATMAN BEGINS. Wayne going out of his way to put on a show as a playboy...it was a way of dealing with a story point and having fun while doing it. True, it was an idea completely stolen from the Fracisco d Anconia character in ATLAS SHRUGGED but hey, if you're going to steal, steal from the best.
Yeah saw that. EBERT giving it thumbs down this weekend by Orionsangels	Jun 27th, 2006 09:06:37 PM
he calls brandon routh an action figue - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 060626/REVIEWS/60606009
GMAFB: Snot nosed LEX-KID from smallville?!?! by jegoing74	Jun 27th, 2006 09:09:36 PM
Show me he can hamm it up like Spacey does. There is no fucking way man!
well, you cant fault ebert for the kids toy comment by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:09:47 PM
I mean, routh's plastic cape, plastic-looking suit, obviously-fake musculature, and plasticy-looking hair really does make Supes look like an action figure. How many times did we talk backers comment on this when the first production stills were released?
the kid (spoiler?) by radjac33	Jun 27th, 2006 09:11:20 PM
For those that dont read past postings. Clark slept with Lois in Superman 2, after he was depowered by the crystal chamber. No Kryptonite condom needed. Remember this movie takes place five years after S2, kid is 5 years old.
THIS is the review I've waited for, thanks. by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 09:14:03 PM
Even-headed, objective, analytical, but still immersed in the subject and passionate about film. Great job, Mori. I will go into the theater both reassured and reined in. ;) Thanks.
moondoggy2u by Orionsangels	Jun 27th, 2006 09:16:19 PM
We will live in the time we live. Every movie of it's time speaks or relates to it's generation. They especially want it to appeal to a young hip audience. After all. They don't wanna be out of touch with their audience. I mean they're not going to make a movie for a 50's audience. Though It doesn't mean I agree with it, moondoggy. It would be nice to see more directors take a chance and make movies that are more true to their source material. Rather than to try to invoke our modern style of sensibility.
Shame they dropped the ball with Lex... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 09:16:29 PM
A great villain must believe he is the hero of the story, like Dr. Octavius or R'as al Ghul or Hillary Clinton. Why didn't Singer and Co. understand this simple concept?
Sad thing is, orion by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:19:29 PM
I've tought many a student in their teens in this day and age who have similar sensibilities. I have found that children respect parents and leaders who are real leaders--not the wishy-washy namby pamby types. I truly do not believe that these movies are representative of our age as much as they are the sensibilites of elitists. Just my take on it, however.
Clark bedded Lois in Superman II... by DoctorWho?	Jun 27th, 2006 09:19:46 PM
I'm suprised Mori didn't remember that.
That's right--I teach by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:20:43 PM
though I assure you I do so with better grammar and spelling than what I display in here ;)
Also, I feel the need to point out by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:25:20 PM
that Im all for conflicted characters and so on. I just wish there were more depictions of true leaders and idealism in movies. Being the optimistic that I am, however, Im quite certain that we'll swing back to those prideful feelings. I really do believe that people are growing increasingly tired of angst and complaining. One can hope, anyway.
Oh, also... by DoctorWho?	Jun 27th, 2006 09:25:34 PM
Indy Collectors point about Jor- El's decree: "You are forbidden to interfere with human history." ...answers another of Mori's queries. Maybe he doesn't remember those films as much as he thought. Still, I appreciate the sobering review...I was getting a little too "geeked up" for my own good.
Sounds about right.... by Dasher	Jun 27th, 2006 09:25:48 PM
A funny comment on this movie appeared in the NY Times review. It said that the film was created "after what appears to have been repeat viewings of Richard Donner's Superman." I laughed because in an interview with Donner months ago, he said he visited the SR set and was shocked at how many hours the writers spent in their trailer watching his Superman film. It's funny 'cause it's true.
Jeez louise by Darth Hater	Jun 27th, 2006 09:26:30 PM
F*ckin pathetic! All the haters who so want to hate this finally have a review that validates their point of view. ONLY problem is they still haven't seen it! Roger Ebert is a fine reviewer but he liked "The cell" nuff said. Mori was so deemed to dislike this by TBers That I truely feel he was nitpicking and wasn't being fair. You Haters bore me. MAY THE FORCE FUCK YOUR ASSES RAW AND ROT YOU FROM THE INSIDE OUT!!! oh too late? g'nite then.
Ironically, a leader with idealism and optimism.... by Bobo_Vision	Jun 27th, 2006 09:28:09 PM
...would likely be queer. 'C'mon fellas, don't be such a group of scaredy cats and pansies. Let's fight those bad guys. Yay!'
If they really got the character right, by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 09:30:22 PM
do you really think Mori would be talking about all of these incidentals? No, of course not. It would be forgiveable and the review would be enthusiastic. What this review means -bottom line -is that they did not really get the character right. This has been obvious from the very beginning.
re: Engineer_at_peac by moto	Jun 27th, 2006 09:31:10 PM
Because you know him so well... and I wasn't being an asshole towards him at all. If anything I was sympathizing with him. I don't think he gave a dishonest review, I think he added some flare for talkbackers due to the pressure. You kidding yourself if you don't think Harry, Mori, or whoever hear tends to do that now and then. I may be off suggesting he did that, but I'm sure it's a strong possibility. Take them off the pedestal. Look at Harry, he gave a very positive review and people are hurling shit at him. But who cares? Mori didn't give a negative review at all. He just pointed something out so even he enjoyed it. Not sure why everyone thinks Mori gave a negative review. NO film is perfect. Batman Begins had Katie Holmes in a thankless role.
Also... by Bobo_Vision	Jun 27th, 2006 09:31:19 PM
...the Shawshank Redemption collectible of Tim Robbins advertised at the top looks like John Malkovish, and the Highlander collectible looks like Zach Braff with a mullet.
There are a couple of outright negative reviews by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 09:32:00 PM
but many are just on the "meh" side. If you actually read the reviews at rottentomatoes.com you will see this. Everyone likes the special effects, though.
PLANT! by GuyLombardo	Jun 27th, 2006 09:40:02 PM
just kidding... or am I?... Hmmmm
moondoggy, I'm with you by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 09:46:31 PM
What's wrong with having a confident man in the role? Instead we get depressed tweeny Superman who is also a dead beat dad. All I want to know is have we finally found the film moviemack will hate more than Batman Begins?
Clearly the only man who can save this franchise is... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 09:49:19 PM
Joel Schumacher. Everybody lighten up. It'll be okay. It's a movie about an alien that wears tights for Christ's sake. Get some perspective.
now HERE'S a trustworthy review. Great work, Mori. by eppdude	Jun 27th, 2006 09:50:11 PM
Nice to see a reviewer on this site really review the film, rather than sucking Superman's super prick. Is Mori the only true critic left on this site? Methinks so.
Being Adopted is not a insult by Gay Jesus Christ	Jun 27th, 2006 09:54:20 PM
but your mom going to college is.
So what if Superman wants to interfere with mankind? by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 09:54:57 PM
What's Jor-El gonna do about it anyway? He's stuck in tube of krypton at the north pole. Is the whole plane rescue meant to imply that Superman could have prevented 9/11? Would Jor-El have disapproved? And why does Jor-El look like those aliens in THIS ISLAND EARTH? And why I am sitting here talking to myself, when clearly everyone else for this TB is at advance screenings? Oh well...
Thanks, superninja by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 09:57:24 PM
As far as Superman's deadbeat dead status, i think thats easily explained by the fact that he didnt know he had a son. What I find even more glaringly obvious is the clearly miscast...well, cast. In SR, Superman is supposed to have at least a few years experience at being a hero and then has a 5 year sabbatical, thus leaving the assumption that Superman is supposed to be in his late thirties. The guy they picked, of course, doesnt look older than 23; he is 10 to 15 years too young! And dont even get me started on the little teenager they picked to be their star reporter-turned mother.
All Clark had to do what get himself fired by I Dunno	Jun 27th, 2006 09:59:18 PM
Then when "Superman" came back, ask for his job back, since he's had sucessful work with him in the past. Plot hole as solved as it could have been.
Must...stop.....watching....Toma to....Meter...... by Forestal	Jun 27th, 2006 09:59:33 PM

Superman/Clark going away and coming back by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:02:13 PM
is a non-issue. There are millions of people in Metropolis, and Clark goes out of his way to be unnoticed. Which is why I contend Mori is reaching, and that it's more likely he doesn't like the film but can't put his finger on exactly why.
Kate Bosworth makes Katie Holmes look like... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 10:02:17 PM
Katherine Hepburn. I call it The Law of Diminishing Kates. (KB < KH(2) < KH (2)). Thank you, thank you...
For the record- it looks like Jack Black is fucking... by eppdude	Jun 27th, 2006 10:02:55 PM
the everliving SHIT out of Harry in that little cartoon at the top of the page. Am I the only one who thinks this? Sorry, just had to ask.
Damn, one of those should have been KH (1) by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 10:03:40 PM
but you get the idea
The Superman and Clark thing... by Ribbons	Jun 27th, 2006 10:04:09 PM
...is a big problem. I mean you're going to have to be prepared to overlook it going in, but that they both return from a five year absence at the exact same time, compounded with their uncanny "similarity" in appearance, is asking a lot from the audience.
moondoggy, let's face it: by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:06:44 PM
making a major issue out of Lois and Clark sleeping together much less her getting pregnant and Superman not staying around to figure it out is way out of character. I mean, its nice that for once someone actually gets pregnant from having happy fun-fun sex, but then he mindwipes the chick and leaves for 5 years? Superman?!!! That's a real piece of work.
Great review Mori, as always...... by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 27th, 2006 10:07:44 PM
......and thanks for raising the the questions that those of us in these talkbacks who still enjoy using their brains, have been asking about these stupid plotholes and idiotic "artistic license"-intepretations that Singer felt the liberty to take with this movie. And for all those people asking people to buy the fact that no one questions Superman and Clark's simultaneous disappearence and return, just because he exists in a Universe where people can't tell him apart without his glasses: Just remember that that faux-disguise was created along with Superman long before the true Cinema-age when you could therefore sell any 'out-there' concept to your audience as you can with novels and books that you simply can't do today. It works differently on screen nowadays which is why most superheroes created after the dawn of the silver screen almost always had a disguise (Spiderman, Batman et al) or never had a need for one (X-Men, Thor, Blade etc etc) because of the lackof a double life. The fact that this is one aspect of Superman ( his weak disguise) that has been respected despite all the re-inventions and re-designs and all through the years, is an testament to the greatness of his character but is likewise not an invitation to throw in any logical impossibility and simply expect the audience to buy it. Even in the movie-world, your movie has to have rules and laws by which the characters' existence is defined, and this movie just breaks a whole bunch of them which essentially define the Superman Universe. Kudos to Mori ( and Ebert) for calling them out on a lot of them. It's obvious they've painted themselves into a corrner as far as sequels are concerned and the kid will either have to be killed (in which case you have to create a believeable emotional baggage and gravitas for Superman that does not conflict with his Boy-scout image/persona: oooops, too late there.), or give him an expanded role that doesn't make take away the attention from Superman as the primary character, while simultaneously not giving us SmalleVille Returns. Good luck there as well, considering just how much originality Singer and his writers have exhibited in this cliff-notes version of Donner's 2 movies.
the SR funeral service returns, already in progess by zfisk	Jun 27th, 2006 10:07:59 PM
another white flag ..and every other sentence regards this as a $300M abortion,writing Bryan another blank check, a mulligan, a "do over,"looking to "the next one." wow, the faith and leeway you continue to bestow upon this director....if you impregnate a woman sans wedlock and dishonor you both, do you really think she'll deem you worthy of seconds? there should be a 12 step program for you hype-aholics. you all said this'd be "THEE BESTEST SUPERHERO MOVIE OF EVER! RECORDS BEWARE!!" and dont deny it. you dopes still think this will outdraw POTC..that's your asterisk, your little loophole to save face for the TB wars.. and citing so called 'flaws of the originals' or bitterly downplaying the 'box office take' doesnt EXCUSE SINGER. the flaw is in you. you fell for the bait. they lied and they still think the record opening is a done deal...like olsen,you got all giddy and baked a cake for routh who conveys no intelligence or command on the screen. the film is not GREAT. it is average. deal with it. just drink your welch's sour grapes already. "the next one" my foot. singer will not helm a trilogy with this mess. like you reaally want this cast/crew again.... and jarjabinks jakelloyd/godzilla boy (who youre stuck with, unless you allow Singer to toss more logic/continuity and make less sense)..and Kumar.. they didnt even give him a fricking line... you deserve this shyt. you will help them make their money back...i cant think of a more fitting tribute to blind allegiance...it suits you. ROUTH: thanks for giving me my job back, mr white! WHITE: dont thank me, thank frank, who died". riiiight. great dialogue....how does someone just waltz back into their job after a huge unexplained irresponsible absence? easy. elitist blue blood sense of entitlement, on which only a pair of iced coffee sipping/trust fund/cabana boy/club kid/boytoy/heirs were weaned on since birth. forget about beating POTC or SOAP..admit defeat
Lois should have made Superman go on Maury Povich... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 10:09:06 PM
"Kal-El, you ARE the father!" "Ooh, I tole you, I tole you!!!"
No, it's not. No one would believe Clark by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:09:12 PM
was Superman in the first place after working beside him all of those years. Why would they guess "Eureka!" now? You either buy the disguise or you don't. It comes with the territory. Besides, everyone is too focused on Superman coming back to even CARE why Clark is back.
I liked Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:11:20 PM
So sue me. I could buy her character simply from the fact that Gotham is so corrupt the DA would need an optimistic kid right out of law school. Everyone else is rotten. Now, if you hate her just because she's with Tom Cruise, that I can understand.
It's a simple fact by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 10:12:14 PM
Mori has passion for film. Harry has passion for the character(s). It's like Yin-Yang.
IndyCollector, nobody's going to beat Titanic's numbers by paulh	Jun 27th, 2006 10:12:54 PM
Maybe for the next decade. And it wasn't just "sniveling teenage bitches going back to see it 15 times" but this was a movie that cut across age lines; teenagers and grandparents were pulled in and liked what they saw. Every big-ticket movie drops between 50 and 60% in its second weekend. We'll see soon enough. And SR will make a run at Titanic for the first three weeks or so. Maybe POTC2 will, too.
I like Katie Holmes in BB too actually by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 10:16:02 PM
What I really liked was that she was a female character in an action movie that was pivotal to the plot and didn't just on the sidelines as a victim. That said, her relationship with Wayne...it was actually pretty interesting but lacked soom oomph, if you know what I mean.
And just so you guys dont think Im uncompromising by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:16:38 PM
I'm of the school of Supes fans that would love to see an above-forty Superman. Not quite as old as a Ross Superman, but certainly old enough to be man with character. Yes, I'm willing to bend and go for a Superman in his early thirties, but I cannot endorse Superboy.
Oh, and those expeting POTM B..O numbers with this.... by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 27th, 2006 10:16:51 PM
......movie. Stop. Deluding. Yourselves. Consider 2 things: 1) the movie is over 2 hours long, which means they wouldn't get as many screenings as , let's say, X3. Less screenings means less tickets sold and thus requires a ;onger uninterrupted run. Not going to happen with POTC opening next week. 2) the movie is opening in the middle of a week which does not have a holiday ( ala memorial day or 4th of July) which means that it will have to make most of it's money over the weekend when most of their target audience ( families) can go together. And whent he Holiday finally arrives ( the 4thog July) another Big kid on the block(POTC) will be on hand to stake its claim at the B.O.. Soooo unless this movie has very very glowing word-of-mouth going into the weekend, (also not happening considering all the tepid reviews outside of geekdom, which are declaring it a 'good', but not great movie) you can knock all those $200million delusions right out of your pretty little heads.
John Galt, in the end it was a little too cute. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:18:31 PM
But I also liked how she was confident and non-victim-like. She also is smart enough to leave him alone at the end. Hurray - a woman with a brain!
Moondoggy speaks true by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 10:21:52 PM
Although, I'd also go for a greyed-at-the-edges Ross-version of Supes. But, yeah - they should let Superman age a little in the films.
Yeah, I have to admit I liked Katey in BB, too by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:22:37 PM
It was refreshing to see an honest-to-G-d adult relationship where two people actually care about one another and dont have sex before the first date begins. For that reason alone, I forgave the somewhat wooden performance of Katie. She was a nice character played by a somewhat lackluster actess, but hey, nothing is perfect. And how cool was it to have a non-flamboyent villain with real motivation?
I keep saying this about Singer... (SPOILERS) by Ribbons	Jun 27th, 2006 10:23:26 PM
...he does not write for sequels. There was a phoenix in the water at the end of 'X2,' wasn't there? But that doesn't disprove this little theory of mine, because the story could have gone in any possible direction from there; the mere existence of the Phoenix doesn't write a story for you (in fact they practically wrote around her in 'X3'). I think he makes these films one at a time, with very little regard as to whether or not he's adequately set up a sequel or launched a franchise. Perhaps he has vague ideas as to what a sequel would look like; perhaps he has more than that. But I'm not so sure he does. Especially in the case of 'X2' and now this, since he wasn't sure he was coming back for more in both cases. So the fact that he dropped a little super-baby into Superman's lap (which, is there any point to that thematically, by the way?) may not even be his concern. I'm not so sure that NOT writing for the sequel is a bad thing, although in this case I have to wonder why he gave Superman a superpowered son (a son at all, for that matter) to begin with.
doctor_sin by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:24:44 PM
Hey, if there was an Alex ross supes put to film, you'd see me buying the very first ticket on opening night--I would get such a kick out of it. The beauty of having a Superman that old is that it cements the maturity and idealism of a bygone era--a sort of John Wayne reborn, if you will. I'd love it, love it, love it.
To say nothing of the authority and strength by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:25:28 PM
that would be inherent to a character like that.
to those of you too young to understand my complaint by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:26:39 PM
Compare the Kingdom Come Superman to the Supertween thats being foisted upon us and tell me which one you'd be more likely to follow, to idolize? Class dismissed.
Have to admit, a Kingdom Come Supes is by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:28:51 PM
not my idea of a good time. These days an aging Superman comes with baggage. I mean, they made the teenybopper Superman have a kid out of wedlock. Imagine what Supes with a touch of gray would have to reflect on. Yikes!
'John Wayne reborn' - nice! by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 10:30:38 PM
Yeah - we need that kind of mature, strong, 'pure' image - someone just pure Americana and as you put it - harkening to a bygone era. But, it'd need someone of George Reeves' 'elder statesman' quality mixed with Chris Reeve's 'Jimmy Stewart idealism.'
Jimmy Olsen by IncompetentNinja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:33:36 PM
It's been 5 years, right? Why is he still a 16 year old photographer. They should have had Clark come back to find Jimmy has taken his job and Supes has to collect unemployment.
Guys, you gots to gets the ladies in the seats. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 10:34:57 PM
Sorry, fellas, but I will take a 30-something Supes in his prime over the George Reeves any day! Hugh Jackman can't play every superhero I realize, but you get the idea. Superman is too romantic to be the elder statesman unless he is in an ensemble piece. That would be like watching an older Batman to which I ask - are you crazy?
I agree, doctor_sin by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:38:12 PM
As far as baggage is concerned, superninja, were Superman (ross superman) in the right hands, then the only thing different would be the ability to show the young punks how its really done. The ross superman's baggage was in the form of a long-lost love and a desire to retire--something that was NOT out of character. He still kept his moral compass, even regaining his desire to be the good hero at the very beginning of the story. No, I think that in the end, an Middle-aged Superman really would work well--assuming that cynical, modern-day pussies like Singer didnt get their mitts on him.
But, why does 'ladies' HAVE to equal soap opera romance by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 10:40:18 PM
My g/f hates that stuff and is all about seeing 'gods on earth' style superheroes. I introduced her to the aged Ross Supes and she just loved it. Second to Miller's Dark Night. It's just that Hollywood shoots low, instead of making poetic emotionally charged character-driven films, they'd rather just create fluff. Fun fluff. Cool looking fluff. But fluff.
superninja by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:40:54 PM
Well, my daughter may be odd cause she's my kid, but she falls within the demographic you're talking about. According to her, the guy they hired is way too young. Like you, I agree that a Ross Superman wouldnt compare to the younger, female demographic, but then again, Harrison Ford seemed to do all right throughout the 80's and 90's, didnt he?
Who cares Mori, about answering questions. by Orionsangels	Jun 27th, 2006 10:41:44 PM
This is a vague! vague being the keyword here. vague sequel to Superman II. It doesn't haven't answer any questions when It's been 25 years since Superman II! Reeve is gone forever. That Superman will never return. Does this generation even care or relate to those films anymore? No. It's just not relevant anymore. This is just Singer paying tribute to Donner's Superman for his love and the sake of us old farts. While adding a modern flare for the young crowd. Nothing more. Me personally - I'm not even thinking that much about the past Superman movies while watching returns. At some point you gotta realize that was then, this is now. Mori you're just too caught up in the first two Supes films and have too much time on your hands to think. Let it go. The things you're nitpicking about aren't important in the skeem of things. This is a whole new ball game and I'm thinking about a new beginning for Superman. I'm looking forward the new future of Superman. Remember this isn't the SW prequels where it must all connect into one giant story. This is reimaging with some nostalgia thrown in for good measure.
Clark: "Sorry I've been gone so long, but..." by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 10:44:27 PM
(Fill in the blank game) "I got lost in the men's room."
A sequel with the same writers will be just as good/bad by Rupee88	Jun 27th, 2006 10:44:38 PM
I was watching the Superman documentary (Look Up in the Sky) and those two writer are so fucking annoying and so full of shit. It's too bad that they will be writing the sequel as well as they aren't that talented. Just all the crazy shit they had to crowbar into this films shows that they can't write very well. Anyway, I'm seeing this tomorrow and I hope the story doesn't irritate and frustrate me too much so I can enjoy the visuals.
Oh, and for the record by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 10:47:38 PM
My eldest daughter's favorite superhero is John Wayne (she's sixteen). Believe me, I had no influence, cinematically speaking, on her decision. never really liked the Duke until she got into it. Yeah, the duke and I share a lot of the same features, characteristics, and are of similar size and build (sad to see what I'll probably look like when I turn sixty), so maybe there was that influence. But until my daughter began watching the movies, I had never been much of a Duke fan. Funny, huh?
Ebert's review has lowered my expectations by Elmore Rigby	Jun 27th, 2006 10:49:29 PM
Seriously, he is much more consistent than most critics, and his review of S.R. just feels dead-on. "It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie" = OUCH!
Elmore by Forestal	Jun 27th, 2006 10:53:08 PM
How do you know Ebert is "dead-on" if you haven't seen the movie? And yes he is more consistant than most critics in the sense that he is consistantly dimwitted.
This review is shit by Ye Not Guilty	Jun 27th, 2006 10:56:47 PM
Not really, I just think it's fucking hilarious how Talkbackers are reviewing the review. So, about the Superboy issue, I don't see how it paints the film makers into a corner in the inevitable sequel. All they need to do is nod in the direction of the kid and move on. There's no reason why the kid has to be an integral part of a sequel's plot. Also, on the Kryptonian tech, I think it's already been explained why Superman doesn't give it to the governments of the world. Would you really trust the Iranians with Kryptonian tech? Hell, I wouldn't trust Bush and Cheney with a fuckin' Kryptonian crystal. What a dumb-ass criticism. I do understand though, the feeling that this "requel" is kind of just going through the motions of setting up this universe and these characters again with different actors. It seems kind of like the "Episode 1" of Superman in that respect. It's all set-up. Hopefully after this film, the film makers can finally leave Luthor (and maybe even Lois) behind and come up with new plots and new threats for Superman to overcome. Me, I'm hoping for Brainiac. Or maybe Doomsday. Let's really open this baby up and see what she can do it! I know I'm already looking forward to it.
Sometimes Ebert makes sense, sometimes not... by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 10:57:34 PM
Seriously, go look up his review for THE FRIGHTENERS and tell me why he hates it, other than it took a lot of work to make it. That seems to be his big beef with the movie...it took a lot of effort. WTF??? As for his review of WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, I am convinced he was allowed to see a special edit of the film that no one else on Earth has ever seen and has since been destroyed.
Mori (questions you asked) by Fernwick_	Jun 27th, 2006 11:00:17 PM
You asked when did Superman and Lois find time to bump uglies, dont forget this is a sequel to Superman II in a real sense. So when Superman was in the fortress of Solitude with Lois, and yes they were naked and snuggling dont you recall? THAT was when he knocked her up. Any questions? Fernwick www.theidiottestament.com
Ebert liked Garfield II by Orionsangels	Jun 27th, 2006 11:02:15 PM
Fuck what Ebert says. guys outta touch. he also said spider-man 2 is the best superhero movie ever made. fuck him again!
Forestal by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 11:03:50 PM
Ebert is consistant in that his criteria for movies are as follows: (1)they must acheive what they set out to do, and (2)they must follow their internal logic. The reason he likes Batman Forever is because the movie set out to be heroic and good, old fashioned, campy popcorn fare. He did state that he was dissapointed by Shumacher's disreguard for showing the true batman in all his noirish glory, but he enjoyed the heroism of the character--something Burton failed to depict. Likewise, he felt that Batman Begins was great because it acheived the noirish feel inherent to the character AS WELL as depicting the heroism and determination of Bruce Wayne. See, Ebert OBJECTIVELY critiques a film based upon the established story and/or the story's goals. Superman Returns is attempting to depict Superman in a way that Ebert knows is completely contradictory to the myth of Superman--to his motivation. Furthermore, SR attempts nothing new, simply retelling the original DOnner movie without any desire to improve plots or characters, just effects. Nor does it, according to some critics, follow its own internal logic. Thats on the debit side, according to Ebert's criteria. On the credit side, there are good effects and at least some attempt, if half hearted, at depicting classical heroism. Therefore, Ebert gave it 2 stars. Now if I can explain this that succinctly, how can you not understand why many of us respect, though not always agree, with ebert's opinions.
Exactly Fernwick! by Orionsangels	Jun 27th, 2006 11:03:54 PM
See, I told you guys. Mori's lost his mind! lol
To make this as monosyllabic as possible by moondoggy2u	Jun 27th, 2006 11:06:58 PM
Ever here the classic ,"well, what did you expect, citizen cane?" argument when it came to summer movies? Ebert is of that school of thought that grades movies based upon what the film makers are trying to do. Garfield tries to be kiddy summer flick and succeeds--thumbs up. superman returns tries to be superman but gives us too young cast with drastic character changes--thumbs down. Its not rocket science, folks
moondoggy by Forestal	Jun 27th, 2006 11:09:50 PM
Just the fact that people are clinging to Ebert's reviews and opinions so much is disturbing. When the fuck will people learn to think for themselves!?
Ebert has learned how to properly review a film by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 11:10:16 PM
His JOB for the last few DECADES has been reviewing movies for others to read. He has developed a very objective style that doesn't always ring true, but rings accurately. Even within the realm of dumb popcorn films, he still realizes there is a benchmark of quality somewhere. There are good dumb movies and bad dumb ones. He has developed his own method of dissecting a film's inherent qualities and seeing them on their own terms - but he still lets himself experience the film as a viewer. His reviews are careful blends of opinion, analysis, and emotional response. I'll take him over Rex Reed, Gene Shallit, and that cocksmoker Michael Medved any day of the week.
Or, to sum up, just read moondoggy's 'monosylabic' p by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 11:12:50 PM
Some of us respect the man for his years of reviews. There have been times I've strongly disagreed with him, but I've done the same with Mori, Harry, etc. I just respect the reviewer enough to lend him credence.
Movie critics by Forestal	Jun 27th, 2006 11:17:18 PM
If the critics viewed new movies at the same time as the general public I doubt people would care what they had to say. MOVIE CRITIC/FANBOY EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!
Routh is too young. I agree with that entirely. by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 11:24:07 PM
Reeve, however, had an adult demeanor. There is something inherently sad in the Alex Ross Superman to me, I guess, because Lois died and he settled for Wonder Woman (the super harpie). Romance is key to Superman. In the sense that romance made Raiders all that more engaging. I mean the right kind of romance, not the teenybopper kind. Reeve and Kidder had genuine chemistry. The night flight is completely ridiculous, but the rest of the romance is wonderful, engaging stuff.
This Ebert-bashing must stop! by JohnGalt06	Jun 27th, 2006 11:25:16 PM
How can I hate a man who put "Groundhog Day" in his Great Movie column? Clearly, the man has the ability to recognize a good movie once in a while. And he's a pretty good writr. Go read his review of STAR TREK: NEMESIS...its extremely funny, almost Vern-like in ripping the movie a new one.
moondoggy, when you say Harrison Ford by superninja	Jun 27th, 2006 11:28:01 PM
as Indy, an aging Superman who is greying does NOT come to mind. As for seeing Harrison Ford as Indy now, that would have a swan song effect, or a passing of the torch effect. It would never compare to Ford as Indy in his prime. By "prime" I guess I don't mean 20 something. I mean 30something, so that may not be proper use of the term.
ROuth isn't really too young - he LOOKS too young by Doctor_Sin	Jun 27th, 2006 11:39:54 PM
It's that weird processed look his skin has, as though computers worked overtime to 'airbrush' his skin. I always liked the look of this film, but the posters looked so fake and so did the first glimpse we had of Supes in action - he looks plastic. Like a Ken doll.
BTW, good review Mori by Rupee88	Jun 27th, 2006 11:50:40 PM
I like how you weren't scared to point out the many negatives in the script, but also gave props where deserved. I agree that Routh looks appropriate in the part and at least it's not Nick Cage or some other abberration. But I sense you are mourning the "movie that could have been". That will probably be my main thought tomorrow as well. But they got two hacks to write and they'll probably make a profit, so that's the bottom line in Hollywood.
moondoggy, I like the cut of your jib by Lando Griffin	Jun 28th, 2006 12:03:15 AM
too bad a lot of closed minded talkbackers have a no jib policy
I Don't Get This Promise Thing by aerostarmonk	Jun 28th, 2006 12:03:17 AM
I really don't get the whole thing about this movie not delivering what it promised. Nowhere have I read that the filmmakers intended this to be the best superhero movie of all time, or better than Batman Begins or Spider-Man 2 or take your pick. The only thing this movie had ever promised was returning Supes to the big screen and it does exactly that. Whether it does a good job or not I will not know until tomorrow when I can finally get up to Natick to see it in IMAX 3D. So it didn't live up to your high expectations, it delivered it's promise. It's a test, really, albeit the most expensive test ever, but still a test. A test to see if the general public is still interested enough in keeping Superman as a franchise. So let's hope this succeeds and changes are made where needed, because I defintely don't want to wait another 20 years for a Superman movie.
i just saw it! by yeah i'm a jerk!	Jun 28th, 2006 12:14:39 AM
it was amazing. the kid needs a stylist though. what was he? kamandi or something? but seriously, this movie is to superman, what greystoke was to tarzan. brandon routh is not a bumbling clark so much as an awkward clark striving to fit in. i thought this movie was fantastic.
Everyone, just... by jedimast3r	Jun 28th, 2006 12:24:03 AM
Shut the fuck up. I've read and drawn and have been in love with Superman my whole life. It was the first superhero I drew at age 2.5. My father has the pic in a frame on his desk. I was sad when he died and the Reign of the Supermen infuriated me. I hate Smallville, I liked Lois and Clark, I adore the Donner movie and the '96 genius WB cartoon. I'm in love with the way Superman is written in today's DC lore. I am, by all points, a purist; I dont like my cannon fucked with. But when I saw this film, something made me let go of all that I read - every single talkback from you clowns and your AICN too-jaded-from-the-life-of reviewing-and-spoiling reviewers dissipated from my mind - and I drank this film in because I love Superman. Do I hate him having a child on film? Deep down yes. Did I love the kid? Yes. Did I love Richard? Yes. The writing in this is pretty damn good, as is the direction - it somehow takes your reservations and makes you deal with them while loving this movie. All I was afraid of was lost when 1) I saw Superman flying in ways I'd never dreamed seeing him fly; 2) Saw the characters interact in ways I'd always wanted them to do. Yeah the plot is sort of unorthodox and Donner's vision is in there - but it's good. It's so so so good, and a movie like this hasn't been made in so long - one where you connect so well with the lead character. Frodo was an underwritten joke, and Anakin....well I'm not going there. But I cried like a baby during the visit to Jason at the end, because THAT IS SUPERMAN. That is what Superman would say, and would do were he a father. SINGER NAILED SUPERMAN. And like Harry said, that is all you need, because this one really really worked for me. The players did fantastic, and everything I ever said negatively I am retracting, because this movie is why movies are worth seeing. THANK YOU BRYAN SINGER. To all you people who want-this and hate-that-they-did-that like Moriarty - GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Don't you realize by now you aren't going to get it with Hollywood? To get a movie like Superman Returns is a blessing, and you need to watch it for what it is, not what your sanctimonious need-to-be-heard too cool for school opinion shapes it to be.
Awesome awesome awesome by George Newman	Jun 28th, 2006 12:24:16 AM
with the exception of the extended, extremely anti-climatic 15-minute hospital sequence, the movie was fantastic. Routh was great. Clark was not super nerdy. Bosworth was good and gorgeous. Some of those early pics that were coming out made her look very plain, with awful frizzy hair, but I really liked her in this.
I love your reviews, Mori! by WannaBePoser	Jun 28th, 2006 12:25:47 AM
You know movies.
I loved every second of Superman Returns by Atomica	Jun 28th, 2006 12:32:22 AM
My god this movie was simply chill-inducing and wonderful.
jedimast3r by JoeyRusso1290	Jun 28th, 2006 12:32:47 AM
Ouch..... that was some nasty stuff. Anyway, didn't completely agree with Mori on Superman Returns. Check out my review at this address. It will probably make jedimast3r happy at least. http://www.movietack.net/id860 .html
JoeyRusso by jedimast3r	Jun 28th, 2006 12:38:44 AM
I'm sorry if that was unpleasant, I really am. I tried for it not to be, but SR is a really good movie. It has heart, so much heart. Instead of being thankful for this, I honestly think the reviewers here are a little sad, and at the least pitiful. They can't even watch and appreciate a superhero movie anymore, painting themselves into corners with their own opinions. Not even good superhero movies, like this one, are safe from the crass opinions of the AICN staff, who are most obviously so concerned with projecting their own directorial and creative desires on the projects they view. I feel bad for you guys. SR rocks.
Superman and Kent's absence by lavaboat	Jun 28th, 2006 12:41:13 AM
Moriarty, you have to remember that Clark Kent is instantly forgettable to everyone in his personal orbit. You see, while our guy Supes is larger than life Kent over here is actually kinda smaller than life, a sort of formless blur of humanity. The void left behind by Superman's absence is SO immense that it renders Kent's corresponding void microscopic, invisible even. Penway
Thank GOD kal penn did Not open his mouth by George Newman	Jun 28th, 2006 12:43:01 AM
I was really expecting another Lenny a la "Quest for Peace". Spacey was good, nothing stunning, but he was menacing in the end, when he actually had the upper hand. eh, and Kitty was a device. SSSSPOILERRRRRR I'm kind of glad I accidently read a quiet rumor that the child was superman's bastard son. I didn't believe the rumor, but it was at the back of my mind for the entire film. After Clark and jason's first meeting I was having thoughts of Superboy and the franchise possibly going downhill with the introduction of a Super Duo in the sequels... shudder
Does anyone think Lois did ass to mouth in Supes 2? by Doc_Strange	Jun 28th, 2006 12:44:16 AM
That would have been awesome.
Just saw SR; very good movie. by Orbots Commander	Jun 28th, 2006 12:48:54 AM
Although not great, it's a solid and entertaining fantasy-adventure movie. Even though I thought Spacey was great fun as Luthor, I'll have to echo the opinion that his villainous threat made zero sense. It was completely nonsensical. Superman vs. a Kryptonian continent? That struck me as a bit silly. One iconic scene that sticks out is Superman lifting the half boat and rescuing Lois and family from a watery grave. Singer sure knows how to twist the screws of suspense. Also, Moriarty is right; James Marsden makes a big impression in this movie. Routh as Superman and Clark is highly impressive. I'm now wondering wether it's a result of his acting talent or of Singer's direction. I'd be interested to see the guy in other parts. Yes, Bosworth's Lois Lane is the film's main weak link. Even the kid works, to an extent; he's there more to make the thematic point of the movie at the end. (Anybody notice that the kid's wearing Aquaman pajamas at the end?!) All in all, good show Mr. Singer and Company.
hey mor. nobody connects the absence because by rubensreviews	Jun 28th, 2006 12:51:58 AM
ITS A FUCKEN COMIC BOOK MOVIE!!! ok I will try to answer for real .The whole point nobody notices is because clark kent is a nobody. Only Jimmy really thinks of him. When superman asked who's clark kent, lois responded, "some guy I work with". Nobody cares about boring clark kent, there. that's your answer. that is why this is the greatest super hero movie of all time. It showed how campy superman was, at the same time, showed us how kick ass he is.
One more point. by Orbots Commander	Jun 28th, 2006 12:54:38 AM
For those who noticed, some of the images are heavily laden with Christian symbolism: some of the prostrate arms-out poses, the whole ghostly father sending his only son to Earth thing and the 'death and resurrection' sequence in the hospital including the shot of an empty, white sheet strewn hospital bed.
Just saw it...it was great by Banshee7	Jun 28th, 2006 12:55:48 AM
A great sequel to the MOVIES. If you didn't like the original films then you probably won't like this one either. Bring on the sequel.
Mori, nice review and the Donner tribute got old fast by LilOgre	Jun 28th, 2006 12:57:35 AM
This film for me was interesting but was also very problematic. It had some great moments and some awful ones. The problem is that the awful ones all were the beats typically associated with a superhero action film. And after loving the idea of Singer paying homage to Donner with this "Superman III v 2.0," I have to say it got old QUICK. It was a good to fair film but not the AWESOME film that it could have been. Better luck next time - and please no Lex Luthor (at least not the way he was imagined for this film).
Left Me Wanting More by SuperArtGuy	Jun 28th, 2006 12:57:40 AM
Just got back from seeing the Sman return and I've gotta say this is a beautiful movie. It did however leave me wanting more. I feel like I had already seen a lot of the movie before in Superman The Movie. We get it Lex likes real estate though why he would want a island of crystal is beyond me. Another gripe might be the red of Superman's costume. At times the red was okay and at other times it wasn't red at all but some dull blood color (Yuck). I have to admit Brandon was a great Superman/Clark Kent I think I might even have liked him better than Christopher (RIP) at times. His Superman was more human and his Clark wasn't a complete goof. In the theater I saw it in there were a lot of comic book people and most liked it but like me they feel like they were watching a semi-remake of the first film. Another thing that kind of bugged me was when Lois realized the her son was also Superman's there just seemed a lack of surprise in her demeanor. Shouldn't she have been kind of floored that she didn't remember having made a baby with The Man Of Steel? Anyway this was a very touching film and I'll watch it several more times, buy the DVD & HD DVD, watch it on HBO etc.
Hmmm by Mr Bonefish	Jun 28th, 2006 01:08:18 AM
Everyone seems to love this film. I thought it was one of the most boring things I have ever seen. It was a chick flick...soap opera...take your pick. Very interesting.
My eyes are bleeding. by Dashl	Jun 28th, 2006 01:10:07 AM
Wow, that really sucked. Just got out of the 10pm showing here, and I think I need to watch Superman 4 and Batman & Robin to get that out of my mind. The first half I liked, I loved the music and the plane rescue, and I think Routh's Superman is damn good. I hate that fucking kid, that stupid little kid. He sucks, and the 12 year old girl they hired to play Lois sucks much ass. Now I love Superman, and have pretty much everything Superman on DVD (Batman is cooler though) and this movie just did not work for me. Too many crazy questions left with no answers, heck, even the guy with Martha Kent in the trailer, asking if Clark just flew in, wasn't in the movie. Oh, and Kumar did have one line he said "I know". I know I was with the early nerd/geek crowd, and I wasn't the only one pissed off. No one cheered or clapped at all (and they did like crazy at X3, go figure), and everyone was outside the theater just bitching about the kid. Man, I hope Pirates is good.
I'm starting to think Singer is a hack by Horace Cox	Jun 28th, 2006 01:13:35 AM
Just got back from SR and found it completely underwhelming. There are a few great moments but they are few and far between. The film is WAY too long and suffers from a bad script and some lackluster directing. I felt the movie lacked a sense of grandeur and wonder. The big climax of the movie (the formation of New Krypton) seems like it takes forever to play out with very little actually going on. In fact, pretty much everything that was set up throughout the film just fell flat with the exception of Supes' actual return saving the NASA plane. Aside from that scene, almost every other major plot point had no payoff in my opinion and I blame that squarely on Singer and his writers. I'll give them credit for coming up with new ideas, but it's fairly obvious they had no idea where to take them and it shows. And the changes they made to the characters and the liberties they took with creating new canon seemed unnecessary. If you are going to make changes to iconic material such as Superman, you'd better be sure the changes are for the better. In this case I felt they were without merit or motivation (other than serving a silly plot). I thought the cast was fine, they just aren't given a whole hell of a lot to do. I could take or leave Bosworth as Lois. I thought Spacey was a good choice for Lex when I heard him announced way back when, but I found him tedious and boring on screen. I agree with Moriarty that they need to get over the idea of having LL be the baddie in every film. The saving grace of this film for me was Brandon Routh. I thought he made an excellent Superman and I would love to see what he could do with a better story in the hands of more capable director. In my opinion Singer is in the same league as Ron Howard - he is a safe choice for the studios but very pedestian when it comes to telling a compelling story. For someone who revered the Donner version he seemed to miss the boat entirely in my opinion. Donner's Metropolis was a vibrant and living city. Metropolis in SR has to be the most quiet and unexciting major city in the world. Did anyone else pick up on this? I'd be interested to hear from Moriarty or anyone else if they noticed the utter lack of background noise in places that should have had some hustle and bustle like the Daily Planet or on the streets of Metropolis. Anyway, depsite the many flaws and the lackluster execution overall, it was good to see Supes back on the big screen again. I just hope the next installment is worthy of Superman. Just my two cents... I hope others find it more satisfying than I did.
Superman Returns IMAX 3D by tacoshack27	Jun 28th, 2006 01:19:53 AM
Got back earlier tonight from seening a 10PM screening in the IMAX where I live. I thought the 3D sequences seemed distracting to watch,especially the shuttle scene. There was so much going on that the 3D made it hard to focus on anything.
NERDS: STOP WHINING by digital8	Jun 28th, 2006 01:27:27 AM
you idiots scrutinzed the tone of Spacey's voice in the trailers when he said "bring it on"...the movie was excellent, and if you dont think so then you probably arrived at the theater too late and got a crappy seat and was pissed the whole movie and decided to take out your nerd rage on these here forums
Superman Drinks Budweiser!! by dancinggopher01	Jun 28th, 2006 01:27:54 AM
Ok I give this movie 8/10. It had its really great moments...and then it had its really blah moments. Plus, Lois says Superman weights 125 pounds.... Surprised no one caught that. An my theatre clapped at the end. But we all cheered for Spidey 3. Also, Kate Bosworth has nice feet. I hope my review helped.
Lot's of justified positive reviews... by VenomFangX	Jun 28th, 2006 01:29:33 AM
Superman Returns. Go see it, it's the most human movie ever made, despite having an alien in it.
sprite ad before, then the sprite radio in the movie by digital8	Jun 28th, 2006 01:30:42 AM
Anyone have a Sublymonal Advertising Sprite ad before the movie and then in the movie, the radio at the Kent Farm was a "Sprite" radio...
digital8 by dancinggopher01	Jun 28th, 2006 01:32:54 AM
Yeah seriously that fucking ad messed my tiny brain up. I wanted a god damned Sprite the whole movie. PS Cyclops was also good in this movie.
Just returned from Superman Returns... by Darth Mulder	Jun 28th, 2006 01:34:57 AM
In a word..."Fantastic"!It was everything I had hoped it would be.How do I know that?Simple,because I had a great time.I could be nitpicky like Moriarty,but what purpose would it serve?From the opening title sequence which evoked memories of the original to the very end I was hooked.Why can't some people on this site just enjoy a movie instead of whining and crying like a bunch of babies about movies most of them haven't even seen yet.Also,as for this never ending love fest for POTC 2,just what makes you think it will be so great?I predict that when it is released next week most geeks on this site will be posting about what a piece of crap it was.They will do this because they think to hate a film is the only way to be cool on Aint It Cool.
An older bear's perspective... by obi-bear	Jun 28th, 2006 01:50:04 AM
...Mori spins a good review. Just got back myself from seeing it and...I enjoyed it very much. Unfortunately for WB I don't think this is going to do well. Why? Because the usual summer-movie demo is left out in the cold. No quick cuts, endless mindless hard-to-follow action. Scenes are actually given room to breathe and characters were given enough to go on to make a good impression on the proceedings. It's long and full of emotion...two qualities that are DEATH in the multiplex... I loved the approach Singer took here...a serious approach to the whole idea. Folks(including some well-respected critics) are mincing over details like Luthor's real-estate plot. It made perfect sense to me...that's the thing about obsessive people...no matter how many times they are knocked down, they'll keep nawing at the same bone til they "get it right". Plus, this new "continant" had the added bonus of being a safe refuge from Superman for Luthor and he thought it would kill Superman just to be there (it nearly did). I dunno...sounds like a decent plot thread for the character to me.... The kid didn't bother me as much as kids in movies usually do. Singer & co have painted themselves into a corner with him though...what's next? Superkid? Hope not...I'd rather see Richard Pryor rise from the dead and put us though another incomprehensable wince-inducing redo of SupesIII first.... I liked Routh...yeah, he had some Reeve-channeling moments there but for the most part, he made the character his. I really liked how he wasn't afraid to act out the emotional conflicts of what Superman was going through...he turned in a good performance in my view. The one casting mis-step for me was (sorry girl) Bosworth. Like so many others have commented...too young, too brittle. Just not convincing as a young mother (no chemistry with the kid)or an ace reporter (I had the same problem with tom's kitten playing a DA in last year's Batman Begins). Boswirth took a long time to find her game in this movie...she managed to pull it together for a couple of key scenes in the middle there (the rooftop one was good) but she really lacks the gravity to pull off a role like this. The character of Lois Lane always seemed like your sister's attractive and stable best friend, not a vacant pin-up girl that seems brittle and crass...and sorry, but that's what Bosworth delivers here. One pleasant suprise is how well Mardsen fairs as the long-suffering boyfriend/surrogate father. He manages to turn in a nice layered performance with what he gets that makes him likable and sympathetic. After watching him, it made Bosworth even more bewildering... I hope this movie does okay...I think that the younger viewers may take a pass, but I'm hoping that older audiences who enjoyed the Donner/Reeves take on the Superman mythos would find alot to appreciate here...I know I did. thanks Bryan SInger & co....well done.
I am very pleased by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 01:53:24 AM
I really enjoyed this film. As opposed to gushing over it or sticking my thumb up my ass and crying why it sucked, I'll simply tell you why I enjoyed it. I enjoyed this film because the opening credits weren't your typical Hollywood fare, you can tell that care was shown even to the credits of the film, despite them being updated versions of the original films opening credits. I liked Brandon Routh. He immediately became Superman for me, and posessed a quiet grace and dignity that was perfect for the role of Superman. His Clark Kent was a perfect disguise. Not over the top left field the opposite extreme from Superman in terms of behavior, but simply a nice balance between humility and awkwardness, yet still being human and not a bumbling dolt. Brandon Routh really delivered the goods and exceeded my expectations, especially since every prick with access to a keyboard has been bitching about him for months. Fine job Brandon, thank you. I liked the fact this film was set in the same universe as the Donner films. I think that was a wise decision as to not alienate every fan raised on the Donner films of my age group, yet Singer still inserted a new spin. I liked the way the film was essentially a character study with merely several action set peices. I got enough of that shit with the Matrix. If I wanted to see 2 hours of Superman flying around, I would have just popped that in. It made Supermans appearances more unique and awes-inspiring. I liked the way the CGI blended in and wasnt as jolting as say a Titanic, or Spiderman, or King Kong. You can see every dollar spent on this film on the screen, it was majestic. Ok bastards, I'm a grown man, I'll admit it. When the three thugs were kicking the shit out of Superman, I got teary eyed. And if you didn't, you are a God damn heathen liar. The movie was suprisingly emotional. For a contemporay 21st century film that is. There was more heart and emotion in the talk Superman had with his son than THREE Matrix films put together as far as I'm concerned. Let me re-emphasize, if you didn't choke up when Superman was down and getting the shit kicked out of him, you are a heartless bastard. Overall, I think time is going to be very good to this film. I think Singer re-introduced Superman in a surprisingly good way to a new generation, with enough nods to older fans to make them comfortable. Lois Lane. I can see why Singer cast her. he said himself you have to suspend disbelief and allow the actors the oppurtunity to grow and mature into these roles over the course of say 3 maybe 4 films. I think Bosworth played Lois Lane to the best of her ability and experience. As far as Lex Luthor, plot holes, erros in logic, the kid, this that and the other, the ONLY true wtf moment I had in the film, was the end when Luthor and Kitty were on the tropical island. Luthor's scheme involved creating the continent right off the Eastern coast of The U.S. There are no tropical islands off the coast of the Eastern continental United States. I can forgive that little glaring oversight. I was entertained so, that's all that matters to me. Welcome back Superman, you have been missed.
Kid backlash by Kenny8	Jun 28th, 2006 02:02:06 AM
I reckon give it 12 months and not only will there be a backlash about Spacey's Luthor, but you'd be lucky to notice over the backlash about the "wisdom" of wedging the son into the mix. On the recent A&E doco someone from the Supes comics stated that there were many at DC who wish that Supes & Lois never got married. That's nothing compared to the bastard son of Superman
Kid backlash by Kenny8	Jun 28th, 2006 02:04:17 AM
I reckon give it 12 months and not only will there be a backlash about Spacey's Luthor, but you'd be lucky to notice over the backlash about the "wisdom" of wedging the son into the mix. On the recent A&E doco someone from the Supes comics stated that there were many at DC who wish that Supes & Lois never got married. That's nothing compared to the bastard son of Superman
The Second S. by Crash Crator	Jun 28th, 2006 02:08:13 AM
*****Did they explain why Superman has an additional monogram "s" on his belt? And where are Superman's muscles?
Pretty meh by Bob of the Shire	Jun 28th, 2006 02:11:31 AM
I agree with Ol' Morty, even though his nitpicks were a bit unwarranted.
by RangerLee	Jun 28th, 2006 02:17:52 AM
Now this is a good and balanced review that i think i can trust not the gushing love fests that have been going on throughout the internet. all the points raised, especially the kid, are things i've worried about from the start and its good to hear that it did bother at least one reviewer cause the rest seem to like the idea. i also think this is not a negative review and i agree with the backlash coming on the horizon. this should have been so much better.
Mori should see it again, and actually pay attention by JackSlaterV	Jun 28th, 2006 02:23:50 AM
The "uninhabitable" land mass Luthor created looked the way it did because it was combined with kryptonite and its purpose was to kill Superman, it was not an example of the beachfront property Lex had mentioned earlier. As far as Superman not sharing his technology the movie shows what happens if it were to fall into the wrong hands and mankind is just not ready for it, you don't give monkeys machine guns, you start them out with bones.
The sequel only goes like that... by kintar0	Jun 28th, 2006 02:32:49 AM
in your pathetic, closet-case, impotent, roid- scrambled imagination, Pantera kid.
Harry and Herc are MAJOR assholes... by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Jun 28th, 2006 02:34:02 AM
for that animation that they're using of Superman in the wheelchair. Yeah, I can hear your responses already: "Oh, but that's Herc's little avatar! We mean no disrespect!" Yeah, right... and I'm sure that as you were creating the animation and posting it on the site nobody made the connection that Christopher Reeve was confined to a wheelchair for the last few years of his life. You're gonna have to delete this post, because I'm totally calling you assholes out bigtime. There's no excuse for this type of shit.
Yeah they didn't connect the absence... by Harysuxafat1	Jun 28th, 2006 02:41:45 AM
because the fucking writers are too damn lazy to work at making a script that works worth a shit. It's got nuthin to do with the comics its just ignorant fucking apologists and grade school writing. They'd rather stick some idiotic fucktard kid in the movie and have everything off screen than actually have to write a difficult scene. Yeah fuck Singer and the writers of this rancid abortion. I'd also like to know if Supes fucked Lois when he wasn't Supes anymore why does the fuckin kid have his powers? I mean give me a fuckin break with this idiotic overhyped shitball movie. This shitbucket is trying to make a lazy ass living off a 30 year old movie.
Grinchiest Grinch by grinchiestg	Jun 28th, 2006 02:45:01 AM
Fuck Chris Reeve: http://www.thebestpageintheuni verse.net/c.cgi?u=creeve Feel sorry for a selfish guy who had life handed to him, then acted even more selfishly after he was injured while abusing an animal? Where was his charity before people might have stopped telling him how great he is?
Panterarocks... by Harysuxafat1	Jun 28th, 2006 02:48:17 AM
You've gotta be kidding me with this bullshit? Those intelligent suits you talk about fuck up every goddamn thing they get their hands on. They don't write to the masses they write so the fuckin whore under the desk will give them a thumbs up so they can sit and spin and feel good because they left their shit stains on a story that they couldn't have possibly come up with on their own if their lives depended on it. They have to fumble around and fuck it up so people like you can come on here and talk about how fucking intelligent they are while a movie that just wasted 200 million fucking dollars bombs at the BO.
The kid by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 02:51:49 AM
I didn't have a problem with Superman's lovechild. The kid had maybe 10 minutes of screen time and said even less. Additionally, the presence of the child validated the ENTIRE fucking thematic narrative established in Supes :the movie, about father's and sons, sons and fathers. Superman is a super-hero, not a fucking monk. If Darth Vader can have a kid, Superman can have a kid. I just hope the child ends up becoming a Super-villian that Supes has to stomp down, that would be awesome and definately some Star Warsesque' material.
The kid by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 02:52:55 AM
I didn't have a problem with Superman's lovechild. The kid had maybe 10 minutes of screen time and said even less. Additionally, the presence of the child validated the ENTIRE fucking thematic narrative established in Supes :the movie, about father's and sons, sons and fathers. Superman is a super-hero, not a fucking monk. If Darth Vader can have a kid, Superman can have a kid. I just hope the child ends up becoming a Super-villian that Supes has to stomp down, that would be awesome and definately some Star Warsesque' material.
Did someone just compare... by Harysuxafat1	Jun 28th, 2006 03:00:51 AM
SR to Greystoke? HAHAHAHAAHA, yeah I'm plopping down some money based on that comparison.
Superman and by Darth Mulder	Jun 28th, 2006 03:01:01 AM

my expectations are appropriately lowered: by newc0253	Jun 28th, 2006 03:02:03 AM
thanks Mori. seriously, i mean it.
Superman and Lois by Darth Mulder	Jun 28th, 2006 03:07:55 AM
Who says Lois had to have gotten pregnant when she and Clark had sex at the Fortress of Solitude after he gave up his powers?In my mind they still had a relationship after the events of Superman 2.All that kiss he gave her at the end of the film did was make her forget that Clark was Superman.It did not erase her feelings of love for Superman or his love for her.We also don't know how long after the events in Superman 2 it was before he left.For all we know they were together many times after that.
Darth Mulder by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 03:30:48 AM
If you're going to follow that ridiculous line of reasoning then please explain to me why there are no references to General Zod in this movie? IF this Superman REturns IS a sequel to Donner's Superman II then how in the world can they completely sidestep and completely forget the havoc that Zod wrought in that movie. The real-world equivalent would be someone leaving our world shortly after Sept. 11 2001, and returning sometime later this summer and having absolutely no refrences whatsoever from anyone to the WTC attacks. Does that make sense to you? You can't have it both ways, either this is a sequel or it is a reboot. Singer tried to go both ways ( surprise surprise), and utlimately effed up the franchise. And that's a fact!!! Stop trying to make excuses for the ridiculous plotholes.
Oh wait, I forgot...... by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 03:38:10 AM
......he probably used his mighty forgeto-kiss on the whole world to make them forget that there were other Kryptonians who came to Earth. Yeah, Right. The same Forgeto-Kiss that he used on Lois to make her forget that she got knocked up by CLARK after he gave up his powers as Superman i front of her. If I remember correctly they didn't do the nasty when he was in his Costume as Superman, but rather after he was revealed as Clark. So if he gave her a kiss to forget that Clark was Superman as you claim, then by default she forgot who knocked her up, right?She can't still have love for Superman and know the kid is his if she's forgotten who he was when he was knocking her up. Thisis what happens when one tries to make up excuses for the inexcusable and inexplicable as a result of lazy sloppy writing.
the 3-D by Vern	Jun 28th, 2006 03:56:53 AM
I don't know much about Superman (he has a cape I believe) but I am an afficianado of 3-D. And I gotta say that, at least with the goggles I got and the place I was sitting, the 3-D wasn't all that hot on this one. Not Freddyvision bad, but it does look like the old style of 3-D more than the new improved style. There was a lot of ghosting, I could never see Superman's face clearly and found myself wishing the big action scenes were not in 3-D. Also, this whole switching back and forth nonsense is a big distraction, you should be excited for the big action scene but instead you have to get used to how the screen all the sudden looks smaller and everything looks faded and blurry. They're gonna have to work on converting live action stuff. POLAR EXPRESS looked way better, I guess because it was all in a computer. As for the movie, I agree with Moriarty on pretty much everything. The guy playing Superman was perfect and there was awe inspiring stuff with him saving planes and what not. I enjoyed it overall. But at the end I really felt like not a whole hell of alot happened for how long the movie is, either in the fight against Lex Luthor or the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane. Lex Luthor's plan is pretty fuckin stupid, not just the continent thing but the fact that his entire defense is having one piece of Kryptonite. If they really had 19 years to make this movie like Moriarty says maybe they should've come up with some clever ideas for the villain. Nerds are gonna skin me alive and make beef jerky out of me for saying this, but I gotta be honest. This is a better piece of filmmaking than X-Men Part 3, but I had way more fun watching the X-Men movie. It doesn't look as good, the action and effects aren't as ambitious, etc. But the plot and the characters both have a whole hell of alot more depth. Magneto trying to stop the humans from mechanizing the mutant cure is so much more interesting to me than a one dimensional evil guy trying to grow magic crystals. So Moriarty is right, get a real villain for part 2. I don't know who but I'm sure some nerd will come up with one.
Oh I don't know Kai by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 04:30:23 AM
As someone who lives here in reality, to be perfectly honest the whole 9/11 thing is kinda old you know? It sure as hell didn't define my life and leave me babbling and sucking my thumb in a corner. The entire event has been politicized, discussed, expounded upon, glamourized, manipulated, and done to fucking death. Time to move on I dare say. Superman Returns also didn't reference the Bubonic plague, two world wars, the challenger and columbia disasters, Roswell, or Waco. Where in the story would a vague reference to General fucking Zod have been relevant and appropriate exactly? "Whew! Are you people ok? I was worried, that plane was really coming down fast, I had to fly a bit faster to catch up, it reminds me of the time I saved Air Force 1 and the time Ursa and Non threw that busload of people at me! That shit was intense." I prefer to leave screen-writing to screen-writers thankfully.
I'm glad 9/11 didn't define your life by VanLingoMungo	Jun 28th, 2006 04:37:45 AM
Fortunately or unfortunately, it has defined American foreign policy, domestic policy, and just about everything else for the past five years. So, whether you're too oblivious to know it or not, 9/11 has defined your life. Feel free to join reality.
good review by elleesttrois	Jun 28th, 2006 04:43:16 AM
nicely done. I agree w/ the review. As an adoptee and a bit of an outsider, I feel that thread was thin and think that could have been better explored. I also agree about the dangly bits, Lex Luthor (supposedly brilliant guy - should have spent 5 years thinking through that plan). I thought Bosworth's acting was as thin as she is. I want Lois w/ a little more gravitas. I wanted more Superhero and less...you know. I did like Marsden's gent--a real trooper. I liked that Singer touched on Clark's wonder of his own power; Christ-like comparisons for those who care to delve. It certainly was beautifully shot.
This doesnt seem to by RangerLee	Jun 28th, 2006 04:47:14 AM
have blown people away like it should have..most of the reviews seem to be ok so far but just to many holes for people to really enjoy it. as for the 911 thing i'm completly against any film exploiting this tragedy but can you imagine just a small scene of clark watching it on tv. that could have pact quite an emotional punch but sounds like they were playing way to safe with everything.
Kai Mah'gra by Darth Mulder	Jun 28th, 2006 04:52:39 AM
Hey,why are you so angry this morning?Who pissed in your corn flakes?There was a reference to Superman 2 in this film.Remember when Lex and his cronies were in the Fortress of Solitude and Kitty said that Lex was acting as if he had been there before?If I remember correctly he was there in Superman 2.What I'm saying is that she probably got pregnant sometime after the events of Superman 2 and that is why the kid has the abilities that he has.As I said before,we don't know how much time elapsed between the second film and when he left Earth.I don't think that kiss he gave her at the end of S2 made her forget everything she had ever known,just what he wanted her to forget.BTW-I have never liked that particular ability.In my opinion that was as great an example of lazy screenwriting as I have ever seen.
My God.... by Sicuv Uyall	Jun 28th, 2006 04:53:52 AM
Can't believe I the comments i've been reading... which reminds of the saying that if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters. You all are idiots... projecting boxoffice take for the weekend. Who gives a fuck??? And if the movie is basically a chick flick, that'll suck because most of you won't have a chick to take, unless it's your mom.
No Vanlungo mungo bungo whatever by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 04:59:11 AM
I define my own reality and if you elect to use the events of 9/11 as a crutch to perpetually anchor every aspect of your existence knock yourself out but I go to the movies for entertainment not to be God damn reminded of what's going on in the REAL world, otherwise I'd stay home and watch the fucking news. I don't need to see Superman read about,see, hear about, or fly over fucking ground zero just to REMIND us 9/11 happened. I dont think 9/11 should be commercialized and mcdonaldized into a vehicle for exploitation. A fucking 5 year old kid doesnt want to see that shit anyway in a movie, they wouldnt understand it and it would be frivolous. All a 5 year old kid wants to see is Superman FLYING and SAVING people. So please save your jingoistic, dimestore professings on what constitutes reality for your 5 minutes of fame in the future, I don't need 9/11 shoved down my fucking throat every 10 minutes, and neither do YOU.
Obiwan by Sicuv Uyall	Jun 28th, 2006 05:00:12 AM
Idiot. I guess your reality is the only that counts. Too bad nobody else lives in it. Get over it?? Where do you live... Afghanistan?? Or is your idea of reality looking up at 2 suns wishing you were up in the stars fighting the empire with you 2 robot friends in the Milennium Falcon. Deuchebag.
Obiwan by Sicuv Uyall	Jun 28th, 2006 05:00:17 AM
Idiot. I guess your reality is the only that counts. Too bad nobody else lives in it. Get over it?? Where do you live... Afghanistan?? Or is your idea of reality looking up at 2 suns wishing you were up in the stars fighting the empire with you 2 robot friends in the Milennium Falcon. Deuchebag.
Obiwan by Sicuv Uyall	Jun 28th, 2006 05:00:22 AM
Idiot. I guess your reality is the only that counts. Too bad nobody else lives in it. Get over it?? Where do you live... Afghanistan?? Or is your idea of reality looking up at 2 suns wishing you were up in the stars fighting the empire with you 2 robot friends in the Milennium Falcon. Deuchebag.
The sequel by Bobo_Vision	Jun 28th, 2006 05:03:32 AM
In the sequel, Lex will build a dome around the entire planet Earth and suck out all the oxygen, and start selling oxygen tanks to people for jacked up prices. The dome will be made out of kryptonite so that Superman can't break through it. Meanwhile, Superman has his own problems with Lois when she asks to have dinner with both him and Clark Kent at the same time (a la 'Three's Company'). So he keeps getting up to go to the bathroom to change costumes. All goes well until she tells him she wants to have a threesome. Luckily she's so hammered that she doesn't notice that her threesome is only a twosome. There will be a cameo from Cuba Gooding Jr. as Kent's buddy who tells him 'Never rob the pooty from a single mom', and there will be four, count em' four, villains because more villains means more box office gold.
The sequel 2 by RangerLee	Jun 28th, 2006 05:07:43 AM
Lex again (because singer loves him so) gets his claws into supes kid and turns him against superman and the end you have an emotional stand of which end in hugs and kisses all round
hey sicuv by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 05:09:59 AM
you can fuck yourself now. if I needed your opinion I would have given it to you. I bet you are the type that justifies us being in Iraq BECAUSE of 9/11 you brainwashed militant fuck. Scrape your support Bush bumper stickers off your car and invest in some education. Im here to discuss motion pictures not politics you prick.
Hey Obiwan... by Sicuv Uyall	Jun 28th, 2006 05:15:35 AM
Speaking of real world events being shoved down our throats... didn't you hate it when Chancellor Palpatine quotes Pres Bush.. or how Annakin does the same by saying "if you're not with me, you are my enemy?" I thought it sucked too... but then again i only like the original trilogy.
Hmmmmmm by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 05:21:58 AM
no now that you mention it, I kind of liked those references since they rightly demonstrated how transparent the Bush administration and Republicans are. So no, I can accept the 9/11 allegories in a Star Wars film since, well it was cool and sort of relevant in a twisted, perverted, space opera sort of way, but truly what would the relevance be to Superman visiting 9/11?? I mean really. At least in Star Wars you had an abuse of authority and power by a dictator, using current events for his own selfish means and gains hah hah. But see Bush..er, Palpatine, Bushitine is evil, Superman isn't evil so, the analogy wouldn't work.
It could have been much worse by ObiWan_yaknowme	Jun 28th, 2006 05:29:31 AM
The "evil-doers" could have attacked Superman with "nukular" weapons and prevented more "imports coming from other countries."
Why doesn't anyone realize Clark is Supes? by Razorback	Jun 28th, 2006 06:39:09 AM
Hmmm... maybe because he is not the only person in the city who has been away for a few years and comes back the same week Superman makes his return? ORRRR... maybe because it's a fuckin' movie about a fuckin' guy who fuckin' flies and is from a fuckin' alien planet, you fuckin' fuck! I mean, dear fuckin' lord.
Personally my idea by Ridge	Jun 28th, 2006 06:58:58 AM
For setting up a sequel is a simple but very very effective one. At the end of the movie, maybe post credits, we have a scene on a metropolis street, then the ground starts to shake, the camera travels down through the dirt, speeding up and ends up in a cavern miles under the earth where a giant metal door is in front of us, suddenly, the metal door starts buckling as dents appear in it, eventually a hand wrapped in green cloth with bone protruding out cuts through the metal. Cut to black. Personally I think that would be simple, effective and set up a majorly KICKASS Superman vs Doomsday movie. I mean fer chrissake, keep brainiac for movie 3 or at least the end of 2, have him tied into Doomsday somehow or something. I just want a SUPERVILLAIN for Supes to fight and not Zod again...
Yeh right... by Ridge	Jun 28th, 2006 07:10:03 AM
"Superman Returns: $250 million // POTC: $400 million" Now, based on the fact that Supermans probably the second most recognisable image in the world just behind Mickey Mouse, and you KNOW every second persons gonna see this sucker once or twice, add those numbers together and you'll get probably what it's bound to make wether it be good or bad. And don't bother trying to quote Batman begins stats to me, that movie did exceedingly well, but had the odds stacked against it because of shithouse sequels years before that ruined the franchise, thus needing BB to happen. Superman Returns will go gangbusters and do megabucks, so will POTC2 most likely if everything is decent and right in the world. They both look superb and I just know I'll be seeing each of them many times...
One more thing... by Ridge	Jun 28th, 2006 07:15:54 AM
I hope its not exactly 5 years after superman 2... otherwise the rules of procreation must be different and the kid would be just a little over 4, given the idea of a 9 month pregnancy... unless that supersperms really THAT effective!!!
Azzarello's Luthor mini by DannyOcean01	Jun 28th, 2006 07:20:48 AM
The films sounds like it takes a little from Azzarello's recent mini that came from Luthor's POV and painted Superman as less than perfect. It was a nicely rounded potrayal and would have been a much better depiction than the more campy ones we've had on film. I had hoped Singer would pull some of that underlying Sozer from Spacey, rather than the camp many reviews have suggested.
Negative Review.....I wonder why??? by IrishJoe	Jun 28th, 2006 07:21:22 AM
Anyone been reading what nick has been writing over at Chud.com about how some internet outlets are being influenced into giving bad reviews to good movies by competing studios. Now I'm not saying that about this review (yes I am). I mean X3 was well reviewed on here and lambasted everywhere else while SR is being well received elsewhere yet Mori posts a lukewarm review. Good job man...very impartial
still the best reviewer on the site by John Dalmas	Jun 28th, 2006 07:47:41 AM
...and I can always forgive him the occassional X3 or 'Real Cancun' because Mori usually delivers the most sober and comprehensive takes on things. Since I first heard about the script, I've had the exact same problems with no one connecting Clark's disappearance to Superman's and with the 'super-baby' (So now all future Superman movies have to feature Jr. ?) I think... I think I might actually skip this.
also by John Dalmas	Jun 28th, 2006 07:49:21 AM
This movie isn't going to break 250 million. It's just not going to happen. Too many people don't give a shit about Superman, and it doesn't sound like this movie is going to make them start.
Azzarello's Lex (oh, and thanx Mori!) by Tookess	Jun 28th, 2006 08:14:12 AM
From what I've read, SR Luthor is really not all that different from Hackman's, whereas Azzarello's Lex is IMHO the best incarnation so far. Man of Steel Lex actually believes himself to be the hero of the story (as every self-respecting villain should), and concocts a pretty good plan to turn humanity against Superman... I really wanted to know how Supes got out of that one, it was pretty fucked up. And Lex was brutal, yet he still made you believe he had a heart. Anyway, in that book Supes was painted less than perfect, but not in a "Man, that angsty, conflicted superguy now has a kid he didn't know about!" kind of way; it was more like a "That freaking alien is BABYING mankind! Why can't people see he's a freaking MONSTER!" kinda thing. There's a difference IMO, but then, "Smallville" unintentionally (?) painted Clark in a very bad light for a couple seasons there, so making Clark/Supes look like an ass is nothing new as far as I know. I'll go see SR next Wed., when it's cheaper. When it comes to Superman, Lex is my favorite character (yes, I'm bitter and disillusioned. And I second what a previous poster said, his genius is second only to Bruce's), and from what I read Singer took a step backwards there, so why bother today? And that whole "Supes has a kid" thing? I think I can contain my excitement for another week, thanks. Found in TB: "SINGER NAILED SUPERMAN". I wonder, was it difficult to get him out of those red panties? Nightmares tonight.
I applaud your honesty... by Childe Roland	Jun 28th, 2006 08:22:40 AM
...Mori. Can't be easy to call something for what it is when everyone around you is drinking the Kool Aid. It sounds like all of my apprehensions about htis were dead on and there really is absolutely no reason for me to check it out in the theater unless someone hands me free Imax passes so I can see the effects up on a huge screen. It's a remake of 1 with the baggage of 2. Who wanted that? What a waste.
So Moriarty didn't like SR by BilboRing	Jun 28th, 2006 08:29:00 AM
The entire review here is him trying to convince himself that he liked the movie. I did that after watching Episode I. But I have heard too many good reviews for SR not to be stoked to see it. Hey, not everyone can like the same thing. It's okay.
Quick Question for Superman experts... by Ray Garraty #47	Jun 28th, 2006 08:46:21 AM
I just thought of this - haven't seen the movie yet, though. If Superman gets his power from our sun, then when he flies to where Krypton used to be then wouldn't he be out of range of his power source? He'd lose his powers, float off into space and suffocate/freeze/etc. wouldn't he? He'd become "normal" like all of the dead Kryptonians. Or is it a thing where he got his powers and they are permanent? Thanks in advance.
Errr... by Tookess	Jun 28th, 2006 08:52:15 AM
I didn't mean to say that JL Lex is not awesome as well. And Rosenbaum's Lex is decent too, though it would be better if he had some balls. Perhaps Shermdawg could convince his squirrel bride to give them back?
ray garraty by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 08:56:23 AM
well, the krypton scene was strategically cut to have more venue times and sell more dvds, but superman never went to krypton in nothing but his PJs--he used a kryptonian ship (which looked like the one he flew to earth in) to check out the planet. My problem, again, is that according to the 1st movie's logic, the journey to or from krypton takes a few thousand years (earth time)--and thats just a single trip. But of course, Singer didnt follow internal logic and just shot the damn thing based on a spitball scrypt he and a buddy created on a single Fourth of July weekend, WITHOUT any rewrites.
man, my spelling has been off lately! Script!! by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 08:57:33 AM

moondoggy2u : RE: Krypton flight by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 09:13:39 AM
.....at least someone else noticed that as well ( that a journey to Krypton based on the first movie's logic - which was actually sound- would have taken at least a few thousand years earth-time even though it took roughly 5-6 years travel time for him: all sound logic based on Relativistic physics). Having said that, if we're to buy Singer's logic and the fact that Superman took a journey to Krypton that took 5 years Earth-time, his actual trip time would have been a couple of seconds at most ( a journey of millions of light-years mind you: considering the 28 known glaaxies that Kal-el passes and which Jor-el talks of in Superman 1), round-trip, if not fractions of a second (yeah, lazy, lazy script-writing at its best), and for him virtually nothing should have changed whereas here he's supposed to have had a kid an everything. And he (Bryan Singer) claims to be a Superman fan. It truly boggles the mind.
kai by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 09:19:25 AM
Well, again, this all brings me back to the feeling that this movie is just a remake/rehash thats not actually trying to follow the original movies, only remake them while having nostolgiac throwbacks inserted every few minutes. Someone, I'm not sure who, said that Singer was just trying to have it both ways and I'm inclined to agree. Hell, Singer even wants to bring back Zod--further proof that this guy is no better/different than any other modern hack director--unoriginal and uninspiring.
Oh, and just so everyone knows im not being harsh by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 09:22:15 AM
I have a ticket to see this thing tonight at the imax here in buffalo. Im fully prepared to watch this show with an open mind and eat my words--i promise.
No, his powers ain't permanent by Tookess	Jun 28th, 2006 09:34:49 AM
Maybe he's finally discovered the wonders of Infinite Improbability Drive? That would explain the kid and Lois being a teenager, sorta.
the 'greatest criminal mind' weds a dying geezer for $$ by zfisk	Jun 28th, 2006 09:45:26 AM
anna nicole smith and other countless idiots have done this, so singer's Luthor apparently isnt in a class by himself brain-wise..
they DID explain the absence! by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 09:48:31 AM
- But I guess from what people are saying here it got cut. I kid you not - Clark had his mum send saved-up POSTCARDS to the guys at the planet! True!! Too bad it's gone - I woulda liked to have heard the groan from the audience. Kai, you're missing the forest for the trees. It's a bit funny you're arguing that stuff in the context of a guy who flies, but in the first movie AND in this one the one way trip takes a coupla years because that's what's needed in terms of character progression and a symbolic amount of time passing. Everything to do with plot mechanics and emotional logic and nothing at all to do with physical reality. Then again no-one can agree on the actual/symbolic thing of spinning the world backwards/time travel thing so it's not surprising. And Moondoggy, there were MANY rewrites. Whether for the better or to address budget concerns is up for debate!!_____________ Sicuv you're such a 'tard! Posting 3 times, spelling 'Douchebag' as 'Deuchebag' (is that the German version?!) and for that matter 'Millennium' incorrectly! Too funny.
Oh, Im sorry halfvader by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 10:10:29 AM
I read an interview with singer from latinoreview last week. In it, he stated he didnt rewrite the script and shot everything he pitched. He said he only nipped and tucked in the editing room. This is according to him anyway, so argue with Singer or Latinoreview, not me. And as far as our missing the forest is concerned, is it too much that a movie follow its internal logic? Im as open-minded as the next guy, but a film has to have some internal logic. If a story establishes a major, reacurring plot point in act one and then ignores said plot point in act 3, thats called lazy writing.
Vader--are you serious? Postcards??? by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 10:11:46 AM
No wonder they cut that scene. Lol. By the way, I haven't talked to you in quite some time. How are you doing?
Also, isnt douche bag 2 words? by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 10:14:27 AM
Yup, that's gasoline that I'm pouring on the fire...
Agreed on the internal logic thing, moondoggy. by Childe Roland	Jun 28th, 2006 10:16:25 AM
Ignoring that is the cardinal sin of a sci-fi writer and the surest way to rip someone right out of suspension of disbelief mode. You can tell me that in this world, up is down and brussels sprouts taste like vanilla ice cream. But if you suddenly have characters native to that world insisting up is up and brussels sprouts taste like farts, you've crashed the simulator. No excuses.
So what if Superman's kid never develops powers? by Drath	Jun 28th, 2006 10:23:15 AM
It'd be interesting to let him NOT develop any powers in the next few movies--at least no until he's older and then maybe goes supervillain on us, or maybe that's way too Marvel. I do think it's interesting that Moriarty has problems with a lot of the risky parts of the movie (Continuity with old movies, Superman being gone so long, Lois having his kid). I guess I think he's trying to be the devil's advocate to temper all the love this site is throwig at the movie (because his ego requires it). But hey, everyone has their own opinion.
Fair enough Moondoggy (internal logic)! by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 10:39:33 AM
And YES I'm serious about the postcards! Like I said in my reply to you in the other post, you sorta need to take Singer's stuff well, not quite so literally sometimes. In essence yeah fair enough, but it's not true to say it sprang fully formed. Less rewrites than many films I guess would be fair. Although the whole big action sequence with the earthquake was really only crystalised (ha!) very late in the game (my subjective view is that they realised the film was a bit 'small' for an epic superhero film, but that's just me). As for Drath's comment, does the kid still do the piano thing? Won't see it 'til tomorrow night. I'm good thanks Doggy - but again I'm posting and I should be working! Bye!
Great movie! by scruple	Jun 28th, 2006 10:40:26 AM
Loved it. Exceeded expectations. Going back for seconds. http://hesaidshesaidlove.blogs pot.com/2006/06/run-out-and-go -see-superman-returns.html
great Superman Lives review by scruple	Jun 28th, 2006 10:43:29 AM
http://hesaidshesaidlove.blogs pot.com/2006/06/run-out-and-go -see-superman-returns.html
Get back to work, Vader! by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 10:59:24 AM

What I'd do with the KID in the next film ... by riskebiz	Jun 28th, 2006 11:07:21 AM
Kill him. Have him fall victim to Brainiac or someone like that, because it would be sad to see the one person Superman couldn't save is him. Lois would never forgive him which would set up an interesting Superman 3. I DO NOT want to see a Superman family movie for the sequel. Moriaty is right ... they've painted themselves into a corner with this kid and he has to go because the next film will be less about Superman and more about this "Superboy" and I could give a s#!+ about the kid. Yes, yes ... interesting for the first film but the character needs to be jettison quickly in the second one or the franchised is doomed.
You apologist for the Supes/Clark disappearance thing.. by I Dunno	Jun 28th, 2006 11:18:50 AM
give it up. "Clark is non descript and in te background"...he's still a reporter for the Daily Planet. He still has friends like Lois and Jimmy and a boss to reort to. It's a plot hole and bad, sloppy writing, just face it
explaining clarks absence by IrishJoe	Jun 28th, 2006 11:19:28 AM
i thought they could have clark come back having written a massive volume of novels about the places he had visited. The kind of undertaking which would take years for a human but the man of steel could accomplish in no time. just a thought!!!!
half vader by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 11:19:29 AM
The Superman movies expect us to accomodate a certain minimum suspension of belief ( A flying man, or rather alien, from halfway across the Universe with superhuman powers; the inability of an inteprid celebrated reporter to tell him without his glasses), if we are to enjoy the movie, which is all well and good. Except that when THEY begin to introduce real-world physics, and real-world rules, - THEY and not US - and then ultimately fail to stay true to those rules and then expect us, the audience to sustain our suspension of belief, you have a serious problem. I'm not the one that introduced Einstein and Relativistic physics, into all this; Donner did, when Jor-El, inexplicably mentions him to the growing baby Kal-El during his journey to earth at the beginning of Superman I. But like I said, it's all well and good, up to this point because more or less, everything ( except the aforementioned necessary deviations from reality) stays true to these rules. Kal-El's journey takes about 5-6 years. For all we know Krypton was ( and likely should have been) destroyed thousands of years ago, to correspond to the time-dilation necessary for Kal-El's pod to reach earth (at faster than light-speed travel) when it did. Even the whole turning time backwards thing is theoretically possible ( within the realm of Einsteinian physics) when you considered the Time-Speed-Distance relation ( I can explain the physics behind it, if necessary, but trust me, theoretically it can happen and I believe Donner was probably aware of this at some level when he made Superman I, which is why it was allowed). So when Singer comes along and decides to 'lift' desireable aspects of Superman I and II, for his own movie, while ignoring the fact ( as Donner himself was aware of) that if, you're going to introduce or play around with real-world rules and physics, then you better be consistent, then you have the recipe for a clusterfuck. Which is what this movie is from an internal logic plot point of view. 1)We believe Superman can fly and has super-powers, because we don't know how a Krytponian would react to Earth's yellow sun. 2)We believe planet Krypton can potentially exist, because with our present technology, we can't prove otherwise, and hence can disprove (1) neither. 3)We believe Lois cannot recognize Clark without his glasses because we do not know the extent to which Kryptonian technology ( that he concieveably could use to achieve this) would make this possible or impossible by our own limited understanding of technology. These are all logical plot-rules established by Schuster and Siegel which are consitent with the internal logic of any Superman story and upon which the first Donner movies are based. And they stay internally consitent to the story and character as far as facilitating the Superman universe. Consequently, in regards to SR, we can't believe that Superman would be able to take a 5 year(Earth-time) return journey back to Krypton, because it goes against the rules already established in the first movies, and the comics, which also encapsulate and are consistent ( to some extent) to real-world rules and Physics. We refuse to believe that Lois, ( and consequently the rest of the Daily Planet) are unable to connect the dots between Clark's and Superman's sudden disappearance and suddden simulateneous return, not only because such an action is inconsitent with her established character strengths (as one of the best reporters in the business), but also because no attempts are made by Singer to explain this gaping conflict. And the less said about how Superman having a child and "abandoning" his fatherhood reponsibilities, much less his protector-of-the-world duties, - and particularly how all this is at odds with what he tells the president at the end of Superman II, or with his established character-strength as the paragorn of all that is good, right and dependable,- the better. Do you see how the internal logic thing works, now? Read a few well written books and works of literature, and it might begin to sink in.
Kai and Moondoggy by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 11:59:03 AM
Hey Kai, thanks for the well thought out reply, even if you were pretty narky - (to be fair, forest for the trees from me did sound a bit rough in retrospect). I guess what I was trying to say before is that you guys continually apply literal (and literary) logic to FILM storytelling, where the visual, musical and emotional beats and their impact on an audience are generally used by directors above other types of logic. Yes you're right about internal logic as it applies to the whole spaceflight thing, but I'd argue that the point of the scene was not education about the laws of the universe as much as education ITSELF as a concept - it's a MONTAGE (imagine italics rather than caps there, I'm not being patronising), remember? Basically I guess they're having their cake and eating it too. His Dad is telling him about the world/universe around him - it's a tonal thing, in a stylised sequence. I think this interpretation is just as valid in a movie about the prototypical superhero if not moreso, as there are so many levels of symbolism and metaphor. That's why I (over?) react when everyone goes on about real-world stuff when it's paid lip-service in the film ostensibly in order to drive us onto the next scene, not necessarily justify a plot point. I don't take issue with the fact that Donner using the western notion of screen direction (forwards/success = screen left to right, backwards/failure =screen right to left) dumps on most of the world's population as the way we write influences the way we perceive progression (yeah you're saying WTF?), 'cause that would be over the top, even if the point could be argued. It's Paragon, BTW. As we're on about writing for film, yes I totally agree with you about the "Ignore the plothole" thing - it's a pet hate of mine and all the rage these days. Although I do think you're maybe reading a bit much into the glasses thing in deference to S & S. I actually think the way they fob it off in the movie is a reasonable nod to the audience, without breaking the fourth wall. Anyway I'm still probably not articulating this very well but don't take the view (narky bit at the end there) that I don't understand internal logic or that I'm standing up for this film or its flaws. Let's agree to disagree, especially about the Jor-El bit. We should also probably completely ignore why Lex's continent has countries with different political affiliations too, eh?! BTW have you seen the film yet? Peace mate. _____________ Moondoggy YES! I must get back to it, but what about you? Looking at the time there, aren't you supposed to be teaching class? It's 3 in the morning here!
paragon with a small p by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 12:02:23 PM
I'm such a hypocrite!
Half Vader by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 12:09:25 PM
I have the summer off this time. While I normally teach a few summer courses at the local University, I'm scott free this season! Tonight's festivities include a trip to the local IMAX at 7 and watching SR--i've got a full calander, I know. By the way, I've noticed that you've stopped trying to correct my poor spelling and grammar. I think when it comes to me, you've pretty much thrown your hands in the air, huh? ;) Hell, even my user ID is misspelled (intentionally, but misspelled nonetheless).
Boy I really wish Rachel McAdams played Lois. by Blarneyman	Jun 28th, 2006 12:27:35 PM
Kate was dull as shit. No sexiness, just blandness. It's all one note acting that when sung sounds like a scream. Rachel would have soared in this role, as high as Routh's Superman. Shame, shame, shame. Margot Kidder was a far better Lois.
half vader by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 12:32:13 PM
The snark in my post isn't (or rather wasn't really directed at you) as much as it was a reflection of my annoyance with the laziness of the Superman Returns screenplay writers. considering how long themovie is they had lots of opportunities to tie up a lot of these plot holes, but instead choose to just leave them hanging. My main gripe with this is the fact that as much as Singer may ( I don't know for sure as I will watch it this weekend) have F-up this movie, the plotholes make it that much more difficult for an improved sequel to be made without ignoring or glossing over much of what happens in this movie; simply because Singer did the same to the Donner movies. Anyways, your points are well taken, even though I think you're cutting Singer far too much slack; the audience isn't supposed to do most of the thinking donkeywork for the screen writers and director. But that's just me.
About Ebert....... by Real Deal	Jun 28th, 2006 12:35:46 PM
Roger Ebert used to be the critic I trusted to give a good review. However for about the last 10 years he's lost it in my book. He seems to not understand things about genre films that he once did ( jaded ? ). Just from reading around it seems to me most critics liked it. I haven't seen it yet ( the last time I stood in line was for " Return of the Jedi " on a particularly muggy afternoon in '83 and I swore I'd never do that again ). I really think this will be the " hot " summer movie. From what I've seen and read about it so far I think it's probably a winner.
Yackbacker, thanks for the review. by superninja	Jun 28th, 2006 12:53:52 PM
Great review. I am definitely concerned about eroding the moral underpinnings of the character more than anything else. That is the primary differentiator between Superman and other heroes in this day and age. I think you also nailed it when you said that Jor-El is not really the father - it's Pa Kent. That is something Donner screwed up as well, but was able to get away with it by killing off Pa Kent. Jor-El in a way is the legacy, but he is not the source of forming who Superman IS - it's the Kents.
Being a Father is Selfless--Supes is Selfish by abominate	Jun 28th, 2006 01:12:13 PM
I'm seeing the film tonight, but the instant I read about Lois having a kid, I suspected it was Kal-El's all along, so nothing spoiled for me. But it disturbs me that, if Mori is accurate and they portray Supes' choice to let his son be raised by the other guy, well, that's not "selfless" at all. It's selfish. Because I know like all dads that raising kids is the hardest, and at times most aggravating thing you'll ever do. And for all his power, if Supes cannot raise his own child, well then, finally we have a feat he cannot (or will not) perform. Which is kinda despicable, really. The selfless thing to do would be to acknowledge your humanity--or at least that of your child--and be his father. The selfish thing to do, which I guess is what he does, is continue being Superman, in the most literally sense, above and detached from humanity, untethered even to his own half-human progeny. How sad. Da-da-da-da-dahhhh, da-da-dahhh...
Oh, not just you, Kai by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 02:05:04 PM
I reckon (like Mori and others) if they really are talking about three movies/three acts, then revealing the kid at the end of the first act is about the biggest stumbling block as it's a second-act revelation. I know it's an obvious one, but the Empire example is the right one - it's literally "I am your father" at the climax of the second act, and then the kid in danger and resolution in the third. I know it's been said and I won't dwell on it but yeah we either get dramas in the second flick and then the kid is left flapping in the third or you leave him flapping in the second and get back to him eventually. Having such an important plot element hanging like that is pretty obvious and clunky - and I'm no writer, so maybe not the Singer masterstroke that sold the studio after all. I hope he makes me look like a fool on that. Yeah Superkid probably needs to die figuratively speaking, although the implications (reverse-Batman) are very un-Superman. There were other things like the convoluted kryptonite thing I didn't mention, but yeah, not all sunshine for me. So yeah I agree on much of what you said but still I'm hoping tomorrow night will be fun and worth it (for reasons you might have worked out)!
a little soft, Mori... by lynxpro	Jun 28th, 2006 02:13:25 PM
Too "it sucks but I'll give it a passing grade for the effort" IMHO. As for high definition cinema, I would have to disagree with moving to HD capture. I really think "epic" productions should shoot on 70mm (which is rarely done anymore) and then converted over to HD mastering and the presentation done in HD in the theatres. Because as it stands, cinematic HD is barely up to the same resolution as 35mm film, and definitely not 70mm. 1080p is not remotely close to the resolution of pristine 35mm, which would be something like 4000p. Of course, Sony's HD theatre technology can do 4000p but if the actual HD cameras do not capture the original image at that quality level, it relies upon upscaling it which is not as good as the original source being captured at teh highest level of res possible to begin with. If the studios moved all of their "chick flicks" and disposable "Rob Schneider" and "Adam Sandler" (and throw in Will Smith) type of comedies to HD production, they would save enough money on their budgets to do their big productions using 70mm. Of course, there are other gimmicks such as speeding the production frames up to 48fps (Ebert likes this) or 60fps instead of the standardardized 24fps, but I would prefer to stay at 24fps myself. But I digress. Sounds like the film would have been given flying colors by you had a decent interpretation of Lex Luthor had been used. Wow, perhaps had Warner Bros. listened to the online folks they could have accomplished that in this film instead of sticking to the Donnerisms. That's hubris on their part. Speaking mythologically, perhaps the production team should suffer Prometheus's fate.
I say revealing the kid by half vader	Jun 28th, 2006 02:14:10 PM
- even though you know .5 of a second after his introduction earlier in the film what the score is, but you know what I mean!?!
it'll do $250 million domestic tops... by lynxpro	Jun 28th, 2006 02:25:32 PM
You have to count the fact that the movie has alienated the Smallville fanbase and most of them won't be seeing the film. Sure, many people online will discount them, but they'll be seeing POTC2 instead. You watch. It'll have a modest foreign return, but again, POTC2 is coming out and will crush the international take as well. Warners will break even at best once you count the marketing costs. But Mori is right that many of you chaps that "like" the film now will hate it next year. In fact, I will wager ya'll will be demanding a reboot like some of us have already been doing so. Kinda like how everyone was so happy that Burton's 1989 Batman was nothing like the Adam West variety that nobody really cared then that it was more a Burton piece than anything remotely connected to the "true" interpretation of the character that Begins set out to capture so damn well. If you fell this is a so-so film and are still going to go see it, go matinee. Don't overcontribute to the B.O. unless you are in the "True Believer" class like Harry & Co.
YOKO KNOWLES!!!!! by 2Girth2Ferguson	Jun 28th, 2006 02:27:21 PM
What kind of two faced fat retards would make fun of Christopher Reeve's memory, life and his family. That image is the most offensive thing I have ever seen. (It is more offensive than Drew Mcweeny sucking Harry Knowles dick to get a job here. I mean why else would he have a mustache and Harry not have one? So when they kiss they don't feel Bryan Singer gay. Just a Kevin Spacey gay.) When you posted that image you not only made fun of a crippled man (whom everyone loves dearly) but you are making fun of his deceased wife, and his son. Way to go Geniuses! That image needs to be removed at this very moment and an apology needs to be issued to the fans before the REAL media sees it and tells you it Aint So Cool to do that. And another thing, how can you ban people for making comments about the staff when you have that really offensive image that clearly points to Christopher Reeves? Why don't you answer these posts and be a man about it rather than be a pussy and ignore it because you can't think of anything to say about it! That is why! You all suck and are getting more and more pathetic by the minute. And Harry I am going to laugh when your "Tokyo Rose" doubles down on someone else
A step in the right direction by 2Girth2Ferguson	Jun 28th, 2006 03:03:13 PM
More people need to step up and express their displeasure over the icon so these Assholes know we are serious! I mean if it was a fat redheaded guy raping an asian girl, Im sure Harry wouldn't appreciate that. Or his mother wearing a Wonder Woman as her house burned down. I am realy sure he wouldn't like that at all. It is called respect for the dead, and Harry Knowles you and your fellow hard-ons need to learn some!
Girth, you dope by FluffyUnbound	Jun 28th, 2006 03:55:37 PM
1. What the hell image are you talking about? 2. Nobody cares.
Holy crap, this dumbass is mad about THE HERC ICON? by FluffyUnbound	Jun 28th, 2006 04:00:35 PM
What is this, 1997? You're a little late to be angry about the Herc icon, shit for brains.
Thank you for the review Mori by Turd Furgusen	Jun 28th, 2006 04:52:19 PM
Sounds like the franchise is off to a rough start but could really develop into something. If Routh can make Harry and Moriarty happy at his try in the tights then this movie is worth seeing. We'll see if I like it enough to see it twice. All I know is it will be the first movie I have ever seen in IMAX and I can't wait. Mori's review brought me back down to Earth and now I can view it without being caught up in the hype. Thanks again for the even handed review.
Mori, about Doug TenNapel by Turd Furgusen	Jun 28th, 2006 04:58:02 PM
Why did you have to go and show me guy that is even better than Watterson in some respects? Now I am going to have to buy all of this guy's stuff too. He has that same ability to switch gears like Watterson and I just love that. Damn you to comic hell evil genius. Save me a seat.
By comic, I meant..... by Turd Furgusen	Jun 28th, 2006 04:59:25 PM
graphic novel. It just didn't sound as cool.
So when it surpasses 250 mil by Ridge	Jun 28th, 2006 05:20:53 PM
What are you guys bitching about it, gonna say then? Regardless of what you believe, it'll happen, the fanbase is far too large there, theres too many people out their seeing this movie for nostalgia reasons and the majority of the public at large, aren't wannabe-tongue up their ass hyper critics of movies like most of us are and don't SEARCH for reasons to dislike movies like we apparently do more than time to time. I guarantee you it'll top 250. I'll be surprised if it doesn't top 500. As I said before, he's the second most recognisable image in the world, and you don't think that'll have anything to do with it possibly? Sheesh...
congrats Datascream... by arhat23	Jun 28th, 2006 05:32:22 PM
for being a typical talkback dick and making attacks on my character. ;) i was going to make a second post regarding what could be read from my post, but meh. i forgot the whole purpose of the talkback was to slam on other people. i thought your attack would be a little more ad hominem, but you actually ended up agreeing with me for the most part. i'm still drooling to see the film - i'm just not going in with all my hopes up. i'm being reserved. my taste in movies has been typically similar to those of mori. he usually sees movies before i do. if we're not simpatico on this one, i'll let you know. you know, so you can weep for me.
to monkeybrains by arhat23	Jun 28th, 2006 05:41:30 PM
hmm, i say i'm on the fence about my enthusiasm for a film, and suddenly i'm a five year old who doesn't like to enjoy movies and is planning on boycotting it. i go to movies specifically because i love movies. i don't go based on what someone tells me (although a positive review might make me excited enough to go see it). and i agree that once the lights dim and williams' theme kicks in, i'll probably be reverted to the same awestruck 9 year old who first watched supes fly onscreen. mostly what i would like to push is the idea that mori's feelings on a film tend to be similar to my own, while the rest of the reviewers on the site are typically amusing reads (harry's blade 2 review, anyone?). cripes, everyone is so argumentative here. either you're slamming a film just because you can, or you're slamming a talkbacker for stating concern over whether or not that same movie is going to be good as he had previously hoped...
Agree w/Mori by sakinnuso	Jun 28th, 2006 06:40:07 PM
[QUOTE=Mr. B]No it's not clear. See, this is exactly what I mean. Some people can't accept the fact that someone didn't enjoy something they did. Fanboys. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] I totally agree with Mr. B. I didn't go in ready to hate Superman. In fact, Superman is the ONE MOVIE I was looking forward to all summer. I was THRILLED when Singer and Crew signed up for Supes, and the passion that Singer showed for the characters in the interviews was infectuous. While it stung that he left X-Men (the comic book that I grew up with), I just knew that the Superman franchise would be better for it. I can now say with hindsight that Bryan Singer's sensibilities just don't match with what I thought the cinematic Superman is about. For all of his interviews and enthusiasm, for all of this talk of aping Superman 1, the core, ie, the SOUL of the original movies was absent. He copied some of the aspects, brought great action, but I just don't think he 'got it'. I don't care how many '3D, 70's-inspired title sequences you throw in for the sake of nostalgia. I never gave a crap about Singer or Routh's sexuality, didn't care about the casting as long as the acting was solid, and as much as the costume initially irked me - Routh looked fantastic when all cylinders were firing. I could even forgive the color dulling - to a point. About 5 minutes into the movie (then reinforced at the 35, then 50 minute point), I realized that the screenwriters were at fault here. Following heirachy, so then was Singer. Where on EARTH was the dialogue? Where was the sense of play? More, why didn't this feel like the 'escapism' that the original Superman movies felt like? Superman has always played on a score that, even after Williams left, was rousing, bombastic, magical and whimsical. Other than when blatantly reimagining some of Williams' original cues, this score seemed oddly muted and dulled for a universe that should be leaping from the screen. Take Raimi's Spider-Man work. I forget if Burton actually did the soundtrack (and I'm too lazy to check), but both Spider-Man movies have such an inspiring soundtrack, that one wants to cheer for the hero as soon as the symphony reaches a fervor. The musical score, however, was the least of the movie's problems. I've said before in my earlier rant (and it was intended to be a stream-of-thought rant and not any review proper), aesthetically, the movie was too realistic. It's odd that one of the thoughts that occurred to me while watching this movie was that, "I'm watching The Hulk" all over again. Sinful in some circles, such blasphemy I'm sure. It was too realistic. Do I want to see Superman in the ER? No. Don't I want to see Superman smile broadly and play up his farmboy charm, dropping simple life lessons and taking off to 'thwart the next evil'? Absolutely. Were the special effects and flying sequences AWESOME? Without question. This movie is a huge billboard screaming, "HD is NOW and Film's days are numbered!". The movie looked absolutely stunning. However, where on EARTH was the personality? This isn't arguing whether Routh can Replace Reeves, or if Hackman is better than Spacey. Quite frankly, the new guys weren't given much to DO!! Routh certainly looks like he's capable of being boyishly cool, but it certainly wasn't written so in THIS movie. I don't care about how isolating it is being Superman, or what it feels like to be 'adopted'. The first movie covered that well enough, so the flashback - and subsequent periods of prolonged silence in this movie just seemed overkill. Perhaps I'm comparing Supes Returns too much to the older flicks? If Singer and Company hadn't worked so hard to hammer into the public consciousness that this would be the case, maybe I wouldn't. Most of the complaints that I've heard argue that Returns is simply a retread of the 1978 classic. While Returns follows the same beats structurally, Returns feels alien in such a way that it's difficult to reconcile that the franchises are related. Consider this: Several friends saw the movie at different theaters. None of us are real Superman fans, ie, we love the movies, don't really follow any of the comics, and loved the Justice League cartoon. Overwhelmingly, we each thought the movie was boring when removed from the action scenes. We reminisced in a later conversation that Superman would just do cool shit in the old movies. Smile at the camera with a colgate gleam. Casually pull off the one-handed flying manuever just because he was cool that way. Flirt with Lois playfully, pulling her chains as both Superman and Kent, knowing all the while that he's completely in control of the situation. Goofily play Clark as a competent but backwater reporter, when all the while it was just a clever rouse and ALWAYS fun for we, as fans, to watch as part of the 'in joke'. There was a 'little of that' in this movie, but not much. This isn't Routh's fault. You don't improvise those beats. Were Clark and Lois really friends? It certainly didn't feel that way. In the old films, Clark and Lois glided between brother/sister love to something a little more, but always at odds, always the banter. Here? Clark's more of an annoyance, basically sitting in the background doing clueless expressions instead of actually being a PART of the Daily Planet. I could nitpick all day, but Moriarty on AICN and EBERT already said my thoughts a lot more eloquently than I could. Sure I was floored by some of the bombast, and it was finally cool to see the cinematic Superman do things that all of the screen X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and Hulk just couldn't do. Ever. As king of the Supermen, Superman still reigns. As a film, though, it just wasn't fun. It didn't transport me. It didn't even flow in a comfortable way from scene to scene. The Luthor bits came in almost like episodic television, scattered at odd moments throughout the movie between awkward soap opery-relationship beats and those where Superman muses silently on the existence of man - or if Lois is screwing Cyclops. Who knows? Same difference in this movie. One might argue that I'm too old and too jaded, but I say pish-posh. Spider-man still makes me feel like a little kid, and as a very casual Star Wars fan, I can still watch Episode 3 (Revenge of the Sith, I think?), and go immediately into little kid KEEEEWWWL mode. Lucas and Spielburg (sp?) movies still get me in that way. What I really think is that as accomplished and as Genius as Bryan Singer is, there comes a time for producers to do trimming and make executive decisions about length, tone, and that sort. Sometimes it works -as Batman Begins was fantastic. Sometimes it doesn't. We're still reeling over Punisher. Bryan has excelled at setting up fantastic set pieces. It's in the execution - and those old-school sensibilities and learnings from classic black and whites - that I think he doesn't get. A lot of modern filmmakers are that way. Trimming, re-evaluating beats, re-writing, touch-ups, and a kick-ass producer would've really made this movie soar into the stratosphere. Wow, this is a LOOOOONG winded way of saying that I didn't go in ready to HATE Superman Returns. I just love movies. This one just screams not enough team input at the top levels. Can't win 'em all, I guess.
Ridge... by lynxpro	Jun 28th, 2006 07:30:36 PM
I said $250 million domestic. Foreign also will have depressed box office totals due to POTC2.
Ok I'll buy that by Ridge	Jun 28th, 2006 08:28:41 PM
Lynx, I'll buy into that then. It'll do 250 or so probably in the usa, 500ish worldwide I'm expecting, and I'm HOPING POTC whups its ass at the boxoffice just to show them we want a SUPER VILLAIN in the next one... Doomsday for chrissake... he would be the best way to kill off Marsden if he survives part 1, I dunno if he does, and unite Lois and Supes.
Don't review a film for its sequel potential... by MattmanReturns	Jun 28th, 2006 08:33:56 PM
Who cares what the kid means for sequels? It's a heartfelt plot device that works for THIS film. This is a genuinely affecting movie, and it works on its own. Worry about the sequel in three years. For now though, it really doesn't matter.
Fluffy by JuggFuckler	Jun 28th, 2006 09:16:48 PM
He's talking about the image of Superman in a fucking wheelchair. What are you retarded?
" I guarantee you it'll top 250 (million)" by Kai_Mah'gra	Jun 28th, 2006 10:07:39 PM
......yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure at some level even you probably believe it has a chance of being true. Incidentally I have this bridge voer at Brooklyn I thought you might be interested in buying, let's saaaay... $50 bucks?
Last time I'm pasting here... by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 11:29:46 PM
After seeing this movie I am left with only one option: I'm sitting down here and EATING MY WORDS!! Singer knocked this out park, as far as Im concerned. Is the movie perfect? Well, not really--its climax is a little weak (but still servicable, to my mind). However, despite that single flaw, the movie is pitch perfect in tone, characterization, and dialogue. Superman is NOT a deadbeat dad, nor is he depicted as one in this film; his surprise at the news of his son is CLEARLY evident. Indeed, Superman is shown to be a superman of good moral character, something that I'm very thankful for. Brandon Routh? He is Superman for the ages, perfectly building upon the base of Christopher Reeve and growing beyond, making the role his own. I cant tell you how many times I was smiling in dumbfounded awe at Routh's Superman; he was the perfect choice. Spacy's Luthor was equally perfect, to my mind. Yes, his plan was a bit shallow, but his character is emminantly enjoyable, ruthless, and commanding. I also have to admit that I was hooked from the moment the astounding opening credits rolled (The best opening reel, if you ask me) all the way to the superman/camera fly-by (by the way, bring some tissue--there is at least 1 scene that WILL make you tear up). And dont even get me started on the unbelievable effects and score. All in all, I enjoyed this truly adult-themed movie that dared to make us all feel like children-at-heart. Tonight, I saw a man fly and I don't think I'll ever forget it. This movie gets a solid A. Thank you, Singer!
Christ, you're a nitpicky bitch, Mori. by Zarles	Jun 28th, 2006 11:33:06 PM
Do all those 2 A.M. feedings have your Superman underoos in a bunch or what?
moondoggy when you post the same post in all threads by zfisk	Jun 28th, 2006 11:48:27 PM
it makes you look like a zealot, or worse, a plant.
I realize that, zfisk by moondoggy2u	Jun 28th, 2006 11:53:17 PM
The only problem was that I said in all three threads that i was gonna see the movie and report back. Yeah, I debated about whether or not I shoud do it, but I figured,"Fuck it!" and did it anyway. And yeah, I'm sure people will mistake me for a plant snicker
Mori, the thing about Lex is... by slapshot	Jun 29th, 2006 12:02:09 AM
... he is quite clearly insane. His schemes won't make sense, can't make sense, because the man creating them is mad as a hatter. (And the movie was awesome. Not your typical-shit action movie. Had kind of a sense of peace about it, alongside the ass-kicking FX. Y'all probably spent so much time nitpicking, you didn't even notice Noel Neill & Jack Larson's cameos, did'ya?)
Well if this isnt the... by winnersgohomeand	Jun 29th, 2006 12:40:59 AM
...most nitpicky f***ing review I have ever read in my life. As soon as you mention, "this is supposed to be SUPERMAN III 2.0" it just SCREAMS I'm a jealous bastard. Good god.
MORI - IT'S TIME TO START YOUR OWN SITE. by VictorLaszlo	Jun 29th, 2006 01:23:57 AM
Harry has lost his mind. Moriarity you are 1000% right in your comments on this snoozefest. I am so disappointed in Harry it is palpable. If he thinks this is a good film, then this site just jumped the shark. There is NO story here. It is a collection of poorly written, badly acted, campy scenes with B actors. It starts off with sheer camp with Lex "pleasuring" this old hag and dropping his wig on her great-great grandaughter and it descends from there. Routh looks like a BAD soap opera actor who seems more concerned with hitting his mark than with understanding the terrible dialogue coming out of his mouth. They forgot one thing when they cast this role - it is supposed to be superMAN. You have to cast a MAN not a pretty BOY. Lex is just as bad. Spacey goes off on these diatribes to no one in particular and looks bored in every scene. Don't get me started on Kate Bosworth. Why would they possibly cast her in this? Is this the best they could do? The teeny bopper from such classics as Into the Blue and Tad Hamilton? Maybe a good actress like Jennifer Connolly could have turned this badly written role into something you cared about. But Bosworth (again) feels like a girl trying to play a woman's role. Oh, and a little note - they don't give Pulitzer Prizes for editorials, they give them for reporting (I guess $300m doesn't get you a fact checker). I would have hoped a writer would know this, much less two. There is not one believable, genuinely earned moment in this entire film. It is BEAUTIFULLY shot and designed, but everything else is crap. In trying to LOOK like Donner, Singer forgot to craft a story and cast the movie like Donner. To put it in perspective, Hellboy was a MUCH better film than this. At least I believed that those characters were of that world and had soul. This isn't even in the top 5 of superhero movies in the last 10 years. ALL 3 xmens, both Spidermans, Batman Begins, and Hellboy are all better by miles. I went with such optimism because of Harry's glowing endorsement of the film (even though the materials looked suspect). I (and my ENTIRE audience) left underwhelmed and bored. No clapping at the end. A complete bore and waste of $$$. I should have waited for Mori's review. I suspected something was up when it wasn't published until the day of the release. Is there some rule with you guys that you won't publish bad reviews of movies you've been let in early to screen if you think they suck? By the way, we're still waiting for your script review on this one, Mori. I am so bummed by this. It could have and should have been good. I now can't wait to see POTC2 and have this bad experience purged from my brain.
moondoggy... by VictorLaszlo	Jun 29th, 2006 01:32:41 AM
uh, I mean Bryan. Posting positive reviews of your shite movie on 3 boards won't make it a better movie. Besides, if you think that's a great credit sequence, why don't you rent the first Superman because it's EXACTLY the same, down to the fonts. A great credit sequence is something like Seven. Then again, anyone who looks at Routh with "dumbfounded awe" has actually never seen another movie. It's either that or, Moon, you really are Bryan and you are just smitten with your lead.
Credits by Kronus316	Jun 29th, 2006 02:32:01 AM
Did anyone stay after the credits? Was there anything extra? And what is this new Krypton Moriarty mentioned, i don't remember it.
Getting to The World's Finest team-up by Juggernaut125	Jun 29th, 2006 02:42:37 AM
Is the only reason that I will at some point put down money for this movie. But I hate that Lois has a kid in it, and I hate that they killed off Pa Kent. HATE 'EM.
Pa Kent was never in this movie. He died in the first by half vader	Jun 29th, 2006 03:31:30 AM
one, remember? The guy that was in this one was the friend that came to help out (and play scrabble). Can't remember his name, but I think it's the guy teenage Clark mentions in the first film. Ben someone?
Kai_Mah'gra by Ridge	Jun 29th, 2006 04:32:49 AM
The thing is, most people on here, when quoting box office takings, seem to live in a narrow little universe called 'America is the only place that counts!' When talking boxoffice, one should talk worldwide takings, as on occasion a movie doesn't do so well in the ole USA but does well outside it, if you dont believe me go look up a few at Boxofficemojo.com Oh and I'll eat my own child if this movie doesn't do exceedingly well :)
Song for Super man by Well liked Jerk	Jun 29th, 2006 07:02:44 AM
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B N249UJR. my friend made this song fuking around preety funny A Red Kryptonight is Red Alize 1/2 + Hawlian Punch + Ice Blended together
.. by arjaybee	Jun 29th, 2006 09:01:44 AM
..
Mori, you were way too kind to Superman by JohnGalt06	Jun 29th, 2006 09:12:22 AM
This movie was crap and you know it. Do you fear a fanboy linching? I mean, some of these story points were so absurd they should have been laughed away during table readings. Lex Luthor tried to kill half the U.S. and was given back-to-back life sentences but they had to let him out b/c Superman didn't make the court date for his appeal? Are you fucking kidding me??? Why couldn't Singer and his writers engineer a cool-ass escape like Magneto's in X2? Too much trouble? This movie was LAME, LAME, LAME!
And I would've forgiven all this movie's faults if... by JohnGalt06	Jun 29th, 2006 09:16:14 AM
there had been a scene in the hospital at the end where a nurse tries to get Superman's insurance information and wants to send him to a crappy hospital b/c he's uninsured? That sort of fun could've been had in the first two movies...but for some reason Singer has a made a solemn homage with no sense of fun whatsoever.
whoa nelly, typos by JohnGalt06	Jun 29th, 2006 09:17:25 AM
should've been no "?" in that last post and I believe it's "lynching", you dumbass
As usual, a solid review from Mori. by minderbinder	Jun 29th, 2006 09:33:35 AM
Some interesting stuff, although I only agree with some. I didnt' find the suit distracting (except maybe the boots), once I was in the movie the colors seemed "right". I think it's going a bit far to fault the movie based on imagined consequences for sequels. I agree that it's a bit odd to start a series with the kid, but superman is kind of a shallow character already, I can see why they wanted to mix things up a bit. To be honest, most of my complaints about the movie just come back to Supes himself - he's either completely invincible or a complete wuss (depending on whether kryptonite is around). I'll be curious if they bring in a supervillian and avoid kryptonite next time around, I sure hope so.
Are the haters really so desperate? by minderbinder	Jun 29th, 2006 09:42:04 AM
"He said he liked it...but really he hated it and just gave it a pass because of (insert idiot consiracy thory here)." "All the people that liked it are WRONG and will change their minds...they'll figure out that they really hated it after all". What the fuck??? It's not good enough that people didn't agree with you (assuming you even saw the movie instead of letting other people think for you), you have to come up with a delusional fantasy in which they somehow agree with you after all? Get a fucking life already.
someone get minderbinder a bucket by JohnGalt06	Jun 29th, 2006 09:45:59 AM
for all those tears he shed. it's ok, let it all out...the movie sucked...it's ok...
Victor by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 10:05:23 AM
My, arent we the presumptive little pissant, huh? Who do you think you are to tell others, such as myself, what I should or shouldn't be thinking/feeling in a movie? I understand if you don't like the film, and I may feel completely different, but Im not going to call you out for it. Its ignorant, disrespectful little trolls like you that love to anonymously demean others and start fights with those who arent insulting or bothering others. I find it so odd that I rarely see people act the way you do in public (unless they're under the age of 18) and yet endure your kind on a daily basis I'm online. Civility--look it up.
And I appologize for ranting by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 10:11:18 AM
but when little know-thing shits like you rear their ugly head on myself, I'm gonna knock you back down and take a harsh tone. You don't see me here, starting fights, personally insulting people, or disrespecting their points of view. I understand not everyone acts civil around here, and so you develope a sharper tone than you would normall use, but learn to be respectful of those who are respectful. Its called maturity, and I don't care how old you are, you certainly seems like you need to reach it.
Tears? Galt, go fuck yourself. by minderbinder	Jun 29th, 2006 10:11:56 AM
Way to go, proving my point with an example of how pathetic the whiny fanboys can get.
And I certainly seem to need a spell-checker by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 10:12:52 AM
I really should stop being lazy and just type slower, more methodically.
down, moondoggy, down! by VictorLaszlo	Jun 29th, 2006 11:39:50 AM
A tad defensive are we? If you actually read my posts, you will see that I never attack you personally, I am simply critical of your posts. See, it's called sarcarsm. By blindly excusing every part of this bad film, I (humorously) pretended it was Bryan posting. Get it? Then again, Wilde said it best about sarcasm & parody: it's the most useless form of humor because those who get it, already get it, and those who don't will never get it. Intelligent debate focuses on the argument, not the debater. Attacking Mori or Ebert is the last refuge for the sycophants who can't see the truth about this film. It's very much like Republicans saying that anyone who disagrees with W is "unpatriotic." Finally, you speak about civility. Read both my posts and yours - one of us resorts to name calling and vulgarity and one doesn't. Maybe in addition to a typing class, you should take a manners seminar.
"Intelligent debate focuses on the argument..." by minderbinder	Jun 29th, 2006 11:50:43 AM
"...not the debater" So why do you attack those who don't like the movie as "sycophants"? And since when is whether a movie is good or bad "truth"? Where I come from it's called opinion. And calling someone a sycophant sure sounds like name calling to me. Practice what you preach, vic.
Ridge by lynxpro	Jun 29th, 2006 12:19:16 PM
My whole point of contention is that I want a reboot. Not of the JJ Abrams variety either. But I want this film to tank to give the chance to reboot the franchise in 4 years without Singer & Co. and Jon Peters in particular. This film has proven that these people do not understand what us fans want, which are decent characterizations. Lex Luthor is again botched in this film despite the light years of advancement his character has had in the comics and in other media properties since the Donner films left the theatres in the first place. That's where my opposition to this film comes from. People may have a problem with my choice of Welling as Supes (despite the fact he beat Routh in the auditions for the role on the show, I might add), but Rosenbaum owns the role fo Lex Luthor and that's why I want to see them on the silver screen. Start over in four years. And then that will enhance the eventual World's Finest project. Hopefully in the next two years, the Smallville writers and producers can figure out a way to bring Jonathan Kent back to the show because they were forced to kill his character off to make the show more in-tune with this botched film and I'd like to see the character also transition to the big screen.
what about Mori+Devin at Chud? by lynxpro	Jun 29th, 2006 12:23:10 PM
Imagine them two doing tag-team reviews on films...
You're damn right I'm vulgar getting personal by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 12:55:12 PM
You're the one that picked the fight, victor, and as I said before, you start it with me and I'm gonna smack you right back. You're whole "singer sarcasm" routine was an insinuation that my opinion is founded on deceit, sycophancy, and ignorance. Just how does that stack up to your idiotic "dubya defense?" Oh, and lets just try to have ONE topic concerning the proper way to behave without injecting politics, hmm? What are you, 17?
Yeah, I second that strike, yack by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 01:07:00 PM

TRANSFORMERS!!!! by PutZ	Jun 29th, 2006 01:24:20 PM
teaser trailer at joblo!!!! http://www.joblo.com/index.php ?id=11901
"These people do not understand what fans want" by half vader	Jun 29th, 2006 02:10:12 PM
Of course they do. Fans want as close a copy of the original medium's interpretation as they can possibly get (mostly, I said mostly ignoring inherent differences in the mediums/media in question). They understand that, but they don't really CARE. With all the 'fans' talk how many here actually sit down and objectively guess-timate what the 'fan' quotient translates to in percentage of box office OR the audience who will see the movie in general (to sidestep the whole money thing even though in this case it IS pertinent)? I think a couple of percent at most. Do you base your movie on what they want (and consider that many of those hate the result and supposedly wont see it anyway), or the 98% of others who like the filmmakers are attracted to the idea but aren't beholden to any unforgiving interpretations. I'm not of that view myself as I think the more you preserve the better as there's an honesty and vitality that comes through when you honour the source, but playing Devil's advocate, fans are really a drop in the ocean. I'm not excusing it, just sayin'. Although that 98% of people who went to the X-Men films would have laughed a yellow spandex-clothed Wolvie off the screen. - And H.264 rulez! ;)
ugh by VictorLaszlo	Jun 29th, 2006 03:08:53 PM
Moondoggy, you are right - a lot of 17 year olds make Oscar Wilde references. You are also right - Superman is the most glorious use of celluloid EVER. FYI - the W reference was specific to your (and others on this TB) posts where you attack Mori and Ebert and anyone else who doesn't like this film by tearing them down personally rather than even attempting to comprehend their thoughts on the drawbacks of this film. I think any reasonable person would conclude that AICN has been biased to like this film from the beginning - sight unseen. So, people who go see it and don't like it are villified. All you want to hear is everyone agreeing with your opinion and you cannot stand when people disagree - using profanity to ridicule them. Well, I didn't like the film. The movie does not work. It is poorly conceived in so many ways. I have yet to hear one supporter of the film challenge the key points in Mori's or Ebert's reviews. All you resort to is "you guys SUCK!!!" If you want to talk about infantile behavior, just shouting someone down who disagrees with you is what a 4 year old does. Of course, your (expected) response is just to attack me and the others who have a more objective POV on this film than you seem to.
1/2 vader, you're right. by minderbinder	Jun 29th, 2006 03:50:30 PM
They don't make movies like this for comic book fans, they're too small a part of the audience. These movies are made for the general public, and that often means not following the original. After all, it's not like this is something like Harry Potter where a huge number of people read the books voraciously. Way more people have seen earlier movies or cartoons, so they pay more attention to those.
I can always rely on Moriarty for a GOOD review. by Warcraft	Jun 29th, 2006 05:50:02 PM
Thanks Mori, as always, we're on the same page. I've pretty much agreed with ya on just about every film you've reviewed, and this one is no different. I can forgive this film for it's flaws, but the next Supes movie better atleast BE a superhero film.
Superman Returns Sequel by jamsun1227	Jun 29th, 2006 05:51:05 PM
First, the only thing that bothered me about this first movie was that Lois never acknowledged that Clark was Superman. She knows, she found out in the 2nd one. Never a "Thanks, Clark" whispered in Superman's ear. Ok, my thoughts on what the sequel may look like. Anyone else notice Singer focusing the camera on both the broken piece of kryptonite in Luthor's hands (after stabbing Superman) and the bloodied piece the doctor pulled from him??? Maybe the bloodied piece washes up on shore with Lex and he decides to clone a Superman of his own. Things go wrong and Bizarro is created. Thoughts?
Victor by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 06:18:57 PM
Look, maybe you arent aware of what my position has been on this film for the past year or so, maybe you havent read my previous posts in this thread and on the official superman thread, so I'll briefly summarize my position. I dont care if you hate it or like it. Yes, it would be cool if you liked it (that way we could both compare notes on what really worked and didnt without you feeling any animosity), but that is not a prerequisite for my respect or patience. Until I saw the movie last night, I had been in strict disagreement with everything I had heard/read/seen about SR. Thats right, I changed my opinion after I saw it. In fact, I've spent most of the time, during these past few months, bashing the Superhype (and I still feel this site performed a disservice towards its readers) and shilling that's been occuring on AICN. However, at no time did I bash Moriarty--in fact, I found his review to be spot in even though I seemed to loved the film more than he. You'd be hard pressed to find a post from me that shows me bashing anybody else for their opinions of the film. No, Victor, the only one I've "attacked" has been you, the one who started slinging mud the moment you heard me say something positive and insinuating I was simply too stupid to share your opinion. And dont be too cocky, Victor, in believing that you are somehow more mature than a 17 year old child because you can quote Wilde. My daughter was reading Dorian Gray as a class assignment when she was 14. But that is your overall problem, isn't it? Your arrogance.
Moondoggy by half vader	Jun 29th, 2006 08:00:54 PM
Don't let it get to ya mate. Go see the film again - it sounds like that'll make you feel better. ;)
HAHAHAHA vader by moondoggy2u	Jun 29th, 2006 08:38:14 PM
Yeah, my own personal super chocalate! Sad thing is, I'm actually going to take my son to see it tommorrow. And yeah, its gonna be the imax.
What they need to do for 2 by kirttrik	Jun 29th, 2006 08:38:54 PM
I basically agree whole heartedly with mori's review. It would have been a stronger film if, instead of rehashing the camp-ridden Lex Luthor of the Donner films, they reintroduced the character in a more formidible light. I wish Singer looked at the other versions of Luther, primarily the Bruce Timm Version, or even the Smallville one. Instead of spending 5 years seducing a rich widow, he should of been rebuilding his wealth in the same way Martha Stewart did after her incarceration or Trump did after he went bankrupt. Singer also could have made the everyday joe also angry that Superman took off to god knows where. I mean, in his absence didn't crime run amuck. Didn't Lois Lane win a Pulitzer in the film for stating that we're better off without superman? Why isn't the general populace anger at him. For the next film I hope, I pray, they kill off that kid (superboy I assume). I'm not saying that because I didn't like him in the movie, actually he was interesting. I say that because if he's in the next film he'll be the main character, not Superman, might as well title it Superboy instead. I his death would be an interesting plot device too. It could work by stating that Kal-el's alien genes can't mix with lois' human genetics. The illness the kid had in this film could be then seen as foreshadowing his imment doom. This would drive home the fact that Superman wasn't there for him when he was growing up and, well, alive. It would give the character of superman some real regret making his positive optimistic outlook something he would have to work for. It's easy for someone to be positive when they virtually can do no wrong, but when they face up to the mistakes they've made and take responsiblity for them, and still maintain a positive outlook, that's impressive. Also I hope they turn that new Krypton thing into a Bizarro World and possibly, somehow, introduce Bizarro as Superman's main villian for the next film.
3 outta 5 awesome stuff counterbalanced with lameness by Tall_Boy	Jun 29th, 2006 09:37:43 PM
that's shortie truthfull review. Man, at times, this movie FUCK.ING.DRAG.GED.
Good job Mori - I have to agree with ya... by ckane123	Jun 29th, 2006 09:43:45 PM
I am THE TARGET DEMO for this film, but I am honest enought to state it disappointed me (and I'm not alone, apparently). I'm shocked at the passion, though - why do some of you ride to the defense of this pic with such anger? I have to say, Harry's smoking the hype pipe, and I agree with Moriarty, though I am not so kind, on my web site: http://tinyurl.com/f6vab Peace out!
A Possible Answer? by MarkoOhNo	Jun 29th, 2006 11:15:44 PM
Here's how I would answer the question "why does no one connect the absence of Clark Kent to the absence of Superman?" Because what makes Clark work so well as an alter ego is that he's practically invisible. Nobody really cares a great deal about him. He's just "the guy" -- an inconsequential coworker you see in passing from time to time, and whose name you wouldn't remember if Clark Kent wasn't such an easy name to memorize. A nice, friendly guy, yes, and an amazing reporter, reputedly, but so mild he's like a whisper. Not many people probably even noticed he was gone right away. And I think only one person even thought to ask where he'd went. It's for this same reason that no one (except the kid Jason) can look at him next to the image of Superman and notice the similarity. It's like remembering some wormy little kid from high school who was always getting wedgies and his lunch money stolen, and then hearing that he joined the marines and is a war hero now. The first reaction is always gonna be, "Naw!!! I must be remembering the wrong guy." The mental image of who somebody is completely dominates the reality that's right in your face. I imagine it was hard enough for them to visualize Clark seeking enlightenment abroad over the last few years. Also, I couldn't help but ponder the significance of why they chose the length of 5 years, and I think I may possibly have an answer. If he'd left 5 years ago, he would have just missed preventing the 9/11 disaster. (Having seen his reaction to missing Lex Luthor's parole hearing, one can only imagine his reaction to hearing about the terrorist attack.) This is probably why he garnered some public negativity for having left, earning Lois her Pulitzer. Much of the world would have been crying out, "Where was Superman?!" I'll bet Michael Moore would even have made a movie about Superman's absence in the face of the disaster. heh I completely agree that Routh was perfect and mastered every nuance which made Christopher Reeves's interpretation of the character so memorable. I also agree that Superman should face a villain other than Lex Luthor in future movies - someone who doesn't have to have kryptonite in their pocket to pose a challenge. Afterthought: I bet Superman was sued by whomever owned the car on which he set the Daily Planet globe.
box office forboding by Lloyd Braun	Jun 30th, 2006 06:07:03 AM
Any fool saying it's going to gross north of $250 million dollars is a fool. Thursday's numbers are down 47% from Wednesday. IF it can get back to 20 mil on Friday, it will be lucky to do 88 for 5 days. And when Captain Jack Sparrow appears next week, it drops at least 55%.
I have just read a very big spoilerific article about by emeraldboy	Jun 30th, 2006 07:42:34 AM
Spidey 3. and without giving too much, i would like some reporter, to ask dunst: what the hell is hse playing at. In an interview recently Dunst Said that Mary Jane was being killed off. But according to what i have read thats not true. So what is going on.
I'm adopted too. by GordonRamsey=Gay	Jun 30th, 2006 09:48:49 AM
Figured Singer wanted to use Supes to highlight adoption issues as he used Wolverine's back story in X-Men. The theme was even evident in the 'everything you thought you knew is a lie' payoff in Usual Suspects. The question is has he gone too far by adding a poorly conceived (heh) kid into the mix and making Superman a dead-beat dad to prove his point? IMO Smallville is the finest exploration of adoption issues ever to grace the screen (mainly because society prefers its adoptees quietly grateful so the issues are never usually discussed) and Superman's otherwise dull personality benefits from this Marvel-style conflict. But adding a super-moppet is not an appropriate character development. Also Routh's neck is too thin.
He Said, She Said - SUPERMAN RETURNS review by scruple	Jun 30th, 2006 09:49:18 AM
For a detailed review of Superman Returns (told from "his" and "her" perspectives), go here: www.hesaidshesaidlove.blogspot .com www.hesaidshesaidreviewmovies. blogspot.com
a few points by doctoremittbrown	Jun 30th, 2006 12:33:39 PM
First off I just want to say that I
awesome review, moriarty! by JacksonsPole	Jun 30th, 2006 12:59:46 PM
now THAT'S a review! level headed. analytical. insightful. good stuff. moriarty's emerging as the best film critic on the internet. he understands films. and, he doesn't let emotion or sentimentality cloud his judgement. keep it up, man!
I agree by twitaman	Jun 30th, 2006 03:14:06 PM
Moriarty's review was the closest to my own opinion. He seems knowledgeable and level-headed and doesn't let his inherent geekiness get in the way of being objective.
kevin or hackman by tmanx	Jun 30th, 2006 07:39:11 PM
who was the better lex in the live action movies. kevin spacey or gene hackman? I think hackman was much better. It could be due to the better direction or the director or script.
Crap - what happened to white text !?! by ChezWhiz	Jun 30th, 2006 10:12:30 PM
Dang! I was expecting the spoiler to be in white text on a white background!
I'm mostly in agreement by colemanfrancis	Jun 30th, 2006 10:18:26 PM
I agree with almost everything said in the above review, especially the hope that the next film is more focused on knock-down, drag out superhero action. Bring on Brainiac. Or Darkseid. Or Mr. Mxpltk-whatever for all I care. Just no more Luthor (even III had basically a substitute Luthor). And please, Hollywood gods, give us a World's Finest movie. We now have rejuvinated Batman and Superman franchises, and I know the instinct is to keep them separate to make more money, but put Routh and Bale together and have them call each other CLark and Bruce. Have Singer make one movie and Nolan another and release the two movies six months apart if you want to satiate your lust for money. Please. I've wanted to see that team-up on screen since I was a kid, and a quality pairing is really something only the DC/WB universe can give us.
Better Luthor? by colemanfrancis	Jun 30th, 2006 10:22:59 PM
I'd have to say Hackman still reigns as the best film Lex. Yes he surrounded himself with idiots and wore dumb wigs. He still somehow managed to be more menacing than Spacey's more psychopathic LL. "Is that how a diseased mind like yours gets its kicks? Planning the deaths of innocent people?" "No, by causing the deaths of innocent people."
just saw IMAX 3D and... by Iwillwin	Jul 1st, 2006 12:55:55 AM
I liked it, but I wish they would have put the whole film in IMAX 3D. The space shuttle scene was amazing in imax 3D. Like I said before, next time they better have braniac!
Smallville's Luthor is a bald David Hasslehoff by MarkoOhNo	Jul 1st, 2006 01:32:37 AM
LOL!! But I'm still a huge fan of the show.
I saw superman 1 and 2 on Sky One there by emeraldboy	Jul 1st, 2006 09:15:09 AM
during the week. I looked at the cast. Yes the film looks chesey and the effects look cheap. In one film you have brando, terence stamp, glenn ford, jackie coogan. gene hackman, Ned Beatty, Margo Kidder and Christopher Reeve, Valerie Perinne. for those days that was a hell of a cast. Why didnt warners make a smallville movie. The could have killed of the annoying Chloe and they killed off Lionel Luthor and Lana this season. The characters would have been in place and it is strange then didnt make that movie. possibly something to do with wellings woodness maybe.
Easy Ebert by Roboteer	Jul 1st, 2006 10:15:11 AM
Why the umbrage over Easy Ebert's SR pan? Granted, he has become an Army of One to personally hype Hollywood box office (hence the apropos nickname). Look how often he's thumbs up to Roeper's thumbs down. How often he recommmends rottentomatoes. But the last several years, lefty politics is more often his trump card to show he's not a shill, and it's readily apparent when he goes against the grain. SR has a double whammy, it has positive Christian imagery and is minority free. The latter being like Ebert kryptonite to a big budget pic. Bry should have stuck to XMEN = TOLERANCE (or cast Christina Milian as Lois). That Rog would like, no matter how good/bad the pic.
I liked the movie by AwesomeBillFunk	Jul 1st, 2006 06:49:14 PM
but felt like the last third really meandered. Lost its drive. spoilers Did anyone else feel like Richard deserved someone better then that tramp whore Lois? I mean what a fucking guy he was, and what an unappreciative ass face she was. Possibly the most emotionally-stunted, self-obssesed, immature female lead ever. She's in love with a dream. Seems like if you don't have a cape and invulnerability you aint good enough for her. Even when Superman returns she falls back in love with him not because of some sort of deep personal connection they have, but because of a scene where she gets to fly around with him like they're on a magic carpet ride or something. Grow fucking up Lois, you got a kid and man who thinks he's the father of that child, who you keep on a perpetual engagement hook, and yet you keep this pissy Superman fantasy going because you get a kick out of it. your son and fella are both gonna hate you real soon. Just warning ya. end spoilers
But Kal Penn doesn't NOD!! WTF!?!?! by Drath	Jul 1st, 2006 07:08:03 PM
Damn you, Mori, you lied to me, Kal Penn never nodded once through the whole fucking movie! That RUINED the experience for me! I kept waiting and waiting, GOD did I wait, the movie's glacial pacing is almost as bad as Da Vinci Code so that god help me I was actually getting tired of hearing the Superman main theme, and yet not once did Kal Penn nod even when Luthor talked to him! All those bloody reaction shots of him and then he just gets crushed by the crystal rock thing and the movie dies in a slow crawl to the credits. Crap, I'm not even sure that he was even a "guy" now, let alone a "guy who nods." Can't you do anything right?! Learn how to write reviews without misleading people, bitch! PS, I'm a huge fan, loved the movie and love the site, keep it up.
COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THIS REVIEW!!! by billybobhoyle	Jul 2nd, 2006 02:50:46 AM
Liked it, wanted to love it. But Luthor's plan was just way way way way way too weak. But the acting was top notch stuff though. Damn i hope they make another Xmen series with Mardsen, the guy got shafted. Bring on the Mr. Sinister and the cloning of Cyclops, Jean, and introduce Havoc!!! If fox is paying attention!! I got your next trilogy right there.
Sharing the Technology by richievanderlow	Jul 2nd, 2006 09:54:54 AM
Mori, Don't you remember Jor-El's admonishment to his son in the first movie? 'It is forbidden for you to interfere in human history'. That's like Star Trek's prime directive... Superman can't share technology that humans did not discover on their own, no matter how it might benefit them. Seemed pretty obvious to me. Luthor's plans didn't seem that crazy... I admit there are some problems with it, but he didn't know how those land masses would really turn out but he did know that they would, at some point, be the only option for the world once he submerged the bulk of the existing continents. His own economy would be built on that. The only issue I can see is would he be around to enjoy those benefits once everything equalized. He's demented, so his logic doesn't have to make sense to us. His inability to think things through is what allowed the whole thing to backfire on him.
"It is forbidden for you to interfere with human - by half vader	Jul 2nd, 2006 12:56:16 PM
history". Which directly contradicts "For all these reasons I send them you, my only son". Every time Supes saves someone or averts disaster he interferes with human history, right? If you believe in the butterfly effect, him just saving that cat in the tree caused the little girl to get smacked for lying and on and on. In this film, you don't think saving that shuttle/plane changed history? Fuckin' hell - make up your mind, Jor-el!!
Ray Garraty #47 by Fernwick_	Jul 2nd, 2006 01:45:01 PM
Your absolutley correct. The YELLOW Sun gives Superman his powers, a RED sun, as on Krypton, would make Clark AKA Superman as any other mortal. He was sent to earth because of the yellow sun. It will make him stronger, faster, blah, blah. Its been referenced in the comics. Blows my mind that your the only one who caught that. Ive been wondering that ever since I heard about the trip.... Dumb. Fernwick www.theidiottestament.com
Superman Does NOT have a "massive" following.. by BarbadoSlim	Jul 2nd, 2006 03:34:00 PM
...you are fooling yourself if you think that. This movie will top out at 200 mil.
Looks like Ebert is seriously ill..... by emeraldboy	Jul 2nd, 2006 05:43:31 PM
He went in june 16th to have surgery for the salivary gland cancer he has . and it seemed he was doing fine untill yesterday, when he was rushed back to hospital again, when a blood clot exploded near the site of the operation . He was expected to make a full recovery after the op on the 16 the. things do not look very good.
In the time that superman has been away from the movies by emeraldboy	Jul 3rd, 2006 05:49:04 PM
We have had the fantastic four, the x-men movies and spiderman. They all have one thing in common. Marvel. and one other thing. x-men3, spidey, and FF are all contemporary movies with contemporary topics. what is the central story line of FF a family puts there differrances aside and saves the united states, in the x-men triliogy, it is all about difference and hope some people use difference to thier advantage and others use difference as a weapon of fear. Spiderman is the teenager ie geek all us guys would like to have been at one stage but like us all he has been gvien great responsibilities, he is torn between, hius family, fiends and girlfiends and saving NYand then there is batman. if we see someone trying to break into our house. The bruce wayne in us guys takes over and we become batman, we take the law into our own hands, even though that is against the law. Bruce wayne is the ulitmate vigilate, bats are scary, who he scares the evil doers of gotham, by dressing up as a giant bat and beating the shit out of people. there on his own then is clark kent/kalel/Superman, who is out of this world. that is why no one likes supes, he is not one of us. no matter how hard he tries
I wanted steak. But I got a veggie-burger with cheese. by JDanielP	Jul 4th, 2006 03:22:11 PM
I'd grade "SUPERMAN RETURNS" a "B-" ...or give it 2 and 1/2 stars (a half more than Ebert). Yeah, ...my brother was supposed to wait so that we both would see it, together. But the big guy couldn't wait and saw it anyway. And since there was no reason for me to wait, I took my opportunity and went. But it was a bonus for Warner Bros. because my brother ended up taking his wife and I took mine. As to everyone's feelings about the flick, my brother seemed to enjoy it the most. I got the impression that he felt it was a solid, good movie. (His wife isn't a fan of the genre so, as you might guess, she didn't really care for it.) On the other hand, my wife and I seemed to have similar feelings about the flick, with it being underwhelming and a bit flat. Herself, being a mother, felt that Lois should have been more protective of her son. But I can tell you that... before we even saw it, she had a problem with the casting of Lois. In her opinion, and I tend to agree with her on this, ...that Lois should have been more of a WOMAN. (Kate Winslet, perhaps?) And for me, besides it feeling underwhelming and flat, I felt that it should have been trimmed. As long as Peter Jackson's "KING KONG" was, I was fine with the length. But with "SUPERMAN RETURNS", I felt that there were numberous scenes and moments that I should've been shortened, if only a little. When Lois, her son, and her boyfriend were in the water and it looked as though they might drown (if you really believe that), I just kept waiting for the movie to cut to something else. And why do we have a story that focuses so much so on what Lex Luthor is doing, ...so much so that... maybe the budget and special/visual effects were edged in his favor, over the effects being used for Superman, himself? I think there are better stories to be written. I think there are better choices to be made. But at least I can say, "I hope that Warner Bros. will sign both Routh and Bale to an extra flick (besides the Superman and Batman trilogies) to star together, in the first Superman and Batman movie." Good job, Brandon Routh. I loved how you saved that plane.
History = Past, Current Moment = Present, and Lies by MarkoOhNo	Jul 4th, 2006 06:57:51 PM
Yes, Superman was forbidden from changing human HISTORY. But of course he defied that by flying around the world at nearly the speed of light for awhile. What son doesn't directly disobey his ol' man at some point in his life? Kinda sad he waited 'til he was nearly 30 to rebel, tho. Aside from that, he's messin' with human PRESENT. Read A Christmas Carol... you'll get a better sense for how it works. heh The one big discontinuity I've found is that he claims he never lies, and yet he lied straight into Gene Hackman's face in Superman 2 when he told him he'd lose his powers if he entered that chamber. And if you watch Smallville, lies are like a weekly occurrance for him. So apparently he hasn't fully developed that moral standard quite yet.
"This movie will top out at 200 mil." by MarkoOhNo	Jul 4th, 2006 07:06:30 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!! Talk about delusional! Not everyone in the world is a clone of you (thank God.) Most people are leaving LOVING this flick - some nearly in tears over the nostalgia alone - and wanting to see it again. The people disliking it are mostly those people who loved the effects in The Day After Tomorrow so much that they got in line for the DVD and wore it out within a month. =P Naw, Singer's gonna be walkin away with 200 mil just in his pocket!
Didn't Complete My Earlier Thought by MarkoOhNo	Jul 4th, 2006 07:16:46 PM
The reason Supe can't show us the tech is 'cause of this lil bit Jor-El taught him: that if he does too much for us, humanity will turn to him for EVERYthing, and there's only 26 hours in the day. (Or 24, as it is in Earth time.) So basically he's forbidden from completely tipping the balance, but instead doing enough to keep us from being too frustrated to make any effort in life.
This movie was fucking BORING by Steve Rogers	May 31st, 2007 08:02:29 AM
There, I said it.
THIS MOVIE WAS FUCKING AMAZING by supercowbell 4 cant stop the cowbell	Jun 14th, 2007 11:42:57 PM
there I said it

Talkbacks

Moriarty Reviews SUPERMAN RETURNS!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks