|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 28, 2006 23:28:36 GMT -5
As most of you know, the latest installment of the Superman film franchise debutted today. (and in select screenings yesterday) but the question is, what did you think of it? I saw it earlier this morning (for the matinee discount) and i personally thought it was very good. What I like about it is what some people may not have and that was the fact that this was far more in keeping with the previous films than the comic. While it worked for batman because they went back to square one, Supeman was in continuity with the previous films and really makes Supes look cool without making him "badass" like wolvering, batman, punisher (  ) and blade. Instead it had a very cool but still moral hero being heroic. The special effects were always cool ESPECIALLY in the beginning when we see krypton fall into the red sun!!! There were some moments that I thought were weird, but overall I think this is a real enjoyable movie. what did you guys think? |
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jun 28, 2006 23:44:46 GMT -5
Seeing it tomorrow & I'm giddy as a schoolgirl in anticipation! I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think if they can win Ramon over then it has to be something  |
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 29, 2006 0:21:16 GMT -5
it is not as hard to win me over as you think. i mean i DO like your Green Lantern Corps after all. also, i am really rooting for the DC movies to do well because marvels line of films does nothing for me. spiderman one i liked but that is the extent of my marvel movie love. |
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 29, 2006 8:23:56 GMT -5
Were there a lot of cheesy moments like there were in the older films (which doesn't make them bad IMO)?
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 29, 2006 8:43:24 GMT -5
some yeah. The best one was after the plane seen you see in the trailers.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Jun 29, 2006 9:05:55 GMT -5
I'm hoping to see it this weekend. I want to make sure that I take the kids when I see it. Is it kid friendly, Ramon? I found that X-MEN III was not as kid friendly as I had hoped.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 29, 2006 9:17:48 GMT -5
its really kid freindly. there are a few lines that are "adult" but i didnt see any kids taking notice of it in the theatre i was at. i won't say anthing more about it other than it was there
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jun 30, 2006 0:03:49 GMT -5
Simply put...
An AWESOME Freaking movie.
I grew up idolizing Superman thanks to the George Reeves series & the Christopher Reeve movies. Superman the Animated Series reminded me of why and this movie drove it home.
The airplane rescue sequence alone was worth the price of admission... And yeah, there may have been no 'big fight' scene, but you have to admit the confrontation with Luthor was IN-TENSE!
2 thumbs way up, this movie may (after a second & third viewing) end up on my top 10 of all times list.
|
|
|
|
Post by batarang on Jul 2, 2006 21:47:03 GMT -5
I saw it last night, and I hate to be a stinker but I did not like this movie at ALL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 2, 2006 22:01:20 GMT -5
Bummer
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jul 2, 2006 22:55:06 GMT -5
I was disappointed. I would watch 6 random episodes of Superman: TAS rather than go see this movie again.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jul 2, 2006 23:03:46 GMT -5
to each their own.
i think you were just hoping that terance stamp would make a breif appearance to satisfy your rabid man-lust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 3, 2006 1:57:30 GMT -5
Hell... I'd watch 6 random episodes of S:TAS anyway... don't just say you guys didn't like it, tell us why! Come on, this is a discussion forum! Everyone has an opinion, share it!
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jul 3, 2006 5:27:38 GMT -5
It wasn't bad. I was just expecting the most expensive movie ever made to be better than that. I just don't like how they continued with the storyline from the first two Superman movies. It just doesn’t fit with the other two movies. It doesn't have the same tone as the first two movies. It was more serious than it should have been as a continuation of the first two movies. Superman having a son was just a bad idea. I just don't see how Superman could be so irresponsible. Another thing that really bothered me was the actor’s age, they just look way too young, especially Kate Bosworth. Kristin Kreuk is older than Kate Bosworth. Holy statutory Batman! I know they’re in different continuities but Superman should not be romantically involved with a woman who’s younger than teenage Superman’s girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jul 3, 2006 6:05:37 GMT -5
I can see what you mean by saying it isnt as lighthearted as the first two, but you can't expect them to carry that tone over if it isn't as relevant to todays audience as it was in the 70s and 80's.
As far as Superman being irresponsible, its not like before he left he had her take a pregnancy test to make sure. If you are going to knock him for having sex with her in this one, i hope you remember that it was in Superman 2 that they "did the deed" and it was a far freer time for that sort a thing. People weren't concerened with getting Kryptonian aids for at least another couple years.
as far as the teenage supes having an older girlfreind than the film supes, c'mon... give him a break. i am sure it would be easier to sell her as a milf than the middle age woman with left over birthweight. its the big pictures, we can't have any of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 3, 2006 6:26:52 GMT -5
I went into this movie wanting so much to be blown away--- I couldn't sleep the night before in anticipation!
Sadly, I was underwhelmed.
It's not that I didn't like the film--- I did!--- but I really felt that they got some stuff wrong, and that this movie could have been so much more...
To start with, as admiring a fan as I am of his ouvre, I don't think Bryan Singer was right for this movie. He certainly approached it lovingly, and with the proper respect for what had gone before, but my god was this a heavy movie! The atmosphere was too dark and clausterphobic (where it should have been bright and wide-open, epic big!). Then there was the heavy-handed Christ analogy, which to my mind is unnecessary (I mean, the material itself is enough, no need to hit us over the head with it--- we get it). And the movie went into some really unwarranted directions (the last few minutes of the movie, after Superman saves the day, were manipulative and, again, IMO, unnecessary), and wasted way too much time on useless stuff (basically, any scene Lois Lane was in, long loving shots where the camera lingered on the droll expression of Lex Luthor)--- this film could have used a bold editor!
Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast (the worst thing about the movie), and seemed to have no chemistry with Brandon Routh. The writers even got her character wrong.
Kevin Spacey was terrific--- but too good! He seemed to have as much screen time, if not more than Superman. With a performance like his, less is more. But I will say, his portrayal was disturbingly, jarringly different from Gene Hackman's lovable rogue--- which for me, would have worked better with a new presentation on the character (the billionaire scientist/businessman version of the comics, perhaps).
Brandon Routh was spot-on! If I can't have Chris Reeve, than I'll take Routh. He managed to fill some pretty big shoes, and seemed to effortlessly become both Clark and Superman.
The script was a lazy retread of Superman I.
The action scenes were amazing, and were a much needed injection of awe and wonder.
All-in-all, I give it a 6 out of 10. Hopefully, it clears the way for a better sequel.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jul 3, 2006 6:43:07 GMT -5
I can see what you mean by saying it isnt as lighthearted as the first two, but you can't expect them to carry that tone over if it isn't as relevant to todays audience as it was in the 70s and 80's. That's why they should have done a reboot. If they do a continuation of the original storyline, then they should keep the tone of the first two movies. They need a much better reason than "it's just not applicable today" if they want to change the tone but keep everything else. You don't go from Superfriends to Justice League without a really good explanation otherwise you're just better off with a reboot of the series. Another reason why they should have rebooted the series. It would have been ok if they used make up to make her look at least 5 years older but she just looks way too young. |
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jul 3, 2006 6:56:00 GMT -5
yeah but if they did do a reboot people would have whined that it didnt live up to the original film. batman was able to reboot the series because really none of the pevious batman movies were great. superman one and two were so the same thing cannot be said for superman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 3, 2006 12:38:23 GMT -5
I agree with Ramon. To reboot this series would have been unessesary since the first 2 were so good (despite the saran wrap 'S' & gravity defying laser-fingers).
I do understand some of what David said, but I bought into it all 'hook, line & sinker'. I hope to see it again this week & feel the same about it afterward. It was so good, I think I will... but every time I saw the Star Wars prequels again I came out more & more underwhlemed.
But this movie really, really worked for me.
Aloha!
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jul 3, 2006 20:34:00 GMT -5
I guess I'm too spoiled by the DCAU.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jul 3, 2006 21:12:03 GMT -5
I think we all were, Giantevilhead. but now all we have are reruns...
|
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Jul 3, 2006 22:15:37 GMT -5
Well I saw it this weekend with my entire family, and I came out of it enjoying it more then any of them did. That's not to say that I thought it was the best comic movie I've ever seen, or even the best Superman movie, but it was good.
Scott was right about the price of admission. The airplane scene knocked my socks off!
Spacey was excellent as Luthor, and Brandon did exceedingly well as both Clark and Supes, and he was the one I was most wary of. Idle was dead on with his thoughts about Kate. Of all the incarnations I have seen of Lois Lane, hers was the most boring. There was no fire in her, no passion. No fiestiness. No nothing.
Then there's the whole kid thing. I said in the chatroom the other day, and I will stand by this prediction, that I will not be surprised if DC follows suit in the next six months and Lois and Clark end up having a child, even though it felt way wrong to me, but during the televison show Lois and Clark, I also felt that the wedding of the two was wrong. That didn't stop DC from doing it as well, though.
On a whole, the movie was good, but not great. I would like to think that Singer was really getting his footing with this one, and is going to just knock our socks off with the next one. The final ten to fifteen minutes was way too much, too long, too dragged out.
And I'm not even going to mention what's his name (that Cyclops guy-can't remember his name at the moment). That plot kind of gives me the willy's. It makes Superman the "other man". Blechhh.
All in all, though, I give it a 7 out of 10. However, I wasn't a fan of the first movie either, but the second one kicked butt. So I have faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by batarang on Jul 3, 2006 23:20:42 GMT -5
My two cents. Or actually Idle's, since I agree with most of his points. So read his post first, and this is what I would add:
I didn't see any previews or read any spoilers or gossip going into it so I really didn't know what to expect. I know what I was hoping for, a sort of "Superman Begins" reboot like they gave Batman. Now though I like the first two Superman movies as a sort of nostalgic childhood thing, watching them now I can't help but feel how dated they are. It's been over twenty-five years since Supes 1 and even in the comics at that time Big Blue was a very different character. So I was very surprised to find out this was a direct sequel.
Brandon Routh tries so hard to channel Chris Reeve there were times I wondered if his ghost didn't play the part (even their voices were eerily similar). I wanted a new take on the Man of Steel, not an imitation of the old one. He looks great, has the potential, and ends up playing Chris Reeve playing Superman. And I can't stand the return of the bumbling, goofy Clark Kent.
As has been mentioned it is unbelievable how badly the role of Lois Lane was miscast. Way too young, and the stilted, muted performance almost torpedoed the entire movie.
Spacey as Luthor was good casting. But I didn't like how the part was written. This man is a super genius and he resorts to the same scheme from Supes 1. And his rivalry/hatred of Superman was never underlined until the near end of the film. This should have been more of a personal conflict for Luthor.
Didn't Superman tell the president at the end of Supes 2 he was sorry he was away so long and wouldn't let him down again? Well this time he was away a long time and told NO ONE? And this world certainly does need a Superman.
Which brings me to what I didn't like the most. The director was paying homage to the other Supes films, not the character himself. He is obviously not a comic fan (I think I actually read that somewhere) and for my money I didn't want another 70's or early 80's movie (for crying out loud Brando was even in it). "Batman Begins", though it doesn't follow comic lore to the letter, captured more of the spirit of the modern Batman and updated him for today very well, in my opinion. This movie is stuck in a time warp for me. I want "Superman Begins", sorry to say.
Oh yeah, the airplane sequence was utterly amazing. But I wanted more of that. With all of these incredible special effects of today I wanted more scenes of Superman performing amazing feats. There wasn't enough super-action for me.
Maybe I'll like the next one better. I can only hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jul 5, 2006 16:02:54 GMT -5
All in all, though, I give it a 7 out of 10. However, I wasn't a fan of the first movie either, but the second one kicked butt. So I have faith. Same here about the first 2 movies. The first half of the first movie was awsome, so it make the poorly done second half a real letdown. Superman II was definately better than I. Yeah, and I KNOW we were so incredibly spoiled by the DCAU. It's really the only alternate DC Universe to get everyone's character spot on. Now enough rambling, I just got back from seeing RETURNS. I got to the theater when the opening credits were rolling. I got extremely excited listening to the classic Williams theme in amazing surround sound while I was finding my seat. The opening credits were a great homage to the first movie. All in all, I think this was a worthy sequal to the first two movies. Though it was a bit more serious, it definately kept the tone of the first two movies. Superman: Routh was an excellent cast. He filled Reeve's shoes perfectly. There were even a couple of scenes where I had to remember that this WASN'T Reeve. Definately a great fit for the role. Luthor: Spacy was by far the best cast of the whole movie. He almost completely stole the show. I think I even liked him more than Hackman. I think it was a good idea to stick to the "I will go to the ends of the Earth to get rich" Luthor of the 70s rather than jumping to the insane evil 'KILL SUPERMAN' genious Luthor of today's comics (did that make sense?). Absolutely great Luthor. Lois: Well, this one's not so definate. I'm not saying Kate Bosworth was a horrible miscast, as she did get the job done in the end, but she just didn't seem like Lois Lane. She looked way too young, and wasn't tough enough to be Lois. She got the job done, but didn't do anything further. "I've done Superman a hundred times!" All in all, they definately got the atmosphere of the first two movies. It feels like it belongs in the same series. Did Luthor's scheme seem rather similar to the first movie? In both movies, he wanted to wipe out the United States to get good real estate. Though the idea of using the crystal from the fortress of solitude was a great idea. Keeping Brando as Jor-El using sound clips and video from the first movie was a great idea. And I really liked how they ended the movie the same as all the other movies. Definately shows that this movie wants to belong. Oh yeah, and who knew that Kryptonian and human genes could mix to make a half-human, half-Kryptonian kid? Why didn't the kid just use his powers to save them from the sinking boat? I didn't get that. He throws a piano at a guy, yet is powerless to open a door? Hmmmmm........... All in all, 8/10. Whatever faults you find in this movie, just remember that Superman could be disarming nuclear missles, fighting a retarded radioactive man made from his own DNA, and repairing the Great Wall of China by just staring at it. But he wasn't, and in the end, Superman Returns was a pretty good movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 6, 2006 0:27:32 GMT -5
I saw the movie tonight so I'll share my thoughts. The Good: The movie looked spectacular. The sets were beautiful: Lex's ship, the Daily Planet, Fortress of Solitude, etc. The effects were done very well and never distracting. The action scenes were breath-taking: the plane sequence, the quake in Metropolis, etc. Great casting. I really liked Jimmy and Perry. Brandon carried the role well as both personas even if he really didn't have a lot of dialogue or much time as Clark. Kevin Spacey was strong and entertaining but something was a little off in the character presentation. I liked Kate Bosworth better than I expected but the character suffered from the awkward family plotline. All the rights elements were here for the film and the love of the property showed through on screen. All the homage shots in the film were great, most noticeable being the lifting the car pose from Action number one. The Bad: The movie was just too long. Too many shots/scenes lingered and even dragged. A good half-hour less of movie would have really helped the film. And it did echo the original film a little too much. Some of the characterizations were just odd. When did our hero become a Super Stalker? He watches Lois at home, snags her off rooftops and flies by her house (I know where you live!), and even breaks into the kid's room at night. A little too creepy. And Lois was an emotional wreck. She struggles with smoking, has no idea if she should stay with her partner or not, and can't even properly stand up to Perry about following a story? And the character was physically abused too, being tossed around airplane cabins, slammed into furniture, wacked with doors, she literally had the crap beaten out of her in this movie. Then there was the kid. He was cute, yes, but where are they possibly going with this storyline? The entire Superman-secretly-woos-Lois apart from her family was weird and caused a lot of angst and drama where it could have been accomplished with something simpler and in turn freed up a lot more time for the character to go around and be awe-inspiring and do generally super things. Will we see the kid in a film or two wearing a little Jr. supersuit and high-fiving Superman when they stop their first meteor together. *shudder* Or even worse, will the child be sacrificed to inject even more angst into the story? Also, did I need to see the Man of Steel get his ass kicked by Kumar? And why were there so many dog eating jokes? I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was the best Superman movie so far and pretty far ahead of most of the superhero films to date, but I believe Batman Begins worked better and Spider-man was exactly what this film should have been. Raimi obviously used the Super-films as a model and managed to balance action with story and drama with humor more effectively than Singer did here. If I look to the X-men as Singer's track record, the first one was off and had very visible weak spots with the follow-up movie being much stronger, so I really hope the next Superman will be a slam dunk. But for now, this one was more than satisfying and a welcome return to a much-loved story.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 6, 2006 11:26:48 GMT -5
I saw it again yesterday & I have to stick by my previous review. I thought it was great. I went into it looking for reasons to dislike Kate Bosworth & really couldn't find any. Yeah, she looked too young, but at least this Lois was easy on the eyes. I never could figure out why Supes crushed on Margot Kidder... yuck. Terri Hatcher, I see that, Erica Durance, I definitely see that... Animated Dana Delaney, oh yeah! Margot Kidder... uh, no.
I just thought it was great... and it goes into really unexplored Superman territory. I give it a 9 out of 10.
I enjoyed it more than the Spider-Man flicks, because aside from those movies, I could really care less about the web-head. Liked it more than the X-movies, because, well... just not that big a Marvel fan (though X2 blew me away). All the other Marvel movies blew completely. Liked it better than Batman Begins, though I like Batman a lot, I've always preferred big blue & BB had issues for me.
Let's hope Wonder Woman is as well written as David's and we'll have a spectacular show!
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jul 6, 2006 21:54:02 GMT -5
I saw it again yesterday & I have to stick by my previous review. I thought it was great. I went into it looking for reasons to dislike Kate Bosworth & really couldn't find any. Yeah, she looked too young, but at least this Lois was easy on the eyes. I never could figure out why Supes crushed on Margot Kidder... yuck. Terri Hatcher, I see that, Erica Durance, I definitely see that... Animated Dana Delaney, oh yeah! Margot Kidder... uh, no. I just thought it was great... and it goes into really unexplored Superman territory. I give it a 9 out of 10. I enjoyed it more than the Spider-Man flicks, because aside from those movies, I could really care less about the web-head. Liked it more than the X-movies, because, well... just not that big a Marvel fan (though X2 blew me away). All the other Marvel movies blew completely. Liked it better than Batman Begins, though I like Batman a lot, I've always preferred big blue & BB had issues for me. Let's hope Wonder Woman is as well written as David's and we'll have a spectacular show! You would really take Superman Returns to Batman Begins? Is this just because you're more of a big blue fan? |
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 7, 2006 0:11:58 GMT -5
Partly... but also because BB's action scenes weren't done well. All the fight scenes were so 'upclose' you couldn't tell what was going on. The guy that played Bats (can't remember his name right now... too many Mai-Tai's) trained & trained for all those fight scenes & he was a black blur because the cameras were constantly on zoom. The Scarecrow wasn't used to his full potential (but at least he lived to fight another day). Mrs. Cruise was just about as useless a character as you could imagine.
Don't get me wrong though, I still loved that movie as well, I just preferred SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jul 7, 2006 0:25:45 GMT -5
christian bale's fight scenes where lost in the cinematography but i thought it worked for the most part. it is a good compliment to s.r. becasue it shows how opposite the two really are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jul 7, 2006 2:24:59 GMT -5
I guess so... but Batman has all these fighting abilities. I just wanted to see them a little more, ya know?
|
|
) and blade. Instead it had a very cool but still moral hero being heroic. The special effects were always cool ESPECIALLY in the beginning when we see krypton fall into the red sun!!! There were some moments that I thought were weird, but overall I think this is a real enjoyable movie. what did you guys think?
