Superman Returns

Just got done seeing it. It made me go from thinking Superman was a homo to thinking he was pretty cool. I think the whole movie was well done and may be the best superhero movie to date.

Has anyone else seen it yet? What are your thoughts etc.

I just wish they had chosen older actors!

9 out of 10 for me. I wish they had done something about that costume though for less "bulge" factor.

Ha, american movies are crap. CRAP.

If Ebert is right, and he usually is, this isn't worth seeing.

l]

Ironically theres a homosexuality thread going on right now in EE as well.

Psyonisis said:

This is the guy that gave Garfield 3 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040611/REVIEWS/406110304/1023

So what? He likes a movie most people don't. Stuff like that happens on occasion.

If it was Ebert's review for Superman alone I wouldn't think much about it. But in this case all negative reviews reiterate the exact same points so there is certainly some substance behind it. And I didn't particularly like any of Singer's previous films.

It's not about what particular reviewers write. If you want some guidelines you have to read many and find the information in there that interests you. And everything combined tells me that this movie is most likely a waste of time.

Saw it just then. Was pretty cool, but certainly could have been better.

MILD SPOILER, ETC.

Ebert said:

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

Spy Kids, eh? Ebert's off his rocker.

But I will agree that it was somewhat of a lackluster film.

I thought it was pretty good. I dont think many things needed to be changed, if any at all. Two thumbs up from me!

Costumes felt a little dated, and the child felt under worked. I too wish they used older actors, Superman looks 22 in this film. Also for a Superman film his "bulge" is very tame.

But superman is super powered so doesnt age! however, if the films all follow on from each other, and the first one came out in the 70's, and Lois was supposed to be in her 20's or 30's in the first one, shouldnt she be pretty old now?

Fredrik said:

If Ebert is right, and he usually is, this isn't worth seeing.

I discovered that if Ebert likes it, I'll usually hate it, and vice versa. Of course I've never been a Superman fan, so I prolly won't see it anyway.

I've luckily fluked out on finding an online critic that has almost the exact same tastes in movies I do, so I just check his reviews. I think we've only differed on opinion on one movie in the 4 years I've been checking the site. :D There's just too much shit out there for me to want to weed through myself!

way, way to long. it kept drawing out bits where nothing is happening. Get's really annoying near the ending. you don't need five scenes of superman just flying around for the sake of flying around and *spoiler* being in a coma he's obviously going to come out of, all I was thinking at that point was "God, you've beat the bad guy and saved America, THE FILM IS OVER! GET TO THE CREDITS!" Decent script though.

Better then X-men 3 I guess

deathbringer said:

But superman is super powered so doesnt age! however, if the films all follow on from each other, and the first one came out in the 70's, and Lois was supposed to be in her 20's or 30's in the first one, shouldnt she be pretty old now?

This movie is set only around 5 years after Superman 2.

Captain Red said:

way, way to long. it kept drawing out bits where nothing is happening.

Agreed, it took forever for plot to develop, not to mention the badguy choice was kinda silly (lex is cool and all but he aint exciting!).

X-Men 3 was a dissapointment but that was still good.

deathbringer said:

But superman is super powered so doesnt age!

BZZZT. On Earth, Clark ages the same as any human male. Except at the age of 90 when he falls, instead of breaking a hip he breaks the pavement.

"Notable powers : Vast super strength, speed & stamina, multiple extra sensory and vision powers, invulnerability, longevity, flight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman

Was it five or ten years he was absent. You know what would be cool. If he returned in thirty years and his bastard child hates him.

I don't think they've ever fully answered the question of Superman growing old. Then again, I've never followed the comics too closely.

DC did produce a comic where Superman supposedly lived until the year eighty gillion or something, where he was a haggard old superman, and then fought cloned twins of Hitler. However, he grew weak with time and was fatally shot by the Hitler twins. He was only able to kill them by using a big freaking gun that was made from, like, three miniguns and maybe a few car engines. Then, instead of dying gracefully, he fell in a fire with Batman's body so they wouldn't clone either of them. Then some random kid throws his gun away because apparently they are bad, mmkay.

That may well be the worst thing I've ever read.

One of the things I dislike about Superman is that for someone to be seen has "menacing", they have to have crpytonite. It gets too tiring knowing that the villain's SEKRT! weapon is...omg crpytonite.

alexz721 said:

That may well be the worst thing I've ever read.

What he said is true, and the comic was really funny!

So what is the deal with this movie?

Is it a fresh new Superman, or is it a sequal to part 2...

...assuming that the gay ass 3 and 4 never took place?

Superman is one of the famous movie in the world. I will watch with my father on 16/7. The ability of superman is powerful and impressive. Also he is muscular, he can move the massive things.

Dragon Ball's characters should kick Superman ass in a second without need for Cryptonite.

^^retarded

XDelusion said:

So what is the deal with this movie?

Is it a fresh new Superman, or is it a sequal to part 2...

...assuming that the gay ass 3 and 4 never took place?

Everyone I knows been asking that.