Superman Returns - BEWARE: POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT- Page 3

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 12:40am

Build a bridge over what, jrb_actor? My opinion that CRASH stinks and that Ebert is an idiot for thinking that CRASH is amazing? I don't think so, as my opinion will not change irrespective of how that film "is loved by many" and the fact that "it won best picture."

Updated On: 7/3/06 at 12:40 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 2:31am

I don't care if your opinion changes. But I'm just sick of hearing people whine and trash Crash. Brokeback lost--people need to start getting over it. The fact is that you completely discredit a major reviewer because you disagree with him on one film (that you clearly missed the point of to think it one of the "most insulting films of all time") is just silly.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 9:33am

"Brandon Routh looks and sounds so much like Christopher Reeve it's scary. I got chills whenever he first spoke."

How often did that happen? Three times? I feel as though Superman maybe had 5 lines the whole film.

For once, I actually agree with Mr. Ebert. His review sums up how I felt about this film.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:04am

Yeah that was one of my main problems too adam. For a Superman movie, Superman had very little to do, or at least very little to say.

I also didn't think there was any big climax to the movie. After sitting there for 2 hours and 40 minutes I thought the end of the movie was a let down.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:23am

Roger Ebert needs to get over himself. He LOVED the first movie, and SUPERMAN RETURNS felt like the fraternal twin of the original. Stuff he complained about in the review, he praised for the original. I lost all respect for his reviews a few years ago.

Updated On: 7/3/06 at 10:23 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:25am

"Stuff he complained about in the review, he praised for the original."

Like what?

[RobbO]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:28am

who cares what ebert says, what did muscle23ftl think of the film?!?

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:30am

How did Brokeback even enter this discussion about my disagreeing with Ebert and his opinions about SR and CRASH? It seems to me, jrb_actor, that you're the one who needs to "build a bridge" because your statements clearly show that you have no respect for anyone's opinion if they don't align with yours with respect to CRASH and Ebert's critique of it. It's fair enough that you don't care about my opinion, which I am free to express, but similarly, I don't care about yours, Ebert's or the Academy Voters' opinions toward CRASH either. That's just too bad that you're "sick of hearing people whine and trash Crash" because just as you disagree with me, I am free to disagree with you.

And FYI, I did not "clearly miss[] the point" with respect to CRASH. How could I, when there was NOTHING subtle about that extremely insulting film as it sledge hammered its so-called "points" to its viewers?

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:34am

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:34am

Ok, sorry about that. I just read the review again (I read it a few days ago) and I retract my statement. But, I still don't get his review. He keeps comparing it to the original:

We remember the chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) in the original "Superman" movie, and then observe how their counterparts are tongue-tied in this one. If they had a real romance (and they did), has it left them with nothing more than wistful looks and awkward small talk?

In the first and second movie, it was like young crushes and whatnot. In this movie, Superman just left without a word for five years. Would you be upset and not want to get those feelings back, just to be hurt again?

Spacey plays Luthor as sour and sadistic; he has no fun with the role, nor do we.

The thing I HATED about Gene Hackman in the role of Lex Luthor in the originals, is that he made it too cartoonish and campy. Lex Luthor is EVIL not a walking stand up comedian. Kevin Spacey had funny things to say, but he was portrayed the character as he is in the comics. He is a serious business man, with intent on destroying the world.


What I think is, that Mr. Ebert just wanted a carbon copy of the original, and he did not get it. This is a more serious, darker Superman due to the events that happened between the second movie and this one.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:38am

Serious and dark? I didn't feel like it was either.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:39am

Well, compared to the original it is.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:01am

I guess. I think the problem is he tried to have both and didn't fully pull off either.

[Jim Colyer]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:08am

I will try to see it tomorrow.

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:24am

I agree-- way too much wasted time. The whole Spacey "Prologue" with the old woman was pointless. Spacey wandering around his new continent-- beyond pointless. Beside which, who would want to live on that new continent? I'd rather live in Jersey.

And the plot had some holes to say the least-- why did Superman leave, anyhow? And why did it take him 5 years? To look at where his planet was? Is Krypton really a 2+ year fly away? Man, what a dull trip!

And why is Parker Posey in this film? It's set up that she's going to help save Superman or stop Lex but...nothing. She gives a few anxious looks and then....goes back to the dog.

And the "Plot twist"? Oh man. It would have embarrassed M Night Shyamalon.

That said, the plane crash was awesome-- a Superman classic moment. And the scene where Lex's henchmen go after Superman was very chilling.

Other wise this movie seemed to me too much of a set-up for a series of sequels.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:34am

I thought Parker was there to put some life in the movie. Actually...she does do something kinda important when she's in the helicopter.

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 12:25pm

Loved it. Had a great time. Saw a first showing locally 10 PM last Tues. night.

I can't say what some of my main qualms with Ebert's review are without going into spoiler territory ... suffice it to say that something he brings up to compare, it's two entirely different situations and what he wished had been done in Superman Returns really wouldn't have made a lot of sense in context.

But whatever. I guess for me a lot of it was pure nostalgia. Superman is a major part of bringing me and my husband together.
First Reeve movie made me start reading the comics again; I met Al through the letter columns. We honeymooned in NYC, visiting both the DC and Marvel offices (and where both pretty much rolled out the red carpet to us, DC especially). I have a Superman "S" tattoo on my left shoulder that also incorporates a heart, our names, and a banner with our wedding date.

So I freely admit that I went in to see Superman Returns fully wanting to like it. Wasn't sure how I'd warm up to Routh's performance, but I liked it. He does seem to be channeling Reeve, but then this is supposed to be something of a continuation from Superman I and II. I think a lot of fans would be disappointed if he were too different. I didn't even mind a Superman who doesn't talk much (hadn't really thought about it much before reading all the comments here). I don't think Supes really needs to talk much. He just does stuff mostly, and that's fine with me.

Only disappointing part for me was the (IMO) jerk seated to my right who, as soon as the movie itself was over and as the credits began to role, continued to sit there throughout, on his cell phone to someone griping about how much he hated the movie and why and blah blah blah ... Okay, fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I honestly could not understand why this guy had to sit there all through the credits (even at one time asking "why am I sitting through the credits?" -- yeah, I was wanting to know the same thing, why was he??) going on and on about hating the movie. Seems to me he could have left the theater to do that instead of sitting there spoiling it somewhat for me and possibly others around who wanted to stay through the credits. I just don't get people like that. Maybe he's one of those people who feel like their opinion needs to be broadcast to as large an audience around as possible. I don't know. In this guy's case, I'm sure I smelled liquor on his breath, so that could also have been a factor in his behavior.

Anyway, I'm blah blah blahing myself here, but yeah, bottom line is, I loved it, it took me back to some fond memories. :) Hubby hasn't had a chance to see it yet, hopefully over the fourth he'll get to ... he's a bit more the critic than I am, so I'm hoping he likes it too!
Updated On: 7/3/06 at 12:25 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 1:42pm

for jsg03jd

Posted: 7/3/06 at 1:45pm

Actually Eric, what DOES she do? I know she is TRYING to thwart Lex's plan, but does she? Doesn't she do exactly what he'd do-- throwing them into the sea? I found that very hard to follow and wasn't sure if she'd made it better or worse.....

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 2:54pm

***Possible Spoiler*****

Yes she throws the crystals in the sea. I assume that she was attmepting to thwart Lex but it's just a plot hole because doing that would just cause five more continents to grow.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 3:10pm

they landed on the rock--I agree that not seeing Superman find them made for a loose end.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 4:49pm

Yeah, I was going to say that it fell on the rocks, not the sea. And the movie explained why he left. There were rumors that a part of Krypton still existed, so Superman left to see if it was true or not (it wasn't). It took him 5 years because he had to go a long distance. In the original, Jer-El took Clark through the galaxy giving him life lessons, and when he returned, 10 years had passed. I am assuming, it took 2 1/2 years to find where Krypton used to be and 2 1/2 years to get back home . . . . plus, it's a comic book movie. Do we really need too much of an explanation?

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 10:49pm

Spoilers

I saw it today. It was OK but I liked Gene Hackman and Valerie Perrine as Lex and his girl better. In this version, it seemed that "Superman" was like Jesus as there was a lot of emphasis that his father had sent him to earth as a gift to mankind. Also, I could have done without the brutal beating of "Superman" with the added stabbing and last, but not least, the kid. Why must there be a kid?

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:28pm

Good job, jrb_actor. You have astounded me with your intelligence, or, more accurately, lack thereof.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/06 at 11:46pm

jsg03jd, you so told me!