jerseykrs said:

Yeah, you might as well flaunt it! Everyone is a geek about something!

cborgman said:

did you pick up the Buffy box set yet?

JediMaster said:

Wow, that explaination makes this movie sound really cool. Maybe I will have to see it.

kidelrich said:

not yet.

cborgman said:

I have faith he'll do right by Wonder Woman! His current run on Astonishing X-Men is...well...astonishing!!!

kidelrich said:

It's impossible, Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle the sperm? I gurantee you he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back. What about her womb? Do you think it's strong enough to carry her child? He's an alien, for christ sake. His Kyrptonian biological makeup is enhanced by earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan the kid could kick right through her stomach. Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. The only way he could bang regular chicks is with a kryptonite condom. That would kill him!

jerseykrs said:

mallrats.

JediMaster said:

which, speaking of, i finally saw x-men 3 yesterday.

kidelrich said:

I watched it yesterday. Again.

jerseykrs said:

fly fat ass, fly!

jerseykrs said:

One of the best movies to watch drunk. Quick, somebody quote the line the fat guy says to the little kid about the picture.

kidelrich said:

YOU KNOW WHAT!! THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!!! THAT'S JUST A GUY IN A SUIT!!!

jerseykrs said:

no, the one about the schooner!

kidelrich said:

Little Girl: (looking at a Magic Eye poster) Wow, a schooner.
Willam Black: Ha ha ha ha. You dumb bastard. It’s not a schooner… it’s a Sailboat.
Little Boy: A schooner IS a sailboat stupid head.
Willam Black: You know what?! There is no Easter Bunny! That’s just a guy in a suit!

jerseykrs said:

That line makes me laugh uncontrollably.

I was hyped, and ready for the magic... and I got.... poo poo on the screen and on the soundtrack.

The composer and arrangement of the music was amateur hour in it's interpretations of the original themes as especially in their placement. The new music was the same old uninspired bullshit of non-melodic string chords and choir that is generic. There was one point where they quote the love theme form '78, and it was retarded in it's flow and rhythm.

The script was horribly underdeveloped. When I first saw Superman the Movie, I could sit down and tell people the storyline, and each scenario had a unique setting, environment, and punch. And it all led up to Superman doing rescues on such a huge scale that he makes a big mistake, forgets about Lois and lets her die. That was genius. Every sequence seemed a perfect contract to the last, and it all seemed to build to create this epic story.

Not so with this one. Try to tell me the story in perfect episodes of character interaction, environment, action sequence, dramatic thread, etc... I dare you!

For example the rescue of the plane is arguably the most majestic and exciting action piece, and it's up front. They should have made this much more personal, concentrated on Lois and him, and had that part happen as the climax since that was the best they came up with.

Lex's plan is so uninteresting. In the first one he reprograms nuclear missles so that they will hit the San Andreas fault and sink CA into the ocean to make all his bought land suddenly beach front property. You go through the reprogramming of the missiles, the chasing after them, the dive into the fualt, the rescue/fixes of all the mayhem that occurs, golden gat, hoover dam.... all leading to him finding Lois's dead body in a moment of silence and natural sound.

This one... seems so low budget (where did the money go?) You don't even see a shot of them fly by in a real plane to see Superman as a speck in the water. That important rescue had all the probability and visual scope of an episode of a tv sitcom of mediums shots and close ups on green screen.

it's just not there. It's vague, it's immature, it's like film students were given millions, and they just don't have the experience to actually form a STORY that makes you believe and feel transported.

ufoclub said:

I really liked it.

Imago said:

jerseykrs said:

Well, it was pretty good.
Superman looked very handsome. And Lois's boyfriend was good looking.
And Lois was really pretty.

It was a nice movie.

is this another Dan/Imago thread?

Imago said:

that's why it's not good. It's only nice. It needs to be good enough, that you would skip work and hanging out with friends or loved ones to go see it AGAIN.

ufoclub said:

I guess i wasn't dissapointed in it becuase I never liked Superman. I always thought that Superman was just too damned powerful and too good-two-shoes. Routhe's portrayel at least makes him seem more humble. A superhero who knows he's superior to others but is still approachable despite.

Now, if it had been a spider-man movie, I'd be complaining my brains out.

purplerein said:

Imago said:

I think routhe did a good job, and the idea of the characterization is good. But that's less then tenth of the needed content to make a GREAT legendary movie.

I'm shocked this movie didn't do better at the box office over the weekend.

I was never a Superman fan and wasn't even that excited about seeing this film, but I went to see it anyway in IMAX over the weekend (sold out show) and was very, very impressed. Maybe the 3D scenes on an IMAX screen were influencing my opinion, but I thought it was the best superhero film I've seen since Spider-Man 2. And Spider Man 2 is in my opinion the best superhero film ever.

I still won't buy any Superman comics though.

sextonseven said:

I'm not a Superman fan either, but we're going after work to the IMAX here in tampa to watch it. We're going to smoke alot of pot first though.

jerseykrs said:

I had no idea the IMAX showings were in 3D beforehand either. After I gave my ticket to the usher, I saw the huge basket of 3D glasses and I was like "What the hell are these for?"

JediMaster said:

AGH!!! JEDI... of all the people I was waiting to hear from and you post this???.

I can't believe you liked this pile of crap. It is the most disgraceful superhero movie since the Hulk, and I say it barely edges out the Hulk, because the special FX are better.

This movie sucked so bad... if it was 1983 and this was the "Superman III" with Christopher Reeve, it would be great. But it's not. The year is 2006 and Bryan Singer chose to rehash the original 1978 Superman??? Why? What gives? He and his writing team totally blew their creativity on the X-Men franchise to have created this worthless crap.

6 Major Points killed this movie:

1. The story. Lois has a kid, and after all these years, all Lex wants is "real estate???" C'mon, we're not that dumb.

2. Kevin Spacey, and Parker Posey were terrible... well, it was really the bad story's fault, but their great acting chops couldn't save face. They should be ashamed of themselves or pissed at Singer for making them look so dumb.

3. Jimmy Olsen. He spends 5 years pining after Clark? Jimmy came off goofy and gay. Sorry. ANd why was there no interaction between Lois and Clark? She barely even notices he's back? Lame.

4. The land mass of Kryptonite. You mean to tell me that in a few seconds, he's weak enough for Luthor to beat the crap out of him? And then, after a couple of seconds in the sun, he's able to throw the whole damn rock into space? I don't think so... one word: DUMB! This isn't like Superman at all.

5. Darkness. This whole movie is way to dark. He's not Batman, and most of the movie takes place during the night, or in gloomy weather.

6. Bryan Singer is a commie. He didn't have the cajones to include the line... "the American way." I don't care who you're trying not to offend, Superman is an American hero and should be treated as such. If someone gets offended by that, too bad.

There are so many other mistakes and reasons why this movie fails our most beloved hero... I just wanna kick the crap out of Bryan Singer for this mess. God, please don't let there be any sequels.

Jedi, I had so much respect for you... but now? I think it's starting to diminsh...

Roger Ebert summed it up pretty good:

Superman Returns

BY ROGER EBERT / June 27, 2006

It's no fun being Superman. Your life is a lie, there's nobody you can confide in, you're in love but can't express it, and you're on call 24 hours a day. But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

"Superman II" (1980) was just about as good, but "Superman III" (1983) was a disappointment. "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," with Reeve, bombed in 1987, and then the series was quiet for 19 years. Now the Man of Steel is back in Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," which, like its hero, spends a lot of time dead in the water.

This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. The newsroom of the Daily Planet, filled with eccentricity and life in the earlier movies, now seems populated by corporate drones. Jimmy Olsen, the copy boy, such a brash kid, seems tamed and clueless. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has lost her dash and pizzazz, and her fiance, Richard White (James Marsden), regards her like a deer caught in the headlights. Even the editor, Perry White (Frank Langella), comes across less like a curmudgeon, more like an efficient manager.

One problem is with the casting. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and I suppose as Clark Kent, he isn't supposed to have any. Routh may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve, but there are times when he looks more like an action figure; were effects used to make him seem built from synthetics? 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?

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic. We learn Superman was away for five years on a mission to the remains of his home planet, Krypton. In the meantime, Lois got herself a boyfriend and a little son, played by Tristan Lake Leabu, who mostly stares at people like a beta version of Damien, the kid from "The Omen." Now Superman and (coincidentally) Clark have returned, Clark gets his old job, and Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is out of prison and plotting to rule the earth.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind. Spacey plays Luthor as sour and sadistic; he has no fun with the role, nor do we.

As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

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.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?

only gripe about the movie...

the kid, now he has to be in every movie after this one... we don't need him.