The Zone
The center of the geek universe
SUPERMAN ON DVD (1, 2, 3, 4, Donner Cut, and Returns)
167 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by WinslowLeach on Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:12 pm
I'm sorry but I have to take a big stinky poop on Superman Returns. Didnt wanna do it, but hey, I just call em like I see em.
-
WinslowLeach - AIRWOLF PLUS
- Posts: 4079
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:39 pm
- Location: The Deuce
by DinoDeLaurentiis on Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:15 pm
TonyWilson wrote:I didn't mind the scheme, thought it was pretty cool,
But you gotta to figure, his "Lexville" was a gonna to destroy most of a the United States eastern seaboard anna much of a the central US, which is a gonna to play havoc onna the world economy, making his a plan to sell a the space somewhat ludicrous, no? Never mind a the fact that a the crystal land forms are a pretty much unna-inna-habitable by a the humans, who's a gonna to want it, eh?
-
DinoDeLaurentiis - SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
- Location: Private Villa inna Santorini
by Fried Gold on Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:51 pm
Just the sort of thing I'd except from a whiney fan of whiney Spider-Man films.
-
Fried Gold - AIRWOLF PLUS
- Posts: 13931
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
- Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
by Chairman Kaga on Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:02 pm
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:TonyWilson wrote:
I didn't mind the scheme, thought it was pretty cool,
But you gotta to figure, his "Lexville" was a gonna to destroy most of a the United States eastern seaboard anna much of a the central US, which is a gonna to play havoc onna the world economy, making his a plan to sell a the space somewhat ludicrous, no? Never mind a the fact that a the crystal land forms are a pretty much unna-inna-habitable by a the humans, who's a gonna to want it, eh?
A. Either it was all a scam to do nothing but kill Superman.
or
B. Lex never states it's going to stop growing. It's less about selling the land then controlling the only piece of land and subsequent technology not destroyed in the ensuing planetary strife from the formation of "new Krypton". Perhaps I am alone in this but it seemed obvious to me that with enough time there would no longer be any land on Earth not covered in water or the new Lex controlled continent. That may just be me....
WinslowLeach wrote:WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
That goes well with your avatar.
- Chairman Kaga
- AIRWOLF PLUS
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am
by TheBaxter on Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:30 am
i just finished watching superman 1 and 2 (the donner cut) back-to-back tonight. tomorrow night i'll finally be watching superman returns, so i can see what all the hype (and hate) are all about. i figured this was a good way to set up watching that film.
watching both back to back, i realize i'm really not a superman fan, but i'm a huge christopher reeve fan. i can't really imagine myself liking these films half as much if anyone else had played that part. that has me a bit worried about superman returns, but i'm trying to keep an open mind. but for me, christopher reeve has always been the one and only superman. i never read the comics, never watched any of the tv shows, so i've never really seen or imagined the character any other way than how he's played by reeve. and as far as i'm concerned, reeve's portrayal was perfect. i have always enjoyed these 2 films (don't even remember seeing 3 and 4) and reeve is the main reason why. i also really like kidder as lois lane, though she can be a bit annoying at times. i always assumed that was part of the character though.
i don't have a lot to say about superman 1. it's a good film, has a mythic feel to it, especially in the earlier scenes. i agree with the criticisms, particularly otis. i like hackman as luthor (minus the wigs though) but otis is painful. it ruins the character because it's impossible to imagine someone as supposedly genius as luthor is supposed to be, not just keeping otis around, but actually making him do IMPORTANT stuff (which he screws up, of course) like reprogramming a missile. basically, otis' very existence in the film destroys the credibility of luthor's character. but reeve and kidder are great (minus the sappy poem) and it's a pretty fun film the whole way. i do have one other major problem with the film, but i'll talk about that more after superman 2.
superman 2 was always my favourite of the 2 films. more and better action, better villains, and a better, deeper story. not to mention the hottness of sarah douglas, which is just mind-bending. i wish i could make time go backwards like superman so i could go back to 1980 or whenever this was made and bang her. that sexy british accent, her bitchy domineering attitude, and those slits in her pants that show off her supple, gorgeous legs... ok, i'm getting sidetracked. back to the film.
the first thing that surprised me about the donner cut was that it wasn't nearly as different from the original version as i had expected it to be. now, it's been a few years since i saw the theatrical version of s:ii so i may have missed some things. the story is basically the same. the biggest differences were in how lois finds out that clark is supes, the extra scenes in the fortress of solitude, and the very ending. i went back and read the couple AICN reviews to try to figure out why i thought it would be more different. i guess the reviews made a big deal of discussing the new stuff, and didn't really focus on how much of the films are actually the same, so i had altered expectations. for some reason, i had been expecting supes to defeat zod & co. in a different way than the original film, but i was glad it wasn't changed because i really liked that bit of trickery on supes' part, winning the battle with his brain rather than his brawn.
the second thing about the donner cut was that, basically, i preferred the original version. there was some stuff added that i really liked, in particular the two scenes with brando in the fortress of solitude, first when supes gives up his powers, and then when he goes to ask for them back. brando himself didn't add much, but i thought reeve's performance in these two scenes were probably two of his best scenes in the whole series. i can't remember how much different the ones in the theatrical version were, but reeve's acting in these two scenes was really great and i'm glad i got to see these scenes. i also liked the bit with the statue of liberty. and i don't remember if the nuke from the first thing was what freed zod & co. from the phantom zone in the theatrical version, but if it wasn't, then i like this change too, since it ties the two films together a bit more. i also liked the scene where lois pretends to shoot clark to trick him into revealing he's supes, though it's hard to believe that supes didn't realize it was a blank. i would think he could feel whether a bullet bounced off him or not, even if it didn't hurt him.
almost everything else that was added or removed, i didn't care for. i kinda prefer lois testing clark at niagara to jumping out the daily planet, mainly because there's a bit more build to her slow realization that clark is supes. i missed some of the small details, like the big dude not being able to figure out how to use his heat-ray vision at first. i also liked supes' "replication" trick in the fortress of solitude, that harry didn't care for. he may have thought it was silly, but it's certainly not as bad as the turning-back-time trick.
which brings me to the thing i've always hated most about part 1, and which i now hate most about part 2, at least the donner version of part 2 - turning back time. this whole idea was crap. it was crap in the first film, and it's even more crap in the second film because it's not nearly as essential to the plot (as the theatrical version made obvious). even worse, in the first film, it's only used to undo lois' death. but in the donner cut of 2, it's used to basically undo the entire movie. if the film had ended that way originally, i would've been pissed. i just spent 2 hours watching a film only to be told that in the end, none of it happened. it's like the old cliche of the "it was all just a dream" ending, but worse... because if supes can reverse time so easily, why did he wait so long to do it? why didn't he turn back time the moment he got his powers back? why bother fighting zod & co., and going through all that trickery at the fortress of solitude, when all he had to do to return them to the phantom zone was fly really fast for a few minutes? hell, why does he need ANY of his other powers? any time anything bad in the world happens, all he has to do is make the world rotate backwards to fix everything. giving supes the ability to turn back time was the most bone-headed writing move made in the first film, and with the donner cut, the mistake was repeated and compounded all over again. i HATE HATE HATE that new ending. i actually really liked the original ending, where supes erases lois' memory by kissing her. as much power as supes has, it's not hard at all to imagine him being able to induce amnesia with a kiss if he wanted to. it's certainly a lot less silly and a lot less problematic than turning back time and undoing the whole movie.
and if that weren't bad enough, the final scene in the diner where he beats that guy up now makes no sense. since he turned back time, that means the bully in the diner never beat him up. so now supes is beating up someone for something they never actually did to him, which kinda means that now supes is the bully. plus, the scene is still played out like they remember who clark is. the owner comments on how he just fixed the place, presumably repairing the damage from the previous fight, even though now that previous fight never happened. and when they look at clark incredulously at the end, he mentions he's been working out, which in the original was him explaining why he was suddenly strong enough to beat up the bully who beat him up last time. but since this is now clark's first and only appearance at the diner, this comment makes no sense either.
so now, watching superman returns, when supes is whining about lois having a new boyfriend and all that shit, i'll just be thinking, 'why don't you just fly around the world over and over until you can go back before you left, and then everything will be fine again!'
sorry for going on about it, but i just HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the stupid time travel ending. that alone makes the original version better than the donner cut. and sorry if i've repeated anything anyone else has already said, but i'm just dumping the contents of my brain right now after seeing these.
watching both back to back, i realize i'm really not a superman fan, but i'm a huge christopher reeve fan. i can't really imagine myself liking these films half as much if anyone else had played that part. that has me a bit worried about superman returns, but i'm trying to keep an open mind. but for me, christopher reeve has always been the one and only superman. i never read the comics, never watched any of the tv shows, so i've never really seen or imagined the character any other way than how he's played by reeve. and as far as i'm concerned, reeve's portrayal was perfect. i have always enjoyed these 2 films (don't even remember seeing 3 and 4) and reeve is the main reason why. i also really like kidder as lois lane, though she can be a bit annoying at times. i always assumed that was part of the character though.
i don't have a lot to say about superman 1. it's a good film, has a mythic feel to it, especially in the earlier scenes. i agree with the criticisms, particularly otis. i like hackman as luthor (minus the wigs though) but otis is painful. it ruins the character because it's impossible to imagine someone as supposedly genius as luthor is supposed to be, not just keeping otis around, but actually making him do IMPORTANT stuff (which he screws up, of course) like reprogramming a missile. basically, otis' very existence in the film destroys the credibility of luthor's character. but reeve and kidder are great (minus the sappy poem) and it's a pretty fun film the whole way. i do have one other major problem with the film, but i'll talk about that more after superman 2.
superman 2 was always my favourite of the 2 films. more and better action, better villains, and a better, deeper story. not to mention the hottness of sarah douglas, which is just mind-bending. i wish i could make time go backwards like superman so i could go back to 1980 or whenever this was made and bang her. that sexy british accent, her bitchy domineering attitude, and those slits in her pants that show off her supple, gorgeous legs... ok, i'm getting sidetracked. back to the film.
the first thing that surprised me about the donner cut was that it wasn't nearly as different from the original version as i had expected it to be. now, it's been a few years since i saw the theatrical version of s:ii so i may have missed some things. the story is basically the same. the biggest differences were in how lois finds out that clark is supes, the extra scenes in the fortress of solitude, and the very ending. i went back and read the couple AICN reviews to try to figure out why i thought it would be more different. i guess the reviews made a big deal of discussing the new stuff, and didn't really focus on how much of the films are actually the same, so i had altered expectations. for some reason, i had been expecting supes to defeat zod & co. in a different way than the original film, but i was glad it wasn't changed because i really liked that bit of trickery on supes' part, winning the battle with his brain rather than his brawn.
the second thing about the donner cut was that, basically, i preferred the original version. there was some stuff added that i really liked, in particular the two scenes with brando in the fortress of solitude, first when supes gives up his powers, and then when he goes to ask for them back. brando himself didn't add much, but i thought reeve's performance in these two scenes were probably two of his best scenes in the whole series. i can't remember how much different the ones in the theatrical version were, but reeve's acting in these two scenes was really great and i'm glad i got to see these scenes. i also liked the bit with the statue of liberty. and i don't remember if the nuke from the first thing was what freed zod & co. from the phantom zone in the theatrical version, but if it wasn't, then i like this change too, since it ties the two films together a bit more. i also liked the scene where lois pretends to shoot clark to trick him into revealing he's supes, though it's hard to believe that supes didn't realize it was a blank. i would think he could feel whether a bullet bounced off him or not, even if it didn't hurt him.
almost everything else that was added or removed, i didn't care for. i kinda prefer lois testing clark at niagara to jumping out the daily planet, mainly because there's a bit more build to her slow realization that clark is supes. i missed some of the small details, like the big dude not being able to figure out how to use his heat-ray vision at first. i also liked supes' "replication" trick in the fortress of solitude, that harry didn't care for. he may have thought it was silly, but it's certainly not as bad as the turning-back-time trick.
which brings me to the thing i've always hated most about part 1, and which i now hate most about part 2, at least the donner version of part 2 - turning back time. this whole idea was crap. it was crap in the first film, and it's even more crap in the second film because it's not nearly as essential to the plot (as the theatrical version made obvious). even worse, in the first film, it's only used to undo lois' death. but in the donner cut of 2, it's used to basically undo the entire movie. if the film had ended that way originally, i would've been pissed. i just spent 2 hours watching a film only to be told that in the end, none of it happened. it's like the old cliche of the "it was all just a dream" ending, but worse... because if supes can reverse time so easily, why did he wait so long to do it? why didn't he turn back time the moment he got his powers back? why bother fighting zod & co., and going through all that trickery at the fortress of solitude, when all he had to do to return them to the phantom zone was fly really fast for a few minutes? hell, why does he need ANY of his other powers? any time anything bad in the world happens, all he has to do is make the world rotate backwards to fix everything. giving supes the ability to turn back time was the most bone-headed writing move made in the first film, and with the donner cut, the mistake was repeated and compounded all over again. i HATE HATE HATE that new ending. i actually really liked the original ending, where supes erases lois' memory by kissing her. as much power as supes has, it's not hard at all to imagine him being able to induce amnesia with a kiss if he wanted to. it's certainly a lot less silly and a lot less problematic than turning back time and undoing the whole movie.
and if that weren't bad enough, the final scene in the diner where he beats that guy up now makes no sense. since he turned back time, that means the bully in the diner never beat him up. so now supes is beating up someone for something they never actually did to him, which kinda means that now supes is the bully. plus, the scene is still played out like they remember who clark is. the owner comments on how he just fixed the place, presumably repairing the damage from the previous fight, even though now that previous fight never happened. and when they look at clark incredulously at the end, he mentions he's been working out, which in the original was him explaining why he was suddenly strong enough to beat up the bully who beat him up last time. but since this is now clark's first and only appearance at the diner, this comment makes no sense either.
so now, watching superman returns, when supes is whining about lois having a new boyfriend and all that shit, i'll just be thinking, 'why don't you just fly around the world over and over until you can go back before you left, and then everything will be fine again!'
sorry for going on about it, but i just HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the stupid time travel ending. that alone makes the original version better than the donner cut. and sorry if i've repeated anything anyone else has already said, but i'm just dumping the contents of my brain right now after seeing these.
-
TheBaxter - Carlos Danger
- Posts: 19535
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm
by Pacino86845 on Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:58 am
That was a fantastic double-review, Baxter, I really like how you approached the Donner cut and agree with you about the time travel aspect of the original Superman film(s).
I think you can rest assured 'cause although Brandon Routh is no Chris Reeve, he really nailed the performance, and his work is largely inspired by Reeve's.
Personally, I found that the Luthor in Superman Returns was too much like the original Luthor: he orchestrates a fairly ludicrous plan and is surrounded by boneheaded henchmen.
TheBaxter wrote:i realize i'm really not a superman fan, but i'm a huge christopher reeve fan.
I think you can rest assured 'cause although Brandon Routh is no Chris Reeve, he really nailed the performance, and his work is largely inspired by Reeve's.
Personally, I found that the Luthor in Superman Returns was too much like the original Luthor: he orchestrates a fairly ludicrous plan and is surrounded by boneheaded henchmen.
-
Pacino86845 - EGYPTIAN LOVER
- Posts: 14064
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am
by Chairman Kaga on Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am
Sorry Pacino but nobody working for Luthor in SR was anywhere near the bonehead Otis is/was....Of course they're all ex-cons so you shouldn't really be expecting a Rhodes Scholar or anything in the mix....
- Chairman Kaga
- AIRWOLF PLUS
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am
by Fried Gold on Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:30 am
The SR documentary - I don't know if anyone else picked up on this, maybe it's nothing:
It seems like Bryan Singer doesn't look particularly happy when picking Kate Bosworth for the role of Lois Lane.
I'm not sure if it's irony put on for the camera or genuine doubt about the choice.
It seems like Bryan Singer doesn't look particularly happy when picking Kate Bosworth for the role of Lois Lane.
I'm not sure if it's irony put on for the camera or genuine doubt about the choice.
-
Fried Gold - AIRWOLF PLUS
- Posts: 13931
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
- Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
by TheBaxter on Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:15 am
i finally got to watch Stalkerman Ret... oops, i mean... SUPERMAN... Returns tonight.
okay, the stalkerman jab is a low blow. really, from some of the stuff i heard i expected more, but it really was just one scene of him spying on lois, and it was pretty innocent. i mean, the guy took a peek at her undies in the first film... watching her have dinner with the family is no biggie. you don't even want to know what i'd be doing if i had x-ray vision.
okay, i said before i wasn't a superman fan, and i'm not. but if i watch a superman movie, here's what i want: adventure, excitement, and most of all, FUN. instead, what i got was a slow, ponderous, dreary film that was frankly, pretty boring. yeah, the plane sequence was great. it came about a 1/2 hour into a 2 1/2 hour movie, and after that scene there was pretty much nothing to go wow about. the film blew its wad way to early with that scene. supes lifting the big crystal island into space was kinda impressive, but not nearly as much as the plane scene. the shots of supes flying looked great too, but that was it. nothing else to get excited about.
even the colors looked dull and dreary. yeah, i know the dvd picture quality really sucked. the film looked like it was shot through a tank of sewer water. but i don't think it was just the dvd quality. there was hardly any color in the film, everything was browns and greys. and even supes' suit looked muted, compared to the bright reds and blues of the original. at least the look matched the tone of the film, though when the tone is so dull that's not really anything to brag about.
oh well, let's go on to casting...
routh as superman. i didn't hate him, but he didn't really do much for me. i thought he worked better as clark than as supes. although clark was toned down from the slightly more goofy take on him in the first two films, routh seemed to handle it well. but as supes, he was just too... well, clark-kentish. i missed the confidence, the charm, most importantly, the SWAGGER that reeve brought to the role. yeah, he just got back from visiting his dead daddy's planet, and found out his girlfriend is sleeping with cyclops and has a kid, but you know what, i don't want to see Supersulker, i want to see Superman. the sad, wistful supes would have been more effective if we got to see some of his charming side as well now and then. i think routh can grow into the part if he's given the chance and a better script that lets him let loose more, but he definitely didn't nail it like reeve did on the first attempt.
bosworth as lois lane. terrible. simply awful. i don't think it was bosworth's fault, she was just horribly miscast for the role. first of all, she looked like she should be writing for the Smallville High School Yearbook, not the Daily Planet. if the world ever finds out supes impregnated her five years ago, they'd bring him up on statutory rape charges, since she obviously couldn't have been more than 12 or 13 at the time. on top of that, bosworth just doesn't have the presence for the role. where is the wit? the sarcasm? i agree with dennis, parker posey might've been much better for the role. she was annoying as kitty, but her snarky side could've worked well for lois. i don't know whether posey is capable of pulling off the more dramatic, emotional stuff though, but at least she would've been believable in the part.
on the other hand, spacey as lex luthor was perfect casting. i think spacey nailed it. better than hackman. helped that he didn't have to play off otis, of course. there's not much to say except that spacey got it exactly right, and it's just a shame he wasn't in a film that used him and the character to their potential.
the kid. first off, i hate when they stuff kids into these films. i don't understand it. i guess they think putting a kid will give the kids in the audience someone to relate to, but if that's so, it shows what idiots they are. you know who i related to when i saw superman as a kid? SUPERMAN, that's who! just like i related to luke skywalker and han solo when i saw star wars; i didn't need to see luke as a little kid flying around in a pod racer and shouting "whoopee" to relate to him. ok, so now that my bias is on record, it should be no surprise that i hated the kid in this film too. he needs a fucking haircut for one thing. obviously lois and cyclops are too busy reporting on shit to take him to a barber. really, that's child neglect right there. he also needs another facial expression besides "dopey". hopefully the next superman movie will take place 13 years after this one, so he'll have graduated high school and be played by a different actor. the only saving grace was that his lines and screen time were pretty limited, so the pain was mitigated. thank zod for small mercies.
who else? dracula as perry white was fine. i liked the guy who played jimmy olsen. cyclops was cyclops. i guess that about covers it. oh, i didn't buy eva marie saint as ma kent.... unless ma kent grew up in the hamptons and kept a farm in the country as a vacation property.
there were a couple decent scenes, supes and lois flying around the daily planet, and supes' last scene with his son, repeating the words of jor-el. but a couple of those scenes would have gone a long way. i just finished watching the film, and frankly, i can barely remember anything that happened between the plane sequence and luthor finally getting around to killing billions of people with that crazy crystal island of his. it was about an hour of complete boredom there while i waited for something to start happening again. i should've taken a nap, but i didn't have anyone next to me who i could tell to wake me up when superman becomes fun again. then again, it never really did get much fun after that, so i might still be asleep.
okay, the stalkerman jab is a low blow. really, from some of the stuff i heard i expected more, but it really was just one scene of him spying on lois, and it was pretty innocent. i mean, the guy took a peek at her undies in the first film... watching her have dinner with the family is no biggie. you don't even want to know what i'd be doing if i had x-ray vision.
okay, i said before i wasn't a superman fan, and i'm not. but if i watch a superman movie, here's what i want: adventure, excitement, and most of all, FUN. instead, what i got was a slow, ponderous, dreary film that was frankly, pretty boring. yeah, the plane sequence was great. it came about a 1/2 hour into a 2 1/2 hour movie, and after that scene there was pretty much nothing to go wow about. the film blew its wad way to early with that scene. supes lifting the big crystal island into space was kinda impressive, but not nearly as much as the plane scene. the shots of supes flying looked great too, but that was it. nothing else to get excited about.
even the colors looked dull and dreary. yeah, i know the dvd picture quality really sucked. the film looked like it was shot through a tank of sewer water. but i don't think it was just the dvd quality. there was hardly any color in the film, everything was browns and greys. and even supes' suit looked muted, compared to the bright reds and blues of the original. at least the look matched the tone of the film, though when the tone is so dull that's not really anything to brag about.
oh well, let's go on to casting...
routh as superman. i didn't hate him, but he didn't really do much for me. i thought he worked better as clark than as supes. although clark was toned down from the slightly more goofy take on him in the first two films, routh seemed to handle it well. but as supes, he was just too... well, clark-kentish. i missed the confidence, the charm, most importantly, the SWAGGER that reeve brought to the role. yeah, he just got back from visiting his dead daddy's planet, and found out his girlfriend is sleeping with cyclops and has a kid, but you know what, i don't want to see Supersulker, i want to see Superman. the sad, wistful supes would have been more effective if we got to see some of his charming side as well now and then. i think routh can grow into the part if he's given the chance and a better script that lets him let loose more, but he definitely didn't nail it like reeve did on the first attempt.
bosworth as lois lane. terrible. simply awful. i don't think it was bosworth's fault, she was just horribly miscast for the role. first of all, she looked like she should be writing for the Smallville High School Yearbook, not the Daily Planet. if the world ever finds out supes impregnated her five years ago, they'd bring him up on statutory rape charges, since she obviously couldn't have been more than 12 or 13 at the time. on top of that, bosworth just doesn't have the presence for the role. where is the wit? the sarcasm? i agree with dennis, parker posey might've been much better for the role. she was annoying as kitty, but her snarky side could've worked well for lois. i don't know whether posey is capable of pulling off the more dramatic, emotional stuff though, but at least she would've been believable in the part.
on the other hand, spacey as lex luthor was perfect casting. i think spacey nailed it. better than hackman. helped that he didn't have to play off otis, of course. there's not much to say except that spacey got it exactly right, and it's just a shame he wasn't in a film that used him and the character to their potential.
the kid. first off, i hate when they stuff kids into these films. i don't understand it. i guess they think putting a kid will give the kids in the audience someone to relate to, but if that's so, it shows what idiots they are. you know who i related to when i saw superman as a kid? SUPERMAN, that's who! just like i related to luke skywalker and han solo when i saw star wars; i didn't need to see luke as a little kid flying around in a pod racer and shouting "whoopee" to relate to him. ok, so now that my bias is on record, it should be no surprise that i hated the kid in this film too. he needs a fucking haircut for one thing. obviously lois and cyclops are too busy reporting on shit to take him to a barber. really, that's child neglect right there. he also needs another facial expression besides "dopey". hopefully the next superman movie will take place 13 years after this one, so he'll have graduated high school and be played by a different actor. the only saving grace was that his lines and screen time were pretty limited, so the pain was mitigated. thank zod for small mercies.
who else? dracula as perry white was fine. i liked the guy who played jimmy olsen. cyclops was cyclops. i guess that about covers it. oh, i didn't buy eva marie saint as ma kent.... unless ma kent grew up in the hamptons and kept a farm in the country as a vacation property.
there were a couple decent scenes, supes and lois flying around the daily planet, and supes' last scene with his son, repeating the words of jor-el. but a couple of those scenes would have gone a long way. i just finished watching the film, and frankly, i can barely remember anything that happened between the plane sequence and luthor finally getting around to killing billions of people with that crazy crystal island of his. it was about an hour of complete boredom there while i waited for something to start happening again. i should've taken a nap, but i didn't have anyone next to me who i could tell to wake me up when superman becomes fun again. then again, it never really did get much fun after that, so i might still be asleep.
-
TheBaxter - Carlos Danger
- Posts: 19535
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm
by DennisMM on Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:46 am
Obviously, SR is a character piece, not a "superhero movie," and that may be its biggest flaw. People wanted an action movie and they got a story better suited to the comics, where the iconic suits are permitted a bit more leeway when it comes to quiet storytelling.
-
DennisMM - NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
- Posts: 16813
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round
by RogueScribner on Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:56 pm
When the Donner Cut hit DVD there was much discussion over how SII should have ended (since doing time travel twice would have been silly). So how do solve Lois knowing Clark's secret? I found this delightful solution over at YouTube. Ha ha.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
-
RogueScribner - The Dork Avenger
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
- Location: Melbourne, FL
167 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest