Fair enough. What would a Superman movie be without Supes stumbling upon some Kryptonite and the bad guy being there to whoop on him? :)

Hey, if peeps can see your thread name they better expect to see a few spoilers when they start reading...

Heh but that sort of theme worked for League of Assassins and Checkmate...So why not give Supes a shot at it...lol...


Seriously I haven't seen the movie yet...I plan on watching it maybe tonight or tomorrow but it takes a back seat to work at the moment...Speaking of time to get back to it...

supes to me was allways the stiff among superhero. He wasn't as emotional as everybody else. he didn't have the dark parent thing like batman, beign hunted liek x-men, the whole high school thing like spidey. He just didn't seem liek he ahd problems. Yeah theres kryptonite and who to save and blah blah, but every other superhero has the asme paroblems. He just neevr seemed to have any major problems that only superman would have. I liked the movie because it actually gave him a problem, emotion wise. The whole returning thing was alright, albeit the way they did it in the movie wasn't as good as it cud've been.

I have learned to go into movies expecting the worst. That way, it's hard to be disappointed.

Well, the first 2 hours were good, but an extra half hour of mediocrity was tacked onto the end.

I enjoyed most of the acting [Lois was horrible] and the music and visuals were nice. Story was decent, until the end.

I'm glad Superman is back in movies, I've had to endure the downward spiral of Smallville the last two years. I hope they can extened this new franchise into some decent movies.

First 2 hours: 8/10
Last half hour:0/10

Overall: 6.4

~JP

In the part in the movie where Supes is getting the crap kicked out of him by those bad guys I really felt sorry for him and that is the first time in any movie that I have felt sorry for the character in the movie.

I wonder why people think this movie was terrible. I for one went in half-heartedly thinking the movie would turn out to be crap. But I was wrong, this movie is fantastic. Much more better than what I thought it would turn out to be. Sure there were flaws but what movie doesn't? Guess everyone has their differences. Support Superman! :p

I saw it last night, and I loved it! Blew X 3 out of the water (mainly because whoever though of even attempting to bring the Dark Phoenix saga to the big screen without devoting a whole movie to it should be shot!) It showed a couple of things about Superman that those who don't regularly read the comics wouldn't really know. Such as...

1) Superman's greatest plight isn't "figuring out who to save", but is figuring out where he fits in when he is not saving those people. He is the last of his kind, and I imagine that would make a person feel like they are always living on the outside. This isn't the case so much in the modern age comics, but in the golden & silver age, this was a huge ongoing plot point.

2) He has to be aware at all times of how his actions affect those around him, since if he were to sneeze at the wrong time, he could topple a skyscraper. Not that this should make you feel for the character, but it is something to take into consideration.

That's my 2 cents...

I rented Superman 1 and 2 about half a month ago and watched them. Hated them with a fiery passion.

I bought all three volumes of the Superman: Animated Series. Loved every ####ing second of it. It was brilliant.

The big difference, in my opinion, is the difference between the Lexes. I've been spoiled for my comic reading history; I've only been reading comics for about 5 or 6 years, and the only comic I've ever read that made me go, "Oh my god, who the Hell acts and talks like this?" is Secret Wars. The TV show captured the Lex from modern day comics, while the movies captured him from the older comics, where he was stupid and annoying.

However, with the modern day Lex, he has a couple defining traits. He is charming. He is rich. They set up both of these two at the beginning of the movie, when he charms an old woman out of everything she owns while she's on her deathbed. He craves wealth and power. That's the plot of the movie. Finally, he is obsessed with Superman, above all else. I think he captures that perfectly.

Now, keep in mind that this is in continuity with the first two movies. Lex Luthor can NOT be a completely different character, despite how much I and others want him to be. It just wouldn't make sense. However, he is different enough, definitely. He is as close, in my opinion, to the modern day Lex that they could've gotten him and kept in continuity and "reality" with the old Lex.

And Kevin Spacey is a great actor, which makes it a bit better. Had someone else been reading the exact same lines, I can't say I would've been nearly as...appeased.

Nonetheless, I still didn't like Lex.

Although Supes? The great part of the original Superman was Christopher Reeves' extreme detail when it came to the idiosyncrosies of Clark Kent (in my opinion). The new kid did as good of a job of that as physically possible without literally being the same actor (and that would be fairly creepy, kinda like a marionette; very unrealistic). I was VERY impressed with Superman.

Lois blew mighty chunks. She needs to die finally.

Cyclops was awesome. I liked him much better than in X3, that's for damned sure.

I hate the kid. It doesn't make sense. First of all, in the second movie, they don't explain how Clark gets his powers back after officially losing them "forever, without any way to go back" (according to his mom). Now, putting that aside, after he lost his powers, Clark ####ed Lois, impregnated her, gained his powers again, made her forget (which he did do, although I have no idea how), and then dissappears for 5 years, in which time she gets married and gives birth exactly 9 months later to get a kid that does NOT look to be 4 years old when 4 years have passed. I don't know how old that kid was, but he seemed 8-10 (a problem which could've been sovled simply by saying Supes was gone for 10 years). Finally, you think they'd have the decency to name the poor bastard "Connor". ;)

As for the plot, I liked the plot. It made sense to me. The speech about land was a very...Lex way of thinking. The disregard for killing billions if it would obviously make him trillions was good. The fact that his new island would be made of Kryptonite? Definitely a good touch. How the rest of the world survived his island popping up and the water displacement the increased mass dropped into the water would've caused, well, I'm not quite sure, but, seeing as in Supes 1 Superman turns back the hands of time, in Supes 2 Superman both gains his powers back when it is claimed impossible as well as kisses Lois to make her forget things, and even in Batman Begins the Microwave Emitter has the ability to heat up nothing but water and yet doesn't evaporate all the water in humans to make them explode, too, it's something I can overlook.

And no plot twists? What, you mean a dog participating in cannibalism isn't twisted enough for you, Stu? Man, you got some problems.

This is my primary complaint about Superman 5. It is Superman 1 with better special effects and some damn kid thrown in. I came to see a sequel and I felt like I got a remake.

Based on this movie, I think there are three possibilities for the next one.

1. A reasonably bland encounter with Lex that involves a bit of kryptonite.

2. More evil Kryptonians.

3. Something actually interesting.

But I'm going to keep holding out hope. There was blood on that sliver of kryptonite they took out of Superman's gut. They made a distinct point of giving you a close look at that piece of kryptonite covered in Superman's blood.

Come on, you stupid movie writers. Give us what we really want.

do you think their will be a sequel to this film?

!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!


i mean his kid would pretty much have to be involved... and it was cool to find out he had a kid, but i dont know how fun it would be to have a movie that really involved a superboy...


oh, and i think bizzaro would be amazing for a sequel...

i always loved the idea of the death of superman comic made into a movie tho... oh well

Bruce's parents died ... Superman's entire race died ... including his parents by the way. He did have adoptive parents though ... So because Superman didn't go all emo and was emotionally well adjusted he's not as interesting?

Clark graduated high school ... eventually Peter did as well. Clark still has to juggle a job and his super hero life. He still has to lie to people to protect his secret/keep them safe. Turn Superman into Superboy and voila ... it's Spider-man in a small town instead of the 'big city'.

It's hard to really show the problems that "only Superman can have" in a movie, because of the whole "no other heroes exists" mantra that most of movies have. In the DCU proper Superman has to deal with the fact that he's looked at by most of the other heroes as the de facto 'leader' ... that's a level of additional responsibility that most other heroes have to deal with.

Spider-man just wants to do the right thing. Batman wants to clean up Gotham etc. Superman, whether he likes it or not, is a symbol of inspiration. Many people put a hefty expectation on him. Nearly every Marvel hero [outside of maybe Captain America and the Fantastic Four] have been seen as vigilantes [or worse in the case of the mutants]. They are seen as a nuisance or menace rather than heroes.

Of the DC archetypes, Batman fits more of the mold of vigilante, or at least a Dirty Harry [without the gun] working outside the system, and not being in the public eye.

Superman does it in public, in bright primary colors. He's a hero, people knows he's a hero, and they expect him to be one, etc.

If most of the other name heroes mess up, some people will be sad, some will be disappointed, and likely, there will be a 'loss' felt in some way.

When Superman fails ... it's a big deal. Spidey falls, and Jonah laughs, and there's tons of other heroes that can pick up the slack. If Batman falls ... he gets himself a replacement until he's back in shape and even the fellow heroes aren't 100% sure he was ever gone.

But Superman? When he's gone people notice. If he messes up he disappoints the world, etc.

That's not even touching on the "do I honor my heritage or that of my adoptive country and how do I balance both?" and "will knowing my birth parents hurt my relationship with my adoptive parents?" and all those other things. One point I've heard people make in the past is Superman is the ultimate immigrant story ... someone that comes to America as an orphan of a dead planet, and given the chance is able to make a life for himself and contribute as a member of the society, etc, etc, etc ...

QFT.


Jimmy Olsen was the man btw.

I thought the movie was perfect... and perfectly boring.

**Spoiler**

What wa up with Superman flying with the huge mass of Kyrptonite sticking in his face? /boggle

About the movie and Supermans powers. That thing at the end , you know if you saw the movie , really surprised me , that was really going Golden Age- Pre Crisis Superman Earth 2 strength level on us. Also question for a fan that still reads Superman or is well versed. At one point it was canon that he got his strength because the gravity on Krypton mada a can of Coke weigh 4 tons and his physiology was built to withstand that ( hence the bulletproofing becasue he is actually molecularly dense.) The heat vision , super breath , hearing and vision all that other stuff comes from the Sun. Is it all just the Sun now , is that where ALL his powers come from?

Regardless of your feelings about this or any other Superman movie, here's a quote from Pauline Kael's review of the original Christopher Reeve picture that may make you think twice before assuming Superman could never be "sympathetic":

"Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the Cleveland teen-agers who developed the idea and began trying to market the strip in 1933 and finally succeeded in 1938, provided a metaphor for the troubles and conflicts of boy dreamers: hidden inside the fumbling, fear-ridden adolescent is the all-competent giant. The divided hero is both a ninety-seven-pound weakling and Charles Atlas, but, unlike human beings, with their hope that the clown will grow into the hero, Superman is split forever. He can perform miracles, but he remains frustrated: as Clark Kent, this lonely stranger cannot win the woman he loves—the girl reporter Lois Lane—because she is in love with Superman."

Now, Kael hated the movie, and I disagree with many of the assertions in her review, but this point stuck out, and it's kind of like the ultimate trump card for me whenever anyone says Superman can only be played out as an inaccessible icon. I thought Singer played to the elements of sacrifice in the character very well, and I especially liked the turnabout of Lois' secret in contrast to Clark's. I appreciated how characters in the film, unlike in the comics, it seems, can make permanent, long-lasting changes with a gravity absent from a few unearned, pointless deaths in X3. (But don't get me wrong; I liked X3 for what it was, but it's not on par with Superman Returns, in my book.)

On a side note, will James Marsden ever get a part where he's not competing for the affections of a girl he already has against the attentions of the suaver guy (Wolverine, Superman)?


(edited for spelling error)