[quote]CC wrote:
LarryJr wrote:
If Superman was gone for 5 years, why did his son look to be 8-10 years old? That didn’t make sense to me.
I personally did think he looked to be about five or six, even before I knew he was Superman’s son, but maybe that’s just me.
[/quote]
If you want to a see another movie screw up as far as a kid’s age, watch Kill Bill (vol 1) again and notice how freaking old Vivica Fox’s daughter looks when she is supposed to only be 5 as well.
the only thing that really pissed me off is that both superman and clark kent dissapeared at about the same time and came back on the same exact day, 5 years later, and no body who knew him even thought about it twice.
that really really pissed me off, but other than that it was a great movie.
I was underwhelmed.
I didn’t like the Superbastard gimmick.
Lois Lane is boring and has no ass.
As a Batman fan I will always find Superman to be DORKY.
I think Batman translates to cinema better than Superman.
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Lois Lane is boring and has no ass.
[/quote]
That about sums it up. She had a cute face. That was about the extent of it. She looked about 18 years old.
The way they shot Brandon as Clark was done well. He did have the appearance of being bigger than everyone while wearing civilian clothes. The dress suits were obviously given wider shoulders but his height seemed to be in the 6’4" range easily as he looked to tower over almost everyone.
His voice was also very similar to Reeves. If someone gets a chance, close your eyes and there are times he sounds just like him but there are others he sounds just like Tom Cruise. Now that’s frightening!
It’s true that Lois had no ass, but the movie was still the best comic movie ever. So far DC has blown Marvel away in every regard except the characters. The X-Men are more interesting characters.
My wife hated the new Batman and both Spidermen. I had to drag her to see Superman and she really enjoyed it. I explained to her that Superman is our (America’s) Goku. She understood. I think I even saw a tear. Hooray for superman.
Speaking of Goku, do y’all remember how Gohan and Goten are supposed to be stronger than Goku? The logic was supposedly along the the lines of “hybrid vigor.” It seems that Superman Jr. was impervious to kyrptonite. Let’s all hope he doesn’t end up like Anakin Skywalker.
Just got back from the late show. Ok. I am by all means NOT a superman fan… as in I don’t follow the comics or old movies. Here are my thoughts though.
There was no fighting besides superman getting kicked around. It seemed like all superman did was lift heavy objects. har har. Like when superman stopped those bullets, they should have showed him punching that guy’s lights out.
Did anybody else find themselves laughing at the cheesy dialogue at some parts? I did.
-I know this is prolly homeage to the old movies, but that little piece of curly hair on superman was retarded. Maybe that little curl is what keeps people from identifying superman.
-Why was this film pg-13? i’m thinking it’s bc of superman’s bastard child. i can’t think of any other reason.
[quote]itsthenickman wrote:
-Why was this film pg-13? i’m thinking it’s bc of superman’s bastard child. i can’t think of any other reason.
[/quote]
They don’t stab people and show it or kill people with flying pianos in PG movies. It was a thin line, but it was crossed in that aspect.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
It’s true that Lois had no ass, but the movie was still the best comic movie ever. [/quote]
Wow, that’s a bold statement. I know it’s simply a matter of opinion, but with all of the inconsistencies pointed out in this movie, I really don’t see how anyone could make that statement.
Again, I have to disagree. In fact, lately (unless I’m forgetting something here), Batman Begins is the only fantastic piece of work that DC has put out. SR was good, not fantastic.
Both Spider-Man movies, all three X-men, and at least two of the three Blade movies were all outstanding films. And forgive me for making assumptions, but the third Spider-Man is going to be ridiculous. Granted, Daredevil and Elektra were flops, but those other seven movies I named more than make up for that I believe.
In regards to Kate Bosworth as LL, I definitely agree that they could have found someone that would have played the part better. Maybe that’s why I didn’t think she was all that bad, though. I went into the movie expecting her to be terrible and was somewhat pleasently surprised. Still doesn’t mean she was great. If X says she’s supposed to be tougher, I’ll take his word for it. I just don’t know much about her character.
And Bos doesn’t do it for me at all in the physical department. Too skinny. I gotta’ have that ass. Teri Hatcher did before she got famous again and turned into a stick. I remember one episode of L & C where she had to go undercover and wore some skimpy, yellow bunny outfit. Damn. They definitely could have found someone better in that aspect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
Lois Lane is boring and has no ass.
That about sums it up. She had a cute face. That was about the extent of it. She looked about 18 years old.[/quote]
I think they purposefully tried to make her seem more unnatractive than she really is. I’ve seen her in some of her other flicks and almost fell in love with her upon first glance. In Superman, I wouldn’t give her a second glance.
In terms of the over-application of makeup, I wondered that at one point. The closeups on his face show it basically as unblemished as possible. I figured that maybe this had something to do with his near invulnerability.
And I definetly agree that he had a better physique than I had expected of him from the still images on the set. I mean, he is basically all delts, but it certainly worked. In terms of creating the illusion of and impressive physique, his proportionately large delts certainly accomplished this. Coupled with the fact that he’s 6’3 or so and probably has wide shoulders to begin with, and the guy can look decently impressive.
-MAtt
Seriously speaking, I LOVE this website. Where else can a rather serious post with regards to a movie can the conversation move towards general T and A?
We can’t change our disposition, can we folks? I know I can’t!! 
Fair enough for those who didn’t exactly think KB was “all that”. More for me then…in my dreams!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
itsthenickman wrote:
-Why was this film pg-13? i’m thinking it’s bc of superman’s bastard child. i can’t think of any other reason.
They don’t stab people and show it or kill people with flying pianos in PG movies. It was a thin line, but it was crossed in that aspect. [/quote]
Agreed. I think the group beating/kicking of a “defenseless” Superman probably helped push it over the PG edge too.
Considering the whole kryptonite thing, Lois pulled the piece out of Superman when he was on the airplane that she rescued him on, he then flew up through the clouds to soak in the sun. He does get his power from the sun, and the kryptonite did affect him while he was flying the continent into space, his hands were burning as the kryptonite was becoming more visible after the dirt was falling off. Remember the voice of Jor-el right before he lifted the continent? I believe that this had something to do with Superman lifting the continent even though he was being affected by the kryptonite, (a sort of motivation). All in all I thought it was a pretty sweet movie and just might have to see it again.
““Both Spider-Man movies, all three X-men, and at least two of the three Blade movies were all outstanding films. And forgive me for making assumptions, but the third Spider-Man is going to be ridiculous. Granted, Daredevil and Elektra were flops, but those other seven movies I named more than make up for that I believe.””
Yea. I forgot that Spiderman was Marvel. It’s a tie then. The X-men are the best characters in all of comics IMO, but the movies didn’t do justice to the quality of the characters. Superman was better than Batman for one reason, there wasn’t a single point in Superman I was wondering why the movie was so damn long. During Batman I was wondering, “what the hell is next?”
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
““Both Spider-Man movies, all three X-men, and at least two of the three Blade movies were all outstanding films. And forgive me for making assumptions, but the third Spider-Man is going to be ridiculous. Granted, Daredevil and Elektra were flops, but those other seven movies I named more than make up for that I believe.””
Yea. I forgot that Spiderman was Marvel. It’s a tie then. The X-men are the best characters in all of comics IMO, but the movies didn’t do justice to the quality of the characters. Superman was better than Batman for one reason, there wasn’t a single point in Superman I was wondering why the movie was so damn long. During Batman I was wondering, “what the hell is next?”[/quote]
To each his own. Superman has the most basic plot of any movie I’ve seen in the last few years. It was about as complex as those mazes they used to give you in the 3rd grade that could be completed with a giant Crayola crayon in 10 seconds. I suppose if the audience has the attention span of a Dark Winged Fungus Gnat then they were right on target.
His suit looked decent and the special effects were done well. Just about everything else needed a little work. But hey, maybe I am judging too harshly.
I didn’t expect much from the film going in but walked away thinking is was great.
Routh looked much more jacked than I thought he would and I think he really did pull it off (overall very pleased with him). The suit did seem concealing though.
Special effects were much better than I was expecting, and there were a lot of great scenes–visually speaking–staring with the opening explosion. And him lifting that crystal continent, very cool! In fact, I found myself smiling through many parts of the movie.
Yes, I noticed several of the inconsistencies but I’ve learned not to let those types of things ruin a movie for me, I just let it go. Is it completely inconceivable to expect that Lex could get the money? Improbably maybe, but not inconceivable. Most inconsistencies could have some sort of reasonable explanation, they don’t all need to be included onscreen for me.
Overall I was pleasantly surprised.
ProDoc X,
Not to start an argument, but when I want depth and complexity I look to movies like “The Usual Suspects.” I can’t think of a single super-hero movie that wasn’t simple. In fact, that’s what I want out of a movie like that. I think that Superman was VERY entertaining. I would reccomend it to anyone.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
ProDoc X,
Not to start an argument, but when I want depth and complexity I look to movies like “The Usual Suspects.” I can’t think of a single super-hero movie that wasn’t simple. In fact, that’s what I want out of a movie like that. I think that Superman was VERY entertaining. I would reccomend it to anyone.[/quote]
I found it entertaining as well. I already wrote that. However, as someone who actually follows shows like Smallville and who really likes the character, I was expecting more. They basically gave us pretty much what we got from the original two films (only with updated 2006 special effects)…even down to Lex repeating what his father told him about “land”. You would think after 20-30 years that they would have updated the character more to match the way he has been updated everywhere else.
