Badmovies.org Forum

Yes, he is back and the kid does a  great job of filling the red boots (more like burgundy now).  I'm not going to say to much about it except that it has some really spectacular stuff in it and they give quite a few nods to the Christopher Reeve films.

Anyone else seen it yet?

Hoping to see it soon, but I did notice that the trailer was very much like the Reeve work.

I saw it in 3D Wednesday and in RegularVision Thursday (DORK!).
Overall, very good movie.
Liked everyone cast except for Spacey. Spacey just plays Spacey in the movie, and while I liked him in everything else, something about him just didn't mesh right.
Why did Singer focus on Kumar so much? Was he that big of a fan of Harold & Kumar? Any time the guy is in a scene Singer gives him a dramatic close up. He has like 7 lines in the entire movie.
The new Supe does the old movies justice. Looks like Supe and does a great job with Kent. Anyone else think he looked like Josh Hartnett with the specs?
Don't want to spoil too much but if you're a fan of the comics (or Superdickery.com), you won't be disapointed.

If I'm not mistaken Kumar doesn't say a word in the whole movie.

The director of this film wouldn't be the first director to give a closeup to a character in his film that never spoke a line. Spielberg did this with so many characters during the climax of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind as the little alien ships are soaring above the military/science base at the foot of Devil's Tower. He would do his trademarked 'dolly and rise' move with the camera to achieve his desired sense of awe and wonderment. I was actually quite impressed with the fact he gave so many non-speaking characters a close up. In my opnion, it gave some truth to the scene because it wasn't just the main characters we were seeing who were awed. It was the entire dang science camp! We saw more than one person's reaction to the whole thing (even if they ALL had the same reaction. Perhaps this is how Spielberg is known for manipulating his audience...)

..whats with all the anti Spielberg comments these days....Jeez.

This was the first movie theater experience for my daughter of 4 years. Absolutely amazing. Of course, James Mardsen is now typecast as "the nice guy with the girl that wants to be with someone else".

It also looks like James Marsden is carving out quite the career path in comic book films.  This is his third franchise, plus the second as the son of the editor.

That being said, I enjoyed the film, and although it didn't blow my red boots off, it was fun enough and held my attention for most of it [though the end was a bit too lengthy for me.]

I still haven't seen this film yet.
I plan to go see it in the local "dollar theater" in it's second run.

What dismayed me the most was the lack of real hype for Superman Returns.
Or, more accurately, proper hype for the movie.'

Sure, they advertised the hell out of it...but none of the ads hit me like the ton of bricks like they were supposed to and any temptation to go see it ultimately fell flat.
There was no real urgent need for me to want to see this like there was with the earlier Superman films of the 80's.

A new Superman film should be a monumental event...a film that everyone will be excited to see!
...but this wasn't.

Am I alone in thinking that the marketing machine for Superman Returns was pure crap?

Yeah, the marketing was kind of uninspiring, but that's probably because I kind of find Superman uninspiring generally anyway.  I'd say it's more to do with the fact that people weren't crying out for a new Superman film, so alot of people seem kind of nonchalant about the whole thing really.

I just saw it at the drive-in last night. It does strike me as grittier and darker than its predecessors, but the characters do seem a lot more like real people than the caricatures they all seemed to be in the first two on which this film is based. A lot of the double entendres in there were racy references to the consumation of Lois Lane's forgotten marriage to Superman in film II, which has some less-than-glamorous consequences in this movie. Singer seems to be suggesting that for Superman stories, this is the end of the innocence.

One thing I like about it is how Superman really does have a serious rival for his girlfriend's affections this time. (His last rival--for Lana Lang--was a one-dimensional abusive type who could've been taken straight from the earliest Superman comics.) Maybe I'm missing something here, but Lois Lane does seem to have gotten over him for good; even if she does seem to be coming around to Superman's way of thinking at the end (not too much of a spoiler, is it?), it didn't seem to me that she wanted to go back to being his girlfriend again.

All the big-budget look to it is kind of jarring to contrast to the originals, too. I'm not sure there's really anything to be done about it, but don't go expecting to experience the intimacy and nostalgic feel of the originals.

Given the reasons Superman gives for his leave of absence (something about believing that some part of Krypton might have survived after all), it occurs to me that a Supergirl movie might be in order somewhere along the way: like the third and fourth Superman movies, the one and only Supergirl movie is quite forgettable and could be easily ignored. Supergirl's home is one of those surviving chunks of Krypton Superman was hoping to find, so it might make for some interesting developments to Superman's character to have her turn up in Metropolis one day. ("Hey, Lois Lane, this is my cousin Linda Lee." "Hi. Nice to meet you. So, Linda, where are you from?" "Um, Cowtown, Nebraska.")