Radio Lady Reviews: "Superman Returns" -- Holy Kryptonite!

[Radio_Lady]

It’s a SUPER disappointment…



**SPOILERS AHEAD – STOP HERE **



It pains me a great deal to tell you this. I really hope you ultimately DO NOT agree with me. This is not a dodge; I actually feel that way. Also, I think the movie will be a huge success, despite whatever kind of reviews it gets. Maybe we just need a “Superman” escapist movie this hot summer. Brandon Routh (rhymes with “mouth”) a handsome, relatively unknown 26-year-old actor from the small town of Norwalk, Iowa, who looks quite a bit like Christopher Reeve, can certainly fill the bill as Clark Kent/Superman. Any movie that has a budget of $260 million dollars deserves your attention. It’s just that I believe it could have been done better.



So, before you verbally bludgeon me, let me explain some things about myself. Please don’t call me a stupid old lady who knows nothing about superheroes. I am a true media child of the 1940s. My mother tells me that I mimicked radio and later TV commercial scripts beginning at age four. I can recall going to the movies as the highlight of my week – Saturday mornings at the tiny North Miami Theater on West Dixie Highway, or the Rosetta in Miami Shores. If I was a really good girl, I got to go to the Olympia Theater on E. Flagler Street in downtown Miami, Florida, the theater that had a dark blue ceiling and twinkling “stars” which were little lights in the ceiling. I was always glad Mom gave me the middle name “Star” – it’s even on my birth certificate!

I loved to read “Superman” comics, as well as the adventures of many of the other superheroes, if I could afford the price of the comic books, which I think was ten cents each. Even after I could read pretty well in elementary school, there was someone named “Uncle Don” on WQAM-AM radio and later on television, who read us the Sunday comic strips, while we followed along with the newspaper. I really liked “Batman” too – and “Wonder Woman.” I remember Mom buying me big clunky metal jewelry so I could fantasize playing “Bullets and Bracelets.”

But my favorite was “Superman.” Maybe it was that little dark haired spit curl in the middle of his forehead – well, it worked its magic. I was hooked, and have been ever since. I watched George Reeves, and then I watched Christopher Reeve – and Dean Cain.



While visiting in New York City last month, I was so hyped about this movie that I took a picture of the huge poster for the film (I don’t usually do these things, mind you). I was happy that the film company reset the movie to open two days before that poster said it would. (Notice it says June 30, not June 28). Then, when we flew home on June 2nd, and I had a chance to open a box of typed movie reviews from WEEI-AM Boston. I looked for my original review for “Superman” (1978). When I couldn’t find that, I thought I’d check for a tape of the radio interview I did with director Richard Donner. We had a little chemistry going as I recall… His birth year was 1930, but he later married Lauren Schuler Donner, born in 1949. Oh, drat. I talked to him about “The Omen” in 1976, but not “Superman.” Perhaps those were bad signs, but I ignored them.

Then I thought I wouldn’t be invited to the press screening. I heard that this was going to be the biggest movie of the summer, and really didn’t want to miss it. I put out a distress email to other reviewers and the publicist, and found out the invitations were in the mail.

The cherished letter finally arrived on Monday 6/19, but I was not allowed to bring a guest. (Sometimes access to preview movies is restricted to just the person with press credentials.) My husband usually accompanies me to most screenings. His mind works differently than mine, and I find his input quite valuable in sorting out characters, plots, motivations, script problems, other possible endings, and all kinds of details –- things I might miss. Truly, two heads are better than one. It must be his engineering and software-oriented brain. Plus, he was a big fan of comic books and movies even before he met me, and he’s five years older, too, born in 1934.

But I went solo to the “Superman Returns” screening. No problem. Thursday 6/22 was a beautiful day, cool, almost crisp, and clear – and the screening was in downtown Portland at 9:30 AM. I got up at 5:00 AM to shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and do all my household chores early – so I could have the whole morning free. I drove to the Tri-Met station and enjoyed the train ride into town. (I’m an Honored Citizen now, so the all-zone ticket cost me just eighty cents!)

The sky was exceedingly blue – and so were the rap lyrics some fellow was singing on the train! I recalled my days on the subway while living in New York with my ex-husband, who wanted to be a film director. I would have been happy as a script supervisor, or some other film crew member, but it was harder for women to get these jobs in the 1960s. I thought about all the new techniques used by film directors these days. Dr. Sidney Head of the University of Miami, and Rudy Bretz from UCLA, my film teachers at college – would be amazed at all the technology if they were here now! I recalled the bright blue, yellow, and red “Superman” of the printed comic books – before the “Superman” story was ever filmed.

The preview theater was mostly empty. Just a couple of other reviewers from the print media – not as many as usual. The movie began with fabulous visuals, accompanied by the soaring John Williams music (with new film music provided by John Ottman) during the opening credits. It was gorgeous and my heart jumped. I hummed along in my softest voice; this was music I remembered and enjoyed tremendously. What followed the credits was about an hour of (for me) unnecessary exposition. How “Superman” was sent to Earth by his real parents, etc. etc. Krypton was a dying planet etc. etc. Did the audience even need that kind of trackback? There was a trumped-up scene of Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) apparently getting the Kent legacy by a faulty will signing with Kent’s adopted earth mother on her deathbed. There were no witnesses and this would be truly illegal – any person knows that. After that, there was a kind of a creepy and jumbled flashback rendition of the original story as the planet Krypton was in its last days. The little boy arrives from space and then he grows up to explore his super abilities, jumps off the roof of the barn, and bounds through the corn as if on a bungie cord attached to a “sky hook.”

OK. I kept looking at my watch, and so did the reviewer sitting in front of me. When would the backtracking end and the current story really begin? I am not in the audience to relive my childhood recollections of “Superman” comic books, movies, and television, but I kept a grip on it. After all, it’s superfluous to me, but maybe not to the movie’s target audience.

The computer graphics images – and there were supposedly more than a thousand of them in this film – were quite fantastic. Maybe they could be compared to the Hubble space imagery on steroids! But we are now dripping in movies with CGI getting better and better – and the “ho-hum” factor is beginning to fatigue me. The art deco Metropolis has been visually stitched together and looks like no other city I’ve ever seen (it isn’t New York City, folks).

Now we get to the real story. Clark Kent returns to his old stomping grounds, the City Room of the imaginary “Daily Planet” newspaper. Only – can you even believe this? There are no computers. What era is this? Are we set back in time here? This is all very confusing. Never mind, here’s Perry White (Frank Langella), in his brusk fashion, demanding reporters get coverage on “Superman” once again. It would be good if they had cellphones and laptops and it seemed like the 21st century in reality.

Another slight hitch here. Although Clark gets his job back, the ever-youthful photographer Jimmy Olsen (Sam Huntington) tells him that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) hasn’t been waiting around for him while he was gone. She has somehow acquired a live-in boyfriend named Richard (James Marsden) and she also has a small son! All of this without benefit of marriage! And whose son IS he? I’ll leave you to ponder if this is a family movie. I thought Clark and Lois got married somewhere along the line. How do I tell my young grandkids that Lois is a…a…? You get the point.

What insues for the next bunch of the total of 154 minutes is “Superman” dodging and weaving around Lex Luthor (the only really bad guy in the film), now out of prison and figuring out some idiotic plan to dissolve pretty much the whole East Coast of the United States and develop huge real estate holdings somewhere in what looks like the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. (With real-weather flooding from South Carolina northwards into Maryland yesterday and today, looks like he got a head start.) Clark Kent/Superman is stymied and relegated to looking on (or being saved by) Lois, her boyfriend (who is seemingly not the least bit jealous), and the young boy. It’s a complete and ready-made family of three -- oops! Superman makes four, this handsome, extra-added God-like appendage.

I’m not going to try to expose you to any more of the plot machinations, or the astounding and controversial ending. Yes, there is more grist for the mill if this picture is successful. (Sarcastic suggested title for a sequel: “Superman Returns XXX: And We Hope, For The Very Last Time.”)

Something extraordinary has been lost here. The main actor has saved Metropolis, for now. But he has traded real love for what? Two males, one female and a little boy more or less in a living arrangement -- and only because Superman decided to "find himself" and searched the Universe for five years looking for signs of life from his former home on Krypton. Quick! Get another script doctor! I don't really buy it at all.

I give it a “C+” on my Entertainment Report Card. Plan to see it for yourself; I'm going to go with my husband to see it again next month.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some intense action violence.
Runtime: 154 min
Country: Australia / USA
Language: English
Color: Color
Certification: USA:PG-13 /
Radio Lady’s rating: C+

[Floogeldy]

1. I only like the part of your review where you talk about yourself.

;)

[Radio_Lady]

2. Thanks! LOL! I'm laughing out loud and my husband just told me

to get some rest!

After all, it's the posh-posh movie reviewing life for us!

We're going to see "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" tomorrow at 12 Noon!

[Broken_Hero]

3. I thought it was good...:) *spoilers*

but I do agree, that there were some holes in plot, especially leaving the love triangle, still unresolved...

Some of my beefs, were

1. Not enough of him flying around, saving people...I mean, the action that they show is AWESOME, but they didn't show much of it...there are three major action scenes, and two of them, tie in together...I was expecting more action, more of him flying around..but what they showed, was excellent...

2. The Clark leaving for five years, and no real explanation of why...same with the superman aspect...so, he left for five years, and found an empty graveyard, thats it? Come on SINGER!.....

Those are my two beefs...

What surprised me was this...

1. The kid being his....that took me by surprise, some of the imdb.com boards i frequent were doing the pros/cons of Jason being supermans...I was one of the fans, who hoped it was his...to quelch all the people, who say superman never has anything "new" to deal with...

2. The lifting of New Krypton...my god, what an awesome sequence....

3. Kryptonite...Singer, went in a different direction with Kryptonite in this movie. In most renditions of Supermans classic weakness, the minute he is around the substance, he feigns weakness, and usually ends up on the flooor. In this movie, thats not the case...he just loses, his powers. He essentially becomes, mortal, and it took me by surprise they played Kryptonite like that. Essentially, the played Kryptonite, like it was the red sun of krypton...the red rays of the red son, sap superman of his powers, and the kryptonite in this movie, does exactly the same thing. It did weaken him, but he didn't notice the effects, until Lex handed him his ass....

4. Parker Posey/Kevin Spacey-to me, Spacey played a perfect Luthor, evil, sadistic, with a touch of humor, and egotistical fan fare...:) Posey did a good job, and was good for a few laughs, and the pomerianian dogs were awesome! "wasn't there two of them?"...:)

5. Kate Bosworth-I thought, she was a horrible miscast, but she pulled it off...her determination, to go help supes, and how she carried herself through the film, as a single mother, reporter was good...

6. Brandon Routh-He is superman, he did a good job, he has the size, he is a bit bigger than I orignally thought, and his clark role was good...:)

On a scale of 1-10, I believe this movie is a 7.5. I was expecting a bit more action, but again, Singer has me HUNGRY for more, and thats good, a lot like how season ending episodes leave on a cliff hanger, Superman Returns followed that mold. I cannot wait for superman returns II...now the the creation story, and reintroduction of the man of steel, and lex has been established...

[Radio_Lady]

8. 7.5 is certainly a fair numerical summation.

You've made some excellent observations. This was not an easy project to film and my hat's off to everyone who put so much time and energy into this film. The technical credits alone represent a massive number of people.

I read in one review that director Bryan Singer wanted to use Chris Reeve himself somewhere in the film, but he passed away before the sequence could be filmed. Of course, he dedicates the film to both Dana and Christopher Reeve. That is one sad and difficult real life story, isn't it? I hope that Chris' and Dana's son -- and his older children, too -- are doing OK. I can't imagine losing a parent at such a young age.

[Broken_Hero]

4. noticed something wrong...

There was a trumped-up scene of Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) apparently getting the Kent legacy by a faulty will signing with Kent’s adopted earth mother on her deathbed. There were no witnesses and this would be truly illegal – any person knows that"

That wasn't Ma Kent...it was a rich heiress....not Ma Kent...:)

After that, there was a kind of a creepy and jumbled flashback rendition of the original story as the planet Krypton was in its last days. The little boy arrives from space and then he grows up to explore his super abilities, jumps off the roof of the barn, and bounds through the corn as if on a bungie cord attached to a “sky hook.”

Are you sure we saw the same movie? The only flashback, was him bounding through the corn fields as a young pre-teenager...and the only thing they showed of Krypton, was it exploding, right before the credits/theme music kicked in...weird...

Only – can you even believe this? There are no computers. What era is this? Are we set back in time here? This is all very confusing.

weird, i saw computers...? weird. Did you notice the picture of Glen Ford on Ma Kents shelf?...:)

It would be good if they had cellphones and laptops and it seemed like the 21st century in reality.

They did, Lois had a cell phone, and left it in her car, before entering the Yacht...also, the kid with the picture phone, taking pictures of superman when he lifted/saved Posey while she was driving the car...


I thought Clark and Lois got married somewhere along the line. How do I tell my young grandkids that Lois is a…a…? You get the point.

They got married in the comics, and on Lois and Clark the tv show...but not in the movies...same could be said of Spiderman and Mary Jane, in the comics they have been married for a while also...:)

[Radio_Lady]

5. Your thoughts are excellent, and you've convince me that --

I should go back and see the movie again. Maybe -- could it be that I nodded off during some of it?

Or remembered it differently? Most of all, I'm glad you had a good time.

Most reviews are coming in pretty good, and it's been fun chatting with you!

I'm going to try and watch Kevin Spacey (Pacific Time 12 Midnight KOPB Portland, OR) on Charlie Rose tonight (tomorrow) .

Later...

[Broken_Hero]

7. there are computers i swear!...:)

towards the end, you see lois, on a laptop, typing

"Why the World Needs Superman"...in word!...:)

Its okay, everyone's opinion is different...I was just pointing out some things, that were off...:) I wish, they never had him leave for five years, it seemed, it was used for no reason, really...because, they never really touched on why, he left?

"why did you leave"

"to really see if krypton is gond"

"oh wow, well, I don't need you superman, i moved on!"

"oh wow, come fly with me"

I mean, like two sentences on why he was gone, than all of a sudden its off topic, talking about other things....same with Kents reasoning to be gone for five years, they barely mentioned it during the bar scene...

[Radio_Lady]

10. You're right. I do recall seeing her word processing.

Oops. I'm glad this is not rocket science...!

Thanks for the input.

[Broken_Hero]

13. its okay

wanna here one of my moments, of total "over my head?"...

I didnt' know Mike Meyers actually played Dr. Evil, until my wife told me while we were watching Austin Powers III...god, sometimes, I miss the biggest things....

[hfojvt]

14. I thought they got married in Superman II

He gives up his powers amd marries Lois, only to get his powers back when the three others from Krypton show up and take over the world.

[Broken_Hero]

15. nope

they didn't get married in superman II...the pretended to be married, while doing a story in Niagra Falls...:) He does give up his powers, and sleeps with Lois...hence..."is the kids supermans" angle...:)

[hfojvt]

16. They cannot sleep together without being married

Not in Reagan's America :spank:

I remember the scene where he got roughed up in the bar and Lois says something about "the man I married". I do not have a DVD to check.

IMDB is not clear on it, although one reviewer says "The man of steel gives up his powers to marry Lois Lane,but he does not know that several aliens who have powers just like him are coming to destroy earth."

It is not clear if he gave up his powers because he was going to marry Lois, or if he actually did marry Lois.

[Broken_Hero]

17. Here I go...:)

busted out the DVD...:)

"I don't want a body guard, I want the man I fell in love with"

Nothing about marriage...or getting married...but I got the...Lester dvd from the superman 4 movie pack, I think, there is another version...Donners, I think, they might be different, but I didn't think they released it yet on dvd..at least that cut of it...

[Broken_Hero]

18. I know

they didn't get married in superman II though...Zod and his cronies put a stop to that...;)

[Mojambo]

6. Good review, thanks.

A couple of points...

"Now we get to the real story. Clark Kent returns to his old stomping grounds, the City Room of the imaginary “Daily Planet” newspaper. Only – can you even believe this? There are no computers. What era is this? Are we set back in time here? This is all very confusing. Never mind, here’s Perry White (Frank Langella), in his brusk fashion, demanding reporters get coverage on “Superman” once again. It would be good if they had cellphones and laptops and it seemed like the 21st century in reality."

I remember hearing that Singer was going to go with a decidedly retro look and feel for the Daily Planet. I didn't think it would be such a big deal, and kind of a cute homage to an early Superman feel, but I can see how it would be extra jarring set against the very modern dynamic of the love triangle.

What insues for the next bunch of the total of 154 minutes is “Superman” dodging and weaving around Lex Luthor (the only really bad guy in the film), now out of prison and figuring out some idiotic plan to dissolve pretty much the whole East Coast of the United States and develop huge real estate holdings somewhere in what looks like the middle of the Atlantic Ocean."

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear about this stupid plot. It's a variation on the same damn plot they used in the first Donner film. I know Lex Luthor is supposed to be a real estate obsessed bad guy, but he could (and is) so much more in the comics. In your whole review, this is the paragraph that most makes me worried.

I'll be seeing it on Sunday regardless, but based on what I've heard here and elsewhere I'm not expecting much. Bah, I'm not really a Superman guy anyway. Gimme Green Lantern (Maybe by the Wachowski brothers?) Now that would be a movie.

[Broken_Hero]

9. Green Lantern would be

awesome! :)

[Radio_Lady]

30. I remember the "Green Hornet" on the radio.

He was my companion in the early evenings. I think this is him... did he make it to films or TV? I can't recall.

[evlbstrd]

41. There was a TV show.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059991/

It even had Bruce Lee as Kato.

[Radio_Lady]

43. I was living in New York in 1966. Didn't watch much TV, because

my ex-husband and I were working in television at the time.

Thanks for the post.

In peace,

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[evlbstrd]

45. I was ten years old.

It was made for me. I loved comics and Mad Magazine. Having said that, I'll wait til my daughter brings over a DVD or it comes on the dish to catch another Superman movie. Well, most movies for that matter.

[Radio_Lady]

46. OT: I could use the screen name "evilmstrd" -- it would mean

I hate Grey Poupon/Dijon mustard -- it's so strong, it makes me sneeze!

I know your name stands for something else (tee-hee) -- a child born out of wedlock. There appears to be one of those in the new "Superman Returns".

[evlbstrd]

47. More mustard for me!

Technically, I was concieved out of wedlock. My superpowers have so far eluded me.

[Radio_Lady]

54. Actually? How is it technically a conception? Are you splitting hairs?

You can reply, "None of your goddamned business!" if you wish.

My parents were married in April 1938. Just for effect, they used to say, "Our daughter was born in May (FOLLOWED BY A PREGNANT PAUSE) -- OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR!"

My mother was pregnant at 18 and a mother at 19. Really too, too young.

[evlbstrd]

56. My parents were in there early twenties.

But they were were married in January, and I was born in May of the same year. I didn't split any hairs, but I interrupted the movie "Shane" at the drive-in for them.

[Radio_Lady]

57. Oh, well, it's no big deal today. My stepdaughter got pregnant, then

graduated college (late May), got married (June 2), and had her first child (October 7)-- all in 1985. She went on to have a second daughter and a third child a few years later. At least, she had a boy, who is turning 16 in August of this year.

Our granddaughter used to draw pictures of her mother and father in their wedding outfits, with her (the granddaughter) clearly visible inside the "bump" in her mother's dress.

Later, my stepdaughter told her younger stepsister, my biological daughter, that she should marry and live with her husband for at least a couple of years before she got pregnant. That's what she did!

Oh, a drive-in movie baby! Maybe that's why you like movies???

[evlbstrd]

71. I especially love drive-in movies.

We still have at least four theatres here. You get two first run films cheap, and most of them let you get away with a lot.

[evlbstrd]

70. Technically, the conception was out of wedlock.

They were married when I was born.

[HuffleClaw]

48. an interesting tidbit about bruce lee as kato

there was, during the batman tv show of the day, an episode that featured the green hornet and kato. so, of course they ended up in a battle with batman and robin. however, neither bruce lee (who said he never loses)or adam west (who said batman never loses) thought their character should lose the fight so they fought to a draw.

[evlbstrd]

51. That's interesting bit.

It makes perfect sense. I was a huge fan of the Batman series and movies (the ones with Adam West).

[DainBramaged]

11. There was no small memorial or mention of Christopher Reeve?

[Broken_Hero]

12. There was

when the credits were rolling at the end...

"This movie is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeves, with much love and respect"

something like that, its not exact...:)

[Radio_Lady]

21. Apparently Director Singer wanted to use Chris Reeve in the movie --

Of course, Reeve (and his wife) passed away before the scenes could be shot.

The end credits indicate the movie is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeve.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. No wonder they can't make a decent movie

They can't even properly punctuate their billboard. :eyes:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

28. I noticed that too right away...

It was never "Look up in the sky" but rather, "Look! Up in the sky!"

I'm glad I'm not the only anal freak around here. :)

[Radio_Lady]

29. Writers and punctuationists (is this a word?) of the world, unite!

I appreciate your post.

[Vidar]

20. Sounds dreadful. Thanks.

[Radio_Lady]

22. UPDATE: Shawn Levy gives the movie a C+ also --

He's the most prominent movie reviewer with our major newspaper, the Portland Oregonian. He sat in front of me at the screening and looked at his watch regularly.

LIVING section review headline this morning reads, "Look! Up in the sky! It's a dud, it's plain, it's..."

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/115144534413340.xml?oregonian?alfs&coll=7

OK, on to the next project.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" screens today at 12 Noon. Goodie, goodie!

[Radio_Lady]

23. I'm linking to DUer Wyldwolf who posts his/her review here:

From:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5314329

Superman Returns is getting mostly good reviews. There are some bad reviews, however, and I'd like to address some of the criticisms in the context of my review of the movie.

I firmly believe that the most of the negativity directed at this film stems from a nostalgic fondness for Christopher Reeve and the 1978 classic, Superman The Movie. Now, there has never been a bigger fan of Reeve and his first portrayal of the character as I am but, as some may remember, even that movie received a fair share of bad press in 1978. They said Reeve was too skinny. They said the flying scenes looked fake. They said reversing the earth's rotation to turn back time was silly. They said the movie tanked after the first hour. I didn't agree with any of it, but critics will be critics and fans can be quite possessive of what they see as "theirs."

After all, my dad never liked Chris Reeve. He grew up watching George Reeves and thought the 1978 movie was long, dull, and overblown.

Now, almost 30 years later, its easy to forget the film's low points because what worked worked so well. Such is the same with Superman Returns.

MORE AT LINK ABOVE ----->

[fujiyama]

24. I actually ended up enjoying it overall

I have never been a huge Superman fan. It has been years since I saw the originals with Reeve. I saw them when I was young and don't really remember much. I also never got into "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" or "Smallville".

I did think this was a good tribute to the originals though - I liked how they used the original John Williams Superman theme and the voiceover with Brando's voice. In the end they also dedicate the movie to Christopher and Dana Reeve. It's too bad neither of them saw this completed.

Spacey was fun, a bit over the top at times, but he always looks like he's enjoying himself, regardless of the role. He's one of favorite actors. Routh did a great job as Superman. At first when I saw the ads, he looked like too much of a pretty boy. But he does a fine job. Bosworth is adequete as Lois Lane.

There were some plot holes and things that weren't explained too well. I thought Luthor's whole "building an island" thing was kind of stupid in all honesty. And as has been mentioned, his absence for five years isn't well explained either.

There are some cool scenes too keep an eye out for: the cover of the first comic appearance of Superman (Action Comics #1) is featured in one scene (when he lifts the car).

[Anarcho-Socialist]

25. Wow, I didn't know "Lewis and Clark" had super-powers

:D

Cool. But why didn't they just fly all the way to the Pacific instead of all that slow walking and boating?

[fujiyama]

27. LOL

You caught my spelling error. I'll go ahead and fix that. HAHAHA

Oh and just to be extra precise, I used the full title of the TV show.

[Broken_Hero]

26. ah*spoiler*

you caught that...when superman lifted up Parker Posey's car, and his pose, was almost spot on, from Action Comics number 1...:)

[Cannikin]

84. I believe they made several references to Luthor being in jail

for the last five years.

[sendero]

31. I've never been able to..

... bring myself to see a Superman movie. I loved the comics when I was a kid and even the silly TV show, but I've always got the feeling that the movies wouldn't work.

I saw the first two Batman movies, and I hated them both. They are so stylized that they drain the life out of the character to me, I just didn't see the Batman I loved when I was a kid in those movies.

I think I'll keep my "no Superman" streak going :)

[Radio_Lady]

32. Hi Sendero! Long time, no -- talk! No superhero movies? No problem!

Also, read your post about Star Jones and the report on Howard Stern's show.

Thanks for keeping in touch!

[sendero]

35. I guess I had a point..

... that related to your review. That point being that in the comics, the authors were very very careful to create a consistent character and consistent story lines.

They don't seem to be so careful in films and your review just confims that to me :)

[Cannikin]

36. I saw X3 four times. Surely I'll like Superman

[Radio_Lady]

40. Seems as if you would -- let us know. Some fun facts about X-Men 3...

We were up in Victoria, BC, Canada last August. We went to visit Hatley Castle, but they were filming X-Men 3 and wouldn't allow us to take the tour.

We spoke with a woman in the technical crew. Her job was to manage the actors' contact lenses for the whole production. It was very interesting to speak with her -- who would have thought that job was available? Her background was in optics and she had worked as an optician in the past.

I did not see the film. Was this exterior location in any of the shots?



http://www.film.bc.ca/agent/locations/hatley/

[Deja Q]

33. Much thanks! A friend of mine, a HUGE Superman fan...

was disappointed in the movie too.

I think I'll see X3 this weekend instead.

[RamboLiberal]

34. Can't agree with your review Radio Lady - I thought it was

nearly as good as the original Christopher Reeve's Superman. I loved that they payed homage to that movie with the music, Marlon Brando, backstory, dialog, etc. And that they also payed homage to the comic books and to the 50's George Reeves' Superman. The old lady who Luthor married to swindle (not a Kent as you mistakely identified Radio Lady) was Noel Neill who was the original feisty Lois Lane in not just the old TV series Superman but also the Kirk Alyn(sp) terrible movie serials. And the bar they retired to was run by Jack Larson the original Jimmy Olsen.

They even managed to work in a Perry White "Great Caesar's Ghost" without being campy.

And speaking of campy - that is what I most loved that they were serious and not campy in this one. I thought the biggest weakness of the Reeve Superman movies was the over campiness of the 3rd section of the movie and for all of the remaining 3 movies. That's what also ruined the Batman franchise too IMHO.

Yeah it was a little long and I was disappointed for the most part in Spacey's Lex Luthor - thought he was understated. But then I thought Hackman's Luthor was way over the top. My favorite Luthor was John Shea in the Lois & Clark TV series. From what little I've watched of Smallville it looks like the actor playing a young Luthor is very good as well.

I found Brandon Roush perfect to play the part of Clark/Superman. If they continue with the franchise I look forward to him growing in the part. I'm very hopeful if they can keep the franchise in the same hands as this movie that they won't degenerate as unfortunately the Reeve movies did - no fault of Christopher Reeve though. Man I'm glad the Nicholas Cage Superman never got made - I like Cage but couldn't see him as Superman.

I liked the kid - and usually I don't like cute kids in movies. I had read the spoiler so I knew but again I think they played it perfectly especially the ending.

But I really enjoyed this one. Liked that they didn't play special effects just to show us what neat special effects they can do - big complaint I have about most Hollywood action movies these days.

Flying sequences were well done. Sequence with Lois and Superman was great though not quite the beautiful poetic ballet of the first movie.

Don't know how you missed the computers, cell phones, laptops etc., they sure figured in the movie including the cute part of the 12 year old with the camera phone doing a better pic than Olsen.

Nice that the live-in boyfriend was a nice guy, not a jerk. If there is a 2nd movie wonder where that goes?

I was a kid in the 50's/60's so I grew up with the TV series and comic books. Loved the series though now I laugh at how campy it is, especially the later episodes. First season was actually pretty good and first time I saw Mole Men it blew me away for how decently made it was for that time period. I remember making my parents take me to Kennywood (Pittsburgh amusement park) to see George Reeves appear as Superman (bet he hated those appearances). And I remember how stunned I was at his death - especially hearing he committed suicide. BTW, before the movie the previews were of a movie coming out - Hollywoodland - that is about this suicide (or was it murder). He led a bit of a lewd life. 50's weren't all picket fences and innocence.

I always loved the Superman franchise though I'm not a fanatic about it. Got away from the comics when I grew up. I did love the Lois & Clark TV adaptation and hope to someday catch up with Smallville on DVD.

I'm going to go back and watch Superman Returns, this time on IMAX which should be interesting.

I give this one a B+ or 4 to 4.5 stars.

[Radio_Lady]

38. Very well discussed, Rambo Liberal. I'm going again with my hubby

and I'm sure to find other positive things that I may not have noticed before.

I don't know whether it's playing in IMAX in Portland, but that would be astounding! Unfortunately, I easily get motion sickness in IMAX theaters (even though the seats don't move!). I've determined over my lifetime that it's more visual eye cues that cause the nausea -- and I try to avoid it!

Thanks so much for your post. As I said, I hope everyone enjoys the movie -- I always try to be positive in my reviews -- people put their time, sweat, and tears into film production -- and LOTS of MONEY!

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[Radio_Lady]

55. UPDATE: IMAX screenings are at OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and

Industry). See local newspapers or www.omsi.org for more information.

OMNIMAX 24-Hour Theater Information Line: 503.797.4640

[Broken_Hero]

44. I agree with almost everything

you said, and I urge you to catch up on your smallville...I did last fall, seasons 1-4, watched in two weeks...:) Some good stuff, and some very dumb things also. I'm going again tomorrow, and rumor has it, that Braniac's symbol is on New Krytpon...seen when superman throws ..well, you know what, out into outer space.....:)

Spoilers





















One more thing to think on here....New Krytpon, is out floating in space...what else did the crystal grow, besides, land/rock formations? Also, Posey dumped at least six other crystals, and they are still on New Krypton...I think, Singer worked in another villian, through the New Krytpon angle...I think, New Krypton is going to grow into Braniac's skull ship, and the six crystals will join together, and grow a kryptonian robot, aka Braniac!...:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

83. I agree! It was almost as good as the original. Sadly, that sucked, too.

[StellaBlue]

37. I saw it last night.

I am 27 tomorrow, and have never seen any of the original films, except for a few clips on TV here and there. I don't generally like these kinds of movies, though I do like Batman.

I thought there wasn't ENOUGH background. I am still confused as to how all these people ended up together, for instance, whether Lex Luthor is human or from Superman's planet or from another planet. In fact, I thought the opening sequence with the farmhouse and crashing meteor (I guess that's what it was) was too vague.

I also thought the Lois Lane/unwed mother/domestic partnership thing was silly, but not a problem for young viewers. I think they were trying to be funny and just show how they'd updated the story to reflect modern reality, and it also, of course, provides a neat caveat for the sequel that Lois isn't married.

I didn't think it was the greatest movie ever, though I thought Routh was PERFECT as Superman, looking exactly like he should. I'll paste the review I posted on my blog last night below.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I saw Superman tonight, and I really liked it. And I don't enjoy blockbuster action flicks, usually.

I'm not sure if it was because it was comparatively tastefully filmed, had lots of art deco, and Parker Posey, or if it was just because Superman was hot.

?

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5172016,00.jpg

Look at that hair. Come ON.

Really, though, see, this is why I like Batman. Batman has been around. Batman's conflicted. Batman has issues. You never know for sure whether Batman might not just flip out and turn to the dark side. He's vaguely sinister, he's ironic, he's reluctant, he's got that big batlight, he sleeps hanging upside down... Superman needed more character development, IMHO; he's fairly robotic, especially in the hero incarnation, and doesn't have many lines at all, and while Kate Two-Different-Eyes Bosworth was okay, she wasn't fabulous. I would've preferred someone more striking. Just dyeing her hair dark brown didn't make her suddenly more striking, like, say, Rose McGowan. You need striking female characters in these things, to balance the lead, like Kim Basinger ca. 1989. Also, while you could say there was chemistry between the two, there wasn't any depth, which, in light of the previous storyline, doesn't quite cut it. There is also a SHITLOAD of Christ symbolism, which I found simultaneously irritating, fascinating, and appropriate. But, you know, my favorite part of the gospels was when they put the baby Jesus on the spaceship and sent him back his home planet.

I suppose I liked the cinematography and art direction and whatnot more than the "plot". But, it did feel very epic, I actually enjoyed the CGI shit for a change, and there were some funny, subtle jokes and references to other films (for instance, when Lois and her long-haired son get locked in a pantry - and there's also what I believe to be a little dig at the motivations and bluster of Smirky McDeath involving one of his most famous foot-in-the-mouth episodes). Which brings me back to how much I love that "Ann Richards will take your ass out" thing. Bwhahahaha.

Did I mention I LOVE Parker Posey?

I totally agree with Roger Ebert: "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?" Funny you should say that, Rog. I said to Mario and Jeff on the way out, "I think Superman may be an android. He was too perfect. It was eerie."

I also agree with Ebert on this one: "...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?"

Also, Lex's evil masterplan was too cartoonish and ridiculous, even for a comic book movie. It wasn't that creative, and didn't translate too well to the screen, as it was kind of... colorless. The whole thing too was reminiscent of Austin Powers.



All in all, Routh was much more convincing and empathetic as Clark Kent than as Superman, though he certainly looked the part. All looks, no substance - isn't that always the way?

[Radio_Lady]

39. StellaBlue, if I have time, I will use some DU viewer comments on

my audio show, recording tomorrow (June 30th), and airing on the Internet Monday, July 3rd. Thanks so much for posting.

UPDATE: I read your website from your DU profile page. Beautiful floral background -- !!! Looks like a wall I had in my colonial Massachusetts home.

You have a great list of movies you liked:

Gone With the Wind; Pretty in Pink; Rear Window; Desperado; Meet Me in St Louis; Hard Day's Night; Romy & Michele's High School Reunion; It's a Wonderful Life; O Brother Where Art Thou?; Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?; The Shining; The Women (1939 version); The Sound of Music; Goodbye Lover; Kurt & Courtney; The Apartment; Ask Any Girl; Steel Magnolias; The Time Machine (1960 version); Oscar & Lucinda; Monty Python and the Holy Grail; Heathers; plenty more. I also like Westerns.

I agree with you on almost all of them. Not familiar with Oscar & Lucinda and never saw The Women -- geez! I was born in 1939!

Have a super 4th of July in Austin, Texas. We almost moved there in the 1980s when my husband was interviewed by a company named Crystal Semiconductor. I flew down from Boston and went around with a realtor. Saw some gorgeous houses overlooking the Colorado river and could imagine myself living there!

In peace,

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[StellaBlue]

42. In response

Austin ROCKS. It's the only place (with the possible exception of San Francisco) that I would want to live in the US.

Oscar and Lucinda in a ca.1999 movie with the then-up-and-coming Cate Blanchett (maybe my favorite contemporary actress) and Ralph Fiennes (my favorite actor)! Set in nineteenth century Australia, very quirky.

The wallpaper is a William Morris pattern.

Have a good afternoon!!!

[HuffleClaw]

49. having seen the film during a thursday matinee i'd have to agree

though imho, a C+ is being generous. i felt it dwelt far too long on the lois/superman relationship for one and another thing (which i personally find pretty much unforgivable) the soundtrack was a horror. also, i feel lois was miscast. a highlight of the film was for me, kevin spacey as lex luthor, who protrayed him as dispassionate evil personified and his henchkitty, parkey posey. the action sequences were flawless and the opening sequence alone was almost worth the price of admission, and featured a nicely done slightly reworked version of the iconic john williams fanfare and credits. i suspect it alone cost more than the 1978 film did.




***SPOILERS FOLLOW ***





















i'd almost have to call this superman a combination of 'titanic, E.T., the young & the restless, the empire strikes back, and snow white'. the final super-feat (for lack of a better term) was something that really needs to be seen to be 'believed' and was almost laughable in its implausibility, however impressive it was. the best action sequence was, of course, the bit featured in the trailer, that of the doomed airliner. the kleenex-inducing ending was about twice as long as it needed to be i feel and the whole 'who is that kids father' bit was far too soap-ish for my liking, though i do appreciate that it certainly provides an interesting plot point for future films (or a tv show, superboy: middle school). i am hopeful that the sequel(s) will be far better, now that the basic expository material has been taken care of.

[Ediacara]

50. Overall I liked the movie, I give is a B or B+

I saw it this afternoon while the boyfriend was at work (he reuses to see anything the New Yorker or the NYT reviews badly). The opening credit sequence had me scared, as it seemed overly campy and really fake. For instance, when they finally reach our solar system, instead of using real images of Jupiter and Earth (and probably Saturn and Mars), they use computer generated images of the planets, which made me think, "oh crap, what have I gotten myself into?" After that though..... I thought the movie was very good. As has been pointed out, Luthor was swindling some rich widdow, not Clark's mom, the flashbacks were just of him on the farm after he returned, and there are plenty of computers in the newsroom. In one scene, Clark and Richard attempt to think up Lois' password. You're right that Superman and Clark's absense is never fully explored, but I think that can be chocked up to a) no one caring about Clark since Superman's back and b) Lois being seriously in love and not caring where Superman went, just so long as he's back. Additionally, as others have pointed out, Luthor's plan just seems silly, but then again, Luthor never seemed to be running on all cylenders :-)

[Broken_Hero]

52. Saw it again tonight...:)

And one of my beefs, I have to dismiss. I was sorta, perturbed, over the...



Spoilers...





Superman lifting new krypton, when it was loaded with kryptonite...was one my main beefs, but my wife pointed out, that since the crystal itself melded with the other elements in the ocean, and ocean bed, would make the kryptonite diluted...remember, the Kryptonite was maybe 5lbs, and spread, throughout an entire continant, while being diluted with the surronding elements as well...:)

Another thing, when superman, lifted new krytpon, he flew/blasted way underneath it, hence, he had a good portion of normal earth/granite/whatever in between him, and New Krypton...:)

I enjoyed it a hell of a lot better the second time around, the first time around, i felt like i was grading the damn thing.....


on edit: for clarification, and misunderstanings...

[Radio_Lady]

58. Funny! I saw it again Friday night with my husband.

I was absolutely wrong on some of the anachronistic things I said about it. There were computers, cellphones, etc. and I have no idea why I missed them the first time.

I just enjoyed the film immensely this time. We sat in the second row, and my husband gives it an "A" -- we're going to see the original "Superman" on Comcast On Demand films when it is available soon.

I wondered why there were only about five other people at the 6:15 PM screening on the first night in Sherwood, Oregon. I thought that was odd! It was a very warm night and maybe people are busy after work on a hot night -- or getting ready to go away for the July 4th weekend?

[Broken_Hero]

60. well

I'm glad you caught more things this time, I wasn't trying to lie to you, I swear, I saw computers...plus, Perry White was using a very nice Sony laptop....;) I am glad you and your husband enjoyed it, my wife did greatly. I plan on dragging my brothers/sister to it tomorrow. My brothers/sister arrive later on tonight at Tulsa...they are coming down for the month of July...:)


Did you notice Glen Fords picture on Ma Kents piano? Also, as someone mentioned Noel Neil played the dying heiress, and the bar tended, was Jack Larson, from the old superman shows....:) Did you also notice, superman and olsen drinking a budweiser!...;)

on edit: did you notice that Jason's pj's at the end of the movie, were super friends pjs? He had aquaman on his left shoulder, while superman was doing his speech...

[Radio_Lady]

62. I did notice the Glenn Ford picture this time! Thanks for telling me!

As far as the other players for former Superman incarnations, I did read a press release about them, but didn't save the link. Cool!

I didn't notice the bear, but the pajamas and the whole little boy's fantasy room were nice touches. I think Bryan Singer has a place for himself in this industry. He looks like such a young guy!

Did you go to his journals? Lots of background stuff there! Nice touch for fans!

http://www2.warnerbros.com/supermanreturns/videoblog/

[Broken_Hero]

63. no

I haven't gone to his blogs, but I did get that documentary he made...now, that is a pretty good history of superman, documentary.

[Cannikin]

61. I see it in the morning at 11 when nobody else is there

I have a particular seat that I have to have or I get edgy

[Broken_Hero]

64. edgy?

how edgy? on the verge of going postal edgy?...:)

[TomPainesBones]

65. Well I'm glad you actually had a chance to 'see' the movie

this time around. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that someone who reviews movies would make the kind of mistakes you made in your review.

[Radio_Lady]

68. I'm not surprised. I do the best I can. People make mistakes.

So do movie reviewers. So do Supreme Court justices, but you don't get a chance to correct them easily!
So do doctors, but remember -- they tend to bury their mistakes.

I appreciate people pointing out flaws in my reviews. This is a pretty benign job, so all you can hurt is my ego -- I don't actually get paid for my work anymore. It was more difficult when I needed to earn money because I was the sole support of two toddlers. My work life encompassed 1957 to 2000, with some brief stops for bearing two children and raising a total of five. I remarried a man with three children who had lost his wife to cancer at age 34.

Movie reviewing is not rocket science. Since I see several hundred movies every year, there are many chances for errors. Most of my reviews on talk radio were "ad lib" -- not written out for an on-line journal. Believe me, when you review in a call-in format, people pick up things very quickly.

If I had had a chance, I would have made changes to the original post. But, as you well know, the editing time expires very quickly. I am always happy to hear other points of view or correct errors I have made. People who are afraid of making mistakes -- never attempt anything. Here's an interesting web site that tracks the mistakes in movies.
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5443

It's kind of fun to look up the six mistakes people have noticed in the new movie, "Superman Returns."

By the way, what kind of work do you do? Have you ever made any mistakes?

Enjoy the holiday, TomPainesBones, and welcome to the DU! For your information, you joined the DU on my birthday, May 31, last year!

[Frank Cannon]

73. Mistakes are one thing. What you did was REALLY bizarre.

In fact, after having seen the movie myself yesterday, I cannot conceive of how you could possibly have written what you did.

You didn't make just a few mistakes. You completely mischaracterized things. No computer monitors in the Daily Planet? Excuse me, but just WTF are those things clustered on those eight enormous towers? In fact, there is a computer somewhere in EVERY SINGLE SHOT in the Daily Planet office. Not every scene, every SHOT!

And no cell phones? Perhaps you missed the one that Lois leaves in the car. I mean, it WAS only shown in CLOSE-UP. (And speaking of close-ups, you might have also missed the one of the cursor on Lois's computer as she writes her final story. I mean, we only see it BLINKING FOR AT LEAST TWO SECONDS.)

And too much story backtracking? "An hour of exposition?" Again, WTF?!! "Krypton was a dying planet...etc." Krypton's explosion is shown at the beginning of the movie and never brought up again! Clark has a couple of flashbacks to life in Smallville (not even any audio, as I recall) and then goes right off to Metropolis!

I'll forgive you for confusing Noel Neill's dying old woman with Eva Marie Saint's Martha Kent. I mean, they ARE both elderly women.(!) But in the context of where that scene appears in the movie, I just don't see how you could do it. I am slackjawed.

Oh, and Lois's boyfriend "not the least bit jealous"? Where were you when he asks her, point-blank and at the point of tears, whether she "still loves him (Superman)"?

And now you claim you just saw the movie again with your husband and "enjoyed it enormously"! And after this C+ review! Just WTF is going on?

None of this adds up. This would be akin to my writing a bad review of the Godfather, saying that I just couldn't weather the water-ballet tribute to pineapples or the long scenes spent on horseback in Vito Corleone's hometown of Laredo, TX. If I were to write something like that, you'd have to wonder whether I even saw the movie prior to writing my review. Well, YOU DID write something like that... and I DO wonder.

EDIT: For clarity in the Richard White quote.

[Radio_Lady]

79. Read this SCATHING review, with your tongue in your cheek!

Superman is my Baby Daddy, 28 June 2006
Author: Beat-Bop-Bobaloo from Antarctica

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Last night I attended the preview of Superman Returns, something I will regret for the remainder of my days. This film is an insult to mouth-breathers everywhere. It is a damning example of art by committee, as would be expected when a quarter-billion dollars is spent on a thing.

Where, oh where, did the 250 million go? / Where, oh where can it be?

Burned on the altar of special effects/ that seem to be made-for-TV.

I cannot detail all of the problems with this movie. They were overwhelming. I would have to spend another 2 1/2 hours of my life , taking notes while re-watching this cinematic miscarriage, a sacrifice I am unwilling to make. Besides, my HMO doesn't pay for therapist visits.

Here are some issues that stand out:

Suspense, specifically the lack thereof. The film chugs along with the monotonous predictability of a garbage truck. "Gee, Superman saved someone from Certain Death! Sure didn't see that coming!" Even worse, the situations are irritatingly contrived and often are set up by the stupidity of the characters.

For example, Lois Lane, on the evening of the Pulitzer Prize ceremony, one of which she is being awarded, puts on a fetching designer gown and picks up her kid at school. Then, kid in car, on the very evening she is to be awarded the Pulitzer, decides to stop off at the lair of Lex Luthor to see if that bad man is responsible for the EMP that made here Blackberry go on the fritz.

She takes her kid along with her to visit Lex Luthor!

Lex Luthor, a psychopath who is planning on world domination and the deaths of billions of people!

Guess what?

He kidnaps her and the kid! Who would have thought?

Not Lois, obviously. Someone needs to call child protective services. She must be smoking crack or something.

Characterization, another deficiency. The characters sleepwalk through this film. The actors cannot overcome the listless dialog. Everyone on screen seems to be suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome

I can imagine the assorted actors forming a mob and marching to the director's trailer, torches and pitchforks in hand, chanting "What's my motivation? What's my motivation?" Hesitancy substitutes for inner conflict. And the waste, the tragic waste of talent. Parker Posey, a human M-80 scene- stealer in indie films, presents here in SR like someone who needs to have her Prozac dose adjusted. It is a sad thing to be out-acted by Valerie Perrine, whose role she reprises. Kevin Spacey seems tired, resigned to his fate, like an aged exotic dancer trying for one last bump-and- grind. His Lex Luthor is waspish rather than menacing. He seems more likely to make cutting remarks about your fashion sense than to be about to lay waste to humankind, unlike the scary-funny scenery-chewing of Gene Hackman in the first movie. Frank Langella displays about as much emotional range as Chuck Norris. There is little chemistry between the two actors playing Superman and Lois. I can't even remember their names. Jimmy Olsen still carries his torch for Clark Kent, though, leading one to wonder if Krypton allowed same-sex unions.

Paternity as Drama- as the title of this thread indicates, the big dramatic pay-off is Lois acknowledging that yes, Superman, you are my Baby-Daddy. This is creepy and contrived. Lois is shacked up with one of her editors, who thinks little Super Jr. is his. Supe Jr. calls Mr. Lois Lane "Daddy". Superman lurks around their house, spying on the happy family with X-ray vision, a super-stalker. Does being a superhero mean you can break-up a family, and it's OK?

Is Mr. Lois Lane a moron? Can't he count to nine? Or was Lois sleeping with both of them at once? Was her biological clock ticking? Or does Superman have Supersperm, heroic little caped tadpoles that fly around the womb for months or years, seeking a heroic conception? Did Lex Luthor ever hit it? What about Jimmy Olsen's feelings, guys? Jimmy, all alone in his little apartment, pining for his beloved Clark. Maybe we can get them all on Maury's show with their DNA and see what happens… I foresee many thrown chairs.

Enough for now. I have much more to say, but it will have to wait. I leave you, gentle reader, with this thought: In the film, the title of Lois Lane's Pulitzer Prize winning article was "We Don't Need Superman."

Too bad the head of Warner Bros. missed the hint.

Yours truly,

beatbopbobaloo

[bertha katzenengel]

53. It's been overhyped, but all summer blockbusters are. I liked it.

I especially liked that they used John Williams' music, but my favorite parts were Kevin Spacey -- every scene he was in -- and the dedication to the Reeves at the end. :sob:

One more thing: I must be getting old. I don't remember movie theater sound being quite that loud. :coversears:

[Radio_Lady]

59. They've juiced up the audio in most theaters. You can request

assisted listening devices (headsets) at most modern theaters. They allow you to hear the audio and adjust it if it's too loud or two soft. I find them essential at most movies.

There are usually an infrared system and maintained for the hard-of-hearing (my husband has that problem, but doesn't wear a hearing aid yet).

I always use the headsets because I'm used to them from working in radio for so many years.

Have a great holiday and thanks for contributing.

[TomPainesBones]

66. I'll repost this from an older thread...

People need to know how close we got to having a really BAD Superman movie.

We came THIS close to having:

A Superman who couldn't fly
A Superman who wore a black leather 'Borg' outfit
A Ninja fighting Superman with removable daggers on the S shield
A Superman who fights a giant spider (ala Wild, Wild West)
A Fortress of Solitude with sentry guards
A Krypton that never exploded
A Lex Luthor who was Kryptonian
A gay robot (literally) sidekick
A Tim Burton directed movie emphasising Superman's "murderous side" (WTF?)
A Superman played by either Nic Cage, Sean Penn, or Ashton Kutcher (Ugh!)

Check out this hilarious Kevin Smith video that explains some of the back story, and be grateful for what we ARE getting...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk&search=kevin%20s...

[Radio_Lady]

67. TomPainesBones, thanks for adding this link.

There are many ways that script ideas can go VERY VERY wrong. Your list is completely indicative of that.

And ... this interview is absolutely hysterical!!!!

Where do you think the story will go from here?

[Broken_Hero]

69. hear hear!

No doubt about that...its been a circus for almost a decade now, dealing with the superman lives/superman dies storylines. I am more than happy with what I got...Singer, had a lot to deal with...plus, those bad ideas that were in place, before he even got involved...

He had to deal with Christopher Reeve fans, the superman the moviegoers, who watch the movies/smallville/lois and clark shows...plus he had to please a handful of generations, who grew up reading superman in the comics. Plus, he had to do something new, a twist, or three, to bring in something fresh, plus casting for Superman, when Reeve in my opinion, is still my superman, but Routh did a great job...I don't hear to many people bagging on his performance, at all...:)

[Radio_Lady]

72. This is the BEST picture of Kevin Spacey!

http://myspace.com/lexluthorreturns

[YankeyMCC]

74. Well I repeat my assessment

a good performance of a 'old play' is how I felt about it. And there were two big nitpicks that nearly completely ruined it for me - one a general technical issue the other an issue of continuity or consistency.

And it isn't the live in boyfriend/single mother theme that makes me question if this is a family movie (there are all sorts of families out there is what I teach my son) in fact I was thinking I could bring my 10 year old son to see this except for one thing that did make me question if this is a family movie.

I wont give a spoiler but it has to do with what Louis son does to one of the bag guys.

[TomPainesBones]

75. I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars

I saw the Tuesday night screening of Superman Returns.
It's very good but not "great." Could it have been better? Sure. Of course. EVERY movie could be better. If this was the best movie of all time it still wouldn't be as good as the movie I've got floating around in my head. But I'd advise people to read post #66 and be thankful for the Superman we did end up getting.

As much as I did enjoy the movie, it has all the problems that a movie of that sort inherently has. In addition, there were some last minute editing decisions that cut over 20 minutes from the beginning of the film. A move that cost the audience some important narrative and build up (I do however understand why it was done, not wanting to tread into King Kong territory). But all in all, the positives far outweigh the negatives. And if it came down to an either/or situation, with someone preferring what was proposed in post #66 over what we did get, then it is safe to say they do not understand the character anyway. So no bother.

There are quite a few different camps of Superman fans that have accumulated over the years. There are the various Comics fans, the George Reeves fans, the Donner fans, the Lois & Clark fans, the Tim Daly fans etc., etc. This movie was made by a fan of the Donner films for fans of the Donner films.

Bryan Singer has done a very unusual thing, trying to revive a long gone franchise instead of taking the easy route and just starting over. I commend him for taking the chance on bringing the Donner vision to a whole new generation, while also creating something quite unique as well. This is much different than the Donner Superman. This isn't the bright and simple, 'let's smash some stuff up' tough guy Superman either. This is a bit of a thinking man's Superman. Some people don't want that and I can understand that. I however do want that, and I'm grateful for it. The odds were astronomically against it.

This movie already had a lot going against it from the beginning. There was no way for Bryan Singer to please everybody. Now on top of everything else, Superman Returns has to deal with the homophobic segment of the country who thinks Superman is "Gay", the right-wing nationalists who are pissed off because they removed "The American Way" from the "Truth, Justice" line (even though that line wasn't a part of Superman's history until years after his conception), the "family values" crowd who are claiming Lois Lane is a "slut" for having a child out of wedlock, the fundies who are offended at the Christ allegory of a Superman who has premarital sex, and it goes on and on.

You seem nice enough RadioLady. I'm just wondering about something. Your review of the film was rather negative, "A SUPER disappointment" etc. But then you watched it again and you said that you "enjoyed the film immensely" and that "my husband gives it an "A.""

You also had some glaring errors in your review, stating things like "There are no computers. What era is this? Are we set back in time here? This is all very confusing." and "It would be good if they had cellphones and laptops and it seemed like the 21st century in reality." Yes, I understand it was a mistake and all, but that was quite a doozy. Not only were there cellphones, laptops, flatscreens, fax machines, etc all over that film, but they were part of the plot. Just how could all that be missed? Never mind, don't tell me. It doesn't matter.

Additionally, you wrote that Lex Luthor swindled Martha Kent out of "the Kent legacy" on her deathbed, when in reality it was a different character all together - which should have been obvious because Martha Kent shows up in the film just a few seconds later... AFTER the widow died. Why would the Kents have a mansion and billions of dollars anyway? They lived on a rundown farm. One would think that someone who likes the character as much as you say you do would know that. But again, never mind. You're busy, you've "got a life," etc.

It seems like some of your initial negativity was based on misconceptions on your part. Which is fine - yes I know, we all make mistakes. But given your turnaround from "A SUPER disappointment" to "enjoyed the film immensely" I was wondering, just which review did you end up submitting? And did you get a chance to fix the mistakes?

For better or worse, films tend to live and die based on reviews.
It would be a shame to lead people to think the film is worse than it really is
(Yeah, I know. It's just a movie).

Again, Superman Returns is not perfect. I've got a few problems with it myself.
But all things considered, I'm grateful for how it turned out.

If nothing else, the entire project is a thoughtful tribute to Christopher Reeve. His spirit is all over that thing. On that level alone it's worthy of a degree of respect.

[Cannikin]

76. I thought it was great.

I got my favorite seat. Right in the middle with a rail to prop my feet up on. I was thoroughly entertained. I feel that I got my monies worth. And thats what really counts!

[Frank Cannon]

77. I'd give it 4.33 stars out of 5

I am a HUGE Supes fan in all of his incarnations, and I was quite frankly blown away by this movie.
It was just so melancholy and deep, particularly for a "superhero movie". And I thought it was great how Singer included "easter eggs" for all comic-book Superman fans to recognize. Siegel & Schuster, Swan & Anderson, Alex Ross--even Neal Adams got a visual "wink wink" in there. That was all terrific.

And I am a HUGE Christopher Reeve fan. I really didn't think anyone else could play Superman, and I was disappointed that anyone would even want to try. But let me just go out on a limb here and say that Brandon Routh is the BEST Superman ever. He brought all of Reeve's confidence, strength, and good-natured sense of humor to the part while adding a depth of sadness and loss. This takes nothing away from Reeve's performance; he didn't have as much to work with. But Routh really did a sensational job, and I can't wait to see him play Superman again.

RE: Radio_Lady's review. See my posts above on this subject. Something there just doesn't add up.

The ONLY SINGLE quibble I have about this movie: They need to bring back the shield on the back of Superman's cape. Bryan Singer said the yellow shield messed with the special effects, but the effects were so incredible, I know they can figure that problem out. With the yellow "S" shield on the back of Superman's cape, he looks like a medieval champion from behind. Without it, he looks like a goof dressing up in a caped costume.

I loved Superman Returns. I'll probably see it at least twice more before it comes out on DVD.

[Radio_Lady]

78. Holy Fireworks! This movie now has 874 user comments on the IMDB

(Internet Movie Data Base) web site, and the movie "Superman Returns" has only been officially open since Tuesday night! That's truly amazing.

http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/#comment

FRANK CANNON: (Referring to the original post of my review.)>>Something there just doesn't add up.

Is this an addition problem? Oh, I didn't notice. My opinion one day plus my opinion a week later -- still equals just my opinion. I did alter my opinion on the second viewing of this movie, and my husband added his opinion -- that the film should get an "A" -- is it better when it comes from Ebert and Roeper or some other critic? I didn't have to admit to my errors in this thread -- I could have just shrugged my shoulders. So, I missed some plot points and the retro look of this film caused me to believe it was set back in time with no computers. (On the second viewing, I noticed the newspaper in one clip says "February 2005" and in another sequence, reads "September 2005.")

Last night, we watched most of TMC's showing of the original "Superman" from 1978. (We'll get the rest when the movie goes on demand.) Then, I had to begin writing my next review, which is required by Friday morning 7/7 before we go on vacation.

You're taking pot-shots at a little fish in a little pool. No problem for me. However, I can see some advantages to reviewers -- such as Roger Ebert and Shawn Levy -- who work with blog pages where comments are disabled. One reviewer here in Portland used to post to a movie Usenet group. She was verbally abused and even threatened by some other group posters. She was called everything in the dictionary -- just for her viewpoints on films!

She's still writing for a local newspaper, and she occasionally receives a few negative letters about her reviews. I am not used to being gored by the general public, but I have no illusions about posting my movie reviews at the DU. People are going to disagree -- it's part of the nature of the beast.

I disagree with your opinion that it is BIZARRE if I see a movie once and then see it again a second time, and decide I like it better on the second showing! What's the problem? You want to be 100% right from the get-go? Fine. You are summarily anointed as "the perfect one" -- You know, I really hope you have better things to do with your time than to cite my failings.

Stephen Schaefer, the movie reviewer from the Boston Herald, got tangled up in his jargon and apparently called the actor BRIAN Routh (I think he was able to correct it later). He got jumped on for that "faux pas" and he was tortured with tons of comments for using the word "magisterial." See for yourself!

http://news.bostonherald.com/blogs/stephenSchaefer/?p=63

In any event, I'm filing this away for now. Of course, it will continue to exist in the archives. One of the newspaper reviewers here says, "Tomorrow, you can wrap your fish in my review, if you don't agree with me!"

I have moved my rating of this film from a C+ to a B+ at this time. Please don't hold my "flawed" first review against me. I hope this film does well financially and truly I hope you like it even more than I did.

Good night and good luck.

[Radio_Lady]

80. Superman Tops Box Office Over (Long Holiday) Weekend

Brandon Routh

LOS ANGELES - Superman did his part to uphold the American way of moviegoing over the five-day Fourth of July weekend, conquering the box office by selling $76 million worth of tickets from Friday through Tuesday.

The take easily pushed the film over the $100 million mark in its first seven days. The movie opened in North America on June 28.

More at: http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2006/07/05/428236.html

[Radio_Lady]

81. For those to missed the fray, my final rating on this movie was B+!

[Broken_Hero]

91. :)

I upped my approval rating also, a solid 8.5...some of my beefs, were corrected in watching it again...quite a few things I missed...;)

[Broken_Hero]

89. heaven

knows how many of those imdb.com posts are from me...my name over there, is the same here, just about...;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

82. You're right - it's crap

And a bitter disappointment, indeed.

[Radio_Lady]

86. Talk to TomPainesBones and Frank Cannon (above) .

I've moved on, out of necessity!

[Yavin4]

85. This Was Sort of A Test Movie, Storywise

Much like the first X-Men, they wanted to see how the audience would react to the film before they added more heft to the story. So, you throw in a lot of CGI for the fans and you slowly bring the story along for the non-fans to get hooked.

Most of these super-hero movies do this. Take it easy in the first one and then go all out in the second one. My hope is that in the second film has a much stronger story.

[Radio_Lady]

87. Here's the take from Box Office Mojo:

'Superman Returns' Solid If Unspectacular
by Brandon Gray
July 5, 2006

Dormant for 19 years, Superman relaunched on the big screen at a time when superheroes and super-inflated opening grosses run rampant in theaters, and, while his reception was much softer than newer men in tights like Spider-Man and X-Men, he hovered slightly above the debut of Batman's reboot last summer.

Swooping onto about 8,200 screens at 4,065 locations, Warner Bros.' Superman Returns rocketed to $84.6 million in its first five days, selling about as many tickets initially as the first X-Men, which was also directed by Bryan Singer. Included in the tally was an estimated $5 million from 76 IMAX theaters, the highest-grossing IMAX opening on record, eclipsing Batman Begins' $3.1 million. By its seventh day, July 4, Superman's total levitated to $108.1 million.

Among recent Independence Day starts, the Man of Steel's $52.5 million weekend trailed War of the Worlds' $64.9 million last year and Spider-Man 2's $88.2 million in 2004 but was ahead of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines' $44 million in 2003. Fellow Warner Bros. and DC Comics revival, Batman Begins, grabbed $48.7 million in its first weekend and ultimately grossed $205.3 million.

"We're looking at $110 million for the first seven days," said Dan Fellman, Warner Bros.' president of distribution, on Sunday. "If you can join that $100 million club in the first seven days, you have to be proud. Considering Batman Begins, which was a great success for us last year, and what it did in its first week, you can't be more pleased." The studio's exit polling indicated that 57 percent of moviegoers were male and 63 percent were over 25 years old.

If Superman Returns disappointed, it's in relation to cost and hype. When a picture is one of the most expensive of all time, expectations inevitably soar. Superman Returns's budget (excluding prints and advertising) was over $260 million, which reportedly includes $40 million from more than a decade of false starts.

From: http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2106&p=.htm

[BigMcLargehuge]

88. My review from horrorview.com

Other potential titles for Superman Returns

- The Passion of the Kryptonian
- Luthor and Kumar go to Metropolis
- Two popcorns, two sodas, three trips to the can
- Lovers Lane
- Hmmm, Can I Sneak in to Tokyo Drift
- Plaintiff: Richard Donner
- What the Hell is Wrong with Parker Posey's Face?

I guess I'm spoiled from the last eight years or so of excellent Superman-based entertainment, including the fantastic Superman the Animated Series, Justice League Unlimited (also animated), and ‘Smallville'. So I was sort of baffled when I walked out at the end of the 153 minute-long Superman Returns and thought, "man, did that suck."

And it took me several hours of ranting about losing nearly three hours of my life to a movie that could have been told in one 30 minute cartoon and not lost a single interesting moment. See, the more recent media takes on DC's godlike last son of Krpyton have significantly expanded the back story, universe, villain profile, and angst of old Kal-El. That's all good, very good, and offered Superman that critical third dimension he lacked in past comic form, and in the Salkin/Donner/Lester ‘Superman: The Movie' and ‘Superman 2' (plus the two lousy further sequels).

Bryan Singer, the man who made the X-Men so fantastically complex and compelling, strips away that third dimension from Superman and turns back the clock to the Man of Steel's "Boy Scout Years". Gone is his complex relationship with Lex Luthor. Gone is his worry that he cannot accomplish enough in his role as humanity's guardian. Gone is his panache. Gone is his awe. It's just not there. The script by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris seems more at home in a made for Lifetime movie about unrequited love. It's unusual too that Harris and Dougherty would turn in such a blah script that sticks so close to the Puzo/Benton/Newman script for Superman: The Movie when they had already demonstrated their ability to write well for superheroes.

{snip}

http://www.horrorview.com/Reviews/Superman_Returns.htm

[Radio_Lady]

90. Your review was fantastic! Except I can't read white type on a black

background for more than five minutes. It hurts my eyes.

Otherwise, that's a crackerjack site for most movies that I haven't seen!

Thanks for posting. Guess those other guys didn't want to take you on. Maybe that's because you're BIGMCLARGEHUGE! The name alone scares the pants off most people!

[BigMcLargehuge]

92. it's because they're chicken

bock bock bock bock!

Your review was very good too!

At horrorview we have something like 5000 reviews posted in the archives. It's updated three to five times a week.