Superman Movie Reviews - spoilers a'plenty [Archive]

innerSpaceman

06-29-2006, 10:09 PM

Ok, hmmmm, maybe I'll go first.

I LOVED Superman Returns. I think it has tons of heart, and a nice tone appreciably less silly than the Donner/Lester films of the late 70's, yet still quite light and comical. I liked Brandon as Supe. I liked Spacey as Lex. Heck, I can't even fault Kate Bosworth for a role written so poorly that - yeah - a great disservice was done to Lois Lane.

Other than that (rather important) omission, I think Singer got this right.

Oh, and it turns out to be not so much a sequel, as a pretty blatent re-make of the 1978 "original."

I'm gonna see this one again. It really got to me in a way that surprises me. Superman has never been my favorite because he's never in jeopardy without the really corny kryptonite card being played, and is always able to save the people he loves who are in jeopardy.

Within the confines of these restrictions, I think this was a damn fine Superman movie. As a remake, I think it took things one step better with an actual bald Luthor; a much less absurd, but still fantastical 'out-there' Lex land-grab plot; less slapstick but still goofball; beautifuller-looking by leaps and single bounds, and -yeah- better effects and flying and action sequences and such. The only poor comparison was to Margot Kidder's Lois Lane ... but heck, this one even used heaping helpings of John Williams old score! And, hahahahaha, a cool homage opening credits sequence! I also loved the homage of Lois not being able to spell ("how many F's in catastophe?"), but alas ... her character was so bland compared to the Kidder perf. they riffed on with that homage that it was probably a stupid comparison to highlight)

Parker Posey was great as Kitty. And I loved continuing the tradition of giving the TV Lois Lane a cameo (though I didn't know who she played until the end credits rolled). I didn't mind Clark being gone from the third act, because I found this movie wise to concentrate on the Superman characterization, whereas Reeves (imo) accentuated the Kent. There was some great danger feeling on the boat, the Kryptonian-Generations theme was heartmoving, and - well, let's face it - Brandon R. is hubba-hubba. Too bad there was such a fleeting moment of ripping his clothes off in the hospital.

Oh, but that bullet to the eye thing creeped me out.

(ok, yeah, maybe spoiler tags are kinda obnoxious)

cirquelover

06-29-2006, 10:30 PM

Thank you ISM. Maybe it won't be as bad as I expected. My son is really looking forward to this movie, not as much as Pirates on Thursday night but I promised if he was good during his oral surgery that I would take him. Now I have to decide whether to see it at our tiny theater with a smaller screen but better snacks or the regular theater that's really expensive and a bit of a drive.
I'll let you know tomorrow night what I thought of it.

Thanks again!

Alex

06-29-2006, 10:51 PM

Does it explain why not only Superman is bulletproof but so are his clothes?

jdramj

06-29-2006, 10:52 PM

I agree with ISM....I Love this Movie! I was very surprised about the old stuff they reused and referred to. Too cool. I saw the original tons and tons of times (my parents actually owned real movie projectors from a torn down movie theater in Buena Park and we owned a copy of Superman....so I mean tons!) and I was very impressed with the tie in of the original movie and continuation of the story. We watched it in IMAX with 3D scenes incorperated. It was fun to have that little extra added.

I was also disappointed with the softness of Lois' roll, but also the lack of comedic add ons with Jimmy, it started out ok, but got weaker as the movie went along. I realize his character has a small roll, but I thought there should have been more.

Moonliner

06-30-2006, 04:36 AM

OK, as you can guess, my review is a bit different from what others have posted. In fact I'll post two reviews mine and my sons (who is 13)

Boring and inconsistent would be my main points. The effects sucked, pretty much all the super-feats (including superman) were obvious CGI. On the plus side, CGI superman had more charisma than Brandon. Jimmy was presented as nothing more than an annoying turd. Lois had some heart but was bogged down by the rest of the cast.
The story, was also idiotic. From the idea that Superman would leave for five years and not lock up his valuables first, to his apparent on again off again susceptibility to kryptonite. Then there is the kid. Yes, (there were spoiler tags) Lois has a kid which turns out to be superman's. Yuck. How the kid got to be eight when superman was only away for five years is never really explained and while the moive kinda-sorta tired to be a sequal they avoided the fact that according to the earlier movies, Lois has no idea she banged it with the man of steel. A long dull jaunt of a movie.

A 13 Year olds view

By the end of the movie he as ACTIVLY rooting for superman to die. The movie failed to create any kind of emotional bond with the greatest superhero of them all. You know, it's possible that this movie has in fact killed superman. If today's kids all have this type of reaction...

Oh and the OBVIOUS product placements where both plentiful and annoying, that WAS Richard Branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson)flying the space shuttle was it not?

innerSpaceman

06-30-2006, 07:18 AM

Does it explain why not only Superman is bulletproof but so are his clothes?
Um, isn't it obvious that Edna Mode had nothing on Kryptonian design? His blue tights can also withstand temperatures up to 10,000 degrees!

innerSpaceman

06-30-2006, 07:21 AM

Oh and the OBVIOUS product placements where both plentiful and annoying, that WAS Richard Branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson)flying the space shuttle was it not?
Um, that's called a cameo. They have different listings in the entertainment jargon dictionary.

Moonliner

06-30-2006, 07:41 AM

Um, that's called a cameo. They have different listings in the entertainment jargon dictionary.

A cameo is Stan Lee in an X-men or Spiderman film, TV's Lois in Superman, Hitchcock in his flicks. The marketing icon for Virgin this-and-that is product placement. IMHO.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2006, 08:53 AM

Sorry, but Branson is a world-famous adventurer - certainly associated strongly with Virgin, but only well-known because of his exploits of high adventure. His role as the space shuttle pilot was a riff on his known persona first, and his association with Virgin (perhaps the airline sector) a far-distant second.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But let's get Gemini Cricket in here to weigh in authoritatively as what is or is not product placement!

katiesue

06-30-2006, 09:51 AM

Does it explain why not only Superman is bulletproof but so are his clothes?

There was a biography of Superman on last night. It said his suit protected him because it was made out of the blanket that was wrapped around him when the Kent's found him after the crash. They didn't mention the bulletproof aspect specifically though.

Alex

06-30-2006, 09:56 AM

I'd like to see the sewing machine he used to convert it to the suit. And why they included leather boots as part of a blanket.

(Just for the record, I don't really care about this in the same way that I don't care about hte questions in the Cars thread. Just fun to parse out).

innerSpaceman

06-30-2006, 06:29 PM

Actually, I've been told by some comic-book geeks that Superman creates a forcefield around himself via energy he sucks from the Sun. That's why his suit is never damaged.

Either way, we simply accept no damage to the suit the same way we accept cartoon characters never losing their hats no matter what bizarre physical things happen. I don't hold comic book superheros to any greater level of physics verisimilitude.

Motorboat Cruiser

06-30-2006, 06:38 PM

Any movie that can get the pubbies panties in a twist for a reason as stupid as this is a-ok in my book. :)

Superman eschews longtime patriot act

Nevermind Superman's sexual orientation. Here's another identity-related question that is likely to spark controversy as the Man of Steel soars into theaters nationwide this Fourth of July weekend in Warner Bros. Pictures' "Superman Returns": Is Superman still American?

Ever since artist Joe Shuster and writer Jerry Siegel created the granddaddy of all comic book icons in 1932, Superman has fought valiantly to preserve "truth, justice and the American way." Whether kicking Nazi *** on the radio in the '40s or wrapping himself in the Stars and Stripes on TV during the Cold War or even rescuing the White House's flag as his final feat in "Superman II," the Krypton-born, Smallville-raised Ubermensch always has been steeped in unmistakable U.S. symbolism.

But in the latest film incarnation, scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris sought to downplay Superman's long-standing patriot act. With one brief line uttered by actor Frank Langella, the caped superhero's mission transformed from "truth, justice and the American way" to "truth, justice and all that stuff."

"The world has changed. The world is a different place," Pennsylvania native Harris says. "The truth is he's an alien. He was sent from another planet. He has landed on the planet Earth, and he is here for everybody. He's an international superhero."

This week on the senate floor the issue was so pressing, Sen. Bill Frist took time from more important matters spending 45 minutes, to condemn Superman for dropping his defense of the "American Way" in his creed.

Thanks, Dr. Frist, for staying focused on the issues that most affect your fellow americans.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2006, 08:01 PM

Motorboat Cruiser

06-30-2006, 08:06 PM

In the screening I saw, the removal of "American way" was very conspicuous by its absence. It made one think for a second of why it wasn't there ... how such a sentiment, nowadays, might be so contrary to Superman's ethical credo that its mention would have been more jarring than its deletion.

Yep. Considering the international release of this film, perhaps the "American Way" is just a bit less appealing to those in other countries. Sad commentary, actually.

Alex

06-30-2006, 10:50 PM

I'm much closer to Moonliner than iSm on this one. Most of it was pretty painful to sit through with the occasional redeeming element. I think the first time I looked at my watch was about 20 minutes in and then again several more times throughout.

As for the "truth, justice, and all that stuff" line I don't really care that they changed it and set in the current era it would seem very anachronistic to have said the classic line. But rather than changing it so obviously I wonder why they didn't just leave it out altogether, it wasn't that important.

Moonliner

07-01-2006, 05:37 AM

The media always needs a story, and the "American way" seems to be this weeks fresh meat.....

In the context of the film, it was Parry White who says the line. Given his gruff no-nonsense character I thought it was very much in character for HIM to say. Now if Jimmy or someone else had use "and all that stuff" it would have been out of place.

Of course the movie still sucked. :p

Oh, and as for the suit, I believe it was woven not sewed, so no need to cut anything. As for the boots, he only had booties prior to his trip out to old dead Krypton. He must have picked them on a fire sale during the trip.....

Oh, part-2, and at what point exactly did bits of the old dead planet become deadly to superman? I always thought it was due to the initial explosion, be it nova or bad ecology induced. If that's the case would not a visit home cause a problem?

Alex

07-01-2006, 07:35 AM

Moonliner

07-01-2006, 08:05 AM

Being bored for much of the movie gives you time to ask those questions that aren't really important and in an entertaining movie get annoyed. Such as how does he hide the cape and platform boots under a standard suit and loafers?

Or isn't it amazing how every object, no matter how large has such amazing tensile strength that it can be picked up by and small point and still support its own weight without fracture.

The only one that really annoyed me rather than just providing thought to pass the time was that apparently he can travel faster than the speed of light since he was only gone for five years (unless he just got bored and returned without actually getting there) and then when returning
he was simultaneously burning up on reentry but moving at much less than the speed of sound (since Ma Kent's farm was shaking and rattling long before he passed over); those two things don't happen simultaneously.

But if you do enjoy the movie, none of those things will probably even enter your mind.

Errr, so if you were flying an FTL craft and coming in for a landing on a planet you would keep the peddle to the metal and just figure the ground would stop you from a speed > 186,282 miles/second? Might be fine for you, but I'd like to slow down a bit before slamming into the ground. No why the ultra-advanced Krypton society was unable to design a craft with landing gear is a mystery.

Tensile strength: Plane, Boat, big land thingy... I'm with you on that one and what clever scriptwriter came up with the idea, "Hey I know we'll just have Superman lift EVEYTHING! Thatll be exciting."

Alex

07-01-2006, 08:22 AM

I don't have a problem with slowing down before impact or the idea that Krypton technology is capable of FTL travel (though where Superman got the craft I don't know) since obviously terrestrial physicists have missed something vital in the basic frameworks of the universe so why not assume Einstein wrong. But the craft, despite its advanced FTL travel, shows no signs of being capable of a controlled landing and if the deceleration occured prior to reentry would either not have heated up to such extremes or would have had time to cool before landing. That's what I meant by not happening simultaneously. You can enter slow and cool or hot and fast, but not slow and hot.

After my previous post I decided to check out whether The Bad Astronomer had reviewed the film. He had and raised much the same point. (I've met the guy in person and he doesn't really think that movie need be scientifically accurate, he just sees critiquing the physics and astronomy in movies as an entryway to getting people to think about real-world physics and astronomy -- he has no problem enjoying movies with stupid physics.)

cirquelover

07-01-2006, 11:48 AM

I saw it last night and it was way too long. Actually long and drawn out. I found myself bored in the beginning and waiting for it to pick up. It actually got so bad my husband and I went out for a smoke. Then I had to convince my husband to come back in for the last hour. He wanted to go sleep in the car. I told him that I thought all the action was at the end obviously. He hated it and told us we are doing Spiderman III by ourselves!
The child on the other hand loved it, especially the explosions. He's talking about the whole thing and driving his Dad crazy!
I loved Kitty Kat. She was my favorite. Which annoys the kid because she was the bad lady!
I thought they didn't say American way because he rescued people all over the world in this one.

innerSpaceman

07-01-2006, 11:53 AM

I've always been much more concerned about how the cape and boots are worn beneath the business suit. But it falls into the same category of hats that always stay on. He's a cartoon character, done in live action.

As such, things like tensile strength and interstellar physics don't enter into it - - unless you are intent on nitpicking apples when oranges are in season.

Alex

07-01-2006, 06:28 PM

Like I said, those issues, in a superhero movie aren't all that important if the movie is entertaining. When you're not being entertained you are left with an awful lot of time for your mind to wander into the unimportant minutae.

Though I would suggest that something moves completely into the realm of stupidly unreal when an 8 million ton mass is picked up by a spot with an 8-inch surface area and holds together. But if I were entertained I'd be willing to gloss over it.

Alex

07-02-2006, 08:34 AM

I believe this is a departure from canon so what did people think of the revelation that Superman doesn't actually have super hearing but rather apparently some kind of psychic power?

innerSpaceman

07-02-2006, 11:38 AM

Where does one begin and the other leave off?

I completely understand picking nits if not entertained. I am loving this movie more the more it becomes a movie that some get and others don't. I love those kinds of movies, and admire them even if I'm on the "hate it" side.

I can totally see why some conclude Superman Returns was not entertaining. On the other hand, I know many people besides myself who were enthralled and entertained throughout. Different cups of tea is what it comes down to, but I am still tickled that people watching this same film can see two completely different movies.

mistyisjafo

07-02-2006, 12:40 PM

I can totally see why some conclude Superman Returns was not entertaining. On the other hand, I know many people besides myself who were enthralled and entertained throughout. Different cups of tea is what it comes down to, but I am still tickled that people watching this same film can see two completely different movies.

I found it totally entertaining and enjoyed every second, especially the first action scene with the plane. But I can see why people don't like it. Everyone has different tastes!

Alex

07-02-2006, 07:22 PM

I commented on this somewhere else but so far I know 12 people who have seen both Superman and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and not one of them has liked both of them but each of them has really liked one of them. I'm in this camp for the most part.

I'm sure that will change once everyone has seen both, but it is an interesting split.

innerSpaceman

07-03-2006, 08:38 AM

I'm gonna try so hard to give Dead Man's Chest* a fair shake. But it being both a sequel and, in my mind, responsible for such tragedy at Disneyland ... it's almost preordained that the camp split has already been sorted for me.

* - Hmmm, I find it kinda interesting that Depp stars in both "Dead Man" and now "Dead Man's Chest."

Alex

07-03-2006, 10:31 AM

Kind of the way I find vaguely interesting Bruce Willis and

The First Deadly Sin
Four Rooms
The Fifth Element
The Sixth Sense
Lucky Number Slevin
The Whole Nine Yards
The Whole Ten Yards
Twelve Monkeys
16 Blocks

Apparently, if you want Bruce Willis in your movie you just need to put a nu mber (or a number-based pun) in the title.

Gemini Cricket

07-06-2006, 06:22 AM

Okay, I have not read a lick of this entire thread. I'm going to post my take on the film and then go back and read through...

On the whole, I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it.

Stuff I loved:
-Loved the darker colors for his suit. The tad darker blue and the almost brick red cape. Love it.

-Loved the casting. Loved Spacey (it's nice to see him and Singer working again), loved Parker Posey and the new Batman is hot.

-Loved the gag with the dogs at the beginning. "Weren't there two of those?" Nice! I laughed out loud. For reals.

-Loved the piano scene. The humor was refreshing.

-Loved the plane crashing scene, the mega machine gun scene and the earthquake scene.

-Loved the new Jimmy Olsen character.

- Edit to add: I loved the Superman/Lois flying scene. Much better than the Reeve/Kidder one (the whole thing with hearing her thoughts outloud was...ugh).

Stuff I didn't like:
-I found the script to be weak. There wasn't much character development for Superman. We didn't have any reason to like him all that much in the beginning. One thing that movies do often is cast someone good looking in a part. They think that because the actor is pretty that we're already fond of him/her then they skimp on giving us a reason to actually like them. That totally bugs me. I also found the set up for Lois Lane to be weak, too. Yes, we're familiar with the previous movies but for this movie for a new generation the roles have to be defined again. Margot Kidder set up Lois for us to a T. She's busy, she's quirky, she's got an edge, she's no nonsense. This Lois Lane asked one tough question of British lady with headset and we're supposed to be on her side. Meh.

-James Marsden is gorgeous but why is he constantly cast in things? He's not a good actor at all. He's as dull as a bag of wet sardines.

-Too much Jesus business. "I don't need a savior..." "Sending my son..." "Father becomes the son..." "I hear everything..." "I'm always here..." and then he dies and comes back to life and at one point Superman does the Jesus pose before he falls. Ugh. We get it, we get it...

-The appeal of the 'Superman 1 and 2" for me was that it was really funny in places. Christopher Reeve was really funny as Clark Kent. This new guy, not so much. Margot Kidder - also funny, new actress, not so much. Gene Hackman, funny as hell... you get my point. Even Kitty wasn't as funny as Miss Teshmacher (sp?).

-Ending was too drawn out and loooong...

Stuff I'm confused about:
-Kryptonite kills. How can he lift an island with some of it still in him? Not to mention the island had kryptonite in its base...

-Superboy... can throw piano but not open door?

-Maybe I missed this but the crystal kills the power right? Shouldn't it have killed the rocket jets on the shuttle? Or did it? Confusing... AND shouldn't the instant speed of the shuttle have sheared the top off of the plane? Or are those really strong clamps?

-So Superman rode a star meteor to come back to Earth? Why can't he just fly there?

------------------

All in all, I thought it was cool escapist fluff. I'm glad to see the franchise has come back. I'm ready for some supervillains now. Lex is good, but I want to see Apocalypse kick butt...
:)

Gemini Cricket

07-06-2006, 06:36 AM

As product placement goes...

MOUNTAIN DEW!!!!

Clark hails the cab for her and the taxi comes by with an enormous ad on its roof.

Bleh...

My qualm with Mr. Adventure dude is that his wealth no doubt had a part in getting him placed in the movie. That's stink-o in my book. They should have cast an astronaut or someone really heroic in that part. I don't find billionaire idiots who fly in balloons around the world to be adventurers, I find them boring. Go ask Gates how to be constructive with your money, donate it to charity, fu cking moron.

Branson's also going to appear in 'Casino Royale'. Source (http://www.star-ecentral.com/movies/buzz/buzz.asp?file=archives/buzz/2006/7/6RichardBra&date=7/6/2006) Bleh.

Moonliner

07-06-2006, 07:04 AM

I'll bet...

Did anyone else think the earthquake crack, windows blown out in buildings scene seemed a bit, well odd? I'm guessing that was supposed to be a tsunami scene with giant waves crashing into downtown but it was changed to a dry event in light of the Indian ocean tsunami (remember this movie has been "in development" for more than a decade..)

Gemini Cricket

07-06-2006, 07:09 AM

I don't know. The giant wave destroying buildings has been done before. In 'Deep Impact' and 'Day After Tomorrow'. Maybe they thought it was over done?

Moonliner

07-06-2006, 07:16 AM

I don't know. The giant wave destroying buildings has been done before. In 'Deep Impact' and 'Day After Tomorrow'. Maybe they thought it was over done?

Over done? You mean like saving the day by lifting giant things over done?

Gemini Cricket

07-06-2006, 07:20 AM

Over done? You mean like saving the day by lifting giant things over done?
Yes.

I liked the part where he lifts one end of a car into the air. Like the cover of Action Comics #1. Cool.

innerSpaceman

07-06-2006, 08:55 AM

I agree the Donner film with Reeves and Kidder and Hackman and Perrine and Beatty is waaaaay funnier.

I appreciate that Singer took a slightly less goofy tone while still remaining light. Instead of Clark following Lois into the ladies room and getting his coat stuck in the door, he's seen slurping with a noodle stuck in his mouth. It's all just slightly less ham-handed. And while I like the humor of the original very much, it's nice to see a slightly different balance attempted in what is, essentially, a remake.

I think the attempt was very successful. Frankly, I don't think Clark Kent needs to be quite the over-the-top dork that Reeves wonderfully portrayed. I don't think Perry White needs to be the stereotype rata-tat-tat, comic-book news editor. And I DO think Lex Luthor needs to be BALD.

On the other hand, I also think Lois Lane does need to have some spunk. Bosworth was the weak link for me ... but I loved the film regardless. Weak links of physics or pristine plot logic do not sway me from affection for a comic book superhero film.

Gemini Cricket

07-06-2006, 09:05 AM

I forgot about one scene I adored. I loved the scene in the elevator. It was a great moment. :)

Alex

07-06-2006, 09:25 AM

I'm guessing that Richard Branson was included not because of his ballooning exploits but because of Virgin Galactic, his business hoping to create commercial spaceflight. Since that was the purpose of the shuttle launch in the movie I figure that is where the idea came from.

The product placement I didn't like is the presence of Superman. It just seemed like a big commercial for a comic book. In protest I'm going to continue having never read a Superman comic book.

On the island lifting thing I was able to go along with the idea that he recovered from the first kryptonite exposure, supercharged with the sun and then went for it. All until he ended up at the hospital and it turned out he still had a piece of kryptonite in him. I'm not sure how he recovered in the first place.

I actually liked the way they handled the reveal of the paternity issue (not that it wasn't obvious) and that he wasn't then immediately a superhero himself. The piano thing was just a blind lashing out, fear for his mother causing him to act unthinkingly. The beginning of the movie showed even Superman initially clumsy with his abilities so you'd imagine it would be much worse for a boy who doesn't know he has the abilities.

My problem with the son-of-Superman subplot is the timeline. First of all, there is no way that Jason is only 5 years old which he'd have to be if Superman was unaware of him. Then there's the fact that James Marsden thinks the kid is his which means that Lois must have jumped into his bed almost immediately after Superman left hers.

innerSpaceman

07-06-2006, 07:09 PM

Lois is a slut.

That's how Bosworth should have played her. Strumpet Lane.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-06-2006, 11:00 PM

I LOVED IT. LOVED! I FORGIVE THE MINOR PROBLEMS AND I TYPE IN CAPS BECAUSE I LOVED IT.

Ghoulish Delight

07-06-2006, 11:14 PM

I liked it quite a bit more than I expected. Yes, it had "Why could he do A but not B?" problems and other such things, but every incarnation of Superman has had that. It was entertaining, unpretentious, well acted, and fun. Could have been shorter, could have used some more depth to Lois and Lex.

Speaking of depth, we saw it in IMAX 3D. There were 4 scenes where they had us put on the glasses (prompted by flashing green glasses at the bottom of the screen). Kinda spiffy, neither necessary nor overdone, so cool with me. But I'm not going to be clamboring for more 3D movies.

As for explanations for all the inconsistancies and such mentioned so far in this thread...I have one answer. "Crystals". That's all you need to know.

Motorboat Cruiser

07-06-2006, 11:23 PM

Pretty much agree with CP and GD. The weak link was Lois Lane. I was fine with all of the other characters and thought Spacey did a great job.

And yeah, the 3D thing was nifty and all, but not so much that I'm anxious to see more movies utilize it. In fact, all of the trailers were in 3D and Matthew and I commented later that there wasn't one that we cared to see. They were all computer animated cartoons anyway, and I'm pretty fried on those at the moment.

I also thought that there was just enough of the 3D, although I didn't feel it was utilized to its true potential. Regardless, it was the perfect amount. Any more and I would have probably got a headache.

All in all, a very fun movie that exceeded my expectations.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-07-2006, 08:27 AM

I was a huge fan of the movies when I was a kid. All of the homages were wonderful. Just the opening credits sequence was a great tribute - I was laughing and nearly emotional at the same time.

Yes, this did strike an emotional chord with me. The concept of "Superman has been away" seemed appropriate for what had happened to the franchise, what with the extremely sorry 3rd and 4th movies, plus the Hollywood dead end for the revival for years and years. Routh was definitely reminicient of Christopher Reeve, which is what sealed the deal as to this being a "sequel". I felt myself emotional over that. As a kid, I had a crush on Reeve's Superman, and nearly seeing him again was a rush.

Spacey was awesome! I wonder what Gene Hackman thought of it.

The kid definitely was 8 or so.

I didn't like Bosworth - her acting was fine but I don't find the woman very appealing. There were problems with her character but they didn't hurt the picture much.

I liked Branson's cameo. You want to talk about product placement? See Superman II again. There's that scene during the big battle where they smash into a huge Coca-Cola sign. I always loved that part. I wish I'd seen that on the big screen. There are a million other ads in that movie, because there's so much action on the streets of Metropolis.

I forgive this, as it's a live-action comic book, but I still think it's funny enough to mention - Lois is rattled around like a pea inside the plane, without oxygen, for ages, and is fine. I guess that proves that seatbelts and oxygen masks are superfluous.

I'd have to say the least believable part by FAR was when the shuttle blasted off and the couplings held. No way those couplings are THAT strong.

Moonliner, as for your kid not feeling it, I would suppose that my feelings for the original movies were what carried me through to feeling for this one. I'm bummed both of you didn't enjoy it.

Anyway, any and all fears of mine were assuaged and I felt like a kid again. Couldn't really ask for more :snap: