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.

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

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.

Lois is a slut.


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

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

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.

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.

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.



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.



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

A kid out of school?

The Coca-Cola sing in II was a HUGE product placement ad. Bleh.