Superman: A review. Save your money

Jumbled. Just plain jumbled. The movie plays as if the head script writer handed twenty different 13 year olds a general outline and asked them to write a couple of scenes which they then turned in to the head script writer who then took half an hour out of his lunch time and shuffled them all together into the story line. Worse than that it seems he dropped half of the script parts on the floor and didn't notice they were missing.

Young superboy is interspersed throughout the movie as flashback with Kevin Costner stinking up the place as Pa Kent. Old Pa offers nothing but hackneyed catch phrases of morality and vaguely Christian morals with some kind of sense that Clark is some kind of Jesus in waiting.

When Superman flies for the first time in his newly found costume, he flies over and through the worlds geological sites so fast that we can hardly see where he is. I know that if I was flying for the first time I would take my time and enjoy the wonder of being able to fly rather than stoking it up to Mach 10.

The fight scenes were fine for a while but soon became tedious with nothing more to offer than what can be found in a dozen movies released already in the last year. The fighting was not only tedious, it was also disturbing to be blasted so continuously by flashing lights and explosions that I just had to turn away from the screen several times as it was giving me a head ache.

And acting? No acting. The guy playing superman makes a few faces and screams with anguish several times and that's about it.

The movie seemed to be trying to re-enforce peoples nostalgic sense of the charm and poignancy of earlier superman movies but got no closer than a kiss with Lois which was the high point of the movie for me as anyone getting to kiss Amy Adams is fine with me. Other wise the movie was a total waste.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


I was looking forward to watching this movie...

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Thanks for your honest appraisal, one to give a miss, I think !

If you care about dialog and character development then give this movie a pass.

But if your eyeballs like bubblegum then it's worth the 11 bucks to watch Superman fly around the screen. It wasn't a great movie, by any means, but, to me, it was entertaining enough to shut my brain off for a couple of hours and pretend I was 10 again.

Christopher Reeve, he is not.

Oh come on!

It's a movie about a flying alien who is super strong and can shoot lasers from his eyes.

And you're worried about a story?

Did you expect Shakespeare?

I'm sure it's fine for what it is.

This movie is making more than 400 million so i don't know

reply to post by dreamfox1






Just shows what enough 'Hype' can do!!??

let me put it this way, I don't care for superman at all but I thought that this was a good change from the usual crap.

it was meant to be a prequel to the superman we all know, the bumbling idiot in disguise which will probably be the next one.

reply to post by grey580

It's a movie about a flying alien who is super strong and can shoot lasers from his eyes.

And you're worried about a story?

The original managed to do both just fine....(at least the first two movies).

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Hulk smash cape man!!

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by dreamfox1

 

Just shows what enough 'Hype' can do!!??

Right you are. My son praised it to me so I thought I would give it a chance. Yes in deed the hype should have warned me off.

Originally posted by dreamfox1
This movie is making more than 400 million so i don't know

I kind of took this to be a positive signal as to how good it might be. However once seeing it and hearing the reactions of those leaving the theater with me I'm sure the huge bucks have only to do with the barrage of hype and peoples willingness to believe it.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by grey580

 

It's a movie about a flying alien who is super strong and can shoot lasers from his eyes.

And you're worried about a story?

The original managed to do both just fine....(at least the first two movies).

As smitten with Amy Adams as I am, her roll was to restricted as Lois Lane. And as Lois Lane, Margo Kidder she ain't.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

Thanks for your honest appraisal, one to give a miss, I think !

Glad to save you a couple of bucks
.

reply to post by subfab

Hulk smash cape man!!

Yeah right. Superman grabs Hulk, flies into space, let's go...Hulk dies....

Has a drink later....



Strength against Strength, Superman has a slight edge, but when you add in flight, super speed, heat vision, frost breath, and a superior intellect, Hulk is doomed. Superman has always been an unbalanced mass of powers in the superhero world.

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

I was looking forward to watching this movie...

Oh yeah me too. I was brought up on the early Superman comics and the black and white TV series. The Christopher Reeves and Margo Kidder versions, at least a few anyway offered nostalgic renditions of the old fable. This one just pushed ramped up testosterone across the screen.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by subfab

 

Hulk smash cape man!!

Yeah right. Superman grabs Hulk, flies into space, let's go...Hulk dies....

Strength against Strength, Superman has a slight edge, but when you add in flight, super speed, heat vision, frost breath, and a superior intellect, Hulk is doomed. Superman has always been an unbalanced mass of powers in the superhero world.

And as far as the movie versions of Hulk go, they were hit and miss also.

I think my main complaint is that these movies are based on our childhood heros. In doing so it is my thought that they should hold more closely to the original characterizations of them. You know, like the first couple of Steve Reeves movies did, just with up to date graphics and all.

I think that had this version come out at the same time as the first Reeves movie, even though it has 21st century computer graphics, it wouldn't have stood a chance against the Reeves version.

And one last thing. I still remember the theme of that Reeves movie. The music. Solid theme and orchestration. For the life of me, even though I saw it only yesterday, I have no recollection of the music.

reply to post by Gazrok


They should have made the "Death of Superman" and release Doomsday on his arse~ Just sayin... That would have been legendary... I still have the Original "Death of Superman" comic in it's original Plasitc sleeve

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
Jumbled. Just plain jumbled. The movie plays as if the head script writer handed twenty different 13 year olds a general outline and asked them to write a couple of scenes which they then turned in to the head script writer who then took half an hour out of his lunch time and shuffled them all together into the story line. Worse than that it seems he dropped half of the script parts on the floor and didn't notice they were missing.

I disagree and you are exaggerating.

I suggest you watch the commentary review done by AMC movie editor John Campea. He made several good points as to why certain folks did not like the pace and how the movie was cut.

To make it simple, certain viewer have already made up their minds before they walked into the theater and they already had a certain kind of expectation of how this film should play out. Then when they find out it's not what they were expecting, they disliked it.

Most viewers, audience and critics alike, completely ignored the fact that the movie script was pretty much done in a "Narrative" format.

Most people, audiences and critics, were expecting a hand fed script where it leads you from point A to point Z in a sequential or more of a chronological order. In short, a lot of people were expecting a Batman Begins script, then flipped when they didn't get what they wanted.

Young superboy is interspersed throughout the movie as flashback with Kevin Costner stinking up the place as Pa Kent. Old Pa offers nothing but hackneyed catch phrases of morality and vaguely Christian morals with some kind of sense that Clark is some kind of Jesus in waiting.

What's your point here? You want us to sit in the theater and watch 30+ minutes worth of Jonathan and Martha Kent?

Of course it's going to have hackneyed catch phrases of morality and Christian morals. Last son of Krypton... father sends the son to save mankind... when Superman leaves the ship in space after talking to Jor-El, the way he was floating.... a cross symbol... come on... Are you the "only" person who cannot see where these ... mythical stories gets their inspiration from? The Human race has always been fascinated with the whole Messiah plot lines, you know... The One, The Savior, The Chosen One... etc. etc. Ever watch "The Matrix"?

When Superman flies for the first time in his newly found costume, he flies over and through the worlds geological sites so fast that we can hardly see where he is. I know that if I was flying for the first time I would take my time and enjoy the wonder of being able to fly rather than stoking it up to Mach 10.

You know... more and more you're beginning to sound like the critics who gave negative comments about this film. It's like... you guys just don't know what to hate about the film, so you just randomly start picking on things that are extremely trivial.

Superman flies FLT, what you've seen on screen, is only a fraction of what he can truly do in the comics in terms of aerial powers.

Also, according to the movie story line, after he got his suit, he was trying to "push" himself to test his own limits. Oh yeah, makes perfect friggin' sense to just coast through the air at 25mph....

So you're beef here with the film is that Zack Snyder didn't let your super hero take a short vacation in the air? I just don't get some of you, really. I just saw another critic on Rotten Tomatoes talking smack about how Henry Cavill is "too good looking", so he's not the right Superman.

What's next people? He didn't wear a red underwear on the outside? (Ever take a look at the recent 52's Superman?) Or perhaps you're mad because they also dropped the little curl on his forehead?

The fight scenes were fine for a while but soon became tedious with nothing more to offer than what can be found in a dozen movies released already in the last year. The fighting was not only tedious, it was also disturbing to be blasted so continuously by flashing lights and explosions that I just had to turn away from the screen several times as it was giving me a head ache.

Spoken from a true non-comic book fan. Please do not lie and tell me you are because you're not.

You don't like the action sequence being too long? Go watch Superman Returns 2006, where Brandon Routh never threw a single punch. Perhaps that is to your liking. Or better, go watch the 1981 Superman II where he looks like a flying chicken on wires while attempting to ... drop kick Zod.... perhaps that's what gets you off?

No acting? Well, did you just sit through 2 hours and 38 minutes of... salmon swimming up the river? What did you watch if there's no acting?

You my friend, are one of those people who walked into the theaters expecting Donner/Lester, Reeves and a Williams tune. You never understood that this is a brand new "Interpretation" of a "Modern Superman".

Perhaps you dig wearing bell bottoms and a mullet too?

Look folks...

I may sound a little too passionate about the film, simply because I've been a fan of Superman for quite some time.

That however, does not cloud my judgement on the film one bit. So I'm here to tell you that the film is worth your money and do not let the negative reviews sway you.

Having said that, I believe that whether you will enjoy the movie or not, all depends on your "Mentality" before you walk into that theater. So I've put a list of things, that I think you might want to consider before spending your cash this weekend.

1. If you never touched a Superman comic book in your life, avoid going.

2. If you were expecting a script from Batman Begins by Christopher Nolan, avoid going.

3. If you believe that Richard Donner/Lester is the standards that all subsequent Superman films should follow. If you believe that John William's "Superman March" is irreplaceable. If you believe that Christopher Reeves is actually Superman in real life... Well then I have news for you my friends, please, for the sake of all the other Superman fans out there, don't go to this movie, because your stupid reviews will just scare off people. It's probably better for you to go and try to revive Disco or Bell Bottoms.

4. If you think Henry Cavill is a underwear model and not a real actor, skip this film. (Henry Cavill was actually pretty good in The Count of Monte Cristo, just no one cared)

5. This one ties back to #1 actually. So again, if you have never picked up a Superman comic and have never seen him in action in the comics... Probably a good idea not to go watch the film. Otherwise, you will be very confused about his "powers" and a Kryptonian's true capabilities. All those fighting, will become as you describe, tedious and boring, borderline craziness. And I can tell you that if you have also never seen a single Dragon Ball Z anime in your life time, it is very likely you will hate the action scenes in this new movie.

You know... Donner and Lester's Superman is a timeless master piece. I think a lot of people would agree and never argue with the critics on this. However, those films are from the 20th century and very very out dated.

Imagine what has transpired to the movie industry in the past 40 years since the birth of the first Superman film. The advancement in film making technology, actor's skills and methods evolving and screen play adaptation methods. Things has changed a quite a bit and we need a new interpretation of a modern Superman for our generation.

This movie isn't for you to relive your nostalgia. So I simply do not understand a lot of the negativity towards it. Snyder has specifically said several times during interviews and press coverage, that he is not making a Donner/Lester sequel/prequel. He is not paying homage to their films, he is "retelling" a story line that just happened to be the same as the one Lester tried to make. And his retelling of the film, is focused on "Realism",

The character Christopher Reeves portrayed in the past, belongs to a Superman from the Golden Age (1938). It almost have no correlations with Silver Age, Bronze Age or the new 52's Superman. And if you try to characterize Superman in a "Real-World" scenario, I'd find Reeves portrayal to be unrealistically silly and immature.

For example, a lot of critics did not like the fact that Superman kills in the movie. Well, he killed Doomsday in the comics. He also killed Zod and his men in John Byrne's Birthright. So go flip a few comics before assuming that he never killed during his life time.

Another example, audiences believed Superman should have led the villains away from the population to avoid killing bystanders. Well, again, realism vs unrealistic. Let me ask you this, if Superman flies away from the population, why should Zod follow him? What's to stop Zod from picking up a few semi trailers and make a few human burger patties? Will Superman still .. try to fly away.. in hope that the villain will stop killing the innocents then pursue him?

In conclusion, I believe the negative reviewers of this film are mostly non-comic book fans that ... really don't understand the character very well. They never chased the series but only have a rough idea of how Superman should be from observing Donner and Lester's films.

This is the reason why the crowd is so divided. These are the major reasons why a lot of people did not like the movie. And ff you are truly a fan of Superman, then you would go watch the movie and form your own opinion on the subject.