Superman

[ShyViolet]

That's some really nice packaging, especially the case!

If the price goes down a little, I might think about considering it. (J/K--just doing a "Marge Simpson." )

[ShyViolet]

Here's a review of the Donner cut:



http://www.bluetights.net/article.php?id=33


Funny how the protests of so many impassioned fans have led to the release of this DVD, but they haven't said boo about SR.

[Ben]

That's because one is potentially amazing, and the other one sucked big time.

My one fear with this is the scale of what has been achived. On seeing the clips released so far, it's clearly a bit of a ham-fisted edit, with amazingly bad sound cuts on the music.

At first, it was mooted as an "alternative" cut to the theatrical Superman II and was destined to be inlcuded in the DVD boxset. When it became clear that WB was going to issue this separately, my hope was that they'd pushed the boat out and allowed the extra money that would generate to be put to completing the film even more appropriately.

However, from these early word screenings, it seems the movie is anything but "as originally conceived and intended" as the packaging states. Donner would not have used the "turning back the clock" ending again, the music would have been scored properly, and several sequences would have been completely changed.

What this is is a "what if" type of version...one put together with the best resources, time and budget that is possible. This is <I>not</I> going to be a Blade Runner: Director's Cut deal. It's no-where near that quality. The audio on some scenes is on-set production sound, meaning a lot of background noise and "live dialogue", not of the kind we're used to hearing on film soundtracks even from that time.

The "new effects" are the best current <I>video</I> technology can achieve - there's not great CGI in here the way Robert Wise went back and finished the original Star Trek feature. In most cases, it's just plain shoddy looking. Again, my hope was when they announced this for an individual release that it would be a lot better than it seems it is.

As such, I'm happy I'll be getting in within the 14-disc megaset, which means I can look on it as the "alternative" bonus cut that it inevitably will be. For those buying it expecting a "feature quality" alternative version, like extended or alternate cuts of other features, and <I>especially</I> those going for the HD-DVD edition, I feel they are going to be sorely disappointed and, indeed, feel cheated.

But it's still going to be awesome to see this new stuff...

[ShyViolet]

Hey Ben, why not try to re-edit Superman Returns into a better film??

The audio on some scenes is on-set production sound, meaning a lot of background noise and "live dialogue",

Oh yeah, some of the deleted scenes in A Beautiful Mind were like that....
not so great.....

[Ben]

Hey Ben, why not try to re-edit Superman Returns into a better film??

Impossible. The material isn't there to begin with. How could you get away with cutting out The Kid from the entire movie, to begin with. And just how is that kid Superman's, with super-powers?

SR sets up many things that it doesn't want to explain or pay off. It's a lazy movie.

[ShyViolet]

Impossible. The material isn't there to begin with.

Just curious, how did you feel about the way they used Brando's dialouge and how the opening credits echoed the original?

[GeorgeC]

You can't make a great film out of Superman Returns, PERIOD. There was no way to edit a film where just about every major element is horribly off-kilter.

First off, unlike about 90% of the people who are fans of superheroes, I NEVER cared for the choice of Bryan Singer as director. He clearly has NOT read the source material (re: comic books) for these characters and has only a vague understanding of them. That's just going off the first X-Men movie. With Superman Returns, it's VERY clear he's never read a Superman comic (does ANYBODY in Hollywood read anything besides Variety or Hollywood Reporter???) and that his source material is ONLY the 1978 and 1980 Superman movies.

As much as I liked the original Superman movie -- I still think it's in many ways the best live-action superhero film made so far --, I wanted to see something NEW. Instead, Singer basically remakes the first film as a "Cliffs Notes" version. How many lines of dialogue in Superman Returns AREN'T from Superman the Movie? Oh, how original!

As much as Ben has problems with "the kid," that wasn't my major problem with the Lois/Clark/Superman relationship in this movie. The problem is that it's horribly miscast in the first place and we have a guy who is too self-conscious and trying to imitate Christopher Reeve instead of bringing in his own perspective to Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman and an actress who's too young to be Lois Lane and who just isn't a good actress in the first place! I don't buy the chemistry between these two and I felt the performances were ham-fisted for different reasons in each case. (Bosworth doesn't have a clue on acting... She's Eye Candy and that's it.)

My other big character problem? Lex Luthor. As much as I think Kevin Spacey is a good actor, his approach to the character is all-wrong and Lex has no charisma. That's something people don't understand about the Luthor character at times. He has charisma and that's HOW he's able to get away with things so much. People let their guard down around him because he CAN be likeable. Instead, I understand Spacey was told to play Lex like a cold fish and that just didn't help the film. Sorry, but I kinda like my villains to have SOMETHING likeable about them. Another total misread by Bryan Singer who obviously hasn't read the source material..

I can go on and on about why SR is a lousy film, but what' s the point? I WANTED to like this film, but a mediocre director was hell-bent on making it as mediocre an experience for the audience as possible!

[Ben]

Bosworth... She's Eye Candy and that's it.

Not even that, really.

[Josh]

I agree with George about Bosworth.

[ShyViolet]

How many lines of dialogue in Superman Returns AREN'T from Superman the Movie? Oh, how original!

True, and that line: "Don't let this experience put you off flying...it's still the safest way to travel," is so anacronistic it's not even funny....

I agree with George about Bosworth.

Despite thinking she's a lousy actress, I also think she's very beautiful.
(but what do I know--just my opinion as a girl) But like George said she's WAYYYY too young and has no idea who her character is. And she basically has zero presence as an actress.

THIS is who they pick for one of the most-awaited films ever, which was in production for more than a decade?

As much as I think Kevin Spacey is a good actor, his approach to the character is all-wrong and Lex has no charisma. That's something people don't understand about the Luthor character at times. He has charisma and that's HOW he's able to get away with things so much. People let their guard down around him because he CAN be likeable. Instead, I understand Spacey was told to play Lex like a cold fish and that just didn't help the film. Sorry, but I kinda like my villains to have SOMETHING likeable about them. Another total misread by Bryan Singer who obviously hasn't read the source material..

Oh yeah I agree. His performance wasn't "dark"....it was just "dumb"!

And if you go to the IMDB board about SR there's all these people saying how much "better" Spacey was then Hackman, Hackman was too "over the top comic book" etc....please. If anyone overacted it was Spacey. Shouting in an "angry" way while pathetically attempting to channel Jack Nicholson's Joker with nothing behind it does not a good villain make. It was Spacey's worst performance, hands down--even worse than "Consenting Adults". It was like a parody of his other roles, like something on Saturday Night Live.

This kind of reminds me of how when the 1996 Baz Luhrmann William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet came out, someone I knew back then kept gushing to me about how much "better" it was than the '68 Zepharelli version because the actors were "more emotional."

(and I am a fan of the '96 version, but it doesn't compare to the '68 version. )

[ShyViolet]

Also, you guys should love this. Actually some on IMDB also are upset about what Singer did. Here's a post by "James Bold 007" who pasted an article from MSN.com (doesn't say who wrote it.) I edited it a bit for content.

Facts about "Superman Returns"

1. It was a failure as far as the studio was concerned.
2. The casting was poor and the acting was even worst.
3. The story was boring.
4. The special effects were anything but special.
5. A movie that costs $200 million to make should not take 4 months to earn that much domestically or it's a financial failure even if it eventually turns a profit when overseas box office, DVD receipts and TV rights are factored in!! No one in their right mind would consider a movie that costs $20 million to make and earns $20 million at the box office a financial success either. Breaking even is not the goal of a studio when they release what is supposed to be a summer blockbuster.


Continue in your denial by trying to find a silver lining somewhere in this movie so you don’t have to admit how bad it really was but the truth is that even the people who financed it, made it and stared in it would fail a lie detector if they said they were happy with the final product.


TOP TEN REASONS NOT TO BUY THE DVD:

When the dvd comes out, no one will buy it and those who do and those who rent it will realize what I realized a long time ago. That this film is not the REAL Superman. You want evidence? Here it is:

1. Superman does not stalk women
2. Superman does not have children out of wedlock
3. Superman is not a deadbeat dad if number two does happen which it wont cuz that ain't the real Superman
4. Superman is KILLED by Kryptonite.
5. Superman does not go around trying to score with somebody elses woman
6. Superman doesn't save a plane and then stand around letting everyone adore him in that stadium. He does his job and then he moves on quickly and quietly.
7. Superman does not visit young children in their bedrooms in the middle of the night. That is irresponsible beyond belief.
8. Superman did not wear glasses when he was a kid
9. Superman cant live under a red sun without protective equipment and going back to Krypton would've killed him with all the residual radiation
10. Superman DOES NOT ABANDON EARTH LIKE A SELFISH PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The film was conceived for 5-15 years old audience, if you looking for mature films try The Departed.

Here are the top ten reasons Kate Bosworth was a miscast as Lois.

1) TOO *beep* YOUNG!!! In every single picture I've seen of her, my initial reaction is, "who is this high school girl?" People of age 23 normally play teenagers and that's exactly what she looked and sounded like. She didn't look anything like Lois Lane, that's for sure.

Now, some people have defended this saying, "well what is she going to look like in ten years?" To this I say, "Singer should concentrate on the movie he's actually making." They're not going to be making another movie with this cast that far down the line. Even if Singer somehow stays on it, they can always recast, but let's look at Singer's old superhero series. It's six years later. All the leads look more or less the same. Anything wrong with Halle Berry or Famke Jansen? No. Ladies, anything wrong with Hugh? Nah. On the other hand, has Anna Paquin "blossomed" into Rogue-like proportions? Nope, she looks pretty much the same too.

The moral of this story is, concentrate on the film you're actually making. If she ended up looking like an old hag in the third one, then you could recast (Christopher Reeve has said that he wouldn't have done a SUPERMAN 5, probably no matter what) but for right now, it makes the whole film look silly.

2) Too forceless. In the movie, she comes off as a whiney intern who should be checking someone's spelling errors. The biggest problem came with the scene where she was confronted by Lex. She looked like a weak damsel in distress, completely intimidated by Luthor. When she said, "Superman will never..." I felt sorry for her. Phyllis Coates' version would have knocked his teeth out, and even the rest would have put on a convincing brave front. Kate, however, looked like something out of a Hallmark card being intimidated by the clown from the Jack-in-the-Box commercials.

3) Too bland. The face of Lois Lane requires character. Ironically, Erica Durance (who plays young-Lois on SMALLVILLE, but is OLDER than Kate and you can tell) has the perfect face for Lois. Instantly recognizable and strangely alluring. Kate, however, looks like a generic high school cheerleader and nothing more.

4) Who they could have picked. There are no shortage of excellent choices all over Hollywood who could play a brash-but-likeable object of Superman's effections and hard hitting journalist. They could have cast an experienced actress with dark beauty (Courtney Cox, Linda Florentino and Sandra Bullock were all considered about eight years ago) and there are surely women Brandon's age who would have fit the bill (Liv Tyler, Eliza Dushku) that there's no excuse for them, going, "oh, we couldn't find anyone else," especially with a $200,000,000+ budget.

5) Video Game Voice. I've actually only heard a small clip of the scene wherein they reinact the confrontation between her and Lex in the movie. Thankfully, the sprite doesn't look anything like Kate. I'm assuming what I heard was Kate's voice. The verdict? Fine... for a video game. Nothing more.

6) EAT SOMETHING. Anorexic seems to be losing its meaning and becoming pejorative slang for someone who's too skinny. However, looking at recent pics of her on the cover of some magazines, I would almost go out on a limb and say that it's possible that she literally has anorexia.

7) Chemistry. This is completely subjective. But I didn't really buy her and James Marsden (who himself might have made a decent Superman, but that's beside the point) as a couple. Moreover, I didn't buy the relationship between her and Perry White as anything more than a whiney girl and a boss who lets her walk all over him because she's a girl and his in-law. And I'm not even sure I bought the in-law aspect. There was nothing remarkable about her interracting with Jimmy, and the scene where they meet atop the Daily Planet building, like the rest of this movie, left me cold.

The only time I did feel she had any real chemestry between Routh, was when he was Clark. They seemed like the know-it-all girl and her nerdy pal. In a high-school way that resembles their relationship. Not perfect, but probably the best thing I can say.

Wrinkle-free. I know someone who's exactly the same age as Kate (i.e. born on the same day) and who has a kid. Believe me, she doesn't look like that. If someone's a 23-year-old (or however old she's supposed to be) single mother, who was the object of Superman's effection, witnessed everything he's done practically, and is this big-shot journalist (and, to boot, a closet chain smoker), she would look a little more worn-down and her hips would be just a tad wider.

9) That wig. I guess that's what people are referring to when they say, "she looks like Lois." They could have slapped it on any actress. And Lois doesn't wear her hair like that anymore anyway. This harkens back to the "we have to preserve the clothing people wore in the Depression, items of minuta from the first two films, but the costume, even though it's been used on TV and in animation and in the comics consistantly since then [except for some sagas]... THAT'S dated," theme.

10) Why? Here's my theory on why Kate was picked. Singer, as we know, had a specific actor in mind for the role of General Zod. Singer abandoned Zod when said actor, Jude Law, declined. What if Singer didn't get his way with Kevin Spacey? God only knows. To that end, I believe Spacey put on that he wouldn't be in the movie unless Kate played Lois.

Why? Well simple. Kate made BEYOND THE SEA with him. I don't know how good or bad she was, and I don't know why she was on board for that. In any event, I think he saw her as a rising star and wanted to feel like a part of her rise.

[Ben]

I LOVE THAT!!!

Especially: "8. Superman did not wear glasses when he was a kid" - one of my bigget problems with the entire film. A small but totally ******-up moment that shows the uttermost disdain by the "filmmaker" for his sources.

And, really, I couldn't take Kevin Spacey seriously as a bald villain after we'd already seen the same bald villain look in a straight comedy:
http://www.overclockers.at/attachment.p ... ntid=87376

[ShyViolet]

Hey, glad ya liked it!

I also found this anti-Singer/Routh site BUT *WARNING*!!!! for some profanity and mature content....

[ShyViolet]

Tried to post a funny image here but it backfired! Oh well.

The above site can be a bit "much", so feel free to delete!

[ShyViolet]

7. Superman does not visit young children in their bedrooms in the middle of the night. That is irresponsible beyond belief

For some reason every time I think of that scene I keep thinking of the last scene in "All Dogs Go the Heaven" which always makes me tear up.

But there's a big difference between a live-action film with a grown man and an animated film with a cartoon dog!