Got to see Superman Returns today.

by **Darknut** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:45 am

One of the theatres in my area had a sneak preview of Superman Returns which I got to go see. While I won't spoil the movie I will mention that the action was equivalent to watching God fight a crippled old man. The ending dragged on forever, I thought the credits were going to roll but there I was almost thirty minutes later waiting for the transistion. It had its moments however boredom was prevalent...

by **munky73770** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:48 am

Cool, so instead of wasting a trip to the movies 20 minutes away and 8.50, I'll log onto usenet and download the bastard.

by **=ender=** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:51 am

I grew up reading Superman comics (amongst others, but that title was always my favorite as a kid). While news of this movie had been stirring up over the past few years, I kept saying to myself, "I just hope they don't screw this up."

Sounds like they did. I'd be curious to see/read more reviews from you (Darknut) or anyone else that sees it.

by **ShipWreck** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:12 am

To me it's just like the Batman movie. When Kichael Keaton was not in the others they sucked twice as bad. How can another person play Superman other than Christopher Reeve? I'll wait to DVD this movie doesn't peak my interest. Just a ploy imo to make money off of his death.

by **CodeRed68** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:15 am

I don't think it is a ploy so much to take advantage of Christopher Reeve dying, but just in line with the recent craze for superhero movies.
I have read a few reviews on the film and everyone gives it really good ratings. And that is saying something for a superhero movie, which as we all know, traditionally review very bad.
Oh, and munky73770, I don't quite think you get the point. "wasting a trip to the movies 20 minutes away and 8.50" ?? C'mon, get out of the house.. make a day of going to the theatre, smelling the popcorn and watching it on the big screen and hearing the awesome sound system. BAH! Kids these days !!

j/k

http://ae.philly.com/entertainment/ui/philly/movie.html?id=623504
http://www.hollywood.com/movies/review/id/3507720

by **Darknut** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:36 am

The problem with this movie is that all you do is see Superman fly around and lift heavy objects. Superman fights Lex Luthor again, which he has done in every movie before that. He needs another enemy. The movie was slow to start, which I don't really knock movies for but it was also slow to end which meant that the climatic battle was fairly short by comparison.

by **Buliwyf** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:40 am

yup i heard it was too slow

by **Gen. Ouch** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:20 am

im still going to have to go see it. always been a really big SuperMan fan.

by **Mugzy** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:56 am

Yea, I saw it last night. It was a good movie, but not as good as it could have been.

There were many slow parts that could have been cut down.

I give it a 7/10

by **Padre** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:15 am

Originally posted by Mugzy
Yea, I saw it last night. It was a good movie, but not as good as it could have been.

There were many slow parts that could have been cut down.

I give it a 7/10

New Line cut the LOTR films back because they thought pacing would be "too slow" for audiences. Now - I've seen the 3.5+ hour versions of Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King and think the pacing is just fine. The story is strong enough to hold your interest, even if you marathon it (which I have).

I find a lot of humor in the fact that a superhero film - especially about one of the most famous/popular in the USA - is getting slammed with the "boring" votes. Is it Titanic-boring? Too much sap and not enough substance? Too much romance and not enough adventure? Too much thought and not enough action?

[EDIT] I'll add that one of my favorites (Star Wars: A New Hope) has some major snore factor. I even fell asleep in the theater twice during the rerelease.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:02 pm

Originally posted by ShipWreck
To me it's just like the Batman movie. When Kichael Keaton was not in the others they sucked twice as bad. How can another person play Superman other than Christopher Reeve? I'll wait to DVD this movie doesn't peak my interest. Just a ploy imo to make money off of his death.

Batman begins surpases all other Batman movies in quality.

by **Geist** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:15 pm

I personally think that if they are going to continue making Superman movies they need to give him another enemy. Maybe Bizarro Superman or Brainiac would probably be pretty interesting. Or at least someone that can give him a challenge physically.

by **Mugzy** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:45 pm

Also.. The editing seemed choppy. It was almost like it was a 4 hour movie that they cut down to 2.5.

It just did not seem to flow from one story element to another.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:54 pm

Originally posted by Mugzy
Also.. The editing seemed choppy. It was almost like it was a 4 hour movie that they cut down to 2.5.

It just did not seem to flow from one story element to another.

I have not seen it, but that is why I did not think the first X-Men movie was amazing, just average or just above average(third was much the same).

by **Mugzy** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:03 pm

I was checking reviews on IMDB and found one the describes what I felt.

"Have you ever sat through a movie where the performances were dead on, the music and mood seemed perfect, the special effects were astounding, and the extremely long running time seemed not so long, but then left the theater wondering why it left you feeling nothing and wanting so much more. Welcome to Superman Returns."

Got to see Superman Returns today.

Got to see Superman Returns today.

Who is online