Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="horacethegrey" data-source="post: 2916870" data-attributes="member: 40123">Well, I just watched this today, so here be my thoughts.The movie was good. It's worthy of the title Superman, rather than those awful 3 & 4 movies. But man, I can't help but feel it could've been better.I think the problem with Bryan Signer is that reveres the first Superman film too much. So much so that this movie feels like a love letter to Richard Donner's flick, rather than a film with any hint of originality. Hell, there were several shots in the movie that were very similar to those in the first film. I'm not saying that it's wrong for Singer to pay lip service to Superman 1, but couldn't it have killed him to do something more original with the character for once? It's been almost 30 years since the release of the first movie, I think we can look forward rather than look back in regards to the Man of Steel.As for the cast, well, they were okay. Brandon Routh was by no means hideous, I think he does all right here. My only problem is that he tries to hard to emulate Christopher Reeve, that he looks a bit stiff in the process. Despite what many people think, Reeve brought wit, screen prescence, and genuine warmth when he played the Man of Steel, qualities that don't come out in Routh's performance IMO. Also Reeve could garner some laughs as Clark Kent, whereas Routh doesn't.Kate Bosworth is another matter. Sorry to say this, but I think she makes a fairly average Lois Lane. Now I've heard people rag on how Margot Kidder was the ugliest actress to play the role. Sure, she wasn't hot like Teri Hatcher or Erica Durance, but at least she brought some spunk and vitality to the role. Stuff that Bosworth fails to convey, as she spends most of the film looking wistfully away at the horizon (probably pining for Orlando Bloom <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ).And Kevin Spacey, well, his Luthor was fine, but a bit lacking in the megalomania department. A big part of Gene Hackman's appeal as the bald nemesis was his willingness to chew up the screen with insane rants and occasional black humor. Oh Spacey does this as well, the big problem is that he doesn't do enough of it, as there are long stretches where Luthor just lurks in the background. The energy Spacey exuded would helped the film's occasional languid pace. As for Luthor's grand masterplan in the movie, why does the hell it have to be real estate again? Couldn't he move to more greener pastures? Like say... world domination? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" />Really, the story and plot were okay but really nothing to harp about. I think the only reason to watch this flick is to see what Superman can do with today's visual effects. And whoa, he does a LOT. And thankfully in small doses, so that each moment is filled with a real sense of wonder (BULLET IN THE EYE! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ). The musical score is another matter, while I'm glad they're still using John William's theme, couldn't it have killed them to get him to do a new score? John Ottman's score just doesn't mesh well with it.So all in all, Superman does indeed return. I only wish it could've been more exciting.On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it 7.5.P.S. Another thing, is it just me or are the title credits just a bit tacky? Give me the old opening credits anyday!</blockquote>

Verification