Well, in large part I think that this is true. Lex’s morality has had high and lows throughout the session and has no doubt been shaped by Clark, Lionel, and just about everyone else on the show. The upcoming season of Smallville should be mana from heaven for Lex lovers as Lex truely embraces what he is to become.
I was with you up until you said Wet Hot American Summer was funny.
I think the worst thing about “Superman Returns” (and I basically liked it) was the creep factor brought on by
his creepy x-ray vision spying on his ex-girlfriend and her life at home – just super creepy
And while I mostly enjoyed it, I really do wish it had been a full reboot. The Donner films were okay, but man, they could’ve been much better and now Supes can be much better too.
You know, IMHO.
Look on the bright side, at least Lucas had nothing to do with it.
I don’t understand how someone could not like this movie. What comedies do you like, then?
If Hackman was comedic, what was Ned Beatty? I said in another Superman thread that Beatty as sidekick was just about the only comic relief that didn’t make me roll my eyes.
I don’t think Hackman’s Luthor was comedic, but rather a bit psychotic and a little twisted. I disliked Spacey’s “calm, cool & collected” Luthor. When Hackman threatened to murder thousands of people with a poison gas cloud just to get Superman’s attention, his portrayal was such that you thought he was just demented enough to actually do it.
<<“Batman Begins” spoiler follows>>
A good parallel would be Jack Nickolson’s Joker in Batman #1 compared to Liam Neeson’s villain in last year’s Batman Begins. Nicholson’s Joker wins hands down because he takes the character to the demented edge of nut-jobiness. Neeson gives us a decent fight at the end but it’s not one that we haven’t seen a hundred times before in other movies.
Call it comedy, parody, humor, lightness, whatever - where is it written that any of these describe Lex Luthor? Reading the comic books and the two emotions that Luthor usually shows are bitterness and anger. If Spacey wants a role model for how he should have played Luthor, he should have gone back to how he played Keyzer Sose. Or Hannibal Lector or Marcellus Wallace. Luthor should be menacing.
The movie was fine, a natural extension of the aesthetics of the first two films to new sensibilities and special effects. I mean, it still doesn’t make me like Superman as much as Spider-Man, but it was thrilling nonetheless. My only regret is that I couldn’t be a ten year-old boy watching the movie.
I think it was a good idea to continue the older movies. They were not perfect, but they have a lot of resonance for the generation that grew up to make super-hero movies profitable. Furthermore, super-hero epics often have to spend a lot of time dealing with origins, but here they had an established back story which anyone who would be interested in seeing this movie would already be familiar with. Although I did think it was a great idea for Batman to reboot, for this film I took the continuity with the first two Superman movies was a sign that somebody knew what they were doing.
I also liked the fact that they paid more attention to the physics of being Superman. You can’t just grab a plane and fly it in safely – there is no part of a jet plane designed to bear its entire load at one point. I was bothered by the fact that a tremendous seismic even was happening off of New York’s shore, and nobody seemed to notice until the fissure started heading straight toward the city. I’m not an expert, but I recall seeing an episode of Nova dealing with the tsunami which suggested to me that they’ve got people watching for this shit all over the world, and they all have eachother’s phone numbers.
While it’s true that Lois Lane could have been played with more brass, she didn’t bother me. Basically, I think a comic book reader is trained to deal with a transcendant idea of a character, and unconsciously adds depth when depth is delivered, and ignores contradictions when they arise. For example, we welcome the new Aunt May who turns out to be plenty strong enough to deal with the fact that Peter is Spider-Man, and when the breezy Mary Jane of the 60’s and 70’s turns into the mature Mary Jane of the 80’s, but we conveniently overlook the Tit-Monster-into-Bondage-with-Webs Mary Jane of the 90’s. Mind you, they appear to have taken some care to pick a guy who from time to time eerily invokes Christopher Reeves. They could have taken the same care with Lois Lane.
I saw the film and thought “bleh”…
Lohan was better in “Herbie Reloaded” than Bosworth in this role… the kid was poorly written in as a plot twist… I immediately figured out the “surprise” they would reveal at the end about the boy, and i thought his feeble asthmatic sickly condition was horribly conceived… Superman stands on an island made of kryptonite but only feels its effect when he is laying face down? The special effects were less than expected… I thought they would blow away Spiderman but that was not the case…
On the whole, it was consistent with the Superman story line but merely served as a springboard to umpteen Superman sequels…
Like it or not, there’s an entire generation of consumers/ watchers that visualize superman as either the 1) ‘Smallville’ or 2) Animated version. If you want to ‘continue the legacy,’ it does not do to ignore the fact that others have done the same. This just seems like too much of a departure from where the series has come in the name of nostalgia for a couple of great movies that have not really aged well.
The animated Lex Luthor is a kick-ass villain in any medium. I wish Spacey had decided to channel *him * rather than Hackman. And the more I read, the more I’m willing to give Smallville a chance.
I haven’t seen the new Superman yet…w/ movie $ limited, I may wait for DVD, having decided to see new Pirates, despite bad reviews.
Anyway, came by to say I really enjoy “Smallville”. I like their interpretation of Clark, as well as Lex. Their Lana I’m not wild about, but she’s an imp. part of the mix. The show is repetitive, but that’s the nature of any long-running TV series I fear. So despite loving the old Chris Reeve Superman I & II movies, the revamp/reboot of Smallville works for me.
By way of the most minor of quibbles, this isn’t exactly true. The landing gear can take the stress, even if the jet lands on a slight bank so only one strut touches the ground first.
In any case, the rippling of the fuselage looked kinda cool, even if it made no sense. Assuming Superman has near-unlimited strength and near-unlimited control over his flight, the best way to “catch” the plane would be to press his body flat against the underside of the fuselage, spreading out his counterforce as much as possible.
Of course, while he was saving this one plane, hundreds of others were crashing all along the Eastern seaboard.
Not likely. The plane itself recovered fine from the EMP pulse. It was the space shuttle bolted to it’s back that caused it to crash, when the docking clamps malfunctioned. Assuming the other planes on the Eastern seaboard aren’t also doubling as shuttle launching pads, they should be fine.
Metropolis is a New York-sized city, so it must have at least two (and probably more) international airports, with low-altitude jets either on approach or just after takeoff. Interrupt their power for even less than a minute and they won’t have enough altitude to recover before crashing.
Of course, it doesn’t make much sense for the shuttle, uh, shuttle to be that close to Metropolis. If its boosting an object into orbit, shouldn’t it be much further south? Unless that stadium was in Florida, of course.
I have no opinion about the movie other than I thought it was an enjoyable diversion, but I object to the Subject Line for putting words into Ebert’s mouth. Roger Ebert may not have cared that much for the film, but he never said it “sucked.” I can’t remember Ebert ever using the term. He has a larger vocabulary than that.
If I say, “Equipoise calls bullshit on the OP,” would you object to that too? Yeah, you didn’t actually say the word “bullshit” but it captures the essence of your statement and it’s not a direct quote, so what’s the problem?
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and I thought it was a vast improvement over the 70s films. (The comic Lex Luthor and the Ned Beatty character ruined the 70s version for me.)
Spacey’s comedy was more subdued than Hackman’s, but even so, I would rather see the Luthor character played as a straight-up, menacing villain. That, I suppose, is my main criticism.
And yes, it was mildly jarring (and out of character) when Superman did his super-stalker routine. Didn’t ruin the film, though.
Solid B+ for this movie, sez I.
So you didn’t have a problem with Lois Lane? I don’t see how someone could forgive this movie for that. Lois Lane is SUCH an important part of Superman and any Superman movie, and it’s so important to me that she be played by someone with charisma and intensity. Bosworth was so ill-suited for the role I’m practically at a loss for words. She had the face of a child, not a woman.
Yeah, I would have preferred a different Lois Lane. (Bosworth’s anorexic figure was kinda repulsive, too. Grow an ass, lady! Here, let me buy you a cheeseburger!)
But that still strikes me as a minor complaint. The movie was well-written, entertaining, and even moving. Much more so than its 70s counterpart.
My problem is that “sucked” is just about the lowest-IQ, brain-dead, moron-identifying thing someone can say about something they don’t like. Yes, everyone seems to be saying it nowadays (I’ve even slipped and said it myself) but it’s way low-class, and Ebert would never say it.
I just thought that someone should point out that Ebert didn’t actually say it.
I wanted an alliterative title. Superman Sucked. What else would have worked? Superman Suffered? Superman did not Satisfy? Do you really think people would believe that Ebert said that a movie sucked? I think you’re just looking for something to nitpick - and also, you’re basically calling me a moron, which I do not appreciate.