?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Don't bother. Watch the DVDs of the old ones if you must.

This contained everything that I hated about the first Superman movie. (for the record, the only good parts of the first movie, as far as I'm concerned: Lois' interview of Superman at her penthouse (until the montage with "Can You Read My Mind?") and the first time Superman rescues Lois ("You've Got Me, Who's Got You?") and the rest of it...well, it's one of those don't watch this thing if you watched as a kid and now are a grownup kind of things for me. Especially the dumb "turn the world backwards on it's axis to turn back time" crap (which may be topped only by Superman's super "kiss you to make you forget that you know my secret identity and we were married for about a week" power from the second movie).

We have here:


  • the boring Smallville crap
  • the Marlon Brando hologram speech (nap time in the first movie)
  • Jimmy Olsen is still reduced to a child's intellect (when are they going to give us "Mr. Action" circa the Bronze Age Dollar Comic "Superman Family" books?)
  • Lex Luthor is a bumbling doofus and is surrounded by morons (this time trading Parker Posey (who as usual sucks in her mainstream outing, though that may be because they always give her these same one-note dimbulb roles (get this girl a script for an independent film, preferably a Christopher Guest project, pronto)) for the ultimately forgettable and untalented Valerie Perrine)
  • the film/story screeching to a halt Lois/Clark flying montage to the tune of "Can You Read My Mind?"
  • the incredibly dull looking set design for the Fortress of Solitude (the same old set from the old movies hauled out of storage probably).



Combined with:

  • EXTREMELY poor casting/writing in regards to Lois Lane. This was SO not the woman who was willing to risk jumping into Niagara Falls for the sake of a story.
  • an extremely tedious and heavily telegraphed storyline involving Lois' son (invented for this movie and not part of any established continuity).
  • a rescue scene that seemed familiar to me...'cause it was quite similar to one seen in John Byrne's reboot of Superman mini-series (Man of Steel)...the first time he met Lois in the Post-Crisis continuity



Also, they squandered a great inside fanboy joke:

There's a moment in the film where Clark sees a framed newspaper headline from the time while he's been gone and the headline SHOULD have read "World Without a Superman". Duh!

All in all, the action sequences are okay eye candy (not great) but this film has no soul (which is something that the second Superman movie certainly had). Don't see it in theatres, don't pay for a rental (even from Netflix). Wait 'til it's playing on Starz...'cause this is about the caliber of movie they play. Can I nominate Kate Bosworth for a Golden Raspberry now?

Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
lifeofaloser
Jun. 28th, 2006 09:47 pm (UTC)
LoL...
I just got back from seeing it with Ryan and a few friends.

I definitely agree... it was nothing special at all.
Now that Spiderman 3 coming out in May with Venom looks like it'll be interesting enough.
bfirrera
Jun. 28th, 2006 10:34 pm (UTC)
thought the first one was okay, but didn't care for the second one at all (WAY too over-the-top chew the scenery campy for me).

This one is just chock full of stuff I know I won't like:

1) Venom. I file him with Gambit, the Punisher and Wolverine as everything that I hated about comics in the "grim and gritty"/"overexposed characters" of the nineties.
2) Gwen Stacy. Why now? She should have been the romantic interest in the first movie...and DIED!
3) Sandman. Another one note villain (just like Venom).
4) That kid from the 70s Show. Everyone from that show needs to disappear and never be seen again. They all suck.
5) Aunt May becomes Carnage. WTF? This is on the imdb.com page for the movie.
lifeofaloser
Jun. 29th, 2006 12:45 am (UTC)
I'm a sucker for Spiderman. I definitely see where you're coming from though.

I mean, I grew up on the cartoons (not the comics) but it's still just not the same.

I like the black suit though.
That's probably one main reason I want to see it.
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 08:11 am (UTC)
Wow... I couldn't disagree with you more. My friends and I all loved it. I do agree with you about Kate Bosworth, however. We were discussing who would have been better and came up with about 10 actresses who would have been better choices.

bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 02:30 pm (UTC)
1) Parker Posey. She should have been Lois and that little girl could have been the henchwoman.
2) Courtney Cox
3) Demi Moore (Jackie Templeton from General Hospital was certainly chiseled from the Margot Kidder Lois mold)
4) Selma Blair
5) Linda Fiorentino
6) Sandra Bullock
7) Janeane Garafolo
8) Cobie Smulders (Robin from "How I Met Your Mother")
9) Ellen Pompeo (Grey's Anatomy)

race blind casting:

1) Sandra Oh

---
I thought the movie was certainly faithful to the old movies. For me, too much. Especially, too much from the first movie. Including all the stuff that's not faithful to the comic books (my biggest problem with the movies even when I was kid).

I liked the second movie 'cause there was much more action and scenes with Lois (honestly she's the primary reason to see these movies for me). They didn't waste half the movie on all the exposition (Krypton/Smallville/that awful montage where Superman gets a cat out of a tree/etc.), and Lex and his dumbass henchmen (again made up for the movie) were luckily relegated to the background so that COOL villains could take over the movie.

At least they didn't bother giving us a Ned Beatty stand-in. I just feel bad for Parker that she was stuck in that awful part.
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
Most of your Lois Lane choices are a lot older than ours. We were thinking Elisha Dushku (Faith from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") would have brought that tough-but-lovable edge to the role. Selma Blair could have been really good, too.

Did you realize that this new movie starts where "Superman 2" leaves off? You're supposed to forget about the third and fourth installments- hence why it didn't have all of the stuff that establishes where he comes from.

I loved Parker Posey in it (she's one of my favorite actresses). She was actually in it a lot more than I thought she was going to be.
bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:02 pm (UTC)
oh, I knew that...and it did have all that crap. He miraculously landed out in Smallville where it was the 1930s or something. We still had to go through all the Krypton/Fortress of Solitude crap...ugh.

I think I would have preferred it if they just scrubbed the plate clean and started over with a new adventure and went on. I really would have liked it if the director didn't have such a hard-on for the old movies and did his own movie.

Something along the lines of Kevin Smith's unfortunately lost to the ages script. It accepted that we all had seen those movies and the tv shows (and maybe even the cartoons), but they weren't necessary. It just went on to give us a whole new adventure...a variation on the Death of Superman storyline from the comics, but a variation that didn't tie itself down to the minutia of the story in the books (especially since a lot of the supporting characters like the Justice League couldn't appear in it), nor could we have all of the "new" Supermen appear while he was "dead".
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:06 pm (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree! :-)
bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:29 pm (UTC)
yeah...just trust that my tastes in movies and my tastes in comic book movies are very different.

I want my comic book movies to be faithful to the source material. I loved "Batman Begins", "Hellboy", "Ghost World"...

...and hated the Tim Burton "Batman" flicks (and didn't bother trying to watch the other two).

I liked those Superman movies as a kid, but they just haven't survived the "kiddie" filter watching them as an adult. There are a bunch of shows/movies that I loved as a kid that I've watched now on DVD that have made me question my taste back then (Greatest American Hero comes to mind).
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)
I've never been a comic book fan at all- except for "Superman." I was more of a Garfield and Peanuts kind of kid. I always loved the "Batman" TV show, too.

I hated the first two "Batman" movies. I think they are incredibly boring. I actually enjoyed the last two "Batman" movies that were made before the one that came out last year (the ones that got horrible reviews). They were way more entertaining for me than the Tim Burton ones.
bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:58 pm (UTC)
I was SO looking forward to Batgirl being in the movies. Barbara Gordon is one of my all-time favorite characters...

...then they made her Alfred's niece and cast Alicia Silverstone in the role.

Why on both counts? Part of the character is that she's been raised a policeman's daughter. Would her father discover her secret identity when she appeared on a rooftop with Batman and Robin when summoned by the Bat Signal?

I just couldn't give that movie the time of day. It was bound to disappoint me.

---
Meanwhile, I was only disappointed that they cancelled "Birds of Prey" so early, 'cause it was one of the best comic adaptations in years. They did right by Barbara Gordon in that show (she was already in her "Oracle" persona, but we did see her in the cowl in flashbacks).
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 04:10 pm (UTC)
I liked Alicia just fine in that role... I thought it was SO stupid how she was so heavily criticized. And it wasn't so much her performance, it was because they said she was a little TOO FAT!!! (Which she wasn't... she just looked healthy and not undernourished.)
bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:26 pm (UTC)
well...considering that Margot Kidder was 40/42 in those first two movies...and that Kate Bosworth is 23 (so she would have been 17/19 if she were playing the same character five years before...), I think that gals in their mid-30s are a happy medium.
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:40 pm (UTC)
Margot was only 30, not 40, when she made the first "Superman" movie. She was 4 years older than Christopher Reeve- who was the same age that Brandon Routh is.
bfirrera
Jun. 29th, 2006 03:50 pm (UTC)
According to the IMDB, she was born in 1938...to 1978, that's 40 years. Even if that's a typo and should be 1948 (leaving her 30), it should still be a woman in her thirties in that role.
kevinduran
Jun. 29th, 2006 04:14 pm (UTC)
I just checked IMDB and it says Margot was born in 1948. Maybe your computer is playing tricks on you! I love Margot... I had a cat named after her.

I agree with you, Lois Lane should be in her 30's. I read that they wanted a younger Lois Lane so that she could age well into the inevitable sequels.
lucindalunacy
Jun. 29th, 2006 12:48 pm (UTC)
hah!

this is exactly what i thought this movie would be.

thanks for saving me the cash ;)

lahabiel
Jun. 29th, 2006 07:46 pm (UTC)
Boring Smallville crap? That's the only GOOD part of the original movie!

*shrug*

Maybe I'm biased having grown up in a sort of Smallville....
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow