 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
217.155.108.22
Went to see this last night with my family.I could see this film being equally liked and being seen as a drag. For me it is the best of the Superman films.
Historically while I enjoyed Christopher Reeves I always thought his performance of Clark Kent was OTT. Who would employ him? Who would bother to have any sort of meaningful conversation with him? In this new film the geekiness is dialed down to realistic proportions, and as a result I could invest in him far more.
I would take the principal of dailing back on caricatures and say that ALL the characters have been portrayed far more realistically. Langella's Perry White is not a shouting, pouting monstrousity but comes over as in charge but empathetic; you could imagine people wanting to go the extra mile for him!
I especially like that Lex Luther has NO comic elements in him. Personally I need major characters to be played straight. Nudge nudge wink wink has ruined many films for me, including the later Indiana Jones films and many of the Roger Moore Bond movies.
So what will let the film down for some movie goers? I fear that some will find it slow. It has a similar set piece ratio to the first Superman movie, but thay are better spread over the film. The time is used to introduce you to the players, and to sympathise with them - to care.
There are some nice twists that will no doubt be developed in the future.
The only change I would have made would have been to have ended the film five minutes earlier - if you go and see it you'll know what I mean!
Martin
Follow Ups:
Superman was waaaayyyy too long and "unmemorable". The Pirates movie was equally unmemorable. I expected to be entertained with these two movies but both simply missed the mark for me. Or maybe I'm just getting burnt out on silly, noncerebral, special effects movies.
I caught up on my sleep during "King Kong".
...both dialog and story.My short analysis of what went wrong is this: So many set pieces were filmed at such great expense, the studio couldn't bear to just drop them. Hence the characters got shorter shrift in a movie surely limited to its current running time. I refer to two in particular: The car w/o brakes scene (couldn't happen!) and the plane in stall (they don't spin laterally, nor could passengers get knocked about so violently as depicted and survive). Neither one produced the intended drama and hence wasted time.
It is my firm conviction that the only special effect should be Superman himself.
And stupidly, the writers refused to deal with the problem of Clark and Superman missing for the same five-year period. How dense is Lois, among others, thought to be? Even a casual line like maybe, "So, Clark, did Superman take you with him ha ha?" Some acknowledgement, anything!
I thought Routh as the Man was excellent, but as Clark he was too big-brown-eyed and blown-haired. Also he seemed to have nothing to do at the paper, and where the hell was he living? "Have you found a place yet?" everyone asked. Why?
Lois: Where was Terri Hatcher when you needed her?
Finally I thoroughly disliked the idea of Lois being a single unwedded mom, with all that implied. And the sex joke was crude beyond belief.
Oh, right: the 3D. Quite unnecessary and artificial (it was after all digitally created), save for the first instance where the boy is just floating over the floor, full of wonder at himself. That one really worked! The Imax Thretre I must say had excellent, tight deep bass and that paid off, although not for all the extra $3.50 the ticket cost.
clark
(nt)
How about the Shuttle being able to fire its engines without an external fuel tank and, then, the blast from the engines not destroying the plane's tail? Also, Kate Bosworth was much too young for the role.
a
Thatis the thinking with the brain dead executives. We need 25 because it sells. It's just so dumb. Hatcher at least could play it to a level where you believe she had some toughness. Her role in Lois and Clark was quite good. In fact hell I'd have taken the Superman actor to boot. Routh actually looked like a manequin at some points -- I swear they air brushed him or something -- it was weird.All I can say is I wish Donner was hired to do this -- he at least had fun with the damn movies.
Yep, there are things I would have changed as well.I agree that in reality the set pieces mentioned are not 'possible', and particularly disliked the failed-brakes scene; however, you could take it further:
Lois Lane would have been seriously injured in her being thrown around the plane, if not killed.
In slowing down the plane pushing on the nose would not have worked as dipicted/at all.
The pressures would have injured/killed some passengers.
How did he control the drop of the plane from vertical to horizontal.
....I didn't overlook these, just accepted this was a film based on a comic. These things didn't pull me out of unreality within the context of this movie....for me.
'And stupidly, the writers refused to deal with the problem of Clark and Superman missing for the same five-year period. 'Agreed. But it could have been dealt with by staggering the return of one or the other over an extended period....but that would have taken time.
'Finally I thoroughly disliked the idea of Lois being a single unwedded mom, with all that implied.'
In Superman II Superman gave his powers up and got in the sack with Lois. The child is a continuation of that plot line. I certainly wouldn't want either of my daughters to choose this as a model for a life decision; although I would suggest that most people have pre-marital sex today.
Martin
a
Not everyone but some of us like Superman II better than the original. Superman II had the oportunity to not spend SOOOOO much time recounting the original comic book story. It starts right off with the bad guys and the action. For me it works like Empire Strikes Back works against Star Wars.The set-up is faster - the threat is bigger and more deadly than Lex Luther becaus Superman is up against three people from his home world thus three SuperPeople.
This second film has the luxury of spending the time on character set-ups than plot set-ups which makes it for me a much better film than the original and easily better than this stupid Superman Returns.
Spiderman II, Superman II and Batman Begins are probably the three best Superhero movies I've seen so far.
Except for part IV which was just shockingly terrible.You know I'm not sure I can say that there is one single area that I would give the new Superman Returns the edge. Before someone says special effects - even here I'm not convinced. The actual technology is better and the look but not the execution.
As for Clark Kent getting hired or not -- well it;s a comic book movie for heaven sake -- you have a guy flying around in a red cape and blue tights who landed here from outer space and your complaint is that Kent is a bit too clutsy to in reality get the job??? C'mon.
And Indian Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark) -- I mean if you have a problem with films playing it tongue in cheek or the "reality" of the proceedings why not just read the tag line for what the movie is about and not go. I mean that;s the point of these films.
Superman Returns fails on so many levels but it fails on the primary and only one that matters for a comic book movie -- it was a lifeless humourless bore. And it could not even make up for that with having heart or brains.
This is so far the worst movie I've seen this year -- and that is REALLY saying something because I have seen the abysmal Poseidon.
Well at least we can agree the IV was a terrible movie!'As for Clark Kent ... too clutsy to in reality get the job??? C'mon.'
My complaint with Chris Reeves is that he was SO clumsy it just pulled me out the film.
Bottom line is that this is a film based on a comic - I am not looking for reality, just something that is internally consistent and lets me suspend my disbelief. Routh did a better job of this than Chris Reeves for me.
'tongue in cheek'This is a personal thing. I don't mind supporting characters hamming things up, for me the main characters should always be played straight; unless it is a comedy.
An example would be Lemony Snicket. Jim Carey hammed up the villain and so robbed the film of any tension. I like the Brothers Grimm (authors not film) approach to fairy tales, violent and bloody - but with a happyish ending!
'Humourless'
Yep - I suppose as much humour as Batman Begins.
The difference between Batman and Superman though is very large. Batman is a humourless brooding character and Batman Begins was the only one of the Batman films I would recommend. Though Jack Nicholson was fun to watch but the rest of the film was utter caca.Clark was hired sie unseen -- they needed someone and Clark Kent was there. Being a clutz and doing the job properly didn't pull me out of the original Superman -- Reeves actually portrayed a dual personality which really could have you believe that the glasses were not the only thing separating Superman from Clark Kent. I can;t say that about Routh. Remember Superman is the only major comic hero who is originally the superhero who is PRETENDING to be a human being.
Spiderman, Batman, etc are regular folks who put on a suit to become the superhero.
With Superman -- He IS Superman first and is trying to separate himself from anyone thinking he is superman by playing the fool. Reeves IMO is so far and away the better actor in this role -- Routh is a cardboard persoanilty wanting stiff trying to be Reeves playing Superman.
And as much as Routh was a completely banal uninteresting dead weight in the lead role -- he was actually the LEAST of the film's problems. Lois Lane was completely buthered -- this Pulitzer winner who FIVE years ago was at the Daily planet (and had been there fore many years) has a 5 year old son (who looks 8) is so completely miscast that it is a travesty. Lois here is such a wussy putz that believing she is a tough as nails reporter really makes you have to suck out your brain. Margot Kidder may not have been the prettiest cookie in the jar but despite her spelling errors you could at least believe she would be a rugged news reporter. Her replacement is one of the biggest flops of Superman Returns and her character is so important for this film to work that the whole thing is lost with her.
Which brings us to the casting -- why are these 25 year olds in this film? It is completely insulting to believe these people have any sort of weathered life experience and does not even fit with the 5 year absence. Te kid plot line also shot down any real vibrant play between Lois and Clark or Superman and Lois. Now we get this stupid family 3 way + kid story that took any fizzle out of the picture that could have remained.
Then we have Lex Luthor which was a complete and utter mess. I probably like Kevin Spacey about as much as he can be liked in the acting world -- more than most people here I bet, and he just doesn't work. I don't blame him - in a better film with a better script he could have done a better job -- Hackman played it partly for laughs -- more of egomaniac and bordering insane -- and yes for comic relief. I'll take it over the stupid Christian religious Jesus overtones of the new film any day of the week.
Special effects -- Margot Kidder is on the rooftop with the helicopter and she is dangling over the side -- this scene has tension and a wonderful concluding moment as Superman Saves her. The replacement scene in the new film is this tired plane goingto crash onto a basbelall field -- the effects are better, the effects are longer -- no tension and it was overall kind of stupid.
Music -- The original score was so much better and here they jacked it up and bash you over the head to say "this is really important" but it again is just loud and abnoxious. I am one of the few who really likes the Superman Themes -- especially the one where Kidder recites "Can you read my mind" -- the replacement music here is overbearing and impatient which must be for the video game minded.
I get the sense that this film can't stand still long enough to be in the same scene with itself for fear of being noticed for it's banality.
Superman III was terrible as well but IMO it's still better than this film. I understand to some extent that the Original Superman played it for laughs a number of times -- Clark Kent walking across the street and a cab hits him and breaks the car -- but to me that is part of the fun in watching this film -- the word FUN. I don't want the lead character to be a boring banal Jesus character. I want him to be an Alien fish out of water trying to fit in and not let anyone think he is Superman. Reeves does it SUPERBLY. Even he could not save the last two dregs.
Donner had a clue as to how to make films have a sense of wonder and joy about them. Ditto for the first two Lethal Weapon films.
I liked Superman II more than part one.
And for the record I think the best Comic book film I have seen so far is Spiderman II -- if it were not for being a comic book movie it may just be the smartest love story Hollywood has doled out in 15 years.
Seems to me we need to retire to the pub for a few bevies and a decent chat....For me the best Superman film was probably the 2nd half of 1 and a lot of 2. For all that I could chew them up in much the same way that you have with 'Returns'.
Ultimately this film is the one that I came out the theatre with the best buzz from having watched.
I suspect we could both come up with arguements for defending our respective positions.
Martin
I thought Routh did a better turn on the character than C. Reeves...loved the reference to the past films with the theme, Brando voice etc...etc...and the special effects were great especially the plane scene. Loved Spacey as Lex....Bosworth was completely miscast and sexless...NO chemistry between Superman and Lois! Langella humanized the Perry White character. If they go forward with the films they certainly need to get rid of Bosworth....
You say "NO chemistry between Superman and Lois!"Well of course look at the idiotic set-up -- Lois has a kid (Bosworth must have started at the Daily Planet at the age of 12) and they giver her a man -- of course she has to be played sexless -- the morons writing this film were trying to maker her a "serious news reporter" which of course means a woman has to be "a man."
This film the more I think it over just keeps getting worse and worse on SO many levels. It's actually insulting which is worse than just being bad.
I also think it's funny that everytime people rave about this film they talk about Perry White -- Perry Who? Who cares? These characters have such puny screen time and ar eone dimensional caricatures that they make almost no impact on the film anyway.
Films like these pivot on the three leads
Reeves, Kidder, Hackman to me did their parts in a much more entertaining memorable way than the dead lifeless Routh, Bosworth, Spacey.
I don't mind them playing this more strait but if you do it strait biy it has to have the acting chops behind it -- and they don't have it here and to be fair the script didn't give them any real opportunity.
This is the reason why I'll take the tongue in cheek Star Wars trilogy (the original three not the "I need more money rubbish prequels) over the one note banal story Lord of the Rings Trilogy. If you have a DOPEY premise and black hat white hat story (The ring is bad don't be corrupted - the force can be bad don't be corrupted) then you had BETTER play this tongue in cheek because then it will be fun -- LOTR failed on the hole for not playing it for fun and because the thread bare story was such banal nonsense and so limited in scope and depth that all it turns into is a good versus evil yarn for an insufferably long 10 hours. Star Wars almost went down the same path but Harrison Ford's Han Solo lifted it from the mire of Buck Rogers - and of course the new ones have no such characters and they play much like LOTR -- banal verbose bores with some special effects and sound editing to provide some spectacle.
I am willing to give comic book movies HUGE benefits of the doubt because I know their limitations -- it's just so sad when they are truly this dull.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
