The special effects were great. The performances (well, all of the major performances) were great. Brandon Routh has won my approval of his Superman, despite the fact that I still think he needs to bulk up a bit more. He won me over when he gave his first cheesy smile as Clark Kent. There were a lot of knods to Superman and Superman 2, and that was cool (the best knod, in my opinion, is when he repeats his "Flying is still the safest way to fly" speech to the people on the airplaine). I especially liked how the intro was done to resemble the old intros. I also liked (this will ruin the end if you haven't seen it) the morality that Superman chose to leave his son and Lois with Richard, and that Richard wasn't portrayed as a big jerk (like "the other guy" usually is). Oh, and I loved the part where you got the idea that little Jason White saw through Clark's disguise right off the bat.
There were a lot of good things about this movie. But I still give it a 6 out of 10. Allow me to explain why: it's continuing a storyline from a movie filmed nearly 30 years ago and has an entirely new cast (with the exception of the cameo by the late Marlon Brando). There are a lot of changes made . . . and that would be fine if the story was to start over: new franchise, new faces, new chain of events. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between this movie and Batman Begins. I'll confess my bias right up front that I think that movie is the best superhero film ever made, but one of the major things that it did right was start over. I can except Michael Caine as Alfred because he's established in a different storyline than Michael Gough's Alfred. I had a lot of trouble accepting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane because I'm supposed to accept that it's the same Lois as Margot Kidder. I can't get immersed in the idea that she's heartbroken by Superman because I never saw her fall in love with him.
Then there's the seemingly golden casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. When he tossed his wig to the little girl and said, "you can have this . . . the rest is mine," I thought, "Hewyeah! A truly evil Lex, not like Hackman's slapstick cartoon character." But no . . . his stuff was a lot of jokes and rolling his eyes at his bumbling henchmen, just like the old movies. He seemed like just the "villain of the hour" to me. Not Superman's genuine arch nemesis, but the bad guy on this week's episode. Also, you have the same problem as before because this Lex is supposed to be the same Lex as Hackman, and therefore the rivalry between he and Superman was supposed to already be there. "Why does this face hate this face?" That needs to be established. Far too much was left up to the viewer to just "assume." I could keep going, like how I think the guy who played Perry White did a particularly awful job. Perry White is supposed to be a hard ass, this guy was way too soft spoken and had no edge.
The costume change was okay, but, yet again, it's very different from the costume in the old movies and if this movie is supposed to be a continuation, why has it changed? Oh, and I can't figure out why someone thought dark red was a good idea.
There wasn't enough "Superman doing cool stuff," I felt. Spider-man made you feel like you were swinging around New York with him, but this movie just had a bunch of awe-struck bystanders looking to the sky. It had him doing very cool things, mind you, just not enough of them.
They never solidified the fact that Jason was Superman's son, either. Sure, it looked like he pushed the piano, but they never gave us any other confirmation. (NO! Seeing Superman in the water from a plane is not confirmation that he's his son). I honestly kept expecting to find out that it's not his kid after all, but then he's giving him his fatherly speech as he slept and . . . oh, okay, I guess it is his kid.
Then there's the problem with the story . . . Superman was 30 years old in the 1978 film (he left home and "made" the Fortress of Solitude when he was 18, and then he went on a 12 year "journey" with Jor-el), so that means if Superman was gone for 5-7 years (the movie wasn't to clear on it . . . or maybe it was, the sound wasn't working right in the theatre I saw it in), then he'd be in his mid to late 30's, and Lois would be considerably older, as well, and Jimmy Olsen wouldn't look like an 18-year-old . . . anyway.
I can also become super-geek and complain about how Lois Lane never knew about kryptonite in the old movies, raise questions as to how it's possible for an alien being to impregnate a human, and point out that if Superman comes within even a few meters of kryptonite, he loses all of his strength . . . so when kryptonite shards are inches from his face, he can't continue to lift a gigantic island into space. But what are you gonna do? Time wouldn't turn backwards if you make the Earth spin the other way, either.
There were a lot of good things about this movie. But I still give it a 6 out of 10. Allow me to explain why: it's continuing a storyline from a movie filmed nearly 30 years ago and has an entirely new cast (with the exception of the cameo by the late Marlon Brando). There are a lot of changes made . . . and that would be fine if the story was to start over: new franchise, new faces, new chain of events. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between this movie and Batman Begins. I'll confess my bias right up front that I think that movie is the best superhero film ever made, but one of the major things that it did right was start over. I can except Michael Caine as Alfred because he's established in a different storyline than Michael Gough's Alfred. I had a lot of trouble accepting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane because I'm supposed to accept that it's the same Lois as Margot Kidder. I can't get immersed in the idea that she's heartbroken by Superman because I never saw her fall in love with him.
Then there's the seemingly golden casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. When he tossed his wig to the little girl and said, "you can have this . . . the rest is mine," I thought, "Hewyeah! A truly evil Lex, not like Hackman's slapstick cartoon character." But no . . . his stuff was a lot of jokes and rolling his eyes at his bumbling henchmen, just like the old movies. He seemed like just the "villain of the hour" to me. Not Superman's genuine arch nemesis, but the bad guy on this week's episode. Also, you have the same problem as before because this Lex is supposed to be the same Lex as Hackman, and therefore the rivalry between he and Superman was supposed to already be there. "Why does this face hate this face?" That needs to be established. Far too much was left up to the viewer to just "assume." I could keep going, like how I think the guy who played Perry White did a particularly awful job. Perry White is supposed to be a hard ass, this guy was way too soft spoken and had no edge.
The costume change was okay, but, yet again, it's very different from the costume in the old movies and if this movie is supposed to be a continuation, why has it changed? Oh, and I can't figure out why someone thought dark red was a good idea.
There wasn't enough "Superman doing cool stuff," I felt. Spider-man made you feel like you were swinging around New York with him, but this movie just had a bunch of awe-struck bystanders looking to the sky. It had him doing very cool things, mind you, just not enough of them.
They never solidified the fact that Jason was Superman's son, either. Sure, it looked like he pushed the piano, but they never gave us any other confirmation. (NO! Seeing Superman in the water from a plane is not confirmation that he's his son). I honestly kept expecting to find out that it's not his kid after all, but then he's giving him his fatherly speech as he slept and . . . oh, okay, I guess it is his kid.
Then there's the problem with the story . . . Superman was 30 years old in the 1978 film (he left home and "made" the Fortress of Solitude when he was 18, and then he went on a 12 year "journey" with Jor-el), so that means if Superman was gone for 5-7 years (the movie wasn't to clear on it . . . or maybe it was, the sound wasn't working right in the theatre I saw it in), then he'd be in his mid to late 30's, and Lois would be considerably older, as well, and Jimmy Olsen wouldn't look like an 18-year-old . . . anyway.
I can also become super-geek and complain about how Lois Lane never knew about kryptonite in the old movies, raise questions as to how it's possible for an alien being to impregnate a human, and point out that if Superman comes within even a few meters of kryptonite, he loses all of his strength . . . so when kryptonite shards are inches from his face, he can't continue to lift a gigantic island into space. But what are you gonna do? Time wouldn't turn backwards if you make the Earth spin the other way, either.