[Gossamer]

None of us have a budget list for that movie so asking that question is pointless. Are you trying to say that the director embezzled $150M and only spent $50M? Are you trying to say that the special effects crew overcharged them? Are you trying to say that they had to many expensive on-site catered meals? What's your point?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

None of us have a budget list for that movie so asking that question is pointless. Are you trying to say that the director embezzled $150M and only spent $50M? Are you trying to say that the special effects crew overcharged them? Are you trying to say that they had to many expensive on-site catered meals? What's your point?

My point is a 200 mil movie should LOOK like a 200 mil movie.

If he pissed away his cash doing useless things like printing business cards for the staff even though they are never used he might just be stupid.

I have seen 60 million dollar movies that looked 10x better.

[Eug Wanker]

I agree the movie wasn't visually impressive.

However, the business cards would have cost a few hundred bux, so that's basically irrelevant. For a few hundred bux it might be worth it just for the amusement factor.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

My point is a 200 mil movie should LOOK like a 200 mil movie.

If he pissed away his cash doing useless things like printing business cards for the staff even though they are never used he might just be stupid.

I have seen 60 million dollar movies that looked 10x better.

Like what? BTW printing business cards cost, what, $50?

[starman]

Are you just fishing for something to bitch about?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I agree the movie wasn't visually impressive.

However, the business cards would have cost a few hundred bux, so that's basically irrelevant. For a few hundred bux it might be worth it just for the amusement factor.

Do you or glossimer actually believe that I am saying that because of business cards it cost 200 mil? You can't be serious.

What I am saying is that is an example over how wreak-less and obsessive the director was in duplicating a 20 year old movie without adding anything new to the table. He even copied the opening titles and they looked dated and stupid. Nothing new or modern other than a cell phone.

Nothing.

It was so repetitive... superman catches a plane, superman catches a globe, superman catches a boat, superman throws a chunk of rock. Not for a second did I ever doubt any outcome as you do with other movies

The story was horrible, the cast had no chemistry, it was a love story with no love story in it, superman does nothing but eves drop and is the worst stalker in the world.

Lex and Kitty didn't look at each other once in the eye, what sexual chemistry do they have between one another?

How can you get out any satisfaction out of lois and Superman. Lois ignores Clark, is rude to him, has a husband that is the nicest richest guy you could imagine, yet she is mad at superman and loves him? Superman leaves for 5 years and comes back to stalk a woman who is married with a kid?

This movie makes superman look boring (with all 7 lines of his) dry, hot as hell and just all round creepy.

How many times will superman let someone **** him over with Kryptonite? It has happened in every movie! You'd think his goal would be to get rid of every last trace of it instead of chasing ladies with their breaks cut.

the only good thing about the movie is that sum shots of superman flying about looked pretty, not cool but just relaxing and pretty. The guy who played superman looked the part also but had no lines so you'd know if he was a good actor and not just hot.

Compare any part of that movie to the first one where him and lois fly around with "you can read my mind". Heck even the soundtrack was just a old cassette copy of the original.

Lord help us if they make 2 more.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by starman

Are you just fishing for something to bitch about?

I'll stop when you tell me how it looked like a 200 mil movie (4th time me asking you and 4th time you avoid the question).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Do you or glossimer actually believe that I am saying that because of business cards it cost 200 mil? You can't be serious.

No, I'm saying your example is meaningless. They do stuff small stuff for amusement all the time, even for movies costing 10 times less.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

No, I'm saying your example is meaningless. They do stuff small stuff for amusement all the time, even for movies costing 10 times less.

Hmm, ya well it was mentioned not because it was amusing but because the director was obsessed with re-creating a really good 20 year old movie.

He must have pissed away 200 mil somehow.

[ort888]

I think I heard that $50 million of the budget went to stuff you will never see on the screen. Legal problems and paying old contracts... like one to Nicolas Cage even though he wasn't in the movie. I hear he got a lot of money for doing nothing.

I thought the plane crash scene was spectacular, but the rest of the effects were on par with what we have come to expect in a movie like this.

I think that the movie looked great when it had to, but there just wasn't enough action. It did not look like a $200 million dollar movie, this is true.

[Stogieman]

Superman didn't say there was nothing there. He said that place was a graveyard. The whole return to Krypton was cut out during the theatrical release. Heck almost 30 minutes was cut out. That's like what... 1/3 the running time of X3. So there goes a good chunk of that 200 million.

Here's a few screencaps of the scenes we didn't see:

Shot of Superman's ship on Krypton
Superman inside his ship
Another shot of him inside his ship

A bunch of scenes in Smallville:

Young Clark finding his ship in the barn
Young Clark holding a crystal
Ben Hubbard pays a visit

I feel sorry for the actor who played Ben Hubbard. There was a whole scene where Clark discovers his mother is now dating old Ben Hubbard. But in the theatrical release he only has two words, "Bye Martha." Then you see him drive off in his truck.

Here's a really cool video showing what it took too bring Marlon Brando back to life for this movie. It's pretty interesting.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23646

And finally, who really cares how much this movie cost to make. It's not like you invested 200 million to get this movie made.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by ort888

I thought the plane crash scene was spectacular, but the rest of the effects were on par with what we have come to expect in a movie like this.

I think that the movie looked great when it had to, but there just wasn't enough action. It did not look like a $200 million dollar movie, this is true.

Totally, the plane crash was really cool. IMAX 3D sorta made it worse though as some stuff was blurred.

I thought the movie was OK until about half way though when lex revels his master plan which was just about the silliest thing since Dr Evil.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Stogieman

Superman didn't say there was nothing there. He said that place was a graveyard. The whole return to Krypton was cut out during the theatrical release. Heck almost 30 minutes was cut out. That's like what... 1/3 the running time of X3. So there goes a good chunk of that 200 million.

Here's a few screencaps of the scenes we didn't see:

Shot of Superman's ship on Krypton
Superman inside his ship
Another shot of him inside his ship

A bunch of scenes in Smallville:

Young Clark finding his ship in the barn
Young Clark holding a crystal
Ben Hubbard pays a visit

I don't know why they didn't show that instead of showing us things we have all seen in the other movies.

Showing superman as a kid running and jumping added nothing to the story and we saw that already.

If they would have at least shown him going to his home planet you might understand better what he is going through.

[ort888]

It got me really excited for the rest of the movie, but unfortunately, they could never top that scene. It's bad when the coolest part of your movie comes 45 minutes in.

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, I thought the Superman running and jumping part was really, really stupid. They looked just as bad as the running and jumping scenes of the Hulk. Some of the Krypton stuff looks interesting, but if they had put it the movie, they would have had to keep it short... Just like they should have done for so many of the other scenes. Many scenes draaaaagggggggeed.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, I thought the Superman running and jumping part was really, really stupid. Some of the Krypton stuff looked interesting, but they would have had to keep it short. Just like they should have done for so many of the other scenes. So many scenes draaaaagggggggeed.

Ya, the second those rocks started coming out of the water it got super slow. I was like either beat up superman or get defeated, either way just hurry up.

Spacey was also a pretty dry lex.

The thing I really don't understand is where they were going with the whole Lois is married thing. when I first heard about it I was thinking she just married some guy who knocked her up and they would have no love between them. But he is super cool and super nice!!

So which one does the viewer want? The angry lois to get over the whole abandonment thing and love her stalker? Wouldn't you feel really bad for her poor husband who thinks this kid is his?

Also what was up with the asthma and allergic to everything kid? Is this to make kids in wheelchairs feel special or some plot twist nobody gets?

[ort888]

Well, they weren't married, just shackin' up. That whole plot point was weird. Did she boink that guy right after she boinked superman or what? How could she think it was his kid?

Do Kryptonians take more then 9 months to pop out?

Is Lois Lane just a tramp?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Ya, the second those rocks started coming out of the water it got super slow. I was like either beat up superman or get defeated, either way just hurry up.

Spacey was also a pretty dry lex.

He was OK, but again, his scenes were too long. And I was disappointed too that Kal Penn the White Castle guy had zero lines.

The thing I really don't understand is where they were going with the whole Lois is married thing. when I first heard about it I was thinking she just married some guy who knocked her up and they would have no love between them. But he is super cool and super nice!!

Well, it gives Lois Lane a good reason to stick with him instead of going back to Superdude the first chance she gets.

Also what was up with the asthma and allergic to everything kid? Is this to make kids in wheelchairs feel special or some plot twist nobody gets?

Maybe to try to make sure people don't suspect the plot twist.

P.S. I'm being dragged to see Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't hold much hope for that. The GF also wants to see The Devil Wears Prada, but I'm actually looking forward to that one. I like Meryll Streep.

[Landos Mustache]

OK stupid movie aside i have a question about IMAX.

I looked on google but couldn't get a solid answer.

Since the movie was filmed in PARTS in IMAX should those parts be in the IMAX aspect ratio?

Now I know that IMAX films are 70mm not 35mm. and I know the aspect ratio is different.

I also know that they digitally remaster and up-convert 35mm movies to show them in IMAX theaters.

Here is my question....

When I saw V for vendetta it is a 2.35 aspect ratio. When I saw it in IMAX re-mastered I could have sworn that it filled the entire screen with no black bars. Obviously this means it was cropped which I was cool with.

But when I saw superman there WAS black bars and it didn't fill the whole IMAX screen leaving about 20% black on the top and bottom. Not even the IMAX 3D filmed scenes were in the IMAX format. So what is going on? Do all IMAX movies get cropped to be full screen, do some of them? How can they film in IMAX 3d and NOT have the IMAX aspect ratio if it is going straight to 70mm film?

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I'll stop when you tell me how it looked like a 200 mil movie (4th time me asking you and 4th time you avoid the question).

I agree that the effects were rather sub-par. It's almost as if they wanted the effects to match up with the 79' film's climatic, train set model, crumbling dam scene.

I agree too that the film was basically a re-tread of the original but without the magic. The opening titles were cool though unfortunately a poor editing decision drops you in first with Lex Luthor rather than Superman.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

But when I saw superman there WAS black bars and it didn't fill the whole IMAX screen leaving about 20% black on the top and bottom. Not even the IMAX 3D filmed scenes were in the IMAX format. So what is going on? Do all IMAX movies get cropped to be full screen, do some of them? How can they film in IMAX 3d and NOT have the IMAX aspect ratio if it is going straight to 70mm film?

They can just crop/matte it for the theatrical release.

eg. Lots of movies are shot in something like 4:3 aspect ratio, but they just matte out the top and bottom. Why not keep it 4:3? Cuz the movie isn't designed for 4:3, so you'll see boom mikes or whatever if you don't crop it.

The worst is movies which had 1.85:1 threatrical releases shot at 4:3, and then they decide to release it on DVD "full-screen", just by removing the crop mattes.

For example I recall one movie where you see the person's torso in the theatre in the 1.85:1 version, but nothing below, and the dialogue gives us the impression he's naked from the waist down, below the screen. In the DVD 4:3 version, you can see the actor's underwear. Like, how stupid.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Maybe to try to make sure people don't suspect the plot twist.

At first I thought that the Asthma thing was because he knew he was "Super" and wanted to hide the fact much like Superman does with glasses.

But then if even his mother doesn't know I can't imagine the kid got any guidance on who is really is (like superman did) and would just go ape **** and fly/jump/throw things around cuz what kid wouldn't.

I also don't know why the kid tosses a piano but makes no effort to stop them all from downing behind a door in a sinking boat.

[mathew_m]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

OK stupid movie aside i have a question about IMAX.
...

Superman Returns was shot with the new Genesis HD camera. The aspect ratio of that camera is fixed at 2.35:1 thus the film would be letterboxed for IMAX display. The only problem with this is when it was presented, the film's frame sat lower on the screen so if you were sitting in the upper level seats you were looking downwards.

I saw the IMAX version and thought the film looked spectacular (aside from some of the mediocre effects). The Genesis is capable of producing sharper images than 35mm, almost too much. During the Clark Kent, Daily Planet scenes I could see the pancake make-up applied to Brandon Routh giving him a mannequin appearance.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

They can just crop/matte it for the theatrical release.

eg. Lots of movies are shot in something like 4:3 aspect ratio, but they just matte out the top and bottom. Why not keep it 4:3? Cuz the movie isn't designed for 4:3, so you'll see boom mikes or whatever if you don't crop it.

The worst is movies which had 1.85:1 threatrical releases shot at 4:3, and then they decide to release it on DVD "full-screen", just by removing the crop mattes.

For example I recall one movie where you see the person's torso in the theatre in the 1.85:1 version, but nothing below, and the dialogue gives us the impression he's naked from the waist down, below the screen. In the DVD 4:3 version, you can see the actor's underwear. Like, how stupid.

Actually i have funny story about that.

My buddy went to go see some movie (forget the name, about 6 year old movie like cliffhanger and a guy from DS9 Alexander Saddig was in it). Anywho...

They played the movie on an IMAX screen but like you said it was filmed in 4:3 and later the projectors have little crops to take out the top and bottom on the fly.

BUT, they forgot to do this for this showing so for the entire movie you saw the booms under/over their mouths and the crews feet or reflection boards and wood crates!

My friend had no clue as to what was going on and was trying to figure out the whole time if this was a REALLY bad movie or a joke.

I filled him in months later.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Why does superman need and have a spaceship when he can happily fly around in space?

Back to this question. Two reasons: One, Superman cannot breathe in space. He can hold his breath for a very long time (I forget what the actual amount is), but eventually he does have to breathe again, and I don't think I need to explain why that wouldn't work in space. The second reason was already listed, but again, Superman's powers come from our Yellow sun. The farther away from the sun he gets the weaker he gets.

Back on Krypton people weren't flying around all over the place - they were normal under the conditions of their red sun. But put them on earth and they all develop powers like Superman.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by jokell82

Back to this question. Two reasons: One, Superman cannot breathe in space. He can hold his breath for a very long time (I forget what the actual amount is), but eventually he does have to breathe again, and I don't think I need to explain why that wouldn't work in space. The second reason was already listed, but again, Superman's powers come from our Yellow sun. The farther away from the sun he gets the weaker he gets.

Back on Krypton people weren't flying around all over the place - they were normal under the conditions of their red sun. But put them on earth and they all develop powers like Superman.

Alright that is geeky and I'm fine with it but they cannot expect people to know these things if they don't show it in the movie.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

P.S. I'm being dragged to see Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't hold much hope for that. The GF also wants to see The Devil Wears Prada, but I'm actually looking forward to that one. I like Meryll Streep.

Not that great. My wife dragged me and it was worse then expected. It felt like it was written by a 7th grader. Meryl Streep is great in it, but everyone else is a boring stereotype. The overall quality was about that of a made for TV Disney Channel movie.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Actually i have funny story about that.

My buddy went to go see some movie (forget the name, about 6 year old movie like cliffhanger and a guy from DS9 Alexander Saddig was in it). Anywho...

They played the movie on an IMAX screen but like you said it was filmed in 4:3 and later the projectors have little crops to take out the top and bottom on the fly.

BUT, they forgot to do this for this showing so for the entire movie you saw the booms under/over their mouths and the crews feet or reflection boards and wood crates!

My friend had no clue as to what was going on and was trying to figure out the whole time if this was a REALLY bad movie or a joke.

I filled him in months later.

Not a crop at the projector. Usually cropped right on the final print.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by ort888

Not that great. My wife dragged me and it was worse then expected. It felt like it was written by a 7th grader. Meryl Streep is great in it, but everyone else is a boring stereotype. The overall quality was about that of a made for TV Disney Channel movie.

I also love Meryl as she plays a great bitch. But ya, the rest looks like a crap chick flick about some ugly girl becoming cool and popular and changing everyones opinion of her because she is book smart and bla bla bla.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Not a crop at the projector. Usually cropped right on the final print.

"These flat films are photographed with the full Academy frame, but are cropped (most often in the theater projector, not in the camera) to obtain the "wide" aspect ratio."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film#Widescreen

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

"These flat films are photographed with the full Academy frame, but are cropped (most often in the theater projector, not in the camera) to obtain the "wide" aspect ratio."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film#Widescreen

Yes it seems you're right. Things are more variable today, but it does seem that most like this are still cropped at the projector.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

"These flat films are photographed with the full Academy frame, but are cropped (most often in the theater projector, not in the camera) to obtain the "wide" aspect ratio."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film#Widescreen

Except Superman Returns was in Cinemascope, 2.35:1, so there's no cropping in the projector like a flat print, it was in scope.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Alright that is geeky and I'm fine with it but they cannot expect people to know these things if they don't show it in the movie.

They actually do mention the whole "gets his powers from our sun" thing. Lois says it when she's essentially recapping Superman's entire history for the comics-challenged.

[Dopetrackalistic]

Originally Posted by rickey939

I'm always eager to see the ManOfSteal....err, Superman. I'm excited.

Have you gone down on him yet?

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Since the movie was filmed in PARTS in IMAX should those parts be in the IMAX aspect ratio?
Now I know that IMAX films are 70mm not 35mm. and I know the aspect ratio is different.

As mathew_m stated, no part of this movie was shot in 70mm IMAX format. Superman Returns is the first movie to use the new Genesis camera. It allows you to film movies for IMAX without having to use the really expensive and cumbersome 70mm film. The four 3D segments were created after the film was finished. IMAX has a new process that can convert 2D images into 3D.

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Totally, the plane crash was really cool. IMAX 3D sorta made it worse though as some stuff was blurred.

I kind of agree with you there. The plane scene and the shot at the very end when Superman smiles to the camera seemed really blurry, However, I thought the boat rescue sequence in 3D was spectacular. The shot of Superman grabbing Richard's arm and letting go of the boat was amazing!
I have a question for you. Did the IMAX version seem dark to you? I first saw the movie opening night on a digital projection. The picture was bright and clear. Then I saw it again in IMAX 3D and I had a real hard time seeing Superman on the screen when he was flying around at night.

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

What I am saying is that is an example over how wreak-less and obsessive the director was in duplicating a 20 year old movie without adding anything new to the table. He even copied the opening titles and they looked dated and stupid. Nothing new or modern other than a cell phone.

Nothing.

Nothing new or modern other than a cell phone? Come on, quit exaggerating. Didn't you notice the 50+ flat screens inside the Daily Planet? The laptops everyone was using instead of typewriters? Jimmy Olsen's Nikon digital camera? Heck even the new space shuttle was escorted by a couple of F-35s. As for the opening credits, you are the first person that I have come across that DIDN'T like them. They didn't look outdated to me because I don't remember seeing a sparkler whizzing by in the background.

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

How many times will superman let someone **** him over with Kryptonite? It has happened in every movie!

No it hasn't. Kryptonite was only shown in the original movie. Who used it in the other 3 pictures to **** him over?

[RAILhead]

Just got back from it. Spent $12.50 on 2 tickets and my wife and I were both entertained. I'm a comic geek, too, but I know how to turn it off for the sake of entertainment.

I thought it was a good, safe movie for a potential new franchise. And half you whiners would have your questions answered if you'd WATCH the movie instead of trying to count how many 15 million dollar effects there are.

That said, Batman could still hand Supes his arse on a platter.

[starman]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I thought it was a good, safe movie for a potential new franchise. And half you whiners would have your questions answered if you'd WATCH the movie instead of trying to count how many 15 million dollar effects there are.

QFT

[andi*pandi]

we liked it too. I agree the end was a little slow, (pointless hospital vigil, talking to you) but overall, really liked it.

I liked that lex luthor actually appeared smart, and devious. Kitty was not as stupid as in the earlier movies as well. I could have wished lex had a better ending rather than stranded on an island somewhere. I'd like to think he'd be smart enough not to hang around his unstable new land mass until, you know, it stabilized.

I liked that lois had moved on, and they didn't do the trite thing of showing her new beau was no comparison with Superman and her going back to Superman. New guy was a good guy, and getting lois out of the romantic picture (while showing a little nostalgia on both their parts) leaves him wide open for a new romance in the next one. yes I said next one.

as for the kid, i didn't read the comix, so I don't remember when exactly clark started showing his powers. puberty, right? so maybe the kid couldn't open the door, or he only got powers when really scared/mad. I can imagine that his mom reinforced the "you're fragile, don't try to hard to do things/sports/etc" in order to keep him from discovering his powers early. I got the impression he was scared of lex, but didn't react to the kryptonite.

re the new land mass, and superman touching it... it seemed that when the new crystal formed, there was carbon on the outside and kryptonite in some places... I was willing to buy that some places would have more carbon than others and be bearable to touch. If they'd played that scene a little faster or showed bleeding hands, it might have been more believable, but hey.

I think they laid a lot of ground for new storylines.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"It may be all over for Superman this weekend. Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” took the biggest hit day to date from Tuesday to Wednesday this week, losing an astonishing 38.9 percent."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202526,00.html

In other words, all the big fans went the first week and went home and told everyone it stunk.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by starman

Except Superman Returns was in Cinemascope, 2.35:1, so there's no cropping in the projector like a flat print, it was in scope.

Who said otherwise and why does it matter?

[JoshuaZ]

I watched a horrible downloaded cam version. I will spend $15 to see it when it shows up in Japan next month. I think its worth it.

[smacintush]

I can't believe that so many people thought it looked good based on the trailers. When I saw the trailers I nearly puked. The only part I could find myself getting excited about was Kevin Spacey. (well, and the SPFX of course)

That being said I still haven't seen it. I said before that this was definitely a rental for me.

[Chuckit]

I thought the trailers looked lame, but Bryan Singer had earned my trust.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by starman

Wrong. He was going faster than the speed of light around the earth, meaning he was moving TIME backwards, not actually moving the Earth backwards.

I hate to bring this argument back up, but I just happened to catch Superman on HBO2 and I if he was only turning back TIME and not altering the
Earth's rotation, then why did he fly back the other direction before stopping?

[Landos Mustache]

Seems even the director knows it sucked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060723/film_nm/superman_dc

[Chuckit]

Which of Singer's comments in that article lead you to believe he was unhappy with the movie? The one where he says it will be like Wrath of Kahn or the one where he says there's nothing definite yet, but he's planning on 2009?

[starman]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I hate to bring this argument back up, but I just happened to catch Superman on HBO2 and I if he was only turning back TIME and not altering the
Earth's rotation, then why did he fly back the other direction before stopping?

Yeah, that second part was unnecessary, but the theory of going around the earth fast enough that you turn back time has been around for decades.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Which of Singer's comments in that article lead you to believe he was unhappy with the movie? The one where he says it will be like Wrath of Kahn or the one where he says there's nothing definite yet, but he's planning on 2009?

The wrath of Kahn part. As they mentioned Star Trek 1 was big budget, big flop. With Wrath they make it more hard core and dark and it really turned things around.

[ink]

They're going to make at least one more flick....

This movie was a huge homage to Superman I. I think they are going to produce more films to continue the story from here. Lex is out of jail, and stranded on an island -- Superman has a kid, but is not really a father -- Lois has pretty much given up on him for a nice guy that is actually there, instead of saving the world (or whatever) at every moment. I really enjoyed this film, it was an apology for Superman 3 and 4. It brought the Smallville generation up to speed, and sets a direction wherein the plot can develop with more films.

It wasn't as good as Batman Begins, but it was much better than X-Men 3. I agree that Routh (Superman) was wooden; but then again, his character is wooden in all incarnations. Spacy was great, and Poser (Kitty) was supurb at emulating the 1970 Kitty. It was fun to relive the cheezy relationship between the two. I wish they hadn't photoshopped Routh to be absolutley perfect in every scene, it was a bit laughable even if he is a Christ figure.

The music has actually been remade, unlike with Superman 2,3 and 4 -- where they simply reused the same Williams recordings from Superman 1. It's different, but lifts the same themes, and creates a new Luthor rift that wasn't there before.

Now, if the next film has Zod in it, I will be sorely disappointed. Instead, I suspect that they will forgoe Kryptonite as a plot device, and use Superman's hidden relationship with Lois&family as the new wedge.

[Dark Helmet]

I just hope it is another director, this dude sucks.