nothing pisses me off more than a <90 minute movie where you later find out stuff was cut for run time, and then the dvd has those scenes and it's only 5 minutes

I love 120+ minute movies

was superman 2 actually set in a specific time? as in was there anything said or shown on screen with a specific date (like a news paper)?

Does anyone else think the dying woman's lines at the beginning of the movie were dubbed? Surprised no one has mentioned this, because I could swear it was Margot Kidder's voice.

In regards to that "Superman/Lois Lane doing it" writeup...nasty. The author sounds like some geeky 45 year old virgin-for-life...

I thought I had the urge to write a review, but I just erased the whole damn thing, lol. Straight up, this is for Supes fans only, and even they'll be dissappointed, I'm afraid. Ridiculous plot, uninspired performances, contrived "action" scenes, and a lousy final battle that ultimately becomes eclipsed by a heavy-handed romantic backstory, with elements that are all too obvious from the start.

A couple of homages, a couple of genuinely entertaining scenes, but overall, a pretty flat movie which wouldn't be missed had it not been made. I fell asleep a couple of times, grabbed a pop and candy hoping I'd get a sugar rush, and fell right back asleep. 150 minutes for a movie that could have EASILY been 90-100.

On the bright side, I saw it a theatre featuring the new Christie DLP projectors, in a huge theatre (THX Certified), and it looked incredible, save for the blacks were fuzzy. The "Spider-man 3" trailer was insaaaaaaaaane!

That was hilarious. I've read a few of Niven's books, he's quite good.

My thoughts exactly, I saw it yesterday (6/28/06) and left with the feeling they could have done more with the film. I do rate it out of 5 stars, a high 4 stars because there were scenes in the film that were spectacular and it is worth seeing on the big screen. I do believe that lots of viewers will leave feeling somewhat short handed if they expected way more.

It's a great film, but not a masterpiece or whatever.

She was played by Noel Neill, who was the Lois from the film serials and the 2nd Lois on TV opposite George Reeves. Maybe you were just thinking of her from there.

Not impressed. It was a really pretty and well polished film that was absolutely flat on every level. The kid thing was stupid. The love triangle was stupid and unresolved. Lex's "plan" was stupid...along with the basic premise for it. Having Lex in it at all was stupid. Braniac would have fit nicely into this script IMO. The acting was OK considering the film was completely devoid of acting talent save Spacey. The action scenes were pretty cool, but that's nothing impressive these days. Finally, the movie just drug on and on...feeling every second of its run time and then some. I didn't fall asleep or anything, but I was actively yawning and was fighting it a bit.

Although this film is technically superior, I enjoyed X3 quite a bit more.

Also, both of the more recent versions of Superman (animated and smallville) were much more interesting.

***/***** from me. It wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen or anything, but it never really surpassed mediocre either (other than the plane rescue). In all, a technically impressive yet utterly bland movie.

Yes, the "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" article was dated 2005, September, I think.

I loved the Superman dying for our sins angle. I thought it could've been explored more but people would've been even more bored. It's nice that these big blockbuster films still incorporate themes and philosophies into them while still being full of action.

SUPERMAN RETURNS establishes the fact that the events in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE did indeed take place in 1978, because here's my proof: (SPOILERS)

the Kryptonite that Miss Tessmacher and Gene Hackman read about having fallen in Adidas Abiba in SUPERMAN I is later put on exhibit in the Museum of Natural History and found by Kevin Spacey in SUPERMAN RETURNS and has a plaque that reads something like: "KRYPTONITE: Adis Abiba 1978"

SUPERMAN II takes place a few months after SUPERMAN I. (I believe). Lois and Clark fuck, she gets knocked up and 5 years later, out comes SUPERMAN RETURNS' little boy.

Lois and Clark can't have fucked offscreen after the events in SUPERMAN II because they broke up at the end of SUPERMAN II. So that was the one and only time they did it, which was in SUPERMAN II, in the Fortress of Solitude.

Therefore, it's 1978 (or 1979) + Lois's sons 5 years of age = 1983 (or 1984)

But I know, I know!!!! It's not SUPPOSED to be 1984 in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

In a movie where a man can fly, has x-ray/ heat vision and is completely unrecognizable to his friends when putting on a pair of thick rimmed glasses, I think the last thing anyone can complain about is the TIMELINE.

MATT

Of course, we know that dude.

It's just a fun question to ponder and debate, playfully, kinda like:

"Who would win in a war between Mighty Mouse and Superman"



Same foolishness, who cares.

Perhaps, but isn't all your analysis for naught if the newspapers did indeed read 2005, like you quoted?

I see everyone made the same comments I did in my negative review.

What hell is all this TIMELINE bitching? Who cares? Hey I got one for ya, remember Superman '77 when Jor-El put Kal in the ship? He was a BABY! He grew up a bit while en route to Earth and came out a walking 2 or 3 year old!!! Also, remember when he created the Fortress of Solitude with the green crystal? Do you realize he hung out there and learned from Jor-El's data crystals for a few years? He went in a goofy kid then next thing we know he's in Metropolis trying to get into Lois Lane's panties. There's nothing that siad he split time between Smallville and the Arctic.


Unless of course this was all explained in the DVD set. (Robo covering bases )

I went to a late showing and the room was pretty much full so this meant that among the parents with noisy kids too young to be out that late there were also the usual younngbuck asshole Guys in the front row. These asshats started laughing and giggling when Superman appeared in the boy's room and just before he started his speech thus slightly fucking up this poignant moment. Thankfully most of the crowd got pissed and "shssst!!" them right away so it wasn't as bad as it could've been.

I agree.

I coulda swore I heard MAURY POVICH and a bunch of black people screaming somewhere in the background.

To be more specific, Kal-El spent 12 years in the Fortress with Jor-El (Brando states "12 of your earth years will have passed..." in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE).

Also, Miss Teschmacher says about Krypton in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE that it "blew up 100s of years ago" - explaining how space/time works when travelling over great distances. This is why Superman's journey to Krypton took up 5 years of "Earth Time" - but was probably only a number of days/weeks from his perspective.

Doesn't Jor-El say he's been dead for 10,000 Earth years? If that's the case how did the crystals on the ship teach Kal-El about 20th century Earth - i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity.

I guess the ship was monitoring the Earth from deep space.

Yep. That part was in Returns too.

I know you're joking but Krypton was far more advanced so I guess much of what we knew scientifically was probably old news to them.

Mboyd - I've also always wondered if Krypton is that far away, how is it fragments of the planet have managed to reach Earth in Superman's lifetime?

Because of plot holes.