Both negative and positive reviews all seem to agree on one thing:

That Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane will go down as one of the worst casting decisions in movie history...

The reviewers at IGN couldn't write a decent film (or DVD) review if their lives depended on it.

If they make a sequel, think they will recast her?

Kate Bosworth is to this movie what Jack Black was to King Kong I guess. Of course I think the three hour run time had more to do with Kong's disappointment than Black's performance, but I digress.

I was always against her being cast and if they do re-cast they should go for Rachel McCadams. She looks more the part and I sure wouldn't complain!

3 1/2 stars

My bad and yeah, Kate Bosworth is one of the worst casting choices in the history of blockbuster films. Rachael Mcadams would of been perfect, I will agree on that one.


I saw NOTHING wrong with their review of it. Granted, I have not seen the film, but I've always read their reviews (Along with other sites) and IGN's seem to be unbiased and spot on .

Rolling Stone review is positive. Up at 92%.

Personally, I don't pay attention to reviewers, but as it stands I know enough (but not everything) about a particular aspect of the the storyline to say that it is unlikely Singer is going to get me (and a lot of other Superman fans) to see this more than once, if it's true.

As the old Jim Croce song goes, there are somethings you just don't do, besides not messing around with big, bad Leroy Brown. Like pulling the mask off the Lone Ranger and tugging on Superman's cape. Unless there is some qualifier I don't know of about this particular aspect of the story, then I can only say Singer "tugged on Superman's cape," or "jumped the shark," because it won't matter how terrific the rest of the story, the acting, or the FX are, because this one little detail invalidates everything.

IMHO.

Call me fanboy.

I tend to agree with this. I think this film is goin' to seperate people like no other superhero film. People could accept the organic webshooters, not sure they will accept this. You're goin' to have fans who will eat anything up that is Superman related and then there are the others, who will say that this just doesn't offer up what they expected due to certain "plots" or "side-plots" as I call 'em.

I am see'ing it at 10:00 pm on June 27th and while I'm excited to see Supes back in action, I can't shake the feeling that I am goin' to walk away very dissapointed.

I tend to not agree with reviewers as well. I mean come on, if you are going to not watch a movie based on some random review in Utah, then you have bigger problems than you think.

I still believe though Kate Bosworth does not have the Lois Lane look or charisma, but I will hold judgment until I see this flick. It's funny he picks Spacey as Luthor, but picks Bosworth as Lois. It doesn't really jibe in my book. Although I can't say for sure who I would pick.

I still think Spacey had some pull in convincing Singer that Bosworth was good enough to play Lois Lane after she had starred in "Beyond The Sea" as Sandra Dee with him (Spacey).

another vote for mcadams as lois.

This glaring aspect everyone is talking about, does it have to do with:



FWIW, I think having Superman sacrifice his powers in part II was more likely to rub people the wrong way than this would.

Well, yes, since he was trading them for Margo Kidder.....Now had they cast Christie Brinkley, people might have felt different.

FWIW, I never really thought of Kidder's Lois Lane as being that great either. Seeing interviews with Kidder made me realize that she was more or less playing a variation on herself than anything else. In fact, I have yet to see any incarnation get her right, and it looks I still have to wait.

My choices would have been Sandra Bullock if they were going to have an older Superman, and of course Rachel McAdams for the direction they're taking. (Please fire Bosworth if a sequel comes about, I could forgive the inconsistency!)

Mcadams would have been perfect

That'd be fine - if it wasn't for the fact Singer can't decide if he wants this to be a sequel or not. This whole 'vague history' is nonsense in my opinion. Either make it a sequel or don't. Don't borrow from things and leave other thing sout.

You do realize that by quoting me you might have spoiled some of the movie don't you? Just saying that I used the tags so no one can berate me! My guess is that the whole parenthood issue is kept vague and never truly revealed.

If I am guessing correctly, then some of the Mallrats stuff must have come into play at some point!

I wouldn't mind Bosworth so much if it weren't for the fact that it seems as though Hollywood has tried to shove her down our throats, especially with that whole deal of putting her on the cover of EW a couple of years back and claiming how she was "legit." Bullcrap on that. She is a studio packaged starlet if one ever existed. While the long term success of this movie remains a mystery, it is obvious a lot of people will see it out of the gate, and they wanted her in a flick of that nature.

IMHO, yes, I believe so.

Funny you should mention this. When I saw Superman II in a theater, just as he is starting to step into the booth that will remove his powers, someone in the audience yells out, "Don't do it, Superman."

Ordinarily, this sort of audience behavior p.o.'s me (and many others I'm sure) no end, but it seemed appropriate for some reason and the audience just roared with approving laughter.

Probably because we thought the same thing. WTH was wrong with Superman that he could fall in love with someone who had all the intellectual appeal of a doorknob?

Margot Kidder was easy on the eyes, but beyond that there just wasn't much to Lois Lane. Of course this was not really her fault. An actor can only do so much with what they are given.

The Curt Swan drawn, pageboy-hairdo Lois Lane of the silver age comics had more character written into her (predating the women's lib movement, btw) in a typical 8 to 10 page story, than Kidder got in all the Superman movies.

Shame, too, as I think Kidder could have pulled off that type of Lois Lane.

Kidder's Lois was a lot more comic faithful than Bosworth's appears to me.

I really don't see what the big deal is about . True, it raises some questions, but if they are trying to build a franchise, then they need to plant the seeds for the other movies now (no pun intended).

I dont know about that.

Damn you both!!!!! I read the spoiler when it was quoted without tags even though I have been extra careful not to read ANYTHING about Superman Returns that is even remotely spoilerish...Oh well, what goes around comes around I guess. Karma for posting in a Lost thread after the Canadian air time but before the US...

MATT

Yes to your first question (if it was a question).



And I agree with your second comment.

Apparently, Ebert has given his verdict. Not sure how someone at the SuperheroHype boards found out but here's a little snippet:

Take that as you will indeed.

About.com brought it down to 86% on RT.