Articles | Forums | Polls | Quotes | Who's Online | Store
Signup | Lost Password
"If we are all part of god, and god is in all of us, then why am I not in you?" - dragonwing4d
Latest:Dawn

Fears with Aging
Main -> Media Reviews -> Movie Discussion and Reviews  | NewPosts

Top 8 reasons why Superman's Bryan Singer should be beaten

USER THREAD
SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

Top 8 reasons why Superman's Bryan Singer should be beaten [+ favourites]

**** SPOILERS











1. Permitting Kate Bosworth to speak, or occupy more than 15% of the screen in any given scene.
2. Superman's "odd" looking shoes (matched with equally odd close-ups of the shoes in particular, as if to stand by the insane choice to give Superman a sado-masochist "feel" )
3. Trying to stay "hip" by making Superman's kid look as much like one of the Hanson brothers as possible.
4. Attempting to distract the viewers from a lack of ingenuity from Kevin Spacey's premature Lex Luthor by focussing entirely too much on his bald head.
5. Re-using the glorious Superman theme, but shitting all over it by mixing it in with a movie that contains the line "I forgot how warm you are".
6. Unsuccessfully trying to mix in Marlon Brando's haunting Jor-El in a flat modern rehash of one of the not-so-good "saved by the bell" episodes.
7. Systematically shaming talented character actors such as James Marsden and Parkey Posey with a completely mechanical and soulless set of on screen characters.
8. And last, but not least, Bryan Singer's homage to his baby "House MD" by sharing with us a surprisingly comical scene (although not meant to be) where doctors are frantically trying to give Superman CPR.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

SITE ADMIN
1445 Posts / 90M
     :   30yrs   :  
Restless Mind

So you didnt think it was mindlest entertainign....as to which 99% of the viewing public is?

Did you enjoy anything about the movie?

I thought there was a number ....what the fuck is that for....and why did you point out his retard looking boots?


However I went into expecting a crap movie...thinking that the new superman looked.....homely/gay. I watched it wondering if they were going to stick to the original plot of superman and they did somwhat. That part I enjoyed.

As for Lois Lane...what a crack fucker she is. I did not like her at all. I found her to be too...career/job orientated. Kind of obnoxious actually. Teri Hatcher was a much hotter Lois Lane too.

anyhow.....7/10.


"My mind is tearing me apart, then it constructively puts me back together again."
[  Edited by Restless Mind at   ]

SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

You can't compare this to something like spiderman. Spiderman is a soulless movie made to make money. It's cast like shit, and you all know it going into it so those are good movies.

This, like star wars, has to be compared to the legacy (because that is why they are selling tickets).


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

SITE ADMIN
1445 Posts / 90M
     :   30yrs   :  
Restless Mind

Well...was there anything you did like about the movie? How about how stupis Lex's BizNatch was when you threw the crystals out of the heli-copter?

And the dog dood.....the dog was super-cute.


"My mind is tearing me apart, then it constructively puts me back together again."
[  Edited by Restless Mind at   ]

SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

Thing is, Ms. Tessmacher from the original was much better, and she played almost the identical position.

That's the thing... they copied everything and did all of it poorly.

The one thing I did not mind, surprisingly, was Superman himself. Brandon Routh was not bad, and actually played the dorky clark kent and superman duality pretty good. But he is too boyish... you didn't really look at him like a man.

Kevin Spacey was good, but they clearly did not give him enough time to develop the character: Lex Luthor is one of the reasons Superman is such a cool franchise.

The effects were good.

There is one thing the originals had that the new one doesn't: All the dillemas surrounding Superman weren't isolated incidents... somehow they all related to the overall storyline.

In superman one the earthquake helped him get freed because of Ms. Tessmacher (which also killed Lois Lane and then brought upon the first time Superman opposes the instructions of his father), etc.

In superman two the elevator that he chucks into space to save lois lane shatters the prison of the 3 villains. Then their arrival coincides with his decision to lose his powers, which then forces him to re-claim them.

Although superman three and four were less well thought out, they still had a more thorough storyline.

The main thing about this movie is that it is an immature movie made in the spirit of modernity. It has all the errors that modern movies do (such as the audience having to wait for the movie to progress to a point they already know is coming (such as the death of superman... did anyone actually think he'd stay dead?). A situation like that is completely wasted because the audience sits there and waits)

And people aren't any smarter now than they were in the 80s... the movies are just worse.

But comparatively, the new Star Wars movies were demonistic attrocities compared to the originals, whereas this was just a poor rendition of Superman.

One thing I must say I adored was the fact that they used the same method of doing the beginning credits as they did in all the originals. Classic. I got a gigantor erection for the first five minutes.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

ADMINISTRATOR
3000 Posts / 62M
     :   25yrs   :  
Wyote

Well, I pretty much agree with what all is being said here. Saw this a while back, and I will say that in general I didn't leave the theatre hating the movie but I was a bit sad and confused. It was a re-hash and a very plain one emotionally. I think Bryan lost some of his directorial flair while trying to fit all sorts of references to old Superman movies and shows. Instead of making his own movie he just tried to make some sort of shrine in movie form.

The effects were pretty good, but I really don't understand how they blew through $260 million. Must have done things the hard way.

Lex is bald!?


"I am Akba-Atatdia"
[  Edited by Wyote at   ]

4 Posts / 29M
     :   41yrs   :  
Khumbu

You actually liked Superman himself? The Superman who should have been depicted was the Alex Ross Superman, not the gay Superman (not that there is anything wrong with that). This was not Superman, it was some guy pretending to play superman.


4022 Posts / 51M
     :   31yrs   :  
Ironwood

Excerp: A fan went on to ask what Kevin Smith thought of “Superman Returns,” to which the director said, “I think it was nice that [director Bryan Singer] got to make the exact version of Superman he wanted to make, which apparently was Superman as Jesus. Anytime a director can get their exact vision on screen, I applaud that. I was all for it in that way. I just wished to Christ [Superman] would have punched something.”


"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

52 Posts / 56M
     :   20yrs   :  
Ambition

I'm a big fan of this movie - just to shake things up ; )

For starters, things weren't 'copyied' from the other superman movies - they were homaged, there's a difference. I don't think the fact you knew superman was going to live is a valid criticism - with this kind of movie you ALWAYS know the good guy is gonna win, does that make the genre pointless? Supermans condition was required to move the plot - he found out about his son. I don't believe Superman was supposed to BE christ its not pro christian in that way.Superman Returns was filled with Christ metaphores gives us an alternative to Christ, someone different for the human race to look to for inspiration without the controversy, and conflict that surrounds religion.

I thought all the performances were pretty great, especially the actor who played Jimmey - had me laughing very much aloud. Thought the whole film was... well, majestic is the word I'd use. Gloriously photographed and bringing a wonderful sense of nostalgia through the score and reminding audiences what they love about superman, man of steel, faster than a speeding bullet - all present and correct. Maybe it is a "shrine of a movie" but I don't see anything wrong with that personaly.

I'm Done : )


"Lifes battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man but in the end the man who wins is the man who thinks he can"

SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

I'm not flaming you as most people flame... I just think you're a tard. I judge people quite severely based on the movies they like because I believe it tells a lot about their standards.

This movie had clear glaring mistakes... it had clearly bad acting in certain moments and many scenes were accompanied by the audience waiting for the characters to catch up to what they already know.

So, if you like it for some "particular" reason, which is understandable, that doesn't negate it from being a horribly executed movie. I may like a lot of movies that are horrible, and that's fine. But to say it is majestic, or a shrine, or anything other than a film meant to entertain with little to no artistic content, is in error.

It's like seeing art in a coke can. It's a coke can, and is made the way it is made for clear psychologically manipulating ways. To like it as art because you aren't open to seeing the mechanics behind it is foolish.

You can only look at movies as art if they do not use tactics, and do not fail the audience. Superman did, because I was waiting for the story to evolve in numerous places. I was bored, in fact. And I wanted to like it.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

52 Posts / 56M
     :   20yrs   :  
Ambition

I do have standards! High ones, I'm a film maker myself. Obviously this isn't 'art' in the same way as more high brow movies. But this debate isn't over whether this movie belonged to art house cinema, and surely none of you expected it to fall into this category. You can't blame a hollywood movie for not being an art house flick thats like (to paraphrase a recent Empire magazine review) blaming a chocolate cake for not being a three course meal! I strongly believe superman returns is one of the best superhero movies ever made - incidently the critics at Empire would probably agree.

To right me off as not understanding the mechanics of filmmaking is nothing short of insulting and the production values of this film are very high - undeniably so, they speak for themselves. And yeah, there's art in a coke can to some extent - an artist will have designed it. Art is a creative medium which expresses an idea or feeling, just coz you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art - what my local amature dramatics society achieves is art for crying out loud.


"Lifes battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man but in the end the man who wins is the man who thinks he can"

SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

You wonnabee "filmakers" that create an aura of distinction about yourselves which makes you think you can somehow adequately judge art (or judge judgements of art) by the use of film categorization is sickening. Film is all art in one way or another. Even blockbuster money making movies are an art form... they are the art form of generating cash.

Your perspective is so stupid! You think when i say art I mean "art house cinema" because your understanding is limited to the universe around you! You're a filmaker? If you hold onto the categorizations and conform to the stereotype of being a "filmaker" (which I'm 100% you have and do) your "films" will be nothing more than rehashes of other people's shit.

Bryan Singer is transparent and soulless... He does not have the capacity to create art. Not yet anyways. If you think his creations are "shrines" you've been had.

But this is pointless. I'm not criticising you... I'm criticising all the people around you who decided its cool and artsy to like Superman.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

52 Posts / 56M
     :   20yrs   :  
Ambition

I said his movie is a shrine to superman in relation to a previous comment. I don't think it is a shrine in and of itself. How are you not criticising me when you say I'm a "wannabe film maker" without having seen any of my films or indeed knowing anything about me - would you mind not making this personal? Thanks.

I feel that I can judge art just as well as any other artist - I'm doing a degree in English Literature, performed in many a shakespere, written and directed many a film. All to great success, who are you to say I can't jude art? When you clearly think you can?


"Lifes battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man but in the end the man who wins is the man who thinks he can"

52 Posts / 56M
     :   20yrs   :  
Ambition

Just if anyone's interested this is Empires review - plese don't slate me for 'siding with the critics' I appreciate some people simply believe what the critics tell them - I'm not one of those but in this particular case I happen to agree




With the inspired appropriation of John Williams’ majestic 1978 theme music raising acres of gooseflesh, Superman flies again, bringing mankind what Marlon Brando’s Jor-El called "the light to show the way". Like the flag-waving hero of Richard Donner’s Superman movies, the boy from Krypton comes bathed in nostalgia, reverence and oodles of religious symbolism. The result is that most beatific of superhero’s most magnificent screen incarnation yet.

Bryan Singer is a besotted man, with a determination that Superman belongs to the movies. Amongst the visual razzmatazz, those dreamy effects and gilded edges, he references Casablanca, Close Encounters, Citizen Kane and Titanic, films in the widest possible sense. If Steven Spielberg were to have made a Superman movie, it would surely have this sense of wonder, exaltation and romance.

The story loosely follows on from Superman II, with Lois Lane’s memory of his true identity wiped by a kiss. Singer stays fully in touch with the heartache that murmurs beneath that iconic blue suit — the idea that our hero’s divine nature acts as a barrier to love. Clark’s unrequited love for Lois and her crush on Superman are the soul of the story, far more central, say, than the mind-blowing action sequences clamouring for your attention. This may confound those just looking for a regular can of fizzy action juice, but will taste like fine wine to the growing legion of Singer fans who admire his dedication to adding emotional weight to summer thrills. The news that Lois is the mother of a five year-old boy and engaged to newcomer Richard White (James Marsden) sends the Man Of Steel into meltdown, the unfolding emotional conflict steering the movie. While such sentimental concerns could become cloying, Singer, as with his X-Mens, finds the perfect middle way to explore the conflict within his characters.

Kate Bosworth brings an eager intensity to the star reporter; even though she lacks the world-weary wryness of Margot Kidder, she fully evokes Lane’s conflict and tough exterior. But the greatest victory is Brandon Routh. The resemblance between Routh and Christopher Reeve is uncanny (when he first turns around as Clark Kent, you’d swear it was 1978) and, while proving every bit as wholesomely heroic, Routh even adds his own melancholic touch.

Singer has built a larger, worldwide arena here: Superman traverses the globe, not just the US, in his fight for "truth and justice…" (references to the "American way" are conspicuously absent), and consequently Spacey’s eloquent Lex Luthor is a further-thinking and far crueller customer than Gene Hackman’s. His diabolic and rather complicated masterplan is inevitably fuelled by shards of that dreaded green kryptonite, while Parker Posey’s moll makes delightfully dimwitted fun of his megalomania.

And such dastardly deeds do, naturally, furnish the movie with a series of breathtaking action sequences. While symbolically carrying the world on his shoulders, he literally carries continents across his broad back. More than that, though, Singer realises it isn’t enough to believe a man can fly; these are flights
of emotional expression, exhilarating in their sense of freedom set against rapturous skylines. Indeed, the film floats in a preposterous, magical America
forever bathed in golden light. Singer has reinvigorated an American icon, with a film that sits happily in the upper tiers of Superman’s grand pantheon.


"Lifes battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man but in the end the man who wins is the man who thinks he can"

SITE ADMIN
2866 Posts / 94M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

Well... now that you have posted your credentials, I stand corrected. You are well capable of judging good art from bad art. And further, this review is very reasonable. It's intellectualism and unbiased reviewing is summarized in the simple observation that it uses lots of big complicated words.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Top 8 reasons why Superman's Bryan Singer should be beaten
A1F1T0T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16