Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

SUPERMAN was really awful.

Saw it today. Wanted to love it. It was stupid, self important and too much stupid, senseless Krypton plot. It also lacked any humour.

The only redeeming part of the movie was the gorgeous Henry Cavill. He is stunning. Totally hot in his shirtless and non-shirtless scenes.

One of the worst scene was when Clark goes to a priest and is discussing his purpose - the shot of him had a stained glass window in the background with a sunlit Jesus.

It was so corny and was down without any irony.

I didn't think they could make a worse movie than the last Superman.

What did you think? What were the best or worst scenes?

by Anonymousreply 18807/25/2013

Can't wait to see the scenes where he isn't non-shirtless!

by Anonymousreply 106/15/2013

OP, perhaps Oprah and Terrence Howard's upcoming film, "The Butler" is more your speed.

by Anonymousreply 206/15/2013

If you thought Superman Returns was awful, you're as dumb as the typos in your post.

by Anonymousreply 406/15/2013

Yep, it sucked. This is the third Henry Cavill movie I've seen and in all of them he cannot act for shit. I will not watch anymore movies with him as a lead.

by Anonymousreply 506/15/2013

There's a Superman troll among us. Seems like there are 5 or 6 different Superman posts floating around. Personally I think it looks awful. Why do they make all movie superhero costumes all look like textured meshy leather now? It's getting ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 606/15/2013

It really really was awful, at least returns had heart, man of steel is basically a 2 1/2 hour explosion.

by Anonymousreply 706/15/2013

Jesus.

When will Hollywood learn that you can't mix Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan.

by Anonymousreply 806/15/2013

Why don't "real" Superman fans like the Christopher Reeve version? He was so handsome, quirky and funny in those movies.

by Anonymousreply 906/15/2013

I completely agree with you on the humour front, this movie could have sorely used some more.

I don't want to seem like a Whedon fan boyl, but i'm excited he's entered the world of making superhero films, because balancing humor and drama, while still making the stakes seem high, is something he does best.

Even Favreau would have done better.

Zachary Snyder also ruined Watchmen.

by Anonymousreply 1006/15/2013

His acting was fine. The movie was well done, exciting, and interesting.

No, it wasn't a comedy. There were a few smiles in there though... it wasn't COMPLETELY clacking in humor. But yes, it's of the more "dark, gritty, realistic" sort of comic book hero movie that seems to be the in thing of late.

Over-all, I enjoyed it, and I'd totally see it again.

It wasn't nearly as stupid as the Star Trek movie.

by Anonymousreply 1106/15/2013

"clacking"? heh. That should be "lacking" obviously.

by Anonymousreply 1206/15/2013

[quote]When will Hollywood learn that you can't mix Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan.

Better yet, when will Hollywood learn Cavill can't act for shit?

by Anonymousreply 1306/15/2013

Cavill looks a bit like FRATMEN model Trent.

by Anonymousreply 1406/15/2013

You could replace cavil with a plank of wood and you could barely tell the difference.

by Anonymousreply 1506/15/2013

The only thing I've seen Cavill in is The Tudors and I never paid much attention to him. He was always very stoic, very bland, pretty to look at and perfect for that kind of show.

When I heard he was playing Superman I figured he must have fucked someone hard to get it.

Hope it was worth it.

by Anonymousreply 1606/15/2013

[quote]You could replace cavil with a plank of wood and you could barely tell the difference.

Cavill is like Bernie in "Weekend at Bernies" - they just prop him up and shuffle him around and he's just "there".

by Anonymousreply 1706/15/2013

Yup, cavill should've been a model instead.

by Anonymousreply 1806/15/2013

What was the overall response by critics to Cavill's performance? Their like or dislike of the film aside, did they mostly say good things about him or bad?

by Anonymousreply 1906/15/2013

The complaints about Cavill are most of the same that were said about Brandon Routh.

The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?

by Anonymousreply 2006/15/2013

[quote]The complaints about Cavill are most of the same that were said about Brandon Routh.

And where is Brandon Routh today? *crickets*

And this isn't just about Superman - people mention Cavill's bad acting in ALL his movies, especially his last movie "Cold Light of Flop".

by Anonymousreply 2106/15/2013

[quote[The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?

This.

Superman is a boring character, but even if he was interesting, Cavill would make him boring.

by Anonymousreply 2206/15/2013

Why the hell did they have to go back to the beginning again? The first with Brando and Reeves was a wonderful film. As much as a pain in the ass as Brando was during production, his scenes work. Why couldn't they have just done a new original Superman adventure.

by Anonymousreply 2306/15/2013

Captain America was a great movie experience about a "good" superhero. It can be done.

The Avengers also made good use of Cap's innate goodness by pitting him against Iron Man's selfishness.

The conflict in the next Captain America movie is similar to Superman's internal struggle, that of the outsider in a strange place- "The Man Out of Time".

by Anonymousreply 2406/15/2013

R20 Obviously you haven't seen it because he kills someone in this movie & we see both his struggle before and the anguish afterwards

As far as internal struggle goes, that's why many people hate this movie because this version of "Superman" is mostly about his internal struggle and self doubt

His "feeling out of place" and coming to terms with who he is, finding meaning or a purpose to his existence.

In many ways its a metaphor for all of us, or at least many of us who've ever felt alone or isolated , anone who never felt like they "fit in"

Personally I think it's Snyder's best movie to date. It's a much more restrained or mature movie than his earlier work. (Though that's not much of a stretch)

That's not to say he doesn't go a little crazy with the special effects, but this is "his" interpretation of how we would experience Superman in the real world.

I think it's a thoutful film, especially the flashbacks with his earth mum, and pa.

It's not all Cavill, there are touching scenes with Diane lane, and the other kids who play superman in his youth

The movie may not be for everyone, many older people feel they hate this interpretation because they are so fond of the Christopher reeve or older versions.

It's funny, Returns was trashed because there wasn't enough action, and it was too much of a love story between Supes & Lois.

Snyder's interpretation is being trashed because there's "not enough romance or story", and "too much action". Too serious, not enough jokes...etc.

All ridiculous in my opinion. Those who have been looking forward to this will likely love it, as I did, and those who are skeptical appear to be leaning towards the fashionable trend of insulting the movie for one reason of another.

I thought Cavill was pretty decent in immortals, though I was nervous about his ability to pull off such an iconic role. Thankfully (IMO) he played the role exceptionally well. Remember, he has to play the version of Supes that aligns with Zach's vision, and he was a natural fit for that.

Saying he could be replaced by a plank of wood is unjustly harsh. Especially since many or most of you haven't even seen the film.

If you hate the film so much hey, to each his own. Maybe it's just not your speed.

by Anonymousreply 2506/15/2013

Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!

And, honestly, Brandon "WEHT?" Routh was better in the last movie

by Anonymousreply 2706/16/2013

I've posted before what I know about it from people I KNOW, who work at the studio.

As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.

I haven't seen it, but am curious. I hate that it's the same old story AGAIN.

by Anonymousreply 2806/16/2013

Why is Superman killing people in this movie? The one thing that separates Superman is that he doesn't kill.

by Anonymousreply 2906/16/2013

Because they want to have another Batman franchise.

by Anonymousreply 3006/16/2013

R27 You better believe Matt could've done a better job, and yes, even Routh did better. I hope they don't use Cavill for the next movie and start from scratch again. Very poor choice.

by Anonymousreply 3106/16/2013

Shut up, stupid ass!

by Anonymousreply 3206/16/2013

Blame the director for the cheesiness. He's the one who included a cringe-inducing love scene set to Hallelujah in Watchmen.

by Anonymousreply 3306/16/2013

What we need is a Superman origin story, because, frankly, I don't understand where he came from.

by Anonymousreply 3406/16/2013

Superman will never have a successful modern day adaptation because the public is too jaded and our tastes are now more in tune with sarcasm and irony than anything that smacks of earnest and what is Superman if not the epitome of earnest?

Bottom line: Superman is too corny to work today.

by Anonymousreply 3506/16/2013

Batman is the angsty one. Superman is the boy scout. Isn't that Comic Book 101?

by Anonymousreply 3606/16/2013

[quote]As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.

Uh ... But that's always the case with Superman. By the time of the original TV series, the kids who read his comics in 1938. By the time the Christopher Reeve series came out, the kids who followed him in the "Silver Age" were grown up,

The REAL goal was to make the new Superman dark, psychological, and violent like Nolan did with Batman. They succeeded in that, but in the process lost the "super" and wonder from the series.

by Anonymousreply 3706/16/2013

I just saw it. It was fine. Cavill is stunning but bland. But that's also Supermab. Stunning, bland. I'd fuck the hell out of him, then ask him to leave.

My problem was that it was just too damn expository. I love back story, but it was a bit ridiculous in this film. It never really ended. And there were odd continuity problems. Like, how did Clark get his job on the Arctic project? He was hitchhiking one scene and was helping Lois off the helicopter in the next. Odd.

I loved the parents. Lane, Costner, Crowe and whoever played Laura were wonderful. And I like Amy Adams.

But it was a good summer flick. Though, how Superman ended up killing Zod made me think: All of Metropolis had to be destroyed for THAT?

by Anonymousreply 3906/16/2013

Did it involve ridiculously exaggerated gestures for the benefit of 5-D viewers?

by Anonymousreply 4006/16/2013

Brandon, isn't it time to get off of DL and go to bed?

No one cares about you anymore.

by Anonymousreply 4106/16/2013

[quote]And where is Brandon Routh today? *crickets*

Posting thread after thread here on DL about how Man of Steel is a "bomb" and Cavill is not a good actor.

by Anonymousreply 4206/16/2013

Brandon Routh is starring in Partners as a gay.

by Anonymousreply 4306/16/2013

[quote]Cavill looks a bit like FRATMEN model Trent.

There's a rumor Henry Cavill did Fratmen or Sean Cody before he made it big but it wasn't under the name Henry. Maybe it was Trent.

by Anonymousreply 4406/16/2013

[quote] Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill.

Superman does kill in this movie. He killed thousands of people with his collateral damage.

by Anonymousreply 4506/16/2013

Not to mention he brought Zod to Earth in the first place because he stupidly sent out a distress signal so he was responsible for everything. The blood of every life lost is on his hands.

by Anonymousreply 4606/16/2013

They made Lois too stupid in this. How could she not recognize Clark as Superman in the end? "Nice to meet you?" Uh, you've met before, you ditz. Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, my ass.

by Anonymousreply 4706/16/2013

R29 Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals in Superman 2.

by Anonymousreply 4806/16/2013

Just watched it. It was okay, a bit ridiculous with the destruction of a whole city. I liked the high tech stuff. Interesting they chose to have Lois Lane know that Clark Kent and Superman is the same person.

by Anonymousreply 4906/16/2013

Call me crazy, but I actually liked Brandon Routh's Superman more. At least his Superman had heart and charisma. Yes, Superman Returns certainly had its problems, but none of it was his fault. All reviews actually said that Routh's performance was good, despite the movie itself lacking things.

Henry Cavill's Superman on the other hand is boring and bland. He made no presence, it's like he was completely dead when he took on the cape. Say what you want about Brandon Routh, but he certainly had a presence when he wore the cape. He felt, and looked, more like Superman than Cavill ever will.

I don't get the choice of Cavill, it was as stupid back then as it is now. He doesn't look like Superman, and his acting is awful. And please.. I've seen a few movies with Cavill, outside of Superman, and his acting sucked in all of them. Hell.. Brandon Routh is a better actor than Cavill, which says a lot. Brandon Routh always felt like he WAS Superman. Cavill just felt like a dude with a cape. There's a notable difference. What's even more funny was that the fanboys defended the decision to give to role to Cavill. One of the main reasons they said was that he's a good actor, and better than Brandon Routh. LOL forever. They were certainly mistaken about that. Henry Cavill is good to look at, but he doesn't have an ounce of charisma or presence in any of the movies he's been in. He's completely dead.. a seriously wooden actor.

I agree that Henry must have fucked somebody powerful to get the part.. hell, maybe he's not gay after all, maybe he's just like any other actor out there.. ambitious and willing to fuck anyone to get there (whether male or female).

I wonder how well Brandon Routh would have done if he got to play Superman instead of Cavill in this movie.. my guess is that the movie would have been better.

by Anonymousreply 5206/16/2013

Great movie. I loved it!!!

by Anonymousreply 5306/16/2013

I like it!

by Anonymousreply 5406/16/2013

When he had him on the show this weekend Graham Norton kept calling him by his school nickname: "Fat Cavill". Apparently he was a junior porker. No wonder he comes across as emotionally shut down.

by Anonymousreply 5506/16/2013

I'm shocked by the positive comments on this thread. I thought gay men prided themselves on their good taste, or has Datalounge been invaded by publicists and teenaged fanboys? I see a lot of movies and the new Superman movie is by far the worst one I've seen this year. Criticizing the acting in a movie this bad is totally beside the point.

by Anonymousreply 5606/16/2013

I'm obsessed with r50 and his exposition of his film renting habits.

by Anonymousreply 5706/16/2013

[quote]There's a rumor Henry Cavill did Fratmen or Sean Cody before he made it big but it wasn't under the name Henry. Maybe it was Trent.

Really now? You don't think that the owners of Fratmen or Sean Cody would take advatange that they have nude pictures of the star of the biggest motion picture this week? Now, tell me the studio paid them off, even though pictures on the web never go away. It's a stupid thing to even repeat.

by Anonymousreply 5806/16/2013

Well you knew going into it that Cavill was no great thespian, thus the need to surround him by an incredible supporting cast. Sure, Chris Reeve nailed it, but then again his Superman wasn't all that complex either. If you make him TOO dark and jaded then you've altered the character too much. And to those that said that Brandon Routh did a better job - if by "better job" you mean to simply mimic Reeve's performance even down to facial gestures, then yeah.

by Anonymousreply 5906/16/2013

R56 Thanks. Henry's acting was the least of the film's problems.

To quote Little Sally from Urinetown: too much exposition.

And what was General Zod's motivation? Why did he start shooting people in the first scene? Who is he? Why should we care?

Amy Adam's was awful too.

by Anonymousreply 6006/16/2013

^ I think the perma-bad hair day and lisp make a grumpy Kryptonian.

by Anonymousreply 6106/16/2013

Jeez, you know your a bad actor when you're a hot (male) piece and even DL won't give your a pass.

by Anonymousreply 6206/16/2013

R52 = Brandon Routh who just can't let the 1978 Donner vision go

by Anonymousreply 6306/16/2013

Amy Adams would make a great Lana Lang. She is not Lois Lane material. It's as much of a miscast as Kate Bosworth. Jennifer Lawrence would have been perfect for the role.

by Anonymousreply 6406/16/2013

Amy Adam's what?

by Anonymousreply 6506/16/2013

[Uh ... But that's always the case with Superman. By the time of the original TV series, the kids who read his comics in 1938. By the time the Christopher Reeve series came out, the kids who followed him in the "Silver Age" were grown up]

Yes [r37] but the 70's Superman was marketed to children, specifically. A saturday afternoon popcorn movie. Warners didn't market this version to kids. The targeted fanboys, teens and adults who love the character and want a darker story.

by Anonymousreply 6606/16/2013

[quote]As I said before, the intention was to do a more grown up version of the story because the people who grew up with Superman are now grown up.

No, it wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 6706/16/2013

[quote]Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill.

Batman doesn't kill either, nor uses guns.

r56 is insufferable.

by Anonymousreply 6806/16/2013

[quote]Why the hell did they have to go back to the beginning again? The first with Brando and Reeves was a wonderful film.

Honey, that was ten billion years ago. This is Superman for a new generation. Nolan's realistic, gritty take is what sells now.

by Anonymousreply 6906/16/2013

[quote]Why don't "real" Superman fans like the Christopher Reeve version? He was so handsome, quirky and funny in those movies.

"Real" Superman fans decide if a film is good depending on how true it stayed to the source material, not by which guy was prettier, dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 7006/16/2013

[r67] I stood and talked nolan about it two years ago, dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 7106/16/2013

[quote]And what was General Zod's motivation? Why did he start shooting people in the first scene?

His parents were narcissistic smucks who should never attempted to raise a child.

by Anonymousreply 7206/16/2013

To the people who loved it, is it only because you want Cavill to fuck you bareback and shoot in your face while his hairy English balls are resting on your chin and his beefy fingers are up your hole and you can smell the musk of his taint? Go ahead, be honest. We're all friends here.

by Anonymousreply 7306/16/2013

“It beat all expectations,” a Warner Bros executive tells me. “Interesting note that Superman’s Saturday gross is double the next ranking Top 4 films added together. That’s really dominating the marketplace.” Estimates now for the 3-day weekend are $112.7M and the 4-day opening cume is $125M including those Thursday 7 PM Wal-Mart shows. As for Sunday, “always an upside to consider with a huge Father’s Day result,” the exec tells me. Saturday’s number followed very strong matinees – the same as opening day at $15.5M. Sunday also will bring an updated international figure which currently stands at $25.9M.

by Anonymousreply 7406/16/2013

The problem with Superman Returns is that it was too much like the Reeve Superman films. In addition, Routh was basically doing a Reeve impersonation. Spacey channeling just enough of Hackman to not make the role his own.

I think in the case of MOS, Warners decided to go the Batman Begins route and start from point zero.To be honest, as good as the first two Reeve Superman films were those movies were made in the late 70s. MOS is not perfect by any means but compared to the absolutely puerile comic booky films I've seen lately(including super hero and non superhero films) it wasn't that bad.

by Anonymousreply 7506/16/2013

That's what they were going for R75. They wanted Superman Returns to be a continuation of the 70s movies. I think that was Singer's biggest mistake. The best thing about Singer's movie was Brandon Routh. He was Superman. Cavill, not so much.

by Anonymousreply 7606/16/2013

^Brandon Routh

by Anonymousreply 7706/16/2013

To whoever wondered how Lois didn't recognize Clark at the end, you obviously missed the point. Of course she knew it was him. She was pretending not to know him to protect his secret identity.

by Anonymousreply 7806/16/2013

I'm sorry, but even if you absolutely hate the new film and Cavill right along with it, I can't understand how anyone could possible feel that Brandon Routh did a good job in Singer's movie. The only thing good about "Superman Returns" was Eva Marie Saint and Parker Posey. Everything and everyone else in that film was simply horrible.

by Anonymousreply 7906/16/2013

Not Brandon Routh r79. He was perfection.

by Anonymousreply 8006/16/2013

What about when they froze the criminals and sent them up to the sky in giant dildo shaped vehicles? The whole theater laughed at that.

by Anonymousreply 8106/16/2013

[quote]Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!

Please. Bomer can't even defend himself from his slap-happy husband. Who's going to buy him defending the people of Earth from General Zod?

by Anonymousreply 8206/16/2013

[quote]Matt Bomer would have done a better job than Henry Cavill!

Brandon Routh would have been even better!

by Anonymousreply 8306/16/2013

Parkey Posey was much too old to play a moll.

Routh was good as Clark Kent.

by Anonymousreply 8406/16/2013

Can someone tell me if I am wrong but the dark and gritty mood worked for Batman but shouldn't Superman be different? A little brighter, I'm not talkin sunshine and happiness but the dark and gritty setting should not be for Superman. That's part of the difference between these two characters for me. Superman is the "ideal" while Batman is the more down to reality" kinda thing. And that Lois Lane with her reddish/brown hair just doesnt work for me when I saw the previews.

by Anonymousreply 8506/16/2013

[quote]Routh was good as Clark Kent.

From your lips to God's ears.

by Anonymousreply 8606/16/2013

so r84 where were you when EVERYBODY were saying Routh sucked ass and was bad casting for the Superman movie? Where were all of you Superman Returns apologists then?

by Anonymousreply 8706/16/2013

I think there was a good movie somewhere in there wrapped up in all of the explosions and noise. Superman's struggle has always been about where he belongs and where he fits in. He can't ever really be himself because he could lay waste to the entire planet.

by Anonymousreply 8806/16/2013

Why not just put Tom Welling back in the role? He doesn't have anything else to do and he already has the role identification.

by Anonymousreply 8906/16/2013

"Estimates now for the 3-day weekend are $112.7M and the 4-day opening cume is $125M including those Thursday 7 PM Wal-Mart shows"

Ugh, the sheeple will see anything. Hollywood, stop it with the comic book "reboots"

by Anonymousreply 9006/16/2013

The 70s Superman movies are kind of over-rated, IMHO. They're campy, silly, and very VERY dated.

by Anonymousreply 9106/16/2013

Reeve did a good job with the role of Superman. He had a range of emotion and did all of them well. Even though the movie is campy and too silly in parts the first two Reeve movies work because I believe he is human along with being a super. It is his humanity that shines in the those versions. Also Kidder really was a fun Lois to watch. Adams didn't do a thing for that role.

Cavill is a bad actor. Most of the acting was bad in this new version. Also all the explosions just got to be boring after a while.

One thing Donner wanted to accomplish when he made his version is "you'll believe a man can fly." There is some realism in his versions that gave the visual some depth. This new version was not great to look at in spite of all the innovation in CGI. People need to start back at square one when it comes to understanding great looking films and great films in general.

by Anonymousreply 9206/16/2013

[quote]Cavill is a bad actor.

People keep saying this. I saw no evidence of it in Man of Steel. His acting was fine. He played the role very well. I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you were really wanting from him, when you say stuff like this. Honestly, I'm utterly clueless how you think he could have done better.

I thought most of the acting was GREAT in this new version. Again, no idea what you're talking about. They all inhabited their characters and made them believable.

The new version is GREAT to look at, it's stunning, and the flight is far more believable than the Donner versions.

Again, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 9306/16/2013

I saw it and really liked it. But, to be honest, Cavill didn't really have to act much, so it's hard to tell what his talents really are. The role was limited in terms of character development and Crowe had a lot more meat to work with.

But I thought it was a very good movie.

by Anonymousreply 9406/16/2013

The movie was bad. And Cavil did not really have much scope for histrionics. He did fine. I do want to suck his uncut British cock though...

by Anonymousreply 9506/16/2013

CGI has made directors and actors lazy. The way a movie looks trumps the story now. Cavill is beautiful to look at, but he's no Reeve or Routh. Hell, he's no Welling.

by Anonymousreply 9606/16/2013

I don't know why people keep yapping on about Christopher Reeve. He was no Lawrence Olivier and the role was always shit.

by Anonymousreply 9706/16/2013

Can we stop saying that any Routh-positive post was written by Routh himself? They make up at least 10% of this thread. No one knows how to run a joke into the ground like DL.

by Anonymousreply 9806/16/2013

"Most of the acting was bad in this new version."

That's because scripts and direction nowadays are focused on GGI, which as others have already pointed out, is completely overused and not as realistic looking as some pretend it is.

The Nolan fanboys are having meltdowns on the IMDB message boards because the world isn't falling at his feet this time.

by Anonymousreply 9906/16/2013

[quote]Brandon Routh is starring in Partners as a gay.

It was canceled after just a few episodes.

by Anonymousreply 10006/16/2013

What I hated was the dragged out plot so they can make umpteen sequels.....How can you have a superman story without lex luthor? Unless that scientist is going to turn out to be lex...and they had construction sites with the banner "Lexcorp" Uhhh shouldnlt it be the last name "Luthorcorp" and not the firdt name "Lex"

*HATE the dark Instagram lens that Zack Snyder uses..give me some color and brightness...Amy Adams yick did not care for her in this, the actor playing Jimmy is as old as the hills, Laurence Fish needs to hang it up he is so unwatchable now and boring.

* Diane Lane as a frump? Why? What an insult to the people in Kansas that they are all rubes and frumps. Kevin Costner relegated to wack-offs from masseuses and old man character-parts..

Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.

The best part of the movie was when General Zod made the statement "My sole purpose is to protect my people..and now I have no people" I chuckled a bit there...

by Anonymousreply 10106/16/2013

Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60.

Just sayin'.

by Anonymousreply 10206/16/2013

[quote]Can someone tell me if I am wrong but the dark and gritty mood worked for Batman but shouldn't Superman be different? A little brighter, I'm not talkin sunshine and happiness but the dark and gritty setting should not be for Superman.

With 75 years worth of story there's been many interpretations of Superman and he's been gritty in a few. But even some fans see those stories as anomolies. Batman was forged in darkness (the death of his parents) with Superman forged in light (his parents sending him off in hopes for a better future) and Man of Steel was somewhat hard for me to enjoy because there was no joy or hopefulness. But I'm hoping the sequel can encompass that Superman trait.

[quote]and the flight is far more believable than the Donner versions.

Effects are more advanced now.

I think they spent too much time with the destruction of Krypton. I think they did it to cement his alien-ness but it's not worth it when you have to sacrifice actual characterization or on-screen relationships. I'd rather seen more scenes with the Kents than Krypton.

[quote]The 70s Superman movies are kind of over-rated, IMHO. They're campy, silly, and very VERY dated.

I'll give you that. It does need an update but the one thing Superman 1 and 2 have (and I've not seen 3 and 4 in some time so I can't speak on it) that "Superman Returns" and "Man of Steel" doesn't is great relationships amongst the characters and heart. People can say that Superman is too goody-goody for today's audience and that he's an outdated character but I don't think great characterization and heart goes out of style. "Man of Steel" was too fixated on showing audiences what Superman can do (the fight scenes were pretty great despite being too long) versus who he is and what he's about. And they should've left the Lois/Clark budding romance on the cutting room floor.

by Anonymousreply 10306/16/2013

Love it or hate it , this movie is doing extremely well at the boxoffice

by Anonymousreply 10406/16/2013

[quote].How can you have a superman story without lex luthor?

Films rely on Luthor too much. Superman has a big rogues gallery to pick from. Also it's an unfair fight. Superman can kill Luthor with one punch. Though Luthor can always use kryptonite to take down Superman kryptonite is too overused. They need to use a villian who is of equel strenght like Darkseid.

quote]and they had construction sites with the banner "Lexcorp" Uhhh shouldnlt it be the last name "Luthorcorp" and not the firdt name "Lex"

LuthorCorp was used in Smallville. The comics always use LexCorp.

[quote] the actor playing Jimmy is as old as the hills,

There wasn't a Jimmy in this film. Lois coworker was Steve Lombard. There was a Jenny, but no Jimmy.

[quote]Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.

I agree.

by Anonymousreply 10606/16/2013

It WAS. 2 and a half hours of nothing more than explosions and boring exposition - over and over for 2.5 hours.

The 3D was nothing special either. The leads weren't bad but they weren't given anything to do or say but to look and react to "things blowing up real good!"

by Anonymousreply 10706/16/2013

"Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60."

He's definitely closer to 60 than 46.

"People keep saying this. I saw no evidence of it in Man of Steel. His acting was fine. He played the role very well. I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you were really wanting from him, when you say stuff like this. Honestly, I'm utterly clueless how you think he could have done better."

Funny how some people here don't even TRY to be objective when it comes to rating the talent of dreamy (but far from gifted) actors. There are still people here who insist that Keanu Reeves is some sort of Olivier-level genius

by Anonymousreply 10806/16/2013

[quote]"Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60." ... He's definitely closer to 60 than 46.

He was a farmer. It's a tough life, it ages you.

by Anonymousreply 11006/16/2013

Making a lot of money on the first weekend or overall doesn't mean it was good, unless you think the Transformers are good movies. I wanted to like it and didn't and the people I saw it with felt the same way.

I don't begrudge Cavill his success, plenty of mediocre actors have found success in Hollywood. Honestly the real problems with the movie have little do with him, the crafting of the movie was o and there was little effort put into telling a compelling story about good characters

Good superhero movies manage to do that and not just rely on a bunch of CGI.explosions.

by Anonymousreply 11306/16/2013

[quote]Kevin Costner's character, according to the tombstone, was 46 when he died. He looked about 60.

That's an actor's vanity for you. Costner is 58 and looks it.

by Anonymousreply 11406/16/2013

R105 They were talking about a Woman Woman TV series for the CW. This was after the failed NBC pilot mind you. There's further talk that Aquaman and Woman Woman will become films spinning off of the Justice League film. Warners/DC should get someone like a Joss Whedon to do it instead of their usual suspects.

by Anonymousreply 11506/17/2013

Joss is busy with The Avengers 2.

"Man of Steel 2" is being fast tracked, and will likely come out as early as 2015.

They're talking about trying to get a Wonder Woman movie made in the same time, but I don't see how that can happen that quickly.

They're also talking about rebooting Batman (again) in 2016, and the possibility of each of these characters having cameos in each other's movies, leading up to Justice League in 2018.

by Anonymousreply 11606/17/2013

Brandon Routh was fine. Not the best Superman, we all know who that was, but he did the best with what he got for the part. He got a raw deal from the media. They all figured out how he supposedly got the part so their mission was to shoot him down and they pretty much succeeded because he is now relegated to playing tv roles.

by Anonymousreply 11706/17/2013

I'm happy to have a potential Wonder Women/Justice League movie but I hope they don't look at Man of Steel as the template for bow DC movies should be.

They should look at the very fair complaints many critics had and address them in future productions.

by Anonymousreply 11806/17/2013

Snyder and Nolan created a particular rendition of Superman. They were not gonna create some 1960s/ 70s campy, corny Superman. As such, they made their casting decisions with their vision in mind. Cavill was cast to embody that vision. And he did a great job of it.

by Anonymousreply 11906/17/2013

I wish we could put to rest the rumors of Brandon Routh fucking Bryan Singer to get the part. Anyone with any knowledge of Singer knows that Routh is not his type and was way too old at the time for Singer.

by Anonymousreply 12006/17/2013

R117, thanks for clearing things up...Brandon.

by Anonymousreply 12106/17/2013

Sean Cody's Brandon for the next Superman!

by Anonymousreply 12206/17/2013

Brandon's reputation on OLTL not the best.

by Anonymousreply 12306/17/2013

[quote]Brandon Routh was fine. Not the best Superman, we all know who that was, but he did the best with what he got for the part. He got a raw deal from the media. They all figured out how he supposedly got the part so their mission was to shoot him down and they pretty much succeeded because he is now relegated to playing tv roles.

Umm.. no. The media, critics.. all seemed to like Routh. They even said Routh's Superman was one of the few things in the movie that they got right. I didn't even think the movie was that bad.. I loved it. But I can see why it people didn't like it.. it was far from perfect, sloppy writing and convoluted plots. That said.. none of it was Routh's fault. He did the best he could with what he got. The material wasn't exactly top notch.

Whatever.. Routh made a better Superman than Cavill ever will. Cavill is just a man in a cape. Routh embodied Superman. It was just so right. Cavill on the other hand.. not so much.

by Anonymousreply 12406/17/2013

[quote]Routh made a better Superman than Cavill ever will.

While I agree with your praise of Routh's Superman, I completely disagree with the above statement. Cavill was perfectly fine. I honestly don't get the criticism leveled at him. He was very good. He really felt like an "alien", trying to find his way on Earth, scared of being rejected, traumatized by the death of his earth-Father.

I can't imagine what he could have done differently, given the material, that would have been any better.

by Anonymousreply 12506/17/2013

That's right, R124/Brandon!

You tell 'em!

by Anonymousreply 12606/17/2013

Brandon Routh deserved a fucking Oscar for his Superman!

Fuck "Fat" Cavill!!!

by Anonymousreply 12706/17/2013

The young actors who are hired to play superheroes--Ryan Reynolds, Henry Cavill, Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, etc.--always look stiff and uncomfortable in their beefcake bods. No wonder the performances they give in these films are rarely any good--and not worthy of serious discussion.

by Anonymousreply 12806/17/2013

You really thought his cry of anguish after killing Zod was great? When he tried to sound authoritative and give orders to the military it actually carried any weight? Cavill came out without looking too bad but it is very clear he isn't that good of an actor.

They didn't even give him that much to do because clearl didn't hire him to show off his stuff a la Downey for Iron Man.

He has a great look and he comes across rootable and as a good guy so he works, similar to Tom Welling for Smallville. Not a knock on Cavill, but just how I see it. Just was hoping a new franchise would have someone who would really breathe new life into the character.

by Anonymousreply 12906/17/2013

Am I the only person that misses some camp and comedy in superheroe movies? All this Nolan dark and angsty bullshit is getting tired.

I also felt the agenda to present Superman as a Christ like figure went to far was the scene where he goes to a priest for guidance necessary?

It's a frigging COMIC book film for crying out loud, add some COMIC effect.

It ain't Shakespeare

I'd never thought I'd miss the days when a Superman film had Richard Pryor skiing down a penthouse skyscraper in a pink table cloth and "bad" Superman playing little pranks like getting drunk at a corner bar and flicking peanuts and blowing out the Olympic torch and deleaning the Tower of Pisa.

Have a sense of humor and fun with these movies

by Anonymousreply 13006/17/2013

Shakespeare and Comic aren't mutually exclusive.

by Anonymousreply 13106/17/2013

R129, it was more than good enough. And that's the point. His performance doesn't deserve the bashing it's getting from some quarters. It really doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 13206/17/2013

R50 is adorbz and puzzling in his need to describe his film watching habits.

by Anonymousreply 13306/17/2013

It seems a lot of people here missed the fact that Superman is a hero in a comic. They seem to have expected King Lear.

by Anonymousreply 13406/17/2013

sorry but camp is way out of style. it is not 1966.

by Anonymousreply 13506/17/2013

It's important to buy a ticket for Man of Steel next weekend to support Henry, even if you don't go to the showing. It's for the greater good.

by Anonymousreply 13606/17/2013

"The truth is Superman is a plank of wood. Maybe Superman doesn't work as a movie because Superman isn't an interesting character. He's good and he doesn't kill. What is Superman's internal struggle?"

r20, that's exactly the stretch I find hard to swallow. A man who can walk through fire, fly, see through things, stop bullets with his flesh has no fucking right to complain about anything. It just all comes off as narcissistic self-serving whining, which is the way of the world right now.

by Anonymousreply 13706/17/2013

reply 137, did you even SEE the movie? The climax of the movie is Superman having to decide wether to KILL Zod to save the human race or let him live and sacrifice himself so the race of Kryptons in his blood could repopulate the earth. It was a defining moment for him, much in the way a person who doesn't believe in killing might have to do so in self defense. I took my son and we both see ALL of the comic book movies and we both liked the Hell out of it. As a gay person, how could you not identify with his "outsider-ness"? Glad to hear that part 2 is in the works, we will be there.

by Anonymousreply 13806/17/2013

R130, I completely agree.

by Anonymousreply 13906/17/2013

[quote]Russell Crowe as Jor-El was the only good performance.

That's not encouraging me to see this incarnation of Superman.

I finally saw the 42 min. version of the 2011 pilot. I was pleasantly surprised. Most of the David Kelley-Ally McWonder touches had been redacted. Not a "sad" Wonder Woman but clearly one who wanted a private life. She did look like a different person as Diana Prince like a nerdy student, and the interaction with her neglected cat was cute. So was Steve Trevor. (No, Justin Breuning is hot, not cute.)

It had, in the 42 mins. I saw, a nice mixture of a new, darker WW (she kills and tortures perps) and the kind, vulnerable Diana.

I hope that if WW gets another chance, they get a marketable version of her, be it on TV or as a theater film.

by Anonymousreply 14006/17/2013

[quote]It's important to buy a ticket for Man of Steel next weekend to support Henry, even if you don't go to the showing. It's for the greater good.

Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck has he done for the gay community?

Maybe idiots like you should try supporting OPENLY gay actors instead who actually make a difference.

by Anonymousreply 14106/17/2013

Camp out of style? Maybe in America, which has never been comfortable with it, but in the UK its part of the national character! Children absorb it with their first panto.

by Anonymousreply 14206/17/2013

Only 30% loved.

by Anonymousreply 14306/17/2013

[quote]Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck has he done for the gay community?

Supporting Henry isn't about the gay community. It's about supporting someone who is good looking. If you want to keep seeing Henry, you need to buy a ticket.

by Anonymousreply 14406/17/2013

Cavill was great as lusty Brandon on The Tudors, but Brandon Routh owned the Supes roll.

by Anonymousreply 14506/17/2013

We only saw Cavill as "Superman" not as bumbling reporter Clark Kent.

Clark Kent is who humanizes Kal-El. I guess they had to save something for the next one. So Cavill had to be stiff and not very approachable. He's scared of how the world will react to him. He can't be all buddy, buddy especially dealing with the military. He is gorgeous, though.

It's interesting that they didn't show Clark as a teenager, young adult. Only as a little kid and then an adult.

The destruction was a bit too, too, too much.

Nice nod to Smallville with Pete Ross, and (Whitney)Fordman and Lana Lang.

Wtf were Meloni and Schiff doing there? They took me completely away from the story for the scenes they were in.

I liked it and look forward to the next one.

by Anonymousreply 14606/17/2013

R145 = Bryan Singer.

Routh looked like a gogo boy Superman wearing too much foundation. Cavill is the masculine Superman the role deserves.

by Anonymousreply 14706/17/2013

Oh the irony about how they kept going on about how the world would feel if they knew Superman existed. The whole time I kept thinking about the public's reaction to Henry being gay.

by Anonymousreply 14806/17/2013

I love Amy Adams but she was miscast as Lois. Are there anymore brunettes in Hollywood with vulnerability? A blonde and redhead as Lois ain't cutting it!

by Anonymousreply 14906/17/2013

r141, I believe it was a joke.

by Anonymousreply 15006/17/2013

YOU'RE the one who's really awful, OP!

by Anonymousreply 15106/18/2013

One of the silliest hater comments I have read about MoS is that it had, and I quote, "too much destruction and fighting".

W.T.F?

Ha ha!

by Anonymousreply 15206/18/2013

It did. It was like playing a video game or watching a Transformers movie.

by Anonymousreply 15306/18/2013

The real miss in the movie was casting Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Granted, the role was poorly written, but her performance was just flat

by Anonymousreply 15406/18/2013

Henry Cavill did a pretty good job. The cast overall was great. It is good to see it is such a huge box office hit. Cavill is stunning onscreen. People gasped when he was shirtless.

by Anonymousreply 15506/18/2013

[quote]Supes roll.

Mmmmm, soup rolls

by Anonymousreply 15606/18/2013

"Yes [[R37]] but the 70's Superman was marketed to children, specifically. A saturday afternoon popcorn movie."

R66, if you were alive and living on Earth in 1978, then Superman the Movie was marketed to you. The 78' marketing makes the MOS marketing look like a paper from a community college business course.

You didn't spend 50 million in 76'-77' to make a children's Saturday afternoon popcorn movie...

by Anonymousreply 15706/18/2013

Superman killed over 300,000 people. All because he so stupidly sent out a distress signal to lead Zod to Earth. How could anyone forgive him or even think he is a hero?

by Anonymousreply 15806/19/2013

R142, we are not talking about the UK. Americans dislike camp.

by Anonymousreply 15906/19/2013

Saw it yesterday. Nothing but two and a half hours of special effects and explosions. The big battle at the end was just ridiculously long and overdone.

Final word? I didn't hate it but can't say it's a great flick either. Just okay.

by Anonymousreply 16006/23/2013

Why do Americans dislike camp?

by Anonymousreply 16106/23/2013

[R 155]

I'm going to gasp again later this week when I go for a repeat viewing of MoS.

I pity the petty fools who don't like MoS. For Christ sake, enjoy it for HENRY!

by Anonymousreply 16206/23/2013

[quote]Why do Americans dislike camp?

Perhaps because they're not brought up with it, like the Brits. They get panto as kids, plus there's always been a string of hugely popular high camp figures in their mainstream culture that are almost totally unknown in the US - from massive screamers like Larry Grayson, Kenneth Williams, and Danny La Rue to today's Julian Clary, Alan Carr, Paul O'Grady/Lily Savage, etc, etc.

by Anonymousreply 16306/23/2013

Terrible pacing and editing. The (too dark) set design of Krypton was wasted. Schamaltzy, cynical writing. Superman killing people is a disgrace. Superman is also supposed to be super-smart, not an "in a pinch" murderer. In general, aside from Shannon and an okay Cavill, the performances were poor. Had me missing Margot Kidder's "fuck this, I'm getting a story" energy. The ending, with Lois "knowing" who Clark is, was the last straw.

by Anonymousreply 16406/23/2013

I liked it. It was a thrill-a-minute roller coaster ride. I actually thought Superman Returns stuck more to the legend and "felt" more like a Superman film, but I still liked MOS.

by Anonymousreply 16506/23/2013

There's only one Superman in this culture. Someone who took a stand on behalf of us all and talked truth to power. But Americans now prefer the rule of law, however corrupt, to truth and justice, and so they disowned him. And so he flew to Moscow.

by Anonymousreply 16606/23/2013

I thought the film was pretty good, it was entertaining and the last half was action packed just how I like it.

My only complaints are that it. Was a bit too dark and lacked humor and the music kinda sucked

Did Superman even have a Main theme? Zimmer is no John Williams, they should have at least kept the classic Williams theme.

Of the 6 Superman movies, this is my ranking

1. Superman : The Movie

2. Superman II

3. Superman III (mo joke, I really like this movie and the comedic/campy tone)

4. Man of Steel

5. Superman Returns

6. Superman IV (an abomination)

by Anonymousreply 16706/23/2013

If he used his time changing powers to save Lois why didn't he use it to save 300,000 people?

by Anonymousreply 16806/23/2013

I didn't care for this. I haven't seen Cavill in anything else, so I don't feel qualified to judge his acting, as he had barely any to do in the movie. I feel like most of the other characters had more dialogue than he did. For a movie that was called Man of Steel, everything seemed to be happening around him while he was simply along for the ride.

I would have been more interested in watching a prequel with Russell Crowe as Kal-El that culminated with him sending his newborn child off. At least those scenes involved talking and acting, and made me wonder about the characters.

Cavill was just sort of there throughout the whole thing. Kevin Costner & the rest of the supporting cast also gave good performances that were wasted in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 16906/23/2013

Too late. The train has left the station. The media and public have hailed MoS as a major hit. That is all that matters now.

by Anonymousreply 17006/23/2013

I thought Diane Lane was great.

by Anonymousreply 17106/23/2013

I saw it this weekend, and I can vouch for the OP. It was AWFUL. Too much action, weak plot, not enough comedic moments. Horrible dialogues too.. the script was a fucking joke. Some of the things they said.. my mouth dropped. It was incredibly lame. And tell me again WHY Henry Cavill is a critically acclaimed actor? He can't act for shit. He's the most wooden actor I've seen in a while. At one point in the movie it looked like he was reading directly from the script.. completely flat with no emotion behind it. This isn't the first movie I've seen Cavill in either.. he sucked just as much in the other movies too.

Oh, and HOW many people did Superman kill while fighting Zod for 30 minutes at the end? I thought Superman was supposed to MINIMIZE casualties? It was UNNECESSARY to destroy a whole fucking city. And I don't even understand why he was fighting Zod for so long if all it took was for him to break his neck anyway. This movie certainly proved Superman to be a mass murderer, with no concern for the people whatsoever.

It was just endless action over and over and over again. The story itself was incredibly weak. It's like the producers knew what a weak story it was, so they ordered lots of action scenes, to drown out and camouflage it.

by Anonymousreply 17207/09/2013

May I add, r172, that this dreadful movie was TOO long. The producers could easily have shaved 40 minutes off it.

I groaned audibly when it became apparent that Superman and Zod were going to fight right at the end of the movie.

I thought the thing had finally finished after NY was almost obliterated... but no.

Didn't care for all the flashbacks either.

Henry Cavill is certainly good looking, but he's a lousy actor. Everyone else ran rings round him.

by Anonymousreply 17307/09/2013

[quote]WHY Henry Cavill is a critically acclaimed actor?

He is?

by Anonymousreply 17407/09/2013

It's been said before and I'll say it again: Cavill is Greg Brady aka Johnny Bravo. He fit the suit.

by Anonymousreply 17507/09/2013

I'm glad you agree, R173. The fanboys still praise his acting. I'm just baffled. He's so incredibly wooden and dull. It's not just about Henry Cavill though. This movie had too many issues.. the editing was bad, as was the pacing.. but that's not all, the story was not very strong, the dialogues were cheesy, and there was simply too much action. IMO Superman should have a mix of comedy, drama and action.. but this movie dedicated two hours to the action, and 30 minutes to the rest. I just felt like it was totally unnecessary to have Superman fight Zod at the end, it wasn't exciting, it was just dumb. The action scenes weren't even that good, it got incredibly lame and boring. I totally agree with what someone said upthread.. it didn't feel much like a Superman movie.. it didn't even feel like it was about Superman. It was almost like he was just thrown into the story, while the other people were the main characters. It was just odd.

by Anonymousreply 17607/09/2013

Meanwhile, everyone's saying he's going to be the next James Bond and that he was supposed to be Bond but Craig got it. My question is... forget his questionable acting skills, wouldn't he have been too young for Bond anyway? How would it have come down to the two of them?

I mean is this just some bullshit story they've been passing around as truth?

by Anonymousreply 17707/09/2013

umm, no, r124. Had Routh received better reviews, he would be Man of Steel.

by Anonymousreply 17807/09/2013

Must be a bullshit story r177, Henry would have been way too young at the time Casino Royale was shot.

When Daniel Craig leaves, however... who knows. But I doubt it, he'll be Superman for however many movies they can squeeze out.

And after that, his looks will be fading so he'll fade into obscurity.

by Anonymousreply 17907/09/2013

"The movie was well done, exciting, and interesting...Over-all, I enjoyed it, and I'd totally see it again. It wasn't nearly as stupid as the Star Trek movie."

R11 = idiot.

by Anonymousreply 18007/09/2013

"I thought the film was pretty good, it was entertaining and the last half was action packed just how I like it."

The "last half" was "action packed?" The whole fucking thing was "action packed," if by "action" you mean one explosion, fight-to-the-death, or city (or planet) being destroyed after another. I guess you're at the intellectual and emotional level where that sort of thing appeals to you.

by Anonymousreply 18107/09/2013

Superman thinks about the consequences of his physical actions. The opening scene of Superman Returns has him setting the 747 down in the middle of the baseball field to minimize the damage. Yes, he might not be able to choose the battlefield, but all the buildings crashing down just made me think of the WTC.

by Anonymousreply 18207/09/2013

[quote]but all the buildings crashing down just made me think of the WTC.

Which is what I've heard (ie. 9/11 imagery) and exactly why I'm not paying to see it. Such bullshit on the part of the filmmakers.

by Anonymousreply 18307/09/2013

I liked the movie but thought it was too similar to a recent superhero movie called The Avangers. It grouped all the superheros Iron Man, Hulk, Thorax, Spider-Man, Caption America, and Wonder Woman fighting aliens in NYC with buildings falling down. The final battle scene was just like that.

by Anonymousreply 18407/10/2013

R178.. unfortunately he was a casualty of the film's failure. Had the movie done better, I'm sure he would have been in a sequel. I still prefer Brandon Routh in the role.

by Anonymousreply 18507/12/2013

R184? Caption America? Okay:

A great experiment that has lost its thesis due to the rise of the corporation.

by Anonymousreply 18607/12/2013

over $285 million now

by Anonymousreply 18707/25/2013

R187 Why are you so excited? It's not like you'll be seeing a penny of that money.

by Anonymousreply 18807/25/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.