I *loved* this film! I wanted to burst into applause at one point but I held back, lol!

I think some of Matt's geekyness is rubbing off on me

Probably gonna see a movie next week but I can't really make up my mind in what I would like to see, this of POTC2. And I would catch the other one when it's released to dvd.

Oh well gonna watch both trailers again and see if that does any good.

I saw the movie last week and really enjoyed it. Superman is the only superhero type movie that I like, and with the exception of a couple of things I won't mention because they'd be spoilers, this movie didn't disappoint me. I'd actually see it again.

I didn't know what to expect from the new guy playing Superman, Brandon Routh. Had never heard of him or seen him in anything. And for me, the enjoyment of the movie hung a lot on whether I accepted Routh in the part and thought he did a good job. By the middle of the movie, he had completely won me over. His protrayal is very faithful to the Christopher Reeve version of Clark/Superman. I think Routh is VERY good. And I hope that if they make another movie (hopefully, they will) he will be playing the lead again.

not a bad film, although as mentioned they spend too long erstablishing charecters rather than getting on with the story.
what annoyed me was the way brandon rouths face kept changing - at times, its blatantly obvious that a shedload of CGI has been used to turn him into a dead-ringer of chris reeve.

Absolutely adored this movie. Like Maff, Superman is my favourite Superhero.

I remember all of the hoo-ha surrounding the casting of Clark Kent/Superman and all the names being bandied about. Then Brandon Routh was cast and a lot of people went 'huh?'. Bryan Singer made a bona fide star out of Hugh Jackman by casting him as Wolverine, i had every confidence in his choice to cast BR as Superman and i hope i've been proved right because i believed Brandon was Clark Kent and Superman, i didn't think for once that another actor could've pulled off this role any better than he did, not even Tom Welling who was a big internet fan favourite for the role. I'm glad Tom wasn't cast (and that Smallville continues to this day too).

I have to be honest in saying that i preferred him as Clark Kent rather than Superman but that's not saying he wasn't any good as Superman because he was, he was very good, he fit the role well. And yes, it was hard not to see Christopher Reeve in that role, i swear in the first scene that we see Clark at the Daily Planet and he turned around, my heart stopped in my chest, the resembelance was downright eerie at times. He sounded like him and yes, there were some of the mannerisms there too.

But i really enjoyed this movie so much. Kevin Spacey was wonderful as Lex Luthor, Parker Posey was a hoot but she did remind me of Pamela Stephenson's character from the third Superman movie (the one with Richard Pryor in) who played the bimbo who was actually smarter than she looked, i firmly believed that she was playing at being stupid. It was a vibe that i got throughout the film.

The scene where Superman has the you know what kicked out of him was disturbing and upsetting on a lot of levels. That Jason is his son i pretty much guessed from the beginning, again i just assumed it as fact, that it wasn't a mystery as such though i do hope that in subsequent Superman movies, his relationship with his son is investigated further (there are supposed to be three movies and Bryan Singer has confirmed he will be directing the sequel, though we'll have to wait til 2009 probably to see it )

The only CGI on Brandon Routh that i was aware of was, was to do with the flying scenes,some of the stunt scenes, sometimes you could tell, but to make him the dead spit of CR?, i'd have to respectfully disagree. In a recent SFX interview, the crew talked about BR's uncanny resemblance to the former Superman actor, right down to speech patterns and mannerisms, they said it was eerie and not at all projected, ie, natural.

But like Sandia has said, Brandon Routh won me over as Clark Kent/Superman too. I too hope that he'll continue the role, i think he'd be mad not to.

I absolutely loved most of it. I adored the feel that it was a follow-on from the previous movies (while ignoring the last couple) and the use of Marlon Brando's Jor-el was great. I almost cried watching the opening titles. The new Daily Planet newsroom looked great and Brandon Routh was fantastic in his first lead.

However, Kate Bosworth is cute, but nowhere near tough enough to play Lois Lane and I utterly hated the "Supes has a son" subplot. Sucky McSuck.

I give it 8/10

---

by Kate
....and I utterly hated the "Supes has a son" subplot....

---

I really have to agree with you on that. I didn't mention it above because I wasn't sure I should go into it since some people haven't seen the movie. But I thought that was a really bad idea. Doesn't it ruin the whole "Clark longing for Lois" vibe if she has already had a son with him? How can Clark still be the guy pining for her when, you know? And how can she STILL not know that Superman is Clark, even after that? [Ok, how could she not know with just the glasses hiding his identity, but we've all gotten past that years ago.} Plus, how can he not TELL her who he really is after having a child with her? There are so many questions.

Of course, it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movie. I still loved the movie and just kind of overlooked that bit. But I did think it was strange.

Oh, and I agree with you Keenangel. I like Routh as both Superman and Clark, but I preferred him as Clark. If I had my way, there would be a bit more Clark in the movie next time. [Fingers cross for a next time.]

---

by Sandia
And how can she STILL not know that Superman is Clark, even after that?

---

Have you forgotten the hospital scene? Y'know, where Lois whispers something in his ear that the audience can't make out? This could be any number of things, but most likely confessing that the kid is his and that this clued her in to who he really is under the cape, so to speak.

---

Plus, how can he not TELL her who he really is after having a child with her? There are so many questions.

---

He may tell her - but not yet. They have to stretch the subplot arcs to cover sequels, remember? *cough*MaryJane*cough*

Yeah, I remember the hospital scene. And I thought that was what she whispered to him--that the child was his. But even before they got to that point, wouldn't the fact that they had become close enough to have sex have made him come clean about his secret identity to her? Of course, he did leave for several years without telling her, so maybe I'm reading way more into the meaning of that than there is.

Oh, by the way. I don't know the "Mary Jane" reference. What is that?

---

by Sandia
Oh, by the way. I don't know the "Mary Jane" reference. What is that?

---

Sorry, was referring to the Spider-Man films and how they stretched the romantic subplot to cover more than one film - seeing as it was planned as (at least) a trilogy, they couldn't have him get the girl in the first movie even if she confesses her undying love before the first movie's credits have rolled, could they?

Thanks for the pop culture update. I've never seen any of the Spiderman films. For some reason, that character never appealed to me.

It's worth it if you're a fan of Willem Dafoe or Bruce Campbell.

I saw this the other day (in IMAX 3D ) and thought it was really, really good. It still had the feel of the original movies, but with some high action effects scenes thrown in.

I thought Brandon Routh was excellent as Superman and especially as Clarke Kent, he had the geeky thing down well. That was the main reason I didn't like The New Adventures of Superman, Dean Cain just couldn't do geeky, he was alright as Superman but he was no Clarke. I'm also glad that the kid from Smallville didn't get the part for the same reason.

Kevin Spacey was damn cool too, as was Parker Posey (who reminded me of the woman from Superman 3 too!).

As for Superman having a son...... well I'm not actually sure that I liked that. Probably the main reason I'm against it is that I'm now very fearful of the sequel. I have images of it being a Superman & Son type storyline with him teaching the kid to control his powers and stuff... And IMO that would be crap and isn't what I want from a Superman movie...

But anyway, despite that I loved the film! Especially the old-school theme tune and style of the opening titles. Oh and having Marlon Brando in it was a touch of class!

---

by Sandia
(quotes)

And how can she STILL not know that Superman is Clark, even after that?

---

Well if you take this movie as a follow-on from Superman II rather than the last two which were rubbish, Lois figured it out, he confessed and they spent one night together. He later wiped her memory with a kiss at the end because the whole thing had left him too vulnerable and her too messed up. However, she then wouldn't have remembered doing the do with Superman and would have had no idea who the father of the baby was when the time came. This was one of the reasons I hated this part of the plot - it's full of holes.

In order for that to make sense I can only assume it didn't *exactly* follow on from II in every conceivable detail, or that Lois and Clark briefly got together before the big blue berk sodded off to Krypton.

I'm assuming the goings-on in this movie didn't follow on directly from Superman II. I won't even mention III and IV, which we'd all like to forget.

But I just figured that some time had elapsed between II and this one. Like Alan, I thought that at some point just before Superman left for Krypton, he and Lois had gotten close again and they had sex. He then left, not knowing she was going to have his child. No idea how Richard figures into this. I'm assuming her relationship with Richard started about the time Superman left, making it possible that the child could have also been his. And I'm also assuming that, before the kid shoved the piano across the room, she wasn't sure whose child it was, Richard's or Superman's. She looked totally shocked--as though she'd never seen him do anything like that before.

I never thought the baby resulted from their night together in Superman II. I mean, it could have. But you're right, Kate, that would be a really twisted time arc that would make no sense.

My hope for the next movie--assuming there is one--is that the kid will somehow get disappeared. Sent off to boarding school or to live with relatives in another part of the country. Maybe Martha Kent could raise him on the farm, although I don't know how that would come about. But definitely, the kid should be out of sight and not an important part of the plot at all. Because I am another person that does not want to see a Superman and his Superson flick. I wonder whose bright idea it was to add the son anyway?

It's just hit me that the above theory has a substantial problem; it's all well and good guessing that they got together without Clark telling Lois he's Superman but surely Lois, Pulitzer-winning journalist that she is, would get suspicious if Clark were to (in order to maintain the disguise) wear the glasses all the time? For one thing, wouldn't they fall off at an inconvenient moment, if you catch my meaning?

---

by Alan
It's just hit me that the above theory has a substantial problem; it's all well and good guessing that they got together without Clark telling Lois he's Superman but surely Lois, Pulitzer-winning journalist that she is, would get suspicious if Clark were to (in order to maintain the disguise) wear the glasses all the time? For one thing, wouldn't they fall off at an inconvenient moment, if you catch my meaning?

---

I don't think that she would be paying too much attention to the glasses Also our brains show us what we want to see. So if she is presuming to see "Clark" she won't see superman even if he isn't wearing the glasses.

---

by Alan
It's just hit me that the above theory has a substantial problem; it's all well and good guessing that they got together without Clark telling Lois he's Superman but surely Lois, Pulitzer-winning journalist that she is, would get suspicious if Clark were to (in order to maintain the disguise) wear the glasses all the time? For one thing, wouldn't they fall off at an inconvenient moment, if you catch my meaning?

---

I'm just assuming that Superman got together with Lois, not Clark. So the glasses don't figure in. Lois treats Clark so dismissively during the movie--as though he's hardly in the room--that I don't think there's any possibility she could have had any type of relationship with him as Clark.

But the whole, how could Lois, Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist, not know that Clark and Superman are one in the same person? Well, I mean, we've all laughed at that for years. It's totally ridiculous. But it's one of those things I guess we all accept about the backstory now, and at this point it's just funny.

I've wondered though, how did this go over when Siegel and Shuster first created the character in the 1930s or whenever it was? If you went to any editor worth his or her salt with a story like that today, and you proposed a superhero that wears no mask but is perfectly disguised from even the closest people to him by--his glasses???--the editor would laugh you out of his office. The editor would probably send you back and say, "You've got to come up with some sort of disguise for this guy, or no one is going to believe it." But somehow, that became the story: Superman doesn't wear glasses, so no one knows it's Clark. I've never read the early comics--or any of the comics-- but I assume that's always been the backstory. We accept it now, but in the beginning, how did that get by the first editors? Because it really doesn't make any sense.

I do love it though--precisely because it makes no sense.