my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Superman Returns (Page 3)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Superman Returns Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-29-2006 11:26 AM                     quote: Michael Coate Perhaps you "don't get it" because you're not old enough to have seen "Superman" in a theater in its 1978/79 first-run showings. It's interesting that you should bring that up, because I was just discussing this idea with a group of friends on the ride home from SUPERMAN RETURNS. This weekend is the tenth anniversary of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Seeing it as a 16 year-old kid up on the big screen, it rocked my world. But you look at it now, and some of the bling has tarnished. What we're left with is somewhat flimsy. That being said, it still holds a special place in my heart, and I'll be showing it to my Tuesday Night Movie Club this week. I think that turning the earth back in time is way sillier than people imprisoned in a flying mirror, because it's established that Kryptonians have technology which far exceeds our own. Turning back time on the earth defies even the internal logic of the film. And what does it say about a movie when turning back time on the earth can be debated as not the silliest element? You bring up an interesting point about Deloreans and sun slingshots. I have no problem with time travel's use in those movies. BACK TO THE FUTURE is a comedy. The Delorean was chosen because it was funny. The ridiculous nature of this particular plot device was even questioned by Marty himself. Doc answers him with a joke, as if to say, "Just go with it." With STAR TREK IV, the idea of slingshooting around the sun was really cool, because it had been established in an earlier episode. So not only does this build on pre-existing continuity, it also eliminates unwanted exposition. Additionally, as I understand it, the real-world theory is that time travel is possible when a certain speed is reached. So it seems that STAR TREK IV's time travel explanation is one of the more scientifically accurate. Time travel works in these movies because it is explained and used as a plot device to set the story in motion. But with SUPERMAN, it is a text book example of Deus ex machina. If there had been a scene earlier in the film where Superman goes up to the Fortress of Solitude and Jor-El was like, "Dude, if you ever need to turn back time to save some girl, just spin around the world really fast. You'll be dizzy, but hey," then I'd be more accepting of it. It would be clunky, but at least there'd be some sort of rationale. As it stands, there is absolutely no indication that Superman has this trick up his sleeve. It's like some of the bad Sherlock Holmes stories where they don't give the reader a key piece of evidence to solve the crime. It's not fair. And that's why it doesn't work. And just for the record, I have a huge problem with movies like STAR WARS which use sound in space. But that's an artistic choice, and the entire film doesn't hinge on that element. So to address Mike B.'s comment, which I totally agree with, I'm not looking for believeability in movies. I just want them to play by their own rules.  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-29-2006 11:31 AM                     I'm not sure what I thought about Superman. Here are a few impressions. Superman hovers a lot. The flying was much more dynamic in previous versions. Does he have the beginnings of a fat roll around his middle? It's like he as a 10-speed spare tire. He must have gotten less exercise traveling to Kripton. His mom seems to have overlooked the fact that he seems to have regressed 10-years in his travels. I'd love it if they had done Superman in a world where physics actually existed. :Spoiler: I mean really, lowering a 777 by it's nose cone?!!! those things are made of fiberglass. I loved that they used Marlon Brando, but it was a thin metallic Marlon Brando. Where was the Gravitas? Loved Lex Luther's boat, but that boat designer will never make it. Too much wasted space. You could have fit two decks and 10 cabins in his living room. Also did Lex Luther's living room have some sort of dynamic stabilizer? It was a lot less choppy down below than when that crewman/Captain walked down there. Wasn't he worried about the U.S. lobbing a couple of nuclear weapons on to his new "continent?" That would sure screw up real estate prices. But everybody was gorgeous and in the end everything was won for Truth, Justice and the American Way.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 06-29-2006 12:14 PM                     How did this film look being "filmed" in HD? Star Wars was hard to judge because almost everything except the actors was CGI. I assume this had more normal sets and backgrounds. I hope to see it this weekend (maybe I'll get to see it in IMAX).  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-29-2006 12:31 PM                     In DLP, it looked very nice. On 35mm and Imax, it looked less nice.  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 06-29-2006 04:15 PM                        Another question: Didn't Superman 'erase' Lois's mind with a kiss at the end of Superman 2, thus she should not even know that they she had "one night with Superman", let alone a kid.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-29-2006 04:44 PM                     Allison, In the current issue of In Focus, the writers say that SUPERMAN RETURNS is more of a sequel to their memories of the first two films than the films themselves. Luckily, they forgot about numerous elements, including the amnesia kiss. EDIT: By the way, I wanna see the movie where Superman sleeps with Lois Lane without revealing his secret identity. How does he stoop to that level of dishonesty? Sounds like some great character stuff to me. [ 06-29-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 06-29-2006 08:50 PM                        I said this before, I say it again: "Superman" is an illegal alien, literally. No wonder so many people from other countries feel they can make their way across the borders without proper paperwork if they even make movies which celebrate illegal immigration. This has to stop. You should not support movies which undermine the integrity of the American borders.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-29-2006 08:59 PM                        The Lois Lane in this movie looks about 17 or 18 years old. How can she have a 5 year old kid and a good job at a newspaper? Also when most women have kids, it really takes its toll physically on their looks. They usually start getting bigger as well. I have a hard time putting my disbelief aside in this one. Superman himself looks about 19.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-29-2006 10:19 PM                     quote: Joe Redifer The Lois Lane in this movie looks about 17 or 18 years old. How can she have a 5 year old kid and a good job at a newspaper? Maybe she's from Lawton, OK. A significant number of girls around here squirt out their 2nd kid before graduation. Uh...maybe I should paraphrase that "graduation" thing. Ah: average age of someone graduating from high school. Didn't want to assume the graduation thing actually happened. Hmm. There's still that good job at a big city newspaper thing. "Hopped up on meth in a trailer house" sounds a bit closer to home. But some people are really motivated. Maybe she's a child prodigy who finished school early and also wanted to be a child mother prodigy -or whatever that would be called.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-29-2006 10:52 PM                        So this movie is a sequel to Superman 2? Apparently parts 3 and 4 never happened otherwise Soopy would have noticed Lois' pregnancy. What is the trend with all of the girly boys in super hero movies lately? In Batman Begins, the Scarecrow guy was CLEARLY wearing lipstick and I think eyeshadow throughout the movie.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-29-2006 10:54 PM                     I could tell that Brandon Routh was not really flying. It totally ruined the movie for me. They should have hired an actor that can actually fly.  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 06-29-2006 10:56 PM                        I saw the movie today, which was being shown in Auditorium #10 & utilizing Dolby Digital on a 60ft screen. I thought it was a really good movie. It was worth the 2 hours, 34 minutes.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 06-30-2006 04:26 AM                        Yeah, but then according to your profile, you are into Star Trek, so your opinion doesn't count.  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 06-30-2006 09:45 AM                        Sure, I maybe into Star Trek, but, I like Superman and Horror Films as well. So, my opinion is still valid. So, I don't understand how it can't count. Of course, I know that I didn't specifiy it in my profile.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Haney Master Film Handler Posts: 265 From: Cupertino, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 06-30-2006 03:04 PM                     quote: Lyle Romer How did this film look being "filmed" in HD? Star Wars was hard to judge because almost everything except the actors was CGI. I assume this had more normal sets and backgrounds. Lyle, I talked about the cinematography in my review on page 2. In my opinion, it's still not as good as 35mm, but better than the work that was done on Star Wars or Spy Kids.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.