Theater aftermath
So I finally saw Superman Returns. I'm too lazy for a real in depth review, so I'll just post a few reactions.
I actually liked the casting. Mr. Routh was charming, Ms. Bosworth actually didn't look as terribly young as I feared she would. I thought Clark and Lois looked about the same age, a little too young, but tolerable. I thought the kid chosen for Jimmy was great. Mr. Spacey's Lex was very menacing. Not a man I could see elected president, but well, that's not an issue in the movies.
Plot was fun for me. Some funny moments. The pseudo-religious imagery was over the top though, I thought.
I even liked the love triangle. It's funny how I thought James Marsden ended up treated better as the never-in-the-comic, movie-only obstacle-guy than he had as Cyclops. Obviously he's in an awful situation, but we're supposed to feel for him. It would have been so cliche and easy to make him evil. Instead we got a good guy in a rough situation, can't help but feel for him.
Honestly, with those two scripts as options, I'd have chosen Superman too.
I'd have liked a bit more action, but in general I liked it. Definitely better than X-Men for me.
I admit, the trailer for Spiderman 3 looks good. I'd never have cast Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, but oddly it seems to work really well. Weird.
I actually liked the casting. Mr. Routh was charming, Ms. Bosworth actually didn't look as terribly young as I feared she would. I thought Clark and Lois looked about the same age, a little too young, but tolerable. I thought the kid chosen for Jimmy was great. Mr. Spacey's Lex was very menacing. Not a man I could see elected president, but well, that's not an issue in the movies.
Plot was fun for me. Some funny moments. The pseudo-religious imagery was over the top though, I thought.
I even liked the love triangle. It's funny how I thought James Marsden ended up treated better as the never-in-the-comic, movie-only obstacle-guy than he had as Cyclops. Obviously he's in an awful situation, but we're supposed to feel for him. It would have been so cliche and easy to make him evil. Instead we got a good guy in a rough situation, can't help but feel for him.
Honestly, with those two scripts as options, I'd have chosen Superman too.
I'd have liked a bit more action, but in general I liked it. Definitely better than X-Men for me.
I admit, the trailer for Spiderman 3 looks good. I'd never have cast Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, but oddly it seems to work really well. Weird.
posted by kalinara @ 1:51 AM
15 Comments:
At July 01, 2006 3:21 AM,
Anonymous said…
To me, it's a more interesting choice to have Venom be a failed doppleganger to Peter, than a complete opposite, so I'm pretty happy with the Topher Grace casting.
At July 01, 2006 4:47 AM,
Ragnell said…
Hey, cool, I saw it tonight too. :)
I liked it, even Bosworth and Posey were entertaining.
Did anyone else see Richard White as the DCU version of John Jameson?
At July 01, 2006 10:56 AM,
kalinara said…
jlg: Me too. It's not like the comics, but it doesn't lose anything to be different in this case.
ragnell: They weren't too bad. And yeah, I could totally see that. :-)
At July 01, 2006 3:37 PM,
Brandon Bragg said…
Is it weird that both the Superman and Spider-Man films have featured pilot sons of newspaper editors that steal the hero's lady.
Richard "Cyclops" White vs. John "Man-Wolf" Jameson.
At July 01, 2006 4:04 PM,
kalinara said…
I don't really think it's weird. It's pretty common to have competition for the lead characters' relationship.
It's also a fairly standard plot to have one be gone for a while and have the other partner have moved on. So it's pretty standard drama fare, I reckon.
At July 01, 2006 9:50 PM,
Hale of Angelthorne said…
I saw it today and liked it, for the most part. The costume is too dark, I thought, and singer went WAY overboard with the religious iconography, practically hammering it home. We get it, man! Geez! So to speak. It's Superman, not the Passion of the Christ. As for Bosworth, she looked WAY too young for the role. She's 23 and Superman has been gone for 5 years, so she was what? A high school intern at the Planet? And poor James Marsden; his characters are always getting screwed by superhumans one way or another. Minor critiques, to be sure; overall, it was entertaining but a bit slow and draggy. I go into more detail over at my place so I won't bore you with more of it here.
At July 01, 2006 10:04 PM,
kalinara said…
:-) I'm interested! I actually thought he looked almost as young as she did though, so it didn't bother me that much.
At least this time, Marsden was treated with some dignity. But the poor guy has to be the lead someday.
At July 02, 2006 4:47 AM,
notintheface said…
If there was a rating of 3 and 3/8ths stars, this movie would get it. I'd put it just a smidge below "Spider-Man" and "Batman Begins", but above the first X-Men movie.
***Spoilers Below***
The movie's weaknesses:
1. Definite overkill on the Christ imagery. 2. Supes and Lois looked a bit young for a "gone for five years" storyline. 3. I agree with Neal Bailey at Superman Homepage that, though he did many cool things, Superman didn't cut loose enough, like when he fought the Zoners in S2. 4. Both Clark and Supes needed more screen time, period. 5. Didn't Supes indirectly kill Lex's henchmen except Parker Posey when he lifted the island?
Still, an excellent movie overall. The flying scenes looked like an Alex Ross painted story come to life, if Alex had used Routh as his Supes model. Routh reminded me a lot of Reeve, but he brought enough of himself to the table that it wasn't a simple impession. Spacey nailed Lex. Sam Huntington hit the perfect balance as Jimmy Olsen, losing the "Golly Jeepers" persona, but not making him TOO hip.
Richard White made me think of Chloe Sullivan more than John Jameson. Both were never-seen-before characters who come off at least as interesting as the established characters. I actually preferred that Lois stay with him because he was even more heroic than the big "S", which was no small feat here.
At July 02, 2006 9:13 AM,
kalinara said…
Honestly, I thought Huntington was very Golly Jeepers. But aside from that, I pretty much agree with you. :-)
Hopefully there would be more cutting loose in the next movie. :-)
At July 02, 2006 4:41 PM,
Hale of Angelthorne said…
":-) I'm interested!"
Aww, you're such a sweetie!
Actually, I can see the point about Routh looking young, too. Hell, at this point, damn near everyone looks young to me. Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!
At July 03, 2006 4:54 AM,
kalinara said…
Don't forget to wave your fist menacingly. Or a cane if you've got one! Canes are cool that way. :-)
(I maintain the real reason Bruce uses a cane in Batman Beyond is to whack Terry with. He uses it to balance too, naturally, but whacking is *so* the primary function. :-P)
At July 03, 2006 11:52 AM,
Hale of Angelthorne said…
"Don't forget to wave your fist menacingly. Or a cane if you've got one! Canes are cool that way. :-)"
There was a scene in a recent episode of Family Guy where an old man recreates Gandalf's battle against the Balrog (the movie version, including dialogue) with a WALKER! How cool is that?
At July 03, 2006 3:56 PM,
kalinara said…
Aww! I don't think I've seen that one! Sounds entertaining though!
At July 06, 2006 1:05 PM,
Ferrous Buller said…
"I maintain the real reason Bruce uses a cane in Batman Beyond is to whack Terry with."
Well, the very first scene of elderly Bruce in the BB pilot was Bruce saving Terry from the Jokers gang by beating them with his cane. Soooo, yeah: Bruce is clearly all about the beating-youths-with-a-stick thing. :-)
At July 06, 2006 1:52 PM,
kalinara said…
Yep! Canes, in the right hands, are cool. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home