2006-07-03 07:39:28 · 13 answers · asked by goldeneagle 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
negetive 0.0
2006-07-03 07:44:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
6 or a 7
2006-07-03 07:45:59 · answer #2 · answered by Jane J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
6
2006-07-04 04:29:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A tad disappointing as I was expecting more from Bryan Singer, the director=(
The movie tend to be a big yawn at certain moments, the relationship between Clark Kent/ Superman & Lois Lane was almost lukewarm, boring even. I mean the man was gone for 5 years & they behaved like strangers!
I'd give it a 4.5 out of 10. Brandon may be a dead ringer for Christopher Reeve but the CGI just totally stole the show & there were parts in the movie that were just not credible, never mind believable.
2006-07-03 08:13:36 · answer #4 · answered by ViRg() 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
5
2006-07-03 07:48:31 · answer #5 · answered by Joey 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
6.5-7
Serious overblown, with all the Super inconsistencies that have always plagued that particular hero ... one minute he's struggling to stop an airplane from crashing, and the next he's lifting an island full of Kryptonite into orbit. He can fly "near the speed of light" and take bullets to the eyeball, but he ducks his head when there's an explosion.
Plus the whole "Superman Jesus Christ" (say, wasn't that a musical in the 70s?) thing was just too much.
Gag me with a chunk of Kryptonite.
Nice special effects, though, and Brandon Routh is so plastic, his CGI double was almost seamless.
2006-07-03 08:03:11 · answer #6 · answered by Grendle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Brandon Routh performed an outstanding Superman and jogged my memory distinct Christopher Reeves Kevin Spacey performed a extra efficient Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman. Kate Bosworth became no longer a fabulous Lois Lane i concept Margot Kidder performed her extra efficient. all in all i concept the action picture became magnificent. i concept Kevin performed Lex a lot extra ruthless like he's contained in the comic books.
2016-11-30 05:29:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
7-8
2006-07-03 07:42:29 · answer #8 · answered by cisco_cantu 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
8 out of 10. Loses 1 star for editing (too long) and 1 star for Lois Lane (too young and wooden).
2006-07-03 08:17:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would rate it an 8 or 9 it was a pretty good movie
2006-07-03 07:44:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was ok. I went to go see it with my 7yr old and he loved it~ But, I would rate it a 7.
It's a pretty good movie overall.
2006-07-03 07:43:13 · answer #11 · answered by Rosario 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋