Why the bad reviews for Superman Returns?

Question

Ok... I understand it's not Christopher Reeves and didn't incorporate the story lines from Lois and Clark or Smallville. So what? Xmen: the Last Stand didn't follow it's televison serieses either.. I'm just a little confused since I thought it was a very entertaining movie and the characters were well cast. It was better than I expected, unlike the other blockbusters (Da Vinci Code and Click).

Answer 1

I thought it was great. This is the ADD generation where a movie is judged as "bad" based solely on the fact that it is three hours long. People will always resist a newcomer to a role they know and love. This is true not only in the fact that Christopher Reeves and Gene Hackman were replaced but also due to the fact that the entire vision of Superman in this film is closer to the John Byrne's "Man of Steel" Superman. This is a good thing.

I thought Brandon Routh was great as Superman and he was as good a replacement for Reeves as there could be. Hackman was brilliant but I think Spacey is a more realistic evil genius. It never sat well with me that the Hackman Luther had such bumbling baffoons as sidekicks. Spacey plays a great badguy.

I can't wait for the sequel.

Answer 2

I actually really liked Superman Returns. I can understand why some people wouldnt like it, especially since it wasnt just a bunch of *flash* and *bang*. Most people were going to Superman expecting to see him in a heated battle with the proverbial Giant Cybernetic Space Python, instead that got an actual well thought out movie. Regardless of the lack of a giant battle, I thought the movie had some of the best special effects I've ever viewed. Theres always going to be 'haters', I wouldnt worry about it.

-J.

Answer 3

nicely, it really is solid that you loved it, even if the wide-spread reaction replaced into fairly undesirable with the game being raped through mediocre ratings. the reason why such video games get low ratings is reason movie video games lack in various the dept mutually with snap shots, gameplay and tale... i have not performed it, even if the comments were truly undesirable and suggested that the game sucked in all of those branch. also, being compared to particular video games also reduces the factors because the game merely can not stay as a lot because the traditional common through them. briefly, it is your opinion that it replaced into tremendous, yet a reviewer judges it from the perspective it truly is it truly nicely worth 60$... also the reviewer also sees what diverse video games are available at the same time or few video games which have come out and raised the bar...

Answer 4

Bad Reviews because weak performances and bad choice of actors -mainly Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor-and Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, otherwise it was a good film saved by the performance of Superman-BR.

Answer 5

Because it felt wrong. It didn't have the authenticity Reeves brought to the role, that I'm a boyscout with more power than a nuclear bomb.

Answer 6

the story really dragged at the end.

plus all that kryptonite weirdness was pretty silly. He got STABBED with KRYPTONITE on a giant land mass filled with kryptonite. Shouldn't he be DEAD?

The story makes little sense. Plus the kid was lame.

Answer 7

TERRIBLE movie..sooooooooo long and what the hell really happened, it was just stupid, ok so he's got this "new" country forming in the middle of the sea...how could you live on it? rocks and waterfalls? no one would go there it was just stupid, but AWESOME visuals everyone has to agree on that!

Answer 8

It is worth a watch ..but not a blockbustre .. It is prolonged for more than 2 hrs.

Answer 9

it was jus too long..the story kinda dragged
X3 was better becuase it was action packed in a sense n plus it was on a normal pace not sloww n dull i dunon thats just me

Answer 10

It got bad reviews because the movie is terrible. It was boring, boring, boring.......