I just saw this for the first time on DVD, and had high hopes it would be good, but it really was a disappointment for so many reasons. The acting, the music, the CGI, it just didn't work for me.
Anyone else feel the same?
2006-11-28 15:13:05 · 17 answers · asked by Rob 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I was somewhat. Rather flatline movie, not really exciting. I can't believe brian singer directed it.
I think it failed because the new Lois Lane is nowhere as funny as the old one. I think Teri Hatcher did a better job on TV. Christopher Reeve was perfect for Superman and Brandon Routh seemed like someone just trying hard to be like him.
Also, Singer's idea was to focus more on Superman rather than Clark Kent. I think that kept many people from identifying with the character.
Good story though. Just not enough action for a superhero movie.
2006-11-28 15:46:09 · answer #1 · answered by ragdefender 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I was teribbly disappointed. I had high hopes for the movie but alas... It turns out to be a dud. The acting sucks big time especially Kate Bosworth in particular. She's so unconvincing as Lois Lane.
2006-11-28 18:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by icez_77 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, the worst part of the movie was the superkid, and Superman using his x-ray vision at Lois's house while the husband is home. What message is this telling us.. to encourage pre-marital sex and that stalking women is ok?!
I bought the DVD anyway though, along with Superman II- the Richard Donner cut :P
2006-11-28 15:23:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I was somewhat disappointed with the choice sticking the plot arbitrarily between Superman II and III, instead of reinventing the story altogether (e.g., 'Batman Begins'). I was also unimpressed by Brandon Routh's stale performance (as compared to Christopher Reeve).
See my blog:
2006-11-28 15:18:52 · answer #4 · answered by Steven B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah me too! I'm going to buy the DVD for my collection but it was a sh!tty movie. i expected better from Bryan singer. even the plot was crappy it worse then SM IV. the 2 things i didn't get was when did him and Lois have sex and after being that intimate she still couldn't see him as Clark or put one and one together that superman and Clark's departure were the same?and #2 he's in space listen and watching for things that need his attention why didn't he see lex luthor messing around in his fortress of solitude?
wait they did have sex in superman 2 but he kissed her to make her forget.but she wasn't pregnant.
i guess the only plausible explanation is that this superman movie is about a superman in another parallel universe.
2006-11-28 15:35:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The new Superman was awesome! You should have seen it on the big screen. Action movies like that never show as well on the small screen. Even Star Wars was unimpressive on my TV!
2006-11-28 15:14:37 · answer #6 · answered by go_uva 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If I wasn't embarrassed to be seen sleeping in the theater, I would have beeen out for the last hour; it felt like a four-hour movie to me. Yawn...............
2006-11-28 15:14:50 · answer #7 · answered by Stuck in the Middle Ages 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i didn't like it either... it wasn't an awesome remake... it was a mediocre remake way too similar to the original with better special effects... and i hated kate bosworth in it
2006-11-28 15:18:59 · answer #8 · answered by Curious Blair 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They should've just started from the beginning.
2006-11-28 16:17:40 · answer #9 · answered by Da Mick 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i was disappointed not what i was expect at all think i will stick with christopher reeves movies
2006-11-28 15:15:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋