The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

The Official Forum of the Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:22 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:14 pm
Posts: 629
Location: Los Angeles
Last year at Comic Con, Bryan Singer did the Herculean publicity gambit of flying 14 hours straight from Australia to San Diego to show off a 10 minute Production reel. He stayed in town for some 3 hours and then flew STRAIGHT back to resume shooting the next day (the man must have some pretty good meds!). The reel was heavy on nods to the 1978 film - the farm scenes, the Daily Planet and the soaring John Williams music. Reports came out that there were actual tears spotted amongst the faithful. Not sure about tears, but there were some moist eyes for sure. Thing is, they weren't reacting to the reel, but to their memories of the 1978 Richard Donner-Chris Reeve film. Singer has professed his regard for Donner's film, and it has been echoed in the early SUPERMAN RETURNS reviews.

My own memories of the '78 film are pretty strong, too. It played at Bostons's SF/30 --it went over well with the Marathon crowd.

+++ Very Mild Spoilers in review ++++++

I'm not as confident that SUPERMAN RETURNS will go over with this summer's audiences as well (let alone in 20+ years). Yes, there are numerous 'nods' to the '78 film, but, virtually without exception, to the detriment of Singer and the new film. John Ottman is a decent composer, but to start and end the film (not to mention punctuating several key passages during it) with John Williams' magisterial score only highlights the utter blandness of Ottman's music. Brandon Routh may turn out to be a capable actor, but why have him mimic Reeve's performance (right down the end credits camera sweep)?

These homages wouldn't be so irritating if they also didn't illuminate the strange conundrum which is SUPERMAN RETURNS - sequel or remake? It's been said that this is sort of SUPERMAN 2 1/2. Taking place a few years after the Niagara Falls dalliance between Superman and Lois Lane in SUPERMAN 2. But, the pieces don't always fit, particularly since Routh and Kate Bosworth play much younger than Reeve and Margot Kidder (in that way, it's more like a followup to SMALLVILLE). And, what kind of cosmic coincidence grain of salt are we asked to swallow to believe that not only has Lex Luthor waited the 1800+ days since Superman disappeared to hatch his plot (court appeals and all), but ALSO the EXACT SAME MOMENT Lois gets in danger? For a film that's 154 minutes long, there is surprisingly little plot development. The film is 11 minutes LONGER than the '78 film which told the whole origin story AS WELL as the Metropolis tale. Here, we HEAR about the backstory rather than experience it (dispense with some of the rehashed elements from the original series and show this crucial backstory and the trade-off would have been greater).

What's worse is that not only does SUPERMAN RETURNS fail when it apes the '78 film, but that it's tone is far far darker than the advertising or the early reviews have led us to believe. The tone is much closer to Burton's BATMAN films or Singer's own X-MEN entries (this only makes the whimsical winks to the '78 film seem more out of place). I'm not unopposed to a more sinister approach -- but be prepared.

Some of the twists do work (which I will not reveal) and the general level of the production is very good. Special effects have come a long way (but RETURNS' SFX aren't as innovative in 2006 terms as the original was in its era - recall, that STAR WARS & CLOSE ENCOUNTERS hadn't yet been released when SUPERMAN was in production). Obviously, Kevin Spacey is a fine actor, but what Gene Hackman could do in wink or a nod, Spacey if forced to sweat and bluster to achieve. And, could they have wasted Parker Posey any more if they TRIED (no to mention made her look any less attractive)? The revelation is Bosworth, who appears to be too young for the part, but is quite solid with what's she's given to do. Still, I miss Kidder's devilish spunk.

I know it sounds like I hated the film. I didn't. It's just a major disappointment. It's better than SUPERMAN IV and SUPERGIRL. Hopefully, as with SPIDERMAN 2, lessons will be learned on how to make things work far better the second go-around.

On a tech note, the movie was shot All Digital. For the FX, it's a great asset. Most of the exteriors look fine as well. But, the interiors have a compressed mushy digital look that betrays the process.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:30 am
Posts: 2971
Location: Central Ohio
I'm hoping to make it to see this one. i keep not finidng the time to make it to the movies this summer, though I did take the boy to see Cars.

Your review has the same feel I got from some other reviews I have read. We liked it, we just didn't love it. An interesting test might be to see what my nephew thinks of it, assuming he has seen the original Reeve film. The problem I think is a lot of us have very fond memories of the first two films and it colors our view of this one. Much in the same way I think folks were too hard on the Star Wars prequels.

Every reviews I have read say we want to like Spacey but he just doesn't do Luthor the way Hackman did. I will commit heresy and say I didn't like Hackman's Lex. He just didn't seem evil or threatening enough.

As for the casting in Returns, they went younger so they could make more sequels, but even from the trailers they seem too young to be after Superman II. Especially 5 years after.

Of course, it would help if I actually got out and saw the movie. Maybe while the boy is napping this weekend. It could happen. :)

_________________
The wages of sin are royalties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:21 pm
Posts: 906
Location: Phoenix, AZ
LA is pretty much right on the money with this one. Good but not great. The story for me left much to be desired. There seemed to be a lot of editing and continuity mistakes and a lot of the effects were really computery. I felt the Clark Kent character was pretty non-existant and his near-stalker like obsession with Lois kind of creeped me out. Not that it was all bad, like I said, good but not great. I just happen to be mentioning only the parts that I didn't care for.

Favorite line: (if you haven't seen it it's not a spoiler because the image makes the line make sense) "Hey, weren't there two of those things?"

Still in all, an OK experience. Actually, there is one thing that was well worth the price of admission. For those who may not have been fortunate enough here it is:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_3/large.html

OBTW, Bruce, that release date is a mere 2 and a half weeks after the marathon. It's never too late to start calling in every favor you have to make this next year's big marathon premeire. :D

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 12:54 am
Posts: 355
Location: Outskirts of Nowhere
Yeah, I liked it but didn't love it. Although I seem to have liked it for different reasons than most people. Some random thoughts:

- I can't understand why they went with a plotline that (without giving too much away) effectively takes out Lois Lane as a romantic interest for Superman in the future (no, she doesn't die). Superman without Lois Lane is like Howard Stern without porn stars and strippers. What's the point? I understand there has to be conflict and drama and all that, but come on. They've essentially written themselves into a corner here.

- Given the complete recasting of every single living character, the use of Brando footage as Jor-El is a little weird. Obviously it's a nod to the original, but it only serves to take us out of the new movie. They might as well have brought back Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine.

- I was kinda glad they didn't go through all the backstory of Superman's origin, given that we've all seen that before. If the kids want to know about it, show them the original on DVD.

- Why weren't people more pissed off at Superman for basically abandoning them for five years? "Gee Superman, the world's gone straight to hell since you left, but welcome back anyway!"

- Superman must have really excellent time-management skills, to spend most of his time working as Clark Kent and still manage to save people all over the planet every day! Not to mention his extracurricular activities with the Justice League, the Super Friends, etc. I bet he's got a ton of DVDs to catch up on...

- Did anybody else see the "Nativity" teaser before the movie? I thought that was kind of funny, given all the Superman-Jesus parallels...

- I've always found it funny when people ask, "if Superman's so powerful, why doesn't he stop wars from happening and feed all the starving people on Earth?" Is Superman supposed to be some kind of peace-treaty negotiator or relief worker? I guess it's not enough that he saves people's lives, for cryin' out loud.

- I've never understood why Superman feels the need to be Clark Kent in the first place. I know he was raised as Clark Kent, but I think anybody with his powers would just live as Superman. It's not like he needs to eat (does he?) or pay bills or anything. I'm sure some kind of financial arrangement could be worked out among the governments of the world for his superheroics. If that were me, I'd just save people and fight villains all day and party all night, every night. Can you imagine a better pickup line than, "Hi, I'm SUPERMAN"? Come on! Why would anyone actually CHOOSE to spend half of their time as an awkward, bumbling, flawed human being if they didn't have to?

- Now that Superman is back on the big screen, is there any particular reason to keep Smallville on the air? I kinda like the show, but it's always felt like a "prequel" thing to me, something leading up to a bigger story. Which is, of course, the story of Superman. Now we have that again. So why are we supposed to keep watching? I know, you can argue "alternate universes" and all that, but Superman is Superman. I think they should have wrapped it up this past season, knowing far in advance that the movie was coming. The TV show is just going to seem like small potatoes now.

These are just my observations and should in no way be mistaken for serious criticism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:21 pm
Posts: 906
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Quote:
I've never understood why Superman feels the need to be Clark Kent in the first place. I know he was raised as Clark Kent, but I think anybody with his powers would just live as Superman. It's not like he needs to eat (does he?) or pay bills or anything. I'm sure some kind of financial arrangement could be worked out among the governments of the world for his superheroics. If that were me, I'd just save people and fight villains all day and party all night, every night. Can you imagine a better pickup line than, "Hi, I'm SUPERMAN"? Come on! Why would anyone actually CHOOSE to spend half of their time as an awkward, bumbling, flawed human being if they didn't have to?


Go to the last scene of Kill Bill Volume 2 for the answer to this question. :?

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:14 pm
Posts: 629
Location: Los Angeles
Just to clarify. When I said they could have spent more time on the backstory, I didn't mean they should have re-hashed Superman's origin story once again. I was referring to Superman's disappearance 5 years earlier than the events in SUPERMAN RETURNS. I truly was surprised when I got home and found out that RETURNS is 11 minutes Longer than the '78 film! The original movie covered the whole origin tale. Instead of all those nods to the original, as well as the kinda useless return to the farm sequence and Lex's wealthy widow hijinks, I would much rather have seen just what had happened 5 years earlier to set up RETURNS. Heck, as I was watching it, I kept thinking to myself that the disappearance story was MORE INTERESTING than RETURNS' plot.

RETURNS seems to want to have it both ways - it's a sequel to SUPERMAN II when it wants to be, but then again, it tries to be its own origin film at other times. Some events match up, and others don't. If they do make a SUPERMAN RETURNS PART DEUX (so far the box office and reviews are OK, if not spectacular), they really ought to make a clean break from the original series - no recycled music, no Marlon Brando, no in-joke references! More importantly, Singer should force Brandon Routh to establish his very own Clark/Superman personna.

Also, I disagree with WolfNC17 that the film crushes the Superman-Lois Lane romance once and for all. In fact, I would be VERY surprised if it weren't continued in PART DEUX.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas


Last edited by L.A. Connection on Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:48 pm
Posts: 8
Location: SDF 3
:? Have to agree that it was a whole lot of waiting for a even bigger bunch of nothing.

This is why good guys should wear Black and a Bat! :D

_________________
Till All Are One


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 12:54 am
Posts: 355
Location: Outskirts of Nowhere
Well, I'm sure they'll TRY to keep the romance going somehow, but I can't see how they'll pull it off without killing off Richard White. It's not like Lois has any reason to leave him, and she's still pissed at the big S for leaving without saying goodbye.

I know about the David Carradine Superman speech, and while it's an interesting theory, it doesn't really answer the question. All he's basically doing is making himself suffer for no particular reason other than to "blend in" with the crowd, which he really doesn't need to do. If Clark is Superman's criticism of the human race, then it's obvious he doesn't think much of us. So why would he want to protect us? I think the truth is that he wants to be more like us, and I can't imagine why. At the very least, he could have picked a cooler alter ego for himself.

Another question - wasn't Krypton pretty much blown to smithereens? So how could scientists possibly think they had "found it"? Even if they found a part of it, there wouldn't be anything living left on it. It doesn't seem worth it for him to abandon the human race for 5 years...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:14 pm
Posts: 629
Location: Los Angeles
If you go back pre-1978 SUPERMAN, Clark Kent isn't so much the klutz as he is a typical MAN IN THE GREY FLANNEL SUIT kinda guy. Certainly, the Clark Kent of the TV Series and the Serials before that. As terrific as Chris Reeve was in the SUPERMAN 70's/80's films, it's THAT image of Clark that has stuck.

Can't deeply discuss the Superman-Lois-Richard triangle without giving away spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie yet, but there are responsibility issues that will keep the romantic triangle alive methinks. Also, look back at the classic film HIS GIRL FRIDAY for a comparison (if you haven't seen it - you got homework to do, ASAP!). There you got a woman reporter torn between the normal decent everyday reporter (Don Ameche, but think "Clark Kent") and the dashing witty exciting super man: Cary Grant - who do you think wins the lady? :wink:

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:51 pm
Posts: 23
Location: Philly
Whew... a lot I could say on this subject, but not without spitting out spoilers left and right (Don't worry though, no spoilers here).

My inicial reaction was, "I'm just glad Superman's back." Immediately following that thought was a serious wave of disappointment over the liberties taken in the film. Liberties that in no way, shape, or form are necessary.

Here's a complaint I can make without risking spoiling anything: I find the changes made to Superman's costume as somewhat arrogant and ridiculous, not to mention irrelevant. His cape no longer drapes back across his shoulders in the way we're all used to, and in the way that makes the most sense. It now cuts straight back out of a tight collar so that it looks awkward and uncomfortable. And don't even get me started on the totally unecessary, but really gay-looking miniature "s" emblem on his belt buckle. Why Singer felt compelled to screw with the stupid belt buckle is beyond me. Would it have hurt to just leave it alone? Hey, in the next film, let's get rid of the boots and give Clark a tattoo "S" on his ankle, too. That's a great idea, since the great big red "S" on Superman's chest apparently doesn't say "I'm Superman" enough for Singer.

I can completely understand Singer wanting to 'tweak' the costume a bit. Maybe update the chest "S" emblem a tad - fine. But I for one am getting a little tired of every superhero being dressed in what looks like a rubber/plastic mold. Now, instead of a chest emblem, Superman gets to sport a nice rubber-mold "S" that sticks out from his chest, and we all know how comfortable and practical that is. No way is that baby going to snag on something and get ripped off anytime soon.

My final complaint of the day: Superman is NOT Batman. He's not dark and gritty and badass at heart. Therefore, making Superman's cape, underwear and boots look dingy-dirty-red (instead of a bright, eye catching red) doesn't make a lot of sense. Superman works in the daylight and is an inspiring, feel-good sort of character. Batman is a creature of the night, striking fear into the hearts of the superstitious criminal world. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the gritty, dull look for Batman is not an interchangeable idea with the sort of character Superman represents. I'm actually astonished more people haven't remarked on this. The red on Superman's outfit should be bright, beautiful red. Not the dirty, gritty, faded red that he wears in Superman Returns. Maybe Superman should grow three-day-old beard stubble to match his depressing cape and boots.

_________________
""Well, doesn't this mean anything to you?" He tapped the numerals 451 stitched on his char-colored sleeve.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group