Super-Menace posted a BBC piece about the strong early
reviews. In the interests of truth, the Usenet way, and the
countering of the advance spin machine, a look at specifics
in this early going suggests the movie isn't being received
as well as Spider-Man 2, to use that as a recent standard.
Entertainment Weekly (part of Time Warner) gave Spider-
Man 2 an A, whereas Superman Returns got a B. Rolling
Stone gave Spider-Man 2 a 3.5/4, and Superman Returns
a 3/4.
One of the reviews Rotten Tomatoes counts as positive
among the early ones was a B- and the quote they had was
very negative. David Poland, one of the few non-approved
independent reviewers so far, ripped the film. In a "positive"
review from AP's Christy Lemire that can be found here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/23/entertainment/e130933D27.DTL
One of the quotes says it's "fundamentally... a story of
unattainable, impossible love that aches with longing and
sadness..." Geez...
When "positive" reviews or word of mouth like that are
just as likely to have some of the core male demo for
the movie questioning their plans to even see it, and/or
readily jumping on any backlash bandwagon should one
materialize, it's dubious whether the "great reviews" spin
machine will still be chugging away effectively beyond
Wednesday after real people start seeing the film. It's
sounding like this is probably a competent movie, but at
its core an angsty soap-drenched one that Warner Bros.
hopes it can milk two sequels out of spanning perhaps 7
years. A pitch with that kind of subtext could come back
to bite them quickly after the Wednesday release, which
is what their whole marketing strategy is based on -- the
big first 7 days before the movie gets flattened by the
Pirates sequel and fades quickly.
Now the major SPOILER and how it might impact. As
I guessed/hoped (compared to the alternative) about
seven months ago in posts here, Lois's kid is indeed
Clark's from their encounter after he lost his powers in
Superman II. (There's an issue in that it's still fuzzy on
whether Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman 2
or not. Some reviews allude to it that way, but there are
also some denials. It's probably all part of the whole
defensive promotion/publicity that has them just hoping
for that strong first week and not wanting to actually say
anything consistent that might become a target.)
As was explained by another poster on a.t.s recently,
the sequel-to-the-second-Reeve movie approach here
extends to Lois not even remembering she slept with
Clark aka Superman, because of that infamous amnesia
superkiss at the end of Superman II. This is five years
later, Superman's been away for about that time, soon
after the amnesia superkiss Lois started a relationship
with Perry White's nephew, and she became engaged
to him and has been for a long time. So Lois herself
didn't know it was Clark's/Superman's kid at first. She
thought that Perry's nephew was the father. Whether
she still thinks that or not is unclear from the spoilers
(the post on a.t.s. said the kid does some super-like
stuff on Lex's boat, but that alone might only be to let
the audience in on it -- it depends whether the kid is
just gradually powering up).
If this movie "disappoints" (to put it euphemistically) at
the box office or critically, it's this soap-drenched core
of it, along with the casting of the two leads, that will be
the most responsible. I actually think that both of these
vulnerabilities could have been better addressed if the
soap element had never been allowed to morph into
"fundamentally... a story of unattainable, impossible love
that aches with longing and sadness...". If they played
down the angst, played up the Ultimate Romance destiny
element, reinforced the "sequel to Superman II" angle
and used that to more openly admit the primary reason
for casting Routh, I think they'd be less vulnerable and
better positioned for at least one more strong sequel.
As it is, especially if the aching sadness crapola is true
(and I did hear this from another source as well) I don't
think the wide core male audience is going to respond
well to it at all. It all depends on the specifics here of
course, but I don't think we're getting see-the-Ultimate-
Romance-Destiny foreshadowing that offsets the soapy
angst element.
[...]
> As it is, especially if the aching sadness crapola is true
> (and I did hear this from another source as well) I don't
> think the wide core male audience is going to respond
> well to it at all. It all depends on the specifics here of
> course, but I don't think we're getting see-the-Ultimate-
> Romance-Destiny foreshadowing that offsets the soapy
> angst element.
I've also heard about some soapy angst, but by no means did the $200+
million budget all go the "drama." There will be plenty of action and
cutting-edge special effects for the young male crowd, not to mention Kate
Bosworth.
And Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor may be worth the price of
admission even if Routh and Bosworth fall flat. Just from brief clips, I
already like his take on the character MUCH more than Gene Hackman's.
On the other hand, were it not for already having tickets for the
10 pm showing tonight, this 2-put-of-4-stars review might have
me sitting it out until at least a later window:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009
Ebert's one of the best critics out there IMO and I've often found
his reviews to be in sync with my tastes. He was a very strong
supporter of the first two Reeve movies and he gave 4/4 stars
to Spider-Man 2. I'll try to keep an open mind and post my
thoughts here early tomorrow, but what he describes (and he
gives away the spoiler as well, pointing out how it's not used to
any good effect) is pretty much what I feared.
Fortunately the movie probably has enough momentum to
crack the $140 million that X-Men 3 made in its first week
and avoid becoming a conspicuous dud by comparison.
But I think the best they should be targeting is one, not two
sequels and a more upbeat wrap-up that fixes the problems
Ebert is talking about. One of the things I'll be looking for
tonight is a sense of whether the movie leaves open that
kind of change in approach and tone for a sequel, putting it
at less risk of being a total fiasco the second go, or if it's a
case where you leave not really caring at all what happens
with these incarnations of the characters and not wanting
to see them again at all.
> Ebert's one of the best critics out there IMO and I've often found
> his reviews to be in sync with my tastes. He was a very strong
> supporter of the first two Reeve movies and he gave 4/4 stars
> to Spider-Man 2. I'll try to keep an open mind and post my
> thoughts here early tomorrow, but what he describes (and he
> gives away the spoiler as well, pointing out how it's not used to
> any good effect) is pretty much what I feared.
Unlike you, I'm not laboring under the burden of not having seen the
film. I've just gotten home from the theater. The film is very good.
I wasn't in awe of it, but it is a solid job with some truly great
moments, and it will help build a new generation of Superman fans, just
as the Reeve films did in their time. Routh has taken the role and
made it his own.
Perhaps more to the point, there is nothing in this film that will
disturb one's willing suspension of belief. That may be the best thing
about it.
I don't know what film Ebert saw.
Number of times I checked my watch: Zero.
Someone played a trick on Ebert and showed him a different movie. "Superman
Returns" was terrific; the whole audience enthusiastically applauded at the
end, so I wasn't the only one who thought so. The many strongly positive
reviews were far closer to the mark.
There was actually very little angst, plenty of action, and the effects were
worth $200 million. Routh was so much better in the role than I had
expected that it was a real surprise. And there was just the right amount
of humor, the scene with the dog and the baseball was a classic.
Yes, Superman is back and they did it right. Highly recommended.
I think Ebert saw the version from the Idiot Universe because Superman
Returns was awesome!
> Unlike you, I'm not laboring under the burden of not having
> seen the film.
Well you were when you posted about the great early reviews.
> Perhaps more to the point, there is nothing in this film that will
> disturb one's willing suspension of belief. That may be the
> best thing about it.
Which is also kind of faint praise. "Not in awe of it" was also
a sentiment I shared.
> I don't know what film Ebert saw.
I can definitely see his criticisms as I said in my comments post
just now, but to be clear it's not just him. Both the New York Times
and LA Times reviews were similar, as was the New Yorker and
the others I mentioned in the response to Len. Good for anyone
who loves the movie and thinks it's the best superhero movie ever
made, but in terms of consensus it just isn't there and they've lost
that argument. It doesn't mean the movie won't make $150 million
in its first week and get a quick greenlight for a sequel (it'll be very
interesting to see now how it does).
> Number of times I checked my watch: Zero.
That was the fastest 157 minutes I've ever sat through in my life.
Could've done another 160 or so of that stuff easily...
Spacey. Rocked.
I've never seen Kate Bosworth's work before. Damned impressive.
Finally, a Lois Lane who doesn't treat Superman like a demi-god. Supes
inflicted a grievous hurt on her by leaving, and she rightfully let him
have it with both barrels. Very human - not staged - feeling there.
Best part of all this, even though the by-the-numbers repacing of
Superman - The Movie was there in spades, these were all very human
characters. Especially Superman; kudos for Routh for being a Big Blue
Boy Scout with real feelings. Even when those feelings weren't always
altruistic.
Have to give it up for James Marsden's performance also. You could
tell his character was seriously swallowing some pride - and bile -
with Superman's return. Still, he was as much the boy scout as Supes
for doing the right thing each time when necessary.
And though this is probably heresy to some, I liked the way that Lois
and Superman are now forever linked - but no longer together. Finally,
it's a grown-up relationship, after all these years of cartoony
"Ultimate Romance" depictions. Hope if they do get together down the
line, it's done as well as this continued separation was portrayed.
Vartox
> "Super-Menace" <fort...@arctic.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:280620060144003508%fort...@arctic.com.invalid...
>
> > Unlike you, I'm not laboring under the burden of not having
> > seen the film.
>
> Well you were when you posted about the great early reviews.
Ridiculous. The early reviews were published facts; they didn't depend
on my having seen the film. Your opinions about a film you had not yet
seen were not facts.
> > Perhaps more to the point, there is nothing in this film that will
> > disturb one's willing suspension of belief. That may be the
> > best thing about it.
>
> Which is also kind of faint praise. "Not in awe of it" was also
> a sentiment I shared.
You can call it "faint praise" if you like. I wouldn't, and I didn't.
> > I don't know what film Ebert saw.
>
> I can definitely see his criticisms as I said in my comments post
> just now, but to be clear it's not just him. Both the New York Times
> and LA Times reviews were similar, as was the New Yorker and
> the others I mentioned in the response to Len. Good for anyone
> who loves the movie and thinks it's the best superhero movie ever
> made, but in terms of consensus it just isn't there and they've lost
> that argument. It doesn't mean the movie won't make $150 million
> in its first week and get a quick greenlight for a sequel (it'll be very
> interesting to see now how it does).
You can ignore the many rave reviews from top publications and services
if you like, even while clutching the various Timeses and litmags to
your bosom. I still don't know what film Ebert saw.
> ... The early reviews were published facts; they didn't depend
> on my having seen the film. Your opinions about a film you had
> not yet seen were not facts.
Here's what I said to start the thread:
"I won't be seeing SR myself until probably Tuesday night,
so this is really a post about the marketing, reviews to date,
my expectations at this point and so on. I'll probably post
a review of sorts here early Wednesday."
And I then went on to point out the Ebert review in the second
round, after redhawk had expressed his/her opinion based on
clips. So maybe you had me confused with redhawk, not that
I had any problem with redhawk's opinion based on the clips.
People routinely base their decisions on seeing or not seeing
movies based on -- duh -- things other than seeing the movie
first. Granted it's a studio wet dream that everyone should see
the movie first, but in the real world that doesn't happen and
posts to Usenet groups aren't restricted to pre-release shills
about great reviews or the like.
> You can call it "faint praise" if you like. I wouldn't, and I didn't.
Right, but you did say it may be the best thing about the movie
that "there is nothing in this film that will disturb one's willing
suspension of belief". What a selling point! It's "You'll believe
a man can fly!" updated for a new millennium! :-/
> You can ignore the many rave reviews...
I haven't ignored those, in fact I posted 5 of the perfect score
reviews in response to Len's post. One of them, the Toronto
Sun's, Rotten Tomatoes scored wrong because they still have
the old 5-star scale and the Sun now uses 4 stars (I'm prepared
to be further corrected on that but even if I am I erred on the
side of pointing out a positive review).
There are two separate kinds of discussions going on here, as
there are with most movies or TV shows. One is the personal
opinion type of discussion, and that extends to having seen the
movie now (my comments in a separate thread). The second
is about critical reception, box office, etc., which is subject to
measurement and is more in the nature of facts. When people
try to spin those, from no matter which side, intentional or not,
I tend to call it.
> And though this is probably heresy to some, I liked the way that Lois
> and Superman are now forever linked - but no longer together. Finally,
> it's a grown-up relationship, after all these years of cartoony
> "Ultimate Romance" depictions.
The character's been around for 68 years as you know, and the
Ultimate Romance (somewhat of a trademark of mine so I also
claim some right to point this out again :-)) has yet to be done
right. The first two Reeve movies, and Lois & Clark until the
clone wedding, came closest but they both blew it. So it hasn't
been "all these years..." of anything, let alone cartoony when it
comes to the Ultimate Romance. Unless you want to count the
superbaby stories, but if you do that you might want to reflect on
that very dubious aspect of Superman Returns. (What was up
with the kid and his inhaler BTW? I'm interpreting it that he may
have been told by Lois to use it when he got the urge to display
super powers? Use this and take a deep breath, Jason...)
Anyway. that's the only real issue I'd take with your post, the rest
being simple disagreement on the movie. As it is, it looks like
Spider-Man may get the Ultimate Romance right after 40 or so
years, before Supes does.
> Hope if they do get together down the line, it's done as well
> as this continued separation was portrayed.
The truth is I don't much care about this incarnation either way
at this point, but I think pretty much the only pitch that would
work is one that included wrapping up and resolving the soap
element early in the second movie, and going more for a pure,
rollicking-fun type sequel. Which may mean a director change
among other things.
I think the verdict may still be out on a sequel though. Numbers
are in for the Tuesday night through Wednesday showings and
the gross was $21.0 million (source: showbizdata.com). To put
that in perspective, Spider-Man 2 had the largest Wednesday
opening at $40.442 million and it ended up with $373 million.
Using the same ratio for SR would yield only $193 million, and
if that's all it gets it'll be a major disappointment. Even movies
like Batman Begins, both X-Men 2 and 3 and King Kong have
all broken $200 million (these are all domestic US numbers).
The $21.0 million tally places it 8th on the list of Wednesday
openings, just behind last year's War of the Worlds, which
was on the same July 4 weekend and ended up with $234
million. Superman is almost certainly more front-ended and
closer to Spider-Man 2 in that respect, but if it did manage
$234 million that'd be more respectable. It would still put it
in a close race with what X-Men 3 has, though. If someone
had predicted that Superman Returns would get beat by the
second sequel to X-Men say, a year ago, I don't think anyone
at Warner Bros. could have told you with a straight face they'd
be happy with that. Of course they might tell you that now with
a straight face because spin is the name of the game. You
can be sure they'll find something or other to tout, but taking
another kick at this very expensive and risky theatrical can is
probably an on-the-bubble type decision right now.
(None of which may interest you Vartox but I'm just posting
it for anyone who is.)
Or...the kid's half-human and hasn't had nearly three decades to soak
up solar powers like his biological dad. Note also, in the flashback
sequence, Clark's early years appear to be slightly retconned so as
that he wore glasses back then - seemingly by necessity.
> Anyway. that's the only real issue I'd take with your post, the rest
> being simple disagreement on the movie. As it is, it looks like
> Spider-Man may get the Ultimate Romance right after 40 or so
> years, before Supes does.
You didn't see the trailer, did you? (Two words: Gwen Stacy.)
> > Hope if they do get together down the line, it's done as well
> > as this continued separation was portrayed.
>
> The truth is I don't much care about this incarnation either way
> at this point, but I think pretty much the only pitch that would
> work is one that included wrapping up and resolving the soap
> element early in the second movie,
Not likely, unless they kill off Marsden's character. Which, if
history holds, won't be until the third film...by Famke Janssen...
> and going more for a pure,
> rollicking-fun type sequel. Which may mean a director change
> among other things.
The former seems likely - though I had a lot of fun with this one.
Director change, nah...
Vartox (who forgot - Noel Neill's cameo ranked right up there with Jack
Larson's moment to shine in "Brutal Youth" - good stuff...)