carl stromberg wrote:
As the Dr said, Roger has followed other critics in praising Craig and the new direction in Casino Royale - then complaining about the lack of Q, gadgets, a suave "double-entendre spouting" Bond in QOS.......
Thats the thing about it for me, Bond was not Bond in CR and it was forgiven, Bond is not Bond in QOS and that's a "no no"?
Its more than sending mixed signals its bipolar.
Ebert was one of the only major critics to get Superman returns right. For those same reason he should have got CR correct the way he got QOS. I think it was because there were 20 Bond movies and CRw as the first to throwaway the mold and Superman hadn't had a new movie since the 80's so the expectations were different, the sam e old superman woudl have been welcomed change and the new none bond was mistaken for better because it was different. Also I think a lot was takne on faith that the next movie would be bond and this was just a one time experiment and the missing essentials would be restored in short order. If they had listened to Craig and Barbara they would've know that wasn't the case
BY ROGER EBERT / June 27, 2006
It's no fun being Superman. Your life is a lie, there's nobody you can confide in, you're in love but can't express it, and you're on call 24 hours a day. But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.
*
*
*
*
This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating.
*
*
*
One problem is with the casting. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and I suppose as Clark Kent, he isn't supposed to have any. Routh may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve, but there are times when he looks more like an action figure; were effects used to make him seem built from synthetics? We remember the chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) in the original "Superman" movie, and then observe how their counterparts are tongue-tied in this one. If they had a real romance (and they did), has it left them with nothing more than wistful looks and awkward small talk?
*
It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic.
*
*
*
*
*
There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?
