Ghost Rider (2007)

Overall: C+
Cast: B-
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: C
Director: Mark Steven Johnson
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, Sam Elliot
Rating:PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This movie had some confusing plot points and it started off being pretty accurate to the comic book but then just kind of... blazed off.  I definitely prefer Mark Steven Johnson's previous superhero movie (Daredevil) to this one.

The Good: One thing that makes comic book franchises so successful is the fact that every hero is different, and the ones that aren't don't make it.  For example you have heroes that defend one neighborhood (Daredevil), you have heroes that defend entire cities (Spider-Man, Batman), you have heroes that defend the planet from intergalactic foes (Superman, Green Lantern) and heroes everywhere in-between.  So naturally there's a hero that defends us from Hell, an idea that I find incredibly creative and intriguing.  And with that I'm done talking about the plot for now.

Eva Mendes did okay, I can never really tell if her acting is really that good or if she plays characters similar to herself in real life all the time, but regardless it was a good performance.  Sam Elliot was really good, I wish his character had a bigger role though.  I thought two of the best actors in the movie were the kids that played young Johnny and Roxanne, they should have given some of the adults in this movie acting lessons.

The Bad: Pretty much the entire plot.  It was difficult to follow, wasn't very true to the comic, and filled with plot holes.  I really like the idea of a superhero who fights demons, but this movie took a good idea and squashed it.  For the most part the effects were pretty good, but there were just a couple parts that you could tell they didn't put a lot of time or money into and they should have.  One or two bad shots ruins the preception of the effects for the rest of the movie.

Some cruicial roles were filled with questionable actors.  Like the Ghost Rider.  I'm still not sure what to think, Nicolas Cage seems to play the same character in all of his movies but I feel like he changed it up just enough to maybe make it work?  I spent so much time trying to decide that I got distracted from the movie then gave up.  Another poor actor was the guy who played Blackheart.  First off "Blackheart"? Really? Talk about a generic evil guy name.  Second, he was a pansy.  Not in his actions really, but his voice? His hair?  Something about him just didn't say "evil villain".

The Interesting: I really like how when Johnny becomes the Rider, he seems to lose all intelligence and barely retains the ability to speak english, yet he still knows that he loves Roxanne.  I like how all he has to do is say that he comtrols the fire and all of a sudden he can control it, without practice or hard work.  I like how Blackheart was dumb enough to absorb all those souls then look right into Ghost Rider's eyes, and why did that kill him anyway?  He had no soul, at the most it should have just taken all those other souls out of him.

I thought that giving him a fire chain for a weapon was a very creative touch, though some of the ways he used it didn't really make sense.  I was surprised at the end how much damage they were able to do to Super Blackheart using guns.  And how come Ghost Rider kept his curse?  And why couldn't the devil just take it back from him the same way he gave it to him?  These are the questions I asked myself through the whole film.

Conclusion: Here is another good idea that Marvel killed.  They could have turned it into a darker comic, maybe put some violence, bad words, and sex or something in the movie and make it rated R, that would have fit this type of character better I think.

Fantastic Four (2005)

Overall: C+
Cast: B
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: C
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Tim Story
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I was not super impressed with this movie, it seemed very childish but with a PG-13 rating it didn't exactly appeal to that audience.  In my opinion, this movie was not as good as it could have been.

The Good: There was one thing this movie did right, and that was casting Chris Evans, Jessica Alba, and Michael Chiklis as The Human Torch, The Invisible Woman, and The Thing.  They all did really well, as did Julian McMahon in his role as Victor von Doom.  Other than that I'd have to say the best acting probably came from the actress who played the blind girl and Stan Lee.

This movie also did a pretty god job of following the comic book.  I like how their transformation into heroes took almost the entire movie, it was a nice change of pace from the usual accident scene or montage.  I'm going to say about 70% of the effects in this movie were pretty good, mainly the landscape or cityscape ones, the character CGI could be greatly improved.

The Bad: I just said it, the character CGI in this movie was pretty bad.  I especially didn't like how they did Mr. Fantastic, he didn't look real at all.  The Human Torch looked okay for most of it but The Invisible Woman had a couple rough patches.  The Thing looked good throughout the whole movie but that's probably because he was the only character who wasn't all CGI.

This movie simple didn't deliver, as one person wrote on 'Rottentomatoes.com' it was "all foreplay and no climax" and I think that pretty much sums it up.  It slowly built up and then the climax of the movie was a real letdown.  I also didn't like how they never really explained Dr. Doom's power, if I have any pet peaves about superhero movies that'd be number one; always explain a superpower clearly.

The Interesting: The science in this movie seemed flawed.  When Mr. Fantastic created his machine designed to change them back he said it worked by re-exposing them to the same kind of radiation and that would change them back.  So let me get this straight; that's like saying if I hit my hand with a hammer, I can make it better by hitting my hand with the same hammer again?  That doesn't make sense.  I also didn't understand how The Thing could use the machine to change back into a person, but then he uses it again and it changes him back into The Thing?  These are superpowers we're talking about here not clothes, you can't just use a machine whenever you want to get them (unless you're the Green Goblin or Captain America ect.)

My final beef with that machine is that Reed said "it has a high chance of increasing our powers or killing us" then he uses the machine and what happens?  He steps out, melts, and then is just fine in the next scene.  WHAT?!  This movie had some serious consistency issues.

Conclusion: I guess this movie wasn't too bad, maybe I've just outgrown it, but if I have then so have the majority of people who would have gone to see it or bought it on DVD, so overall I'd call it a fail.

Daredevil (2003)

Overall: B
Cast: A
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: C
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Mark Steven Johnson
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell
Rating:PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

After reading the first Daredevil comic and seeing this movie I have to say Daredevil is among my favorite superheroes now.  This movie is very much like the comic book and the cast was great.

The Good: This is one of the best casts I've ever seen in a superhero movie.  It had Ben Affleck who did great as Matt Murdock, Jennifer Garner was terrific as Elektra, and Colin Farrell (as annoying as his character was) did well too.  Even the unknown actors at the time were good.  It had Jon Favreau who has gone on to be in several good movies and direct the 'Iron Man' movies, Joe Pantoliano has been in several good movies, and Ellen Pompeo went on to be the star of 'Grey's Anatomy'.  Oh and let's not forget about Michael Clarke Duncan who was the perfect Kingpin.  I also really liked David Keith as Matt's dad.

I think one of the best things about this movie is just the character of Daredevil.  He isn't an easily recognizable superhero like Superman or Spider-Man, instead nobody really knows what he stands for or if they can trust him.  One kid even started crying and Matt had to tell him that he wasn't the bad guy.  I also liked how they put two villains in this movie, I think the best superhero movies always have more than one, as long as they don't butcher it like 'Green Lantern' did.

The Bad: Special effects are the backbone of any superhero movie, and this movie was very similar to 'Spider-Man' in the fact that there wasn't much CGI, but what there was wasn't very good.  Everything would be cool up until they'd show a shot of him flying through the air or falling from a building, the CGI looked like good Nintendo 64 graphics.

Bullseye bugged the crap out of me.  He walked around with that dumb scar on his face (how do you get one like anyway?) and held his hands out like he thought he was Jesus reincarnated the entire movie.  Although that's very true to the character, it was really annoying, and took away some of the realism this movie was going for.  The first fight between Daredevil and Elektra also seemed very unrealistic.

The Interesting: First off, I would like to thank the writers/directors/designers of this movie for making Daredevil's costume look almost nothing like his original yellow one from the comic books, I think that really helped out this movie.  What I do not understand though is why they decided to introduce Elektra in this movie.  Don't get me wrong Jennifer Garner is perfect for the part but I think it would have made more sense to make a sequel and introduce her in that one.  They did a good job using her story and intertwining it with the rest of the plot, except for the fact that they got her story almost all wrong.

It seems to me that even if you have heightened senses, wouldn't  having sight still be more of an advantage than echolocation?  Especially the one scene when he's in the bar when it shows his point of view and everything just seems like chaos.  And even with heightened senses you could still get hurt right?  But he seems to heal almost s fast as Wolverine, he just gets scars and bad knees.

Conclusion: Even though I don't fully understand Daredevil's abilities this was still  very entertaining movie (with a great soundtrack I might add).  They stayed pretty true to the comic book and the characters and the acting was great.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Overall: A-
Cast: A
Plot: B+
Special Effects/Stunts: B+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Joe Johnston
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

If I were to describe this moving in one word it would be "...".  That's right; after seeing this movie I am utterly speechless, it was THAT awesome.  Not many movies can build as much hype as this one and totally deliver, needless to say I was impressed.

The Good: I'm going to be the first to say it; Chris Evans totally proved me wrong.  I was among the many people who, when learned of his casting, believed the movie was doomed before it began.  I don't know how they were able to make him look 90 pounds in the beginning and huge in the second 2/3's of it, but it sure worked and his acting backed it up.  He didn't have the flamboyant showboating attitude of the Human Torch, he brought the heroic selfless attitude of Captain America.  Hayley Atwell did a great job, especially for a relatively unknown actress, Tommy Lee Jones (or as I call him; the TLJ) provided quality comedic relief and Hugo Weaving was spectacular with his portrayal of Red Skull.

I love most things about this plot.  My favorite part being that back in WWII "Captain America" was created in order to get young men interested in joining the army.  In this movie I love how they actually used Steve Rogers to campaign to get people to join/donate to the army.  I liked how most of the second half of the movie was action, yet it didn't seem unbalanced.  The special effects were pretty good, I saw this movie in 2D and 3D and I must say it looked better in 3D, which is saying a lot about how far 3D technology has come in the last few years.

The Bad: Although I liked how well Hugo Weaving played Red Skull, I think the character itself needed a little more development throughout this movie.  He seemed just like the stereotypical mutant evil guy.  He just spouted off about being a god the whole movie and didn't really do anything except find whatever power source it was that they used to power all the lazer-like weapons his henchmen used.  Which brings me to my next thought; what the deuce was that?  They never really explained what that was, just some shiny ancient uber-powerful cube?  Sounds kind of like Transformers to me, or Animorphs if you ever read that.

One thing I noticed while watching this film is that movies filmed and designed specifically for 3D have a very different style than those converted to 3D.  Mainly there's more stuff flying directly at the viewer, which gets pretty annoying when you're watching it in two dimensions.  I am disappointed that they didn't wrap up the love story between Steve and Agent Carter, but I can totally see her hooking up with Stark instead and being Iron Man's mother, which will be a great source of drama in 'The Avengers'.

The Interesting: I wasn't expecting Howard Stark to be such a major player in this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised and I hope that actor has some kind of roll in 'The Avengers'.  I really liked what they did with Captain America's costume.  I was afraid it was going to look cheesy and stick out like a sore thumb, or they'd change the sets to look just as lame, but they did an excellent job avoiding all of that.  It's amazing to me how you can film a movie about WWII and not show anybody being killed (other than the few dudes who get vaporized by the lazers).  It goes along with Captain America's personality though, the whole not killing anybody thing, like Batman, but they don't come right out and say it in this movie which I find interesting.

The shield.  I do not understand it.  It is supposedly made of vibranium, which means it can't vibrate.  I have a couple problems with this.  First- how does making a shield vibration-proof make it strong?  Second-right after he's told this, Agent Carter shoots it and it definitely vibrates.  I do not understand.

Conclusion: This movie is fantastic, you owe it to yourself and everyone you know to see it.  The acting is great, the effects are good, and the plot is the best of the avengers movies so far.

Hulk (2003)

Overall: C+
Cast: B+
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: B-
Similarity to Comic: B+
Director: Ang Lee
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliot
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

If X-Men and Spider-Man were huge steps forward for the comic book industries move to the big screen, the Hulk was, well, not such a big step.  It's not a bad movie, but there have been much better movies since.

The Good: I really liked Eric Bana as Bruce Banner.  I like how he was toned down and less emotional than Edward Norton, he also made the character seem more intelligent than Norton did.  Jennifer Connelly did well and Sam Elliot was good too.  Josh Lucas was a perfect bully character and the best actor in the movie was Nick Nolte who played Bruce's father.  Other than that there weren't very many characters, I like how these Hulk movies keep the casts simple and good.

There were several things I liked about the plot.  First of all, I liked how this movie really went into the creation of the Hulk, his story.  The other Hulk movie doesn't really get into it, and that's probably my one big beef with that film.  One of the nice surprises is that in this movie they show the real top of the line aircraft our military has to offer.  Most movies just show Apache helicopters and F-14, 16, or 18's which are indeed very deadly aircraft but nothing compared to the Comanche helicopters and F-22 Raptors they show chasing the Hulk in this movie.   This movie seemed fairly lighthearted compared to most Superhero movies, and everything about it was made to look like a comic book; the plot, the cinematography, the transitions, the action sequences, and even the acting.  I really liked that style and I wish more movies were set up that way.

The Bad: This movie was way too long.  It's my firm belief that a Superhero movie needs to be between 100 and 115 minutes, this one was 138.  Along with being too long, this movie was plagued with a fundamental problem; it had some great action sequences but in-between them were some prolonged periods of absolutely nothing.  A good movie keeps your attention, this one did not and several times I found myself wondering how much longer they were going to drag it out.

The special effects were interesting.  They weren't really that bad, just a little too smooth to look real, and the only thing consistently CGI in this movie was the Hulk.  So throughout the movie he looked kind of fake.  I think there either needed to be more CGI in this movie, or more attention paid to the CGI of the main character.  I also think this movie needed a more focused plot.  I understand they were trying to make it complicated by using multiple antagonists but in my opinion the best Superhero movies have one or two main villains with clear cut evil goals.  This movie had his father with whatever power he was supposed to have, it had the military, and it had Talbot with whatever it was he was doing to stop the Hulk.  In the end it all kind of blended together and made for two or three points where the movie felt like it should have ended.

The Interesting: This movie only had three or four small continuity errors, which is incredible really.  What is also incredible is how well Marvel did a reboot of this movie.  'The Incredible Hulk' had a completely different cast, a very different plot, better effects, and was made only five years later.  These two movies should be used as perfect examples of how to reboot a series, especially one that needs to be rebooted quickly.

One thing I didn't understand was the one time the Hulk transformed in front of Talbot, then he steps outside and transforms again into an even bigger Hulk?  I didn't know he has the power to keep bulking up until he's invincible, that he can just get as big as he needs to be.  If there's one thing that really turns me off about certain heroes is when they have seemingly unlimited powers, like Superman.

Conclusion: This movie had it's good parts and certainly a good style, but overall it was kind of a dud.  It was a drag to have to sit through this whole movie, but I guess it could have been a lot worse too.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Overall: B-

Cast: B-
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: C-
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Gavin Hood
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Reynolds
Rating: PG-13 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I don't think when I was growing up as a kid I ever imagined Wolverine's origin being quite like this.  This movie wasn't bad, it had a decent plot line, a decent cast, and was probably more like the X-Men comic books than the X-Men trilogy movies were, but there was just something a little... off.

The Good: When this movie was in theaters I saw it twice, which isn't something I normally do.  Why did I see it twice? Because of the plot, the action, and the sheer fascination of seeing the beginnings of one of my all time favorite Superheros.  The cast was okay, Hugh Jackman was great as usual but nobody else really stood out.  I'd give the award for second best performance in this movie to the old man who takes Wolverine in after he runs away from the military base, and that guy was only in a few scenes.  Liev Schreiber played a good Sabretooth, in fact I liked him better than the guy they had play Sabretooth in the original X-Men movie.  The character of Gambit was a nice surprise in this movie as was the actor who played him, but this movie fell into the same trap that the others kind of did where they get a few good actors and the rest of the enormous cast is played by no name actors, which are hit or miss.

The plot was pretty good in this movie, considering they finally went away from the humans vs. mutants theme.  The only reason I gave it a lower rating is because of a few inconsistencies with the other movies and the fact that it really had nothing to say, mostly it was just mindless action.

The Bad: Will i Am is not an actor, he is a "musician" riding the fame train right into a movie deal.  He wasn't all that bad, it was just distracting trying to figure out who he was the entire movie.  It's like if Lady GaGa walked onto the set of a romantic comedy and played a character that served absolutely no purpose, it's just weird.  Also, they changed the actor who plays Stryker, I don't like it when movies change actors for the same character.

The real problem with this movie wasn't the cast or the inconsistencies with the other X-Men movies, it's the special effects.  Some of them looked great, mainly the ones without CGI, but the computer effects looked HORRIBLE.  I heard something about how they had to rush this movie into theaters because it got leaked online and that's why the effects were bad.  I'm not sure if that's true or not, but there is almost no excuse for CGI this poor in 2009.

The Interesting: Let's start with the obvious.  This movie does not fit in with the original X-Men trilogy.  Why?  Simple, because 'X-Men: First Class' screws it over.  In First Class Xavier gets shot and paralyzed, yet in this movie (and X-Men: The Last Stand) he's shown walking.  Also in First Class, they show Emma Frost as a full grown adult woman, in this movie (which is set later in time) they show her as a teenage girl.  If First Class had just left some details alone this movie would make a lot more sense in the grand scheme of these movies.  I know, I know, this movie and First Class are supposed to be "reboots" of the X-Men movies, so they're not supposed to line up with each other or the original trilogy, but for the sake of the viewer at least TRY not to confuse us.  And now I'm hearing rumors of another Wolverine movie where he goes to Japan and trains with Samurai, good luck tying that in, Marvel.

There are so many continuity errors in this movie as well.  Canadians don't talk like they're from the Southern U.S.A., so don't try to make them that way, they'll probably be pretty offended.  At the very end of the movie (after the credits) Stryker is put under arrest for killing the general, he then shows up in X2.  I'm also intrigued that the original X-Men movie of 2000 had way better special effects for Wolverines claws than this movie did nine years later, somebody dropped the ball.  And no Stan Lee cameo?  Is this even a Marvel Movie?

Conclusion: I'm going to categorize this movie under "mindless action" because it really doesn't connect with the other X-Men movies well at all, even though they made it similar enough to feel like it is.  Putting this movie on a shelf next to the original X-Men trilogy is like putting an N'Sync track on a Backstreet Boys CD, it's similar, but just doesn't have the magic.

X3: The Last Stand (2006)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: D
Director: Brett Ratner
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This was an interesting way to end the X-Men trilogy.  I never thought I'd see the day when a comic book movie kills off two of it's major characters.  Also, there were a lot more plot holes in this movie and some weird inconsistencies.  It's still a good movie though, and a great ending to this unprecedented trilogy.

The Good: For the final time I will start a post about how well Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen play their respective parts as Professor X and Magneto, they have really been the rocks of this cast.  Hugh Jackman turns in another convincing performance as Wolverine and Famke Janssen really broke out of her shell that was Dr. Grey's character.  I liked  Ellen Page as Shadowcat (even though it's a different actress than who played that role in X2) and Kelsey Grammer (yes, Kelsey Grammer from Frasier) did a great job as Beast, one of my all time favorite X-Men.

I really can't say enough about this plot.  I've been talking it up for two whole posts and it deserves it.  It's so relatable and is a metaphor for so many problems both internationally and right in our own backyards.  I like how this movie pushed the issues of humans vs. mutants to a whole new level by creating a war complete with a weaponized "cure".  The "cure" also had impacts politically and among the x-men themselves.  That along with the deaths of Cyclops and Xavier gave this movie the perfect "THIS ENDS NOW!!!" feeling that I think every final movie in a trilogy should have.

The Bad: I haven't been too critical of Magneto's henchmen up until now, mainly because they haven't really been that bad.  These henchmen though are horrible.  Come on, a blowfish guy?  The Juggernaut, Arclight, and Callisto all really annoyed me throughout the movie.  Even their lines that were supposed to be funny, like "I'm the Juggernaut b*%$#!" I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm not 13 anymore but this movie had some unnecessarily dumb parts.

Another thing about this movie is that the special effects seemed to take a step backward, like they blew most of the budget making Magneto move the Golden Gate Bridge and everything else was second rate CGI.  I liked how Beast and Angel were actually in this movie, I think they should have been in the series the whole time, but I wasn't a fan of how they portrayed angel.

The Interesting: The first thing that caught my eye was that in the beginning of the movie there was no lecture-like intro spoken by Professor X about genetics, which was a staple of the first two movies.  Also, Xavier was WALKING in a segment that was from 20 years earlier.  Again this may not be a fair assessment and probably belongs in another post but at the end of X-Men: First Class Xavier gets shot and can't move his legs, so how is it he's walking then as an older man?  Perhaps he's been paralyzed more than once in his life?  Sucks to be that guy.

Another thing that kind of bothered me was that during Magneto's assault on Alcatrz, he lets all of his "pawns" fight first, and they all get "cured" within seconds.  The next shot is of Magneto and a couple of his most powerful mutants, alone, like there's nobody else with them.  Then Pyro screams "lets get them" and out of nowhere a bunch more evil mutants show up and keep attacking.  What? Unless a mutant there had the ability to make other people invisible I see no excuse for this kind of magic.

Conclusion: This movie is very very good.  I would have given it a better overall rating had it not been for some fixable plot holes and the annoying henchmen.  Few movies deliver such an intense climax and a plot that's riddled with politics, romance, human nature, war, and above all a perfect blend of science fiction and reality.

X2: X-Men United (2003)

Overall: B
Cast: B+
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: C+
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

My favorite thing about this movie is that it is exactly like the first one.  They didn't have to replace any characters or actors, the general plot of the movie is the same but expanded, and they didn't ruin it with poor special effects or CGI.  A lot of this can be attributed to keeping the same director (a rarity among Superhero movie franchises) but it must have been an incredible team effort with every person on set doing their job just the way they did it three years earlier.

The Good: Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen steal the show again by turning in great performances as Professor X and Magneto.  Hugh Jackman, fully bulked up, did even better in this movie as he played not only the tough guy role but a mentoring one as well.  James Marsden did well as Cyclopes, although the comic character lacked all of the emotion Marsden brings to the table.  Halle Berry and Famke Janssen had bigger roles as did the actors who played Iceman and Pyro, Rogue's role though seemed a bit smaller surprisingly.  I'm glad the didn't bring back Sabretooth or toad either, their characters brought the first movie a cartoon kind of effect.

The plot was amazing again.  I can't get enough of this whole mutants vs. humans plot line, and how they tangle it with politics and Xavier and Magneto's relationship.  They went deeper into it in this movie, starting with the attack on the president and ending it with the military trying to copy cerebro for their own sinister plans.  The special effects were strong again as well.  They weren't better or worse than they were in the first film, and they also had the same amount of CGI, meaning they didn't pull a Spider-Man and mess with the CGI in every moive.

The Bad: I was actually impressed by the few plot holes this movie had.  One big one was Senator Kelly.  His character died in the first movie and since then he has been impersonated by Mystique.  I feel like impersonating someone as important as a senator would require a lot more than just a few appearances, what about his family? His secretary? Wouldn't they notice?

If you look closely, you can see that Magneto has several opportunities to escape his plastic prison cell.  The book he is reading has metal corner covers, Stryker has metal glasses, and there are some other things as well.  But instead of using any of that Magneto ends up ripping the iron out of a dude and creating a little metal balls and using those?  That just doesn't make sense and I'm not sure that's even possible, even for a person who can manipulate metal.  It is, however, pretty darn cool so I'm going to let it slide this time.

The Interesting: They erased Halle Berry's accent.  She apparently was foreign in the first movie and American in this one.  I understand though since they gave her a bigger role with more talking parts, it's probably not easy talking seriously in a different accent.

This one probably isn't fair to bring up, and probably belongs in my review of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I'm going to say it anyway.  In this movie when Wolverine gets shot in the head he passes out then wakes back up perfectly fine.  In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, however, when he gets shot in the head (in almost the exact same place) he passes out, wakes up, and forgets absolutely everything.  In my book if you get shot in the head you die, and if you don't you better have the same results every time it happens.

Conclusion:  This movie is great.  If you liked the first one this one will definitely satisfy your thirst for more.  It's like a carbon copy, super consistent, and should be a blueprint on how to make a sequel.

Green Lantern (2011)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: A-
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Martin Campbell
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This is an example of how the Superman franchise should have gone about making their movies.  By that I mean they should have waited until technology could keep up with the demands of their character and then start making movies, not the other way around.  This movie was exciting, and they played it by the book (literally). 

The Good: The special effects were pretty darn good.  I was skeptical about the Green Lantern's suit being completely CGI, but they really did a good job with it, there were only a few instances where it didn't look perfect.  On that note, the Green Lantern is the perfect superhero to do something like that with, given his powers and the fact that the ring is what produces his suit.  Not only was the suit done well, but the special effects throughout the entire movie are well done, I particularly liked what they did with the rest of the Lantern Corps and the various aliens within.

The one thing this plot did well is it really explained the science fiction parts of the story line and powers of the Lantern Corps as well as their origin.  A movie like this really needs that, seeing as most moviegoers aren't as knowledgeable about the Green Lantern as they are with heroes like Batman or Spider-Man.  This movie was also very similar to Thor in that they basically portrayed two worlds, and blended them smoothly using a good mix of humor, and no real cross contamination of the worlds until the climax of the movie.  Blake Lively did well in this role, maybe I've watched too much Gossip Girl but I always expect her to be one sided and I've been pleasantly surprised as of late.  Peter SarsGaard was amazing and I also really liked Michael Clarke Duncan and Geoffrey Rush as the main alien friends Hal meets.

The Bad: Ryan Reynolds (or as my girlfriend refers to him, Ryan 'Hotnolds') kind of let me down.  Something was just off the entire movie and I couldn't place it until the very end, but it was him.  He just didn't have the right personality at all to play the character of the Green Lantern.  He kept trying to be too funny.  Not every line is a punch line, Ryan, I'd be more impressed if you cried.  Also, Tim Robbins wasn't the best choice for the senator, he also seemed like he was trying to make everything too funny.

So the plot sucked, and it sucked for many reasons.  First off, this film had no real theme, it didn't make me think deeply at all, or make me think about anything for that matter.  It was too much of what I call a 'cookie cutter' movie, which means it didn't do anything in the plot that deviates from a typical superhero movie.  Man gets powers-man fights evil man-man saves world-man gets girl, there's just nothing interesting there and most of those points almost seemed forced in this movie.  The climax was also very anti-climactic; you'd think one man fighting fear incarnate would make for a pretty epic fight scene especially with the good effects in this movie, but no.  And for a movie with two super villains they didn't tie the two together very well.

The Interesting: Next time I'm fighting a cloud form of fear, I'll be sure to simply push it into the sun, that seemed to take care of everything.  You know for a being that envelopes entire planets and eats everything there I found it a little hard to swallow that the gravity from the sun was enough to pull it in but not the Green Lantern.  I also didn't like how one being was enough to chase fear incarnate away from it's planetary lunch, you'd think it'd have better things to do.

Sinestro.  This character confused me the entire movie.  He's all red, and mean, and his name sounds very much like the word 'sinister', but he's a good guy? That's got to be some kind of typo in the script or something.  Have the writers of The Green Lantern ever even read a comic book?  That's like rule number one, never make a good guy look evil.

Conclusion: This movie was the superhero movie equivalent to Avatar.  It had great special effects but not an original storyline.  It was a great way to introduce the Green Lantern to the mainstream public without confusing everyone, and isn't a bad movie if you just want to sit back, relax, and enjoy some mindless entertainment.

X-Men (2000)

Overall: B
Cast: B+
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: C+
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

The thing about the X-Men is that there are so many characters it's almost impossible to make a movie that is accurate to the comic books and has a good cast of recognizable faces with enough money left over for good special effects.  This movie however delivers it all and is probably the best way to represent this famous superhero team in film.


The Good: As always I'll start with the cast.  Ian McKellen did well as Magneto, he truly came across as sinister but doing so for the good of his kind.  Hugh Jackman really brought the edge that the character of Wolverine needs, I'm glad they didn't just get some pretty boy with a girl voice like they do for some other superhero movies.  Patrick Stewart was probably the only person in the entire world they could have cast for the role of Professor Xavier, nobody else would have made sense at all.  Famke Janssen, James Marsden, and Halle Berry turned in some pretty good performances too.  The supporting cast, mainly the students at Xavier's school did well too.  The only acting I didn't really like was that of Toad and Sabretooth, and that still wasn't too bad.

I absolutely love the overall theme of mutants vs. humans that they got started in this movie, it can be a metaphor for so much and at the same time still be entertaining over and over again.  I also really like the fact that they didn't destroy the relationship between Xavier and Magneto.  I like the fact that they're old friends and can actually be in the same room with each other even though they represent polar opposites.  I respect the fact that there didn't seem to be too much CGI in this movie and they used real materials for most of the special effects, it made things much less distracting and believable.  Of the CGI that was in the film I found it pretty good, at least for the year, I've seen worse since the year 2000.

The Bad: So Cyclopes wears oakleys now?  I'm a fan of the sunglasses, but I seemed to have missed that part in the comic book.  I must have also missed that they wear blueish leather suits and that Wolverine doesn't have a mask.  It makes sense, I mean he's hundreds of years old, can't really die, and lives in a mansion with other mutants so why hide his face, but I'm not a fan of making changes like that to a superheroes costume just for a movie.

Here's a plot hole for you, Professor Xavier said he couldn't use cerebro to find Magneto, which is because of Magneto's helmet which blocks telepathy.  So why couldn't he use cerebro to find Toad, Sabretooth, or Mystique?  I guess that would be just too easy.  AND what about the times that Magneto isn't wearing his helmet?  He isn't wearing it in every shot (why, by the way, wouldn't he if he knows a telepathic dude is looking for him?) so that means that Professor Xavier could very well use cerebro to locate him.  That's the only real plot hole I could think of though.

The Interesting: So I recently saw the new X-Men: First Class movie, and in it there is a romance between Mystique and Magneto.  Then here we are, set years later, and no romance at all?  I feel like if they'd broken up or something she wouldn't be doing his bidding, but at the same time there was no reference at all to them being anything other than business partners really, it just doesn't make too much sense to me.

Also, Wolverines claws seem to change sharpness throughout the movie.  When he's fighting Mystique, he can slice clean through a metal chain link fence, but when she wraps his claws in the chain they don't break through it.  And when they're fighting on the statue of liberty in one shot his claws completely take off a chunk of her hat but seconds later they're stuck in the side and holing all of his body weight.

Conclusion: This is a pretty good movie.  They made some pretty big changes from the comic book but overall it's probably better this way, although slightly disappointing, they make up for it with a good cast, good themes, and a great plot line.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Overall: B+
Cast: B-
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: D
Director: Mathew Vaughn
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I can't lie to you guys, this was probably the best X-Men movie, I saw it twice.  Sure it had some minor plot holes, scientific discrepancies, and a relatively unknown cast, but overall it was put together well and was very entertaining.

The Good: For a large cast made up of relatively unknown actors I was impressed with the acting.  MOST of the supporting characters did well.  I was very skeptical of how James McAvoy would play Professor Xavier, because well, he walks and has hair.  He ended up doing a really good job though, as did Michael Fassbender did a good job playing Magneto, the old man was very bad ass back in his day apparently.  Kevin Bacon... Kevin Bacon?  Why wasn't he advertised as much in the previews for this movie?  He did a fantastic job.  Finally they made an X-Men movie with the actual X-Men costumes, was that so hard?  Although they do make a comment about them being bulletproof then Xavier gets shot but I'm not going to get into that.

My favorite part about this movie was how well they tied together the fictional and the historical.  I thought it was genius how they intertwined the Cuban missile crisis with Shaw and his ability to absorb power.  It also did a good job setting up the humans vs. mutants theme that's prevalent in all of the other movies.  I also liked that they used the SR-71 Blackbird as the X-Men's official plane and throughout the movie I enjoyed seeing how they made almost everything look like it was in the 60's, it was a nice change of pace from the futuristic or modern day superhero movies.

The Bad: Okay, if you absolutely need to cast a ginger, there is only one acceptable circumstance, and that is if you're making a Harry Potter movie and are casting Ron Weasly.  I thought the ginger actor who played Banshee was incredibly annoying.  I also didn't like the guy who played Darwin, his body was so awkward looking it was distracting, he was too buff, but too skinny at the same time.  I didn't like the girl who played Raven either, she was okay in her normal looking form but when she's in her natural blue form I don't think she acts very well.

This movie is very far from being what I would consider accurate to the comic book.  They completely ruined Angel, made Banshee WAY less bad ass, killed off Darwin, and didn't even mention Cyclopes or Dr. Grey.  Not to mention the fact that at the end of X-Men: Origins Professor Xavier is clearly walking, and that was set in 1979, so why does he get paralyzed in this movie?  I also didn't like that they changed the SR-71 Blackbird by giving it enough room for the whole team and by giving it hover capabilities.

The Interesting: I want to have been at the meeting when somebody said "Hey, you know what would be cool?  If we changed Angel from being a really buff tough guy to a teenage stripper that looks like a dragonfly!"  I mean come on, I'm all for using hot girls to attract the teenage boys that make up this movies target audience, but there were enough almost-boobs between Emma Frost and blue Raven to do that.  I just don't get it, either change only one little thing about a character or change everything about a character and give them a different name.  Turning Angel into a teenage dragonfly stripper is like turning Cyclopes into a robot prostitute or something, you just don't do that.

I liked how they did Beast, but did he really need his glasses?  He doesn't wear his glasses in the later movies, and you'd think "enhancing" his DNA would include improving his sight.  He also wore glasses that were almost exactly like Shaw's from the beginning of the movie.  Hugh Jackman had a funny cameo and I was kind of surprised that they used the F bomb in a PG-13 movie, and why did they get Jack Nicholson to play the Captain of the U.S. ship at the end of the movie?


Conclusion: I really liked this movie, and I hope someday I can own it.  If you want to see a great movie that slightly alters history and offers a different perspective on superheroes, this is a great choice.

Superman Returns (2006)

Overall: B
Cast: B
Plot: B-
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This movie was like a breath of fresh air after the first four Superman movies.  The special effects were finally improved and the science of today wasn't challenged very much so it was much more realistic and MUCH more enjoyable. 

The Good: Kevin. Spacey.  If you had asked me last week if I thought anyone could ever successfully pull off playing Lex Luthor as well as Gene Hackman I would have said it wasn't possible.  Mr. Spacey proved me wrong though, in fact, I actually like his representation of the character better than Gene's, which is saying a lot.  I also liked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olson, I thought they did a good job staying true to their characters, staying similar to the previous actors who played those parts, and putting a slightly new spin on their respective characters.  Brandon Routh was a great Superman, though I still prefer Christopher Reeve for the part of Clark Kent.  James Marsden did an excellent job in the "nice guy" role as Lois's husband and Tristan Lake Leabu did well as Jason.

They FINALLY fixed the special effects problems and this movie was actually possible to watch without stopping every two seconds to laugh at the cheesy effects.  They kind of pulled a Spider-Man 2 though and they made too much stuff computer generated, but hey it was MUCH better than the old Superman movies in that category so I'm okay with it.  The plot wasn't too bad.  They didn't give Superman a bunch of new crazy powers and they didn't challenge modern science too much, which kept it much more believable that the old movies.  The plot was also fun.  It's been awhile since the public has seen a new Superman movie so I'm glad they stuck with the Superman-Lois Lane romance plot line as well as Lex Luthor, his most famous foe.

The Bad: The most distracting part of the plot is the fact that Superman actually returns.  He shows up in the beginning of the movie by crash landing on his farm.  He didn't leave in the last movie to go anywhere, so I was really confused, at first I thought they may have been retelling his origin story, but his dad wasn't there and he showed up as a man (in a black suit).  By the time they explained where he had been it was halfway through the movie, so that was frustrating.  Also, they end up implying that Jason is Superman's son, not Richards.  What?  When did Superman get it on with Lois?  Not in the last four movies I can tell you that.

I didn't like Frank Langella in this movie or how they chose to portray Perry White.  He wasn't anything like he was in the first four movies which sucked because he was one of my favorite characters.  Instead of being comically mean, disruptive, and eccentric he was just a grouchy old man, not nearly as entertaining.

The Interesting: So never in the last four movies did they mention that Superman gets his power from the sun.  That was Nuclear Man's thing, not Superman's.  Also, not only do they just throw that out there but all of a sudden the sun gave him enough energy to use his powers even though he's got a sliver of kryptonite inside him and he's surrounded by a giant land mass full of the stuff, it just didn't make much sense to me.

So Jason pushes an entire grand piano at a bad guy to save his mom, then he does absolutely nothing amazing for the rest of the movie.  That was lame.  I have to say though that if he all of a sudden discovered his own powers and used them a bunch in the rest of the movie it would have been even lamer, but why bring it up if you're not going to follow through?

Conclusion: Overall I'd recommend this movie over the first four any day.  If you can handle being a little confused and one or two of the characters not being played like they're supposed to then you'll probably like this movie.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Overall: C+
Cast: B
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: C-
Similarity to Comic: C-
Director: Sidney J. Furie
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating:PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Hmm.  This movie was about what I expected, nothing more and nothing less.  The plot was a nice surprise, but I was quickly let down by the special effects.  I'm glad this is the last old school Superman movie I'll have to watch, I don't think I could have handled another one.

The Good: Thank God they got Gene Hackman back, he really saved this movie.  The rest of the cast did a good job as usual, although there were fewer supporting characters in this movie and that added up to less humor.  Jackie Cooper had a much smaller role which was disappointing but he still did well and Margot Kidder did a good job as Lois Lane again (and had a much bigger part than she did in the last movie.  Christopher Reeve probably had his best performance as Clark Kent (which was fitting since he helped write the movie) and he did okay as Superman again.  I was really surprised to see Jon Cryer make an appearance and impressed that his character was so unlike 'Alan' from Two and a Half Men which is what I'm so used to seeing him play.

This was probably my favorite plot line f the Superman movies so far.  That has a lot to do with the subject matter though and the fact that this movie is actually making a big statement.  Reeve said that this was his most personal of the Superman films because he felt so strongly about globally disarming nuclear weapons.  Despite a few scientific impossibilities I think this film does a good job discussing the subject and what it would take if it were ever to really be attempted.  It was brilliant coming up with a villain that completely personifies and humanizes the evils of nuclear energy.

The Bad: So... humans can breathe in space now?  I almost turned off the movie when Lacy was being flown into space by Nuclear Man and she was gasping and breathing deeply the whole time.  That was just one of the many scientific facts they butchered while making this movie, others included slow motion space fights, flapping capes in space, talking in space, people flying upwards, and daylight being all over the world at the same time.  There were so many scientific and factual errors it was almost hard to watch.  Not to mention the crappy special effects yet again.  At least there were more explosions in this one.  And for the love of God use more than one shot of Superman flying at the camera!  They used the same shot of him flying for the ENTIRE movie.  I didn't like how in the last movie they totally threw the Superman-Lois lane romance under the bus, and in this movie they went back to it.  If you're going to destroy a plot line, keep it that way, don't try to resurrect it.

One more thing, shoving a giant rock into the top of a volcano won't stop it from erupting, take a science class.

The Interesting: Superman seemed to have learned four or five new powers since the last movie including but not limited to electric feet, super duper strength (enough to move the moon out of orbit), two new languages, and force powers in his eyes.  It was funny how he rebuilt the Great Wall of China just by looking at it, and I guess the humor I found in his dumb new powers and bad special effects made up for a lackluster supporting cast, but just once I want some consistency with this superhero.

I don't understand why Nuclear Man had to roar every time the camera panned to him.  It's like he thought he was the king of the jungle, and let's be honest, it didn't really scare anybody.  It was also kind of hard to tell that Gene Hackman did the voice for Nuclear Man, because Lex Luthor always talks intelligently, and Nuclear Man was always acting like a lion.  My final critique of Nuclear Man is his name, Nuclear Man.  You'd think they could be a little more creative, but I guess we're talking about the same people who created a hero with every imaginable superpower and named him Superman, so it makes sense.

Conclusion: I liked this movie because it is one of the few superhero movies I've seen that makes a relevant point about society and the direction we're going in.  Reeve and Hackman do a good job but its bad special effects yet again keep me from giving it a really good rating.

Superman III (1983)

Overall: C-
Cast: C
Plot: B-
Special Effects/Stunts: C-
Similarity to Comic: B-
Director: Richard Lester
Comic Company:
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG 
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

They took this movie in a different direction, and it worked out alright.  The plot was an improvement (thank God) and overall this film was considerably more enjoyable than the first two Superman movies.  They had to sacrifice a few things though such as the similarity to the Superman comics and a couple key characters.

The Good: FINALLY they made a decent plot line that didn't end with too much science fiction crap (minus the supercomputer possessing Vera).  It was actually somewhat believable especially for the time period.  I like how they sparked our imaginations about what computers are capable of, especially for the early 80's that must have been very intriguing.  It had done before though, not quite like this, but it'd been done.  I absolutely loved how they brought out a darker Superman character in this movie.  Even though it was only for a few minutes, it was done really well, and given the technology of the time I can understand why they didn't want the same actor having to play two roles for more than a couple minutes anyway.

The cast did an okay job.  I liked Richard Pryor as Gus, although his facial expressions were a little over the top sometimes I feel he played his character well and was legitimately funny most of the time.  Christopher Reeve turned in another great performance as Superman and an even better one as Clark Kent, and the fight between himself and himself was done very well from an acting perspective.  Margot Kidder had a much smaller role as Lois Lane in this movie but she still did well and the supporting actors and actresses all did well in their respective roles.  Jackie Cooper did a good job again as Perry White, although I still prefer J.K. Simmons as J.J. in the Spider-Man movies for that crazy newspaper boss role.

The Bad: Margot Kidder's fake tan in the last scene of the movie, she looks like a human Dorito.  On that topic, where was she this whole movie?  Apparently she was sent to Bermuda, and Clark didn't follow her.  He was practically stalking her throughout the first two movies and all of a sudden he just lets her fly off to Bermuda for an entire movie and doesn't even give her a second thought.  In fact, he even tries to get frisky with his high school crush AND he hooks up with one of the villain chicks.  It really baffles me how they can just throw the Clark and Lois romance under the bus like that.  My only other problem with the plot was the absence of Lex Luthor.  I know he's not Superman's only villain but he's the most common one, I expected him to have some part in this evil scheme, or at least have one or two lines at the end to signal him being in the sequel.  And let's face it, Gene Hackman was the best actor in the cast, they took a hit losing him, especially since they hardly gave Margot Kidder any face time too.

I'm really getting tired of bashing the special effects of these movies, but come on, I saw strings and wires so many times while watching this I almost gave up.  The computer generated stuff was slightly better, and there wasn't much noticeable artwork like the second movie, but the effects still weren't very good.

The Interesting: Gus skiing off the top of a skyscraper and not dying was pretty interesting to me.  The most interesting thing about this movie though was when Superman turned bad.  First off, it didn't happen right when he touched the kryptonite; it happened like ten minutes later, it just hit him, which was weird.  Also, he was so "bad" but what did he really do?  He straightened the Leaning Tower of Pisa, saved an evil lady from the top of the statue of liberty (then hooked up with her), and had a couple drinks at the local bar?  Hell, he didn't turn bad he just turned into a normal guy, using his powers to fix things that needed to be fixed and hook up with girls.  Everyone in the world started freaking out too, it's not like Superman had turned evil, he just wasn't as happy go lucky and noble anymore.

Conclusion: This movie was an improvement on the first two and actually somewhat enjoyable.  The addition of Richard Pryor made up for losing Gene Hackman and not giving Margot Kidder a big role, kind of.  It's worth watching, especially if you've had it with the first two movies and need a new perspective of the character that is Superman.

Superman II (1980)

Overall: D
Cast: B+
Plot: D
Special Effects/Stunts: D+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Richard Lester, Richard Donner
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I was really hoping this movie would be better than the first, but sadly it wasn't.  In fact it was almost exactly the same. 

The Good: They kept the same cast, which was good.  Gene Hackman was great again and so was Margot Kidder.  Christopher Reeve impressed me again, he's a strong actor while he's in the suit but even better as Clark Kent.  The three actors they got to play the Krypton criminals did alright, I wasn't super impressed but they weren't distractingly bad either.  Despite the bad special effects and plots so far in these Superman movies, they have a way of getting you on his side.  I've always been more of a Batman fan, and despised Superman because he has every power ever and no real weaknesses except kryptonite, whatever the hell that is.  After watching these first two movies though I've definitely gained a greater appreciation for this character and that's saying a lot.

I like how they brought back the criminals that they banished in the beginning of the first movie, it made for an interesting plot, not a good one mind you, an interesting one.  I'm glad Lois discovered Clark's true identity.  I feel that she's too good a journalist to let that one get past her for more than a movie, and it's always bothered me anyway how a pair of glasses seemingly changes his entire appearance so I'm glad someone caught on.

The Bad: Where to begin, where to begin... Well as always I guess I'll start with the plot.  Similar to the first one, it had some good things happening, then it's torn apart with scientifically impossible feats, and not the cool other worldly advanced technology kind.  In the end when he hits that guy with the cellophane Superman symbol, what is that?  They just come into his super-lair and he all of a sudden has a secret weapon: a giant throw-able cellophane symbol capable of entrapping evil doers?  And in the end when he kisses Lois and her memory is erased?  I wish I could kiss that well.

The special effects were bad, again.  You'd think they would have improved at least a little bit in three years but they actually got worse.  There were a few effects that were obviously just artwork in motion.  There was also quite a few times you could tell that the characters were standing still and it was the backgrounds moving behind them, it looked cheap, simply cheap.

The Interesting: This whole movie was interesting.  One of the most interesting things about it is it's patriotic theme.  The final scene is Superman delivering a new American flag to the white house and talking to the President.  It's weird though, because even though this movie is so pro-America, the American military personnel are portrayed as kind of dumb, and they surrender almost without a fight.  If you really wanted to make a pro-America movie wouldn't you portray us as being strong and courageous? Just a thought.


Conclusion: If you really enjoyed the first movie you'll love this one, and if you hated the first movie, you'll hate this one, it's that simple.

Superman: The Movie (1978)

Overall: D
Cast: B+
Plot: D
Special Effects/Stunts: D+
Similarity to Comic: A+
Director: Richard Donner
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Rating: PG
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

So aside from the fact that Superman is the cheapest superhero ever this movie was... well, interesting.  I liked the plot up until the very end, and the cast did well and the movie as a whole was a good representation of the hero, but the special effects (an essential part of ANY Superman movie) were lacking.

The Good: This movie was a spitting image of what the writers of the Superman comic intended him to be.  His origin story was told with surprising accuracy and in great detail, and backed up by a great musical score.  I liked the cast; they had a good mix of funny characters, tough characters, and deep characters.  I can see why they picked Christopher Reeve to be the man of steel, he played the part great.  Margot Kidder played a strong Lois Lane and the supporting cast of characters did well.  The real show stealer in this movie though was Gene Hackman.  He was fantastic, bringing out the funny, intelligent, and insane sides of Lex Luthor all at once; I'm looking forward to seeing him play the part again in the next movie.  And oh yeah even The Godfather Marlon Brando makes an appearance.

One thing that was different in this movie that separates it from most other superhero movies is all of the innuendos and sexual references throughout the movie.  I'd never seen such blatant sexual references in a superhero movie before, but they pulled it off well.  This film was also pretty funny; it had a lot of jokes that subtly make fun of the comic book, which always makes these unrealistic movies better.


The Bad: Oh my God, the plot.  I actually thought it was pretty good up until the end, but wow, it sure died.  I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure flying backwards around the Earth isn't going to start spinning it in the opposite direction/ not kill EVERYONE/ turn back time/ bring back the dead.  It was too far-fetched, even for Superman; I would expect something like this in the 5th or 6th movie after they'd exhausted every other good plot line, not in the first bloody movie.  The only reason I didn't give it an F- is because the first 9/10th's of the plot was pretty well done.

The special effects were pretty bad.  I know it was 1978 and yes the special effects were miles ahead of the 1977 film 'Star Wars' but... they still sucked.  I feel that if you're going to make a movie that REQUIRES good special effects, you either need to give it good special effects or wait until technology catches up and then do the movie.  Superman is one of those movies that probably shouldn't have been made until nowadays.  But then I guess we all would have missed out on Gene Hackman's Lex and Christopher Reeve's Superman.

The Interesting: I don't understand how you can make a movie with such a good plot and then ruin it with such a dumb ending.  I just don't get it.  The movie would have been great if they just had Superman save Lois right before she dies but instead they let her die and then make him fly around the Earth to go back in time/bring her back to life.  Here's a question for you, Superman:  If you could turn back time like that, why didn't you just go back another 10 minutes and stop the bomb from blowing up the freaking San Andreas Fault?! Better question:  If you can fly fast enough to go around the world fast enough to change its rotation, why couldn't you fly fast enough to catch BOTH bombs, they were only on opposite sides of the country?!  Too far-fetched, I rest my case.


Conclusion: This movie is worth seeing; there was some great acting, a perfect representation of his origin, and some funny special effects.  If I may make a suggestion though, turn it off about an hour and forty five minutes in and make up your own ending.