Superman Returns

Superman Returns
Last summer, director Christopher Nolan reinvigorated the BATMAN legend with a character-driven thrill-ride chock full of surprises and endless invention, but the same can’t be said of Bryan Singer’s SUPERMAN RETURNS, which feels like a retread for much of its lethargic and bloated running-time. I can’t say this was a major disappointment since my expectations […]

Last summer, director Christopher Nolan reinvigorated the BATMAN legend with a character-driven thrill-ride chock full of surprises and endless invention, but the same can’t be said of Bryan Singer’s SUPERMAN RETURNS, which feels like a retread for much of its lethargic and bloated running-time. I can’t say this was a major disappointment since my expectations going in were modest at best, but this thing was sooo shockingly mundane; nothing in this movie stirs up much excitement or comes close to matching the awe and wonder Richard Donner’s film fashioned so exhuberantly.

With few exceptions, the casting is disastrous: Bosworth takes the plucky Lois Lane and imbues her with the sum energy derived from digesting a handful of sleeping pills; Spacey’s Luthor, while more faithful to the source material than previous screen versions, isn’t half as memorable as Gene Hackman’s playful take on the character, and Frank Langella is sooo lackluster a Perry White I’m not even sure he was awake when his scenes were shot. As for Routh, he improved as the film progressed, but he still looks more like Superboy (or, more precisely, RUSHMORE’s Max Fischer) than the Man of Steel. (His adolescent looks and awkward first attempts to mimic Christopher Reeve’s Clark Kent are painful to watch)

The missteps in casting could have been glossed over if the film delivered some truly jaw-dropping scenes of Super-derring-do, but there’s little suspense or excitement to the action set-pieces that seem regurgitated from previous films, and the special-effects — the one area it was reasonable to expect improvement in leaps and bounds — are competent but unambitious and not that big an upgrade from what Donner achieved in 1978. In fact, director Bryan Singer, who did such a fine job with the first two X-MEN films, seems so intent on capturing the style of the Donner classic that he leaves little of his own imprint on SUPERMAN RETURNS. SUPERMAN RETURNS most reminds me of Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of PLANET OF THE APES; each had heaps of money lavished on them, but both are completely lifeless. And since when did Clark Kent wear glasses as a young boy??

Ultimately, this new SUPERMAN may appeal more to those who didn’t grow up with the Christopher Reeve movies, but at 2 1/2 hours, it may be too slow to become the smash Warner was hoping for; it certainly won’t rule the box-office for 13 consecutive weeks as the 1978 original did. In the end, it’s ironic the filmmakers chose to feature the song “Heart and Soul” when SUPERMAN RETURNS had neither.

Source: www.bestfilms.info

The Da Vinci Code
I am going to start out by noting that Ron Howard is one of the best directors of our modern generation. That is why that I thought, going into the theatre that this film (staring one of the best actors ever). It would have at least a sliver of a chance of being good, maybe […]

I am going to start out by noting that Ron Howard is one of the best directors of our modern generation. That is why that I thought, going into the theatre that this film (staring one of the best actors ever). It would have at least a sliver of a chance of being good, maybe not as good as the book but nonetheless still good. Making a film of such a loved as well as heated topic always draws a lot of attention, there are always the people that love, and most of the time … that same number of people that hate.

It was a very smart summer blockbuster that will attract a lot of the general American public. Think about it. Tom Hanks (one of the best actors we have ever had AND it’s based on one of the most read books since well holy the BIBLE and the DICTIONARY. Ron Howard’s adaptation of the Da Vinci Code, in my opinion not only falls sort of the book, but also tacks on a completley new and UN-improved boring ending. I honestly was somewhat enjoying this film right up until the final 30 minutes, it was pointless, uncalled for and just all around sloppy and bad.

Now getting all of those negative statements out of the way, I very much enjoyed the way that they adapted the screenplay (other than the end, obviously), and I loved the acting all around as a whole. That said Tom Hanks, obviously wasn’t exactly the most convincing Robert Langdon but still his natural acting skills made up for it. Ian McKellen’s performance of Sir Leigh Teabing is jut about as good as it could have been and the French actress Audrey Tautou’s performace as Sophie was well done. Even the little performances such as Jean eno’s performance as the police chief was good just as the rest of eno’s performances. Also the cinamotography and camera shots were very well done and were definately pleasing to watch and keep an eye on.

The “Da Vinci Code” has it’s shining moments but fails, overall to really impress not only non-readers of the novel but also the devoted fans, but i’m not too shocked.

Source: www.bestfilms.info

http://www.wowmails.com