The Hollywood Reporter observes that audiences and critics differed greatly on the merits of the two big superhero movies of this summer:
As summer nears its end, "X-Men: The Last Stand," which nabbed middling reviews, seems to have exceeded expectations with a $441 million worldwide gross, while "Superman Returns" -- though it earned a strong, positive ranking of 76 percent on RottenTomatoes.com -- has yet to break the $200 million mark domestically.
I agree with the audiences on this one. X-Men: The Last Stand was not exactly profound, but at least it kept things moving and had some interesting characters. The makers of Superman Returns clearly tried very hard, but the film had no charisma whatever, disastrously poor chemistry between the lead performers, and no charm at all. The Christian imagery was an interesting touch and made the film deeper thematically, but the entertainment and artistic value did not match up with it. And the idea of Superdude having had a child with Lois Lane while she married another man is just the sort of clever concept that filmmakers ought to know better than to do. No wonder, then, that audiences thought it OK but not a must-see or a must-see-twice.
Superman started out so well. I was so jazzed by the credits, the use of John Williams' classic theme, and by Brandon Routh's portrayal as a clear homage to Christopher Reeve. But man was that movie slow.
ReplyDeleteX-Men was at least fun, if a tad incoherent and disappointing.
I'm a Marvel man (-boy). A pox on DC. The difference between Shakespeare and professional wrestling.
ReplyDeleteX-Men rule, altho the last-minute casting of wimpy James Marsden as Cyclops, the true leader of the X-Men, almost ruined the whole thing.
Jim Caviezel was supposed to play him, but got spirited away by a Higher Role. It would have been glorious.