You and Roger must have been sharing the same Diet Pepsi and bag of Popcorn (although, it must not have been too recently, with all the medical problems he has been having lately).

Also remember that the movie critic you are referring to that called this movie "glum" and "lackluster' is the man who wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of The Dolls"! I guess he could be right if you compared it to this masterpiece, any movie after that would be "glum" and "lackluster" (Roger was probably mad that Lois did not jump Superman's Bones, or have a "Wardrobe Malfunction").   

Oh Well, to each there own. I just hope Roger relaxes and starts taking it easy, or he might not be around much longer to tell us what he thinks. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: If you'll check out this LINK, you'll see that many of us here at The RAZZIE Forum consider BVD (BEYOND the VALLEY of the DOLLS) a Masterpiece of Deliberately Bad Film-Making. So to us in Bizarro RAZZIE World, Roger Ebert being that film's screenwriter actually is a CREDENTIAL...  

Response to the Head RAZZberry: I guess when you look at it from THAT PERSPECTIVE, I guess it is.

Even through I have no Idea of what kind of Anti-Depressant JoeBacon was on when he saw this.....I agree with the HeadRazzBerry, this movie is indeed suffering from the newly discovered disease of King Kong Syndrome (or effect).

I personally believe what Singer did with the Franchise was just short of a Miracle, Especially after what the Salkinds and Richard Lester did with III and IV (In Singer's case, he just eradicated them). It returned the franchise to its roots of Superman I and II, for which Richard Donner had set for the tone and pace.

In the end, it will most likely go with my Worst Case Scenario (See above) unless it can get a extra boost internationally (I am not holding my breath at this point, with only 20 million so far).

It just goes to show, you can give the public what they want, but that does'nt mean they'll know how to handle it! 

As of now (1pm/PST on July 6) SUPERMAN RETURNS stands at about $114.5 million in total box office. Looks like  Ol' Supie may be suffering from KING KONG'S SYNDROME -- A highly-hyped, berry expensive reworking of a classic story that didn't open as well as expected, hasn't exactly imploded at the box office, and may (as did KONG) eventually limp across the $200 million* B.O. line. In other words: Much sound and fury signifying...nothing of any significance. 

*In the case of SUPERMAN RETURNS, $200 million means it won't even break-even, since it's widely believed to have cost OVER $250 million to produce...

Oh gosh oh gee, look at the photos above and imagine having to sit through the movie!   They are so bland, so colorless, so dull it will make you sick.  Superman needs to be at least 6ft tall and 240 pounds of muscle to really dominate the screen.  He needs to be impressive!  Reeves wasn't impressive, he was charming and good looking, and they padded his costume.  I liked him, but I was not impressed. 

Kate Bosworth will be a good actress when she is older and has some laugh lines and wrinkles on her featureless face.  She is simply too juvenile and "model perfect" to be portraying a tough , muckraking journalist like Lois Lane.