Cary L. Brown wrote:
Superman Returns was somewhat successful at the box office, and was also critically acclaimed, a hell of a lot better factors than fan boy longing to see Superman kick Darkseid's butt all over creation or whatever tha fan boys who make fan films want.
What an incredibly moronic thing to say.
"Somewhat successful" translates to "was less successful than expected but wasn't a money-LOSER."
"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING (except for Frank Rich having apparently gotten into seeing Routh in tights maybe?).
You can find the major reviews at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes if you really want to. It's actually true that SR received a lot of highly positive notices, including Variety
and The Hollywood Reporter
. At the time, it was really exciting to see the first Superman film in 19 years receive good reviews from the major trade publications and various newspapers. They weren't all positive, of course. Roger Ebert thought the movie was too sullen, among other faults. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times
was not too impressed either.
Negative reviews from mainstream critics did not dwell too much on Superman's alleged stalking, his poor judgment when it comes to fathering a child with Lois, Lex Luthor's obsession for land (not again) or Kate Bosworth's age. These are the major lingering issues to which fans keep returning. That doesn't mean they're illegitimate complaints; it just means that fans bring a different and perhaps broader agenda when they see a Superman