I think the problem with Superman is that it is difficult to identify with him at all. He’s basically an immortal, all-powerful goody-two-shoes. He’s also an alien from a different planet who coincidentally looks very human.

I said I was biased in favor of the X-Men big-time. One of the reasons is that many of the characters are more multi-faceted in their goodness/badness and they all seem to carry some kind of emotional/psychological baggage. They are also, ultimately, quite vulnerable and in a fight for their very existence.

I’d concede that some of the mutants are rather bland. Angel for one thing … so he has wings and can fly. Is that it?

Sometimes it’s interesting how comic-book characters translate from the comic books to the big-screen. In X3, it appears that Iceman comes into his own … and when he turns icy and headbutts Pyro, well, that was pretty cool in my opinion. In the comics, though he’s been around awhile, Iceman always seemed rather boring.

And then there’s Lois Lane with her amazing fiancee which could give Superman a few lessons in communication making it hard for me to root for the right guy.

And the whole crystals-are-my-weakness-but-only-at-very-selective-dramatic-times thing was a huge cop out as far as story telling goes. If kryptonite is the only possible thing that makes a movie about a God-like superhero interesting, then make it an interesting weakness instead of a plot hole.

And Superman falling out of the sky making a crater in the ground only to be hospitalized?

And then when Lex Luther has an opportunity to show emotion about his situation, we get rhetorical cliche dialogue like “what have you done” said twice?

But granted, the acting was fine and the special effects were fine. But the story? I would have rather just seen one of the first two Supermans remade.

I agree with Dan, so there.

I didn’t particularly care for Lois, the thing with the boy was obvious from the get go, and the religious imagery I found kinda weird—I think it would’ve been better if it’d been more subtle and not bash-you-over-the-head in-your-face.

I didn’t think Lex Luther seemed evil enough. And two other things really bugged me:

The timeline. I couldn’t tell what year it was supposed to be. Maybe it’s all supposed to be timeless but that kind of thing bugs me. I spent a good chunk of the beginning of the movie puzzling over it.

The eyelashes. How much mascara can one person wear? I get distracted by actors’ makeup. And it wasn’t just Lois, it was Superman too.

I thought the actor did a great job portraying Clark Kent. Not quite as good portraying SM, but Christopher Reeves is a hard one to top.

But then there is Superman flatlining in the ER with the docs unable to treat him. Then the next thing you know, he is in a private room with a pulse.

And did anybody notice that old lady Gertrude bore a striking resemblence to the Lois Lane in the 50′s TV series? I wonder why?

This may be a remake of the first movie, but it has no implausible and poorly realized plot moment like this.