dog_fc

I have to say that Superman Returns was not as bad as some have said and certainly not as good as others have. I'll admit, Superman I and II were hard acts to follow and so my disappointment may have something to do with unrealistic expectations.

On the plus side, this movie had casting down pat. All of the actors were great for their roles and their performances made the movie work better than it would have otherwise.

That having been said, they were given some pretty good stuff to work with. Not perfect, but good. I recall groaning out loud when I saw that Lois Lane had a kid, but the good folks in charge (director and writers) never once pulled a lame-o kid moment ala "The Mummy Returns" when junior declares, "My dad's gonna kick your a**." The interpersonal relationship between Lois and Clark was kept real and I only wish they had spent more time on it.

Which brings us to the bad points. I can see why they did it, but I wish they hadn't. The filmmakers threw a great big world-threatening plot by Lex Luthor into what was otherwise an entertaining yarn about the incredibly complex situation that Superman finds himself in when he returns after an unannounced five year hiatus. Sure a movie without a villain threatening to blow the world to bits may have been too story-driven, too character-driven, too intelligently entertaining, but, you gotta get the kids in there somehow. I just wish they had managed to mesh the two story lines together a little more seamlessly, because to be quite frank, Luthor's whole plot seemed a little too last minute for my tastes.

But, someone, somewhere decided that they needed to waste a whole bunch of time re-introducing us to a man all of us should know and love by now. I did find myself entertained by it, just not as much as I had hoped. That having been said, I do hope they make more and what better tribute could there be to Christopher Reeve than to continue entertaining millions with the character he helped make come alive?

George Romero fails to deliver in his latest installment in the "of the Dead" series.

In Land of the Dead, the zombies are evolving, in a manner of speaking. Through the efforts of one inquisitive ex-gas station attendant, the living dead go from shambling biting, clawing flesh eaters to gun and tool using fiends capable of rudimentary reasoning.

I'll admit, the zombie effects are what you would expect from the man who brought us Dawn of the Dead - they are gruesome, gory, and excellently done. Unfortunately, nothing else in this movie matches the quality of the special effects. When the acting, story, and directing take a back seat to your monsters, you know you're in trouble.

The characters in this movie are your standard bag of mixed nuts. The main villain is a caricature of a nineteenth century robber-baron who will do anything and everything to anyone just to maintain his privileged lifestyle. You have the discontented hero who longs to be free of the hypocrisy, decadence, and injustice inherent in the city of the living. The heroine is your hard-edged whore with the heart of gold whose hackneyed voyage from cynical street-survivor to team player is supposed to be this movie's main emotional thrust. Throw in the marginalized, loyal-unto-death sidekick (loyal because the hero is the only one to treat him like a human being, naturally), the self-serving, money-grubbing weasel who sells out everyone and anyone to get ahead who predictably comes around to the good side - but in his own way by his own rules, and you have the completely uncompelling band of brothers that we are supposed to care about.

The overbearing social commentary is a stark reminder that George Romero has lost the subtlety that made his previous movies such a joy to watch. Here he leaves nothing to the imagination and it is a shame that he persists in making substandard movies instead of taking the time to craft a truly entertaining and scary film.

Five out of ten.

This cartoon suffers from the same problems that seem to afflict every single cartoon made today - poor animation and substandard voice acting.

Watching this, I found myself wincing whenever Betty and Bruce were in the same room. I knew they were going to engage in some hackneyed failed relationship talk that was going to make my ears bleed. But then I got to thinking and went back and watched those scenes over and imagined the words written on a page instead of being spoken. To my surprise, the conversations were not that awful - it was the delivery that was making them stink.

Captain America's reunion with Buck could have been an excellent scene, but the hideous animation stole whatever magic could have been present.

In all, it had an excellent story (except for Thor being a conservationist/Greenpeace type, which was hilariously stupid) and could have been much better if they had only spent the money to give us more than eight frames per second.

Bottom line: excellent writing, very good character design, horrible animation directing, with acting that varied from passable to obnoxiously bad.

3 out of ten since the bad aspects of this far outweigh the good parts.