Superman: Doomsday

as an animated movie,this one isn't too bad.i liked the story and the great action sequences and there are some great fight scenes.but if you're really into the history behind the battle between Superman and Doomsday and the aftermath(in other words,if you've read the comic version of the events)you might be disappointed,as i don't think it is that faithful to the source material.but beyond that,the movie does seem a little rushed.i think they may have tried to jam too much into the short 75 minute running time.still,the movie is entertaining.you shouldn't get bored watching it.DC has done better though and although i liked it,it wasn't as good as i had hoped or expected.all in all,though,i'd Give Superman:Doomsday a 7/10 based on it's entertainment value.

Now this is what Bryan Singer should have tried bringing to the big screen instead of Superman Returns.

This animated movie does more with the character than any live action movie has. Characters are well-drawn, well-animated and there is brilliant interplay between them to draw things out and tell a good story.

It explores the depth of the character of Superman, tasked with being an absolute pillar of morality to the public. And there is exploration into the character of Lois Lane, the journalist out to not just document all that he does, but also settle the conflict of her feelings for him. Interesting developments for other characters as well such as Jimmy and the editor, and the story packs it all into a highly entertaining hour and a half. The action is a highlight. The animation and the choreography of the fight scenes really stand out, putting the choreography of most live-action Hollywood movies to shame.

The script is excellent, it just feels a little rushed at times, but that's understandable given the short running times for animated movies. All the more reason why it would have been even better in live action, but the budget required to do it justice might be too much.

This is a very entertaining and thoughtful movie to watch even if you're not a fan of comics or cartoons. It's certainly not for children, the violence isn't graphic but it is certainly implied and a bit shocking.

The start is really good. Well, except for every second spent on secondary characters or Clark Kent. Luthor, Doosmday and Superman create a really great start (30 minutes, more or less). Visually, it's specially good what they do with Doomsday, to recreate the horror that a monster like it would generate. Some shots are basically horror movie type of shots and work so well. (By the way, the criticism of Man of Steel "destructive and un-protective Superman" got even more stupid for me after watching this animated movie, with an even more reckless Superman). After the clash of these Titans, the pace slows down way too much and with understandably low IQ dialogue (movie for kids), bad jokes and the focus on the "wrong characters", the movie gets super boring. It finally gets better entering the third act, with a didactic but good and entertaining exposition of what makes Superman the hero, super hero, he is, and how important his mindset is besides his physical prowess. The conclusion gets a bit repetitive, but it's fine. The voice actors are terrible and all that isn't Superman or villains related, awful. But the start amazing and the ending fine. It's fine.

Subject to some controversy surrounding its comic-book accuracy, 'Superman/Doomsday (2007)' does focus less on its eponymous characters than you might expect and actually only features around ten-minutes of the 'Doomsday' character, instead focusing on the aftermath of his battle with our hero and loosely amalgamating several story-strands from the Son Of Krypton's source-material. Ultimately, I think the title was meant to be more metaphorical than literal, with the 'Doomsday' referring to the severity of the flick's events rather than the character that causes much of the destruction, unnamed in the actual picture. What doesn't help this possible intention, and I'm about to get pedantic here, is the confusing punctuation used. I've seen it written with a colon, a dash and, as appears here on IMDb, a forward-slash; on the actual title-card, no punctuation appears. I think the intention was for a more traditional colon, which allows for my 'metaphorical double use' theory to stand, but the lack of actual punctuation on film caused some confusion and is the reason we end up with the current title, as it is the best way to represent two words that are shown together yet meant to be taken separately. Yet, the forward-slash implies the piece is a two-hander between the two characters and doesn't really leave much room for a double meaning. It's clumsy from many standpoints and sets the movie up as something it ultimately isn't, and wasn't ever intended to be. This could all be to further subvert expectation, however, by pointing the audience in one direction and then taking them in another. This ends up creating a genuinely surprising piece that may, at times, be somewhat outlandish but does tell a mostly mature tale that doesn't focus entirely on smash-'em-up action, though it does have its fair share of it. The sillier stuff becomes intrinsic with the narrative, consistent with the world and treated with the respect needed to make it mostly believable. The film is consistently entertaining and unexpected, placing more of its emphasis on a supporting cast that barely gets the time-of-day in other Superman stories to a refreshing result. It's in its unconventional approach that it finds its footing as a story with stakes far higher than the usual 'save the city from a big monster', stakes that are built upon meaty character dynamics and genuine morals twisted by believable motivations. Ultimately, it's pretty compelling stuff. 7/10

I'm not a fan of Singer's Superman Returns, and sadly the last Superman animated feature "Brainiac Attacks" was so much full of action, that the characters became too pale. But here the action and character scenes are properly balanced. The animated Lex Luther is as always much better than any of the life-action versions. Clancy Brown voice gave Luthor a dangerous tone. I never thought it possible that James Marsters is up to the job to replace him. But he did it well. It's a different Luthor somehow. Much more psycho if you want. Bruce Timm and company did a good movie out of a rather boring Comic series from the 90's. After this I'm looking forward for more Bruce Timm movies. I would also welcome another Batman animated movie as long as it's Kevin Conroys version and not that crappy Batwave series.

Ah yes... this movie is far better than the new Marvel animated features. Only the first Avengers was fine and has to be excluded.