MattHelm

Anybody invites you to a game of solitaire, you tell 'em sorry, buster, the ball game is over.

Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

The History Channel shows a documentary on the CIA and Russian experiments in brainwashing from time to time. The doctor who headed MKULTRA was Donald Ewen Cameron, who started his experiments back with the OSS. He once treated a woman who had postpartum depression and ended up erasing all her memories. She had to learn how to do everything all over again, like a child. The Russian experiments showed them using drugs and microwaves. They focused microwaves on the office of the US Ambassador in Moscow, and made the people on the entire floor that he was on, sick.

I don't think they have any choice but to introduce a new villain the next time out. Even those who are new to Superman movies won't want Luthor leftovers. Hopefully, once they have The Flash and Wonder Woman films in the bag, they'll do a Justice League movie, since they won't have to waste time with origins. I like the way Spidey's black suit looks and wonder how it's explained in the absence of the Secret War story. And I hope that after the suit adopts Brock, it gets all nasty looking with the gaping mouth when it becomes Venom. The Sandman ought to be good.

If there's ever another one made, maybe they can explain this Superman as being Brainiac or Bizarro, and have the real one return. They could call it, "Superman Returns ... Really." While Spacey is a better Luthor, Hackman's was better thought out by the writers, at least in the first two movies. In this one, he acts like a small-time hood in how he inherits his wealth. You'd think that with his criminal mastermind, he'd be able to make money some other way. Luthor has too much pride, or too big an ego, to get his money the way he did. That was probably the creepiest thing about the movie. I know he's a mass murderer, but do we also have to make him Anna Nicole Smith? Also, I think Luthor would have thought out his scheme a little better. Who needs Superman when one jet could have put an end to his whole plan? They were just a sitting target. The movie's plot seemed like a kid's homework assignment that was put off until the night before it was due. Never read the Joker book. I stopped reading most comics when they started to become like stocks. Now that Cerebus is done, I only read Hellboy when Mignola remembers to put one out.

Hi filmlover, I wish I had seen it at IMAX in 3D, the effects were amazing. But Routh's Superman (and I'm not blaming him) creeped me out when he was stalking Lois by using his x-ray vision and super hearing to spy on her in her home. Kevin Spacey was an improvement on Hackman's Luthor, but he used Hackman (or rather, Singer did) as a blueprint for the character.

Yeah, I don't think Superman Returns will even make its money back. It's doing poorly for a movie of its cost, and otherwise popular subject matter. And then there's the hidden costs that aren't part of the film's budget, like distribution. That's easily another $40-50 million. Singer is already talking about doing a Batman vs. Superman movie, after he makes a few more Superman movies ... of course. If this movie doesn't turn a profit, then there won't be anymore for him. There is an "Ant Man" project being talked about in Hollywood, he'll be lucky if he can get that. There was a dream team combo of Tim Burton directing a Kevin Smith Superman script in the early stages, but they couldn't come to agree on things. Too bad.

It also looks like he forgot to take his cape off of the clothes line before taking off.

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but the real insult to Superman is Ben Affleck putting on the suit to play George Reeves in an upcoming movie about his death. And I know you wouldn't want to see him play Reeves while making GWTW. It's a good thing you don't watch modern movies.

That's great (and miraculous) about your brother not getting hurt. And about his wanting to go back, that's really above and beyond the call. I wish him luck. This thing did get out of hand. When I made my first post, I wasn't thinking that I was making a personal political point, just that the writers were and that it shows in the character's depiction. Why others started changing the topic to other political points, I don't know, but it's my fault that I responded to them. I wish they could take credit for posting to me and call it a day.

Thanks Melanie. How's your brother in the military doing?

Oh, and P.S. Sam Therapy (and I'm sure you're in therapy for a good reason), I was thinking about enlisting for the Gulf War ... I was in college with loans to pay back, and that weighed on my decision, and then the war was over. When 9/11 happened I was too old by military standards. When they raised the age, I inquired at a local recruiter, but they won't take me because I have asthma. So don't whine about people who support the troops, who don't serve themselves. You should be ashamed that you don't support the troops, in order to serve yourself.

Sam, I know you don't have the courage to hold a conversation with those you fear. But you lie about your initial intent, and anyone who can read, and has read this thread, knows that. You attacked me before you saw the movie. So don't lie and say your initial intent was to critique the film and then argue about a non-issue about the absence of "the American Way" phrase. That phrase isn't a non-issue since the writers, in the Hollywood Reporter, said they don't think our values today refelct the American Way, and don't want Superman to basically stand for what he's always stood for. So, that's anti-American, and don't try to pretend it isn't. Unless you have superior insight how not being for the American way, isn't being anti-American. But, you're not that bright to begin with. My point wasn't that the "American Way" has to be said in a Superman movie. In the '78 movie, it was the first time Superman ever said it himself when he told Lois Lane what he stood for. But whether the phrase was said or not, it doesn't matter, in his history, it's apparent that is what he always stood for. So the stuff you found in a google search on Superman's history, and tried to pass off as your general knowledge of it, doesn't matter. You, and people like you, don't understand the majority's problem with the writers' statement. That problem is reflected in its box office draw. It's not doing as well as expected. Pirates of the Caribbean 2 made more in one day than Superman made in its first five days. That's because word got around that Superman was what I said it was. And people don't want him that way. A lot of reviewers agreed with my view of the movie. If that many people aren't flocking to it, then that means most people want the old, traditional Superman, and not the perverted one who uses his x-ray vision to spy on their ex-girlfriend and her new man. That's not heroic. They want a more masculine Superman, according to most people, and one that tries to stand up for himself, instead of trying to crawl away from thugs who are beating him when he loses his powers. But that's what happens when you portray the character as not having American values ... when his super strength is gone, he has no backbone. If that happened to the traditional Superman, he would have at least tried to fight back. Superman is all about backbone, super strength or none ... it's the way Jonathan Kent brought him up. But I think we should make allowances for you Sam ... backbone isn't your forte. Don't try and play the victim when you PM someone and are too cowardly to allow them a response. I know your name is Sam on here, but are you a man? I know I've emasculated you on here before through superior knowledge, but at least have some pride if you can't display any manners.

Jon, if I remember correctly, I quoted Kerry, I didn't repeat talking points. It bothers you that I quoted him saying exactly what I said he stood for. What good does it do to quote his damage control statements that his aids rehearsed for him? You can't change the fact that he said he'd go with the UN in the quote that I provided, rather than a unilateral American attack. Since a lot of people are watching, don't embarrass yourself by obviously covering up for your hero.

What was the tagline for that movie? Something like, "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will get tickets to be on Emeril."

I like anime, but why bother asking for it on TCM when you can see it any day or night of the week on Cartoon Network? That's like asking the Food Network to show Dawn of the Dead.

Cinesage must be flailing his arms like the robot on Lost in Space, at all the words you misspelled on purpose, repeating "That does not compute ..." until he short circuits. In fact, I think he's a Dr. Smith/Robot combo. Oh, the pain ... the pain.

I love how the supporting actors in these movies act tough in opposing the leading man to uphold their honor, and at the end, with a chuckle, they give their consent. Like they go hot to cold in two seconds. But we have to admit, we love that formula.

Their roles were secondary by design. No, not character actors, but somewhat emasculated leading men. Then you have the emasculated supporting actors, like Reginald Gardiner in "Christmas in Connecticut," to make audiences happy that the leading ladies sort of cuckold their fiances by falling for the more masculine leading man, they've only just met. It's funny how much a good sport these supporting actors are at the end, when they practically feel happy for the guy who gets their girl. This was also standard practice for the Astaire/Rogers films.

Why aren't these info-mercial tear jerkers on DVD? Let's petition TCM to go off the air at 2AM and show all the Richard Simmons classics.

I don't understand why an overweight man, or woman, could not have been cast as a believable romantic lead. Oh, Rusty, you "big" romantic you.

He said that exact opposite, after he said he'd use a "global test" which you haven't explained his definition of yet. That's his usual flip-flop. But you should be honest, the quote you chose was made by him when he was asked later to explain what he meant by a global test. He didn't answer that either, but rather went on to say what you first quoted. Well, he first told us about this global test during the Presidential debates. The quote you provided was made afterward, when he had plenty of time for his aids to think of a way to get him out of it, since all the papers were talking about this test as the equivalent of seeking permission from the UN, or the world, however you want to put it. Why would people think he meant seeking permission? As I said, we did put this to the global test, and we did go to war when it was vetoed. Why would Kerry use "global test" in a debate as if it was something Bush didn't do? Since it is what Bush did, why would Kerry bother bringing it up, if he didn't mean it as something that Bush didn't do? Never mind jumping on a quote he made that was just damage control. That's all we saw him do in that election. There's also another reason why people knew he meant to seek permission, because he's said in he past that he wouldn't go to war without the UN's approval: ""If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." Oh, and, I posted an opinion based on what the movie's writers said and their idea of values as displayed in the movie. Everything after that are just responses to people who attacked me, and who weren't even talking about the movie (I see it's alright for you), or responses to what other noncombative posters had written me. So you see, I'm not responsible for anyone clicking on "reply" and writing anything to me or anyone else. As an adult, you must see that thinking I control you, is pretty ridiculous.

Wow, you're so unhinged you're making less sense than usual. Good thing you live close to Bellevue.

You've got a bad case of Projection. Maybe if you go back and reread the whole thread, you'll realize you just wrote a letter to yourself.

"I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country. No one gets a veto over our security. No one." You mean "proceeding," this was the preceeding quote: "The test I was talking about is a test of legitimacy ? not just in the globe, but elsewhere. If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of other people, it's very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you. So, thanks for providing the flop to the flip. And I wonder what the hell he's talking about "? not just in the globe, but elsewhere." Where else is he talking about ... Mars? And they call Bush, stupid. I think you're a moonbat for thinking I controlled everyone here and made them attack me against their wills for five pages. Really, if you people are going to be ill-mannered, at least say something intelligent. Actually, I used the term "liberals" out of habit, but regular liberals have nothing to do with the thoughts being expressed in these foaming-of-the-mouth rants by you people. And I apologize to liberals for using that word in connection with these people. Liberals and conservatives disagree on most things, but they use reality for the playing field of their discourse.