but no. Instead, I get to see a love triangle between a generally likeable guy, an annoying woman who clearly doesn't love him, and an alien who seems to be able to express emotions like 'love' (the puppy variety) when in Clark Kent form. Superman seems to simply enjoy the fact that she is the only woman who hangs out by windows and on rooftops for most of her working day. And yeah it probably gets lonely flying around all day. Perhaps he just needs someone to talk to? But, the guy has a messiah complex. Why would he obsess over one woman, especially one who is so busy working all of the time and who is so concerned about her son's well-being that she brings him into a stranger's houseboat, resulting in their kidnapping? Superman could have ANYONE. he could seriously fly into a married woman's room, have sex with her while she slept, and left photos (taken by her husband) and the woman would be okay with it. He's fucking SUPERMAN.

Superman doesn't do anything romantic for Lois in this film. he flies her around the city. AGAIN. how many times is that gonna moisten Lois up? i can't wait for the sequel -- when he crushes a rock into a diamond again!

I have decided that Clark Kent is basically a more attractive version of Woody Allen. But no one wants to root for a guy that, regardless of his looks, is essentially a nerd. People will, however, root for a 40 year old, stuttering, nervous man who eventually marries his adopted daughter. Fucking America.

It seems that Kent is a nerd simply because Jimmy Olson (a nerd because he wears a sweater-vest) has a non-sexual crush on him. Otherwise, Kent barely does anything in this film. He seems to be in the movie so that he can disappear and people can look around and say "Clark? Where did Clark go? he always disappears when there's trouble! that wily bastard!" A really annoying moment occurs later in the film when Lois and her boytoy almost figure out that Clark is superman, but decide that it's just a silly thought. They notice that they're the same height and weight and bodytype, but fail to notice that both Clark and Superman MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED FOR YEARS and came back on the same FUCKING DAY. The fact that Clark has no pictures from his trip should have also tipped them off, but apparantly everyone in metropolis is FUCKING STUPID.

Seriously, this movie was a mess from the beginning. it took about 30 minutes to sort out all of the usual crap. Wow, superman came from space? great! His mother lived on a farm? wow! He landed in what looks like a kidney stone passed by Galacticus? Super-cool! (okay, that was a nerdy reference, but I know that Mike & Rob laughed!) Thank god they spent 150 million dollars to rehash what is probably the most famous origin story in comics and in film! For fuck's sake, the comic has been around since the 30s, there have been 3 TV shows, at least 3 cartoons , and countless other pop culture references. Can we just get past this?

But I digress. Really, the whole movie was boring. The action sequence (yes, I only believe there was one) was pretty neat, but it comes within the first hour. Superman flying around a crumbling Metropolis as the big finale? not that exciting. The Lex Luthor storyline is stretched out over 2.5 hours, but if you consider what Luthor does, it would have taken him 10 minutes in real time -- fly to the arctic, get the crystals, test the crystal in some water, steal a meteor from the museum, throw crystals into the sea, make the idiotic mistake of setting up shop on the crystal/continent as it is still growing, flee, avoid final confrontation with Superman, end up on desert island with Parker Posey, make lame 'let's eat the dog' joke. If Luthor had delegated a little more he could have gotten more done in his day. But even so, why spend all that time on his testing of the crystals and why did it take so long for Lois to find out where the EMP originated from? And why weren't there, you know, scientists doing that? I know there's this whole suspension of disbelief thing at work, but the lack of an interesting storyline for Luthor is a inexcusible in an era where villains are given just as much screentime and backstory as the heros (consider spiderman 1&2, hulk, x-men). I think I'm also annoyed because Kal Penn was in the credits but doesn't have 1 line of dialogue. The man was in Harold & Kumer Go to White Castle. He's got a better resume than the guy playing Superman! give him a line for god's sake!

This movie was a pile of bloody diarreha. Did I just cross the line? Maybe. but maybe having a dog EAT ANOTHER DOG FOR NO FUCKING REASON also crossed the line. Who the fuck decided that the movie needed dog cannibalism? did they film themselves into a corner or some shit? "Guys, we filmed two dogs during the intro but we can't really have Parker running around with two dogs for the film. she has to be able to gesture alot considering that her face is always glued in that permanent twist of sardonic, indie-film sarcasm, much like the Joker from Tim Burton's Batman." "You're right! You know how we solve this? Have one of the dogs eat the other dog." "It's so obvious!" "And it's a great metaphor!" "What metaphor?" "Like, dog eat dog. It's a dog eat dog. thing." "Oh yeah, that totally makes sense." "Let's go do some blow and kill a hooker!" "totally!"

Sigh. I could go on, but do I even need to? this was a mess of a movie and it promises to be even messier as Superman learns to be a father. "Can I have the keys to the car dad?" "Son, you can fly!" "Oh, I forgot!" (Audience laughs). But I won't be laughing. I'll be at home, waiting for my wife to return from the theater to tell me how awful the movie was. and i'll be wearing a cape.