MONDO COMMENTARY: Superman

Join the Horror Duo - Cory & Forest - for a sit down chat about one of the most iconic superheros in his debut feature film, Superman: The Movie. Together they kick off the first of a series of Mondo Commentaries devoted to the Superman film franchise celebrating it's 40th anniversary, and the 80th anniversary of the titular character. Listen as they lay down a fat layer of Superman history combined with dick jokes and questions about the sex lives of superheros. To clear up any confusion, this commentary is is to be synced with the theatrical (more common) version of the film.

CONTINUE READING

Superman Returns (2006)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Bryan Singer

Country

USA

Cast

Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, James Marsden, Parker Posey, Marlon Brando, Tristan Lake Leabu, Frank Langella, Sam Huntington, Eva Marie Saint, Kal Penn

Storyline

After a long period in the space Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth and once again must save the Earth from Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who wants to create a new land and submerge the United States.

Opinion

In another review, about one month ago, I said that "Superman Returns" wasn't that bad. It has to be said that I saw the movie ten years ago, and in ten years my taste in films has changed a lot. And by a lot I mean that this film is not good.

Maybe making a sequel to "Superman II" after 26 years wasn't really a good idea. What Nolan did with "Batman Begins" a year earlier was purely brilliant, and Singer should have done something like that.

Instead, we got a story that takes place supposedly 5 years after the events of "Superman II" that thankfully ignores the events of "Superman III" and "Superman IV" but is weak, loaded with plot holes and relies so much on the Superman/Lois Lane love story that makes all the other characters unnecessary.

Singer didn't feel the need to develop any of the character other than Superman and Lois Lane probably because he assumed that everyone saw the first two films. To suffer the most from that is Lex Luthor that instead of appearing as a menacing man, he actually scares nobody. Also his plan is a rehash of 1978's Lex Luthor pathetic plan.

On the other hand, the musical score works well, the special effects are definitely improved - I'd be worried if they weren't, it has been 19 years since the last film - and the action sequences are pretty good and entertaining. But do they make up for the film's length? I'm not sure.

Worst of all, the acting. It is not bad, that's my point. It is completely wasted considering the poor outcome of the film. Probably cast because of his resemblance with Christopher Reeve - seriously, let's move on -, Brandon Routh does a fairly good job as Clark Kent/Superman. And so does Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor: despite the poor writing, he does have a few chances to show how evil Luthor can be.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Sidney J. Furie

Country

UK | USA

Cast

Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Jon Cryer, Sam Wanamaker, Mark Pillow, Mariel Hemingway, Margot Kidder, Damian McLawhorn, William Hootkins, Jim Broadbent, Stanley Lebor, Don Fellows, Robert Beatty, Susannah York

Storyline

Determined to kill Superman (Christopher Reeve), Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) creates Nuclear Man, an android that gets energy from the sun.

Opinion

A week ago I thought it was impossible to make a worse film than "Superman III". Today I think I won't believe in the impossible anymore.

A dreadful, painful to watch film, "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" is a disgrace not only to Superman but to the whole superhero genre.

The story, if you can call it that, manages to be worse than ever with plot holes the size of the moon's craters - may the moon forgive me for mentioning her, but I had to since the Man of Steel goes up there to fight Nuclear Man - and has something like a million of uninteresting subplots that go nowhere. While the previous entry featured a drunk Superman kicking the shit out of Clark Kent - it was hilarious after all -, this one can claim a double date with Clark Kent, Superman, Lois Lane and Lacy Warfield that is one of the most depressing sequences in cinema history.

But the writing isn't the only problem. Not only the direction is non-existent, but everything else is just as bad. The editing is so poor it hurts. The cuts don't really go unnoticed as it looks like a butcher accidentally cut the film instead of meat.

The special effects join the party as well. They are terrible. T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. How did you even manage to produce such poor special effects in 1987? Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" had better effects, and it happened 20 years earlier. Freaking unbelievable.

But the worst part has yet to come. The acting. Oh boy the acting. Christopher Reeve still stars as the Man of Steel and Gene Hackman is back as Lex Luthor but it is not any good. They both gives atrocious performances. Not to mention the supporting cast among which there are Mariel Hemingway, the same Mariel Hemingway who was nominated for an Oscar in 1980, and Jon Cryer who plays a guy even more pathetic than Alan Harper.

I'm so glad the original Superman series is over. I wouldn't have been able to deal with something worse than this. 

Superman III (1983)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Richard Lester

Country

UK

Cast

Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn, Annette O'Toole, Annie Ross, Pamela Stephenson, Jackie Cooper, Margot Kidder, Marc McClure, Gavan O'Herlihy

Storyline

Superman (Christopher Reeve) takes on a megalomaniacal businessman (Robert Vaughn) who is using a dopey hacker (Richard Pryor) to help him take on the world.

Opinion

Whatever this thing I just watched is, I'm sure its main purpose is to make me feel bad for saying a lot of terrible, atrocious things about "Superman". It has to be some sort of revenge on me. It has to. But let's get into the review, shall we?

"Superman III" is a silly, shallow, completely ridiculous film that not only insults the two previous entries but the viewer as well.

The film is bad on so many levels - it's bad on all the levels to be honest -, I don't know where to start. I don't know what Richard Lester was thinking, but if he wanted to make fun of Superman, like a parody would do, he succeeded. 

I should probably talk about the plot now, but it's going to be very hard since there is no plot. Things happen, that's all. Superman gets to be a supporting character in his own movie. How does that even happen? Instead of being the focused of the film, he has some subplots, like an awful one involving Lana Lang, played by a young Annette O'Toole which, by the way, was way better in "Smallville" than she is in this one, and another involving Superman getting wasted in public, losing his temper, and settling whatever he had to settle in a "Fight Club"-esque manner. Oh, did I mention that the villain makes synthetic kryptonite that eventually splits Clark Kent in two? One good, one evil, and that's the reason Superman gets drunk. 

The main character of the film is the villain, some megalomaniacal businessman that substitutes Gene Hackman's brilliant Lex Luthor, and/or Terence Stamp's spectacular General Zod. I let you choose. The worst thing is that even being the main character, the villain is forgettable. 

This could easily fall in the so-bad-it's-good category, because despite being completely stupid, nonsense, - and did I already say ridiculous? -, it is indeed a great fun to watch. It is so bad it made me laugh. Anyway, kudos to Lester for killing Superman without kryptonite. 

Superman II (1980)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Richard Donner | Richard Lester

Country

USA | UK

Cast

Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Sarah Douglas, Margot Kidder, Jack O'Halloran, Valerie Perrine, Susannah York, E.G. Marshall, Marc McClure, Terence Stamp

Storyline

After escaping from the Phantom Zone, General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran) descent upon Earth to conquer it. It's up to Superman (Christopher Reeve) to save the world.

Opinion

If you recall last week I said a lot of bad things about "Superman" - boring, dumb plot, terribly aged, a waste of a great cast. Luckily "Superman II" is a huge improvement on its predecessor. Yeah, I know, it basically happens with every sequel.

Perhaps the greatest thing about this film is that it continues where the first film ended, but it also provides a brief summary of what happened before so you don't actually have to watch the first movie.

Other than that, the film features a strong, interesting plot that revolves around Zod trying to rule Earth, Lex Luthor escaping from prison and joining the supervillains to take revenge on Superman.

But the most interesting part is the moral dilemma that Superman has to face as Lois Lane finds out Clark Kent and him are the same person. For love, he gives up his powers without hesitation, but unfortunately his powers are needed by the whole world, so isn't it selfish of him to deprive humanity of his protection only to live a normal live with the woman he loves? And is it worth it? For this very reason, the romantic subplot is quite interesting as well.

By any means I'm saying the film is perfect though. Of course it has plot holes - how does Superman even falls for that Lois Lane is a mystery, and returning to the suit was a little bit too easy - but none as big as turning back time.

The special effects are still not that good, but they are a great improvement on the first film, and the action sequences are great to be honest.

Like I said a week ago, Christopher Reeve does a great job both as Clark Kent and Superman, and will remain forever the embodiment of the Man of Steel, but the stand out is Terence Stamp. He is simply terrific as General Zod.

Superman (1978)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Richard Donner

Country

USA

Cast

Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, Trevor Howard, Jack O'Halloran, Valerie Perrine, Maria Schell, Terence Stamp, Phyllis Thaxter, Susannah York, Jeff East, Marc McClure, Sarah Douglas, Harry Andrews

Storyline

The infant Kal-El, of the planet Krypton, makes his journey to Earth in a ship constructed by his father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando), just as the planet explodes. As he grows to manhood, Kal-El (Christopher Reeve) learns he possesses super-powers, and becomes the Earth's greatest superhero.

Opinion

Although I've been addicted to "Smallville" for about 10 years, I've never been a Superman fan. Singer's "Superman Returns" wasn't that bad, and the new Snyder's films are okay. Still, not enough to make me love the Kryptonian. I thought maybe the original movie would have changed my mind. Turns out I'm probably the only one on the "Superman is a terrible movie" island and I honestly don't get why people love this film so much.

I mean, "Superman" is a very boring, poor film, aged in the worst way, with a screenplay that seems written by a 5-year-old kid.

I haven't read the comic books, so I don't know how faithful the film is, but I can point out the dumbness that laying in the plot. I used to think Kal-El was a smart guy. Apparently he is so smart that tells to a reporter all of his secrets, especially his weaknesses, so said reporter can publish every single word he said for his enemies to read. Deserving a price for smartest guy in the film is also Lex Luthor. Just like his enemy, he is so smart that brings Superman at his own secret place and tells him his plans. As if being that smart wasn't enough, Lex isn't even some insane criminal, but just a crook who wants to take over some real estate. In the process of stopping this badass, Lois Lane dies, so Superman travels back in time to save her. But why didn't he time travel to prevent the nuclear bomb to go off?

I really can't believe Mario Puzo, the guy who wrote a masterpiece such as "The Godfather" took part in this. How that even happened?

Anyway, what makes me cringe the most are the special effects. I'm not comparing them with modern films but with films of the same era, like "Star Wars" that came out one year earlier. And I fail to see how this movie managed to win the Oscar for best special effects. I really fail to. Also the sets, especially the alien ones, are goddamn awful.

However, the film ain't a hundred percent rotten. I really liked Clark Kent as he is the best, funniest part of the entire film, John Williams's score is beautiful, and Christopher Reeve is actually able to give a believable performance as Superman, and despite the film he makes you care for him.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Zack Snyder

Country

USA

Cast

Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot, Robin Atkin Downes, Tao Okamoto, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, Michael Shannon, Harry Lennix, Christina Wren, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Lauren Cohan

Storyline

Fearing the actions of Superman (Henry Cavill) are left unchecked, Batman (Ben Affleck) takes on the man of steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs. With Batman and Superman fighting each other, a new threat, Doomsday (Robin Atkin Downes), is created by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). It's up to Superman and Batman to set aside their differences along with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to stop Lex Luthor and Doomsday from destroying Metropolis.

Opinion

My excitement was so high I went to the cinema on Wednesday night, even though that meant staying awake until almost one in the morning to see the whole thing. Big challenge for me considering the poor outcome of "Man of Steel", but, and I can't believe I'm actually saying it, Zack Snyder did a good job for once, and I haven't miss a single frame despite being tired as hell. Without further ado, here's my thoughts on one of the most anticipated films of 2016.

A great piece of entertainment, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a solid foundation for the DC Cinematic Universe.

The opening sequence was not what I expected but it shows Snyder's visual creativity and wowed me for the first time that night: while the opening credits rolls in, in a dream-like sequence, is told the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, without mince words since we all know the story, later to move the action in Metropolis, while it is being destroyed by Zod, this time shown from Batman's point of view.

I won't spoil anything, but the film goes on showing a series of actions that will bring the two superheroes, Batman and Superman, to the fateful clash, that eventually turns out to be nothing more than the outcome of a series of misunderstandings.

This first part is beautifully done, it is so well made that the idea of Zack Snyder making it won't even cross your mind for a second. Simply spectacular.

In the second part, the good old Zack just couldn't resist to the temptation, and indeed loaded it with a lot of action. While this was a major issue with "Man of Steel", in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" the action is appropriately dosed and has really improved since 2013. The fight between Batman and Superman is quite amazing.


Despite one terrible scene - you'll know what I'm talking about when you'll see the film -, the CGI is actually good. Doomsday was frightening, threatening, all I wanted to see in such a character.

Unlike in the previous film, Snyder did not use action and special effects to compensate the lack of a good story. Actually, overall, the story is well written, it has the right amount of twists and a good amount of humour enough to be compelling and very entertaining. To be honest, though, there are some plot holes, and the story could have been developed a little better in the second part of the film.

The film also features quite beautiful cinematography, colours and atmosphere as well as a thrilling score from Hans Zimmer and  Junkie XL.

Something I was worried about was Ben Affleck playing Batman and Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor. While Christian Bale will always be my favourite Batman, Affleck did a wonderful job, he was intense, and played beautifully both the aged Bruce Wayne and Batman, and he can finally shake off "Daredevil". Jesse Eisenberg's casting was questionable, and I was worried he was going to kill Lex Luthor. Well, I've never been so happy to be wrong. He is quite a villain, deceiving, and convincing, a true devil. He still played Jesse Eisenberg, but really had something new this time. Gal Gadot is the other member of the cast standing out. Eff the haters, because she owned the role of Wonder Woman in every possible way, and she also nailed it as Diana. And now the other side of the coin: Henry Cavill. If he didn't convince you in "Man of Steel", he won't convince you neither here. As if looking like a piece of wood was not enough, he has also lost charm.

Overall, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a great improvement on "Man of Steel", but it is not as good as Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". Not even remotely.

Man of Steel (2013)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Zack Snyder

Country

USA

Cast

Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Christopher Meloni, Ayelet Zurer, Russell Crowe, Harry Lennix, Christina Wren, Richard Schiff, Michael Kelly

Storyline

A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man (Henry Cavill), he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind.

Opinion

Because of all the excitement for "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice", I thought "Man of Steel" was supposed to be a big deal. So I watched it with high expectations, and I was rewarded with a big let down.

"Man of Steel" is loaded with action and special effects, but never quite takes off mainly because of the writing.

While I would have expected something like this from Zack Snyder, David Goyer ("Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight") and Christopher Nolan really disappointed me, and they made a film that portrays the famous Kryptonian with very little befitting the character - Superman never kills, no matter what.

The film can be easily divided into two parts. The first one introduces Clark Kent, with many significant flashbacks about his childhood, and his two fatherly figures, Jonathan Kent and Jor-El. It also shows what happened on Krypton, and why Kal-El's father had to do what he did. This is what made me think it was all going to work out. This part was awesome, but then shit happened. I mean, part two happened, the whole fighting thing with Zod. What could possibly go wrong with that? Everything. This part is loaded with special effects - 80-90% of the time - and extremely long action sequences that made me yawn God only knows how many times, and made me spend more time checking Twitter than actually focusing on the boring action.

The modern context of the film is to be appreciated though, and Clark's multiple father-and-son tales are beautifully done, but the Lois Lane/Superman romance is shallow.

I've already mentioned special effects and action a few times, and I think they deserve their own paragraph. They tried to compensate the lack of a solid story with unnecessary special effects that will be soon outdated, and action scenes there are just smashing scenes for the most. There is so much smashing going on, the Hulk would have gotten sick of it.

But let's move to the acting. After watching "Smallville" for 10 years, it's quite hard for me to get used to someone playing Clark Kent/Superman other than Tom Welling. But I wish that was the only problem. Since we are talking movies, the comparison between Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill is quite obvious - I'm leaving Christopher Reeve out of this because I'm yet to see his Superman. Anyway, I was saying, while Routh had grace and some acting skills, Henry Cavill has a great screen presence but he's just like a piece of wood. The rest of the cast, oh man. Michael Shannon was great as General Zod, and Kevin Costner did good in the little screen time he had, but Russell Crowe and Amy Adams are completely wasted here.

All of this being said, am I going to see "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" next week? Of course I will, I love superheroes flicks, and I won't miss the chance to complain about it.

Must Watch: New MAN OF STEEL Trailer!!

Looking good! Enjoy trailer #2 for Zach Snyder's MAN OF STEEL...

From Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures comes MAN OF STEEL, starring Henry Cavill, directed by Zach Snyder. The film also stars Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Henry Lennix, Christopher Meloni and Laurence Fishburne.

http://manofsteel.com
http://www.facebook.com/manofsteel

MAN OF STEEL will be in theaters June 14th, 2013.

MUST SEE: New SUPERMAN Suit Has Cufflinks! Ok, Maybe Not... Great Poster!

MAN OF STEEL is ramping up it's marketing and what better way than to show Superman under duress. Well I suppose the handcuffs could be made of kryptonite - otherwise he is willingly submitting to the uniformed humans (military?) around him. Interesting!

The suit looks great to me and I like the dark seriousness of the poster and the first teaser trailer!

MAN OF STEEL stars Henry Cavill, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams and Diane Lane.

Here's the storyline for the movie:
In the pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the most recognized and revered character of all time. Clark Kent/Kal-El (Cavill) is a young twentysomething journalist who feels alienated by powers beyond anyone’s imagination. Transported to Earth years ago from Krypton, an advanced alien planet, Clark struggles with the ultimate question – Why am I here? Shaped by the values of his adoptive parents Martha (Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Costner), Clark soon discovers that having super abilities means making very difficult decisions. But when the world needs stability the most, it comes under attack. Will his abilities be used to maintain peace or ultimately used to divide and conquer? Clark must become the hero known as “Superman,” not only to shine as the world’s last beacon of hope but to protect the ones he loves.

MAN OF STEEL is slated for release on June 14, 2013. Bring on that new trailer!!

MUST WATCH: New Teaser Trailer For MAN OF STEEL!

Warner Bros. has released a new teaser trailer for MAN OF STEEL and it - looks - AMAZING. I saw it last night too pre-rolling in front of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Zach Snyder is directing and we know him to be a very capable helmsman, but throw in Producer Christopher Nolan and it really starts to pick up some unique energy, perhaps like no other movie we've ever seen. Marvel has every right to look over their shoulder at this movie because if it connects like I think it will, then DC and Warner's are on their way back into the superhero genre in a big way. Justice League anyone? Imagine a JL movie helmed by Nolan. It might be the only way to get back in the director's chair for another superhero movie. One of it's targets? Best THE AVENGERS. Not an easy task.

I LOVE how Snyder is using Clark Kent as a fisherman in this thing. It's a new spin and it works. The soundtrack and editing on this thing are going to be impeccable. Henry Cavill is looking great so far in the role - that casting HAD to work and it seems to be.

This teaser is narrated by Kevin Costner. There is actually a second trailer out there too with the exact same content, except it is narrated by Russell Crowe.

Now, a small note that Warner Bros. still hasn't confirmed the post production of MAN OF STEEL in 3D, but for me - it's a no-brainer. Look at the success Marvel is having with the genre and the studio would be daft to not follow that model. Sure you could look at Nolan and the work that he's done with Batman without 3D, but do NOT kid yourself, his movies would gross much more and be all that much more enjoyable to legions of fans with immersive 3D. It's a perfect match for superhero movies that have been proven over and over again with Marvel. Even IMAX had listed MAN OF STEEL as being an IMAX 3D movie until Warners told them to take it down.

Clearly Nolan's fingerprints are ALL of over this movie - even Hans Zimmer is scoring it rather than Snyder's usual accomplice, Tyler Bates. The big question here is just how far will the money (Warner Bros.) and the true creative talent (Snyder) allow a Producer to wield. It's well known that Nolan is anti-3D and is quite evangelistic about it. 

Apparently Nolan hasn't met anyone who enjoys 3D! I guess that makes Nolan pretty lonely in Hollywood, never talking with his peers like oh say: Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, Bryan Singer, Steven Spielberg, Henry Selick, Robert Zemeckis, Joseph Kosinski, Rob Marshall, Tim Burton, Michael Bay, Alfonso Cuaron, Baz Luhrmann, Wim Wenders, Jean Luc Goddard, Werner Herzog and the list goes on. However I have to say if he is a traditionalist as he seems to be (sticking with film and no 3D), then I believe he should leave the creativity to his hired creative talent and not interfere at such a fundamental level. Clearly he is practically alone in Hollywood and to me that is not understanding a market very effectively. Man, I would have LOVED to have seen BB, TDK and TDKR in 3D. Multiple times I might add.

Here's the movie's storyline:
Henry Cavill plays Superman in director Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel." The film also stars Amy Adams as Daily Planet journalist Lois Lane, and Laurence Fishburne as her editor-in-chief, Perry White. Starring as Clark Kent's adoptive parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent, are Diane Lane and Kevin Costner.

Squaring off against the superhero are two other surviving Kryptonians, the villainous General Zod, played by Michael Shannon, and Faora, Zod's evil partner, played by Antje Traue. Also from Superman's native Krypton are Lara Lor-Van, Superman's mother, played by Ayelet Zurer, and Superman's father, Jor-El, portrayed by Russell Crowe. Rounding out the cast are Harry Lennix as U.S. military man General Swanwick, as well as Christopher Meloni as Colonel Hardy.

Here's the movie's official site. Want more photos?

Stay tuned for more! Can't wait to see this in 3D...

Photo: EW
Thanks: James Stewart

I Will Second That Rumor Of Chris Columbus Directing SUPERMAN And Raise You S3D!

I was just about to post a pure rumor that I have received about SUPERMAN while on vacation from a brand new source for us but then I read a post over on supermanhomepage passing on roughly the same info. I have to apologize to my source because he did get me this information back on July 7 but I had no Internet access to capitalize on it.

However my source passed on rumored information that has not come to light yet: Chris Columbus has actually already been HIRED (and not just offered) the role of director for the upcoming SUPERMAN movie being produced by Christopher Nolan and WB is moving forward with a stereoscopic 3D man of steel for this project!

No word from Warner Bros. on either count but they have got to get their DC comic library into high gear to stay relatively close with competing Marvel properties. Exciting rumor though isn't it?

Warner Bros. Letting It Ride On 3D: FINAL DESTINATION, DC Comics Library, ALL Major Tentpoles In Fact!!

Jim here. Vegas is all about having the kahunas to bet big and Warner Bros. was in the right town for their gung ho announcement at ShoWest.

Alan Horn (Warner Bros head) gushed about 3D almost as much as we do right here! It was a pleasure to listen to him pontificate about it. Michael and I were practically high fiving every few seconds (ok not really, but MENTALLY we were).

So what properties are Warner Bros considering for next gen 3D catalog? How about ALL OF THEIR TENTPOLES? Yes. He said that. Remember that I predicted that a major studio would go all S3D a while back? Well... this is darn close. He also indicated that they will be replacing the cash cow HARRY POTTER with the DC Comic catalog.

Individually we are looking at: THE GREEN LANTERN, THE FLASH, potentially BATMAN, SUPERMAN... and...

The fourth iteration of FINAL DESTINATION was not all that final! So says Alan Horn. FINAL DESTINATION 5 will be reaping more lives very soon. I am all for this announcement too. There are plenty of folks out there that will speak out against the franchise, but I for one - LOVE them. Bring it on.

You know what guys? I was actually expecting Disney to be the first studio to up the ante and say that all of their movies will be in 3D from now on. Warner Bros. really surprised me - but am I happy? Darn right. And at the rate these guys make money - it will only mushroom from here in 3D. :-)