I forgot where I read another review, and I haven’t seen the film, but apparently even something as simple and patriotic as “Truth, Justice, and The American Way” was seen as too jingoistic. It has been written instead as “Truth, Justice, and all that other stuff” in order to appeal more to international audiences.
It’s a minor issue, but it’s worth noting.

SonOfTheGodfather on June 28, 2006 at 4:54 am

My daughter and I just watched the “old” Superman movie with Christopher Reeeve. It was hokey, simplistic, fun, and kid-like. JUST LIKE THE STINKIN’ COMIC BOOK! Which is why is was so good.
These types of “superheroes” don’t need psychologist-screenwriters. The plot lines have always been simple which is why characters like Superman or Batman are so timeless.
Just chalk it up to PC America once again trying to take the ‘Americana’ out of the US.

P. Aaron on June 28, 2006 at 8:04 am

Debbie, I adore you, but I think you’re being too hard on this movie. Everyone always loves the originals and everyone loved Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. So maybe Routh and Bosworth don’t measure up to them…but what about all the other cool stuff? The CG animation of Marlon Brando as Jor-El? The 360 degree view of the Fortress of Solitude? The musical nod to the original John Williams score? Come on. Admit it. That’s all pretty great.
As for dragging Al-Qaida into the plot…who wants to see that? This is supposed to be a popcorn movie, escapist fun. We see those murderous psychos in the news everyday. I’d personally like just two hours where the villians are in fact cartoons like Luther and not bestial savages like the real Al-Qaida.

TypeKey on June 28, 2006 at 10:00 am

I sort of wanted to know how good/bad Spacey’s rendition of Lex Luthor was…
About the Lois Lane single mother – sorry Debbie, although I hear you and agree with you, single motherhood has become a staple of American society, and socially accepted. Just like divorce, and living together without being married. Marriage has lost some of its value as well, so its really no surprise that they chose to present Lois as a modern single mom with a career.
KEVIN SPACEY WAS VERY GOOD. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN THE TRADITION OF LEX LUTHOR TO A “T.” REGARDING SINGLE MOTHERS, POP CULTURE LIKE THIS, MARKETED AT KIDS, TELLS THEM SINGLE MOTHERHOOD IS NOT ONLY OKAY, BUT SPLENDID AND GLAMOROUS. IT ENCOURAGES IT AND HELPED MAKE IT “A STAPLE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.”
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

La Ventanita on June 28, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Classic Hollywood:
Take a good movie, TV series, or something that has been highly successful. Cut out what the execs think made the movie or series work and paste them into a movie that espouses liberal propaganda. Sell it to the public as some great new movie. Watch the public reject the movie. They wonder why it never works.
It’s simple: change the “formula,” and you have a different movie. Change the formula and you change what made it work. And they wonder why the public does not buy the movie.
They don’t make Lois Lane a single mother who’s “sleeping around” because it reflects modern reality. They do it because it’s what they want. They did it decades ago before it was popular.

Loser on June 28, 2006 at 4:14 pm

I just read your comments to LaVentanita. I obviously agree. I wish that the Hollywood movie makers would just make a movie without their proselytizing.

Loser on June 28, 2006 at 4:19 pm

I’m not old fashioned but single motherhood is not just ‘ the American New-way”. I spent twenty-nine years doing counseling and have seen the american family and it’s values trashed and seen the result in more visits to jails, more stops at Juv. Detention center with children out of control, and more divorce courts with couples who just couldn’t make it work because they wanted everything to be their own way without the ability to ‘ work things out’ and stop being selfish and lazy. We need to understand that the backbone that made this country what it was/is is the strength of the family and family values. Putting careers before all else has brought more real problems into the american scene than anything else. Hollywood is interested only in the bottom line and if it makes the public feel it is o.k. to cheat, lie, rob, steal, rape, beat-up, sell-out, take advantage of and not live up to committments and obligations/responsibilities then it is great. Just look at the lack of moral fiber of the people in Hollywood and you have the answer to why you see some of the crud on the screen. Don’t think for a minute that the things that people, especially children, see doesn’t have great impact – look around at society and see the changes over the last ten, fifteen or twenty years. Taking a stroll in the park after nightfall with a loved one is a thing of the past, letting older children go places alone without adult protection is almost unheard of. To see a movie with’innocent changes’ has an impact on all of us and keeps some professionals , like me and others, busy picking up the pieces and trying to help misguided people make sense out of things and their lives.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Grundy on June 28, 2006 at 5:07 pm

IMO, you nailed this review. One of your better ones. I hope there are more than a few people left who don’t find this movie entirely socially acceptable. It is obviously targeted at kids and it would be nice if Hollyweed would consider them a little more often.

Marcubius on June 28, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Ditto Grundy. I thought I was the only one advocating the stance that “Putting careers before all else has brought more real problems into the american scene than anything else”. You hit the nail on the head with your post.
And Debbie I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was just saying that it really doesn’t surprise me. That they would’ve presented her differently would’ve.
I’m glad to hear Spacey was great – he is a great actor.

La Ventanita on June 28, 2006 at 6:48 pm

This continuing pattern of (re)making traditional movies to go well with our “allies” is quite disturbing. I can’t believe Hollywood has bowed down so much, actually bent over backwards to accomodate political correctness and throw out the real America and real villains. They have hijacked our cartoons and traditional superheroes this time, very subtly.
A metrosexual Superman, a single mother Lois Lane, the transformation of “Truth, Justice & the American Way” to “Truth & Justice”… nice way to brainwash kids about political correctness through cartoons.
Do you want to know what the future Superman will be like? His name would be Clark Abdullah, and he would interrupt his flying 5 times a day to do namaaz, and Lois Lane would be the new hijab clad baby making machine. The only person left untouched would be Lex Luthor, the wicked wicked American villain, which is understandable because he is American.
You think I’m joking? Return to this page in a year or two to find the Arab version of Superman thanks to our ever-tolerant friends in Muslim organizations like CAIR and ADC. This has already happened with Barbie (transformed into a hijab/burka Fullah Barbie) and Simpsons.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05287/588741.stm
“Omar Shamshoon,” as he is called on the show, looks like the same Homer Simpson, but he has given up beer and bacon, which are both against Islam, and he no longer hangs out at “seedy bars with bums and lowlifes.” In Arabia, Homer’s beer is soda, and his hot dogs are barbequed Egyptian beef sausages. And the donut-shaped snacks he gobbles are the traditional Arab cookies called kahk.
An Arabized “Simpsons” — called “Al Shamshoon” — made its debut in the Arab world earlier this month, in time for Ramadan, a time of high TV viewership. It uses the original “Simpsons” animation, but the voices are dubbed into Arabic and the scripts have been adapted to make the show more accessible, and acceptable, to Arab audiences.
The family remains, as the producers describe them, “dysfunctional.” They still live in Springfield, and “Omar” is still lazy and works at the local nuclear power plant. Bart (now called “Badr”) is constantly cheeky to his parents and teachers and is always in trouble.

anonymous twit on June 28, 2006 at 7:13 pm

Debbie, I normally think your movie reviews are way overboard and you read too much of your political views and the War on Terror into them, but this one you’re right on.
Yes, single motherhood is more common now, but that doesn’t mean that it should be the central theme of a movie that is going to be heavily marketed to school-age kids. While it is not always possible to raise kids in a stable, 2-parent nuclear family, there’s a difference between saying that other family types exist and saying that they are just as good and encouraging it.
And it sounds like this woman is simply unmarried, not that she had a child in wedlock and became divorced, which I could understand a little more (while again, not the ideal situation, at least there are enough kids of divorced parents that they could relate to it). While it won’t stop me from seeing the movie, I really thought it was just a remake of the 1978 Christopher Reeve classic, and this was a little bit of a shock. I hope you’re not exaggerating (like the first 5 minutes of the movie is this kind of junk and the rest just focuses on “the Man of Steel himself”).
Shuster and Siegel (the creators of Superman in the 1930’s), perhaps even Christopher Reeve must be rolling over in their graves, especially with the elimination of the “American Way” part.

hairymon on June 29, 2006 at 12:55 pm

There is nothing like people who know nothing about comic books commenting on comic book movies.
First of all, Superman ASSISTED the Allied forces in fighting the Nazi’s. He did not fight them himself. He would bring troops supplies, etc, but you didn’t see Superman go after Hitler. The reason that comic book writers do not have Superman fighting non-super villians is that it underminds REAL soldiers efforts in fighting enemy forces. Superman could find UBL and wipe out all the terrorist in one day without a challenge. What kind of a message does that send to the real troops doing hard work in fighting terrorist? I deal with terrorist, pedophiles, drug dealers, and aholes all day long, maybe I go to the movie to escape from that and see superman fight a fictional villian.
Secondly, sleeping with a lot of different men makes you a slut, not having a child with a man you were engaged to.
My mother was a single mom after her first husband committed suicide, she raised my two older sisters by herself, got her masters degree and held down a full-time job. I suppose that makes her a slut?
CERTAINLY, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE SITUATION OF YOUR MOTHER, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT. SLEEPING WITH TWO MEN AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT KNOWING WHO THE REAL FATHER IS, IS AS CLOSE AT ONE GET GET TO SLUT-DOM AND STILL BE A COMIC BOOK MOVIE CHARACTER WINNING A PULITZER. AS FOR WHETHER SUPERMAN ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE NAZIS HIMSELF OR HELPED THE TROOPS, THAT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, RELATIVE TO THE POINT I MADE ABOUT AN AL-QAEDA OR ISLAMIC TERRORIST PLOT BEING FAR MORE EXCITING AND RELEVANT IN “SUPERMAN RETURNS.” STILL I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND DEMAND FOR ACCURACY.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

ICEAGENT on June 30, 2006 at 12:59 pm

Well, I was really looking forward to this movie, but will probably wait until it comes out on DVD anyway. Not only do movie theatres charge too much nowadays, most of what Hollywood puts out now is crap. I have seen two movies in the past year that were actually worth seeing in the theatres; March of the Penguins and Serenity.
No matter what else there is about this new Superman movie, if they took out “Truth, Justice and the American Way”, it has been ruined.

AirborneVet on June 30, 2006 at 2:31 pm

Superman Returns is meant to be a direct sequel to Superman 2, and as you seem to be a fan of the original Superman movies, you’ll remember that Clark Kent and Lois Lane began a relationship in Superman 2, but in the end Superman/Clark Kent realized that he couldn’t have a relationship with Lois due to fear about her safety and he made her forget the relationship.
So, following the movie logic, the fact that Lois Lane’s son is Superman’s is as big a shock to her as it is to him. From her POV she never had a sexual relationship with Superman/Clark Kent, as witnessed by the fact that in Superman Returns she doesn’t know that Clark Kent is Superman.

Andy on June 30, 2006 at 7:27 pm

What the hell is wrong with you people? It’s Superman.. it’s a comic book.. we didn’t see Spiderman fighting Al-Quaida either.. emulate Lois Lane? How many little girls do you know that wanted to emulate Mary Jane from Spiderman? Or The Incredible Hulk’s girlfriend for that matter after seeing either film? Do you really have nothing else better to complain about? I read these comments and you all sound so friggin retarded… You are ripping apart a comic book character for god sake.. it’s fantasy.

Pyromite78 on June 30, 2006 at 7:43 pm

Debbie, your review of Superman Returns is so far of the mark, its almost painful to read. Particularly coming from someone like you who has an ideological bent so clearly similar to my own.
After rejecting liberalism and political correctness in college, I began to embrace conservatism and have been a conservative ever since. But, man, rants like yours make it *so* hard some days. Some of my fellow conservatives, like you, just seem dead set on alienating and pushing as many people away as possible.
Let’s deal with your factual errors first.
First of all, Lois is not a slut. As far as we know from the storyline, she has had sex with a grand total of two men. The first of which, it is every reasonable to assume, she intended to marry and spend the rest of her life with.
After Superman, the man she was in love with, left suddenly, she hooked up with a very kind and decent fellow in Richard White. And, again as far as we know from the storyline, she has been with him ever since.
So, seriously, this condemns her to the category of ‘slut’ in your book? Honestly? Two guys?
I do consider myself a very strong Christian and while I don’t contend that sex out of wedlock
is not a sin, I think its a huge stretch, given what we know of this character’s life history, to call her a slut after sleeping with, as far as we know, a grand total of two men.
And then we have this gem from you:
“Hard to still call him that, because in this film he’s far less muscular. Even the formerly bright red of his cape is now a muted, dingy brownish-burgundy. All masculinity is toned down…”
And yet…
“And with newcomer Brandon Routh’s spot on impersonation of Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent/Supe, he’s not as difficult to adjust to as Bosworth’s Lois..”
In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
So is it a “spot-on” impersonation of Christopher Reeve’s Clark Kent/Superman? Or is Brandon Routh a great big sissy Superman? Or are you saying that Christopher Reeve’s Superman was a big sissy, too? Pick an opinion and stick with it.
And dingy and burgundy is now “less masculine” than bright red and fastidious? Really? I guess Liberace never realized how darn butch he really was!
Yeah its true that Chris Reeve was *so* masculine and butch! So much so that in “Deathtrap,” his first movie after Superman II, he kissed a man. Can’t get much more macho that that I guess.
“Instead, we get a dumbed down, girlie-man version of Superman in “Superman Returns.” Like every sensitive, slacker metrosexual, Supe’s gone off for five years to “discover himself.”
What the heck are you even talking about here?
Like so many writers with a political slant that try to express that opinion *all the time* whether or not there is a valid political point to be made, you are reading things into this movie that aren’t really there to bulwark a point that isn’t well-made to begin with.
Debbie, Superman is from the planet Krypton originally. It is where is biological parents are from. He has wondered about it his entire life. Astronomers on Earth think they have found it. Superman, Kal-El, is of course compelled to see if they are right. Krypton is extremely far away. He goes. He comes back. It takes five years. There is no squishy liberal comparison to made here. You’re reaching, and it shows.
Now, let’s take a look at Superman’s conservative credentials.
In an era where, I’m sure we agree, an overtly masculine, powerful, or noble white male is in short supply in Hollywood, Brandon Routh’s Superman is *exactly* that! HE PICKS UP AN ISLAND AND FLIES IT INTO SPACE FOR PETE’S SAKE!
Further, with a media that generally has two roles for fathers in film, idiot or abuser, Superman Returns clearly reveres the father/son relationship. It is, in fact, the critical plot thread. Jason has both a biological and adoptive father who care about him deeply and would die to protect him. And *both* are portrayed as being more important to Jason than his mother.
Finally, and most importantly for me, there is the “other story” in Superman Returns. I have no idea what your religion is, or even if you follow one,
But for me, as a Christian, Superman Return’s most noble and endearing quality was the great efforts it makes to encode the story of Jesus Christ in a mainstream hollywood film. I don’t know if it was the director, the producers, etc., but it is clearly there and not even remotely subtle. From the shuttle “Genesis”, to having Kitty Kowalski sing “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands” as Lex Luthor opens the Daily Planet to reveal the Superman Returns headline, to the numerous crucifixion poses Superman is placed in.
And, of course, the last one, almost alarmingly powerful, as Superman shows he is willing to die for Humanity.
Debbie, I admire your passion, agree with your beliefs, and respect your opinion, but you are just simply, completely wrong here. I know that conservatives, reflexively, look for the worst in Hollywood. Given the level of sewage that flows from the place, its hard not to.
But please re-examine Superman Returns. It is not the film you think it is.
And when someone in Hollywood produces a film that speaks to so many of the values that you and I apparently share, let’s give them a pat on the back for it, not a slap in the face.
With Respect,
Matthew House

mattjumbo on July 1, 2006 at 2:13 am

There may be NO MEMORABLE comments from the new ìDupesî movie (a little too soft of a Superman for me, therefore DupesÖnot Supes because we were duped!), but these TWO comments of yours I loved:
ìIn the real world’s Daily Planet a/k/a The New York Times, the “Pulitzer-level” stuff is “Why Al-Qaeda is Less Dangerous to the World Than President Bush.”
ñYUPÖthe Times really believes that! They actually doÖand that is funny~
ìAnd by the way, there’s no Internet in this movie–a glaring absence when Lois’ editor is lecturing about what sells newspapers. Uh, nothing sells newspapers these days. They’re in rapid decline.î
ñìnothing sells newspapersîÖthat brought a good laugh~~
Great piece.

The Canadien on July 1, 2006 at 6:54 am

I liked the movie, a lot, but was concerned about the single mother thing, as well. One other item stood out – Clark Kent having a brew with Jimmy Olsen at the beginning of the flick right after he found out Lois was married (it was a Bud, btw). Now, I have nothing against beer – just had one with some pizza, aamof, but Superman would choose his beverage of choice along the lines of Radar O’reilly and have gone with a grape nehi or some milk. Superman doesn’t drink alcohol.
Again, I loved the flick & so did my 9 and 6 year olds….but they did make Lois out to be sorta slutty. You gotta admit, the setting-the-airplane-on-the-baseball-field thing was mega awesome.

Ricky on July 1, 2006 at 7:00 pm

So all single mothers are sluts? And you say she’s got a fiance, so is she single or not?
I want to back in time to see what people thought of Lois when she was just a career woman. A female reporter before the woman’s movement? I’m sure there were those who burned the comics because she was a working woman in the arena of men.
Read below (From “Being Lois Lane”):
In a comic-book world where the good guys are flawless and the bad guys are pure evil, Lois has always been a gust of fresh air. She’s often a bundle of contradictions – a basically good person who’s not above hiding Clark’s press pass to make sure she gets the story first.
But after decades as a trailblazer, has reality caught up with – or even surpassed – the Daily Planet’s star reporter? Can Lois Lane still be a relevant role model when so many women now routinely juggle challenging careers, thriving love lives and motherhood?
”Well, I wonder nowadays. I used to think so,” says Noel Neill, 85, who played Lois opposite George Reeves’ Superman on the 1950s TV show ”Adventures of Superman” and makes a cameo appearance in the new movie ”Superman Returns,” opening Wednesday.
In the 1960s and 1970s, young women frequently thanked Neill for motivating them. ”I met so many that have come up to me and said, ‘You know, because of you, Lois Lane, I have gone on to doing work at a newspaper or a radio station or TV station’,” she says.
From the birth of Superman in 1938’s Action Comics No. 1 through World War II and into the 1950s, when strong female role models were rare in American popular culture, Lois Lane was different.

WinstonSmith on July 1, 2006 at 8:32 pm

I just saw this movie and thought it was the worst. I think I actually I liked Bosworth better than Routh. It really kind of grated on my nerves that he seemed to have the same voice for both characters. I’ve got Chris Reeve’s deep voice imprinted on my brain. It wasn’t until the very end that Routh’s voice seemed to start sounding deeper. It was also fairly disturbing to watch the love triangle plot unfold. Hard to get it out of your head that kids are being exposed to this kind of stuff. Parker Posey and Kevin Spacey are both wasted in the film. Spacey really only has a couple of good lines. It was good to see Eva Marie Saint though. She is a great actress.

metal321 on July 1, 2006 at 9:43 pm

This comment is in reply to Matthew House…
Hi Matthew:
I agree with your retort to Debbie’s write up – however, you made a few mistakes in associating Superman to Christianity.
The original creators of the Superman comic book “Siegel and Shuster” were both Jewish and knowledgeable in Jewish mysticism and the concepts of Mashiach Hebrew for Messiah (Greek is Christ). Christians have to remember that the origins of Mashiach is a Jewish concept taken and exploited by Christians. The director “Singer” is also Jewish and as I think (my opinion) used this to his advantage.
It is known that the “Siegel and Shuster” combined stories of the Golem and Mashiach into this comic character for Superman. Both the Golem and Mashiach are in respect redeemers of the Jewish people. The Golem – created by Jewish Rebbeim in the past by using thier knowledge of the the Name of G-d in Hebrew (Kabbalalistic concepts) were indestructible creatures that were used to protect Jews living in extreme circumstances and constant fear of pogroms. Just check out the history and stories of the famed and revered Rabbi Maharal of Prague for reference. Also note, the Golem was the basis for the creation of the Frankenstein stories too.
Now on to Mashiach… Mashiach is the final redeemer that will save humanity destroy the influence of evil in this world and bring an era of Peace, Love, and the full knowledge and awareness of G-d into this world for Everyone (not just the Jewish people). The Jewish perspective is that Mashiach is a Man (not a G-d or Trinity), that has direct lineage of King David, with all the same attributes of King David together with Moses (Moses being the firsh Jewish redeemer & Mashiach being the last redeemer with the soul qualities of Moses). Like King David and Moses – Mashiach is willing to protect humanity at the cost of his own life – however, with this greatness he will be protected by the power of G-d. As you see in scripture – King David and Moses did not die by the hands of humans. Most Christians believe (with out saying) that if you don’t accept Jesus as the Savior – you will die and go to hell. This is not a Jewish belief at all when it comes to Mashiach. All people are G-d’s creation, and G-d knows who is evil and will root out those and give them there just punishments. Jews do not stress that everyone needs to be of the Jewish faith to be redeemed. These were the qualities expressed in the Superman movie and not those of Jesus whose real name is Yeshca.
What most Christians forget is that Jesus was indeed Jewish and like most Jews living in that time period – were crucified for their belief in ONE G-D. So, to narrow mindly single Jesus out is nonsense, especially when there were so many greater Jewish Rebbeim that died the same way.
Another fact about the creators of Superman is how they gave Superman and his family Eglish names disguised in Hebrew.
Kal-El is Hebrew for ‘Voice of G-d’, etc… Any name with ‘EL” in it is a direct reference to G-d.
So Matthew, as I agree with your over all assessment of the movie, I profoundly disagree with your references of Superman to Jesus. There are more facts about the origins of Christianity that was taken from Judaism and I suggest that you explore this and learn more.
BTW – Matthew is a very good Jewish name.
Shlomo

shalomaw on July 2, 2006 at 7:06 pm

“Another fact about the creators of Superman is how they gave Superman and his family Eglish names disguised in Hebrew.
Kal-El is Hebrew for ‘Voice of G-d’, etc… Any name with ‘EL” in it is a direct reference to G-d.”
Shlomo,
I don’t have the background in the Jewish history and faith that you clearly do. That being said, I don’t disagree with anything you said in your reply. I was aware of the Hebraic origins of Kal-El and Jor-El. Frankly, I see no incompatibility or inconsistency with the idea that Superman contains powerful references to Judaism *and* Christianity.
He was, of course, a creation of Jewish artists that has, of course, been filtered through mainstream Christian society for years. And, to be sure, Christianity and Judaism are so powerfully interlocked that any creation intended to reflect one of those faiths may end up (in fact almost certainly will) also reflecting the other.
In fact the director of the film, Bryan Singer, said as much…
“You’d have to take the different stories [and consider them separately]. The origin story has always been very Moses-like in the sense that the parents took the child and sent him downriver to fulfill a destiny. In our movie–I use the term, and perhaps it’s me just not wanting to be too religious about it but, at the same time, not deny the obvious–I call it a Judeo-Christian allegory. There are aspects of our story–return, sacrifice, resurrection–that when you grow up in a Judeo-Christian culture they work their way into everything, from your thoughts to your art…”
As a Christian, I often saw Jesus Christ in the film. A Jewish person would certainly see something else. And I think its very possible that neither of us are wrong.
And I’m glad you agree about Debbie’s write-up. It was, honestly, the main thing I wanted to express. I really think she is shooting down one of the (few) Hollywood good guys here.

mattjumbo on July 2, 2006 at 11:21 pm

GREAT POST mattjumbo!
I remember reading in the newspaper a few years back, that there was an expert researcher employed by the University of Waterloo who was asked to review and compare some slide samples. She identified the ones that were cancerous and the ones that were not. The results were then sent out.
Two weeks later her boss approached her, beaming from ear-to-ear, and asked her if she remembered the samples she had tested.
She said she did, and for some reason she became quite alarmedÖthere was something odd about his manner.
ìDo you know WHO ordered that testing?î
EVEN MORE alarmed now, she responded that she had no idea.
ìIt was the VATICAN!î
ìAnd YOU just confirmed a present day miracle!!!î
She disclosed to the newspaper interviewer that she was totally floored by that revelation. Not a believer in anything really, her unexpected encounter with the Vatican had left a deep and unsettling impression.
I think she was trying to say that it felt like, OR was kindaí like an unexpected encounter with God through His servant, the Church.
ShalomawÖwhat we need is an encounter with God.
You can have all kinds of head knowledge, historical background stuff etc. but where is the heart?
Encounters with God are encounters of the heart. And assent of the mind.
Jesus already stated to the Samaritan woman, ìSalvation comes from the Jewsî.
What salvation?
You stated, ìMashiach is the final redeemer according to Jewish perspective.
DO YOU really think that there will be a final redeemer greater than Jesus? Jesus who stated directly that He was God, not only healed the sick, cured the blind and raised the dead etc, but He explained the meaning of Scripture passages, spoke plainly, spoke in parables, predicted the future and illuminated the present. He revealed his identity to nobodies, and hid it from those who should have known.
I mean it got old after a whileÖhereís another inspired post-exilic prophet with a messageÖyawnÖyawnÖokay~
I mean, did you really think that Gd Hmslf wouldnít finally show up one day at the end of the line-up?
The Apostle Paul describes Jesus as a New Adam. And He was. Jesus redid Creation. He spoke to the Jews of His day and said things like, ìYou have heard it saidÖbut I SAY to youÖetc.
For instance, where Moses allowed the people moral weakness (multiple marriages and wives) in Deuteronomy, Jesus reversed that by pointing back to the BeginningÖand HOW things were originally intended by God. Hence, only ONE valid marriage for Catholics. Adam failed to shamar (guard) the garden from the Evil OneÖbut Jesus would die for His bride, the Church, in that very same garden~
Look at the Genealogy of Jesus.
What is the genealogy of the ìgreater Jewish Rebbeimî you mention? What lasting effect did they have? None. As in passages of the Old TestamentÖthe obscure are briefly mentioned and quickly forgotten aboutÖonly the genealogies of those that matter in Godís eyes are preserved!
And there are MANY parallels between Jesus, and both Moses, and King David.
You just donít see them. You tell Matthew to probe further, but you have failed to do that yourself! Immerse yourself in Catholic exegesis and minute details of the New Testament will speak volumes~ You may not then agree with Catholic conclusions, BUT at least you will see WHY we believe as staunchly as we do.
You are confused about the Mashiach because you expected a warrior king then. And now?
And JESUS wasÖ but His war was not against the enemies of Israel, but against the far greater enemy of mankind. That whih separates God and Man.
Sin.
And the originator of evil, the Evil One.
JESUS came to restore our friendship with God.
Besides that what really matters?
And only Gd Hmslf could do that.
You missed the ìsuffering servantî motif, also found abundantly in your Scripture, because hadnít the Jews suffered enough? It is understandable that you didnít want a suffering kingÖyou wanted a triumphant kingÖthe Jews have certainly suffered an inordinate amount compared to the rest of humanity.
But, all in due time.
Godís time.
The King needed to defeat Sin first.
And redo Creation while retaining the original.
Caesar could wait.
At the end of time He returns in triumph only to reward or punish, although there have been some special visits for a select purpose.
And finally LOOKÖwe Catholics still have a Queen Mother (that Israel once had)Öour Mother Mary~
And actually, Mathew is rightÖthere are unmistakable parallels to Jesus, and not just the Mashiach, in Superman Returns.

The Canadien on July 3, 2006 at 2:21 pm

Hi Canadien…
You have no real understanding of Jewish history or the facts concerning Yescha. What you are sputtering is all the nonsense that you have been taught from birth and raised to believe without any evidential awareness or inclination to research to draw your on conclusions based on facts and not heresy. You have no true Wisdom, Knowledge, or Understanding and try very hard to push these ideals into the mainstream based on faith alone. Faith alone cannot stand forever without true intellect. For me to retort on everything you said would be a waste of time – for this column was to retort a movie review and not make people upset about their chosen faiths. But since you opened a can of worms…
It goes without saying that you probably wouldn’t be a Christian today (and millions of others) if it wasn’t for the forced conversions that the Church did to millions of people world over in the name of Yescha. Accept Yescha as your lord and savior or die!
For you to associate a man with G-d is already showing the limitations of your G-d. Your sense of understanding corporeality and the true meaning of ONE is absurd.
Another limitation in your G-d is that he has an adversary – the devil and he challenges G-d on authority for the rights of the souls of humans. This is the biggest lie of all. Once you accept this – your G-d is not a G-d that created everything in existence and has control over everything in this world. Your G-d is a selective limited being powerless to control anything if it has a challenger.
The whole concept of ONE G-D is that G-D is everything, created everything and knows everything. However, we cannot know HIM and HIS thoughts are not our thoughts. Yes, bad things happen to good people and we have to wonder and ask G-D why. But to give an excuse that the devil is the culprit and challenger to G-d is absurd. Who created the devil – where did his existence and power come from that he could challenge G-D?
How many different bibles of the Christian faith exist today (thousands) – people are constantly reinventing Christianity and people are gullible to read and fall for anything. With Judaism, although there are many levels of observance, the fact remains that the TORAH did not ever change in all of its thousands of years of existence. Any where in the world today – the TORAH in Hebrew is exactly the same! This cannot be said for Christianity. You have KJ version, The Mormon version, Jerusalem version, etc. it goes on and on… If something is so sacred and held to be the ultimate truth – how can it have so many versions? Truth doesn’t change and that is why the TORAH is EMET = TRUTH – cause you can’t change it. How people choose to interpret or write commentary on it is a different story.
Your comparisons of Yeshca to Moses and King David are ridiculous. Yescha did not do anything the Moses already didn’t do or other Rebbeim prior to Yescha and afterwards. I guess your forgot how Moses took the Jewish people out of Egypt and led them through the Red Sea (that parted), to receive a revelation of the Essence of G-d and Mt. Sinai and this is just for starters. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the Revelation of G-d at Mt. Sinai was not just for an individual or a group of people; BUT AN ENTIRE NATION witnessed this!
An entire nation did not witness the death and resurrection of Yescha or these smaller miracles that you cling to as to be so impressive. If this were a true happening – the whole nation would have been a witness. It is far more believable when you have a nation that witnesses the Revelation of G-dines versus an individual or a group.
Let’s examine the birth of Yescha, which is one of the most mistranslated items in history (from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, etc. ñ already lost in translation) The term used in Hebrew for young woman was translated into English as Virgin to give Yescha a miraculous birth. Constantine and his scriptwriters were great.
To be a living descendant of King David – there has to be an undisputable chain of human relations (man + woman = procreation) with G-d’s Divine help. Not woman + G-d = procreation. If G-d does this – then there is a broken chain in the direct lineage to King David. The progeny of this union would be from G-d and not King David.
During this time period all Jews living were extremely Orthodox in their observance. Mary would not have been a virgin but a married woman. In Jewish Law (from the TORAH) a married woman when the term is used – means that the marriage was consummated and their is evidence. By all means – Mary was indeed a married woman – period. However, Iím fully aware of all the excuses the Church try to give to compensate for this.
The relationship of the Trinity was a play on Judaism with the teachings in Kabbalah – Hashem/Father (G-d) + Shechinah/Holy Ghost + Adam Kadmon/Son. Hashem being the Supreme G-d in the masculine, the Shechinah the Supreme G-d in the feminine, and Adam Kadmon the original Man created in G-d’s image both male and female. Without a proper education to understand all of this would leave most people to have these comparisons with the Trinity concept in Christianity.
Another error on the death and resurrection taken from Hebrew scripture is the circumstances of death. For a potential Mashiach to die from the hands of mortal men in this world is an immediate disqualification. Like I stated earlier ñ Moses and King David did not die by the hands of mortal men. The fulfillment of prophecy of Mashiach is not to die by means of mortal men and resurrect at a later date thousands of years later to fulfill the prophecy that was given. When Mashiach is finally revealed (may it be soon) the prophecy will be fulfilled immediately and all nations will be a witness.
Back to Moses – Moses did not allow multiple marriages. G-D instituted certain laws and criteria for men who wanted multiple wives. However, today this is not a practice in Judaism. Even if it was – marriage relates to one finding their soul mate = basheret. A person may go through an entire lifetime being married, but not actually married to his/her true soul mate. Therefore, the soul for example goes through Gilgul = reincarnation many times to find it’s true soul mate and over the course of many incarnations may marry multiple times. This already is too deep of a conversation to have here – but I mentioned it only to retort your confusion with marriage and Moses.
The lasting affect that the Great Rebbeim had is that there are Jewish people alive today living and practicing the TORAH that has not changed ever – even through all the persecutions and pogroms throughout history. Great Rebbeim have died over the thousands of years to protect their love of the people, the TORAH, and worship of ONE G-D. So, your comparison for Mashiach in Judaism expected to be a warrior king is absurd – itís one of many attributes. In every generation there is a potential Mashiach born to the Jews and this person suffers extremely because he cannot be revealed – as the time is not yet right for him to be revealed. However, this potential Mashiach lives and dies for his people in various ways that would take too much time to explain here.
Remember – there is nothing new to the attributes given to Yescha that many Jews before him did not already do or fulfill ñ you will just have to research and read for yourself. The whole world is now ready for a Redeemer. This Redeemer will not vilify those that have not chosen this or that faith, but with the help of G-d Almighty, who knows the heart of man – will bring an ultimate end to all the suffering.

shalomaw on July 3, 2006 at 5:44 pm

shalomaw…Well I could say MANY things here, BUT I can see your mind is already made up.
Thank-you for PROVING my religion though, as Jesus said, ìA prophet is not accepted in his own country.î I see that He is, still, not accepted!
It is the motherís lineage that makes a man a Jew. And what was the lineage of Jesusí foster father, Joseph?
Jesus didnít die at the hands of mortal manÖhe chose His exit as the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross confirmed. They broke the legs of the other persons crucified with Jesus (to hasten death) but bypassed Jesus noting he was ALREADY dead. Death by crucifixion was always a slow and painful way to die. Yet he was alrady gone.
Your views about reincarnation are inaccurate. When Saul consulted the Witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28) and she called the prophet Samuel up from the dead that absolutely proves reincarnation DOES NOT occur. Samuel would have ALREADY been elsewhere, reincarnated in another body, on that quest to find and join his soul mate, according to you.
Catholics believe in one soulÖone body. We will be judged, and rewarded or punished, in that same body at the end of time. Are you saying MOSES had many bodies?
WellÖthat would certainly explain where all the ZOMBIES come from.
Iím sorry SirÖbut YOU HAVE no idea what youíre taking aboutñ

The Canadien on July 4, 2006 at 1:35 am

Hi Canadien,
There is a lot of reading that you have to do for yourself. As your ego is huge and religious knowledge is one that is not completely there.
Without the teachings in Judaism – where would the Christian faith be? There would be none. Christianity relies heavily on the teachings of Judaism for validity, as does Islam. Yescha and all his disciples were Jewish and died Jewish. The point I was making about Yescha lineage was to show you how he was born through a mortal relationship and not a miraculous one. Yes, you are correct in that Jewish lineage is confirmed through the mother – all except Kohanim (High Priests) descendants of Aaron of which it is through the father.
My views on reincarnation was specific to soul mates and is accurate – however, this was only one aspect that I mentioned – please google the Arizal’s Shaar HaGilgulim for reference of reincarnation and the source of souls.
For details pertaining to King Shaul (Saul), the Witch and Shmuel (Samuel the Prophet) – please google/reference the Me’am Loez Torah Anthology and the Shaar HaGilgulim for details because your explanation is entirely superficial.
There are five layers of the Soul described in the Shaar HaGilgulim – the acronym is NRNCH’Y – for Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chiyah, and Yechidah. Each of these parts/levels relate to specific functions and/or meaning. One of these parts or all of these parts of the soul can reincarnate for various reasons. One of the most important reasons for Jews is the complete fulfillment of the 613 commandments (Mitzvot) that we adhere to in the TORAH. For most of us ñ fulfilling all 613 in one lifetime is a struggle. I’m sure that you would not have investigated these details when posting remarks as you did regarding Samuel the Prophet.
The Witch that King Saul summoned was the mother of the general ‘Avnerí and the wife of another well-known Jewish Prophet – Zephaniah. Because she was well versed in the occult arts and had mastery over the forces of sorcery and knew how to use them in a permitted manner – Avner permitted her to implement this knowledge in order to relieve King Saul of his distress due to David.
Further, as it is explained that it was not actually the ‘Witch’ that summoned up the soul of Samuel the Prophet – for he was a completely righteous man and Judge over Israel, but that G-D resurrected him specifically for this occasion to relay the prophecy that was to befall King Saul. If you had read the entire chapter in it’s original Hebrew text – you would notice that the soul describe as ascending was G-dly and when King Saul recognized who it was – he prostrated himself. This is evidence that sorcery was not the source of the resurrection, and that this was done by G-D Himself. Sorcery is of an evil characteristic and begets evil.
As far as your comment regarding Moses having many bodies – you are further confusing the concept of reincarnation and mixing various details of my comments in a convoluted manner. Please google the term “Nasi Hador” to get a better understanding of the concept of every generation there is a potential Mashiach born to the Jews. I think it is better for you to read this on your own – that is if you want to further your knowledge and understanding.
What Iím mentioning here will be very foreign to you and most readers on this website and not every Jew is aware of this either ñ due to various circumstances and religious upbringing. However, most intelligent people can google any of this for themselves. The sources are readily available everywhere.

shalomaw on July 4, 2006 at 4:22 am

“And is it more important than an exciting, believable, and relevant plot?”
A movie about a guy in tights who flies and saves the world. And you’re concerned it’s not “believable” enough?
Jesus wept.

sdenvir on July 4, 2006 at 8:27 am

This movie should not be a surprise to anyone, it is a typical leftist perversion, (of an American Hero, who was created during the depression to help lift the kids of the country, to give them someone to aspire to.) steeped with the leftist values, or lack of them.
They have emasculated, a Super hero, and raised Lois Lane to the position of a ‘Single-Mom’ or even better a ‘Soccer-Mom/Slut/bread-winner/Femist, a status which had great stature duing the BJ Clinton years. According to what I read, Lex Lothar is let out of jail because Superman didn’t show up at the trial to testafy, typical leftists version of a ‘man’, no responsibility.
Where are Perry White and Jimmy Olson how do they write two key characters out of the original theme.
Mark

mark on July 5, 2006 at 8:36 am

Wow! With the exception of Matthew House and a couple of others, it’s obvious that most of you– Debbie included– have not seen this movie or ever read a Superman comic book, and yet you go on like you are experts. You are so sadly misinformed. Matthew’s comments about the obvious factual errors in Debbie’s “review” are much more generous to her than I would be, but it’s hard to believe that Debbie really has any idea of what she is talking about!
Daniel Clark

progressive_thinker on July 6, 2006 at 11:26 am

@shalomawÖWell I appreciate the effort you put forth in responding to meÖyour zeal is certainly without equal.
I am more concerned about mainline Jewish orthodoxy as it relates to my Catholicism vs. what two guys in a cave have come up with. Catholicism is NOT an ESOTERIC RELIGION with secret teachings. What the Catholic Church believes and teaches is available to be readily seen by all who inquireÖvs ìnot every Jew knowsÖî
Your comments were illuminating.
REMEMBER though I am not a confused evangelical who cannot defend his faith, or is still a seeker.
Know the mind of God. GOD wishes to be reconciled with every person who comes into being. Every person is precious. Your religion doesnít evangelize because it doesnít have the GOOD NEWS, which is Godís latest revelation about our KINSMAN REDEEMER, Jesus the Christ! Shades of Moses and othersÖ
And REMEMBER the first rule of evangelization.
God enters everyoneís life.
However, not equally.
Some He calls, some He corrects, some He just says hello to, and some He passes by. It depends on the openness of the individual and being able to discern their disposition. Thatís the mark of an true evangelism. So, again, great commentary, and you have a love for your faithÖbut do you really thinkÖI can be evangelized over?
I want the fullness of Truth because that IS ALL that matters to me.
Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, when Jesus stated He has Truth on His sideÖwell Pilate said to Him, “What is truth? (John 18:38)
Pilate forever thought in terms of POWER, it was the only value he recognized. Truth had no hold on him.
Now I want to ask you a question.
That GREAT POLISH Pope, Pope John Paul II, met with a large group of Jewish scholars about 10 years ago.
He opened his address to them with these words, ìBehold, I am Joseph your brother!
What was he trying to say??

The Canadien on July 9, 2006 at 1:55 pm

I am a charter member of the boomer generation. I grew up reading Superman and Batman comics in the backseat of a car during trips. That was the only time money would be spent for frivolaties of that nature – no seatbelt of course. I would rarely read other comics.
Hollywood often produces super-hero movies that I gladly pay to see.
To take one of our great American icons and change what he stands for to fit their ideas/ideals is not acceptable. I have not seen the movie and am responding to the removal of the “American way” phrase that I have read about. Based on that one omission I will not pay money to see this movie.

LTAM on July 9, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Hi Canadien,
I guess it is really no use debating with you since you only want to evangelize people with your unfounded beliefs in years of persecutions and force conversions. I guess these facts slipped your mind or is it that you justify the killing and plundering the Church made in Yeschaís name justifiable. Brain washing people to believe in your religion justify the means ñ for people can only reach salvation through Yescha ñ yeah right.
I can see no difference in what the Church did (is doing presently) to spread Christianity than what the Muslim empire did in the same time period and continuing on today. The escapable means used by the Church and Muslims to justify their means is to vilify the Jews and make them the enemies of both religions. Not to mention that both religions created their foundations on the back of the Jewish people and the Torah. Without the Torah and all the Jewish prophets ñ true prophets ñ both religions wouldnít exist today.
The one thing Christians hate most about Jews is that they never accepted Yescha as a prophet or a savior (The same can be said about Muslims ñ that the Jews didnít accept Mohammed as a prophet either). The reason is plain and simple. Just read Devarim (Deuteronomy) where Moses describes to the Jewish people on how to recognize a false prophet ñ ìIf anyone declares himself a prophet in the name of G-d and ADDS TO or SUBTRACT FROM the TORAH is a FALSE PROPHET.î If the New Testament and the Koran is not an addition to or subtraction from the teachings in the TORAH ñ then what is???? Not only that ñ with all the miracles that the Jewish people witnessed as a nation from G-D ñ why should we settle from something less.
I know that there are plenty of excuses that Christians use for the addition of the New Testament. So, donít waste your time trying to respond on this. The fact is that G-D gave the TORAH to the Jewish people and it is perfect as is ñ G-D doesnít make mistakes and later has to correct them.
To sum it all up ñ evangelism is a trumped up means of spreading false teachings to brainwash people and gather numbers. TRUTH doesnít need evangelism ñ TRUTH is like water. When people thirst for water they know how to find it for it is never really far from them at all ñ water is a necessity of life that the Church do not have a claim on and never will.
The quote that your great Polish Pope John Paul II quoted ìBehold, I am Joseph your brotherî is probably not really understood by you.
Yosef HaTzaddik (Joseph the Righteous) said this when he finally revealed himself to his brothers the Shevatim (together the 12 Tribes). At the time Yosef said this ñ Yosef was guised as the 2nd in command ruler of Mitzrayim testing the brothers in various ways to see if they truly repented for having sold their brother into slavery. The hidden message in this quote that the brothers realized it or not, were min hashamayim ñ ìdirected by Heavenî that these events were directed by Heaven.
For the Pope to use this quote is something that I think was not in good taste. Although I personally have no ill feelings toward the previous or current Pope ñ the fact remains that most Popes throughout history were Anti-Semtic and sought ways to exterminate the Jewish people. Even during the time of the Holocaust ñ the Pope of this period did nothing to save Jews from Nazi persecution. Although Jews understand that all things are directed by Heaven ñ it doesnít mean that we should capitulate in the face of our foes when they try to kill us.
I think that the people reading this blog is pretty much tired of us challenging each other on faiths. I apologize if I have offended someone with my words ñ but the truth must be told when challenged.
There are a lot of things that could be retorted back and forth and this would be endless. Iím not trying to evangelize you or others ñ although that may be your foolish attempt. Please do your homework better ñ there is a lot of material for you to read and I only scratched the surfaced.

shalomaw on July 9, 2006 at 11:47 pm

ShalomawÖ
No I understood the Pope.
YOU did not.
Pope John Paul II was saying, in effect, that as Joseph was destined to ascend and take his rightful place over his brothers, so others (the Pope throughout history) who ALTHOUGH were rejected by their brothers of various faiths NEVERTHELESS have ascended by Godís will to their rightful and prominent placeÖas well.
JUST AS Josephís brothers balked at Josephís dreams of his predestined favor over his brothersÖso others have balked at the partiality and favor the Popeís Office, the Holy See, enjoys from God as well.
NOÖit is you who failed to understand what the Pope was referring to~
And are youÖstill not able to see the hand of God, at work, through the Holy See, in the modern world?

The Canadien on July 14, 2006 at 8:01 pm

I loved the original Superman with Chris Reeve and Margot Kidder but this new one comes close. Brandon Routh is okay. I think it would be a mistake to cast Tom Welling as Superman because he belongs to Smallville as Clark Kent.
The biggest beef I have is with the new Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth? She just does not cut it for me. The old Lois Lane had spunk and was feisty with loads of personality. This one has about as much personality as a hole in the wall. She’s too soft spoken and too whiny. Just my $.02.

merytaten on July 19, 2006 at 7:34 am

I agree that the film is flawed, but I think the blame is misplaced. It is not that Lois is a single mom, it is that Superman is a dead-beat dad. He conceived a child and then abandons the mother. Lois did not chose single-motherhood, Superman chose to reject her.

John Lambert on July 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm