answer: few good moments
paragraph_question: question: How many shocking moment are there in the movie?, context: I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments.  But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments.  Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman.  When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.'  But Max Fisher would have been a better actor.  The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves.  IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie.  The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences.  Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character.  Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own.  On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever.  Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone.  She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal.  But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be.  But maybe if he'd had a decent script.  I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial.  But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad.  [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive.  The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else.  This is creepy.  Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home.  I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite.  [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten.  Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie.  While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing.And that is the thing.  Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations.  And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show.  You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery. 
sentence:  But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments .
paragraph: I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments.  But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments.  Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman.  When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.'  But Max Fisher would have been a better actor.  The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves.  IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie.  The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences.  Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character.  Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own.  On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever.  Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone.  She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal.  But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be.  But maybe if he'd had a decent script.  I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial.  But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad.  [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive.  The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else.  This is creepy.  Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home.  I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite.  [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten.  Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie.  While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing.And that is the thing.  Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations.  And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show.  You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery. 
sentence_answer:  But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a <hl> few good moments <hl> .
paragraph_answer: I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments. But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a <hl> few good moments <hl>. Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman. When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.' But Max Fisher would have been a better actor. The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves. IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie. The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences. Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character. Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own. On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever. Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone. She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal. But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be. But maybe if he'd had a decent script. I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial. But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad. [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive. The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else. This is creepy. Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home. I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite. [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten. Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie. While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing.And that is the thing. Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations. And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show. You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery. 
paragraph_sentence: I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments. <hl> But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments . <hl> Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman. When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.' But Max Fisher would have been a better actor. The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves. IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie. The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences. Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character. Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own. On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever. Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone. She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal. But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be. But maybe if he'd had a decent script. I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial. But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad. [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive. The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else. This is creepy. Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home. I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite. [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten. Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie. While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing. And that is the thing. Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations. And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show. You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery.