I'm not saying Sups II was bad (I was laughing outloud at many parts) but it was too campy and kiddy for me. SR didn't have any of those Pee-Wee Herman elements and I liked it that way.
Yes, but that is also the charm of the original two Superman films. They are very tongue-in-cheek. Superman is such a difficult character to work with. It really takes a writer like Alan Moore or someone like that to make him interesting. He is so powerful that, outside of kryptonite and red sunlight, not much damages him. It runs the risk of making him seem boring. Superman Returns was an attempt to do what was done with Batman Begins and give Superman a richer character in film. It was an attempt to make something age old feel fresh again, and to replace the Americana vibe of the original film with something much more interesting. I simply don't think that it entirely succeeded. It has a lot of great ideas in it, but I don't think that it entirely comes to fruitation. There is a phenomenal movie somewhere in Superman Returns, but the movie itself felt good but not great to me. Really, Superman needs a villian to match his powers, and as evil as Lex is (and as much fun as Spacey has in the role), he can't have a big showdown with him. Most of the film's problems seemed to me to come from overreaching. It didn't succeed, but it wasn't from lack of trying.
The first two X-Men films lacked the right ensemble feeling.
Yes, but Ratner's third film kind of gave the ensamble a Power Rangers feeling, which I didn't care for as much. The problem with X-Men is that there are so many characters that it is impossible to focus upon them all in the confines of 2 hours. Instead of focusing on them as a whole, Singers film attempted to individualize each of the X-Men, to varying degrees of success. I really wish that Singer has stayed to complete the trilogy. 
