The movie experience wasn't bad enough. It had some good moments. However, yes, it's not one of the most spectacular films. The reason I wanted to watch is I want to enjoy Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Justice League to the fullest. You can do that too, as I'm sure this won't completely disappoint you. It was a little dark, but pacy enough and not slow. The movie wasn't spectacular but Brandon Ruth definitely was. The story was on the average side, however, since it had its moments, it can't be considered poor!
2,491 Reviews
The most underrated Superhero film of the 2000's
Dohsoda25 May 2016
Superman Returns (2006), in my opinion, is one of the most underrated superhero films to come out of the twenty-first century. This film came out ten years ago and has never gotten the respect it deserves. One of the best elements of this film is its heart. This film out of all the films that were released from 2000 to 2010 do not match the amount of heart and soul of this film. Batman Begins (2005) does come close. Not many superhero films deal with adult themes of loss, isolation, and returning to a home and finding their place in the world. Finding yourself is never easy, and Superman goes through the a emotional and physical journey throughout.
A lot of people complain about the lack of action, however, I'll take great drama and characterization over action sequences anyway. True, there are about 3-4 action sequences throughout the film, but they are what I consider A+ sequences. The Air Plane rescue, the Bank robbery, and Saving Metropolis from Lex's earth quake, were well crafted for the time this film came out. This film showed Superman accomplish more than the Christopher Reeve era could have hoped for. Note: I love that era as well.
Furthermore, I believe the film has great cinematography by Thomas Newton Senegal and a majestic musical score by X-Men and Fantastic Four composer John Ottman. Bryan Singer's direction is great. Respectful and epic at the same time.
For all the heart and awesome technical aspects of Superman Returns, it does have flaws. My issues with the film are that the film never quite feels right at home till the Air Force One sequence begins. Maybe beginning with Lex Luthor and not Kal-el was not the best choice. Also, there film's third act with Superman lifting an island into outer space feels odd for a third act conclusion. However, these are minor quibbles.
Overall, Superman Returns is a delightful film. The cast shines, being a spiritual sequel to Superman I & II gives the film a nostalgic feel. In fact, I feel this film has a lot in common with look and tone to the two J.J. Abrams Start Trek movies. Loving reverence towards the past for sure is the big similarity. I've always thought Superman Returns was a film that attempted to be the Dances with Wolves (1990) of Superhero films. Big, bold, and emotionally charged with real human emotions. Superman Returns is an unappreciated film that both plays it safe and takes risks. Much like Superman, the film sores and deserves its place among the clouds.
A lot of people complain about the lack of action, however, I'll take great drama and characterization over action sequences anyway. True, there are about 3-4 action sequences throughout the film, but they are what I consider A+ sequences. The Air Plane rescue, the Bank robbery, and Saving Metropolis from Lex's earth quake, were well crafted for the time this film came out. This film showed Superman accomplish more than the Christopher Reeve era could have hoped for. Note: I love that era as well.
Furthermore, I believe the film has great cinematography by Thomas Newton Senegal and a majestic musical score by X-Men and Fantastic Four composer John Ottman. Bryan Singer's direction is great. Respectful and epic at the same time.
For all the heart and awesome technical aspects of Superman Returns, it does have flaws. My issues with the film are that the film never quite feels right at home till the Air Force One sequence begins. Maybe beginning with Lex Luthor and not Kal-el was not the best choice. Also, there film's third act with Superman lifting an island into outer space feels odd for a third act conclusion. However, these are minor quibbles.
Overall, Superman Returns is a delightful film. The cast shines, being a spiritual sequel to Superman I & II gives the film a nostalgic feel. In fact, I feel this film has a lot in common with look and tone to the two J.J. Abrams Start Trek movies. Loving reverence towards the past for sure is the big similarity. I've always thought Superman Returns was a film that attempted to be the Dances with Wolves (1990) of Superhero films. Big, bold, and emotionally charged with real human emotions. Superman Returns is an unappreciated film that both plays it safe and takes risks. Much like Superman, the film sores and deserves its place among the clouds.
Strong Potential/Weak Execution!
b_flic28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Bryan Singer has made it no secret that he was going to make this film a sequel of sorts to the first two Superman films which starred Christopher Reeve. Which I though was an interesting idea even though I thought Superman 2 was lame. However, I thought the premise of Superman returning after a long absence was a great idea, unfortunately Singer's heavy reliance on the first two films really crippled this film.
Some minor film details are included in my comments below which may hint at spoilers...
**********
I attended a screening of Superman Returns last night, and even though I'm not the biggest Superman fan, I was REALLY looking forward to seeing this film. I have to admit I had misgivings about the casting of Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh because there were too young. However Brandon Routh was the BEST Superman yet and Kate Bosworth really did very well as Lois Lane. Kevin Spacey was GREAT as Lex Luthor, especially when he and Routh (briefly) shared the screen. However Parker Posey was wasted in a dull cliché.
The opening credit sequence was amazing. Hearing the original Superman theme gave me chills. The next 45 minutes of the film were awesome. Lex's reintroduction demonstrates at his ruthlessness even on a smaller scale. Clark Kent/Superman's return home was thoughtful and well done, as was the reintroduction to the crew at the Daily Planet.
However, because Singer assumes that we all saw the first two films he apparently does not feel the need to develop any of the characters outside of Superman and Lois. Lex Luthor's character is just a caricature of a mustache twirling villain, and even though Spacey does this very well, it's hard to take him seriously as a threat. His "evil" plan is nothing more than a rehash of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor the 1978 film except using crystals instead of nukes. There is NO REAL logic behind his motives at all if you think about it. More importantly you just don't care if he succeeds or not. Lex Luthor's character is only validated in the very brief face to face confrontation with Superman at the end.
Let me say that Lex/Superman confrontation at the end is one of the BEST scenes in the whole film and further proof of wasted potential. Lex Luthor shows how truly evil he can be, and again Spacey does an amazing job here. The on screen presence of Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey together was SO good. Routh could really hold his own next to Spacey. Too bad Singer couldn't have found a way to elaborate on this scene or do something more interesting with the characters than just having Luther (figuratively) twirl his mustache and have Superman pine over Lois Lane the whole film.
Overall, this film is bound in a weak story with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The story relies too heavily on the Superman/Lois Lane love story so much so that the rest of the film, and the other characters, just feel like an after thought.
Some minor film details are included in my comments below which may hint at spoilers...
**********
I attended a screening of Superman Returns last night, and even though I'm not the biggest Superman fan, I was REALLY looking forward to seeing this film. I have to admit I had misgivings about the casting of Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh because there were too young. However Brandon Routh was the BEST Superman yet and Kate Bosworth really did very well as Lois Lane. Kevin Spacey was GREAT as Lex Luthor, especially when he and Routh (briefly) shared the screen. However Parker Posey was wasted in a dull cliché.
The opening credit sequence was amazing. Hearing the original Superman theme gave me chills. The next 45 minutes of the film were awesome. Lex's reintroduction demonstrates at his ruthlessness even on a smaller scale. Clark Kent/Superman's return home was thoughtful and well done, as was the reintroduction to the crew at the Daily Planet.
However, because Singer assumes that we all saw the first two films he apparently does not feel the need to develop any of the characters outside of Superman and Lois. Lex Luthor's character is just a caricature of a mustache twirling villain, and even though Spacey does this very well, it's hard to take him seriously as a threat. His "evil" plan is nothing more than a rehash of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor the 1978 film except using crystals instead of nukes. There is NO REAL logic behind his motives at all if you think about it. More importantly you just don't care if he succeeds or not. Lex Luthor's character is only validated in the very brief face to face confrontation with Superman at the end.
Let me say that Lex/Superman confrontation at the end is one of the BEST scenes in the whole film and further proof of wasted potential. Lex Luthor shows how truly evil he can be, and again Spacey does an amazing job here. The on screen presence of Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey together was SO good. Routh could really hold his own next to Spacey. Too bad Singer couldn't have found a way to elaborate on this scene or do something more interesting with the characters than just having Luther (figuratively) twirl his mustache and have Superman pine over Lois Lane the whole film.
Overall, this film is bound in a weak story with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The story relies too heavily on the Superman/Lois Lane love story so much so that the rest of the film, and the other characters, just feel like an after thought.
It's okay, but FAR from great thanks to weak script
jstachler30 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the original "Superman: The Movie" when it was released in theaters. It was an epic event. It would be unfair to expect the same from "Superman Returns" but the filmmakers are inviting comparisons since they rely so much on certain events that occurred in the first two films, even going so far as to reuse some of Tom Mankiewicz's dialog. It's obvious when watching the film that a lot of money and hard work went into making it...with the exception of the screen writing which is where this film falls short. It insists on making several characters dumber than they would appear. Take Richard, concerned about an old article Lois wrote called "I spent the night with Superman". Richard boy, she has a kid. She obviously spent the night with SOMEONE before she met you. If you really stop and consider it, every character in the film is basically commanded by the script to do something kind of dumb in order to advance the unimaginative story.
Perry White assigns Clark Kent the task of looking into a mysterious blackout. At no time in the film is it remotely hinted that he has been doing anything of the sort (or anything at all, when you think about it), whereas Lois in defiance of White is seen in several scenes looking into it, and it becomes a major plot point. Meanwhile Kent (Superman, mind you) is doping around the office.
The powers of Superman are well known. And writers can have a lot of fun being resourceful with them. But not in this film. Everything Superman does is predictable. By comparison think back on the way Superman saved California after the bomb struck. Things like having the train run across his back in part 1 or freezing the lake with his breath then dropping it on an out-of-control fire in part 3 are what I'm talking about.
The music wisely incorporates John Williams classic score, but a lot of cues are overused, especially "Can You Read My Mind?" which has little place in this film considering the tepid relationship between Superman and Lois. It could have been used to great effect just once, when she visits an unconscious Superman in the hospital, where everything she feels for him comes to the surface. Instead, we're hit over the head with it practically every time they run into each other.
I thought Luthor's plot had interesting promise. But I find it puzzling that after his test run in the Atlantic Ocean Metropolis is basically now literally standing on shaky ground, and the skyscrapers all have questionable structural integrity after the shock-wave ran through them, shaking the foundations to the point that all the windows shattered in every building and even the Daily Planet's iconic sculpture topples from atop the building.
Director Singer certainly subscribes to Richard Donner's "verisimilitude" approach to the first film, the lack of which is what killed the series in the 80s. I like Brandon Routh as Superman and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. You could recast everyone else for all I care. Kate Bosworth is a walking pot of boiling water. Feisty and headstrong are one thing, but i think they pushed that too far in this film. Why in hell is Richard or Clark/Superman attracted to her?
I've noticed a lot of people, hungry for this film to come out, are satisfied with the product. If this review has a low "helpful" score it's because they are blindly supporting the film. This review was written for anyone who knows how to discern between quality and quantity, particularly when it comes to film. I so very much wanted to love this film. Hollywood studios have a way of systematically destroying every decent franchise they get their hands on. In spite of my relative disappointment of the movie, it's far from being horrible. It's just not great...like it should have been.
Perry White assigns Clark Kent the task of looking into a mysterious blackout. At no time in the film is it remotely hinted that he has been doing anything of the sort (or anything at all, when you think about it), whereas Lois in defiance of White is seen in several scenes looking into it, and it becomes a major plot point. Meanwhile Kent (Superman, mind you) is doping around the office.
The powers of Superman are well known. And writers can have a lot of fun being resourceful with them. But not in this film. Everything Superman does is predictable. By comparison think back on the way Superman saved California after the bomb struck. Things like having the train run across his back in part 1 or freezing the lake with his breath then dropping it on an out-of-control fire in part 3 are what I'm talking about.
The music wisely incorporates John Williams classic score, but a lot of cues are overused, especially "Can You Read My Mind?" which has little place in this film considering the tepid relationship between Superman and Lois. It could have been used to great effect just once, when she visits an unconscious Superman in the hospital, where everything she feels for him comes to the surface. Instead, we're hit over the head with it practically every time they run into each other.
I thought Luthor's plot had interesting promise. But I find it puzzling that after his test run in the Atlantic Ocean Metropolis is basically now literally standing on shaky ground, and the skyscrapers all have questionable structural integrity after the shock-wave ran through them, shaking the foundations to the point that all the windows shattered in every building and even the Daily Planet's iconic sculpture topples from atop the building.
Director Singer certainly subscribes to Richard Donner's "verisimilitude" approach to the first film, the lack of which is what killed the series in the 80s. I like Brandon Routh as Superman and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. You could recast everyone else for all I care. Kate Bosworth is a walking pot of boiling water. Feisty and headstrong are one thing, but i think they pushed that too far in this film. Why in hell is Richard or Clark/Superman attracted to her?
I've noticed a lot of people, hungry for this film to come out, are satisfied with the product. If this review has a low "helpful" score it's because they are blindly supporting the film. This review was written for anyone who knows how to discern between quality and quantity, particularly when it comes to film. I so very much wanted to love this film. Hollywood studios have a way of systematically destroying every decent franchise they get their hands on. In spite of my relative disappointment of the movie, it's far from being horrible. It's just not great...like it should have been.
OK, but where was the FUN?
neil-47613 July 2007
Bullet points:
Good - using the Williams score, original titles style and Brando voice-over for the start sequence: all good calls;
Bad - Kate Bosworth: bad casting. No charisma. Never for a second convinced me that she was a spunky reporter;
Good - Brandon Routh: I thought nobody could fill Christopher Reeve's shoes, but this lad does well;
Bad - costume. They got it right in the 70s movies. The effect of darkening the colours, reducing the shield size and dropping the waistline of the trunks is well-known to clothes designers - it makes the wearer look tall and thin. Reeve looked broad and imposing.
Good - saving the shuttle/plane, and dealing with the Metropolis "quake";
Bad - not enough of that stuff;
Good - Spacey's Luthor. Clearly grown from the same seeds as Hackman's, but much more definitely a villain. I believed that this Luthor was fundamentally evil;
Bad - Kitty Kowalski. What an underwhelming character. Miss Tesmacher-lite;
Good - Richard White - a potentially interesting new character, to sit in a potentially very interesting group dynamic;
Bad - Tristan Lake Lebeau. Superman's son is autistic? Sorry, kid - you were rubbish.
Good - tweaking the franchise back into life again;
Bad - forgetting that Superman isn't Batman. Superman is supposed to be light. Superman is supposed to be FUN! Don't take it so seriously, next time!
Good - using the Williams score, original titles style and Brando voice-over for the start sequence: all good calls;
Bad - Kate Bosworth: bad casting. No charisma. Never for a second convinced me that she was a spunky reporter;
Good - Brandon Routh: I thought nobody could fill Christopher Reeve's shoes, but this lad does well;
Bad - costume. They got it right in the 70s movies. The effect of darkening the colours, reducing the shield size and dropping the waistline of the trunks is well-known to clothes designers - it makes the wearer look tall and thin. Reeve looked broad and imposing.
Good - saving the shuttle/plane, and dealing with the Metropolis "quake";
Bad - not enough of that stuff;
Good - Spacey's Luthor. Clearly grown from the same seeds as Hackman's, but much more definitely a villain. I believed that this Luthor was fundamentally evil;
Bad - Kitty Kowalski. What an underwhelming character. Miss Tesmacher-lite;
Good - Richard White - a potentially interesting new character, to sit in a potentially very interesting group dynamic;
Bad - Tristan Lake Lebeau. Superman's son is autistic? Sorry, kid - you were rubbish.
Good - tweaking the franchise back into life again;
Bad - forgetting that Superman isn't Batman. Superman is supposed to be light. Superman is supposed to be FUN! Don't take it so seriously, next time!
Why the world needs Superman...
Derek23730 June 2006
The basic premise of Superman Returns is that Superman has returned from an unexplained 5-year absence to find a world that seems to be getting along fine without him, that the woman he loves has moved on and has a family, and that he is- at least in terms of any beings similar to him- completely alone. The amazing thing is, this is the least angst-filled, least melodramatic superhero film in the past 5 years or so. I think the recent trend has been to try to get audiences to empathize with their heroes more by making them more human and actually taking them seriously. Peter Parker battles some very serious demons and is in constant struggle with being Spider-man, the X-Men films are very serious and political and the latest instalment, "The Last Stand," featured some startling and emotionally wrenching revelations, and Batman, well, need I go on?
So, here we have Superman in the first new film in almost 20 years. He has his issues, but unlike all the other Super heroes around, he seems to be very solemn about it all. After all, he is Superman, not Clark Kent; Clark Kent is his mask. Obviously a huge nitpick people will have is that Clark comes back the very, very same day as Superman and not one single idiot in the city of Metropolis seems to notice, right? Well, yes, that bugged me too, at first. But then, the more you think about it, that's just how Clark Kent is designed: completely forgettable (except by Jimmy), always in the background, and always overshadowed by the bigger story, which is Superman. David Carradine has a very great speech about Superman at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2 that justifies everything quite nicely to me, so I suggest seeing that if you haven't already. What this movie does a great job of doing is just showing this classic, iconic super hero doing what he does best: saving the day. There's something so refreshing about finally getting that clear view of Superman for the first time after he saves a planeload of passengers from certain doom, and saying with a smile: "Don't let this turn you off to flying, folks. Statistically it's still the safest mode of transportation."
But that brings us to the actual plot. It goes for simple, safe, repetitive— tedious, even? And, honestly, it's the kind of plot that just doesn't justify the runtime. Lex Luthor comes up with a ridiculous plan that even in the world of comic books is pretty hard to swallow. He compares himself to Prometheus, how he is so generous with the "mortals" by sharing his wonderful discovery, though planning on killing billions in the process. Lex obviously forgot the last half of that story, where Prometheus is punished and confined to terrible pain for all of eternity. But maybe that's the point. I mean, we all know from the very beginning Lex won't win, he's doomed to lose, that's just how it's meant to be: Superman wins and Lex loses. Written in the scriptures: is, was, ever shall be, in comic strips, TV shows, feature films, living in an ageless universe, for all eternity.
Bryan Singer is obviously aware of this. Singer also directed X-Men 1&2, and I think his biggest problem as a director is that he lacks a sense of completion in his works. X-Men is not the kind of movie that you watch, and then once it's over, you want to watch it over again. It's the kind of movie that you watch, and then once it's over, you want to see the next one. The X-Men films were each done with the presumption that there would be a next instalment, and that's fine I guess if you like always being on the edge of your seat waiting for the next one, but when his Superman movie does the same thing and drags past the 2-and-a-half hour mark, there's a problem. If nothing else, the movie establishes that Superman is indeed back, and we should expect to see more of him in the future.
Superman Returns is definitely a grand film. It's big, it's loud, it's expensive. I usually don't think to myself, 'hey that looks expensive,' when watching a movie, but I did in this case. It doesn't try for anything new or bold, it doesn't want to, and it's nice to see a super hero movie where the hero is the generic do-gooder, and helps mankind because he really wants to. That's why I think Superman garners more universal appeal than any others. But, honestly, the angsty heroes can be much more interesting. Certainly so with last year's Batman Begins, which I thought was a great, perfect movie, while I though Superman Returns was really good, but probably could have been better.
My rating: 7.5/10
So, here we have Superman in the first new film in almost 20 years. He has his issues, but unlike all the other Super heroes around, he seems to be very solemn about it all. After all, he is Superman, not Clark Kent; Clark Kent is his mask. Obviously a huge nitpick people will have is that Clark comes back the very, very same day as Superman and not one single idiot in the city of Metropolis seems to notice, right? Well, yes, that bugged me too, at first. But then, the more you think about it, that's just how Clark Kent is designed: completely forgettable (except by Jimmy), always in the background, and always overshadowed by the bigger story, which is Superman. David Carradine has a very great speech about Superman at the end of Kill Bill Volume 2 that justifies everything quite nicely to me, so I suggest seeing that if you haven't already. What this movie does a great job of doing is just showing this classic, iconic super hero doing what he does best: saving the day. There's something so refreshing about finally getting that clear view of Superman for the first time after he saves a planeload of passengers from certain doom, and saying with a smile: "Don't let this turn you off to flying, folks. Statistically it's still the safest mode of transportation."
But that brings us to the actual plot. It goes for simple, safe, repetitive— tedious, even? And, honestly, it's the kind of plot that just doesn't justify the runtime. Lex Luthor comes up with a ridiculous plan that even in the world of comic books is pretty hard to swallow. He compares himself to Prometheus, how he is so generous with the "mortals" by sharing his wonderful discovery, though planning on killing billions in the process. Lex obviously forgot the last half of that story, where Prometheus is punished and confined to terrible pain for all of eternity. But maybe that's the point. I mean, we all know from the very beginning Lex won't win, he's doomed to lose, that's just how it's meant to be: Superman wins and Lex loses. Written in the scriptures: is, was, ever shall be, in comic strips, TV shows, feature films, living in an ageless universe, for all eternity.
Bryan Singer is obviously aware of this. Singer also directed X-Men 1&2, and I think his biggest problem as a director is that he lacks a sense of completion in his works. X-Men is not the kind of movie that you watch, and then once it's over, you want to watch it over again. It's the kind of movie that you watch, and then once it's over, you want to see the next one. The X-Men films were each done with the presumption that there would be a next instalment, and that's fine I guess if you like always being on the edge of your seat waiting for the next one, but when his Superman movie does the same thing and drags past the 2-and-a-half hour mark, there's a problem. If nothing else, the movie establishes that Superman is indeed back, and we should expect to see more of him in the future.
Superman Returns is definitely a grand film. It's big, it's loud, it's expensive. I usually don't think to myself, 'hey that looks expensive,' when watching a movie, but I did in this case. It doesn't try for anything new or bold, it doesn't want to, and it's nice to see a super hero movie where the hero is the generic do-gooder, and helps mankind because he really wants to. That's why I think Superman garners more universal appeal than any others. But, honestly, the angsty heroes can be much more interesting. Certainly so with last year's Batman Begins, which I thought was a great, perfect movie, while I though Superman Returns was really good, but probably could have been better.
My rating: 7.5/10
Super-Bland
nsanehops28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
After languishing in the disappointment that was Brett Ratner's X3, I made it a point to walk into Superman Returns with low expectations. They should have been lower. It isn't that the film is outright terrible (though it has many glaring flaws); rather, I had unknowingly outgrown the Superman myth. And considering that Bryan Singer offers nothing original to the new installment, I think America will find its timeless icon a little dated.
First, there is the casting—the most important part of any film attempting to match an original that has become so iconic, its actors have replaced the comic book characters in America's collective conscience. Newcomer Brandon Routh most definitely looks the part (besides being too young), but has half the screen presence of Christopher Reeve. Although Superman isn't known for his emotional instability, it seems that Singer played it safe by limiting Routh's range to avoid having the new Superman give a poor performance. Instead, we are left with almost no performance.
Kate Bosworth is equally as bland as Lois Lane (and again, too young for the role). And with her lifeless brown hair that left me aching for her typical screen blond, she isn't even much to look at. Kevin Spacey's performance as Lex Luther also left something to be desired—though I'm not sure exactly what. He's hardly the lovable Lex that Gene Hackman played. The rest of the cast was decent, with the exception of Frank Langella. His dull portrayal of Perry White made me wish they had grabbed J. K. Simmons straight out of Spiderman to talk about his barber.
Though suspension of disbelief is required for nearly every comic book film, the plot of Returns is so illogically strung together I had trouble letting go. At first my mind started asking questions that shouldn't be asked of Superman. What did Superman eat while he flew around the universe looking for Krypton? Does Superman need to eat? How does he breathe in space (which, to be fair, is a question that applies to the original films as well)? Once Lex Luther's plan emerged, however, I moved past the (unfair) premise questions and asked some legitimate questions. Without spoiling the plot, I'll just say that there are ways for Lex to hatch his plan for world domination without killing billions people. I didn't buy into the "necessary sacrifice."
On the upside, Singer's direction is glossy and competent. The score works well thanks to a liberal sprinkling of John Williams' original theme song, the special effects are, of course, impressive, and the action sequences especially stand out. Overriding the tension generated by well-staged and edited action, however, is a lack of any real sense of peril. And surprisingly, the pace is rather slow throughout—which is only made tolerable by some scattered comic relief.
Singer takes an unexpected turn toward the end of the film when he emphasizes the parallels between Superman and Jesus to the point where the audience wonders if Returns is simply another allegory in the vein of The Chronicles of Narnia. While the comparison is interesting, one can only wonder how far it can be stretched considering the Superman in this rehash stands for truth, justice, and irresponsible romances (reflecting the plot's only surprise).
The bottom line for any resurrection of a classic film or series is there better be a damn good reason. In the case of Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan ripped the decaying body of Batman from the grave, and gave him the breath of life. Batman became complex, raw, and 100% real. Although Superman is an entirely different beast—one who is too busy saving people to reflect on his lack of flaws—today's audiences expect their superheroes to be tad more human. Unfortunately for Returns, in an overexerted effort to pay tribute to Richard Donner, a super-cautious Singer reanimates Superman like a puppeteer; but fails to give him life.
5.5/10
First, there is the casting—the most important part of any film attempting to match an original that has become so iconic, its actors have replaced the comic book characters in America's collective conscience. Newcomer Brandon Routh most definitely looks the part (besides being too young), but has half the screen presence of Christopher Reeve. Although Superman isn't known for his emotional instability, it seems that Singer played it safe by limiting Routh's range to avoid having the new Superman give a poor performance. Instead, we are left with almost no performance.
Kate Bosworth is equally as bland as Lois Lane (and again, too young for the role). And with her lifeless brown hair that left me aching for her typical screen blond, she isn't even much to look at. Kevin Spacey's performance as Lex Luther also left something to be desired—though I'm not sure exactly what. He's hardly the lovable Lex that Gene Hackman played. The rest of the cast was decent, with the exception of Frank Langella. His dull portrayal of Perry White made me wish they had grabbed J. K. Simmons straight out of Spiderman to talk about his barber.
Though suspension of disbelief is required for nearly every comic book film, the plot of Returns is so illogically strung together I had trouble letting go. At first my mind started asking questions that shouldn't be asked of Superman. What did Superman eat while he flew around the universe looking for Krypton? Does Superman need to eat? How does he breathe in space (which, to be fair, is a question that applies to the original films as well)? Once Lex Luther's plan emerged, however, I moved past the (unfair) premise questions and asked some legitimate questions. Without spoiling the plot, I'll just say that there are ways for Lex to hatch his plan for world domination without killing billions people. I didn't buy into the "necessary sacrifice."
On the upside, Singer's direction is glossy and competent. The score works well thanks to a liberal sprinkling of John Williams' original theme song, the special effects are, of course, impressive, and the action sequences especially stand out. Overriding the tension generated by well-staged and edited action, however, is a lack of any real sense of peril. And surprisingly, the pace is rather slow throughout—which is only made tolerable by some scattered comic relief.
Singer takes an unexpected turn toward the end of the film when he emphasizes the parallels between Superman and Jesus to the point where the audience wonders if Returns is simply another allegory in the vein of The Chronicles of Narnia. While the comparison is interesting, one can only wonder how far it can be stretched considering the Superman in this rehash stands for truth, justice, and irresponsible romances (reflecting the plot's only surprise).
The bottom line for any resurrection of a classic film or series is there better be a damn good reason. In the case of Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan ripped the decaying body of Batman from the grave, and gave him the breath of life. Batman became complex, raw, and 100% real. Although Superman is an entirely different beast—one who is too busy saving people to reflect on his lack of flaws—today's audiences expect their superheroes to be tad more human. Unfortunately for Returns, in an overexerted effort to pay tribute to Richard Donner, a super-cautious Singer reanimates Superman like a puppeteer; but fails to give him life.
5.5/10
I have no idea why Superman Returns has such a bad reputation. This is actually really-really good!
Reznik_T27 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was totally surprised and blown away by this movie! First of all, Superman Returns takes you back to the original cinematic universe of Superman 1 and 2. When the movie started and I realized that, I was pretty skeptic, I didn't believe that it could work 26 years after Superman 2 (actually it was 36 years, when I was watching it). Then when Clark Kent returned to the Daily Planet, and I saw that the actor (Brandon Routh) is actually doing Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent, I was like "Oh no, this will be bad!". The same thing with the young photographer, Jimmy Olsen - the actor was playing the exact same character. I didn't like the concept. But then I said to myself, okay, I'm gonna go with it, so I kept watching the movie, and very shortly I had to realize that it actually works! It was funny, it was exciting, it was emotional - it was everything that a classical Superman movie needs to be! Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was amazing! She was actually not trying to copy Margot Kidder, she was doing her own thing, but still remained Lois Lane. I would say, as far as acting goes, Kate Bosworth was the best thing in this movie.
A couple of things I didn't like:
1. In the first half of the movie there were some pretty bad CGI moments. There were some scenes where Superman almost looked cartoonish. Thankfully it was only 2 or 3 scenes, the rest of the visuals and CG were pretty good - especially considering that the movie was made in 2006.
2. Kevin Spacey was not a good Lex Luthor. He probably was told to do Gene Hackman's Lex and it just didn't work. At least in the first half of the movie. In the last hour or so, it seemed like he started to adjust the character to himself a little bit, and that did make him more believable as Luthor.
In the last half an hour the movie was flying! There was action, there was suspense, drama and a lot of emotion - but not too much! It was just perfect. I was actually in tears, which doesn't happen to me very often.
By the way, I did like Man Of Steel too, I didn't mind that DC eventually took the franchise in that direction. But I have to say, I did like Superman Returns even more. This one I loved! This is not the kind of superhero movie that fans expect from DC and/or Marvel in 2016. This rather takes you back 20-30 years in time and helps you feel what it was like when as a kid you were cheering for Superman.
Thank you, Bryan Singer and whoever else was involved in it!
A couple of things I didn't like:
1. In the first half of the movie there were some pretty bad CGI moments. There were some scenes where Superman almost looked cartoonish. Thankfully it was only 2 or 3 scenes, the rest of the visuals and CG were pretty good - especially considering that the movie was made in 2006.
2. Kevin Spacey was not a good Lex Luthor. He probably was told to do Gene Hackman's Lex and it just didn't work. At least in the first half of the movie. In the last hour or so, it seemed like he started to adjust the character to himself a little bit, and that did make him more believable as Luthor.
In the last half an hour the movie was flying! There was action, there was suspense, drama and a lot of emotion - but not too much! It was just perfect. I was actually in tears, which doesn't happen to me very often.
By the way, I did like Man Of Steel too, I didn't mind that DC eventually took the franchise in that direction. But I have to say, I did like Superman Returns even more. This one I loved! This is not the kind of superhero movie that fans expect from DC and/or Marvel in 2016. This rather takes you back 20-30 years in time and helps you feel what it was like when as a kid you were cheering for Superman.
Thank you, Bryan Singer and whoever else was involved in it!
There are worse superhero movies . . .
braden718028 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The special effects were great. The performances (well, all of the major performances) were great. Brandon Routh has won my approval of his Superman, despite the fact that I still think he needs to bulk up a bit more. He won me over when he gave his first cheesy smile as Clark Kent. There were a lot of knods to Superman and Superman 2, and that was cool (the best knod, in my opinion, is when he repeats his "Flying is still the safest way to fly" speech to the people on the airplaine). I especially liked how the intro was done to resemble the old intros. I also liked (this will ruin the end if you haven't seen it) the morality that Superman chose to leave his son and Lois with Richard, and that Richard wasn't portrayed as a big jerk (like "the other guy" usually is). Oh, and I loved the part where you got the idea that little Jason White saw through Clark's disguise right off the bat.
There were a lot of good things about this movie. But I still give it a 6 out of 10. Allow me to explain why: it's continuing a storyline from a movie filmed nearly 30 years ago and has an entirely new cast (with the exception of the cameo by the late Marlon Brando). There are a lot of changes made . . . and that would be fine if the story was to start over: new franchise, new faces, new chain of events. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between this movie and Batman Begins. I'll confess my bias right up front that I think that movie is the best superhero film ever made, but one of the major things that it did right was start over. I can except Michael Caine as Alfred because he's established in a different storyline than Michael Gough's Alfred. I had a lot of trouble accepting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane because I'm supposed to accept that it's the same Lois as Margot Kidder. I can't get immersed in the idea that she's heartbroken by Superman because I never saw her fall in love with him.
Then there's the seemingly golden casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. When he tossed his wig to the little girl and said, "you can have this . . . the rest is mine," I thought, "Hewyeah! A truly evil Lex, not like Hackman's slapstick cartoon character." But no . . . his stuff was a lot of jokes and rolling his eyes at his bumbling henchmen, just like the old movies. He seemed like just the "villain of the hour" to me. Not Superman's genuine arch nemesis, but the bad guy on this week's episode. Also, you have the same problem as before because this Lex is supposed to be the same Lex as Hackman, and therefore the rivalry between he and Superman was supposed to already be there. "Why does this face hate this face?" That needs to be established. Far too much was left up to the viewer to just "assume." I could keep going, like how I think the guy who played Perry White did a particularly awful job. Perry White is supposed to be a hard ass, this guy was way too soft spoken and had no edge.
The costume change was okay, but, yet again, it's very different from the costume in the old movies and if this movie is supposed to be a continuation, why has it changed? Oh, and I can't figure out why someone thought dark red was a good idea.
There wasn't enough "Superman doing cool stuff," I felt. Spider-man made you feel like you were swinging around New York with him, but this movie just had a bunch of awe-struck bystanders looking to the sky. It had him doing very cool things, mind you, just not enough of them.
They never solidified the fact that Jason was Superman's son, either. Sure, it looked like he pushed the piano, but they never gave us any other confirmation. (NO! Seeing Superman in the water from a plane is not confirmation that he's his son). I honestly kept expecting to find out that it's not his kid after all, but then he's giving him his fatherly speech as he slept and . . . oh, okay, I guess it is his kid.
Then there's the problem with the story . . . Superman was 30 years old in the 1978 film (he left home and "made" the Fortress of Solitude when he was 18, and then he went on a 12 year "journey" with Jor-el), so that means if Superman was gone for 5-7 years (the movie wasn't to clear on it . . . or maybe it was, the sound wasn't working right in the theatre I saw it in), then he'd be in his mid to late 30's, and Lois would be considerably older, as well, and Jimmy Olsen wouldn't look like an 18-year-old . . . anyway.
I can also become super-geek and complain about how Lois Lane never knew about kryptonite in the old movies, raise questions as to how it's possible for an alien being to impregnate a human, and point out that if Superman comes within even a few meters of kryptonite, he loses all of his strength . . . so when kryptonite shards are inches from his face, he can't continue to lift a gigantic island into space. But what are you gonna do? Time wouldn't turn backwards if you make the Earth spin the other way, either.
There were a lot of good things about this movie. But I still give it a 6 out of 10. Allow me to explain why: it's continuing a storyline from a movie filmed nearly 30 years ago and has an entirely new cast (with the exception of the cameo by the late Marlon Brando). There are a lot of changes made . . . and that would be fine if the story was to start over: new franchise, new faces, new chain of events. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between this movie and Batman Begins. I'll confess my bias right up front that I think that movie is the best superhero film ever made, but one of the major things that it did right was start over. I can except Michael Caine as Alfred because he's established in a different storyline than Michael Gough's Alfred. I had a lot of trouble accepting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane because I'm supposed to accept that it's the same Lois as Margot Kidder. I can't get immersed in the idea that she's heartbroken by Superman because I never saw her fall in love with him.
Then there's the seemingly golden casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. When he tossed his wig to the little girl and said, "you can have this . . . the rest is mine," I thought, "Hewyeah! A truly evil Lex, not like Hackman's slapstick cartoon character." But no . . . his stuff was a lot of jokes and rolling his eyes at his bumbling henchmen, just like the old movies. He seemed like just the "villain of the hour" to me. Not Superman's genuine arch nemesis, but the bad guy on this week's episode. Also, you have the same problem as before because this Lex is supposed to be the same Lex as Hackman, and therefore the rivalry between he and Superman was supposed to already be there. "Why does this face hate this face?" That needs to be established. Far too much was left up to the viewer to just "assume." I could keep going, like how I think the guy who played Perry White did a particularly awful job. Perry White is supposed to be a hard ass, this guy was way too soft spoken and had no edge.
The costume change was okay, but, yet again, it's very different from the costume in the old movies and if this movie is supposed to be a continuation, why has it changed? Oh, and I can't figure out why someone thought dark red was a good idea.
There wasn't enough "Superman doing cool stuff," I felt. Spider-man made you feel like you were swinging around New York with him, but this movie just had a bunch of awe-struck bystanders looking to the sky. It had him doing very cool things, mind you, just not enough of them.
They never solidified the fact that Jason was Superman's son, either. Sure, it looked like he pushed the piano, but they never gave us any other confirmation. (NO! Seeing Superman in the water from a plane is not confirmation that he's his son). I honestly kept expecting to find out that it's not his kid after all, but then he's giving him his fatherly speech as he slept and . . . oh, okay, I guess it is his kid.
Then there's the problem with the story . . . Superman was 30 years old in the 1978 film (he left home and "made" the Fortress of Solitude when he was 18, and then he went on a 12 year "journey" with Jor-el), so that means if Superman was gone for 5-7 years (the movie wasn't to clear on it . . . or maybe it was, the sound wasn't working right in the theatre I saw it in), then he'd be in his mid to late 30's, and Lois would be considerably older, as well, and Jimmy Olsen wouldn't look like an 18-year-old . . . anyway.
I can also become super-geek and complain about how Lois Lane never knew about kryptonite in the old movies, raise questions as to how it's possible for an alien being to impregnate a human, and point out that if Superman comes within even a few meters of kryptonite, he loses all of his strength . . . so when kryptonite shards are inches from his face, he can't continue to lift a gigantic island into space. But what are you gonna do? Time wouldn't turn backwards if you make the Earth spin the other way, either.
Good effects, but ultimately emotionally uninvolving
eichelbergersports26 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was finally able to screen the newest adventure from Warner Bros. and DC Comics Films, "Superman Returns," starring relative unknown Brandon Routh in the role the late Christopher Reeve rode to stardom upon.
Now, some 28 years after Richard Donner's classic "Superman" hit the big screen, director Bryan Singer ("X-Men," "X-Men 2"), with a trillion dollar budget, tries his hand at helming the ultimate graphic novel adventure.
Sadly, Singer is no Donner.
While wonderful to look at, and sometimes interesting to ponder, this newest version of the saga of the Man of Steel leaves one with an impressive vapidity; a passive disinterest and an emotional detachment which overwhelms one with a cold, empty feeling.
In an effort to do what last year's "Batman Begins" did to the Caped Crusader franchise – bring a new dark, brooding vitality to the series, "Superman Returns" succeeds only in making one wish for the deft hand of Donner, as well as the acting ability of Reeves, Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (as a stupidly evil henchman, Otis) and especially Gene Hackman (as the best Lex Luthor ever).
The plot takes place supposedly five years after the action in Superman II (from 1981), when scientists discovered proof of such a world, Superman journeyed there (evidently without telling anyone of his plans) to find if it was possibly a living planet. It wasn't so now he's back – but things have changed in his absence.
Mainly, that his love interest, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth, "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"), is involved with the nephew of Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White, Richard (James Marsden, who played Scott Summer/Cyclops in the "X-Men" films) and they now have a young son about five-years-old.
He won't let go, however, even flying to her mansion to spy on and stalk her – in a very unSuperman-like scene.
Despite that last heartbreak, it's Lane's famous "Daily Planet" editorial, "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman," for which she will collect a Pulitzer Prize (huh?), that really stings Clark/Man of Steel.
That's one of the first problems I had with this version. In the first two films (nothing matters after part two), Superman saved Lane's life at least four times (from a helicopter plummeting of a skyscraper; from being buried alive in the desert; from a plunging elevator in the Eiffel Tower; and from going over the cliff at Niagara Falls. After all of that, she writes an article saying no one NEEDS him anymore?!
Then, in a nice bit of CGI work, the powerful hero rescues her again (from a plane plunging to earth), stopping the craft from crashing nose-first on the infield of a Major League baseball stadium. It's truly an awesome scene.
Meanwhile, in the frozen North, evil madman Luthor (Kevin Spacey, Academy Award winner for "The Usual Suspects" and "American Beauty") is out of prison and raiding Superman's Fortress of Solitude, making off which his collection of priceless crystals.
Routh is handsome all right, and looking close enough to Reeve (except his eyes are CGI'd blue from their natural brown) to keep us comfortable (his voice, though, is creepily similar to the late actor); so I have no real problem with him in the lead role.
Likewise, Sam Huntington as bumbling photographer Jimmy Olson, was adequately goofy in comic relief; while Frank Langella (as blustery Perry White) is good in just about any role he plays (see "Dracula" and "Dave" for proof of this).
The inclusion of Jack Larson (the original Jimmy Olson in the 1950s series), and Noel Neill (who played one of the Lois Lanes in that show) in cameo roles as a bartender and a rich, dying widow, respectively, was also a nice touch.
The other parts, however, do concern me. Bosworth is just too spineless and ineffective to be a hard-nosed reporter for a major newspaper, as well as the only real confidant our hero has in his life. To me, the spunky Parker Posey (who portrays Kitty Kowalski, Luthor's gun moll) would have made a much better Lois.
As for Spacey as Luthor, well, to me, he just is not evil enough. Gene Hackman had a deliciously devious demeanor, coupled with a madman's desire to rule the world – with basically realistic plans to do so. Spacey seems more of an annoyance than a real threat.
Another crime this movie commits, is that it goes on and on – at least 20 minutes after it should have concluded.
Now there will be fans out there who will no doubt blast me for this opinion, claiming how I dare I compare the 1978 and '81 films to this one.
To those detractors, I simply say that this new picture invites comparisons, utilizing the same opening credits, the same theme song, archival footage of Marlon Brando (as Jor-El, speaking dialogue from the original film), even the same scene where Superman flies Lois around New York (the only thing missing is Kidder's corny voice-over).
Now, some 28 years after Richard Donner's classic "Superman" hit the big screen, director Bryan Singer ("X-Men," "X-Men 2"), with a trillion dollar budget, tries his hand at helming the ultimate graphic novel adventure.
Sadly, Singer is no Donner.
While wonderful to look at, and sometimes interesting to ponder, this newest version of the saga of the Man of Steel leaves one with an impressive vapidity; a passive disinterest and an emotional detachment which overwhelms one with a cold, empty feeling.
In an effort to do what last year's "Batman Begins" did to the Caped Crusader franchise – bring a new dark, brooding vitality to the series, "Superman Returns" succeeds only in making one wish for the deft hand of Donner, as well as the acting ability of Reeves, Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (as a stupidly evil henchman, Otis) and especially Gene Hackman (as the best Lex Luthor ever).
The plot takes place supposedly five years after the action in Superman II (from 1981), when scientists discovered proof of such a world, Superman journeyed there (evidently without telling anyone of his plans) to find if it was possibly a living planet. It wasn't so now he's back – but things have changed in his absence.
Mainly, that his love interest, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth, "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"), is involved with the nephew of Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White, Richard (James Marsden, who played Scott Summer/Cyclops in the "X-Men" films) and they now have a young son about five-years-old.
He won't let go, however, even flying to her mansion to spy on and stalk her – in a very unSuperman-like scene.
Despite that last heartbreak, it's Lane's famous "Daily Planet" editorial, "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman," for which she will collect a Pulitzer Prize (huh?), that really stings Clark/Man of Steel.
That's one of the first problems I had with this version. In the first two films (nothing matters after part two), Superman saved Lane's life at least four times (from a helicopter plummeting of a skyscraper; from being buried alive in the desert; from a plunging elevator in the Eiffel Tower; and from going over the cliff at Niagara Falls. After all of that, she writes an article saying no one NEEDS him anymore?!
Then, in a nice bit of CGI work, the powerful hero rescues her again (from a plane plunging to earth), stopping the craft from crashing nose-first on the infield of a Major League baseball stadium. It's truly an awesome scene.
Meanwhile, in the frozen North, evil madman Luthor (Kevin Spacey, Academy Award winner for "The Usual Suspects" and "American Beauty") is out of prison and raiding Superman's Fortress of Solitude, making off which his collection of priceless crystals.
Routh is handsome all right, and looking close enough to Reeve (except his eyes are CGI'd blue from their natural brown) to keep us comfortable (his voice, though, is creepily similar to the late actor); so I have no real problem with him in the lead role.
Likewise, Sam Huntington as bumbling photographer Jimmy Olson, was adequately goofy in comic relief; while Frank Langella (as blustery Perry White) is good in just about any role he plays (see "Dracula" and "Dave" for proof of this).
The inclusion of Jack Larson (the original Jimmy Olson in the 1950s series), and Noel Neill (who played one of the Lois Lanes in that show) in cameo roles as a bartender and a rich, dying widow, respectively, was also a nice touch.
The other parts, however, do concern me. Bosworth is just too spineless and ineffective to be a hard-nosed reporter for a major newspaper, as well as the only real confidant our hero has in his life. To me, the spunky Parker Posey (who portrays Kitty Kowalski, Luthor's gun moll) would have made a much better Lois.
As for Spacey as Luthor, well, to me, he just is not evil enough. Gene Hackman had a deliciously devious demeanor, coupled with a madman's desire to rule the world – with basically realistic plans to do so. Spacey seems more of an annoyance than a real threat.
Another crime this movie commits, is that it goes on and on – at least 20 minutes after it should have concluded.
Now there will be fans out there who will no doubt blast me for this opinion, claiming how I dare I compare the 1978 and '81 films to this one.
To those detractors, I simply say that this new picture invites comparisons, utilizing the same opening credits, the same theme song, archival footage of Marlon Brando (as Jor-El, speaking dialogue from the original film), even the same scene where Superman flies Lois around New York (the only thing missing is Kidder's corny voice-over).
Underrated Movie
joelelvers22 April 2016
I became curious enough to re-watch this movie after seeing Brandon Routh's performance as Ray Palmer/A.T.O.M. in Arrow, Flash, and Legends of Tomorrow.
I feel that it is a highly underrated film and gets an unnecessary bad rap. Brandon Routh's portrayal of Clark Kent/Superman, I feel, is second only to Christopher Reeves, whom he does a great job of capturing.
The action scenes are top-notch and fun to watch. It even has one of the most brutal fight scenes in any Superman movie which could be a bit hard to watch. Yes, even more than the Zack Snyder movies.
This movie is far from perfect, but it is a lot better than what it's given credit for. I do recommend checking it out.
I feel that it is a highly underrated film and gets an unnecessary bad rap. Brandon Routh's portrayal of Clark Kent/Superman, I feel, is second only to Christopher Reeves, whom he does a great job of capturing.
The action scenes are top-notch and fun to watch. It even has one of the most brutal fight scenes in any Superman movie which could be a bit hard to watch. Yes, even more than the Zack Snyder movies.
This movie is far from perfect, but it is a lot better than what it's given credit for. I do recommend checking it out.
A mild disappointment
baumer28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Watching Superman and Superman II on the weekend, the first time in quite some time, I could finally see how the special effects were accomplished. Superman flew against blue screen to make it look like he was flying over the water and through the air and so on. Fire coming towards him was nothing more than an optical illusion and so on. But in 1978, these were ground breaking effects and people marveled at the wizardry displayed in the film. But the special effects never seemed to take away from the story. Superman II is a better film in my opinion because there was more action, more human relationships and a lot more actual physical confrontations/fights. That's not to say that Superman the movie isn't a great film, it is. But the second showed us every side to Superman. His angry side, his vengeful side, his soft side and his human side. The whole film was simply kick-ass. And part of that equation was the casting and the interpretation of the characters. If there is on complaint that is omnipotent in this film, it's that the characters do not resemble the characters we remember. Ironically, the actor that had the most heat on him before the film began, has the best performance in the film. Brandon Routh embodies the spirit of Superman but needs a better script to showcase his talents. It's the rest of the cast that seems to sleepwalk their way through the film.
This is a lackluster beginning to what will probably be a franchise that produces more sequels. The film is is all but guaranteed to make its production budget back WW and with video (350 mill reportedly) so there will be sequels. This debut is average at best. And the problems begin with casting, and perhaps the direction by Singer. I remember Lois Lane as a manic personality and a go getter and someone who resembled a woman on Ecstacy. She was enthusiastic, and energetic but feminine all rolled into one. Kate Bosworth plays her like a woman scorned. She is a bitter, angry and acerbic woman that in all of 5 years has gone from someone who was rescued by Superman countless times and someone who revered him to someone who literally sneers his name when speaking it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Superman erase her memory at the end of the second one? How would she even remember her feelings for him? Because these feelings are clearly more than the crush that she felt before she got to hang with him. This is a deep seeded love that someone remembers. It just doesn't fit.
Then there is the problem with the story. So let's see if we can get this straight. Superman disappears for five years and then Lex goes to jail for five years but gets out long enough to meet and marry and pleasure a dying old woman to then steal her fortune so that he can then go back to Superman's fortress and steal the secrets he needs to take over the world. RIGHT! And another thing that just doesn't make any sense, and I'm not trying to nitpick here, but seriously folks, how can people not put this together? Is it really that hard to figure out that Clark and Superman returned at the same time? I mean, isn't that a little coincidental. They even make jokes about it in the movie, like they are aware of the joke but stay the course anyway. And you're talking about reporters here. People who uncover the truth for a living. And they can't piece together the physical similarities of their look and their physique and the auspicious timing of both of their returns? I know this is a movie, but please! When watching the film, it occurs to you that there was so much that could have been done differently. The reason for his disappearance is lame. The plot by Lex to take over the world is terrible and Superman getting debilitated by Kryptonite is just lazy. He knows he has one weakness...one and yet he chooses to ignore the fact that with Lex returning, so should the possibility of Kryptonite. Once we see Superman down on his back getting the Super-crap beat out of him, it just becomes too much. The movie is lazy, and that is what brings it down. There was also a terribly elementary attempt to introduce his super-son. Once we find out that he can throw a piano, is it really too much to ask to have him break the door down?
The film is supposed to be a bridge between the second and the present. But there are too many plot holes to accomplish that simple task. And that takes away the credibility of the movie. And if you just don't believe what you are being fed, then there isn't much point to the film.
Not all is bad. I have to admit that at the beginning when John Williams iconic theme blasts over the speakers, I got chills. And the airplane rescue scene is actually breathtaking, especially when it lands on a baseball diamond. Also fun is one brief line when you hear that Superman has been spotted all over the world, including Gotham City. This is a great prelude to possible encounters with Batman later on.
I didn't hate Superman Returns. I just didn't like it all that much. I did laugh and want to cheer in some parts, but more times than not, I wanted it to end. And with some closure too. This film just goes on and on and on like Return of the King did before it finally just ends.
Superman tells Lois, "I'm always around." And that may be true, but if they don't fix the second one, he may not be around for much longer.
6/10 So much more could have been done with the film.
This is a lackluster beginning to what will probably be a franchise that produces more sequels. The film is is all but guaranteed to make its production budget back WW and with video (350 mill reportedly) so there will be sequels. This debut is average at best. And the problems begin with casting, and perhaps the direction by Singer. I remember Lois Lane as a manic personality and a go getter and someone who resembled a woman on Ecstacy. She was enthusiastic, and energetic but feminine all rolled into one. Kate Bosworth plays her like a woman scorned. She is a bitter, angry and acerbic woman that in all of 5 years has gone from someone who was rescued by Superman countless times and someone who revered him to someone who literally sneers his name when speaking it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Superman erase her memory at the end of the second one? How would she even remember her feelings for him? Because these feelings are clearly more than the crush that she felt before she got to hang with him. This is a deep seeded love that someone remembers. It just doesn't fit.
Then there is the problem with the story. So let's see if we can get this straight. Superman disappears for five years and then Lex goes to jail for five years but gets out long enough to meet and marry and pleasure a dying old woman to then steal her fortune so that he can then go back to Superman's fortress and steal the secrets he needs to take over the world. RIGHT! And another thing that just doesn't make any sense, and I'm not trying to nitpick here, but seriously folks, how can people not put this together? Is it really that hard to figure out that Clark and Superman returned at the same time? I mean, isn't that a little coincidental. They even make jokes about it in the movie, like they are aware of the joke but stay the course anyway. And you're talking about reporters here. People who uncover the truth for a living. And they can't piece together the physical similarities of their look and their physique and the auspicious timing of both of their returns? I know this is a movie, but please! When watching the film, it occurs to you that there was so much that could have been done differently. The reason for his disappearance is lame. The plot by Lex to take over the world is terrible and Superman getting debilitated by Kryptonite is just lazy. He knows he has one weakness...one and yet he chooses to ignore the fact that with Lex returning, so should the possibility of Kryptonite. Once we see Superman down on his back getting the Super-crap beat out of him, it just becomes too much. The movie is lazy, and that is what brings it down. There was also a terribly elementary attempt to introduce his super-son. Once we find out that he can throw a piano, is it really too much to ask to have him break the door down?
The film is supposed to be a bridge between the second and the present. But there are too many plot holes to accomplish that simple task. And that takes away the credibility of the movie. And if you just don't believe what you are being fed, then there isn't much point to the film.
Not all is bad. I have to admit that at the beginning when John Williams iconic theme blasts over the speakers, I got chills. And the airplane rescue scene is actually breathtaking, especially when it lands on a baseball diamond. Also fun is one brief line when you hear that Superman has been spotted all over the world, including Gotham City. This is a great prelude to possible encounters with Batman later on.
I didn't hate Superman Returns. I just didn't like it all that much. I did laugh and want to cheer in some parts, but more times than not, I wanted it to end. And with some closure too. This film just goes on and on and on like Return of the King did before it finally just ends.
Superman tells Lois, "I'm always around." And that may be true, but if they don't fix the second one, he may not be around for much longer.
6/10 So much more could have been done with the film.
Super? Nope - just decent.
dr_foreman28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Superman Returns" is a competent movie, generally very well produced, directed and cast. But it didn't quite gel for me. I thought it dragged at points, as Superman got bogged down with pining over Lois Lane instead of saving the day. Alas, I thought the dialogue just wasn't sharp enough to sustain these heavy-handed emotional scenes; what sort of catchphrase is "I'm always around," anyway?
Here's what I did enjoy. The flight scenes were beautiful; Superman cut a very majestic figure as he soared across skylines and starscapes. The set design was great, too, creating a modern feel with hints of the Art Deco style I associate with Superman. And I appreciated the performances of Spacey, Bosworth and Langella. Routh had a curiously small role, especially as Clark Kent, so I had trouble judging whether he was wooden or actually good at playing a modest hero.
Here's what I enjoyed less. Luthor's plan simply didn't interest me. I found the whole notion of growing a giant crystal island very surreal and not too threatening. Also, he poses a fairly boring threat to Superman. If Luthor's got Kryponite, Superman is helpless; if he hasn't got Kryponite, he's helpless. These two legendary antagonists can never really meet on equal terms. Thus, most confrontations between them must inevitably be one-sided. (Read: boring.)
I also had a mixed reaction to the CGI effects. Some were wonderful, and others looked artificial despite being very detailed. The soundtrack was great, of course, with the classic John Williams theme wisely reused - though maybe they trotted it out once too often?
The conflict involving Lois Lane's family life was pretty good, though I felt that the revelations about her son, which I'll avoid spoiling here, undermined much of the potential tension and drama in the story. I'm very glad, though, that Lois' boyfriend was depicted as a smart, handsome and capable guy instead of some dumb and unworthy "straw man" rival to Superman.
I noticed that Roger Ebert's two-star review of "Superman Returns" is already taking a lot of criticism on this site. Though I think he was perhaps a tad too harsh, I have to say that I agree with many of his criticisms. His headline for the review, "Atlas Yawned," provoked a sympathetic laugh from me. I guess I can only hope for a sequel with more action, more oomph, more...Super-heroism?
Here's what I did enjoy. The flight scenes were beautiful; Superman cut a very majestic figure as he soared across skylines and starscapes. The set design was great, too, creating a modern feel with hints of the Art Deco style I associate with Superman. And I appreciated the performances of Spacey, Bosworth and Langella. Routh had a curiously small role, especially as Clark Kent, so I had trouble judging whether he was wooden or actually good at playing a modest hero.
Here's what I enjoyed less. Luthor's plan simply didn't interest me. I found the whole notion of growing a giant crystal island very surreal and not too threatening. Also, he poses a fairly boring threat to Superman. If Luthor's got Kryponite, Superman is helpless; if he hasn't got Kryponite, he's helpless. These two legendary antagonists can never really meet on equal terms. Thus, most confrontations between them must inevitably be one-sided. (Read: boring.)
I also had a mixed reaction to the CGI effects. Some were wonderful, and others looked artificial despite being very detailed. The soundtrack was great, of course, with the classic John Williams theme wisely reused - though maybe they trotted it out once too often?
The conflict involving Lois Lane's family life was pretty good, though I felt that the revelations about her son, which I'll avoid spoiling here, undermined much of the potential tension and drama in the story. I'm very glad, though, that Lois' boyfriend was depicted as a smart, handsome and capable guy instead of some dumb and unworthy "straw man" rival to Superman.
I noticed that Roger Ebert's two-star review of "Superman Returns" is already taking a lot of criticism on this site. Though I think he was perhaps a tad too harsh, I have to say that I agree with many of his criticisms. His headline for the review, "Atlas Yawned," provoked a sympathetic laugh from me. I guess I can only hope for a sequel with more action, more oomph, more...Super-heroism?
Not Super, not Stupid, just a hair above average
dfranzen7019 January 2007
Superman's back and there's gonna be trouble, hey na, hey na, Superman's back! Well, hey, if Batman can begin again, Supes can come back to Earth, so to speak, right? Only this time it's not the late Christopher Reeve or even George Reeves, it's relative newcomer Brandon Routh as the Man o' Steel. Seems he's been gone lo these past five years in deep space, checking the general vicinity of where Krypton once existed. (Astronomers reported they'd found traces of the planet, so off Superman went to check out his home; oddly, neither he nor the astronomers mentioned that he was leaving.) But now he's back, and so is, coincidentally, Clark Kent. After reunited with his Earth mom Martha (Eva Marie Saint), Clark returns to work at the Daily Planet, greeted enthusiastically by Jimmy Olson ( ) and less enthusiastically by Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who's really moved on. Seems Lois has fallen in love, gotten married, and given birth, all five years ago. Huh, how about that. Her hubby is now an assistant editor at the Planet and is conveniently the nephew of Perry White, played by the magnificent Frank Langella.
Meanwhile, Superman isn't the only one making a comeback after five years; seems Lex Luthor, put away in prison for what was supposed to be many life sentences, is out on appeal, or something. Anyway, he's up to no good, and it involves killing billions of people and forcing the survivors to bow to him and lavish him with money and gifts and so on. Kevin Spacey plays Lex this time around, and he's a great choice - megalomaniacal without being hammy, which is a fine line. Makes one even forget the great Gene Hackman. (Of course, we all know the pitfalls of having a villain who has a stronger personality than the hero, don't we, Tim Burton?) So Supes is back, and Perry wants Lois to cover his return, but Lois wants to cover this weird blackout that affected pretty much everyone (notably, a Space Shuttle launch that winds up being saved by Superman, as you've no doubt seen in the trailers). Could the two issues be related? "You're reporters - find out!" Perry growls at his young charges.
There have been scads of comic-book-related movies over the past decade or so, with varying degrees of success, and from what I've read of this one it was a bit of a disappointment, both critically and financially (it made $200 million in the US, but it cost $270 million to make). Having said that, though, I liked it. Plenty of great action, as you'd expect from a director like Bryan Singer (who left the X-Men series just to do this). For a change, the big action scenes don't feel particularly staged, as they can in superhero movies - you know, "Looks like it's time for Our Hero to.... uh..... lift a train with his bare hands!" and so forth. There were a few "ooooh" scenes that had me gripping the sides of my recliner, especially the plane-about-to-crash scene.
Routh was pretty good as the Man of Steel: taciturn and resolved but conflicted and isolated. Watching him, I got the impression that there was more going on in his head than there ever was in Reeves' mind; hey, I'm sure Christopher Reeves was a heck of a nice guy, but he wasn't a terribly good actor. His acting style was more cartoony than realistic, and nowadays that's not a good style, even for a comic book movie. But Routh looked the part and, even more importantly, sounded the part as well. (Look for a line from him that echoes his first meeting with Lois Lane in 1978's Superman: The Movie.) Spacey, of course, was a lot of fun as Luthor. Mean, evil, intelligent, with a touch of humor and glee - what more could you ask for in a supervillain? Of course, even Spacey can fall victim to a somewhat tepid script; I loved it when Luthor basically tells Lois Lane his evil plans. This information comes in useful for Lois later on. But regardless, at least Spacey didn't have Luthor laugh maniacally or gesture wildly. You know, hallmarks of cinematic madmen for decades.
Bosworth was miscast as Lois Lane, though. She didn't look the part (check out her huge forehead - how come the set stylist didn't have a lock or two fall over her brow?), and she came off as whiny, petulant, conceited, and..... well, just plain annoying. Other actresses who could have done a better job are Keri Russell, Claire Danes, and Scarlett Johansson, all of whom were considered for the role. It's just a flat performance by an actress who looked at times to be a bit overwhelmed by the role.
So, overall - not a disappointment. Not that awesome thriller that Spider-Man was, not as fantastic as the X-Men movies, not as mysterious as Batman, but still loads better than Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four. Some sincerely harrowing scenes and a solid performance by Routh lift this one enough to compensate for the weak female lead.
***
Meanwhile, Superman isn't the only one making a comeback after five years; seems Lex Luthor, put away in prison for what was supposed to be many life sentences, is out on appeal, or something. Anyway, he's up to no good, and it involves killing billions of people and forcing the survivors to bow to him and lavish him with money and gifts and so on. Kevin Spacey plays Lex this time around, and he's a great choice - megalomaniacal without being hammy, which is a fine line. Makes one even forget the great Gene Hackman. (Of course, we all know the pitfalls of having a villain who has a stronger personality than the hero, don't we, Tim Burton?) So Supes is back, and Perry wants Lois to cover his return, but Lois wants to cover this weird blackout that affected pretty much everyone (notably, a Space Shuttle launch that winds up being saved by Superman, as you've no doubt seen in the trailers). Could the two issues be related? "You're reporters - find out!" Perry growls at his young charges.
There have been scads of comic-book-related movies over the past decade or so, with varying degrees of success, and from what I've read of this one it was a bit of a disappointment, both critically and financially (it made $200 million in the US, but it cost $270 million to make). Having said that, though, I liked it. Plenty of great action, as you'd expect from a director like Bryan Singer (who left the X-Men series just to do this). For a change, the big action scenes don't feel particularly staged, as they can in superhero movies - you know, "Looks like it's time for Our Hero to.... uh..... lift a train with his bare hands!" and so forth. There were a few "ooooh" scenes that had me gripping the sides of my recliner, especially the plane-about-to-crash scene.
Routh was pretty good as the Man of Steel: taciturn and resolved but conflicted and isolated. Watching him, I got the impression that there was more going on in his head than there ever was in Reeves' mind; hey, I'm sure Christopher Reeves was a heck of a nice guy, but he wasn't a terribly good actor. His acting style was more cartoony than realistic, and nowadays that's not a good style, even for a comic book movie. But Routh looked the part and, even more importantly, sounded the part as well. (Look for a line from him that echoes his first meeting with Lois Lane in 1978's Superman: The Movie.) Spacey, of course, was a lot of fun as Luthor. Mean, evil, intelligent, with a touch of humor and glee - what more could you ask for in a supervillain? Of course, even Spacey can fall victim to a somewhat tepid script; I loved it when Luthor basically tells Lois Lane his evil plans. This information comes in useful for Lois later on. But regardless, at least Spacey didn't have Luthor laugh maniacally or gesture wildly. You know, hallmarks of cinematic madmen for decades.
Bosworth was miscast as Lois Lane, though. She didn't look the part (check out her huge forehead - how come the set stylist didn't have a lock or two fall over her brow?), and she came off as whiny, petulant, conceited, and..... well, just plain annoying. Other actresses who could have done a better job are Keri Russell, Claire Danes, and Scarlett Johansson, all of whom were considered for the role. It's just a flat performance by an actress who looked at times to be a bit overwhelmed by the role.
So, overall - not a disappointment. Not that awesome thriller that Spider-Man was, not as fantastic as the X-Men movies, not as mysterious as Batman, but still loads better than Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four. Some sincerely harrowing scenes and a solid performance by Routh lift this one enough to compensate for the weak female lead.
***
A Cheesy Disappointment.
ScottBang28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The sense of disappointment most people felt watching Catwoman a while back is likely to deepen with this fifth installment in the Superman series, which now lands in theatres with a resounding artistic thud. After the fun and freshness of the original—which treated its fun, if rather silly, premise with a sort of tongue-in-cheek quality as well as considerable energy—this follow up proved far too bloated and self-important, suggesting that the writers/director took themselves much too seriously. Worse, they took that tongue-in-cheek original film too seriously. What's really sad is the fact that the movie borders on a parody of the original Superman without realizing it. DIRECT lines from the original movie are used. "Statistically, flying…" "You shouldn't smoke Miss Lane." "You know what my father said to me…Get out." This wasn't homage, it was a retread.
I guess you could live with the nostalgia if the cheese wasn't so very excessive AND it wasn't so very unoriginal AND most of the film wasn't so very dull. Everything screamed "cheesy comic book movie" right from the start. From the extremely fake CGI jumps of young Clark to the touch down of the plane inside of a baseball stadium to Lex's over-the-top ham job, it just reeked of cheese. I honestly can't name another film or even a remake that was this unoriginal. They didn't continue the story, they just rehashed it. All they did was replace nuclear warheads with stolen Krypotian crystals, switched out the bimbo eye candy with a conscience and added a love interest for Lois. During the rare action sequences, there was no sense of awe or danger. The scene that best illustrates this was the giant gun sequence. Forgetting the fact that there was no need for these criminals to erect a giant gun on the top of a building, what was the point? What hurts the character (and thus any director's efforts) is the fact that Superman is just too mighty. Watching high caliber bullets bounce off Superman is old hat. Watching a bullet bounce off his eyeball may be new but it creates an instant disconnect with the viewer. Ultimately, you have to wonder why Superman strains to lift half a yacht but can fling an island in to space with Kryptonite wedged in his side. The character is too uneven and this movie suffered for it.
Also, you have the ultimate Boy Scout wrestling with things that would qualify this movie as a chick flick. Honestly, besides a few flying sequences, where's the action and where's the drama? Superman Returns will probably make enough money to merit a sequel. I can only hope that they try to advance and humanize the character and for God sake hold the cheese in the next one.
I guess you could live with the nostalgia if the cheese wasn't so very excessive AND it wasn't so very unoriginal AND most of the film wasn't so very dull. Everything screamed "cheesy comic book movie" right from the start. From the extremely fake CGI jumps of young Clark to the touch down of the plane inside of a baseball stadium to Lex's over-the-top ham job, it just reeked of cheese. I honestly can't name another film or even a remake that was this unoriginal. They didn't continue the story, they just rehashed it. All they did was replace nuclear warheads with stolen Krypotian crystals, switched out the bimbo eye candy with a conscience and added a love interest for Lois. During the rare action sequences, there was no sense of awe or danger. The scene that best illustrates this was the giant gun sequence. Forgetting the fact that there was no need for these criminals to erect a giant gun on the top of a building, what was the point? What hurts the character (and thus any director's efforts) is the fact that Superman is just too mighty. Watching high caliber bullets bounce off Superman is old hat. Watching a bullet bounce off his eyeball may be new but it creates an instant disconnect with the viewer. Ultimately, you have to wonder why Superman strains to lift half a yacht but can fling an island in to space with Kryptonite wedged in his side. The character is too uneven and this movie suffered for it.
Also, you have the ultimate Boy Scout wrestling with things that would qualify this movie as a chick flick. Honestly, besides a few flying sequences, where's the action and where's the drama? Superman Returns will probably make enough money to merit a sequel. I can only hope that they try to advance and humanize the character and for God sake hold the cheese in the next one.
The name was perfect for the film.
MeloDee10 December 2006
What can I say about this movie? To say the least, it was beautifully crafted.
Brandon Routh- who, as Shaq pointed out at the film's premiere in less flowery language- sometimes appears to be Christopher Reeve reborn. Not in appearance and voice alone, but also in his representation of Clark Kent. Of course, this should not be too surprising seeing as he has admitted to studying Reeve's performances in the earlier Superman films.
Nonetheless, Brandon Routh is excellent in his own right. He "is" Superman as wholly and perfectly as Smallville's Tom Welling (who is, ironically 2 years older).
The other characters of the cast were as equally well -chosen. I had perhaps biased doubts about Kate Bosworth's portrayal of Lois Lane, but she does extremely well with the part. I had even more doubts about Kevin Spacey...I mean, come on, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor? To my delight, however, he did more than just shave his head to prepare for the challenging role.
Over an hour of the two and a half the film provided was spent with Superman "returning." Note, that I already have a slightly biased dislike of Superman. You can probably guess what that dislike concerns.
However, I found myself enjoying Superman's excessive showing off.
The movie in general is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing superhero movies that I have ever seen. I usually hate to focus too much on good graphics, but the 3D scenes are done amazingly well most of the time. Superman's red underwear is lacking most of its usual luster and utterly underwearish shape, much to my relief. In fact, thanks to the perfect length of his cape and good use of the camera, we avoid even seeing it most of the time.
All this, combined with that classical Superman theme song, makes our hearts cry, "It's Superman!" with a surprising joy.
The problem is, despite the perfection found in the cast and direction, the plot is sadly lacking. Lex Luthor's plan is foolish, rash, and surprisingly cheap coming from someone of his caliber. Last I saw of the old Batman and Superman adventures TV show on Cartoon Network those years ago, Lex Luthor was a man devoted to subtle mechanics. He would do things, like destroy land by draining oil from the wrong areas, sell weapons to the enemies of metropolis. Mass destruction was never his goal, although people were inadvertently hurt by his methods. He had huge factories, all covered with lead so that Superman could not see inside, and worked tactfully with the enemies of Superman to bring about his demise.
The one villain who could have saved this movie- Metallo, a.k.a. "The Man With the Kryptonite Heart" was left out much to my disappointment.
Instead of either adding a more powerful villain or making Lex Luthor the intelligent- however insane- businessman that he is, they surrounded him with idiots and gave him a faux plan.
In this way, they insulted the intelligence of the audience. They perhaps thought that an involved, complicated plot was the wrong way to bring Superman back, and the movie was probably also geared to young children (despite it's PG-13 rating, which was not understandable to me as the movie was quite mild) who were just being introduced to the Man of Steel.
Despite these major flaws, though, now that they have gotten over "bringing Superman back" the seeds have been planted for an excellent sequel. Sequels usually make me wary and I do not want them, but ironically, with this movie of all things, I hope for one with absolute anticipation and excitement.
Brandon Routh- who, as Shaq pointed out at the film's premiere in less flowery language- sometimes appears to be Christopher Reeve reborn. Not in appearance and voice alone, but also in his representation of Clark Kent. Of course, this should not be too surprising seeing as he has admitted to studying Reeve's performances in the earlier Superman films.
Nonetheless, Brandon Routh is excellent in his own right. He "is" Superman as wholly and perfectly as Smallville's Tom Welling (who is, ironically 2 years older).
The other characters of the cast were as equally well -chosen. I had perhaps biased doubts about Kate Bosworth's portrayal of Lois Lane, but she does extremely well with the part. I had even more doubts about Kevin Spacey...I mean, come on, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor? To my delight, however, he did more than just shave his head to prepare for the challenging role.
Over an hour of the two and a half the film provided was spent with Superman "returning." Note, that I already have a slightly biased dislike of Superman. You can probably guess what that dislike concerns.
However, I found myself enjoying Superman's excessive showing off.
The movie in general is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing superhero movies that I have ever seen. I usually hate to focus too much on good graphics, but the 3D scenes are done amazingly well most of the time. Superman's red underwear is lacking most of its usual luster and utterly underwearish shape, much to my relief. In fact, thanks to the perfect length of his cape and good use of the camera, we avoid even seeing it most of the time.
All this, combined with that classical Superman theme song, makes our hearts cry, "It's Superman!" with a surprising joy.
The problem is, despite the perfection found in the cast and direction, the plot is sadly lacking. Lex Luthor's plan is foolish, rash, and surprisingly cheap coming from someone of his caliber. Last I saw of the old Batman and Superman adventures TV show on Cartoon Network those years ago, Lex Luthor was a man devoted to subtle mechanics. He would do things, like destroy land by draining oil from the wrong areas, sell weapons to the enemies of metropolis. Mass destruction was never his goal, although people were inadvertently hurt by his methods. He had huge factories, all covered with lead so that Superman could not see inside, and worked tactfully with the enemies of Superman to bring about his demise.
The one villain who could have saved this movie- Metallo, a.k.a. "The Man With the Kryptonite Heart" was left out much to my disappointment.
Instead of either adding a more powerful villain or making Lex Luthor the intelligent- however insane- businessman that he is, they surrounded him with idiots and gave him a faux plan.
In this way, they insulted the intelligence of the audience. They perhaps thought that an involved, complicated plot was the wrong way to bring Superman back, and the movie was probably also geared to young children (despite it's PG-13 rating, which was not understandable to me as the movie was quite mild) who were just being introduced to the Man of Steel.
Despite these major flaws, though, now that they have gotten over "bringing Superman back" the seeds have been planted for an excellent sequel. Sequels usually make me wary and I do not want them, but ironically, with this movie of all things, I hope for one with absolute anticipation and excitement.
The Holy Side Of Clark
seanodartofilm28 June 2006
I saw "Superman Returns" last night in a plush Hollywood movie theater surrounded by devoted Superman fans. That in itself, I must admit, was part of the fun. Brandon Routh is breathtakingly, impossibly beautiful and you can trust that in a Bryan Singer movie stunning looking people will populate the screen. Here, the hero with the sensational eyelashes, works wonders in every single way. There is a hint of Superman as Jesus. Cucifixtion, resurrection, from Father to Son and I bought it wholeheartedly because it deserves to be bought. Kevin Spacey is a fun arch villain. There is nobody as convincingly evil as Kevin Spacey. It was strange, however, to see the lovely Kate Bosworth who played Sandra Dee to Spacey's Bobby Darin in "Beyond The Sea" to be so extremely at odds with each other but I bought Luthor and Lane much more than Darin and Dee. Ultimately Superman Returns is a classy, classic rendition of a perennial tale by one of the most successful aesthetes working on film today. Recommend it.
Bryan Singer owes Superman an apology
dpogue2128 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing.
I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit.
My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground.
My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."
And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!
To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.
I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit.
My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground.
My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."
And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!
To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.
Underrated Film That Sticks To The Formila
jeremycrimsonfox6 October 2020
Superman Returns is an underrated film. Made 19 years after the box office bomb that is Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, the film sees Superman return to Earth after being gone for five years due to hearing about a discovery of Krypton's remains. Because of this, Lex Luthor is released from prison due to him not appearing in court to testify against him, and Lois Lane has a kid. The man of steel returns to protecting Metropolis and tries to adjust to how the world changed, as Lex manages to break into Fortress of Solitude and steal Kryptonian crystals for use in a new sinister plan.
The film's story erases the third and fourth film from continuity, being set five years after Superman II. As most of the cast from the original two films are either old or passed away, most of the roles have been recast. Clark Kent/Superman is now played by Brandon Routh, who replaces the late Christopher Reeves (whom passed away before this film) and Kevin Spacey takes over the role of Lex Luthor from Gene Hackman. Kate Bosworth replaces Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. The film also utilizes archived footage of Marlon Brando as Kal-El (as the actor died two years before the film's release).
The film I actually enjoyed. Special effects have evolved in the 19 years between this and Superman IV, leading to the movie having some believable scenes (like Superman saving a Boeing 777 that had a space shuttle piggybacking, and a scene where a bullet is crushed making impact with one of his eyes, demonstrating his invulnerability). The script also has some nods to stuff said and done in the first two films (as a homage), and while the film is more serious, it does have its fair share of ridiculous scenes (Lex Luthor is as wacky as ever, especially with the scene where he says wrong, which became a meme, and another has Jason, Lois' son, playing the piano with one of Lex's henchmen). Despite it doing well with critics and making almost $400 million, it did not do good enough for Warner Bros., who cancelled a sequel in favor of a reboot, resulting in Man of Steel. This is an underrated superhero film that is a good homage.
The film's story erases the third and fourth film from continuity, being set five years after Superman II. As most of the cast from the original two films are either old or passed away, most of the roles have been recast. Clark Kent/Superman is now played by Brandon Routh, who replaces the late Christopher Reeves (whom passed away before this film) and Kevin Spacey takes over the role of Lex Luthor from Gene Hackman. Kate Bosworth replaces Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. The film also utilizes archived footage of Marlon Brando as Kal-El (as the actor died two years before the film's release).
The film I actually enjoyed. Special effects have evolved in the 19 years between this and Superman IV, leading to the movie having some believable scenes (like Superman saving a Boeing 777 that had a space shuttle piggybacking, and a scene where a bullet is crushed making impact with one of his eyes, demonstrating his invulnerability). The script also has some nods to stuff said and done in the first two films (as a homage), and while the film is more serious, it does have its fair share of ridiculous scenes (Lex Luthor is as wacky as ever, especially with the scene where he says wrong, which became a meme, and another has Jason, Lois' son, playing the piano with one of Lex's henchmen). Despite it doing well with critics and making almost $400 million, it did not do good enough for Warner Bros., who cancelled a sequel in favor of a reboot, resulting in Man of Steel. This is an underrated superhero film that is a good homage.
Solid, yes; spectacular, no
TheLittleSongbird1 January 2010
There have been critics who have been stinting in their praise for this movie, but others were quite condescending. This film is far from a masterpiece, and definitely not the best of the Superman franchise, but it was fairly solid considering what it could've been. First off, visually it looks amazing and I thought the special effects were extremely good. Same with the music score, full of those familiar motifs and some new haunting ones too. While Lex Luthor wasn't portrayed as the cold, shrewd yet somewhat lovable villain Gene Hackman played so memorably in the original movies, Kevin Spacey the competent actor he is played him very well. Also Bryan Singer's direction was able and had just the right edge, and I was intrigued by the film's concept. And I have to say, some of the action scenes were very exhilarating. However, there were elements that could've been better. One of the main problems I had with the film was the pace, I found it unusually slow and there are scenes like Clark listening in on Lois and Jason that dragged on for too long. And maybe I am in the minority who felt that it could've been half an hour shorter, and that the script was clunky at times. Also, I wasn't taken with the two leads either. Brandon Routh is handsome and he is charming but he isn't charismatic enough as Clark Kent/Superman, and Kate Bosworth left me cold as Lois. In regard to these two, the relationship between the two characters was underdeveloped. All in all, a solid and visually enthralling film, but it is let down by uneven pacing and a clunky script. 6/10 Bethany Cox
super sucks
saiparadis27 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Special effects? Good.
Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.
Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.
This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.
Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.
And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.
Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.
Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.
This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.
Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.
And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.
Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
This movie deserves better.....much better.
barbell_2831 January 2019
Ok, so i dont understand all the hate for this installment of the Superman franchise. The acting is great, the visual effects are beautiful, there is tons of action, and i like the story, it was the basic superman formula, but why not....it works. Kevin spacey played a great villain, Brandon Routh summoned Chris Reeves on this one and deserves more credit than he ever received. I grew up in the era of the Chris Reeves Superman and i find this to be the next best thing. Personally if you seen this movie when it 1st came out and thought you didnt like it, give it another chance, it is a great film.
a bit of a letdown
disdressed1223 October 2006
considering the hype for this movie,i thought it would be better than it was.it wasn't a horrible movie,but i don't think it lived up to the Superman name.Brandon Routh as Superman,looked a lot like Christopher Reeve,maybe a bit too much.his mannerisms were also too much like Reeve,as if he were trying to emulate him,when instead he should have been trying to put his own stamp on the character.Kate Bosworth was okay as Loise lane,but Kevin Spacey was an inspired choice as Lex Luthor.i also liked Frank Langella as Perry White.however,i could have done without James Marsden as Richard White,especially since his role was so small it was pointless.the other problem i had with the movie is that it tended to lag at times,causing my attention to wander.this movie just didn't have the impact of a movie like spider man or even any of the x-men films.it just didn't have as much substance as it could have.if you've yet to see this movie,keep your expectations low and maybe you won't be overly disappointed. 6/10
This movie is just as good as the clothes the emperor wore.
bligeri19 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.
Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.
And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.
SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.
There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.
SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.
There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.
SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.
He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.
It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.
To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.
Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.
And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.
SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.
There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.
SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.
There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.
SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.
He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.
It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.
To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.
Superman is my Baby Daddy
Beat-Bop-Bobaloo28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Last night I attended the preview of Superman Returns, something I will regret for the remainder of my days. This film is an insult to mouth-breathers everywhere. It is a damning example of art by committee, as would be expected when a quarter-billion dollars is spent on a thing.
Where , oh where, did the 250 million go? / Where, oh where can it be?
Burned on the altar of special effects/ that seem to be made-for-TV.
I cannot detail all of the problems with this movie. They were overwhelming. I would have to spend another 2 1/2 hours of my life , taking notes while re-watching this cinematic miscarriage, a sacrifice I am unwilling to make. Besides, my HMO doesn't pay for therapist visits.
Here are some issues that stand out:
Suspense, specifically the lack thereof. The film chugs along with the monotonous predictability of a garbage truck. "Gee, Superman saved someone from Certain Death! Sure didn't see that coming!" Even worse, the situations are irritatingly contrived and often are set up by the stupidity of the characters.
For example, Lois Lane, on the evening of the Pulitzer Prize ceremony, one of which she is being awarded, puts on a fetching designer gown and picks up her kid at school. Then, kid in car, on the very evening she is to be awarded the Pulitzer, decides to stop off at the lair of Lex Luthor to see if that bad man is responsible for the EMP that made here Blackberry go on the fritz.
She takes her kid along with her to visit Lex Luthor!
Lex Luthor, a psychopath who is planning on world domination and the deaths of billions of people!
Guess what?
He kidnaps her and the kid! Who would have thought?
Not Lois, obviously. Someone needs to call child protective services. She must be smoking crack or something.
Characterization, another deficiency. The characters sleepwalk through this film. The actors cannot overcome the listless dialog. Everyone on screen seems to be suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome
I can imagine the assorted actors forming a mob and marching to the director's trailer, torches and pitchforks in hand, chanting "What's my motivation? What's my motivation?" Hesitancy substitutes for inner conflict. And the waste, the tragic waste of talent. Parker Posey, a human M-80 scene- stealer in indie films, presents here in SR like someone who needs to have her Prozac dose adjusted. It is a sad thing to be out-acted by Valerie Perrine, whose role she reprises. Kevin Spacey seems tired, resigned to his fate, like an aged exotic dancer trying for one last bump-and- grind. His Lex Luthor is waspish rather than menacing. He seems more likely to make cutting remarks about your fashion sense than to be about to lay waste to humankind, unlike the scary-funny scenery-chewing of Gene Hackman in the first movie. Frank Langella displays about as much emotional range as Chuck Norris. There is little chemistry between the two actors playing Superman and Lois. I can't even remember their names. Jimmy Olsen still carries his torch for Clark Kent, though, leading one to wonder if Krypton allowed same-sex unions.
Paternity as Drama- as the title of this thread indicates, the big dramatic pay-off is Lois acknowledging that yes, Superman, you are my Baby-Daddy. This is creepy and contrived. Lois is shacked up with one of her editors, who thinks little Super Jr. is his. Supe Jr. calls Mr. Lois Lane "Daddy". Superman lurks around their house, spying on the happy family with X-ray vision, a super-stalker. Does being a superhero mean you can break-up a family, and it's OK?
Is Mr. Lois Lane a moron? Can't he count to nine? Or was Lois sleeping with both of them at once? Was her biological clock ticking? Or does Superman have Supersperm, heroic little caped tadpoles that fly around the womb for months or years, seeking a heroic conception? Did Lex Luthor ever hit it? What about Jimmy Olsen's feelings, guys? Jimmy, all alone in his little apartment, pining for his beloved Clark. Maybe we can get them all on Maury's show with their DNA and see what happensÂ… I foresee many thrown chairs.
Enough for now. I have much more to say, but it will have to wait. I leave you, gentle reader, with this thought: In the film, the title of Lois Lane's Pulitzer Prize winning article was "We Don't Need Superman."
Too bad the head of Warner Bros. missed the hint.
Yours truly,
beatbopbobaloo
Where , oh where, did the 250 million go? / Where, oh where can it be?
Burned on the altar of special effects/ that seem to be made-for-TV.
I cannot detail all of the problems with this movie. They were overwhelming. I would have to spend another 2 1/2 hours of my life , taking notes while re-watching this cinematic miscarriage, a sacrifice I am unwilling to make. Besides, my HMO doesn't pay for therapist visits.
Here are some issues that stand out:
Suspense, specifically the lack thereof. The film chugs along with the monotonous predictability of a garbage truck. "Gee, Superman saved someone from Certain Death! Sure didn't see that coming!" Even worse, the situations are irritatingly contrived and often are set up by the stupidity of the characters.
For example, Lois Lane, on the evening of the Pulitzer Prize ceremony, one of which she is being awarded, puts on a fetching designer gown and picks up her kid at school. Then, kid in car, on the very evening she is to be awarded the Pulitzer, decides to stop off at the lair of Lex Luthor to see if that bad man is responsible for the EMP that made here Blackberry go on the fritz.
She takes her kid along with her to visit Lex Luthor!
Lex Luthor, a psychopath who is planning on world domination and the deaths of billions of people!
Guess what?
He kidnaps her and the kid! Who would have thought?
Not Lois, obviously. Someone needs to call child protective services. She must be smoking crack or something.
Characterization, another deficiency. The characters sleepwalk through this film. The actors cannot overcome the listless dialog. Everyone on screen seems to be suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome
I can imagine the assorted actors forming a mob and marching to the director's trailer, torches and pitchforks in hand, chanting "What's my motivation? What's my motivation?" Hesitancy substitutes for inner conflict. And the waste, the tragic waste of talent. Parker Posey, a human M-80 scene- stealer in indie films, presents here in SR like someone who needs to have her Prozac dose adjusted. It is a sad thing to be out-acted by Valerie Perrine, whose role she reprises. Kevin Spacey seems tired, resigned to his fate, like an aged exotic dancer trying for one last bump-and- grind. His Lex Luthor is waspish rather than menacing. He seems more likely to make cutting remarks about your fashion sense than to be about to lay waste to humankind, unlike the scary-funny scenery-chewing of Gene Hackman in the first movie. Frank Langella displays about as much emotional range as Chuck Norris. There is little chemistry between the two actors playing Superman and Lois. I can't even remember their names. Jimmy Olsen still carries his torch for Clark Kent, though, leading one to wonder if Krypton allowed same-sex unions.
Paternity as Drama- as the title of this thread indicates, the big dramatic pay-off is Lois acknowledging that yes, Superman, you are my Baby-Daddy. This is creepy and contrived. Lois is shacked up with one of her editors, who thinks little Super Jr. is his. Supe Jr. calls Mr. Lois Lane "Daddy". Superman lurks around their house, spying on the happy family with X-ray vision, a super-stalker. Does being a superhero mean you can break-up a family, and it's OK?
Is Mr. Lois Lane a moron? Can't he count to nine? Or was Lois sleeping with both of them at once? Was her biological clock ticking? Or does Superman have Supersperm, heroic little caped tadpoles that fly around the womb for months or years, seeking a heroic conception? Did Lex Luthor ever hit it? What about Jimmy Olsen's feelings, guys? Jimmy, all alone in his little apartment, pining for his beloved Clark. Maybe we can get them all on Maury's show with their DNA and see what happensÂ… I foresee many thrown chairs.
Enough for now. I have much more to say, but it will have to wait. I leave you, gentle reader, with this thought: In the film, the title of Lois Lane's Pulitzer Prize winning article was "We Don't Need Superman."
Too bad the head of Warner Bros. missed the hint.
Yours truly,
beatbopbobaloo
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
