Superman Returns (2006) User Reviews

Underrated Film That Sticks To The Formila

[jeremycrimsonfox · 8/10 · 6 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.

Not bad!

[pawanpunjabithewriter · 6/10 · 6 September 2020]

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!

This movie deserves better.....much better.

[barbell_28 · 9/10 · 31 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.

Recommended 👍

[TheNonSmoker · 8/10 · 3 July 2020]

I will say the movie was pretty decent, just please don't streach it too long like Avengers on stupid 9yrs olds fan demands, streaching a movie long is just makes a movie boring and dull...

OK, but where was the FUN?

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 13 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!

The most underrated Superhero film of the 2000's

[Dohsoda · 7/10 · 25 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.

Not Enough Kudos

[abcizdaman · 10/10 · 19 July 2020]

In my opinion this was the best Superman movie put out to date. A great story, and a great cast. Brandon Routh was perfect for the Clark Kent/Superman role and Kevin Spacey was superb as Lex, ever comical in an evil way. The only thing I didn't like was the feeling I got while they were all beating Superman up. But yes I got chills when the movie started in the theater when they played the intro, the same intro theme as the old Superman movies from the 80s.. great decision. The story was comical, meaningful, and involved. Great special effects and everything else. This was just an all around feel good movie. Much better than Man of Steel in my opinion though Man of Steel was entertaining. If you've never seen this before, give it a chance. Maybe you'll like it. Thanks for listening.

The world does need Superman!

[cosmic_quest · 8/10 · 23 July 2006]

Like many other people, the character of Superman has always been a firm favourite of mine dating back to my childhood. Christopher Reeve's Superman made me believe a man could fly with the light-hearted 'Lois and Clark' series seeing me through the Nineties. I was sceptical as the next Supes fan when I heard they were to bring back the character, recast and revitalised for a twenty-first century audience. But having seen 'Superman Returns', those fears were instantly pushed back as I now eagerly await a sequel.

'Superman Returns' is set five years after Christopher Reeve's 'Superman II' (thankfully ignoring the events in the lacklustre 'Superman III and IV'). Superman, after five years of searching for the remains of his homeplanet Krypton, has returned to Earth to resume his life as Clark Kent only to find things moved on without him. Lois Lane is now mother to five-year-old son Jason and engaged to Perry White's nephew Richard. She is also thoroughly disenchanted with Superman although it soon becomes clear there is much unresolved feelings between the two. But between juggling his conflicting emotions for Lois and his duties to protecting the population, Superman has to face his arch-enemy Lex Luthor, who has stolen the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude and is intent on using them to rule the world.

It was never going to be easy Brandon Routh to step into Christopher Reeve's shoes but he takes it in his stride, managing to capture the bumbling but kindly nature of Clark and the strong, reserved demeanour of a Superman who strives to find a balance between his alien heritage and the life he has made for himself on Earth. He both makes the role his own yet does well in succeeding where Reeve left off. Kate Bosworth was also another surprise. I was very disappointed in her casting initially but seeing her perform in the film left me realising that she was perfect for the job as she portrays the cocky and determined yet vulnerable Lois to a tee. Kevin Spacey was great as the obsessive, slightly unhinged Luthor who possesses a real hatred for our hero while Parker Posey gave us a nicely-portrayed 'shades of grey' character in Kitty, a villain with a heart. Even the little moppet who played Jason gave a decent performance without being wooden or grating.

What I loved most about the film is that it delivered an interesting storyline that didn't reject the first two 'Superman' films, which are classics in the heart of any Superman fan and had already done a good job in covering the origins story. But at the same time, it didn't shirk in giving us deeper insights into the character of Superman, the solitary hero and the man who just wants to fit in. What was a pleasant surprise was that the film also refused to dumb down to small children in the audience, which is a growing problem with many Hollywood films that over-dose on infantile humour to appeal to kids resulting in boredom for anyone over fourteen. There was humour, some on a level to make children laugh, but overall there was a nice mix of action, romance and darkness aimed more at an older audience. They even avoid the clichéd pitfall of portraying Lois' love interest to be a sanctimonious twit and instead he came across as a genuinely nice guy who shows that it's understandable why she has problems choosing between him and Superman

In fact, my only real problem was that there wasn't enough interaction between Lois and Clark, which would have been nice as Clark's jealousy towards his alter-ego and the attention Lois lavishes on him is a large part of the story yet in the film, you felt as if Clark and Superman really were two different people with Clark just being some rather random guy. However, it can be over-looked by the fact that Clark was so happy to just have Lois' attention that he didn't care whether it was projected onto himself in his real personality or on Superman.

For anyone who has yet to see the film, I do recommend it and don't allow yourself to be put off by nitpickers complaining about the actors' being too young (better they be a shade on the younger side than going the 'Smallville' route where you have adults in their late twenties and thirties prancing around pretending to be teens and just looking ridiculous for it) or that the film is too long (even the eight-year-olds in the audience sat quietly, glued to the screen, for the entire film) or that it's bland (no more so than 'Spiderman'). I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed it and am looking forward to a sequel. After a rather dull summer at the cinema, this film renewed my faith in the summer blockbuster!

Why The World Needs To Give Superman Returns Another Look

[moviemattb · 9/10 · 10 September 2015]

This was my first movie to see Superman on the big screen, before I saw "Man of Steel" when it came out seven years later. I never saw any of the old films in theaters, but only saw them on TV. After when this movie came out, critics enjoyed it, audience have mixed feelings, and sadly didn't go well at the box-office which it all leads up to another reboot instead of a making a sequel. So, does this movie hold up or does it really deserves to be forgotten? Here it goes: the movie acts as a sequel to the first two movies, while it ignores Lester's concept for "Superman II" and ignoring the third and fourth movie. However, the movie takes place in modern time, instead of taking place in the late 70s or early 80s. Furthermore, it tells about Superman making his return from searching the remaining of his home world Krypton as he has been gone for five years, while Lex Luthor is wanting to destroy Superman and creating "land" of his own. Also, Lois Lane has moved on from Superman as she wrote the article which it completely shocks Superman for her receiving a Pulitzer Prize on her work called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." So, how is that movie? As much as I love "Man of Steel," and I am glad that its getting a sequel; but at the same time, I wish if this movie got a sequel. There are possible reasons on why this movie failed because of either the movie wasn't marketed really well; it is due to other movies that came out the same date as this or probably is that everyone in this world weren't ready for having Superman to be brought back, because of "Batman Begins" came out a year before this came out in 2006. I guess people weren't ready to see another "Superman" movie, because they were very much in the mood for having Batman to come back. Also, a 6.1 on IMDb is really low, which I think is unfairly treated, and I think the movie just needs a little love. I know "Man of Steel" got a 7.2, which its good; so, why can't this one have a good rating like "Man of Steel" or the other two good "Superman" movies? Just saying. I don't think this movie deserve the hate it gets. I remember that Bryan Singer just drop off to direct the third "X-Men" movie, so he can direct this one instead. I know he wants to direct the third "X-Men" movie, but Fox just ended up not being patience so they can make the movie without him as Brett Ratner directs it instead. Difficult choice, if I may say so. Anyway, I will admit that the premise of the movie feels similar to Richard Donner's movie like Lex Luthor wants billions of people to die. You think they should at least try something new and different. Also, which its a minor nitpick, I don't mind Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane but they could at least find someone better to play Lois Lane. She is like the equivalent of Katie Holmes from "Batman Begins" because she looks slightly young to play the role. Nevertheless, I thought she did a fine job, but could of been someone better to play Lois Lane. Also, compare to "Man of Steel," the movie may have some fine action scenes but I wish if it had more action scenes so the filmmakers don't have to stick by the books on making a traditional "Superman" movie like the others. So those are my only issues with the movie. What is good? I thought Bryan Singer's direction was actually really, and has a very unique to style on how he wants this movie to be. Aside from Bosworth, the rest of the cast all did good. I thought Kevin Spacey makes an excellent Lex Luthor, but also updating from the role that Gene Hackman played originally. For Brandon Routh, I thought the look of him for not only looking like the part for playing both Clark Kent and Superman, but that he looks very much like Christopher Reeve. He really does give an outstanding performance, and was able to channel the role very wisely. The special effects are really good, which that takes care of the lame FX from "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." I do appreciate some of the nods to the original movies by Donner like having Marlon Brando as Jor-El, its wondrous moments, and of course, hearing the theme song by John Williams. John Ottman's score is very well done for paying respect to Williams' score and making new material on his own. I wasn't bored by the movie as it goes at a good pace, and I did get teary eye from the part that Superman gets beat up Luthor's men as it makes me think of Jesus getting whipped by the Romans. Of course, other comic book movies may have some religious aspects like what this movie did. I do like where Superman tells Lois, when he says that she wrote the article that doesn't need a savior, but he hears everyday when people are crying for one which that many Christians will feel about that. With that said, I think "Superman Returns" deserves another look, and I do think its close enough to be as underrated as "Man of Steel." I enjoy it, and I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.

Not Super, not Stupid, just a hair above average

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 19 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.

***

Solid, yes; spectacular, no

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 1 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

A lovingly made piece of nostalgia that mostly stands on its own

[brchthethird · 8/10 · 13 June 2015]

Perhaps remembered more as the film Bryan Singer chose to make instead of a third X-Men (which wasn't horrible), SUPERMAN RETURNS is a sequel of sorts to the Christopher Reeve originals that lovingly pays tribute to its cinematic forebears while moving the franchise forward. This was actually the first Superman film I ever saw, way back in 2007. While it didn't really leave too big of an impression on me, I still liked it enough. Now having seen it for the second time after watching the Christopher Reeve films, I feel like it strikes the perfect balance between seriousness and levity in a way that the original films didn't. It takes the subject matter seriously, but still has elements that made the originals so fun. Without making this a complete essay like I did for the previous four, I'll just give a quick rundown of what I liked and didn't like. First and foremost, the acting and visual effects are better across the board. Everyone gives a committed performance and it never feels like they're not taking the material seriously. And of course, since this film is nearly 20 years removed from the last film the filmmakers were able to achieve much greater things with CGI than was even conceivable back in the 70's/80's. There were also a number of nods back to the original films, like Superman saying how flying is the statistically safest way to travel. And in a marked improvement over Gene Hackman, Kevin Spacey managed to make Lex Luthor a more believable megalomaniac who still has a sense of humor. However, if there's anything that works to the film's detriment, it's that the running time is too long. At 154 minutes it begins to drag in the last 30-40 minutes, like they weren't quite sure how to wrap things up satisfactorily. Also, Brandon Routh doesn't really bring anything new to the role of Clark Kent/Superman. He seems to be playing Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent/Superman. Granted, his performance is perfectly acceptable, but he didn't put a personal stamp on the character in the way that Henry Cavill did in MAN OF STEEL. Overall, this was my first introduction to Superman and it is still my favorite. It stays reverent towards its source material, perhaps too much so. The Jesus parallels are even more prevalent here than ever before, and a couple of shots border on hagiography. Still, it's a well-acted, well-produced film that is entertaining and does justice to a beloved character.

Why the world needs Superman...

[Derek237 · 7/10 · 30 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

a bit of a letdown

[disdressed12 · 6/10 · 23 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

Great reboot

[jordanthomas_2009-346-914758 · 8/10 · 21 October 2018]

After an absence of several years Superman/Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) returns to Metropolis. The world has moved on, Lex Luther is plotting another plan involving Kryptonite and Lois Lane now has a kid. Everyone is curious as to where he's been the entire time, but it turns out he went back to see the remains of his home planet. One big flaw about the Superman films/comics is no one ever knows about Clark when his only disguise is a pair of glasses. And it was even more obvious when he turned back up out of nowhere the same time as Superman.

Directed by Bryan Singer (X-Men, X-Men 2) Superman Returns is a reboot/loose sequel to the 1978 original. But even though it references a little bit from that film (be it a Marlon Brando cameo or the original John Williams music score) it's less a sequel and more of a homage to that film. It's done considerably well however it's best viewed as its own film. If it was a real sequel Lois Lane and Clark Kent would be in their late 50's with it being 28 years later.

Kevin Spacey is the highlight as Lex Luther, he's over the top and sometimes hammy but he appears to be the only one enjoying himself. The other actors do good jobs but they are often bland, but in a way that's oddly a relief because there are no goofy comedic performances. Clark Kent is not the cliché clumsy nerd this time and Lois Lane isn't as whinny as she was in the other films. There's also no annoying background extras.

There are a few intense action sequences, the plane rescue being the highlight but they tend to rely on CGI that looks dated even for the time. There are so many shots where Superman is recreated using CG effects and it looks like something taken straight out of a video game. His suit has a plastic look to it, but to be honest the Superman suits have never looked great, it was only until Man of Steel (2013) when they got his suit right. The bright colours and underwear are fine for the comic but they don't translate very well on screen.

Running well over two hours, the film runs at a sometimes plodding pace and some scenes are drawn out a lot. However the film has a solid story and great performance from Kevin Spacey. The tone of the film isn't too dark drawing a fine line between its lighthearted and serious themes. The cinematography, set designs, music score and editing are all great. It's a film that deserves to be watched even if it suffers from a slow pace.

Thrilling, High Powered, Emotional

[tabuno · 8/10 · 22 January 2019]

4 July 2006. Warning: Spoilers. This latest version of superman while not completely super comes close. Except for some small editing decisions and eerie flashbacks to old Lex Luthor, and a weakened "popular ending" script version, "Superman Returns" is a powerful super-charged, loud sounding and nicely special effect-live action super-hero movie. The emotional intensity factor is well done and the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman is finely balanced. The humorous segments are enchanting. Kevin Spacey carries his role but for a few irritating Gene Hackman idiosyncrasies (or nicely carried out nods to him).

The few specific weaknesses would include the unnecessary flashback to Superman's reflection as a boy instead of focusing more on the present, the lack of security of Superman's hiding place, and the much more positive ending than a serious graphic comic ending would have played out. There were suggestions of Star Trek: The Motion Picture sounds.

The sound effects were great and again CGI reflects the continuing integration of acting and background improving on King Kong (2005) and making this movie much more you are there sensory experience.

While not perfectly super, it is easily a super movie well worth experiencing in super big theaters and super big sound systems.

Grand, bombastic, and entertaining revival

[mstomaso · 7/10 · 4 July 2006]

Congratulations to Bryan Singer for making another film, under challenging conditions, that meets his own relatively high standards. Congratulations to Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, who fill a couple pairs of sizable shoes very well. Congratulations to Kevin Spacey for proving, once again, his versatility and competence within an ensemble cast. And finally, congratulations to Michael Dougherty and the rest of the writing team for Superman Returns, who have done the seemingly impossible by blending together several elements taken from disparate Superman stories over seventy or so years of the character's development in several DC comics titles into a true-to-character, intelligently written and themed, blend of romance and wild world-saving action.

I can hear the film snobs now - "just what we need, another bombastic action flick loaded with CGI and cliché in place of a 'SERIOUS' human story." Yup, it's a bombastic action flick. Yes, it is crammed with special effects. And yes, if you consider simple and largely unexamined human emotions to be cliché, then Superman Returns is loaded with clichés. My advice to the film snobs is - don't review films you are predisposed to dislike. If you do not have a standard from which you are able to measure the worth of a certain genre, then you have no business reviewing in that genre.

Let's examine this rationally. The whole point of the character of Superman is to provide a fantastic superhuman persona who is so alien and so vastly superior in terms of physical being, knowledge, and morality, that he becomes a mirror through which we are forced to critically examine our own social, political, emotional, and health problems. What kinds of problems would such a vastly superior being trouble himself with? Well, guess what, he might not have time for the day to day subtleties of social and sexual intrigues and ambiguities, the role of the media in political rhetoric or other "SERIOUS" concerns plaguing the modern intellectual elite. Superman is concerned with more fundamental issues such as whether half the world's population is going to live out the day. Yet he still manages to find time to rekindle a dysfunctional relationship with love interest Lois Lane, and to be inspired to prove himself with a flourish of light-speed heroic antics to regain his esteem among a people whose cynicism and self-contempt have apparently gotten the better of them (film snobs all?). in fact, he even MAKES MISTAKES!!!!

Kal-El returns to earth just in time to confront his old arch-nemesis Lex Luther's plot to rebuild a chunk of Krypton off the coast of New Jersey as his own continent. He must also unexpectedly confront his own feelings for the people of earth and, in particular, for Lois Lane, now an unmarried mother with an asthmatic kid and a smoking habit. Lois is also engaged to a good guy, very competently acted by James Marsden, but the paternity of her son is suspect. Considering the fact that this is a "bombastic action film" a remarkable amount of time is taken up with developing the relationships between these characters and exploring their effects on one another. And at times, you even get the feeling that at least some of Superman's heroism is inspired by his feelings for Lois.

The bigger problem is that Luther has Kryptonite, and plenty of it, and so, Superman is mortally vulnerable and must fight for his own life as well as those of his adoptive species.

Ignore the geological inaccuracies (which are plenty), forget about the occasional continuity problems, and let yourself get sucked up into this very fine and well crafted example of the superhero action genre. If you're a hardened film snob, it's worth the effort of wriggling out of your fossilized suit of cynical armor just long enough to see what the value of a film with a positive, simple, message might be.

Underrated Movie

[joelelvers · 8/10 · 22 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.

Excellent film! Definitely on par with "Superman: The Movie"

[eriste · 10/10 · 2 December 2006]

Having looked forward to this film for many years, I naturally went in with high expectations. And they were most certainly met. From the casting of Brandon Routh (who I actually find slightly better than Christopher Reeve because of the emotional complexity and sense of mystery Routh brings to the character) to Kate Bosworth (who i think is the BEST actress to have portrayed Lois Lane) to Kevin Spacey (different interpretation than previous Lex's but still very good), all of the actors have played their respective roles well.

As for the story, many have questioned its originality. The plot elements were similar to Superman: the Movie because Singer needed to establish the connection of this franchise with the original movie due to the many different interpretations and versions of the character over the years. Plus, a different, more serious take on Perry White, and the idea of superman's disappearance and Lois having had a child with another man were all aspects of originality to the film. Like I said before, Routh seems to have taken a more serious approach to the Superman character than Reeve but still maintains many qualities of Reeve's performance.

And the special effects...well...enough said if you've seen the film :) Overall, this may be the best of the "Superman" series, and, if not, it is definitely on par with Richard Donner's original classic.

P.S. Don't listen to the haters :) Watch the film with an open mind and judge for yourself.

The name was perfect for the film.

[MeloDee · 7/10 · 10 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.

Fun, old-style superhero action

[jamesrupert2014 · 8/10 · 11 August 2020]

After searching space for the ruins of his home-world, The Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) returns to Metropolis to find Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) a mother and Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacy) once again on a search for prime real-estate regardless of the cost. The film is very much a follow-up to the first two Christopher Reeve films (Superman, 1978 and Superman II, 1980) and has the same winning blend of action-adventure and whimsical fantasy. Routh, who strongly resembles Reeve, plays the dual role of super-hero and nebbish alter-ego with the same dead-pan earnestness that Reeve did, which I found to be a welcome change (when rewatched recently) from the current crop of flippant or morose characters the people the DC or Marvel cinematic universes. The story, script and special effects are quite good and the film reprises John Williams's magnificent score. The plot, which finds Luthor (ab)using Kryptonian technology to sire a new continent off the Eastern seaboard (at the expanse of flooding most of North America) is well developed and Spacy does a great job of reinterpreting Gene Hackman's fun spin on the callous, bald megalomaniac criminal mastermind. While not as memorable as 1978's Otis (the great Ned Beatty) and Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine), Luthor's various expendable hench-folk are fine, as is Bosworth's take on the intrepid Lois. Most of the time the film bounces along from crisis to crisis at a brisk pace but does drag a bit at the end. Having nondescript memories of the film, (which I first saw when it came out) I was surprised how much I enjoyed 'Superman Returns' during my recent re-watching on Netflix (although perhaps I have hero-fatigue from all of the over-the-top, trendy-preachy CGI extravaganzas that are being dished out these days). Fans of current blockbusters may find 'Superman Returns' a bit soft, nostalgic, and technically underwhelming but I encourage them to give it a look (along with the late Chris Reeve's fun and irony-free contributions to the canon (but just the first two!)).

Incredibly underrated. Why?

[adrenilinmatt-56062 · 8/10 · 30 March 2021]

When I first saw this movie in theatre, I loved it. I then went on to see if other people shared my love of the movie, to find an overwhelmingly negative air surrounding any discussion about the movie.

Why? I ask you why. Without going to some nitpicking little YouTuber to help you form your opinion, watch the movie yourself and come back here with your OWN opinion. Share it. I'd love for some people to come here with some real, raw thoughts on this movie. Without that pesky influence we call "word of mouth" having an impact on how you think.

If we're comparing this movie to ANY other good movie, it matches them. The acting is fabulous, Spacey as Lex is particularly well cast. The writing, again, on par with any GOOD movie. The effects? Mind boggling for its time, could compete with any blockbuster around that time and even years afterwards. There are very few weak points in this movie for a Superman fan, very few. Let's get to those, shall we?

So yes, I agree. This movie is not perfect. But that does not make it "bad". It's imperfect like many other movies. No different. Everything man made is flawed, to varying degrees. So, the negatives then. Is Routh a perfect Superman? Not quite. I tend to agree with the opinion that he looks a little young and a little scrawny. But his face, screen presence and "aura" cannot be argued with.

Routh comes across as superman perfectly and convincingly. Better than Henry Cavill and this is coming from a HUGE Man of Steel fan. (Come at me). Returning to something negative, however, the eye is drawn to Lois and the actress portraying her. She is the weakest link in this relatively sturdy chain. Lois has not been portrayed well since Margot Kidder, period. The character has been done little justice and it's truly a shame.

Other than Lois, we have a very strong cast. We have amazing VFX, action for days, strong superman portrayal, emotional story, huge stakes and a villain worthy of Superman.

So I ask, what more do we want? It's loyal to the formula and made me, my family, and most of the theatre audience I sat among. I beg, watch it again. Go in without the encumbrance of pre judgment, and enjoy. Come back with YOUR opinion, realise this movie is incredibly underrated, and let's get together to raise this score.

I mean seriously. 6/10? No. This film is the victim of a horrible reputation created by annoying little youtubers and internet dwellers that probably haven't seen the film in its entirety. This happens to many good movies.

Unfortunately for Superman Returns, that word of mouth was a nail in an undeserved coffin. The reason this isn't a review of the movie itself, is because I wanted to spread some positivity. I wanted to ramble about a movie I think deserves far more. And ramble I most certainly have.

Just give it a chance.

Wow. That's really something lex.

Superman Returns, Upgrades and even Reprises

[joker-4 · 9/10 · 2 July 2006]

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." And the words of Jor-El via Marlon Brando, both spoken from beyond the grave, can not only be referring to the human race, but also director Bryan Singer and his able contingent of writers and fellow producers who delivered a Superman film the likes of which has never been seen – although one could easily ponder that if Dick Donner had access to modern-day technology, this would have been his film as well.

From the ground up, Superman Returns flies. It picks up, in case you haven't heard, five or so years after the events chronicled in Superman II. Lex Luthor is out of jail and eager to pickup on a real estate scheme similar to his plan in the original Superman: The Movie but this one is of planetary proportions. As a result, Singer and screenwriters Michael Doughtery and Dan Harris wisely move away from bringing in a comicbook-inspired super-baddie to rough up our hero and instead focus on Luthor's hatred of a "god in blue tights" revolving much of the main fight in a (Super)man vs. nature spectacle.

Whereas the main star of the film is probably the extensive but-brilliantly-done CG F/X, most of the actors step up to bat as well. Brandon Routh's Reeve-esquire performance highlights his ability to be both heroic and commanding as well as stammering and sheepish while performing as the titular bespectacled civilian identity. Two-time Oscar winner Kevin Spacey channels Gene Hackman and plays up Luthor's sharp smile conning the audience one second and killing them the next. Even Frank Langella's Perry White seems comfortable. Only Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane, although adequate enough, seems to lack that passionate fire that makes Lane such a compelling character.

The film is filled with Breakfast of Champions scenes and action staged to please both the general audience and fanboys as well. For those who care, be sure to take note of the nods to Action Comics #1 (1938), Man Of Steel (1986) and a very clever re-cap of Superman's first two films all told via Luthor's model train room.

Unfortunately, not even this film is perfect as the results of the finale are dealt with in a depressing manner that not only spoil the mood but also the tempo of the film. Then there is the sub-plot dealing with the mysterious lineage of Lois' son that perhaps boldly goes into territory that even the much-more brazen monthly comics have yet to go. The pondering of this question really only proves that maybe those comics are best left to such exploration allowing the movies to grow as fantastical companion pieces. Spider-Man's Sam Raimi might be only director to fully grasp this concept. Until, at least, Christopher Nolan creates another Batman film.

As certain as believing that a man can fly, Singer crafts a tale full of magic and wonder that almost makes the 20-year wait manageable – as long as Singer's follow-up appears faster, than say, a speeding bullet.

Choses to be sentimental instead of entertaining.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 4 August 2006]

OK Superman is back (and I'm glad he is)! But not with a blast.

It's a recent trend in superhero movies to give the story and its character a deeper meaning and more realistic emotions. Most recent example of this is of course "Batman Begins" and other examples are "Spider-Man" and "Hulk". "Superman Returns" also tries to put this in the movie. It however does not suit the main character and is not true to the spirit and atmosphere of the other original previous Superman movies. The movie takes itself far too serious with as a result that it isn't always a fun or entertaining one to watch. It tries to be more than just another superhero movie but it never knows to fully convince.

The movie in the beginning takes it time to explain the story for the viewers who haven't seen the '78 original and its sequel, on which this movie is a direct sequel again. I can't say that I think this was the right choice. The movie would had been better of if the action, so to speak, started off immediately and didn't wasted any time on re-introducing all of the characters. The movie does however still show lots of respect to the original, mainly with its use of music. The opening credits are done in the exact same style as the original and they also didn't changed a not with its music, which really was the right thing to do. Let's be honest, the opening credits of the original '78 "Superman" movie are perhaps the most spectacular and most awesome opening credits of all time, which is mainly thanks to the John Williams music. Director Bryan Singer and John Ottman also seemed to realize and understand this and they use the John Williams at the exact right moments in the movie. John Ottman, on his turn, also composed a wonderful and suiting musical score on his own, complete with a wonderful new Superman theme.

The movie feels like two separate stories. One story concentrates on Superman/Clark Kent and the other on his eternal villain Lex Luthor, who is out of prison again, due to the absence of Superman during his court hearing. The movie doesn't feel as a complete whole and it is not until when the two stories mix that the movie starts to take pace and become truly interesting to watch. This however happens too late into the movie to completely save it.

The story itself is also very simple, a bit too simple for my taste. It also lacks some of the fundamental things a Superman movie needs. Superman movie needs to be fun, colorful and perhaps even a bit campy. Bryan Singer's Superman world is mostly dark. Also the humor is wrong. The movie does have humor in it but not the right kind. Superman movies needs slapstick, over-the-top sort of humor. The humor and atmosphere in this movie really doesn't suit the Superman character. It makes you wonder; Perhaps isn't the Superman character a bit too old fashioned for the 21th century? The movie concentrates too much on the dramatic and realistic aspects of the movie, such as the whole love triangle and problems between Superman, Lois Lane and her fiancée played by James Marsden, which is far from interesting or compelling.

The movie still could had a great one, despite its plot, if it had been a more entertaining one. The movie is lacking in some real good action. Basically the biggest and most spectacular action sequence of the movie is already in the beginning (the plane sequence). After that the movie and its action slows down and the end of the movie could had really used a big and spectacular finale. Instead now the movie doesn't know how and when to end. The ending is overlong, over-dramatic and completely unnecessary. They could had basically summed things up in 5 minutes but the movie chooses an overlong sentimental ending instead.

Brandon Routh is perfectly cast as Superman and he also really looks like Christopher Reeve. As expected Kevin Spacey steals the show as Lex Luthor but his presence is perhaps not as spectacular or as memorable as Gene Hackman's. Kate Bosworth is really miscast as Lois Lane. Lois Lane should be a strong, independent woman with lots of life experience. With all respect but Kate Bosworth looks like a fragile teenager.

Visually the movie is great and spectacular. All of the special effects are top-class (Oscar nod, no doubt) and they provide the movie with its best moments.

I'm glad Superman is back on the silver screen but the the movie itself is nothing too remarkable. In the end it's a pretty forgettable, overlong movie, that is too simple, even while it tries to be so much more than just a superhero movie.

I don't mean to sound cruel but you're better of waiting for the DVD. It's not really a movie worth seeing in cinemas.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Nicely Done

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 31 August 2007]

I was impressed that the film begins by re-establishing the Superman mythos. I read these comic books when I was small (early fifties) and fell in love with them. When I got older, I came to realize what a bizarre turn the whose story had taken, including his death, and I was stunned. Perhaps there wasn't enough to sustain the plot lines. How many rescues, how many bad guys, how much creativity? This movie gets back to basics but still pulls in the wonderful new technology we have. He comes to the rescue when needed but with a load of baggage. Lex is still the man and he has come up with a new bag of tricks and capitalizes on the weakness of the month (I mean no disrespect) because to make a decent movie, our hero can't be impervious to everything. This is a story of heroism for Superman and for those he loves and admires. It is bittersweet because even when you have it all, it may not lead to true happiness. Check out most of our comic book heroes; they are lonely, overworked, unappreciated, and often sad. The whole thing with Lois is a part of the archetype--that pull that is there. I'm not sure that the Christopher Reeve movies influenced these. I haven't seen them for so long, so I don't know if they set up rules that needed to be played by or did the filmmakers say, "Let's make a new one!"

This movie has atmosphere, good action, and humanity.