Superman Returns (2006) (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

I addressed all these points above.

But nevermind Smallville, how about 2 hours of Spiderman? Batman Begins? X-Men?

As Chuck said, the trip home was essentially unused outside of setting up Lois' situation and feelings. Superman could have spent 5 years on Neptune and the movie would have remained essentially the same. It is clear at this point that rather than setting up an arc of sorts for our title character, the purpose of that specific destination was to provide an important enough reason for the Supes to abandon earth.

There was character developement in the movie... Lois'. But once again, it's not her movie.

--
H

 

[Britton]

Agreed. He left hoping to find more of his kind when all along, that connection to Krypton was on Earth the entire time.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I just got back. You can go home again.

I loved this movie. I haven't been able to read all of the comments, only took a quick glance. But I loved the fact this film can be tied in so neatly with the Donner films. I loved the chemistry between Routh and Bosworth. I just loved the fact that we can see blue title cards flying through space with the Williams theme playing in a new movie! And Kevin Spacey made Luthor into one of the most unsympathetic and cruel villians in any comic book film. He was great. I had tears in my eyes at least four times while watching this film.
Beautiful.
The only flaw for me was technical: the print used at the theater where I viewed the film was just too darn dark! I don't know if this was because the film was shot digitally or the theater just had a really bad print. Hopefully, it will look better on IMAX and (especially!) on HD DVD/Blu-Ray.

**** out of ****

 

[Mike_G]

Why do I get the feeling that S:TM was such a damn good movie that NOTHING can ever be better? I think that's why I apprecaited SR so much.

 

[Norm]

I have to agree its a good movie :star: :star: :star: but not great. I really have a feeling those Krypton scenes were needed. I thought we would at least get a flashback of a few seconds of it to flesh out the beginning a little better. I will probably go see it again. Like others have said it we need comic book style battle just like in the Spiderman 3 trailer, that had everyone freaking out before the movie. It seemed like Singer gave more screen time to everybody around Routh but hopefully Singer will have more confidence in Routh in future movies. My Mother still thinks T. Welling should have been cast. I disagree! It also had a much darker tone & I can't decide if thats better, yet. As I though & I still think it should have been a complete restart rather than a continuation. Its just too hard to match up to Donner & Reeve.

The little kid thing bothers me also. It could cause problems for future movies.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I saw the film at 10pm last night. While I enjoyed myself in the theater, the film left me disappointed overall.

Singer's fetishization of the original film really hurt this one, in my opinion. I would have preferred an adaptation of one of the better comic book stories, such as BIRTHRIGHT, or a completely new direction. I would have been satisfied with hearing John Williams' main title theme and Krypton theme once each, with original material for the rest of the score.

Brando's material was gratuitous. One of the most beautiful ideas from the first film (which has never been explored in any other version of Superman, to my knowledge) is the telepathy between father and son over time and space. But many of the Brando voice-overs in this film made no sense whatsoever. What is the point of placing out of context Jor-El lines in the soundtrack while Superman is struggling underwater? When Superman visits Jason's bedside at the end of the film and begins repeating Brando's dialogue, I had steam coming out of my ears.

Luthor's plot was more preposterous than the similar plot in the first film. It made no sense at all. Why create land while simultaneously killing billions of people, therefore reducing the demand for that land? Were people really supposed to live in those crystalline structures? Are there raw materials available? Can food be grown there? At one point we see Luther's henchmen playing poker with $20 bills. Where do the plan to spend this money, and on what?

Kitty Kowalski is no Miss Tessmacher. Yet the tiny bit of development she is allowed (sympathizing with Superman once she sees him in pain) is totally obvious if one is familiar with the first film. And instead of Otis, we get 4 nameless henchmen, 3 of whom are not developed in the slightest.

Ma Kent was completely WASTED. The Smallville scenes were WASTED.

Brandon Routh came pretty close to turning in a good performance as Christopher Reeve, yet he fell quite short of bring a believable Superman or Clark Kent to life. Notice that Reeve played two separate roles in the first film. In the scene in Lois's apartment, after her interview with Superman, Reeve literally transforms in the few seconds he decides to reveal his secret to her. Routh played a man who wears a disguise. Reeve played two separate individuals.

Spacey did a good job as Luthor, although I would have preferred seeing the ruthless businessman Luthor instead of the mad scientist/career criminal Luthor. He was suitably sadistic, but he lacked depth and charm.

The weakest part of the film was LOIS. I have two major problems with her: first, she is much too "mild-mannered". She has no fire or passion. To be a great journalist, one must be dedicated, motivated, and aggressive. This Lois is just grumpy. I don't see any Pulitzer Prize winning material coming out of her. I was as incredulous as Perry White that she wanted to report on the blackout. 2nd problem with Lois: at no point is she happy to see Superman! She is always "troubled" by him. Does she smile, even once, in the entire film?

How can Lois reasonably believe that Richard is Jason's father? How long after Superman II did Superman leave the earth? How long after that did she begin another serious relationship? I know she can't spell, but can't she at least count to nine?

I didn't see any point to Richard White's character except to give Lois an excuse to be grumpy around Superman.

The plot was very thin. The first film, at the same length, was really two movies in one -- Superman's origin for the first 90 minutes, then Luthor's real estate scheme for the last hour. This one just had Luthor's new scheme and nothing else except the silly love triangle. Pacing was poor, especially at the beginning and the end.

Superman's feats weren't all that spectacular. He does an awful lot of LIFTING and a lot of blowing on things and that is it.

The references to the first film were grating after a while. Somehow, Singer managed to pick up on all the superficial references, while retaining none of the substance that made the first film so great.

The new Daily Planet looked fabulous. Perry White and Jimmy Olsen were fine. I liked the kid, and I think it's clear where this is going -- the next film will feature SUPERBOY. There have been many version of this character in the comics. One was Superman as a youth, one was the sole superhero in a world without superhumans, and one was a clone of Superman with Luthor's DNA mixed in. Jason is an entirely new version, but I don't think anyone will have any objections to his being called SUPERBOY (except possibly the Siegel & Shuster estates, but that's a discussion for another forum).

I was disappointed with BATMAN BEGINS as well. Now I'm crossing my fingers, hoping that Joss Whedon hits a homer with his WONDER WOMAN, which is still stuck in the script stage. He's having trouble with the origin & the villains. I think he should sit down with George Perez's WONDER WOMAN Volume 2, Issues #1-24 and craft not a superhero story, but further chapters of classic Greek mythology, set in the present day.

So far, V FOR VENDETTA has been the year's best comic book film. I'm looking forward to SPIDER-MAN 3.

 

[Josh.C]

Crap Guys!

I was really pumped for this movie, and now I'm having some serious anxiety about seeing it! Looks like basically everyone on the thread has been dissapointed on some level with the film. I'm sure I will still end up seeing it, but now I'm wondering if I should go see Cars on Thursday night instead (never thought I would hear myself say that). That thread has nothing but praise about the movie.

Oh well, maybe it's a good thing. Most of you probably went in with very high expectations, and now I will be going in with very little. Hopefully it will add to the experience. I just hate to see the likes of SUPERMAN, not be a great movie going experience, because it should be a great one!

OK, I'm off my soapbox now, carry on....

JC

 

[Mike_G]

Jor-El's lines were not out of context. I took them as Superman thinking of them while he was down and out.

And btw: I find myself telling MY kids stuff my dad said to me, so how is that wrong for this film?

And this crap about lifting? Did he not LIFT a bus, a helicopter, and THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT in S:TM?

What is it with these jaded reviews?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Are you kidding? How am I jaded towards Superman? I've listed many of my glaring problems (and ignored plenty of minor nits), explaining WHY they didn't work for me. I've also praised what I liked.

Spare me my own "biases", Mike.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Mike,

If I remember correctly, one of Jor-El's lines during the underwater sequence was him explaining to his son the need for a secret identity, becasue without it, humans would take advantage of him and call on him to do things they could do themselves. That had nothing to do with being stabbed with a Kryptonite shiv. In my opinion, that is out-of-context. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Mike_G]

I just think that too many people are complaining about comparing it to the original film, and not one person has said "oh, they lifted the cover of Action #1" or "oh, the old woman was Lois Lane from th TV show" or "Perry said 'Great Ceasar's Ghost'".

I mean, if you think about it, the original film wasn't that original in itself, Superman saving Lois from a broken dam after saving a train. Hmm....sounds a tad familiar....

 

[Matt Pasant]

Agreed. And to some I do not think they would be impressed regardless. Superman (1978) was and is the benchmark - but even that film had issues (Otis? Larry Hagmans scene? Meanding 2nd act?).

I really enjoyed this movie and found it to be the most complete sequel in the series. The orgin story in 1978 chewed up a good 48 minutes of the film - this movie hit the notes to a new audience that it had to cover in exposition.

I found Routh to be a strong Superman and an even better Clark Kent - I kind of wish he had more scenes as the mild mannered reporter. I was nervous about Bosworth - but enjoyed her performance quite a bit - to me she was a strong step up over Margot Kidder. Especially compared to Kidders performance in II.

I thought it was a smart film with great action scenes and did a marvelous job of getting the franchise back on solid footing. I can't wait for the DVD!

 

[Patrick Sun]

I hate to say this, but you totally missed the subtext here: When Superman is drowning, Jor-el speaks of how Kal-el's actions/leadership inspire others to make their own form of sacrifices to save others selflessly, and that is what happens when Lois convinces Richard to turn the plan around in order to help Superman.

Later, in the coda, Jor-el's words were about the generational bond that is created by the relationship between offspring and parent. Kal-el and Jason now share that same bond, thus such words were spoken and passed down from generation to generation. This is something Kal-el probably thought would never happen for him since he was the last of his kind, and thus the end of the line, a future clouded in finiteness, but now the possibilities are plenty.

 

[CoreyII]

First of all Patrick, do I not have just as much right to post on this forum as you and anyone who is interested in seeing this film.

Where does it state that if I'm to post on this forum I have to be planning on going to see Superman Returns.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Chuck Mayer expressed deep reservations about not seeing X-Men: The Last Stand, did you tell him the same thing?

And what about all the people who had reservations about Catwoman and Elektra, I'm quite sure none of them spent their money to see those films.

I just don't understand this forum's mentality about having to see the film first if one is to have any criticism about it. I'm not obligated to see anything beyond what interests me. Besides that's what trailers and previews are for, to give one a sample of what the film will ultimately be.

And judging by all the trailers, the previews, the posts on this foum, critic reviews, and plot synopsis, I've pretty much pieced this film together and it is what I feared it would be, a film by a man who can't let go of a 28 year old movie.

As far as me missing out on a truly great cinematic experience, how can I miss out on a great experience for a film that I know isn't great or is going to be great. Besides most people on this forum have proven my point.

I love the character as much as anyone on this forum, but it doesn't mean I'm going to like every incarnation of the character. I love the first Donner film, but unlike many on this forum I can let it go and leave it back in 1978. Also, unlike many on this forum I don't subscribe to the idea that Donner's film can never be outdone, because Bruce Timm and company proved that it can.

Afterall, if many of you accept the fact that Batman: The Animated Series is vastly superior to the Burton/Schumacher films, then you must accept the fact that there are people like me who feel Superman: The Animated Series is superior to film incarnations. Speaking of Batman, I feel Batman Begins wasn't that great of a film, especially in it's portrayl of Rhas Al Ghul, a villain who really should have saved for maybe two or three movies down the road when Batman had more experience under his belt. But Bats is a discussion for another panel.

 

[Bryan Ri]

I really don't understand why it's bad that Superman Returns has some familiar beats with Superman: The Movie. Similar beats with different twists doesn't translate into a letdown for me. I'm curious, how many of you attended the film with people who never saw the original? I went with six, three of which women. They all were blown away by it. They cheered in several moments, none of which were nods to Donner's film. Consider the wide audience that's out there who have never seen the other films, and what their response to Superman Returns may be.

This was a film that couldn't possibly live up to my own hope and hype, and somehow I still left the theater with a smile on my face feeling quite satisfied. The beginning had major pacing issues, although I loved the opening scene's with Lex. I think that more time on the farm with Clark reading up on how the world doesn't need Superman, would have given his return to Metropolis that much more weight.

When Clark does get to Metropolis, however, the movie takes off. I for one enjoyed Bosworth's Lois Lane, having never really been sold on Margot Kidder. The only casting that didn't do it for me was Langella's Perry White. Jimmy Olsen was charming without being cheesy, the kid was cute and not over the top, and James Marsden was a great foil to Superman emotionally because he is so likeable.

Brandon Routh really left an impression on me. His Clark Kent needed more screen time, if nothing else to have more dialogue with Lois. I like how he channeled a lot of Reeve as Kent, yet brought his own goofynes/dork-like qualities that were different. His Superman is as good as Reeve's if not better. He has a wonderful heroic quality about him, and I look forward to seeing him on screen as the Man of Steel sooner than later.

Superman Returns was a wonderful film, still with flaws and lots of room for improvement.

Like most people have said in this thread, there was an awful lot to like about the film, especially the sheer fact that Superman is back in theaters with the franchise looking as strong as ever.

 

[WilliamG]

Alright - my turn, and "it's ALL good!"

My experience Tuesday night was nothing but wonderful. It began the day before when I picked up the tickets for my wife and me. All excited, I went home and waited for last night. After I got home from work, I decided to go online to the theater's website just to check and see if they were sold out. Previously, I had been told that the movie would be on ONE screen. When I logged on, not only did I discover that it was on TWO screens, but under the movies' title were the intials "DLP"! Upon arriving at the theater an hour and a half early and expecting a long wait (I brought a book to pass the time), we saw people actually entering the screening room. Then I found out that the movie was actually going to be shown on three screens AND that theater now has the only DLP systems in Arkansas! They purchased 3 systems just in time for the movie. (Yes, the ticket prices were higher- BIG shock!)
Everyone cheered, laughed and was respectful at the right times. There were cheers for the Spider-Man 3 trailer.

Oh yeah - we LOVED Superman Returns! Look, when we go we EXPECT to have a great time ... especially with this show. And it didn't disappoint. The ONLY thing that I wish was different was the ending. I wanted Superman to track down Luthor and slap him around ... until my wife calmly reminded me that Superman is not the vigilante - BATMAN is.

I find it a little disconcerting that it SEEMS - again- it SEEMS that many here are picking this apart with the eyes of very jaded critics instead of enjoying the magic of the movie. Just look how far they've come in movie-making from the Adventures of Superman TV show. Heck, from the ORIGINAL series starring Kirk Alyn!! I'm not old enough to remember him, but I do remember watching AOS with George Reeves.

Wow, I'm probably older than most of you here, anyway! (I'm 48).
Let's go back and have some fun ... Saturday morning sounds good to me!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Okay, took in an IMAX viewing, and the 3D is more hit, and not too much of a miss (when the action gets a little too fast, my eyes were going crossed-eyed at times), and so enjoyable nonetheless, and the final fly-by in 3D right before the credits is worth the price of admission for me. Damn, that was just sweet. I really enjoyed the IMAX presentation both visually and aurally. The sound effects were impressively presented and added to the power and majesty that were the super-feats on display in the film. I encourage anyone who has access to an IMAX theater to see this film on an IMAX screen.

For me, the film was paced better the second time around . I wasn't caught up with the expectations of some massive build-up throughout the film, but sat back and just soaked in all the scenes, and enjoyed the journey.


The crowd applauded loudly at the end of the film. That was gratifying to see and hear in person.

I figured out how IMAX fit 157 minutes of film into IMAX's limitation of 150 minutes runtime: They simply shortened the huge list of credits at the end of the film. I was going to watch the credits to the very end, but it ended within 2-3 minutes of the final shot from the film, while the regular theatrical cut ran the other 7 minutes of credits (and more musical scores).

I didn't realize that Lady Vanderworth was Noel Neill (one of George Reeves' Lois Lanes), but definitely picked out Jack Larsen (Jimmy Olsen) as the bartender. Richard Branson was one of the space shuttle pilots.

The heels of Superman's boot have the "S" symbol molded into them. Geez, Supes is a little obsessed with his family "S"-crest, eh?

One of the big scrabble words was "alienation"

Loved how Ma Kent's words about Clark "being the last of his kind, but he wasn't alone" came full circle when the presence of Jason changes Kal-el's perspective and life immeasurably. The same goes for Jor-el's words at the beginning and Kal-el saying them to Jason at the end.

There's a really great shot of Routh as Superman, it's during the Lois-Superman flight, and Superman is talking about hearing that people do want someone to save them, and the lighting of Routh's face is just amazing. It was like an Alex Ross painting, but better.

Definitely chuckled at the Addis Ababa, Ethiopia reference for the K-rock that Lex stole from the museum.

Loved the quick shot of "The Usual Suspect" lineup shot of Lex and his cronies in the basement of the Vanderworth house. Priceless.

James Marsden can't catch a break, always playing second fiddle (first in X-Men, now SR).

Routh plays Clark by pretty much making weird mouth movements/expressions. Thus, his "Clark" now has these tics incorporated into the performance, which can be a little disconcerting at times when Clark is on-screen, and he can come off more 2D than 3D. I don't think Routh gives Clark that octave-higher voice that Reeve did with his "Clark", which I would have liked, but it might not be in Routh's vocal repetoire. But when Routh speaks in his low voice to Jason in his room, it really sounded soothing and commanding.

If you pay attention to Lois's hairline, you'll see that it's all over the place within the film because it's a wig, and the hair/makeup person sometimes covered up more forehead, and other times exposed a lot of forehead (rivalling Klingon forehead space at times).

The fact that Lois can't even rattle off anything that Clark is passionate about gives you an idea that Clark is still vanilla to just about anyone working at the Daily Planet and lacks a hook for relatability. Sure, Clark is a good reporter, but after hours is where he's pretty much still a black hole, even to co-workers. I would like to see Clark more developed in the next installment.

I'm not all that put off by Superman's "unethical" eavesdropping on Lois and Richard. The man's been away for 5 years, he needs the drop on the 411! Plus, Superman hears so much, it's just a matter of filtering out the noise for the signal.


I am going to disagree with Chuck's characterization of Lois in the film. Go see it again, and really pay attention, it's not bitchiness she's exhibiting on the plane, it's being assertive. Sure, later she's on the scent of the right story (the EMP), but her editor keeps pushing on her the one topic she wants desperately to avoid. She's annoyed, but not a bitch. Clark's been off the radar for Lois for quite a long time, he shows up and Lois is supposed to just slide right into her "comically dismissive" schtick with him? That's unrealistic given her circumstances now. Again, watch the film again, I think you're projecting something that just isn't on the screen.

The simple utterance of the word "relationship" by Clark (after Perry forces Lois to cover Superman while Clark gets the story she wanted by default) is something that caused Clark all sorts of internal turmoil. It's like that scene with Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale in "Batman" where Bruce has such a hard time uttering "I'm Batman, I'm Batman, I'm Batman" to Vicki.

As the return to Metropolis for Clark gets rolling, at the core, the Donner version of Clark has really only wanted to win over Lois by being Clark not Superman, but he's now got Richard to also deal with, and Lois has a right to be a little put off by Clark clumsy attempts to interject himself back in her life, who comes back and expects to pick up where their "work" relationship left off 5 years ago, but things change, other people take priority in the here and now. As it stands, Clark's stuck in a worse place than the Phanton Zone, he's in the "friend-from-a-half-decade-ago" zone. But as the film concludes, I can see Clark backing off of "courting" Lois, knowing that Richard is a good man, and would be a good father for his son, and provides the stability that Superman could not. These are the changes that bridge the Donner films with the Singer films. It's a subtle changing of the guard, and I don't have the problems with couching such a re-launch of the Superman film franchise within the beats of the Donner films. It think it's rather respectful of such good source material and inspiration, while paving new ground for future installments.

As to themes, the title is Superman Returns, but returns to what? He left because earth didn't have what he needed for his own persistent existence. Sure, he could save people 24/7, but altruism only goes so far for so long. Now, with the revelations, Superman has a reason to stay, to continue to retain his link to humanity.

I think Superman almost has to be more iconic, and change has to come from the people around him, who are inspired by him. That he doesn't have a massive character arc in his film missed why Superman has endured for so long in media. Pete-D talks about these changes that take place with Lois in the film, and he's right. Superman is more catalyst for change/inspiration because of his altruistic nature, willing to do for others who can't do for themselves. Note the effort by the hospital staff in doing what they can to nurse the man of steel back to health, and the crowds of well-wishers. Superman has this intangible way of getting people to want to do better and be better people. Superman is here not only to save the day, but help people be better version of themselves.

 

[Josh.C]

Good to see the positive comments rolling in. I am checking Dallas IMAX showtimes as we speak.

And I didn't know this was being shown in 3D! I saw the Polar Express at the IMAX in 3D and was completely blown away.

Thanks for giving me some hope for the movie. In all honesty, I would have went to see it no matter what anyone said. C'Mon it's Superman for crying out loud. There isn't one among us that can honestly say they haven't tied a blanket around their neck, puffed out there chest, and jumped off the back of the couch, secretly wishing they might take off and never come back down.

I can think of a few times I wouldn't have minded the X-Ray Vision as well

 

[Patrick Sun]

It could simply be that Richard knows that Jason isn't his kid, but he fell in love with a pregnant Lois anyhow.

 

[Dave Mack]

Hey guys, AARGGARRRGGGH!
We just got back from San Francisco and believe it or not they couldn't get the movie to run in the IMAX theater! We saw the previews in 3D, then it went dark, and a voice came over the speaker to say that they were having technical problems. Long story short, we (the sold out crowd) sat there for an hour while they kept promising that they would have it going within a few minutes. Finally they realized it wasn't going to work, and maybe they didn't want to screw up the rest of the showtimes, so they told us to just go get a refund.
Needless to say we were all pretty pissed. We had to wait in line half an hour to get the refund and unless we badgered them they wouldn't even give us a free complimentary pass for our troubles!
This was one of the worst customer service experiences ever. This was the Loews Metreon in San Francisco, the flagship theater! They screwed up our Superman on opening day! There were people in S tshirts and even a little girl with a cape on! Seemed to make no difference to the staff who were totally incompetent and unphased by this tragedy. No one seemed to care about travel money spent, time taken off work, parking, getting in line an hour before showtime, etc. When we finally got our refund, the staff couldn't even correctly credit the gift card we used to buy the tix days before. They just gave us some movie passes to appease.
Had we had any sense of humor at the time, we might have chalked up the situation to a diabolical plot by Lex Luthor.
We hope to see it later this week but we will not have our opening day experience, it just won't be the same. And we won't be going back to that IMAX for the 3D experience, we'll settle for the regular version in our local theater.
Anyhoo hope you all enjoy. Anyone else have an IMAX tragedy? Had a problem at the Loews Metreon IMAX? We hear they've had problems before.

D Mack