Superman Returns (2006) (1 Viewer)

[Patrick H.]

Here's another kid-related question for everybody to ponder...
Based on my knowledge of 'Superman II', shouldn't Lois NOT know that her kid is Superman's? Her memory of their affair was wiped, yes? And, since Kal-El was technically a human (down to the molecular level) when that affair took place, why does the kid have superpowers?!

And a non-kid-related question:
As Superman is comatose in the hospital for what seems like days on end, why is NOBODY wondering what happened to Clark Kent?!

 

[Patrick Sun]

1. I'm telling ya, that exposure to kryptonite (via Lex) kick-started something inside of Jason!

2. People are used to Clark just disappearing in times of crisis, but if you serve up some tofu wraps, he'll be at the table.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

After letting it sink in, I've decided I like it. I like it a lot. I've come to enjoy Singer's filmmaking sensibilities, and they were in full spades here. At first I thought there might be issue with the pacing (not anymore though), but that can fool you sometimes. Still, there was obviously missing material and I'd love to see another 20 minutes in there to polish things off.

If there's one way to some up how the film impressed me it's this; Where Superman: The Movie made you believe a man could fly, Superman Returns makes you believe in everything else. The older Sup films, Spider-Man flicks, Batman Begins, X-Men, etc. are all great fantasies that make me think it would be cool to swing through the city or dress like a bat. Here though, they've realized Superman so well that I actually long to live in that world where there is someone with the power and integrity to stand for truth and justice.

 

[Pete-D]

Just another question ...

Is Superman Returns meant to be a quasi-sequel to Superman 1 *and* 2 or just Superman 1?

I'm not too sure about what went on with Superman II, but from what I understand Richard Donner filmed a lot of Superman II during Superman I. Was the stuff about Lois Lane finding about Clark's identity Donner's idea, or was it added into the story once Donner had been moved off the project?

Obviously Singer didn't incorporate that part of the Superman II backstory into Superman Returns.

 

[Bryan Ri]

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie for a second time. Honestly, I was so awestruck at the visuals and the fact that I was watching Superman again, that I probably still have a lot to take in.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

My objection was not with the idea the scene expressed, but with the fact that the dialogue was quoted directly from Brando's part, which (if I remember correctly) we'd already heard 4 pieces of in the film by that time. It seemed to me like Singer was trying to get a tremendous amount of mileage out of a small amount of material.

When I see the film again this weekend, I may appreciate these scenes more than I did the first time, thanks to your thoughtful comments. I thought the Jason subplot was one of the best parts of the film, and I am eager to see how it develops in the sequels.

There was a lot to like in the film, which I didn't emphasize enough in my first post. The film was beautiful to look at. Overall, except for some plodding pacing, the film was fun (despite lacking much of the warmth and charm that made the first film magic).

The set pieces were exciting. The plane rescue was brilliantly executed. (Although I find it odd that this one detail - rescuing a space shuttle/plane - should be the one detail from John Byrne's MAN OF STEEL that other versions of the Superman story make reference to - Mark Waid's Birthright, the Timm/Dini animated series, and now Singer's film all refer to it.) Most of the special effects looked fantastic, except for a few of the flying shots, which, as another poster pointed out, did look a little "plastic" (particularly the shot of Superman hovering above the earth, as seen in the first teaser last fall, and apparently left untouched since then.)

I had a wonderful evening participating in the opening night crowd at the mighty Cinerama.

I only find the film disappointing because my expectations were so high. I agree with the consensus that the film is "good not great", and I was hoping for something really great.

 

[Hunter P]

Holy cats, that was 2.5 hours of Awesome!!!

Such goodness throughout. However, I was kinda disappointed that nobody can still figure out that Superman and Michael Jackson...err, I mean, Clark Kent are the same person.

When Superman was hovering outside Lois's house at the very end of the movie, I really wish that after Superman said, "Goodbye, Lois" that Lois replied, "Goodbye, Clark." But she said Superman as always. It would have been the perfect ending to the movie to me. The one person (besides his parents) that loves him should have figured it out by now.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

That's one thing that bugged me about Superman 2. Based on Jor-El's explanation of the science of Kal-El's abilities while on Earth, to me, it just doesn't make sense that exposure to a crsytal could change him molecularly and also change him back. Let's see, exposure to the rays of the Krypton sun. Jeez, he had that while he was an infant on Krypton, still had super powers when at Earth. The 3 Phantom Zone criminals had exposure to the Krypton sun before they were imprisoned and still had superpowers on Earth. So why in the world would that exposure in a small chamber take away Kal-El's powers, which would have to mean completely altering his DNA. And then they can be changed back again.

However, as much as I can't come to terms with that, I choose to just enjoy the movie and ignore that faux pas.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Superman Returns" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Superman Returns" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Patrick, you know I respect you, but please. Do you think I was absent-mindedly waiting for the action scenes during the "slow" scenes? Of course not. Don't patronize my arguments by assuming you paid attention and I did not.

And the theme does not resonate, because at no point in ANY previous incarnation does Clark feel "burnt out" on helping because he is the last son of Krypton. I accept the possibility of the theme, but it was not set up or explored, merely thrown in at the end. The film REALLY could have used a few moments of Clark at a dead Krypton, letting his face build that story. I don't think it's very true to Superman either. He is very much the son of his parents. He isn't altruistic for selfish reasons. He does it because he feels a sense of responsibility. Why would he leave for 5 years?

But I am tired of badmouthing it. I liked the film. It got a lot right. Notice no discussion of the costumes or Routh's physicality (major pre-release worries). Atwood nailed it, and he looked great, and the costume looked great.

The mythic (as opposed to religious) imagery was excellent, especially as Clark falls back to earth. It's a visually stunning film.

 

[Cory S.]

After one viewing, I'm with Patrick on this one. Essentially, Superman uses his feats to try and win the love of Lois back because it's pretty clear that he can't do it as Clark, with Richard around...a guy that he ends up respecting at the end of the film.

As it is now, it's quite a good film. In all honesty, the Smallville scenes that were cut need to be put back into the film. In the novel, it drove home the point that Kal-El is searching, wanting to have some sort of connection to his heritage. The film gets that half right but added one or two Smallville scenes would've done the job. (Although, when he does go back to the Fortress, I thought it was quite sad because clearly, he wanted to have a small chat with his father and he couldn't...which made him even more lost.) That's the only thing I'd change in this film.

I need a second viewing ASAP but I do agree with Patrick on his assessment on the film.

 

[MichaelD]

My wife and I saw the film last night to a sold out theater. I am in agreement with Patrick. I thought the film was amazing. It was the most visually stunning film we have seen in a long time.

I never read comics as a kid, but everyone grew up knowing Batman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Superman. Superman was always the iconic figure, the embodiment of what we could be at our best. And I think that is what Singer shows. I agree that the film is very Lois centric, but I think that's kind of the point. Throughout the film Superman is Superman; he is the rock, the person we look up to, the person we want to be. He makes everyone around him change to try to be a better person. I think Singer nailed that.

I thought the pacing was fine. I didn't want the movie to end. I thought it was over too quickly. Routh was fine as Superman, okay as Clark, but we didn't really get to see him to much as Clark. I am sure we will in the future, but I am okay with that for this film, as it is about Superman returning and the impact that it has on the world. Bosworth and Mardsen turned in good performances. Whoever played Olsen was annoying, but I didn't like the characterization of him in the Donner film either. I suppose that is who he is in the comics, but I was hoping for a more "normal" Olsen.

In the original Superman, when he reveals himself saving Lois in the helicopter scene, it's one of the "oh shit" moments in movie history. And everything up to and through that moment in the original is spectacular. But after that it seems pretty pedestrian. Right off the bat there is this sense of familiarity between society and Superman and it makes the film seem a little ordinary. Singer's film captures the awe and wonderment that people have with Superman. The shots of them looking up, the cheers, the vigil at the hospital--they all capture how I would think society would react if a person like that were to come into our lives.

With Batman Begins and now this, I think Warner Brothers is headed in the right direction with its superheroes, and can't wait to see the followups.

 

[Cory S.]

Oh, WB is really on point. With the underrated Constantine (my opinion), V for Vendetta, Begins, and now Returns, WB/DC is ahead of Marvel in this game....

 

[Chris Atkins]

I agree, Cory. Batman 2 and SR 2 will have the potential to flirt with 300+ million at the box office. Marvel only has one property that can touch those numbers: Spider-Man.

 

[Patrick Sun]

This is what I'm saying: I understand why some people felt that Lois was being mean and offputting to Clark, and it's jarring on the first viewing, but if you watch the film again and concentrate on the bigger picture of what Lois has on her plate, it simply played differently for me on the 2nd viewing.

Plus, as much baggage we fans bring to the film, in this film incarnation, Lois and Clark are simply co-workers (post kiss of forgetfulness from Superman II), and Clark returns from a sabbatical of sorts, but it's "out of sight, out of mind" for Lois w/r/t Clark, but we as fans don't really like that dynamic, and it puts people off-kilter for a bit. Plus we are more used to the love triangle of Clark-Lois-Superman, but Richard's presence and Jason's presence totally re-shuffles the deck on how the character now relate to one another, it's not the status quo anymore, and it's confusing to the first-time viewer of the film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Let's wait and see how much SR makes before making assumptions about S2. None of DC's films can touch Spidey in BO dollars. I agree that DC has had more success (let's not pretend V for Vendetta is "DC", though...it's not) across a range.

I do think S2 and B2 will outperform the first respective films. I think WW will basically make Dukes of Hazzard money...not even FF money. I wouldn't bury Marvel yet...they are still holding onto some big guns. DC has no other big guns. After the big 2, that's it.

 

[DavidPla]

What other big guns does Marvel have that DC wouldn't have? I would say Marvel really only has the big 2 as well; "X-Men" and "Spider-Man". Currently I feel "Batman" equates "X-Men" while "Superman" definitely has the potential to equate "Spider-Man" in terms of Box Office.

 

[Cory S.]

Chuck,

While I agree with you on box office dollars, WB has three very, very solid films in a row that could become major. Marvel/Fox killed X-Men when they released The Last Stand. The same with Blade. The same with Daredevil. Fantastic Four was cute, but it's not very good. We have no idea about Iron Man. They should've had a franchise with Hulk but apparently they want to redo that film, which in my opinion is better than both Spider-Man films in terms of characterization and action. All they have is Spider-Man and the possibility of a Wolverine mini-franchise (God, I hope so.)

With Returns and Begins in the form they're in, WB has its two big guns blazing. They're not forgone conclusions, the sequels to those two characters, but I'm more optimistic with these stories than I am with anything Marvel is throwing out there.

And Patrick, your above post is spot on about that relationship. But, I also understand Chuck's problem. In a way, the sequel has to get Clark and Lois back to a really good relationship so that the notion of Lois falling for not only Superman but Clark can work.

But, as it is in the film now, I understand and appreciate the way they went in the film. It makes sense.

 

[mattCR]

I really, really liked Last Stand. I prefer it over the first X-Men movie and found it almost as entertaining as the second, which I consider the best.

 

[Cory S.]

There is one thing I would've cut from the film though and that's the doctors actively trying to revive Superman. I understand what Singer was going for but it's funny when it shouldn't be.

When he pans down to see Superman in the crater, he fades to black. The next scene should've been the Richard and Perry scene, figuring out what headline to use....