Superman Returns (2006) (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

All 10 people I've seen it with/talked to about it have really liked it. The film is simply splitting people, so word-of-mouth will be essentially a mixed bag, IMO.

For my part I'll be telling everyone to see it. I've already seen it twice and I want to see it again ASAP - and I RARELY see a film 3 times in the theaters.

 

[Paul_Scott]

the other post was meant to be facetious- this one isn't, I'm totally serious here.

If Singer had really meant to make this a film about Family connection and loneliness and genetic lineage , etc etc- He probably should have ripped off Superman IV instead of the first one. Not the nuclear elements- those could/should be jettisoned- but the fact that Luthor had a younger relative upon which he was an influence- along with his desire to create life (a son substitute) that he can control rather than merely influence.

That kind story/plot would allow more of a springboard for the villianous goals to thematically mirror/comment upon the heroes themes.

Rob, once again we're pretty much in total agreement.
I really want to experience the highs of this movie again, but i hesitate because I'm sure it will be more along the lines of the re-experience you had.
I'm afraid that even the intermittent positives I see in the movie now, may be soured by more exposure to the negatives.
As for Lois, you pretty much hit all the points I would have made (again with more literacy and efficiency than I would have). I've always liked Kidder quite a bit. And in some sequences (like the Diner, or the candy stripe suit from the Donner sequences) I thought she was photographed very attractively.
More importantly, she inhabited the character body and soul. On the whole, I would say she, more than Reeve was the ideal embodiment of the character (not an opinion widely shared, I realize)
However, that said, there is nothing she could have done with the part as written here to make it any better. Bosworth was miscast, looked way too young, played the part at the same pitch throughout, but she never had much to work with either.

At the point in this characters life, the story of Lois is either- what is she going to concentrate on- is she going to move into the role of a more warm and nurturing family matriarch and be content to write feature articles for the Sunday supplement- or is she going to reject that thru some genetic predisposition and revert to the headstrong, byline chasing emotional independent? If its the former, then Singer is basically slaying the icon here and replacing her with something else entirely different- She is Lois in name only- like Rob says. If its the later, then the character loses all chance at audience sympathy- which would also be devastating. When she was in peril you would hope she would die so Jason could get a better, more worthy mother.
If the sequels tackle the conflict there, then they more than likely fall into the trap of becoming very tedious soap opera.

It was an interesting concept- that probably could have made for a good element of a story where Superman is tricked and confused by the villain with visions of a reality that isn't ( I think I saw this in a Doc Strange story once- the villain was something like D' Spayre-...get it, despair...-).*

Once again, this was poorly thought thru, and if it had only been given more time, and better editorial guidance, they could have worked these elements in much better than they otherwise did with this rehashquel that points to nowhere good.


*Singer took the one line in the first movie that references Christianity, and ran with that by using literal visual cues (the cross posing, the Pieta, etc) when he probably should have got to the heart of the matter by exploring the kind of themes Katzanzakis (sp?) did. It would be a rip-off of Last Temptation, with Luthor or another villan playing the Satan substitute, and again there would still be a retread of SII in some ways thematically, but better that to me than seeing whole land mass-sized chunks of plot and dialouge I have already seen (and seen done better).

What worries me about the BO return on this is that they allowed a (weaker?) filmmaker to have too much editorial oversight, and that may cause them to pull the reins in on other filmmakers who have not only more imagination, but better sensibilites & taste.

Bryan, we have to strongly disagree- Those beats weren't generalizations and there is uncreative plagerism at work. I doubt you will hear Donner ever badmouth the film or Bryan S though, but I'm sure he recognizes how sad it is to see the same stuff he did simply re-jiggered with much better effects than he was capable of. Not to mention several 'good' lines from Mank stolen outright.
Bryan S isn't a bad filmmaker- I'm not saying that. Just an immature one who is clearly learning his craft by mimicking the adults he saw growing up. Sort of like an young cub in the wild who is learning behavioural traits needed for survival by mimicking in play what the adult animals do.


Or to suffer thru another anology- its a little like the artist who can draw figures because he has copied other peoples drawings so he can kind of/sort of get the bulges and tapers in near the same place- but he doesn't really understand the underlying structure that informs those.
as long as he is content to merely copy other peoples drawings, everything is fine- but if he tries to pose the figure on paper himself, the lack of knowledge is exposed and the illustration falls apart.
at least thats the way it seems to me.

 

[John Doran]

just saw the movie today. and loved it. loved it. all of it.

i utterly loathe the original superman movie, so i don't know what similarities exist between the versions, other than those that one would expect to find in two movies about superman. and even if i did recognize them, i wouldn't care.

i was pleasantly surprised at how much i liked routh. shit, i was surprised ay how much i liked everyone. i'm also quite frankly surprised at all of the negative press bosworth's lois is getting - she was awesome. she wasn't too young (i know women who look younger with older kids); she wasn't too much of a shrew (the father of her child - the man she loved - left without a good bye. you always have that kind of emotional baggage with you, and she carried it perfectly).

everything worked for me, and i'm glad for it.

i dunno. the movie is too important to me to argue about. i just had to post something positive about the film.

now, back to your regular programming.....

 

[Chuck Mayer]

john,
I'm not going to argue with you But according to others, Lois thought Richard was the father of Jason, per the prequel comic. Maybe Kryptonian babies gestate for 10-11 months. Or Lois didn't waste any time

Other than that, glad you loved it. Post a review. Give me stuff to look for.

 

[Richard Kim]

Forgive me if this has been asked already, but how did Superman know that the kid was his? From what I saw, only Lois, Lex and his cronies know this. I'm sure that the scene in which Supes echoes Jor-El's words to his own son was supposed to be a touching moment, but not showing how he knows ruined it for me.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Lois whispered it into his ear when he was in the hospital.

 

[Chris Will]

Oh, that's what she said. I thought she was saying "I Love You."


Why all the worry about the BO? According to Box Office Mojo it is the 3rd best July 4th openning ever.

 

[John Doran]

well, i haven't read the prequel comic, but it seems obvious in the movie that lois initially thought richard was jason's father....i just assume that since lois and superman didn't have a regular relationship, lois probably had an ongoing, contemporaneous relationship of some kind with richard which culminated in sex at around the time superman left. i don't know - i find that kind of chronological exercise uninteresting because it's always possible to come up with an explanation to account for apparent anomalies (wow - i don't think i've made that point since the matrix: reloaded thread...).

and i'm afraid i don't have a review beyond "i loved it", chuck: i've had superman in my life for a long, long, long time, and when i was watching the film, i thought, "wow. there's superman". and that's as good as it gets for me.

i can't stop thinking about the movie. i'll be going back for another viewing, for sure.

i think the kind of conversation that i would love to have with you about the movie is only capable of being had in person over a bottle of wine...maybe one day.

all the best to you and yours for july 4th, chuck.

 

[Adam_WM]

It may have had a solid 4th of July weekend opening, but on a whole, it is only #30 on the 5-day take list and $85 million in 5 days is not what I would call a success for a $200+ million movie that has PIRATES II coming out next week... That spells bad news for the domestically posibilities of $200 million.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

When I read this, an idea began forming in my head. How would you folks liked to have seen a film along the following lines?:

------

SUPERMAN MOVIE proposal

Kryptonite is not Superman's only vulnerability. His compassion for human beings can be exploited and used against him (as explicitly stated by Luthor in SM:1 and the Phantom Zone criminals in SM:2). His popularity with the public is one of his strengths, but due to the fickle nature of public opinion, this too can be manipulated and used against Superman (such as in BIRTHRIGHT, where Luthor's plot is to discredit Superman in the eyes of the public). And Superman has, more-or-less, the same psychological needs as the rest of us mere mortals (the need for companionship, the need to be needed, the need to procreate) that must be addressed, if not actually "met" or "satisfied" in human terms. But what if Superman were tempted?

Superman is approached by Lex Luthor. During his time in prison, he has turned his scientific genius towards the study of wormholes, and has devised the plans for the first practical Time Travel Device. He offers to send Superman back in time to before the destruction of Krypton, thus giving Superman the opportunity to convince the science council that Jor-El is correct, and prevent his civilization from being wiped out.

Luthor appears sincere -- he is offering to save billions of lives as a means of atoning for his previous crimes. While testing the machine, Superman is able to establish that he is truly in Krypton of the past -- in other words, he is not the victim of Luthor's trickery. Likewise, the Kryptonians of the past are able to establish that this colorful visitor wearing the family crest of the House of El is truly the world's sole survivor, sent from the future to prevent disaster. LUTHOR IS ON THE LEVEL.

Superman is given the opportunity to preserve his civilization. However, if he does this, then there would be no need for Jor-El to send his son to Earth to escape. Therefore, in the "new" timeline established by Superman's intervention in the past, he never comes to Earth, and instead lives out his natural life on Krypton. Certainly, Superman has saved many lives during his stay on Earth, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of Kryptonians whose lives would be saved. Luthor doesn't point this out, but without Superman ever having visited Earth, Luthor would have been able to pursue his crime career unhindered.

If Superman decides to save Krypton, then the people he knew and loved on Earth would die prematurely. The film should avoid the cliche of showing Krypton's "dark underbelly", revealing that the world doesn't "deserve" to be saved, therefore making Superman's decision easy. Krypton should be portrayed as a vibrant utopia, a truly wonderful advanced civilization that shines as a beacon of humanoid achievement in the universe. Somehow, Superman would have to make the difficult decision to let Krypton die and allow nature to run its course. But it would not be an easy decision for him.

------

THIS is the kind of film I would like to see! Practically every superhero film I can think of has been based on the formula: "Mr. A is good. Mr. Z is evil. Mr. A defeats Mr. Z." The possiblity exists for more subtle, complex, and interesting conflicts. I can think of a lot of thematic "meat" to hang onto the skeleton I've outlined above.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Here is an article on possible deleted scenes which may appear on the DVD:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=7717

 

[Robert Anthony]

That's almost exactly what I typed out about 5 or 6 pages ago, before they even wrote the article

He mentions the friends and family cut in that article--he needs to simply restore that cut and slap it on the DVD. I don't even want a separate deleted scenes section. Give me the friends and family cut that more than likely works a LOT BETTER than the actual movie itself does now, for the reasons I explained about 5 or 6 pages ago

 

[Chris Atkins]

Just posted a review.

While I loved the movie, there were problems with the plot of this particular film. Some of them have been mentioned, but the big one for me was when Superman lifted the big chunk of land (laced with kryptonite) after getting his butt kicked 15 minutes earlier because of the kryptonite (which was a great scene, by the way). In fact, the entire land plot was pretty weak (not the plot itself but its execution and its place in the story).

But, man, I really cared about the characters. These actors are so good that all you need to do is find a grade A plot structure for them to inhabit. Then watch the movie reach Batman Begin/Spider-Man levels of drama.

Also, I know some of you have complained ties to the 1978 film. I can understand them. But if Singer had ignored the earlier films, or retold the origin, then I (and many others) would be howling about that. So he was in a no win scenario in many ways. I think he navigated that pretty well with SR, and the franchise is in a good position moving forward.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Robert A,

I don't remember what I had for breakfast 5 or 6 days ago, much less what was posted 5 or 6 pages ago.

Perhaps Warner Bros could be persuaded to increase the disc count in the box set to 15 in order to accommodate this "Friends & Family Cut".

 

[Paul_Scott]

things is, I enjoyed the parts of the movie that weren't retread. I was up for it and willing to meet the movie halfway there to enjoy it- and I did to an extent, just like I enjoy the less presteigious RKO Tarzan entires.

the thing is, the Luthor scheme is entirely superfluous to this film- and here's why-

suppose that when Kal-el was examining the remains of Krypton, or when he was coming back- something else was attracted to the wake of his ship and returned with him (I heard someone suggest months ago that there was an idea for Braniac to do this, but I guess that was just fanboy fantasizing)- anyway, when Clark hits earth, so does this other entity that was pulled with him, but this one falls into the ocean...
I think you can see where this could go, and at some point you even hit the same beats that this film does (with a crystaline structure growing and threatening the seaboard, etc)

Luthor was entirely dispensible to this film, and what is sadder- Something fresh and original with the character, such as the storyline Rob suggest can never get made now because they have shot their wad with him here.
I definitely DO NOT want to see Luthor show up in the next film or even the film after that.

and Rob, something like what you suggest would have probably worked well as it obviates the need to actually make the boy a central part of the plot, while at the same time, his presence in the history of these events would have impact on Supermans ultimate choice.
just about a win/win for a follow-up considering the corner these characters are painted into now.
(just to clarify- I'm saying if parts of this film hadn't been such a slavish retread, much of what is here could have been saved and just retrofitted for a different antagonist/threat, which would have saved Luthor so that he could be used in a future sequel, and with luck, in a fresher way as Rob suggested.)

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I saw it this afternoon, I think this was Superman for the Medically Sedated.

It was just kinda Lifeless, that's the best way to Describe it. It's like all the Exuberance of the Previous Man of Steel movies was sucked away. And it's not because they camped it up. I think you can be serious about the subject mater and not be Glum. Ebert's was right on with that appraisal. The Kid, well I think the Kid was just a mistake. Nothing was really Done with it. I mean Clark/Supes does'nt really even mention it druing the Course of the movie. Maybe it Clark went back to Martha and Had a talk about it maybe it would've had more of an Impact with me.

None of the Actors were bad they script just kinda laid there. Routh was fine as Supes, OK as Kent, but I still wish they were'nt bringing in Chris Reeves Clark Kent and let Routh Interpret his own. Bale made his own Bruce Wayne and Routh should've been allowed to make his own Clark Kent. Bosworth would'nt have been my first choice for lane and making her have Kidder's Penchent for Misspelling only served to make me miss Kidder. Kevin Spacey was fine as Luthor offering a balance between Hackman's Portrayal, and Rosenbaum's on Smallville, he's just not given much to do, and if they were going to make him Similar to Hackman, why have him devolve to a psychopath Later when he mercisllessly Shanks Supes ? Why not let him tke the performance and build his own character, I can't see Hackman's Luthor Kicking the crap out of Superman. Actually as a Pomeranian owner I felt more empathy in this movie for the poor pup that was forced to eat his brother.

Luthor's Plan was put to rest with pretty much a whimper, and we still had to endure another 20 minutes of Movie where not much happened.

I don't know I'd leave the pathos to Batman and Let Supes have a little Fun. I'm not saying it has to be campy, as those are probalby the worst parts of the original film, just let Superman be a little more upbeat. Heck He's Superman, I know he moons over lois but c'mon.

One other bit of confusion at the End of Superman II< Clark does some sort of Deux ex machina Mind control that wiper Lois's Memory, I always felt it a cop out, I wonder if Singer thought so too as This Lois does'nt seem to ever have been affected by it.

**

 

[John Doran]

while i respect the vision involved in describing a story like yours, i'm still unclear as to how it can offer any more narrative satisfaction than the story we actually got: unless you're proposing some kind of iconoclastic revision to the superman storyline, there's only one possible outcome to your plot - superman chooses to stay on earth and let krypton die...what else would he do?

the hard moral questions are answered here, on earth, in the midst of human lives. which is exactly the kind of life kal-el wants. there are an infinite number of shades of ethical gray between "mr. A is good" and"mr. Z is evil" to make for interesting storytelling without the need to resort to the paradoxical and unfamiliar oddities of time-travel...

so i think, anyway.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I was thinking the same thing during the movie. I noticed they mentioned Supes being in Gotham, I would love a tip of the cap to Bats with them somehow noting it was a short stay.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

The General movie going public does'nt know who Jon Peters is nor would it keep them away, the movie will rise or fail on it's own merits. Batman also started slow, people went saw it was a good story and they told their friends and relatives who eventually checked it out. The Superman franchise was quite croaked by the time IV limped out. It would take a huge word of positive mouth to get people out and the opposite is happening and it's not because of Peters, it's because of the film.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Did you leave before the end?