Superman Returns (2006) (1 Viewer)

[Ray Chuang]

This was followed up with an even better movie with Spider-Man 2 in summer 2004.

The first Superman movie was wonderful because it was such a big leap forward in special-effects technology with the multi-plane Zoptic camera system and a good story to boot. (Mind you, I think Superman 2 was a better film, though. ) I do worry that the mixed reaction to Superman Returns may blunt the box office impact of this movie, especially with the arrival of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest next week.

 

[Cory S.]

Ray,

This film will make similar numbers to Batman Begins. I can just feel it. Dead Man's Chest will be the movie of the summer in terms of box office.

But, like Begins, I think this film deserves 300 million domestically.

 

[TonyD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Anyone else think the 2 Corgi's fate will foreshadow the fate of Lex and Kitty?

they were pomeranians


i'd give movie 4 outta 5.

routh is great as kent but as supes he just doesnt have
the same, i dont know, charisma?

spacey was perfect.
his very loud "WRONG" was menacing but a few snickers both times i saw this today.

after putting down the plane and going inside supes sees louis and asks her,
"Are you ok?" looking right past everyone in the plane.
it was the best non action scene in the movie and one of the best in the series for me.

i guess the fortress is no longer needed as the crystals are likely gone.

the opening credit swoosh needed to be more dynamic in sound.

for the 3d imax.
the sequences that had lots of fast movement like the young supes running and jumping didnt look that great.
too blurred.
but the plane and the new krypton boat sequence was amazing.
truly puts you right into the film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Patrick, I haven't had a chance to see it twice, and don't know if I will see it again before Pirates opens. It's a busy summer. I will see it again because, like KK, this is a BIG SCREEN movie, meant to be seen in a theater.

I respect your support of the theme of heritage and longing (separate from the love for Lois). I just don't think 1 minute with Martha Kent in the beginning is enough to sustain that theme until the last two minutes of the film, where it's picked back up. A stronger emphasis in the beginning would have really made that work. Tying it into his relationship with Lois would have worked. Anyways, when I do rewatch, it'll be with an eye to that theme, but more material was needed if that is the thrust of the film.

Break...

The film needed more Clark. His relationship with Lois is the exact same at the end as it was before she went to the roof. I love the emphasis on Superman, but Clark ISN'T a disguise. Much of what makes Superman is part of Clark as well. The first two films worked that relationship. And I really liked Routh as Clark.

Pirates will challenge Spidey for opening 3 days. It's going to open big, and run. I do think Supes will have good legs. Not BB legs, but good legs. There is something there for almost everyone.

Lastly, one nice bookend might have been Clark telling his mother about her grandson. Or Clark listening to Richard read Jason a story before walking in (as Clark understands parenting is love, not blood). I hate to speculate on scenes, but those would have had strong resonance for me. The themes of family vs. (and WITH) heritage could be very powerful, but the film only brushed them for me. Too much Lois, not enough Clark

 

[Cory S.]

Chuck,

Having read the novel, the only thing this film really needed was the Smallville scenes (well some of them) put back in that emphasize your point you're making because they're there in spades.

The return to Krypton sequence isn't needed at all.

Both Chuck and Patrick are right in their assessement of this film.

 

[Cory S.]

Another aspect of the film that I like but some may think I'm stretching a bit is the fact that Luthor changed his plan once he saw that Superman returned.

Essentially, it is another land scheme in the beginning. But once Supes returns, he laces the future landmass with Kryptonite. Why?

I personally think it was all a setup to exact revenge on Superman after he reads the news.

 

[Bryan Beckman]

You know, the film just worked for me. I've read through virtually every comment on the review thread and this one, along with about a dozen or so pre-release reviews, which have exposed me to a fairly large number of the film's strengths and weaknesses. It's not a perfect film. But nearly a day after watching it, the things that resonate with me aren't its flaws, but its sights and sounds, together with the emotions they evoked.

The visuals were truly spectacular. The Lois/Superman flight was perfectly realized, with two former lovers in a mid-air ballet so physically close, but never more emotionally separated. And this line to Lois:


I'll respond to that. My wife and I drove up to the IMAX 3D theater about 45 minutes north of our house to catch a mid-afternoon screening. Right about the point where the train set was rumbling and the floor began to split under Lex's feet . . .

ZAP. Picture dead. House lights up.

A woman walks into the theater holding a walkie-talkie and explaining that the power went out, and it would be back again shortly. There were boos and grumbling from the audience. I took the opportunity to take a much-needed bathroom break. Ten to fifteen minutes later, the movie was back on, and in roughly the same spot as it was when it went off.

By the way, I found the 3D scenes a bit hit-and-miss. Like others have said, things got rather chaotic when there was a lot of activity on screen or the camera was shaking (I'm thinking of the space shuttle rescue sequence in particular), and in the first and last 3D sequences Routh looked utterly unreal, like he'd been teleported directly from "Polar Express"-land. I had no problems with The Polar Express' visual style, but it was jarring to see such a smooth and fakey-looking face/body in a live-action film. But the non-organic elements (i.e., the shuttle, the yacht) of the 3D sequences looked absolutely amazing. The yacht rescue sequence was my favorite, especially in the way so many complicated elements (the water, the yacht splitting apart, and the rising crystalline formations) were handled almost seamlessly. The final fly-by scene was quite brief and felt somewhat gratuitous, especially with the "Polar Express" Superman I alluded to earlier.

Back to the movie. Lex's goons are giving Superman the beat-down of his life when . . .

ZAP. Screen goes dark. Lights up.

The audience goes ballistic. One guy right in front of me kept crying out, "The climax! That was the climax! And now it's ruined! Now all that tension which was built up is just GONE!" People were crying out for free tickets - some for several free tickets. Another manager shows up, saying that it's a problem with the local power company. I guess that's the risk you run when you have a 17-plex with multiple food courts, a three-story restaurant with waterfalls and cliff divers, and an IMAX theater all in the same complex in the middle of a 98-degree summer day. But it still didn't make people happy.

Five minutes later, and the show's back on. But now I'm just hoping we can make it to the end of the film before another brownout occurs. So Lex and Kitty are stranded on their little island, and Lex makes a comment about trading hundreds of thousands of coconuts for . . .

ZAP. Repeat above.

Well, to make a long story short, we did make it to the end of the film. But whatever enthusiasm the audience may have had at the beginning was just gone at the end. A few people stayed through the credits, but most filed out rather quickly. Quite a few were genuinely furious. I took a cue from my wife and just laughed about it. I tried to liken the experience to pausing the DVD several times at home to deal with various interruptions.

As we walked past the guest services desk, I noticed a large crowd of people gathering to complain about all the outages. When management decided to issue free passes to everyone who wanted them, I got in line. We might use them to catch a digital screening of Pirates 2 in a few weeks. There's no other IMAX film that interests me until Harry Potter 5 hits next year, so I'm not too concerned with quality control issues at that particular theater. My wife and I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire at that particular IMAX screen last fall and experienced no problems whatsoever.

But three outages in one sitting - you'd think they'd invest a few bucks in a decent UPS or something.

 

[Cory S.]

"What an awesome realization, for a mortal to realize but for a moment the heavy burden of a god. I believe that the flights in Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns were crucial events that significantly altered the relationship between Lois and Superman. In the first, Lois went up with a mingled sense of fear and curiosity and came down filled with longing and trust (which in Hollywood-land means love). In the second, Lois went up a jilted lover and came down with a newfound awe for a being she had known so incompletely before. Her added understanding changes their relationship, which in turn motivates her attitude and actions toward him for the remainder of the film.

Superman does suffer loss and heartache, but he buries his feelings by losing himself in his work. He tries to re-connect with his original purpose for being on earth, which I believe is part of the motivation for the frequent Jor-El voiceovers. Superman may believe he has turned his back on his father by relinquishing his powers for Lois' love (the restored Brando footage in the Superman II "Donner cut" may add greater thematic justification for this), and after her chilly reception to his return, he could be trying to repent for his waywardness by walking more strictly in the path Jor-El set out for him.

Yet the movie makes it clear that there is no way back. At the end of the film, the crystals are scattered and gone. Superman can never return to his Fortress of Solitude for peace and communion with his father. He can only retreat to the lonely confines of space, but even there his meditation is broken by the constant cries for help from the earth's surface. And now he is father to a son whom he must allow to be raised by another.

As mentioned before, this film is a bridge between the Donner films and the Singer films. It contained enough nods to Superman I/II to establish it as a thematic follow-up to those movies, while at the same time closing off some story threads and opening up some new ones. I'm excited to see what Singer et al. come up with next."

Excellent, excellent points, Bryan.

 

[Quentin]

I'll second the opinion that this is a great point.

Before I post about what I thought was wrong with the film (and, I give it an overall A-), I want to ruminate on the points about theme (the strongest part of the film):

There are 2 themes to this film. One is from the quote above - Superman is a God among men with a heavy burden of responsibility given to him by his father and by the mere fact that Earth has 'adopted' him. This theme is strengthened by something Michael mentions in an above thread - by scenes of people looking up, by all the TV coverage, by the hoopla and awe, and by the hospital vigil. All visual support. This theme is also strengthened by all the shots of Superman supporting things. I love the Atlas shot of him holding the Daily Planet on his shoulders. But, there is a lot of this throughout the film. Lastly, the theme is supported by Superman's lonely meditations in space. He tells Lois he "hear(s) everything", and this is a great moment.

The other theme is about adoption, and how being adopted can make one feel like an outsider. Singer seems to like his 'outsider' themes, and this one is incredibly well done. He goes to find the remains of Krypton as an adopted child might search out his birth parents. I haven't read the novelization, but I agree that more scenes of him in Smallville with Martha would have helped support what he has come back to and why. When he comes back to Metropolis, he finds himself on the outside looking in because Lois has started her own family. I firmly believe after he leaves Martha that he wants to reconnect with Lois to start a family. It is the logical resolution to his failed quest to find any remains of Krypton. He tries to bury himself in his 'work' as the adopted son of Earth, and Earth seems to accept him back lovingly. But, he wants Lois to accept him back. He wants her to disavow her article and tell him they DO need him. He wants her to need him. Pesky Richard gets in the way of this because he fulfills her needs well and he is a good man.

Superman is really alone when he finds the crystals gone. It's a great visual metaphor. I also love the use of Brando's voice over throughout the film. They tie the adoption and Godly burden themes together well. But, the best visual metaphors in the film come in the end - the first is straight out of the pages of "The Dark Knight Returns" when a wounded Superman flies out of the clouds to be regenerated by the sun. It is a powerful moment that shows his Godliness as well as illustrating how he needs the Earth/Sun and it is Superman (not Clark or Kal El) who is the adopted son of Earth. The other is when he uses every last bit of strength he has to hurl the last vestiges of Krypton away from his new home. He has finally let it go and embraced Earth as his mother.

Of course, his repetition of his father's words to his sleeping son is also a great moment. But, I think those final scenes could have been even more powerful. Dougherty and Harris are not great at writing emotional, intimate moments. They set them up well, but deliver poorly. Luckily, the echo of Brando works well enough.

The greatest power of this film is the use of theme to develop an iconic and heroic character. Even better than the Spider-Man "with great power..." theme. I loved this about this movie.

 

[Quentin]

I said I'd post separately about my problems with the film. I have 2 nitpicks and a major issue.

First nitpick...can we please have a scene that at least attempts to explain how no one notices Clark has been gone the same amount of time Supes is gone? It's just too dang obvious a connection.

Second nitpick...how come Lois still doesn't know Clark is Superman but she apparently DOES remember sleeping with him? Selective memory wipe? What is going on here?

Major issue...Luthor. I'm sorry because I thought Spacey was fun. But, Luthor is horribly written and stands out as the absolute worst part of this film. When I buy the DVD I will FF thru every Luthor part except when he kicks Superman's ass.

His plan is the worst villain plan since the Green Gobby in Spider-Man (no plan). It is absolutely unoriginal - it is the same damn plan he had in Superman: The Movie! Only, it's worse. I S:TM, he wanted to destroy part of California to create new beach front property. Ok...good plan. But, here he is going to destroy the whole United States???!!! Not only is it a cheap copy, but it can't work! You are going to destroy the world economy! That won't make you rich, it will pull the world into an abyss. Add on top of that the fact that no one wants to live in desolate crystal land. Lame ass.

And, unfortunately, that is all Luthor brings to the table. He is a plot element. His plan is him and vice versa. His plan is lame, so he is lame. He doesn't work into the themes of adoption or Superman's burden at all. He has ONE speech about Promethius and how God's are petty beings who don't share with the Earth that looks like he will fit into the theme. But that is quickly dropped.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I read on another forum that these questions are answered by the Lois Lane "Prequel" comic that came out on Wednesday.

 

[Cory S.]

Great post, Quentin.

As for Lois, when Jason does his big moment, I firmly believe that she didn't have any idea that Jason was Superman's son. I think she truly felt it was Richard.

Remember, when Jason did his act, she was horrified by it. I mean, she didn't know what to think. When they are locked in the pantry and she's pounding on the door, she pauses and slowly turns to Jason, as to wonder if she actually saw what she saw back in the grande room and wondering if he could do it again.

So, I think the sequel will deal with Lois finding out how this happened. Again, I might be totally off base but I just feel that she actually thought that Richard was the father.

As for Luthor's plan, Quentin, I personally think he changes it. As it starts out, it's plain stupid. But once he sees that Superman has returned, he decides to laces his landmass creation with Kryptonite. I don't think that was part of the plan considering he already had enough Kryptonian crystals to form his new "beachfront property." It becomes a revenge story once he sees that Superman has returned.

That's my take on it.

 

[JonZ]

Im hoping to get there this afternoon.

They cut the Krypton and Smallville scenes?!?!?!?

Also did anyone answer if theres a scene after the end credits?

 

[ChrisMatson]

No scene after the credits.

 

[Cory S.]

JonZ,

They cut some of the Smallville scenes. In all honesty, it needed maybe one or two more Smallville scenes(not more flashbacks, just present day scenes with Martha). That's it.

The return to Krypton sequence isn't needed. You get why he left.

 

[todd s]

I posted this in the review area. But, its better served here. While I enjoyed the film and the cast. I just can't get past the whole kid storyline. And its not entirely because it screws too much with comic canon....although, that is the big reason. Its that every sequel now will have to deal not only with the Lois-Supes-Richard triangle...But, Supes kid who may have all or some of his powers. Maybe, I am tired of movies having to have little kids in the story.....Naahhh...its mainly cause it messes comic canon.

I also agree that Lex's plans had lots of holes.

On some positive notes. All the actors/actresses were very good. And to see the awe in the faces of people even when they just see Superman fly by. Also, its nice to see physics come into play when Supes is trying to stop the plane.

Finally, after the vicious beat-down Supes took by Lex's thugs. I really was hoping ala Superman 2 (The diner patron) that he would come back and put the smack down on them...But, that was dashed by them getting smushed by a giant crystal.

 

[MichaelD]

On the way back form lunch was listening to Jim Rome and he was interviewing Bryan Singer (they have the same attorney). Above, Chuck said that Superman is Clark, that is not a disguise, it's part of who he is. On Rome's show, Singer had an entirely different take. He said that Clark is just the disguise. And that fits into how Clark was portrayed in the film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Bryan,
You make some great points, and I think Singer ALMOST gets Superman, but after hearing his Rome quote, these movies may never be for me.

Clark is the boy raised by Martha and John.

Kal-El is the last son of Krypton, and bearer of a great heritage (not really a burden...it's never played that way before).

Superman is the FUSION of the two. Amusing that Singer is adopted, but thematically places so little value on Clark Kent, the "adopted" son of Martha and Jonathan. That's why the family and heritage themes were needed...for balance.

Superman protects the earth, not because of Jor-El alone, but because of his parents. Here is this word again...balance. Donner had that balance.

If Singer really does believe that about Clark, it certainly informs a lot of the scenes I dislike. Lois' poor treatment of him, his lack of screentime, the lack of his mother and motivation. Unfortunately, it is quite contrary to how I view Clark and Superman.

From the review thread:
"We all need to get over ourselves." Not to pick on Brett, but many of us HAD PROBLEMS with the film, and are discussing them. I don't give Star Wars a pass, I don't give LOTR a pass, I don't give Fincher a pass, I don't give animated films a pass, and I'm not going to give this film a pass. If you don't want me to discuss the faults then quit saying the film was perfect, because it just reminds me of the times it didn't work. This is a discussion thread. If anyone thinks I am thread farting, please let me know. In the King Kong thread, where my reaction was one of awe (similar to some in here), I welcomed the dissenting opinions (and there were a LOT of them). It allowed me to crystallize and support my own feelings, and I ended up appreciating the film more. Try and do the same if you disagree with me. Try and convince me. Only a few of my friends have done that. Plenty of comments about being jaded or getting over myself though.

 

[Bryan Beckman]

I really enjoyed Quentin's post about the two themes of the movie.

I also agree with Chuck (and others) that Clark is not a well-developed character in this film. He seems to exist only in the Daily Planet newsroom. He has a cute moment with Jason and a funny take with a bit of burrito hanging out of his mouth, but he doesn't really have anything else to do. He's assigned to cover the blackout, and we see him at the office all night supposedly working on the story, but we never see the culmination of his efforts (what was the relationship between the rapid crystalline growth and the EMP phenomena, anyway?).

Even back in Smallville, we're not looking at Clark Kent - we're watching Superman in civilian clothes. His flashback is all about discovering his powers. His conversation with Martha is all about his journey to Krypton. Even playing fetch with the family dog, the man can't help but throw a ball over a mile away.

If Singer is making a conscious decision to downplay (or outright eliminate) the Clark character, I'm curious to see if he can make it work. My gut tells me that it won't, because so much of the dramatic tension of being a superhero comes from the struggle to resolve the conflicting desires of a single person with dual identities. A major aspect of what makes Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins really work for me is that Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne are given just as much (if not more) screen time than their heroic alter egos. It makes their characters more accessible to the audience, and provides the setup for some great dramatic conflict.

If Superman is a god, how do you make him accessible to movie audiences? Do you shift the dramatic burden to other characters? Superman is a catalyst for change in other people (note Lois' decision to sacrifice her life to save Superman from drowning, as well as her choice to extinguish her own cigarette lighter at the end), but you can't make him completely impervious to change, or he becomes stale. That's Screenwriting 101.

As for the Jason subplot, I became very nervous about it after seeing my first glimpse of the kid in the trailer a while back. I prayed it wouldn't turn into a farce like The Legend of Zorro, and you know, it played out well. He had a couple of choice lines in good scenes that were neither tacky nor patronizing. I don't agree with Ebert that his character would be better served as a hip, smart-alecky "Spy Kids" clone - that part was already played by Chris O'Donnell in another superhero franchise, and we all know how well that turned out. I'm curious to see what the filmmakers do with Jason in future installments.

In my opinion, the trickiest part of introducing Jason has nothing to do with how he's portrayed on screen. It's about what parents will have to explain to their little kids when they ask how Superman could be that little boy's daddy.

 

[Quentin]

I now see your problem Chuck. It's old school Superman/Clark vs. new school. The new school (and, obviously Singer's school from his quote) is a la KILL BILL - Clark is a disguise. An symbol of Superman trying to put on foibles to fit in. But, he is not really Superman.

I don't have a problem with this interpretation. In fact, I prefer it. It's much more DKR and KINGDOM COME Superman - and, I like those interpretations.

But, if you don't, you may not like where Singer goes.

But, even considering this interpretation, I think the film could have used some more Clark. Just to show us Superman trying to fit in. Showing him trying to relate to Lois as a man.


Oh, he's far from impervious to change. He is a father - and that carries a lot of issues. And, he has emotions - so, even though he is a God you can look at how his 'job' as a God is burdensome and difficult. I'd like to see an Earth that doesn't appreciate him or takes him for granted and see how he deals with that. They touch on it here with Lois' article (Why the World Doesn't Need Superman); but, I'd like to see a lot more next time. He has plenty of room to change and grow as a HUMAN BEING. The Godly powers make his growth and position unique, but not impervious to change.

The problem I do foresee is how to deal with the kid. He has superpowers. So, do we deal with that in the sequel? Or, does he repress them or have problems tapping into them? I don't want a super-sidekick movie and I don't want a Superboy movie. So, I hope they figure out what to do.