PacMan2006

I've been meaning to ask this for a while. It's just an honest question.

I've never really been a big Superman guy and was born in the early 80's so I didn't grow up with the original films like some here. But I thought the movie was enjoyable.

But I get the impression that many didn't like it, and I was just curious as to why? I thought it was visually stunning, and having rented the first two films (which I liked, as well), the director of this "remake" seemed to really respect the original films and attempted to bridge them in a way that appeared tastefully executed.

Was it Routh? Spacey? The script? The fact that--spoiler...







...Superman has a kid?

The hype was huge, and it seemed that people were really looking forward to it. But I get the impression that no one is dying for a sequel, and even after 30+ years, a new Superman movie at the box office didn't do as well as many probably hoped.

So what's the deal?

JPRaup

I didn't like Spacey at all and it all came off way too cartoony. 2 hrs and 34 minutes as well?!? no thanks. If they cut a bunch of stuff out it would have been much better. Just a very average film.

PacMan2006

Well, I'm a Batman fan in regards to comic book films, and TDK was 2 and a half hours, as well.

McHawkson

Because it's SOOOOO boring. It put me sleep half way.

JPRaup

Yeah, but TDK had no filler, at all. None. Superman Returns was quite the opposite.

Mabuse

Perhaps culturally we are more in a "Batman" mood as a country. I think the Box Office proves it.

Goat3001

I loved it. As far as Superhero movies go I'd rank it after Dark Knight, Batman Begins and Spidey 2. Sure, it had its flaws but I thought it was a great re-launch for the franchise. I can't wait for a sequal. I know its in development hell right now but I hope it happens.

Then again, I know I'm in the minority when I say I liked it.

RichC2

I enjoyed it the first time I saw it, though I always thought Superman flying looked kind of goofy.

It is too long for its own good, though. And yet the plot with Luther is rushed.

Goat3001

I'm going to go a little off topic right now:

Funny you should say that. I was having a conversation with my boss about how the country reacts to the economy. If the economy is doing well and jobs are good people tend to move towards comedies and lighter movies. If the economy is in a down time we tend to go for the darker movies. Right now the economy is in a rut and we're flocking to see The Dark Knight. My boss says that he read that the best and most profitable horror movies were released when we were in a recession. I have yet to do my own research on it but I did think its quite interesting.

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Randy Miller III

I loved it. Sure, it could've been trimmed in a few spots, but it was still a worthy attempt to resurrect a fading franchise.

Daytripper

I loved it too. Thought it was just perfect. Make way for all the haters. "Kill the kid!", "Singer ruined it", "Superman was a stalker", "Bosworth was miscast".....

Charlie Goose

For me, it was totally ruined by Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She was miscast, and she was terrible to boot. I wasn't much more impressed with Spacey as Luthor.

Routh was a suitable Superman, and I didn't mind the kid angle.

islandclaws

Superkid.

Spacey's phoned-in Luthor.

Supes lifts a HUGE slab of Kryptonite and hurls it into space right after he almost drowned from being stabbed with a little sliver of it? Psshhh...

Super-stalker? He's like a rapist in waiting watching Lois and her family at home.

It's boring. Aside from a couple cool action scenes it's mostly talk, talk, talk. Hell, even the lame bank robbery scene was added after filming wrapped just to give the film some kind of boost.

Routh, while good, could have been replaced with a cardboard cutout and it might have taken me a while to notice.

Hokeyboy

There's so much to equally love and be disappointed by in that movie... and I say that as a HUGE Superman fan.

I liked Routh in the role (although he still looked a bit young), but the script didn't trust the character enough to give him any meaningful dialogue as Superman (most of the time when he was in costome, he BARELY spoke). Bryan Singer and the writers spent ENTIRELY too much time revering the first movie that they didn't give their own film enough time to find a voice of its own; hence it feels very much so like a retread (up to and INCLUDING Lex Luthor having pretty much the exact same master plan as before). Parker Posey was awful.

I actually *DID* like the inclusion of Superman having a son, as it gave the film something unique that lent a new spin to the Superman legend, but the filmmakers have opened a can of worms which will SEVERELY hamper the Superman - Lois - Clark dynamic in the future.

And yeah, there were some serious pacing issues going on here. The film felt sluggish throughout its running time. It was too mopey, too cheerless, too dark (both in tone and in appearance), and, at times, too creepy.

On the other hand, the plane rescue sequence is THE hands-on best "pure superhero" sequence ever filmed. Better than anything in Batman Begins, TDK, Iron Man, any Spider-Man or X-Men movie, etc. Tell me you didn't want to stand up and cheer when he landed that plane in the baseball stadium (shamelessly pulling at the Americana strings there, but masterfully done) and I'll say you have no heart.

So yeah... mixed. The next film really needs to stand apart from SUPERMAN RETURNS as its own entity, with a new adversary or adversaries, a compelling storyline that balances character arcs with pulse-pounding action sequences, and a cheerful, uplifting story balanced with suspense and Earth-in-the-balance danger.

Also, more Peta Wilson.

taa455

The casting, the script, the pacing. It had a lot of problems. I still think it's enjoyable at times, but it just doesn't get over the "hump" to become the really great superhero movie it should have been.

I don't always agree with Ebert, but I do agree with his write-up on Superman Returns...

Link: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../60606009/1023

Daytripper

Absolutely! Agree 100%. That scene raises my pulse every time. And it still puts me on the edge of my seat. After seeing it 5 times.

Michael Corvin

I have to agree with the majority. While I enjoyed it, Kate Bosworth was horribly miscast. Supes flying a meteor sized piece of kryptonite while being incapacitated by a piece the size of a quarter? Come on, Kryptonite is a weakness, you can't have it both ways. Also as a Smallville fan, Kevin Spacey's Lex paled in comparison to Michael Rosenbaum's. Spacey was part phoning it in and part doing his best Hackman impression.

While Routh didn't give the most dynamic performance, I think he worked well enough. In fact, I'd say scrap everything but him for the sequel. Oh, and bring back the big 'S' on the costume.

Also agree with this completely. Very riveting scene.

Palaver

Personally, I enjoyed the film. It was the first time I ever really understood the appeal of the character and identified with him.

However, I can see a few aspects that people may not like about it. It starts with Superman being somewhat selfish by leaving earth where is much needed to go a pretty futile self discovery walkabout.

Add to that Luthor’s land grab plan which just seemed to be a re-tread of the his plan from the first movie. Something more fresh would have been nice.

Plus it is hard to figure out where it fits in the series. Supposedly after Superman II?!?! But III and IV are discarded?? (As they should be of course). But that just makes it more confusing. With such a long gap between movies, it just feels very disjointed. A total reboot of the series would have made more sense (ala Batman Begins.)

Some people hated the idea of the kid. Personally, it didn’t bother me and I thought it fit well with the overall theme of the movie: Superman’s isolation.

fumanstan

I thought it was extremely mediocre for all the reasons others have already mentioned. Didn't someone say in another thread that Superman doesn't throw a single punch? While the plane sequence was riveting, it's sad that the big action set pieces in the film make poor use of Superman's abilities. There's just very little to cheer for in the movie, and the use of Luthor AGAIN was stupid. The kid would probably be my biggest beef though.

As far as society today just being more in the mood for the darkness of Batman versus Superman, I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think the audience wanted to see a bright, colorful, larger then life Superman be heroic. Superman Returns just didn't deliver that.

kefrank

although i thought the overall movie was average, i will agree with this sentiment. that sequence was absolutely fantastic. unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just not that notable.

Double_Oh_7

Singer tried too hard to make a "Richard Donner" Superman movie. He should have have made his own.

Lastdaysofrain

- Miscasting, just about everyone in the movie was miscast.

- Avoiding the "reboot" and trying to tie it to the other films but with a completely different tone and feel

- The "super kid"

- Actors acting in different movies, you got hammy cartoonish performances and extremely mopey ones

- It's a mopey dreary, boring movie

- The Jesus stuff, playing up the jesus stuff to the point where every ten minutes you get slapped in the face with some ham fisted reference to it.

jeffkjoe

Brandon Routh was miscast.

He didn't "fit" as the Man of Steel as much as Reeve.

Arthur Dent

I remember walking out of the theater after seeing this movie and remarking to my friend that we pretty much sat through a bunch of "nothing" for 2.5 hrs. He agreed. It was terrible. And I like Superman.

Chad

Katie Holmes was to Batman Begins what Kate Bosworth was to Superman Returns ...terribly miscast.

Oh, and has anyone mentioned it was terribly BORING?