whats so great about them? the fact that superman spins the world back in time? after the earthquake superman goes into the fault and picks it up and puts it back in place? I just watched the first two a couple weeks ago and they arent horrible but they dont stand up as well

Yes.

I've been doing that for years.

Once we found out the Superman was the kid's father, I began to dislike Lois a lot. From the timeline, as soon as she found out she was knocked up, she began looking for a patsy and found her bosses nephew (coincidence?). And then she let him believe the kid was his.

When Superman came back, she never told him he was a dad. It wasn't until he was in a coma that she 'told him'. And as far as we know, she still hasnt told Cyclops, who she's been stringing along for the past few years. She can have his kid, live in the big house, fly around in the seaplane, but god forbid she rush into a commitment after 5 years.

When she finds out that Superman is going to the kryptonite island, she has to go back immediatly without thinking about dropping off her kid, who as far as she knows, could be just as sensitive to kryptonite as Kal-El.

Plus, isnt she kinda young? Was she 21 in Superman 2?

Other than that, I like the movie.
D

Got back from an IMAX 3D showing and loved it! :up:

Not as good as Superman, but on par with II, IMO. Was very happy with Routh's performance -- especially that of Kent. Bosworth was so-so and Spacey was impressive as well.

Few points:
Loved seeing the photo of Pa Kent (Glenn Ford) on the mantle.
Good to see Peta Wilson.
Don't recall seeing James Karen (as Ben Hubbard) in the film, anyone?
Loved the opening/closing sequences in homage to the original.

***1/2 out of ****

So I guess Brodie was wrong... Lois handled the load. They obviously didn't use the kryptonite condom.

I agree with some of your statements, but this one is a little off, I think, since Lex already exposed the kid to Kryptonite back on the ship and he didn't fall ill. I'm guessing the hybridization removed this weakness, so he'll eventually grow up to be stronger than his father. Then, in Superman VI or so, we'll get a showdown between the two of them, since the kid will be in his rebellious stage. Plus, Superman is a dick.

See, we don't know that. For all I know, Richard could just be an upstanding guy who really did like Lois regardless if she was pregnant, or heck, had a baby already when they met.

I think the black pimp who speaks jive might offend some viewers today as well.

Oh, come on, the pimp is great. "Hey man, nice threads. Wooh!" "Excuse me." "WOOH!"

Also, I wish Routh had smiled at the camera at the end of this film. I know they didn't want to do an exact copy of the end of Superman 1, but it would have been a nice way of saying, "I know this film had some heavy shit, but I'm back. Ain't that somethin'?"

I saw the highly anticipated "Superman Returns" today. I think I set myself up for a disappointment as my expectations were high.

I love the first "Superman" movie and even as I got older, the wonders presented in that film never eroded, became cheesy, etc. It was classic storytelling of one of America's most enduring characters, an icon, a myth. Christopher Reeve brought Superman to life more than any other before him (and after him I believe.) Like any film, it has it's faults but it has endured because it's strength lied in our belief that, in a generic sense, a man could fly but it was more than that really. It was our desire, our need to see someone so true, so virtuous, so heroic be there for us when we needed him. When man, woman or child looked at Reeve, with his charming smile, sparkle in his eye, he fit that mold perfectly. Think of it the same way most humans consider aliens and UFOs look, it's an almost uniform presentation in our collective mind's eye. So it is with our universal ideal of a superhero, it is Superman and Reeve was that image we'd describe to a sketch artist. It's damn hard to follow that and I think Brandon Routh will find that out.

Now, you're probably thinking I hated "Superman Returns" by now. Well, I don't. It's a good film. The special effects are top notch, the direction is even handed and most of all, it's incredibly respectful of the original films. The opening credits mirror those of the original right down to the "whoosh" sound effects when the names fly across the screen. Lines of dialogue from the original are re-used. Hell even Marlon Brando is back from the dead (though not as spectacularly as I had hoped. You barely see him, or more accurately, his head.) The movie is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeve.

"Superman Returns" is essentially a kinda-sorta sequel to the first two films and therein lies the problem. Bryan Singer handcuffed himself. He's tied this film so closely to those films that he limited himself to what he could do. It's one thing to pay tribute to your favorites, it's another to try and fill it's shoes. Singer should have done what Christopher Nolan did with "Batman," start from scratch. Nolan stayed close to what made the character so great, Singer tried following the same formula of the "Superman" film franchise.

It seemed that every other actor in "Superman Returns" got to play their character their own way but Brandon Routh played Superman/Clark Kent just as Reeve would have done. That was a mistake. Sure, Routh did a great imitation but I don't want to see a Reeve impersonation. I wanted Superman from a fresh perspective. You cannot top Reeve, you cannot replace him and mimicking his performance will only remind those that he is no longer with us. Routh seems like he has decent acting chops and I wish we could have seen his own unique take on the character.

A lot was said of this "new" Lex Luthor, played by Kevin Spacey and how much "darker" his take on the role is as opposed to Gene Hackman's in the original films. Frankly, I was hard pressed to take note of any major changes. Many of Luthor's scenes were humerous, his lackeys were walking jokes (though I concede Parker Posey was somewhat entertaining.) I never got the sense that Luthor was this true villain. Even when he was talking about billions of lives being lost, I felt nothing from him. Was Spacey *as* comical as Hackman? No, he wasn't but since most of his material seemed to be on the joking side of things, that's not such a good thing.

They keep using Luthor as this rich guy who wants as much real estate as he can get. Whether it was using a nuclear weapon to knock California off the continent or using the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude to create an entirely new landmass, he just wants some property. This is the best they can come up with for him? A land grab? Who is he? Boss Hogg?

I can say I was happy they used the original Superman theme written by John Williams as well as other bits from the original score incorporated with John Ottman's new material. It flowed together quite well and let's face it, not using the theme music is like "Star Wars" or "Jaws" without theirs. It's far too closely associated with the material now to ever be separated.

As I said previously, the special effects were excellent. All the shots of Superman rescuing the regular folk of Metropolis were handled expertly and all of Supes' greatest hits were included (x-ray vision, super cold breath, and so on.) What was missing? Something "Superman II" had in spades, a true, knock down drag out supervillain fight. Yes it's cool seeing Superman do these "super" things and show just how POWERFUL he really is but what we really want to see is the big, blue boy scout thrown down with someone who is on his level of powers. Perhaps the next installment will give us that? I have no doubt "Superman Returns" will be one of the biggest hits of the year and a sequel is a given so my hopes are that maybe we'll see a supervillain introduced on the next go-round. Lex Luthor is great but he has been overused (four films by my count.) Imagine Batman having to face the Joker again and again.

Another problem we face with Superman is, can we ever realistically fear that he will lose or even die? As Superman was stabbed with a shard of kryptonite by Luthor in "Returns," we all knew he'd be ok. The comic book counterpart at least had an opponent like Doomsday who did kill him (at least for a little while, these ARE comic books afterall.) In films like "X-Men," you actually could think that any of them could be killed off at any time. All I'm saying is, put him in greater peril than simply giving him a kryptonite necklace. Geez, even in the shitty "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," Superman got messed up by Nuclear Man (you saw him withering away, losing his hair, becoming fragile....dying.)

"Superman Returns" had a running time of about two and a half hours and boy did it feel like it at times. There were some major lagging moments which should have been tightened up in the editing room.

I can't say the film held any surprises for me. Lois Lane's child was so obviously Superman's son that the big "reveal" scene of the kid throwing a piano at one of Luthor's thugs came as a "What took them so long?" moment for me.

Yes, "Superman Returns" was a dissappointment for me for all the reasons I stated above. Keep in mind that NONE of it makes it a bad film, it makes it a well crafted tribute and if that's what you're looking for then you should love it.

I was originally hyped about "Superman Returns" kinda sorta following in the footsteps of the first two films and now I just think it was a mistake. You just can't pick up where Reeve and director Richard Donner left off. Singer and company should have started the franchise over.

I will have to enjoy "Superman Returns" for the film it is, not what it could have been. That's not too bad I suppose. I'm sure Christopher Reeve is smiling somewhere tonight. I'm also sure that there are those who will leave the theater with warm hearts seeing such an affectionate tribute to a childhood memory they hold dear. I can see it from their point of view and I can't fault them for that.

Finally, with this first film out of the way, I hope that when Singer, Routh and the gang return to the franchise, they will attempt to explore new ground and take the character to places we haven't been to before.

My rating (out of *****): ***

Same here. I liked the shot, but expected to see more than a grin. A full-out smile with teeth showing would have made it better. Yes, it would have copied the Reeve shot, but no one complains that every Bond film opens with a gun barrel sequence. If every Superman film ends with him smiling as he floats up out of frame, fine with me...

Overall, the film is good but not great. Pacing is problematic. The plot just isn't sufficient to justify its running time. Also, these films are only as good as the villian. I like Luthor and I enjoyed Spacey's take on it mostly. I wish his scheme was more fully-realizied and had been treated as the "A" story. Done right, the audience would be curious about the villian's progress towards his goal, even during the scenes without the villian. The sense of dread should loom over the "B" and "C" storyline scenes, and make us want to know "oh, no. what's he up to now?" As edited, Luthor is missing from large chunks of the film.

Luthor had 5 years in prison to dwell on and hatch a new plan. I expected better. Spoiler--> Creating an island as a base of operations that would literally kill Superman if he set foot on is brilliant; is a evolution of Luthor's first trick of the Kryptonie chain in the lead box from Superman 1. Putting the people he cares about (Lois & Co.) on this island in some form of mortal jeporady (mutated sea bass...hee hee) and using their plight as a diversion for a larger criminal plot would be better. And it would still accomplish the plot point choice as presented not only in this film, but previous ones, too: he has to choose between saving the population at large vs. the small group he cares deeply for.

Instead, we're given-- Step 1: Spoiler--> creating an island that looks like a large limp of charcoal and thinking that people will want to settle on it once the coastal areas of the world are flooded.... Step 3: make lots of money. I think underwear gnomes could come up with a more realized plan than Luthor did.

Finally, Bosworth is completely too un-worldly to be the prize-winning journalist that Lois Lane is supposed to be in this installment. I don't think Bosworth is untalented, but she is not right for this role. Just think of the contrast between Kidder's Lois Lane and Reeve's Superman. Her wrinkles and husky voice--someone who had lived a life, a history of chasing stories and smoking cigerattes. Kidder had that "used universe" lived-in look that the first Star Wars movie captured so well. Contrasted with Reeve's youthful, healthy, freshly-scrubed, all-American look, and their physical/visual dynamic was interesting. In SR, Bosworth as LL just doesn't convince me that she's this A-list newspaper writer with a 5 year old kid on her hip. Who to cast? I'm not sure Rachel McA would do it (though I think she's very easy on the eyes), but someone who is pretty but not likely to be in a Nutragena (poorly spelled, I know) commercial. Someone like Maggie Gyllenhaal. Something in the eyes that hints that she's seen a few things and been around the block. Bosworth doesn't convey that at all for me.

No issues with the rest of the cast. As for SPFX--great, except for a couple of the close-up, all-CG Superman shots weren't as well-rendered as I'd like. The human face is tough to get right.

Worth seeing, and I will get the disc at the end of the year. But no repeat theater viewings for me...

Anyone else reminded of austin powers 3 when spacey says "BILLIONS"

Hmm, I just told my brother today about how Margot Kidder's Lois Lane absolutely ruined the character of Lois Lane. I hate MK's LL. Now she's the iconic LL for many people, whereas I'd take KB's LL any day of the week. Heck, I'd take anybody's take of LL over MK's.

Saw it again today. Great movie. Great. Loved every moment. Loved the scene where Superman . Great moment for Superman to really return - everyone in the audience cheering and screaming.

Damn, I totally forgot they did some 3D on this. I just saw it in the regular theaters today. I'm not sure I liked it enough to cough up another admission. But I am really curious about the new 3D fx they're doing.

As Supes is about to leave the plane (after Lois pulls the Kryptonite outta him) and she asks him "Where are you going?", I was hoping he'd say "Screw this, i'm going to get the Justice League". ;)

quick question, maybe I missed something (it's been awhile since I've seen the first two), but didn't Lois know Clark was Superman? Because it sure didn't seem like she did in this one.

As far as the movies No. Well, he did tell her then he "kissed" her and took it all away. :lol:

Loved it. All the things I was worried about worked out just fine. I REALLY liked Routh, Bosworth quickly grew on me, and although I loved Hackman's Luthor, Spacey's Luthor was more of an Evil Bastard IMHO which was cool. He didn't seem silly like some of you are making him out to be.

Also, to all those who bitch about the movie's runtime, get over it. :p It worked. Frankly, I could've sat through another 45 minutes to an hour. I've said it before, if I'm paying $10 for a movie I have no problem with it being LONG. I've yet to see the movie that's "too long".


I may see this one again. :up:

I saw the picture today, and really really enjoyed it. I haven't seen the originals, but what I saw today is enough to make me want to visit them. Just to see where Brando speaks the words that Routh echoes in this movie.

I can't believe people are giving Singer a complete pass on this movie. The same people who ripped brett ratner for x3 are drooling over this mess. x3 was at least fun this movie cannot be described as anything other than a disappointment. Tone of movie is good, bosworth and routh are pretty good, other than the way she treats clark kent which is horrible.

But the story line and lack of any real action other than the shuttle are horrific. the aping of superman i and ii plot wise, not just spirit is terrible.

This movie reminds me of phantom menace when it came out everyone thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. People on this site shouted at me when i said it was not that good. well superman's tone is better than phantom menace, but storywise, dumb kid and all plus the lack of action. this movie is only slightly better than pm. Go watch superman 2 that movie still over all rocks, superman one( i like donner) but the comedy, camp ruin the movie, doesn't hold up well. overall i like bosworth better than kidder but reeves is a little more charismatic than routh. but routh is not bad.

this movie, Superman Returns will not hold up on repeat viewing.

Not sure if you've been reading this thread but not everyone is giving him a pass. Most, maybe.... but rightly fully so.... Superman Returns is a superior film.

Uh, what universe do you live in? Maybe it was just me but I thought people were evenly split on the flick.

Wow I must not know what good cinema is. Thanks for pointing out the error in my ways.

Loved the film. I don't understand the hatred for Parker Posey. She is limited a bit but was one of the highlights of the film for me. They are very lucky that they got a kid who could play this role without being annoying. I'm sure a lot of people would love to shit all over this plot point if the kid was annoying.

Well, I saw it last night with much trepidation. My dad took me to see the movie in 1978 when i was five and I truly remember the feeling of seeing it as a wide-eyed 5 year-old child. I even remember the forced intermission the theater had during the falling helicopter scene and thinking it took forever for the movie to start back. My dad also took me to see Superman II and it was one of the only movies where we acted liked we had just gotten to our seats and sat to watch it for a second time without even moving. Needless to say, Superman III & IV don't exist to me.

Knowing the running time and my love for the first two I was very aware that the movie already had several strikes against it in my mind along with the weak trailers I had seen.

To make matters worse, I was in my Dad's area for work and we decided to go see it at his local (small-town) theater. I looked it up on the internet before and it stated, stadium seating and DTS sound...it couldn't be that bad...right? It was worse.

The presentation of the movie was the worst I had ever been to. The framing was poor cutting the tops of heads off. The focus on the bottom third and right and left side were completely blurry. The picture was dark and the projector obviously needed new bulbs. And top top it off, there were huge scratches in the print...a brand new print mind you. I counted as many as 8 to 10 swaying, large scratches running top to bottom for the entire movie! Unbelievable. I kept expecting the dialogue to get out of sync, which is the one problem that did not happen. This was at an O'Neil Theater if that mean anything to anyone.

Despite all those problem, I loved the movie. I thought it was fantastic and better than the highly overrated Batman Begins. As far as X-men movies go...Superman Returns wipes its ass with those in comparison.

Casting was a problem to me before but I soon settled into the actors. Spacey was great and was not as cartoonish as Hackman's portrayal but not too serious which would could cause laughter as well. Marsden did an excellent job and Kate did fine as Lois Lane. Granted she is not playing her as the spunky reporter but she is a mother now and as a witness to my wife's life, it definitely calms you down and changes you.

I felt Routh was fantastic as playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman. He was weak playing Clark Kent but then again, Clark as a character seemed poorly written in the film. One trivia question...did Reeve always part his hair on a different side as Clark than as Superman? I notice that little detail was missing in this one.

The storyline was ripped from the first movie but I guess that goes to show you that you can't teach an insane dog new tricks, eh? It worked but there were various plot holes in Luthor's scheme...but then again, an insane person rarely thinks things through, I guess?

The opening credits were great and I loved that the used Williams main theme. Nice to have Brando back. All in all...a good if not great film. I am going to actually see it again here in town at a digitial presentation where I know I won't have the problems of my first viewing. For those interested, I demanded my money back and got it. I still may send an email to the company as i was distressed at all the sheep filing out of the theater after the movie and only I complained (but from what I understand, those that left during the movie and complained, at least a dozen, received future free passes to go see a future shitty presentation there).

Our Imax is not set to show it until July but I don't know if I want to wait that long. I did feel that they could have trimmed 10 to 15 minutes off the movie but I never felt bored.

Now for spoilers, and since other had quit blacking them out, I will as well. I liked the idea of Supes having a son. I kind of wish Lois had always known that both Clark and Supes are the same though. I always wanted to think that Lois acted that the super-kiss took her memory away...doing this b/c she knew a relationship with Superman/Clark would never work...just as he knew this. Superman shows up after 5 years and suddenly Clark shows up the same day and our Pulitzer prize winner can't put two and two together (I know...she can't see or hear either, but still). The story could have gone on the same if Lois knew the two were one in the same.

The effects were well done and up there with Spider-man's web swinging.

The biblical/Jesus references were interesting too and I wondered if they were either being that obvious or is it just such a general story that it is hard not to be obvious. Jor-el sent mankind his "only son." The world needs a savior. The beat-down of Supes. The death and resurrection. Pretty obvious...but then again, I am an atheist so I may be a little more sensitive to seeing these things.

Some questions...how the hell did Supes have the strength to send Krypto land mass to space when he still had a sliver of Kryptonite in him? I understand the earth explanation but they still pulled some out of him at the hospital. Can he recharge that much to ignore Kryptonite imbedded in him?

The beat-down of Supes was very difficult to watch. I wondered what some children in the audience thought as I was sucking air the entire time. Supes quoting his father to his son was almost tear-inducing for me. The hospital scene, while effective, was no where near effective as Spider-man 2's subway car scene....but then again...Spider-man 2 is pretty much perfection as far as comic-book movies go.

It was also nice that they did not overuse the kid's strength or possible powers. If it had turned into Superman & Son save the day, dear lord that would have been cheesy. I felt that they handled it perfectly and almost understated it.

Anyone else think of 9-11 when the plane & biuldings were going down? If only...:(

All in all, I thought it was great and I was not let-down as I expected to be. Now I'm just ready to go see it at a theater with a decent presentation.