Superman Returns - 3.5/5

Enjoyable film, I liked it. Kevin Spacey seems to be really enjoying himself camping it up as Lex Luthor. I felt it was a cliché to give Luthor's girlfriend a "heart"
Brandon Routh was *okay* but not very remarkable, though scenes involving Supes averting a plane crash or the ones involving earthquakes, are thrilling and exciting but also terrifying and like it or not, recall 9/11 or the 2004 tsunami. At this point, with the benefit of hindsight it seems political - where was a Superman when we needed him?

Lois Lane is cute but really looks far too young to be the mother to a 5 year old child.
The
When is the film set?
The guy who ran the Daily Planet seemed like the opposite of J Jonah Jameson in Spiderman - he wants to sell papers but instead writes about how great Superman is - everyone loves him, instead of constantly doing the dirty on him.
The last newspaper headline shown near the end is very sad, since it

It's Brandon. I guess this is going to be akin to people calling Christopher Reeve "Christopher ReeveS".

Actually, that was a dig at the failed attempt by Burton to revive the franchise, which had that title.

Brandon. Sorry.
I didnt know that about Burton BTW, still it could have been about Reeve maybe.

A little late to the game, but the wife and I caught the late show last night, and this was just awesome. Everything felt right, I felt the Lois portrayal was dead-on for five years of living without him, Routh had the goofball Clark perfect. I do agree with some of the thoughts that everyone was a little young, but I'll let that go for being a comic book movie . The plot may seem like a rehash, but to me it seemed like the plot of somebody like Lex who can't move on, and obsesses over one (two if you count Supes) thing for the rest of his life.

And the "truth, justice..." line, to me, came off more as a somewhat jaded Perry White, not any type of anti-American sentiment by the film makers.

I'm very much looking forward to buying this DVD, along with the new cut of Superman II.

I don't think I weighed in here.

"Superman Returns" was not the movie it should have been. It did absolutely nothing to re-invigorate a long dormant story. Singer tried way to hard to make an homage and created an almost identical remake of the original, much better "Superman".

The actors and acting were so off it wasn't even funny. Routh did nothing new for either character he portrayed and was really a stick figure compared to Chris Reeve. Spacey's line when walking up the stairs in his yacht "...and to get my cut" was so horrible and laughable that I can't believe a competent, stellar actor like Spacey could utter it. Everyone else was miscast as well, including Langella as Perry White.

I am not merely saying it was one of the worst movies ever made, in fact far from it. It did have a moment or two. But, compared to the re-invention of Batman with Nolan's masterful "Batman Begins", this one doesn't hold a candle.

I don't know what others saw...maybe they were just stoked to see the big guy on the screen again, but this was very far from a great movie and re-invention of a franchise that should best any other comic book movie in history.

Well I, for one, am happy Singer didn't re-invent this franchise. And stuck to the feel and style of the classic Donner original. This film was everything I had hoped for.

Look at it this way, if he isn't affected by proximity to kyptonite in a lead box, why couldn't you suspend that maybe there was enough shielding from earthy landmass for him to haul off and chuck the island of Krypton into space?

I disagree on every point and I'd also say I don't know what you saw.

The first poster I buy for my new home theater will be Superman Returns and I'll be picking up the DVD on day 1. It was everything I hoped for from Superman and everything it hasn't been since the decline in quality starting with Superman II.

these are my sentiments too- almost 100%.

this line, pretty much encapsulates everything that is awful about this film. For me though, it's not the line reading so much as the line itself. The ONLY reason Luthor in this film says this, is because its something the Luthor in the Donner film would concievably say. Take away the absolutely brainless 'profit motive' Singer moronically (and unimaginatively) saddled to this character here, and replace it with a nhilistic or vengence motive and the character actually makes sense and in addition to that, you now have character progression from the original Donner films, which would go a long ways to making this a proper, respectable sequel and not a clueless, plagerized rehash.

Its a fascinating idea to use something near and dear to your adversary, and degrade and pervert it (as Luthor does by adding the kryptonite) and have that become the cause of your enemys destruction. And after being thwarted and publicaly humiliated by incarceration and being one-upped by the big "s", Luthor should be thinking along these lines. But the fact that Singer couldn't see that and had to slavishly follow the original film to the letter in this regard, tells me he just isn't that original or mature of a filmmaker or storyteller yet. I mean, at the begining of the film, we find out that the guy was able to beat his prision rap and now has just swindled an old lady out of her immense fortune...and at this point in time his character is not looking at revenge so much-or in making a nhilistic statment to the world- as he is fixated on increasing his fortune. Lame and thoughtless.

and then the absolutely moronic recitiation of the baby farewell speech at the end of the film seals the deal. Singer comes across as a complete hack.

I'll still be picking up the HD DVD for several scenes that are flat out amazing to behold, but I can't see ever wanting to or voluntarily watching the entire film from start to finish. Whats the point, when I will also have the original which may not have the better spectacle or spfx, but has so many of the same 'beats' not too mention 10 times the spirit and personality of this one.

I think if I see one more person compare Superman Returns to Batman Begins, I'm going to puke.

I think it's a reasonable, if overdone, comparison. Both of them are relaunches of film franchises that were run into the ground and having release dates only a year apart encourages such a discussion. Add to that how Nolan and Singer went in completely opposite directions (ignoring vs. integrating the past movies)... let's just say I see you vomiting in the future.

For the record, I loved both, but thought Begins was superior.

Give him a break. He just joined and he's playing catch up.

Maybe it's how I read that, but I'm pretty sure you just invalidated your own argument right there. First you state it was a perverse for Luthor to add Kryptonite into the landmass because that was something smart enough and large enough to warrant his time and efforts having been sent to prison by S. Then you say Singer couldn't see that because Luthor was too set on "not looking at revenge...[vs] fixat[ing] on increasing his fortune." Umm...well two things. 1) When he first was released he didn't even know Superman was back. So why would you plan for revenge on somebody who you thought long gone? 2) He used the fortune as a means to an end. The end being revenge.

that was indeed very poorly worded on my part.
What I was trying to say was, Luthor only used the kryptonite as insurance that Superman would not be able to thwart his scheme and destroy the land mass. Having Luthor end an early expository scene with "I don't want to bring fire to the people, I just want my cut" shows you where this characters motivation lies-as does his maps and his 'big picture' speech to Lois (where Singer has to plagerize another exchange from the Donner film to limp effect- " when I was 10 years old my father said to me...land"). If Singer had used a 'purer' motivation for Luthor, the film would have been more his(Singers) own rather than the unfortunate pastiche (of a remake/retread combined with bold new ideas that are never fully integrated) it is

jmo, of course.

Well Superman Returns is now in the "Dollar" theaters and I'm greatly anticipating the DVD. I believe the sequel will impress most of the naysayers here. BTW, Lex Luthor might not have impressed a few people in this thread, but the Green Goblin in the mega-hit Spider-Man was a joke! The character Lex Luthor is motivated by something very real, greed. Of course, as Americans, we don't know much about that!

I don't know, i didn't love the Green Goblin the Spider-Man movie but I still thought he was better than Lex Luthor in Superman 1, 2, or Returns. Besides the crappy mask, the Green Goblin was ok.

I agree, the only thing poor about the Green Goblin was the costume. I didn't find the character itself nearly as weak as Lex Luthor's in any of the Superman movies based simply on the camp factor.

Funny. That was one of the parts that touched me the most...but then again I have a young son I thought of while watching it.

You don't need to have a son to be touched by that scene. That scene is the lynchpin of the entire film. The reason Superman left was so he would not be alone. Now he understands he isn't alone. It gives him renewed purpose to do the best he can do, because now it's no longer general (saving humans as a mass), but personal.

and yet how does any of that pertain to the dialogue itself?

I have a fundemental problem that the film simply trades on nostalgia in reciting lines from the earlier film, when the situation seems to me to demand that Kal-el express something wholly original as befits this utterly original and unique occasion in the history of the character.
Instead we get yet another nod to the original film, the latest in a seemingly unending parade of such nods.

and the implications of the actual ideas present in the monologue are that Kal-el doesn't intend to be there much if at all for the child growing up.

um....uh...yeah ok. That chokes me up too I guess- the idea that this superman is a sperm donor passively willing to let another family raise his biological son (wow...see the irony there *gag*).
aw shucks, gee whiz...what a wonderful sentiment. I'm repopulating the earth with my very own seed...and I won't have to stick around for the boring day to day tedium of actually raising the tike. yippee! I have relevance to 21st Century American culture after all!
now lets close out the film with me flying over the earth (implying that my domain and concerns are still grandiose and planet-sized and not merely of the boring domestic variety.)

I can just see a clueless Singer thinking to himself "oh this will be touching, I'll have superman recite the teary eyed speech that his father gave...that'll be real deep. And then for a triumphant finish we can redo the planet fly over exit...that'll make for a spectacular visual cue to exit on and bring everyone to their feet!"
I suppose some people will read into that that it shows Superman expressing joy over the idea of having a son, but for me it just about completely subverts the idea of him being changed or affected by this new complication in his life. I could easily see a more competant (or original) director fading to black with the image of Superman on the ground...maybe sitting down on the patio, or taking Lois's hand and walking thru the garden as they begin to talk about what the future may hold. The idea being, there is a valid visual metaphor in keeping Superman 'earthbound' after the soliloquy- not to mention that it makes sense that he and Lois would have some important things to discuss at this point- rather than the shallow 'I'll see ya around' flyby.

I wish the film had actually been as smart or mature as it pretended to be.

so the film is saying that superman needs his own genetically branded offspring to feel 'connected' to humanity?
wow.
What a load of shit this character is now.
So , like a fickle teenage girl, after finally bagging the girl he was supposedly in love with- he quickly loses all interest in and connection with her, and moves on to a new all-consuming infatuation (his ancestory).
And the appeal of seeing Superman behave like a fickle, shallow, spoiled teenage girl is ...what now?

I honestly get the feeling that Singer doesn't get these characters one bit, and, like monkey-see-monkey-do, can only imitate the mythic beats in the most shallow and facile ways (the music swelling, the epic pondering poses, the vast longshots) For the love of Pete, in the future keep this guy as far away from these characters as possible.

He tried being human in Superman II. It didn't work. Now he needs to try being a Kryptonian, but he doesn't have to do it alone.

I don't even see the point of arguing it with you. You clearly seem more interested in ragging on Singer to discuss the film intelligently. If you refuse to look beyond the most superficial layers of the story then I can't help you (especially when you're twisting it to your own personal ideas of what Superman should be).

Is this actually a sequel to SII? The Filmmakers seem to only want a viewer to make that connection when it directly serves their immediate purpose and at other times to ignore the connection. Because of that, I view this film as having a poor and constantly shifting foundation.
As for your second point, I'm not sure what that means..."to be a kryptonian"
I'm curious as to what you take that to mean. How are Kryptonians and humans fundementally different emotionally? or is the only real difference physical in regards to powers?


You're probably right that there isn't any point in arguing as I'm feeling pretty dogmatic on most of these points. For some reason, there are some films that really rub me the wrong way (this, Return Of The Jedi, Sith, King Kong '05) and I think it comes down to what I'm percieving as cheap, unearned sentimentality. This is a subjective call, obviously, and others aren't seeing the same thing apparently and getting a good emotional charge out of the material.
If you can ignore the sometimes smart ass asides, I do think there are some half way intelligent criticisms of the material I'm laying out, though.
and since the story is by Singer as well as the direction, yeah I think he should be singled out for most of what I see as the films failings.

I honestly think you and many others are simply jaded by the legendary mythos that "Superman" has created. You saw the character ressurected from a 20 year dormancy and you went in with wide eyed expectations and an eagerness that probably wouldn't have been quenched with even the sloppiest piece of garbage. If you saw Samuel L. Jackson in the red tights you probably would have bought it.

That isn't a slight on you or anyone, it's just a realism that anything created by a decent director with decent enough actors for this enormous figure in history would have been loved.

Forget about comparing it to the more superior BB, compare it to other genre movies: "Spider-Man" 1 or 2, "X-Men" 1 or 2, compare even still to just a well made movie with a competent script and actors better suited for their roles and SR pales.

This one could never invoke the feelings of "Superman: The Movie" for the simple reason that it was made today and not 1978. I think the magic of 78's gem was the raw, pure effects, much more antiquated and rough than today's noticeably fake CGI. I mean you didn't have great special effects in I or II, especially the flying and I think that is what makes it more mystical than any being flying in a computer and put to a theatrical screen.

You know, I appreciate the shallow action flick as much as the next carbon blob, but that doesn't mean I don't know what good writing, directing, acting and production values look like on the big screen. And for another thing, one can appreciate Batman Begins AND Superman Returns. They are not mutually exclusive. I liked BB because it was the first film since...well, the first film to not make Batman and his enemies out to be a joke. I liked Superman Returns because it made this powerful alien into a real human being. I can see merits in both.

You've made one seriously erroneous assumption - that I have nostalgia for the earlier Superman films. I don't. I appreciate them for what they are, I think Christopher Reeve was an exemplary human being and I think he did a great job with the role, but it more or less stops there. I don't own the DVDs (and have no plans to buy them) and I honestly think Superman Returns is much tighter, more engaging and less campy than the first few films.

And Samuel Jackson? Really? Do you honestly think that you have some sort of insight into the film that the rest of us can't see? Or is it possible that you went in to the film with a different mindset than other people, or expected something different, or wanted something else, or any one of the hundreds of reasons that someone can like a film while the person sitting next to them hates it. Art is, after all, subjective, and you are no more qualified to appreciate it than I am.

I never said I was more qualified than anyone else. I simply said that I THINK many were jaded.