I agree even though I saw it in standard IMAX - the movie was amazing in IMAX. The Smithsonian showed this at their Udvar Hazy IMAX theatre which isn't 3D equipped but did later show it downtown which does have a 3D IMAX setup but for reasons unknown wasn't presented as such :mad: I am sure it was also great on the giant curved screen at Washington DC's Uptown Theatre - any film projected there is an 'experience'.

Ah yes, DC's Uptown. Magnificant screen, worst seats EVER! Definitely comfortable. But they are on top of each other. You are forced to sit with both feet flat on the ground the entire time. But, people still try to cross their legs and end up kicking your chair the entire time. I gave up going there. Unless I wait for a movie to near the end of it's run. Just not worth it. Seat kicking is 100,000 worse than cell phones and talkers to me.

Back to the movie.....yes yes YES! "Superman Returns" is a different experience at the IMAX. I saw it at a regular theater the first time. And twice after that at IMAX. It's still my favorite film of 2006.

Watched again this weekend on HD-DVD and I seemed to like the movie more. THe first time was more of an experience in Imax 3d. but I thought this movie improved on a second viewing.

I agree, I finally got around to watching the DVD I got for Christmas and liked it a LOT more on the second time once I had a better idea of the tone Singer was going for. A little slow in parts (particularly the beginning 20 minutes or so), but it really works well I think.

The movie definitely gets better with extra viewings.

I still think Superman Returns is a good film. But for me, it definitly gets worse with repeat viewings. I've watched it twice on DVD and once in the movies. Slow pace, lack of action, retread, dumb story, the kid, singer trying to do a donner like superman is a bad idea, and Kevin Spacey. Spacey is awful in this movie. I originally felt Spacey wasn't in the movie very much but when i rewatch SR he seems to be in it way too much. Not on the same planet in terms of quality as batman begins. Routh is a good superman and kate is a decent lois lane though i prefer erica durance still. spacey is horrible compared to lex from smallville. even lex from lois and clark.

Spacey, the story and lack of action are more glaring weaknesses with repeat viewings.

The first time I saw it in the theater, I was amazed with it. After about two more viewings, I started to notice all the glaring faults. It's certainly no Batman Begins, which I can watch all the time.

Absolutely. I was disappointed with it in the theatres, but the more I see it, the more I appreciate it. The dialogue between Lois and Superman is actually quite touching, especially when he flat out apologizes to her for leaving. Damn good acting by Routh, and I have no complaints about Bosworth as Lois. John Ottman's music is terrific in its use of Williams's themes and with his own compositions.

Fans who detested the movie at first really ought to give it a second look. I can't think of another director who would pay such respectful homage to Donner's film(s).

There's a lot more I could praise, but I think that the DVD Talk rave review does it nicely.

I just saw SR for the first time (got it for Christmas). I have to say that I am a big fan of the original and had high hopes for this one, especially knowing that some homages to the original would be in the new film.

With that being said, the top ten reasons why I was VERY disappointed:

10. Lois was miscast - Let's just get this one out of the way. She seemed to be a bitch to Clark. She is far too young (in real life, she was 23 when filming, which meant Supe left when she was 18 and pregnant and then won a Pulitzer at...what...19? 20?)

9. Superman the pervert - He goes to Lois' house and peeps in on the family to see what's going on? He could be arrested! :)

8. Superman the mute - How many lines did he really have?

7. Singer the thief - I loved the idea of the homages to the original. But couldn't he come up with a unique story? "Lex Luthor wants land and to get rich" - sounds familiar.

6. Lois the bitch - Did I mention he really was a bitch... Hateable.

5. What was with the kid's hair?

4. The CGI ruled - Yes, it RULED. Take the money spent on the chain-gunning of Superman (and his eyeball) and spend it on a writer.

3. Superman's night of saving people - The whole run-on night of saving everyone was tired and old. We saw that in the original. I just want to know: Why can't Superman save someone BEFORE they do massive damage? It's only RIGHT before someone dies that he averts the disaster, leaving property damage in the millions because he was waiting for dramatic effect...

2. Kryptonite hurts Superman...Sometimes! - By standing on the Kryptonite island, he's weak as a kitten. But fortunately, the bottom of the island was K-Free! :) Althought it did look like bright green shards of it right in his face, but maybe he built up a tolerance for it when he was stabbed with it?

1. Taking my tongue out of my cheek for #1 - I was thrilled to hear about this movie - I couldn't WAIT to see it. I thought Routh did a great job as Superman (but his Clark was a bit weak). My 15 year old daughter LOVES action/bubble-gum movies, but after this movie, said she wanted 2 hours of her life back. My wife put it best, and very simply (and she's not a big movie-goer/watcher). She said: "That was unneccessary". I don't think it could be put any simpler. My opinion is: If you want to see a good Superman movie, see the Reeve one.

I'm going to offend some people here, but people that love this movie make me think they are the same people that loved the new Star Wars movies. You expect to love them so much, that you talk yourself into believing they're good. In truth, I'd put SR right with SWs Ep. 1-3 and Matrix 2-3.

P.S. Batman Begins wasn't that great either, but still much better than SR. :) I'm sorry, 90 minutes of training and gadgetry origins (and that annoying Katie Holmes) is far inferior to Tim Burton's original Batman... Hopefully with the origin out of the way, the next Batman movie will be better.

I just liked it because I thought it was good and it entertained me. I guess that's just not enough for some people...

Well, all your opinions are valid, though I disagree with some of the points. I will point out, however, that I loved the original STAR WARS films, and disliked the prequels. I am a huge fan of the first two SUPERMAN movies, but detested III and IV. So giving RETURNS a second chance was not so much charity on my part, but rather to look at it without my own personal expectations.

When it first premiered in theatres, I read the rave reviews before seeing it, and then wondered what was all the hype about. Now that I own the DVD, it's much easier to appreciate what Singer was trying to do rather than what I think I wanted.

Modfather,
I agree with a lot of your points, the biggest being your wifes comment "was this really neccessary?"
was it?
Singer basically had carte blanche from the studio and hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal- and all he displays is a stunning lack of imagination in regards to basic plot as well as a fundemental lack of basic understanding to these characters.

I could run on for several paragraphs about why this movie, and Singers conceptualizations of the characters sucked, but in the end I'll just say this.
Since the first Donner film (which I still love) I have seen many provocative and interesting explorations of this character in comics and animated material. Any one of which would have been a wonderful jumping off point for a new film or new series of films. And in every case, the character remains true to his basic nature and paradigm. The lack of imagination involved in SR is soul deflating. The only new contribution Singer makes, is in totally changing the paradigm by giving Lois and Supes the kid and it ultimately means nothing to the story he is telling.
Take the kid out and how much of substance actually changes? Zip, Nada, Nothing.

For that matter, take Luthor out of the story and replace him with a krytonian parasite that attached itself to the ship when he was investigating the ruins. The parasite breaks away when Kal-el reenters earths atmosphere, it falls into the sea and eventually goes about trying to recreate Krypton. What has changed? Why is Luthor neccessary? What does he add to this story? Zip, Nada, Nothing.

The more I think about it, the more i feel this film is a monumental jerk off. It's Bryan Singer masturbating to his memories of the Donner film. Its one artist consistently swiping anothers work for what looks to be no other reason that creative consitipation.

Its just so damn pathetic, and I'm truly sorry to see that Warner hasn't kicked his clue-less ass off of any future installments. Does anyone here really care or have a buring desire to see the further adventures of Jason White?

I actually liked Routh's CK beter then his SM. One minor (very minor) thing that bugged me was the Superman curly hair on his forehead. This is supposed to be a natural curl I thought, but Routh's hair is so straight that the curl looks so artificial and forced, perhaps similar to some other things in the movie.

While not quite as charming as Reeve, I think Routh's portrayal far exceeds that of Welling, Cain or any other Superman/Kent role of the last twenty years. Good casting by Singer, and I think that they'll really strut their stuff in the sequel.

It may have been the script that didn't give enough for Routh to do acting wise.
That and no chemistry between he and Bosworth.

I'm not sure where to start here.

I disagree with everything you've written. Not a bit of it.

Just add yourself to the pile of people who spent too much time picking the details apart, only to miss the intent of the film.

And BATMAN BEGINS was great. Scarily so.

Regarding #2: The film CLEARLY show that it took his last bits of strength to combat the massive amount of kryptonite in New Krypton. Hell, the dude almost dies from it. Did you notice the huge moment of Superman "filling up" on the yellow sun?

PAY MORE ATTENTION.

#7: To bring Superman back, Singer needed an iconic villian that audiences - not comic greeks - know. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Oh yeah, because they need utter BS to complain about.

#9: It's called emotional depth; a longing for a life he couldn't have. Not perversion. Again, these themes clearly went over your head.

#10: Another nit-picking disgrace. Who accounts for literal age? Don't watch INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE I guess... That will make your head explode.

FInally saw this on HD DVD last night. I've never been a huge fan of Superman as in the original movies he really wasn't very interesting. I also read a fe of his graphic novels and I didn't really find him exciting as a character. Superman's weakness isn't kryptonite, it's boredom on the audience's part. Why else did the movie only make $200M?

Now, I understand him a bit more. I think Singer did an awesome job with him and the movie was better than I thought it would be. But by the end I was falling asleep and I actually missed the last 10 minutes of it, which I'll need to rewatch.

This was a decent movie, slightly better than Raimi's Spider-man (and X3) but nowhere near the potential that has been shown with better superhero fare (Burton's Batman, Singer's own X2).

Just because you think it's nitpicking doesn't mean they don't stand out for others. I hated point #2 regarding Superman lifting up the giant land mass as well, regardless of how people want to reason his ability to do so.

And Singer can use whatever reason he wants for having Luthor again in this movie, but it's not BS for Superman fans that want to see something new on screen and are tired of seeing Luthor in a 4th movie.

just like Ras Al Ghul was an 'iconic villian' that non comic book geeks knew?

sorry, thanks for playing though.

btw, the subject of BB is one of the few places I would disagree with modfather. I thought it was a great film, with some tremendous additions to the Batman mythos- in fact, some elements I felt were FAR better than anything I've seen in the comic interpretations.

by comparision, I don't see Superman Returns adding anything to that characters history- save for a non-relationship with a child neither of them realize he'd fathered (I'm laughing just writing that, it's so stupid)

You can't complain about having too much Lex Luthor. You can't. That's like complaining there's too much Magneto in the X-Men movies or the white Spy is featured too much in Spy vs. Spy. Sorry, that's how the story/character goes.

I get the feeling that a lot of people were excited about Superman Returns (even after watching it) because it was a movie about Superman, not because they were excited about that specific film.

:lol: Now I can imagine people complaining about that.

Look, the whole point of a movie is I'm supposed to be entertained and "taken away" to a time/place that doesn't exist. But bad acting, gaping plot holes, and silly dialogue are all things that bring me out of that fantasy-world. This movie had all these in spades.

#2: He also still had a shard lodged in his back! I know you won't believe this, but I'm not the kind of guy who points out unbelieveable things in movies. I am almost NEVER bugged by something that's unbelieveable. But the first time he goes on the land-mass, he's as weak as a kitten. Then, he goes back with a shard of Kryptonite in his back and can lift the whole thing?

#7: So who's the villain in the next movie...and the next? Lex again? and again? Will Superman ever have a movie villain OTHER than Lex?

#9: I'm not a smart person, I suppose. But by that point in the movie, *I GOT IT* - Clark/Superman longed for Lois (although I don't know why). But even a low-brow like me didn't need this scene. Even my kids thought it was creepy that he was spying on the house. What if Lois had been boinking Cyclops? How embarassing! ;)

#10: Sure, it's a minor issue, but again, I found myself sucked out of the fantasy-world of this movie when we're supposed to believe this 22 year old is a mother of a 5+ year old and a Pulitzer winner. I think what bothers me more is that Singer didn't cast a 30 year old to play that part. But that's Hollywood and big-budget pictures for ya... I do realize that sometimes 30 year olds play high school kids, and 40 year olds get makeup to look 80. Again, even a moron like me understands that Sean Connery is only six or seven years older than HF, but unfortunately for Connery, it didn't look that way. ;)

Finally, I wouldn't pick apart the details of this sad movie, if THERE WEREN'T ANY. I quite enjoyed X-Men 1 and 2, so I'm not a Brian Singer basher. But he had all the freedom in the world and a HUGE pile of money. And instead of making his own version, he remade Donner's. I happened to look up Roger Ebert's review of Superman and was surprised to see how much he was disappointed with the movie as well. I disagree with his opinions sometimes, but it was nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking this movie was just "OK". Again, the movie wasn't horrendous, but it wasn't good, either.

This thread has made me re-watch it on HD DVD (did the first half last night), still enjoying it. Will watch the second half tonight. I think it gets better on subsequent viewings (after people get over their own subconscious expectations and truly take in what is being shown on the screen).

Couldn't agree more. For me, it also gets better upon each viewing. It's a beautiful film.

you know i re-watched it the other night and frankly i feel the same as when i saw it in the theaters both time (with different people and not by choice)...that it just doesn't do it for me. Except for Williams' music, the movie is just totally disappointing. i can't get past the really terrible acting on most fronts and a weak story. i wish i could get into it more and see somethig new, but so far it hasn't panned out.