I had heard that M. Night's twist was going to be that at the very end of the film, Kal-El would be in a Kryptonian asylum and everything that's ever happened to Superman was just his insane delusions.

Tag Team Review on CHUD: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=6991

Those guys seemed to not have much love for the first two, which they say Singer replicates all too well. Everyone seems to be agreeing that it is all good but suffers from a LOTR:ROTK type ending, and that it goes on for longer than it should.

I can't help but wonder if having a weak third act is enough to sink a movie that isn't LOTR? I know personally if it doesn't leave me enamored at the end I feel kind of let down as a whole.

I'd agree with that. The first Spider-man was an awful film. The second one was great.

I think they both suck, though the first did suck more. I think the same about the X-Men franchise tho'.

Question ... do you need to have seen the original 1978 Superman to understand Superman Returns?

It would help to see Superman and Superman II. If that's not possible, you should at least have a knowledge of the main plot points of both movies.

Doubt it. It would only enhance your enjoyment is what I think. Basically, all you need to know is that Superman has been away from Earth for five years and is returning!

Not a big fan of comic book movies I take it? If you thought those sucked, then I hate to see what you will think of Superman Returns, as next to the first Superman movie, they are what I consider the best comic book movies out there (X1 and 2, not 3). Of course Batman Begins is in a league all of its own.

No offense, but I don't understand people like you who cannot appreciate some of the better adaptations of comics to be offered. It's the whole attitude of :"this stuff is mostly for geeks, if they get it, good, but I would rather have a menage-a-trois with Kiera Knightly and Scarlett Johannsen than waste my time trying to better understand it."

I'm sure they'll mention in SR that he has been gone for that long.

Seeing it tonight. Will post a full review when I come back.

Just got back from a screening and I thought it would never end! I mean this thing is RIDICULOUSLY too long. Not to mention the wafer-thin plot interrupted by big, bloated, loud, unnecessary action sequences. For me the best parts were with Clark and Lois, and there wasn't that much of them. Too much CGI and not enough character.

A friend of mine - who is by no means a fan of the prior films nor the character - just saw a screening of SUPERMAN RETURNS and he went nuts over it. His girlfriend, who usually hates comic-based movies (they're a perfect match...sorry, Mike!) went on and on breathlessly about the film herself. I don't necessarily trust their opinion on movies of this genre, but their general tastes usually run in accord with the popular mainstream.

It appears that Singer might have struck the right balance between fans and non-fans alike. I'm catching a 10 PM showing Tuesday so like all the rest here, will probably offer my own less than two cents worth the next day.

What are you smoking?
I'm a huge comic fan in general, I still read comics, collect the toys and see EVERY SINGLE comic based movie.

Singer killed X-Men, he made Wolervine the focus point, he ruined any potenial Rouge had and don't get me started on how he MOLESTED Cyclops. I'm not sure how anyone can even support those two films (the second was DECENT) and call them a good adapation of the comic based material. They wasn't.. Nor was Rami's version of Spider-Man. He doesn't have a clue on how to present the Peter Parker character, he ruined Mary Jane, made the worst possible outfit for the Green Goblin, killed Doc Oct's orgin and made it just another science project gone wrong. Infact, the only Marvel comic film worth see'ing so far is tied bewteen Blade and The Hulk (I did enjoy X3 for what it was tho',a mindless action film).


No offense, but because you attempt to insult me, get your facts straight and don't assume something about the poster. You assume that I think comic's are for geeks, you assume I want to see those two actresses, you make a lot of assumptions based on NOTHING.


As for Superman Returns, I don't have high hopes for it. I think a lot of the casting is piss-poor, the storyline appears to be paper thin and I'm not a fan of Singer's previous work, not to mention the CGI also seems iffy (judging by the TV SPOTS). Still, I'll be there opening night, like I do with every comic movie.

Yeah. That quote right there pretty much just kills your argument and leaves it for dead.

Roger Ebert's two star review of Superman Returns is up. I haven't seen the film yet and I do respect his opinion, but when you remark that the kid in Superman should be more like the kids from Spy Kids I really want to know what he is thinking. Read it here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/60606009

saw it tonight , though that's the first thing that comes to anyone's mind with half a brain when they watch the trailer and they see lois has a son. it completly defeats the purpose of superman and him being unable to do any evil and having morals and ethics and what not. if he truly has the judgement to never do wrong, i think pre marital sex might fall under bad ethics/morals. it was totally unneccasry to go that route the way they did. other than that, overall, it was the same recycled stuff except with better technology to do it with. nothing new or original, but i guess for some that's ok. it was much longer than it needed to be and the ending felt like it was missing something. and teh jokes were stale and not funny, unless i suppose you're easily amused. some got minor chuckles from the crowd i went with. overall pretty good at best but nothing to get worked up on end spoiler.

Spoiler Free Review:

Just got back, and I must say: WOW. I was impressed with this movie on almost every level. Be warned though, this movie is not for the bitter or the jaded movie goer or comic fan. Because for all intents and purposes, this movie was designed to fail under close scrutiny; it's like that. Superman himself is like that; he lives in a world much simpler than Batman and Spider-man. But this is not a movie that fails as a movie. As a movie, it's excellently made. There are many moments in the movie where you're just cringing waiting for the director to fail you and for a cheesy one liner to drop - and it never happens. The characters in the movie are just as engaged in the drama as the audience is, and they don't act as if they're in a plastic world surrounded by blue screens. Evading certain death for them isn't an everyday event and they don't brush it off quickly.

There have been some voices that regard the film as rather dark for Superman, but there's another interpretation; that people easily mistake darkness for tension in a movie, and there is a whole lot of tension in this movie. The kind that grapples the audience's attention. There are parts of the movie that are fitting in more of the fantasy elements of Superman, such as him saving a plane, but this is a very very VERY modern movie, and (to use an overused phrase) being that this is post-9/11, it's natural that the bad guys would...well, fight dirty.

Regarding some characters, Lois' beau Richard is by far one of the most solid original characters to come to life in a comic movie. He's the POV character many times, but it's done with such fluidity it's not overly obvious. He's also very likable and is given time to develop in many directions. It's great to see James Marsden in a role where he isn't shoehorned.

The Kid (as I like to call him) is probably the most likable child actor in a movie since Haley Joel Osmont. Because he has great moments and he doesn't get on your nerves.

Of course, we all know it's coming, so here's the brutal, take-no-prisoners review of Superman Returns that we just KNOW will be posted in this thread. I'll save everyone's time and just post all the things that were wrong with the movie right now:

:wtf:

Not having seen Superman and having seen spy kids, I get his point. He wanted the film to have fun with the role, and he points out that without that there is no point of the kid in the movie, as has been mentioned by other posters already.

You haven't seen it yet? dude, what are you waiting for?

if the spoiler with the kid is true, then thats a big disappointment...

I agree with Matthew that you killed your arguments dead in the water with the comments about Hulk, Blade, and X3.

In terms of assumptions based on nothing, I made them based on what comments you had made so far. Based on the movies I saw, and the general consensus around these parts, not to mention many major film critics in the nation, and many comic book fans who choose not to nit-pick, those franchises are two great comic book adaptations (2/3 with X-Men). You made comments that you thought they sucked, so based on your comments, I made the conclusion that you think comic book movies suck since you didn't like what many consider the best.
In terms of the two actresses, I was only being sarcastic. Please feel free to substitute in any two you would prefer!

Getting back to Superman Returns, let me say one thing you said that baffles me to this day and I cannot figure out. You said you think the movie will suck but will be there opening night. That's somewhat of a paradoxical statement. I never understand people who look at a movie preview or read about it and say: "Man that looks like it's going to suck and be a lousy movie!" then proceed to pay money for the ticket and come back and say:" Man, that was a lousy movie! It sucked and I can't believe I spent money to see that pile of crap!"

Most reviews of this, while saying it is a bit long, seem to be giving it a thumbsup overall and recommend it. It might be a financial flop, as audiences are fickle, but I have a good feeling that I will enjoy it.

Time to stop reading this thread until after seeing the film tonight!

DVDTalk Review of Superman Returns

:up: :up:

I can't freaking wait!!!