Maybe if Superman flies around the world fast enough to rewind to before the last movie most folks would be happy.

I for one kinda liked it (I gave it a B-).

My main problem is Superman's motivations.

Why does he leave Earth?? His father told him the planet was destroyed.did he think he was lying? Especially since this is supposed to be a vague sequel to Supe II, where he says he wont let the planet down --- then he skips town?

The whole Super stalking never made sense to me..cheapened the character IMHO.
SuperKid - enough said
Luthor + Luthor's plot - boring. The movie lost me when they spent 10 minutes with that stupid playset. Boring as hell. Luthor's henchmen were annoying and Parker Posey, uugh.

Color scheme - whats up with the color scheme in this movie..tin roof, rusted?

This movie was not good. I like the airplane scene, but that was it.

Maybe it's just me, but I always chuckled when people bring up the "super-stalker" angle. I always just took it as Supes checking up on Lois, making sure she was okay after his 5-year absence. But whatever.

Bullshit. I will trade you that scene, with all its CGI bombast, for Lois' rescue from the helicopter in Donner's Superman. I still get chills as Clark runs toward the camera revealing the "S", and swoops up to catch her. That scene has heart. There is nothing but cold, calculated technology in Singer's scene.

Luthor sets him up so Superman will die in space from Kryptonite poisoning. It's in the script. Read the script. You’ll like it – Kumar has more lines.

Singer recently referred to “Returns” as "a romantic film and a nostalgic film.” And he made his “Superman” exactly in that fashion. “Returns” is a wonderful picture, and shouldn’t be shamed just because Singer adored Donner’s approach. All this nitpicking seems to miss the point of the film.

And the “super kid” serves a critical emotional and thematic function within the story. It’s very strange to see so many intolerant to the character.

I found the "sun fuel" scene to a be a powerful screen image, and helps the logic you both claim is missing.

I thought the plot involving the crystals would have been suited better for a Kryptonian villain (like Zod and co.) rather than Luthor.

Then again, I'm of the opinion Singer should have gone in a different direction and moved away from Donner's Superman universe.

While I didn't have a problem with him leaving, none of that is conveyed in the movie though, so it doesn't make up for what's on the screen.

Honestly, if that was Singer's goal then he failed even more miserably. I found nothing romantic about Returns, and considering the criticism of Lois and Superman's character in this movie, I'm sure many would agree.

It isn't very difficult to see why people don't want to see Superman have a child. I just think that isn't the type of burden and emotional relationship that many want to see from the character.

While I know the sun provides energy to Superman, has the comics ever shown that it could counter the effects of Kryptonite? If so, I think that's pretty stupid then that if someone has a piece of Kryptonite, Superman can just walk out in the sunlight and ignore the effects.

Of course, with that subplot, "Returns" would've clocked in at three hours. It's a shame the thread was snipped. However, I believe Singer did an impressive job keeping the idea of the five-year journey alive in the fringes of the final cut. But if you're not looking for it, I can understand the frustration.

I wouldn't say he countered the effects. The scene showed him gathering every last remaining part of his strength to remove New Krypton from Earth. And he nearly dies as a result. It wasn't a casual encounter.

What do you mean bullshit? That was his opinion. And a few people agreed. The helicopter scene in Donner's "Superman" was exciting 30 years ago. Some of the special effects have NOT held up well in that movie. Don't get me wrong, it's still *the* best "Superman" film. But if you think that scene is better than Singer's airplane scene.....Well, it's not even in the same league.

It's a little ironic that you don't like the plane scene since it's thematically out of the "new" comics when Superman first meets Lois and saves her.

I'd argue the two scenes are very different. One shows Superman's newness and hesitation on how to handle the situation. Meanwhile, Lois is in danger and there is tension.

In SR Superman is established and has two issues to deal with. First, the shuttle and second the plane. Also, whoever used the spoon analogy I'd partially go with that. Problem is your spoon isn't full of ants that can be sacraficed at the expense of the spoon. Remember, he has to control his powers to account for how strong the body of the jet is. It's very possible he could rip it apart.

Finally, I'd argue the two scenes give shivers for different reasons. The first, it's the tension and the abruptness (the edit) of how/when we see him save her. In SR, two parts get me. First, when she sees a streak go past the window (remember, she doesn't know he's back). Second, when he boards the plan to check on everybody. Talk about an elephant in the room.

Count me as one who loved the plane scene but not much else. Call me crazy, but I think it would have been better if it were more of a shiny superhero movie like Fantastic 4.

Its notpicking. You take things that are in the script to fill out glaring holes/character inconsistencies. I don't do that, and neither do most people.

The movie is premised on the fact that Superman has disappeared for awhile - yet it never tells us why? Don't you think thats important. The reason stated in the film is beyond ridicolous - Superman is going to trust supposed scientific data from Earth scientists over the words of his father? A father who has told him the history of the universe? No.

Either you abandon the Donner movies or you don't. The lame bridge doesn't hold up at all, and that starts the movie IMHO the wrong way. It just gets worse from there with a cast that is either miscast (Bosworth) or just bored (Spacey)

Singer should have the balls to ditch the Donner films and say we are going to re-tell the story. Sure people would complain, but it is pretty accepted that this kind of thing happens in comic book movies. Instead he wanted emotion without earning it..by the use of the Donner music, the Donner backstory and the Donner actors!

You want this both ways. "...yet it never tells us why?", followed by, "the reason stated in the film is ridicolous". What you're really saying is it did tell us why and you're simply not happy with that. That's fine, but don't try to transfer your disatisfaction into a flaw of the film that isn't there.

All I know is get Routh on steroids now so he can look like Superman in the sequel... Beyond that, I pretty much agree with what Doc MacGyver and Superman 07 said about it all. I still would like to see the Cohen Bros get a shot at it.

Much of the complaints? Yes, it reads as nitpicking to me. “Dark Knight,” as beloved as it is, is also receiving the same treatment. It’s a superhero movie rite of passage. My personal feelings? Well, I think Singer was reaching for a bigger wave of nostalgia and interpersonal complication. Everything else will just be argued into the ground.

Again, much of “Returns” needs to be felt from the heart. Either you buy into it or not. I thought, while vague, Superman’s hope for others of his kind out there in the universe made sense in the final cut. Not embellished and organic as intended, but felt. It comes through looks, score cues, and tone. I understand your criticisms, but I feel differently. The “Returns” story worked for me on all levels.

A little boring. Hated Spacey.

Routh just didn't bring enough personality to the Superman character for me, so I didn't really care about the character.

I didn't love the movie, but I very much enjoyed it. The superkid was easily the lowest point for me. I agree that he needs to die in the next film.

I thought Routh was perfect for the role, and I hope they keep him around for awhile. The recycled plot with Luthor was pretty 'meh', and I hope they put him in the background for the time-being (maybe building his empire and waiting for the right time to strike again- turn him more into the corporate head he is these days).

I really hope they continue with the same crew, just take it in a different direction next time.

Honestly, I have a much harder time coming up with anything that was right about the movie. The good intentions were there, but the result is a mess.

And yes, Bosworth's casting has got to be one of cinema's all-time worsts.

As a rule, I typically dislike any sequel that is nothing more than a remake of the previous film. Getting me to pay my hard-earned money to see the exact same thing again seems a little lazy and dishonest to me.

Although I was originally excited that Singer wanted this to be a continuation of I & II, I now feel it should have been a complete reboot of the series. I would love to see a new Superman movie set in the late 1930s. I would even settle for a movie continuation of Smallville at this point. But I am not interested in a sequel to Returns.

I appreciated the movie, and I know people who loved it and those who were disappointed in it. I think, overall, it just wasn't a mass crowd-pleaser. People were expecting wall-to-wall, action-packed super-feats [quite a few dashes, there], and it was a rather somber tale of isolation. Frankly, it's nice to see a superhero movie delve into greater depth of character, even if it's a direction people don't expect. (Back in 1982, there was some uproar about Superman sleeping with Lois, but there wasn't an internet to post one's bitchings.)

I applaud Routh in the role. He brings Christopher Reeve's charm to the screen, without imitating it. Hey, he's better than Nic Cage.

I think complaints against Kate Bosworth are unreasonable and out of proportion, in the same vein as those who hated Katie Holmes in BATMAN BEGINS. Do people really believe that their acting was as bad as, say, Natalie Portman in the STAR WARS films? At worst, I think that Bosworth's performance was on the same level as Kirsten Dunst's in SPIDER-MAN.

I enjoyed the references to Donner's film(s), although I think they became a little too much. Little touches like seeing the Daily Planet globe, the Fortress of Solitude and other comic book mythic touches were well-done.

Technically speaking, the score to the movie was terrific (loved the music during "How could you leave us?"), as was Singer's direction, but the cinematography looked too filtered and washed out. The fan-made "color-corrected" excerpts on YouTube look much more pleasing.

One more big action piece in the middle of the movie would have gone a long way to pleasing mass audiences.

Finally, if SUPERMAN RETURNS had cost $100,000,000 instead of twice that, would it's domestic grosses have been perceived as far more successful?

I agree. Also, notice that he flies away once he finds out that Lois says she never loved him. It wasn't as if he was sticking around to hear every intimate detail.

Beyond the poor casting (Carla Gugino would've made a perfect Lois), it was just a boring movie where nothing really happened.

So much potential and all we get is "Superman vs. a big rock"... really?

Kate Bosworth is such a plain actress, and is typical in Hollywood today: She is there for her looks, not her acting. As for the other films, Katie Holmes was the only bad thing about BB, Natalie Portman was awful in the Prequels, as I think she is very overrated, as her best role was in The Professional. Kirsten Dunst played the best out of all the films you named, and she wasn't that special.

The difference is these days they get these young actresses to play these roles, and they are not experienced enough and they lack the acting ability to pull off the role.

Though Margot Kidder isn't the most beautiful person in Hollywood, she was a good actresses, and a bit older then Holmes, Portman, and Bosworth too, so she had some experience, probably in theater or somewhere before. The more they get these actors/actresses in their late teens/early 20's instead of late 20's/early 30's, the more they are aren't the greatest actors. But this is Hollywood, and we have to have the female hottie flavor of the month 21 year old in there to appease the teenagers so they can see it 7 times in the theater!

I liked it, and still do, but my personal biggest beef with the film is the ending flying sequence. Why the fuck did they not just film Brandon on a green screen and super-impose it on sky footage?