Superman Returns

Review 1 of 16

moviewatcher writes:

4of 4 Stars

I just finished reading (scanning) the other reviews and
thought I should put in my own as it's coming from a
completely different point of view. First, I am not a comic
reader, but I am a big time movie fan. I thoroughly enjoyed
this movie. At first I didn't want to see it at all because of the
karma that surrounded the last two "supermen". But, I was
talked into it and was glad i went. The entire premise of
these movies is a suspensiion of disbelief, am I right?
therefore, wondering about how old Lois was when she had
the baby, why she doesn't remember he's clark kent, etc. is
allowing you to miss the point -- sit back and enjoy. which i
did from the references to the older versions to the CGI,
which was amazing. they have gotten to the point where you
never think he's not really flying or grabbing someone in mid
air, or holding onto lois and taking her up, up, up, which by
the way, i thought was extremely sexy. her body molded onto
his -- fitting so well as they streaked skyward. Lex was a
little overdone, i love Kevin Spacey, but his acting was way
beyond the pale. as i said i thoroughly enoyed the movie,
give it a chance and suspend that disbelief.

Aug 6, 2006 12:36:36

Review 2 of 16

templedog writes:

2of 4 Stars

With all the stops and starts with this project, it's unforgivable that the filmmakers/producers didn't come up with a more satisfying story. There are so many things that just don't work, in terms of plot and character, that ultimately no matter how spectacular the CGI is, the movie never connects emotionally. The actors are all watchable, except for Spacey, who hits the same loud notes in every scene. Watching this "new" Superman will make you appreciate how good the old ones were.

Jul 31, 2006 10:54:25

Review 3 of 16

alonzos writes:

2of 4 Stars

I agree with everythign that RichieWev said except that I did walk out angrily around halfway through and I really wanted to like the movie ( besides everything that RichieWev mentioned, the similarities to Batman returns (the hero leaves town mysteriously and when he returns the world has changed - including is "girlfriend") and the cliched obvious religious references (i.e., Superman's father sending "his only son" to save the world) were too much for me. Completely uninspired, I can't wait for "Batman Reurns (again)" or whatever they will call the seuel.

Jul 25, 2006 07:51:16

Review 4 of 16

RichieWev writes:

2of 4 Stars

I really wanted to like Superman Returns. I'm a big fan of Superman and when I want to like a film, most of the time I do. But not this time. I'm sorry, but all I can rate this film is two stars... and I'm being EXTREMELY generous there! Basically, one star is for the special effects, the other star is for Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor. However, even with Kevin Spacey there are still areas to criticise.
Firstly, the Clark/Lois/Superman love triangle... Where was it? Superman occupied the whole screen and it was almost as if he had no personal life outside Superman at all! There's a quote he uses in the comics: 'I'm Clark Kent first and Superman second'. That certainly DID NOT come across at all. One of the things I liked about Spiderman and Batman Begins, is that it didn't just focus on the lives of the heroes, it also focused on their alter ego's lives. Routh was on the screen as Clark for what must have been overall, about ten minutes! Not just that, but in the comics, it was Clark who managed to win Lois over and marry her, not Superman. By the end of the film Clark has absolutely no chance at all of getting with Lois!
Anyways moving on, Lex Luthor! I like Kevin Spacey a lot. His Lex Luthor, brought a smile to my face with his little evil one-liners. However, in an interview with Kevin Spacey I'd read, he said he was going to play his Lex Luthor dark/ruthless... I watched the original Superman film the day before I went to watch Superman Returns and Spacey played his Lex Luthor EXACTLY THE SAME.
Third point... I was under the impression after watching The Hulk, that the only good which came from that film, was that it taught film makers that they have to keep the comic fans happy. So how come Lois had a son? Not only that, but how on Earth can that kid pass as under five years old? The kid looked and acted about 7. Not just that, you have to take into account the fact that Superman was gone for five years. Within them five years, Lois would have had to meet her husband, eventually get to the point were there that much in love they need to have a kid, then there's the nine months it takes to have a kid. With that in mind, plus the 'superboy' revelation which takes place around the middle of the film, you can see that either there must have been a weird time-flux, or the man Lois married is just thick as bricks! On the acting front, Kate Bosworth did her best as Lois Lane and full credit to her. However, I think that her being Lois Lane was bad casting. She just didn't appear to be the Lois in the comics or in the previous films at all.
Criticism number 4. The plot. It was as if, they were making it all up as they went along. Crystals? I'm not being funny, but isn't the Fortress of solitude, made up of crystals? The crystals react with water and the fortress is in the North Pole, surrounded by snow which IS essentially water. So how come, the whole Northen region of the planet isn't engulfed by bloody crystals? It doesn't take a bloody idiot to notice that, never mind if you're actually one of the film makers spending a whole year producing it! And HOW, oh HOW... did nobody click on to the fact that Clark and Superman have both been gone for exactly the same amount of time, they both have the same hair/height/facial features, and they both have a weird fixation with Lois? Clark works at a bloody newsroom for God's sake! How did nobody in the Daily Planet, not figure it out? It's a place full of journalists!
Anyways... I left the very small amount of compliments till the end. Basically the special effects were fantastic. The bullet in the eye, the falling shuttle when the wing snaps off, the heat vision, the freeze breath and the x-ray vision... basically if it weren't for the special effects, I would have angrily walked out the theatre about half way through.
Advice for all comic heroes... unless your the X-men, do NOT let Brian Singer direct your movies. I cannot wait to see how they manage to pull off the next film!

Jul 23, 2006 16:06:58

Review 5 of 16

mlaygo writes:

4of 4 Stars

I already watched it it's quite nice.

Jul 16, 2006 04:11:08

Review 6 of 16

poserhater writes:

1of 4 Stars

I hated every aspect of this movie. It takes place 5 years after Superman 2. By the end of that film I'd seen enough exploration of Lois and Clark's relationship. Instead of either continuing the relationship or, better yet, coming up with a NEW plot, Singer takes them back to square one and introduces a kid and a new boyfriend into their now distressed relationship. Lois is bitter because she knows her kid is Superman's but she can't rememeber that Clark IS Superman, huh? I hate that this film is a complete retread of the 1978 original and that the only original concept Singer came up with (the stupid kid) goes against 60 years of Superman mythology. AGAIN Lex Luthor tries get rich with a looney real estate scheme. This time his plan is a million times more retarded: He plans to flood the entire planet by "growing" new land in the form of giant crystals similar to Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Couple probs with that idea, stupid: 1. No human could live on, nor could any vegetation grow on, that type of material. 2. If you flood the whole planet, what will you build housing out of? I hated Superman's maroon costume and his accountant hairdo, complete with crispy curl. Routh may be an OK Superman, but who knows? He has virtually no dialogue and what he has is recycled Christopher Reeve lines. Bosworth is totally out of her depth. She's too young now, and she supposedly had this kid 5 years earlier? How old was she then, 12? Nearly every shot of Superman in the 1978 original is a beautiful, classic, iconic image. In Returns he's eternally lost in his drab costume and the drab scenery. The FX in the original even look better. In Returns, Superman is either a tiny blur lost in the frame, or an obvious cartoon drawn from scratch on a computer. What era is this movie supposed to be taking place in? Everyone wears the ugliest '70s clothes every conceived, but every TV and cell phone is the thinnest, sleekest, most modern design abailable. Where did the $200 million budget go? It sure isn't up on the screen. This movie has virtually no action. The money must have gone to the endless shots of crystal formations growing from the ocean or from Lex's toy model.

Jul 7, 2006 15:28:47

Review 7 of 16

manuelsarabia writes:

Not Rated

Singer does it again. He ruined a great comic book franchise for a whole new generation (is it y or z already?), as he previously did with the X Men, he now moves on to the first and greatest hero of them all, Superman. It is obvious, once again, that he never read comic books in his youth and that he does not respect or care for them. The problem is, it seems, he does not care for the Richard Donner films either. Singer creates a very boring two and a half hours with a nostalgic and jealous Superman stalking a married Lois Lane. The little action we get to see is not exciting, the emotions he tries to emit fall flat, the comedy is bland. What do we get? A waste of time and money. Routh's performance, while the best of the film, is just a pitch perfect imitation of Christopher Reeve, which only achieves a comparison throughout the movie.

There are a few good ideas, that are wasted. The Superman/Christ analogy which has always been a part of the mythos is reinforced by the recycling of Marlon Brando’s words as Jor El, Superman’s father, in the original 1978 film, “They can be a great people Kal El. they whish to be, they only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good I have sent them you, my only son”. The idea is pushed on the viewer with the image of a self sacrificing “crucified” Superman, at the film’s climax. But the concept, which should have been explored further is a wasted opportunity.

The cinematography takes us, yet again (as in Singer’s X Men films), to a world where it seems electrical light has not yet been invented and where the sun never shines. Trying to make a comic book look real, does not mean turning of the lights, though judging by the current “comic book cinematography” (Batman Begins, X Men, Superman Returns), it seems the trend is catching on. This, darker is more believable, even seeps in to Supes uniform which is now burgundy and a darker shade of blue than the original bright colors he has always worn, and is now made out of the same fabric as Spider Man’s uniform (I guess they go to the same “super tailor”).

If you are burning for the next great superhero movie, you’ll have to wait until next summer’s Spider Man 3, but if you really want to see Superman, then go rent or buy the original Richard Donner films (even the third and fourth, non Donner films are more entertaining than this 200 million “extravaganza”), I’ll guarantee that when Christopher Reeve tears his shirt off you will believe a man can fly.

Jul 2, 2006 10:36:09

Review 8 of 16

rac writes:

1of 4 Stars

Singer does it again. He ruined a great comic book franchise for a whole new generation (is it y or z already?), as he previously did with the X Men, he now moves on to the first and greatest hero of them all, Superman. It is obvious, once again, that he never read comic books in his youth and that he does not respect or care for them. The problem is, it seems, he does not care for the Richard Donner films either. He creates a very boring two and a half hours with a nostalgic and jealous Superman stalking a married Lois Lane. The little action we get to see is not exciting, the emotions he tries to emit fall flat, the comedy is bland. What do we get? A waste of time and money. Routh's performance, while the best of the film, is just an pitch perfect imitation of Christopher Reeve, which only achieves a comparison throughout the movie. There are a few good ideas, that are wasted. The Superman/Christ analogy which has always been a part of the mythos is reinforced by the recycling of Marlon Brando’s words as Jor El, Superman’s father, in the original 1978 film, “They can be a great people Kal El. they whish to be, they only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good I have sent them you, my only son”. The idea is pushed on the viewer with the image of a self sacrificing “crucified” Superman, at the film’s climax. But the concept, which should have been explored further is a wasted opportunity.

The cinematography takes us, yet again (as in Singer’s X Men films), to a world where it seems electrical light has not yet been invented and where the sun never shines. Trying to make a comic book look real, does not mean turning of the lights, though judging by the current “comic book cinematography” (Batman Begins, X Men, Superman Returns), it seems the trend is catching on. This, darker is more believable, even seeps in to Supes uniform which is now burgundy and a darker shade of blue than the original bright colors he has always worn, and is now made out of the same fabric as Spider Man’s uniform (I guess they go to the same “super tailor”).

If you are burning for the next great superhero movie, you’ll have to wait until next summer’s Spider Man 3, but if you really want to see Superman, then go rent or buy the original Richard Donner films (even the third and fourth, non Donner films are more entertaining than this 200 million “extravaganza”), I’ll guarantee that when Christopher Reeve tears his shirt off you will believe a man can fly.

Jul 2, 2006 10:26:08