logo Sign In

SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Eh, the only real problem I had with the film was the plot... Luthor's plan was way out there even for Lex Luthor,

Really? Not even his first movie's "I'm going to hijack a nuclear missile and blow up San Andrea's fault so that california sinks in to the ocean?" *rolls eyes*

Originally posted by: TheSessler
I agree, they could have at least left his son to a sequel or something down the road, but bringing him out in the first film in the "re-boot" of the franchise wasn't the smartest thing, in my opinion.


I thought it made perfect timing. I mean, wouldn't the audiance think it confusing that Lois all of a sudden had a son that wasn't even mentioned in the previous movie? If they were going to put Sups son in the continuing story line it would have to be in this one. The next movie down the road wouldn't make any sense, you know?


Personally, all I want is a sequel to this movie (and of course a third one). As long as that happens, I don't care what people say about this movie. I mean dispite some of the bad-mouthing this movie seems to be getting from people, in it's first 7 days it made over 106 million bucks. Obviously it still has to make back the 200 million that was spent, but along with it's final run + the international money it will make, I know it will at least break even. This movie alone has blown IMAX box office records out of the water. Even Star Wars Episode III couldn't do that.
I know this movie won't be a flop. Okay, it's no "Spider-Man" but it's no "Dare Devil" either. If they can make a sequel to "The Mask" I think they'll make a sequel to this movie. And that will make me very happy.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Thankfully it is not in the hands of the Salkinds. I think Jon Peters had very little to do with this film in the end, which is good. I admit, when I saw his name in the credits I did laugh. I kept thinking of Bab's curly hair from the 70s.

Jon Peters, the most successful hairdresser in history.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Originally posted by: greencapt
Second if the 'fanboy' crowd has complaints about this movie it is that Bryan Singer made a COPY of one director's interpretation of a character and INGNORED years and years of history of that character. Whether people like 'Superman' the comic or character or not I feel there was very little to be gained by 'modernizing' him in the way that Singer did and more importantly THROWING out the fundamental nature of the character, the very things that make the character who he is, for the sake of 'emotionalizing' him in a way that the director could better relate to.

...Saving people in and of itself is not heroic. There has to be heart and morals behind it. And the SR version of Superman, IMHO, has no heroic heart behind it. He's mopey, mostly self-serving and obsessive- but that is not Superman. At least not the Superman I've read in comics, seen in TV shows or even seen in the original 'Superman' films.



But see, that's my point. I'm not knocking you, but people are having problems simply enjoying this movie for what it is. Superman has gone through countless changes this is just another chapter in his saga. Hell, they even killed him in the comics. But because this movie it isn't what the comics are, people hate it. I have never touched a comic in my life, nor seen any TV show. And I saw the first movie when I was about 14 and wasn't all that impressed. (Maybe that is why I love SR so much. I have nothing to "compare" it to. I'm an unfettered mind. I like the direction they are taking the character because I don't know where he has been.)

But my complant is that these are the same people who bitched about the X-Men movies too. "The X-Men movie was essentially the Wolverine Show." "Juggernaut was not a mutant!" "Gene Grey did not become the Pheniox in that way! It was the alien that did it!"

I believe that the MOVIES and the COMICS are 2 separate worlds. In the movies, they are allowed to take creative liberties, just like they did with X-Men. People get set in their ways about how the super heroes are supposed to be, what they say, what they think, what they wear, and what they eat. When someone comes along and alters their mind set the fans wig out and say it was a horrible movie.

Granted SR has it's flaws but they seem small to me compared to the great stuff found in the film. The graphics were amazing, the dialogue was fine, the story line and plot were engrossing, and the characters were emotional and believeable. This isn't TPM we are talking about now. There weren't fart jokes and Jar Jar antics and forced wooden dialogue. People didn't like SR because the slap stick comic book hero they read about in the comics wasn't up on screen.

And I think that is a horrible way to judge a movie. Even Kevin Spacey said that this movie should be judged on its own merrit and not in comparison to the old films. As goofy as the old film was, it seem to be enjoyable. But me personally? 70's graphics aside, I found the Superman the movie to be...tedious. There were just too many antics for me to enjoy the film. But I guess that is what Superman really is. He's not a "dark" and emotional comic. So when SR took that route, people got upset. And that makes me sad.


First I want to say that I saw the 8 o'clock showing today 07/07. I thought the movie was alright. I honestly started to get bored during some parts.

I have a problem with what Jenny said. The problem I'm having is what she is saying about the fan boys, but they aren't the fan boys, the people that want the explosions and crap that is. The fan boys are the ones that want it to follow the comic and criticize it for not following the storyline set by the comic or more so the background set by the comic.

I pretty much agree with what GreenCapt said. But what Jenny said about movies being allowed to have creative liberties, I slightly disagree. Yes movies are allowed to have creative liberties, but they can't forget the foundation and background created in the comic. If they ignore that, then the movie isn't gonna be a Superman movie or an X-Men movie. A liberity that was taken for example in Spider-Man was making the web come out of Peter Parker instead of him creating the web shooters. That's doable because he still shoots web, but it would've been better if he created the web shooters. There were things in SR that I don't think they should've done. To me, the way the movie started, the part with Luthor, shouldn't have happened. I don't want to say why, because I don't want to put a spoiler in here.

Since it has already been mentioned, I don't think they should have had his son in this movie either. The way I see it, for the guy Lois is going out with to not know the kid is Superman's, she would have had to have met him and slept with him pretty quickly cause I'm assuming Superman left pretty quickly after he slept with her. That really shouldn't have been thrown into SR, it should have been in the sequel maybe.

Back to my point about the movies and the creative liberties thing. I have to disagree with you on your last sentence in that paragraph. Throughout the comic books and the GOOD tv shows, Superman has changed. But when they changed him they kept the background story and didn't throw that out of wack(sp?) For instance in the 96 cartoon series, they gave him a space suit for when he went into space, cause even though he is an alien, he can't breathe in space. So I have to disagree that fans wig out and stuff. If they do wig out though, it's because the backstory and background of Superman is just getting tossed out the window.

One thing I have to say about Spider-Man 3 since it's been mentioned, I really don't think that ones gonna be that good. I think they are having to much go into it. Two bad guys and the whole side story. I just don't see it working out well....hopefully I'm wrong though.

Back to Superman. To anyone who hasn't seen it, go and see it. It was a decent movie. Just because there are people that despise(sp?) it and some people that thing it's average doesn't mean you won't like it.

-Shark2k

Oh yeah, not trying to start arguments with anybody I addressed in my reply, just stating my opinions and what was on my mind. On top of that I'm tired so if some stuff doesn't make sense, my bad.
Author
Time
Post link
Just got back from seeing Superman Returns. Much like X-Men and X2, I thought it was amazing, okay, and disappointing. I'm just not as impressed by Bryan Singer as most others seem to be.

Superman is now, apparently, an insecure peeping tom who uses his x-ray vision and super hearing to eavesdrop on private conversations. Where's the guy with the strong moral compass and clear understanding of right and wrong? He already decided once that giving up his powers and abandoning mankind for a woman was a huge mistake. Now he's all conflicted about Lois having a life and is actively trying to steal her from another man. Hey kids, Superman never lies...but he'll hide in the bushes and watch your mom change into her nightie. He might as well be the creepy, unshaven Superman from Superman II.

Superman is not an emotionally damaged and traumatized individual. He's not driven to don a crazy outfit and help people because he witnessed his father's murder or was touched inappropriately as a boy. Superman is good personified, plain and simple. Both Jor-El's teachings and the Kents' traditional midwestern values inspired him to be a man of integrity who wants to lead humanity to a better place.

I really don't like what Singer has done with the character.

Superman: The Movie stomps all over SR without even breaking a sweat. Even the mangled Superman II is a better Superman movie. Can't wait to see the Donner cut later this year.

I still rank Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man 2, and Batman Begins as the best superhero movies of all time, and in that order.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
I agree about Singer, as much as I enjoy the X-Men films, there is always something in the back of my mind that says that they are missing SOMETHING that keeps them from being truly great.

The same way with Superman Returns...I enjoyed it and all, but it seems to lack a heart, just like all of Singers other films. Now, I am one of those who enjoyed XIII, maybe it was Singers "non-involvement" that made it better than the first two for me?
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, crucify me if you want, but even with the horrible treatment of Cyclops and Prof X, I enjoyed X-Men 3 more than the first two. Not that the first two were bad, but it still feels like there's a degree of something... missing.

Same with Superman Returns. Good movie, but not a classic. "Batman Begins" and "Spiderman 2" are still the best, IMO. "Incredbiles" is a close third.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I must be cut from a different cloth or something. I just watched Batman Begins again for the second time (I rented it from the library) just so I could have a comparison to when people say "it's not as good as BB." The whole time watching BB all I could hear was Peter Griffin saying, "The movie insists upon itself." (that and seeing Katie Holms and giggling like a mad woman at the knowledge she's married to a nut case.) Not that BB was a bad movie, far from it, but I think there was too much going on. Only now did I get the whole "league of shadows" in relation to microwave getting stolen. Whew!

But this isn't about BB (as good as it is). Like I said before, I think my love for Superman Returns is coupled with the fact that the only exposure I've had to Superman my entire life was a viewing of the first film for the first time about 2 weeks ago and watching the "Look up in the Sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the Amazing story of Superman!" on A&E. That being said, loving SR is very easy for me.

I think that even moral compasses are allowed to have emotional conflict. I never liked Superman because he was too much of a boy scout. Not that it is a bad thing, but it is a boring thing. The character oozes truth, justice, saving kittens, bake sales, and moral superiority. By making him more vunerable and emotinally torn it makes him more relatable to the audiance. I've been in situations where I know I need to do the right thing, but I'm emotionally hurt at the center at the same time. I like this Superman better.

And I don't think that Richard thinks that Jason is his own biological son. Unless Lois skanked herself up and slept with him right after Superman left, he couldn't even think it was his own. But I bet he's been with Lois for about 4 years and taken on the role of "daddy" with full vigor. I think Richard knows that Jason is not his son, but I don't think he thinks it's Supermans (but he might suspect.)
I think all these questions will be answered in the next film.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
I hope Superman gives him the Kryptonian name Van-El.

(This was the name Superman gave his son in the fantasy world depected in the story 'For the Man Who Has Everything' by Alan Moore. Supes was given a present for his birthday by the alien Mongul--A parasite called the Black Mercy that gave Superman his heart's desire in a dream-world while it ate him)

4

Author
Time
Post link
You know what is really scary? I have a feeling that this reboot is going to become a trilogy. We'll have the next film (which hopfully will rock) and then the third one in 2012. What I have a feeling will happen is that Superboy will essentially step into his father's shoes as the new hero of earth. Of course this really could only happen is if Superman dies. If that were to happen, believe me, I will be balling my eyes out.
And I can see that happening. Richard is a good character and obviously a loving father. Superman was raised by human parents, and superboy might too. Having Superman die (heoroically of course) will end the love triangle and give superboy the chance to grow up and take on his assumed role.

This, is just idle speculation on my part, but I can see the story going in this direction if need be. It would be gut wrenching to watch though. But we need good gut wrenching movies now and again.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
I have a difficult time believing that they will kill off Superman. The might kill him and bring back like they did in the comics, but I doubt they will kill him permanently. I just watched the film tonight I give it a 7. Opening credits were great. Routh did better in the part than I expected. Althought now that think of it I do question the spying on Lois bit. Not just because the Superman from the comics wouldn't act that way, but because the Superman from Superman I and II wouldn't do that either. That brings up another complaint. In
Superman II, Superman broke off the relationship with Lois because the holograms in the fortress of solitude told him if he wanted to be with lois, he would have become human. If he becomes human, he loses the ability to save people and fight crime like he does. He decided that saving people and fighting crime was more important than a relationship with Lois. So, why would he be worried about Lois having a boyfriend in this movie?


*spoiler*
Here is another problem: First in the when was the Superchild concieved? Superman and Lois did not have that kind relationship pre Superman II. At the end of Superman II, Superman broke off the relationship, so the child was not concieved after Superman II as that would have involved Superman giving up his powers and becoming human. Therefore , the child must have been concieved during their Superman's and Lois's romance at the fortress of solitude during the events of Superman II. At the end of Superman II, Superman erases Lois's memory of their romance because their breakup was hurting her too much. So how could Lois possible know at that Superman is the child's father? She has no memory of them having sex! Then again, maybe the new cut of Superman II clears this up.
/*spoiler*

I know we talked about this before, but when I heard the line "truth, justice, and all that other stuff" I came sooooooooo close to throwing my popcorn at the screen and booing out loud. I still say it is p.c. b.s.

*spoiler*
I have a feeling that they are planning to bring Superman and Batman together. At one point in the movie, a tv news report lists a few cities. One of the cities meantioned was Gotham.
/*spoiler*

Originally posted by: Shark2k
For instance in the 96 cartoon series, they gave him a space suit for when he went into space, cause even though he is an alien, he can't breathe in space.


I haven't read too many of comics, but I did read COIE and Infinite Crisis. both depict Superman being able to go into space without needing a space suit. So if it is ok for COIE and Infinite Crisis, why is it not ok for the movies to do the same thing?

Does anyone else have a small problem them deciding to throw out Superman III and IV? I know they were terrible movies, but they were made. It is right or fair to throw them out of the continuity? Does this mean the creaters of Star Trek can throw out Star Trek V. What about Godfather III?

While I am glad that they used John William's music, I felt this move would be alot better If John Williams had scored the entire movie. Just my opinion.

Does anyone agree that Kevin Spacey should be blacklisted for his mailed in going through the motions performance? I know he can do 10 times better that that.

Btw, I saw a trailer for a movie that I must see: Invincible. It tells the real life story of a walk on player for the Philadelphia Eagles. I can't wait to see it!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

Does anyone else have a small problem them deciding to throw out Superman III and IV? I know they were terrible movies, but they were made. It is right or fair to throw them out of the continuity? Does this mean the creaters of Star Trek can throw out Star Trek V. What about Godfather III?


Nope. No problem here. All those movies suck ass and can fall off the face of the earth. To me (and many other people) they simply don't exist.

And about "how can Lois know about Sups son?" question. I don't know. There is cut footage from SR that we'll see on the DVD, plus the Donner edit of Superman II coming out soon.

Singer said that SR is not so much a continuation from Superman II but takes references from I and II and makes SR it's own movie. I don't know how well that could work, but there you go. I have a feeling that Lois's mind wipe just took away her knowledge that Clark was Superman, but I bet she remebered the great sex.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

Does anyone agree that Kevin Spacey should be blacklisted for his mailed in going the the motions performance? I know he can do 10 times better that that.


AMEN brother!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Althought now that think of it I do question the spying on Lois bit. Not just because the Superman from the comics wouldn't act that way, but because the Superman from Superman I and II wouldn't do that either.


Really? Are you sure? Because the Superman from the first movie didn't have any problem taking a peak at Lois' pretty pink panties. If that isn't creepyly perverted I don't know what is.

And I don't care that Lois asked "what color underwear am I wearing?" [/skank], Superman shouldn't have looked. Hell, the lead wall was in the way and after Lois moved and had gone on to the next question he then took the opportunity to sneak a peak instead of moving on to the next question with Lois. Really gentlemanly of you Sups. *rolles eyes*

Superman wasn't watching Lois undress and then have sex with Richard. He was eaves dropping, yes, but Lois really wasn't talking to him that much anyway. And as soon as he found out that "she never really did love him" he took his leave and left the family alone. That doesn't sound like a peeping tom to me.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader JennyReally? Are you sure? Because the Superman from the first movie didn't have any problem taking a peak at Lois' pretty pink panties. If that isn't creepyly perverted I don't know what is.

And I don't care that Lois asked "what color underwear am I wearing?" [/skank], Superman shouldn't have looked. Hell, the lead wall was in the way and after Lois moved and had gone on to the next question he then took the opportunity to sneak a peak instead of moving on to the next question with Lois. Really gentlemanly of you Sups. *rolles eyes*

You answered your own question. He was given permission to look as a test of his abilities, and it was a forward way of flirtation that totally fits with the character of Lois Lane as established in the film. Superman is still a guy, after all. I think you're trying really hard to make the "cute" Superman sound less like a creep.


Superman wasn't watching Lois undress and then have sex with Richard. He was eaves dropping, yes, but Lois really wasn't talking to him that much anyway. And as soon as he found out that "she never really did love him" he took his leave and left the family alone. That doesn't sound like a peeping tom to me.


Looking through walls and listening to a private conversation no one else on Earth can hear goes beyond eavesdropping.

I'm sorry Singer felt it was necessary to turn a pillar of strength into a lovesick wuss just so the audience could connect with him. Why is it not okay to look up to superheroes anymore? Do they all have to be flawed or disturbed in some way?
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
Reguarding Superman in space...

He can survive in space for as long as he can hold his breath, and his lungs have a much larger capacity than humans. He still needs a space suit for prolonged periods in space or if he's near a red sun.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I'm sorry, but when the whole "Superman's son" angle showed up in the movie, all I could think of was the Kryptonite condom conversation from "Mallrats"

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Reguarding Superman in space...

He can survive in space for as long as he can hold his breath, and his lungs have a much larger capacity than humans. He still needs a space suit for prolonged periods in space or if he's near a red sun.

Well, wasn't he in space for a prolonged time in COIE and Infinite crissis?

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny

I have a feeling that Lois's mind wipe just took away her knowledge that Clark was Superman, but I bet she remebered the great sex.

If that were true, the mind wipe would be pointless. The reason he gave her the mind wipe was to releave her of the memory of the relationship. She was heart broken and couldn't move on. If he had just removed the memory of Clark being Superman, she would still remember the relationship and would still be heart broken.

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny


Really? Are you sure? Because the Superman from the first movie didn't have any problem taking a peak at Lois' pretty pink panties. If that isn't creepyly perverted I don't know what is.

And I don't care that Lois asked "what color underwear am I wearing?" [/skank], Superman shouldn't have looked. Hell, the lead wall was in the way and after Lois moved and had gone on to the next question he then took the opportunity to sneak a peak instead of moving on to the next question with Lois. Really gentlemanly of you Sups. *rolles eyes*


Are you kidding me ?!?

Originally posted by: Jay

You answered your own question. He was given permission to look as a test of his abilities, and it was a forward way of flirtation that totally fits with the character of Lois Lane as established in the film. Superman is still a guy, after all. I think you're trying really hard to make the "cute" Superman sound less like a creep.


exactly

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny


Nope. No problem here. All those movies suck ass and can fall off the face of the earth. To me (and many other people) they simply don't exist.


But no matter what you say they do exist . I know because I have the DVDs (I got them in sets with the better movies). Just how far does this go? If I kill off a character in one movie or episode of a tv series, can I bring him/her back by just throwing out the episode where he/she died? Does this mean that COIE wasn't needed? DC could have just thrown out all the comic book stories concerning the multiple earths and just said there was only one all along. It has been argued that you can throw out Superman III and IV because they are bad. So who gets to decide which movie are bad enough that they are allowed to be thrown out of the continuity. I think License To Kill was a horrible bond movie. Am I allowed to throw it out. What about the PT?. Alot of people don't like ROTJ, should that be thrown out? How much playing around with the continuity should be allowed? I'm just not confortable with it.
Author
Time
Post link
Hey, I got that same superman shirt (on the right). I really wanted to get a pink shirt with a sparkly S-shield, but I couldn't find one. I saw one once, but oh well.

And to answer the continuity question: I actually heard that Superman Returns takes continuity from Superman I and II, but not fully. I'm not sure what that means, but I guess in the Superman Returns world Superman did sleep with Lois, but this time she remembered. That is also why we can throw out III and IV in the continuity structure. I don't know what is up Singer's sleeve for the next film or what is going to be introduced in the Donner edit DVD, but it will all make sense some how.

I may be a geek, but I'm willing to over look some continuity problems to just enjoy the movie. Same with the up and coming Batman Begins 2 movie. Apparently the Joker is in the next film and the Burton film is going into the "whatever" pile along with Batman & Robin, Batman Forever, Sups III, IV, Supergirl, Star Trek V, Godfather III, Star Wars PT, Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park III, and whatever gives us headaches.
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
I'm not too big of a fan of the quasi-sequel approach. It *can* be done successfully- look at the James Bond franchise. The filmmakers there pick and choose what they want to mention or not from previous films... and amusingly enough like SR (or most other comic films) the films bear little or no relationship to the series from which they were adapted.

Batman Begins was a total reboot of the series and the studio (in interviews and such) went to great lengths to say as much- not to say BF and B&R sucked so we'll ignore those two, but instead to say 'hey its time we take a look at what's been happening in the film world and in the comic world and make a movie based on *that*. WB stands by the previous Batman flics enough to release the special edition DVD set that they did, much like they stand by the Superman films and are doing the same this year with them. My problem with Singer's approach to continuity was to rely too heavily on his own interpretation of Donner's works, which were in turn already an interpretation of the comics... a copy of a copy. I don't care that he ignored this or that from the earlier films- even Superman III and IV did *that*. What bugs me is relying on 20 to 30 year old source material for minor source material to explain WTF is going on in your own poorly constructed plot or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material. And these sort of missteps can happen to filmmakers who even sequelize their own films- Blues Brothers 2000 anyone? The Star Wars prequels anyone?

But unlike the aforementioned James Bond franchise Brian Singer chose to change the nature of the character. In the Bond films, the core character of Bond rarely changes (and when it does people blast it, even if it happens to be closer to the source material... Dalton in 'The Living Daylights' and more than likely the new film this year). But as many have said here already- SR's 'Superman' is not Superman.

As always this is NOT to knock anyone who likes the film. There are PLENTY of bad movies that *I* like.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt

Try getting a job as a reporter at a large newspaper when you can't spell 'catastrophe'- the editor is the one who does the hiring and the editor is the one who *wouldn't* hire you.

In small-town papers, however, anything goes.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
I don't have a problem with selective continuity per se. If Singer wanted to sequel I & II, ignoring III & IV, that would be fine with me (as long as III and IV remain available). I do have a problem with a sequel that doesn't follow continuity from any previous film.
Originally posted by: greencapt
...or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material.
...or ripping off storylines from other popular superhero franchises. Spiderman 2 (from the Spidey comic books) anyone?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
I'm not too big of a fan of the quasi-sequel approach. It *can* be done successfully- look at the James Bond franchise. The filmmakers there pick and choose what they want to mention or not from previous films... and amusingly enough like SR (or most other comic films) the films bear little or no relationship to the series from which they were adapted.

Batman Begins was a total reboot of the series and the studio (in interviews and such) went to great lengths to say as much- not to say BF and B&R sucked so we'll ignore those two, but instead to say 'hey its time we take a look at what's been happening in the film world and in the comic world and make a movie based on *that*. WB stands by the previous Batman flics enough to release the special edition DVD set that they did, much like they stand by the Superman films and are doing the same this year with them. My problem with Singer's approach to continuity was to rely too heavily on his own interpretation of Donner's works, which were in turn already an interpretation of the comics... a copy of a copy. I don't care that he ignored this or that from the earlier films- even Superman III and IV did *that*. What bugs me is relying on 20 to 30 year old source material for minor source material to explain WTF is going on in your own poorly constructed plot or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material. And these sort of missteps can happen to filmmakers who even sequelize their own films- Blues Brothers 2000 anyone? The Star Wars prequels anyone?

But unlike the aforementioned James Bond franchise Brian Singer chose to change the nature of the character. In the Bond films, the core character of Bond rarely changes (and when it does people blast it, even if it happens to be closer to the source material... Dalton in 'The Living Daylights' and more than likely the new film this year). But as many have said here already- SR's 'Superman' is not Superman.

As always this is NOT to knock anyone who likes the film. There are PLENTY of bad movies that *I* like.

I agree with greencapt. Like you GC, I too enjoy plenty of bad movies on my own time, and I hated Blues Brothers 2000.

Anyway, I just saw Superman Returns and this is my rant/review:

This could have been a great film, it wished to be. It only lacked the light to show the way. It also lacked an actor strong enough to anchor it.

The fact that WB still relies on Superman and Batman to bring in the audiences when DC Comics is loaded with other deep, richly intriguing heroes, ranging from Wonder Woman to the Martian Manhunter, is both mind-boggling and disheartening. And when they finally tap Bryan Singer after so many false starts, what does he do? He decides to make the film a sequel to the first two Superman films directed [primarily] by Richard Donner, with Superman returning from a mysterious absence after failing to tell anyone he was leaving in the first place and dealing with the ramifications of that.

It was a bold, ambitious idea, but it doesn't work. Using the first two films, which were not exactly perfect to begin with, as reference point instead of the current comics, is lazy and uncreative, defeating the entire point of redefining Superman for a new generation of movie goers (Chris Nolan did not make that mistake with "Batman Begins"). I don't buy the stuff about how Batman had no choice but to start over. You think Superman's first film franchise was in any better shape than Batman's when the end came? Hell, they mirror each other for crying out loud - both took what are generally considered bad turns at the 3rd entries and both were burned out by the fourth entries. Superman's own franchise was reduced to a steaming pile of crap, which is why he didn't have a film for almost 20 years. On top of that, the film doesn't even explore it's own ambitious idea thoroughly, thus squandering what could have been a fascinating plot (the third and fourth films suffered the same mistake). Superman returns, resumes doing good deeds and the world falls in love with him again, never displaying any resentment towards him for leaving them in the first place. Only Lois Lane and Lex Luthor hold a grudge against him, albeit for different reasons, but it doesn't take long for Lois's undying love for Superman resurface despite having "moved on" to Perry White's nice guy nephew Richard, who has been helping Lois raise a son, Jason, who turns out to be the illegitimate son of Superman. Additionally, Superman would never have just taken off without informing the world that he was leaving; to do so feels very out of character for him. He ain't perfect but he shouldn't be that dumb. The more natural thing to do would have been for Supes to take Lois aside first, explain to her his reasons for leaving, and then he would have addressed the world about his leaving with a big meaningful speech. To have him just up and disappear like that is pretty much on par with the stupidity of having him give up his powers in the 2nd film.

Demographic friendly leads Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, 26 and 23 respectively, are too young to believably pass themselves off as a Superman who has been missing for 5 years and a Lois Lane who is supposed to be an accomplished reporter turned single mother. Apparently Singer became so fixated on the idea of casting an unknown in the role of Superman, like Donner, that it didn't occur to him that if Superman were to have been missing for any length of time, he should look old enough to have been missing and also look old enough to have the experience of a hero under his belt. 37 year old Jim Caviezel would have fit these requirements perfectly. But Singer, blinded by X-Men hubris, decided to cast some young guy no one had ever heard of, and matching him with an equally young leading lady.

Adding insult to injury, Singer and his idiot costume designer Louise Migenbach, butchered Superman's costume, darkening the red parts to maroon/burgundy, shrinkng the insignia and giving the costume an overall rubbery look. After all of Migenbach's self-congratulating rantings about what a wonderful job they did of "updating" the costume and bitching about how much she's always hated the suit's classic color scheme and all those speeches about how Superman has to look as if he steppe dright out of our collective conscience, Singer's Superman looks like a high school jock in a bad Halloween costume, and he had twice Donner's budget and three times the special effects technology.

In some instances, Singer recreations of sequences from the Donner film with a little tweaking, like the romantic flight between Superman and Lois, minus the voice over narration, add in Lois taking off her high heels, feel so familiar it's creepy. While the film never sinks to the painful depths of banality that the Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels, Catwoman, Daredevil, Elektra and the 2005 Fantastic Four sank to, there's an overall feeling of been there, done that, and Singer's slick style isn't enough to cover for it. Good intentions he may have had, but this time Singer bit off more than he could chew; perhaps it's time he abandoned the world of pop spectacle film-making and went back to directing films grounded in reality.

Given the thankless task of being the new screen embodiment of the world's most famous hero, Brandon Routh, chosen for no better reason than the fact that he's young, unknown, inexpensive and in the eyes of some vaguely resembles Chris Reeve (he's actually two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays the teenager Clark on "Smallville"), gives an admirable effort, but despite all his sincerity, he never inhabits the role the same way Reeve did and lacks the heroic aura of Reeve (though Routh's never as annoying as Hayden Christensen was as Anakin in the SW prequels). After a while you desperately want to like him, but Routh's clearly in over his head, most notably in his scenes with Ma Kent (Eva Marie Saint) where he tells her that what he found out there was "a graveyard...", and at the end when he tells his son the same speech that Jor-El gave to the infant Superman in the first film. As stated above, Routh's boyish youth prevents us from really believing that he was missing for five years and had prior experience as Superman. Reeve was also young, but damn it, Reeve looked like a man. Perhaps if he were older, or if the film wasn't mindlessly lashed to the earlier films, Routh's efforts would not be in vain. It's so easy to imagine the aforementioned Jim Caviezel in the same role and bringing the necessary depth and gravitas to Superman's plights.

But Routh's not nearly as bad in his role as Kate Bosworth is in hers. As stated above, Bosworth, while cuter than Kidder, is simply too young to be the veteran reporter Lois Lane, or the mother of a five year old boy for that matter (unless we assume she had the kid when she was 17 or 18), and she's too lightweight. Bosworth may have looked to Katharine Hepburn as a model for Lois, but Bosworth is no Hepburn.

Frank Langella, James Marsden and Sam Huntingten are good enough, and Kevin Spacey is an improvement as Lex Luthor, but Luthor's thugs are sadly lacking, with Kitty Kowalski a waste of Parker Posey (Posey probably would have made a better Lois than Bosworth).

Well, that's my rant. Sorry if it offended those who loved this movie. If it's of any consolation, this film is still better than Catwoman.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
If it's of any consolation, this film is still better than Catwoman.


That's not a complement. That's a fundamental law of the universe.

Seriously, HvIJ, it wasn't really as bad as you're making it out to be. The lead actors should have been older, definitely. But I don't think it detracts enough from the movie overall to completely write it off.

4