Superman Returns
#1
Hey, folks!
I'd be interested to hear what people thought of Superman Returns[I][/I].For me it was a "mixed bag" although I have recommended that those who are interested should see it while it's on the big screen.
Good points:
Visually it is a stunning movie.The effects were great, but I'm really
talking about the cinematography. Of course, both elements must blend
well to get a good result.

The casting wasn't bad at all. I liked Kevin Spacey's Lex...no camping it
up, no "pure evil", just ambition and avarice and woe to whoever gets in
the way.

The action sequences (as far as they went, see below) were done well.

Not so great points:
It seemed a bit long. At 2hrs.40 minutes I have certainly seen longer
movies that did not have this effect. I think it was because parts of it
dragged, especially in the beginning. Twenty minutes of additional
editing would have done the trick.

To my taste it needed more action, especially involving Superman
himself.

Don't judge the movie by the opening credits...I don't know what they
were thinking except perhaps Star Wars meets Jurassic Park[I][/I].The word cheesy comes to mind.
Of course, this is only one person's humble opinion.All told I would recommend
it ,but would like to hear what others thought.:question:
(ps, forgive the format...must've thought I was in Word Pad.sorry)
" It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes." - Douglas Adams
Reply
#2
dasher Wrote:Don't judge the movie by the opening credits...I don't know what they were thinking except perhaps Star Wars meets Jurassic Park[I][/I].The word cheesy comes to mind.

The opening credits, as with much of the movie, was director Bryan Singer's (X-Men) attempt to tie Superman Returns in with the previous movies, and specifically with the first and second Christopher Reeve movies. The opening credits of Returns are very similar to those of the 1978 Superman which cost more to show than most full movies did to make. You will have also noticed that Marlon Brando has resumed his role as Jor-El, despite the handicap of having passed away two years ago. Singer used footage from the first movie along with some impressive special effects. The effect was more impressive than the disappointing use of Laurence Olivier as Dr. Totenkopf in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

There were some additional homages to the previous films and additonal attempts by Singer (successfully I would say) to tie this movie in with the previous efforts (Superman: The Movie and Superman II) and some of the comic books.

Overall, I found the movie enjoyable. I liked Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Superman. He was an eerie doppleganger for the Reeve's classic in many ways. The storyline was straightforward, and for once I was pleased that they didn't do too much with the Clark/Superman in two places at once bit. The dialogue between Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane and James Marsden's Richard White discussing both Clark's and Superman's physical stats was priceless, and looking at Clark, for once, it's clear how anyone could and would overlook him as Superman.

I do agree, however, that the movie was overlong. I was in high hopes at one point that the movie would end on something of a down note, but alas, Singer brought the Man of Steel around and thus dragged the movie out for another fifteen minutes.

Overall, though, you should catch this movie in the theaters. It's definately worth seeing at least once there, and if you're a fan, more than once.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#3
this was a very good movie. my favorite so far of the year. and I've seen about 13 2006 movies this year so far.

Hung up on the opening credits?! They are an updated version of the Superman credits from the original Superman movie - done in the style and spirit of the original. Many believe those opening credits to be one of the best opening credits ever.

I love the Superman theme - so the opening credits were great for me. Brings you back to the time when all movies had real opening credits. Now most barely have any and have lke 20 minute long ending credits. I think Star Wars was the first not to have opening credits and they were fined heavily.
------
But back to the movie:

Good cast, highly enjoyable movie. has the feel of the original movies bt with modern effects.

Huge number of similarities between Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman Returns though. Very similar main plots, similar scenes, similar dialogue, and even some of the same exact dialogue. Different enough to still be great though.

RR - Superman Returns is supposed to be a sequel to Superman II (1980) and happens 5 years after the events of that movie. III and IV - aka the horrible Superman squels - are rightfully ignored.
Tongue
Reply
#4
HOBBIT Wrote:I love the Superman theme - so the opening credits were great for me. Brings you back to the time when all movies had real opening credits. Now most barely have any and have lke 20 minute long ending credits. I think Star Wars was the first not to have opening credits and they were fined heavily.

Sorry, as with most things Lucas, someone did it before him. Most notably, Orson Welles did it in Citizen Kane, but many others had done it as well, and European movies never stopped doing this as they felt helped or hindered the movie.

However, I prefer my movies to start with the story, I'll take an opening sequence that is only loosely part of the movie, such as Robert Zemeckis often employs (the floating feather for Forest Gump or the FedEx package for Cast Away). Those at least set a kind of tone for the film.

It's rare that I sit down to watch a movie and choose to remark on the opening credits.

Quote:RR - Superman Returns is supposed to be a sequel to Superman II (1980) and happens 5 years after the events of that movie.

Yes, I'm aware. I believe I made that statement above.

Quote:III and IV - aka the horrible Superman squels - are rightfully ignored.

I don't know if they're rightfully ignored or not. But yes, they are ignored.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#5
I liked it very much. While it seemed a little darker than I feel Superman should be, Bryan Singer treats the comic book worlds with far greater respect than his predecessors have. He gave Superman a less-than-meaty story but the essential conflict was one that has actually been dressed up in the comics from time to time: does the world really need Superman, does Superman hurt the world he is trying to help?

I could do without the bumbling, fumbling Clark Kent. I wish Christopher Reeve had never gone along with that idea. He thought Clark was more challenging to play than Superman because Superman didn't have to hold back. But Clark wasn't so goofy in the comics, and the George Reeves' television series treated Clark with much greater respect.

I didn't see much of Lois and Clark but I thought it took the characters seriously and treated them well.

I read one critic's review of the movie and he got so many points wrong I just had to shake my head. I think people are going to be discussing this one on and off for a while. But I hope they make more movies and don't let them degenerate. The first Christopher Reeve movie was pretty good, even though Gene Hackman totally hammed it up as Lex Luthor (he was perfect to play a hammy Luthor -- no complaints about the casting).

After the first one, the next three took the story down a notch, although "Superman II" was more compelling because it pitted him against three villains from Krypton. The problem, though, was that when Christopher wasn't on screen playing Superman, the movie just looked goofy. He was a fine actor who really made the difference for those films.

But "Superman III" and "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace" were pretty bad movies.

"Superman Returns" gives the franchise a new lease on life. I hope they make more films with Brandon Roush (did I get the name righ?). And maybe they can do Supergirl right this time around. I didn't like the story for the Supergirl movie. It just totally mangled the character and her world despite the use of some very good actors (including Helen Slater, who unfortunately never made a real breakthrough -- I think she was capable of doing more).

Supergirl should be on-screen with Superman, and they should have the Bottled City of Kandor where her parents live (having escaped from the twice-doomed Argo City).

And we need to take Supergirl and Superboy into the future to do The Legion of Super-Heroes.
Reply
#6
I saw this movie today. My biggest criticism would have to be against the kid in the cinema, down on the right, constantly calling out "Superman, where's Superman..." and the baby down in the front left crying four or five times throughout the movie. I think that's the last time I watch an early session movie.

I felt the movie was something of a balancing act. Singer tried to pay homage to Superman and Superman II while at the same time trying to update the story and character. I felt the 'baggage' of the first two movies tended to somewhat shackle this retelling.

What I really enjoy about Singer's approaches to the comic book universes is that he brings a credibility and believability to them, and simultaneously balances character development, emotion and story. Amidst all of that he knows how to use CGI. Not once did I find any of the animation in this movie distracting or over the top. Even the bullet in the eyeball didn't seem cheesy or laboured IMHO.

Overall I think Superman Returns is a well made movie, solid, without being a masterpiece. I think Singer did justice to the Superman character. I thoroughly enjoyed the 'Saviour' motif he used throughout, without laying it on too thickly. Without being a comic book reader, I gather the 'saviour' motif was always written into Superman's story.

Probably my favourite touch in the movie was Jason, Lois' son. Too often in these types of movies the kid is given limited hero duties, think Mummy Returns, Temple of Doom, Legend of Zorro, to name a few. The piano scene on the boat is more implied than seen, which I thought showed a deft directing touch. The scene at the end when Superman has an alone moment with the sleeping boy is somewhat endearing. And when confronted with the tube of kryptonite, correct me if I am wrong, Jason did not seem to react to it.

Two things I found intriguing. Firstly, after the opening credits roll, there must be about twenty minutes of what seems to be a very pensive movie. Little dialogue, little scoring, and overall quite cold and bland. It had the feel of being 'bridging' in function, between the new movie and the old ones, almost like an homily to what had gone before. A few other things Singer does, like see the world briefly through Jimmy Olsen's camera lense, were very nice winks to the original movie.

The second thing I found intruging was when Lex returns to the old lady's mansion and one of the small dogs is chewing on bones, with a pile of fluff around him. Not sure why they should focus on that brief scene other than to suggest it's a dog eat dog world out there; that there can be only one victor. Is is a foretelling of Superman and Lex's destinies?

It would be a movie to add to any DVD collection.

~ Matt
"So they were told when the moon would rise, the best time to leave with your soul, she's gone but towards the light, watching her whole life unfold..." Crowded House - Catherine Wheels
Reply
#7
mpee Wrote:...And when confronted with the tube of kryptonite, correct me if I am wrong, Jason did not seem to react to it.

Actually, he did flinch. That was why Lex Luthor asked Lois who the boy's father was. He realized instantly that he was in the presence of Superman's son.

Quote:The second thing I found intruging was when Lex returns to the old lady's mansion and one of the small dogs is chewing on bones, with a pile of fluff around him. Not sure why they should focus on that brief scene other than to suggest it's a dog eat dog world out there; that there can be only one victor. Is is a foretelling of Superman and Lex's destinies?

Maybe I read too much into that scene, but I had the impression that it signified how everything Lex Luthor touches becomes corrupted.

In the comics, Luthor is sometimes more human, sometimes more cardboard. One of the best Luthor stories has him going off to another planet where he struggles to save a dying civilization. He marries a local woman there, and she knows nothing about his criminal activities until Superman shows up.

Luthor himself is a fallen angel in some ways, according to the Superboy comics. I think the villain was created first and the backstory introduced in the Superboy storyline. So there are some ambiguities in the Luthor history line, but he was always -- in my opinion -- one of the best villains for Superman. They rarely trivilialized him the way some of the other villains ended up being reduced to predictability.
Reply
#8
Michael Wrote:In the comics, Luthor is sometimes more human, sometimes more cardboard. One of the best Luthor stories has him going off to another planet where he struggles to save a dying civilization. He marries a local woman there, and she knows nothing about his criminal activities until Superman shows up.

Luthor himself is a fallen angel in some ways, according to the Superboy comics. I think the villain was created first and the backstory introduced in the Superboy storyline. So there are some ambiguities in the Luthor history line, but he was always -- in my opinion -- one of the best villains for Superman. They rarely trivilialized him the way some of the other villains ended up being reduced to predictability.

He's one of those villains I can't help but to admire ..Huh
Reply
#9
Michael Wrote:Actually, he did flinch. That was why Lex Luthor asked Lois who the boy's father was. He realized instantly that he was in the presence of Superman's son.

Okay, so he flinches, but that is the extent of his reaction. Doesn't Jason flinch when Lex first brings out the kryptonite? Lex has his suspicion, then brings the kryptonite closer, during which time Jason doesn't react anything above and beyond the initial flinch??? Confirmation and/or debate on that please.

The biggest impression I got from this scene is that Jason (while he may 'feel' the presence of kryptonite) certainly does not become so incapacitated by Kryptonite as his father. He would make the perfect side-kick for a father-and-son duo; son could ward off the kryptonite if anyone ever threatens dad with some.

~ Matt
"So they were told when the moon would rise, the best time to leave with your soul, she's gone but towards the light, watching her whole life unfold..." Crowded House - Catherine Wheels
Reply
#10
mpee Wrote:Okay, so he flinches, but that is the extent of his reaction. Doesn't Jason flinch when Lex first brings out the kryptonite? Lex has his suspicion, then brings the kryptonite closer, during which time Jason doesn't react anything above and beyond the initial flinch??? Confirmation and/or debate on that please.

The biggest impression I got from this scene is that Jason (while he may 'feel' the presence of kryptonite) certainly does not become so incapacitated by Kryptonite as his father. He would make the perfect side-kick for a father-and-son duo; son could ward off the kryptonite if anyone ever threatens dad with some.

~ Matt

I noticed him flinch.

Maybe because he is half human the Kryptonite does not have such a strong effect on him - yes or no?

With love.
Lorne.
Reply
#11
I think that, if they develop the Jason storyline further, he'll prove to have powers but won't be as super as his father. DC Comics experimented with Sueprman-has-a-family stories on more than one occasion. I know they finally had him marry Lois officially, but by that point I had stopped reading the comics. So I don't know where they went with the concept of half-Kryptonian/half-Terran children.
Reply
#12
I disagree about the Jason/flinching thing. My feeling in that scene was that the Kryptonite had no effect at all. Lex asks the question about who Jason's father is before he approaches him with the Kryptonite. Any flinching being done was a result of an obvious crazy man waving a large peice of green rock right in the poor kids face!

Overall, I absolutely loved the film. I had a couple of niggly problems but they were very minor. I thought Brandon Routh brought the right amount of weight to the Superman role and the right amount of leveity to Clark Kent. Kevin Spacey was excellent and the rest of the cast supported these two very well indeed. I even like Lois!

The action scenes and special effects were top drawer - the plane rescue sequence in particular was stunning. Highly recommended. Would definitely go see it again on the big screen if I can get the chance.
Reply
#13
He did flinch, just a little, at first.

I didn't like this movie, I've never really liked Superman that much, but the other ones were much better than this one.Confusedo:
Reply
#14
There would be no reason for Luthor to ask who the boy's father is if Jason doesn't flinch until after the Kryptonite is brought out. Luthor remained in doubt because Jason didn't collapse. I don't think they want him to be as super as Superman, so they won't make him as vulnerable to Kryptonite as Superman.
Reply
#15
Kierriana Wrote:I didn't like this movie, I've never really liked Superman that much, but the other ones were much better than this one.Confusedo:

Do you mind if I ask why?
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#16
Well, here's the main reasons:

1. They dragged it out too long
2. It was kind of slow
3. (some people might disagree) but I thought that they sort of built up and up and up and you were expecting something HUGE to happen and it just wasn't that big
4. The ending wasn't very good

Others probably don't agree, but that's just what I thought. I also didn't like this "superman" as much as the last one (But you can't blame them for that), just because, I'm not really sure why.

I guess it probably seems like there's very few movies that I like by the way I've been posting, but actually there's very few movies that I don't like. Its just a few that have come out lately.

Anyway, hope that answers you're question.
Reply
#17
Kierriana Wrote:Well, here's the main reasons:

1. They dragged it out too long
2. It was kind of slow
3. (some people might disagree) but I thought that they sort of built up and up and up and you were expecting something HUGE to happen and it just wasn't that big
4. The ending wasn't very good

Thanks for your response. I certainly understand the issues you had with the film. At times it did, to me as well, seem too long and drawn out. The build up was certainly not in the same line with the fast-paced, more action than exposition that movies today seem to feel audiences want/need. It's neither good nor bad, but there it is.

I disagree, however, with the idea that the movie was building up to something big and failed to deliver. Once the action started to get rolling, it just became a roller-coaster of big, bigger and biggest. The final ending of the movie was, I agree, far too long. Meant more for fanboys and sequel building than story-telling, but given the current market, I can't really fault the movie too much for that.

Still, I do see your point of view and appreciate you taking the time to explain.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#18
Well, if anyone cares to hear it, here is my take on Superman Returns:

I'd appreciate it if you were to read beyond the end of this sentence, but Superman Returns is my favorite movie.

Be stunned, I know I was. I didn't expect to like it nearly as much as I did.

Why?

Well, first I'd like to say that Superman Returns had, in my opinion, the best beggining of any movie. I took it all in, from the Planet Krypton theme, with the "A long time ago..." style introduction, to the voice of the late Marlon Brando as Jor-El speaking to the infant Superman, to the eye-poping credits flight through the universe (come on, that was cool)... and let us not forget the greatest of all (sorry Star Wars) movie theme songs! And wasn't that just the icing on the cake as the opening ended with the landing in Smallville?!

I don't know about you, but I could really relate to Clark. His predicament was real, and yet Signer was able to couple his troubles with the Superhero 'accidents of might' (ex. Clark breaks the picture frame of Lois et al.)

Luthor's plot was true to form. Well thought out, nicely executed, that is until the man in blue showed up...

Who here will tell me that the Fortress of Solitude was not spectacular? The projections of Jor-El on the crystal panels was amazing, especially considering that Marlon Brando NEVER SAID A WORD OF THAT IN REAL LIFE!

I believe Signer did a fine job of telling just the right amount of backstory. Enough for newer fans but not too much for diehards who enjoyed the original introduction. I was glad to see that we didn't have to go through infant Clark's pod-landing and so forth. Jumping and Flying was the right amount... and imagine how long the movie would have been with that extra footage.

Did anyone else see this movie in 3d? IT WAS THE GREATEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN ON ANY SCREEN OF ANY SIZE! The scene when Superman basically catches the plane? That was astonishing, and SO REAL, it must be seen to be believed.

Above all, I really love the character of Superman, and I think this rendition of the classic was about as 'Superman' as Superman can get.

I hope some of you also caught the religious sybolism: Superman as a Christ figure. I loved how that was weaved in, or should I say, showcased.

Feedback, please!
Gaius Baltar, you're so cool
Too bad you're a Cylon tool


Baltar is a CylonYou know its true.
Reply
#19
I believe the movie is long so that we can look and listen who Superman, Lewis and Lex unfold their emotions such as love and hate, and also funny and not so funny mistakes us humans experience in real life. Superman acts as if he has never heard of Jesus Christ. As I am a Christian I know that Jesus Christ is our Superman who gives us his holy power to help and protect us from Satan's deceiving power of evil. Our flesh may be tortured or destroyed by the enemy but our soul may never be destroyed. If you are a Christian aid worker in Iraq, for example, your mission is to rescue the innocent victims of Iraq. You know that should you die accidentally in the war, you will be alive in heaven with Jesus - your body would be anatomically perfect which no virus, bacteria nor cancer can harm. Superhuman flesh and eternal life for all believers. Agnostic scientists deny that life after death is possible.
Nutritionist expert: Boiled eggs break down much quickly than meat.
The human digestive system is not really equiped for meat digestion.
Reply
#20
Lord Supreme Wrote:I believe the movie is long so that we can look and listen who Superman, Lewis and Lex unfold their emotions such as love and hate, and also funny and not so funny mistakes us humans experience in real life. Superman acts as if he has never heard of Jesus Christ. As I am a Christian I know that Jesus Christ is our Superman who gives us his holy power to help and protect us from Satan's deceiving power of evil. Our flesh may be tortured or destroyed by the enemy but our soul may never be destroyed. If you are a Christian aid worker in Iraq, for example, your mission is to rescue the innocent victims of Iraq. You know that should you die accidentally in the war, you will be alive in heaven with Jesus - your body would be anatomically perfect which no virus, bacteria nor cancer can harm. Superhuman flesh and eternal life for all believers.

An interesting spin on the concept of Superman, though not necessarily a unique one. The parallels between Superman and Jesus have not been overlooked throughout the years. Consider Superman:

He arrives as a child from the heavens
He has powers no one else on Earth has
He is doing the work his father requested of him
He is saving the people with in various forms from different embodiments of evil

The parallels can go on and on.

Quote:Agnostic scientists deny that life after death is possible.

By definition, an agnostic scientist wouldn't deny anything. They would simply remain uncertain and unconvinced one way or the other! :bg:

In fact, most scientists, especially the good ones, have a healthy dose of skepticism. Even on the findings they make, they submit them to the general community for review and replication, by which course only good science can be established.

Since it's tricky to set up an experiment to test Jesus' claims, his validation, or lack thereof, by the scientific community is understandable.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Superman Unbound" aka teen angst in a crop top :P august 1 435 March 25th, 2018, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Michael's Review of "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" Michael 9 974 December 4th, 2016, 03:46 PM
Last Post: august
  Video: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] FilmGuy 1 696 April 20th, 2015, 12:25 PM
Last Post: mrt77
  Video: Trailer for "Batman vs. Superman" FilmGuy 2 564 August 13th, 2014, 02:50 AM
Last Post: Michael
  1st Picture of Henry Cavill as Superman in "Batman vs. Superman" FilmGuy 0 400 July 3rd, 2014, 10:54 AM
Last Post: FilmGuy
  Batman vs Superman badlands 17 1,609 February 11th, 2014, 11:13 AM
Last Post: august
  The dark knight returns or the lastest Batnan movie badlands 1 620 January 3rd, 2012, 01:24 PM
Last Post: Michael
  The Guardian gives us a peek at Henry Cavill's Superman costume Michael 0 514 August 5th, 2011, 08:53 PM
Last Post: Michael
  New superman bad guy badlands 5 1,679 June 13th, 2011, 12:39 PM
Last Post: Michael
  All star Superman DVD badlands 0 610 June 13th, 2011, 12:13 AM
Last Post: badlands

Forum Jump: