IMDb user comments for
Superman Returns (2006) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 230:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

2300 comments in total

---

304 out of 446 people found the following comment useful :-
Strong Potential/Weak Execution!, 28 June 2006

Author: b_flic from New Jersey

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Bryan Singer has made it no secret that he was going to make this film a sequel of sorts to the first two Superman films which starred Christopher Reeve. Which I though was an interesting idea even though I thought Superman 2 was lame. However, I thought the premise of Superman returning after a long absence was a great idea, unfortunately Singer's heavy reliance on the first two films really crippled this film.

Some minor film details are included in my comments below which may hint at spoilers...

**********

I attended a screening of Superman Returns last night, and even though I'm not the biggest Superman fan, I was REALLY looking forward to seeing this film. I have to admit I had misgivings about the casting of Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh because there were too young. However Brandon Routh was the BEST Superman yet and Kate Bosworth really did very well as Lois Lane. Kevin Spacey was GREAT as Lex Luthor, especially when he and Routh (briefly) shared the screen. However Parker Posey was wasted in a dull cliché.

The opening credit sequence was amazing. Hearing the original Superman theme gave me chills. The next 45 minutes of the film were awesome. Lex's reintroduction demonstrates at his ruthlessness even on a smaller scale. Clark Kent/Superman's return home was thoughtful and well done, as was the reintroduction to the crew at the Daily Planet.

However, because Singer assumes that we all saw the first two films he apparently does not feel the need to develop any of the characters outside of Superman and Lois. Lex Luthor's character is just a caricature of a mustache twirling villain, and even though Spacey does this very well, it's hard to take him seriously as a threat. His "evil" plan is nothing more than a rehash of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor the 1978 film except using crystals instead of nukes. There is NO REAL logic behind his motives at all if you think about it. More importantly you just don't care if he succeeds or not. Lex Luthor's character is only validated in the very brief face to face confrontation with Superman at the end.

Let me say that Lex/Superman confrontation at the end is one of the BEST scenes in the whole film and further proof of wasted potential. Lex Luthor shows how truly evil he can be, and again Spacey does an amazing job here. The on screen presence of Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey together was SO good. Routh could really hold his own next to Spacey. Too bad Singer couldn't have found a way to elaborate on this scene or do something more interesting with the characters than just having Luther (figuratively) twirl his mustache and have Superman pine over Lois Lane the whole film.

Overall, this film is bound in a weak story with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The story relies too heavily on the Superman/Lois Lane love story so much so that the rest of the film, and the other characters, just feel like an after thought.

---

275 out of 411 people found the following comment useful :-
Super-Bland, 28 June 2006

Author: nsanehops from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

After languishing in the disappointment that was Brett Ratner's X3, I made it a point to walk into Superman Returns with low expectations. They should have been lower. It isn't that the film is outright terrible (though it has many glaring flaws); rather, I had unknowingly outgrown the Superman myth. And considering that Bryan Singer offers nothing original to the new installment, I think America will find its timeless icon a little dated.

First, there is the casting—the most important part of any film attempting to match an original that has become so iconic, its actors have replaced the comic book characters in America's collective conscience. Newcomer Brandon Routh most definitely looks the part (besides being too young), but has half the screen presence of Christopher Reeve. Although Superman isn't known for his emotional instability, it seems that Singer played it safe by limiting Routh's range to avoid having the new Superman give a poor performance. Instead, we are left with almost no performance.

Kate Bosworth is equally as bland as Lois Lane (and again, too young for the role). And with her lifeless brown hair that left me aching for her typical screen blond, she isn't even much to look at. Kevin Spacey's performance as Lex Luther also left something to be desired—though I'm not sure exactly what. He's hardly the lovable Lex that Gene Hackman played. The rest of the cast was decent, with the exception of Frank Langella. His dull portrayal of Perry White made me wish they had grabbed J. K. Simmons straight out of Spiderman to talk about his barber.

Though suspension of disbelief is required for nearly every comic book film, the plot of Returns is so illogically strung together I had trouble letting go. At first my mind started asking questions that shouldn't be asked of Superman. What did Superman eat while he flew around the universe looking for Krypton? Does Superman need to eat? How does he breathe in space (which, to be fair, is a question that applies to the original films as well)? Once Lex Luther's plan emerged, however, I moved past the (unfair) premise questions and asked some legitimate questions. Without spoiling the plot, I'll just say that there are ways for Lex to hatch his plan for world domination without killing billions people. I didn't buy into the "necessary sacrifice."

On the upside, Singer's direction is glossy and competent. The score works well thanks to a liberal sprinkling of John Williams' original theme song, the special effects are, of course, impressive, and the action sequences especially stand out. Overriding the tension generated by well-staged and edited action, however, is a lack of any real sense of peril. And surprisingly, the pace is rather slow throughout—which is only made tolerable by some scattered comic relief.

Singer takes an unexpected turn toward the end of the film when he emphasizes the parallels between Superman and Jesus to the point where the audience wonders if Returns is simply another allegory in the vein of The Chronicles of Narnia. While the comparison is interesting, one can only wonder how far it can be stretched considering the Superman in this rehash stands for truth, justice, and irresponsible romances (reflecting the plot's only surprise).

The bottom line for any resurrection of a classic film or series is there better be a damn good reason. In the case of Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan ripped the decaying body of Batman from the grave, and gave him the breath of life. Batman became complex, raw, and 100% real. Although Superman is an entirely different beast—one who is too busy saving people to reflect on his lack of flaws—today's audiences expect their superheroes to be tad more human. Unfortunately for Returns, in an overexerted effort to pay tribute to Richard Donner, a super-cautious Singer reanimates Superman like a puppeteer; but fails to give him life.

5.5/10

---

269 out of 412 people found the following comment useful :-
Good effects, but ultimately emotionally uninvolving, 26 June 2006

Author: Greg Eichelberger from San Diego

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I was finally able to screen the newest adventure from Warner Bros. and DC Comics Films, "Superman Returns," starring relative unknown Brandon Routh in the role the late Christopher Reeve rode to stardom upon.

Now, some 28 years after Richard Donner's classic "Superman" hit the big screen, director Bryan Singer ("X-Men," "X-Men 2"), with a trillion dollar budget, tries his hand at helming the ultimate graphic novel adventure.

Sadly, Singer is no Donner.

While wonderful to look at, and sometimes interesting to ponder, this newest version of the saga of the Man of Steel leaves one with an impressive vapidity; a passive disinterest and an emotional detachment which overwhelms one with a cold, empty feeling.

In an effort to do what last year's "Batman Begins" did to the Caped Crusader franchise – bring a new dark, brooding vitality to the series, "Superman Returns" succeeds only in making one wish for the deft hand of Donner, as well as the acting ability of Reeves, Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (as a stupidly evil henchman, Otis) and especially Gene Hackman (as the best Lex Luthor ever).

The plot takes place supposedly five years after the action in Superman II (from 1981), when scientists discovered proof of such a world, Superman journeyed there (evidently without telling anyone of his plans) to find if it was possibly a living planet. It wasn't so now he's back – but things have changed in his absence.

Mainly, that his love interest, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth, "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"), is involved with the nephew of Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White, Richard (James Marsden, who played Scott Summer/Cyclops in the "X-Men" films) and they now have a young son about five-years-old.

He won't let go, however, even flying to her mansion to spy on and stalk her – in a very unSuperman-like scene.

Despite that last heartbreak, it's Lane's famous "Daily Planet" editorial, "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman," for which she will collect a Pulitzer Prize (huh?), that really stings Clark/Man of Steel.

That's one of the first problems I had with this version. In the first two films (nothing matters after part two), Superman saved Lane's life at least four times (from a helicopter plummeting of a skyscraper; from being buried alive in the desert; from a plunging elevator in the Eiffel Tower; and from going over the cliff at Niagara Falls. After all of that, she writes an article saying no one NEEDS him anymore?!

Then, in a nice bit of CGI work, the powerful hero rescues her again (from a plane plunging to earth), stopping the craft from crashing nose-first on the infield of a Major League baseball stadium. It's truly an awesome scene.

Meanwhile, in the frozen North, evil madman Luthor (Kevin Spacey, Academy Award winner for "The Usual Suspects" and "American Beauty") is out of prison and raiding Superman's Fortress of Solitude, making off which his collection of priceless crystals.

Routh is handsome all right, and looking close enough to Reeve (except his eyes are CGI'd blue from their natural brown) to keep us comfortable (his voice, though, is creepily similar to the late actor); so I have no real problem with him in the lead role.

Likewise, Sam Huntington as bumbling photographer Jimmy Olson, was adequately goofy in comic relief; while Frank Langella (as blustery Perry White) is good in just about any role he plays (see "Dracula" and "Dave" for proof of this).

The inclusion of Jack Larson (the original Jimmy Olson in the 1950s series), and Noel Neill (who played one of the Lois Lanes in that show) in cameo roles as a bartender and a rich, dying widow, respectively, was also a nice touch.

The other parts, however, do concern me. Bosworth is just too spineless and ineffective to be a hard-nosed reporter for a major newspaper, as well as the only real confidant our hero has in his life. To me, the spunky Parker Posey (who portrays Kitty Kowalski, Luthor's gun moll) would have made a much better Lois.

As for Spacey as Luthor, well, to me, he just is not evil enough. Gene Hackman had a deliciously devious demeanor, coupled with a madman's desire to rule the world – with basically realistic plans to do so. Spacey seems more of an annoyance than a real threat.

Another crime this movie commits, is that it goes on and on – at least 20 minutes after it should have concluded.

Now there will be fans out there who will no doubt blast me for this opinion, claiming how I dare I compare the 1978 and '81 films to this one.

To those detractors, I simply say that this new picture invites comparisons, utilizing the same opening credits, the same theme song, archival footage of Marlon Brando (as Jor-El, speaking dialogue from the original film), even the same scene where Superman flies Lois around New York (the only thing missing is Kidder's corny voice-over).

---

209 out of 304 people found the following comment useful :-
Super? Nope - just decent., 28 June 2006

Author: dr_foreman

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Superman Returns" is a competent movie, generally very well produced, directed and cast. But it didn't quite gel for me. I thought it dragged at points, as Superman got bogged down with pining over Lois Lane instead of saving the day. Alas, I thought the dialogue just wasn't sharp enough to sustain these heavy-handed emotional scenes; what sort of catchphrase is "I'm always around," anyway?

Here's what I did enjoy. The flight scenes were beautiful; Superman cut a very majestic figure as he soared across skylines and starscapes. The set design was great, too, creating a modern feel with hints of the Art Deco style I associate with Superman. And I appreciated the performances of Spacey, Bosworth and Langella. Routh had a curiously small role, especially as Clark Kent, so I had trouble judging whether he was wooden or actually good at playing a modest hero.

Here's what I enjoyed less. Luthor's plan simply didn't interest me. I found the whole notion of growing a giant crystal island very surreal and not too threatening. Also, he poses a fairly boring threat to Superman. If Luthor's got Kryponite, Superman is helpless; if he hasn't got Kryponite, he's helpless. These two legendary antagonists can never really meet on equal terms. Thus, most confrontations between them must inevitably be one-sided. (Read: boring.)

I also had a mixed reaction to the CGI effects. Some were wonderful, and others looked artificial despite being very detailed. The soundtrack was great, of course, with the classic John Williams theme wisely reused - though maybe they trotted it out once too often?

The conflict involving Lois Lane's family life was pretty good, though I felt that the revelations about her son, which I'll avoid spoiling here, undermined much of the potential tension and drama in the story. I'm very glad, though, that Lois' boyfriend was depicted as a smart, handsome and capable guy instead of some dumb and unworthy "straw man" rival to Superman.

I noticed that Roger Ebert's two-star review of "Superman Returns" is already taking a lot of criticism on this site. Though I think he was perhaps a tad too harsh, I have to say that I agree with many of his criticisms. His headline for the review, "Atlas Yawned," provoked a sympathetic laugh from me. I guess I can only hope for a sequel with more action, more oomph, more...Super-heroism?

---

274 out of 436 people found the following comment useful :-
Bryan Singer owes Superman an apology, 28 June 2006

Author: dpogue21

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing.

I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit.

My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground.

My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."

And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!

To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.

---

230 out of 361 people found the following comment useful :-
super sucks, 27 June 2006

Author: saiparadis from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Special effects? Good.

Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.

Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.

This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.

Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.

And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.

Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.

---

223 out of 371 people found the following comment useful :-
Superman Returns sure wasn't fun to watch., 30 June 2006

Author: Encyclopedia Brown from Hollywood, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I guess this movie is a fitting tribute to the first Superman film,as it is just as crummy and painfully long as the original.

After an opening scene consisting solely of murky intergalactic visuals, the credits pay homage to the even-crummy-looking-for-their-time futuristic sweeping credits of the original Superman film.

Then there is some more murky stuff. Ma Kent sees some kind of murky ruckus on the farm, and spends a good portion of my life slowly walking up to some debris in the cornfield. Then Superman sneaks up on her and faints.

Next we catch up with Lex Luthor in a scene about many murky close-ups of an old lady as she dies. We don't see Luthor's face until the end of the scene, an early instance of the film's drive to leave no hackneyed stone unturned. Lex Luthor is a guy who doesn't like Superman because he is not human. Also, he probably doesn't like humans either, as the movie occasionally features some kind of plot about Lex Luthor planning to kill most of Earth's population.

After a while, Clark Kent shows up back at his old job (I forgot to mention, he had been away on a five year trip where nothing happened). Then he finds out Lois Lane has an illegitimate kid and is dating Cyclops. It upsets him so much that he loses control of his super strength to such an extent that he accidentally breaks a picture frame.

At this point we see that Miss Lane is on some kind of jet attached to some kind of space shuttle. It is some kind of important event on account of it is on television. Then we learn that there are people in a control room monitoring this event. There are also people watching it on television and there are pilots in the cockpit. The film then reminds us that these people are involved by cutting between them for most of the summer.

As the events leading up to the inevitable disaster started to build, I excused myself to get a soda. I accidentally walked back into the wrong theater and watched that movie about Al Gore showing slides in its entirety. I tried to find my way back to Superman Returns, but I somehow wandered into Prairie Home Companion, which I watched twice in a row. Then it was time to stop messing around.

I walked back into the first theater, found my seat, and looked up to see that the impending Lois Lane space shuttle disaster was almost upon us. Still, it seemed to be taking forever, so I wandered around the theater, met a girl, got married, raised a son and sent him off to college. While attending my son's medical school graduation, I remembered that I should probably check in on Superman Returns, so I excused myself and raced back to the theater only to learn there was no need to hurry. It still took about another half hour before things went wrong for Space Shuttle Lane. When they did, Superman saved everybody, which was pretty cool.

. And then there is a a subplot where Superman turns really creepy and starts stalking Lois Lane and her family with his x-ray vision and super-hearing. Then he tries to get her to cheat on Cyclops, who seems like a good guy.

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is involved in some kind of contest to display every possible generic villain behavior before the end of the movie. I forgot to bring my scorecard home with me (they give you one at the door), but I think he scored damn close to one hundred percent. I hope he wins the million dollars.

At this point, things start to gear up for the big murky finale. I think maybe the projector was broken, on account of the movie seemed to be in some kind of loop for a while here. I remember seeing murky things growing out of the water, Superman getting sick, Superman getting better, back to the murky things, he's sick again, no wait, he's okay again.

Then Lex Luthor unleashed his final bad guy move: yelling at his girlfriend a little bit.

Then Superman died and came back to life. I thought the movie was over, so I left.

Ninety years later, the nursing home where I lived felt a little chilly. I realized I left my sweatshirt back in the theater, and I went to retrieve it. When I did, I was slightly surprised to find that Superman Returns wasn't over yet. I tried to ask some of the viewers what I missed, but most of them were only skeletons with long gray beards by now.

I sat back in my old seat and watched as Lois Lane puttered around her house for a while. Then Superman showed up and started quoting the beginning of the movie, and since I already saw that part I thought it was okay to leave.

So that is my review of Superman Returns.

Oh, also, if you like jokes about people eating dogs or jokes about one dog eating another dog, you will love this movie. On account of there are two jokes like that in it.

---

156 out of 257 people found the following comment useful :-
A Super Disappointment, 29 June 2006

Author: abhishekspeare2001 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I saw the movie last night and I really wanted to like it. My expectations for the movie had been going up and down ever since I heard it was being made. Some days I'd see something spectacular and some days I'd be disappointed.

Yet being the kind of fan I am, I had high hopes for this movie but in the end I was sorely disappointed.

While I love the Richard Donner movies I didn't like their sometimes campy nature or the changes they made to Superman's character and his powers.

Singer however chose to take the worst elements of the Donner movies and put them in his version.

While his Lex Luthor is slightly darker he's still nothing more than a shyster, a conman and a common criminal. He's no more intelligent than when Gene Hackman played him. Kevin Spacey does his best to play Luthor well but ultimately he falls victim to shoddy writing and unremarkable dialog.

His henchmen are more two dimensional than even comic book henchmen. Most of them literally have no dialog in the movie.

****SPOILERS AHEAD**** Kitty Kowalski is almost exactly the same character as Ms. Tesmacher. She seems to be as evil and cold as Lex Luthor but she proves to be just an underling who melts after seeing Superman in trouble and quite predictably betrays Luthor.

The biggest disappointment in the movie was Frank Langella as Perry White. I wasn't a huge fan of the over the top Perry White in the Donner movies but at least he had a soul. He was after all said and done, a veteran reporter who cared about the truth and a good story. Langella's Perry White is nothing but a corporate stooge. He wants everyone to concentrate on the Superman related stories because they sell papers even though every other paper is doing the same thing. He doesn't care about the real stories, the real mysteries like the black out and what Lex Luthor is up to now that he's out of prison.

The worst thing about Langella is that he's DULL! Some actors can be quiet and sober and yet have an undercurrent that lets you know that still waters run deep. Frank Langella is puddle.

Brandon Routh is not a bad actor. He's OK but again there is not a single memorable line in the whole movie. Not the actor's fault. His movements are clearly meant to look graceful, like even the slightest movement of his fingers effects the way he flies. But it still looks choreographed and artificial.

Lois Lane while badly written was surprisingly well acted by Kate Bosworth. Unfortunately, again, for a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and writer, she is about as eloquent as any teenage on Dawson's Creek.

James Marsden was my favorite actor in the whole movie, mostly because he looks more like Superman than even Routh. Without any superpowers he manages to figure out Lois Lane's message, flies a plane to the location, gets on board Luthor's yacht and rescues Lois and her son.

The only moving moment in the movie is when they are all trapped pantry as it is flooding with water and the ship is sinking. You see them slowly going being immersed in the water. You know Superman's going to come by at the last moment to rescue them but still you can't help but feel sorry for them.

As I said before the plot is very haphazard. Unlike Singer has said, this is not a movie about a superhero returning and trying to find his place in the world. As soon as he returns the world welcomes him back with open arms. Lois is the only one who's not happy to see him back. Even Luthor is happy to have Superman back because it gives him a chance to settle the score with the man of steel.

Superman is shown to be probably one of the dumbest heroes in the universe. A big green piece of meteorite is stolen from a museum, Lex Luthor is out of prison, he now has knowledge about Superman's powers and weaknesses, and yet he's still not able to connect the dots enough to know Luthor would be using kryptonite against him.

According to the movie the only thing Superman is good for is lifting really, really heavy things. The action sequences are all incredibly predictable.

---

142 out of 240 people found the following comment useful :-
There are worse superhero movies . . ., 28 June 2006

Author: braden7180 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The special effects were great. The performances (well, all of the major performances) were great. Brandon Routh has won my approval of his Superman, despite the fact that I still think he needs to bulk up a bit more. He won me over when he gave his first cheesy smile as Clark Kent. There were a lot of knods to Superman and Superman 2, and that was cool (the best knod, in my opinion, is when he repeats his "Flying is still the safest way to fly" speech to the people on the airplaine). I especially liked how the intro was done to resemble the old intros. I also liked (this will ruin the end if you haven't seen it) the morality that Superman chose to leave his son and Lois with Richard, and that Richard wasn't portrayed as a big jerk (like "the other guy" usually is). Oh, and I loved the part where you got the idea that little Jason White saw through Clark's disguise right off the bat.

There were a lot of good things about this movie. But I still give it a 6 out of 10. Allow me to explain why: it's continuing a storyline from a movie filmed nearly 30 years ago and has an entirely new cast (with the exception of the cameo by the late Marlon Brando). There are a lot of changes made . . . and that would be fine if the story was to start over: new franchise, new faces, new chain of events. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between this movie and Batman Begins. I'll confess my bias right up front that I think that movie is the best superhero film ever made, but one of the major things that it did right was start over. I can except Michael Caine as Alfred because he's established in a different storyline than Michael Gough's Alfred. I had a lot of trouble accepting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane because I'm supposed to accept that it's the same Lois as Margot Kidder. I can't get immersed in the idea that she's heartbroken by Superman because I never saw her fall in love with him.

Then there's the seemingly golden casting of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. When he tossed his wig to the little girl and said, "you can have this . . . the rest is mine," I thought, "Hewyeah! A truly evil Lex, not like Hackman's slapstick cartoon character." But no . . . his stuff was a lot of jokes and rolling his eyes at his bumbling henchmen, just like the old movies. He seemed like just the "villain of the hour" to me. Not Superman's genuine arch nemesis, but the bad guy on this week's episode. Also, you have the same problem as before because this Lex is supposed to be the same Lex as Hackman, and therefore the rivalry between he and Superman was supposed to already be there. "Why does this face hate this face?" That needs to be established. Far too much was left up to the viewer to just "assume." I could keep going, like how I think the guy who played Perry White did a particularly awful job. Perry White is supposed to be a hard ass, this guy was way too soft spoken and had no edge.

The costume change was okay, but, yet again, it's very different from the costume in the old movies and if this movie is supposed to be a continuation, why has it changed? Oh, and I can't figure out why someone thought dark red was a good idea.

There wasn't enough "Superman doing cool stuff," I felt. Spider-man made you feel like you were swinging around New York with him, but this movie just had a bunch of awe-struck bystanders looking to the sky. It had him doing very cool things, mind you, just not enough of them.

They never solidified the fact that Jason was Superman's son, either. Sure, it looked like he pushed the piano, but they never gave us any other confirmation. (NO! Seeing Superman in the water from a plane is not confirmation that he's his son). I honestly kept expecting to find out that it's not his kid after all, but then he's giving him his fatherly speech as he slept and . . . oh, okay, I guess it is his kid.

Then there's the problem with the story . . . Superman was 30 years old in the 1978 film (he left home and "made" the Fortress of Solitude when he was 18, and then he went on a 12 year "journey" with Jor-el), so that means if Superman was gone for 5-7 years (the movie wasn't to clear on it . . . or maybe it was, the sound wasn't working right in the theatre I saw it in), then he'd be in his mid to late 30's, and Lois would be considerably older, as well, and Jimmy Olsen wouldn't look like an 18-year-old . . . anyway.

I can also become super-geek and complain about how Lois Lane never knew about kryptonite in the old movies, raise questions as to how it's possible for an alien being to impregnate a human, and point out that if Superman comes within even a few meters of kryptonite, he loses all of his strength . . . so when kryptonite shards are inches from his face, he can't continue to lift a gigantic island into space. But what are you gonna do? Time wouldn't turn backwards if you make the Earth spin the other way, either.

---

61 out of 79 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie is just as good as the clothes the emperor wore., 19 July 2006

Author: (bligeri@hotmail.com) from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.

Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.

And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.

SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.

There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.

SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.

There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.

SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.

He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.

It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.

To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.

---

---

Page 1 of 230:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history