My Superman Returns Review - Page 4

irishjayhawk · 06-27-2006, 11:08 AM

So I took a shift last night and was working projection when the Superman prints arrived. Each print consisted of 3 cannisters to hold the massive 9 reels. I quickly alerted the build-up people - it seemed like the equivalent to alerting the Super Friends. Anyway, at about 10:40PM, the movie finally went up.

Now, I must preface this with my view on Superman. I find him plain. I don’t find him nearly as exciting as say Spiderman, any of the X-Men and Batman. Perhaps it’s because he only has one weakness and therefore doesn’t carry enough of the human characteristics I like in the other ’superheros’. Moreover, I just can’t help but laugh when people can’t see Clark is Superman. I mean the glasses don’t add that much! Thus, I wasn’t really watching this movie for Superman, as much as I was for Bryan Singer’s direction and John Ottman’s score. I also haven’t read any of the comic books, so I wasn’t expecting to pick out errors or constantly having to correct things that did or didn’t happen.

The movie opens with a neat CGI outer space recreation accompanied by a seemingly reversed Star Wars text intro, with its own spin. Combined with the music, it was actually really entertaining and easy to watch, despite it’s considerable length for the opening credits.

After the intro, the story switches between Lex Luther’s start to his master plan and Superman actually returning on an asteroid. It focuses on the farm and then on Clark’s memories about discovering his powers. It was a bit slow for my liking - though bearable - but in retrospect, it was a nice touch. The movie quickly picks up as Clark returns to the Daily Planet and meets Jimmy Olsen and the editor. Enough plot as I hate when the plot is given out.

First, let me say that Brandon Routh looks and acts the part. Kevin Spacey is the best Lex Luther either the movies or television series ever had. He’s energetic just looks the part all around. Both offer a great side to the movie and counter each other perfectly. Kate Bosworth isn’t exactly what I pictured Lois Lane to look like, though my mind could be fixated on the Teri Hatcher Lois Lane of the television series. Regardless, she did do a pretty good job with her part. Struggling between her married man and her love of Superman, she showed the torn nature of her character. James Marsden, who had worked with Singer on X-Men and X2, plays the part of Lois’ husband. Though his red sunglasses seen in X-Men definitely highlight him, he does a really nice job with such a small part (and no super powers). All in all, the acting is very good and everyone looks nice on screen.

The movie does have a somewhat slow beginning and end, but it is more than made up for for the good two hours of seemingly non-stop action. Accented by Ottman’s score (plus John Williams’ Main Title), the movie really takes on a life of it’s own. I have purchased the Superman score and can say, without a doubt, it’s a fantastic score and one I will listen to for a long time. It also goes hand in hand with the movie.

Singer has accomplished what I wanted accomplished from X3. See, Singer balanced character development with action. It was the exact same kind of balance found in both X1 and X2, though more in X2. It was what upset me about X3. Singer’s employ of odd camera angles, well done CGI and effects, as well as the direction of Kevin Spacey, in particular, was marvelous. Also, in what was another difference between X3 and ‘Superman’ was the fact that Singer was involved in the story. It seems he likes to alter the script or story to help suit his vision, thus earning himself a writing credit. In any case, like X2, this was probably what catapulted ‘Superman’ from just above mediocre to extraordinary. In the same way, it is what doomed X3. In my opinion, Singer the new age Stephen Spielberg.

There’s one major complaint I have about ‘Superman’, it’s the fact that Singer couldn’t do ‘Superman’ and X3.

Bottom-line: Must see! By the way, the IMAX version has some 3D parts. (20 minutes of 3D or 4-5 scenes lasting 4-5 minutes.)
DVD Bottom-line: Must own. Period. Same goes for the soundtrack.
Rating: 3.5 out of 4.

Just for what it's worth.

P.S. I didn't know if this should be posted in the lounge or MCE subforum. Please move, if necessary.

Gravedigger · 06-28-2006, 06:17 PM

Oh and the only dissapointing thing I really thought about the movie is I wouldve liked to see Superman grab Lex Luthor and take him to the prison yard at the end of the movie as he did in the earlier ones. That would've made me completely happy =P

mcan · 06-28-2006, 07:57 PM

everybody has their own opinions, but:

1. I think Routh did an AMAZING job of balancing making Superman/Kent his own, and doing a suedo impression of Reeves... That's not easy to do. Typically, performances that are "impressions" are terrible performances (even if the impression is good), but especially as Kent, Routh really nailed some of the nuances that Reeves gave him, as well as performing the scene the way it should be. The downturned grin, the the uptight shoulders, the way he'd fix his glasses while he was saying something, and then look to see that he'd blundered or that no one was paying attention and mutter, "oh..." Reeves 101...

2. I love how the movie blends into the Donner world, without being as CHEEZY as the Donner world. You get a sense of it with lines like: "I hope this experience hasn't turned you off of flying. Statistically, it's still the safest way to travel." There was so much of this in Donner's Superman that it was kinda embarrassing. Especially the little "precious" moments, like when they are flying together and Lois has that poetry monologue... "Can you read my mind?" Just stupid. I thought this movie was WAY better told than the originals.

3. I think Spacey did an excellent job of making Lex his own, although I would have liked to see a little more of a send up to Hackman, the way Routh did with Reeves. On it's own, the performance is good, but it lacks continuity... Although, it's justifiable since he's been in prison for so long and he's BITTER now. But I'd like to have seen some PHYSICAL manifestation of Hackman's performance. You don't have to be a used car salesman, but you should at least make an effort for body language to be similar.

4. I think the least continuity is with Lois. Obviously, today's audiences want a younger and more attractive Lois Lane. Let's face it, Margot Kidder just isn't the kinda girl that looks good on the side of a TACO BELL cup. So, I'm all for casting a hottie like Kate Bosworth (who can also act BTW). But again, there wasn't much of an effort to physicalize the continuity between the two performances. There was a SCRIPTUAL effort to tie them together (smoking, her fascination with health, her doing whatever it takes to win a prize for journalism, her CONSTANT interrupting of Clark and sidestepping). But I didn't SEE it.

5. The score is BRILLIANT. I heard a LOT of Williams' melodies in it. The love theme and the march were all over this movie, but they were mixed into a new background. It was really beautiful. Speaking of beautiful, this movie has some of the best cinimatography I've seen. Ever. I know a lot of it is CGI, but the outer space stuff is just incredible.

chief2000 · 06-28-2006, 08:20 PM

I am glad the director chose a new face/no name actor to play sup.er.man.

Kate Bosworth was miscast. Whats odd is that the original superman movie had a no name Margot Kidder as Louis Lane.

keg in kc · 06-28-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

2. I love how the movie blends into the Donner world, without being as CHEEZY as the Donner world. .... I thought this movie was WAY better told than the originals.

Ditto.

I remember loving Superman and Superman 2 as a kid. I watched them a couple months ago and just couldn't get over how horribly campy they were. It was like drowning in velveeta. I hated it.

Frazod · 06-28-2006, 09:54 PM

It wasn't bad. Certainly wasn't great, though. Not on par with the Spiderman movies or last year's Batman. If that's what you're expecting, you'll be disappointed. I did find it to be a bit overly dreary. On the other hand, it was a nice send up to the '78 Donner/Reeve film, with lots little things (the use of Brando as Jor-El, a photo of Glenn Ford as the deceased Jonathan Kent, for example)

I enjoyed it. Wish I'd enjoyed it a bit more.

tk13 · 06-28-2006, 10:22 PM

Spiderman does have a huge advantage over these movies in that there's not a gold standard sitting out there with a whole generation that sees the Christopher Reeve movies as Superman. It's been able to create its own standard that some director 30 years down the road might have to live up to. And the Batman movies had gone so downhill that people were looking for a fresh start. And some people didn't even like the Tim Burton movies. I think this movie had a much bigger shadow to live up to, and reading some of the reviews today around the internet reflect that. It wasn't easy, but I think I was able to separate myself from the old movies enough to where I loved the nostalgic touches, I'm really glad they put them in there, but was able to get into the story and believe it. I think there are some people going into it with a mindset that makes it hard to enjoy the film. I didn't want to put that in my review last night because that was kinda harsh, but probably true.

It remains to be seen, but I also think I'm going to enjoy it more the 2nd time around. I thought that after last night... and a lot of the uber-geeks I've read online who actually have already done it seem to agree, even the ones who were kinda iffy on it the first time around. Plus I want to see if I catch any more subtle things. Reading around the web, I know there's already one huge subtle homage that went right over my head, I should've picked up on it.

Lurch · 06-28-2006, 10:23 PM

I thought it sucked. Bad.

Valiant · 06-29-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Spiderman does have a huge advantage over these movies in that there's not a gold standard sitting out there with a whole generation that sees the Christopher Reeve movies as Superman. It's been able to create its own standard that some director 30 years down the road might have to live up to. And the Batman movies had gone so downhill that people were looking for a fresh start. And some people didn't even like the Tim Burton movies. I think this movie had a much bigger shadow to live up to, and reading some of the reviews today around the internet reflect that. It wasn't easy, but I think I was able to separate myself from the old movies enough to where I loved the nostalgic touches, I'm really glad they put them in there, but was able to get into the story and believe it. I think there are some people going into it with a mindset that makes it hard to enjoy the film. I didn't want to put that in my review last night because that was kinda harsh, but probably true.

It remains to be seen, but I also think I'm going to enjoy it more the 2nd time around. I thought that after last night... and a lot of the uber-geeks I've read online who actually have already done it seem to agree, even the ones who were kinda iffy on it the first time around. Plus I want to see if I catch any more subtle things. Reading around the web, I know there's already one huge subtle homage that went right over my head, I should've picked up on it.

There were dozens...

**Rausch** · 06-29-2006, 12:33 AM

The character is flawed because he has no flaws.

If you want to kill the Hulk shoot Banner in the face.

Spiderman can be killed any time with one shot.

Batman, minus all his toys, is still just human.

There is nothing that can even hurt Superman outside of a rock floating in some distant galaxy/solar system that no one can even get to.

It's the flaws in people that they're able to overcome that make heroes...

tk13 · 06-29-2006, 12:56 AM

But that's what I like about it, but I'm different. I like that he's different than everybody else. And therefore, it's hard for him to fit in. Very simple hero premise that originated with Superman.

There's another part I'd add to that... and I can't really address it without giving major parts of the movie away. The movie addresses his role in society, so to speak. I'm amazed I haven't seen more reviews talking about that, it was pretty strongly emphasized in the movie through both imagery and dialogue.

mcan · 06-29-2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

But that's what I like about it, but I'm different. I like that he's different than everybody else. And therefore, it's hard for him to fit in. Very simple hero premise that originated with Superman.

There's another part I'd add to that... and I can't really address it without giving major parts of the movie away. The movie addresses his role in society, so to speak. I'm amazed I haven't seen more reviews talking about that, it was pretty strongly emphasized in the movie through both imagery and dialogue.

I did catch one Kubrick reference in the score... But it was so subtle I don't even know if it was intentional. It seemed pretty obvious to me when I heard it though... Maybe I just WANTED it to be there...

tk13 · 06-29-2006, 03:03 AM

I really don't know. You'd know better than me. I'm sure there's stuff I missed... but Singer obviously thought a lot of this stuff out very carefully. That's why I want to see it again, although it'll be much easier to pick up these things on DVD.

Deberg_1990 · 06-29-2006, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

. I did find it to be a bit overly dreary. .

I would have to agree....overall it just didnt seem to be having much fun. It was good but not great. It just didnt touch me that much.

I would rate it just a notch below these other Superhero flicks:

Original Superman
Spiderman 2
Batman Begins
X-Men 2

I consider those the "Gold" standard of Superhero Flicks.

mcan · 06-29-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I would have to agree....overall it just didnt seem to be having much fun. It was good but not great. It just didnt touch me that much.

I would rate it just a notch below these other Superhero flicks:

Original Superman
Spiderman 2
Batman Begins
X-Men 2

I consider those the "Gold" standard of Superhero Flicks.

I'd recommend going back and viewing the original Supes again... It's pretty cheezy... Even for a comic book movie. The other movies, I'd have to agree are pretty great though.

Deberg_1990 · 06-29-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

I'd recommend going back and viewing the original Supes again... It's pretty cheezy... Even for a comic book movie. The other movies, I'd have to agree are pretty great though.

I have watched the orginal ones. Many many times.........and yes they havent aged well. The orginal Superman movie is still pretty damn good though except for the special effects which are now very dated. Donner's vision is pretty much the gold standard for Superhero films. It was the first film to take the Superhero mythology 100% serious. I actually still like Sups 2 & 3 but only for a the cheese nostalga factor. Part 4 isnt even worth mentioning its so bad.

06-27-2006, 11:08 AM
irishjayhawk Feelin' Alright Join Date: Aug 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	My Superman Returns Review So I took a shift last night and was working projection when the Superman prints arrived. Each print consisted of 3 cannisters to hold the massive 9 reels. I quickly alerted the build-up people - it seemed like the equivalent to alerting the Super Friends. Anyway, at about 10:40PM, the movie finally went up. Now, I must preface this with my view on Superman. I find him plain. I don’t find him nearly as exciting as say Spiderman, any of the X-Men and Batman. Perhaps it’s because he only has one weakness and therefore doesn’t carry enough of the human characteristics I like in the other ’superheros’. Moreover, I just can’t help but laugh when people can’t see Clark is Superman. I mean the glasses don’t add that much! Thus, I wasn’t really watching this movie for Superman, as much as I was for Bryan Singer’s direction and John Ottman’s score. I also haven’t read any of the comic books, so I wasn’t expecting to pick out errors or constantly having to correct things that did or didn’t happen. The movie opens with a neat CGI outer space recreation accompanied by a seemingly reversed Star Wars text intro, with its own spin. Combined with the music, it was actually really entertaining and easy to watch, despite it’s considerable length for the opening credits. After the intro, the story switches between Lex Luther’s start to his master plan and Superman actually returning on an asteroid. It focuses on the farm and then on Clark’s memories about discovering his powers. It was a bit slow for my liking - though bearable - but in retrospect, it was a nice touch. The movie quickly picks up as Clark returns to the Daily Planet and meets Jimmy Olsen and the editor. Enough plot as I hate when the plot is given out. First, let me say that Brandon Routh looks and acts the part. Kevin Spacey is the best Lex Luther either the movies or television series ever had. He’s energetic just looks the part all around. Both offer a great side to the movie and counter each other perfectly. Kate Bosworth isn’t exactly what I pictured Lois Lane to look like, though my mind could be fixated on the Teri Hatcher Lois Lane of the television series. Regardless, she did do a pretty good job with her part. Struggling between her married man and her love of Superman, she showed the torn nature of her character. James Marsden, who had worked with Singer on X-Men and X2, plays the part of Lois’ husband. Though his red sunglasses seen in X-Men definitely highlight him, he does a really nice job with such a small part (and no super powers). All in all, the acting is very good and everyone looks nice on screen. The movie does have a somewhat slow beginning and end, but it is more than made up for for the good two hours of seemingly non-stop action. Accented by Ottman’s score (plus John Williams’ Main Title), the movie really takes on a life of it’s own. I have purchased the Superman score and can say, without a doubt, it’s a fantastic score and one I will listen to for a long time. It also goes hand in hand with the movie. Singer has accomplished what I wanted accomplished from X3. See, Singer balanced character development with action. It was the exact same kind of balance found in both X1 and X2, though more in X2. It was what upset me about X3. Singer’s employ of odd camera angles, well done CGI and effects, as well as the direction of Kevin Spacey, in particular, was marvelous. Also, in what was another difference between X3 and ‘Superman’ was the fact that Singer was involved in the story. It seems he likes to alter the script or story to help suit his vision, thus earning himself a writing credit. In any case, like X2, this was probably what catapulted ‘Superman’ from just above mediocre to extraordinary. In the same way, it is what doomed X3. In my opinion, Singer the new age Stephen Spielberg. There’s one major complaint I have about ‘Superman’, it’s the fact that Singer couldn’t do ‘Superman’ and X3. Bottom-line: Must see! By the way, the IMAX version has some 3D parts. (20 minutes of 3D or 4-5 scenes lasting 4-5 minutes.) DVD Bottom-line: Must own. Period. Same goes for the soundtrack. Rating: 3.5 out of 4. Just for what it's worth. P.S. I didn't know if this should be posted in the lounge or MCE subforum. Please move, if necessary.
Posts: 16,887

06-28-2006, 06:17 PM	#46
Gravedigger Plays to win the game! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $7203101	Oh and the only dissapointing thing I really thought about the movie is I wouldve liked to see Superman grab Lex Luthor and take him to the prison yard at the end of the movie as he did in the earlier ones. That would've made me completely happy =P
Posts: 7,586

06-28-2006, 07:57 PM	#47
mcan Apr 13,1949 – Dec 15, 2011 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $9996085	everybody has their own opinions, but: 1. I think Routh did an AMAZING job of balancing making Superman/Kent his own, and doing a suedo impression of Reeves... That's not easy to do. Typically, performances that are "impressions" are terrible performances (even if the impression is good), but especially as Kent, Routh really nailed some of the nuances that Reeves gave him, as well as performing the scene the way it should be. The downturned grin, the the uptight shoulders, the way he'd fix his glasses while he was saying something, and then look to see that he'd blundered or that no one was paying attention and mutter, "oh..." Reeves 101... 2. I love how the movie blends into the Donner world, without being as CHEEZY as the Donner world. You get a sense of it with lines like: "I hope this experience hasn't turned you off of flying. Statistically, it's still the safest way to travel." There was so much of this in Donner's Superman that it was kinda embarrassing. Especially the little "precious" moments, like when they are flying together and Lois has that poetry monologue... "Can you read my mind?" Just stupid. I thought this movie was WAY better told than the originals. 3. I think Spacey did an excellent job of making Lex his own, although I would have liked to see a little more of a send up to Hackman, the way Routh did with Reeves. On it's own, the performance is good, but it lacks continuity... Although, it's justifiable since he's been in prison for so long and he's BITTER now. But I'd like to have seen some PHYSICAL manifestation of Hackman's performance. You don't have to be a used car salesman, but you should at least make an effort for body language to be similar. 4. I think the least continuity is with Lois. Obviously, today's audiences want a younger and more attractive Lois Lane. Let's face it, Margot Kidder just isn't the kinda girl that looks good on the side of a TACO BELL cup. So, I'm all for casting a hottie like Kate Bosworth (who can also act BTW). But again, there wasn't much of an effort to physicalize the continuity between the two performances. There was a SCRIPTUAL effort to tie them together (smoking, her fascination with health, her doing whatever it takes to win a prize for journalism, her CONSTANT interrupting of Clark and sidestepping). But I didn't SEE it. 5. The score is BRILLIANT. I heard a LOT of Williams' melodies in it. The love theme and the march were all over this movie, but they were mixed into a new background. It was really beautiful. Speaking of beautiful, this movie has some of the best cinimatography I've seen. Ever. I know a lot of it is CGI, but the outer space stuff is just incredible.
Posts: 3,761

06-28-2006, 08:20 PM	#48
chief2000 Starter Join Date: Apr 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	I am glad the director chose a new face/no name actor to play sup.er.man. Kate Bosworth was miscast. Whats odd is that the original superman movie had a no name Margot Kidder as Louis Lane.
Posts: 628

06-28-2006, 09:54 PM	#50
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $2815085	It wasn't bad. Certainly wasn't great, though. Not on par with the Spiderman movies or last year's Batman. If that's what you're expecting, you'll be disappointed. I did find it to be a bit overly dreary. On the other hand, it was a nice send up to the '78 Donner/Reeve film, with lots little things (the use of Brando as Jor-El, a photo of Glenn Ford as the deceased Jonathan Kent, for example) I enjoyed it. Wish I'd enjoyed it a bit more.
Posts: 119,532

06-28-2006, 10:22 PM	#51
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1692500	Spiderman does have a huge advantage over these movies in that there's not a gold standard sitting out there with a whole generation that sees the Christopher Reeve movies as Superman. It's been able to create its own standard that some director 30 years down the road might have to live up to. And the Batman movies had gone so downhill that people were looking for a fresh start. And some people didn't even like the Tim Burton movies. I think this movie had a much bigger shadow to live up to, and reading some of the reviews today around the internet reflect that. It wasn't easy, but I think I was able to separate myself from the old movies enough to where I loved the nostalgic touches, I'm really glad they put them in there, but was able to get into the story and believe it. I think there are some people going into it with a mindset that makes it hard to enjoy the film. I didn't want to put that in my review last night because that was kinda harsh, but probably true. It remains to be seen, but I also think I'm going to enjoy it more the 2nd time around. I thought that after last night... and a lot of the uber-geeks I've read online who actually have already done it seem to agree, even the ones who were kinda iffy on it the first time around. Plus I want to see if I catch any more subtle things. Reading around the web, I know there's already one huge subtle homage that went right over my head, I should've picked up on it. Last edited by tk13; 06-28-2006 at 11:06 PM..
Posts: 54,998

06-28-2006, 10:23 PM	#52
Lurch You rang? Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Greenbriar, USA Casino cash: $10004957	I thought it sucked. Bad. __________________ Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1,538

06-29-2006, 12:56 AM	#55
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1692500	But that's what I like about it, but I'm different. I like that he's different than everybody else. And therefore, it's hard for him to fit in. Very simple hero premise that originated with Superman. There's another part I'd add to that... and I can't really address it without giving major parts of the movie away. The movie addresses his role in society, so to speak. I'm amazed I haven't seen more reviews talking about that, it was pretty strongly emphasized in the movie through both imagery and dialogue.
Posts: 54,998

06-29-2006, 03:03 AM	#57
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1692500	I really don't know. You'd know better than me. I'm sure there's stuff I missed... but Singer obviously thought a lot of this stuff out very carefully. That's why I want to see it again, although it'll be much easier to pick up these things on DVD.
Posts: 54,998