For me, it was mainly the fact that it tried too hard. The Reeve/Donner Superman wasn't good because it was Reeve/Donner, but because it was just a good movie. Superman Returns tried so hard to be a Reeve/Donner film that it lost sight of trying to just be a good movie.
Also, Superman leaving his own illegitimate son behind to be raised by another man is just ick IMO...
-Lex as a Estate Genius
-Superman has a son. Seriously this is what made me hate the movie
-Superman gets beat up by random thus who don't finish the job obviously
-Kryptonite
-Oh did I mention, Kryptonite
I don't think the movie was horrible. I tried to look at it as a stand a lone. Not connecting to any other movie; sort of like a what if.
I agree with the original review. I just don't understand why Superman Returns gets so much hate. It's not perfect, but it's a good movie.
It's funny, I just saw Superman II last night and I have to say, I don't understand why it's so revered. It's really not a good movie at all. Atrocious FX aside (Obviously, I understand that's a product of the time), this movie is full of plot holes/PIS, bad dialogue, horrible characterization, and terribly choreographed fight scenes. Here are some of the problems I have with it:
1. How do Lois and Clark get back from the arctic so easily and quickly when they're both human?
2. Superman having to give up his powers to be with Lois = ridiculous PIS, imo.
3. When has Superman had the power to teleport and make copies of himself? I could be wrong, but I've never seen him do that in the comics.
4. While I love Gene Hackman, his Lex Luthor is completely out of character, in my opinion. He's way too cheesy/campy.
5. General Zod and Co are shallow and lazy characters. Their motivations are uninspired and unoriginal.
6. This is totally subjective, but I can't stand Lois Lane. I don't feel any connection or real emotion to/from her at all. I think she's a bad and over the top actress with an annoying voice.
7. Superman's power reversal scheme at the end is anti-climatic and silly.
8. Fight choreography is one of the worst I've seen. You don't need state of the art computer graphics to produce a good fight scene/battle.
9. The movie overall is HAMMY! I never really feel like Superman is in serious trouble, or that General Zod is a serious threat.
Let the stoning begin! 😛
Originally posted by nimbus006
Not the Donner cut. Maybe I should watch that. Is it completely different?
if you are into superman cinema history and how it could have been then buy it, otherwise it's worth a rent.
it's different and gives you a whole new set of plot holes to play with.
also in this version supes is a bit more selfish. nevermind the "hypnotic kiss", supes is willing to reverse the space/time continuum to manipulate others
This is what's wrong with it....
The following is a copy of the post I made immediately after seeing Superman Returns in 2006. Having further time to reflect upon my viewing, my opinion has not changed one iota. Unlike Man of Steel, which more or less fulfilled every single hope and expectation I had for a Superman movie, Singer's clumsy homage to Donner's 1978 film sucked--big time.
"OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:
1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Don't leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.
2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original campy performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the next logical step. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.
3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid every time we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.
4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystal-like geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...
5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to alleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.
6. Superman is basically unconscious for the last 30 minutes of the film. The title of this film is "Superman Returns", not "Superman Slumbers", isn't it?
7. Kryptonite again? Jesus.
8. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.
There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flaccid", and "impotent" come to mind."
Re: This is what's wrong with it....
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
8. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flaccid", and "impotent" come to mind."
yeah, your statement pretty much sums up that movie to the tee. to all the devil wears prada fans, bryan singer salutes you.....