Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I read on a few different reviews that Kevin Spacey was to fake and bubblegumish.
Thought it funny that you should say he was good, but im not critisizing you or anything, because i havn't seen the movie myself(yet).

I thought I had the urge to write a review, but I just erased the whole damn thing, lol. Straight up, this is for Supes fans only, and even they'll be dissappointed, I'm afraid. Ridiculous plot, uninspired performances, contrived "action" scenes, and a lousy final battle that ultimately becomes eclipsed by a heavy-handed romantic backstory, with elements that are all too obvious from the start.

A couple of homages, a couple of genuinely entertaining scenes, but overall, a pretty flat movie which wouldn't be missed had it not been made. I fell asleep a couple of times, grabbed a pop and candy hoping I'd get a sugar rush, and fell right back asleep. 150 minutes for a movie that could have EASILY been 90-100.

yea im sorry uwhusky i think you were too big of a fan of the movie and the action and cgi to reall think about the acting. Kate Bosworth was horrible. There was no real connection between her and routh, and she was just blah, and looked totaly out of place the entire time. I cant really say anything bad about Routh but nothing good either. He played the part well, but just wasnt given enough to really develop a good character. The story was interesting not exactly the way i thought the movie would go, really surprised they went with the superman has a kid thing

Overall I liked it, and it was good, but I just felt like there was something missing in it, one of those things you just cant put your finger on (besides the issues i already said).

It sucked the actor is aweful like Ufuk

Originally posted by forumcrew
yea im sorry uwhusky i think you were too big of a fan of the movie and the action and cgi to reall think about the acting. Kate Bosworth was horrible. There was no real connection between her and routh, and she was just blah, and looked totaly out of place the entire time. I cant really say anything bad about Routh but nothing good either. He played the part well, but just wasnt given enough to really develop a good character. The story was interesting not exactly the way i thought the movie would go, really surprised they went with the superman has a kid thing

Overall I liked it, and it was good, but I just felt like there was something missing in it, one of those things you just cant put your finger on (besides the issues i already said).

I cant wait to see it but I havent heard great reviews about it. I thinku r right, uwhusky seems to be too much of a fan, no offense intended. Maybe the sequel will be better, if theres one. Brian Synger didnt do too well on the first X-men but improve greatly on the 2nd one, hopefully the same thing will happen with this franchise.

It was a hell of lot better than than X-Men III, that's for sure.


*shudders*

Originally posted by Draco69
It was a hell of lot better than than X-Men III, that's for sure.


*shudders*

i haven't seen it yet, but hearing that it's better than X3 pisses me off to the max, because Bryan left Xmen to do superman

I'm holding up to my review. I need to see it again to clarify some misunderstanding. But yes I did enjoyed the film. We should really stop comparing movies specially anything with the Marvel logo on it. Everyone knows Marvel films delivers quality films with awesome CGI and unecessary character indepth. With super incredible fighting scenes and quick one liners.

....

i know it's just Xmen 3 was a good film but it was treated like crap

Originally posted by Emma718
i haven't seen it yet, but hearing that it's better than X3 pisses me off to the max, because Bryan left Xmen to do superman

He already did two X-Men movies. Without Singer, we wouldn't HAVE X-Men movies....

It's not like he could have made it any better. He doesn't write the story. He DIRECTS the story. Ratner directed a horrendous plot to the best of his ability and failed admirably...

yeah i guess the only ones we can blame for this is Fox

Originally posted by Emma718
i know it's just Xmen 3 was a good film but it was treated like crap

It WAS a crappy movie....

ok so it could of had improvements but it wasn't all bad

Originally posted by Emma718
ok so it could of had improvements but it wasn't all bad

Yeah it was...

The story was horrible. They mushed THREE X-Men mythos storylines together and dumped it into a proverbial blender. Why Phoenix? She had nothing to do with the Cure. All she did was STARE at people in the forest for no reason. She had a cool special effects...but that was it. She was just a bad character. She killed her friggin husband without a thought....but spared Wolverine? Pfft.

Poor characterization. No character growth whatsoever. We just learned about their powers and that's it. Callisto? We knew nothing about her. Iceman? He's a horny cheater on the down low with Shadowcat. Rogue? She cured herself....because Kitty was stealing her boyfriend. Wha?!

Too many characters. An X-Fan probably had multiple orgasms at this notion but for a normal audience member it was too damn confusing. Especially the annoying Porcupine Man. Angel? Had no other purpose but to fly around aimlessly. Psylocke was simply there as background. They should have had a core look at certain characters to make them more than cannonfodder.

No sense of direction. Nothing was explained. Why did Jean become Phoenix? Why did she kill her husband? Why did she join Magneto? Why did she kill Charles? Why DIDN'T she kill Wolverine? Why was she staring at everyone?

Poor dialogue. "I'm the Juggernaut, b*tch!!" 'Nuff said.

It was a one and half star movie at best. For a comics fan like myself, I give it two stars....depending on my mood....

Let's keep the discussion on Superman.

I thought it was a great movie. The ending just felt a little stretched out. That was my only real problem.

Alright, now that Dusty's weighed in, I can really rip.

First of all, the premise is absolutely ridiculous. Lex Luthor plans to flood all of Metropolis, and then raise a rock continent. Why? Anyone? Someone? Nobody can live on it considering it's full of radioactive Kryptonite, the likes of which Luthor had to wear a ring to avoid exposure to. It's uninhabitable, it provides no sustenance, and it's a ****ing rock. So, Superman comes back (the same time as Clark Kent of course, which nobody notices) and when he pops up on screen, it's to lift something heavy, and have a line or two of dialogue? Yes, "Superman Returns", but only when someone is in peril, or if someone's child's paternity is in question, which was a stupid, stupid backstory, the answer to which was obvious 15 minutes into the movie, from the first puff of the inhaler.

The casting looked great on the outside, superficially, but inside, there was no chemistry. There was no charisma. There was no talent. Routh was emotionless. Bosworth was empty, nowhere near as Catty and lovestruck as Margot Kidder, and Kevin Spacey's rendition of Luthor was that of a maniacal real estate agent, not snippy or funny like Hackman.

Supes and Luthor's imminent final battle was contrived, short, and devoid of excitement, instead, ending it with the sappy baby daddy drama, which again, was just silly. Big mistake casting a rookie actor in such a supposedly important role for a big summer blockbuster. I've seen more emotion on the face of a rotting fish, washed up on the beach.

150 minutes of disappointment and failed potential, IMO. Yes, it was missing something. Substance. Even if you leave your brain at the door, your intelligence wil be insulted by this film.

Originally posted by Draco69
It was a one and half star movie at best. For a comics fan like myself, I give it two stars....depending on my mood....




Two stars is too high. I'd give it 1.5, and that's being generous. It was a crap movie.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Alright, now that Dusty's weighed in, I can really rip.

First of all, the premise is absolutely ridiculous. Lex Luthor plans to flood all of Metropolis, and then raise a rock continent. Why? Anyone? Someone? Nobody can live on it considering it's full of radioactive Kryptonite, the likes of which Luthor had to wear a ring to avoid exposure to. It's uninhabitable, it provides no sustenance, and it's a ****ing rock. So, Superman comes back (the same time as Clark Kent of course, which nobody notices) and when he pops up on screen, it's to lift something heavy, and have a line or two of dialogue? Yes, "Superman Returns", but only when someone is in peril, or if someone's child's paternity is in question, which was a stupid, stupid backstory, the answer to which was obvious 15 minutes into the movie, from the first puff of the inhaler.

The casting looked great on the outside, superficially, but inside, there was no chemistry. There was no charisma. There was no talent. Routh was emotionless. Bosworth was empty, nowhere near as Catty and lovestruck as Margot Kidder, and Kevin Spacey's rendition of Luthor was that of a maniacal real estate agent, not snippy or funny like Hackman.

Supes and Luthor's imminent final battle was contrived, short, and devoid of excitement, instead, ending it with the sappy baby daddy drama, which again, was just silly. Big mistake casting a rookie actor in such a supposedly important role for a big summer blockbuster. I've seen more emotion on the face of a rotting fish, washed up on the beach.

150 minutes of disappointment and failed potential, IMO. Yes, it was missing something. Substance. Even if you leave your brain at the door, your intelligence wil be insulted by this film.

the kryptonite isnt dangerous to the rest of humans actually, multiple humans handle it with no protection in the movie. The new continent would take years upon years to be inhabitable though and it is one of the worst plots for a bad guy in some time. Wouldnt he want to develop alien weaponry or vehicles or something first? you know something usefull.

Originally posted by forumcrew
the kryptonite isnt dangerous to the rest of humans actually, multiple humans handle it with no protection in the movie. The new continent would take years upon years to be inhabitable though and it is one of the worst plots for a bad guy in some time. Wouldnt he want to develop alien weaponry or vehicles or something first? you know something usefull.

Actually it is. After prolonged exposure that is. It IS a radioactive isotope. That's why it's all glowy.

In comics, many people have gotten cancer because of prolonged exposure to kryptonite.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Alright, now that Dusty's weighed in, I can really rip.





Ok, I don't really feel the need to write a review, but I will say it was an enjoyable and well made movie. However, it doesn't live up to 'Batman Begins'. Just go to the movies not expecting much, and you'll enjoy yourself.

I hear Parker Posey was the best thing in the movie

Originally posted by Dusty




Ok, I don't really feel the need to write a review, but I will say it was an enjoyable and well made movie. However, it doesn't live up to 'Batman Begins'. Just go to the movies not expecting much, and you'll enjoy yourself.

How do you feel it was well made? I mean, its flaws have been outed so many times, by so many critics. Ebert ripped it, if that means anything to anyone. How could you NOT expect anything from it when it's been so hyped?

Even if you don't expect anything, you don't get anything other than a messy, overdrawn super hero movie with very little thats "super" about it.

Originally posted by Morning_Glory
I hear Parker Posey was the best thing in the movie

She's the only one with any emotion, albeit that of an airhead.

Originally posted by C-Dic
How do you feel it was well made? I mean, its flaws have been outed so many times, by so many critics. Ebert ripped it, if that means anything to anyone. How could you NOT expect anything from it when it's been so hyped?

Even if you don't expect anything, you don't get anything other than a messy, overdrawn super hero movie with very little thats "super" about it.

It was well made. I stand by that because it is my opinion. Not Eberts. Of course, the movie wasn't perfect. It had flaws, like most films. As for Lex? Lex's plan was stupid, but typical in your everyday comic book with the usual "I'm going to rule the world" type of plan.

I liked Hackman better than Spacey. But spacey was more than tolerable to watch. The acting wasn't bad. The action was great, but cut out in the ending 15 minutes. The effects shots were beautiful, and the cast was fine.

You seem to be expressing your opinion pretty forcefully. But is that appropriate seeing that you fell asleep several times during the film? I would find it hard to establish an opinion if I missed several bits and pieces to begin with.

Originally posted by C-Dic
She's the only one with any emotion, albeit that of an airhead.

yea its true, and thats so sad that it is.

I really enjoyed Superman Returns. Yeah it had flaws and some things that didn't make sense, but show me a comic book movie that totally makes sense and I'll show you one that probably isn't true to the comic. Villains are villains because they don't do things that make sense, this is no different.

I was thuroughly entertained throughout the whole movie, I never felt bored or unengaged, and that's all I ask from a movie like this, which is more than I can say about the original Superman, which has just as many flaws and plotholes and things that don't make sense as this one does.

The only real problem I have with Superman Returns was I didn't like Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. They coulda done much better. Rachel McAdams strikes me as an actress who woulda been an infinitely better Lois Lane.

Originally posted by Dusty
It was well made. I stand by that because it is my opinion. Not Eberts. Of course, the movie wasn't perfect. It had flaws, like most films. As for Lex? Lex's plan was stupid, but typical in your everyday comic book with the usual "I'm going to rule the world" type of plan.

I liked Hackman better than Spacey. But spacey was more than tolerable to watch. The acting wasn't bad. The action was great, but cut out in the ending 15 minutes. The effects shots were beautiful, and the cast was fine.

You seem to be expressing your opinion pretty forcefully. But is that appropriate seeing that you fell asleep several times during the film? I would find it hard to establish an opinion if I missed several bits and pieces to begin with.

I'm just asking for your opinion. You didn't say HOW it was well put together. That's all I'd like to hear, because I obviously disagree, and would appreciate your view.

Me falling asleep was merely dozing off for a couple of seconds before my buddy woke me up, or I caught myself. I highly doubt I missing anything of importance over the span of 2 1/2 hours. I got the jest of it. Luthor gets out of jail, floods the town, Kent comes back, saves people, straightens out some paternity issues, fin.

This, in my opinion, is one of the most uninspired, poorly written movies I have ever seen. Period.

my review:

i thought it was a very cool movie. Nothing was really bad about it, but to me, i didnt notice that huge 'hollywood' type climax fight. The ending dragged on a bit. From the movie, i got the feel of a day in the life on Superman.

Brandon Routh was a pretty good Superman in my opinion. It was worth watching

Originally posted by C-Dic
I got the jest of it. Luthor gets out of jail, floods the town, Kent comes back, saves people, straightens out some paternity issues, fin.

Floods the town?

I might be having memory issues, I can't say I remember that happening.

EDIT: unless you mean he Tried.

That was intention, I was abbreviating the (ridiculous) plot. I really would like to know, though, how you thought it was well put together. I've been discussing this with the big boys at DVDTalk and its split down the middle.

Originally posted by C-Dic
I really would like to know, though, how you thought it was well put together. I've been discussing this with the big boys at DVDTalk and its split down the middle.

It's very hard for me to explain. It's just what I think is your typical American hero movie. Trouble is about, hero comes to help, his weakness is found and taken advantage of, the bad guy goes to reek havoc, he overcomes odds, and then he saves the day. I'd like to go into detail, but I'm having trouble doing so.

On as side note, it really reminded me of 'Hercules' the animated movie.

I'm really holding on to my review...but I'll say this....

..Superman Returns is basically a popcorn summer film. It's not as serious or as indepth as Batman Begins. Comic book movies can be break down into groups. Anything from Marvel Comics is basically CGI and Action. The gutter of Comic books films are the pointless sequels with the same one liners and repetitive fights....this will include Superman IV and Batman and Robin plus Hulk, Elektra and Blade.

Now Batman Begins is in a class of it's own! It's trully the greatness of what a real Comic book movie should be. Superman Returns falls short by a few steps....but then again is a popcorn summer film.

It was too lazy even for a Summer movie, though. So many elements went unfulfilled, especially casting. To re-introduce a franchise after 20 years with no names in the lead roles, and tossing in a weak, WEAK main "villain" and an even more ridiculous plot and backstory...?

These movies are supposed to be short, fun, and engaging with lots of explosions and fights. Not sappy, drawn out melodrama and bland leads, which is how I saw it. Being a particular part of the year shouldn't be an excuse for lazy filmmaking, especially when directors say this is their "craft".

Singer rested on his laurels with "X-Men" and banked on a name brand super hero to rake in the dough, so he threw caution to the wind and shat out an unprocessed movie.

I just saw Superman Returns. Great movie. LOTS of fun campy moments.

8/10 stars.

I took off two stars for each sore buttock. The movie was a little too long...

Originally posted by C-Dic
It was too lazy even for a Summer movie, though. So many elements went unfulfilled, especially casting. To re-introduce a franchise after 20 years with no names in the lead roles, and tossing in a weak, WEAK main "villain" and an even more ridiculous plot and backstory...?

These movies are supposed to be short, fun, and engaging with lots of explosions and fights. Not sappy, drawn out melodrama and bland leads, which is how I saw it. Being a particular part of the year shouldn't be an excuse for lazy filmmaking, especially when directors say this is their "craft".

Singer rested on his laurels with "X-Men" and banked on a name brand super hero to rake in the dough, so he threw caution to the wind and shat out an unprocessed movie.

Casting was near perfect in my opinion. The guy playing Jimmy Olsen was spot-on. Perry White was good as well.

The spotlight goes to Brandon Routh in my opinion. DEAR GOD. It was VERY eerie watching him play Superman and Clark Kent for the first half-hour. He's a friggin clone of Christopher Reeves. Even his SMILE is exactly the same in some scenes. He aced the clunky, geek nature of Clark Kent and at the same time somehow looked like, well...SUPERMAN when he was in costume. He clearly wasn't just chosen for looks alone. He played a damn good Superman.

Kevin Spacy made a marvelous Lex Luthor. He injected much needed humour into the movie. He was a remarkably good at playing a villain you hated to love.

Kate played an okay Lois Lane. She certainly a better looker than the LAST one but she was a bit frail for my taste. She did a commendable job but was missing the "uh" of Lois Lane, ya know?

The plot was fun and campy. Lex's plan was dastardly evil. Which is what I liked about him. He just didn't give a f***. As "Prometheus", he did indeed steal "fire" from the "god" but instead of for the good of mankind it was purely for selfish reasons. He was villain through and through. He was willing to kill billions just because he could. Loved him.

All said and done, the movie wasn't nearly as bad as you thought, in my opinion. I think you took the movie WAY too harshly. You were clearly expecting Saving Private Ryan or something, but it's a COMIC BOOK movie; a superhero saves the day. That's all. And it was fun.

Plot, themes, character depth be damned.

I expected absolutely nothing from this movie, so I wasn't disappointed when when I left the theatre.

Originally posted by C-Dic
I expected absolutely nothing from this movie, so I wasn't disappointed when when I left the theatre.

Well that shows a negative bias when you came IN the movie, so obviously you wouldn't like it anyway.

I understand that ALOT of people are angry because it conflicts with the Superman timeline from the other movies. But ya know, whatever.

Not negative, neutral. There's a difference.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Not negative, neutral. There's a difference.

I doubt it. I've read your other posts, and you clearly have an agenda simply because you didn't like the new guy playing Superman and the rest of the cast.

Which is understandable, I too grew up with Christopher Reeves as Superman and I doubted anyone could possibly be a good stand-in. Brandon Routh proved me wrong (kinda...these two are so alike anyway) but I understand that we all gotta move on. Superman is timeless. And time does not wait for us to linger in the past. It will keep moving foreward, whether we like it or not.

At least, we can agree it was certainly better than most superhero movies. Like X-Men or Elektra or that piece of bile named the Hulk.

Don't get me started on Catwoman.

I think it was even to Batman Begins. I give Superman Returns the edge because we can actually SEE him fighting and he had a better villain. Scarecrow and Ra Ghul were terrible villains.

Originally posted by Draco69
I think it was even to Batman Begins. I give Superman Returns the edge because we can actually SEE him fighting and he had a better villain. Scarecrow and Ra Ghul were terrible villains.

Bah!

Ra's Al Ghul was the best villain, IMO!

Smart, menacing, and most of all unsuspected. There is nothing more frightening than not knowing your enemies.

Originally posted by Draco69
I doubt it. I've read your other posts, and you clearly have an agenda simply because you didn't like the new guy playing Superman and the rest of the cast.

Which is understandable, I too grew up with Christopher Reeves as Superman and I doubted anyone could possibly be a good stand-in. Brandon Routh proved me wrong (kinda...these two are so alike anyway) but I understand that we all gotta move on. Superman is timeless. And time does not wait for us to linger in the past. It will keep moving foreward, whether we like it or not.

At least, we can agree it was certainly better than most superhero movies. Like X-Men or Elektra or that piece of bile named the Hulk.

Don't get me started on Catwoman.

I think it was even to Batman Begins. I give Superman Returns the edge because we can actually SEE him fighting and he had a better villain. Scarecrow and Ra Ghul were terrible villains.

An agenda? That's insane! I've always been opinionated, so why hold back on a movie I was clearly unimpressed with? I couldn't care less who was in the lead role. I didn't even like the original Superman movie. Equally as long and unengaging, sold on a "Pro-USA" theme, which they cleverly avoided, i.e. "truth, justice, and all that stuff..". Reeve was a one hit wonder, as well. Routh lacked intensity, charisma, and the cunning that Kent had. I don't think Routh made for a great Superman other than his looks, those eyes were empty, though. Kate Bosworth was equally as flat, given Margot Kidder's Lois was one that was flighty, ditzy, and clearly taken aback whenever she was in Superman's presence. Lex Luthor was about as menacing a "villain" as Dr. Evil. "Watch me as I try and flood a city so I can raise up some rocks for absolutely no reason other than because I can!" Great plot for a summer blockbuster, bring Supes out of retirement to stop an evil rock city. What the ****.

Superman vs Luthor was so weak, it may as well have been non-existant. Superman finds Lex, gets stabbed with kryptoniteand the "fight" is over. Astonishing display of power there, Supes. See, they had to get the confrontation out of the way so they could get back to the baby drama, which was what's driving this contrived mess, wrongfully so, might I add. It's a superhero movie, not an episode of Maury Povich.

"Batman Begins", in most everyone's opinion is head and shoulders above "Returns". Bale has charisma. Bale has intensity. Bale is imposing. Bale is a flawed human being, the likes of which we can all relate. The villains aren't the focus here, although they're equally as real. That said, Cillian Murphy was ****ing maniac, and credible as villain. Lex Luthor was like a disgruntled Century 21 agent who got ****ed out of a commission so decides to take land for himself.

Originally posted by C-Dic
An agenda? That's insane! I've always been opinionated, so why hold back on a movie I was clearly unimpressed with? I couldn't care less who was in the lead role. I didn't even like the original Superman movie. Equally as long and unengaging, sold on a "Pro-USA" theme, which they cleverly avoided, i.e. "truth, justice, and all that stuff..". Reeve was a one hit wonder, as well. Routh lacked intensity, charisma, and the cunning that Kent had. I don't think Routh made for a great Superman other than his looks, those eyes were empty, though. Kate Bosworth was equally as flat, given Margot Kidder's Lois was one that was flighty, ditzy, and clearly taken aback whenever she was in Superman's presence. Lex Luthor was about as menacing a "villain" as Dr. Evil. "Watch me as I try and flood a city so I can raise up some rocks for absolutely no reason other than because I can!" Great plot for a summer blockbuster, bring Supes out of retirement to stop an evil rock city. What the ****.

Superman vs Luthor was so weak, it may as well have been non-existant. Superman finds Lex, gets stabbed with kryptoniteand the "fight" is over. Astonishing display of power there, Supes. See, they had to get the confrontation out of the way so they could get back to the baby drama, which was what's driving this contrived mess, wrongfully so, might I add. It's a superhero movie, not an episode of Maury Povich.

"Batman Begins", in most everyone's opinion is head and shoulders above "Returns". Bale has charisma. Bale has intensity. Bale is imposing. Bale is a flawed human being, the likes of which we can all relate. The villains aren't the focus here, although they're equally as real. That said, Cillian Murphy was ****ing maniac, and credible as villain. Lex Luthor was like a disgruntled Century 21 agent who got ****ed out of a commission so decides to take land for himself.



That's your opinion. However I still think you're being a tad harsh to the movie for lack of...humanism.

Perhaps you didn't like Superman Returns because you don't like Superman? He's not supposed to be human. Thus the "Prometheus" theme going on in the movie.


The "Pro-USA" statement I disagree with for the sheer stupidty of the comment. Superman was created in the USA to be an AMERICAN hero. Why people in other countries can't get that simple notion is beyond me...

Which is why he was raised in KANSAS and saves METROPOLIS, and AMERICAN city.

Originally posted by Draco69


The "Pro-USA" statement I disagree with for the sheer stupidty of the comment. Superman was created in the USA to be an AMERICAN hero. Why people in other countries can't get that simple notion is beyond me...

The "Pro-USA" stance was ditched in "Returns" to avoid it being viewed as politcal propaganda, here the week of the July 4th weekend.

I didn't like "Superman Returns" because I think it was a bad movie. I could flip the script and say the reason you like it is because you're biased?



Camp doesn't sell blockbusters. Camp sells B rate horror movies. If someone were to write a concise synopsis, staying true to the movie, it would sound something like this. Spacey, as I said before, wasn't menacing. He was touted as evil, but seemed like he couldn't care what happened to anyone, himself included.

"In 'Superman Returns', Superman (Routh) returns to Earth after a 5 year hiatus to confront Lex Luthor (Spacey) who plans to flood Metropolis to resurrect a rock island, while Lois Lane (Bosworth) struggles with a dark secret and man trouble."

Would you see that movie? Or would you be sold on;

"After 20 years, Superman returns to the big screen! Hollywood hopeful, Brandon Routh takes the helm as the new Man of Steel in the latest installment that finds Superman back on Earth after a 5 year mission, to face his arch-nemesis, the evil Lex Luthor, as played by Oscar Award winner Kevin Spacey. Director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X-2) presents "Superman Returns", opening in theatres everywhere June 21st!"

If you're sold on the latter, which I wasn't, I'd like to think you'd be disappointed by what you had paid whatever money you did to see 150 minutes of a silly plot, an overbearing dramatic backstory, and Superman, who was literally relegated to CAMEOS IN HIS OWN ****ING MOVIE.

Originally posted by Draco69
Well that shows a negative bias when you came IN the movie, so obviously you wouldn't like it anyway.

I understand that ALOT of people are angry because it conflicts with the Superman timeline from the other movies. But ya know, whatever.

i go into a lot of movies with "negative" feelings and come out liking it that much more if it was actually good, so thats not alwasy a bad thing. I actually was really looking forward to this one though, but i felt bosworth looked out of place from the trailers, and really liked her even less after the movie.

Originally posted by C-Dic
The "Pro-USA" stance was ditched in "Returns" to avoid it being viewed as politcal propaganda, here the week of the July 4th weekend.

I don't think so. For example, Superman was orbiting Earth and listening for trouble.....and he chooses to stop a bank robber....in America. Genocides in Sudan clearly were beneath him....



Originally posted by C-Dic
I didn't like "Superman Returns" because I think it was a bad movie. I could flip the script and say the reason you like it is because you're biased?

The script wasn't bulletproof that much is true. But's a COMIC-BOOK movie. It's supposed to be non-sensical. It's supposed to be campy. It's supposed to have delibrately lame "take over the world" plots by manical villains. That's the essence of Superman. The whole "save the world from baddie" started with him.

The reason I like the movie was because it was true to Superman mythos and the previous movies. I wasn't expecting top-notch acting like you were, or a villain with a strong motivation like you were. I was expecting SUPERMAN flying around and saving the day from ridiculous threats. Luthor makes all kinds of ridiculous threats everyday. He's SUPPOSED to.

I didn't like several things about the movie:

1) The constant Superman theme. I have it stuck in my brain, I heard it so much.

2) The woman playing Lois Lane. Too frail, in my opinion.

3) More insight to why he left Earth without saying goodbye.

4) The annoying kid. Thankfully, he didn't say much...



Originally posted by C-Dic
Camp doesn't sell blockbusters. Camp sells B rate horror movies.

And Star Wars. And Spider-Man. And Superman for that matter.

Star Wars is nothing but camp but it still sells out.

Camp can be good if it's done correctly. It was in this movie since it was paying a homage to the campy Pre-Crisis Superman of the olden days.



Originally posted by C-Dic
Spacey, as I said before, wasn't menacing. He was touted as evil, but seemed like he couldn't care what happened to anyone, himself included.

Which is why he attempted to escape the island on a helicopter and in the first scene stepped back from the train wreck...

Luthor wasn't meant to be menacing. He was just meant to be a fun, evil bastard you couldn't help but like.



Originally posted by C-Dic
"In 'Superman Returns', Superman (Routh) returns to Earth after a 5 year hiatus to confront Lex Luthor (Spacey) who plans to flood Metropolis to resurrect a rock island, while Lois Lane (Bosworth) struggles with a dark secret and man trouble."

Would you see that movie? Or would you be sold on;

"After 20 years, Superman returns to the big screen! Hollywood hopeful, Brandon Routh takes the helm as the new Man of Steel in the latest installment that finds Superman back on Earth after a 5 year mission, to face his arch-nemesis, the evil Lex Luthor, as played by Oscar Award winner Kevin Spacey. Director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, X-2) presents "Superman Returns", opening in theatres everywhere June 21st!"


Actors and awards don't sway my interests. My interests is solely the subject material. I like certain subjects and certain themes. I'll see a movies solely on these notions.

IOriginally posted by C-Dic
f you're sold on the latter, which I wasn't, I'd like to think you'd be disappointed by what you had paid whatever money you did to see 150 minutes of a silly plot, an overbearing dramatic backstory, and Superman, who was literally relgated to CAMEOS IN HIS OWN ****ING MOVIE.

It was meant to be silly. Were any of us expecting something serious like terrorism or Doomsday in Superman? It's Superman for goodness' sake. He's silly as it is. All superheroes are.

Again, you're being overly harsh with the movie. You were expecting to much from it (contrary to what you say) and was clearly wanton for something more:

A) serious
B) more action
C) less drama
D) Academy-Awarding winning....

It's a superhero movie. If I were to take the plot of EVERY superhero movie seriously like you are, than every superhero, horror, and action film would get no more than C in my book.

This isn't Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain.

It's SUPERMAN. It's silly, ridiculous, fun and campy. If it were as you wanted it, than it would be rather unenjoyable.

Originally posted by forumcrew
i go into a lot of movies with "negative" feelings and come out liking it that much more if it was actually good, so thats not alwasy a bad thing. I actually was really looking forward to this one though, but i felt bosworth looked out of place from the trailers, and really liked her even less after the movie.

I too would have chosen a better Lois Lane.

I think alot of the negative criticism (and overly harsh criticisms) is because of the casting choice.

EVERYONE has a different perspective on who Superman and Lois Lane should look like, act like, and talk like.

Regardless of who they would choose, the cast would get panned nonetheless. Even if it were Jesus Christ himself playing Superman...

*looks around*

Have you seen all the backlash towards Singer for changing the "..for truth, justice, and the American way" catchphrase? It was changed deliberately to sell the movie to a worldwide audience. It's not terribly important to some, but to others, it's tainting a 60 year old legacy. I must have fallen asleep during the cutscenes of the suicide bombings and air attacks.

"Superman Returns" plot wasn't campy. It was stupid. It was insulting. Of all things, he comes back to stop a passive bald guy from resurrecting some ROCKS!? What immediate danger does this pose!? Where's the urgency in THAT shit! Give me a break, man! This is SHIT storywriting! It was seemingly ALWAYS their intention to make the romance and the baby daddy drama the selling point here. Where Superman was, why, and what he did when he came back was SECONDARY.



Incorrect. "Star Wars" is world religion set to a space opera. It's the battle between good and evil, right and wrong, God and the Devil, the circumstances of our choices, the temptations we're seduced by, the inner struggles we all face..and a shitload of cool characters.

"Star Wars", the first movie, is much deeper than anyone wishes to realize, and it's all right there. I didn't expect a single thing from "Superman Returns". I went because I was a fan of Bryan Singer's work. Again, I would have appreciated a story that didb't revolve around a sick kid, a story with a villain that actually posed a threat, and climactic battle that was more than that of being stabbed and falling off of a cliff.

I really have nothing else to say about the movie. I've spoke my mind. I disliked it immensly, fail to see any redeeming factors in it, and don't recommend it to anyone else.

Lex Luthor. From harboring nuclear weapons in "Superman 4" to imposing his will with rocks and water.

What a pussy.

Superman Returns: WORST MOVIE EVER!

Overall, I liked it. It wasn't quite as good as I had hoped, but I wouldn't call it bad. If they did one thing right, it was the special effects. Visually, I thought this movie was amazing. Routh did a good job as Superman/Clark and Spacey did a great job as Lex. I was pretty disappointed, however, in the climactic battle for the reasons Cine said above. It was very un-epic. I suppose I'm somewhat biased, but I enjoyed the film.

The thing I dislike about hardcore Star Wars fans is the whole "If you don't get it, you're stupid.". Try saying that about The Matrix and everyone starts scoffing.

I like the original trilogy but it was less original than people wish to realise also. Darth Vader, the best thing about Star Wars, was ripped quite blatantly from Dr. Doom, as evident as can be when you read the comics.

On topic, I wanted to see this movie, but I'm thinking of waiting till the DVD release to rent it.

-AC

Superman Returns isn't at the top of my MUST SEE list... it's definitely a dvd viewing for me.

I'm a massive fan of Parker Posey, please tell me she was good, she was the only reason I watched Blade 3.

She was good. Played her part really well.

Superman returns wasn't exactly a perfect first-superhero-movie-best-picture-oscar movie, but it certainly was an enjoyable summer popcorn-flick. Now, I thouroughly believe that there is a difference between a movie and a film. I felt that Superman Returns was right in between. It's cool, action-packed, CGI-infested summer fun, but it does contain that touch of authentic filmmaking that, before Batman Begins, we didn't seem to possess since the earlier Superman's.

Batman Begins was one of the best movie's I had seen in a while, or at least the best Superhero movie I'd ever seen. The fresh, dark, realism and no-holding-back was fantastic and deserved a million pat-on-the-backs for Christopher Nolan. Bryan Singer took a big chance for this movie when he left X-Men 3, which, through comparisons of both films, turned out to be a wise career choice.

Superman Returns contained such fun, through Parker Posey's character, the legendary opening credits of Superman's return to Earth, and just a mouth-full of action sequences (the airplane crash). The performances were so-so. Brandon Routh seemed to mimic Chris Reeve a little too much, even though he wasn't terrible for his first lead role. Plus, being the teeneage girl that I am, he was really hot. Kate Bosworth didn't feel like she captured her character of a reporter at all. Lex Luthor, as someone said earlier, was a little bit bubble-gumish, however he did have some fine points to his performance. In escence, Superman Returns was a slightly flawed film/movie, but packed a power-punch that should be recognized as one of the top highlights of summer 2006. With all these cool, awesome summer flicks (Superman, Cars, MI3), I can't wait to see what POTC 2, Miami Vice, and Apocalypto have to deliver.

Superman Returns Grade: B+

Originally posted by Draco69
That's your opinion. However I still think you're being a tad harsh to the movie for lack of...humanism.

Perhaps you didn't like Superman Returns because you don't like Superman? He's not supposed to be human. Thus the "Prometheus" theme going on in the movie.


The "Pro-USA" statement I disagree with for the sheer stupidty of the comment. Superman was created in the USA to be an AMERICAN hero. Why people in other countries can't get that simple notion is beyond me...

Which is why he was raised in KANSAS and saves METROPOLIS, and AMERICAN city.

I think that's the why the film got this unfortunate negativity. Some people hate Superman down to earth. I personally think that DC Comics and WB are wusses for not putting "The American Way" in the film. However, that still didn't make me dislike the movie. The film did have some American themes in it....the Spaceshuttle getting launch...the Baseball Field....the Mid-western fields...pretty neat IMO.

The only thing that kinda' bugged me in Returns was one line.

"Does he still stand for Truth, Justice...all that stuff."

I agree. Shame on you Warner. Shame on you for not having the balls to say "And the American way".

I thought Superman Returns was great. As I did X-Men 3.

I thought it was a good movie.

Did anyone notice that the bartender in the movie is actually the original Jimmy Olsen?

All and all, a well put together movie. The actors fit their roles pretty good. I love when that man plays an evil charecter droolio. The story was great, the action sequences were good. Some of the parts were a little bit more drawn out than need be. The music in this movie is what kept me watching. Oh my god, i love the superman music. But the usage of these scores and the different arrangements are what made this movie for me. That is the whole reason for seeing it

****/ 5

I really really enjoyed this movie!

I'm really not getting most of these opinions. Seriously. "Well put together" is the most mind-boggling of them all.

I finally saw it this past weekend. I liked it but is one of those movies that you dont watch more than once or twice. While it wasnt great it kept me enterntained. I liked the part when he saves the plane and reveals to thw world he is back. Feel good moment right there. Some of the things I liked:
Superman: Kinda reminded me of Chris Reeves and while mostly he had kinda slow dialog so did C.Rs Superman.

Richard White: I liked the fact that they didnt make him a punk. He came off as a nice guy, he was pretty good to the kid. Finally Cyclops got the exposure he didnt get in X3. He held his own.

Sun: I liked how he used the sun to get better. While its common knowledge it wasnt really used in previous movies.

Things I didnt liked:

Lois lane: Im sorry but I didnt believe she was Lois Lane, I didnt even find believable that she smokes. She was such a bad choice for the role. I didnt find any chemistry between her and Supes. I wonder, If Superman erased her mind at the end of Superman 2(best Superman movie) How she knows is his kid?

Lex Luthor: I had no problem with Kevin Spacey's acting but it wasnt the Lex Luthor I expected. Michale Rosenbaum form Smallville makes a better Luthor, hell the JLA cartoon Lex is better than the movies. Him and Supes didnt even have no interaction whatsoever until the whole continent thing.

The kid: He didnt need a kid. They messed it up because whoever comes along has to incorporate the kid into the storylines. They couldve attributed the whole piano thing as adrenaline rush or whatever.

The plot: Terrible storyline. While I understand the whole "continentt" thing, even that it was habitable as a result of the crystals borrowing from the earths materilas or whatever but it was a ridiculous story.


As soon as I saw that Jon Peters was producing I thought about a freaking giant spiders(I recently saw the very funny movie An Evening with Kevin Smith)

Originally posted by C-Dic
I'm really not getting most of these opinions. Seriously. "Well put together" is the most mind-boggling of them all.


Hooray for me!

It's just that after reading so many peoples comments at DVDTalk, we all agree that it wasn't well put together, because it hinges on a ****ing paternity issue, and Superman's entire involvement is overshadowed by it. The pieces don't fit.

I agree with Draco on almost everything.

is it just me or the guy from kermer(or wtv)goes to white castle just didnt fit in the movie!!

Originally posted by Xam
is it just me or the guy from kermer(or wtv)goes to white castle just didnt fit in the movie!! I knew he looked familiar, didnt knew from where.

just watched superman the return. it was a good movie not great. I have some issues about the direction. CGI was the best i had ever seen in a movie, but my problem was that i thought superman was supposed to find it hard for him to return to a world different that the one he left five years before it seemed to me that it was easy for him to return everyone is happy and glad but the story in my opinion could have been better if people didnot want him back and actually showed heroes super or other wise resent the fact that they were still fighting the good fight because of the "inspiration" of the man of steel and then feel betrayed that he left without saying a word. it just seemed to me that the major obstacle he had to endure was only of the physical kind and of course supes will get over that because well he is supes but if he had to deal with people not all that concern with his return and for him to figure what to do and how to be relevant would have been a better movie. I thought that was the supposed direction for this film. i will address luthor another time

i thought kevin spacey was not bad i think that the way lex is portrayed as a supervillian crook is not good the characterization of lex, in small ville and the animated superman and justice league lex is portrayed as a brilliant multimillionaire genius who is wise and evil at the same time. watch Michael rossenbaum in small ville to appreciated what lex should have been like in the movie, for SR, they should have made lex become a respectable member of society during supes hiatus, and now supes must deal with society not trusting him like they did before dont forget he is an alien no one knows he grew up in a farm, louis moving on with some guy and also society looking at lex as a role model of rehabilitation in society, lex hates supes because he feels he makes humans lazy and rely on him to solve all of their problems, that would have capture the audience better, it just my 0.02 cents i

Originally posted by C-Dic
It's just that after reading so many peoples comments at DVDTalk, we all agree that it wasn't well put together, because it hinges on a ****ing paternity issue, and Superman's entire involvement is overshadowed by it. The pieces don't fit.


What? That was such a small part of the plot of this movie, how can you say the movie hinges on it? Besides, it makes perfect sense to the entire story of Superman dating back to the Christopher Reeve ones. It also directly corrilates with one of the main personal conflicts that the character of Superman had during the entire movie. Not being human and finding companionship. It's just such a little thing to complain about, I don't get it.

a good movie! i love superman! lois lane is such a jerk even though superman saved her in a f***ing plane crash she still claims that she doesn't need a savior... FREAK!

Originally posted by C-Dic
It's just that after reading so many peoples comments at DVDTalk, we all agree that it wasn't well put together, because it hinges on a ****ing paternity issue, and Superman's entire involvement is overshadowed by it. The pieces don't fit.


The paternity issue didnt show up till well in the movie when Lex brought it up.

Hows about when Lois introduced him to Clark in the office? The kid took a whiff of off an inhaler a la Reeve in the original.

if you didn't know it was has by then, and you saw the original, you have to be incredibly ignorant.

From then on out, whenever they were in peril, the camera panned to the kid as if to say "Well, go ahead!"

Reeve had an inhaler?



OK, you hated the movie, its the worse movie you have ever seen, but not everyone shares that believe.

Saw the film yesterday, loved it.

Id say 9/10.

It fell perfectly in line with Superman and Superman II, and made me hopeful for a great new trilogy.


I went in knowing all the criticisms of some viewers( the kid, lex's plot, not enough action) and they didn't jump out at me.

If you really were to look at this film as the story of Superman coming back after having been gone for 5 years, directly after the events of Superman II, then all those "complaints" are actual valid plot points.

The kid just continues from Lois and Supes sleeping together in II, Luthors plan is the same becuase HE is the same, (Except for being a mite bit meaner and hardened by prison which is shown by him SHANKING supes for God's sake.)

As for not enough action, I hardly noticed.

Haters can suck it.

Superman has returned.

your all d1cks! it's better than daredevil, hulk, batman 1,2,3... err all but slightly off begins, spiderman, fell short of spiderman 2, elektra, fantastic four,flash, it would of been shorter to say the films it didnt beat which were only TWO! fcuk the rest jerk offs

I thought it was pretty good. However I did find out something after I had watched the movie that made me frown. Its been a longstanding tradition in Superman stuff for the line "Truth, Justice, and the American way" to be given but in this translation it was given as "Truth, Justice, and all that other stuff..." It makes me wonder why Singer did that

Maybe they wanted to leave that out for people who are living in other countries who see the movie don't feel bad. I don't know, just a hunch.

saw the movie... twice. why? because first off, i liked it. two, my friend kept talking to me during my first viewing that i missed some parts. and three, you tend to discover things and have a deeper understanding of the movie since you've been "caught up" and not distracted by the "ooohh, another action sequence coming" anticipation.

the movie was a great summer flick. i enjoyed it thoroughly. though i must admit, some scenes were just dragging on. and kate bosworth was just... bleh. didn't like here since she was catsted. bad choice for a lois lane. erica durance would've been better, or rachel mcadams like BF said.

lex luthor's character was the same lex luthor from the reeve's movie. in the 1st one, wanted land too. in the secoond, he just wanted to kill superman for puttinghim in jail. in superman returns, he wanted land and wanted to kill superman for bringing him back to jail. i thought spacey did a fine job.

the rest of the cast did good, IMO. they all played their part. superman having a kid is fine by me. i didn't find it totally out of place since him and lois got it on in the fortress in superman 2. though the memory wipe thing seems like a plot hole. either that or superman was so0o0o good in bed that even the memory wipe was useless on lois' memory. droolio

Originally posted by super pr*xy

the rest of the cast did good, IMO. they all played their part. superman having a kid is fine by me. i didn't find it totally out of place since him and lois got it on in the fortress in superman 2. though the memory wipe thing seems like a plot hole. either that or superman was so0o0o good in bed that even the memory wipe was useless on lois' memory. droolio

Besides the memory wipe I would like to know, since by the time they slept together in Superman 2 Clark had already given up his powers and was completly human, How the kid got his strenght/powers?

Maybe thats why the kid turned out fragile. lol

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Besides the memory wipe I would like to know, since by the time they slept together in Superman 2 Clark had already given up his powers and was completly human, How the kid got his strenght/powers?

Because even without superpowers, Kal-el is a Kryptonian, not a human.

His son would therefore be a half human/Kryptonian hybrid, whose genetics would grant him powers living in a planet with a yellow sun.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Alright, now that Dusty's weighed in, I can really rip.

First of all, the premise is absolutely ridiculous. Lex Luthor plans to flood all of Metropolis, and then raise a rock continent. Why? Anyone? Someone? Nobody can live on it considering it's full of radioactive Kryptonite, the likes of which Luthor had to wear a ring to avoid exposure to. It's uninhabitable, it provides no sustenance, and it's a ****ing rock. So, Superman comes back (the same time as Clark Kent of course, which nobody notices) and when he pops up on screen, it's to lift something heavy, and have a line or two of dialogue? Yes, "Superman Returns", but only when someone is in peril, or if someone's child's paternity is in question, which was a stupid, stupid backstory, the answer to which was obvious 15 minutes into the movie, from the first puff of the inhaler.

The casting looked great on the outside, superficially, but inside, there was no chemistry. There was no charisma. There was no talent. Routh was emotionless. Bosworth was empty, nowhere near as Catty and lovestruck as Margot Kidder, and Kevin Spacey's rendition of Luthor was that of a maniacal real estate agent, not snippy or funny like Hackman.

Supes and Luthor's imminent final battle was contrived, short, and devoid of excitement, instead, ending it with the sappy baby daddy drama, which again, was just silly. Big mistake casting a rookie actor in such a supposedly important role for a big summer blockbuster. I've seen more emotion on the face of a rotting fish, washed up on the beach.

150 minutes of disappointment and failed potential, IMO. Yes, it was missing something. Substance. Even if you leave your brain at the door, your intelligence wil be insulted by this film.

Then I must be a moron,cause I really liked it.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Kind of funny that you just recently joined KMC...

Can you say WB studio plant boys and girls..

Haha, after reading his post, it does seem like that!

I just watched Superman Returns... Brandon R. looks like plastic but he did a good job as Clark Kent ...

the special effects were amazing... just seemed like there wasnt enough action scenes (especially in 3 hours... you think there would be more )

loved Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey! which I disagree with some of you one Spacey's part... thought he played a great L. Luther (nothing like a real estate agent wtf! )

Kate Bosworth was blah, I dont know it was like she was really lacking something

I really liked it! I thought it was a good sequel to Superman II.
I loved the story and I like Brandon Routh as Superman. I also had fun with Kevin Spacey as Lex.
The only thing I not like was Lois. I think Kate Bosworth came across as too bitchy and self centered.
I can understand why she felt that way in the story but her character just seemed unapproachable in this movie.
I felt more annoyed with her then amused and concerned like I did with the old movies.
It was a good movie despite Lois.

I've already seen this movie 3 times lol I'm just a little obsessed with Superman..I always have been. I really love Superman Returns. Brandon Routh is great as Clark Kent..I laugh everytime, and hes so dreamy as Superman too. Kate Bosworth..was alright..I thought they had pretty good chemistry.

Yeah I loved brandon's take on clark. I could never understand why lois wasn't attracted to him. He would make a good boyfriend I think.

The first time I saw 'Superman Returns' I had just drank about 6 Margaritas, and I kept passing out through the movie. I just saw it again - without being intoxicated - and I liked it. It was good.

I saw Super-Man Returns twice as well. The first time I saw it I really liked it, but I was caught up in the hype. The second time I saw it was because it was on IMAX, but it was the second time where I realized that the movie is actually very boring and quite a drag.

I know a guy that's seen it 29 times or so. I'm not shitting you either, he's a huge Supes fan.

Personally, I thought it was decent. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Solo
I know a guy that's seen it 29 times or so. I'm not shitting you either, he's a huge Supes fan.

Personally, I thought it was decent. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think I enjoyed it the first time I saw it mainly because of the little things, like the sonic booms when he takes off, the original score by John Williams fused with John Ottman's, and seeing Kevin Spacey is usually enjoyable as well as Parker Posey. I think the next one will be better now that all the set-up stuff is out of the way, they can just jump into the action without focussing so much on the backstory of Superman's arrival to Earth, his dad, Krypton, what Kryptonite does, etc. Why they focussed on the backstory in "Returns" baffles me. If it was supposed to continue where part 2 left off, then we knew the backstory from the first Superman movie directed by Richard Donner.

I agree, some things were done right. The cinematography was grade A. But not only did they focus too much on his love for Lane, the whole villainous plot was a bore.

Originally posted by Solo
I agree, some things were done right. The cinematography was grade A. But not only did they focus too much on his love for Lane, the whole villainous plot was a bore.

I agree. Roger Ebert was right when he said it was "glum".

I LOVED SUPERMAN RETURNS.
infact I saw it 7 times

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
I LOVED SUPERMAN RETURNS.
infact I saw it 7 times

I remember the days when I'd go see movies a bunch of times. I saw Die Hard 7 times is theaters, and Phantom Menace ten times.

Originally posted by .Dance_Inside.
I LOVED SUPERMAN RETURNS.
infact I saw it 7 times

Wow, so you spent like, 70 bucks on that movie?

I could never do that. I'll go see a movie 2 times in theaters max, if I really like it.