Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Maybe not, but he can do me anyday
by PictureOfFlowers
Dean Cain just couldn't do geeky
Posted: 14:57 Aug 02 2006
Superman Returns Review
Faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
The Man of Steel.
The title says review, but really this will be a rant. I'm a huge fan of the previous Superman films, the comics and whatever else. He's my favourite super hero. With that said, I loved every minute of the film, despite things which i'm sure some people would and will see as problems.
As the film starts, Superman has been missing from planet Earth for more than 5 years, searching for the wreckage of Krypton, his long-ago-destroyed home planet. Having found nothing but a graveyard, he returns to Earth.
In this quasi-sequel to Superman 1 and 2, but big blue boy scout is played by Brandon Routh, a complete newcomer who does an excellent and sometimes disconcertingly good recreation of Christopher Reeve's Superman. Lois Lane's new actress is Kate Bosworth, and while she does a very good job, she's one of the problems. She's not really old enough to portray Lois' firey, veteran reporter, and that's a thing with the whole film, most of the cast is very young.
The film has very high production values. The special effects are great, and their world has a vibrance to it that is great. I'd still prefer it if the costume was brighter though. Storywise, it's not bad, it's just not great. A lot of time is spent reestablishing characters that we already know rather than jumping straight in.
The stage is set for an amazing sequel though, and i hope Singer and his team stays on to make it.
It's a great summer ride and everyone should see it.
(Edited by Maffrew 24/07/2006 10:01)
31 Replies and 15759 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
Posted: 14:57 Aug 02 2006 
If Lois and Clark had got together but Lois and Superman never had, then surely the kid displaying super-powers would be the biggest giveaway?
by Alan
It's just hit me that the above theory has a substantial problem; it's all well and good guessing that they got together without Clark telling Lois he's Superman but surely Lois, Pulitzer-winning journalist that she is, would get suspicious if Clark were to (in order to maintain the disguise) wear the glasses all the time? For one thing, wouldn't they fall off at an inconvenient moment, if you catch my meaning?
Posted: 19:13 Aug 02 2006 
While I enjoyed some of its components the movie didn't work for me. The effects were very good, the shuttle-jet rescue being the standout, but they were too few; that peak came much too early and the main narrative was a failure.
I've never been much of a Superman fan, but then I've never been much of a Spiderman or X-Men fan, and those films made comic-book adaptations cool again. Singer's problem is that he's transposed the dark, broody tone that suited the X-Men universe so well to a character that was crying out for Sam Raimi's lighter Spider-Man approach. Those films don't lack dramatic depth; they just don't feel the need to leave the audience reaching for the Prozac in the process. Superman's not what you could call a deep character. Invincible man who defends truth, justice and the American Way (although international sales wisely ensured the actual phrase was dropped its intent was as garish as Superman's choice in colour scheme). All very good as far as it goes but not a suitable subject for Batman Begins broodiness.
Inevitably a director as talented as Singer brought some classy visual touches to the film. Bouncing a bullet off Superman's eyeball is as inventive a "wow" moment as you'll find in cinema. However, in addition to the glumness, his general approach was all wrong. He looked in vain for nonexistent depth and shoe-horned in a ridiculous ménage à trois soap opera where he should have been serving up daring-do. If the dark tone was unsuitable, having Lois Lane brutally slapped about was egregiously so; I don't expect to see that sort of thing in a PG-13/12-A comic-book movie, and neither do I expect the hero to undergo a beating that would make Mel Gibson proud. Speaking of which the Passion of the Superman was entertaining only in its awfulness. Although the "superhero as God" idea has plenty of mileage, it's not to be found in the shallow Superman character; one look at Watchman's Dr Manhattan shows just how much poor old Supes is lacking.
Brandon Routh has potential, but until he stops the Christopher Reeve impressions, he'll never make the role his own. Lex Luther's scheme was more baffling than villainous, and Kevin Spacey, while competent as ever, played him far too dourly. Give me some good ol' fashioned scenery chewing! I didn't agree with the critics that Lois Lane was miscast -- Kate Bosworth believably played much older than her 23-years -- but she was horribly mis-scripted. Substituting a cold prick-teaser for the plucky girl-reporter was not a wise choice. Her boyfriend was so forgettable I've already forgotten him, except to ask, "Why?" If Supes' jealously had at least driven him somewhere dark, it might have been worth watching, but instead he mopes around like a Neighbours cast-off until the time comes for him to save the day, which he does with surprising ease. (Why did he suddenly become immune to Kryptonite again?)
A spattering of good jokes and exceptional SFX can't save this turkey. I've heard budget estimates ranging from $220 million to $400 million, heights that would make even the Man of Steel dizzy. For that sort of money I expect a damn sight more than this. Brian Singer is a talented, inventive director, but he's just wrong for the Superman franchise. Warner Bros better ask Sam Raimi is there's space in his diary after Spider-Man 3 wraps ...
I've never been much of a Superman fan, but then I've never been much of a Spiderman or X-Men fan, and those films made comic-book adaptations cool again. Singer's problem is that he's transposed the dark, broody tone that suited the X-Men universe so well to a character that was crying out for Sam Raimi's lighter Spider-Man approach. Those films don't lack dramatic depth; they just don't feel the need to leave the audience reaching for the Prozac in the process. Superman's not what you could call a deep character. Invincible man who defends truth, justice and the American Way (although international sales wisely ensured the actual phrase was dropped its intent was as garish as Superman's choice in colour scheme). All very good as far as it goes but not a suitable subject for Batman Begins broodiness.
Inevitably a director as talented as Singer brought some classy visual touches to the film. Bouncing a bullet off Superman's eyeball is as inventive a "wow" moment as you'll find in cinema. However, in addition to the glumness, his general approach was all wrong. He looked in vain for nonexistent depth and shoe-horned in a ridiculous ménage à trois soap opera where he should have been serving up daring-do. If the dark tone was unsuitable, having Lois Lane brutally slapped about was egregiously so; I don't expect to see that sort of thing in a PG-13/12-A comic-book movie, and neither do I expect the hero to undergo a beating that would make Mel Gibson proud. Speaking of which the Passion of the Superman was entertaining only in its awfulness. Although the "superhero as God" idea has plenty of mileage, it's not to be found in the shallow Superman character; one look at Watchman's Dr Manhattan shows just how much poor old Supes is lacking.
Brandon Routh has potential, but until he stops the Christopher Reeve impressions, he'll never make the role his own. Lex Luther's scheme was more baffling than villainous, and Kevin Spacey, while competent as ever, played him far too dourly. Give me some good ol' fashioned scenery chewing! I didn't agree with the critics that Lois Lane was miscast -- Kate Bosworth believably played much older than her 23-years -- but she was horribly mis-scripted. Substituting a cold prick-teaser for the plucky girl-reporter was not a wise choice. Her boyfriend was so forgettable I've already forgotten him, except to ask, "Why?" If Supes' jealously had at least driven him somewhere dark, it might have been worth watching, but instead he mopes around like a Neighbours cast-off until the time comes for him to save the day, which he does with surprising ease. (Why did he suddenly become immune to Kryptonite again?)
A spattering of good jokes and exceptional SFX can't save this turkey. I've heard budget estimates ranging from $220 million to $400 million, heights that would make even the Man of Steel dizzy. For that sort of money I expect a damn sight more than this. Brian Singer is a talented, inventive director, but he's just wrong for the Superman franchise. Warner Bros better ask Sam Raimi is there's space in his diary after Spider-Man 3 wraps ...
Posted: 17:19 Aug 03 2006 
FYI the seemingly ridiculous budget, they actually count development costs which include all the previous abortive versions including the Ratmer, Burton and McG versions, the costume and set design, scripts development and test effects for those non-films.
Posted: 22:51 Aug 03 2006 Ah, thanks for the info, it does make slightly more sense now. Any idea how much they spent solely on Superman Returns? Even with those aborted films factored in, it's clearly not scrimping on the dollars!
by Wobag
FYI the seemingly ridiculous budget, they actually count development costs which include all the previous abortive versions including the Ratmer, Burton and McG versions, the costume and set design, scripts development and test effects for those non-films.
Posted: 23:01 Aug 03 2006 
Which films of the (sub)genre do these days?
by Byron
(quotes)
Even with those aborted films factored in, it's clearly not scrimping on the dollars!
Posted: 09:48 Aug 04 2006
The first X-Men film came in at $75 million, as did Daredevil, & last year's Fantastic Four was about $100 million. Stratospheric figures to us mere mortals, but speaking relatively, not quite in Superman's league. Singer actually complained about budget restrictions while making X-Men ... not something he's had to worry about this time around!
Posted: 15:51 Aug 04 2006
Hellboy was just 66 million, and managed to put on a good show, the sequel will cluck in at around 80 which is well under the 200 million blockbusters.
Posted: 15:29 Aug 05 2006 
I've seen the figure $250 million thrown around a lot for the budget, although I don't know what-all that would include. Don't know if it also includes al the other stuff Wobag mentioned above.
Warner Brothers had to really hit it out of the ballpark at the box office to make a lot of money on this one. Opening week here in the US, they took in something like $70 million (I'm doing this from memory, so maybe someone else has better figures), which apparently is much less than they expected (wanted) to do. Then Pirates came in the next week and kind of stole the show, dropping Superman Returns from first place to second in just its second week. I think Warner Brothers is counting on the overseas market to help them out--although I don't know how Superman plays in worldwide markets. But they didn't do as well in North America as they expected to.
That being said, I still loved it--although I do agree with some of Byron's points, if not the general "boy, was that a piece of crap" thrust of the review.
Just want to add my two cents on the leaving out of "...and the American way" in the whole, Superman stands for "Truth, justice, and...." thing. That omission was VERY noticeable to the American audience. I understood why they left it out. And I agree with them leaving it out, especially for a worldwide audience, and especially with all the negative connotations a line like that would have today. Actually, it probably had negative connotations in the 1950s too, but that's a whole other story. But to me, it's just one of those corny, goofy Superman lines that just makes me laugh. So although it really did have to go, it was sort of jarring not hearing it.
Warner Brothers had to really hit it out of the ballpark at the box office to make a lot of money on this one. Opening week here in the US, they took in something like $70 million (I'm doing this from memory, so maybe someone else has better figures), which apparently is much less than they expected (wanted) to do. Then Pirates came in the next week and kind of stole the show, dropping Superman Returns from first place to second in just its second week. I think Warner Brothers is counting on the overseas market to help them out--although I don't know how Superman plays in worldwide markets. But they didn't do as well in North America as they expected to.
That being said, I still loved it--although I do agree with some of Byron's points, if not the general "boy, was that a piece of crap" thrust of the review.
Just want to add my two cents on the leaving out of "...and the American way" in the whole, Superman stands for "Truth, justice, and...." thing. That omission was VERY noticeable to the American audience. I understood why they left it out. And I agree with them leaving it out, especially for a worldwide audience, and especially with all the negative connotations a line like that would have today. Actually, it probably had negative connotations in the 1950s too, but that's a whole other story. But to me, it's just one of those corny, goofy Superman lines that just makes me laugh. So although it really did have to go, it was sort of jarring not hearing it.
Posted: 02:48 Aug 06 2006
by Sandia
That being said, I still loved it--although I do agree with some of Byron's points, if not the general "boy, was that a piece of crap" thrust of the review.
Despite the impression my review might have given, I didn't think it was crap (even when the cheese stunk out the cinema ... or was that just the pikey contingent). I stayed engaged, enjoyed the quips and SFX and found redeeming features even in the under-par performances. I could see Singer was trying to do something interesting, and give him credit for that, but it just didn't work for me, and there was lots of bad writing that should never have shown up in a movie with this price tag. The old cliché that blockbusters have money for everything but the script wasn't quite true, but it came very close at times.
I just have very high standards where $200 million odd dollars is in play!
As a patriotically indifferent Englishman I wish they'd kept it. Yes it is cheesy, but so is an invincible man of steel who flies around in his underwear. If we're going to keep the character, keep his integrity, even if it's become unfashionable. Superman's a 1930s creation and it shows. (Witness the wonderful Art Deco sets in the movie.) If "the American Way" shtick goes, why stop there? Before you know it we'll get another tortured Dr Manhattan figure.
Just want to add my two cents on the leaving out of "...and the American way" in the whole, Superman stands for "Truth, justice, and...." thing. That omission was VERY noticeable to the American audience. I understood why they left it out. And I agree with them leaving it out, especially for a worldwide audience, and especially with all the negative connotations a line like that would have today. Actually, it probably had negative connotations in the 1950s too, but that's a whole other story. But to me, it's just one of those corny, goofy Superman lines that just makes me laugh. So although it really did have to go, it was sort of jarring not hearing it.
Simplicity is Superman's greatest strength. Yes, anyone with his power would likely become a headcase or dictator, but it's nice to dream of a hero whose moral-core is as invulnerable as his skin.
I guess the day we see "Truth, Justice and the American Way" as a bit corny rather than threatening will be a day we're all more at ease with ourselves.
Posted: 19:46 Aug 06 2006
Hello everyone - just signed in for the first time for years!
I saw this quite a while ago and thought it was a really good film.
I thought that Kate Bosworth did a very good job as Lois considering the first thing I ever saw her in was the Dawsons Creek spinoff - Young Americans which only lasted one season and got cancelled (although I really liked Young Americans).
As for Brandon Routh I had never heard of him and I thought he was brilliant in the role.
He definitely has to be in the sequel!
The only thing I didn't like with the film was the son subplot and the love story with Lois. I felt too much time was spent on it.
No-one seems to remember that if Superman for want of better phraseology gets involved with an Earth woman he loses his powers!
Apart from that I thought it was well worth going to see and I will definitely be going to see the sequel in a few years time!
I saw this quite a while ago and thought it was a really good film.
I thought that Kate Bosworth did a very good job as Lois considering the first thing I ever saw her in was the Dawsons Creek spinoff - Young Americans which only lasted one season and got cancelled (although I really liked Young Americans).
As for Brandon Routh I had never heard of him and I thought he was brilliant in the role.
He definitely has to be in the sequel!
The only thing I didn't like with the film was the son subplot and the love story with Lois. I felt too much time was spent on it.
No-one seems to remember that if Superman for want of better phraseology gets involved with an Earth woman he loses his powers!
Apart from that I thought it was well worth going to see and I will definitely be going to see the sequel in a few years time!
Posted: 12:55 Sep 15 2006 Bryan Singer considers this a direct follow on to Superman 2 (he disregards 3 and 4), so said sprog could easily be a result of when he woo-ed Lois in SM2
by charm
No-one seems to remember that if Superman for want of better phraseology gets involved with an Earth woman he loses his powers!
Posted: 17:46 Sep 15 2006 [ 1 2 ]