Off Topic Messages

'Superman returns"

Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:30 pm

Has anyone saw this movie yet.

I just want to know if it's worth seeing.
Last edited by if i can dream on Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 pm

I didn't know he had truned in the first place!

So this is news to me :wink:

Geoff

Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:53 am

good movie

Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:24 am

I opted for Pirates of the Carribean 2. Very entertaining. Last week I heard a review of Superman Returns on NPR, and the critic wasn't too impressed. He though it was so-so. But that's just 1 man's opinion.

Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:17 pm

I don't think WB quite knew how to market "Superman Returns". There's nothing distinctive about it. It's in STM's ("Superman: The Movie"'s) shadow too much. I think a lot of the public were automatically blase about it.

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:16 am

I thought it was ok better than average.

I thought Bosworth was too young for role as Lois Lane especially she was supposed to have been in an affair with Superman five years before the movie. That would make her the star reporter on the Daily Planet at 17 or 18. She also never conveys unlike Terry Hatcher or Margot Kidder or even Noel Neill and Phyllis Coates the aggressiveness and pluck that make Lane a star. The kid playing Jimmy Olson overplayed his role.

There really wasn't the feeling of the hustle and bustle of the Daily Planet as there was in the first two Reeve movies and Perry White was barely a character.

The camera lighting was exceptionally dark for a Superman movie and the main plot had many, many holes. Brian Singer's direction had action movieitis at times with many too many rapid cut super close ups.

Kevin Spacey was a hit and miss as Lex Luthor and his plot was too much of a ripoff of the first movie.

Brandon Roudh was good as Superman although he lacked Christopher Reeve's wit.

I was extremely pleased to see that Superman's sense of decency is still intact. The producers resisted the urge to make him a rogue or dangerous like Batman and I think the movie was better for it. There is something feel good and inspirational about the Superman character and its important that they left that in. After all here's a guy who has powers that could make him a fortune and he uses it strictly to help.

There were some spectacular stunts including one where the Man of Steel lands a plane in a ballpark. It was wonderfully larger than life and captured the heart of a comic book and its sense of wonder. The reaction to this feat is very moving and cuts into that sense of decency I mentioned. People do need heros sometimes and to have a Godlike figure like Superman on your side must be a good feeling. (There is a lot of religious symbolism here that some might find offensive.)

The flying by Superman is beautifully done.

There was also a commendable effort to humanize Superman which I liked even though Christopher Reeve did it better with less effort. Still you wind up feeling for him here.

Lex Luthor's plan to get Superman is very clever and when he does get Superman that's when Spacey is at his best. He brings a real vicious quality to the character that hasn't been on screen before.

Noel Neill and Jack Larson- Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen- from the old tv show- have nice cameos. There is also a lot of respect and tribute paid to the Reeve classics which I really appreciated.

Overall, I'd say it's a mixed effort that's definitely worth a viewing for Superman fans. A better script, a less heavy directorial hand and a better Lois Lane and it could have been great.

The movie actually made a ton of movie its first week out more than Batman Begins last year. I think there is a need for the Superman character and you can see that in that he has been reinvented to reflect every generation. In the 1930s he was a vengeful champion of the people. In 1940s he was emblematic of American Military might. In the 1950s TV series he was everybody's father figure. In the 1960s he became the lead in a campy Broadway musical romp. In the 1970s and 1980s he was a post Watergate icon of purity. In the 1990s, he part of a power couple. Then he was reincarnated as angst ridden team. Now he's the ultimate outcast.

Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:51 pm

Superman Returns was amazing! It's not out here in the UK but I managed to catch it in California whilst on holiday.

Regarding the comment on Bosworth being a too young Lois Lane. Ok, so Bosworth is 22-23 years old, doesn't mean the character of Lois Lane is...just a thought there! She looked older than 23 years in the movie.

The story was really good and executed stylishly. I am a big Supeman fan, loved the original movies when I was growing up and this is a dream to see a revised franchise now.

One thing people seem to keep confusing is that this is a sequel to Superman I and II. It is not a sequel to those! Obviously by the fact those movies are set in the time frame they were filmed. The only references made to those movies is that the basic BACKSTORY to Superman Returns follows what was written in those movies..nothing more.

I would recommend people check this movie out.

Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:51 pm

I ditto alot of Likethebikes sentiments. Though the flying sucked compared to Reeves. He did a good imitation on the rest though.

Parker Posey would have been a better Lois Lane!

I saw it in Imax 3d. Very dissapointing. Not only was there very little content...off and on..off and on, but the 3D was horrible.

Don't waste your time or money if you are a real fan of comic movies. Go see the original Superman or Spiderman instead!

Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:01 pm

gene

You took the words right out of my month, i might not see this version of "Superman" they needed to re-cast the hole lot and re-do it again,

or not make it at all to me this was a rush film to make so they can be the frist film to be out in the summer.

so i think i pass on seeing this film.

thanks guys for your input about this movie. :)

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:37 am

if i can dream wrote:gene

You took the words right out of my month, i might not see this version of "Superman" they needed to re-cast the hole lot and re-do it again,

or not make it at all to me this was a rush film to make so they can be the frist film to be out in the summer.

so i think i pass on seeing this film.

thanks guys for your input about this movie. :)


Um, why not be your own judge? It's a bit of fun, it's not supposed to be a cinematic masterpiece, it's not supposed to replace the Reeve movies, in fact there is a very fitting dedication to Christopher Reeve and his wife at the end of the movie. It's a comic book superhero movie...and it's done really well in my opinion. If you don't enjoy it then fine, it happens, but the film is good enough to check out for yourself rather than not bother seeing it at all based on some views on a forum.

I would hardly say this is a rushed film either.

Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:53 am

I don't have a problem with Superman not being the Reeves redo...except um...they did!

This actor was obviously patterning himself off of the previous motion picture.

The problem is you can't have it both ways. It is like the director didn't like Margot Kidder's Lois Lane....so hey lets just completely redo her and try to sell her to the audience???

To me, it is either not at all or EVERYTHING! Not to mention the onscreen chemistry sucked.

This movie was a rush job cash in plain and simple.

Meanwhile, the director was obviously young. So many scenes were just plain rip offs of other movies. Say for instance the obvious Terminator 2 rip with the machine gun and the bullet to the body. It wasn't even a decent omage.

Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:28 am

genesim wrote:
This movie was a rush job cash in plain and simple.



No, it really wasn't. If it were it would look rubbish...which it doesn't, it looks beautiful.

Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:50 pm

genesim wrote:This movie was a rush job cash in plain and simple.


I agree.

Singer was still editing this thing days before release -- he cut out stuff which had made it all the way to some of the last TV spots! There was very little vision on this picture.

The original "Superman" is a classic of cinema. There are scenes in it to rival the best of David Lean. The craftmanship is also sky high -- gorgeous photography by Geoffrey Unsworth, stunning production design by John Barry, brilliant acting by screen legends Brando and Hackman (not to mention perfect performances from Reeve and Kidder), a genuinely good screenplay, a fantastic score by John Williams and so on. By contrast, SR is a dud, leaching off the greatness of the original, and providing almost nothing new; certainly very little worth caring about. It's an inferior Xerox of the original with a few hand doodles on top. Public apathy, as shown in the lacklustre box office, reflects this perception.

Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:54 pm

Can't wait to see the new Superman movie at the weekend.

Pretty big fan of the comic book hero movies or televised............. :oops:

Image

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:22 pm

Cryogenic wrote:Public apathy, as shown in the lacklustre box office, reflects this perception.


lacklustre box office? Someone needs to check their figures don't they!

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:48 pm

For a movie that cost in excess of $200 million, the box office is lacklustre. Open your eyes. Do some reading. Its opening weekend was obliterated by other big budget pictures like "Spider-Man", "Revenge of the Sith" and "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest".

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:02 pm

Cryogenic wrote:For a movie that cost in excess of $200 million, the box office is lacklustre. Open your eyes. Do some reading. Its opening weekend was obliterated by other big budget pictures like "Spider-Man", "Revenge of the Sith" and "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest".


Spiderman has not had any kind of movie before that one save for the 70s television series.

Revenge of the Sith was the last of the Star Wars series, a franchise with huge expectations on the last episode so of course its going to gross a lot in the opening weekend.

Pirates is also a sequel movie benefitting from interest generated the audience for the first movie, Superman has been off the movie screens since 1987 and this movie is not a sequel to that series. Both have yet to run their respective courses yet. Critical response favours Superman Returns as the better movie. It's still ahead of "Batman Begins", the original "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, and "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring".

Superman has already taken in US$144.3 million since its July 28th opening, hardly something to sniff at being that the movie has yet to be released in the UK and Europe until this comign weekend.

Conclusion: not a lacklustre response.

Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:12 pm

You're right about that, and there is hope for this movie yet, but it's also experienced a spectacular drop, further exacerbated by the release of "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest". We'll see. I think WB are currently panicking, however -- let's put it like that. Several people "in the know" have also told me that Singer went on a drinking/partying binge for the last two months during editing. This film might not have legs.

Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:58 pm

Empire Magazine verdict is in!

Verdict
It’s all about heart — not that the spectacle falters; this is the finest popular entertainment since the Rings trilogy closed. Superman doesn’t fly — he soars.

5/5

Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:14 pm

An really excellent film all round........Brandon Routh's resemblance to Reeve is uncanny......All characters came across very well, the only thing i could find to have a bit of a moan about was that while Bosworth was pretty good as Lois Lane, she didn't really resemble her at all, but that's only a slight niggle in what was otherwise a great film for me.....It really does recapture the feeling of the Superman movies a la Reeve.