Superman Returns

Just thought I'd start a topic that dosen't involve Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. I'm curious to see if anyone can actually talk about movies anymore without mentioning a "format" of any kind. Let's see.

Would I be an ass to ask what format everyone's going to see SR in--regular theater or IMAX? ;)

Got our tix for 8:30 tonight. Whole gaggle of...whatever's going. Everyone has instructions not to drink for three hours before the movie and to prepare to sit through the credits.

I'm definately looking forward to it.

Tim, I understand that while the film was not shot in our favored HD/Blu-ray 1080, it WAS shot with a Panavision Genesis HD camera, capable of the much higher 2K resolution that Lucas favors. (And I said this without once using the word "format." Well, OK, once.)

Chris, what were you doing slumming at a multiplex?

John

Warner Bros. spent $200 million on acquiring the rights to all the existing live-action "Superman" footage (i.e. buying out the Salkinds) as well as paying the Brando estate. They paid Bryan Singer and his friends $49 million to tumble in the hay. That left $1 million on the movie itself. :.(

Erik,

I have to admit I'm surprised. As a comic book guy and a Supes fan, I didn't think you'd care for this one. I didn't think it was awful, so much as deadly dull. I mean... nothing happened. It's a super-hero movie without any action scenes. That's an interesting idea, I suppose, but we've already had "Unbreakable" and how you spend $250 million in a movie without a single set-piece is a mystery to me. WIthout any action, the only thing left to fill the outrageous 2hr, 40 min running length was a very unconvincing love story... with the exception of James Marsden, who played his part well, but seemed to be the only living, breathing character in the whole movie.

I thought the film was woefully miscast for the material. Both Routh and Bosworth look and act like they are 19 years old (even if they are in their mid-20s) and having them play "mature" characters was just something I never bought into. Bosworth as a grizzled veteran reporter with a 5 year old child? Uh, no. I don't blame the actors - they simply weren't given any roles to play. Superman is really just a ghost presence in the movie - his entire contribution to the story involves him repeatedly catching heavy things so they don't hit people.

I thought it was an incredibly limp script with virtually no tension - Lex And Supes barely had any conflict at all. And once again, Lex was just treated as a harmless joke rather than a real villain. They did the same thing in the first two movies, of course, but there at least the comic relief worked. Here, he was about as menacing as Richard Pryor in Supes 3 (but nowhere near as funny).

There are many worse super-hero movies, but this may well be the most flat-out BORING one I have seen in a while.

Maybe the script is more innovative than I think it is. But virtually no action and nothing even resembling a climax or ending set-piece? I just kept wondering what the heck they spent all the money on.

Well I'm gonna see it tonight at Mann's Chinese which is projecting it in DLP, which should be interesting. I already saw it once in a "regular" 35mm format, I'm curious to see what the difference is like.

As for the film itself, being the hardcore "super-fan" that I am, I thought it was great, not brilliant, not awesome but almost there. Routh, Spacey, Bosworth, they all worked for me. I had no problems with any of the actors in the film. Although, I wish they would have given Lois Lane more to do. The plot was okay but should/could have been better. I liked the kid and I loved the way the presented Superman's powers; now that was awesome.

Routh stepped up and owned the role of Kent/Superman in this film, just like Reeve did in the original.

Easily one of the best comic book films ever made (not THE best). It's good to have him back on the big screen.

--and Jason, great column this week!

Count me as somewhere in the middle between Erik and Chris. Some MINOR SPOILERS here and there, so if you haven't seen it, skip ahead.

This was GOOD, not GREAT. It just wasn't the shot in the arm that the franchise needed. There was a TON of wasted potential and missed opportunities. I thought the first 30 minutes or so were excellent. I honestly had shivers up my spine during the opening credits. Supes returns to Earth, back to Metropolis, rescues the space shuttle, Lex is up to something. So far, so good. Then, we just kind of meander about. Like Chris said, there was a shocking lack of conflict, everything was just so inert. I thought all the little references to the original film were fine, but they didn't have to essentially do the whole thing over again.

Superman: There were times where I'd look at Routh and think, "That's not how I'd picture Superman." At other times, I thought his line readings were spot-on with the way Christopher Reeve spoke. Aside from the gatling gun/robbery sequence, I didn't think Superman did anything really cool. Oh, look, a fire. Super-breath time. Been there, done that. They really need to bring in somebody (Metallo? Parasite?) that can go one-on-one with Superman. I want to see Big Blue cut loose, not catch falling objects. Plus, this will give Kryptonite a rest. Have someone as strong as Superman. Use red sun radiation. ANYTHING, but Kryptonite again.

Clark Kent: Here is where Routh really shined. I thought his Clark was wonderful. I cracked up everytime he did that dorky smile & wave.

Lois Lane: I really didn't like Lois in this. It had less to do with Bosworth, then how blandly written she was. Compare her to the Dana Delany Lois from the WB cartoon. Call Clark, "Smallville" once, just once. I'm beggin you. Watch Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday." THAT'S how you do Lois Lane.

Lex Luthor: As great as Kevin Spacey was, this was not the Lex Luthor I want. Lex shouldn't be scamming old ladies outta their estate. He should be sitting in a huge office inside a giant skyscraper shaped like an L. I gave this way too much thought today, but I thought of a bunch of directions for Luthor that would've been a hundred times more interesting than what Singer & Co. did, along with creating new areas of conflict not dealt with in any superhero film. I won't bore you with details (unless somebody asks), I'll just state that Lex wasn't portrayed as anything more than a generic James Bond villain.

Supporting cast: I thought the rest of the cast was pretty good. I was surprised at Marsden's performance, considering just how awful he was in the X-Men films. I liked the idea of throwing a kid in the mix as an added obstacle in the Lois-Superman relationship. Now, it's not an easy decision for Lois to just run off with Supes. But, then...sigh. Yeah, I didn't like where they ended things.

This was a fine effort, unfortunately, it just wasn't what I wanted in a Superman film.

I've been letting this one stew in its own juices while I ruminated for a couple of days.

I wouldn't call it underwhelming, but it certainly wasn't overwhelming either. There were some great moments in the film, but as has been pointed out a couple of times already, it had some pretty hefty dead spots. Things that could have been dropped to tighten things up.

Also, the lighting design was quite dark. I would have been on board with this if it was referring to a darker world without Superman, but once Superman's back on the scene, the lighting design stays dark. Shades pulled in Perry White's office, shadow everywhere. The shadow of Superman? Who knows. All I know is I would have liked a little more light since the script itself was much less lighthearted than the earlier films. It's fine if you want to change the tone of the film, but the visuals felt kind of oppressive to me.

I plan on seeing it again with a friend, so perhaps I will be able to get past some of these misgivings with a subsequent viewing, but as it stands right now, I feel I saw an understated, decidedly un-iconic film about an unquestionably iconic character. I think you can humanize the character without making him an average Joe. The torment, the angst made so prominent in Superman's character here played so well as an undercurrent previously that it doesn't make much sense to me here.

Superman is, of course, a dual personality, torn between his need for acceptance in this world and his overwhelming duty to this world. And I would argue that such a schism between the man and the icon was well parlayed when Chris Reeve played the role. Pain masked by the happy face put on for the world to see. Here, Superman wears his angst on his sleeve. I think the character deserves more. He is not oblivious, he is simply protective of the world's fragile vulnerability.

Okay, I'm getting way out of control here.

Good movie, not great. Pretty decent performances, although several of the lines were directly taken from Superman 1 and 2, so their readings bear comparison, and the original readings struck me as better. I agree with others that Marsden's performace was a welcome surprise. Spacey did a fine job, but don't expect something along the lines of Hackman's performances. Spacey is much less tongue in cheek. Bosworth was likewise fine, but I don't think anyone has really been able to nail down Lois Lane that I have seen. Routh did admirably, but hey, it's hard to get past Christopher Reeve when you're talking about Superman.

Worth a look, but not the earth-shattering event the first two Supeman films brought forth decades ago.

Sean (...decades ago...and i was there...dude, i'm gettin' old...)

John and Jason,

Great reviews of the new flick, though I lean more toward John on this one. As I've indicated above, it struck me as more trifling than satisfying.

One point of question, though: Jason, you refer to the continuity of Lois knowing Superman's secret identity, but at the end of Superman 2, I recall, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, Clark/Superman kissing Lois, and as a result, she seems to lose all knowledge of the dual identity. Perhaps I've read that incorrectly all of these years, but it then makes sense that she doesn't recall that Clark and Superman are one in the same in Superman Returns.

I completely agree with you that the iconic "S" was not used very well. Like you said, Clark's running trasformation doesn't pack the oomph it really should, but then again, I think Singer missed a lot of opportunity with iconic imagery in the film. I also had a great deal of issue with the CGI in that I don't feel they adequately replicated human movement, skin tones, and shading, a glaring dificulty considering the number of close-up CGI flying shots the movie contained. However, I think I can get past that as I did with Spider-Man. But, Spider-Man's got it a bit easier. He wears a mask, so I can forget there's a guy inside and be a little more forgiving.

And John, this struck me as similar to X-Men in that it was good but not great. Lots of potential, but not all of it played upon. Perhaps Singer can once again pull off a superior sequel with this franchise.

I'm one of those guys who sometimes has to see a movie twice to appreciate it, so I am likely taking another look at this one tomorrow. Here's hoping I low-balled this one on my first viewing!

Sean (...perhaps i should try it without my glasses... maybe some of that supervision will rub off on me...)

Jason:

Sean's right--at the end of "Superman II", Lois forgets that Superman and Clark Kent are the same person.

By the way, Bryan Singer was glad that his friend Brett Rattner directed "X3". We can assume that he liked the movie. Therefore, we can also assume that "X3" approximated what Singer would've done with "X3". :D

Eddie

two observations:

1) given the praise that he has been receiving, it looks like james marsden should've played superman.

2) most of the "positive" or "lukewarm" reviews sound like comments from people who don't want to give a "superman" movie a negative review. this is basically damning with faint praise.

yes, i'm not going to see this movie. i made a mistake with peter jackson's "king kong" already.

Tim,

I'm not a comic book fan myself, but I do expect quite a bit from the superhero genre in film. It's a perfect archetypal forum to pit good against evil in its purest form. Superman Returns has a lot of long stretches that seem to reiterate the same thing over and over. For me that, along with the oppressively dark lighting design, is the biggest drawback so far. Pretty good performance, pretty good direction overall. The film just needed tightening by dropping about 15-20 minutes. And Chris is right: the film does lack really big action pieces. There's no saving hundreds of people from an earthquake, or battling Zod, Non, and Ursa over Metropolis. Peril is implied in the climax, but we don't really see Superman saving folks except a couple of times.

Honestly I'd say I liked this just slightly better than X3, but for very different reasons as they are very different superhero movies. I would consider both of them somewhat disappointing. Not bad, but disappointing in that so much potential was wasted in both films.

Definitely worth seeing in the theater for the spectacle. If you can ignore the lulls and aren't looking for huge set pieces, you'll likely enjoy this a good deal.

Sean (...maybe they couldn't afford any more set pieces because of spacey's scenery chewing...)

Tim,

That was a somewhat sarcastic reference. "Unbreakable" was a deconstruction of the super-hero origin story which explains the lack of action and conflict.

I'm pretty sure Singer didn't spend $250 million with the same idea in mind. This is just a blockbuster with no action scenes. Which is pretty weird. It's certainly a different kind of "mistake" to make in this sort of movie. Usually, we talk about these movies being overblown or mindlessly action-packed. Definitely not the case here.


X3 was awful.


Hulk had the best action scenes of any of the super-hero movies. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie didn't match up.

Well, I haven't seen it yet because I'm waiting for my daughter to get into town so we can go see it together.

John, your comments had me laughing all weekend, thus making it difficult to write anything back in this thread.

From what I gather from the opinions around here, and being that many of you are comicbook fans, it would appear I'm going to end up enjoying SR quite a lot. Chris seems to refer to it being like "Unbreakable", which is probably my very favorite of the genre, so if it's thought provoking in that way then I'll love it. Usually when people that love the superhero genre refer to a film as just being "OK". I'm usually the odd guy out and end up loving it. For example, many of you dissed on "X-Men III" where I found it to be my favorite out of the series. However, I will agree with most all of you here, "The Hulk" did suck big time. ;)

Tim :D

Eddie:
And I had such hopes that X3 was a departure from what Singer would have done. Still hoping for a tighter Superman sequel which I'm sure is on the way. Though $84 million over the 5 days is somewhat disappointing for the studio.

Jason:
Well, this geek is useful only ofr pointless knowledge. God has blessed/cursed me with retention of minutae, so I serve no purpose in society, but I kick butt in Trivial Pursuit!

For example: Unscramble the letters to discover who shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand to incite World War 1- rippgil rancivo

Why do I know this crap?

Sean (...actually, i'm just pleased i can remember how to cr...)

Thanks Erik!

Sean and Eddie: I shall correct when I get home. I haven't seen Supes II in ages and no one corrected me when we talked it over after the movie. What ARE geeks good for anyway???

What exactly was "going on" to keep one absorbed?

All I could think while watching this movie was "When is something going to happen?" and then, as the final scenes kicked in: "You mean nothing's ever going to happen?"

I find this a difficult movie to have a strong reaction to either way. There's really nothing outright "bad" about the movie (except perhaps the casting of Bosworth) but then again there's nothing particularly good about it (except perhaps the plane rescue near the beginning.) To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, the trouble with "Superman Returns" is that there isn't any there there.

Sure woulda been nice if Clark Kent got more than a cameo in the movie. That's where Reeve really shined. Routh didn't get a chance to do anything with Kent.

Eddie,

For what it's worth, my sister-who did not want to see it-enjoyed it. Jim-who hates long movies and usually gets very antsy-also enjoyed it immensely. King Kong was overindulgent and dull for me. SR had enough going on and had me invested in the story. Shoot, it could have gone on for another three hours and it still would have been too short.

And I read maybe three Supes comics in my entire life, so you can't say I have a bias.

chris,

"the fast and the furious: tokyo drift" ran for less than two hours, and it was plenty fast and furious.

from most accounts, "superman returns" (like peter jackson's "king kong") is bloated and leaden.

if i want to doze off, then i'll do it for free at home, thank you very much. :x

eddie

And yet you're first in line to see "Tokyo Drift." No high horse for you, Mr. Feng. :)

[MINOR SPOILER ALERT FOR SUPERMAN RETURNS]


Marsden is getting relative praise because his character is the only active one in the film. Superman is about as passive a character as you'll ever find in one of these movies. Now mind you, I used to get sick of hearing screenwriting teachers tell us how the protagonist had to be an active character - cinema is replete with examples of greta passive characters - but you'd think a super-hero, esp. one who is nigh-omnipotent, would at least be somewhat active, or drive the story in some fashion. Instead, all he does is react, react, react... he doesn't even know that Lex is around until near the end of the movie, and then only because he accidentally wanders into a trap.

I guess superheroes are a reactive breed, in general (Punisher excepted). Crises occur, they fix them. But this took passivity to a new extreme in the genre.

I think the real problem is Lex. We need a super-villain for Superman. Next movie, I want to see either Brainiac, Apocalypse or Doomsday... or else! Or else what, I have no idea, but I mean or else!

Of course, my real preference would be for Supes to team up with Bizarro Superman against Mr. Mxyzptlk. But that's just a fanboy dream. :)

Well kids, I went and saw it with my daughter today. And paying homage to John’s “Wife-O-Meter”, I have to say my own “Daughter-O-Meter” disapproved of the new Superman. The both of us walked out of the theatre and didn’t say a word to each other until we got in the Jeep. We both looked at each other and then I said, “Yeah, let’s agree that it was one boring ass movie”. Rachel looked at me and said, “You’re right Dad, I almost fell asleep a few times.” No kidding, so did I!

As much as Chris and I probably have a huge gap in taste when it comes to film, I have to agree with him wholeheartedly that the movie was flat, boring, and yes, where the hell was the action? Chris is right; the film is literally void of the action you would expect from this type of genre. Aside from the plane crash thing in the beginning, the film was nothing more than a complicated love story of Sup and Lois Lane. And yes, it was obvious that the little boy was Sups kid. I figured that out the first time the kid met him as Clark Kent.

I honestly think I was disappointed from the starting gate. I hate how the opening credits and music were exactly like all the old movies. They actually tried to make this film look like a continuation of the films from over 20-years ago. To me, that’s just plain tacky and unoriginal. For God sake, if they can recreate a whole new look and feel for Batman then there is no reason not to do it for Superman! Oh yes, things may have appeared visually different and somewhat darker, but keeping the whole music and theme the same was just plain lazy in my opinion.

Overall, I felt like the entire film was trying too hard to play homage, or some type of eulogy, for Christopher Reeves. There really is nothing new or original to say about the new Superman and it was literally like a carbon copy of the Reeves version. For the love of Pete! It’s been over 20-freaking-years and if you’re going to make a face lift, then “make” a face lift!

Then there’s the whole villain thing. Well, I can’t deny that Kevin does a great job as the Lex, but only confronting the Sup for about five-minutes on the screen was a big disappointment. Even after the confrontation, Sup doesn’t even bother going after the Lex . . . what the f**k was that about?!?!? Nevertheless, the film focuses too hard on trying to be a complicated love story rather than being an action hero film. Let’s face it; this formula was far better succeeded in “Spider-man 2”.

Where was the wit? You know the certain dialog pieces that are meant to make us laugh. The old Superman films had plenty of this yet this new version was null and void of any of it. As dark as “Batman Begins” was, it still had wit. For example, Gary Oldman seeing Batman’s ride for the first time says, “I’ve got to get me one of those”. Now that was funny, but there is nothing in SR that is even remotely funny in any means. Even when Sup does the whole, “air travel is the safest way to travel” thing after he saves the jet from crashing was so unoriginal because he already used that line in a previous film. Even after that I thought to myself, where the hell is this film going?!

I honestly can’t see how anyone involved in making this film saw something great. For all you Brian Singer fans out there . . . told ya so! Yeah, the little youngling isn’t this new, great director that he’s been made out to be. He still has a lot to prove and he certainly should not get a pat on the back for this new effort of his. The film lacks any excitement, the dialog was dull and it didn’t bring anything new to the table for this new generation to enjoy.

The bottom line (James Plath. tm) is, this film is a complete failure in the terms of making a blockbuster. I can’t think of the last time I’ve seen a Blockbuster be so boring . . . well, there is “Titanic”, but even that had the cool effects of the ship sinking in the end. Visually, the film looks good and almost intriguing enough to keep the interest juices flowing; however, that is ironic within itself because “Superman Returns” is a film much like a sinking ship. Again, as Chris mentioned, this film is just plain boring. Say it with me now, “Bo-ho-hoooooooring”! Hopefully the next installment will actually have “action”. Well, there is the Pirates coming out this Friday and at least that will have action! As for SR, good God give me my money back!

Tim (yet another film I will avoid renting or buying on DVD)

My rating: 4/10

Since someome brought up Hulk, I'm curious if the "consensus" on this one will be the same. Hulk was generally liked by critics, but some people decided it was a bad movie, and said it enough, and now it seems to have become generally accepted that it was a disaster. SR is also liked by critics, but now there seems to be a similar backlash. Will we also be putting SR among the worst superhero movies ever in a year? Personally, because of its sense of style and character development, I'd say Hulk is among the better adaptations. Better than SR, either Spidey, or any X movie, and I liked all of those as well.

They should've re-made the original movie with Nicolas Cage and his son. It would've been fun listening to Cage's monotone interpretation of Brando's line readings, and it would've been fun seeing Cage's real-life son--honest injun actually named Kal-El!--smiling and lifting a car. :D

Jason,

Nobody asked for special effects "up the wazoo" as you well know, so let's not even deal with that straw man argument of yours

You seem to be saying you just find Superman the character "inspiring" and that was enough for you. Fair enough, but it doesn't really have much to do with this particular movie, just Superman in general.

I am certainly the last person to argue that a film needs to have non-stop action, but there is a general expectation in a super-hero blockbuster film that there will be some kind of action or fight or at least a conflict. This movie offered none of that. Which raises the question: So what did it offer instead? It seems that Singer is attempting to make the love story the centerpiece of the movie; unfortunately, that love story is uninteresting, unconvincing and has about as much life in it as Ken Lay. I also think the decision to make it "about Superman and Lois" is misguided and has the stench of "Smallville" all over it (yeah, I know "Smallville" is Clark and Lana, not Lois). Billions of people in the world have love interests. Let's face it - that's not what makes Superman interesting.

Batman is a tortured soul. The Hulk is a walking existential crisis. Spider-Man is the ultimate hard luck case. Superman is... Superman. The angst here seems phony and manufactured.

Or put more concisely: The script stinks on ice.

jason,

you pulled the sister card, so i'm going to use it, too.

my sister saw it, and she said that the movie is boring.

here's the kicker--she liked "batman begins", and i didn't.

i'm definitely not seeing "superman returns".

eddie

Tim,

While I fully respect your (and you're daughter's) opinion on the movie and agree it's not for everyone, "boring" isn't a word I'd ever use to describe it. Action and special effects might be "kewl" and "neat-o", but if you put too many in, the end product looks like one of the putrid Star Wars prequels. We didn't need action sequences up the wazzoo; we didn't need explosions, computer aliens or any of that stuff (X3 gave us plenty of that, thank you very much). This was a story about a man returning to his "home" after leaving unceremoniously. He has to learn how to reintegrate himself into society and how to make amends for what he did.

Yes, this was a Superman/Clark and Lois story. Hasn't Superman, generally, always been Lois and Supes? Him leaving in the "wrong" way and having to atone for those sins makes him all the more human to me. And that's something I can identify with.

I'm not bringing some comic book baggage with me; I have read maybe 10 Superman comics over the years. And I was very pessimistic about this movie, from the budget to the look of Routh as Supes.

More than anything else, though, Superman inspired me. Here is this story about a man from another world who will protect ours from all sorts of evil, nefarious schemes. He nearly dies from an attack. It is just as plausible that he could have scooped up Lois, Ma Kent and Jason and flown to another planet somewhere else. But he sticks around to fight the good fight. He sees the value in all human life, not just males or females or white people or black, Christians or Muslims...everyone. He doesn't save only the "good" parts of Metropolis. He saves it all despite the naysayers and people who don't believe in him anymore.

I'm sure Pirates is going to be action packed and will receive far more audience approval than Superman. Hell, I'll be there to see it and will most likely enjoy it. But it won't have the heart of Superman.

(Call me what you will, but the opening credits complete with John Williams theme, had me tearing up in the theater. Seriously! Nothing on earth could have diverted my attention from that. I love it even now.)

Definite DVD pick up for me, if you can't tell. :)

Jason,

Nothing wrong with being argumentative - it's something I strive for, in fact. :)

You pick essentially the one example you can find of anti-hero like the Punisher who doesn't act altruistically (though he still definitely "fights for what he believes in" which is "killing criminals as often as possible"), but I don't think you're seriously arguing that risking one's life or standing up for one's values is NOT commonplace in the super-hero (or even in the broader action) genre. It's what super-heroes do. It's what Superman has done in every other movie, every TV show and every comic book in the past (nearly) 70 years. So it hardly qualifies as a specific point in favor of this movie. It's about as useful as saying "I liked it because Superman is bipedal."

Once again, as you well know, nobody has called for non-stop action and explosions. I did expect _some_ action and aside from the plane rescue, there isn't a lick of it in the movie. Which then leads to the question, if Singer isn't interested in action, what is he interested in? And the only answer I can find is "the Superman-Lois relationship" which: 1) I think is a really bad decision, 2) is not portrayed in a remotely convincing or interesting way in the film.

When I wrote a review elsewhere, I really struggled for something to say because I can find so little of substance to this film. All I could up with is: "It's not stupid, it's not overblown, it's not mindless, it's just... nothing. $200 million and 2 hrs and forty minutes of... nothing."

Chris,

Okay, maybe I'm being dense, but walk me through this. People say this movie is slow and nothing happens. It's an opinion, I get that. However, what would have made SR be "faster" and "have something happen"? Since the complaint is that this is a superhero movie (implied action movie), the idea seems to be that people want more action. I know we're crossing paths here somewhere. :)

How can you just say "you guess he did" when it comes to putting himself on the line and that the fights for what he believes in? The evidence is right there on the screen. Superman is entirely capable of packing up and leaving the Earth whenever he wants. After Lois, Richard and Jason saved him and took the kryptonite out of his side, he could have up and flown away. He didn't. He knew there was a good chance he could die from the K being in the crystals. But he saw evil and needed to fight it. Batman was never in life threatening danger. Spider-Man was, arguably, by stopping the train.

The same is not true in every super hero movie. The Punisher didn't take out John Travolta's bad guys because he wanted to make the world a better place. He took them out because they killed his family. Revenge. It's a fallicy to say "every" when it may be the majority, but not all.

That chunk of rock was laden with K, the only substance that can KILL Superman. It wasn't simply "a rock". It was Kryptonite through and through.

Tell me: how should a romance be played when one party leaves the other with no explaination or communication for five years? Should they just get together again, to hell with what happened in the meantime and live happily ever after? No, there is going to be angst, apologies, hurt feelings and anger. And people do move on.

Again, you emphasize action yet above you say you don't want things blown up all the time. Where am I going wrong?

Not trying to be argumentitive, but I don't get it. Honestly.

Jason,

Once again, you're just arguing a straw man here - nobody said anything about wanting to watch a bunch of stuff blow up. And the rest of your arguments are too generic to be persuasive.

Superman "put himself on the line." OK, I guess he did. And he "fights for what he believes in." OK, again. The same is also true of every super-hero in every super-hero movie. And, come to think of it, just about every action hero in every action movie. I don't see this as a selling point for the movie. In fact, it seems to be less the case here than in most similar films. The entirety of his "putting himself on the line" involves lifting a really big chunk of rock and throwing it into space.

As for the rest of it, I think Tim hit the nail on the head. The filmmakers simply relied on the previous two movies as well as 70 years of Superman mythos to just assume we would automatically be involved simply because the characters were named Superman and Lois. With an intentional de-emphasis on action, you'd think they might have put some effort into making the characters and the romance believable and involving. Maybe they didn't, but it sure didn't show up on screen.

So we're left with: very little action, wooden characters, and a limp and uninvolving love story. Not much to fill 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Tim,

No worries, always friends. No one agrees 100% of the time. :D

Ugh...Unbreakable...ugh...that's all I can say about that.

Looking forward to Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer next summer? *snicker*

I don't know about the movie but this new dude (actor) certainly appears to be Tom Cruise in 20s. :)

Jason,

There in lies the problem, the love story was just plain dull and not all that interesting. You talk about these characters as though we are all suppose to have some bond to but we haven't seen them on screen in over 20-years. It's like when some rock band that was huge 10-years ago turns out a new CD and nobody gives a crap.

What I see is they really should have done something original, or as Eddie pointed out, start all over. SR is a film that should have been made 18-years ago so it would tie in with the flow of the prevoius films. Instead we get a film that is far too late for its own good, characters that we have to readjust to and a dull story to boot. I was really hoping I would like it as much as you did but it just wasn't in the cards this time around.

As far as "action" goes, no, I don't believe we need special effects galore in order to have good action. I think that may have been Chris' point too but I don't want to speak for him cuss then he'll just hate me. Nevertheless, the film did need more action to help the pace; it's a blockbuster, superhero film! Trust me, most audience's would expect there to be and abundant supply of action and this film had 1/10th the action it should have. Action does not have to have mind blowing eyecandy (it worked in Unbreakable with very little effects eventhough that film had a long, drug out story but at least it was interesting to follow).

Tim ;) (ok now, lets all be friends) :D

Chris,

I seem to recall people, yourself included, saying that nothing happened. This is a comic movie and things need to happen. By default, for "something to happen", there needs to be action. And, by necessity, in order for there to be action in a comic book/Superman movie, there is a very high probability that special effects need to be used. Hence where I came up with "special effects up the wazoo".

Again, I have not been a fan or even a reader of Superman comics, Superman TV shows (outside of Justice League and TAS)...I was even highly skeptical of this movie for a long, long time. (My LJ will definately bear that out.) However, talking about this movie alone, Superman is an inspirational figure (and I HATE the comparisons between Kal-El and Christ). In this movie alone, he puts himself on the line not once, but twice to save the world and stop Luthor when, as I said before, he doesn't have to. He sticks around and fights for what he believes in.

You reference the love story between Lois and Superman. From the little I know about the character, that is one of the central storylines to the entire mythos. The Death of Superman happened across vast swaths of the country and, in the end, why did Supes decide Metropolis was going to be as far as they went? Because he couldn't let Lois get hurt.

Lois (aside from his parents) is maybe the one person that can take Supes down a peg. And she did just that. It seems to me that the only people who can truly make us look at ourselves are the ones we love the most. Supes clearly loves Lois, which leads to him needing to be redeemed in her eyes.

See, action doesn't make a movie interesting, whether it be Superman or the atrocious Star Trek Nemesis, Star Wars II or whatever. The way the audience relates to the characters and feels what they feel is what is interesting. Yes, seeing stuff blow up or whatever is nice and a feast for the eyes but, ultimately, it doesn't mean a thing.

Yes, billions of people have love stories. Your argument, however, can be used for any story with a romance aspect or storyline to it. What makes this different is that Supes, previously this infalliable person, did something wrong. No other movie can boast a superhero like him making a personal mistake like he did.

Holy crap, mine is the 41st reply on this board! Anyway, I just wanted to post that I don't care about Superman. I hope Superman dies. He is the crappiest superhero of all-time.

Batman is soooo much more hip. 8) Batman is soooo much more pimp. 8)
BATMAN IS A BACK-DOOR MAN. 8)
THEREFORE, BATMAN GETS MORE "ACTION" THAN SUPERMAN. 8)

ALSO, "THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT" IS THE SHIT. DOTH NOT ONLY T'WAS IT BEST SUMMER MOVIE MINE EYES HATH SEEN IN A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT EVE OF THE APOLLO'S LOVE GLISTENING POPCORN BLOOMS, ALAS, 'TWAS THE BEST MOVIE MINE EYES HATH EVER SEEN IN A MORNINGS GALE.

FOR ART THOU, I CONFESS TO ALL OF MY LOVE, "THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT". :x

Hey, come to think of it, Superman Returns IS like Pearl Harbor without any climactic action. Good observation Onijay. ;)

High budget love story? Come on now Tim we're talking about Superman Returns in this thread and not Pearl Harbor (not that I distinguished any difference in my sheer boredom).;)

Eddie,

It kind of is a lack of both types of action as you have interpreted. Aside from the airplane crash, when the lack of action comes up it seems tiresome and almost forced. Singer directs it in a way that comes across as something more poetic, reminiscing and dull. It’s as if Singer was painting by numbers when it came to any action. We all know Sup’s the man of steel that can dodge bullets and lift giant land masses over his head but it lacked any exciting substance to make it worth while.

As Chris pointed out, once the action starts it doesn’t make a point or get anywhere you might expect it to. I mean once the Sup faces Lex, the whole scene lasts for about five-minutes and Sup gets his ass kicked. Instead of Sup going after Lex on some hell bent on revenge quest at the end we get nothing. Lex ends up on some island with his ding-bat girlfriend and Sup is more interested in following his love quest with Lois. Not exactly the most exciting premises you would expect in a superhero film. At least Spider-man II managed to blend the action along with a love story that seemed almost seamless.

So yes, both types of action as you have interpreted were very lacking to say the least. It didn’t have the intriguing action to keep a good pace flowing and it lacked in the violent, CGI action that you might expect from this type of genre. And I’m not saying the film needed more expensive CGI, I’m just saying it needed more interaction between the Sup and his nemesis. Come to think of it, that was probably the biggest problem is the fact that there literally was hardly anything for interaction between him and Lex. Oh well, as I’ve said, it makes for one of the biggest high-budget love story’s of all time.

at this point, i'm beginning to wonder if certain limitations of the english language are beginning to affect the debate on the merits of "superman returns".

some people are indeed complaining about the lack of "action" in terms of fighting, blowing things up, killing, death/destruction/mayhem, etc.

on the other hand, i wonder if some people are complaining about the lack of "action" as in anything worthwhile happening? as in, when they say, "nothing happens", they're really talking about the lack of sustaining interest either through dialogue or plot developments?

of course, with chris, he's probably talking about both cases.

I'm the one who did the resserecting, how come I'm not getting yelled at?

Jason,

As I said before, the only "action" in the movie consists of Superman catching or lifting heavy things over and over, which all your examples support. I can watch "Pumping Iron" if I want to see that. :)

Chris,

I SWEAR I was going to let this one die, but it got resurrected.

See, the thing is there IS a lot of action in the film. Yes, the big piece is the plane sequence. But you're forgetting about the last quarter of the film, from the rescue of Lois and Jason to the end. (Throwing the K island into space, the stabbing of Supes, the entire rescue and subsequent regeneration...you're even forgetting about the portions in Metropolis where Supes catches the DP globe...and even earlier with the "runaway" car."

But this is a polarizing movie. I personally had only one problem with it; aside from that, it was flawless for me. Everyone has a different opinion, I accept that.

Here's an ironic moment. I'm sitting with my daughter watching something on Cartoon Netwrok. A comercial for a Superman Action Figure comes on and I sat there and thought . . . 'Hmmm, you know, you could actually get more action and fun out of the Superman doll than you could from the movie.' :o

Tim ;) :D

As has been previously stated, the best piece of action in the film comes in the first forty minutes with the airplane sequence. Everything else is just plot device and filler.

What truly felt lacking for me was a sense of peril. Even when Lex seemed to be getting the upper hand, I really didn't care because I knew, just knew that Superman would be okay. What always worked in the first two Superman films was Superman's dedication to humanity. That was his concern. Not his own well-being, not just Lois', but the millions of lives hanging in the balance. We're told about this in SR, but we never really see it. We never hear Superman worrying about the lives that will be lost if he doesn't succeed.

We know Superman's going to make it out okay. Superman knows he's going to make it out okay. What we always rooted for was Superman to save the day of Average Joe and Joan, and that wager didn't seem to be on the table in this film.

Sean (...but i'll see that world devastation and raise you one supernova...)

Bump