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