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. :)