Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 28, 2006
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1195 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
690
Mixed:
208
Negative:
297
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
PonR.Jul 3, 2006
Singer was meant to finish directing the X-Men trilogy, and this proves it. The look of Superman Returns, while beautiful and streamlined, doesn't feel the way a Superman epic should. The lighting was never right and so everything Singer was meant to finish directing the X-Men trilogy, and this proves it. The look of Superman Returns, while beautiful and streamlined, doesn't feel the way a Superman epic should. The lighting was never right and so everything looked dull and grey. The characters had little or no depth, with Superman showing no sign of anything resembling a personality and Lex Luthor's trademark cunning and meticulous scheming replaced with an over-the-top plan that carried no degree of subtlety or credibility. Overall, it was a good film, but not a great one. We could've had a great superhero film and it would've been X3. Instead we get two mediocre films marred forever by missed opportunities. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful
7
MoviebuffreviewFeb 27, 2011
By no means does this live up to the first two Superman movies, however, this movie is seriously underrated. Although it might be a little too heavy on the story, and Luthor's plan is laughable, Superman Returns has fantastic effects, greatBy no means does this live up to the first two Superman movies, however, this movie is seriously underrated. Although it might be a little too heavy on the story, and Luthor's plan is laughable, Superman Returns has fantastic effects, great acting, and a great score. It is overall a solid, but imperfect movie. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
dharmaJun 9, 2012
Bran Singer by accident ruined 2006 for me. By leaving the X Men franchise and going to this one, we have two mediocre super hero movies that 'underperformed' in the box office. Superman Returns seemed to have everything...great productionBran Singer by accident ruined 2006 for me. By leaving the X Men franchise and going to this one, we have two mediocre super hero movies that 'underperformed' in the box office. Superman Returns seemed to have everything...great production values, great casting (Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey) and a passionate film maker in the form of Mr Singer himself. But by making this a 'sequel' of some sort to Dick Donner's SUPERMAN, Singer pinned himself into a corner. Face it, despite how brilliant Spacey is, Richard Donner's portrayal of Lex Luthor was crap. And for crying out loud, as much as I like Kate Bosworth, she is the worst Lois Lane in cinematic history. Superman Returns, beside a really great set piece in the middle of the film, felt slow and 'too serious' for its own good. The critics may like it, but the audience didn't. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
9
AaronM.Aug 31, 2006
Quite entertaining-great special effects. Not quite as good as Spiderman, but still an excellent movie.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
drlowdonMay 25, 2013
Intended has a direct sequel to the 80’s Superman II the caped hero returns to Earth five years after having left to find Metropolis’ crime rate on the rise and Lex Luthor still free. Directed by Bryan Singer the movie is certainly faithfulIntended has a direct sequel to the 80’s Superman II the caped hero returns to Earth five years after having left to find Metropolis’ crime rate on the rise and Lex Luthor still free. Directed by Bryan Singer the movie is certainly faithful to the originals and for the most part Brendon Routh is able to recapture the charm that made Christopher Reeve so popular in the role even if there never quite seems to be the same level of chemistry with Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane.

The movies plot is perfectly passable, largely thanks to an excellent performance from Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, despite the fact that we never really learn anything more about the man of steel as the film progresses. Even if Superman has never been as interesting a superhero as Batman for example a little more insight into what had happened over the last five years would have still been nice.

Overall, while it can perhaps be a little slow in places, thanks to some well shot action scenes and good performances Superman Returns is a worthy addition to the franchise.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
J24O1Jun 13, 2013
A good movie for all Superman fan's including myself. Brandon Routh tries to be to much like Christopher Reeve and don't really give his own interpretation. It lack's a deep core story and not enough action it tries to much to fit in with theA good movie for all Superman fan's including myself. Brandon Routh tries to be to much like Christopher Reeve and don't really give his own interpretation. It lack's a deep core story and not enough action it tries to much to fit in with the reeve classical movie's. It needed that new direction different take. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
SuperheroMoviesAug 5, 2013
Focusing a great deal on the story rather than the action, Superman Returns breathes fresh air into the Superman saga, reinvigorating the man of steel for today's generation in fantastic fashion.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
AgnesJul 2, 2006
Yes, we all love the superhero Superman. Having said that it doesn't mean that this turkey of a movie gets a free pass as most of you giving it a ten are doing. The script was awful, the acting wooden, except for Kevin Spacey as Lex Yes, we all love the superhero Superman. Having said that it doesn't mean that this turkey of a movie gets a free pass as most of you giving it a ten are doing. The script was awful, the acting wooden, except for Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, and the directing even worse. The cast was fine but now that they are back they need something to work with. To be perfectly honest I too adore Superman but this was a very slow moving innate effort by the producers. Call a spade a spade. Expand
5 of 7 users found this helpful
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 22, 2011
Bryan Singer's Rendition of "Superman" is organized poorly. "Superman Returns" is the evidence. Containing almost empty action with decent performances (I expected more from you, Spacey), Director Singer should have changed the name 'SupermanBryan Singer's Rendition of "Superman" is organized poorly. "Superman Returns" is the evidence. Containing almost empty action with decent performances (I expected more from you, Spacey), Director Singer should have changed the name 'Superman Returns" into "Superman Fails". Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
0
TinaB.Jul 1, 2006
Didn't enjoy this 'Christ in a cape' shlock-fest one bit. The plot was absurd and logically inconsistent, the action scenes were snore-inducing and there wasn't one performance worth a damn -- including the overrated Didn't enjoy this 'Christ in a cape' shlock-fest one bit. The plot was absurd and logically inconsistent, the action scenes were snore-inducing and there wasn't one performance worth a damn -- including the overrated Kevin Spacey. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
2
MattJan 2, 2007
One of the worst movies of the year for me. Dull, detached, and predictable to the last detail, Superman Returns fails miserably compared to other recent superhero films. The only positive note is Kevin Spacy's acceptable performance.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
JCJul 1, 2006
Loved it... i hear it's a serious event in imax, can't wait to see it again! spacey nailed it.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
JOEG.Jul 1, 2006
A complete masterpiece. it was emotional and moving and filled with plenty of action for my taste. i was glued to the screen from beginning to end. best superhero movie since spidey 2.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
RileyW.Nov 24, 2006
Dull, plodding, boring, pedestrian, lacking drama, lacking romance, and especially lacking ACTION. who thought it was a good idea to make a Superman movie without any action/adventure save one or two scenes? Awful flick.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
StacieMOct 2, 2008
Superman with such passion, vigor, and release of infinite power, he graciously fly's and fights his emotions through obstacles.He is a man who holds the world and knows what he should do to help the ones he loves and others then Superman with such passion, vigor, and release of infinite power, he graciously fly's and fights his emotions through obstacles.He is a man who holds the world and knows what he should do to help the ones he loves and others then himself. Awesome film. Anyone who has not seen the power of this film should experience it.. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful
7
MovieLonely94Jan 9, 2011
despite its bad dialogue, this action summer flick is splendid
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
1
JoelC.Jul 10, 2006
Superman Returns is the worst movie that I have seen since "Batman & Robin". The movie completely lacks originality and I found myself on more than one occaision laughing with such gusto at the corny dialogue and leaps in logic, that I Superman Returns is the worst movie that I have seen since "Batman & Robin". The movie completely lacks originality and I found myself on more than one occaision laughing with such gusto at the corny dialogue and leaps in logic, that I nearly had to leave the theatre. I cannot believe that any studio would have spent 200M on a franchise movie with a script this poorly written, and overacting that would embarass a Soap Opera cast, (Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor excluded). With Spiderman, Batman Returns, and X-men having raised the bar for super hero movies, I expected so much more. Instead I was treated to a movie that ripped of the original throughout, stole from several other action flicks for it's story line, and did nothing to develop the characters at all. This is movie making at it's worst. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
0
ChristopherB.Aug 1, 2006
It was all wrong christopher revee is superman and is the only person who can play superman and margot kidder is the only one who can play loz lane same for Lex Luther is played by gene hackman!
1 of 3 users found this helpful
3
LondonTrueloveNov 18, 2010
This movie sucks in so many ways it's hard to believe. It literally could've ended 10 times, but no, it just kept on dragging on. Way too long and extremely boring. It'd be more exciting to spend two and a half hours watching grass grow, orThis movie sucks in so many ways it's hard to believe. It literally could've ended 10 times, but no, it just kept on dragging on. Way too long and extremely boring. It'd be more exciting to spend two and a half hours watching grass grow, or paint dry, either will suffice. I gave it a 3 b/c I like superman, but damn this film blew. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
1
Chrismith7Aug 12, 2013
Oh lord why was this movie made is what I thought after seeing superman returns in the cinema. It was crap acting with a crap storyline and that's all I can say. It was definitely more joyful than man if steel but was much worse whilst man ofOh lord why was this movie made is what I thought after seeing superman returns in the cinema. It was crap acting with a crap storyline and that's all I can say. It was definitely more joyful than man if steel but was much worse whilst man of steel was a masterpiece. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
4
MikeS.Jul 1, 2006
Booooo.... a dour snoozefest bareft of wit or soul.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
AndyP.Jul 4, 2006
A true classic. This is what movies used to be like before they were all about special fx and explosions. It's a movie that unravels gradually and pulls you in, instead of the loud "in your face" variety that we're plagued withA true classic. This is what movies used to be like before they were all about special fx and explosions. It's a movie that unravels gradually and pulls you in, instead of the loud "in your face" variety that we're plagued with nowadays. it reminds me of the old school speilberg flicks that cared as much about character and drama as they did thrills and action. We need more like this one. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
EdG.Dec 9, 2006
This was a shallow movie with a poor script and recycled ideas. I ABSOLUTELY cannot understand how anyone can like this movie. I realize this is Superman but HAVE MERCY the limitless cliche's were suffocating.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
BobS.Jun 24, 2006
This was full of it!!!! It was the most boring movie that i have ever seen!!! boooooooo!!!!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
LeeC.Jul 5, 2006
Way overrated! Lousy plot and a messy portrayal of Lois Lane by Bosworth. i'd pick X3 over this one anytime.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
PatC.Jan 2, 2007
Its heart is in the right place, but overall it's drawn out overkill.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
TaimurA.Jun 20, 2008
If you read the comments of the critics its quite obvious that they are all a bunch of idiots. any one who calls this film "superb" is retarded. superman 1 and 2 are still etched in peoples minds. SR however is one of the most forgettable If you read the comments of the critics its quite obvious that they are all a bunch of idiots. any one who calls this film "superb" is retarded. superman 1 and 2 are still etched in peoples minds. SR however is one of the most forgettable movies of all time. some scenes were okay, So? I also hate the fact that each time we saw superman fly, it was a fake superman, as in, it was a digital reproduction, not the actual actor. I therefore could not connect with superman at all. i connected with chris reeves, because it was him doing the flying and he did it beautifuly. bottom line...they messed up...big time! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
ScottDDec 17, 2006
Very boring... I kept watching hoping to see a big action scene and it never comes. Its a long boring movie.
0 of 3 users found this helpful
2
jeremyd99Sep 1, 2010
Superman returns with bad acting,a bad story,and bad charachters. The movie has only one reedeming quality and that is it its stunning visuals,that is the only reason I did not give it a zero. The story is really boring. Not even comic booksSuperman returns with bad acting,a bad story,and bad charachters. The movie has only one reedeming quality and that is it its stunning visuals,that is the only reason I did not give it a zero. The story is really boring. Not even comic books fans will enjoy this story. The movie has horrible acing and horrible everything else. Now that I am done (I know this is short) but this movie sucks and you should not see it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
idohakerJul 5, 2013
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggg.that is all i got to say about this movie.this isboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggg.that is all i got to say about this movie.this is not superman.this is a guy that protend that he is superman.and cant even give one punch to a dude.horrible.dissapointment,but if you want to see a good superman movie go to see man of steel.in the begining there is just talking,but belive me you will never forget the awsomeness of man of steel.for the end this movie is terrible,go see man of steel Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
domecJun 17, 2013
Eventough I was not born after superman IV I am a big fan. So I was overjoyed to hear a new movie is coming out. As I started watching the movie I was expecting a fight between Superman and hordes of henchmen. It turned out Superman did notEventough I was not born after superman IV I am a big fan. So I was overjoyed to hear a new movie is coming out. As I started watching the movie I was expecting a fight between Superman and hordes of henchmen. It turned out Superman did not throw even a punch. His son did more than that. Yes he has a son with Louis Lane. It was so dull to watch it that only thing keeping me awake was hope of seeing a fight. But it never came. I see this is a good film but this Superman and I expected more. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
survivorfan989Jun 24, 2013
I love a good Superhero movie, but this wasn't one. No it wasn't that bad but I just don't really get the hype with Superman compared to other comic heroes out there. It was a long film and it really struggled to hold my interest as thereI love a good Superhero movie, but this wasn't one. No it wasn't that bad but I just don't really get the hype with Superman compared to other comic heroes out there. It was a long film and it really struggled to hold my interest as there never seemed to be much going on. Characters weren't that interesting and while the acting is probably up there as some of the best in films like this, its not enough to make up for boring content, so overall only the diehard fans will really enjoy this one. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
Jamison12Jun 6, 2013
Brandon Routh falls flat on his steel face. While if it wasn't about Superman, this may be a good film. But it IS about Superman. The most action going on in this film is when he gets shot in the eye. And unfortunately for anyone watching theBrandon Routh falls flat on his steel face. While if it wasn't about Superman, this may be a good film. But it IS about Superman. The most action going on in this film is when he gets shot in the eye. And unfortunately for anyone watching the movie, the movie doesn't end there. All i take away from this film are 3 things. 1) This plot has more holes than Swiss Cheese, 2) Brandon Routh sucks, and 3) Superman is a crappy parent. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
tskflavioJun 14, 2013
Bad movie, extremely boring and sleepy, I felt robbed in that epoch watched this movie in the theater, Superman load a kryptonite island was a much delayed.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
AndreusJul 8, 2013
This is literally the worst movie I have ever seen as far as super heroes go. I should have been paid to see this movie not the other way around. What a waste of time, energy, money, and my faith for future superman movies...
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ConnorFilmFanJul 25, 2013
I applaud Bryan Singer for trying to bring the nostalgia and magic from the first two Richard Donner/Chris Reeve films. Sadly, in many respects, Bryan fails. While the film has some interesting concepts, it's unfortunately more of the sameI applaud Bryan Singer for trying to bring the nostalgia and magic from the first two Richard Donner/Chris Reeve films. Sadly, in many respects, Bryan fails. While the film has some interesting concepts, it's unfortunately more of the same old. In many ways, the film blatantly borrows from the first two classics, without trying to add anything new to the series it's continuing. One thing the film does give the audience is a fantastically campy performance delivered by Kevin Spacey who clearly seems to be enjoying himself.
Overall the film asks us Does the world need Superman ?
It doesn't need this film, that's for sure. The film just lacks the spectacle and wonder you would expect in a Superman film
55/100
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
MovieGuysJun 8, 2014
Superman Returns is the best out of any of the Superman movies, including the original and, of course, Man of Steel. Singer's adaptation of the superhero takes itself way too seriously at points, and might even go into "so-bad-its-good"Superman Returns is the best out of any of the Superman movies, including the original and, of course, Man of Steel. Singer's adaptation of the superhero takes itself way too seriously at points, and might even go into "so-bad-its-good" status at times. But, you must embrace these things in order to enjoy it. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
cag11Nov 29, 2013
It has a lot of plot holes, which were somewhat too noticeable throughout the whole film. It gave me a better view of it than Superman III did. The acting wasn't that good, plus the small amount of humor wasn't really that good either. ButIt has a lot of plot holes, which were somewhat too noticeable throughout the whole film. It gave me a better view of it than Superman III did. The acting wasn't that good, plus the small amount of humor wasn't really that good either. But the whole plot was interesting, which never made me want to not watch it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015
This movie is okay. Brandon Routhe looked too young and wasn't the best choice for the man of steel, but I got the impression that he was at least trying. I didn't like how Lois Lane was written and I don't think Kate Bosworth was a goodThis movie is okay. Brandon Routhe looked too young and wasn't the best choice for the man of steel, but I got the impression that he was at least trying. I didn't like how Lois Lane was written and I don't think Kate Bosworth was a good choice, she looked like a teenager. Kevin Spacey was a decent Lex, but his 'diabolical plan' wasn't very smart. There could of been more action scenes and I kinda wish the film embraced the colors of the Richard Donner movies. This should have been more fun, they might as well have called this movie "Subparman Returns"... Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
marcmyworksJan 22, 2014
This film left a lot of plot holes and questions in the film series which, unfortunately due to box office performance, will never be answered. Bryan Singer did direct a great blockbuster, but it wasn't interesting enough to fill seats.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
MovieGKMay 8, 2014
.Horrible! No it didn't have humor or romance or anything... wait maybe it did. But it doesn't matter! It was BORING! I haven't watched it for quite some time so i tried to rewatch it. Twice. Failed both times. I just saw the first and last.Horrible! No it didn't have humor or romance or anything... wait maybe it did. But it doesn't matter! It was BORING! I haven't watched it for quite some time so i tried to rewatch it. Twice. Failed both times. I just saw the first and last 15 minutes. Boring! Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
0
X-21Jun 27, 2014
a disgrace to the man of steel
movie sucks and you should see it, to mock it
huge letdown
crap screenplay
bad acting
crap script
no action
boring villain
boring storyline
0 of 8 users found this helpful08
All this user's reviews
1
DeathSladeJun 27, 2014
Superman's character was boring and there was no life in him
There was very little action
The story was bad
Bad movie overall
A disgrace to the man of steel
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
7
mbigAug 15, 2014
i can t understand why so many people panned this movie. Sure there are some weak spots but overall i d say that it had the same tone as the Reeves Superman. On the downside Luther's plot to get rich with real estate again left me with a dejai can t understand why so many people panned this movie. Sure there are some weak spots but overall i d say that it had the same tone as the Reeves Superman. On the downside Luther's plot to get rich with real estate again left me with a deja vu feeling. Wasn't that the premise of the first Reeves movie? A little originality would have been nice. Otherwise, I found that the acting was solid, the action was a bit lacking but was effective when shown.
The fact that Superman learns he has a son would also have been something to work with in a sequel but that never happened. Too bad i would have liked to see that interaction.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
TheDude-Jul 21, 2015
Superman Returns is by no means a terrible film it has some good cinematography, action sequences, some neat visual effects, some good humour, Brandon Routh looks great as superman and Kevin spacey nails it as Lex Luthor but the film just hasSuperman Returns is by no means a terrible film it has some good cinematography, action sequences, some neat visual effects, some good humour, Brandon Routh looks great as superman and Kevin spacey nails it as Lex Luthor but the film just has some of the most bland and cookie cutter of characters and plot points, Brandon Routh has no charisma as Clark Kent the same goes for Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, The film puts way to little focus on Clark Kent and decides to make it more about the even less interesting Lois Lane, Lex Luthor's motivations as to what he wants to do in this film is very unclear and lastly the film has many continuity and superman Loir errors that is to long of a list to mention.
6/10
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
Cinemassacre94Mar 20, 2016
OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, anOK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:

1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Dont' leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.

2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the only route to go. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.

3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.

4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...

5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.

6. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.

There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flacid",and "impotent" come to mind.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
JamesB.Jul 2, 2006
The movies strong assets are kevin spacey and the action sequences. On the whole the movie is passable. In an attempt to show a strong female character the writer worked up a shitty louis lane. The way she treats Clark Kent, her team mate The movies strong assets are kevin spacey and the action sequences. On the whole the movie is passable. In an attempt to show a strong female character the writer worked up a shitty louis lane. The way she treats Clark Kent, her team mate who has returned after 5 years is appaling. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DWGodwinJul 2, 2006
[***SPOILER***] I really anticipated "Superman Returns" and wanted to like it. Indeed, "Superman Returns" excelled in sheer spectacle, but it was disappointing in several key areas: First, the basic plot was a retread of the first Superman: [***SPOILER***] I really anticipated "Superman Returns" and wanted to like it. Indeed, "Superman Returns" excelled in sheer spectacle, but it was disappointing in several key areas: First, the basic plot was a retread of the first Superman: 1) Lex's lust for land (think "beachfront property"); 2) Lex's conflicted lady sidekick (think "Valerie Perrine") 3) Superman being weakened by Kryptonite and in the water (right out of the subway scene in the first movie). These are a few examples of Singer so intently trying to reflect the first movie that he begins to copy it. Second, it isn't the case that there is a duality between Superman/Clark. There are three people in there, apparently: Superman/Real Clark/Buffoon Clark. The real "corn fed" Clark we have come to know through better development in "Smallville" and the buffoonish Clark that is the favorite personna of the Donner films (save for the few minutes we see Clark return home in the beginning of the film). Even here, Clark isn't the nice young man as he is a bit mean to his dog. Perhaps it is intentional that Superman comes across more as the Clark we respect, and that the Buffoon Clark seems to be truly alien. Why should Lois be attracted to buffoon Clark? Perhaps this transposition justifies Lois' infatuation with Superman. Third, Superman uses his powers in truly creepy ways in the movie. It really isn't OK that Superman spies on Lois and her boyfriend in her home, and I must say that "Richard" came across as more truly heroic, because without any special powers (not even mutant ones) he exhibited a heck of a lot of courage to protect his family. Amazingly, I'm not sure this was intended. In contrast, Superman came across as more of a force of nature than human. The messianic overtones and overt references by Superman to this aspect of his personna seemed incredibly self-serving and unneccessary. Having written these things, I must say that the visual effects (particularly the jet crash and the bullet scene - you know which one I mean) were spectacular (though one has to wonder who would actually think that civilians would actually be allowed to fly on a shuttle launch vehicle - the implausibility of this plot turn boggles the mind! Perhaps the administration saw it as a way to dispense with some pesky reporters...). I've read comics for 30 years, and have faithfully attended just about every comic-related movie that has been put forth, and there have been some bad ones. To me, Superman isn't Superman because of his powers - it is his humanity, caring for others and capacity for self-sacrifice that makes Superman unique. Apparently, to Singer, Superman is Superman because of his powers. He is a messiah, not because of his essential kernal of humanity, but because in a god-like way he can apparently defy the laws of physics. Perhaps the tone of this first movie was necessary to set the stage for better things to come, but it was not the home run I had anticipated. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
CaptainSpauldingJul 5, 2006
A good summer weekend thrillride. I enjoyed this movie greatly. I really dug Jimmy Olsen, Frank Langella as Perry White and Brandon Routh did a great job as Superman (although I still consider him too young for the part and much to A good summer weekend thrillride. I enjoyed this movie greatly. I really dug Jimmy Olsen, Frank Langella as Perry White and Brandon Routh did a great job as Superman (although I still consider him too young for the part and much to "Superboyish" to be the "man" of steel). His voice is very, very Chris Reeve like and I thought he did a pretty good job. The icing on the cake however was Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor...Yowzah! He gets the Metropolis baddie down pat and I think is the best Luthor...period. What a great choice for the part! He dominated this film IMO. The let down...Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Just ain't happening gang. Also, the whole thing with the "kid"...unneeded and merely a plot twist used by the diretor. All in all a solid 7. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ScarecrowAug 5, 2006
Its entertaining but not as exciting as you would expected. The director of the two amazing x-men movies has done a good job on creating the feeling of being supwerman but the action isnt as cool as it could have been. The airplane sequence Its entertaining but not as exciting as you would expected. The director of the two amazing x-men movies has done a good job on creating the feeling of being supwerman but the action isnt as cool as it could have been. The airplane sequence is exciting but thats it. the ending didnt had tha much impacted on me and it was overly simple. the story could have been more interesting.I think the movie was missing a good villain. Lex Luthor is good but he is only human. the movie needed a real villain like Metalo who can fight superman one on one. Another villain could have made the movie a lot more interesting to watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DouglasB.Aug 8, 2006
Total chick flik, I expected better from Singer. I loved Lex Luther but Superman was way too weak. He never punched a single guy! He just kept getting kicked around near the end and was nearly killed. The main element in this movie is love Total chick flik, I expected better from Singer. I loved Lex Luther but Superman was way too weak. He never punched a single guy! He just kept getting kicked around near the end and was nearly killed. The main element in this movie is love and how Superman cares about that girl who's name escapes me. Anyway, Lex Luther saved it from being terrible. Singer should've done X-3 (which was way better than this) instead of this. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RedJul 16, 2008
This is an all around great movie. The only thing that slows Superman down is having to unravel the back story/ love story. This is kind of needed though and sets it up for an exciting sequel. Singer is a King in the superhero arena and This is an all around great movie. The only thing that slows Superman down is having to unravel the back story/ love story. This is kind of needed though and sets it up for an exciting sequel. Singer is a King in the superhero arena and doesn't fail to deliver. This movie still manages to take flight and dazzle audiences. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
werffijeOct 1, 2006
There is one truly great scene in it (the airline one)...and that's pretty much it. The introduction of a child is stupid, seemingly commandeered by the class of actors going past their prime in recent times and all popping out little There is one truly great scene in it (the airline one)...and that's pretty much it. The introduction of a child is stupid, seemingly commandeered by the class of actors going past their prime in recent times and all popping out little kids. The Clarke Kent persona is underplayed. Superman doesn't interact with the world enough, like he's an observer rather than superhero. The lifting continent of kryptonite to space scene was bulls*** (for a very obvious reason). Parts of it are good, but it falls well short in other areas (the Kid....the KID) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JoshuaW.Oct 3, 2006
Great casting and a couple of terrific action sequences. But the pacing was rather unbalanced. Still, did they clone Christopher Reeves or something?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EikoOct 7, 2006
For me, I think this is the best Superman movie ever and a VERY entertaining movie, and also the movie is carefully done. I think Singer did a job well done. Spacey's Lex was wonderfully done and I think Routh's acting was pretty much ok.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
StefanB.Jun 28, 2006
Despite introducing themes such as the ability of mankind to transcend their own pettiness and themselves become supermen, and the selfishness of remaining a god among mortals, the movie quickly devolves into something we've seen Despite introducing themes such as the ability of mankind to transcend their own pettiness and themselves become supermen, and the selfishness of remaining a god among mortals, the movie quickly devolves into something we've seen before. Lex Luthor's evil scheme makes almost no sense, and the internal consistancy of such major elements as the way kryptonite affects superman is very questionable. In the end, the film veers away from all of its earlier hints at greatness, and delivers a poorly-timed, drawn out version of exactly what we've seen before in old superman movies. It's not bad, but it leaves me questioning the reasons for a remake. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PatriciaB.Jun 29, 2006
I could call my review "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman Returns." While Brandon Routh is an absolute revelation as Superman - the screen lights up when he's on it - the story (was there one? I can't recall) is so flimsy I could call my review "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman Returns." While Brandon Routh is an absolute revelation as Superman - the screen lights up when he's on it - the story (was there one? I can't recall) is so flimsy that it can't support the worthwhile religious imagery. I was so excited to see what they would do with the notion of "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman"... the idea that the world doesn't need a savior. The movie doesn't really show us what this means - we don't get to see with our own eyes how Lois might have come to this conclusion, except as a girl nursing a broken heart. There's a larger picture here - one I would like to have seen. And, with the exception of a few lines referring to how the world DOES need a savior, SUPERMAN RETURNS doesn't show us why Lois's mind is changed by the end of the film. Do we ever actually get to see real people in real crisis? There's a silly bank robbery scene that serves the purpose of showing off Superman's ability to repel bullets, and the ill-conceived robbery of the Museum of Natural History... but none of the scenes of folks "in danger" (mostly shown in a montage) really connect us with the notion of needing/ wanting/ or rejecting a savior. For all the Christ poses and references to events like Christ's resurrection, the writers really didn't seem to be involved in linking the images to an actual narrative. The pacing drags because the director seems to be so in love with his effects that he luxuriates in them. We see the same thing (the land formations Lex has conjured) over and over again - we get it! What's more, who cares? We need to see people we care about in danger, not just hear that "billions" will die. And finally - as for the scene in which Lois is on Lex's yacht - again, "in danger" - this is one of the most limp sequences I've seen in a superhero film. It drags. As for casting - poor Kate Bosworth. She's gone without eating all these years... and for what? So she can co-star in a disappointing big budget extravaganza and be criticized as one of the weakest links (which she was)? So, given that she looks 20, 21... are we to assume she was a teenage mother? Babies having babies. Tsk. Tsk. Shame on you, Superman. Seems like what you did is illegal in most states. Next time, cast a woman - not a girl who has the body of a pre-adolescent boy - to play Lois Lane. Someone who is worthy of Brandon Routh's gaze. While the effects guys earned their paychecks here, the screenwriters did not - there's no story to support the $200 million plus effects extravaganza that is Superman Returns. It's a shame Superman isn't real. Maybe he could have saved this picture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlanhH.Jun 30, 2006
As good as they are, the heart of the movie isn't the special effects, it's the love story which for comic book characters is remarkably touching. And, for once in current movies, everyone acts like a decent person (except, of As good as they are, the heart of the movie isn't the special effects, it's the love story which for comic book characters is remarkably touching. And, for once in current movies, everyone acts like a decent person (except, of course, the villain). To put it another way, unlike most such movies, they act like adults. And everyone ends up doing the right thing. As one reviewer remarked, it's the most truly adult superhero movie ever. And not in the sense of being unpleasant and dark like the over-rated Batman Begins. Rather, it's both moving and life affirming. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AlexB.Jun 30, 2006
This was one of the greatest films I've seen this year. My only beef with it was that Superman didn't throw a single punch the entire movie. Didn't anyone else notice that?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnB.Jun 30, 2006
Superman Returns is the quintessential example of hollywood spectacle where logic, script, and film style are cast aside, replaced by effects and the grandiose. Whoever concocts these kinds of films must not give any respect for the Superman Returns is the quintessential example of hollywood spectacle where logic, script, and film style are cast aside, replaced by effects and the grandiose. Whoever concocts these kinds of films must not give any respect for the viewer's intelligence, attempting to make up something merely to distract the audience from its blatant errors from top to bottom. This isn't film, this is like watching a two and a half hour commercial with no real plot, but a purpose to gain one's attention long enough to justify the money you spent in the theater. It is a film like this one that makes me shake my head and wonder why I even bother to care for hollywood these days. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AmandaB.Jul 11, 2006
Very good movie, with Routh a surprisingly good fit for his role. I liked the reuse of Jor-El's voice from old footage thereby drawing parallels to movie's one and two. personally, i found it hard to buy Kevin Spacey as lex Luthor. Very good movie, with Routh a surprisingly good fit for his role. I liked the reuse of Jor-El's voice from old footage thereby drawing parallels to movie's one and two. personally, i found it hard to buy Kevin Spacey as lex Luthor. He played the part brilliantly, and his one-lined puns were right on target, but physically, he didn't portray Lex, at least not the lex i know from legend. In short, Brian did a wonderful job in this remade version of Superman, just as he did with X-Men, The visual effects were good, as they say, you did believe a man could fly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ShawnO.Jul 1, 2006
[***SPOILERS***] I enjoyed this movie to the extent that the FX were excellent and the performances were servicable. The subtext in this movie that "we all have the ability to be supermen" was rather poignant, I thought. This movie fails in [***SPOILERS***] I enjoyed this movie to the extent that the FX were excellent and the performances were servicable. The subtext in this movie that "we all have the ability to be supermen" was rather poignant, I thought. This movie fails in many areas though. First, it takes way too long to get the story going. Second, it lacks continuity. If this movie is supposed to take place where Superman II left off (apparently, Bryan SInger thinks III and IV didn't exist), then why did he leave for 5 years? If you recall Superman II, Superman leaves Metropolis to go to the Fortress of Solitude with Lois Lane. In order to be with her he has to give up his powers and he does. While this is going on Zod and his crew are reaking havoc and taking over the world. Superman finds out what's going on, gets his powers back "(I've been...lifting weights."), realizes he has to sacrifice a relationship with Lois and live out his destiny as mankind's protector. At the end of the movie he meets the president and sys, "I won't let you down again." That being said, why the heck did he take off for 5 years? My third problem with this movie is that it's even more ridiculous that no one knows Clark is Superman than it was 26 years ago. For God's sake, besides the fact that they look exactly the same and have all of the same physical characteristics (which Richard White pointed out) don't any of those characters find it a bit coincidental that they both left 5 years ago and came back the exact same day?! Another problem--and my wife pointed this out-- If you never saw the first 2 movies or don't know much about the Superman charcter, this movie (although wasting about an hour trying to) does not fill in any blanks or explain any canon. Bryan SInger apparently forgot that Superman II was released in 1980. The biggest problem with this movie is 2 fold: This a clone of the Richard Donner Superman movies. The characters are almost exactly the same as they were 26 years ago with nothing new brought to them by the actors that play them (and I still don't understand why Clark Kent has to be a clumsy dork. I don't recall the comics ever portraying him that way.). Lex is a little more vicious, but still not a whole lot different than Gene Hackman's Lex and the cliched girlfriend (Kitty Kowalski) played by Parker Posey is the exact same as every other girlfriend he's ever had. She's ditzy, does whatever Lex tells her, tries to seduce Superman in order to distract him and has second thoughts in the end about Lex's sinister plans. Sound familiar? She even dresses like them. The worst part of the Richard Donner clone aspects of this movie is the recycled plot (which, as I noted earlier takes them forever to get to). Lex wants to use Superman's powers to take over the world. Again, does that sound familiar? I did like the Superman junior subplot, but I had it figured out immediately, it, as the irony was so obvious. I know this review sounds like I 'm bashing this film, but I'm really not, I'm looking at it objectively as an avid movie goer. I don't understand Tina B.'s pseudointellectual 'Christ in a cape' reference whatsoever. That is about as ridiculous as The Advocate claiming Superman is a homosexual and that everytime he comes out a phone booth, he's coming out of the closet. First of all, I'd like to explain something to both Tina B. and The Advocate. Superman is a fictional character. The point of Superman (even in this movie) is to inspire us to our own greatness, symboliziing what we can be so that we can prevent what happened to his world happening to ours. He's not meant to be our savior and his sexual preference (I think it's kind of obvious he's straight, though) is irrelavent. It is quite obvious to me that SInger and company were less concerned about story/plot/character development and more concerned about the renaissance of the franchise and making a ton of money, kind of like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Batman Begins, it ain't. I'll give them a pass this time, but I certainly hope that the next offering is akin to Star Trek II: The Wrath Khan as far as quality is concerned. For family fun and decent entertainment, I would recommend this film. For anything more substanitive, I would not. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KingChadJul 1, 2006
SUPERMAN = Slow, Uneven, Poor, Egregious, Revolting, Misguided, Awful, Nauseating.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaredJul 1, 2006
REFUND!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JackT.Jul 1, 2006
This movie was is really bad. The plot was so boring. There's no suspense or tension in the storyline. Everything is so predicable. All the characters were so bland. The effects look so fake especially the IMAX 3D stuff. There was no This movie was is really bad. The plot was so boring. There's no suspense or tension in the storyline. Everything is so predicable. All the characters were so bland. The effects look so fake especially the IMAX 3D stuff. There was no originality. I'm not sure why some rave about the love story because there wasn't really much there. I liked the scene where Lois goes flying with Supe and is all flustered afterwards when she see's her finance as she's feeling a little guilty. But there's not much else there. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HectorL.Jul 1, 2006
[***SPOILER***] Well done, beautiful to see, and Routh as Superman was convincing, if still a bit too young looking (as was Lois Lane) for the part of SuperMAN. The basic plot is a little to reminiscent of the original Superman in which [***SPOILER***] Well done, beautiful to see, and Routh as Superman was convincing, if still a bit too young looking (as was Lois Lane) for the part of SuperMAN. The basic plot is a little to reminiscent of the original Superman in which Luthor is still obsessed with the idea of creating land for himself to sell to others. It was a sort of midway between the modern comic book Luthor who is a billionaire megalomaniac and the original movie Luthor who was a bit of a goof ball and insane. Spacey, however, is great as Luthor. One thing that bugged me, and this is a bit of a spoiler, is Clark's apparent disregard for his mother, who is seen waiting for news in the crowd as the world waits to see if Superman has survived, yet he runs off to see Lois after he recovers rather than paying a visit to his mother, who so obviously worries about him even though he is practically a God. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RexJul 10, 2006
Possibly the worst summer action movie I have ever seen. I loved Superman when I was younger and this was a HUGE let down. Also, since it has been over 20 years since the movie was in theaters I feel the director could have done a much Possibly the worst summer action movie I have ever seen. I loved Superman when I was younger and this was a HUGE let down. Also, since it has been over 20 years since the movie was in theaters I feel the director could have done a much better job setting this movie up. I was almost like they assumed everyone would watch the first three movies right before coming to see the new one. There was almost no plot and Brandon Routh was BORING. Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth were good, but nothing could help this movie. In addition, the movie was 2 hours and 40 minutes long. . . . come on! I could go on and on about was I didn Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DWillyJul 2, 2006
Really bad; despicable even really for how little concern there is for motivation and consistency. Boy Superman's dog brings him a ball to play fetch with and he throws it miles away, that's nice; Kryptonite weakens him... oh, not Really bad; despicable even really for how little concern there is for motivation and consistency. Boy Superman's dog brings him a ball to play fetch with and he throws it miles away, that's nice; Kryptonite weakens him... oh, not so much in this scene anymore, he's in the hospital clinging to life, no, he's up, not sure why; he abandons Louis and his family... well, I guess that's suppose to be consistent with his special condition (like X-Men) being a metaphor for Bryan Singer's homosexuality. There's no look to the movie and, apart from occaisional flashes from Spacey, no acting. Why so many reviewers are rating this mess so highly is another of life's great mysteries to me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
OtisburgJul 2, 2006
this was amazing, i been waiting for this for years and it was worth the wait. I am a huge fan of the first two films and this was just sensational, from spaceys portrail of lex luthor to rouths almost identical manor of chris reeve AMAZING.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
P.B.Jul 2, 2006
Come on. This is the worst directed movie I've seen in a while. Take for example the long sweeping shot that shows the audience how remote the Fortress of Solitude is and how much of a trek Luther and his cronies have to get there. Then Come on. This is the worst directed movie I've seen in a while. Take for example the long sweeping shot that shows the audience how remote the Fortress of Solitude is and how much of a trek Luther and his cronies have to get there. Then when they arrive, they are all perfectly clean and dry as if they just walked out of their trailers. Where's the attention to detail by the director? The script has major problems too. Are we supposed to believe that all nations will bow down to Luther because he happened to start his montrous plan? Can he defend what he created? Can he claim it as his own after any country with a warhead and a thirst for land (uh, that's almost all of 'em these days) shows up and wants to claim it themselves? Finally, any time you are ever drowning in the freezing Atlantic waters for several minutes, don't think that you can just summon up the strength to overcome hypothermia. That's almost as plausible as getting tossed around in an aurplane going the sound barrier and not even get a scratch (oh wait that silliness happens in this film too). All this aside, the story of how much superman was missed (or wasn't) is a lame subplot in between the multitude of special effects scenes of Superman either catching something falling or picking somehting up and throwing it into space. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredC.Jul 3, 2006
Superman Returns is a great summer movie and a great movie PERIOD!!! The cast was excellent, F/X amazing and the movie made you believe once again that a man can fly.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PaulF.Jul 3, 2006
It is obvious this remake was an influence of Batman Returns. I don't think Superman is as dark as Batman was but then again I can see why Lois was really mad at him. Go and watch. You'll see. Overall this movie was entertaining in It is obvious this remake was an influence of Batman Returns. I don't think Superman is as dark as Batman was but then again I can see why Lois was really mad at him. Go and watch. You'll see. Overall this movie was entertaining in somewhat of a fresh way. Someone termed this a chic movie as far as action comic book films go. I can kind of see this too. Overall the acting was pretty good, not great. There were a few stilted moments but overall it was the effects that really mesmorized me. The flying scenes of Superman were superb. And the feats much more complex. There were a few new angles I didn't except going in. This movie showed a more obsessed alienated side to Superman. I kind of thought he was a bit of Jerk to tell you the truth, especially in one aspect toward Lois. But overall it comes across as an interesting angle I'd like to see in potential sequels. I was surprise to see Kevin Spacy who is usually a first rate actor and overall had the look for Lex but didn't really convince me. Also I can't remember who played the editor of the daily planet, somewhat of a notable actor, however he played his role too muted down. He almost seemed depressed for me. They should have made him a little more angry and engaged in life. Again the best parts were Superman and Lois as far as acting goes. They did OK but not phenomenal. The special effects were incredible. And there were a few twists that I guessed earlier than I would have wanted that made me feel a little mixed. Overall worth seeing on the bigscreen but also not the best superhero movie ever to be made. I felt the Supermans' with Reeves were a bit better in a different sort of way. This one however made me feel more philosophical so I'd have to give it points for that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MC.Jul 5, 2006
[***SPOILERS***] The note reads something like this, "Help us, 70N 43W." 'Are they lottery numbers?' asks Perry White of The Daily Planet, one of many inept characters in this putrid, insulting, incoherent mess of a film. It's [***SPOILERS***] The note reads something like this, "Help us, 70N 43W." 'Are they lottery numbers?' asks Perry White of The Daily Planet, one of many inept characters in this putrid, insulting, incoherent mess of a film. It's apparent the hack writers and Singer imbued their film's asinine plot with as much complexity and forethought as their villain did his-- just add water, no one will care, it's just a dumb summer movie for average, easily entertained fools anyway. Yes, Superman Returns is, for anyone not blinded by love for an iconic character and possessed of a modicum of intelligence, a failure of a film. The reasons are so many,and on so many levels, it is daunting to stare up at the mountain I have to climb in listing them. However, I must try, so as to purge my brain of the poison consumed last night at a Hollywood crap purveyor, er, Cineplex. From the macro to the micro, this movie is garbage. Macro: there is simply no jeopardy, no real sense of danger, ever. Everytime someone is in trouble, you just know that Superman will show up and lift whatever object needs to be lifted. That is a problem the character faces, granted, and one with which any filmmakers would be saddled. Yet the filmmakers are to be indicted for making almost every action beat require the lifting of some big object. This beat was so redundant. Superman lifts this, that, OKAY, I get it. Then, what was the point of that staccato, cheesily shot action sequence where Superman was shot in the chest and eye-- was it merely to show us what we already knew: he is bulletproof? You wasted money on that scene why? With all the realistic, heart-wrenching tragedy and crime in the world today, they show us some cartoonish gatling gun on a cherry-picker and some slo-mo bullets we've seen a thousand times? Lame. The problem here is that the film's tone was at times serious, so then why this cartoonish gatling gun scene? Same for the over-the-top ham-fisted screenwriters' 'distraction' of Superman with the brake-less Mustang. Are we to believe that Lex just somehow KNEW Superman would be free to save Posey at that exact time? Why would Superman allow the one substance that can kill him to be so openly displayed in a museum? Why does he even work at The Daily Planet, if he is out to save people all the time-- what about all the people who die from tragedy and crime while he is wasting his time posing as a tool called Clark Kent? This whole character is tired and requires you to lower your IQ to stomach its conceits and contrivances. The villian's agenda in this film was the worst, most pathetic, absurd screenwriting creation of all time. Wasn't he already rich? Why not just hold the world hostage? Who would be left, after billions died, to spend money on and inhabit that hostile, spiky land mass Lex brought forth from the sea? How come PLANES stopped working when a tiny sliver of crystal was placed in water? It's not like planes and cars stop working in a BLACK OUT, for logic's sake. The film asks us to forget basic common sense and logic so much, but then it asks us to believe in tedious minutiae such as this: Lex is free because Superman wasn't available to GIVE TESTIMONY AT HIS APPEAL? What type of plebeian swallows this stupidity? Are we to believe that Superman has to testify at the trial of every criminal he apprehends? This is the best the highly paid studio development execs and writers and director and like ten producers could offer the public? Did anyone read the script b4 shooting? How could Lois and her husband see Superman's face in the roiling sea from such height in their plane? Wasn't the point of that beat that the child has SuperVision-- but then the parents see Superman below also. What a mess. Why doesn't Superman just kill Lex from above with an eye-ray or something at any random point-- oh, wait, because then there would be no film here. Another failure of the film is the casting; why do Superman and Lois look like they are 18 yrs old? Did she have that kid at 14? This wrecks the ability to invest in the story from the outset. It looked like the O.C. version of Superman. Olsen looked 12. How many times did Singer have to clobber us with stale, static visual exposition? Lois' (ha) Pulitzer, Lex's metorite book, shots of newspapers. How many shots of that fake Daily Planet ball were there, 20? Why? Give it a credit. Superman was somehow able to carry a Kryptonite land mass all the way up to space? Huh? The filmmakers suspend and bend the rules of their world to serve their idiotic plot; they can't even color within their own lines. Are we to assume that Marsden's character doesn't suspect the child is not his? Wouldn't the world, at least some, suspect that some five years after her 'I Spent The Night With Superman' article, with a five-year old child, the child might be Superman's? I guess everyone is as dumb as Perry White, with his reaction to that SOS fax (lucky that fax machine was handy!). Lois and Clark's reunion was so stale. Is that how good friends who haven't seen each other in five years act? Why is her kid always in the office, just because the filmmakers want to bludgeon us with the fact that it's Superman's kid? Why did Superman leave for 5 years without before checking (with a mere x-ray glance) if he got Lois pregnant (he had to know he didn't use protection)? Very callous of him. How weak and politically correct to cut out "and the American Way." How did Lois not get a scratch from that opening plane sequence? If they wanted to infuse their film with some verisimilitude and deepen their character, why not show how it's impossible for Superman to save everyone who needs saving at any given moment in time? Show us how hard it is for him to choose who to save. What a miss. As for those who'd say, 'Easy, it's a summer movie. It's Superman.' I respond this way: 250 million dollars and decades and you can't give us a tight, cogent story? Shame on everyone involved. When will the plebes who soak this stuff up get some standards and demand more? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RobJul 5, 2006
Excellent - the action scenes were imaginative and appropriately "super", and the relationship between Superman and Lois was complex and believable. Yeah, the plot was over the top, but I think the movie pulled it off. Routh was the perfect Excellent - the action scenes were imaginative and appropriately "super", and the relationship between Superman and Lois was complex and believable. Yeah, the plot was over the top, but I think the movie pulled it off. Routh was the perfect mix of sensitive boyscout meets man of steel. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DeanH.Jul 6, 2006
Wow. A long movie that I was sorry to see end. It was a bit like the first LOTRs movie in that it was mostly (re)introducing the world. It pulls off the amazing feat of being a perfect sequel to a film made over twenty years ago. The story Wow. A long movie that I was sorry to see end. It was a bit like the first LOTRs movie in that it was mostly (re)introducing the world. It pulls off the amazing feat of being a perfect sequel to a film made over twenty years ago. The story is subtle enough to bear re-watching. Just a really, really good movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobertSt.G.Jul 6, 2006
Singer had the chance here to "recreate" Superman; instead, he made a re-make of the 70's version. Sadly, the end product is very disappointing and the plot? has more holes in it than quality Swiss Cheeze (sic). I would have hoped that Singer had the chance here to "recreate" Superman; instead, he made a re-make of the 70's version. Sadly, the end product is very disappointing and the plot? has more holes in it than quality Swiss Cheeze (sic). I would have hoped that they would have "borrowed" from the excellent character development of the Superman character from Smallville and made Superman more Human, more angsty (sic) and, well, more like a Marvel character than the namby-pamby goody two-shoes DC superheros; nah... See it on the big screen for some of the F/X, but don't be expecting to be impressed overall by the film. The true bright spot is Kevin Spacey. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DeborahS.Jul 6, 2006
I guess I really need a hero: rescuing myself or my world looks like cleaning the Augean Stables these days. This movie is just what I needed to set my spirit soaring out of the doldrums. Now, occasionally, an image comes flying out of my I guess I really need a hero: rescuing myself or my world looks like cleaning the Augean Stables these days. This movie is just what I needed to set my spirit soaring out of the doldrums. Now, occasionally, an image comes flying out of my subconcious where I am standing in a pair of red boots and blue leggings on a golden cloud and feeling capable of anything. Most of the time, I just take pleasure in the idea that someone truly wonderful is there to help clean the stable. I loved the old Superman movies, and I love this one even more. Thank you Bryan Singer: please, please make those sequels soon and keep all of the actors on board--I thought they were great. Just wish you hadn't killed Kal Penn off, and I don't see how you can resurrect him now that he is crushed under a crystal and floating in outer space...maybe Superman could turn back time again? Probably not. Oh well. As you can see, I am very busy concocting scenarios for the next movie already, and I hope you, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris are very busy doing the same thing. Good luck--I can hardly wait to see my hero again! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FedUpJul 7, 2006
With a budget of over 200M how in the world can they make a movie that has no plot, no directing, no real dialogue, and wooden indians for actors? If this isn't bad enough it takes about an hour and a half before anything significant With a budget of over 200M how in the world can they make a movie that has no plot, no directing, no real dialogue, and wooden indians for actors? If this isn't bad enough it takes about an hour and a half before anything significant happens. By then the movie has lost the audience and only gets more amateurish by the minute. It's ridiculous that about 1.75M of the budget is wasted on CGI which is nothing more than a fancy video game. If any of these yahoo's giving this joke of a movie a ten can honestly say that this is a perfect flick than either I'll show you a kid with ADD or a moron who checked his brains in at the door or had a lobotomy. This is a disgrace and boring as hell. Where do the studio's find these yahoo's who waste their money. I love Superman as much as the next person but it is the end of the line for me. Terrible effort all the way around. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RichardJ.Aug 10, 2006
Super pile of sh*T, so many holes in the plot and absoultely a waste of time! Watching paint dry would have been more intersting! The only thing i will give it a point for is Lex Luther! as he made it comical but apart from that don't Super pile of sh*T, so many holes in the plot and absoultely a waste of time! Watching paint dry would have been more intersting! The only thing i will give it a point for is Lex Luther! as he made it comical but apart from that don't watch this !Wait until Dark knight even watch X-men 3 or anything else, this film is even worse then catwomen and gigli put together! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JuanI.Aug 16, 2006
Boring, boring, boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JamesS.Aug 3, 2006
It may have been a long time to wait for a new one, but what a spectacular return for Superman. I think Brandon Routh is a better Superman than Christopher Reeve.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
IanI.Sep 5, 2006
Amazing cinamatics, practicaly beats you over the head with idealistic imagry (perfect for supperman) unfortunatly thats where the movie ends, no plot (oh I'm sorry, lex luthor found magic rocks that will make him an evil realator, the Amazing cinamatics, practicaly beats you over the head with idealistic imagry (perfect for supperman) unfortunatly thats where the movie ends, no plot (oh I'm sorry, lex luthor found magic rocks that will make him an evil realator, the horror), no dialog and no emotion to be found in the movie, this could all be ballanced out by a couple good fight scenes, but allas, superman would rather revil in how pretty he looks in spandex than actualy do something. Movie looks good though, I give it a 5 bassed simply on the fact that it was well done and had great cinamatography. lives up to the series and surpasses it in many ways...then nothing happens. :( and I wanted this to be good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RirenJan 30, 2007
A long, somber lovenote to every bright superhero comic and movie. It's too slow for many audiences, though its spectacles are second only to disaster films. Here the director is trying to reboot a franchise, which means we'll have A long, somber lovenote to every bright superhero comic and movie. It's too slow for many audiences, though its spectacles are second only to disaster films. Here the director is trying to reboot a franchise, which means we'll have to wait for a sequel before any titanic battles. However, the cast, effects and plotting definitely carry this installment through a satisfying, if lengthy journey. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PaulaL.Nov 30, 2006
I really loved this movie! It was like feeling that superman wass real. It was of my favorites movies ever.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ZaeemDOct 10, 2006
This is not the real Superman. He is supposed to be the #1 hero that inspires the world and universe. Singerman is suicidal, depressive & seems to fear what Earthlings think of him. The relationship between Lois & Clark is a central theme to This is not the real Superman. He is supposed to be the #1 hero that inspires the world and universe. Singerman is suicidal, depressive & seems to fear what Earthlings think of him. The relationship between Lois & Clark is a central theme to the Superman story. Lois knew Clark's identity before marrying him. This child angle is half-baked. Big blue has better villains than Luthor, where plots are limited. Kal can only fight the scheme & not the villain directly. Superman can't lift an island of kryptonite, and he has a S on his cape. The red on his suit is bright & inspiring not dull like in Returns. Singer calls himself a fan? Please. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
CalH.Dec 2, 2006
A truely great return for the man of steel. Routh puts in one of the best peformances of the year as clark kent/superman and would steal the show were it not for the perfectly cast spacey as Lex Luthor, the greatest criminal mind of our A truely great return for the man of steel. Routh puts in one of the best peformances of the year as clark kent/superman and would steal the show were it not for the perfectly cast spacey as Lex Luthor, the greatest criminal mind of our time. The end twist you will either love or hate, at first i thought it was a poor way to end but on a second sitting I found it gives the film more of a sense of what the world is like as superman! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LarryL.Dec 2, 2006
Outstanding, only they forgot to write an ending!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LuciaM.Dec 6, 2006
Like someone else said: "SUPERB...!!!" Many get the chance to make movies with "body", but very few acomplish the almost impossible task to enliven them with a "soul". And like the song Superman's sweet son plays on the piano all the Like someone else said: "SUPERB...!!!" Many get the chance to make movies with "body", but very few acomplish the almost impossible task to enliven them with a "soul". And like the song Superman's sweet son plays on the piano all the film, "Superman Returns" IS "Heart and Soul." Period. Thanks Bryan!!! A lot!!! Can't wait for the sequel! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffJun 27, 2006
Breathtaking is the best way to describe it. The visuals are stunning - some of the most riveting action sequences ever filmed - and the performances are spot-on. I could truly imagine the panels of one of my collected comics or graphic Breathtaking is the best way to describe it. The visuals are stunning - some of the most riveting action sequences ever filmed - and the performances are spot-on. I could truly imagine the panels of one of my collected comics or graphic novels jumping from the page and coming to life on screen. The emotion found at the root of the story appropriately tugs at the heart-strings, while reminding the viewing audience why Superman should be an inspiration to us all. Singer has truly outdone himself, as this is easily rhe best all-around comic-to-film adaptation since the original Donner film. Where that film was the original "superhero" film, this one succeeds just as well in its technical proficiency and mastery of the subject matter throughout. I will be seeing this one repeatedly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RyencokeJun 28, 2006
Wow. It was really really superb. I haven't seen the originals though. After seeing this movie, I think I might have to see them. The acting was terrific, action was cool, everything was awesome. Check this movie out.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AsruganJun 28, 2006
This is what Superman 3 should have been. It makes you want to use just the edge of your seat.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StrokE.Jun 28, 2006
Absolutely the BEST movie this year! Everything you love about a really great movie is here -- Bryan Singer is sure to have audiences across America wearing red capes and blue tights and saying, "X-Who?" Consider me one of them.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MatthewZ.Jun 28, 2006
Dragged on way too long, not enough action, no heart! Poor showing
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AlL.Jun 28, 2006
End was a bit too long but overall, a great movie. really liked the father to son theme, the romance drama, the action, the score, and the fact that it concentrated on superman rather than just superman vs. lex. can't wait to see whatEnd was a bit too long but overall, a great movie. really liked the father to son theme, the romance drama, the action, the score, and the fact that it concentrated on superman rather than just superman vs. lex. can't wait to see what singer has in store for a sequel if there is one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SidiotJun 29, 2006
Are the critics bought and paid for? This is at best a mediocre effort in which all of the central characters belong in therapy, lying on a couch, with a psychiatrist taking notes. It is lame and excruiating slow to get started. Pretty poor Are the critics bought and paid for? This is at best a mediocre effort in which all of the central characters belong in therapy, lying on a couch, with a psychiatrist taking notes. It is lame and excruiating slow to get started. Pretty poor effort if you ask me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
J.G.Jun 29, 2006
Anyone who goes into this movie to conpare the old old cast with the new cast is narrowed minded and should not go. As a movie this new age superman is just as entertaining as the original two movies. The cast plays there roles well and do aAnyone who goes into this movie to conpare the old old cast with the new cast is narrowed minded and should not go. As a movie this new age superman is just as entertaining as the original two movies. The cast plays there roles well and do a great job of not just trying to imitate the original cast. christopher reeves has passed on, margot kidder no longer acts, and gene hackman is in the twighlight of his career.....get over it haters! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HadenJun 29, 2006
Just came back from seeing this mess and once again the critics are wrong. More than anything I wanted to be wisped away to another time to enjoy myself. What I got was a very slow beginning where I was thinking come on already get to the Just came back from seeing this mess and once again the critics are wrong. More than anything I wanted to be wisped away to another time to enjoy myself. What I got was a very slow beginning where I was thinking come on already get to the point. But truthfully, there was no point. Routh as the NEW Superman is OK. His main attribute is that in appearance, he reminds us of the late Christopher Reeve, but beyond that there is little else. Kate Bosworth plays a very hard bitchy type of Lois Lane. As you see how cruel she is to Clark Kent it makes you wonder if Superman has lost his mind as in be careful in what you wish for. Kevin Spacey is excellent as the Lex Luthor, probably better than Gene Hackman. When he is on screen the movie travels into another dimension, but as soon as he is off, it lumbers its way forward with everything becoming predicatable. By the movies end we have a few new characters introduced as Superman whispers The Father Becomes The Son and The Son Becomes The Father. Truer words were never spoken and I am not talking about the comic book character. As for the movie, the audience initially is all excited, only to see the film sputter out, crash and burn. I only wish I could have written a better review but I can't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DarynP.Jun 29, 2006
[***SPOILERS***] I have to admit that I was not eager to see this film, especially not on opening day, but a friend bought me a ticket, so I said, "What the hey..." As a writer of fantasy, I have to say that I am a purist when it comes to [***SPOILERS***] I have to admit that I was not eager to see this film, especially not on opening day, but a friend bought me a ticket, so I said, "What the hey..." As a writer of fantasy, I have to say that I am a purist when it comes to mythology. Changes can be made at times, but the overall mythology should remain the same. Bryan Singer really needs to start reading the mythology of the comic book characters he brings to the big screen. I'm sorry, but why is Superman drinking alcohol, having unprotected sex and an illegitimate child, and abandoning the world he swore to protect for five years? Did he just think everything would be OK while he was gone? And why did he leave? Are we to assume that Superman didn't believe Jor'El when he told him that he was the only survivor of the Planet Krypton. Some father/son relationship they have, huh? And if he did go, shouldn't he have died there? After all, isn't kryptonite deadly to Superman? And isn't Krypton made of kryptonite? I know a lot of people liked this film because it gave a human feel to Superman, but c'mon people, Superman is NOT human. He's an alien raised by humans. He's a superhero, not a super human or a mutant. The storyline in this film was weak at best, and the special effects were not worth $7.50. I'm sorry to those of you who don't care about staying true to a story that's entertained audiences for nearly 70 years, but I have to say that if this is the best we can get in a revival of the Superman film franchise, then maybe some franchises are better left dead. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JasonH.Jun 30, 2006
Why make a movie if there is going to be no dialog and no story? This is the question i would like to anyone who praises this Superman movie. I think the people who gave good reviews are just so excited that Superman is back on the big Why make a movie if there is going to be no dialog and no story? This is the question i would like to anyone who praises this Superman movie. I think the people who gave good reviews are just so excited that Superman is back on the big screen that they didnt notice the lack of story line, or dialog (dialog was replaced by awkward stares between characters like in King Kong, but at least King Kong had a reason for all the awkward stares because of a monkey that cant speak English, not Superman however.) A waste of Kevin Spacey, a waste of Routh, a waste of time other than the grandiose imagery which fit the Superman but there wasn't anything storyline to back in up with or enhance it. I dont know how a movie that cost this much to make can get by without anyone noticing that there was a complete lack of a real story line. And Lex Luthor "Real Estate Agent" didnt qualify as much of a villian to Superman as they tried to make it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HowCanYouNotGetItJun 30, 2006
I'm not a comic book fan (Sandman excepted). I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A number of the things observant viewers have noted (at least one dialogue hitch, at least one plot hole, etc.) occurred to me as I watched it, but I was too I'm not a comic book fan (Sandman excepted). I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A number of the things observant viewers have noted (at least one dialogue hitch, at least one plot hole, etc.) occurred to me as I watched it, but I was too caught up in its positive aspects to notice - and that's RARE for me, so plenty of things seem to have been done right here. I liked everything that was explored in the story and found that pretty much every element "worked." I *enjoyed* the (relatively) slow pace. As a friend of mine observed, Singer is achieving "moments" and themes in his work (from "The Usual Suspects" to "Superman Returns") that are on par with early Spielberg genius -- say, some of the scenes in "Jaws." [*****SPOILERS BELOW****] I've read some intelligent naysaying about the film (in mainstream publications) and then I've read some naysaying from people here who amaze me with their density. Lois' article being evidence that she doesn't love Superman? How much more obvious a symbol of her hurt abandonment do you need? Superman not having family values because he slept with Lois out of wedlock back in II? He thought they were going to stay together, and if you have a problem with the before-the-ceremony thing, take it up with Richard Lester, not Singer. "Lex Luthor as a real estate agent isn't villainous?" Did you even SEE the first movie -- Luthor's "affinity for beachfront property," control of land, and genocidal schemes to get it? "When is this movie supposed to take place?" After II - apparently, all the media explaining that to expectant Superman fans missed your house. "Lois shouldn't live with a guy or sleep with him?" Yes, I suppose the fact that this film is in sync with modern times would offend certain people, even though the entire point of her refusal to marry the guy is to illustrate the torch she's carrying for Superman. Disliking the movie is one thing, but a handful of people here seem to have astoundingly backwards reasons for doing so. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful