Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 28, 2006
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1250 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
727
Mixed:
221
Negative:
302
Watch Now
Buy 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
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
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
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
4
MikeS.Jul 1, 2006
Booooo.... a dour snoozefest bareft of wit or soul.
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
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
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
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
5
MrMovieBuffFeb 5, 2016
A bleak, and empty installment for the once joyous "Superman" franchise, this is not a reboot, but just an overdue sequel that manages to kill off and dull down one of the most iconic superheroes in comic book history.

Bryan Singer
A bleak, and empty installment for the once joyous "Superman" franchise, this is not a reboot, but just an overdue sequel that manages to kill off and dull down one of the most iconic superheroes in comic book history.

Bryan Singer ('X-Men' and 'X2: X-Men United') takes to the director's chair to complete what Richard Donner started with Christopher Reeve back in the late 1970s...he manages to fit, or even copy, the style, but everything else just seems...bland.

A 25 year old Brandon Routh dons the Superman outfit this time as he seems to physically resemble Christopher Reeve, but lacks the overall charisma. He comes off as a bore, yes, we get it, he's tortured and hasn't returned from Krypton in over 5 years, but where's the joy? Where's the enthusiasm? He just seems like the kind of guy who would try to smile in front of a camera, but ultimately just exposes his teeth with a blank expression, and the picture would just look awkward.

Kate Bosworth, who was 22 at the time, plays Lois Lane who has a child that is 5 years old...she does not look like someone who should have a child that's 5 years old. She seems shocked that Superman has (as the title suggests) returned, but is mad at him for leaving in the first place.

Kevin Spacey plays the ever-so-threatening Lex Luthor, he has charisma and seems to be the only one giving the most effort in his performance, but he's a cartoon...his presence and his appearance make him more animated than a Pixar film.

Overall, this is bleak, dry and underwhelming. I applaud Singer for trying to bring some cinematic life back to the iconic character, but the franchise needed a reboot...fresh and different, not an overdue sequel where it feels like a carbon copy of previous installments.

There's promise, but there's disappointment.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5
StevenR.Jun 30, 2006
[***SPOILERS***] I guess you can't shoot a Superman movie expecting to create a big twist in the saga when you really don't realize what this hero is all about. A son? A woman who makes believe her boyfriend he has a son? A stalker[***SPOILERS***] I guess you can't shoot a Superman movie expecting to create a big twist in the saga when you really don't realize what this hero is all about. A son? A woman who makes believe her boyfriend he has a son? A stalker hero? A super wuss? A super long movie that really doesn't go anywhere? Where is the real Superman? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PieroP.Jun 30, 2006
I think my problem is that i was expecting too much out of this film, i was waiing for it since i saw the superman returns logo 1 year and half ago, since then ive been looking at pics and clips from it hyping myself for the best movie of allI think my problem is that i was expecting too much out of this film, i was waiing for it since i saw the superman returns logo 1 year and half ago, since then ive been looking at pics and clips from it hyping myself for the best movie of all time, dont get me wrong, it was a good movie and people claped, but i just didnt feel it, i felt dissapointed all the flying scenes are computer generated and that made me pissed,,,,, F... U!! brian singer for screwing up my hero on the big screen, today am gonna see it on IMAX hopefully i get a good great out of it , by the way im not a die hard fan of superman but i loved him since i was 7 years old... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EddieB.Jul 1, 2006
NOTE: **I was falling asleep during the first half hour of the film because I was drunk.** [***SPOILER***] I enjoyed seeing Superman return to the big screen, but it didn't take long for me to realize that nothing "big" was actually NOTE: **I was falling asleep during the first half hour of the film because I was drunk.** [***SPOILER***] I enjoyed seeing Superman return to the big screen, but it didn't take long for me to realize that nothing "big" was actually happening in the movie. Perhaps I'm a little jaded by previous superhero films--I couldn't get excited over a guy who can fly, lift heavy objects, leap tall buildings, blow out huge fires, and use his eyes to start fires. He can do everything (kryptonite puts a little bit more strain on his abilities), but unfortunately it's nothing we haven't seen before in other superhero films. I wouldn't have minded the lack of originality so much if the story was compelling. Here's a spoiler: It's not. There was no main hero vs. villain fight and the overall plot was weak. The Superman and Lois Lane here make a boring couple--I really didn't care Lois ended up with Superman or Cyclops (also a bore in the X-Men movies). Kumar was a wasted talent. Special effects were very well done, but again, the special actions themselves were not awe-inspiring. Several lines of dialogue were (intentionally) funny enough to make me chuckle. Still, my good sense of humor and nostalgic feelings toward the legendary Man of Steel wern't enough to keep me interested for the full two and a half hours. I guess drinking before the movie *was* good preparation for such a snoozefest. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavetheWaveJul 1, 2006
The right people (cast and director) with the wrong story. The story was a stinker, but there were some great moments, most notably the airplane sequence. Use the same cast with a more elegant script and you've got one for the ages. The right people (cast and director) with the wrong story. The story was a stinker, but there were some great moments, most notably the airplane sequence. Use the same cast with a more elegant script and you've got one for the ages. Better luck next time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulT.Jul 14, 2006
An adequate film, but not particularly memorable. Seriously, is this the reason Bryan Singer had to pass up directing X-Men 3?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RyanP.Jul 17, 2006
This movie is somewhat enjoyable but i just didnt care for it. for the most expesive movie ever made ($260 million dollar budget. has gone through dozens of scripst in the past dozen years..... thtas gotta mean something.) the actors in thisThis movie is somewhat enjoyable but i just didnt care for it. for the most expesive movie ever made ($260 million dollar budget. has gone through dozens of scripst in the past dozen years..... thtas gotta mean something.) the actors in this movie were way too young for their parts considering this movie takes place 5 years after superman 2 (kevin spacey made a decent lex luthor).superman was just really hollow. its hard not to go into detail about htis movie without ruining the horrible plot. the movie is just ridiculous. for its good parts its worth a sit through but not worth a purchase or even spending $4.50 to see it. if you have one of those blockbuster/hollywood unlimited rentals month pass, just wait to rent the movie to see it. big disappointment, even X3 was better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
K-DogJul 19, 2006
Unimpressed. X2's action scenes were so much cooler. Also...why follow the formula of the old Superman movies? Should have taken it in a new direction much like Batman Begins did.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveP.Jul 28, 2006
Brandon Routh was very good in this tribute to Christopher Reeve, although I don't think that was his intention but I was very disappointed that Kevin Spacey wasn't give a smarter Lex Luthor to portray. Lex Luthor is supposed to be Brandon Routh was very good in this tribute to Christopher Reeve, although I don't think that was his intention but I was very disappointed that Kevin Spacey wasn't give a smarter Lex Luthor to portray. Lex Luthor is supposed to be too smart to let his own huberous implicate him in any criminal endeavor. The comics have it right in their treatment of this character and I wish the movie producers would take this character treatment of LL and put him on the big screen. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DeepaR.Jul 4, 2006
Superman is my ever green hero.WHen such a moie comes there are high expectations but this movie was not upto the expectations. The relation with Lois is always half understood. Not clearly shown. Most of the scenes are "once seen" in some Superman is my ever green hero.WHen such a moie comes there are high expectations but this movie was not upto the expectations. The relation with Lois is always half understood. Not clearly shown. Most of the scenes are "once seen" in some other movies. The HERO always seemed to be in sorrow instead he should be the one which gives inspiration to kids( atleast). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KenG.Jul 6, 2006
One things that jumps right out at you is that the film-makers had no confidence in Brandon Routh (Superman). I didn't keep count, but it seem like both Kate Bosworth, and Kevin Spacey were in alot more scenes then Routh, making it seem One things that jumps right out at you is that the film-makers had no confidence in Brandon Routh (Superman). I didn't keep count, but it seem like both Kate Bosworth, and Kevin Spacey were in alot more scenes then Routh, making it seem like he was a supporting character to them. Also, accept for performing Superman like deeds (which has more to due with the stunt and sepcial effects department, Routh wasn't asked to do much other then talk in mono-syllables. It's like they gave him the job because he looked good in the suit, and also because he looked a little like a young Christopher Reeve, and then found out he couldn't act. It also doesn't help that he has less chemistry with Kate Boswell (Lois Lane), then the actor playing Lane's fiancee. Personalty, I've always found Superman to be the least interesting of all super heroes, due to a combination of how wholesome he is, and how unlimitless his super powers are. That is why when you due a Super man movie, you have to get it right. The first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve did this. But they were done with a good sense of humor, a sense of wonder, great villains, (Spacey was OK, but not great), thrilling action, and strong chemistry between Superman and Lois Lane. All things that are lacking here. I also have my doubts that children under 10 (and maybe some 10 and over) will make much sense out of Spacey's evil plan, and Superman's foiling of it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DannyBJul 7, 2006
I've been watching superman and reading the superman coimcs since I was young (22 know) Superman my favorite superhero. I tought the new flim would relate more to the comics ( DC's Superman). Instead WB made something that no one I've been watching superman and reading the superman coimcs since I was young (22 know) Superman my favorite superhero. I tought the new flim would relate more to the comics ( DC's Superman). Instead WB made something that no one real gets, part 2.5. Why oh why could'nt the people at W.B just stick to the comics. And Lois has poor acting skills, at least for this part ( doesnt feel like the real lois lane) She gorgeous but not a lois lane. Lex is nuts and makes no sense with his kid like plots, Lex is supposed to be intellectual genius. he doesnt even have his empire luther crop. To me the movie was a BIG disappointment. The kids under 12 I'm sure liked it. The way the did the movie was just wrong I'm hopeing that they re-make superman again and stick to the comic books for the most part. The doomday series with 4 new superman would make a great movie one day) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GregS.Jul 7, 2006
Gave it a 4 for effects. The writing and story are awful. Can't believe the brutal scene where the thugs kick the here mercilessly, great for the young fans to see. What a terrible mess. It is laughable. Walked out wondering why we Gave it a 4 for effects. The writing and story are awful. Can't believe the brutal scene where the thugs kick the here mercilessly, great for the young fans to see. What a terrible mess. It is laughable. Walked out wondering why we wasted our money on a crap of a picture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
VinceT.Jul 7, 2006
For a movie viewed by many young children, living together and having children out of wedlock reflecting the sloppy morals of our time seems less than appropriate. That aside, the viuals were great but the story rather "dark". One would For a movie viewed by many young children, living together and having children out of wedlock reflecting the sloppy morals of our time seems less than appropriate. That aside, the viuals were great but the story rather "dark". One would expect to leave the theatre feeling happier after watching a Superman movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MrS.Aug 5, 2006
Overlong and undernourished. It had too few moments I can even remember the next day. Even seeing it in IMAX didnt seem to make much of a difference. The constant rehashing and borrowing from the 1978 movie only served to constantly remind Overlong and undernourished. It had too few moments I can even remember the next day. Even seeing it in IMAX didnt seem to make much of a difference. The constant rehashing and borrowing from the 1978 movie only served to constantly remind me how much more fun the earlier film was. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EliC.Nov 30, 2006
I really want to like this film .. but .. it is a weak attempt. Something obviously went wrong in script development. The producers should have also trusted Brandon Routh more and toned down the time devoted to Kevin Spacey. Maybe the next I really want to like this film .. but .. it is a weak attempt. Something obviously went wrong in script development. The producers should have also trusted Brandon Routh more and toned down the time devoted to Kevin Spacey. Maybe the next one will be the great Superman film we all want. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
D.HonourJun 27, 2006
Saw this last night at a pre screening. I had major build up so the movie was a little of a let down. Nice summer Popcorn movie. Superman was good, Luther was a little weak and Lois was a bit flat. I would recommend it but take it for what it is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
NoelT.Jun 28, 2006
Comic characters every couple of generations are updated to reflect what society they exist in. The best example of this generation gap for the non comic fans is Batman, in the 60's was over the top campy-ness in both the comics and in Comic characters every couple of generations are updated to reflect what society they exist in. The best example of this generation gap for the non comic fans is Batman, in the 60's was over the top campy-ness in both the comics and in the Adam West series, in the 80's he had big muscles and millions of gadgets now he is very intelligent and 2-3 steps ahead of anyone. Yes all those traits have always been there, but they magnify the ones they want to use and which ones help him speak to the people of the era. Of course this re-creation also applies to superman, who has been around just as long as superman both in and out of comics. Sorry to say I was not a fan of the Reeve Supermans, you say you love them now, but really sit down and watch them. Superman Returns is not the Superman that is currently existing in the comics, it's a version of the character that was made back in the 80's. I knew before coming into the theater that Superman Returns was influenced by the previous movies but that did not make this movie any better. Lex is almost as campy as he was in the 80's the character of Kitty Played by Parker Posy has just as much if not more screen time then Lex and she is a horrible character. The scheme that Lex has in this movie bogus and un-luther like in my opinion. The 2nd half is about people saving superman we know he will be fine he's superman so why do this? If you like the Reeve Superman movies then go see it now, because all it is, is a sequel to those old movies. And if you don't stay clear. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JosephG.Jun 28, 2006
Enough with Lex Luther already. Let's see Superman tackle someone deserving of his strength and abilities. Superman---fighting Lex's useless continent?! BOO-OORING! I found myself daydreaming during much of this film, which is Enough with Lex Luther already. Let's see Superman tackle someone deserving of his strength and abilities. Superman---fighting Lex's useless continent?! BOO-OORING! I found myself daydreaming during much of this film, which is plagued with slow pacing and an inconsistent tone. The intimate moments between Supes and Lois are boring because the two are bland actors (ESPECIALLY when compared to Reeve and Kidder), and the action scenes are boring because, well, we've already seen Superman do all that he did---save a plane, thwart Lex's real estate plot, subside an earthquake. What makes the Spider-man and X-Men films so exciting is that the villians require super abilities to be defeated---they cannot be defeated by conventional methods. I was hoping to see the truly amazing, breathtaking feats Superman is capable of, but alas! I suppose next he'll be thwarting Lex's sabotage of Social Security. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarcoPoloJun 28, 2006
Three hours after leaving the theater, I still cannot believe what I just witnessed. Sure, the effects are first rate (what else could 200 Million dollars buy? Plenty), and the plot is "servicable" and I use that term loosely. But when all Three hours after leaving the theater, I still cannot believe what I just witnessed. Sure, the effects are first rate (what else could 200 Million dollars buy? Plenty), and the plot is "servicable" and I use that term loosely. But when all is said and done, this one comes off as a hackneyed, half-hearted attempt to jump start a long dead film franchise. First, I suggest that the next film (and there will be a sequel as the ending of the film was just too sudden to indicate anything else) feature a beleivable and worthy opponent for ol' Supes. Perhaps Braniac or Doomsday. I long for the days when Hollywood was willing to take a chance and just go nuts with creativity. Instead we get the same tired Luthor, Kryptonite and inept goons to be offed by the big blue boy scout. As for casting, Brandon Routh certainly does the job, looking more like a xerox copy of Christopher Reeve than anything else. He does an okay job, but Reeve he is not. As for Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, I can only guess that she was picked for her septic charm, nothing else. She is so completely wasted in the role (and thankless it is) that she is on her way to competing with Batman Begins' Katie Holmes as being completely devoid of any real charisma. As for the good points. The special effects are quite good. Suffice to say if you feel like dropping 10-12 bucks to see a special effects demonstration of the first kind, then by all means knock yourself out. The score is by far an improvement on John Williams' original, it's been tweaked just a bit, but is one of the bright spots of this movie. Bryan Singer took lesson to heart in this area, he left perfection well enough alone. Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor (although at this point cliche'd and predictable) is a hoot as Lex, his acting ability far exceed what is expected out of a film like this. I dare say he's an improvement over Gene Hackman in the way he just hates and loathes Supes. My guess is that this film will be the one to beat (until Pirates of the Carribean 2 comes out), so that means about 100 M in the first week and then it will sputter towards the end of summer. One note: If you have a chance, see this film in IMAX. Not only is the 3D effect put to good use (although at times it can be blurry, don't sit too close!) and there is rumored to be about 3 additional minutes added to the beginning of the film, seeing it in IMAX is definately the way to go. I could only wish that Pirates 2 was in IMAX too, but I guess even we can't all get what we wish for. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadT.Jun 29, 2006
I would seriously consider paying another $12.25 just to watch the space shuttle sequence in 3D again, but the rest of the movie is a looooooooong, kind of boring slog.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeD.Jun 29, 2006
In continuing the original film series with a new cast, this invites, almost requires, viewers to recall and compare the new version with the old. Brandon Routh, in an incredibly sincere performance, is a great Superman, but he does not have In continuing the original film series with a new cast, this invites, almost requires, viewers to recall and compare the new version with the old. Brandon Routh, in an incredibly sincere performance, is a great Superman, but he does not have the presence and gravitas that Christopher Reeve brought (who does?). Same with Kevin Spacey Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidJun 29, 2006
What a PC movie - Hollywood pushing their values on us again! PC#1: Lois isn't married, lives with a guy, and has a child. Is this the message the up and coming generation needs? Is it cool to have a child, live with a guy, and have no What a PC movie - Hollywood pushing their values on us again! PC#1: Lois isn't married, lives with a guy, and has a child. Is this the message the up and coming generation needs? Is it cool to have a child, live with a guy, and have no interest in marriage. This is disappointing to say the least. PC#2: Why was the saying "truth, justice, and the American way" reduced to just "turth and justice"? PC#3: Why has Superman's red been reduced to a dark deep red? PC#4: Superman comes across as a weaker hero and less masculine. Let me qualify that I have always liked the Superman movies and even the majority of the TV show episodes for Smallville. I had high hopes for this movie and was really disappointed - I won't waste my money/time again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MichaelW.Jun 30, 2006
Boring, slow. Good special fx. Lois Lane and Kate B. are not a good match. What was up with the Kid's hair? Brandon was fantastic as Superman, but the story was very slow. I look forward to a better story for the next one. I believe in Boring, slow. Good special fx. Lois Lane and Kate B. are not a good match. What was up with the Kid's hair? Brandon was fantastic as Superman, but the story was very slow. I look forward to a better story for the next one. I believe in B. Singer after X1& X2. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KabirB.Jul 12, 2006
I saw Superman Returns with the expectations of it being a good blockbuster action movie. Unfortunately i was left disappointed. It's just another mediocre high budget movie. Brandon Routh does a better job of being Clark Kent than I saw Superman Returns with the expectations of it being a good blockbuster action movie. Unfortunately i was left disappointed. It's just another mediocre high budget movie. Brandon Routh does a better job of being Clark Kent than Superman. Kevin Spacey does a good job as Lex Luthor but Kate Bosworth , in my opinion , is a horrible actress. None of the scenes were particularly memorable and the chemistry between superman and lois was definitely lacking. Overall, a 4 out of 10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JudyT.Jul 1, 2006
Should have been called Stupid man. The writing was just terrible. The whole Savior spin was just ridiculous. Bryan Singer should have spent more time reading the comics and less time stealing from other movies.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KatanaJul 12, 2006
Soppy, and not true to the comic.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SluzeJul 13, 2006
Superman Returns isn't exactly mind blowing. The script is VERY weak and the acting is thin at best. Nothing happens that you don't see a mile away while the only character that actually has an arch is Louis Lane. Routh is by far Superman Returns isn't exactly mind blowing. The script is VERY weak and the acting is thin at best. Nothing happens that you don't see a mile away while the only character that actually has an arch is Louis Lane. Routh is by far one of the worst actors I've seen on the big screen in quite some time; not that it is really his fault just a fact that the poor kid couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. Even the cgi wasn't that great. For the money and time that was put into this movie it came out looking more like a Superman sales pitch then a great well made film; sad but true. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MIGUELG.Jul 16, 2006
Long and boring, and not current. Instead of looking back so much, It should have learnt from the recent superhero movies such as Spiderman, The X Men, The Fantastic Four, or the Incredibles.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkB.Jul 18, 2006
The opening credits sequence is terrific. It doesn't try to do much more than conjure up fond memories of Richard Donner's 1978 Superman epic, starting with Marlon Brando's unforgettable God-the-Father vocal intonations as The opening credits sequence is terrific. It doesn't try to do much more than conjure up fond memories of Richard Donner's 1978 Superman epic, starting with Marlon Brando's unforgettable God-the-Father vocal intonations as Jor-El, continuing with composer John Ottman's impressively self-effacing recycling of John Williams' famous theme, and culminating in the original's nifty "flying credits" (with special kudos to the classy use of a certain special effect that underscores the names of Superman creators Siegel and Schuster). Now if the NEXT two and a half hours can follow up on the promise shown in the first seven or eight minutes, then we're all home free, right? Sadly, it's no wonder Warner Bros. is struggling with this movie: if this was the best they could do, Superman needn't have bothered coming back. Bryan Singer's fatally overlong, slow, self-important, pretentious and glum take on the material attempts to be both reverent and revisionist, and misses on most counts: for every genuinely good, ingenious or interesting idea it comes up with (such as having Superman Jr. not only appear to have no superpowers at all, but be even more mortal than most of us mortals are--the inhaler IS a great touch!) the filmmakers seem to come up with at least a dozen ill-advised choices or botched decisions. Let's start with the casting: newcomer (and future Trivial Pursuit answer) Brandon Routh fills out the supersuit well, but that's absolutely ALL he does; compared to Christopher Reeve, who brought a planet-sized repository of warmth, wit and grace to his role, Roth is just...pretty. Compared to Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, though, Routh IS Reeve. I've liked Bosworth's adolescent spunkiness in Blue Crush and Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!, and thought that in the Bobby Darin bio Beyond the Sea she was a more charming Sandra Dee than Sandra Dee was, but apparently when Bosworth isn't blond, she's bland. And the LAST thing you want Lois Lane to be is nondescript; consider how much personality and quirkiness both Margot Kidder and Teri Hatcher brought to the table, and see if you don't agree that Parker Posey, who really is funny and delightful as Lex Luther's henchperson, wouldn't have been an infinitely better choice! (Incidentally, not that this is Bosworth's fault, but it doesn't help matters much when, instead of Ms. Lane and Clark Kent being depicted here as good friends--which makes Superman's doomed love for her even more poignant--her treatment of him in this movie is scarcely more courteous and less condescending than how Meryl Streep browbeats her underlings in The Devil Wears Prada.) I was really looking forward to Kevin Spacey's take on Lex Luthor, but why cast him and give us the promise of a return to the old snarkiness we used to know and love to hate in Swimming With Sharks and Glengarry Glen Ross, only to direct him to dial down his performance to zero? He gets some of his laughs, sure, but Singer has apparently instructed Spacey to rein himself in so much that watching him in what would appear to be a tailor-made role is like watching Michael Jordan shoot hoops with one hand tied behind his back and hopping on one foot. But then Singer's conception of DC's favcorite son as a gloomy, angst-ridden figure (which Christopher Nolan did brilliantly with the Caped Crusader in 2005's Batman Begins, but then Batman was always pretty tortured, vengeful and guilt-ridden from square one) is as misguided as his alternating attempts to remold Supie as a gay icon and a Christ figure, the latter culminating in one of the most maudlin final stretches I've ever seen that DIDN'T involve taking the faithful pooch behind the barn and shooting him. (Quentin Tarantino once disparagingly described Oliver Stone as "Stanley Kramer with style"; here Singer appears to be seriously vying for that dubious distinction.) Worse still is the astonishingly slow pacing of potentially exciting action sequences in which Singer transforms the Man of Steel into the Man of Lead. It's often not a good idea to rely too heavily on audience response as a way of gauging a movie's quality or effectiveness, but in this case I'll make an exception: the Friday afternoon showing I attended had a very high fidget factor, particularly among patrons not old enough to vote or drink. The kids seemed to have a lot more fun chasing each other up and down the aisles, throwing popcorn, etc. than they did actually watching the movie, and the ushers certainly earned their paychecks pursuing the futile task of keeping the rugrats seated if not attentive. Just as well that Superman Returns' disappointing second and third week box office returns appear to doom it to a notably lesser theatrical shelf-life than expected: if I were a theater employee having to stand guard during it for too much longer, I'd be harboring some pretty destructive Kryptonite fantasies of my own! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DroogJul 2, 2006
Superman Returns is an unrealized film, and for this reason I have mixed opinions about it. One one hand the casting of Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey as Superman and Lex Luthor, respectively, are inspired choices. Routh actually looks the Superman Returns is an unrealized film, and for this reason I have mixed opinions about it. One one hand the casting of Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey as Superman and Lex Luthor, respectively, are inspired choices. Routh actually looks the part of the world's greatest hero, and Spacey does diabolical as well as any actor out there. There are some thrilling scenes (airplane crash), touching scenes (Superman watching Lois and knowing he can't have her), and nostalgic scenes (opening credits and ending are nods to earlier films). All this said, there are so many things working against this movie. The first is that Superman has never been a terribly interesting character. Unlike Batman he has no flaws or deficiencies, and hence all his movies lack the internal conflict that drive the best superhero films (Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, etc.). Superman, in other words, has no edge. The second problem is Singer's decision to elevate the love story over the action. It's a good idea in theory, but it puts the film at the mercy of Superman's relationship with Lois. And this is where the film lost me. If Kal-El and Lois have been going at it like bunnies, why does he talk to her like he barely knows her? Every time they meet it's like Superman has never met her before. ("Hello. I haven't been around for a while. It's good to see you.") Ugh, it's like watching two robots seduce each other. Where'st he passion? Where are the fireworks? It's one thing if Lois is infatuated with him and he's oblivious, but the reservation/aloofness on Superman's part is just plain weird. In a love story aren't people supposed to care about each other? The only scene where these two stop hiding behind masks is when Lois saves him from drowning, but with all the water crashing and bi-planes diving off waterfalls it's hard to focus on their "love." The few action scenes in the movie elevate it above average, but overall Superman Returns is neither here nor there. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JohnO.Jul 2, 2006
Usually I am engaged by action films even though they arn't my favorite type of film, but I fell asleep during this movie. It lacked an inner spirit and humor. I can't believe the positive reviews from critics that I actually Usually I am engaged by action films even though they arn't my favorite type of film, but I fell asleep during this movie. It lacked an inner spirit and humor. I can't believe the positive reviews from critics that I actually admire. Were they bribed? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RostokovJul 24, 2006
Tedious, relentlessy bombastic, witless, devoid of suspense, lacking human vitality, predictable, glossy, pointless, sickly Hollywood mindmush. How long before people begin to gag on this stuff?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
IrwinF.Jul 25, 2006
Back in the 1950s, and even the 70s when the first Christopher Reeve film came out, Superman was an idol and the perfect symbolism for Truth, Justice and the American way. Now he just seems too earnest and corny, like a big dopey Labrador in Back in the 1950s, and even the 70s when the first Christopher Reeve film came out, Superman was an idol and the perfect symbolism for Truth, Justice and the American way. Now he just seems too earnest and corny, like a big dopey Labrador in a red cape. Spiderman was a geeky teenager coming to terms with power and responsibility; Batman was a dark a brooding mortal avenging his parent Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EduardoR.Jul 26, 2006
Very dark... not just the screenplay, the lighting seemed to try and hide the characters, foreground and generally make me wish for a flashlight to see what was going on. The action sequences were good... no doubt, but I expected to be Very dark... not just the screenplay, the lighting seemed to try and hide the characters, foreground and generally make me wish for a flashlight to see what was going on. The action sequences were good... no doubt, but I expected to be blinded by the science of modern film making, not made to 'suppose' what had happened. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JosephA.Jul 3, 2006
Pretty boring. I think the idea for the film was great, only after having sat through it twice and coming out with not a single memorable bit of dialogue, I feel the script is pretty weak. The action sequences, the ones were he just keeps Pretty boring. I think the idea for the film was great, only after having sat through it twice and coming out with not a single memorable bit of dialogue, I feel the script is pretty weak. The action sequences, the ones were he just keeps lifting heavier things get dull as well. Good story, but the script and action don't really flesh it out. I think I realize where the director was going with this but it falls short in a film thats a bit long. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillyS.Jul 3, 2006
Last summer, Christopher Nolan took the long comatose Batman franchise and gave it a whole new life with a fresh new heart and rejuvenated soul, now we have Bryan Singer's attempt to do the same for an equally dormant Superman and Last summer, Christopher Nolan took the long comatose Batman franchise and gave it a whole new life with a fresh new heart and rejuvenated soul, now we have Bryan Singer's attempt to do the same for an equally dormant Superman and I'm sorry to say he only succeeds in a giving this super-hero a face lift. It's not a bad remake like Poseiden, but it's nothing more, nothing less than the original. Brandon Routh looks so much like Christopher Reeve the producers didn't bother to ask if he could act and Kate Bosworth is simply not Lois Lane. Kevin Spacey seems to be holding back on what could have been a great Lex Luther. The opening credit sequence with the original John Williams theme is a promising start, but other than the new and improved special effects, it just doesn't seem to leave you with any anticipation for the sequel. Can you say "Superboy?" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JimG.Jul 3, 2006
I don't understand what people see in this movie. First: Yeah, there are special effects, but with one exception (in the eye of this beholder) they fall into the "been there, done that" category. For example, long shots of people I don't understand what people see in this movie. First: Yeah, there are special effects, but with one exception (in the eye of this beholder) they fall into the "been there, done that" category. For example, long shots of people crossing terrain reminded me of people aboard on the deck of the Titanic, hobbits in the Lord of the Rings series, and characters in the Harry Potter series. We all know it is CGI and it doesn't impress us. Soon CGI will be come as distracting and unsatisfying as the effects from the original Star Wars. How sad. Second: There is absolutely no chemistry between Lois and her husband or Lois and Clark Kent or Lois and Superman. Because of this, all the supposed-to-be romantic scenes become unbearable long boring filler. Third: Other parts of the film could really have used some better editing. It tends to drag. Finally, all the hoopla that surrounded Routh and his costume are just that, hoopla. His performance wasn't very convincing or spectacular. Seems like he was picked cause he looks faintly like Reeves. Or maybe he's just not my type. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JustinK.Jul 3, 2006
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's.....just another review that starts off too cliche! Anyway, I'm here to review Superman Returns, a movie that is missing the most important element in a super-hero movie: Man vs. Self. We It's a bird! It's a plane! It's.....just another review that starts off too cliche! Anyway, I'm here to review Superman Returns, a movie that is missing the most important element in a super-hero movie: Man vs. Self. We don't feel anything important is at stake....It doesn't build up a strong, justifiable purpose or connection as to why Superman is saving humanity. I couldn't help but totally agree with Roger Ebert on this one. Perhaps I felt this way because there is no underlying theme throughout the movie. We're just thrown into this world of Superman without feeling like we're a part of it. One of the biggest flaws of the movie is how Lois Lane is portrayed. If she's going to be mad at Superman, so be it! But at least BUILD THE IDEA UP with flashback scenes or something that gets us emotionally involved with their relationship. First impressions are big, and our first impression of Lois is the B-word. (That was Superman's impression in this movie too). Simply put, Lois just isn't very likeable, although her acting skills aren't bad. If there are two positive things I can say about this movie, it's Lex Luthor and his trampy wife. They light up the screen whenever they're on it. Luthor's calm, sadistic wit is only matched by his clueless, thrill-seeking wife. I think I liked her more than I liked Lois in thie movie......And that's not a good thing, people. And finally to the star of the show, Superman! Brandon Rouf does a decent job playing an off-beat, shy man named Clark Kent. Equally good is his portrayal of Superman. However, it's not his so-so acting job that brings this movie down. It's the fact that he isn't given a chance to shine as much as he should, emotionally and verbally. The most important element in a superhero movie is man vs. self, and that is totaly missng here. We just don't feel a strong connection to Superman and his role in saving lives and his dilemma of having to hide his identity. Oh, and one little nit-picky thing I have about his costume.......SO FAKE ITS HILARIOUS! By fake I mean that Superman can actually get buffer when he rips off his Clark Kent suit. What a special effect! About as fake as some of the CGI flight sequences. Speaking of flight, some of the action is spectacular. I don't want to spoil anything, but one scene at the beginning of the movie involving an airplane might just have you hanging onto your own seat in the movie theatre. So there's my review. Sometimes the movie is entertaining, but emotionally the movie just doesn't pull the audience in. It's missing the fear element in Batman Begins, the love element in Spider-man, and the sheer brilliance of Sin City. Yes, it's a whole different movie. But it's a super-hero movie, and in my book, it's missing some very crucial pages. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MichaelJul 4, 2006
I'm a life-long comic fan (40 years) A big disappointment for me. Maybe my expectations were way out of whack, but c'mon - THIS IS SUPERMAN. One of our biggest pulp icons ever. If you're going to spend 200 million dollars on a I'm a life-long comic fan (40 years) A big disappointment for me. Maybe my expectations were way out of whack, but c'mon - THIS IS SUPERMAN. One of our biggest pulp icons ever. If you're going to spend 200 million dollars on a film you better be damn sure to take the film where no one has gone before. I blame this average, near rip-off of the first Super movie, on the writers and anyone who approved what they wrote. Unfortunately it feels like too many marketing cooks in the kitchen on this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
C.WagsJul 5, 2006
I was initially disappointed until I discovered that it was produced by Jon Peters. I then realized what a tremendous job was done by Bryan Singer, et al, to make it as decent as it was.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JCL.Jul 6, 2006
[***SPOILER***] Overall an enjoyable moving. But have we devolved so far that a comic book hero for kids has to have a bastard son in order to entice adults? This little subplot does damage to Superman's role model status unnecessarily.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChazT.Jul 6, 2006
Superman returns. I was expecting a lot from this movie and left feeling disapointed. It took almost 1.5 hours for anything interesting to happen and even then the special effects and story line were weak at best.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JeremyW.Jul 7, 2006
I enjoyed seeing "Supes" on the big screen again, but the pacing and story couldn't be any duller. Lex Luthor's plan is lame and uniteresting, Superman's soul searching and brooding quickly becomes tiresome, and the pacing I enjoyed seeing "Supes" on the big screen again, but the pacing and story couldn't be any duller. Lex Luthor's plan is lame and uniteresting, Superman's soul searching and brooding quickly becomes tiresome, and the pacing makes youy feel every minute of it's 2:40+ run time. I didn't hate it, but I am really curious how "bad" the scripts were that they turned down. I just can't help but feel that that there had to be a more action packed and exciting script available after having had 20yrs. to think of one. All-in-all, another perfect case of a hollywood blockbuster overhyped and underachieving. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeJul 9, 2006
Love story with no story. Great special effects for a $250 million movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ZackL.Aug 1, 2006
Though I hadn't been eagerly awaiting this movie, my expectations for greatness from Singer's latest flick were actually high. Unfortunately, I was let down by a bland Superman, mediocre characters, a dull story and corny special Though I hadn't been eagerly awaiting this movie, my expectations for greatness from Singer's latest flick were actually high. Unfortunately, I was let down by a bland Superman, mediocre characters, a dull story and corny special effects. Also, the running time is too long. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TimM.Dec 30, 2006
Big disappointment. Couldn't decide if it was a sequel or a reboot, it just sputtered between the two. Brandon's "Clark Kent" was so monotone that I thought Christopher Reeve would spin in his grave. Kate Bosworth was not a good Big disappointment. Couldn't decide if it was a sequel or a reboot, it just sputtered between the two. Brandon's "Clark Kent" was so monotone that I thought Christopher Reeve would spin in his grave. Kate Bosworth was not a good choice for Lois. The entire film seemed to be trying to steal plot points from the original movie, even a lot of dialogue. It went from "let's pay homage" to "let's just copy the whole movie". Props to Brandon for sounding like Christopher Reeve's "Superman". Maybe it would have worked better if they weren't trying to make Brandon the new "Chris" but let him be his own Superman. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GregN.Jun 27, 2006
Bland Superman, bland Lois, bland Lex. A couple of great scenes but generally disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulK.Jun 27, 2006
I was really looking forward to seeing this, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. The slow pace and the length of the film didn't help either. Tighter editing and more action would have helped, but the story I was really looking forward to seeing this, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. The slow pace and the length of the film didn't help either. Tighter editing and more action would have helped, but the story wasn't strong enough to hold my attention. Fans, will see this in the theater, but everyone else should wait for video. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BartW.Jun 28, 2006
I'm torn. I geeked out over the effects, I giggled at the homages to the original films and I was happy to see Superman again. However, I am extremely disappointed in the plot and writing in general. This movie is another example of I'm torn. I geeked out over the effects, I giggled at the homages to the original films and I was happy to see Superman again. However, I am extremely disappointed in the plot and writing in general. This movie is another example of Brian Singer extracting what he likes from a mythos and discarding the rest. All or nothing, bud. Remember the original Superman? Doesn't Drink, smoke or have sex. Hmmm, I guess in the next one we'll see Clark smoking crack. What a role model. Sex out of wedlock, unprotected sex, drinking to deal with hurt and not to mention the irresponsible behavor of leaving a world you promised to protect. Meh, there's nothing super about this man. Shame on you, Singer. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChristopherJun 28, 2006
Just came back from seeing this. I tried to forget about all the hype, media saturation, and mixed reviews on this movie, and just see it for myself. I should have just stayed home and saved my money. This was by far one of the worst movies Just came back from seeing this. I tried to forget about all the hype, media saturation, and mixed reviews on this movie, and just see it for myself. I should have just stayed home and saved my money. This was by far one of the worst movies I've seen this year. There were no redeeming values at all. The plot was riduculous, the acting was bad (yes, even Kevin Spacey can't save this), the visuals were dull and uninspired. The movie was just straight out boring. When I go to see a "popcorn" flick, I usually go to be entertained. This movie failed to do this at every level. I looked at my watch about twenty times during the film (which by the way was too damn long). I rolled my eyes so many times at the cheese plot that my head hurts. If you wan't to go see it, fine, but I don't intend to ever watch this movie again. Very, very disappointed. It looks like Bryan Singer has done it again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
StevenS.Jun 29, 2006
The only reason I rated this movie a 4 is because of the special effects. Routh is a pretty good Superman and Clark Kent, and everyone else does an alright job as their respective characters.. The problem is in the story. [******SPOILERS The only reason I rated this movie a 4 is because of the special effects. Routh is a pretty good Superman and Clark Kent, and everyone else does an alright job as their respective characters.. The problem is in the story. [******SPOILERS below******] Why they decided to have Superman have a child out of wedlock is beyond me. With his faimly values, there is no way the Superman of old would have done that, let alone abandon the world and woman he loved so much. Second of all, when is this movie supposed to take place? Is this after he made Lois forget that she'd married him and he became a mortal? Is it before? Everyone in Hollywood is having a kid. First Tom Cruise, then Brad Pitt... then Jesus and now Superman? It's like they made the movie just to make it and push their ideas. I'm surprised they didn't make Superman gay. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JoshuaJ.Jul 14, 2006
A great cast, great special effects but the movie falls apart because of the script. The plot is horrible. I won't give away anything. Maybe it's my own fault holding it up to greater comic book adaptations; such as: Batman Begins A great cast, great special effects but the movie falls apart because of the script. The plot is horrible. I won't give away anything. Maybe it's my own fault holding it up to greater comic book adaptations; such as: Batman Begins and Spiderman 1 & 2. Both movies revisted the character and took the story in a new direction with out compromising the characters we have known all are lives. I've about written off Bryan Singer. I used to think that he took Xmen 1 & 2 in another direction because of all the moving parts the Xmen comic books had; now I know this to be false! This movie is a disappointment! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BradJul 21, 2006
The movie had a good look about it and the airplane scene was great. The problem is it seemed as a polished version of the original. Gene Hackman put his mark on the original bad guy- sorry Kevin Spacey, the role was a tad larger the life The movie had a good look about it and the airplane scene was great. The problem is it seemed as a polished version of the original. Gene Hackman put his mark on the original bad guy- sorry Kevin Spacey, the role was a tad larger the life for you to pull off. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SteveT.Aug 13, 2006
This years Phantom Menace. A film which many love on release but as time passes the mediocrity will be recognised and accepted. [***SPOILERS***] This is a film which takes the character of Superman and tears it up to replace it with This years Phantom Menace. A film which many love on release but as time passes the mediocrity will be recognised and accepted. [***SPOILERS***] This is a film which takes the character of Superman and tears it up to replace it with something far less super. The character now is an individual who willingly interjects himself between a family. Yes, the annoying plastic child whose expression does not change once during the entire film may be his but it believes that Richard White is its father and as such Supermans actions are suggestive that he is willing to break the family up. The Superstalker scenes are also rather uncomfortable viewing with Superman spying on Lois and family. Kate Bosworth gives a by the numbers performance which could have been carried out by any actress, she brings nothing new to the role and does nothing to make the role her own. The chemistry between her and Routh is negligable. Routh himself does a good job with the mediocre material given. He does not have the charisma evident with Christopher Reeve but aquits himself capably. The problem is that the character of Superman seems to be more about the suit than anything else, there is very little to actually define what the character is about in this film and the Clark aspect is criminally underused. One of the most interesting characters is probably Richard White who provided more charisma and chemistry and a more heroic demenour than any of the other characters presented. Lex Luthor is more menacing than the Hackman version and is better for it. There is a sense of underlying malevolance to Spaceys performance which makes him more realistic as a villain. The plot itself is poor, turning the primary colour figure of Superman into a brooding and slightly egocentric figure more concerned with his own emotional needs than the repercusions of his actions. There are some nice action pieces but these are interspaced with dull and overlong moments where nothing much happens. The pacing of this film is very poor and I did expect more from Singer. The future dynamic between Superman and Lois is damaged by this film as is the heroic nature of Superman himself. A mediocre film of moments and full of plot holes and inconsistency. A shame as I tend to think this film could have been so much more. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
VamsiK.Aug 23, 2006
I'm a Superman-comics fan, and found this movie disappointing. This is not how a superhero movie should be. I think the makers should take a good look at "Batman Begins" or the "X-Men" series to understand what they need to do.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ArkonBladeOct 26, 2010
when i think of this film one word comes to mind... boring... we've had 4 superman movies done before this and they all had lex luthor as the main villian . i think its time to move on to some one new . the whole brains vs brawn thing haswhen i think of this film one word comes to mind... boring... we've had 4 superman movies done before this and they all had lex luthor as the main villian . i think its time to move on to some one new . the whole brains vs brawn thing has worn out its stay. why not give superman a real villian who has some power like doomsday. the visual effects are nice and the new guy taking the role of superman doesnt do to bad of a job . its just that the film never feels like it goes any where fun or interesting. if you want to see a good superman movie go see the original first 2 films with reeve. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
J-ShapAug 25, 2011
Superman Returns has the right elements for a good Superman movie. It has big, epic-sized effects, a story about the more human portions of Superman, and more than enough drama to keep brainless superhero pieces of shlock on the floor (I'mSuperman Returns has the right elements for a good Superman movie. It has big, epic-sized effects, a story about the more human portions of Superman, and more than enough drama to keep brainless superhero pieces of shlock on the floor (I'm looking at you Wolverine). That said, to be a drama is not enough. It must be a competent drama. I could go on about how Lex Luthor's plan makes no sense, or about the odd decision to give Superman a child, but I like to think that picking at individual aspects isn't as important as the overall tone. Plenty of superhero movies have gotten away with questionable fine details because they had the right tone and pacing hold interest and entertain (X-Men and Spider-Man immediately come to mind). The feel of Superman Returns is just all wrong. The film truly is dull, in every aspect. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TyranianJul 2, 2019
A reasonably good Superman film, Spacey is good and the visuals and music are strong but it isn't as entertaining as it should be.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Iky009Jan 6, 2014
Não sou contra esse filme porém não grande coisaNão sou contra esse filme porém não grande coisa Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheWalrus2000Mar 30, 2013
I praise it becuase its better than the third and fourth supermans but at the same time I'm concerned by the bad effort Bryan Singer put on its direction. It has outstanding visuals but Superman Returns falls into great depths of boredom andI praise it becuase its better than the third and fourth supermans but at the same time I'm concerned by the bad effort Bryan Singer put on its direction. It has outstanding visuals but Superman Returns falls into great depths of boredom and similar to 300, it looks to hard for memorable scenes. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
UCAMay 8, 2014
It's a diffcult game. But I think this game is too simple because you really only can be two skills, dodge an attack and attack with your weapon or magic.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
juliankennedy23Oct 26, 2014
Superman Returns: 6 out of 10: This movie is definitely missing the spark that made the first two Supermans fun. (Superman 3 was pretty awful and Superman 4 is one of the worst films of all time). Superman comes across as a bit of a jerk andSuperman Returns: 6 out of 10: This movie is definitely missing the spark that made the first two Supermans fun. (Superman 3 was pretty awful and Superman 4 is one of the worst films of all time). Superman comes across as a bit of a jerk and a bully in this film and the franchise isn't all that better for it.

Superman has gone away for five years in a plot contrivance that threatens to sink the film before it can begin. The claim is that he is seeking the remains of his home world (Not to sound like a comic book geek but he if gets his powers from our yellow sun he shouldn't be flying past Pluto let alone halfway across the galaxy.) He comes back, sort of says hi to mom, tortures his poor loyal dog with a tennis ball and heads to the big city where he stalks his ex-girlfriend Lois whom he didn't even tell he was leaving and who has clearly gone on with her life.

And I'm not exaggerating the stalking. Superman hangs outsider her house using superpowers to snoop like some DC comics version of a cautionary Lifetime movie.

Lex Luthor is also back with another stupid plan though Kevin Spacey does play the character well and a talented Parker Posey fills both the Otis and Mrs. Teschmacher shoes.

Both leads (Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth) have zero chemistry with each other and considering they were passionate lovers their conversations are pretty stunted and mundane.

The action sequences are decent but the whole film seems to drag at two and a half hours and there is a distinct lack of joy. (You know something fun like everyone putting their Kryptonite up on E-bay, or Superman dating a supermodel to make Lois jealous that kind of thing everyone seems so damn melancholy.) Speaking of melancholy I noticed that Superman never asked about any disasters he didn't prevent while he was on his so called vacation. Maybe a trip over lower Metropolis to see Ground Zero would have given him a reason for all the moping.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
ClipStateNov 14, 2016
Superman Returns appears to play it safe and thus plays out much like its predecessors. Its the same old material played out with a different cast and yet still feels like its stuck in the past. Some people wanted to see this, and someSuperman Returns appears to play it safe and thus plays out much like its predecessors. Its the same old material played out with a different cast and yet still feels like its stuck in the past. Some people wanted to see this, and some didn't. The background, scenery and effects are well created but lack the wow factor we expect with more recent entries. Its yet another devious, 80s-esque plot that happens to be reminiscent of the stereotypical supervillain only with diminishing returns. Most of the action is also composed of Superman lifting things. Like a lot of things. We see little in the form of combat with Superman although it probably isn't exceedingly nessecary as evident by the 2013 Reboot's supposed overuse of it. Much of Superman Returns would feel slow for the modern audience but can kick in a bit of nostalgia for the rest. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016
Jesus of Nazareth spent 40 days in the desert. By comparison, Superman of Hollywood languished almost 20 years in development hell. Those years apparently raised the bar fearsomely high. Last seen larking about on the big screen in the 1987Jesus of Nazareth spent 40 days in the desert. By comparison, Superman of Hollywood languished almost 20 years in development hell. Those years apparently raised the bar fearsomely high. Last seen larking about on the big screen in the 1987 dud "Superman IV," the Man of Steel has been resurrected in a leaden new film not only to fight for truth, justice and the American way, but also to give Mel Gibson's passion a run for his box-office money. Where once the superhero flew up, up and away, he now flies down, down, down, sent from above to save mankind from its sins and what looked like another bummer summer.

The super-size (more than two and a half hours) "Superman Returns" was written by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, working off a story hatched by them and the director, Bryan Singer, after what appears to have been repeat viewings of Richard Donner's "Superman." Released in 1978, that film ushered Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's original comic creation into the blockbuster age with frothy wit and a cast that included Marlon Brando in a creamy scoop of white hair and Gene Hackman in clover. Christopher Reeve, of course, wore the cape and tights, while Margot Kidder did a fine approximation of the young Katharine Hepburn at her most coltish. Valerie Perrine and Ned Beatty added some laughs, while Glenn Ford supplied a pinch of gravitas.

As nutritious as a box of Cracker Jack and just as yummy, "Superman" was at once a goof and a self-conscious bid at modern mythmaking. Years later, what resonates aren't Mr. Donner's action scenes, which look crude compared with what he would do later in the "Lethal Weapon" series, but how fluidly he changes tones from the iconic (as when the supertoddler lifts a truck off his Earth father) to the playful (as when the souped-up adult realizes that the closetlike phone booth is a thing of the past). Mr. Reeve worked the tonal changes with similar ease, delivering a superhero whose earnestness was strategically offset by his fumbling, bumbling, all-too-human twin, who was just the ticket for the post-Watergate, pre-Indiana Jones moment.

Mr. Singer's Superman, played by Brandon Routh, is a hero of rather different emotional colors, most muted. Like Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins," Mr. Singer's effort reworks the legend against a vaguely modern, timeless backdrop that blends the thematically old with the technologically new. The story opens with some necrophiliac wizardry and Brando newly arisen as Superman's extraterrestrial father. Well represented even from beyond, the dead actor receives billing for his spectral turn, squeezed between Eva Marie Saint, who plays Superman's earth mother, and Tristan Lake Leabu, who plays Lois Lane's young son. The Daily Planet's star reporter is in turn played by Kate Bosworth, whose glum mien and curtain of brown hair suggests that blondes really do have more fun.

Lois, however, doesn't enter the picture until after the filmmakers have laid the story's Oedipal foundation, which finds two men saying goodbye to the much older women who will, intentionally or not, shape their destinies. In one corner, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey taking up the role played by Mr. Hackman) bids cold adieu to the crone who will make him fantastically rich; in another, Superman again digs a fiery trough into the Kent family farm upon crash landing. This time, it's the grown man who brings tears to his mother's eyes and who stares at the sinking Kansas (actually Australian) sun, weighing his responsibility to humankind after a five-year hiatus crossing the galaxies to visit his original home.

It's too bad that Mr. Singer and his colleagues don't really do anything substantial with the good-guy-bad-guy routine. Superman may be a super-creation, but it's his villains rather than his dual identity that have usually given him a kick. Unlike his brooding and angst-ridden rivals in the superhero game, his alter ego is only as interesting as the comic book artist or the actor adding shades of gray to Clark Kent's business suit. Part of the charm of Mr. Reeve's interpretation was that a guy this impossibly handsome, who literally towers over everyone in the office, could hide behind a slouch and oversize eyeglasses. It was absurd, but then so too was the idea that a powerful extraterrestrial would hang around Earth to take the kind of abuse perennially heaped on his human half.

As he proved with his first two installments of "The X-Men" franchise, Mr. Singer likes to make important pop entertainments that trumpet their seriousness as loudly as they deploy their bangs. It's hard not to think that Superman isn't the only one here with a savior complex.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SonicHD7May 31, 2017
While Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots to destroy him once and for all, the Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) returns after a long absence to a much-changed world. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on with her life, and society has learned toWhile Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots to destroy him once and for all, the Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) returns after a long absence to a much-changed world. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on with her life, and society has learned to survive without him. Superman must find a way to reconnect with her and find his place in a world that may no longer need him. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
CoreGamer1408Dec 13, 2018
The lead role was a good choice for Superman, but they didn't give him much of a story to work with. Lex Luthor ending up being another real estate agent again. Lex is so much more than that. He is a master mind evil genius not some oldThe lead role was a good choice for Superman, but they didn't give him much of a story to work with. Lex Luthor ending up being another real estate agent again. Lex is so much more than that. He is a master mind evil genius not some old woman’s toy boy and land grabbing thug. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews