Superman Through the Ages! Forum

If you have seen the movie and/or don't mind MASSIVE SPOILERS, this is the place to post your reviews and comments; and/or read to those of others.

I've seen the movie and have many thoughts about it (both plus and minus), but I'm going to have to catch up on sleep before I hope to be able to post anything... (http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/24.gif)

:s:

Im with you and need to catch up on sleep before I really let fly but in short it was a very very mixed experience ultimately leaving me with a bad taste in my mind.

When I saw Superman the Movie on opening day, first show I left the theatre --well-- high - there's no other wonder to describe the exhilartion of seeing my Superman - the silver age Supes - so brillaintly depicted.  Not to say that there were flaws but there were and they were many.  But ultimately forgivable as a motion picture it delivered the goods.

Superman Returns for all its Christ like ballyhoo is a big bloated disapointment.  A times it was like watching a zombie movie because it was like a undead beach party - some great Super FX sequences bogged down by an unwieldly plot, inane logic and a slavish retread of the original.  By the time I saw the ninth visual cue from Donners 78 or another line of dialog resaid, I was cringing.

In one interview, Singer was cited as saying he never read Superman comics growing up or comics in general -- and it showed. Of course, another interview contradicted that -- that he was the biggest fan ever.

So what are you left with -- some great Super action (but not nearly enough), a selfish Superman who's ultimately an ALIEN DEAD BEAT DAD (if the Munchkin really is his son - ambiquity and confusion reigns here), a subplot that would've been minor in any other film becomes this films emotional core -- Richard White and the kid are absolutely uneccessaryto the story.  Luthor's plan is illogical and illconcieved - it seems only as an excuse to reuse the 'land' shtick from S1 and Jon Peter's inisitence on the death/resurrection of Superman. Oh did I mention the uneccessary kryptonite shiv and sadistic beating of Superman?  Maybe Superman fighting three polar bears or a giant mechanical spider would've been better!

Routh channeling Reeve is OK but even Dean Cain and Tom Welling added their own interpertations to the mythos.  Bosworth is pretty but no depth. Spacey had the potential to be psychopathic as all get out and achieves that in spots.  The others are OK. Larson and Neill's cameos were tops.

The script is weak and the film too long.  If ever a script needed the sure hand of a script doctoring  Mankewicz or Joss Whedon, this was it.  What started as possibly the best Super-movie ever dove tails so fast, it was painful.  Ottoman's score is best when it echoes Williams.

The good news is that it will generate enough $ for a sequel  - one that i hope can stand on its own two legs rather than recycle an older, better film.  

When something is chewed up and spat out as something new its callled pablum.

Other than that, like I said, there are some iconic Superman moments and sequences, but edited together that makes ten minutes out of a 2 1/2
hour film.

However to most civilians, non-fans, the film is a success especially if one reads the reviews in great metropolitan newspapers.  The audience I saw it with barely laughed and after the shuttle save, no lite cheering.

Im sure Im in the minority on what some are calling "the best super hero movie ever!" (that still belongs to 'The Incredibles') but when I think about what this film could've been, as opposed it what it actually is, I get nuts.

I give it :s: :s: which really should be 1 1/2 but I cant make a half :s:

Jeez- i thought I was going to be brief.  :shock:  

Some sleep and Ill get into point by point.

I closing: I got much more enjoyment out of reading All Star Superman 4 twice!  Page one I laughed and smiled throughout.  Imaginative storytelling and respect for character which the SR film didnt have.

And Where the Daxam was Ben Hubbard! I got gypped! ;)

Well, gotta disagree with you there Klarr. I'm been a Superman fan since 1967 and I really enjoyed it. I will admit that even the revamped comics version post IC only thrills me so much but I think its unrealistic to expect perfection out of the movie
  The way luthor explained his plan frankly it worked better than 90% of comic book plans. They should have just shown him tapping into his advanced technology. Look at the plot holes in Superman 2!
  The deadbeat dad doesn't wash because he didn't know he had a son. He probably shouldn't have left in the first place but I can understand wishing to see his home world.
 Actually the beating and shiv worked for me. What else woud a sadistic phony like Luthor do when he had his greatest enemy at his mercy.
 If you don't think Routh added anything to the role you obviously slept through all but the reeeve lines which even those I actually kind of liked. I completely loathed Dean Cain's Clark kent in a Superman suit Routh is a million times better IMO.
 I liked the dynamic of Richard White ,Lois and Superman . I also liked the fact that White is a fine, even heroic man which makes the situation even harder and more tragic.
What I really liked was how the world loved Superman and how he loved the world. How they didn't try to make him gritty or relevant. He still stood for truth and justice and was willing to sacrifice himself for others.
 My audience was much more hyped than yours maybe that would have made a difference.
In any event for me the movie left me wanting to see it again and wanting the sequel to come out ASAP. I'll give it 31/2 stars out of 4
I know some of ( probably lots you guys will be tougher than me but for this long time Superman fan its a happy movie. ONe I will own as soon as it comes to DVD.

Steam, its just that my expectations got higher.  When I first saw the trailer I was like feh but as I saw more  I got  jazzed.  My Superman worship dates back to the 50s so im no stranger to the mythos.

Im glad you enjoyed. I enjoyed parts of it.  Luthor shouldve beat the crap out of Superman himself instead of his flunkies -- Silver Age style!

I hope they make more. Just better IMHO.  

BUT

I loved Superman doing super things - the shuttle sequence was awesome, holding a car over his head, leaping an 1/8 of a mile, a needle bursting on his skin, super peeping tom, super-feats from around the world -- !

He sure did a lot of lifting - each thing getting bigger as the film went on!

Superman fan from the 60s here myself...

I'm probably going to see it tomorrow...I think my big question will be does the Lois/child scenario add to the story of Superman or not...actually, I didn't mind that Superman showed his love for Lois in Donner film I, but even for me, the intensifying of the relationship in Superman II seemed forced, or self-contained, something that makes a movie but isn't as sustainable in a comics format for years and years...

The thing about the munchkin is that IF Superman did Lois in SM2, he did so WITHOUT his powers!

The other thing about the munchkin is that we never actually SAW him use any powers.  Its implied thru editing.

Lois may believe the kid is Superman's after the piano scenario BUT that could easily be explained as to the extreme rocking of the ship.

ME LAD - hello ~ spoilers thread? Think Tenzil think!

8)   I have "super" abilities to navigate spoiler threads and just pick up things that won't spoil it for me...

The kid having powers or not won't matter to me, because even though Supes did change outcomes in Superman I (by pretty lame means), it was much worse that he renounced powers and then got them back, so, that's already a dumb device for me...

Klar,I certainly understand about expectations. I was pretty jazzed up to but I've gotten a pretty good sense of these things over the years. I'm part of the Oblivion PC game community alos and the game is a sequel to a similar Role playing game Morrowind and is a great game but they dropped some of the favorite role playing elements in the first game and replaced them with different mechanics and it was very disappointing for  a lot of people who then couldn't see the good points at all. Obviously your'e not like but the disappointment is strong and real.  I feel no movie or game can survive expextations so while I get excited at the possibilities I tend to not get caught up in the hype too much.
  I agree Luthor should have done the beating up himself not his flunkies. Well, luthor was still inferior to TAS luthor but LIGHTYEARS ahead of Gene Hackman. He made a credible villian and was also fun to watch.
 My wife didn't care much for the beating  herself. She didn't like seeing Superman trying to crawl away. This is the first incarnation of lois she actually likes. She dislikes all the comics versions and kind of tolerates the TAS one.
 Fan since the 50s. Wow!! Thats one thing I like about this board. All to often I'm the dinosaur on comics board. Here I'm just one of the boys.
 In any event more and better sounds good. I just hope they try to just tell a good Superman story rather than " outdo" the last one. That thinking  leads to disaster but looking at Xmen 1 and 2, I think we'll be OK.

This was one of the things that really bugged me.  Yes, it was great to see Superman telling Jason the same things that Jor-El had told him back when he was an infant - but the way Superman handles the situation is indicative of other problems that plagued his character in this film.  If Superman discovered he was the father of a child, he would NEVER just fly off and leave Lois to raise the kid by herself.  His priorities would become being a good father to the boy, and a good husband to Lois.  Because not only does he have Jor-El as a father model, he also has Jonathan Kent.  This was a character who was portrayed as being a victim of his circumstances, something Superman would never be.


They certainly were.  It was fantastic to see their names in the opening credits!  Something long overdue for each of them.


It looked a lot like a Superman film - it had the music, the opening titles, the FX, the fortress, Ma Kent, some great iconic scenes (like Superman saving the Shuttle, etc) - but Superman himself wasn't in this film.  Kal (as Superman/Clark) spent 2 hours standing around letting Lex continue with his scheme, not caring about the power loss problems or what they might be indicative of, not caring about the fact that Lois was missing, etc.  Not just standing around - but hanging out in a bar drinking budweiser!  Talk about product placement!  At least the Cheerios product placement in the first movie made sense and enhanced Clark's characterization, but in this movie it just served to further damage it.

Here is a man who, as we saw in another fantastic iconic scene, can hover above the Earth and hear everything, yet we're asked to believe that he doesn't know or care what Lex is up to or that Lois and her child are in danger?  I just don't buy it.


Like the scenes where Superman is back at the remains of Krypton, I suspect Ben ended up on the cutting room floor.  At least we saw his pickup truck, though.

:s:

Ben and the return to Krypton will be on the extended director's cut DVD natch.

Fan since the 50s - well, late 50s - I was 4 when George Reeves died and Im sure I was a fan as far back as I can remember. Learned to read by reading the Super comics which I was convinced at age six were a spin off of the TV show. :wink:  

Imagine the excitment of buying so many classic silver age tales afor the very first time at the candy store!  :s:

He's not a god he has Super processing and Super hearing but he can't hear everything all the time. Its a flipping big planet you know. One of my personal gripes.  sounds too much like Greg Rucka crap. How could anything ever happen if Superman were always aware of everything. That he should always know if this or that happened I don't buy.

darn you, Klar! I hoped I would be the FIRST to have something to say about this film.

I said to myself, "oh boy, I bet anything that Klar will have lots to say about this film." Mostly he sticks around these boards, giving the odd sarcastic comment, but since he's a movie guy, he'll no doubt have lots of in-depth things to say."



Well, like I said, the original Superman movies have a lot of power in people's minds, and I personally think the director made the right choice to bring the movie in line with that.

(Thankfully, Superman didn't throw his cellophane S-shield!)



Well, at least he had the decency to make something like that up. I hate all these directors that do comic book movies and go on record as loathing comics (Tim Burton comes readily to mind).



I'm glad you picked up on that. The film is edited in such a way that it's really difficult to draw a conclusion on that with absolute certainty. Everybody's mind jumps to the conclusion that the kid is Superman's because that would be the most sensationalist thing. Personally, I think Superman's kid would have a lot more brassy personality.

True story: I saw SUPERMAN RETURNS in a theater that a lot of teenagers, the THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY crowd. One girl, behind me, was doing her very long nails before the movie started, and jawing to a girlfriend on a cel. When that piano hit that goon, I heard a lot of cooing and "Oooooh!" as if someone had told them a really hot piece of gossip on the phone!



I don't know, I sort of liked that it was Luthor himself that gave Superman the sock on the jaw. Kevin Spacey played that with a lot of rage.



Isn't fighting polar bears better than anything?



Agreed. Lois Lane needs to be played by a funny and pretty character actress and Kate wasn't that. This is "Tarzan/Jane Porter" syndrome: the hero, when confronted by all sorts of beautiful women, always chooses the single most boring one to be his main squeeze.

I had very mixed feelings about the movie. Great SFX; and nice acting by Routh, Bosworth, and Spacey. But Superman as (at various times) stalker, homewrecker, and deadbeat dad just didn't work for me. The film often felt muddled and derivative. Still, I'm happy to see the franchise revived and am hopeful about the sequel. (But, please, no Luthor. There are too many other good Superman villains to waste another movie on him.)

The movie was good, not great (which it could have been). They didn't go into enough detail about some of the major story points. Plus, it pretty much requires you to read the prequal comics to fully understand the story.

I don't really agree with you there.  What exactly would you not get or are you assuming the average moviegoer is as stupid as the average voter? :?

Supes Cuz here
I saw the advance screening at 10:00 last night  The theatre was about 3/4 full of die-hard Supes fans and it brought me back to the light-hearted friendly intimacy of our home-grown Maplecon - sci-fi comic book conventions I attended in the late 70's and early 80's here in Canada. The entire audience including myself was absolutely thrilled by the movie. Routh was intense and so much like more like the Superman I'd always imagined -- I never thought I'd say this, but he took the character from Chris Reeve's level and cranked it up a few more notches -- Clark more subtle and believable, Superman more serious and with a range of emotion that was... well thrilling.
 :D
I can always take or leave the villians  :roll: -- and the less I have to see of them the beter -- if I was to remake the film just for me, I'd cut down Lex and his minions to half the screen time and put back some Clark and Supes.

Lois  -- No one has ever been good enough  -- I'm Canadian, and I never much liked Margo Kidder. Too scrawny, too raunchy. Bosworth at least has a strength combined with dignity -- perhaps her humour will return after she gets over being pissed at Supes.

I wish they'd had a decent kiss at least.
 :cry:
Chalk the obligatory Culkin up to Hollywood's love affair with "Family" lately -- everyone's having kids now I think it's a knee-jerk response to what rounds out a story. :?

Superman realized it was his son and gave him the speech. There's no question it's his kid -- you could tell he was doing some sort of
x-ray/microscopic action as he stood by the side of his bed.

Well enough for my first post  -- loved the movie, will buy the DVD and spend more hours of my life soaking up all the Superman I can.
 :lol:

I got it, due to reading the Prequal comics and keeping up with the development of the film since Singer signed on. The average movie goer might not.

They should have gone into more detail about these story points, IMO:

1. The Return to Krypton
2. An explanation for Clark's absence.
3. Why Lois knows that Jason is Superman's son but doesn't remember that Clark is Superman.

And while I understand that it's a movie...the notion that Luthor only spent 5 years in jail after instigating a successful nuclear attack on US soil is completly ludicrous...there's a suspension of disbelief and then there's this.

I liked "Superman Returns" but it didn't blow me away like the original did. And still does.  
Maybe I'll like it better when I see it again.

I saw it and I thought it was incredible.

 Mind you, I do share a lot of the quibbles that others have brought up, but after nearly twenty years of waiting for a Superman film what could have possibly lived up to our exacting expectations? For what this was; a continutation of the Donner films and as a story it was nothing less than phenomenal.

From the moment the lights went down and the DC Comics logo faded and that Williams score flared up I smiled and felt like a kid again. The credits whooshing at us, the passage through space, that Superman March. . .it was bliss.

What was enjoyed:

 -Brandon Routh. The kid has serious chops, I'll give him that. I didn't once think of him as Reeves's successor, merely a continuation of the role that had previously existed in the first two movies. The moment I saw him on screen, I accepted him instantly as Clark/Superman/Kal-El. Simple as that.

 -Kevin Spacey. Ah, Lex. It was great to see him again, a little older, a lot colder, and even bolder than before. The way he put all the peices of his plan together was quite impressive and worthy of 'The Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time'. Even Superman's return to Earth doesn't throw him off his stride. He simply takes the appropriate steps to counteract the Last Son of Krypton.

 -Jimmy Olsen. I didn't think it was possible, but between this film and All-Star Superman #4 I am converted to the belief that Jimmy Olsen is cool. All he needs is the signal watch and that devil-may-care adventurer mentality Morrison brought to the table and the kid would be Luke to Supes' Han Solo like that

 -The effects. My God, I not only believed a man could fly, I believed he could rend steel, lift an airplane, fly on his back and incinerate glass and put out raging infernos with a breath of air. Say what you will but the majesty of Superman's powers was in full effect with the film.

 -'The Son becomes the Father. . .and the Father the Son. ' Touching moment. Superman searches the stars fearing he's the last, but he comes home to discover he's not alone.

 -Ma Kent's line about how there may be other survivors of Krypton. Why do I sense that throwaway line might indicate Singer has some other plans. . .? Could just be wishful thinking for a Supergirl spinoff, but still. ;)

What didn't thrill:

 -Okay, so Kryptonians didn't believe in locks? Hellooo. . .mind you the arctic cold should be more than a deterent, to say nothing of the harrowing conditions of the ocean, but apparently you can just roll up to Kal-El's northern estate like some people can cruise to 7-11. Might as well have called it the Bungalo of Solitude, because that was no Fortress. How much cooler would it have been to have Lex storm the place and disable MacDuff or the other Superman robots. . .le sigh.

 -Superman's abrupt departure. Okay, so he doesn't leave Lois so much as a Dear Jane letter? That's just cold, even for a guy from an glacial planet. Yeesh kid.

 -Lex's plan. Land again? That's it? You're Lex frickin' Luthor and you're recycling yourself? I'd be out to make the world pay for snubbing my brilliance by using Kryptonian technology to bring the world to its knees, but hey, what do I know. ;)

 
Now all that said, this movie is incredibly cool. Easily a 9 out of 10 and required viewing for any fan of the Man of Steel. It was just so toe-tappingly good to see Superman back, all was forgiven. Now if we could get them to adapt Red Son or Last Son of Krypton. . .glee.  :D

 -Def.

Speaking of recycling, think "Japoteurs" the Fleischer toon and the space plane finale.

Good points;  Superman leaves earth in search for others of his kind--only to find that the answer lies on earth all along.

I agree with Julian;  Luthor's plan makes a lot more sense than those most super villains come up with.  90% of villain returns seem centered on pointless revenge plots.  One would think that after being defeated a dozen times or so they would give up on simple revenge.  Luthor at least had a plan involving not only revenge but getting wealthy as well.

This movie's intent, I believe, was to give audiences a more human Superman.  He leaves earth looking for what, as it turns out, was on earth all along;  he doesn't say goodby because this is painful for him;  he watches Lois at home to see if she's happy, and when he does find this out he goes off, throwing himself into his work as Superman.  

I don't accept the "deadbeat dad" theory because once he knows he intends to be a part of the boys life, as it should be.  

I find that the portrayal of Jimmy Olsen in this picture was the best next to Jack Larson's Jimmy in the Adventures of Superman.  I hope, if they do a sequel, Jimmy becomes a bigger part of the films.

I for one LOVE it!!!! But it wasn't perfect, but it was great.

I got a kick out of the recreation of famous comic covers, action comics No.1 being the oblivious, green car and all :)

Brandon Routh was a great Superman/Clark Kent, though he might have been perhaps too much like Chris, even his voice!

Kevin Spacey was great as Lex, much more evil than the last movie version, which was more of a Batman TV show villain. This was more like the real Lex Luthor, his fight with Superman recalling the classic Sliver Age story.

Jimmy Olsen was so awesome, I don't even know the name of the actor, because he WAS Jimmy Olsen!

Kate Bosworth looked just like the Golden Age Lois Lane come to life.

The SPX were of course freaking awesome! The best CGI I have ever seen. It never seem too fake like CGI normally does.


As far as the plot, the problem with the plot was that there wasn't enough of it, it was more of lots of super cool iconic scenes with some vague plot thrown in there to string them together.

As far as the kid goes, yes he was really cute, but the film never ever made it clear that he was Superman's actual kid, after all, Green K had no effect on him and the Piano bit, well the boat was rocking so much, Lex didn't think much of it, and he was the 1st to think he might be Superman's. He was never shown with any actual powers not to mention all the health problems he does have, so I guess this will be address in the other films.

It was weird to see Clark drink beer, but beer isn't evil and he wasn't getting drunk or anything, but rather catching up with his pal Jimmy Olsen.

As far as the "plot holes" some mention, as far as Superman not catching up with Lex's scheming until it was too late, you can say he was distracted with the whole Lois bit, also teh movie would had be over a lot sooner ;)

As far as not saving Lois and the kid during all that time, they were not screaming or anything, so how could he had known? Clark could had left and went looking for her but he needed some clue as to where to start.

Dispite some flaws, it was still one heck of a film, I would give this film 4 stars out of 5.

Well, I think a lot of people touched on plot strengths and weaknesses pretty well, so...

It was just weird for me to see a film so tied to the original down to the score and see the different actors, it jarred me constantly...

The Daily Planet for all its art deco touches didn't strike me as much as an important destination, and the first movie had at its central charm for me the original set up of golden farm to gritty city and the journey to adulthood (and the broad comedy of a Superman on Earth which I don't mind being played for some laughs)...

I realize a movie needs to meet an audiences expectation of a story line that blends with modern life, but I didn't think the illigitimate son, other man story matched the grandeur and power of such a powerful being -- which by the way was well-done with full power classic Superman style.

I would have liked less on Lois and her boyfriend, and more on what she really thought when she wrote "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman"...with a character this powerful, that's interesting to me...

Overall:

 :s:  :s:  :s:  out of Five

Well, to be fair, I've done other things in the past 20 years except wait for a new Superman movie.

Bathe. Go to the bathroom. Stalk Ernest Borgnine...



What was interesting to see was that Superman used so many of his powers. Nowhere, for instance, in the original SUPERMAN did Superman use his heat-vision or superbreath, for instance.

(The sequels made up for this in a big way, with Superman teleporting and tossing cellophane S-shields. And who can forget "Rebuild Great Wall of China-Vision?")



Really, you too, got a sense that's what they're planning? Strange they would call attention to something like that in the middle of the film.

Supergirl would be the most likely candidate for a spin-off, for sure, though as many others have pointed out, she hasn't really had a great series since the sixties (though some of her Marty Pasko and Maggin stories in SUPERMAN FAMILY were great and underappreciated).

I am not ashamed to say I love Superman Returns.

I though it was clearly superior to the four Christopher Reeve films - although personally I thought he was great in the role - particularly the last two films, which I thought were duds.

Even Superman I & II despite their good points, had a few serious flaws which prevented them from being great films, in my opinion.

Superman Returns was refreshingly free of camp, and it is a relief to finally see a Lex Luthor not surrounded by cretinous henchmen, which a man of his intelligence would not actually tolerate for a moment.

Ned Beatty is a wonderful character actor, to be sure, but he seemed out of place in Luthor's whole world.  You are right, though, that the ex-con goons that Lex used in SUPERMAN RETURNS were certainly intimidating.

Was I the only one that cracked a big fat smile on seeing that Kumar himself working for Lex Luthor? Kumar, how COULD you? Maybe he went to jail for getting that cheetah stoned back in HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE.

It does make sense though, that someone as vain and egotistical as Lex would surround himself with slower people like his sidekick, Kitty Kozlowski. Many people enjoy feeling superior and bullying others, and so they surround themselves with dumb people (some say this was the reason for Bush Sr.'s appointment of Dan Quayle). This is a common behavior, and it somehow seems so very right for someone like Lex Luthor.

As much as I loved the film, I was thinking about why I felt that the plot was lacking, and it was actually due to how few lines the characters actually had in the film. I don't know if anyone notice that Superman and even Clark barely said anything. Jimmy Olsen and Lex Luthor were the only ones who got to talk, part of his gimmick, which is one of the reasons they stood out.

Anyone else noticed this?

Yeah.  Theres usually a good reason for that- - ie action figures cant act mebbe.

There was a lot of hammy things that Reeves said that I thought were memorable, Routh, not so much, I was a lot more stirred by the shots of him in flight and using his powers than anything he said...

His Clark Kent was pretty good however, nerdy but not cartoonish, we laughed because he was such an awkward nerd but like real life awkward nerd like we all have seen before! The way he tried so hard for Lois to notice him with his cheesy smile and wave, and the awkard way he greeted her with a kiss and hug or tried to anyway, it was perfect. Even teh way he ate food was funny, well the way Jimmy ate that barrio was even funnier.

We laughed not because he was a campy goofy cornball like the original films, which was funny, but in a different way, we laughed because we know people like that, or used to be like that, or still are, LOL. :lol:  :P  :lol:

That was the weirdest part of the movie for me, though...its almost in a nether world of a continuation of a previous story, but at the same time it naturally has different takes on the characters...it left me in the middle a lot...or thinking about it more than I should have...

It might be the kind of movie that actually gets better every time you see it.

I actually can't wait for the DVD for the extra scenes :)

I noticed it and found it incredibly frustrating the way that he and Lois never told each other anything.  It also makes the whole "he never lies" aspect of his character have less of an impact - sure he never lies: because he never talks!  But it is in keeping with the Golden Age approach so I suppose it's in character.


Me too, that'll be great.  I'm also curious how it'd compare in a triple feature with Superman I and II.

:s:

I just saw the movie, and let me say: Holy crap...that WAS Kumar!

I don't remember ever not being a Superman fan. I grew up with the Christopher Reeve movies, Superfriends, and the Adventures of Superboy. (To this day, I cannot bear to watch an episode of Lois and Clark, though.)

Things I liked about the movie:

1) Kevin Spacey. While I don't think that Lex would actually kill billions of people, it's in keeping with the first movie. And they were able to keep Superman super-powerful while still creating a big, Miracle Monday-style challenge for him, instead of whining about how hard it was to write Superman stories. Spacey portrayed a funny, smart Lex.

2) Special effects.

3) Kate Bosworth. While I don't have any Lois-as-mommy stories, my favorite portrayal of Lois has always been the Fleisher Lois. And she comes close.

That said, I did have a weird feeling at the end of the movie, a feeling of "Should the movie end like this?" Is Perry White's nephew still in the picture? Having a wife and leaving her is what Lex does...maybe Superman should leave Lois and the kid on Suxor!

Also,

how did Lois not die or break bones, after being smashed around the plane like a piece of popcorn?

It will still take a while before Brandon Routh is established as Superman in my mind, but as someone who believes that the first 40 years of Superman were the best, this is the best Super-thing to happen in a very long time.

Well, I finally got around to seeing the movie (in glorious IMAX hugeness, no less) and I have to throw in with Lee Semmens on this one: this is the best Superman movie I've ever seen.

I know it's heresy, but I've said it before and not been excommunicated from the Church of Superman, so I'll say it again: the Christopher Reeve films were not that good.  And yes, that includes Superman: The Movie, which started as a sweeping, majestic epic on Krypton and in Smallville, then degenerated into a cornball circus of camp excess in the second half in a gutless concession to audience expectations (give us camp!  Where's Caesar Romero and Burgess Meredith? Somebody say "Holy Something-or-other!").

Whether you like "Returns" or not, at least it picks an approach and stays with it.  And for my money, Singer -- even if he is more a fan of the older movies and the TV show and not the comics -- caught on to probably one of the most fascinating and compelling core themes of Silver Age Supes for me, the theme of isolation and differentness.  Singer's Superman, like that of the Weisinger era, is one who will never fit in anywhere even though he's loved around the world.  He is alone in every way that matters.  Marvel zombies who blast the character as one-dimensional and unrelatable can't seem to grasp this...long before Peter Parker popped into Stan Lee's toupeed head, Superman had the "lonely outcast" routine down to a science, only without the ham-handed soap opera histrionics.

Brandon Routh was phenomenal, in my opinion, and it was fun watching an unknown emerge as a star in his breakthrough film.  This must be what it felt like to watch Errol Flynn come out of nowhere to star in "Captain Blood" back in 1935.  Routh nailed Superman and Clark Kent.  I was hoping nervously for the former but was equally pleased to see the latter.  Christopher Reeve always gets props for creating "separate and distinct" portrayals of Clark and Superman (as opposed to say, George Reeves), but in fact while Chris' Superman had depth, his Clark was a ridiculous caricature, a burlesque clown stright out of vaudeville.  All he was missing was a seltzer bottle and a giant corsage on his lapel.  How could anyone carry on like that in real life without drawing attention to himself?  Which of course is what Clark Kent should never do.

In contrast, I thought Routh's Clark, while still on the clumsy side, was a lot more believable.  He came off as just a nebbish, a guy a little too straight-laced, slow on the draw and plain old "nondescript" to stand out among the quick-witted, flamboyant (and often genetically blessed) staff of the Daily Planet.  Lois apparently hadn't given him a thought since he left, nor I gather had Perry White.  In this way, explaining Clark's and Superman's simultaneous absences becomes a non-issue.  Noone knows when Clark is around, so why would they care when he leaves?  Note that Perry doesn't say, "Hooray, my best reporter is back!" No, he's just grateful to fill a spot on the staff after losing the last guy in the job.  Clark is a warm body to him, nothing more.

As far as the kid, I have to disagree with Rao that Superman is morally obligated to step in and be a husband and father here.  On the contrary, to do so would be to tear apart an existing family.  And that's not a very "Superman" thing to do, is it?

But here we come to the one real problem of this film...or rather the source of whatever problems it does have.  And that is that while it's superior to the earlier films, it is nonetheless tied to them.  All the  mistakes of Superman 1 and 2, all their wrong turns, all their bad choices are brought along as baggage into the new millenium.  And the biggest goof ever was the sex scene in "Superman 2," a move that still seems as stupid today as it did in 1981.  With years worth of stories to tell and one of pop culture's most enduring love stories to play out on screen, they blew it all in the SECOND movie by throwing them in bed together.  If you're looking for an act that's out of character for Superman, this was the all-time champion boner (ahem.  Did I say that?)  And of course, as even the writers of "2" realized, there was nowhere else to go with the story after that, so they had it all "kissed away" at the end.  Right.

And what of that kiss?  Apparently it made Lois forget that Superman was Clark Kent, but NOT that they slept together?  Or did they get it on some other time we don't know about?

As for those here who think it's ambiguous whether Jason is Kal-El's son, I don't get it.  The way I took it, Lois whispered the secret to Superman on his hospital bed.  (Although if you're among those who just don't want to accept it, Singer has perhaps dropped a hint that will give you an out.  It's a way to explain how Jason can have super-powers and yet not be Superman's son at all.  How?  Well, if you look closely at the design on Jason's pajamas, it features images of....Aquaman!  I swear to you I did not make that up.  Since there are no Aquaman pajamas on the market that I know of, they must have been created by the wardrobe department.  Draw your own conclusions).

The only other awkward moments for me were the direct lifts of dialog from those earlier films.  "I hope this hasn't put you off flying," Luthor's "My father always said to me..." and so on.  None of these worked as well the second time around, and we could have done without them.  On the other hand, Kal's giving the "Jor-El" speech to Jason was great (and interesting, since that speech was delivered when Kal-El was an infant, and presumably not among the "taped messages" in the fortress).  I thought it worked well, since "the son becomes the father" could mean Jason growing up to be super, but could also refer to how Superman, always in the old days running back to the fortress for advice from his dead dad's "How to be A Hero" video lecture series, now finds himself without the crystals and thus cut off from Jor-El in any form.  He is now forced to stop being the son and start being the father.

Anyway, as much as I liked the film, my wife loved it twice as much, and she hates comic book movies.  She leaned over twice during the film to tell me "This is great!" and as soon as we got out she asked if we could get a lunch, then go back and see it again. This is not typical behavior for her, trust me.  She thinks it's the best movie we've seen since 1993's "Mask of Zorro".  And personally, I think if Singer can win over this type of audience...the people who love movies as opposed to comic book geeks (who will never be happy no matter what, as repeatedly proven in scientific studies), then he's got a winner on his hands.

I say long live the movie Superman.  He's looking good for the first time in...well...70 years.

One thing that puzzled me about this film is, although listed in the cast at the start of the film, veteran character actor, James Karen did not appear in it!

Unless I blinked while he was onscreen for a second or two ...

Ben Hubbard aka James Karen ending up on the cutting room floor

Its funny that that phrase has been thrown around. When Supe was talking to the kid sleeping in bed, someone in the audience yelled out 'Deadbeat Dad' which drew some chuckles.

But how could he be considered a 'Deadbeat Dad' without knowing that he's a father...

fro out

I finally saw Superman Returns last night.  I'd been travelling all week and was a 20 minute drive from a movie theater (without a usable car, 'natch!) else I'd have seen it sooner.

First off, I enjoyed the movie.  It was good to see Superman on screen again.  Did it rock my world?  No.  But it was a solid 8 out of 10 for me.

For fear of sounding like a hairdresser, I don't get Brandon Routh's excess hairdo.  He looked more like Clark Kent in the Halloween costume he wore before he got the movie part.  He would've been better served with Dean Cain's hairstylist in Lois & Clark, even if it meant less spitcurl.  The same goes for super piano-throwing kid, whose hairdo looks designed to elicit loathing.  Kevin Spacey had the best hairdo, of course, followed closely by Kate Bosworth's (who is approximately 517,323,484 bazillion times hotter than Margot Kidder's Lois in Superman II+).  Parker Posey might've had a good hairstyle too -- hard to say.  

Another Lois & Clark-ism was the "lack of talking" business.  Stuff which would've been solved by a real conversation between two human beings didn't happen that way.  If done right, where you understand and feel why they're tongue-tied, it makes for great romantic tension.  When it's done wrong, it's just stupid -- ambiguously stupid in this case.  What the hell does Lois whisper to Superman?  

Everything about Krypton was stupid, which I suppose is consistent with most of the movies:

- The Krypton-tech spaceshit Superman crashed to Earth in and was never mentioned again, yet Superman somehow seemed down and out without those crystals which he didn't put in a safer place.  If Krypton had such advanced space travel, why are almost all Kryptonians dead?

- The lack of Krypton-tech Lex had despite "tell me everything".  Besides his "let's recreate Atlantis with the Genesis Effect" crystal, he didn't really demonstrate being a genius.  Yeah, like I'm gonna fly off to some sort of uncontrollably growing crystal rock formation in the name of real estate.

- The whole "go to Krypton" arc is just dumb.  I just can't get into it.  It was just as dumb as the 10 year gap between Jeff East and Christopher Reeve.  Didn't Jor-El already feed him that info when he was a baby?  Martha Kent is a saint for dealing with his absences.

Speaking of which, it would've been nice to have his mother awaken him.  Have her already infiltrated as a nurse or somesuch, helping Lois and rugrat sneak in.  After they do their thing and leave, she' alone and cries an Oscar-worthy "Clark Kent, now you GET UP NOW!  I'm not going to be the mother who outlives her son.", possibly invoking Kryptonian smelling salts or other plot device.

Jimmy rocked.  I've liked Sam Huntington since Detroit Rock City.

It probably cost more for the special effects to animate Noel Neill and Jack Larson's name in the opening credits than they got paid for their entire runs on the TV show.

Yes, I'm anxiously awaiting the sequel.

I think Routh's hair comes down to two things.  One, another attempt to summon the ghost of Christopher Reeve (who always had too much hair in these things, too) and two, young guys have too much hair in general these days (said the curmudgeon).  This is especially true with kids in middle school or thereabouts...I saw a group of them the other day and it looked like the McDonald's "french fry guys" had come to life.

I agree Bosworth's hotter than Kidder, but so is Eva Marie Saint even at her current age.  In fact, I'd rather see Frank Langella in a slinky gown than Margot Kidder.  As for Parker Posey, I'd have thought she'd be a perfect Lois herself.  I can only guess she's considered officially "too old" now by Hollywood standards.



As in 1978, we are left to figure for ourselves why Kryptonians didn't have a space program.  Maybe some religious or political ban on it.  Or maybe whatever Zod's heinous crime was involved space travel, so it was forbidden to everyone.  (Or maybe Martha's remarks in this scene are setting up a sequel where other Kryptonian's *are* out there in space). The ship was mentioned again briefly (Clark to Mom: "Don't worry, I buried it").

I agree he should've done a better job securing the crystals, especially given that this is Luthor's second invasion of the fortress.  It always bugged me that the movies reduced the Fortress from a super-cool stronghold ("NO GURLZ ALLOUD") into what amounts to a jumbled up pile of pick-up sticks.  If that's what appeals to Kal's Kryptonian aesthetics, fine, but it doesn't do to leave your valuables in an unlocked house.  And really, are you allowed to call a place a "fortress" if it doesn't even have a door?

Speaking of which, it's interesting that Luthor managed to activate the crystals by waving his hand over them.  I guess I always assumed Jor-El's messages were designed to be triggered by Kal's specific genetic code, and not just any warm body that happened along.





This is a carry-over from the earlier films and part of that unhappy baggage I talked about earlier.  In the films, Luthor isn't a "genius" except in his own opinion.  He's a nutjob with a Napoleon complex and an unrealistic fixation on "real estate" as the key to world domination.  His scheme in the first film was utterly ridiculous and unworkable and even if it had succeeded would have gained him nothing, but that was the point.  Because, again, the second half of Superman: The Movie was played for belly-laughs.  Superman Returns is, for the most part, played straighter, but Luthor's old schtick remains because SR is also, in terms of structure, a remake of Donner's film.  I like Luthor's plot better this time around just by virtue of being more visually interesting, but it still makes no sense.  The only way to explain it at all is to recognize that the movie version of Luthor isn't even a little bit "genius," but he is 100% madman.

As for "tell me everything," remember it took even Kal-El ten years to learn everything on those crystals.  Likely Luthor got to the part that interested him...how to build things with no real effort...and figured the rest could wait til later.  For all we know, there's no such thing as Kryptonian weaponry anyway.  Unless interlocked, spinning hoola hoops are weapons.




What was really dumb about the 10-year gap between Jeff and Chris was that Jeff looked at least as old as Chris, if not older.  Certainly he looked far too old for high school.  Sloppy casting, there.  But yes, I always wondered what Clark did for food during his ten-year training course with Jor-El.  Or indeed, thanks to the editing in that sequence, whether the training took place entirely at the Fortress or whether it all happened in outer space.

As for going to Krypton, it was a dumb idea if you had time to think about it.  I gather more was made of it in the first cut of the film, including scenes set in space at the site of Krypton's destruction.  But this is one case where cutting was a good idea, because the whole trip is mentioned so briefly you can't stop to examine the story.  In the novel, I gather, it's explained that astronomers saw "signs of life" on krypton and Superman, forgetting it takes thousands of years for light to travel here from Krypton, decides to go check it out.  Not so smart.  In the finished film, I think the hope is that we -- like Lois and Metropolis -- will be less interested in where he was than that he's back.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.




How great to see these guys given something to do!  In Noel's case, something important, in Jack's case something potentially recurring.  Great stuff.  Also nice to see the tip of the hat to John Hamilton's Perry White in that "Great Ceaser's Ghost" line.  You could tell the old-timers in the audience when I saw the film...that line got reactions from scattered seats around me.  (Also fun, the guy next to me had apparently never seen the "bullet in the eye" teaser...when that scene played out, I thought he was going to get up and dance!).

To be fair, in Superman I with the right cinematography and lighting and such, Kidder was marginal.  Even at that, Ursa got it right with the "what an undemanding male this Superman must be" quip.


I like Parker Posey, but she's not Lois (or Miss Teschmacher, for that matter).  She's just too edgy.  I was skeptical of casting a bottle brunette, but the look worked right with Bosworth.  


Think "Phantom Zone Projector", with modern special effects.  :)


The fallout with Lois and the kid and such makes sense if you accept the "Superman goes away for 5 years" premise.  It just never rang true with me.  Maybe they thought it was necessary as a metaphor for getting us to get past Reeve, but then they go out of their way to mimic Superman I.

It's interesting to me how many people (including me) use the phrase "channeling Christopher Reeve" to describe Routh's acting.  You have to wonder if he was doing it consciously, or whether the director led him down that road.  

That said, I really liked the movie.  I didn't expect to be as ebullient as I was as an 11-year-old seeing the original, and I wasn't, but it was well made, visually impressive, and a solid Superman movie.  None of the Superman films (I'm not even thinking about IV, which should be erased from history) had the depth of character that the Spider-Man films do, and that's actually reasonable, given that Spider-Man was from the outset a much more character-driven (and psychologically complex) book.  I do think, though, that both Routh and Kate Bosworth found a much greater depth in their emotions than did either Chris Reeve (as wonderful as he was) and Margot Kidder (who was simply shrill through much of her parts).  Unfortunately, Kevin Spacey was a bit too campy for my grown-up sensibilities, and Parker Posey was (as I've said elsewhere) channeling Valerie Perrine's Miss Tessmacher in a *big* way.

I'm going to see the film again, with my 8-year-old (unless I decide the violence is a bit too intense for him), and I'm looking forward to it.  {Jonathan}

I saw the movie again yesterday.  I liked it better the second time.  It was one of those movies that had to grow on me a little.   :D

I really really liked the movie. It was long ago that I was this enthousiastic and excited. When he first put his suit back on, i got goosebumps all over. Yes superman is back!
I think Routh does it magnificent, his voice even reminds me of Reeve. Routh is an excellent SM, even though I had my doubts at first. Just like the costume, I even really like it now, except the hideous boots.

But I don't think Kate can pull it of as Lois, imo very very bad casting. To me she's too candy, too sweet, too spidermanny. Nope, bad bad.

I sometimes did get a 'Spiderman'-feel, wich was NOT pleasant. (I do like SM very much, but SM is the ultimate hero)

The last twenty minutes in the hospital is WHAT THE F**K? What's this? It was soooo bad, soooo tacky, sooo wrong, soooo unnecessary. Terrible. Superman in the hospital? Come on! That ruïned it a bit for me.

I'm not sure either about the son-storyline. Seems a bit dodgy to me.

Whas the kid wearing a spiderman-pyjamas at the end? I would've liked that  :lol:

Some flyingscenes are not that good, eg when he en Lois fly next to her house over the water was imo terrible and I expected more from scenes like this. Also the jumping in the grass was too animated to me, sometimes reminded me of Toy Story. Routh wears too much makeup too.

Ok, first off, pardon my bad spelling. "Superman Returns" is hands down is the best movie of all time--even my grandama argees with me. Those who hate them--and rate "Superman Returns" below a 10 mean to be trapped on in a Krypton before it's doomsday--and I don't care which one it is--as long as those haters say away from the Argo City's land mass--since Argo usually escapes Krypton's doomsday.

The kid was fine--he didn't talk much--and with the piano and the talking Superman gives him--it's sounds like Jason is Clark's son is very logical-and I have a reason for that: Superman tooked off before Lois become pregent after "Superman II".Richard White was given less then do then the others. The other characters did fine work. Lex's plan--thought a little flaw--still worked bettern then his other plans.  I think it hit the sequal mark for WB--and even Richard Donner, the director of the first Reeves's "Superman" movie argees--as he called it--a good "rebooting"--unlike Bryne's "Man of Steel".  

If you like "Superman" see "Superman Returns!"

A couple quick thoughts/notes:

Jason is wearing Aquaman pajamas, which I thought was pretty cool.

Also, I thought the scenes with Jason were pretty good, generally.  But I really don't want to see the franchise take on a "Superman and the Emerging Superboy" theme.  Too silly and predictable.  I like the kid but they should not have made him Superman's son.

Meanwhile, the timeline should erase any question about whether he is or is not the first son of the last son of Krypton.  Jason has a birthdate, right?  Where was Superman nine months earlier?  That's pretty much it.  I mean, they never tell us in the movie, but there is no way Supes wouldn't figure it out.  Either he was around when Lois had to have gotten pregnant or he was light years away.  

I know the "nine months" isn't an exact, atomic clock kind of thing, but it should be plenty good enough for these purposes.  After all, I don't believe that Lois was in an intimate relationship with Richard White while Clark was still around and Clark didn't even know about it (and hadn't even met White).  And I don't believe that Superman disappears and the first thing Lois does is get busy with someone completely new before even being sure the love of her life is gone for good.

I would love to hear a good explanation of how the timeline shouldn't have made Jason's son/non-son status clear to Clark pretty quickly.

People are picking up little things which they feel made the film "Okay".

For me there were only two things I didn't like.

The way Routh delivered that line to Lois on the roof; "Lois... Will you come with me?"

I felt there was nothing he gave in that line.

And the hospital thing. Singer shouldn't have done that.
It would have been so much better if after he fell to Earth, to cut to Lois' house where he gave the speech.

Other than that. The Greatest, Epic Superman Story told.

From the opening titles with that John Williams score and Dick Donner style lettering. Truly a class act

15 out of 10.

[cK]

I've seen the Superman movie a few days ago and I really enjoyed it.

Can't wait for the sequel!!

Finally I have been able to see the movie,my country has been the last one to have distributed it, and in its first weekend it has already caught up the top of  movie chart.
After have reading so many negative comments about It,i will not denied that i have gone to the cinema thinking to see something that not fully respect the heritage of the character,but i can say instead of being remained positively impressed.
Sure there are things like the kid and the absence for 5 years of Superman from the earth, and also i have noticed Clark Kent is only a cameo in this film, but after the show new questions rises in me: it is true that our hero absents from its adoptive planet is way too long, but we know nothing of what really happened it in this period, in the firts scenes of the movie, when we see is spaceship travel towards the Earth, I have noticed that the same one could be chased, and to a certain point i see an object crashing on the surface of a planet,was a meteorite or something different? Perhaps the next movie will give us an answer.
And someone have succed on  reading what is written on the tablet of the Scrabble game displayed in the Kent farm? I think to have caught a glimpse of the word alien.
My judgment on the movie is positive, that’s also because thanks to it, in this period I see familiar“ S” everywhere, and for the occasion of its exit they have even translate the book of Tom De Haven “It’s Superman” in Italian :shock: , my favorite bookshop, that can be found in the middle of the city, has even exposed in is window a lifesize statue of Superman,this near the wordl’s famous Uffizi museum,go figure! And since in my country  Pokemon and Dragonball rules among the kids is indeed a big satisfaction for me to see the children interested to the adventures of the man of steel!

 :s:  :s:  :s:

You live in Florence???? Would you like to exchange for London?

Yes! An exchange?  Maybe...I never been there but from what i know London is nice city.

 :s:  :s:  :s:

To be honest, you'd lose on the deal! But wow, Florence must be my favourite city anywhere.

And in fact i was joking :wink: !(sorry)I never exchange my beautiful city for another,i love it so much!If i can ask, how many times you have been here Permanus?

 :s:  :s:  :s:

I've probably been to Florence about 8 times -- the first time was 20 years ago, when I was 19! If I lived there and spoke better Italian I'd never leave it. There should be more Superman stories in Florence!

And i agree with you :D !
Superman is often see in action in city like Paris or London but never in Florence,maybe the skyline is too diffucult to draw for an artist?

 :s:  :s:  :s:

I have no use or respect for the "deadbeat dad" claims because (a) this storyline was done with Son of Superman, so it's not like the comics haven't done it before, and (b) Jason already has a father -- Richard. What's Superman supposed to do, kick the only dad the kid's known aside? Yeah, he should be involved in the kid's upbringing now that he knows, but he can't shove Richard aside. That would be far more out of character than what happens in the movie.

Not that it matters. The film was declared a failure from the moment of Routh's casting, and the unceasing bile directed at the movie all thru production made it totally impossible for me to judge the film on its own merits. I couldn't even begin to enjoy anything about because the Superman fandom pretty much was out for its blood before it even started shooting. Its actual failure (partly because of the fandom, partly because of Pirates II) was just the final insult to injury. So for me, this movie marked the death of the Superman I knew and loved, because the fandom wanted a Smallville movie instead and flat-out refused to give Routh a chance. Well, if a morally bankrupt, vindictive sleaze is what they want Superman to be, who am I to argue? Give 'em what they want, I say. (I will admit, though, to being delighted that Daniel Craig's critics got served hard when the new James Bond movie became such a hit. It's nice to know that sometimes the fanboys get the black eyes they deserve.)

Once I get the Alyn serials on DVD, that'll be the end for me. I'm officially done with Superman as far as Hollywood is concerned. From now on, it's only the comics for me as long as the quality stays high. And I sincerely hope that Routh puts this mess behind him and finds a more rewarding gig.

Just to whip this expired equine once again:

"Failure" is a relative term.  SR has taken in well over $400 million at this point and DVD sales don't start til tomorrow.  Sure it didn't do the business "Pirates" did, but coming in second at the box office isn't like coming in second in a football game, is it?  The latter is failure by definition, the former not so much. By any sane reasoning, a take of nearly a half BILLION dollars is nothing to cry about.

Yeah; they've certainly made their money back. In sheer financial terms, they'll probably make more money out of the sequel, since it is unlikely to be stuck in development hades* as long as SR was.

*Because development heck sounds really lame.

Hey, hey, watch the language, buddy!

Keep it up and Rao will install that Greek filter he's been looking at. ;)

I saw "Superman Returns" yesterday, so I was finally able to join this reviews thread. I wonder if any of you have changed your opinions with repeated viewings of the film? I would like to see it again, and I don't think I can really consolidate my ideas about it until I let it all sink in a bit more.

Some very basic points & first impressions:

I thought Superman's physique was perfect and he looked fantastic in the costume. He was practically a Curt Swan drawing come to life.

Clark should be understated in his appearance and personality, yes, but not irrelevant, which he was in the film. Did someone forget Clark Kent is one of the major characters of "Superman".

The super-feats were amazing. I really enjoyed watching them. Everything is a surprise to me in films because I never watch trailers or advance clips or anything like that. Superman in action impressed me.

I just don't get the spiky-crystal look for things Kryptonian. It was a bad idea decades ago and I was disappointed to see it all again. Wouldn't the film crew have had a new designer this time around?

I've had the DVD for a couple weeks now but still haven't got round to watching it, so I can't speak to your question about multiple viewings (only saw it once in the theater...too hard to line up a sitter!).

I agree on the super-feats...great stuff that with today's technology is quite believable, much more so than 25 years ago (even though there were moments in S:TM we believed a man could fly, a lot of the non-flying stuff was as shaky as anything the TV show did 20 years before *that*).

Also agree on the suit, and Routh.  As worked up as the fanboys got about the liberties taken with the traditional suit, it really did work on film.  In fact, the darker colors are a lot less jarring to me than the bright primary hues Routh's predecessors wore.  Some things can't be translated literally from comics without looking insane.

I actually liked the way Clark faded into the background.  It worked a lot better for me than the "stand aside, I'll beat this gangster up" toughness of George Reeves or the poor man's "Nutty Professor" Chris Reeve came up with.  I'm not sure it would work as well in another work environment, but Clark has surrounded himself with glamorous, driven type-A's at the Planet, which is the perfect place for a shrinking violet to hide.

And yes, the crystal bit didn't appeal to me when I was 14 and it's only lost ground every year since.  It struck me then and now as a "cheat" to get out of designing alien technology for Krypton and the Fortress.  "Sure, it looks like Carlsbad Caverns, but trust me all those rocks are really highly sophisticated devices."  Yeah, right.

As I said earlier in this thread (probably...I'm too lazy too look), my biggest gripe with this film -- which again I've only seen once but LOVED that time -- is that it hews too closely to the Donner/Lester films, which despite conventional wisdom I feel are not really great cinema, let alone "definitive" Superman.

I haven't seen it again nor bought the dvd.  Most of the great SFX are in the trailer so......

Like Nightwing, I was never to fond of Krypton's crystal technology in the first go-round.  I can forgive no head band or red sun on Jor-El but the whole crysla thing smacked of 70s art school hippie-iness.  And since I had worked on a crystal theme project (not my idea) for a combined class in production design, I ain't kidding.  I fought against it in class too. 

Where are the gleaming spires of comicdom's Krypton past I so long for?   

Now that I've watched it AFTER the Donner cut of Superman II, I like it better.

The Donner cut is better than Superman Returns, though.

I got the two DVD-version of Superman Returns as part of the 14-DVD Ultimate collection.   The transfer is grainy, dark, and full of artifacts, like they didn't get the compression right.  It doesn't have the "Return To Krypton" sequence.  It appears they want to do an even-more-special Superman Returns product at some later date and screw the people who got -only- the two-DVD one.  I'd be feeling jipped if I bought the Ultimate collection strictly for SR, that's for sure.