It was a well made big budget movie no doubt but...
Why did they have to have Superman knocking up Lois Lane with a love child? And everybody's just hunky dory with this? And we're still supposed to see Superman as a defender of truth justice and the American way? I'm telling you guys... the loss of the traditional (oh, for a few thousand years now) family being a man, a woman and their children is devastating to a culture.. just ask the black community.
I've begun several attempts to respond to various ways that the movie fails for me. The whole thing is a mess from start to finish.
I didn't hate it QUITE as much as the new King Kong, but it's right up there.
Among the dozens of things that 'offend' me, the most relevant to this forum may be the 'Superman as Savior' concept that was rammed down our throats throughout. Unfortunately even that has it's roots in the mostly wonderful first film, where Marlon Brando's God like voice tells us he's sent to earth 'his only Son'.
They took that piece of nonsense and really built the new movie around it.
But the whole thing is awful-
Wait, I did enjoy some of the flying scenes. See, I can find the positive if i try hard enough.
I took my son to see the new Superman movie last week. It was an okay popcorn flick, and it had some great special fx, but days later, I find that there's really nothing about the plot that has actually left a lasting impression in my mind. If anything, there were a lot of missed opportunities. For one, how about a new Superman movie with comic book villians that hadn't been done yet, like Brainiac ( or that weird inter-dimensional midget whose name escapes me at the moment)? The film-makers would have done better had they gleaned through the "Silver Age" comics for a meaningful plot.
Heck, even the old 50s Superman series (the first two seasons which I'm thinking about picking up on dvd) was far more entertaining.
Maybe I didn't hate the movie as hiway did is because my big take-away from the movie was the element of HUMAN courage, especially two scenes with Lois's boyfriend: first. landing next to an emerging island to save Lois and the boy, and then later risking his life to save Superman, who he knows is his rival, because it's the right thing to do. And let's not forget Lois diving underwater in a ball gown to save Superman, too.
George
P.S. Dan, you're thinking of Mr. Mxyzptlk. Of course, Superman has a large "rogues gallery" to choose from: Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Toyman, Prankster, Parasite, Metallo, Ruin...
Well, I saw the movie the other day. I almost didn't see it after reading some of the posts on this thread; well, hardly a thread - more like some threading of thought, especially the old cartoon character tangent & some other disconnected bits of string. So, I guess I'm about to add my own bit of disconnected string.
My wife & I had already rewatched Superman I & II with the intention of watching the return afterward. Honestly, they didn't do it for me. I enjoyed them, but not as much as I thought I remembered enjoying them the first time. They were so one dimensional and sooo filled with rediculous holes. But I figured what the heck, they're based on cartoons for little kids I guess. So after reading Raf's comparison with I & II placing the return third in line (although his post was positive in tone), & with the 2 1/2 stars that some critic I read gave it, I wasn't expecting too much.
But my wife & I were both very pleasantly surprised. The purists among you have some good points, especially if pure adherence is the goal, but I gotta tell you, the return brought back the magic of Superman for me like I & II rewatched didn't. I had no problem suspending disbelief. Sudo's points about the love child are well taken, but without weighing the moral implications, I hafta say that the idea of another kid with super powers in the story is a treat, & I'm looking forward to the development of that in the next movie if there is one. I recognize & agree with Sudo's concerns, but I don't think that the story line maintains any kind of purity (& I realize you are not saying this Sudo - a different point being made here) simply because it remains restricted to the originators' vision. Let the story evolve. Breaking out of molds was one of the things cartooning afforded. And one of the fascinating things about Superman was finding out just what he could do. I say, let it evolve.
Sometimes regardless of all the valid objections of the critics, you just flat out really enjoy a movie, & sometimes realization of faults can ruin what would otherwise be an enjoyable experience. For both my wife & myself, the return was by far the most enjoyable Superman movie yet.
After the movie, I went to the men's room. I got a space in a stall, & int the stall next to me went two small boys and a dad. The dad said to his son's friend, "So I guess you didn't enjoy the movie so much, huh?" "Oh, it was alright" said the boy. Then his son started going on & on about how he saw Superman do this & saw Superman do that.
Oh, I'm glad I watched the first two movies before the return. It was a real treat to see the connections they made in the return to the earlier movies like when poor Luther talks about what his daddy used to say to him & gets the same wrong answers - cute little slapsticky offerings if you remembered the lines from the previous movies.
I feel like I should apologize for disagreeing with some of you who know your cartoons so much better than I do, but no sense in being sorry for really enjoying something.
I can't speak for your experience, but here's what I thought:
In I and II, the actors had a genuine chemistry. Reeve and Hackman, Reeve and Kidder, Reeve and Tessmacher, fer Pete's sake. I don't get that sense in Returns. It really played like an audition for what the next Superman movie should be, not the movie itself. Didn't like Lois much(why can't they find someone with Margot Kidder's sass and Terri Hatcher's... smile?). And Brandon Routh just didn't have the gravitas that Chris Reeve managed even the first time out. Routh got the forlorn feeling right, but that was about it.
Overall a good movie, but it lacked the chemistry and the just plain fun of I and II.
Raf, I agree with you on no chemistry in Superman Returns between Lois and Superman, and I think the only time I bought Routh’s portrayal of Superman or Clark was when he seemed to remind me of Reeve – in looks or mannerisms. And I missed the sass and quirkiness of Kidder’s Lois…Overall, I did like the movie though – almost as much as I and II – I guess for storyline and special effects…I recently watched it a second time and found myself playing Armchair Superman. When Superman swoops in to save the Space Shuttle attached to the Airliner – I wondered if he could have just used his super-breath to blow out the Space Shuttle’s Rocket Engines [like he did later on to blow out the ignited gas leak at Metropolis] and then gently carry them to the earth. However, I did appreciate that whole scene – spectacular special effects – especially landing the Airliner in the middle of a ball game!
If you want Superman Returns to really make sense, then go out and rent the new Superman II - the Richard Donner Cut. Bryan Singer is said to have referenced that movie as the starting point for this sequel.
Recommended Posts
Sudo
It was a well made big budget movie no doubt but...
Why did they have to have Superman knocking up Lois Lane with a love child? And everybody's just hunky dory with this? And we're still supposed to see Superman as a defender of truth justice and the American way? I'm telling you guys... the loss of the traditional (oh, for a few thousand years now) family being a man, a woman and their children is devastating to a culture.. just ask the black community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In principle,
I agree with you 100% on this one, Sudo.
In this specific instance,
the "out" is that this is taking off from Superman 2,
where the setup for this was part of the script,
back in the 70s when it aired.
So, this isn't exactly out-of-the-blue, 'just from this year' stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I've begun several attempts to respond to various ways that the movie fails for me. The whole thing is a mess from start to finish.
I didn't hate it QUITE as much as the new King Kong, but it's right up there.
Among the dozens of things that 'offend' me, the most relevant to this forum may be the 'Superman as Savior' concept that was rammed down our throats throughout. Unfortunately even that has it's roots in the mostly wonderful first film, where Marlon Brando's God like voice tells us he's sent to earth 'his only Son'.
They took that piece of nonsense and really built the new movie around it.
But the whole thing is awful-
Wait, I did enjoy some of the flying scenes. See, I can find the positive if i try hard enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I took my son to see the new Superman movie last week. It was an okay popcorn flick, and it had some great special fx, but days later, I find that there's really nothing about the plot that has actually left a lasting impression in my mind. If anything, there were a lot of missed opportunities. For one, how about a new Superman movie with comic book villians that hadn't been done yet, like Brainiac ( or that weird inter-dimensional midget whose name escapes me at the moment)? The film-makers would have done better had they gleaned through the "Silver Age" comics for a meaningful plot.
Heck, even the old 50s Superman series (the first two seasons which I'm thinking about picking up on dvd) was far more entertaining.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
Couldn't agree with you more about the first 2 seasons of the 50's Superman series, Dan. Don't think about picking up the dvd's-just do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Maybe I didn't hate the movie as hiway did is because my big take-away from the movie was the element of HUMAN courage, especially two scenes with Lois's boyfriend: first. landing next to an emerging island to save Lois and the boy, and then later risking his life to save Superman, who he knows is his rival, because it's the right thing to do. And let's not forget Lois diving underwater in a ball gown to save Superman, too.
George
P.S. Dan, you're thinking of Mr. Mxyzptlk. Of course, Superman has a large "rogues gallery" to choose from: Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Toyman, Prankster, Parasite, Metallo, Ruin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
George, I agree with you about Lois' boyfriend-a character everyone was prepared to hate, but turned out to be a really good guy.
Didn't save the movie for me though-as if I need to say that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well, I saw the movie the other day. I almost didn't see it after reading some of the posts on this thread; well, hardly a thread - more like some threading of thought, especially the old cartoon character tangent & some other disconnected bits of string. So, I guess I'm about to add my own bit of disconnected string.
My wife & I had already rewatched Superman I & II with the intention of watching the return afterward. Honestly, they didn't do it for me. I enjoyed them, but not as much as I thought I remembered enjoying them the first time. They were so one dimensional and sooo filled with rediculous holes. But I figured what the heck, they're based on cartoons for little kids I guess. So after reading Raf's comparison with I & II placing the return third in line (although his post was positive in tone), & with the 2 1/2 stars that some critic I read gave it, I wasn't expecting too much.
But my wife & I were both very pleasantly surprised. The purists among you have some good points, especially if pure adherence is the goal, but I gotta tell you, the return brought back the magic of Superman for me like I & II rewatched didn't. I had no problem suspending disbelief. Sudo's points about the love child are well taken, but without weighing the moral implications, I hafta say that the idea of another kid with super powers in the story is a treat, & I'm looking forward to the development of that in the next movie if there is one. I recognize & agree with Sudo's concerns, but I don't think that the story line maintains any kind of purity (& I realize you are not saying this Sudo - a different point being made here) simply because it remains restricted to the originators' vision. Let the story evolve. Breaking out of molds was one of the things cartooning afforded. And one of the fascinating things about Superman was finding out just what he could do. I say, let it evolve.
Sometimes regardless of all the valid objections of the critics, you just flat out really enjoy a movie, & sometimes realization of faults can ruin what would otherwise be an enjoyable experience. For both my wife & myself, the return was by far the most enjoyable Superman movie yet.
After the movie, I went to the men's room. I got a space in a stall, & int the stall next to me went two small boys and a dad. The dad said to his son's friend, "So I guess you didn't enjoy the movie so much, huh?" "Oh, it was alright" said the boy. Then his son started going on & on about how he saw Superman do this & saw Superman do that.
Oh, I'm glad I watched the first two movies before the return. It was a real treat to see the connections they made in the return to the earlier movies like when poor Luther talks about what his daddy used to say to him & gets the same wrong answers - cute little slapsticky offerings if you remembered the lines from the previous movies.
I feel like I should apologize for disagreeing with some of you who know your cartoons so much better than I do, but no sense in being sorry for really enjoying something.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
No need to apologize for liking the movie, Tom!
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I absolutely respect your right to like the movie.
I still shudder from the experience, myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can't speak for your experience, but here's what I thought:
In I and II, the actors had a genuine chemistry. Reeve and Hackman, Reeve and Kidder, Reeve and Tessmacher, fer Pete's sake. I don't get that sense in Returns. It really played like an audition for what the next Superman movie should be, not the movie itself. Didn't like Lois much(why can't they find someone with Margot Kidder's sass and Terri Hatcher's... smile?). And Brandon Routh just didn't have the gravitas that Chris Reeve managed even the first time out. Routh got the forlorn feeling right, but that was about it.
Overall a good movie, but it lacked the chemistry and the just plain fun of I and II.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I think Raf is right on the money, concerning the characters.
In my opinion, however, 'overall' it was a mess.
It's 'only a movie', though, and I have no problem with anyone's enjoyment of it. I know I've liked movies that make others cringe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Raf, I agree with you on no chemistry in Superman Returns between Lois and Superman, and I think the only time I bought Routh’s portrayal of Superman or Clark was when he seemed to remind me of Reeve – in looks or mannerisms. And I missed the sass and quirkiness of Kidder’s Lois…Overall, I did like the movie though – almost as much as I and II – I guess for storyline and special effects…I recently watched it a second time and found myself playing Armchair Superman. When Superman swoops in to save the Space Shuttle attached to the Airliner – I wondered if he could have just used his super-breath to blow out the Space Shuttle’s Rocket Engines [like he did later on to blow out the ignited gas leak at Metropolis] and then gently carry them to the earth. However, I did appreciate that whole scene – spectacular special effects – especially landing the Airliner in the middle of a ball game!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
If you want Superman Returns to really make sense, then go out and rent the new Superman II - the Richard Donner Cut. Bryan Singer is said to have referenced that movie as the starting point for this sequel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
The Donner cut turned out to be something of a mess-but nowhere near the mess of 'Superman Returns".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.