Superman Returns movie discussion *Spoilers*

[moonmaster]

Check it out.

I'd never seen that picture before.

 

[Planet-man]

Check it out.

I'd never seen that picture before.

Is Lex Luthor wearing a Green Lantern tie?

 

[Victor Von Doom]

Check it out.

I'd never seen that picture before.

Meh. I've seen better from Hitch.

 

[moonmaster]

I'm seeing it in IMAX 3D at Navy Peir on Monday. It's sort of a birthday gift.

 

[David Blue]

Alright I just saw this last night, and I really liked it, a few of my friends didn't like it because it was too similar to the first movie (which I haven't seen).

What I Liked:
-The special effects were freakin' amazing!
-I liked Lutor and Kitty's personalities.
-I liked Jimmy Olsen for once
-Routh was an excellent Superman
-James Marsden, I surprised that he was so likable, and I thought that it was ironic that this role gave him more lines than all three of the X-men movies

What I Didn't Like:
-Luthor's plan, what the hell? Even if he did drown the US, what's stopping any other country from sending soldiers to kill five people and take the Kryptonian technology?
-The kid. I'm fine with Lois having a kid, I just have a hard time believing that she and Supes could do the horizontal tango without him accidently killing her.
-I didn't like Bosworth as a brunette, but I will say that she knows how to take a beating.

Awesome movie 4/5.

I saw it last night, and I liked it too. I couldn't see a thing wrong with it, which means I'm going to rate it 5/5.

It's not a flaw in the movie that I wasn't eagerly waiting for a Superman movie in the first place.

The movie itself was wholly acceptable: sweet, well thought through (by the standards of Superman movies - it does follow Superman: The Movie -1978- and Superman II (1980) and it deserves to be judged in that context) and handsome looking. I'll see it again, gladly, though I had not intended to.

Lex Luthor and Superman/Clark Kent were excellent - the stars of the show, as they should have been. James Marsden was fine, better in this than in any or all X movies, and with much more to say and do. He was right to move over. I didn't like Lois Lane, which is fine because I never like Lois Lane, either in the movies or the comics (indicating if anything that the actress and the script were right), and at least this one is beautiful. I liked the kid, which is a rare pleasure - most movie kids are insufferable. I liked that we lost Otis in favor of a piano-playing thug who had a great, well worked out, tense scene. That was a big improvement.

The special effects and the general look of the film were expected to be wonderful, and were. I'm never going to find a scene including Superman tense and exciting, but that's not the movie's fault.

What can't be concealed must be flaunted. Superman is invincible, and it was right to play this up. I liked the bullet to the eye scene. (Superman just moved ahead of any Ultimate character, as far as I know. It was good to see it demonstrated that such cheap stunts as a thumb or a bullet in the eye will not work on Superman.)

The story-telling and the scene by scene pacing were a warm pleasure. The movie was long, but it didn't feel long because it flowed so well.

It still meant I had to miss out on seeing X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) again though. King Kong (2005) was like this too: it wasn't boring, but it was so long that it was automatically in conflict with another movie I wanted to see more.

Luthor's plan had a down side that Iceshadow mentioned, but the good side of setting up kryptonite. Finally someone has a nice explanation of why there should be so much of the stuff on Earth. Also, it followed from the movie Lex Luthor's obsesssion with real estate. And, it set up something that really was a job for Superman. There are very few problems that really call for that much power.

Not only did I like the kid, and not only did he set up my favorite moments (including when Lex Luthor hears about his thug who's just died of being hit with a piano and decides it's time he was gone), but his existence made perfect sense, given the time Lois and Clark got together while Superman was non-super in Superman II. This story thread was just joy upon joy.

 

[Iceshadow]

Not only did I like the kid, and not only did he set up my favorite moments (including when Lex Luthor hears about his thug who's just died of being hit with a piano and decides it's time he was gone), but his existence made perfect sense, given the time Lois and Clark got together while Superman was non-super in Superman II. This story thread was just joy upon joy.

Oh he was depowered, I haven't seen number II so I didn't know. Actually, I liked the kid, very non-annoying, my Superman education was pretty much STAS, and thats it. Supes with a kid just seemed way out of left feild, I probably should have watched the first two before but oh well.

 

[Random]

Oh he was depowered, I haven't seen number II so I didn't know. Actually, I liked the kid, very non-annoying, my Superman education was pretty much STAS, and thats it. Supes with a kid just seemed way out of left feild, I probably should have watched the first two before but oh well.

Good point, he's not annoy, a lot of kid roles in movies annoy the crap out of me, but he didn't

And in Superman 2, Lois finds out Clark is Supes, he takes her to the fortess and has it depower so he can spend his life with her and they got freaky (in the fortress) Then Zod appeared took over the world, he hs the fortress turn him back, he kicks *** then at the end he kisses Lois which somehow gives her ameisa.... Yeah those are one of those things you just ignore

 

[David Blue]

Good point, he's not annoy, a lot of kid roles in movies annoy the crap out of me, but he didn't

And in Superman 2, Lois finds out Clark is Supes, he takes her to the fortess and has it depower so he can spend his life with her and they got freaky (in the fortress) Then Zod appeared took over the world, he hs the fortress turn him back, he kicks *** then at the end he kisses Lois which somehow gives her ameisa.... Yeah those are one of those things you just ignore

The kid seems partly Kryptonian, for example in being strong enough to use a piano as a deadly weapon, and partly human, with no kryptonite problem and as far as anyone could tell at such an early stage with no problem about killing. When Lex Luthor registers this he says (can anyone help me with the exact words?): "Oh, it's time we were gone." He said that line with such awareness of how bad this was and with such feeling, comical and serious at once, that I thought it was perfect.

Also, the kid was very much his father's son. Clark has his glasses; the kid goes nowhere without copious evidence he's sickly: the asthma medication and so on.

I liked him in every way.

 

[ultimatedjf]

David Blue, I really enjoy reading your film critiques.




On a totally unrelated note, I must say that I'm obsessed with Lex Luthor's delivery of the word "Kryptonite" when he rolls the r. I've been saying it alot to myself this morning. I like when the villains are humorous like that, as long as they can also be very menacing at other times, which Spacey pulls off easily.

 

[Planet-man]

On a totally unrelated note, I must say that I'm obsessed with Lex Luthor's delivery of the word "Kryptonite" when he rolls the r. I've been saying it alot to myself this morning. I like when the villains are humorous like that, as long as they can also be very menacing at other times, which Spacey pulls off easily.

Just so you know, that delivery is a reference to the first appearance of Kryptonite on TV, the George Reeves Adventures of Superman episode "The Defeat of Superman", where the old scientist guy who created Kryptonite talks like that.

The More You Know!

 

[thee great one]

On a totally unrelated note, I must say that I'm obsessed with Lex Luthor's delivery of the word "Kryptonite" when he rolls the r. I've been saying it alot to myself this morning. I like when the villains are humorous like that, as long as they can also be very menacing at other times, which Spacey pulls off easily.

That was one of my favroite parts. I've thought about that a lot.

 

[Ice]

I thought all the scenes with Luthor was brilliant. Everything else was alright.

 

[David Blue]

David Blue, I really enjoy reading your film critiques.

Thank you, ultimatedjf.

I think we are living in a golden age of comic book superhero movies. With the money that's being spent and the talent that's being brought to bear, and the spirit of fidelity to the source material that the best people often have now, it can really be true that the latest Superman movie is a marvel, and the latest Batman movie was great, and the X-Men movies were spectacular and good, and the Spider-Man movies are amazing too. Picking a winner out of a crowd like this misses the point: we the audience are winners!

I think the only mistake we could make in this golden time is not to enjoy it enough. I think that the more we attend reasonably to what we're seeing now, and the more we discuss it, the more it may sink in how very lucky we are.

I don't think things can go on and on like this.

Costs for the biggest movies are rising, but the audience is not growing. Superman Returns (2006) is an example of this.

There will be increasing competition from cheaper and thus safer films supported by new technology. Already the cheapest and best bet you can make as investor is trashy horror. Sin City (2005) was not only an artistic masterpiece but a technological breakthrough. Someone is going to figure out ways to put the cheapest thrills together with the cheapest, most cost-effective modern technology and they are going to make a lot of money and set film moving in a new, more practical and economical direction.

Also, Hollywood overdoes every genre, and then decrees it done. It must always over-farm the land, and over-fish the waters. Hugely expensive movies crowd each other out. That's happening now. To catch Superman Returns (2006) I had to forego seeing X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) yet again.

Even though it wasn't a superhero movie King Kong (2005) represents a lot of what I'm saying. This is a good thing that can't last; it is too marvellous and gigantic to be long for this world. King Kong (2005) was just too - darn - big! Nobody had time to watch it again and again, and squeezing this colossal spectacle onto a DVD screen and home speakers isn't the same. Also, it crowded up against The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch And The Wardrobe (2005): see one, miss the other. And movies like this cost so much that even hundreds of millions of dollars coming in may be a financial disappointment, while a real miss might be a studio-ending disaster.

Can things go on and on down this road, while simple sadism, horror and filth, without stars or big budgets, rakes in the moolah?

I love Art Deco. King Kong (2005) had some of the good stuff of course. So does the Daily Planet in Superman Returns (2006). It is a clean, forceful and "futuristic" style you only see being made new and on a big scale in movies now. It looked better and bolder than most of what we see around us (and surprisingly sometimes more poignant, as in the ANZAC War Memorial) - but it cost too much to maintain. Tacky glass boxes were cheaper. So they were the future after all, and "futurism" became retro-futurism.

I'm saying that we should relish today's luscious, over-expensive, over-colossal art: the big honking Hollywood mega-blockbuster, especially its most extreme form, the superhero spectacular with sequel piled high atop sequel in a giant's game of can you top this?. Don't take it for granted. Drink it in like King Kong's last dawn. (Add plane sounds in the distance.)

Go see Superman Returns (2006) again. See it on IMAX if you conveniently can. Then tell us what you saw, the better to remember it yourself. :smile:

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I think the only mistake we could make in this golden time is not to enjoy it enough. I think that the more we attend reasonably to what we're seeing now, and the more we discuss it, the more it may sink in how very lucky we are.

Probably the best point.


I mean we could complain about how silly Green Goblin looked in the first Spiderman film....but instead lets focus on the positive aspect of being able to see a credible representation of our favorite costumed characters.

A movie like Spiderman wouldn't have been possible a decade ago (those of us old enough to remember the live-action Spiderman TV show surely do appreciate Raimi's creation).

Its best that we enjoy the films while we can.


IMHO, Superman Returns was bloody brilliant!!! While the comparisons to to Donner's film will always be ever-present...it makes many nods to the film while creating its own foundation to build upon. I've seen the film and know the story....when I see it again I'll be paying more attention to the special effects and just marveling at the technology involved at making the flight scenes.

 

[E.Vi.L.]

You know your cinema, Blue.

I'm not sure I agree though, except for the possibility that the Superhero genre be a fad. But as far as mega-production are concerned, this won't be like the gap between the super production of the sixties (Ben Hur, Ten Commandmants etc.) followed by the lower budgets of the 70s till mid 90s. Probably you'll see some diminishing in Budget but lavish spectacles will continue. They'll become more cost effective, just like those small horror, filth movie you speak of.

A movie like Superman may cost 200 millions today, but soon enough you will be able to do the same quality at a fraction of the cost. The budget will eventually have to go down, but the technology pioneered by these movies will still be available and a lot more affordable.

Heck, look at the special effects of some of those made for TV cheap movies or regular series. Cheesy by todays standard, but better than those of any movies of the late 80s.

Today, a comics fanboy needs to be backed by a big Hollywood studios to bring his vsion to life. In 15 years producing movies of the same technological qualities as we see now will be possible with budgets under 50 millions.

And frankly, we have reached a degree of diminishing return as far as special effects are concerned. In 15 years, what will cost 200 millions to produce won't be that much better looking than what we produce today for 200 million and in 15 years for 40 million. There is a limit to what you can do on a flat screen.

Until we invent commercial Hologram 3D Vision (H3DV !), that is.

 

[Ultxon]

Just saw it yesterday and by the end, no kidding, I was rendered speechless.

It was perfect, pheomenly better than X3, and just gave me so many goosebumps.

Everything just made me proud to be a comic-fan; The strongest element was the incredible connection to mythology that many fans and purists beleive super-heroes to be: a modern mythology. I mean we had Luthor's connection to Promethus that he brings up [Did Luthor only read half the story?] and the Superman connection to Jesus Christ. As soon as Superman died the whole theme, purpose, became inherently clear. Superman [Christ] spead the good word of God, and will always continue to do so, even in death, and through resurrection; It isn't that Superman does good deeds it's that he makes supermen out of ordinary men. That was the gist and I thought it was perfect.

I loved the feel of continuation the movie brought, it felt like part of a trilogy. Thankfuly I watched the first two movies the day before seeing it, and I couldn't stop laughing during some bits when others were just watching ie "Statiscally speaking flying is still the safest way to travel," or
"What did my father always say?"
"You're going bald?"
"Before that"
"Get out?"
It easily gets 5 stars for it's themes, it's acting, it's respect to the character, it's imagery and graphics, and just incredibly coolness.

 

[ultimatedjf]

The More You Know!

These are the best ones..

 

[David Blue]

Thanks for the kind words, E.Vi.L., and it's obvious you know your cinema too. Which is good, because I hope you're right, and you made a sensible case you might be.


I think Victor Von Doom picked out my key point. Right now, amazing things are happening, in brilliant movies such as Superman Returns (2006), and we should be properly amazed by them.

I agree with Victor Von Doom's example: the right way to see something like Spider-Man (2002) is to look for all the good stuff it delivers and appreciate it, not to fix a gimlet eye on the Green Goblin's plastic-looking suit and tune out, for example, Willem Dafoe's scary performance as both of Norman Osborn's personalities.

Talking yourself out of enjoying an enjoyable movie does not make you smart, and finding excuses to damn movies loaded high with fun stuff does not make you a fair or insightful critic.

 

[Dancanread]

so I saw this on the 4th. tried to see it IMAX but couldn't because the show i wanted to go to and the next one were sold out, but i still got to see it on a nice big screen. i really liked it, and i certainly appreciated the care and reverence singer has for the material, but i had trouble really loving it, i'm not entirely sure why. i know i wasn't a fan of kate bosworth. yeah, she's kinda cute, though she belongs a little in the "omg what's up with her forehead" club with Rihanna and Marcia Cross. she did a fine job, but she was just an ingenue, and too young. she looks like she could've been margot kidder's daugher, and this takes place 5 years after supes ii. lois is and was a character, full of sass and humor. she was just a little bland for me. routh was good, he even sounded like christopher reeve. spacey was awesome, and i thought parker posey was a lot of fun. so, what do you think luthor was waiting for lois to say in the ship?

 

[ProjectX2]

"Superman will stop you -"

"Wrong!"

That's what he wanted her to say.