Superman Returns Official Rate and Review Superman Returns thread!!!

[Hunter Rider]

That has to be the cheesiest sequence ever filmed. Ever. And possibly the most unrealistic.

The realisitc part of this comment is asinine given that i could pull at least 2 scenes from every suphero/action adventure movie ever made and point out lack of realism
The scene shows what lies in Peter's heart is bigger than his selfish wants.it's a great and brilliantly shot scene IMO except they needed a bigger doll

 

[The Guard]

The realisitc part of this comment is asinine given that i could pull at least 2 scenes from every suphero/action adventure movie ever made and point out lack of realism

Fantastic, and I'm glad you pointed that out, but it has no bearing on my statement. This movie doesn't get a pass in this scene because other movies have similar scenes. I find si milar moments in other movies equally cheesy and unrealistic, and often absurd and poorly conceived. The same flaws in other movies does not make this scene any better. If the scene is attempting to show how that Peter can operate without powers, in a realistic way, it should do so, should it not?

The scene shows what lies in Peter's heart is bigger than his selfish wants.

Congratulations, you missed the entire point of an incredibly simple scene. The scene shows, quite simply that Peter is a hero, whether he has powers or not, that in fact it is not his powers that make him a hero, just that his powers allow him an easier route to doing such things. And that what he really wants...is to help people. This scene has little to nothing to do with Peter's "selfish wants" in regard to wanting a normal life. It's about power not being the impetus behind heroism, and about him realizing he's not normal to begin with.

it's a great and brilliantly shot scene IMO except they needed a bigger doll

It's a decent scene, mostly because the concept is good. It's another "fire rescue", which we have seen, fairly poorly acted, and ludicrous in terms of conveneint things that happen. And about the time the girl pulled Peter to safety, I was taking it as a campy sequence instead of a serious one.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Fantastic, and I'm glad you pointed that out, but it has no bearing on my statement. This movie doesn't get a pass in this scene because other movies have similar scenes. I find si milar moments in other movies equally cheesy and unrealistic, and often absurd and poorly conceived. The same flaws in other movies does not make this scene any better. If the scene is attempting to show how that Peter can operate without powers, in a realistic way, it should do so, should it not?

Then you must spend your time not enjoying great scenes in fantasy movies because they aren't "realisitc" and hey who knows what a man can do when pushed

Congratulations, you missed the entire point of an incredibly simple scene. The scene shows, quite simply that Peter is a hero, whether he has powers or not, that in fact it is not his powers that make him a hero, just that his powers allow him an easier route to doing such things. And that what he really wants...is to help people. This scene has little to nothing to do with Peter's "selfish wants" in regard to wanting a normal life. It's about power not being the impetus behind heroism, and about him realizing he's not normal to begin with.

Congrats in your attempt to as usual be a pompous ass you missed the very simple point of my post that what lies in his heart is that he is a hero and that it takes presidence over his want to be normal and be with MJ
that's why it is followed by his attmepts to jump the building and get his powers working then his meeting with MJ in the cafe to tell her he can't be with her because of who he needs to be
i didn't figure i needed to enlarge on what the simple example of what lies in his heart covered in terms of narrative

It's a decent scene, mostly because the concept is good. It's another "fire rescue", which we have seen, fairly poorly acted, and ludicrous in terms of conveneint things that happen. And about the time the girl pulled Peter to safety, I was taking it as a campy sequence instead of a serious one

Good for you

 

[The Infernal]

Please watch "Superman the Movie" starring Christopher Reeve.....this is the article that Lois (Margot Kidder) writes after Superman comes to her apartment, is enterviewed, takes her on a flight around Metropolis, and she recites "Can you read my mind".

I can't be expected to remember every detail of a film I've only seen a handful of times.

Though I remember the 'Can you read my mind' part. That's one of the worst things in the original. Don't get me wrong, I like the original movie but there is a great deal of cheese and camp that you're forced to swallow.

 

[The Guard]

Then you must spend your time not enjoying great scenes in fantasy movies because they aren't "realisitc" and hey who knows what a man can do when pushed.

There are definitely some sequences in fantasy movies I find absurd due to the amount of contrived action and suspense, yes. After a certain point, it becomes "Oh, come ON!" I was referring, however, mostly to the small child who manages to help Peter from his precarious position hanging from the broken floorboards with absolutely no leverage. Or...is she a superhero, too? A superstrong man being able to lift something incredibly huge, I buy, because it's been established that he's superstrong. But where did the superstrong five year old come from?

Congrats in your attempt to as usual be a pompous ass you missed the very simple point of my post that what lies in his heart is that he is a hero and that it takes presidence over his want to be normal and be with MJ

Except that you applied that statement to the scene in question. And the scene in question does not back up your statement.

that's why it is followed by his attmepts to jump the building and get his powers working then his meeting with MJ in the cafe to tell her he can't be with her because of who he needs to be

What does any of that have to do with what this one particular scene shows?In your attempt to defend the scene thematically and narratively, you said, and I quote:

"The scene shows what lies in Peter's heart is bigger than his selfish wants."

Now, subsequent scenes do show that, but not the scene in question.

i didn't figure i needed to enlarge on what the simple example of what lies in his heart covered in terms of narrative

Really? Then why did you indeed "enlarge" on it by not just saying something about his heart, but by saying his actions in the scene had something to do with his heroism VS his selfish wants? (which it doesn't). We weren't discussing the narrative as a whole, period. We were discussing one particular scene. Not what that scene leads to. Peter and MJ in the cafe is a different scene entirely, and inapplicable as an explanation for the fire rescue scene.

 

[Hunter Rider]

There are definitely some sequences in fantasy movies I find absurd due to the amount of contrived action and suspense, yes. After a certain point, it becomes "Oh, come ON!" I was referring, however, mostly to the small child who manages to help Peter from his precarious position hanging from the broken floorboards with absolutely no leverage. Or...is she a superhero, too? A superstrong man being able to lift something incredibly huge, I buy, because it's been established that he's superstrong. But where did the superstrong five year old come from?

Ok,well i guess my tolerence levels for these moments are little different to yours which is fine

Except that you applied that statement to the scene in question. And the scene in question does not back up your statement.

What does any of that have to do with what this one particular scene shows?In your attempt to defend the scene thematically and narratively, you said, and I quote:

"The scene shows what lies in Peter's heart is bigger than his selfish wants."

Now, subsequent scenes do show that, but not the scene in question.



Really? Then why did you indeed "enlarge" on it by not just saying something about his heart, but by saying his actions in the scene had something to do with his heroism VS his selfish wants? (which it doesn't). We weren't discussing the narrative as a whole, period. We were discussing one particular scene. Not what that scene leads to. Peter and MJ in the cafe is a different scene entirely, and inapplicable as an explanation for the fire rescue scene.

You are correct,i was using the scene in context of the whole narrative as opposed to a stand alone scene and it's initial meaning which is his realisation that he is a hero as it's inside him no matter if he has powers
The rest of what i described is the fallout of that along with his talk with Aunt may that leads to the other things i mentioned
I admit it i was wrong in my basic argument

 

[The Guard]

What argument? We weren't arguing.

 

[Hunter Rider]

What argument? We weren't arguing.

I meant my argument as in my stance on defending a point that i realise i was wrong on,plus i did call you a pompous ass,sorry about that

 

[C. Lee]

Oh and another minor nitpick. Why the **** was young Clark wearing glasses?

Apparently it was a plot point that was cut out in the final edit.

Here is what is written on the back of card #32 of the "topps" Superman Returns movie trading cards:

YOUNG CLARK'S DISCOVERY
In the barn,young Clark notices that his glasses have fallen off. He squints and looks at the ground and as he focuses,he notices that his vision has changed. Clark suddenly realizes that he's not looking at the ground, but right through it! His x-ray vision reveals a small cellar beneath the soli caked floorboards, with a curious, tarp covered object stored away for safe keeping.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Apparently it was a plot point that was cut out in the final edit.

Here is what is written on the back of card #32 of the "topps" Superman Returns movie trading cards:

YOUNG CLARK'S DISCOVERY
In the barn,young Clark notices that his glasses have fallen off. He squints and looks at the ground and as he focuses,he notices that his vision has changed. Clark suddenly realizes that he's not looking at the ground, but right through it! His x-ray vision reveals a small cellar beneath the soli caked floorboards, with a curious, tarp covered object stored away for safe keeping.

Cool another flaw.

 

[C. Lee]

Cool another flaw.

There's several things on the cards not in the movie (like young Clark finding that buried spaceship, him holding one of the crystals, Ben Hubbard with Martha, etc...) I'll look at them again tomorrow and see what else.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I know I vaguely remember them and how we were supposed to get an explaination on why he was wearing them in the film.

 

[Showtime]

Apparently it was a plot point that was cut out in the final edit.

Here is what is written on the back of card #32 of the "topps" Superman Returns movie trading cards:

YOUNG CLARK'S DISCOVERY
In the barn,young Clark notices that his glasses have fallen off. He squints and looks at the ground and as he focuses,he notices that his vision has changed. Clark suddenly realizes that he's not looking at the ground, but right through it! His x-ray vision reveals a small cellar beneath the soli caked floorboards, with a curious, tarp covered object stored away for safe keeping.

FLASHBACK - INT. BARN - CONTINOUS

Clark falls, bracing for impact. But there is no impact. He opens his eyes, totally fine, except he's HOVERING horizontally, six inches above the ground. Amazed, Clark stands and DROPS AGAIN -- but still doesn't hit the ground. Noticing that his glasses fell off, he squints and looks at the ground, and his vision changes. Clark suddenly realizes he's not looking AT the ground, but THROUGH it.

XRAY POV: Beneath the soil-caked floorboards, he sees a small CELLAR, and inside is a strange egg-shaped object the size of a crib, covered by a tarp.

 

[terry78]

^Which we the audience never see. Thanks for that crucial film edit.

 

[The Sage]

^Which we the audience never see. Thanks for that crucial film edit.

At least until the DVD.

 

[Silver Lad]

I've been waiting for his review for some time as he is one of the toughest reviewers I've ever seen, he analyses every single detail.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=sr-movie-review6

It's a nice read, or at least good to skim through.

He gave the film an 8.5/10 with his major beef being the story of the kid and what it means to the films that will follow this one. I think we should judge this film on his own though without letting our speculations of what could happen in the sequels ruin the enjoyment of this film alone.

 

[charl_huntress]

Neal...gave it an 8.5?????????????????????????????????????????

Wow...wow...

 

[ervann]

From an Interview with ILM's John Knoll, SFX supervisor on POTC2 (and all 3 of the Star Wars prequels). When asked about what he thinks of the work done by other FX houses:

"I thought "King Kong" was fantastic. I think Sony does good work. Digital Domain and R&H have done really great work..."

Sony clearly seems to be last on his list or is it because it's much more of a rival to ILM?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I personally think the only thing this movie lacked is an epic feel to it, BB Spidey 2, Hulk and X2 all had an epic feel to them that elevates them above all other comic book movies, but SR lacked this IMO. The scene were he lifts New Krypton is a perfect example of this, Supes should have shown more effort and struggle when lifting it (Like Spidey screaming with effort to stop the train, Or Jean straining with effort to lift the X-Jet). Routh was excellent though.

But this was the only thing that brought the movie down IMO. It is a good movie, but just doesnt quite scale the heights of the top 5 or 6.

I really hope Singer gets to do a sequel as i think he would do some amazing things with it.

 

[LadyVader]

Oh, I think this movie is epic enough. What is he supposed to do?
Start muttering:
"Oh God, please don't let me drop it. Please don't let me drop it. Please don't let me drop it."
He damn nearly died from the effort.

And honestly. Jean didn't have that much of a hard time to lift the jet. IMO the movie had plenty of epic, but it lacked the other more basic stuff. Violence, humor, things to help you shut off your brain. Things that POTC2 seems to have plenty of.

 

[dark_b]

so what was jasons role in this movie? could it be something to do that superman was the only one?
at the beginning he says that he is the last. now he has a son. maybe now he doesnt feel alone anymore?

 

[GyLocke]

I was posting here for some time a year ago, with eager anticipation of a Superman movie. I was estatic when they casted Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. I was glad Singer is the director. All was well.

Unfortunatley I had a lot of work lately, so I could only get around seeing it last week.

To be honest, deep down, I decided to like it, just to shut the "naysayers" (most of my friends) up.

I couldn't.

The movie is so bad, like they wanted to screw it up.

Superman is the superhero archetype. He fights bad guys. He started out in a magazine called Action Comics. And he doesn't lay one punch during the whole movie. What the hell? We watch talking heads for hours and hours, and that for an incredible budget.

Singer needs to fire his accountant, his screenwriters, and then make some low budget films so he can study his profession a little again. Making Superman a chick flick is an unbelievable mistake. What were they thinking?

The only good thing that came out of it is Brandon Routh, who was pretty decent as Clark/Supes.

The effects were pretty too. So I'll give it a 3/10

I hope we'll get a reboot 15 years from now. (And that, I can work on it )

 

[logan_weapon_x]

I still in no way or form believe this movie is a chick flick, hell spider-man is alot more of a chick flick, but that's besides the point.

 

[GyLocke]

I wasn't a fan of Spider-man either, but emo as he was, at least he punched things

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I still in no way or form believe this movie is a chick flick, hell spider-man is alot more of a chick flick, but that's besides the point.

Hell...I thought I was watching Spider-Man with Marsden's character.