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

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.Howlett
  • Start date Start date

How good was Superman Returns?

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Man you have people in here freaking out over one review that doesnt mean a damn. And then you have folks like Thunder laughing because its bad...Here is a thought. Grow up. Both sides are acting like children right now.

So there is a bad review so what. And Thunder? Get a clue. The man also gave Fast and Furious 3 and Garfield 2 three stars. So any arguement you were going to make about Superman Returns holds no water. Just both sides back off. It's going to happen people. The question is who and who isnt going to act like an a**.
 
Well, let´s not forget Ebert also wrote negative reviews of the first Spider-man and X-Men movies... Didn´t really hurt their performances, did it?
 
ultimatefan said:
I will at least recognize that Ratner and his crew honestly and passionately tried to do a great X-Men movie, and in some moments, they did.

How can Ratner & Crew passionately try to make a great X-Men Movie when they bowed down to all of FOX's demand's ? Ratner, the Writer's all had no Freedom to do what they wanted & the Writer's blame all bad decision's on FOX. FOX need's to start giving Director's the Freedom to make THEIR MOVIE the only thing Ratner may have changed was The Final Act but that was it no one else had any say once so ever. FOX is a ****ed up Studio & you are more when welcome to think Ratner & crew tried their hardest to make a good Movie but that is almost impossible with a ****ed up Studio like FOX. I do not blame Ratner with how the The Last Stand turned out I purely blame FOX & the Writer's
 
ProductionMusic said:
How can Ratner & Crew passionately try to make a great X-Men Movie when they bowed down to all of FOX's demand's ? Ratner, the Writer's all had no Freedom to do what they wanted & the Writer's blame all bad decision's on FOX. FOX need's to start giving Director's the Freedom to make THEIR MOVIE the only thing Ratner may have changed was The Final Act but that was it no one else had any say once so ever. FOX is a ****ed up Studio & you are more when welcome to think Ratner & crew tried their hardest to make a good Movie but that is almost impossible with a ****ed up Studio like FOX. I do not blame Ratner with how the The Last Stand turned out I purely blame FOX & the Writer's
Well, they bowed down cuz it was the only way to get the movie made, Fox owns the franchise... Imagine what it COULD have been if it had been handed to people who really didn´t give a ****... It´s like Zak says, you win some of the battles, you lose others. A lot of the problems with the movie are the battles they lost.
 
ProductionMusic said:
Which is the most ****ed up way to make a Movie to make it just to make it
Well, they didn´t bow down to everything... Like I said, you fight the battles, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
 
ultimatefan said:
Well, they didn´t bow down to everything... Like I said, you fight the battles, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

& even the stuff they did win the decisions were poorly made & done to make FOX happy so if you ask me they lost all battles
 
ProductionMusic said:
& even the stuff they did win the decisions were poorly made & done to make FOX happy so if you ask me they lost all battles
Whatever.
 
ultimatefan said:
Well, they bowed down cuz it was the only way to get the movie made, Fox owns the franchise... Imagine what it COULD have been if it had been handed to people who really didn´t give a ****... It´s like Zak says, you win some of the battles, you lose others. A lot of the problems with the movie are the battles they lost.
So...we should come at it from the angle of "at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been?"

Fox has a history of hiring smaller, lesser known directors because they can control the production and they don't have to give the director final cut. David Fincher, Mark Steven Johnson, Bryan Singer, and Brett Ratner are just a few examples of that mentality. There are directors like Singer and James Cameron who stuck to their guns and fought the studio and were rewarded by good products. But Fox, inevitably, mucks up a good formula.

So yes, X3 could have been far worse than it was. But it could also have been far better. And that's what makes it all the worse. It had so much potential.
 
skruloos said:
So...we should come at it from the angle of "at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been?"

Fox has a history of hiring smaller, lesser known directors because they can control the production and they don't have to give the director final cut. David Fincher, Mark Steven Johnson, Bryan Singer, and Brett Ratner are just a few examples of that mentality. There are directors like Singer and James Cameron who stuck to their guns and fought the studio and were rewarded by good products. But Fox, inevitably, mucks up a good formula.

So yes, X3 could have been far worse than it was. But it could also have been far better. And that's what makes it all the worse. It had so much potential.
Which I agree with. I don´t think we should go with "at least it´s not THAT bad" anymore than "it sucks cuz it could have been THAT good". But see it as it is. A very flawed movie, yes, but not terrible by any means, IMO.
 
The Ebert controversy trucks on right as planned. This is fun to read, sorta. Like Independence Day was fun to watch. Sorta.
 
So, lets cleanse the palate here. A lot of you are saying it's the FAN REVIEWS that you're sitting around waiting for, since they speak more directly to you. Here's fan "Litmus Configuration" from the CHUD.com messageboards, with his take:

On the plus side, SUPERMAN RETURNS seems to have its heart in the right place. The humor and romance work really well. Clark/Superman/Kal-El (thanks largely to Routh) is still a character to rally behind. The cast, in general, all does a great job. And there are fun, crowd-pleasing moments: the shuttle/777 rescue, Clark's dog chasing his baseball, Luthor's thug playing piano with Lois' kid, Clark enjoying a mouthful of burrito seconds after Lois' night flight with Supes, Lois running into Lex coming out of the bathroom...all fun stuff.

On the downside, the film is missing its brain. Luthor's big plan is so incredibly ill-conceived and bizarre, it derails most of the movie. I mean, after the not-nearly-as-cool-as-they-should-have-been opening credits, the film actually starts with Luthor. So right off the bat, his plot is set in motion and dominates much of the film. Luthor's plot to split-off half of California in the first film might have been comically over-the-top but it made sense. Luthor's plot this time, to create a blackened, muddied, Kryptonite-laced supercontinent grown (nonsensically) from one of the Kryptonian data crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude in the hopes of selling beachfront condos, is absolutely absurd. Who would want to live there? Newly-formed California beachfront as the result of an earthquake following a botched government missle test? Yes. Cold, lifeless, dirty crystaline mass that destroyed most of the U.S. that supposedly killed "billions"? No. Say what you will about Hackman's "goofy" Lex in the first film...at least he had a brain. Spacey's Lex is meaner, more violent (a couple of moments made me cringe, actually) and occasionally, just as funny. But with the big picture, he's also fairly clueless.

And yes, as Devin said, the film ends and then goes on and on and on, including a situation I never needed to see Superman in, but that might be too much of a spoiler at this point, so I'll save it.

I hope Singer's next SUPERMAN film improves upon his first the same way X2 improved upon X-MEN. He's got a very good cast in place. He just needs a better story and more focus on what's he doing. Whereas BATMAN BEGINS felt in-the-zone (for the most part), RETURNS feels scattered-brained, trying so desperately to recapture the magic of the first film but forgetting what made the first film magical.

My two cents, anyway.

Interesting thing--one of my movie critic friends who writes for the major metropolitan paper here in town pretty much ECHOES his sentiments, to the letter. These sound like very valid complaints.
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
"Who would want to live there?"

I think the idea there is nobody would have a choice.

The rest of the post sounds like a junior high kid who wants to be the cool guy by rejecting something popular.
 
So people would say "think X-Men 1". If that, then I'm fine.

Good, not great. Still positive.

Right?
 
Well, supervillain plans always sound kind of absurd when you think about it. Doc Ock was clearly in denial to think his fusion experiment was actually working. Gotham would become a better place if all population tore the city apart in mass panic? And who would want to live in California aware that some maniac caused a major Earthquake with a nuclear bomb just to separate it from the rest of the country?
 
ultimatefan said:
Well, supervillain plans always sound kind of absurd when you think about it. Doc Ock was clearly in denial to think his fusion experiment was actually working. Gotham would become a better place if all population tore the city apart in mass panic? And who would want to live in California aware that some maniac caused a major Earthquake with a nuclear bomb just to separate it from the rest of the country?

Doc Ock's "plan" may or may not have made scientific sense in the real world, but his purpose made plenty of sense.
 
cmill216 said:
Doc Ock's "plan" may or may not have made scientific sense in the real world, but his purpose made plenty of sense.

Well, so does Lex's.
 
monsterballs said:
I think the idea there is nobody would have a choice.

I was goign to say the same thing. They would really have no choice. Plus no one could touch him and powerful people would want what he has (self sustaining land, advanced alien technology) and they would be willign to pay out their asses to get it.
 
Wow, it's good/news bad news on the review front.

The good news is: Ebert didn't like Superman Returns (He did like Spider-Man either and I loved it)

The bad news is: A comment from Nick on the chud boards point to a less than glowing review, (I generally like his reviews) time will tell which one i agree with.
 
And since it is laced with Kryptonite...Superman can't stay there.
 
Clealry not everyone is gonna like it but overall it seems SR kicks asscheeks:up:
 
bsquad said:
I was goign to say the same thing. They would really have no choice. Plus no one could touch him and powerful people would want what he has (self sustaining land, advanced alien technology) and they would be willign to pay out their asses to get it.

but with civilization destroyed, wouldn't money be useless?
 
Wesyeed said:
but with civilization destroyed, wouldn't money be useless?
Not to Lex... He´d own everything. it´s a take over the world plan, typical comic book villain thing.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,461
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"