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

[The Riddler]

Ebert may be credible as a strong source for movie reviews, but there have also been negative reviews he's written on films that were very successful in terms of their overall appeal to the audiences and the Box Office.

read the rest of that sentence, and breath.

 

[Speedball]

I got a question. Is the title of the film in the opening credits the zooming text or the plain font we see on the poster?

I heard it was the classic zooming text.
Which ROCKS!

 

[Gamma Ray]

JBElliott, NateGray, and rondroid are just as bad as spammers.

 

[charl_huntress]

If Ebert didn't like it because I think the jury is still out on that fact...it's probably because of this

[/QUOTE]a story of unattainable, impossible love that aches with longing and sadness.[/QUOTE]

I read that it makes me nervous, but again...who care about reviews

 

[explode7]

Yeah and I bet they haven't even seen the movie.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I got a question. Is the title of the film in the opening credits the zooming text or the plain font we see on the poster?

Spoiler

It's the new and improved zooming texts.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Please remember that some was bound to hate it because it's not Welling nor is it Reeve.

I just wish some could go in with an open mind and just view the film for itself instead of bashing it at the beginning or believing a critic who types up a negative review.

Not everyone is going to like this film, but so far, the positives outweigh the negatives and I'm happy to be a contributor of the positive reviews.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Spoiler

It's the new and improved zooming texts.

Cool...thanks, but how so?

 

[user123456789]

Sorry Welling fans, Routh is Superman and you're just going to have to live with it.

Your review was great except for this.... just understand there are Welling fans (like me) who do NOT see him as Superman. I see him as Clark Kent in Smallville.

Brandon Routh = Superman, Kal-El, and Clark Kent (both in Smallville and Metropolis).

 

[Eggyman]

a bit cheeky, but anyway . . . did the film you guys watched have trailers, and if so did it have the spidey 3 trailer on it, and if so again was it any good? oh, by the way can't wait to watch superman, i live in england though, so i'll have to wait another 2 weeks - bummer.

 

[user123456789]

That's to bad because I thought it was a pretty good joke.

It was, lol.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

a bit cheeky, but anyway . . . did the film you guys watched have trailers, and if so did it have the spidey 3 trailer on it, and if so again was it any good? oh, by the way can't wait to watch superman, i live in england though, so i'll have to wait another 2 weeks - bummer.

Nah, then again the show I attended never reveal any cool trailers. All that was shown was a brand new Lady in the Water teaser trailer.

Looks like we'll have to wait till the 27th or 28th to see what new trailers are attached to SR.

 

[Nivek]

So, for Lady Vader, Last Sunsise, Strange, and anyone else who's seen the film, heres a good question....

When are you going to see it again?


BTW- Thank you Mod's for making a review thread a Sticky.

However, I think this poll should be rebooted, a couple of these people have NOT seen the film, like these A-holes who gave it a 1. I do like that it leaves names of who voted, just so it's obvious to whoever voted, biased opinions and all. shame on them, and the guys who did the same thing on the 10 rating as well.

 

[Binker]

Welling is the guy who doesn't want to wear the suit, even in Smallville.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

So, for Lady Vader, Last Sunsise, Strange, and anyone else who's seen the film, heres a good question....

When are you going to see it again?


BTW- Thank you Mod's for making a review thread a Sticky.

However, I think this poll should be rebooted, a couple of these people have NOT seen the film, like these A-holes who gave it a 1. I do like that it leaves names of who voted, just so it's obvious to whoever voted, biased opinions and all. shame on them, and the guys who did the same thing on the 10 rating as well.

I'm seeing it again on Wednesday and Friday.

 

[skruloos]

whats not logical, on trying to hold back negative reviews till the last min. I see that often in the videogame industry, where a chuck of game reviews are released after the game has hit the market. So its logical.

There's actually a few reasons why this occurs in the videogame industry. I used to work for a video game company in the Silicon Valley. Sometimes reviewers don't get a finished game in time for review before release. Some companies send out near final versions of games for reviews but reviewers refuse to run reviews on unfinished games.

 

[Nivek]

Wow, going to catch it that soon? Are you going to go see it at an IMAX if possible?

 

[AsteroidMan]

So, for Lady Vader, Last Sunsise, Strange, and anyone else who's seen the film, heres a good question....

When are you going to see it again?


BTW- Thank you Mod's for making a review thread a Sticky.

However, I think this poll should be rebooted, a couple of these people have NOT seen the film, like these A-holes who gave it a 1. I do like that it leaves names of who voted, just so it's obvious to whoever voted, biased opinions and all. shame on them, and the guys who did the same thing on the 10 rating as well.

I am keeping my ticked stubs (and half of the preview screening invitation) just in case anybody wants a proof...
Going again on 27th at 10pm, then to a company screening on 29th at 2pm, then on the July 1st with my fiance who returns from a trip, and then we will see what will happen...

(For the press screening I attended I woke up at 5:30am, was first in line in front of the theatre at 6:30am and got to see at 9:30am. A living geek! )

 

[Nivek]

You got your review up in the thread Asteroidman? Put up a link if it's from the other thread.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Wow, going to catch it that soon? Are you going to go see it at an IMAX if possible?

Well, unfortunately the nearest IMAX theater is about a two hour drive and I work on Tuesday.

I'll catch it on opening night and then my dad wants to see it on Friday, he's in law enforcement, so he won't be able to see it until Friday. So if all goes well I intend to keep that schedule.

 

[AsteroidMan]

You got your review up in the thread Asteroidman? Put up a link if it's from the other thread.

Nope, I don't feel qualified to review the movie. I am highly biased.

The fact I intend to watch it at least 3 more times (and then again when it comes to IMAX 3D in my end of the woods around probably ... September) should be good enough for a verdict

 

[Supermanila]

another negative review, a guy who thinks SR is worse than any of the 4 superman films released, including 3 and 4...

http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/review/3931/Superman Returns (Theatrical Film Review)

Superman Returns (Theatrical Film Review)



Stars: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, Parker Posey, James Marsden

Director: Bryan Singer

Critic's rating: 4 out of 10



Review by Chuck O'Leary



Superman returns to the big screen for the first time in 19 years, but he should have stayed lost. With the abundance of superhero movies in subsequent years, and the over-reliance of such films on CGI, the magic is long gone.



Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer's highly-anticipated revival of the franchise, is drab looking, underwhelming in almost every respect and inferior to all four of the Superman films that starred the late Christopher Reeve as the Man of Steel. Yes, that's right. Singer's film is even a step below the poorly-conceived Superman III (1983) and the cheesy Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987). But hey, at least it's better than Supergirl (1984).



The problems here are many, but I think Singer's biggest mistake was the decision not to shoot on regular 35mm film negative with Panavision anamorphic lenses. Instead, Singer and his cinematographer, Newton Thomas Sigel, decided to shoot it digitally with the new Panavision Genesis digital-HD camera with widescreen lenses. The result is a darker, uglier film that sorely lacks the vivid color of Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography on the first two Superman's, which were shot simultaneously in 1977-78, but released a couple years apart. You know something’s wrong in the new one when Superman's outfit constantly looks like it's in need of a good washing.



Even though Singer had the advantage of filmmaking technology that's light years ahead of where it was when the Reeve films were made, and a budget that some report as being $250 million, his Superman Returns fails to take flight due to a subpar screenplay, inconsistent pacing and too-dark photography that would be more appropriate for a Batman film than a Superman adventure. Singer and Sigel can rationalize the decision to shoot this digitally all they want, but for a production this big, the finished product just doesn't look very good. Whether the actual production budget was $150 million or $250 million, all the money they spent simply doesn't look like it's up on the screen.



While Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman II (1981) captured just the right mixture of camp and high adventure, Superman Returns takes itself too seriously and drags throughout for much of its 147 minutes. While Reeve look-alike Brandon Routh is about as good of a replacement for Reeve as you're likely to find, he's not given enough to do. As Clark Kent, he's not allowed to do enough stumbling and bumbling and as Superman there's not enough scenes of him being heroic. It also doesn't help that he's paired with a Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) who lacks the spunky, quirky appeal of Margot Kidder. In fact, none of this movie has the personality and vibrancy of the earlier films.



As chrome-domed megalomaniac Lex Luthor and his ditsy girlfriend Kitty Kowalski, Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey have their moments, and the film is liveliest when they're on screen, but they're not nearly as much fun as Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine were as Luthor and his sidekicks, the hilariously incompetent Otis and the sexy Miss Teschmacher. And when the talking head of Jor-El (Marlon Brando) appears via archive footage for a few minutes in Superman Returns, it only stands as a reminder of how much better and how much better cast the 1978 film was -- too high of a price tag is the only plausible explanation for why Bruce Willis wasn't cast as Lex Luthor.



Just compare the scenes in Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns where the Man of Steel takes Lois for a fly. In the '78 film it was a sequence filled with wonder and awe. In Singer's film, like everything else, this sequence is comparatively flat.



Superman Returns has our hero returning to Metropolis after a five-year absence, just in time to again battle Luthor, who's out of prison and once again bent on world domination, only this time with the help of some powerful crystals he stole from the remains of Krypton. But the big story for Superman this time is that Lois Lane got married during his absence, to Perry White's nephew, Richard (James Marsden), and has a 5-year-old son. Could the kid really be Superman's biological son? You do the math, and consider what's likely to keep the franchise going and going, and will give Warner Bros. an immediate excuse to replace Routh in the unlikely case this bombs.



Singer showed great promise with the first two major films he directed (The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil) before selling out to become a hack specializing in CGI-heavy comic-book fare. Part of the problem here is Warner Bros. entrusted this revival of Superman to the creative team behind a bad, albeit profitable, movie, X-2: X-Men United. But Singer, Sigel and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris don't even come close to matching the pedigree of talent producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind assembled for Superman 1 & 2, from the higher-powered cast to director Donner (who also helmed at least two-thirds of II even though Richard Lester gets sole directing credit) to cinematographer Unsworth to a legion of writers that included Mario Puzo, Robert Benton, David Newman and Tom Mankiewicz.



Very telling is that the best thing about Superman Returns is the recycled part of the musical score where John Ottman simply reuses many of the memorable themes John Williams originally composed all those years ago for Superman: The Movie.



It's also very telling when Superman comes back and Daily Planet editor Perry White (Frank Langella) asks, "Does he still stand for truth, justice and all that other stuff?" "All that other stuff?" Superman always stood for "truth, justice and the American way." Suddenly, what's so wrong with saying "the American way?" Has modern-day Hollywood really become this unpatriotic or are they overly concerned about the sensitivities of the increasingly important international market? Either way, the fact that they're either too chicken or embarrassed to say "the American way" is insulting.



There are enough predisposed-to-love-it, fantasy-loving fanboys out there to almost guarantee a good to great box-office gross for Superman Returns. But is there one part of this movie people will be still talking about 8 weeks from now, let alone 28 years from now? I think not.

 

[Nivek]

^^ Yeah, no grudge there...

 

[Kane]

Hahahah wow...

Now that was taking obsession with the campy 70s/80s films to a whole new level.

I'd imagine Ebert's review will be similar.

 

[Asgard]

Audience reactions?