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

[logan_weapon_x]

I know some of you guys think that its a chick flick and i'm not disrespecting your views, I just really don't feel that it was.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I don't think it was hugely more of a chick flick than other comic book films. I do feel that whole kid angle was dumb and Richard was nothing but a John Jameson clone though.

 

[nogster]

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.

why the hell is a pre superman clark kent wearing sunglasses for anyway.
WTF. does singer get superman at all?
he wears the sunglasses as a DISGUISE. man the writers ballsed up supermans return to the big screen.

 

[The Sage]

Not surprised, he truly is a tough reviewer. He puts Smallville through the ringer every chance he gets.

 

[terry78]

I think it's labeled chick flick because most of the story seems to be focusing on the jilted lover, the son that may or may not be yours, and jealousy. Granted, we all go through it, but as guys, a lot of us don't want to deal with that when we watch a movie.

 

[Matt.S99]

well my review its 12/10 yes i liked it that much

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I think it's labeled chick flick because most of the story seems to be focusing on the jilted lover, the son that may or may not be yours, and jealousy. Granted, we all go through it, but as guys, a lot of us don't want to deal with that when we watch a movie.

Well I think it is getting to the point of beyond cliche. I for one would like to see a superhero film that doesn't require a love interest. But we will always get one because studios want that female money.

 

[J.Howlett]

His criticism of Lois is all wrong. The entire time that Lois is on the screen, she's of two minds; wanting to love Superman and resenting Superman.

After the night flight, her attitude toward Superman is totally different. She's not mean to Clark because it's Clark. She's mean and *****y to everyone because the man of her dreams has dropped right back into her life and she's an emotional wreck to no end. She doesn't know what to make of any of this.

The night flight puts everything into perspective for her and she's a different character after that scene.

He was way too harsh on the characterization of Lois.

 

[Bad Superman]

"Steve Younis didn't write it, so don't yell at him. Yell at me if you take issue. If a sternly worded letter to Steve were enough to get me fired, it would have years ago when the first came in. You don't have to read this, and I do it all for free."

There's no reason for him to do that. If fans don't like his review, well, that's too bad. Rabid fanboys should not be given the power to decide over his job.

 

[kal-el2006]

lmao@ fifty ones ratings and 231 tens ratings ..comedy

 

[redlion2]

I finally saw it last nite. I had a few (many to be exact) problems with this film but overall, I liked it. I gave it a 7

 

[skruloos]

I don't think it was hugely more of a chick flick than other comic book films. I do feel that whole kid angle was dumb and Richard was nothing but a John Jameson clone though.

I would almost agree with the John Jameson thing but their similarities are completely superficial. Richard is a pretty fleshed out character in this film. What do we really see of Jameson? He tries kissing MJ upside down? He walks down the stairs with her? He's there at the end of the film?

 

[Darthphere]

I know some of you guys think that its a chick flick and i'm not disrespecting your views, I just really don't feel that it was.

But Singer said SR was his first chick flick?

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I would almost agree with the John Jameson thing but their similarities are completely superficial. Richard is a pretty fleshed out character in this film. What do we really see of Jameson? He tries kissing MJ upside down? He walks down the stairs with her? He's there at the end of the film?

Okayyyy so just because Marsden's character is given a bigger part it is okay to copycat another character from another comic book?? If you love the movie thats fine but quit defending every ****ing thing.

 

[Showtime]

The only relation to the characters of Richard and John is that they are boyfriends of the hero's love interest, or if you want to get technical, boyfriends of the protagonists love interest. Which has been done time and time again in many movies. I understand the other similarities, but I didn't see him as a clone.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

The only relation to the characters of Richard and John is that they are boyfriends of the hero's love interest, or if you want to get technical, boyfriends of the protagonists love interest. Which has been done time and time again in many movies. I understand the other similarities, but I didn't see him as a clone.

You seem to be forgetting that both of them are related to the boss of the newspaper. Oh and Richard flies planes while John pilots space shuttles. Yeah...not a clone...sure. I am not saying it was purposely done but Singer or someone else making this movie should have said "Hey this guy is a little too similar to a character that really exists in the comics."

 

[Showtime]

You seem to be forgetting that both of them are related to the boss of the newspaper. Oh and Richard flies planes while John pilots space shuttles. Yeah...not a clone...sure. I am not saying it was purposely done but Singer or someone else making this movie should have said "Hey this guy is a little too similar to a character that really exists in the comics."

I didn't forget, I was including that in my..."I understand the other similarities"...comment. It's not that I can't see your point, because you can't really argue the attributes are the same. I am taking the stance that Richard seemed much more relevant in the story than did John.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I didn't forget, I was including that in my..."I understand the other similarities"...comment. It's not that I can't see your point, because you can't really argue the attributes are the same. I am taking the stance that Richard seemed much more relevant in the story than did John.

Uh I know that and I already said just giving Marsden a bigger role doesn't justify the character being almost identical to John Jameson. Sorry but to me the character was basically a copy.

 

[Showtime]

Uh I know that and I already said just giving Marsden a bigger role doesn't justify the character being almost identical to John Jameson. Sorry but to me the character was basically a copy.

I think Richard was a very likable character and was played well. What did John even say in the movie. You could also look at it the other way.
-Richard flies a seaplane but John flies space shuttles
-Richard works for the Daily Planet but John is employed by Nasa

You can really go on and on with the differences and similarities, same with Clark and Peter Parker, Superman and Spiderman. Doesn't mean they are copies of the characters they play in my opinion. I think Richard having a bigger role signifies a difference in their characters.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I think Richard was a very likable character and was played well. What did John even say in the movie. You could also look at it the other way.
-Richard flies a seaplane but John flies space shuttles
-Richard works for the Daily Planet but John is employed by Nasa

You can really go on and on with the differences and similarities, same with Clark and Peter Parker, Superman and Spiderman. Doesn't mean they are copies of the characters they play in my opinion. I think Richard having a bigger role signifies a difference in their characters.

Uhhh where did I say Richard wasn't likeable and wasn't played well?? In fact I think Marsden had the best performance of the film and I ended up liking him more than I did Superman. But you can't convince me otherwise that Richard is pretty much John Jameson the expanded version. Whoever "created" the character was just lazy.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The "other man" character is an archetype often found in these films,it's the characters personality that defines him not his role and Richard is a completely different character who functions on multiple levels of purpose within the movie

 

[GL's Light]

I'm wavering between a 7/10 rating and an 8/10 one. I'll be generous and go with the latter.

The good:

Ottman's music, the cinematography, the editing, and the action setpieces all had a finely polished quality to them.

Spacey, Posey, Langella, and Huntington were well-cast and turned in fine performances. Posey provided welcome comic relief. James Marsters was in fine form as Richard White (although that had a problematic side - more on this later).

I may be in the minority on this, but I think Kate Bosworth made a fine Lois Lane. It's a fair criticism that she looks a little too young, but I think her performance was good enough to overcome that. And I liked Jason - I think he stayed just the right side of cutesy to be endearing rather than annoying.

The plot and scripting were good for the most part. Luthor's plot to make New Krypton rise from the sea was suitably epic and menacing, and there were many scenes that were artfully constructed.

The mediocre:

Brandon Routh. He was a disappointment as Superman (and even more of one as Clark Kent). He just doesn't have much screen prescence. His performance came off like a pale imitation of Christopher Reeve. Singer's decision to try to find a Chris Reeve substitute was misguided and didn't work out.

I suppose it's fortunate that Routh actually doesn't have that much dialogue in the film, since when he's in action as Superman, sans dialogue, is when he's at his best. Now, Routh wasn't terrible, he didn't ruin the film, but he held it back, and there are definitely better actors out there to fill the boots of the Man of Steel.

The number and length of the action setpieces: There weren't enough of them and they weren't long enough. Not for a $ 200 million film, anyway. What was on the screen was very polished, but $ 200 million should buy a level of spectacle that's off the chart, especially when the budget doesn't have to provide for any huge salaries. Singer didn't get enough out of his budget.

The bad:

There was one serious hiccup in the scripting. Richard, Lois and Jason are basically a happy family until Superman comes along, pretty much stalks them a little, and then busts them up. This is exacerbated by James Marsden having a very likable screen prescence, and playing a really decent, courageous guy. There's a mismatch on screen between Routh and Marsden in screen charisma and likability, and it's Routh who comes off second best.

 

[Dark Knight]

Exactly. I mean out of 10 friends that saw the film, that I have asked if they liked the film or not.....7 out 10 said they liked it. Most critics liked the film....
The general public liked the film. The problem when it came to making the most money was two things....not having a Metallo or Braniac to fight and WB's fault in choosing to open the film a week before Depp and Pirates 2? (which was a very dumb move) It should get to about 290 WW maybe more...and then make way more money on the DVD Extended Cut version.

I originally thought BB was slightly better than Returns, but I rethought that and I now KNOW that BB was a far better overall film than Returns.

 

[Showtime]

Uhhh where did I say Richard wasn't likeable and wasn't played well?? In fact I think Marsden had the best performance of the film and I ended up liking him more than I did Superman. But you can't convince me otherwise that Richard is pretty much John Jameson the expanded version. Whoever "created" the character was just lazy.

I didn't say that you had a problem with Richard, I was stating that I thought he was likeable?

It's not my job to convince you that John and Richard aren't a clone of one another, it's the job of the director and the writers to use creativity during production. If you think that Richard is an expanded version of John it doesn't bother me, I just don't feel that way.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I didn't say that you had a problem with Richard, I was stating that I thought he was likeable?

It's not my job to convince you that John and Richard aren't a clone of one another, it's the job of the director and the writers to use creativity during production. If you think that Richard is an expanded version of John it doesn't bother me, I just don't feel that way.

Well it seemed to me that you were impling that I hated Marsden and the role. That is not that the case at all.