Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I saw Superman Returns last night. Ask me anything! SPOILERS!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 08:17 AM
Original message
I saw Superman Returns last night. Ask me anything! SPOILERS!!!
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 08:26 AM by wyldwolf
Superman Returns is getting mostly good reviews. There are some bad reviews, however, and I'd like to address some of the criticisms in the context of my review of the movie.

I firmly believe that the most of the negativity directed at this film stems from a nostalgic fondness for Christopher Reeve and the 1978 classic, Superman The Movie. Now, there has never been a bigger fan of Reeve and his first portrayal of the character as I am but, as some may remember, even that movie received a fair share of bad press in 1978. They said Reeve was too skinny. They said the flying scenes looked fake. They said reversing the earth's rotation to turn back time was silly. They said the movie tanked after the first hour. I didn't agree with any of it, but critics will be critics and fans can be quite possessive of what they see as "theirs."

After all, my dad never liked Chris Reeve. He grew up watching George Reeves and thought the 1978 movie was long, dull, and overblown.

Now, almost 30 years later, its easy to forget the film's low points because what worked worked so well. Such is the same with Superman Returns.

So here is where I differ with the negative press:

Kevin Spacey - Despite reviews to the contrary, I believe Spacey's Luthor had the most to work with but did the least with it. I'd read that he didn't try to model his character after Gene Hackman's portrayal, but IMO, he wasn't even as good in the role as Michael Rosenbaum from "Smallville." I'm not saying his portrayal was bad, but I just expected more from Kevin Spacey. When I saw Superman, I didn't miss Chris Reeve. When I saw Lois, I didn't miss Margot Kidder. When I saw Spacey, I did miss Hackman.

Kate Bosworth - Again, I'm going to disagree with most critics. I think she gave a solid performance. I mean, what were we expecting from Lois Lane? Did we think she would swoon for Superman the second she saw him? Did we hope she'd become an emotional wreck in Superman's absence? Lois Lane, since the 60s, has always been a strong, modern, independent woman. Of course she has moved on. Of course she's going to treat Superman with cool, even cold, indifference. Of course she hasn't waited for him.

Interesting that some critics are, well, critical of her performance because she isn't enough like Margot Kidder. Yet they are critical of new Superman Brandon Routh because (they say) he is too much like Christopher Reeve... but he isn't. Not really.

Brandon Routh - Routh is Superman. Period. But a modern Superman. An emotional one. He feels pain - both physical and emotional. He does what WE do when we've lost the love of our life. He broods. He schemes. He flies by her house hoping to catch a glimpse. He does good deeds, not only because he feels compelled to, but because he wants to be accepted. He hasn't forgotten that his Kryptonian mother told his father that he would be odd and different. An outcast.

And he gets his ass kicked. Oh yes he does. If you've ever thought the overgrown boyscout needed a good ass kicking, you'll be happy. I don't believe you've ever seen a superhero taken down like this before. Watching him being kicked to the ground and dragged across the rocks with is arms flailing was shocking.

I honestly don't believe Routh borrowed much from Reeve in his portrayal of Superman. Even as Clark, Routh is a little less nerdy. He's more like the kind of guy no one ever notices, as opposed to the bumbling and clumsy oaf.

The kid - Honestly, he works in this movie. But I don't want to see a sequel that shows a kid coming of age with super powers. I see that every week in "Smallville."

The Plot:

Ah, another bone of contention with a few critics. Some have said the movie has a weak plot. But it isn't any weaker or stronger than the 1978 classic. Luthor still has a passion for real estate, and has hatched a diabolical plot to create a continent. Here, the movie borrows from a relatively new piece of Superman lore - the eradicator - a device created to preserve Kryptonian heritage. Essentially, if the eradicator is deployed, it will destroy everything in its path en route to creating a "new" Krypton.

The kid is a compelling back story.

The effects:

You will believe a man can fly. No, really, you will.

The airplane rescue scene is breathtaking.

The CGI is almost perfect.

Superman's hair blows in the wind.

All in all, a quite satisfying summer movie.

**** 1/2 out of 5!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree
but my main plot hole issues, are they didn't explain his abscene good enough...I know why he left, and what happened because he left...but no real discussion of "what happened, while he was gone?" He was gone for 5yrs and all he had to say was "it was a graveyard." Same with Clark Kents excuse, they didn't expand, or discuss it at length at all....

But everything else, is great....I have seen a ton of movies, and there are quite a few things that I HAVE NEVER SEEN DONE ON FILM, in this movie....and yes, you will believe a man can fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. that's because Singer cut out about 20 minutes of the Krypton sequence...
..DVD special edition stuff now.

In the sequence, we were to see a Krypton that was dead, devestated. Even with piece of the planet separated and now moons. We would have seen the original "dome" covering shattered. Crumbled buildings, etc.

It was literally cut at the last minute to trim the movie's length.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. damn it
I knew he cut things from the begining, but I didnt know they cut that much. Sad, they should have left it in! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. Also
Singer had a job on his hands...dealing with Superman The Movie, aka Christopher Reeve fans, comic book fans, and the average movie goer at the same time, while trying to do something knew...plus trying to give respect to Christopher Reeve, who was a great superman...it had a job on his hands...

What I expected, of this movie happened. I figured Singer would do a semi creation story...basically rehashing where superman came from, and setting up the mythos of superman...I expect, superman returns II to have a TON more action sequences...remember Xmen the movie was rather action bland, but heavy story driven, and Xmen II had a lot more action...thats what i'm expecting with superman returns II...

I'm going to go watch it again friday night...I am a solid 8 out of 10, on this movie...I had to stew on it for a while this morning, and there were some GREAT sequences, and little nuances in this film, that most people would probably miss the first time around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. exactly. Though I would never compare Reeve to Adam West's Batman...
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 12:22 PM by wyldwolf
... I got the same feeling I did when I first saw Keaton as Batman. I was used to Adam West's campy character but suddenly had a more complex emotionally driven portrayal. Routh's Superman is superior to Reeve's, not because of acting (Reeve is better), but because the the character was written better this time.

Plus, I think this movie will appeal to women more than the Reeve vehicles. Lois having to choose between the man she loves and the man who treats her best is classic chick flick material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radio_Lady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Completely agree with you on this one. Husband wants to see it, too.
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 07:38 PM by Radio_Lady
We'll feather the nest of Regal Cinemas and Warner Brothers with our cash -- probably over this long weekend!

Our Portland group of reviewers was pretty split -- some liked "Superman Returns" very much; a couple others didn't.

What's it doing on www.metacritic.com tonight? I'll check it!

Update: Rated 72 out of 100 with movie critics (Generally Favorable Reviews) and 7.3 out of 10 from moviegoers.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/supermanreturns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yahoo! Critics - B; Yahoo! Movie goers -B+
Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 05:10 AM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackDragna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. You enjoyed it more than I did.
Spacey did the most with the least. I'm sorry, but Luthor in this movie was an unscary bore. He was given a cross between droll one-liners and ridiculous arm-waving.

The plot was terrible. Nothing important happens. Superman comes back, then doesn't even save the world except through Deus ex Machina. He walks right into Luthor's trap, apparently not at all expecting or prepared for Luthor using kryptonite. Also a charming lack of interest by the U.S. military in the giant storm and island formed just off the coast of America's biggest city.

This movie should have been titled "Superman catches falling things." That's all he does, throughout the whole movie. I felt like I was watching a replay of Superman I and II. The same tired stuff, rehashed again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. to each his own, but...
several points:

1. I didn't say about Spacey what you said I did.
2. The plot was similar to the '78 original. If it is terrible now, its terrible then.
3. Well, not only did we not see interest by the U.S. military in the giant storm and island formed just off the coast of America's biggest city, we didn't see it covered by Time Magazine or FOX News. We didn't see Lois getting dressed that morning. We didn't see the three Kryptonian villians frozen at the fortress, we don't know what happened to Otis...etc., etc.,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. RE: We didn't see the three Kryptonian villians frozen at the fortress
Richard Donners original scene got cut but will be restored in the re-release of Superman II.

The villans did not die. They lost there powers and Superman had the authorities come and pick them up, along with Luthor. Then, since everyone knew its location now, Superman destroys the fortress of solitude.

I think the interview is one of the special features of the CD soundtrack, which I purchased yesterday after a long hunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cannikin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. and I Imagine Otis got more time for his attemted jail break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. nah
I hear he wanted to stay in longer, cause he was captain of the prison chess team...;) :) Have you seen it yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. hey bud!*spoilers*
you forgot about cannibal pomerianians!

Superman Returns II:Attack of Kittie's Cannibal Pom Army...:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmandaRuth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just got back, a good, not great movie
I enjoyed Kevin Spacey, but, although I like Parker Posey quite a bit, she is no Miss Tessmocker

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pointblank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
15. I saw it last night and I agree with your synopsis for the most part
Also I saw it at an IMAX theatre. I wasn't sure that I would enjoy the IMAX 3-d thing, but I'll tell you what...it was THE ONLY way to see this movie. I was actually jumping out of my seat at certain points!

My 2 cents:

Listen, no matter what, this movie was going to be hard to live up to with Reeve's ill fated accident, paralysis and recent deathnot to mention the whole nostalgia factor. But I give props to Singer and Routh for actually pulling off the near impossible. I immediately accepted Routh WAS Superman, which I thought would be tough. Reeves IS Superman to me because I grew up loving those movies...I almost forgot Reeves wasn't in the movie.

I think Spacey was a good Luthor, if not a much more sinister one than Hackman. Its hard not to think of Spacey as anything but...well, Spacey.

Parker Posey was great. period. (she's also a big time hottie IMO)

Kate Bosworth was good as Lois Lane. Certainly not as annoying as Margot Kidder.

The guy who played Jimmy , NAILED IT.... IMO.

The whole Superman's son story was dealt with perfectly. I was waiting for the kid to start flying around in the end and save the world....THANK GOD that didn't happen. If Michael Bay would have directed it, he would have gone that route I bet, but Singer dealt with it subtly and pulled it off.

The plot wasn't the greatest, but neither were the old ones really. At least this movie HAD a plot...cant say that for most modern summer blockbusters.

All in all Singer pulled off what most directors could not have...A worthy reprisal of a classic 70's fantasy genre that many people, including myself, hold dear to their hearts and grew up with. Sadly I can't say the same for George Lucas, and HE made the orignals!

****1/2 out of 5 as well from me!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
16. gay jesus in tights
self-absorbed voyeur with a cape

the barest suggestion of a plot

extremely unriveting not-quite-action sequences

:shrug:

It was worth the price of admission, but not quite the adventure I expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC