Superman Returns...4 stars

[thxleo]

Just got thru watching "Superman Returns" and it was awesome. There is a nod to "Batman" in the film and even..."Sleeping Beauty". I don't want to give away anything important before everyone else has a chance to watch it, so go see it!

[Arcades057]

Is this on par with Batman Begins, which I feel blew away all of the older movies, with the exception maybe of the first?

[Bunker65]

Can't wait to see this :). I have my tickets for the 10:00pm showing tonight !! :cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I have read some reviews on the film and some message board comments on the "Tuh-Mater" and Imdb.Com.

Superman Returns will be a rental for me. I have no interest in seeing this film. I think this is one superhero that should have let rest in peace.

[bassman]

I have read some reviews on the film and some message board comments on the "Tuh-Mater" and Imdb.Com.

Superman Returns will be a rental for me. I have no interest in seeing this film. I think this is one superhero that should have let rest in peace.

Translation:
"If it's somewhat popular....count me out"
:p

I'll hopefully be seeing it this week. I just hope it follows more along the lines of Richard Donner's original and they don't make it too "new"

[LouCipherr]

What do you mean, Dj? c'mon, it's on par with how hollywood thinks now.

"That film doesn't need to be remade, eh? Ok, listen.. we've greenlighted the remake.. get to work" :rolleyes:

The Fog, DOTD, NOTL (in 3d HAH!), Superman, King Kong, The Longest Yard, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of Wax.. the list of terrible remakes goes on and on and continues to this day, why should Superman be any different, I guess..

Same sh*t, only deeper man.. :confused:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Translation:
"If it's somewhat popular....count me out"
:p

I'll hopefully be seeing it this week. I just hope it follows more along the lines of Richard Donner's original and they don't make it too "new"


That is the problem bassman, it is too new from what I understand and doesn't really follow the Donner formula, which shouldn't be an issue. Bryan Singer is a different director than Richard Donner. The previews don't really impress me, however, I have read the Spider-Man teaser appears before Superman.

I never really liked Superman anyway, I always felt Batman or Spider-Man were better superhero's because they are real people were as Superman is an Alien (Yes he is an Alien) and doesn't have or understand the human traits as well as Sipdey and Batman does.

[Bunker65]

I never really liked Superman anyway, I always felt Batman or Spider-Man were better superhero's because they are real people were as Superman is an Alien (Yes he is an Alien) and doesn't have or understand the human traits as well as Sipdey and Batman does.

See, that's why I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie. Superman was & still is my favorite superhero :). It all comes down to preferences & it's cool that not everyone has the same preference. Then the world would be a VERY boring place :).

[DjfunkmasterG]

See, that's why I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie. Superman was & still is my favorite superhero :). It all comes down to preferences & it's cool that not everyone has the same preference. Then the world would be a VERY boring place :).

Very true. Good reply.

Now bring on the Batman Sequel! :D


What do you mean, Dj? c'mon, it's on par with how hollywood thinks now.

"That film doesn't need to be remade, eh? Ok, listen.. we've greenlighted the remake.. get to work" :rolleyes:

The Fog, DOTD, NOTL (in 3d HAH!), Superman, King Kong, The Longest Yard, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of Wax.. the list of terrible remakes goes on and on and continues to this day, why should Superman be any different, I guess..

Same sh*t, only deeper man.. :confused:


I thought you liked the DAWN remake? LOL

I agree with most movie watchers that Hollyweird has lost its originality. However, since they aren't throwing us indie people money to make movies we are stuck watching tons of sh*tty films and we have to sort through the muck to find something decent.

[bassman]

Yeah, I agree DJ. Superman has never been a favorite superhero of mine, either. I just really dig Donner's original and the sequel. I'm thinking that Singer knows what he's doing because I also didn't like the Xmen franchise but the first two films were pretty damn cool.

I was actually totally ready to go with "Returns", but then I saw a tv spot the other night in which a bullet hits Supe's eye and bounces right off(CG BONER-FEST).....that made me alittle upset. I hope there's more to it than just "Look what I can do with a computer!".

I'm definitely with you on that one.....we need a sequel from Nolan.

[Bunker65]

[QUOTE=DjfunkmasterG]Now bring on the Batman Sequel! :DQUOTE]

I'll be in line for that as well :cool:.

[EvilNed]

There's no Superman remake going on as far as I'm concerned. Just a sequel, which I will be watching definetly.

[bassman]

So tell me Lou, how exactly does a film with "Returns" in the title seem like a remake to you?:p

It's not a remake.....they're just jumpstarting the franchise again. "Superman Returns" takes place after Donner's films. Funny how they left the third and fourth movies in the cold.:lol:

[LouCipherr]

So tell me Lou, how exactly does a film with "Returns" in the title seem like a remake to you?:p

It's not a remake.....they're just jumpstarting the franchise again. "Superman Returns" takes place after Donner's films. Funny how they left the third and fourth movies in the cold.:lol:


Technicality. It's still a movie/series that has no business being messed with, which is what I was trying to say in my previous message.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Superman 1 & 2 were enough... 3 & 4 killed the franchise.

Batman on the other hand wasn't quite dead, and just needed tweaking to repair it, and Nolan did just that!

Singer will not be able to fix this severely damaged Superman Franchise. By just ignoring 3 & 4. He should have re-started the franchise like Nolan did for Batman.

[LouCipherr]

I thought you liked the DAWN remake? LOL

I did, but that doesn't mean it had ANY business being remade now did it? :D :p

[bassman]

Superman 1 & 2 were enough... 3 & 4 killed the franchise.

Batman on the other hand wasn't quite dead, and just needed tweaking to repair it, and Nolan did just that!

Singer will not be able to fix this severely damaged Superman Franchise. By just ignoring 3 & 4. He should have re-started the franchise like Nolan did for Batman.

I never figured that you were the kind of guy to automatically hate a flick without seeing it first....

You should at least give it a chance. From the clips that I've seen on the net....it could turn out great. That Routh guy seems like he was a perfect choice for Kent/Supes....

[DjfunkmasterG]

I am not usually that type of person, but I just don't have any interest in a new superman movie. If I choose to go check it out and I like it... I will post on the board so i can eat my huge amount of crow. :D


I did, but that doesn't mean it had ANY business being remade now did it? :D :p


Oh oh oh... here we go! :D

Alas poor Yorick... It wasn't a remake. It was a re-invisioning. So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock. :p

[bassman]

So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock. :p

Now if only we could get people around here to believe that when it comes to the whole "Timeline" thing in Romero's "of the Dead" films....

[DjfunkmasterG]

You mean that whole discussion about Day coming after Land, and vice versa.

[bassman]

You mean that whole discussion about Day coming after Land, and vice versa.

exactly...

As if it matters, anyway...

[DjfunkmasterG]

I just made a reply to that topic. So I can consider that topic closed. :D

[Tullaryx]

Im abit tepid and ambivalent towards Superman as a hero when portrayed pre-Crisis, but from what I've read of the rough script that went around which Singer based this film on then it owes some to what Donner created with the first two Supes film, but also to some of the post-Crisis stuff that made Superman more complicated.

I think the fact that he's an alien is interesting twist for me. he's an alien who actually values the virtues and principles of all that's good in humanity and yet sees the people he tries to protect ignore those very same ideals. This is a character who practically has the power of a god in his hands yet holds back because he knows he could destroy everything and everyone if he ever decide to.

I still prefer Batman over all comic-book characters, but Superman does have his place and if this film does well and Time-Warner greenlights a sequel then I wouldn't mind it if they made sure to pick the appropriate villain not named Luthor: Brainiac, Doomsday, Metallo, Darkseid.

[LouCipherr]

Oh oh oh... here we go! :D

Alas poor Yorick... It wasn't a remake. It was a re-invisioning. So sayeth the director, so sayeth the flock. :p

The flock? of what, sheep? that would be appropriate now wouldn't it? :p

yeah, yeah, yeah - call it whatever makes you comfortable. Bottom line is, the movie was remade, just in a different way, so bite me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tullaryx]

I usually don't go into the whole remake/reimagining/retool/reboot discussion since it's a moot point to debate. Hollywood will make them despite what people here and in other sites dedicated to films may want to harp and rail on it. But this Singer production doesn't fall under any of those definitions since he is not re-explaining anything or even redoing a past story in a more modern setting. He's pretty much taking up the franchise from the end of Superman II (kneel before Zod!) to its next logical conclusion and thats him leaving Earth to search for his alien heritage. Something only barely used as a story-arc in the comics. Really, the GAR dead films has more in common with remakes and reimaginigs than Singer's Superman film.

[DjfunkmasterG]

How do you remake something, but make it different? Isn't the point of a remake to do it the same, the exact same? :D

The act of remaking.
Something in remade form, especially of an earlier movie or song.

Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really. :p

[Tullaryx]

How do you remake something, but make it different? Isn't the point of a remake to do it the same, the exact same? :D

The act of remaking.
Something in remade form, especially of an earlier movie or song.

Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really. :p

Which is why Snyder and company calls it more of a reimagining. :)

[bassman]

Batman on the other hand wasn't quite dead, and just needed tweaking to repair it, and Nolan did just that!


Uhhhh buddy, did you happen to see Joel Shumacher's "Batman Forever"? Or even worse(much worse, actually), "Batman and Robin"?

I got to thinking about this and just had to ask how you could make such a ridiculous comment:lol: ....

[LouCipherr]

Taken from Websters dictionary on my desk at work. So does DAWN 2004 count as a remake? Not really. :p

Then why is it called "Dawn of the Dead"? That makes no sense.

If that's the case, then wouldn't the (remake or reinvisioning? what a bullsh*t word, "reinvisioning" - what the hell ever) Psycho have been the only "true" remake ever made since they did even the camera angles and scene cuts exactly as the original, only with different characters?

I don't really care - and it's up to the fanatics and fan boys to worry about - I was just curious as I wasn't around for the (obvious) bickering that went on about this when it was announced/came out, I just think people complaining over symantics like that is pretty childish, but whatever floats your boat.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Uhhhh buddy, did you happen to see Joel Shumacher's "Batman Forever"? Or even worse(much worse, actually), "Batman and Robin"?

I got to thinking about this and just had to ask how you could make such a ridiculous comment:lol: ....


I don't hate Batman Forever as much as I do Batman & Robin. However, the reason the franchise never really died off like Superman is the original film was superb and to this day stands the test of time. The original Superman film hasn't faired as well as the original Batman film by Burton.

Batman Forever suffered from the overdone set design, I think had they kept it dark like the original film it would be better, but I don't loathe it as much as I do the 4th film. Forever had Tommy Lee Jones playing Two-Face and his portrayal made him the 2nd best villian of the series. Of Course Joker being the 1st, and Scarecrow being third best.

Superman III and Superman IV were far worse than Batman 3 & 4. Anyone can admit that. At least one can sit and watch all of Batman Forever... can anyone sit through Superman 3. I can amke it through most of Batman 4, I can't even make it through 15 minutes of Superman 4.

Like I said, I will check out Superman Returns, and if it impresses me I will eat crow by replying about my thoughts on the film.


Then why is it called "Dawn of the Dead"? That makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense. DAWN has two meanings:

Early Morning
The start of something.

In this case the start of something would be the applicable definition. DAWN although a great title for the original film doesn't really fit. I think DAWN 1978 was called DAWN because of night, when technically it has a much deeper meaning.

DAWN 1978 wasn't the start of the apocalypse, in the film it was pretty much ongoing for 3+ weeks. In the 2004 version it basically started that day the film opened, or the night before.

[bassman]

Well....I saw the advanced screening of "Superman Returns" last night....


And I've got to say it....WOW. I was blown away, man. Great flick.

As I said earlier in this thread, I've never been a big fan of the Superman franchise, comics, cartoons, or whatever else they have. I have, however, always enjoyed Richard Donner's original "Superman" and it's first sequel "Superman II"(which is a mix of Donner's film, and Lester's film).

That being said....the hair on the back of my neck stood on end just as soon as I heard the first note of John William's now legendary "Superman Theme". Not only was I extremely pleased that they kept the original theme....but they used a font and opening credit sequence that is VERY similar to the orginal film(though more advanced, using CGI).

Not only is the score similar(now conducted by John Ottman) or the opening credits similar to Donner's classic.....but the entire film is. One of my biggest scares before seeing this flick was that it would all be "Look what we can do with computers". Well, I'm not going to lie to you....there's alot of that. But with a film where the protagonist is flying around at super speeds, taking bullets at point blank range, & lifting 747 airliners.....what do you expect? I put alot of thought into it and even though there is alot of CGI(and very obvious occasionally), I still believe it was pulled off very nicely and not over-used. I guess my main point about the CGI is that it didn't detract from the film for me.

On to casting. Even if you don't enjoy this film.....you have to give it up for the casting decisions. Marvelous. Brandon Routh as Kal-El/Clark/Superman was absolutely brilliant. This guy did his homework and it's obvious. Several times I thought I was actually seeing a clone of the late Christopher Reeve. Everything about this guy was perfect. The shy voice and puzzled facial expressions of Clark, the voice of Supes, and even how he walked/moved reminded me of Reeve(who, to me, IS Superman). Also, there are several appearences from the late, great Marlon Brando as Jor-El. Great idea, Brian Singer.;)

Not only was Routh a perfect choice in casting....but give Kevin Spacey a round of applause. He was Lex Luther. It was Gene Hackman all over again. The dry humor, the slight hint of insanity. Perfect.

I would say the only problem that I had with the casting was that of Lois Lane. Don't get me wrong, Kate Bosworth does a fantastic job but it just didn't feel like the Lois that I know(Margot Kidder).

On to the story. I give these guys an enormous amount of respect for making this film a continuation of the original franchise and not starting over with a "remake". This is how these "remakes" should be done these days. The film starts with a small paragraph explaining where the film is picking up from the original series(when supes returns to the remains of Krypton) just before John William's legendary theme pierces through your brain. It was a good thing to add for the people that haven't seen or may not remember the original films, but it could have been done without it. It was basically all explained as the film went on.

The plot was fantastic and had just the right mixture of balls-to-the-wall action with character development and one thing that most film makers forget to add into the mix these days....Heart.

Anyway, this is getting to be a bit long so maybe I should wrap it up(if anyone is still reading at this point).:p

I'm not saying that everyone will love this film, because I'm sure that it's not everyone's cup of tea....but damn did it rock my socks off. I also want to make it clear that I'm not calling the film perfect.....it definitely had some things that I didn't agree with and wished they had left out. The main one being a huge spoiler, so I'll use that code at the bottom of the page for you guys that have seen it....or just don't care to have it spoiled.

All I'm trying to say here is that if you go into this film with a open mind and looking for entertainment....you won't be disappointed. But make sure you have a good three hours before you have to be somewhere. But the length didn't bother me....I was sucked in the entire time.

Even though you've been raised as a human being you're not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son. - Jor-El

Main problem with this flick was the son. When first introduced to Clark at The Daily Planet, I had the idea of "crap....I hope they're not taking this where I think they're going to take it". Sure enough......now there's a "Superboy":confused: And was it just me or was he immune to Kryptonite???? This was probably my main gripe with the film.

[Tullaryx]

I'm fortunate enough to have seen the original Superman and Superman II in the theaters when they were first released. Those two films introduced me to the fantasy world of comics and I haven't left since. Those first two films were followed up by two more inferior sequels that I don't even want to acknowledge. Since then the franchise has languished in development hell for almost two decades. Even with the early success of Tim Burton's two Batman films (again I shan't acknowledge the three inferior sequels afterwards) the Superman franchise still couldn't get back onto the silver screen. With comic book film adaptations all the rage and Batman even getting its best and truest film adaptation from 2005's Batman Begins, Superman finally gets back into the theaters within the capable hands of Bryan Singer (director of the first two X-men films).

Bryan Singer must've felt like the rest of the Superman's fans since he clearly establishes the timeline of Superman Returns after Superman II. Nowhere to be found were any hints or talk of Richard Pryor's character and the evil-inducing kryptonite or any mention of Nuclear Man. No, Superman Returns follows-up Superman's climactic fight against General Zod and his followers with a sudden jaunt out into the deepest reaches of space to find his home planet of Krypton. He leaves Earth and its people without a hint of goodbye and most of all leaves the woman he loves without any warning. Lois Lane wasn't very happy about that turn of events and she tries to move on with her life partly by writing a Pulitzer Prize winning editorial proclaiming the reasons "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". The film doesn't dwell too much on Superman's trip back to Earth after discovering that Krypton's not much more than a cosmic graveyard and that he truly was the Last Son of Krypton. The rest of the film was pretty much Superman trying to reintegrate himself both as Superman and as Clark Kent within Earth's society. The film does show that the world may have changed since he left for Krypton five years prior, but in the end the world truly does still need Superman.

Bryan Singer tried to balance continuing the franchise as a direct sequel thus minimizing exposition and sequences introducing the origins of Superman. When he does fall back on origin themes he does so through flashback and dialogue that seemlessly blends in with the rest of the story. He also uses to great effect the late Marlon Brando's speech to his son Kal-El about his purpose and destiny. If there's a flaw to be seen in the overall product it would be the plot concocted by --- the recently released from prison --- Lex Luthor to use Superman's Kryptonian legacy to make himself ruler of the world. It's not a small feat, but the overall feel of this part of the story seems abit too much of a rehash of the original plot Luthor came-up with in the first film. This time Luthor doesn't just go for just one coastline of the Continental US, but the whole world. One would think that Luthor would've come up with something abit more creative while he was in prison. I can't fault that part of the storyline too much since it had one of the awe-inspiring sequences showing Superman's true power levels. I won't spoil the sequence, but that scene Superman showed that Superman really has earned the label he's been given since the first two films: Superman as godlike.

Really, Superman Returns shows less of Superman's human side, though it shows through when he's Clark Kent, and more of his alien legacy as an outsider whose abilities and unflinching principles makes him out to be some sort of alien Messiah. This was clearly evident in Brando's speech as Jor-El in how Kal-el (Superman) was his only son and his gift to humanity who has in them the capacity to do greater good if only shown the light. I'm sure I won't be the only one to pick up on this. But it's not a wrong conclusion to arrive at. Superman's always been seen throughout his history as some sort of Christ figure. There's a scene in the film where he flies out of Earth's gravity and just floats in space looking down on Earth. It's a scene that evokes a god looking down on his charges. This has always made Superman even more of an outsider than Batman. Batman has his humanity to keep him grounded. Superman doesn't play on being human, but he knows that he'll never truly be one with the people of Earth yet he still protects them as if he is one. If there's a sequel to this film, I would dearly like to see how they take this messianic complexity of Superman and continue exploring it.

But enough with the serious part of the film. Despite the flaw in parts of the film's plot, the audience reaction to the film was definitely positive. We cheered and laughed and clapped throughout the film. The action sequences didn't overwhelm the picture, but when they were there it seemed seamless. I didn't nitpick once about how Singer and crew portrayed Superman's abilities. Two action sequences --- one in the first half and the other close to the end --- had me cheering and speechless at the same time. Whatever amount of money they spent creating those scenes were money well-spent. In the end I wished that they'd added a few more action-oriented scenes, but I was glad they pulled off the ones they did have with aplomb.

The performances by the two leads, Brandon Routh as Superman and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, were more than adequate. One could see that Routh tried channeling Christopher Reeve as Superman and Clark Kent and to some success. But at times it showed too much like mimicking and less a creative impulse. I'm sure if the franchise gets a go ahead ofr a sequel Routh will get a chance to make the character his own. But his performance was well done in any case and he showed a presence that befit a Superman. Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor would've been brilliant if he'd decided upon one look for Luthor. At times he looked like an extension of Gene Hackman's diabolical car-salesman performance. Then there'd be times he resembled something close to the characterization similar in theme to Lex Luthor as savior of mankind against a godlike alien being whose mere presence hinders humanity from reaching beyond its mortal ken. In the end, Spacey's performance was great for pulling off Luthor as Superman's greatest arch-nemesis, but it would've been even greater if he had settled on which Luthor-persona to portray. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was serviceable. Again she didn't perform badly, but she didn't put a stamp on the character to make it her own. I think that was one thing I noticed in all the performances. They were well done, but in the end they seemed to honor the past performances of the cast from the first two films abit much instead of taking their roles and running with it. Hopefully this will change with any subsequent sequels.

Even with these flaws in the film I cannot give Superman Returns a grade less than great. For even with the flaws, Superman Returns didn't disappoint and followed through on the hype surrounding it. It might not have reached the pinnacle and bar set by Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, but it does reintroduces with a bang an iconic figure in pop-culture history back into the limelight. Superman the film franchise might have been gone from Earth far longer than the character was in the film, but he was welcome back with cheering applause from an audience both young and old. Despite the current generations ambivalence towards straight-laced heros and types, Superman Returns showed that the world truly does need Superman. 9/10

[bassman]

Hey Tullaryx....you seem to be a fan of the franchise and know some things that I don't.....So I have a question for you. It could be considered a spoiler, so I'll hide it...

"Returns" is supposed to take place after "Superman II", you said? I thought the same thing except I thought that Lois learned the truth about Clark in "II"? She acting like she didn't in this film...

But on the other hand, Kitty tells Lex "You act like you've been here before" in the fortress of solitude and that took place in "II".

So I'm kind of confused as to why Lois didn't know that Clark was Supes. Can you clear this up for me? Keep in mind....it's been awhile since I've seen the original two films. I'm holding out for the special edition boxed set with Donner's cut of "II"...

One other thing....you were mentioning the "christ" references. What about the most most obvious one(to me, anyway) after Superman releases the island into space and he starts floating in the "crucifixion pose" back to Earth?

By the way....did you catch the references to Batman?:D

[DjfunkmasterG]

Even with the early success of Tim Burton's two Batman films (again I shan't acknowledge the three inferior sequels afterwards)

3 inferior sequels?

If you think BATMAN BEGINS is inferior, then you are not a fan of the comics! That is the single best BATMAN film ever made. It makes BURTON's original look like Child's Play.

[EvilNed]

3 inferior sequels?

If you think BATMAN BEGINS is inferior, then you are not a fan of the comics! That is the single best BATMAN film ever made. It makes BURTON's original look like Child's Play.

He's referring to the three inferior sequels, just like he said. Batman Begins is not a sequel.

And don't go dissing Child's Play!

[Tullaryx]

3 inferior sequels?

If you think BATMAN BEGINS is inferior, then you are not a fan of the comics! That is the single best BATMAN film ever made. It makes BURTON's original look like Child's Play.

Oops, I should say two inferior sequels after Burton. I miscounted there for abit. ;)

Really, I mentioned that Batman Begins is the pinnacle and standard bearer of comic book film adaptations more than once in the review. :D


Hey Tullaryx....you seem to be a fan of the franchise and know some things that I don't.....So I have a question for you. It could be considered a spoiler, so I'll hide it...

"Returns" is supposed to take place after "Superman II", you said? I thought the same thing except I thought that Lois learned the truth about Clark in "II"? She acting like she didn't in this film...

But on the other hand, Kitty tells Lex "You act like you've been here before" in the fortress of solitude and that took place in "II".

So I'm kind of confused as to why Lois didn't know that Clark was Supes. Can you clear this up for me? Keep in mind....it's been awhile since I've seen the original two films. I'm holding out for the special edition boxed set with Donner's cut of "II"...

One other thing....you were mentioning the "christ" references. What about the most most obvious one(to me, anyway) after Superman releases the island into space and he starts floating in the "crucifixion pose" back to Earth?

By the way....did you catch the references to Batman?:D

Well, the Christ on a cross look he had when in space was too obvious and I think I don't have to point it out. :lol:

As for you're other question...

Lois' knowledge of Superman's identity was wiped from her mind by Superman himself through a kiss after the fight against General Zod. He realized that her knowing who he was would put her in constant danger from his enemies. Plus, I think he truly wanted her to love him as Clark and not as Superman. This also answers the question of how Lois ended up with Superman's baby. During the second film they hooked up. Pretty much dispels the Kevin Smith notion that Lois Lane cannot bear Kal-El's baby due to Superman's ejaculate being so strong that it'll blow out of Lois' head when it happens. Superman's got control of his abilities in more ways than one.

As for Kitty asking Lex if he's been to the Fortress of Solitude...yes he was there before. Zod had taken him to the Fortress in the final battle against Superman. This is also the reason why Lex knew how to activate the Kryptonian crystal repository of knowledge.

Yes, I caught the reference to Batman and Gotham. :)

[bassman]

Yeah, I remembered Luther being at the Fortress of Solitude in "II" but I had totally forgotten about the whole "kiss" thing. That's why I was confused as to whether "Returns" takes place after the original or the sequel. I remember now because he uses that thing that took away his powers to take away Zod's....

And I can't forget the "S" that Supes rips off his chest and throws at Zod's follower.:lol:

*Superman throws the "S"*

"That was a minor inconvenience"

Superman - "yeah, well take that"

- Family Guy reference to "Superman II"


While you guys are comparing "Batman Begins" to "Superman Returns".....Even though I've always been a Batman fan and not so much of a Superman fan, I think I can honestly say that I enjoyed "Superman Returns" just as much as I did "Batman Begins". I know I'll go see it in theater several times like I did with "Begins", anyway....

[Tullaryx]

While you guys are comparing "Batman Begins" to "Superman Returns".....Even though I've always been a Batman fan and not so much of a Superman fan, I think I can honestly say that I enjoyed "Superman Returns" just as much as I did "Batman Begins". I know I'll go see it in theater several times like I did with "Begins", anyway....

I think both films are great, but Singer wasn't able to do anything really mindblowing new to SR that Nolan was able to do with BB. I mean Nolan had the harder time to actually restart a franchise from the ground up and actually made Burton's first two films somewhat less in comparison. If I had to rank Sr amongst the released comic book film adaptations of the past decade it would go: 1. Batman Begins, 2. Spider-Man 2, 3. Superman Returns.

[bassman]

I think both films are great, but Singer wasn't able to do anything really mindblowing new to SR that Nolan was able to do with BB. I mean Nolan had the harder time to actually restart a franchise from the ground up and actually made Burton's first two films somewhat less in comparison. If I had to rank Sr amongst the released comic book film adaptations of the past decade it would go: 1. Batman Begins, 2. Spider-Man 2, 3. Superman Returns.

I would have to say: 1. "Batman Begins", 2. "Superman Returns", 3. "Spiderman". I wasn't too impressed with "Spiderman 2". It seemed like they just took the script of the first film and turned some things around.

And I have to disagree with you about the "mindblowing" thing.....I was amazed with "Superman Returns". In fact....After all this talk about it, I may have to go see it again tonight.:D

I've got another question for you, Tullaryx:

If Superman supposedly "hooked up" with Lois when he was human in "Superman II", then how does Jason have the super powers? And you never gave me an answer about the kryptonite.....did it affect him? I couldn't tell. Didn't seem like it, though....

[DjfunkmasterG]

Chris Nolan is the man. I have seen all of his films and they are all superb. When i first heard he was attached to Batman I didn't know what to think, but then I read the script in 2004 that he co-wrote with David S. Goyer. After reading that i knew they had a major hit on their hands.

I am seriously anticipating Batman Begins 2 or whatever they call it. If Nolan isn't back I will be very disappointed.

[Tullaryx]

I've got another question for you, Tullaryx:

If Superman supposedly "hooked up" with Lois when he was human in "Superman II", then how does Jason have the super powers? And you never gave me an answer about the kryptonite.....did it affect him? I couldn't tell. Didn't seem like it, though....

Well he was human, but remember he still had Kryptonian genes. The fix the Fortress of Solitude did on him was just to turn off his powers, but not turn him fully human. He just didn't want the powers anymore. This could explain why Jason wasn't affected by the kryptonite and why he also had human ailments like asthma, etc..



I am seriously anticipating Batman Begins 2 or whatever they call it. If Nolan isn't back I will be very disappointed.

He's set to come back and already announced that he is working with Goyer on the script. A rumored leaked script has the sequel with Batman chasing after a criminal named the Joker. Which would mean it sets up the third film with the Joker on trial and disfiguring Harvey Dent.

[DeadJonas190]

I got to see a sneak peek monday night and i really enjoyed the movie. My only problem was the theaters fault, the film and sound kept messing up on them.

Other than that, it was one of the best summer movies so far.

[bassman]

I got to see a sneak peek monday night and i really enjoyed the movie. My only problem was the theaters fault, the film and sound kept messing up on them.

Other than that, it was one of the best summer movies so far.

Don't you hate it when that happens? I remember the audio was out of sync for about half of "Fight Club" one of the times I saw it in theater.

:| not cool....

I would agree with you about it being the best summer film.....but I haven't seen a couple of the others("Cars"). I seriously doubt they'll beat "SR", though....

[Tullaryx]

That's why I only go to the new cineplexes in my area, or at least the ones that actually fix audio and visual problems that pop up and reported.

[Eyebiter]

Went and saw Superman Returns today. While it was a fair remake, the film had some serious issues.

spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen the movie yet don't read this



1. The whole issue of Superman and procreation with Lois Lane.

Read the article Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex by science fiction writer Larry Niven for details.
http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

2. Truth, Justice, and All that Stuff?

Superman is an icon in American literature. Truth, Justice, and the American way. Not only is the costume toned down for the film, but the entire idea of Superman as an American has been removed. While one can understand in this era of global cinema, this smacks of cultural revisionism.

3. Superman as a Christ figure

Did like the question in the beginning of the film if humanity really needs Superman. Too bad this theme didn't last long. As Tullaryx mentioned earlier Singer seems to focus on Superman as a Jesus Christ figure.

4. Green Kryptonite

If the island is full of green Kryptonite minerals and crystal then how did Superman get close to it without falling into the ocean? For that matter, when Superman flies down to the center of the earth then tries to lift the mid ocean continent (still forming) wouldn't his powers have failed without wearing a lead suit or being covered with molton lead?

5. Tsunami

Wouldn't a new continent forming off the Eastern Seaboard of the USA create a huge Tsunami wave?

6. Superman in a coma

Superman gets energy from the yellow sun of Sol. Why stick the guy in a darkened room? Bring his litter up to the roof and let him catch some rays.



It was a fairly entertaining movie, but the script definately needed some work. If they make another film, it's time to introduce a different supervillian besides Lex Luthor or General Zod (http://www.generalzod.net/). Perhaps Brainiac?

[bassman]

Went and saw Superman Returns today. While it was a fair remake, the film had some serious issues.

spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen the movie yet don't read this


It was a fairly entertaining movie, but the script definately needed some work. If they make another film, it's time to introduce a different supervillian besides Lex Luthor or General Zod (http://www.generalzod.net/). Perhaps Brainiac?

First things, first....it's not a remake.


2. Truth, Justice, and All that Stuff?

Personally, It didn't seem that way to me, at all. The first two films don't make it anymore obvious that they're in America(other than the shots of the New York sky line in Metropolis:D ). The suit was toned down? Just seemed slightly modernized, but nothing drastic. The largest difference is probably that the "S" is gone off of his cape and the red coloring isn't so bright(no more sissy-looking red boots and underwear. Finally.) I really didn't think these changes hurt the costume any.....

3. Superman as a Christ figure

This theme runs throughout the entire film. How did it not last long?

4. Green Kryptonite

He flew into space to get power from the sun just before going down to get the island. The kryptonite was harming him but he got it off the planet, anyway. This is why he falls back to Earth.

5. Tsunami

Suspension of disbelief.

Because, after all.....you're watching a film about a man with super powers that was sent to earth from an alien planet called Krypton:p

6. Superman in a coma

I'm guessing this is the same reason why they were trying to give him IV's only to have the needles break. They didn't know what to do really....


I agree that Lex Luther shouldn't be the main villian in the sequel. A smaller role would be okay, though.

As far as General Zod.....I hope they bring him back. Zod is a bad mother f*cker:p

[HLS]

I loved it but I felt it was a little too long and drawn out. Overall it was worth it i thought.

[Neil]

I loved most of it...

Didn't feel quite enough connection between Lois and Supey...

Gene Hackman was better as Lex I feel - Although the script probably helped...

Looking forward to the next one now we're seemingly headed in the eright direction.

AND I WISH, at the start of the film they had appearing, just by itself, the text "For Christopher"... He defined the Superman we see in this film...


Not sure about super-kid, that could really bug me unless done well...