Short answer: It was a film that surpassed the quality of the script, making up with special effects and human drama what it lacked in coherent plot.
Longer answer below, with spoilers (sorry, couldn’t be helped.):
I’ve always been a firm believer in judging various creative works for themselves, rather than comparing them to previous works. The problem in this case is that Superman Returns screams for exactly that sort of comparison. Basically it’s a sequel to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and it places itself against its predecessors every chance it gets. From repeated music to repeated shots to repeated dialogue, it cries out to be held up next to what went before, unlike “Batman Begins” and that movie’s determination to create a film with a totally different atmosphere from the Burton or (God help us) Schumacher incarnations. The simple fact is that, without the first two Superman films, there is no “Superman Returns.”
So let’s compare them—
Scripts: Let’s face it, neither of them were Pulitzer or even Oscar material. “Superman Returns” has holes you could drive Krypton through. (1) Superman’s departure without a word of explanation to Lois cannot be excused by the concept that he just found it too hard to say good-bye. His unexplained absence was simply cruel. For that matter, why wasn’t she worried about his safety? Contrast the genuinely human reaction of Sarah Jane Smith in “School Reunion” who, after encountering the Doctor after thirty years absence, at first is overjoyed and then cries in an accusing fashion, “I thought you died!” Not Lois, no. She writes a rage-fueled essay about why the world doesn’t need Superman. She acted like a woman who knew she was unceremoniously dumped, but she couldn’t actually have known it. So not accepting the basic premise is something of a problem for me. (2) Luthor’s plan is unclear and confusing. It threatens to cause a tidal wave that would swamp Metropolis, but it never does. Menacing the world, he creates an environment that protects him from Superman. Swell. But there’s nothing protecting him from, say, 500-pound bombs. Or the 82nd Airborne. The notion is that the world will want to do business with him. I’m thinking not. I’m thinking they see him as a threat and act accordingly. (3) I know it’s always been a conceit that the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic.
On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t.
“SUPER”ior script: “Superman Returns”
Director: Richard Donner basically made a breakthrough film. It was the first time there had been any serious treatment (at least for the first hour) of a comic book superhero. And what treatment! The screenplay by Mario Puzo gave Superman a sense of scope on par with a biblical epic, and Donner came through. The problem was that Donner made no effort to meld the tone of Puzo’s work with that of the so-campy-you-wondered-where-Adam-West-was work of the three other screenwriters. Consequently, the tone of the film lurches wildly. You can sense it skid off the rails the moment Ned Beatty shows up. The human and heroic elements of the Superman storyline jar wildly with the campy Lex Luthor material.
At least Singer keeps a much firmer hand on his tale. It doesn’t hang together, but at least it’s consistent. We don’t go from high-heroics to high-camp, and the bit where Superman gets the crap kicked out of him by Luthor’s goons is quite possibly the most heart-wrenching sequence ever depicted in a superhero film, surpassing even the death of Uncle Ben. People in the audience was gasping, groaning, even looking away because it was so brutal. Plus there’s all the aforementioned winks and nods to the original (Lois fainting after being rescued and still unable to spell; Glenn Ford’s photograph on the mantle in the Kent home; an extended sequence where Luthor watches a miniature city get shaken to bits was probably a nod to Superman: The Movie where very obvious models were used for the earthquake sequence, as if to say, “Watch: We’re going to do better than this.”) And if Donner dropped hints as to Messianic intent (“And so I give them you…my only son”) Singer drops anvils (Superman drifting helpless and unconscious in a classic crucifixion pose—dying for our sins, presumably, the sin being lack of faith in our “savior”…and, yes, there’s even a resurrection. Plus I loved the Aquaman pajamas, which had nothing to do with anything, but I want me a pair.) He’s even sly enough to re-create the cover to Action Comics #1 as Superman hefts a car over his head.
So, even though we must acknowledge Donner’s breakthrough work, just for the quality of the final product, SUPERior director: Bryan Singer.
Brandon Routh: I did not come out of Superman the Movie thinking that a man could fly. I did, however, believe that a man could fool people into thinking he was two different guys using basically skilled acting and a pair of glasses.
Not so Routh. His Superman is…competent. Decent. Classically handsome, strong jawed, looks great in tights. But in order to be Superman, he needs the tights, the cape, the spitcurl and the special effects.
Chris Reeve, by contrast, could be Superman by simply removing his Clark Kent glasses, straightening his back, deepening his voice, and saying, “Lois…there’s something I have to tell you.” Yes, his Clark was over-the-top, but let’s face it, so is wearing blue and red tights with your underwear on the outside. Reeve’s Superman radiated charisma, power, and a sense of humor. Routh’s Superman, when he’s not juggling real estate or planes, is so low-key he’s almost subliminal. Actually, he’s so low-key he’s almost Clark, glasses or no. He holds our interest without quite piquing it.
SUPERior Superman: Chris Reeve.
Lois Lane: Boy, this one’s a toughie. The problem stems from the fact that Lois is in such two radically different points in her life. Margot Kidder was all throaty wonderment and discovery as she encountered Superman for the first time and fell in love with him. It was all so charming. Kate Bosworth isn’t charming. She’s a mother, she’s in another relationship, she’s got no sense of closure, she’s bitter. There’s a glorious irony in that Kidder’s Lois Lane dreamt of Superman and of winning the Pulitzer Prize, whereas Bosworth’s Lois Lane still nurses anger and is winning the Pulitzer prize for shattering her own dreams of Superman. Some people have also complained that Bosworth is a bit callow to play Lois, especially considering that five years have passed. Bosworth is 23 and looks it. However, despite her youth, I believe her more as a reporter than I did Margot Kidder. But I believe Margot Kidder as Lois Lane more than I do Kate Bosworth.
SUPERior Lois: Tie.
Luthor: Despite the comic opera aspects of the original Luthor, Hackman somehow came across as more menacing. Perhaps that’s because there was a wider contrast in his activities. As much as I feel the comedic nonsense and camp aspects hurt the film, they did serve to set up the chilling moments such as Luthor’s calm response to Superman’s outraged demand, “Is this how a twisted mind like yours get its kicks? By planning the deaths of millions of innocent people?” (“No. By causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.”) and his subsequent advancing on Superman with Kryptonite. But Spacey owes his success as Luthor to the more consistent overall tone of the script and film. The sequence where Kitty freaks out on him upon discovering that he deliberately placed her in harm’s way and he cold-bloodedly explains his reasoning is truly marvelous. Plus, bottom line, Hackman was unwilling to embrace the Luthor trademark of baldness while Spacey happily shaved his head. They were both great, but bottom line, I have to say…
SUPERior Lex: Kevin Spacey, by a hair (or lack thereof).
Luthor’s floozy: They basically both go through the same character arc: They come to appreciate the greatness that is Superman and wind up undercutting Lex’s plan, earning his wrath. The difference is that Parker Posey doesn’t look like she knows why she’s there much of the time, whereas Valerie Perrine is…well, she’s Valerie Perrine, for God’s sake. The sex goddess of my youth.
SUPERior Floozy: Valerie Perrine.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
SUPERior Score: Superman: The Movie.
So basically, in terms of the one-to-one comparisons, it’s a dead heat. That leaves us with the things that don’t match up exactly, and in those, I have to say, Superman Returns leaves its predecessor in the dust. Contrast the absence of someone as over-the-top as Otis with the presence of Richard White, whom Singer wisely chooses to portray—not as a schmuck—but a heroic individual whom Lois could easily fall in love with. Yes, he’s not Superman…but he doesn’t have to be. Consider the far better use of cameos: Noel Neill and Kirk Allyn, the original serial Lois and Clark, had their brief cameo whittled nearly into non-existence in Superman the Movie. Here Noel actually gets to act as the dying old woman in the beginning, and Jack Larson—the TV series Jimmy Olsen—gets a nice sized scene as Bo the bartender. Then there’s the matter of Lois’ son. I mean, let’s face it, with all his physical frailty, the writers tried too hard. They went overboard trying to convince us that Jason’s father isn’t who we all knew he was before seeing a single frame of the film. (Although it sets up an interesting conundrum: Presuming he was conceived during Clark and Lois’ assignation in the Fortress—an involvement that Lois would now have no recollection of—basically his presence is the equivalent of an immaculate conception from Lois’ point of view.) Nevertheless, the young actor does a marvelous job, the timing of the reveal is nicely done, and the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film.
Overall, then, kudos to the movie makers. They’ve outdone that which they modeled their film on.
Now about that Superman/Batman crossover…
PAD
• 
This review is more or less accurate.
More more than less of course.
“the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic.”
Superman dies and lies in a hospital bed. Clark vanished the second Lois sent her SOS. Clark never came back throughout the entire movie.
Then again, the intrepid reporters are morons. “‘they’re coordinates!'” Gee! Ya think! Having learned about latitude and longitude in a class in junior high makes me think coordinates are obvious and these old, supposedly learned professionals really aren’t that well-educated.
I like continuity. I don’t like to be buried in it… the repeated title sequence, the repeated score, the repeated lines (From Brando and Routh), the repeated character arcs, the repeated points of view (Jimmy’s camera). I got the sense that Routh was playing Reeve playing Kent playing Superman…
Some continuity WAS nice – Luthor’s obsession with land (California in the first movie, his request for Zod to name him King of Australia in the second) was nicely explained, and continued in this film.
As far as the Christ imagery – Superman is already an icon, I thought heaping an Icon on top of an icon was too much.
I didn’t like Superman’s constant(!) spying on Lois and her family, and sneaking into Jason’s bedroom was downright creepy.
Five years to be away seemed like a long time, but maybe not long enough – I couldn’t buy that Jason was only 5 years old.
Given that Superman saved the west coast from an earthquake, foiled numerous robberies, saved the Eiffel Tower, stopped the Zone criminals (Dayenu?), I can’t see how anyone on the planet (or at the Planet) would buy the notion that the world doesn’t need a Superman. Nevermind a Pulitzer.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
Amen. This past Tuesday when I first heard The Theme in the theater for the first time in nearly 20 years . . . I swear it was like adulthood never happened.
Maybe, in the next movie, there will be some explanations for why Superman left without saying goodbye. The fact is, though, that he’s been absent from the screen for nearly two decades, so I felt it was fair to have his absence addressed in the movie. It’s obvious to me that they chose to have him leave 5 years ago, because of what happened 5 years ago.
9-11 was clearly on Singer’s mind, and it was on my mind, too, when Superman melted all the falling debris from the rooftops in that one sequence near the end.
In my imaginations, Superman found out about the possibility of there being remnants of Krypton in space (Argo City, perhaps?), so he began work on his revamped spacecraft, and started getting ready for his trip. Part of this would have entailed him tying up loose ends as Clark, so – in order for him to create a good cover story in terms of his departure – I think it would have been logical for him to linger at the Daily Planet for a longer period than Superman’s presumed departure. In other words, if he worked at the Daily Planet for 6 months or so after Superman’s last appearance, (or even vice versa, really) then people wouldn’t connect the disappearance of the two. In the old comics, weren’t there some stories where it was explained that, when he was Clark, Superman would modify his height and even his facial structure, so he wouldn’t look exactly the same all the time? I try not to let that bother me.
However, Clark’s identity SHOULD be a problem in this age of security cameras, cameraphones, and tabloid TV. SOMEONE should get a shot of Clark publicly changing into his Superman costume in at least one of the upcoming sequels, if there are to be any.
As far as the Kryptonian landscape, I didn’t think it had finished “baking” yet, and I assumed Lex knew more than was revealed. After all, he asked Jor-El to tell him “everything.” This could also be explained in the next movie.
I happily look forward to the future.
I thought it should have ended with Clark telling Lois the truth. But I suppose they need to build up a Lois-Clark relationship first.
And honestly, we don’t know what Lois wound up forgetting at the end of Superman II. It may just have been that Superman = Clark. She may still know that she slept with him. But I forget, did that happen before or after he got de-powered?
The first scene between Hackman’s Luthor & Zod in the Oval Office will always be gold for me. Masterfully written– even more masterfully acted. Tired of your boss and how you’re treated at work? Analyze that scene. If you can master the same amount of guts & brains (and belief in yourself) that Hackman oozed in that scene– you will never, ever be taken advantage of or be put upon again. It’s that epic. And Yes, I am ascribing a life changing moment to a Superman film.
I thought it was an excellent successor to Superman: The Movie and Superman II. Definitely, there were plot holes, but the story moved along, and I was able to ignore them as much as I’m able to ignore everything that you have to ignore just to take Superman seriously at all. The credits sequence definitely helped me get in that mood. Honestly, when I left the theater I almost felt like it wasn’t enough, but after thinking about it more, I realized that the movie was enough, but I just wanted more of it. I can’t wait for deleted scenes on DVD and whatever they’re going to make of the kid (Superboy?) in the sequel. And, of course, whether the villains will be Luthor and the Phantom Zone villains, or Luthor and Brainiac.
She may still know that she slept with him. But I forget, did that happen before or after he got de-powered?
After.
It’s pretty clear that Superman wiped away Lois’s entire memory of Superman II (“What’s been going on in the world?”) and therefore her relationship with him. So she wasn’t “dumped,” since as far as she knew there was no relationship. So, to me, the way she reacted seemed to be in keeping with a woman who thought she had a special connection with him (as seen in the first movie), but didn’t know him that well.
Of course, this brings up the problem of why she didn’t say anything when she realized he fathered her son. “Wait, I never slept with him… did I?” Kind of brings up a whole nest of ethical issues. Or maybe she does remember. Who knows? It’s not really an issue for me.
I loved the movie, by the way. This is a great year for superhero movies, as I think this and X:Men: The Last Stand are the two best superhero movies ever made.
But why does everyone keep referring to the first movie as “Superman: The Movie?” You realize that’s not actually the title, right? It’s just Superman.
Oh, and as much as I love Valerie Perrine, nobody beats Parker Posey. Because Parker Posey is God.
Robert, I just pulled the DVD off the shelf and sure enough, it says Superman: The Movie with ‘the movie’ in the same sparkly logo. So I’m gonna go with that. I would also heartily recommend the DVD commentary by Donner and writer Tom Mankiewicz who did a lot of the script doctoring on the film but for WGA reasons I believe, is listed as ‘creative consultant.’ There are tons of great stories about the making of the film, my favorite being the first meeting with Brando, where he tried to convince them that since Joe-El was an alien, he could look like just about anything- until the filmmakers realized he was just f***ing with them.
PAD, you forgot to mention Frank Langella as Perry White. I though he was quite good and far more subdued than Jackie Cooper. Jackie Cooper, while lovable, was too cigar-chomping grouchy and over-the-top. Langella added a sort of Ben Bradley-esque gravitas as an editor of a major newspaper.
In the back of my head, while watching the second half, I kept thinking, “Wouldn’t a World’s Finest movie with Christian Bale’s Batman be bìŧçhìņ’ right now?!”
Loved the black-humored line, “Wasn’t there two of them?”
Apparently in the original, and in the novelization, Clark thought he’d only be gone for a few months but was blown off course. A single line mentioning that would have done wonders for this movie.
Or, better, if he hadn’t known how long he was gone until he got back. Then we’d get to see the horror in his eyes when he realized what he’d lost, instead of thinking he was a callous dìçk who deserved to see Lois with someone else.
X-3 one of the best hero movies? You gotta be kidding.
By the way, the name of the first movie was “Superman: The Movie”.
I agree, Chris. Especially with the realities of relativistic space travel. It would have been great if he thought he was only gone 6 months, or 1 year, to then realize how long his trip had actually taken.
Anyone else with me in the idea that Natalie Portman would have been a kickin’ Lois?
Superman was good, but I still think the best part of the movie was the Spider-Man 3 Trailer. 😛
Bud was right about this movie being influenced by 9-11. I thought of 9-11 when the police and EMT rescued Superman. Some people think Singer is ripping off the scene in Spidey 2 where the citizens help Spidey after the train sequence. I don’t think that’s the case, even though that scene in Spidey did have some Jesus imagery. That was Raimi paying tribute to the people of New York, like in the first film.
Overall, I liked the movie, but the Superman-Lois relationship felt muddled, and there was no payoff with Superman and Lex at the end. This is the first time a retcon was attempted in a comic book film and it took a lot of guts (I discount Batman Begins. That was a complete reboot.). Could you imagine Lucas making Episode I as much like Episode IV as possible(Actually, I’m beginning to wish he did just that)?
Good review, Peter. You even pointed out some plot holes that I hadn’t considered when watching the film. Me, I thought it was an average movie. Too long, overpadded, unoriginal and cliché.
I’m amazed that X-Men: The Last Stand, which I think was a pretty good continuation of that franchise, got so much uneven critical reaction, while this overhyped, mediocre film is getting so much positive buzz. I find it ironic that I was worried about whether The Last Stand would be any good without Singer, and all but assured that Superman Returns would be great, when the former turned to be really good, and the latter not so much. The New York Daily News gives this film four stars. The reviewer for the New York Post claims that Superman Returns is “dark without resorting to the dimestore psychology of the overrated Batman Begins.” Well, to each his own, but I thought that the psychological aspects of BB were well-founded, and that that film was well-rated. Superman Return’s idea of “dark”, on the other hand, is to literally make the main characters’ costume dark. (I’m sorry, I’ve tried giving it time, but I still don’t like that costume. It’s ugly, and it’s not Superman. Period. And after seeing the Q&A with Kevin Smith at http://www.popoholic.com/2006/04/20/kevin-smiths-superman-lives-story/, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was John Peters’ doing.)
Superman Returns pays considerable homage to past Superman adaptations, right down to the closing shot of the film, but it goes far beyond merely continuing the prior movie’s continuity or playful nods to it. It strip mines old plots instead of coming up with new ones. Lex Luthor gets out of prison after five years because Superman didn’t show up a court appeal, and goes back to the Fortress of Solitude to abscond with several of the information crystals in the main control panel, because ya know, those intrepid Kryptonians, for all their vaunted technology, never mastered the technology behind locked doors, and living in a big city like Metropolis did nothing to impart this consideration to Superman. Lex learns all about the crystals’ properties from the interactive Jor-El hologram (pity they couldn’t at least program that thing to respond only to Kryptonian life signs, and not just whatever bald ex-con who waltzes into the Fortress), encases one in kryptonite, and shoots it into the ocean in order to create a new continent that will displace North America, and create new high-tech real estate that everyone will want.
Um…didn’t Luthor try a scheme like this before?
So instead of a nuke blowing up the San Andreas fault to create a new western coastline, he’s going to use a crystal in the Atlantic to create a new eastern one? Is this the most original story the writers could come up with? And did we really need Lex Luthor to have yet another moll who turns out to be appalled at the idea of his killing people with his genocidal real estate scheme? Is Kitty really any different from Miss Teschmacher? At least Miss Teschmacher served some story function. Kitty serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Granted, the Jason subplot is kinda new, and a bit of a bold move, given that they’ve never done it in the comics or any of the other major adaptations, but I’m not sure where it will go, and it creates some odd questions about Richard.
As for the length, well, when I first heard it was two and a half hours long, I figured it’d be more bang for the buck, and if the story justified it, why not? But man does this movie feel long. The entire “five years later” premise seems to have very little value to the story, existing mostly in order to make the Jason premise possible, with little or no impact on anything else in the film. And did we really need that entire ridiculous sequence with Superman in the hospital? What was that all about? Even if they needed to depict a period of convalescence for him, couldn’t a title card indicating the passage of some time have sufficed?
I’m sorry, I really was excited to see this movie. I wanted to like it, but I was really disappointed. The actors were mostly well-cast, and there was a definite affection for both the source material and the past films. But it needed a more original story, a better editor, and could’ve done without a few of the major plot holes. I give it a C+ for effort.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES:
Is there some union rule for X-Men actors getting to play roles in other comic book adaptations? You have Halle Berry in X-Men and Catwoman, Shawn Ashmore plays Iceman in X-Men and Eric Summers, the power leech, in Smallville, and now James Marsden, who played Cyclops in X-Men, shows up in Superman Returns. (Yeah, yeah, I know, directors like to work with the same actors over and over…)
As I recall, the starship that sent infant Clark to Earth burnt up into a gray-looking rock by the time it crashed near the Kents in Superman. So where did Superman get that new-looking one? Did he build a new one at the Fortress? Even if he did, why doesn’t it look just as eroded when he crashed back on Earth?
Clark sees the Pulitzer that Lois won for her editorial, “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman.” It appears to be a dark plaque with white lettering on it. But isn’t the Pulitzer Prize for journalism a round gold medal? Or does a recipient get both?
Why are the journalists covering the space shuttle launch on the plane launching the shuttle? Do journalists usually do this? Aren’t they usually on the ground in Houston or Florida?
The airliner carrying that new-fangled shuttle is mentioned to be a 777. But it looks nothing like one. A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing.
Why does a tiny particle of the crystal thrown into a small container of water cause an EM pulse? Why does throwing an entire crystal into the ocean not do this? And if Lex studied the properties of the crystal, why did he do this, knowing it would cause a blackout that could adversely affect him?
When Superman confronts that gunman armed with a huge machine gun on top of that building, Superman naturally walks up to the gun, with its bullets having no effect on him, and the thug then talks out a pistol and shoots Supes in the eye. I was expecting Superman to say, “Are you new here?” Seriously, doesn’t this clown know who Superman is? It’s only been five years.
During the “Superman Around the World” tv news segment reporting Superman’s return to heroic global deeds, the reporter mentions Gotham City. Nice touch, and a nice full circle, given the mention of Metropolis in Batman Forever.
When Superman keeps blowing out Lois’ cigarette, shouldn’t she feel his breath on her fingers?
Much as in the prior films, New York seems to be a stand-in for Metropolis. When Superman flies Lois from her apartment, their flight over the city shows what appears to be Central Park in the background, and I’m guessing others can identify those bridges over the Hudson and East Rivers. CP also appears later in the film.
I didn’t notice until well into the movie that Superman’s cape doesn’t have the yellow “S” on the back of it.
“Pulitzer Prizes are like the Academy Awards. Nobody remembers what you won it for; only that you won it.” –Perry White, referring to Lois’ achievement. For some reason, this line got a lot of laughs when he said it.
Okay, we know by now that Lois is always looking for trouble, and doing things like trespassing that get her in over her head. But why in the WORLD would she drag her five-year-old SON with her???
COMIC BOOK CLICHÉ: Lex not only tells Lois his entire plan, but where he got the means to do it, etc., but even has Lois sit next to a fax machine where she can send out a call for help, since the thug watching her and her son is too busy playing a piano duet of “Chopsticks” with her son. (No, that wasn’t a joke or sarcastic exaggeration. He actually does this.)
Okay, so Richard asks Lois if she ever in love with Superman. Then we find out that SURPRISE! Jason is Superman’s son. But if that’s true, then wouldn’t Richard know this? Wouldn’t he know that she and Supes were “together” once? The only this would make sense would be if she met Richard and had relations with him within days or weeks of her coupling with Superman. Since when does Lois have time for that number of encounters within the same short period of time, let alone the inclination for it?
Also, if this is the case, does she herself even remember it? As I understand it, this movie is a sequel to Superman II. But at the end of that movie, Clark erased Lois’ memory of their relationship. So what gives?
Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?
Why didn’t Superman realize that he was weakened by his presence on the kryptonite-laced island that Lex created until Lex outright punched him?
If bullets bounce right off Superman without even damaging his costume, then how can Lex stab him through his costume with that shard of kryptonite?
Okay, so the general public knows that Superman is powered by sunlight. We even see that happen here in the movie. So after he falls back to Earth following his climactic resolution to Luthor’s scheme, why this bizarre sequence with him in the hospital? Why don’t the doctors just procure a full-spectrum light (yes, they exist in real life), and just shine on it him?
Also, when he first comes into the hospital, they easily rip off the upper portion of his costume? How can they do this, when that thing repels bullets?
Also, the needle they try to stick into his arm breaks. But doesn’t that mean that he’s back to full health? The ability of Lex and his thugs to beat the living tar out of him when he was on the kryptonite island demonstrated that when he’s weakened by kryptonite, he can be hurt, and even bleed, like a human. So if he was not at full health, shouldn’t the needle have gone into him? Wouldn’t this have even helped underscore to the audience how weak he was?
Btw, am I the only one who thought it was weird to see Clark drinking a beer? It just doesn’t seem very Clarkish/Supermanish
Perhaps in your Spoiler Warning you should have also told us you were going to spoil a not-yet- seen-in-the US episode of Doctor Who for us as well. ; )
“Anyone else with me in the idea that Natalie Portman would have been a kickin’ Lois?”
Hopefully.
As for the movie, the more I hear the more I think Singer made a huge mistake jumping to a project he’s not suited for. I don’t care how much love he had for the character, this movie does not sound good. It sounds like it tries too hard to be things it shouldn’t be.
That whole “all that stuff” line in the trailer bothers me, too. I know it’s not PC, but Superman was raised in Kansas, not New York City or LA, he believes in America, because he wasn’t raised in an environment that makes it a sin to be patriotic.
Unlike the people who make the movies, and often the comics. Sad.
Perhaps in your Spoiler Warning you should have also told us you were going to spoil a not-yet- seen-in-the US episode of Doctor Who for us as well. ; )
Is it really a spoiler when Sarah Jane Smith appears in the first couple of minutes of the episode, and she’s in the entire episode?
Oh, and that’s more of a rhetorical question. 🙂
I’m part of a Doctor Who group where we’ve struggled with the same issues on our mailing list, to no avail – some people consider spoilers at different levels, whether it be story ideas or characters.
“But why does everyone keep referring to the first movie as “Superman: The Movie?” You realize that’s not actually the title, right? It’s just Superman.”
Because in all the pre-release advertising, that WAS the title, and it makes it easier to refer to it by its original title when discussing it here because it’s easier to distnguish what we’re talking about: The film as opposed to the character himself.
PAD
I’ll admit, it’s sounding more and more like this isn’t the movie for me, since (big confession time) ‘Superman: The Movie’ bores me to tears.
So if this takes a lot from that, I’m hoping that the one thing it left behind was the pacing. Glaciers outdistance that thing.
1You know I have an answer to why no one ever connects Superman and Clark at the Daily Planet: Has anyone noticed in Superman the Movie and in the movie, no one ever makes full eye contact with Clark. Lois and everyone just brushes past him. He’s the man whose no there. But Superman, well everyone looks at him.
I love this movie. I sat there for two and half hours and I was a kid again and everything was possible. I believe a man can fly.
And I believe the same man can convence everyone he’s two different people with just a clumsy walk and a pair of glasses.
This movie was garbage.
“On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t. “
I don;t think any of that stuff was wince worthy, they were fun and gave the whole thing a wiff of high drama/comedy.
Superman Returns returned Superman but didn;t return the fun.
Just a couple of comments, and some replies to Luigi:
First, What is wrong with Superman’s costume in this movie? I keep hearing rumbling about it, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone’s upset: mostly blue, red cape, red S and Hexagon with a yellow background… Other than the missing logo on the cape, it looks like the same freakin’ costume to me, though the material it’s made of looks a bit.. rubbery or something.
Second, I was out of the theater for a few minutes just as Superman arrived on the Krypton-continent — was it established that it was actually covered in Kryptonite, or were we supposed to assume that from Lex’s earlier comment about the crystals taking on properties of minerals around them? If it’s the latter, I have no problem accepting that the “Kryptonite” on the island was slightly different from the Kryptonite in previous movies.
Luigi Novi wrote:
Why does throwing an entire crystal into the ocean not do this?
Well, despite Lois calling it an EMP, I’m not entirely certain that’s EXACTLY what it was — I think that was just the most convenient way for her to describe it. Did we see anyone who’d have a reason to really diagnose what happened call it that?
Anyway, there WAS a second blackout when the big crystal was thrown into the water. It blacked out the ship just as Lois was sending her fax, and the last word or two were cut off on the receiving end. The fax was found at the Planet office just after the power came back in Metropolis — Jimmy had just said something about his camera not working, and the power comes on. He turns and is taking pictures around the offices, and sees the fax through the lens.
Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?
I thought Jason showed some definite aversion to the stuff in the only scene where he’s really exposed to it (Lex certainly noticed it, which is why he asked about who the kid’s father was, and why he assumed that, in the absence of the obvious effects of a Superman-rescue (like a huge hole being knocked in the side of the yacht, and Superman’s not having stuck around to save Lois and Jason when the second thug showed up), Jason did the rescuing.)– I’m guessing he’s not REALLY affected because he’s half human. Besides, the Kryptonite in this movie didn’t seem to cause extreme pain just by being near Superman — I certainly wouldn’t expect Jason to start screaming in agony.
If bullets bounce right off Superman without even damaging his costume, then how can Lex stab him through his costume with that shard of kryptonite?
Hasn’t it been established that Superman’s invulnerability is, in part, a powerful force-field a couple of millimeters from his body, which also protects the main part of his costume? I think it’s safe to assume that a Kryptonite shard could be stabbed through that — especically since Superman’s powers had been sapped by the Kryptonite/Crystal hybrid that made up the bulk of that island.
Even if that’s wrong, a fairly resilient cloth MIGHT not be visibly damaged in that sort of situation, if it can handle compression very well. His body stops the bullet before it can seriously deform (and rip) the material, so there’s only the damage from pinching it between the bullet and the hard-as-steel skin, which MAY not be visible in this sort of situation. If that’s the case, the Kryptonite overcomes his natural hard-as-steel skin, and pushes through the material.
Also, when he first comes into the hospital, they easily rip off the upper portion of his costume? How can they do this, when that thing repels bullets?
See above. With Superman’s powers depleted from the Kryptonite, his powers wouldn’t be protecting the suit any longer. Or, the material’s fairly resilient to being “pinched”, but doesn’t have much tensile strength. Being strong against compression doesn’t necessarily mean it’s strong against being pulled apart.
*sigh*
In my previous comment, Luigi said the following as well, and I failed to mark it correctly:
“After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?), and Lex is told that the thug is out of commission because he was hit with the piano, Lex immediately asks about Jason. How does he know Jason did this? How does he know it’s not Superman who has shown up to save Lois?”
Yeah, spoilers here, too. You have been warned.
While I’ve never really been a fan of The Batman, I preferred BATMAN BEGINS to this. Honest.
I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn’t notice he’s standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he’s so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn’t he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?! My friend and I kept going “What the *&$^#???” at these huge inconsistencies.
The characters made no sense.
Lex now has Kryptonian techynology. Just the data storage capabilities of those crystals (having now access to the entire knowledge base of Krypton, he should be able to duplicate the process) would render IBM’s stock good for toilet paper, if that. Oh, and FTL drives? Yeah, let’s give Man the stars. Then we can hire Arab oil Shieks to clean out our toilet. But, no, instead he sets up another convoluted land deal. What is this? Who knew Luthor was a frustrated Re-Max real estate dealer? And the excuse he gives is beyond lame. Someone as intelligent and rich as he is would hire the best mercenaries money can buy instead of street thugs. His floozy made no sense, either. At least Tessmacher(sp?) had sex appeal. Even the lukewarm Lois had more of that than the brain-dead bimbo in this film. This is the best Luthor can manage? Sad.
Lois has won a Pulitzer for her writing. That should give her some clout. Yet she spends much of the film getting pushed around by people.
Clark is worse as he is practically the overly meek 60s version. In the Byrne-era one he’s second only to Lois, if that, in journalistic talent. Yet, here, it’s “Oh, Kent’s back after five years away. *Yawn*. We’d hardly noticed he was away.” Hunh?
People such as Perry who is clearly an incompetent. It is clear that Lois is correct in wanting to look into the EMP blackout. Especially since it happens right after Superman’s return – gee, could there be a connection? But, no, Perry waves her off and downplays a story of that magnitude as barely worth the Planet’s time. What’s up with that?!
The Great Menace came across as The Monolith Monsters 2. OK, I liked the 50s original, but in a Superman movie?
It wasn’t an AWFUL movie, just quite disappointing after Singer’s superior work on the X-Men.
There were some things done right, though.
“A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing.”
Neither does a 747, but the one used to ferry the real shuttle has a similar modification in case the shuttle takes out the vertical stabilizer. So it makes sense the movie’s 777 does, too, although having the reporters on it didn’t – and the editing was so poorly done I thought they were on the shuttle for a while.
“Why isn’t Jason vulnerable to kryptonite?”
Humans aren’t and he’s half human. Although that doesn’t explain his power coming and going. He was under major stress later, but it still didn’t manifest again.
“Even if he did, why doesn’t it look just as eroded when he crashed back on Earth?”
What is it with Kryptonian craft? Designed to fly across the galaxy, yet they don’t even have landing gear? Same manufacturers as the original PLANET OF THE APES spacecraft, no doubt.
“Okay, so the general public knows that Superman is powered by sunlight.”
Which is why Supergirl’s much skimpier outfit makes more sense. More of her exposed to sunlight. Let’s hear it for environmentally – conscious heroines. 😎
The last scene where he flies off into near-Earth orbit. Why? OK, a take-off (sorry) on the first film. But SPIDER-MAN 2 had a better ending. He’s dashing off to catch crooks or help in an emergency. Here, Supes looks like he’s just off for a joyride.
“For some reason, this line got a lot of laughs when he said it.”
Quite a few lines’ situations got laughs at the theatre where we were. Including some I’m sure weren’t supposed to. Not, on the whole, a shining endorsement.
After Jason knocks out the clown-tattooed thug with the piano (Did I hear correctly, and they said that he killed him?)
Yes, and is it just me or is it kind of sick that the 5 year old son of Superman first uses his power to kill someone?
Posted by: Luigi Novi
Clark sees the Pulitzer that Lois won for her editorial, “Why The World Doesn’t Need Superman.” It appears to be a dark plaque with white lettering on it. But isn’t the Pulitzer Prize for journalism a round gold medal? Or does a recipient get both?
That’s not the prize — the actual presentation banquet is what Lois is all dressed up for when she does her stupid-Lois-trick. Which, as i said in a comment that may not have been cleared yet, raises the question of why she apparently waited four years to write he little snit piece.
The airliner carrying that new-fangled shuttle is mentioned to be a 777. But it looks nothing like one. A 777 doesn’t have that funky triple tail fin thing.
Nor, i believe. does a standard 777 have the turned-up wingtips we see. Howver, if you look here or here, you can see that the actual 747 used to ferry the shuttle has a similarly modified tail structure. It’s a modification to increase the effectiveness of the vertical stabiliser while carrying the shuttle. One assumes that a 777 used for the same purpose would also have such; this one also has wingtip mods similar to some i have seen on some 747s, as well.
Bill H
Yes, and is it just me or is it kind of sick that the 5 year old son of Superman first uses his power to kill someone?
Yeah, I wasn’t thrilled with the deaths either. Then again, I think the kid could’ve been removed from the film and not had any major effect on the story. And I hate the fact that they’re going to have to waste time dealing with him somehow in any sequels.
More than anything I just wish they’d made a “new” Superman movie and stayed away from the originals. All the stuff from the 70s movies co-opted into this one felt like it was just being done to blatantly manipulate the emotions of the long-time fans.
And, much like “King Kong” it came across like an overly long vanity project.
I agree that the Spidey3 trailer was the best part, tho I quite liked the looks of “Flyboys” too.
Am I the only one who found the kid kind of creepy?
I was overjoyed when the film began. I was upset at the middle. The next day, I was gritting my teeth.
First, let’s take the kid. It was never said specifically that he was Superman’s son. If this were set in the DC Comics universe, it would be just as likely that the kid had the metagene and just happened to have powers.
Even if he didn’t, though, the fact that the kid’s first use of powers was deadly should have been upsetting to Supes. Just the fact that a child might have that power – his spawn or not – should have concerned him. The Superman I know would have gone to Lois – and possibly her Significant Other as well – and talked to them seriously about controlling and educating the kid, and offer to help. And if it truly WAS his kid, it’s criminal that he didn’t offer that help.
But maybe the kid is used to parental abuse. After all, his mom took him along on a potentially dangerous investigation. Sure, this breaking and entering of a rich man’s yacht involved an EMP-pulse effect that nearly killed her in that plane. What harm could possibly come to her kid if she dragged him along? Sheesh. Does she give the kid old razor blades as playthings?
The central point of this story was Superman’s absence. For all the money paid to extras for those crowd scenes (possibly more than the cost of all that CGI) we didn’t get to see Superman’s trip back to what he thought was Krypton. Instead we got a long title card to read. This wasn’t something that they might be holding back for a DVD extra – this was a deliberate editorial decision, and a lousy one. Was his reason justified? How can we tell? Everything was tossed out there with no real justification.
But the most fatal flaw in the movie is that Superman had no fun. Ever. Part of the joy of being a superhero is supposed to be the handling of nasty situations with aplomb. The Superman of the 1950’s was famous for his super-practical-jokes. Not this guy. Not even the “safest form of travel” line showed any real fun. Even Reeve’s Superman took some joy in the situations he was in – and I don’t mean his campy smile.
Kids and the kids inside us adults are supposed to be overjoyed imagnining ourselves as Superman. What kid would want to be this incarnation of the Man of Steel? What girl with romance in her heart would imagine herself to be Lois Lane, with the love-’em-and-leave-’em treatment she got from Big Blue?
What bothers me the most is, with all this ugly baggage, this might be a franchise-killer. The next film will almost certainly have to dump Lois’s little bas…I mean “miracle baby”…and the hubby to work. Killed off-screen or on, it would be terrible. And no matter what the box office says, I don’t see this being a Superman we’d want to revisit.
It was a good movie. Didn’t get the rush from seeing this that I did from seeing S:TM on New year’s Eve back in ’78 (at least no HO scale buidings and pebbles trying to look like boulders in this one), but I like it well enough (and I also think BATMAN BEGINS is a better movie as well). Peter pretty much brought up all the plot holes I thought of, but I don’t think they weren’t big enough to complain about too loudly. I just thought the pacing was uneven more than anything. All I can say is I’m happy it didn’t let me down — last year was a bummer for movies on that end.
Okay — I’m going to come out and say it, and I’m preparing to duck and run, but I LIKED Otis. Yes, off to camp town (do-dah, do-dah) we went when he showed up, but I thought he was funny as hëll, and the chemistry between Hackman and him worked. I still laugh everytime I see him eyeballing the candy wrapper, or when he tells Luthor “I don’t think he wants me to” when told to take Superman’s cape.
Besides, my favorite character, Doc Savage, got beat over the head with the camp-club way worse in his movie than that up-start Superman did. Got complaints about camp, just get in line…
It was a mistake to make this a sequel (and the worst kind-rehashing the plot from an earlier film!). The homages started to get annoying. But I enjoyed it as much as I did X3.
Peter covered it all pretty well.
“The Superman I know would have gone to Lois – and possibly her Significant Other as well – and talked to them seriously about controlling and educating the kid, and offer to help. And if it truly WAS his kid, it’s criminal that he didn’t offer that help.”
Too bad that Superman wasn’t even aware of what had happened on the yacht.
The kid was acting to defend his mom. That’s all the reason I need to not get creeped out by the death of the thug.
I enjoyed it. Not the best movie in the world, but certainly a fun way to spend an evening.
“The kid was acting to defend his mom. That’s all the reason I need to not get creeped out by the death of the thug.”
Yeah, I had no problem with that either. First of all, he’s five years old. Five year olds simply haven’t developed a sense of morality or an awareness of the outcome of their actions. All he knew was that a Bad Man was coming at his mother with a knife. He closely associated the Bad Man with the piano since the guy had been sitting there playing the duet. So basically he shoved the first thing that came to mind at the Bad Man to stop him from hurting his mother. He wasn’t thinking about anything beyond that, and at that age, he wouldn’t be.
What I thought was touching was the way he then apologized to his mother. Although they don’t go into specifics, I was figuring the kid knew that he was superstrong, and his mother knew it, too. And at some point in the past she had said to him, “You mustn’t use your strength. Not ever. That would be bad. If anyone learns of what you can do, they may take you away from mommy and study you” (which, let’s face it, they might. “Superstrong kid, lady; national security.”)
Another thing that Ariel picked up on that went right past me. In the Daily Planet office, Jason figures out that Clark is Superman. They have a POV shot where Jason is looking up at Clark, and then he looks over to the set where Superman is being shown in news footage and his head is at the exact same angle as Clark’s. And Jason reacts in seeing the one next to the other.
What would have been a nice touch: At the end, if Jason had said, “Mommy, why do you pretend not to recognize him when he’s wearing glasses?” and Lois replies, “Oh, it’s just a little game he and mommy play.” I would have liked that.
PAD
To respond to an earlier issue raised…
When Supes enteres the kid’s bedroom…the kid is his son, and he now knows its his son…what’s creepy about a dad entering his son’s bedroom?
I was personally rather amazed that the only deaths in the entire movie were the thugs. It seems Superman can be everywhere at once.
As to PAD’s question of why the Tidal Wave didn’t work…Superman stopped it from having the effect Lex planned. However, Lex’s land mass does raise…so Lex’s comment that the two land masses can’t coexist is questionable…but then again, the fact that a mad scientist was wrong about something isn’t a huge problem.
I think the land mass that Luthor had created was only a first step, and not the much larger land mass that would result in the flooding of North America. When he was explaining his plan (such as it was) to Lois, he had several maps that showed incremental increases in the size of his new contintent, with corresponding increases in the area covered by water.
So presumably he would have made use of other crystals to add to the mass. That’s my theory anyway.
I hadn’t intended to see the movie at all (not a fan of any of the other movies), but was coerced into agreeing to see it. I was able to enjoy the effects and some of the dialogue, but overall, meh. I’m of the opinion that a totally fresh start was called for after so long an absence from the big screen.
Also, the Superman/Lois/Richard/Jason plot, while a bold move, creates an intolerable situation. Sure, intolerable situations happen in life, but in this case where it was entirely contrived, it seems unnecessary. There is basically no way that it can be worked out satisfactorily. For Superman to be with Lois, Richard – who is clearly a good man – needs to be edged out in some fashion. This sucks not only for him, but also for the boy who’s spent most of his life belieinbg that Richard is his father, and it would eat at the consciences of Lois and Superman. On the other hand, Superman not being with Lois and his son is also intolerable.
So overall I think it was a bad move.
I did cringe at the death by piano, but I can accept it in the context of him protecting his mother.
As for the “joy” aspect that someone mentioned, there was at least a hint of that with the smirk that Supes lets slip after the bullet bounces off his eyeball.
“Am I the only one who found the kid kind of creepy?”
I thought he looked like the kid from “The Shining.” I kept waiting for him to start talking to his finger.
And, let us not forget the truly awful line about “one of the things about crystals is that that adopt the properties of what’s around them” (or words to that effect).
Ugh!
Never mind how mineralogically unsound that comment was, if it HAD been true, why didn’t the one used in the arctic turn to brittle ice and then have the whole structure collapse of its own weight?
And, typing of minerals … by and large, the kryptonite seen here often (note: not always) looked like pieces of inert, green plastic. Especially that tube the crystal was fitted into. The TV version of kryptonite worked better.
Yeah…Jon and John are correct about why there was no giant wave…that was phase one.
Yeah…of the whole deal with the kid, that was the part of him looking at Superman and Clark really clicked for me. Especially as Clark could see that the boy was making the connection in front of Lois and Richard.
“I think the land mass that Luthor had created was only a first step, and not the much larger land mass that would result in the flooding of North America. When he was explaining his plan (such as it was) to Lois, he had several maps that showed incremental increases in the size of his new contintent, with corresponding increases in the area covered by water.
So presumably he would have made use of other crystals to add to the mass. That’s my theory anyway.”
That’s not a theory, that’s exactly what was in the movie. This is why Kitty dropped the crystals, and why Lex was so mad about it.
I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn’t notice he’s standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he’s so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn’t he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?! My friend and I kept going “What the *&$^#???” at these huge inconsistencies.
I enjoyed the movie… it was fun. Different strokes for different folks, I supposed… Anyhoo, I wanted to add my two cents on some things I read through…
When superman lifted the giand krytonite continent, it was my impression that he went deep enough to get under a layer of rock and then proceed to pick up the giant continent… The layer of rock would protect him from the kryptonite (to some degree)… another reason why i assumed that’s what he did was because of the chunks of rocks falling into the ocean and the shards of krytonite growing through the bedrock…
As far as superman’s kid, I figured he was immune to the krytonite because of the fact that he’s half human… I guess you can compare Jason to Blade, he’s half human and half vampire, and he doesn’t have the vampire weaknesses…
Everyone have a great day! I’m going back to bed!
“I concur with the points Luigi makes, such as how is it that Superman doesn’t notice he’s standing on an island essentially made of kryptonite? Worse, the first time, he’s so weakened by it, he gets clobbered by street thugs (so why doesn’t he get killed by the fall off the cliff?!?! Makes absolutely NO sense) yet he somehow subsequently manages to shrug off the effects long enough to lift the whole thing into orbit?!?!”
I didn’t have a *huge* issue with that. They showed him going above the clouds to bathe in direct sunlight first. Green K doesn’t seem to have the direct poison effect (Except when being stabbed), more of a power leeching. So he supercharged himself first.
I liked the plot with the kid. I had no issue with him killing the kid. As PAD said, his mommy was being threatened. Of course he’s going to stop him. And he would have no direct idea of what would happen to the guy.
I was very, very impressed with how they handled Richard. It would have been too easy to kill him off, or make him a jerk. Instead, here’s someone who is just as good as Superman in his own was. He’s not an idiot, he knows about the kid.
And yet… he loves the kid and Lois enough that he doesn’t care. He even drives them to the hospital. I don’t see him and the kid being a problem for the next film.
“As far as superman’s kid, I figured he was immune to the krytonite because of the fact that he’s half human… I guess you can compare Jason to Blade, he’s half human and half vampire, and he doesn’t have the vampire weaknesses…”
Um, it had an effect on the kid. *that’s* why Luthor asked who the kids father was. As soon as he pulled out the Kryponite, the kid started getting sickly.
I had a problem with Superman’s son killing someone.
Not because it doesn’t make sense. He was defending his Mom. The guy had it coming. Heck, the kid had never done anything super before, so he might not even *realise* that he was the one who moved the piano. I thought of these things within 2 minutes of seeing the scene.
I have a gut reaction problem with it just for what it means for the kid. If a five year old kid in the real world accidentally got hold of a gun and shot someone, that could scar him for life. What if this kid grows up and remembers that the first time he used his powers someone died?
Superman doesn’t kill because he knows that if he ever went that far, he’d lose perspective. It saddens me a little to see the kid have to start off that way. I think it would have worked just as well if the kid had used Super breath to knock the guy back and break his arm. Then he could have kicked Superman with his buddies and gotten flattened by the falling crystal at the end.