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
• 
By the way, Luigi, I hope you don’t mind my appropriating (with some modifications) your method of marking the quoted material that you’re replying to — I just thought it makes things stand out very well.
“Then, faced with declining ratings, the TV show rushed the wedding episode on the air unexpectedly.”
I’d heard that it wasn’t declining ratings that made the show rush to a wedding, it was Teri Hatcher’s pregnancy.
here’s my long-winded take on it (more reviews up every week at http://www.viewmag.com/film.php Pimpity pimp pimp pimp!) I had two biggie problems: first of all, I don’t buy the central concept of Superman ditching on Earth, esp. considering how its a sequel to Superman II. Anyone remember how that ended? Second big problem is that thought it was a little too long-winded and lackadaisically paced for its own good. Reminded me of King Kong. There’s gold in there, pure gold, but offset by a lot of stuff you don’t care aboot. *ahem*
3 out of 5
Absent from the silver screen for decades, Superman flies back with Superman Returns. The movie is well meaning and earnest, just like Supes. Returns is a visual feast, wonderful to watch, and has FX moments that will leave your jaw on the floor. But it trips up a few times with a storyline and pace that takes forever to get moving, and a few too many wrong-headed plot twists. While sometimes Superman Returns will grab you, other times it bores you.
After over a decade of production woes and a revolving door of directors, stars, and scripts, Warner Brothers tapped Bryan Singer, the director who shepherded X-Men to the big screen, to bring back the Man of Steel. Singer and his writers have concocted a story about a Superman who left Earth for 5 years, and then returns to the life he left behind to continue his heroic deeds. Waiting for him is Lois Lane, now a mother, and Lex Luthor, out of prison, angrier than ever, and looking for revenge.
Singer’s skills as a director are unparalleled. Visually speaking, his take is spectacular, befitting a hero like Superman. Singer always has an eye for a nice shot and small moments, and his handling of the effects sequences are top notch. If Superman flying was pulled off adequately in the 70s, than Superman flying in 2006 looks amazing. Singer’s Superman, realized with state of the art CGI, is a force of nature (or, uh, Krypton.).
Looking at the movie in small doses, Singer works some magic. But put it all together, he’s a bit too in love with the subject matter and inconsequential moments that the audience can’t get into. Sometimes, it feels as if we’re being dragged by Superman, instead of soaring alongside.
Stepping into the considerable red boots of Christopher Reeve is Brandon Routh as Superman. He does an uncannily close job to Reeve’s performance. His Clark is bumbling and goofy, and his Superman can be determined and ticked when called for, and Routh exudes a quality of goodness that is integral to the character. One of his best lines is after he saves a plane from crashing, he cheerily tells the passengers, “I hope this doesn’t sour you on airlines, statistically it’s still the safest way to travel.” Very Reeve, and very goody-goody Superman.
Kate Bosworth is the intrepid Daily Planet reporter, Lois Lane, and she captures the determination and bull-headedness of Lois that makes her so oddly endearing. More problematic is the inclusion of her young son. The kid is decent and the part is interesting, but this is a franchise movie with an eye towards sequels . . . the inclusion of the kid throws a rather significant monkey wrench into the series storyline. It doesn’t get in the way in this movie, but you could see it turning into a problem later on.
Kevin Spacey, reunited with director Singer for the first time since The Usual Suspects, plays a much darker Lex Luthor. His performance has a few touches of Gene Hackman’s bombastic scenery chewing, but Spacey’s Luthor is angrier and deadlier than before. While he’s fun to watch, unfortunately, Lex is apart from Superman for most of the movie, leaving us testily wanting more of a showdown between the two.
One of the biggest problems is central to the plot, and the movie never overcomes it. As a Superman fan, I believe the premise of the movie is based around a fallacy: that Superman would just abandon all his responsibly and say “Seeya!” to Earth for 5 years. Considering how Returns is a direct sequel to Superman II, the movie where Superman said that he would never leave again, it makes swallowing the idea that he would run even more absurd. And when you learn what happened while he was gone from Earth for those years, makes him seem less Superman and more SuperDeadbeat Jerk,.
Another major problem is one of pacing. Its 155 minutes – over 2 and a half-hours and it really, really does not need to be this long. Early on there is a moment where Clark is reminiscing about how he first learned to fly – its nicely done, but serves zero purpose to the overall narrative. This scene is just a few more minutes that the movie didn’t need.
And that’s just one example. Not only are there quite too many shots of Clark pinning and moping over Lois, but individual scenes are just a hair too long. Whenever a catastrophe strikes, the build-up before Superman sweeps in and saves everyone seems to go on and on.
There are also way too many scenes of Superman ever-so-slowly catching something, or slowly lifting something while John Williams’ classic Superman theme music plays. The first time this happens is when Superman “returns” to the world with a spectacular plane rescue. When he stops the crash and the music swells, you feel like standing up and applauding. His return scene is so eye-popping, so well done, that any other scene of Superman slowly lifting heavy objects doesn’t measure up. By the end, when the climax involves Superman slowly lifting something to save the day, it feels like you’re watching “Superman’s Astonishing Adventures in Shoulder Press Exercise”.
Overall, Superman Returns reminds me of Peter Jackson’s King Kong, a movie that had singular moments of transcendent movie magic that were offset by lots of bloat and directorial excess. A movie about Superman, and one that we have waited for so long for, should soar. Instead, Returns takes a much more mundane route. But, even with all the watch-watching boring moments, there are still other very stirring scenes where you will believe that a comic icon can live again onscreen.
This was a very, very strange movie.
I blame the script (which is bizarre on so many levels that I won’t take space to go into them here) and the direction — it looks to me as if Singer sat on his cast much as George Lucas sat on the Star Wars ensemble in the last couple of movies. Moreover, the movie goes to spectacular lengths to keep the characters from actually resolving their interpersonal issues — the one relationship in the movie that actually goes somewhere is that between Luthor and Kitty, and that’s just bizarre.
I’d very much like to see this cast in a solidly scripted Superfilm that gives them some room to stretch. This was not that movie.
“Superman Returns seems to be the superior movie, but the original just have something magical about them. There is a feeling I got when I went back and watched Superman and Superman II, that I did just not get with Returns.”
To be fair, you were almost thirty years younger, and any subsequent viewings are going to be through the prism of the person you were back then.
PAD
Actually, I think jrains has a point. The best of the dramatic Superman incarnations — in particular the first Christopher Reeve film and much of the run of Lois & Clark — have a distinct quality that I can best describe as “sparkle”. Even Smallville at times exhibits this quality, though not so consistently.
Superman Returns doesn’t have it; insead, there’s an almost palpable void where the sparkle ought to be.
I think I’m with PAD on this one. Expectations and lack of nostalgia probably account for any lack of “sparkle”. The new movie had several emotional moments. When the next round of Superman movies get started 30 years from now, the people who are only 8 years old today are going to talk about the “sparkle” that Superman Returns had but Superman 2040 doesn’t have.
“My personal plot hole that hasn’t been mentioned yet is: didn’t it seem like Lois was running a better investigation of the blackout than the power company? Usually they’re pretty concerned about that kind of thing.”
Yeah, that’s the one thing that bothered me, too. Why is it that she’s the only one who found the source of the EMP? Wouldn’t the FBI or SOMEBODY be interested in the source of a giant EMP that wreaked untold havoc?
How do you know she was the only one investigating the blackout? We didn’t see what the FBI was doing and we didn’t see what the power company was doing. There could be a whole pile of corpses under Lex’s boat.
They could have added a scene where Lex hacks into the power company’s computer and messes up their information. It’s not really necessary, though.
Yeah, that’s how I rationalized it to myself, too. It’s still a rather important part of the plot that somehow got ignored, thoug.
” It’s still a rather important part of the plot that somehow got ignored, thoug.”
Not really. Whether or not the power company is doing a good job is pretty irrelevant to the story.
What Lois is going through is important, but I don’t think anyone would have enjoyed the movie more if they’d seen more of Larry at Metropolis Electric. Lois was a good enough reporter to go after the right story when everyone else told her to ignore it. That’s all that matters.
Robin S.: By the way, Luigi, I hope you don’t mind my appropriating (with some modifications) your method of marking the quoted material that you’re replying to — I just thought it makes things stand out very well.
Luigi Novi: Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And besides, I doubt I’m the first to use bold quotes.
You wouldn’t be the first person to do either. About a dozen or so of my fellow visitors at Nitcentral.com began aping my habit of using funny headings to preface each “nit” when nitpicking Star Trek epsiodes. 🙂
“Not really. Whether or not the power company is doing a good job is pretty irrelevant to the story.”
Yes, but the EMP seemingly being ignored by the authorities isn’t irrelevant. If they had a scene showing Lex milking a dying widow out of her fortune (which really wasn’t that important), they could have had a scene showing how he deals with any police who come snooping. That’s all I’m saying.
The opening scene with the old lady is an introduction to Lex and shows the audience what kind of scumbag he is. That may seem obvious, but there have been lots of versions of Lex and it’s important to establish his character at the beginning of the movie.
There’s no need to go back to that in the middle of the movie. The audience already knows that he’s evil scum. He’s willing to risk Kitty’s life, so nobody in the audience would be surprised that he’s willing to con the power company.
The audience didn’t need to see a scene explaining why the old lady had a model of Metropolis in her basement.
The audience didn’t need to see what Jimmy Olsen has been up to for the last 5 years.
The audience didn’t need to know why Martha Kent was the only one who noticed a meteor hitting her farm.
Robert, I understand that you’re curious about that one detail. However, there are a million other people who are curious about a 100 other details. There’s no need to slow the movie down to a 4 hour crawl explaining things the audience is smart enough to figure out on its own.
“…the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film.” PAD
I totally agree.
Some say it was creepy(him entering the kid’s room at night), but that scene almost made me cry. I understood why the director wanted to use the voice of Brando. Superman told his kid what his father told him and also what his adopted mother said to him earlier. I’m 28 and my wife and I are considering having a child in the next year or so and this father-son moment really have an impact on me.
At first I was a little disappointed with the movie overall, but after thinking about the movie for a while I realized that it was because my expectations where really really high. After reading your review I want to see it again.
A friend and I were discussing the point of Jason in the movie. He felt that Jason was unnecessary, but I have to wonder if Jason was the whole point of the movie.
Supes left the Earth to go back to Krypton to find out if there were any other Kryptonians. He saw himself as the last of his kind, he was alone. Only it turned out that very thing he was looking for in outer space (another Kryptonian)was here on earth in the form of a son. In a way, his trek to find the connection cost him (or nearly cost him) the connection he was looking for. The Lex stuff, even the Lois, stuff was only there to move Supes/Jason storyline ahead. You could have had any villian with a scheme and kryptonite and still told the “real” theme of the movie.
Posted by: Kim Metzger at July 3, 2006 10:16 AM
On Wednesday, I’ve got a laser procedure to eradicate a little cancer, so my mind hasn’t been on things as much as it might.
Kim, I haven’t seen Superman Returns, leaving me without a valid reason to comment in this thread — until I read your post. I sincerely hope your cancer is as minor as you’ve characterized it, and your treatment and recovery are as speedy and comfortable as possible.
Kim, like Bill Meyers I was avoiding the thread but I decided to read Bill’s opinion on the movie, safe in the assumption that it would be spoiler free.
Best wishes to you. It sounds like a minor procedure but the word “cancer” is scary even when preceded by the word “little”. Take care.
Superman defeats Lex Luthor!
There. I spoiled the ending without even having seen the movie or talking with anyone who has. Let the hate-emails begin.
(While I’m at it, the Titanic sinks and Anakin Skywalker turns into Darth Vader. I know, I know. I’m such a bášŧárd.)
Rosebud was his sled.
There. I just saved you two long, bøøblëšš hours.
Rosebud was Darth Vader’s sled?
I’m having trouble deciding which is the better parent..
We have Superman.. who has sex with Lois and then gives her the “Date Rape” kiss. And then like a lot of todays fathers.. he ditches the girl and leaves her to raise the kid.. taking no responsibility.
We have Lois.. who takes her son with her to investigate the cause of a major disturbance. She tresspasses onto property with son in tow. And when her son does something strange (it was off camara, so I might let her have this one) she doesn’t say anything about it or question how.
We have Richard White.. who stops at nothing to find his son. Who places the lives of others before himself.. who seems to have the worst luck with superheroes wanting his woman (first Wolverine, now Superman. I’m wondering if he shows up in Spider-Man 3 as Gwen Stacey’s boyfriend)
SUPERior parent – Richard White
“He’s willing to risk Kitty’s life, so nobody in the audience would be surprised that he’s willing to con the power company.”
Okay, you need to stop talking about the dámņ power company. When did I ever mention the power company? What I said was that there was a huge EMP that wiped out power for all electronic devices and caused who knows how many problems and deaths, and Lois was the only person who seemed to care. This is not a little detail that I’m just “curious” about. This is a major plot point. There should have been police banging on Luther’s door. It would not have slowed the movie down to show how he got out of that. It’s part of the story that the film is telling.
I’m not sure why you’re so defensive about it anyway, since I clearly liked the movie a lot more than you did.
“Okay, you need to stop talking about the dámņ power company.”
Why are you getting upset? You didn’t mention the power company, but DonBoy did, and then you said you agreed with him. Thus, it’s reasonable for me to mention the power company.
As for the police, I didn’t mention that up until now because I didn’t think there was any need to. I’ve lived through several power outages in my life, and I’ve never once heard of a police investigation into them. There was a mojor power outage in New York a couple of years back. It lasted several hours instead of the couple of minutes that we saw in the movie. I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Where exactly did you get the idea that the police would investigate something like this? Power outages are not uncommon, there actually have been a few that affected multiple states, and they’ve always been the responsibility of the power companies. Not police.
I’m not getting defensive about this. I’m just explaining my position. However, you seem to be getting agitated, Robert. Relax, it’s not that big a deal.
Rick Keating: But I’m not Superman. Supes isn’t supposed to do those things to his dog.
Luigi Novi: Says who? It’s a harmless bit of fun with one’s pet animal, an animal that does not perceive the act as “cruelty” toward it. (Or was this another joke?)
Rick Keating: Lex Luthor’s dog, maybe, but not his own.
Luigi Novi: And why is this? It’s cruel to “Krypto”, but cruel to another dog, simply because that other dog belongs to a scumbag? What the sins of the owner are visited upon the canine, or something? 🙂
Jason M. Bryant: I’ve lived through several power outages in my life, and I’ve never once heard of a police investigation into them. There was a mojor power outage in New York a couple of years back. It lasted several hours instead of the couple of minutes that we saw in the movie. I never saw anything about a police investigation of that, either.
Luigi Novi: No, but someone had to investigate it so as to determine its cause, whether it was the FBI, the police, the NSA, Con Ed, or whoever. That Lois manages to track it to Luthor’s lair but the authorities for some reason do not is indeed a big plot hole, IMO.
That should read “not” cruel to another dog…”
“That Lois manages to track it to Luthor’s lair but the authorities for some reason do not is indeed a big plot hole, IMO.”
I can concede that it’s a plot hole. I don’t see how it’s a *big* plot hole. We all know that Lex foiling the police is like me brushing my teeth. It happens, he moves on.
However, I do see that you think it’s a plot hole, even if I’d call it a minor plot hole.
My point isn’t that it’s not a plot hole, my point is that it isn’t worth spending screen time on. Nobody would be surprised by Lex foiling the police. There’s no character development to be had from spending time on this. Showing the police tracking the power outage would be repeating some of the stuff that Lois does in the film, essentially playing the same scenes twice.
Showing Lex foiling the police would fill the plot hole, but it would hurt momentum. Momentum is incredibly important in a movie. Sure, they could have filled this hole.
They could also have shown the Smallville police going to check on Martha Kent after a meteor landed in her field. They could have spent time on the FEDs showing up after the weapon was stolen from the Russians. There are several other things they could have spent time on also, but adding an extra 15 minutes to the movie to explain several minor plot holes wouldn’t have been worth it.
By the way, what was the time frame for the movie? From the power outage to Lois getting on the boat, how many days passed? If we don’t have a clear indication, then what are our guesses for min time and max time?
“Where exactly did you get the idea that the police would investigate something like this? Power outages are not uncommon, there actually have been a few that affected multiple states, and they’ve always been the responsibility of the power companies. Not police.”
It wasn’t just a power outage. It knocked out ALL electronics, including the space shuttle. That’s a huge deal. And here we have a newspaper reporter tracking down its source before anyone else does. It just felt slightly wrong to me, but it didn’t really bother me that much.
Ok, I have to admit I just didn’t read everything in this thread because, it’s really, really long. So please forgive me if I repeat anything here.
First off, let’s look at the movie itself. The movie rocks. It’s got heart and action. Is it absolutely perfect? It’s every bit as perfect as any movie involving superheroes can be. Think “Batman Begins” is better? Well, that is if you are ok with your character not saving someone when they normally would. At the end when Bats tells Rha’s Al Ghul that he doesn’t have to save him all three of my friends and I screamed “Yes you do! You’re Batman!”. At least Superman isn’t out of character. And at least Superman Returns didn’t bore me to tears as Batman Begins did.
Lois’ memory? I don’t really care. I’m sure there is an explanation somewhere in the movie or in the next one. More important was the fact that Lois chose the best possible husband and father. Richard White is every bit as heroic as Big Blue. Thus, Superman smartly leaves Jason in his and Lois’ hands.
Luthor’s plot? Well we even have a real-life example of hubris coming up with a plan that will end up hurting the person who implements it and makes no sense. He lives in the White House.
Personally considering people who claim to be comics fans don’t have a problem with a hero murdering someone or with the crap that DiDio has pulled at DC over the last 5 years but will have a problem with a movie that was faithful and respectful of our passions, I don’t have a positive view of the future of the superhero trade. I mean, did no one just enjoy the movie? Let themselves go be 5 or 6 or 10 years old again for a couple of hours? If you couldn’t do that, with all the crap in the world, I think I feel sorry for you.
One more note. Brandon Routh being compared to Christopher Reeve isn’t really fair. Reeve had 20 additional years and the aftermath of his accident to build his legend in our heads and hearts. Routh did the absolute best he could. For me, outside of Reeve, Routh is Superman.
Michael
Eric Recla:I’m having trouble deciding which is the better parent..
We have Superman.. who has sex with Lois and then gives her the “Date Rape” kiss. And then like a lot of todays fathers.. he ditches the girl and leaves her to raise the kid.. taking no responsibility.
Unfair description of Supes. He didn’t “ditch the girl and leaves her to raise the kid.” He didn’t know about the kid until her returned. In fact, he didn’t know about having a son until the end of the movie.
And calling that a “date rape” kiss is an mischaracterization. “Date rape” isn’t about erasing a willing partner’s memory after the fact. It is not rape by any definition. Erasing her memory in the second movie might be an unethical action, but it’s not rape-like.
I have to say the film left me seriously underwhelmed on a few main points. The most important to me was character development; I completely missed the human drama that Peter and so many other reviewers cite (sorry, Peter, I usually would be the last to argue with your talent for writing and recognizing good character drama, but I sure didn’t find it in this movie). None of the characters go anywhere in terms of personality, except perhaps for Lois as she accepts Superman back into her life. I think Routh could handle Superman/Clark character drama admirably, yet there really is none to be found. He reacts to the three main dramatic points of the movie–his return to Krypton, Lex’s plot and attack on him, and Lois having moved on without him–with little emotion and no conclusive closure at the end of the film. Richard White had zero depth as a character, and I honestly found Jason rather annoying most of the time. Arguably, Lex’s character shows some development, but it is only a weirdly jarring transition from a darkly comical bwa-ha-ha villain to sudden violent vengeance; his sudden attack on Superman just didn’t go with how Spacey had played the character up to that point.
Furthermore, I felt like we waited twenty-five years (thirty? I’m not sure how long it’s been) and then sat in the theater for two and a half hours of a movie that really went nowhere. Superman gets rid of Lex’s continent, but then doesn’t go back to confront him again? Where was the character-to-character confrontation between these two? Superman said ONE LINE to Lex and then got his ášš kicked. ONE LINE! And he doesn’t at least show up to haul Lex back off to the slammer? Furthermore, we only get a teaser to what’s going to happen with Jason, and no closure as to whether or not Lois knows whose kid it really is. Am I the only one who left the theater feeling cheated and disappointed?
The central problem with this movie is that, as Peter said, it’s placing itself in the middle of a series of movies that was made decades ago. The movies were good, people loved them, but they weren’t perfect and they are entirely unknown to a lot of the young audience today. In my opinion the old continuity should have been dumped, and the story should have been retold for a new audience in a method akin to Mark Waid’s amazing “Birthright” or the excellent “Batman Begins”. Unfortunately, it looks like we’ll have to wait out another couple of Singer films and then an intervening decade or so before anyone gets around to taking that particular route.
Here’s another question: How come Lois is the one who figures out where the power outage started? Clark is supposed to be working on that story, and he’s at least as good a reporter as Lois! And what kind of reporter gets an address and doesn’t check on the ownership before going there? And leaves her cell phone behind? Things like this add up over the course of a 5 hour movie.
“Clark is supposed to be working on that story”
Well, they showed Clark trying to convince Perry that Lois should be on the story. I got the impression that he backed off because Lois wanted it so badly.
Plus, actually working on the story would have cut into his staring-at-Lois time.
“At the end when Bats tells Rha’s Al Ghul that he doesn’t have to save him all three of my friends and I screamed “Yes you do! You’re Batman!”. At least Superman isn’t out of character.”
How is that out of character? Where in the movie does he say that he would never let a criminal die? If you’re saying it’s out of character from the comic book version, well, your case is even weaker. Golden Age Batman routinely killed the bad guys.
I do agree that the movie is boring, though (as well as incoherent and silly).
Awful, awful movie. Spider-Man 3 trailer was cool.
“How is that out of character? Where in the movie does he say that he would never let a criminal die? If you’re saying it’s out of character from the comic book version, well, your case is even weaker. Golden Age Batman routinely killed the bad guys.”
Yes, Batman killed bad guys in the early days. He even shot at them with guns from time to time.
Since then, the character has had a strict “no killing” policy. It’s a significant part of the character at this point. The line between killing someone and letting him die is a little thin, so a few people had a problem with that scene in Batman Begins. Some of us also had problem with the Batmobile chase where he destroyed those police cars.
I didn’t like it, but I accepted it. It’s a minor quibble in a movie that I liked overall. Like you said, this movie didn’t draw that line as solidly as the comics have in the last few decades.
Okay, I realize I’m behind, but I just went to see Superman Returns today. It’s the Fourth of July, I hadn’t seen it yet, and I was off work, so I figured there’d be no better time to catch it.
I LOVED it.
I really really LOVED it.
I wouldn’t rank it above Spider-Man 2 on the list of my favorite comic book films, but this one will be way up there. It helps that Superman is my #2 favorite comic book hero.
First of all, Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to me. Brandon Routh did an admirable job filling those red boots, and I thought his performance was great. I would have liked to see a little bit more of Brandon Routh’s take on the character, and less mimicking of Reeves’ take on the character, but I enjoyed it regardless.
Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was good. She is probably the most attractive Lois Lane I’ve seen, but then again, I don’t buy her as a mother to Jason at all. She just didn’t sell Lois as a mother. I think Bosworth and Routh had great chemistry, but I wish Bosworth’s Lois had been a tad more feisty and playful like Kidder.
Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was a highlight. Spacey plays Luthor perfectly: greedy selfish corporate player who hates Superman because he’s an alien and because Superman is above Luthor’s control, and Luthor is all about control and power. That said, I would have liked to have seen more of an extended confrontation between Luthor and Superman. The scene with Luthor and Superman lasted about five minutes in a film lasting 170+ minutes.
Oh, and about the whole “Superman lifting the Kryptonite crystal land mass” issue…it doesn’t bother me. Here’s my take. Superman tunneled underneath all of the Kryptonite crystal. There’s a good chance that there was a concentration of lead in the earth that shielded Superman as he lifted the land mass. If you noticed, big chunks of dirt and rocks came falling off the bottom of the mass as Superman carried it higher. My take is that Superman used the natural amounts of lead in the soil and rocks to shield him from the brunt of the radiation, and only as he climbed higher was Kryptonite exposed, weakening him: the higher he flew, the weaker he became, and he fell to Earth.
The music…nuff said. 🙂
There were plenty of Superman rescues in this film, and when I plop down six bucks to catch a matinee playing a Superman flick, I want to see him performing daring rescues. This did not disappoint.
I’m sure if I sat and thought about it and picked it apart, I’d find more to complain about, but you know what? I honestly walked out of that theater today believing in Superman and what he represents. That’s a good feeling.
Final thought: That scene with Superman and Jason at the end truly was the best Superman scene ever filmed. My father passed away six years ago. Watching Superman standing there, smiling, so taken amazed at the wonderful gift that is his child…”The son becomes the father and the father becomes the son”…I admit that I became quite teary-eyed watching that scene. So incredibly moving.
I don’t see how allowing Rha’s to die is out of character for Batman. Rha’s was threatening both Batman’s life, and the lives of everyone in Gotham. He had to get off the train himself before it crashed, so saving Rha’s would’ve been above and beyond anything Batman was required to do.
Tom Keller
I’m divided over this film. On one hand, I hate the new costume. It’s not the colors of the S shield, it’s the size. Why so little?
That part of the ‘new’ outfit didn’t bother me. Routh looks scrawny enough – a large S would’ve made made him look even smaller. Thru all of “Lois & Clark” I was wishing they’d drop the size of the shield because Dean Cain always looked bigger wearing anything other than the Superman outfit.
What bothered me the most about the outfit – the red inside the S on his belt. I think it would’ve looked better if the whole thing was gold/yellow.
Can someone please explain to me the scene where Lois and Jason are trapped in that room on the ship, and she asks Jason for help. He’s sitting there looking at his hands, and the tips of his fingers look like they’re swollen green. At first I thought he had shoved his hand in a jar of something and was thinking about eating it, the way he was staring at his fingers I thought he’d lost his mind.
Was the swollen green look from when he waved away Lex’s bit of kryptonite? At first I thought he was immune to kryptonite, but i’m guessing his burst of power was taken away by the growing city.
Oh, and here’s kudos to the writers for not killing off Lex at the end…for some reason comic movie writers seem to take great joy killing off the bad guys that have been around for decades in just under or over 2 hours (re: Batman/Spider-Man movies).
“He’s sitting there looking at his hands, and the tips of his fingers look like they’re swollen green.”
That confused me too. I’m kind of thinking there was a deleted scene of something happening to his fingers. At first I just thought he’d put some olives on the ends of them while playing around, but they never cleared up exactly what happened.
Oh, and incidentally…
In my post above, I make reference to Superman Returns being “170+ minutes” long. I don’t know what I was thinking, except that apparently it didn’t involve math. 🙂 The film was about 145 minutes long.
Let’s put it this way: I went to a showing at 11:30am. I didn’t walk out of the theater until 2:15pm.
But I loved every minute of it.
Carry on…
I’ll agree with the ‘deleted scene’ comment. It looked like they chopped something between the time Lois asked her son to help and when he was sitting on the ground. Maybe they decided not to even attempt any more jr. supes stuff from him. But giving me a taste of it (piano) I was begging for it the rest of the movie. Especially when they were trapped and sinking. They showed that window/hatch so often I was like “SMASH IT OPEN SUPERBOY!”
I think I prefer the portrayal of Clark Kent passing as Superman by saying and showing less of himself, as opposed to someone who is naturally Superman putting up the front of a bumbling Clark Kent. Kal-El is different and no amount of power or glory can compensate for his need for love. This gives Superman a Kierkegaardian quality. I think this depiction makes the character more engaging in spite of the quality of Reeve’s performance.
Singer did a similar thing in X2, where Pyro tries to introduce himself by giving Magneto his civilian name when, no, what Magneto wanted was his real name. I’m not particularly a fan of Singer as a director, but I like the subversive nods he gives to those who understand the difficulty of moderating their behavior to fit. You get so repressed you stop being sure who you really are.
Metropolis however isn’t the world of the X-Men, where Superman can be himself among an adoptive family of superheroes. As alienated as the X-Men are, Superman is denied the intimacy they enjoy. When Lois and Richard laugh at Clark Kent, they are laughing at Superman as he really is, different and exposed and lonely. “Clark is the same height and build as Superman — so what’s his excuse?“
Singer’s Clark Kent is Superman when he lets his guard down: only as Clark Kent is Superman truly free. I think it’s as good a portrayal of Superman as we could have hoped to have seen.
The StarWolf: DC decided it was time to drag the legend into the late 20th century and had Byrne redesign him into a more human and better-rounded manner in ’86. So why didn’t they go with that one instead?
Because DC’s already written most of Byrne’s run on Supes out of current continuity. I mean, even before Infinite Crisis, Byrne’s Superman reboot had aready been more-or-less retconned out via Waid’s ‘Birthright.’ If the vast majority of Supes’ existence is the non-Byrne, ‘classical’ version, then it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that the big screen version sticks with the ‘classical’ Superman. And if you HAD gone with a complete reboot, you would’ve had to do the entire origin story over again, which would be pointless since it’d already been done (and done well, in my opinion) in “Superman: The Movie.” If you agree that the first two were good, it makes more sense to relaunch the franchise by picking up the existing threads rather than inventing whole new cloth… after all, James Bond’s gotten 20-odd movies out of that trick.
I went back and watched it again today on the 4th. A few things I noticed regarding quibbles mentioned above:
The thing on Lois’ desk was an announcement of Lois’ winning the Pulitzer Prize, not the actual prize itself.
The thing that fell out of Lois’ purse was not a cell phone, but was Lois’ tape recorder (a fact emphasized by Superman telling her exactly where it is during their Daily Planet rooftop scene), so I don’t think Clark’s secret identity is in danger due to a misfiring cell camera… though I admit that’d be a fun plot device.
Superman’s shield, while not making an appearance on the back of his cape, does make its appearance on the backs of his boots. I guess maybe he found some bling on Krypton?
As PAD notes, Jason is wearing Aquaman PJs during the final scene… what I want to know is why there was no confrontation between Lois and Supes about why the son of the Man of Steel was doing product placement for the weakest guy on the SuperFriends roster instead of for dear old dad.
Like in “Batman Begins,” where all the cars in that movie had license plates that read ‘Gotham,’ all the plates in “SR” read ‘Metropolis.’ A nice touch, coupled with the mention of Gotham City during the Superman coverage, that makes me think Warner Brothers is going to bum-rush a “World’s Finest” movie into production ASAP.
On the second viewing, I found I still enjoyed the movie as much as the first time around, even with all the plot holes and the gripes and nitpicks that I’ve read about since the first viewing.. The one thing I left with in my mind this time out was that the movie can only be considered a sequel, and it’s obviously designed to produce more sequels. “Superman Returns” left so many plot threads dangling that it screams for closure, and despite the ‘poor’ box office performance it’s still making lots of bank for Warner/DC (maybe half of the showtimes at the Mall of Georgia, where I went to see it today, were sold out… the theater I was in was nearly full), so it’s reasonable to assume a “Superman’s Still Here!” will follow, with maybe a “Superman Kicks The Crap Out Of Batman” after that.
One other thing… would it have hurt to put the dedication to Chris and Dana Reeve right after the final scene, and before the credits?
Hey, does any one have any comments on what will happen to the mass of crystals superman threw out of earth?
Here’s my theory. That will be a new planet krypton cuz the crystals kitty dropped are still on it. It was still growing in size when superman pushed it out.Quoting what Lex said, “the crystals will do something with the surounding particles or something”….I wondering what space will do to it. New planet! or like in Justice league, their base!
I said: “Superman Returns seems to be the superior movie, but the original just have something magical about them. There is a feeling I got when I went back and watched Superman and Superman II, that I did just not get with Returns.”
PAD said: “To be fair, you were almost thirty years younger, and any subsequent viewings are going to be through the prism of the person you were back then.”
Really, that is more than a stellar point, even though I am only 20. I did love the Superman movies as a kid, and remember even wathcing the fourth one over and over again.
I guess the movie that I think makes a good point of comparison is Willy Wonka/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It was one of my favorite books as a child, but the old movie always bored me to tears. There were some parts I liked, but even as a little kid I hated the singing, with the exception of the Oompa Loopas. I greatly enjoyed the Tim Burton version though, while most of my friends could not see how I could watch it without seeing how vastly superior the old one was.
Really though, I was looking for more from Superman Returns. What I wanted was something like the LOTR or Spider-Man movies, that produced a real feeling and gave me that special feeling. What I got was a decent Superman, but not something I will revisit as much as say X-Men 2.
One of the friends I saw the movie with made a point about the boy… We never actually see him do anything super. We’re only under the impression that its Superman’s.. but they have it set up where if the public cried too much, they could easily correct it.
I’m also wondering if the five year absence was made that particular timeframe so Superman was off planet during 9/11.