Superman Returns

[RegularKarate]

I knew GT wouldn't like this movie, but it's funny that his complaint is the exact OPPOSITE of most of the complaints I'm hearing.

There really wasn't that much action in the movie.  I agree fully with GT that Parker would have made a better Lane, but I think that everyone else did such a great job with their roles that it was easily forgiven.

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

[Gold Trumpet]

I knew GT wouldn't like this movie, but it's funny that his complaint is the exact OPPOSITE of most of the complaints I'm hearing.

Haha, but I'm the one asking for more heart in this movie!

I'll stand by my opinion. Of course I expected you to come back with a remark to my post, but I definitely expected something more brutal. You're such a softie these days, RK!

[SHAFTR]

I can't really figure out how I feel about Superman Returns yet.  The nods to the original made me smile, yet also irritated me.  I guess that is how this film made me feel.  Superman Returns seems to spend too much of its lengthy runtime referencing the old film, that it has a hard time establishing itself on it's own two legs.  It took me awhile to start enjoying the movie, but once I did I found myself enjoying the original scenes more so then the self referential ones.

I discussed the movie with a friend and he talked about how he has problem with the "brooding" aspects of the story, contrasted to the "boy scout" Superman that he knew and loved.  While I understand his complaint, I kind of enjoyed seeing Superman from a different angle.  At the same time, the movie spends so much time referencing the old one that the character ends up in between our nostalgic hero and the one portrayed in 2006.

When I first started watching the movie, I thought it was a 3 star film (out of 5).  By the end I was thinking it was up to 4, but now I'm starting to think it is closer to 3 again.  It just had a difficult time establishing itself properly in a continium of old/new and fun/serious.

[Derek237]

Honestly, I felt that they should have gone with the title, "How Superman Got His Groove Back," as opposed to "Returns," because now it's just a total ripoff of Batman. In every way. Except only the title. But I thought it was a good movie, definitely the movie epic of the summer. If it had opened in Feburary or something, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much. And besides some idiots in the theatre (moronic teenage girls who probably only came to see Supe's buldging package made the most mind-numbingling redundant comments like, "THAT'S A HARD EYE." Yeah, that's great, kid) I enjoyed myself.

Good:

-Finally a Superhero film without loads of angst. I felt that Superman was very solemn in handling his issues, which I respected yo.

-Good SFX but honestly, even after a quarter century, some of that blue screen flying still looks cheesy and fake. But w/e. It all looked very expensive. And I was somewhat impressed.

-Spacey. From the previews, I thought he would profoundly screw up the role, but I guess they just decided to show the worst overacting in the previews. He was a good Lex, and I dunno, I love Gene Hackman, don't get me wrong, but I never bought him as Lex Luthor. He was good and funny in Superman 1&2 he was funny, and probably better and Spacey was, but not as Lex Luthor, more as "The villain played by Gene Hackman" who happened to be named Lex Luthor. But Yeah, Spacey I bought as Lex. And if I had a Cell phone, I would make my ringtone a repeating soundclip of Kevin Spacey saying, "Krrrrryyyyptonite!" over and over just for the sheer oddity.

-(this one may be a spoiler) And I liked the the one scene where Lex and Lois meet, the grand reveal, as it were. Usually in a movie like this it's the evil villain sitting in the chair, holding a cat, and turing around to reveal himself- nice suit and all. But this time she happens to stumble upon him just brushing his teeth in a bathrobe. I thought that was very amusing.

Bad:

Stupid, stupid plot. They go with the lame "Lex has an evil plot" shtick, which just didn't justify a 2 and a half hour film. It ran too long.

All in all the movie achieved nothing other than shouting to the world, hey superman is back. We want your money. Please see this and any other sequels that ensue.

and I'm sure other stuff sucked too but I'll leave that to the true critics.

[SiliasRuby]

Don't feel like repeating the postives of what people have already said but definitely a 

[MacGuffin]

I thought it would be a huge hit.  It's Superman, for Christ's sake!  We'll see how it fares this weekend.

'Superman' Soars to $52 Million Opening

Superman may not be the world's greatest superhero at the box office, but the Man of Steel still flies high. "Superman Returns" took in $52.15 million over opening weekend, lifting its five-day total since its debut Wednesday to $84.2 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

That puts the Warner Bros. film ahead of the premiere of last year's "Batman Begins," another Warner superhero revival, which took in $48.7 million over its opening weekend and $72.9 million in its first five days. But "Superman Returns" finished far behind Sony's "Spider-Man 2," the record-holder for best five-day openings, with $152.4 million over Fourth of July weekend in 2004.

[McfLy]

From what I see, this film is getting overall positive word of mouth, so perhaps it will continue to score some dollars. If a trash movie like X3 can make $228 mil, then by god Superman Returns must also.

[Link]

Before I saw it, a friend told me that if I go in expecting Superman V (or Superman III, depending on how you look at it), I'd be dissappointed and upset.  But I think the way to look at it is not as a sequel, but still in the same universe.  Yes, there are plenty of nods to the first two, and even some major plot points.  Yes, the credit sequence is the same.  The closing shot as well.  But it's not really a sequel, meaning it doesn't need to fit in style-wise and art-wise.  Yes, the first two were more comedic.  That's how they were made.  That doesn't mean this one has to be comedic as well.  For some, that becomes a dull movie.  I didn't find it to be dull at all. 

I enjoyed the action sequences (no, the CG wasn't perfect, but neither was the original's effects, but we forgive it because 1.) it was back in the 70's and 2.) we love the movie.  Besides, who thought the effects in X-Men and X2 were perfect?  Not me, so I wasn't expecting perfect effects on this one either).  I do think Lex's plot could have been more original.  I mean, basically they tried to combine his story from part I and II.  A little annoying, but I still kind of enjoyed it.  While I wasn't quite okay with the characterization of Lois Lane (I could have used a little more spunk), I went back afterwards and saw Superman II and just found Lois to be annoying, and couldn't see how in the world anyone, let alone Superman/Clark Kent, could actually fall in love with her.  The only reason I could come up with was that he has to, for the sake of the story.

It's not the best it could have been, and I think a sequel will make for an absolutely spectacular piece of work, but I still liked Superman Returns a lot.  Enough to see it a few more times in theaters. 

But it's not for everybody, I can totally understand that.

[©brad]

this was wonderful! it's a film that hits on all cylinders. it gives you chills, i tell yah! i was jumping up and down in my seat many times, as was much of the theater.

brandon routh was OUTSTANDING. i mean let's face it, all great special effects and supporting characters aside, if routh doesn't work, the movie doesn't work. i particularly liked it when he was clark kent. i found him much more subtle w/ the overall goofiness of the character than reeve's portrayal. parker and the little kid were both fantastic as well.

(other than a certain plot point I had a problem with that I won't mention here).

which part? i did think luthor's whole evil scheme was pretty weak, and i attribute that to just lazy screenwriting. it didn't really even make sense when you think about it. but the overall badassness of the flick made me get over it.

i wouldn't name flaws specifically, but i did find some missed opportunities, the biggest one being...

[SPOILIES BELOW]



when superman is in the hospital, and we see all of nyc awaiting the official word of his survival. there shoulda been a quick "he's alive!" moment, and they shoulda leveraged the "SUPERMAN LIVES" newspaper headline. i wanted to see people cheering, rejoicing, the whole world even!

can't wait to see it again!

[MacGuffin]

Singer Turns Directing Power on Superman

Bryan Singer did not read comic books as a kid, yet he's become the kingpin of Hollywood superhero adaptations.

After the character-driven tales "The Usual Suspects" and "Apt Pupil," director Singer began the current phase of artsy comic-book epics with 2000's "X-Men," continued with 2003's sequel "X2: X-Men United," and now has revived the world's greatest superhero with "Superman Returns."

Though not a comic-book fan growing up in the 1970s, he fell in love with the Man of Steel through reruns of the 1950s TV show "Adventures of Superman," starring George Reeves. On opening night in 1978, Singer went with his mom to see Richard Donner's "Superman," with Christopher Reeve.

Warner Bros. futilely tried to create a new Superman movie for more than a decade, with top directors such as Tim Burton, McG and Brett Ratner involved in various stories that fell through. Singer, 40, came in with his own ideas, adding a postscript to the Christopher Reeve era.

The film picks up five years after Superman has trekked across the cosmos to see if anything remains of his destroyed home world, Krypton. Returning to Earth, Superman has to adjust to a planet that has learned to make do without him.

Starring newcomer Brandon Routh in the title role, "Superman Returns" joined Singer's "X-Men" and "X2" as an instant blockbuster, raking in an estimated $84 million in its first five days.

Singer chatted with The Associated Press about how he became a Superman fan, what it took to bring the hero back to life and why it's so important to keep the Man of Steel clad in his traditional tights, made of material as indestructible as Frodo Baggins' mithral armor in "The Lord of the Rings"
___

AP: What drew you to Superman as a boy?

Singer: I think for me, it was because I was an only child, and I was also adopted. I found I somehow identified with this character and thought, well, what if I had a special heritage and special genes? I love my parents, but somehow, I had that identification with the character.

AP: Did you ever consider taking Superman out of the old blue-and-red tights and giving him a hipper costume, like what the "X-Men" wear?

Singer: Never. The X-Men, they have powers, but they're still vulnerable, so they have to have some uniforms, some fighting gear, things like that. Superman is the Man of Steel. Bullets bounce off him, not his suit. So even though his suit is kind of like Kryptonian mithral I stole that from Brandon, by the way. That was his. I said, "Brandon, what do you think of the suit?" He said, "It's like Kryptonian mithral," so I'm using that now. I feel guilty. But it's true, the strength comes from the man. Batman needs a suit, Spider-Man needs a mask. Superman, he's just wearing the Superman suit.

AP: Superman's outfit has been updated a bit.

Singer: The only thing I did is I raised the shield on the chest. The reason I did that was because the decal, the silkscreen, felt very cheap. You could cast light onto the raised, etched shield in a cool way. It would take light in different ways, and I could tell different moments of the story with flat lighting and side lighting, depending on where he was at. Also, the hardness of it, the raised-ness of it, was kind of a nod to the Kryptonian technology, that the suit is part of a greater Kryptonian history and technology that is not of this Earth. And I took the "S" off the back of the cape, but that was never part of the comic book, anyway.

AP: Was it ironic that Brett Ratner, who was once signed on to do a "Superman" movie, wound up making the third "X-Men" film, while you came over to "Superman Returns"?

Singer: Yeah, because at one point he was involved in this project. There was one moment where a second-unit director asked me to call Brett, because I'm friends with Brett, to recommend him. ... I was having this 45-minute conversation with Brett Ratner when he was prepping a "Superman" movie and I remember feeling happy for him but jealous at the same time, because I love Superman so much. It's interesting that this should have happened. It's my love of Superman that kind of inspired me to do "X-Men." I had a five-hour bootleg of Richard Donner's "Superman." It was all cobbled together from outtakes that someone somehow got a hold of, and we would watch this in the trailer on the set of "X-Men."

AP: Has Richard Donner had anything to say about "Superman Returns"?

Singer: He wrote me a fax. He said, "I want to be within five seats of you at the premiere, so I can either hug you or hit you."

AP: Your movie seems to fit right in after Donner's "Superman" and its first sequel.

Singer: It's a quasi-sequelization of the first two films. I kind of used those as historical springboards. Once I decided to use those as springboards, I thought it was appropriate to bring in some of the iconography, the John Barry designs and the Fortress of Solitude, and enhance those. And the music, of course. The John Williams music is very important to me. That opening theme has to be there. It's like "Star Wars." It has to be there.

AP: Where was the studio at with "Superman" when you came on board with your own story?

Singer: It was a retelling of the origin story. I was offered it, actually. I was offered it three years ago. I passed on it, not because it was bad. It was a decent script, a good script. It had interesting things in it. But it departed from the mythology as I knew it so much, and it retold a story that I think for people over the age of 25 they had already been told in the first "Superman" and for people under the age of 25 they had seen on "Smallville." And I felt if I'm going to tell a story, it simply has to be a return story.

[MacGuffin]

Exclusive Interview: DIRECTOR OF STEEL BRYAN SINGER FLIES HIGH WITH SUPERMAN RETURNS - PT. 1
In a candid three-part interview with iF MAGAZINE, the filmmaker discusses the evolution of SUPERMAN, the stamina needed to create a film of this scope and casting James Marsden as the perennial nice guy hero who has trouble holding on to the heroine's heart 
By: ANTHONY C. FERRANTE

Flying high this weekend at the boxoffice, SUPERMAN RETURNS took in over $52.2 million in five days, no doubt resulting in a collective sigh of relief from Warner Bros. who invested many years in their attempts to re-launch the Superman character on the big screen.

The key to the success was nabbing X-MEN helmer Bryan Singer. His radical re-invention of the Superman mythos was not to re-imagine and change him for the 21st Century, but rather take a more retro-approach in linking his vision with that of Richard Donner's who was the brainchild behind the first two SUPERMAN movies in 1978 and 1981 respectively.

The 40-year old Singer has his own fondness and connection with the material since he himself was adopted (much like Superman was adopted by the Kent family) and it was a theme that certainly resonated with him both as a young child growing up in the late '70s and now as a filmmaker in charge of multi-million dollar studio franchise.

After a whirlwind of publicity, Singer granted iF Magazine an exclusive interview last week, a day before SUPERMAN RETURNS hit theaters. In part 1 of this candid three-part story, the filmmaker talks about the evolution of the film and the grueling nature of helming a complicated film such as SUPERMAN.

iF MAGAZINE: One more day, I bet you're relieved.

BRYAN SINGER: I am, I think. I just finished the film not very long ago, so I guess it is a relief.

iF: You've said before how exhausting it is to do these films. Can you elaborate for those who don't really grasp the gargantuan effort it takes as a director to prepare, shoot and do post on a film of SUPERMAN RETURNS' scale

SINGER: Normally on a film, the focus would merely be on script development and casting, and that's what you do leading up to the making of a film. With these types of films, there's so much involved in the storyboarding, pre-production design and pre-visualization, it's so overwhelming and time consuming. Combined with the script development and the casting, by the time you're done with it, you're completely exhausted and almost ready to finish. You feel like you've completed a large task and suddenly now you have to begin shooting the movie. And unlike a normal movie, which takes 12 or 13 weeks to shoot, this takes over five months to shoot. By the time you're in the middle of that aspect of it – 75 days into shooting – there's just a physical fatigue of shooting that many hours. Plus I spent a lot of time in the cutting room, combined with keeping the whole story, the plot and emotional aspect of the story in your head over that period of time, you're very fatigued in every single way. And when that's over, you can't just chill in the editing room and put together the movie, because you're rolling out visual effects by the hundreds every day. So by the time you're done, it's this two-year, non-stop commitment and it's very unusual and kind of unlike any other process. You're almost amazed when you step back and actually go, "oh wow, it came out kind of like I thought it might." It always is a miracle to me.

iF: Occasionally you'll see a film by a filmmaker who you can tell doesn't really connect with the material and the end result is usually disastrous. When you see a film like that, does it make you acutely aware, that every project you do as "Bryan Singer" has to be something that resonates with you otherwise there's no point in spending all of this time on one film?

SINGER: Absolutely. I cannot comprehend spending this kind of time and effort on something that is merely a product for distribution. Whether it does well or not, is nothing I can really control, it's in the hands of the audience. I have to have some belief in it. There has to be something thematic or in its core a reason to make the movie. The pitfall is, as you start caring about it so much, it cuts into your enjoyment factor of making it – because I'm always so stressed in the process. One day I think I've made a terrible mistake and the next day I think, "Oh wait, this is really something." And that becomes the emotional gruel. You have the physical gruel, the mental gruel and an emotional gruel because you actually care about the thing. There is a weird kind of military campaign, making these pictures. And it involves an enormous amount of people too.

iF: The SUPERMAN sequel had stalled for many years before you came on board. Once you finally got the job, how do you distill all this rich history into a cohesive movie that not only ties into the other films but also expands upon them?

SINGER: Had I not made the first two X-MEN films, I don't think I would have been as prepared to take a very popular sort of and universe and be able to isolate the elements that have gathered wind and speed over the years. In SUPERMAN, it meant a lot of things to a great many more people. He's a bigger iconic character, he's been around longer, and he's the first superhero. So there's a lot of expectation attached to it. I even produced a documentary about the history of Superman – LOOK, UP IN THE SKY: THE AMAZING STORY OF SUPERMAN – and for me it was very cathartic. I was able to step back and take a look at this entire history. For instance in the original comic, he didn't fly, he jumped from building to building. Luthor was a scientist, then he became the capitalist Lex Luthor. And a lot of the aspect of the music, the bumbling Clark – a lot of that came in the 1978 film as well as a lot of the Kryptonian legacy. In looking back over the decades, it's a mixture of seeing the cream that has risen to the top of the history of Superman and simply taking aspects of his long history that I liked and that appealed to me. In the case of this movie, it was actually a few lines Marlon Brando spoke in the original film that just completely set me off. One of them is when his mother Laura is placing Kal-El in the spaceship and she says, "he will be isolated and alone" and Marlon Brando holds up a crystal and says "he will not be alone, he will never be alone." And he places this crystal into this spaceship and as a kid, when I saw that, what powerful reassurance. How do you send your only son off to another world, another place, forever and you're never going to see them again and yet give them that kind of reassurance. That really spoke to me as a kid and that always lingered in my mind over the years.

iF: I guess it's safe to say, since you're a product of the '70s that, two of the most defining moments for you must have been seeing STAR WARS and SUPERMAN all within a two year period..

SINGER: Yes, for me, particularly as an adopted, only child. Superman and Luke Skywalker are two adopted, only children who find out who they really are and their true destiny. They're two of the great offspring of 20th Century fantasy mythology. Both of them were great heroes clearly in the '70s when both of these movies came out back-to-back really.

iF: One of the things I appreciated about what you did with SUPERMAN RETURNS is capturing that sense of wonder audiences felt when they saw that first SUPERMAN movie in 1978, but it was updated enough that it works for modern audiences. And I think that's why some of the later SUPERMAN movies failed, because they forgot what SUPERMAN was about. It's not really about the villains per se, it's more about this doomed romance that can never be satisfied between Clark Kent and Lois Lane.

SINGER: Someone was asking me this the other night. Superman is Superman, but Lex Luthor is a human obstacle, how are you going to treat that. But Luthor has always been mind over muscle, he will find a way [to battle Superman], but the real obstacle has always been this 70-year romance from across the newsroom between this kid Clark who went to become a reporter and this woman Lois Lane. The fact that he happens to also be a superhero is almost an impediment because that's who she naturally falls for. What's fun about this movie is both characters come into emotional question and that and the notion of his isolation were the two things that appealed to me -- besides the fact that I'm a huge Superman fan.

iF: After the X-MEN movies where you had James Marsden as Cyclops fighting to keep Jean Grey's heart, you seem to be casting Marsden again in a similar role as Lois Lane's fiancé who is trying to hold on to her heart.

SINGER: It's a tough role to play "that guy." He' s not a bad guy. Like in X-MEN, Cyclops is not a bad guy, he's actually a really good guy and I always had affection for those guys. Ben Stiller made a movie with Ethan Hawke, REALITY BITES. I love Ethan Hawke and I've known him for years, but I was rooting for Ben Stiller's character. My heart went out to him. Just because he drove a Saab, he's a nice guy and he loves this girl, and there is always that emotional conflict in relationships. They're never as simple as a commitment, a marriage or a sweetheart. They always go through these ups and downs and are much more complex and this is that kind of movie.

iF: Did you realize you were doing that with him – putting him in a similar type of role?

SINGER: I think I was very conscious of that. And I think he's played this role a few times. I mean, [he did it] in THE NOTEBOOK. He can play that guy. I love working with him, but he certainly is no stranger to the role and we joke about it very often. "Why don't I play 'the guy' instead of 'that guy.' He's fine. He likes playing "that guy."

[Gold Trumpet]

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.

You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.

For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.

[Redlum]

Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?

[diggler]

Has anyone seen it in IMAX 3d? If so how was it?

it's hit and miss. most of it is pretty distracting.  i would recommend seeing it on a regular screen first. 

[grand theft sparrow]

The comedy aspect of it was played down a little, but look at the story of the original Superman, it's quite sad and I think the reason for pulling some of the more slapstick moments was to fit in more of the heart.

I didn't really read this part. So while I'm still relevant with discussion, I'll reply.

You say the comedy was played down to dig at the sadness. You quote the original Superman story as a context for the argument. Are you referring to the original story from the comic book or the movie? If you are referring to the original movie, your argument is defaulted because the original movie handled both the aspects of sadness and comedy quite well. The tone of the original Superman and Superman Returns are nothing alike and it isnt because this one is any sadder.

For me, Superman is a melodrama. Melodramas have the very specific design of presenting tragedy and heartbreak on a superficial level. The reason the original Superman succeeded is because it used comedy to give the feeling of depth. All the characters are immensely likable and relatable and keep the story from ever falling off the tracks into absurdity. I definitely felt the story fall onto the tracks of absurdity in the new one because there is a major lack of human development to any of the characters.

I have to disagree with some of that.  I watched the first 2 Superman films on HBO over the weekend and the comedy in both (Lex's wonderfully smug dialogue aside) was obviously put there for the kids; very little of it pushed the story forward at all.  For me, the Superman films have always been more about (besides the action sequences) the poignant moments than the comedic ones.  Sure, there's a few great moments in there but the comedy makes the first two teeter between serious adaptation and flat-out parody.  I don't mind that it's there but it certainly doesn't offer any more depth.  If anything, it's filler, albeit amusing filler. 

And the characters were always kind of stock.  Otis' character wasn't really developed at all; he's just some dumb schmuck that Lex hired for God knows what reason (it made more sense that Lex hired his nephew in the god-awful Superman 4).  The only real character development that we get out of Miss Teschmacher is that she has a mother in Hackensack and she always goes for the wrong guys.  And really, how much do we know about Jimmy Olson?  I'm not saying that Superman Returns had any more character development than the original film, I'm saying that it doesn't have any less.  And no installment is any more or less absurd than any other.  A story about a man wearing his underwear on the outside, flying around and fighting crime is pretty absurd by design, as is the idea that no one ever realizes that if you took off Clark Kent's glasses, he looks exactly like Superman.  I'm glad they had a little fun with that in the new film.

If Superman Returns fails anywhere, it's that there wasn't enough with Martha Kent.  I really was hoping for more.  One thing in the movie that really got me was one of the most subtle things.  When she drives out to where Superman crash landed, you see that she still has her wedding ring on, even though her husband died so many years before.  That said so much about her character and the fact that no extra attention was drawn to it was pretty impressive.  I wish they had done more with her for that reason alone.