Poll:Superman Returns Rate it Here!

[Kal-el 26]

It was disappointing but a new movie is on it's way and hopefully will top Batman and Ironman.

Directors should always research what there directing 24/7,intensly no matter how well you know the charcter or plot there are details you might not know.

[Robbins]

I liked Superman returns.Was It perfect no.Remember It grossed 200 Million Domesticly.And almost 400 worldwide.Compare It to batman begins.Domesticly It did 5
million less than Begins and oversees actully did better than Begins.So rebooting with
next film IS another of these endless reboots taking easy way out.

The bad of Superman Returns was for largely kate Bosworth.hated her as Lois.Worst
Live action Lois ever.

Bryan Singer probally should have stuck with X-men.

Kevin Spacey did fine job taking the hackman Luthor and making him darker and
more dangeras.

I view Superman(the 2000 special edition longer version) SUperman II(The Donnor Cut) and Superman returns as a trilogy with Supergirl as a spinoff.

[blackcelebration]

Here's a kinda review or a Character by Character analysis.

BACK STORIES OF THE THREE MAIN CHARACTERS

SUPERMAN/CLARK KENT

So, Superman leaves Earth for Five Years because he thinks that Krypton might still be around. Ok fair enough but why wouldn't he say goodbye to Lois and also is he really stupid enough to just leave the fortress by itself especially as Lex had used it in Superman II. Now maybe he assumed that Lex would go to jail (As he should have... I'll explain that later) but still he was a bit stupid to just leave it there are assume that no one would find it.

LOIS LANE

Ok, Superman leaves and soon she finds she is pregnant (Which is what we should believe seeing that the kid is the same age as Supe's has been gone) now seeing that she didn't remember making love to Superman because her memory was wiped, why wouldn't she have brought this up? Also saying that she thought that Richard was the Father originally and that babies take 9 months (For Humans) to be born.

This would mean that basically after Superman left she would have had a one night stand with Richard, in more likely hood in revenge to Superman leaving her. This means that Richard is just being used as a substitute for Superman and is suddenly stuck with a kid... THAT'S SUCH A GREAT WAY TO RE-INTRODUCE ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC FEMALE CHARACTERS OF ALL TIME ONTO THE BIG SCREEN AFTER NEARLY TWENTY YEARS!!!!

Please note my sarcasm there!!!!

LEX LUTHOR

Is let free because Superman couldn't turn up in court.

But wasn't Lex Luthor already a wanted man before Superman turned up? I mean, so that was never brought into the case? Or did the Metropolis Police just like messing around with Lex as a part time hobby?

Also, why does Lex wait five years to put his plan in motion, other than it's convenient to the plot? Yes, I know he embezzles an old lady out of her fortune and maybe that can explain allot but where did the goons come from? And why are they loyal in the first place, it can't be money because he didn't have it until he embezzled that old lady and if it is money then my earlier point comes up again.

The biggest problem is that when he arrives at the Fortress HE ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT THE CRYSTALS, MEANING THAT HE HAS BEEN THERE AGAIN SINCE SUPERMAN LEFT, SO WHY AGAIN DID HE NEED FIVE YEARS???

I further prove my point to the fact that The Crystals were never mentioned to Lex in Superman II????

And before people say Kryptonite, he only did that to stop Superman, had he done it before he would never had needed Kryptonite, the Crystals would have been enough.

THE REST

Why isn't anyone excited to see Clark except for Jimmy (My favourite character in the film bar Richard). I mean even Lois doesn't seem to care and it begs the question why Perry would re-hire him if he hadn't already been great to begin with... some stories of Clark's reporting exploits might have worked here.

So, Lois is angry at Superman for leaving and then writes an article called 'Why the World doesn't need Superman' and wins a Pulitzer, fair enough. But why isn't the battle with Zod and his croons never mentioned as an example as to why it does. Also, as Lois's memory was wiped why doesn't she ever ask Superman why she doesn't remember such a big historical event in this Films Universe (That's if it's really loosely based on Superman's I and II).

So Lex's plan is to make a new island out of America. But why does he assume that the rest of the world would be ok and not oh I don't know send all of their aeroplanes to bomb the island? Granted destroying America would be scary but even the English and French saw Hitler's advance into Poland as a step too far and they were both technologically inferior. Why does this film think that world has an idiots logic therefore??

Oh and of course... HOW CAN SUPERMAN LIFT AN ISLAND MADE OF KRYPTONITE???!!!!

At the end Lois whispers to Superman on the hospital bed that the Boy is his. OK she knows now, if so, for how long has she know? Since he threw a piano?? If that is the case then wouldn't she have said... 'Err Superman when the hell did we make love...? I mean I can't remember, did you rape me?'

But obviously not seeing as everything is a ok at the end.

And if she did know before, then why wasn't this question ever asked??

To Sum up

I'll admit, I've hardly cracked the surface with this film (Let's not forget the flimsy and weak Perry White or the needless flashback scenes, and the one nice but ultimately pointless scene with Martha).

But these are things that stand out the most in this film.

If this was a Sequel to I and II as said by Singer (Or loosely based) then all of the questions I just raised instantly come up... if not then....

1) Why did Superman leave if he was in a relationship with Lois?
2) If he was in a relationship then why doesn't Lois know that Clark is Superman?
3) Or she does then why doesn't she ever tell Clark she knows?
4) What did Lex do in the past that only Superman could testify for?
5) Did Superman know beforehand Lois was pregnant? Obviously not but how long did it take for Lois to know from the time that Superman had left?
6) Who were Lex's goons and what was their history with Lex?
7)If there wasn't a relationship between Lois and Superman then how the hell did Lois have his baby?
8) Lex obviously knew before he saw Jor-El what the crystals were, why does he need 5 years to put his plan in motion?
9) Who the hell is Richard?? And what made Lois run to him in the first place??
10) Why did Perry re-hire Clark? What makes Clark special...?? oh he gives some reason about some reporter dying... but PLEASE!!!!

Yeah, that was 10 from the top of my head...

Still I liked it when Superman saved the Plane at the beginning and Jor-El's opening dialogue was epic. And as I said earlier I liked both of the Jimmy and Jason characters (More than Superman and Lois, which is really sad).

So it's 5/10 from me.

Nowhere near a Batman and Robin but hardly a Batman Begins either!!!

Or in Superman film terms...

Nowhere near as bad as Superman IV but also nowhere near as good as Superman The Movie!!!

[smallville84]

Superman returns is my favorite Superman movie. I didn't like 3 or 4, and I hated the endings of 1 and 2.

[ManOfSteel60]

Superman Returns was terrible. It lacked action and had no clear story or vision, plus it was too dark for a character like Superman. I was watching the deleted "Return to Krypton" scene, and I'm baffled as to why Bryan cut it out of the final film. it's a wonderful scene and it would've explained why Superman was away for 5 years.

[RightWingConspirator]

Superman Returns: I rate it less painful than the death of a friend, more painful than getting shot in the knee.

I probably should reconsider, given that we don't know who the friend is.

[Aurora Moon]

as I said in another thread:

The writers and the director didn't stop to think about how the "Superman's kid" sub-plot easily ruined Superman's image (and also that of Lois). I mean, This movie is supposed to be an follow-up to the older classic superman movies with Christopher Reeves, right? So in the past Superman mindwipes Lois' mind when she complains how she can't compete with the world for Clark's attention... but according to the Superman Returns movie this was after Lois presumably gets pregnant with Clark's child. Now in Superman's defense he most likely didn't know at the time... but surely he had to notice something was off with Lois before he left for the 7-year-mission in space?

Now think about poor Mind-wiped Lois. She doesn't remember ever having sex with Superman, so she at first assumes that she's having a normal kid with this awesome human man she fell in love with. So think of how terrifying or weird she might find it when her son starts exhibiting weird abilities.
she would start questioning why she apparently has superman's child but can't even remember having sex with Superman. Now, the logical process any woman would have when they know there was sexual contact but CAN'T remember it.... well, that kind of conclusion often leads to the idea that they were raped.
After all, if you can't remember if you consented or not, then it must be rape right?

Of course with Superman being an alien, Lois might be wiling to excuse him if it turned out to be some werid alien biological process that most humans would find non-sexual.... something like holding hands. But we all know that wasn't the case.

And then the scenes at the end... arrrgh. though-out the movie we find out that Lois's husband (or fiancée?) is actually a decent, kickass guy and you can see why Lois fell in love with him. And then the ending implies that Lois is going to cheat on her husband with Superman?? we have an decent good guy getting the super-shaft here in the relationship love triangle.

I would also like to add that Lex's character was completely one-dimensional, and his villainous plan made no sense. He's obsessed with selling property like Hackman's character was, but at least Hackman's Lex made room for there to be survivors that would be actually be willing to buy property from him. Namely, he only wanted California to go, not the entire USA Continent.

The way Lex set up the island plan... there wouldn't had been much in the way of survivors, and therefore less people who would be willing to buy the island from him?? If you kill off the majority of America and the people that live there, that means less potential buyers right? And I doubt the rest of the world would be willing to live on an island full of radioactive kryptonite... because that would clearly give you cancer. Clearly, Lex did not think this one though?

*sighs* and I really hate the versions of Lex Luthor where he's so one-dimensional and not as brilliant like Micheal's Lex Luthor from Smallville, or like the one from Superman TAS were.

[jon-el87]

In her autobiography, Patti LuPone notes: "It is almost impossible to replicate another actor's performance." In this film Bryan Singer tried to get Brandon Routh to replicate Christopher Reeve's performance, instead of being allowed to give his own interpretation of both Clark Kent and Superman.

And what is Superman Returns? Is it a new continuity or a continuation of the Christopher Reeve films? The flashback to Clark's teens shows him having glasses as a teen, which he didn't have in the Reeve films. Meanwhile, they re-use the Donnerverse Jor-El and references events in the films. However, if this was a continuation of the Donnerverse, then it surely would take place in the early 1980's, but the technology (computers and flatscreen TV:s) makes it clear that it takes place in the present (2006).

As I've come to understand it, it is a continuation, but only of the first film or so (while ignoring Superman III, IV and Supergirl). And that just doesn't work. You can't say "well, this is a continuation of this continuity, but only the bits that I [the director] like".

Then you also have the fact that these characters have evolved a great deal since 1978. Heck, the expectations on this genre has changed since that time. And this film is retreading much of the same ground as Superman The Movie. You have Lex with another real estate scheme (which he had abandoned in the last Reeve film, in favor of war profiteering and scientific experiments) and using Kryptonite against the Man of Steel. Even if you ignore the development of the comic book characters, during the 28 years between Superman The Movie and Superman Returns, you still need to consider the fact that Reeve's Clark would've grown up in Smallville in the 1960's, while Routh's Clark would've grown up there in the 1990's. You would be dealing with a different society and culture, which would produce a different Clark Kent. When Reeve's Clark shows up in Metropolis, he acts like someone who've grown up in a small town in that time period. Routh's Clark would've had access to more TV channels (assuming the Donnerverse Kents even had a TV) and the internet. Allowing him to be more influenced by the world outside of Smallville, Kansas.

They try their hands as some action, but stuff like the bank robbery (where the robbers have set up a complicated machine gun array) just comes across as stupid. When would these guys have had the time to set something like that up?

They shouldn't have cast Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She would've been 22 years old during filming (and looks 22), while playing a mother of a five year old, who is supposed to have worked several years before that as a journalist. Lois is also a terrible parent, who takes her kid along a potentially dangerous assignment.

Also disliked how terrible their Fortress looked like. Smallville's looked better and that was on a TV budget. Here I was very aware that these people were standing infront of green screen.