Well, now that it's out on DVD, I finally got around to seeing it. First impression: I liked it.
Was it the best movie I've ever seen? No... But it does capture the essence of the 'Christopher Reeves' movies in that you get a sense that this is a sequel that follows the previous movies, but with different actors.
Although some of the story aspects bothered me a little, the overall experience is quite pleasant, and the visuals are really good. I just hope that if they make another Superman movie, that he'll be fighting another villain that Lex Luthor (Spacey was great, I'm just hungry for some Braniac/Darkside and/or Doomsday to make an appearance.)
I do recommend this movie; It's just good clean fun.
I give it a 3 out of 5.
Ultradan
Saw it for the first time on Saturday. Only seen it once, but am not particularly inclined to see it again (for now, anyways).
Honestly, Kevin Spacy as LL was about the only thing I even [u]remotely[/u] liked. Sure, some of the special effects were good, but actually I thought most of them sucked - especially for a "summer blockbuster" movie with the [u]astounding[/u] budget it had.
From wikipedia.com (linked above):
... Roger Ebert's reaction to the movie was very negative, saying, "This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating." The New York Times labelled the movie as "leaden", while the San Francisco Chronicle observed that "Superman Returns finds no reason for being, other than that it's summer and computer graphics have improved since the superhero days of Christopher Reeve."
I couldn't agree more.
In short, IMO Superman Returns is sucktastic.
I'm with Kermez and Ebert on this one. Christopher Reeve brought a certain good humored, but still serious presence to the roll. I kind of feel that in tying to duplicate that they hired an actor that looked and sounded like Reeve and could occasionally flash glimpses of Reeve (especially the seens where he flashes back and forth between his Superman and Kent personas, but I don't think he pulled off Superman as well. The fact that he is given some of the exact same lines from the first movie didn't help. I think I would have prefered they do their own Superman their own way rather than being so slavish to the original movies.
As for Spacey as Lex the same thing goes. They never seem to let Lex Luthor off his leash. Gone are the over-the-top: "MISS TESSMACHER!!!" and "Do you want to see a really long arm Otis?" or even "Otisburg? Otisburg?" Gene Hackman got the better end of the deal. He got to be his own Luthor instead of trying to imitate one that had gone before.
And what's with the thugs getting killed? It's not like Supes didn't know there were people on that rock. He's got enough to ump to toss a small island into orbit, but not enough to superspeed in, grab everone and drag them off to prison? Supes doesn't kill. He doesn't even kill unintentially unless it's a major plot thread. And what's with the beer with Jimmy and the old Jimmy bartender? Beer?!? This Supes seems so mopey. Even in the depths of dispair in Superman II, we had ample flashes of the idealistic hero underneath (heck you even got that in Superman 3). In this movie though we get a Peeping Tom.
I really don't blame the actors as much as I blame the script which shackles them to the old movies, but doesn't really do any exploring of Superman the character himself. It sort of like reading a newspaper through a foot of water, or worse still redoing a old first edition dungeon that the reader fondly remembers room-for-room, word-for-word, but with 3.5 edition stat blocks and rules - bor-ing! We've already done that. It was good the first time we really don't need it again. Why not do something new with the core material, rather than making a copy of the first?
I'm thinking this movie falls more in line with Superman 3 and 4, than 1 or 2 on the Good-O-Meter. It's a slave to the first movie and never becomes its own.
That said bring on the next Batman movie, but lets get a better actress to play the romantic interest. Kiera Knightly perhaps....
GGG
Mmmmm... Kiera Knightly... :P
Ultradan
I just hope the next Superman movie doesn't have him being the wierdo stalker/voyer exboyfriend.
Good reviews here...
I'd say that although the movie isn't perfect, it isn't bad. Certainly worthy of a sequal where they can iron out the kinks.
My problem is that there are scenes where Superman is reduced to the level of a peeping tom. Yeah, maybe its realistic and what not, but still kind of creepy and not at all what comes to mind when I think Superman.
So I am agreeing with Tak!
Good reviews here...
I'd say that although the movie isn't perfect, it isn't bad. Certainly worthy of a sequal where they can iron out the kinks.
It is certainly a good sequel for Quest for Peace, but I'll even take Superman 3 over this one. I really didn't see the point in making it.
GGG
I consider it a restart/reminder sort of movie, with hopes that the next one is done with a bit of care placed towards the fanbase opinions. At least, the sane ones like we have on these wonderful boards.
Assuming attention is paid, the next movie could be seriously improved. I got to admit though, seeing Supes coming down into the fortress of solitude all top-lit was very very cool visually.
I consider it a restart/reminder sort of movie, with hopes that the next one is done with a bit of care placed towards the fanbase opinions.
I think I agree with the idea that the producers were thinking of this as a restart, but then wouldn't it have been smarter to make a good movie? I mean unless their idea was to make a movie so bad that people would not want to see the next one, I think this should be seen as a bit of a false start. At least.
GGG
In the next movie, it would also be cool to see another baddy from the Superman mythos (like Brainiac or some other). I'm getting a little tired of Mr Luther.
What would be REALLY cool, is to have Superman needing to have something analyzed and goes to Gotham for some lab help from Batman (Bale in a small crossover appearance). Sort of getting the sense of a pre-Justice-League... Now THAT would rock my world.
Ultradan
|
In the next movie, it would also be cool to see another baddy from the Superman mythos (like Brainiac or some other). I'm getting a little tired of Mr Luther.
What would be REALLY cool, is to have Superman needing to have something analyzed and goes to Gotham for some lab help from Batman (Bale in a small crossover appearance). Sort of getting the sense of a pre-Justice-League... Now THAT would rock my world.
Ultradan
I agree Superman and Batman would be cool. It's highly unlikely, though, because two different movie companies own the rights to Superman and Batman. They can't even get Batman on Smallville.
I agree Superman and Batman would be cool. It's highly unlikely, though, because two different movie companies own the rights to Superman and Batman. They can't even get Batman on Smallville.
??
I was under the impression that Warner Brothers owned DC? Certainly, my "Batman Begins" (R2) and "Superman Returns" (R1) DVDs have the Warner Brothers, DC Comics, and Legendary Pictures logos on them.
I thought the issue with crossovers was instead that Warners wanted to maintain the 'purity' of each brand, which was why JLU couldn't use the Batman rogue's gallery, as those were reserved for "The Batman".
Of course, I could be wrong.
As for "Superman Returns": I thoroughly enjoyed it.
|
|
I don't understand the whole deal. I think Dc sold the movie rights a long time ago to another movie company.
I just learned about it 3 years ago reading an article about Smallville, and the writers said they'd LOVE to do a Supes/Batman deal but each heroes' movie rights were owned by different movie companies, so doing a story would involve a lot of legal wrangling.