Superman Returns (2006) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Superman Returns (2006) (3/7/2006 8:59:19 AM)

Post your comments on this article




superman returns -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 10:06:40 AM)



BEST. FILM. EVER!




lbiu -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 11:01:46 AM)

Empire, where is the review?!?!
You have never done this before......how dare you force us to buy your magazine[:@]




Wilbert -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 11:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lbiu

Empire, where is the review?!?!
You have never done this before......how dare you force us to buy your magazine[:@]


No-ones forcing you to do anything!!!! There are thousands of free reviews of Superman around. They not enough for you?




doa1984 -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 12:05:45 PM)

i cant get over all the fuss being made about a review not being online yet.
so what.
just ask and anyone who has read the mag will tell you its a 5 star film.

then if you cant be bothered buying the mag yourself just sit and wait until its finaly up problem solved.





The Fella -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 12:52:03 PM)

I am slightly confused as to what the film got in the magazine anyway - although the actual review page shows it getting 5 stars, on both the contents page and the reviews index page, it is listed as having 4 stars.

To be honest, reading the review, it feels as if they had not seen the full film when it was written... Maybe this is why no proper online review yet?




Helen OHara -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 4:39:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Fella

I am slightly confused as to what the film got in the magazine anyway - although the actual review page shows it getting 5 stars, on both the contents page and the reviews index page, it is listed as having 4 stars.

To be honest, reading the review, it feels as if they had not seen the full film when it was written... Maybe this is why no proper online review yet?



The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.




jonson -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (11/7/2006 4:51:50 PM)

Out of interest Helen, but what are the other writers opinions of the movie?
Me? 5 stars or 1 star, makes no odds. I'll see it anyway.
Besides, some classic of years gone by have been given the dreaded 1 start treatment. [:D]




Monkey Wrench -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (12/7/2006 7:27:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara


The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.


I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?




Olly Richards -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (12/7/2006 9:11:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkey Wrench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara


The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.


I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?


Well I think I speak for us all when I say "eeeeewwww".




punchdrunk -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (12/7/2006 10:16:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkey Wrench
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara
The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.

I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?


Well I think I speak for us all when I say "eeeeewwww".


Im shocked,[sm=ohmy.gif] but not surprised[sm=893confused27-thumb.gif]

and for the person who said that Empire were lazy and not hard working,  i didn't see total film hanging out in the Editing Suite of Superman returns. i would think that takes alot of work to organise.  




Monkey Wrench -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (12/7/2006 3:21:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkey Wrench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara


The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.


I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?


Well I think I speak for us all when I say "eeeeewwww".


I stand proud and firm (*wink*) by what I said. She sounds gorgeous. Mmm.




Hood_Man -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (13/7/2006 3:47:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkey Wrench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara


The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.


I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?


Well I think I speak for us all when I say "eeeeewwww".

This has to go in the magazine.




Mycroft -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (14/7/2006 11:48:19 PM)

I really liked this film, and I'm not much of a Superman fan. The acting was universally great, especially Routh, Bosworth was fine and sweet, if not as feisty. Plotwise it was pretty thin, and although Spacey was a great Lex, Superman could really do with a better villain than someone who wants to own a bit of land. It was really the spirit of the film rather than a flawless execution that makes this work, I loved the Brando stuff and the father son aspect, pity we won't be seeing anymore of Jor El. The kids in the audience were really into it too, it seemed to capture their imagination with plenty of questions to their parents.

Contemporizing Superman worked well, he felt more like an international saviour of mankind rather than just an American figure. The kid was fine, I like Superman having that responsibility, although the Richard thing was kind of messy. I felt there were some missed opportunities, some of the editing felt a bit off and not quite as rousing as it could have been, but there were lots of nice touches like the henchman playing piano with Jason. Jason the murderer though? With a meatier threat I'd have no problem with this story continuing, bring on the sequels.




bad hat harry -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) !spoilers! (15/7/2006 12:30:55 AM)

saw this yesterday and am really happy with it, its a great movie with a big heart. so far its the best blockbuster of the summer. its a rare example of a movie thats as good as the trailers were. i really liked the humor in the movie, when lex meets lois lane again was a really funny moment. i think its a movie that will definately get better with time.

my favourite scene oddly enough was right at the beginning of the movie when superman lands and falls into martha kent's arms.dont know why but it really was a bit of a lump in the throat moment. i think it might have been because clark is introduced and he really vulnerable or something.

i thought superman was a little creepy for the first part of the movie though, it was kinda like "stalking lois lane" for a bit. its a movie i would definatley watch a sequel to. i think brian signer is smart enough not to hve used up all his ideas on this one. it definately felt like the least crowded blockbuster ive seen in a long time. whereas the matrix threw in everything and the kitchen sink this held back and worked much better than reloaded and revoloutions, superman returns actually had characters i cared about and i was thinking about them during the action scenes and not the cgi and how much it cost.

i do think they made a mistake in cutting out the return to krypton sequence though, i think by the sounds of things that could have been pretty special and a standout moment, hopefully itll be on the dvd on even in the sequel if there is one.

i think brandon routh is the find of the movie. he really plays it very well with a lot of warmth but just enough distance to keep the audience guessing. i thought it was a bit odd that he didnt have more scenes with kevin spacey but it made it more realistic i suppose as the movie seems to be set over quite a short period of time.

favourite scene in the movie has to be the falling seen near the end after new krypton is flung into space. it just had such weight to it, it reminded me of that dali painting of the cruifixtion for some reason. i was one of those moments where i coulnt take my eyes of the screen. i liked lex's final scene it felt a very seventies way to end his part of the movie. it was comical but pretty sinister, i wasnt sure if he plnned to eat the dog or kitty or both. i think over all great movie, but hopefully with better yet to come. 4/5




Charlie -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 12:44:31 AM)

This is a 3 star film at best and even that is pushing it. I've never been a huge fan of Superman but I went into this open minded and actually quite looking forward to it. The overall plot is decent enough, Luthors evil plan is quite unique and is well executed and Spaceys Luther is great. He really is someone who you can boo but also revel in his wickedness at the same time. However the film for me falls drastically short when it comes to the man in tights.

Brandon Routh himself is ok. He's nothing more than ok. He does nothing wrong but he also does nothing great. But this wouldn't matter so much if the Superman/Clark Kent character was at all interesting, the only real emotions we get from him is that he loves Lois and his son and you need so much more than that from someone who is to carry a film. Also the action scenes (aswell as most of the other scenes) are way to predictable and leave no room for suspense. What a surprise, Superman caught some falling debris that was going to crush some civilians, didn't see that one coming. Superman isn't dead?! oh my god I think i'm going to have an aneurysm.

Nothing that Superman does is impressive, nothing. Because he has unlimited strength and durability watching him catch a plane is no where near as fulfilling as say Spider-man stopping the train in S2 by pushing himself to his very limits and almost dieing in the process. And him being impervious to all attacks and weapons (except kryptonite obviously) takes away all suspense and interest from not only the action scenes but from the hero himself. The audience needs someone to root for and cheer on but it's not as effective when the hero can do EVERYTHING without even breaking a sweat.

It's no surprise that the film gets a lot more interesting when Superman is exposed to kryptonite and loses his power therefore giving the viewers something to actually care about. It's a shame it was too little too late and I was already wondering if I could still make last orders.


It seems that everyone here is in love with the film, I'm dumbfounded I really am.




Alistair -> Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 12:52:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie
Nothing that Superman does is impressive, nothing. Because he has unlimited strength and durability watching him catch a plane is no where near as fulfilling as say Spider-man stopping the train in S2 by pushing himself to his very limits and almost dieing in the process. And him being impervious to all attacks and weapons (except kryptonite obviously) takes away all suspense and interest from not only the action scenes but from the hero himself. The audience needs someone to root for and cheer on but it's not as effective when the hero can do EVERYTHING without even breaking a sweat.


So, you think Spider-Man is going to die? Or Batman? Just because they aren't invulnerable we all know they are the heroes, the main characters - They're never going to die.
Superman is the only superhero (with powers) that can have all his powers taken away from him. This adds a certain edge for me. The one scene in Superman Returns that proves this, is a scene unlike we've seen in a superhero film before. I haven't seen Batman, or Spider-Man get a beating like that before. It was quite intense. And the scene works well because both times I have seen the film, the entire auditorium went quiet as hell.





Charlie -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 12:58:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alistair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie
Nothing that Superman does is impressive, nothing. Because he has unlimited strength and durability watching him catch a plane is no where near as fulfilling as say Spider-man stopping the train in S2 by pushing himself to his very limits and almost dieing in the process. And him being impervious to all attacks and weapons (except kryptonite obviously) takes away all suspense and interest from not only the action scenes but from the hero himself. The audience needs someone to root for and cheer on but it's not as effective when the hero can do EVERYTHING without even breaking a sweat.


So, you think Spider-Man is going to die? Or Batman? Just because they aren't invulnerable we all know they are the heroes, the main characters - They're never going to die.
Superman is the only superhero (with powers) that can have all his powers taken away from him. This adds a certain edge for me. The one scene in Superman Returns that proves this, is a scene unlike we've seen in a superhero film before. I haven't seen Batman, or Spider-Man get a beating like that before. It was quite intense. And the scene works well because both times I have seen the film, the entire auditorium went quiet as hell.




Obviously we know our heros are not going to die in any action film. But the fact that Spider-man and Batman can be floored with a strong punch whereas Superman barely even notices he's been shot in the eye from point blank range just makes Superman uninteresting. And like I said the only time it becomes engaging is when he loses his power when he is exposed to kryptonite




Alistair -> Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 1:01:49 AM)

Maybe a super-villain should be introduced in a sequel. There's no need for a heavy reliance on Kryptonite then (I think the Kryptonite thing has been taken to its limit in Superman Returns).




Charlie -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 1:05:35 AM)

I was thinking that throughout the film. Although there is a threat of civilians being killed Superman has no physical challenge untill the end. A super villain would even the odds, plus it would lead to some amazing action sequences.




Alistair -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 1:07:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie

I was thinking that throughout the film. Although there is a threat of civilians being killed Superman has no physical challenge untill the end. A super villain would even the odds, plus it would lead to some amazing action sequences.


It would be cool as hell. I've always wanted to see two super beings throwing eachother through buildings, picking up heavy objects and hurling them at one another, etc. (The Matrix Revolutions did a pretty good job of some of that kinda' stuff but that film was pants).




Charlie -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 1:14:15 AM)

Now I would pay to see that, singer already has a guide of how not to pull off such a sequence.

Instead of kryptonite they could set it in my home town, Bolton. If superman gets all his power from the sun he would be as weak as a kitten round my way .[sm=biggrin.gif]




FranB -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 4:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: punchdrunk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkey Wrench
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara
The index page was a misprint. And we don't review films we haven't seen - we had seen the full film before reviewing it, and certainly at this point everyone on the staff has seen it at least once. There is no review online because the magazine is still on sale, as explained in Colin's post above.

I don't know if it's a professional thing, or maybe you're hidden behind the rose-tinted cloak that is your computer screen - but you sound like you're fucking FIT when you post.

Cyber sex?


Well I think I speak for us all when I say "eeeeewwww".


Im shocked,[sm=ohmy.gif] but not surprised[sm=893confused27-thumb.gif]

and for the person who said that Empire were lazy and not hard working,  i didn't see total film hanging out in the Editing Suite of Superman returns. i would think that takes alot of work to organise.  

Or some would view it as a favour for a favour maybe?




Neth -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 8:55:05 AM)

Warner Brothers really screwed the pooch on the marketing of this one. After the first trailer went live, fans bemoaned that they didn't see enough action or any of Spacey's Lex Luthor. Subsequent trailers will filled with snippets of set-pieces and Spacey barking his lines - but it appears the load was blown too early, because these glimpses really did end up amounting to all the best bits from Superman Returns.

Singer clearly doesn't know what he wants his movie to be - origin story? Sequel to part two? Fresh take on the original? The film works on the assumption that we're all terribly familiar with these characters, but at the same time goes to great lengths to remind us of Kal-El's backstory and weaknesses. It creates an episodic structure that causes the film to drag, and the middle section seems especially overlong. Instead of just being two and a half hours, the film actually feels like two and a half hours.

Routh is fine - he's channelling Christopher Reeve for sure, but he brings enough to the dual roles to make them his own. The problems lie with practically every other cast member. Bosworth's Lois doesn't ever achieve the plucky charm of Margot Kidder; James Marsden - supposedly Supes' love rival - is never anything more than a complete drip; Sam Huntington's Jimmy Olsen is annoying from the second he opens his mouth and doesn't get any better; and as for Spacey... His Lex Luthor is a poor Gene Hackman Xerox - his plan may involve the slaughter of billions, but he's just too panto-ish for anyone to actually believe he'd pull it off. Sneering his way through the best dialogue in the film, he provides the only bright spots of humour but fails to match them in terms of real menace.

The set-pieces - although snappily edited and visually impressive - generally seem to consist of Superman using his strength to either pick really big things up, or put really big things down back down gently. By the time the climax arrives, you'll be longing for a superhero smack down (remember how good Superman vs Zod was in the streets of Metropolis?), but you never get one. Instead, once again, it relies of Superman's generous lifting ability. Not exactly rousing stuff.

The good points? Well, aside from Routh, the special effects are pretty impressive (although in this day and age, it'll no longer cause your jaw to hit the floor when you see a man fly - and in some shots, a badly-rendered CG Superman is very noticable) and John Ottman's take on Williams' classic theme can bring a smile to your face in a matter of seconds. Singer certainly leaves plenty of room for improvement in his potential sequel, though - give this Superman a real threat and a pair of more judicious editing scissors and there could be something great waiting to happen. But as it stands on its own, Superman Returns remains a flat, humourless and annoyingly smug blast of disappointment.  **




Alistair -> Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 12:52:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neth
But as it stands on its own, Superman Returns remains a flat, humourless and annoyingly smug blast of disappointment.  **


A subjective point of view of course. The two audiences I have seen the film with laughed a lot during the film. It's got some funny moments.




krudler -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 4:46:30 PM)

saw it last night,loved it,going agin monday.did anyone else get a tingle when the first few notes of the main theme played at the end of the warner logo,just hearing that da-dada-da-da made me want to jump on my seat and shout like i was an excitable 5 year old again!




MoBiUGeArSkIn -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (15/7/2006 4:55:04 PM)

3/5

Wasn't too keen to be honest. Routh was fine but Kate Bodsworth was completely miscast. Zero spark between the two. It's long, too long, and peaks very early on. There is some great stuff in there but it's just too samey. The original Superman is a classic and this doesn't touch it. Doesn't touch the second movie either. Compared to the X-Men movies, Spiderman or last years Batman Begins, this is way off earning 5 stars. And Lex Luthor... WTF? He's supposed to be a criminal genius yet his plan is just utterly stupid.




beebs_ -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (16/7/2006 3:00:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alistair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie
Nothing that Superman does is impressive, nothing. Because he has unlimited strength and durability watching him catch a plane is no where near as fulfilling as say Spider-man stopping the train in S2 by pushing himself to his very limits and almost dieing in the process. And him being impervious to all attacks and weapons (except kryptonite obviously) takes away all suspense and interest from not only the action scenes but from the hero himself. The audience needs someone to root for and cheer on but it's not as effective when the hero can do EVERYTHING without even breaking a sweat.


So, you think Spider-Man is going to die? Or Batman? Just because they aren't invulnerable we all know they are the heroes, the main characters - They're never going to die.
Superman is the only superhero (with powers) that can have all his powers taken away from him. This adds a certain edge for me. The one scene in Superman Returns that proves this, is a scene unlike we've seen in a superhero film before. I haven't seen Batman, or Spider-Man get a beating like that before. It was quite intense. And the scene works well because both times I have seen the film, the entire auditorium went quiet as hell.




Obviously we know our heros are not going to die in any action film. But the fact that Spider-man and Batman can be floored with a strong punch whereas Superman barely even notices he's been shot in the eye from point blank range just makes Superman uninteresting. And like I said the only time it becomes engaging is when he loses his power when he is exposed to kryptonite



Charlie! I agree! That's the problem I've always had with Superman as a superhero. It's so boring. As I said in my previous post we know the without powers fight is gonna come. OK when he got stabbed that was kinda deep, but it's so blah with Supes. It's so easy for him. Too easy. I enjoyed the other Superman films, but all the lifting things up into the air was so tired by the end of this one.




princessa -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (16/7/2006 8:10:09 PM)

This movie did nothing for me.  Yes the special effects were amazing and the actors well cast.  But for me it lacked something.  You can have all the CGI in the world but that won't make up for a weak plot.  I just didn't care for the romance storyline.  But  i thought that Brandon Routh was great as superman.  Kevin Spacey as Lux Luthor sadly underused.




demoncleaner -> RE: Superman Returns (2006) (17/7/2006 12:12:21 PM)

A very satisfying 4 stars for me. 

Despite the fact that thereís possibly a few things working against its favour Superman Returns ultimately conquers all by sheer force of Routh.  If we think of the principal and recent incarnations of the character it seems to work like this:  Christopher Reeve Ė Nice becoming smug.  Tom Welling Ė too effiní nice.  Brandon Routh Ė thoroughly nice! That may seem a bit simplistic, but so too, it seems, was the answer to the most basic riddle of Returns ĒHow are we expected to care for apple-pie omnipotence?Ē.  At the end of the day we care and we route for him not because we necessarily feel heís in danger but because heís just a top sympathetic bloke.  When Routh achieves this, the audience is no longer required to meet the movie halfway. Itís all up there for them.

Batman Begins I think is still a better film.  Itís more cohesive, plausible is perhaps the wrong word but its plot is certainly more palatable shall we say.  Having said that though, I think itís patently obvious that Superman Returns is a film that will be looked back on with a ton more fondness than BB and thatís altogether deserved.  Itís thoroughly likeable because it doesnít presume that Superman is an archetype (even though he is).  His return has an ill at ease modesty to it imbued with humour and pathos through the over-looked and put-upon Clark alter-ego.  Therefore personal highlights in this movie for me donít exactly constitute big talking point moments, the nostalgic run through the corn fields, that goofy wave to Lois in the elevator, the benign voyeuristic moment at the Lane household.  Itís been a tradition in all the recent respected comic adaptations that action should be thwarted in favour of pursuing the more aloof ambition of character. And that can only be a good thing for Superman Returns; the early set pieces are ropey with a skittish continuity that have relatively little to do with the emerging plot.  The point is to re-establish the heroís rescue portfolio, it is also probably a wise decision that these spats are not used to showcase Supermanís abilities (the creators donít presume to introduce the character, they defer to the fact that thatís already been done before).  For these reasons the action scenarios feel slight, they are a formal obligation of the comic book movie but for plot purposes theyíre all but unnecessary.  Another area where the film becomes a reluctant slave to its basic requirements is in Lex Luthor.  Kevin Spacey (doing a bang-up job) canít be blamed for the fact that the character is nothing more than a churlish prick Ė more attention seeker than likely despot.  Part of Spaceyís performance however seems to acknowledge this as the modern Luthor is embittered, perhaps with a sense that he knows the jokeís become unfunny.  The plotting too of Returns may raise an eyebrow or two along the way.  In a bizarre development Lois and son are, in a script sense, man-handled onto Luthorís yacht by the spirit of film convenience.  Other curios include the sight of a crook Superman laid-up in a hospital bed, but it must be to Singerís credit that while melodrama and sentiment are up there on the screen in spades it never feels particularly melodramatic or sentimental.  Itís a nice paradox, and it succeeds in making Superman Returns a legitimately affecting film.  I think Ian Nathan was right to cite Lord of the Rings along with Superman in this instance as two sole occurrences where cinema magic made a genuine return to our screens.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.34375