BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Superman Returns - Post -release thread

 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Spaniel
21:13 / 14.07.06
And, yes, I suspect most of us are on crack.
 
 
Hieronymus
21:17 / 14.07.06
Ladies and gentlemen, a review of the film by Lyndon Larouche.
 
 
Billuccho!
22:54 / 14.07.06
Hey, Batman Begins was good, durn it. Superman, much less so. And I tend not to mind comics continuity being "bastardized;" it's not like the kid was necessarily taking anything away or changing anything in the past so much as adding something onto the future that will probably be unwieldy to deal with if they ever actually get around to making sequels. Which they may not. And Brandon Routh may go down as the George Lazenby of Superman films... which would've been a shame if they'd actually have let him act.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
23:34 / 14.07.06
I hope this isn't too geeky, but I really didn't understand why Superman has to build? discover? a Kryptonian spikey spaceship in order to make the return journey from his home planet remains. Or why it would take him five years. Or, really, why he went there at all.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:36 / 15.07.06
Oh and another thng that puzzled me ~ I'm not trying to nit-pick, I may have just misunderstood the film's logic.

Kryptonite is harmful to Superman because (a) proximity to it makes him sick and (b) it makes him vulnerable, robs him of his powers.

I assume that after lifting the Kryptonite island into space, he passed out, losing his strength, and fell to earth.

But how did he lose consciousness and the ability to fly, but not his invulnerability (he didn't burn up in the atmosphere, or become pulp on impact) ~ why would he lie in hospital on the brink of death, with few vital signs, but still have skin that a needle can't penetrate?

If he's dying, how is he still invulnerable? We've seen previously that Kryptonite weakens him to the point where normal men can beat him up. After lifting the island he showed the same signs of K-sickness (bloody hands, sweat) but its effect seemed inconsistent.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:47 / 15.07.06
Nice to see Eva Marie Saint and M. Brando in their final film together, anyway.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:43 / 15.07.06
Hello again! I've been thinking of more interesting things (you will be the judge of that) about this film. This time, they are not quibbles about continuity.

It seems to me there might be fascinating things to say about Superman Returns' relationship to the past, to rebirth, age and death, to cinema history. Someone clever could arrange these into a good article I'm sure, but here are some of the ideas that struck me this morning.

As we've acknowledged, Superman Returns has a curious relationship with canon and with the previous films; paying tribute, emulating, continuing, selectively ignoring some aspects of the mythos, pretending some things never happened. At its heart is this strange suspension of disbelief ~ not that a man can fly, but that this is the same man, the same world we last saw twenty years ago (apparently Superman's last words to Lex, last time, were "see you in twenty"), compressed into five years of their time. To accept Kate Bosworth is Lois Lane, we suppress the memory of Margot Kidder (turning a blind eye to her cameo) and perhaps also accept some other compressions and time-cheats, like the idea she could be old enough to have that 5 year-old child. We buy into the illusion of Routh as Reeve as Clark. We have to play along with the inconsistent continuity ~ did Zod happen? why did Superman really travel for 5 years? ~ or resist immersion in the film's world.

The story is all about rebirth, with the obvious Christian motif of the sacrifice to save mankind, the empty tomb, the father and son; but it also gives new life to some actors and performances through technology and illusion, and reminds us, through others, of the inevitable process of human ageing and decline. Feminist film guru Laura Mulvey has some good thoughts on this in her latest book, about the poignancy of old cinema now the stars have gone out; the way Hollywood classics were once the house of gods, and now a mausoleum. Brando is brought back, face morphed and mapped... Eva Marie Saint, once his co-star and almost as gorgeous, looks shockingly old to anyone who hasn't seen her much since On the Waterfront. I think there's a publicity still of her on Martha Kent's piano ~ it seems like a still of the actress, rather than the character. Apparently there's another of the actor who played Pa Kent in the Donner movies, and isn't the 1950s Lois Lane in this film too, along with the 1970s Jimmy Olsen?


Why does Kal-El come back in the spikey spaceship? Perhaps simply because he's being reborn.

There is more to say, but... things to consider I suppose.
 
 
CameronStewart
00:00 / 16.07.06
>>>we suppress the memory of Margot Kidder (turning a blind eye to her cameo) <<<

What cameo?
 
 
Hieronymus
04:21 / 16.07.06
In Smallville maybe.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:26 / 16.07.06
I read about it, but didn't see it, and now can't find a reference to it. I also heard Marc McClure (the old Olsen) was in this movie, but didn't spot him either.
 
 
FinderWolf
22:00 / 16.07.06
>> And I didn't really see that the flashback to Superboy learing to fly told us much

I think that was put there for all the viewers who have never seen SMALLVILLE and who hadn't watched Superman I in many years (or have never seen the first Reeve film).

I figured he needed to re-jigger his spaceship (which he arrived in as a baby) because the Movie Continuity Superman isn't capable of deep space travel on his own.

This is the first I've heard of a Kidder cameo - I'm guessing the 'old' Jimmy Olsen might have been at the bar in that scene where Jimmy & Clark have a drink?
 
 
Billuccho!
22:59 / 16.07.06
Margot Kidder and Marc McClure weren't in it; they're the 70's Lois and Jimmy. The 50's Lois and Jimmy, however, *were* in it; Noel Neill is the old lady in the very beginning and Jack Larson is Bibbo the Bartender.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
04:26 / 17.07.06
The Beat's Heidi McDonald summed up pretty much my impressions on the movie. I usually don't agree with the veredicts in her movie reviews, but this one time...

Singer lost the race from the start by having his whole project as a direct sequel to the 70s movies, as some have pointed out. there was no need to rebuild the mythology from the ground up, but also no need to be too tied to what's been done before. and all that followed - and failed - are mostly a direct consequence to that. sadly.

loved the flying scenes, though. the plane rescue sequence was great. superjesus heping us trying to be just a little more like himself, charged up to the full potential - up up nd away.

my scripting braincells have developed some ways to have made this a perfect Superman movie, even with what we were being given. but no need to pester you all with that.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
04:30 / 17.07.06
and i hate to say, but apparently SMALLVILLE [which i don't whatch, but from what i've been told] is building a much stronger mythology for Supes than this movie [specially in regards of how lex is portrayed]. damn... =/
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
21:19 / 17.07.06
I have to say it really. I love the superman comics but when it comes to making the films Fuck the comics in their tight little bum holes. Continuity from comics to films is almost a complete waste of time. I want my Superman movie to stand apart from the day to day ballsackiness of comics and be a timeless vintage piece of iconic cinema and that's exactly what this was. There hasnt been a film in so long that has taken so much pleasure in being pure cinema in every sense of the word. The romance, colours, setting (was it even the modern world) are timeless cinema in this film. This got the core of Superman so right, the heart of this move is big. Other people complained to me about continuity after Xmen 3 because of the smooshing together of three storylines but well thats another more fun argument (Whedons a dossbus).
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
21:32 / 17.07.06
oh wait I forgot ha that Whedons a dossbus thing is just a joke so no one bother attacking me, hes alright
 
 
---
21:42 / 17.07.06
After seeing this today I loved it too. It's the first time in a while that I've left the cinema feeling amazed and inspired by what I'd just seen, instead of feeling pretty empty.

I couldn't give a damn about how it links in with the comics either, not at all. Films should be seperated from the comics if need be. I mean, they get made a lot less and comic writers go all over the damn place if they want, so why shouldn't film writers? Not something that I'm bothered about really.

The story was something I enjoyed, the action scenes fit the film brilliantly, I thought Brandon played Supes amazingly aswell, and that the writers and director did a great job of the whole thing.

I left the cinema feeling INSPIRED, and that rarely happens for me nowadays, so I won't be complaining at all about this one, and will be off to see it again asap.
 
 
Spaniel
08:43 / 18.07.06
I'm not sure whether to be grateful that MW's done all the work, or slightly disappointed. Basically I agree pretty much entirely with everything he's said.

Enjoyed it alot, but it was a weird experience.

Oh, and those fucking credits... fucking hell, I nearly pissed myself with excitement. Best credit sequence evar! The shuttle bit was bloody fantastically ace too.
 
 
Spaniel
08:44 / 18.07.06
The theme was the real star though, eh?
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
10:29 / 18.07.06
Yeah I did basically cream when the score started up, so good.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
10:45 / 18.07.06
I really enjoyed the film, and was very impressed at Brandon Routh's performance, both as Clark and Supes.
 
My one gripe (and it's a pretty big one) was with Spacey. I didn't buy him as Lex Luthor. He had some good moments, but I feel he was hamstrung by the sheer awfulness and mundanity of his plan. *CRYSTALLISATION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!!* I mean, I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but...the entire premise of Luthor's plan just didn't work at all for me. But that's just me. I studied science in college, which does spoil my enjoyment of some movies.
 
 
Triplets
11:15 / 18.07.06
Thank god that flying man saved the fraying strands of reality.

I liked Spacey as Lex. Can't remember Hackman in the old Supes films but am familiar with Luthor as he's displayed in other media (notably the JL cartoon) so that's really what I weighing him up against. Was he as good as The Kurgan? Well, no, but he wasn't going for that, more the wacky Luthor of Super Silver Age Friends who just happens to be hard as fuck.

The only problem I had with Luthor was that in one scene (at the end in the Fortress of Lexitude?) he's talking smack with Supes and he does this trademark smug, head tilt thing that is totally Spacey's and for a second I was watching K-Pax. Took me right out of the film.
 
 
Spaniel
11:18 / 18.07.06
Well, hokey super sci-fi does have a way of making no. sense. whatsoever. so it didn't really bother me. But on the subject of dodgy conceptual holes, Luthor's predictions about the social and economic outcomes of his plan stretched my suspension of disbelief to the max. I managed to forgive and (almost) forget, however, when I realised that his scheme was thematically on the money: in a story all about home and homecoming, the baddie kind of has to set out to create a world that is unfit for our hero.
 
 
Spaniel
11:22 / 18.07.06
Oh, and, Cloud, I'm not sure that counts as a "problem with Spacey".
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
12:15 / 18.07.06
Boboss - yes, you're right - but I did point out that this was mainly due to the ridiculousness of his masterplan. Perhaps with a more reasonable plan I would have enjoyed Spacey's performance more. It wasn't so much that I didn't buy Spacey, more that I didn't buy Luthor, if you see what I mean.
 
 
Spaniel
12:38 / 18.07.06
I do see what you mean, and I understand how these conceptual quibbles can be distracting, I just think that for the sake of accuracy we should pinpoint the problem, which doesn't lie with Luthor, but with the writers being a little lax in the plausibility arena. What we are being asked to buy isn't Luthor's genius - that's never in doubt, in that his plan does work, as far as it goes - but that the fictional world in which the movie is set is believable. Now, you don't think it is (for scientific reasons), and this has the unfortunately side effect or damaging Luthors's credibility (for you) because Luthor is giventhe task of bringing these conceptual weaknesses to the screen. Personally I don't have much of a problem with the scientific end because a) these stories always feature dodgy science - it's almost a badge of pride, and b) well, you know, these are special sc-i-fi crystals and as such are unlikely to be crysals in the usual sense, but rather crazy super-technology that looks a bit like crystals but is actually a lot weirder.

I'm being a bit of a pedant. I'll stop now.
 
 
buttergun
13:40 / 18.07.06
I think Luthor was better in this film than Supes 1 and 2 -- mostly because this time he didn't surround himself with idiots (besides Parker Posey's character, that is). In the Donner movies, you had to wonder why a super criminal mastermind would only have two underlings at his disposal...both of them idiots. Also, I LOVED how in Superman Returns, despite his grand talk, when it came right down to it and he had Superman at his mercy, Lex had a prison flashback and jammed a damn kryptonite shiv in Superman's back.

As for Lex's plan in Returns...it was just an extrapolation of his plans in the first film. Superman Returns inspired me to re-watch the first two movies. Lex's big plan in Superman 1 was to get rich off of real estate after causing massive earth quakes on the west coast; he even delivered the same dialog about his father that Spacey repeated in Superman Returns (complete with the same retort from female underling: Lex: "You know what my dad always told me?" Underling: "Get out?").

As for Smallville building a better mythology...no. I've tried to sit through a handful of episodes, but forget it. Though of course if by "mythology" you mean WB celluloid bullshit and "teenagers" who talk like world-weary debutantes (I'm thinking of Clark's ultra-annoying blonde-haired reporter friend here), then maybe it is. The show's more Buffy/Roswell than Superman. Someday a pack of has-been "actor/comedians" will laugh about how they used to think it was cool on VH1's "I Love the '00s."
 
 
John Octave
13:58 / 18.07.06
In the Donner movies, you had to wonder why a super criminal mastermind would only have two underlings at his disposal...both of them idiots.

It used to bug me too until I came up with two little fannish explanations of my own, both of which deal with Luthor's ego.

1.) Luthor sees it is to his benefit to surround himself with people less intelligent than him. There's the ego boost, of course, because he's that much smarter when compared with Otis, but also it allows him to remain in unquestioned control. In Superman II, we see how poorly Lex does when paired with someone like Zod who he can't utterly control and can turn on him at any time. Outside of naming a town after himself, Otis is never going to really assert his independence and self-worth, is he?

2.) If Luthor surrounds himself with idiots, when his plan fails it isn't his fault. Comic book psychology, you see. If Luthor hires good help and his plan fails, there was something wrong with Luthor's plan, and we couldn't have that. But whenever Otis fucks up, he can always tell himself "That would have worked if not for..." etc. This is also why he seems to surround himself with pseudo-"girlfriend" figures like Tessmacher and Kitty that ultimately sympathize with Superman. That way Lex never gets the chance to fail, he can chalk it up to being "betrayed by those darn treacherous females" or whatever and pretend to be a spurned lover when really his "companions" never had much interest in the first place.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
14:21 / 18.07.06
Boboss - yes, I agree with your point completely. I think.
 
 
Spaniel
16:33 / 18.07.06
Wasn't Miss Teschmacher supposed to be proper clever? I seem to remember some sort of reveal in one of the movies where it was made clear that her dumb blonde shtick was exactly that: a schtick. Tell me I didn't make that up in my head.

I assumed that Kitty Kowalski - being a teschmacher analogue - was similarly smart, although, granted, there was little to actually suggest that in the script.

As for the reprisal of the scheme in the original movie - yep, that's exactly what was going on here, but I think this incarnation had a rather more thematic force.

As for why Luthor doesn't like to associate with other intelligent people, well, I can't actually think of many vain, megalomaniacal, criminal masterminds that do.
Oh, and it would also potentially add one dramatic dimension too many, in that you would then have to resolve the inevitable conflict between the principal baddie and his smart henchman/men.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:23 / 18.07.06
Wasn't Miss Teschmacher supposed to be proper clever? I seem to remember some sort of reveal in one of the movies where it was made clear that her dumb blonde shtick was exactly that: a schtick. Tell me I didn't make that up in my head.

Just watched I & II over the weekend. Miss Teshmacher's primary interest was in having the ultimate boyfriend. She save Superman out of desire to save her grandmother, kisses him while he's helpless because she doesn't believe he'd let her otherwise. As he flys off she wonders out loud why she can never get anyone better than a LEX.

In the second movie she gets him out of prison and simply let's Luthor betray Otis. She complains along the way to the Fortress and is then forgotten when Luthor shows up to make a deal (which is constantly renegotiated) with ZOD, who may reappear in a sequel if rumors are to be believed . . . wouldn't it be great if it was still played by Terrance Stamp?
 
 
The Falcon
23:50 / 18.07.06
I know this may be a bit tiresome, and I'm not sure how I feel - qualitatively - about the film, it's all kind-of blurry in my memory apart from the action setpieces, but I really want a Luthor/Brainiac team in any sequel. Mostly Brainiac, but I think they could chuck Kandor in too, 'cos it'd tie-in thematically with this not really explained need Superman had to visit his home planet (which is presumably a. very, very far away and b. able to deactivate/dampen his powers, given the old red sun - that's my exp. for the apparent 'spaceship' anyway.)

Things I like - 1) the non-resolution of the romantic triangle; Richard is, evidently, a really great guy and there's never any indication that he could be otherwise - it seems quite nuanced and contemporary for, well, any mainstream romance film I've seen in a long time. I see a few folk on boards are saying the game's up and Superman has already won, but really the only acceptable (as in, not making Superman a douche) resolution in a future film would be for Marsden's character to bite it.

2) The setpieces, yeah. Opening credits & plane-save in particular are great, and I did feel really quite emotional at any point Superman appeared really, but the plane bit is just... everyone's happy he's back. I was quite swept up in that; I'm so happy he's back, I thought. It's really great that he's back. Likewise, while I know as an adult that Superman's not really going to die, I found the beating and descent after removing the cancerous growth, you know - distressing. I'd been very conscious of the supposed Christian symbolism to be found therein prior to watching (on opening night, natch) but barring the 'need for a saviour' bit, which I did not like and didn't really dig Routh's oddly sneery face as he delivered it, I didn't read the descent and coma(?) as any literal resurrection - I think Superman's such a potent symbol it can get confusing imposing the disjunctive readings of 1) 'parable of homosexuality' (which we were supposedly going to get, thanks Rich Johnston, but other than the irresolved triangle which I suppose you could do something with?) 2) Americanism ('truth, justice, all that stuff' supposedly has right-wing blogs in uproar; good, say I) and 3) Jesus onto the narrative. I'm a purist - I just thought of the 90's era Jurgens' Death of Superman guff and just how sad (pathetic and, if you can put yourself in that imaginary space, tragic if you were a DCU resident) the whole thing was.

Yeah, all pretty visceral, emotional reactions - so I guess it worked for me. Think the script was pretty light, regardless, don't mind the wrinkle of the kid at all, and he stayed out of shot mostly (like - literally on the boat, which I suppose was supposed to be an eyeview) which was good, don't really like kids in films. Not too hot on the piano killing, though, but he is just like the boy in 'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow', I guess. Plays up to the whole 'hurt my family...' conservative thing a bit, maybe?

Other comics moments reified... the super-hearing bit made me think initially of Lois' description of the super-senses in All-Star #3 and then 'He hears alarms' in that Hyperclan JLA arc, which is just such a triumphal moment in itself - it seems to have been subject to criticism elsewhere too, but it sounded good to me, they way it gradually filtered out toward the siren, and then whoosh! Bullet in the eye was great, if insubstantial.

On it's status as a sequel: it's a funny relationship, really, because the only comparison I can draw is Evil Dead I & II - the latter's a remake-cum-sequel iirc, and even that's far from perfect, that analogue. It is a lot like Superman I, in terms of Luthor's (Independent criticised Spacey for taking a lot of humour out of the role, but again as a contemporary comics purist... I don't really want Lex to be funny; in fact, he was a little too comical for my liking. I've never seen him portrayed as anything other than a serious threat. Found the Kitty stuff almost utterly pointless, although the cannibal dog was sufficiently nasty comedy.) plot, and I suppose that's another reason I'd like not to see Zod in the near future.

Ah, seems I found quite lot to say about it actually. I kinda want to see it again, but it'll wait 'til video, reckon.
 
 
The Falcon
00:31 / 19.07.06
Incidentally, this was the first film I've ever seen where a portion of the audience applauded at the end; dunno if it was 'cos they were with kids or what, but it was odd and also kinda heartening, I think.
 
 
Mike Modular
01:39 / 19.07.06
Wasn't Miss Teschmacher supposed to be proper clever? I seem to remember some sort of reveal in one of the movies where it was made clear that her dumb blonde shtick was exactly that: a schtick. Tell me I didn't make that up in my head

Like, dude, I've been totally thinking about that scene lately (23!1! etc). As Mr Tricks found nothing, it was off to IMDB... And, so, only half right. It was Pamela Stephenson in Superman III:

Lorelei: [reading Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"] How can he say that Pure Categories have no objective meaning in Transcendental Logic? What about Synthetic Unity?
And then, as I recall, Robert Vaughan enters and she starts acting all dumb again.

Oh and I enjoyed SR and, er, what Falconer and Wonderstarr (now there's a cool sounding duo...) said, really. Great fun at the time, but perhaps much less impressive the more it's dwelt upon. Fantastic sound design though.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:58 / 19.07.06
Oh, another thing I liked. The way Superman struck just the right note with Richard, allowing the other man to retain his male pride and his role as protector/rescuer of his family, and his identity as a flyer. His life was saved by Superman ~ who, in Richard's eyes as the perceived competition for alpha-male status and Lois' affections, obviously outclasses him in the manhood stakes, as the ultimate top trump ~ but Superman really gave Richard space to help himself and his loved ones.

I thought it was especially tactful and nice the way Supes encouraged Richard to save them through his flying ability ~ again, an area where Superman could beat Richard hands-down, but he stood back and let the man do what he's good at.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply