Eleven Years Later, thoughts on the film SUPERMAN RETURNS

[DochaDocha]

Seeing Luthor's muscle thugs beat up Superman never really bothered me, I'm a bit surprised a lot of people didn't like it.

[godisawesome]

Seeing Luthor's muscle thugs beat up Superman never really bothered me, I'm a bit surprised a lot of people didn't like it.

I'm actually fine with that scene by itself; my biggest problem is when Superman then shakes off the beating, the exposure to the island's kryptonite, and the pure kryptonite shank stuck in his body, he then lifts a continent. When I saw that part of the film, I was still invested, and my thought was "how are they going to get him out of this?"

Then they just ignored any consequences of the scene and had him do something that broke the internal consistency of the film.

[Tuck]

Seeing Luthor's muscle thugs beat up Superman never really bothered me, I'm a bit surprised a lot of people didn't like it.

The scene is overwrought.

I've seen it referred to as The Passion of the Clark.

[Doctor Know]

Lamb of Krypton!

And people claim Snyder goes overboard with the Jesus imagery.

[AJBopp]

I can forgive the inexplicable introduction of the child. I never bought into the forced criticism of "deadbeat dad" since he didn't know he had a child before he left. I enjoyed the airplane scene even while it was too reminiscent of Superman 77 (as was all of the pacing and major story points). The costume was off-putting every time it appeared, but in most cases the action when he wore it made up for its appearance.

What I couldn't tolerate were the inconsistencies. The boy has asthma to the point he can barely breathe, but with no explanation throws a piano across the room. What?

Superman lands on an island laced with kryptonite and doesn't know it. I'm used to seeing Superman get sick when in the presence of kryptonite, but if you're going to interpret it differently, I'll go there with you - I paid money to enjoy myself and I'll try very hard to have an enjoyable time. I thought the beating was a little too graphic and out of place give then tone of the rest of the film, but it wasn't a killer for me.

But when, 5 minutes later, he returns to the same island, is shown getting sick from being near it, and is able to lift it up and throw it into space, they did the one thing I had known they absolutely could not do. I was so looking forward to a creative way for Superman to deal with this crisis, because throwing it into space was absolutely out of the question by the rules the movie laid out for itself.

But that's what they did. It was horribly inconsistent and criminally lazy.

It doesn't really compare in my mind to Man Of Steel, however. For all it's sins, Superman Returns was, at the very least, a Superman movie, if a flawed one. MoS never rose to that level. At best it was some sort of horrific live action manga by someone who doesn't understand the genre.

[Tuck]

The boy has asthma to the point he can barely breathe, but with no explanation throws a piano across the room. What?

And crushing a guy to death with that piano.

[Doctor Know]

It doesn't really compare in my mind to Man Of Steel, however. For all it's sins, Superman Returns was, at the very least, a Superman movie, if a flawed one. MoS never rose to that level. At best it was some sort of horrific live action manga by someone who doesn't understand the genre.

I view Superman Returns as Lois Lane movie, featuring a character called Superman.

Just about everything is tailor made to involve Lois, her family and her feelings in some way. All the drama of the movie is focused on Lois and characters who orbit her. The one part that actually does have to do with Superman is the theft of his crystals.

[CharlesInCharge]

I remember the first time I really found my fears for this movie. It wasn't Bryan Singer being chosen for director (he was considered a "good get" at the time). It wasn't even the casting of Brandon Routh, whom I have since come to appreciate in his non-Kal roles.

No, it was my first glimpse of That Suit.



Forget Brandon, just look at the costume.

What. A. Letdown.

The speedo. The short-ass, cheap-as-hell looking boot design. The off-putting shade of tealish blue in the tights. The outright drab burgundy where there should be brilliant red. The downgrade of the chest emblem. The tacky S-belt buckle, in case the first bigger S still wasn't enough S for ya. Oh, and that's too soft a hairstyle for a Man of Steel.

That was the moment I started bracing for the worst. And eventually got it.

But seriously, even Tyler Hoechlin's suit on SUPERGIRL is better than this design failure.

People complain about the Man Of Steel suit being some kind of 'bizarro' version, but at least it's aesthetically pleasing with interesting and unique design elements unlike the above which, outside of the belt buckle, looks like an attempt at making the Superman suit look as dull and unremarkable as possible.

[DochaDocha]

I'm actually fine with that scene by itself; my biggest problem is when Superman then shakes off the beating, the exposure to the island's kryptonite, and the pure kryptonite shank stuck in his body, he then lifts a continent. When I saw that part of the film, I was still invested, and my thought was "how are they going to get him out of this?"

Then they just ignored any consequences of the scene and had him do something that broke the internal consistency of the film.

I have mixed feelings about lifting the continent. I liked the idea that it showed that Superman could will his way out through the toughest of ordeals. Does it make sense, though? No, it doesn't really flow with the concept that Kryptonite makes him weak. Perhaps a similar idea of showing Superman's will could've been expressed in a manner that was more sensible.

The scene is overwrought.

I've seen it referred to as The Passion of the Clark.

Lamb of Krypton!

And people claim Snyder goes overboard with the Jesus imagery.

Hmmm, there certainly is plenty of Jesus imagery, but the actual beating he took wasn't something that struck me as Jesus-y.

[godisawesome]

I have mixed feelings about lifting the continent. I liked the idea that it showed that Superman could will his way out through the toughest of ordeals. Does it make sense, though? No, it doesn't really flow with the concept that Kryptonite makes him weak. Perhaps a similar idea of showing Superman's will could've been expressed in a manner that was more sensible.





Hmmm, there certainly is plenty of Jesus imagery, but the actual beating he took wasn't something that struck me as Jesus-y.

Well, SR wasn't that far removed from Passion for the Christ itself, which really focused on the suffering and petty cruelty of his tormentors. Plus, as we've all noted, it's then followed up on by Superman doing something seemingly impossible even for him, kind of like the resurrection following the crucifixion, and even a scene where he paraphrases his father's pseudo-God-the-Father-to-God-the-Son speech.

Oddly enough, I kind of find the biblical references in SR more irritating than the ones in MOS. Its probably because MOS is going for more of a literary and human reference by drawing parallels between Clark mulling over acceding to Zod's demands when he knows it's almost certainly a bad thing with the Garden of Gethsemane story from the Bible; Gethsemane is one of the more human and relatable elements of the Gospel because Jesus expresses fear and desire for a way out before choosing a painful and brave path for the sake of others. It's a moment that can apply to any human being when faced with a tough choice of trusting "unworthy" people with your safety.

SR, on the other hand, kind of goes for more of a direct parallel between the divine nature of Jesus and the "divine" powers of Superman; as someone who prefers any faux-theological metaphors about Superman to focus on "little g god" over "Capital G God" and always found Supermans story to be more Moses than Jesus, I felt it was a misstep. Superman is "super" but not all powerful; his struggle with other powerful foes and bravery in the face of long odds are what make him an inspirational hero, while there was something a little Übermensch about Jor-El insisting that Superman wa sin some ways simply a better man.

[_Feely_]

I have mixed feelings about lifting the continent. I liked the idea that it showed that Superman could will his way out through the toughest of ordeals. Does it make sense, though? No, it doesn't really flow with the concept that Kryptonite makes him weak. Perhaps a similar idea of showing Superman's will could've been expressed in a manner that was more sensible.

Yup. I'm certainly with you on this.

I'm a fan of a Superman who's greatest power is being able to do the most dramatic thing at the most dramatic moment. And while Superman is pretty much a Deus Ex Machina all by himself, this scene seems to lean too far into it.

I think maybe he just takes far too much of a kicking involving Kryptonite to just suddenly shrug it all off. I dunno. It just seems to go too far before turning around and negating everything that's just happened to him.

[Kuwagaton]

Seeing Luthor's muscle thugs beat up Superman never really bothered me, I'm a bit surprised a lot of people didn't like it.

Akhil, Akshay, and Ajith are qualified guys named Kumar. Unfortunately, they got the other Kumar. With suffering Christ imagery threatening to outdo the goofy train scene in Spider-Man 2, which came out the year before.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I can't watch it again, it doesn't bring enough new to the table and distinguish itself from the Donner films. I watched them after rewatching the Reeve movies and both the leads seem too young and locked into cover versions of the characters. I don't mind the Kryptonite inconsistencies, how many heroes get up after being shot multiple times? Bullets are their weakness and they get to somehow keep going.

[daBronzeBomma]

After #1 Bryan Singer, lets move on the #2 (IMO) SR mistake:

#2 - Forcing Brandon Routh to ape Christopher Reeve's Kal-El.

No, wait ...

#2 - Forcing Kevin Spacey to ape Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor.

Augh, you guys: pick your poison here. These are two screw-ups of equally bad proportions.

Spacey is clearly the bigger missed opportunity here, as under a proper Super Director and script, we could be talking about Kevin Spacey's Oscar-winning performance as Lex Luthor (a la Heath Ledger's Joker), which is obviously a very best case scenario, but with Spacey's vast acting skills, absolutely within play given a few different circumstances. Instead we got a surprisingly more sinister version of Hackman's campy a-hole, which no one was clamoring for an encore performance.

Routh is the bigger conceptual problem here, because Spacey could at least somewhat elevate the crappy material given to him. Routh is a decently competent actor, but he is not a force of nature like Spacey. Routh cannot elevate dreck on his own. He was made to imitate Reeve and couldn't because only Reeve himself can give a good Reeve Superman. Had Routh been allowed to positively differentiate his take from Reeve, I can almost guarantee we would have gotten a MUCH better Supes.


Bigger SR flaw: Routh forced to be Reeve or Spacey forced to be Hackman?

[Osiris-Rex]

Bigger SR flaw: Routh forced to be Reeve or Spacey forced to be Hackman?

For me the biggest flaw was having Lex Luthor in the movie at all. If Superman were up against Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, Mongul or any other Superman villain not seen in a movie before
I don't think people would have cared if Routh were channeling Reeve. People would have loved to have seen Reeve take on one of those villains and so would have accepted anyone
in the roll that looked similar to Reeve. So any halfway competent actor would have been accepted if Superman were facing a new, but well known villain.