Superman Returns; the most underated superhero movie in a while?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Do you think this movie is underated?

  • yes

    Votes: 72 45.0%
  • no

    Votes: 88 55.0%

  • Total voters
    160
Lex Luthor needed to have operated on a whole other level then what Spacey did in SR. Luthor needs to be a totally political/businesslike animal. He needs tendrils sunk into secret government projects, Wall Street, and Government offices. Spacey's Luthor was still based in thuggery like Hackman. The best portrayal of Luthor in entertainment so far has been the Luthor of the last couple seasons of the Justice League cartoons- a Luthor that hides his evil under a veneer of public goodness and political connections that makes it hard for Supes to strike out at him without looking like a bad guy. He has to outthink him rather than beat him down, which is a tougher villain for a man of steel. He has all the brawn in the world, but that doesn't stop one such as Luthor.

Completely agree with you, I grew up reading that sort of Luthor in the comics, the man who never took Superman on directly but couldn't have it traced back to him which left a frustrated Superman who couldn't do anything but wait for the next attack.

Would be great to see Bruce Timm and Paul Dini get a shot at a big budget movie after all the good they've done with the animated universe. Giving us characters we care about. I know I cared more about Jor-El and Lara in that first 2 parter of the animated series than the cast of SR.

And there was no reason to use Luthor again really, technology was realistically at a level where Darkseid or Brainiac could have been used.

As much as I think Reeve's has the definitive portrayal which ended badly through no fault of his own, regardless of the budget Superman always had dignity. Maybe it's time to move on, it would have been if they'd tried to do the George Reeve Superman in the 70's or carried on with Adam West's Batman.

And for all Hancock's flaws it was entertaining, it was funny, he used his superpowers and it gave us a new portrayal of what it can mean to be a Superhero.

SR unfortunately came over like a recycled mess of reboot and sequel with hardly anything new to its name. Not what I'd have expected from a character so rich in history.
 
Would be great to see Bruce Timm and Paul Dini get a shot at a big budget movie after all the good they've done with the animated universe. Giving us characters we care about. I know I cared more about Jor-El and Lara in that first 2 parter of the animated series than the cast of SR.

Very true! The animated Superman is probably the best Superman of all, and it's all due to the writing; distilling the characters to their most potent versions.

And there was no reason to use Luthor again really, technology was realistically at a level where Darkseid or Brainiac could have been used.

Hell, could you imagine a live action Parasite even!? Darkseid would be espescially cool if it brought all that Kirby stuff along with it, boom tubes, mother box and all.

As much as I think Reeve's has the definitive portrayal which ended badly through no fault of his own, regardless of the budget Superman always had dignity. Maybe it's time to move on, it would have been if they'd tried to do the George Reeve Superman in the 70's or carried on with Adam West's Batman.

Agreed entirely. Superman is a character whose portrayal should make your chest swell with pride, he embodies the best in all of humanity; and that's key- even though Superman is an alien, his humanity given to him through a classic midwestern upbringing is what makes him so special. It's that amazing dichotomy that drives him. He lives to preserve goodness and caring; he sees the best in humanity. As much as we admire Batman, he will never be as noble and upstanding as that human who isn't really human, but chooses to be. Brandon Routh brought none of that "gravitas" to the role.
 
I think the best version of it i've read was in Superman/Batman : Supergirl and was said by Batman

"It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god."

is those complete opposites, that wish fulfillment inherent in the character a man with the abilities of a god and he never has to question making the right choice and poses the question would we or could we do the same thing ?
 
I love this movie, terrific in my opinion!! :rolleyes: But, what do I know?
 
terrible....that's what i think of this movie. can't think of anything i liked about it.

EDIT: I did like the whole, superman went away for a while and is now back though.
 
This movie was ok, just needed more action and i hated the fact that they gave superman a son

Not only the fact they gve him a son, or so soon in what was basicaly a relaunch of a character that hadn't been in the movies for a while, but that it was with Lois Lane.
 
It was a good foundation to build a couple of excellent sequels on. I would like to see Superman fight a "super" villian instead of Lex Luthor. A movie with Superman versus Brainiac or Bizarro would be cool but the TV show kinda already touched on those themes (although weakly).
 
The TV show ruins everything imo. First 3 seasons, Smallville was okay, afterwards, it just gets worse and worse to the point of being ridiculous.
How come Clark Kent meet up with brainiac, flash, green arrow, aquaman, etc. before he became Superman. And worse, now they're putting Doomsday in there. And CK still can't fly for ^^^^^.
 
liked it.
The land route seemed so stupid. who's going to live on that. It's like living in a cave.
also, Luthor being the somewhat bumbling criminal isn't good. If you're going to make him a threat make him a real threat. I know it a superhero movie, but I didn't buy him or his crew. They were too Batman TV series.
 
Routh casting was the best thing about the film. Kate was miscast and Spacey was misused. I agree that's it's just a rehash of Superman: the movie with a little better special effects. The characterizations of Luthor, Lois and Clark were all poor.

The more I've thought about it, I'm thinking that WB was looking at Abrams script - which would have cost a lot more than they'd planned with all the aerial battles, multiple Kryptonians and a cliff-hanger ending. So when Singer came along (he had a history with successful and limited budget superheroes) with his retread of the previous franchise - they jumped at the chance to spend less money. The kid was just a WTF moment that they let slide by.

I love Superman and this has some great scenes of Superman in action, so I watch the film every now and then - but it was more disappointing than anything else for me.
 
I gotta admit, I liked Spacey at Luthor. But at the same time it is Luthor AGAIN! Most people don't know Superman has any supervillians because the films just keep using Luthor over and over again. Where's Bizzaro even?
 
Iron Man is overrated.























(its not...but I wanted to say it...:D)

Oh and Hancock is crap. Its worse then Superman Returns.
 
I think Superman Returns was actually overrated. It got better reviews than I thought it would after seeing it (it still has close to 80% on Rotten Tomatoes). I like Routh, but the whole revamp made no sense, unless everyone ages like Benjamin Button. I personally think TDK lived up to the hype, Iron Man surpassed the (little) hype, and the Incredible Hulk is the most underrated superhero film of 2008.

That doesn't mean I don't still get super pumped when the opening credits happen and you hear the theme song...
 
Back
Top