Superman Returns in IMAX

Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer

Enjoying a big blockbuster like other filmgoers, I wanted mine even bigger. So I trotted off with my son to the local IMAX cinema to see, “Superman Returns,” the latest film from Bryan Singer (X Men I and II). Anything you see in this format is impressive. This one also promised three dimensions. I will get into that aspect later.

The film is very reminiscent of the Donner pictures. Singer uses John Williams famous score liberally throughout, and even many of the same camera moves around the flying figure, are repeated in this film as well, from the jubilant boy romping through the cornfields to the dashing young man flying over Metropolis in his red boots and blue tights. Even villain Lex Luthor has the same gags with the wigs covering his ‘chrome dome.’ Singer also directed Kevin Spacey in “The Usual Suspects.” His banal underplayed performance belies his extraordinary talent, creating the villain you love to hate. You’ll love the dog joke.

Singer has breathed a little fresh air into the performances of newcomers Brandon Routh (Superman) and Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane). The lovers reunite under a cloud of ‘where have you been?’ suspicion. In fact, the film stumbles in the beginning with the same awkwardness Kent feels when returning after five years. Jimmy Olsen is no longer a trim kid with a necktie, but a bumbling pudgy idiot. He’s so bad with a camera, that his blurred picture of Superman re-creates the old joke: “What is it? A bird? A plane? No, its…”

Frank Langella’s Perry White is also toned down, filled with dead pan in all the right places, played more for comedy than White’s trademark irascibility. The mother, played by time honored (and Brando co-star) Eva Marie Saint as the kindly Mrs. Kent, still there for Clark, though she must be getting up there in age. Jack Larson, the original Jimmy from television, even shows up in a clever cameo. Brando is re-created from his appearance in the first film. Though, had he been around, I’m certain he would have sued Warner Brothers (it kept him out of the sequels, if you recall. Superman saw his mother, instead.)

The film has the same beautiful sweeping vistas. Cinemaphotographer Newton Sigel (worked with Singer on Apt Pupil and Xmen) creates a rich deep film with an incredible palate of dark colors. Even the Super-suit is toned down.

The film has a few surprises, and a very good weepy ending. If you really like Superman, I highly recommend the IMAX experience. It beats the old 70mm format by a mile. Each scene is rich with detail and the three dimensions in at least one scene is definitely worth the increase price in ticket.

Now here’s the bad news. The incredible opening with its zooming titles and phenomenal CGI moves through the galaxy is not, repeat IS NOT in 3-D! My biggest question to WB would be, WHY? Of all the sequences in the film, this should be the one to WOW the audience from the start. Instead, the first 3-D comes at the farmhouse. Where? You might ask. That’s right, the farmhouse. D-U-L-L ! However, because of the large screen format and the next two 3-D sequences, I will forgive you Warner Brothers for not entirely ruining the IMAX experience. There are four five-minute sequences. That’s all folks!

I give “Superman Returns” high marks for bringing quality to the second DC film this year (the first being the stinker X-III). Singer knows how to deliver this kind of film and does not disappoint.

Thanks for the early review!

Ebert gave it only 2 stars- a bad omen.

He asked why Supes was straining when rescuing the airliner- does he have limits? I laughed when he wondered if he'd have trouble with the new Airbus.

I think you mean "it beats the old 35mm format", don't you?

I'll be seeing this @ the first show on Fri.
But it's not showing in IMAX in the Capital.

IMAX format note: While the format is considered "70mm", IMAX film is pulled sideways through the projector, making the surface area of the 'positive-negative' larger than standard 70mm. This increased area allows projection without having to squeeze the picture or use anamorphic lenses to create the widescreen look. Hence, the IMAX format is the largest film format (outside of cinerama) ever produced. The detail on the screen is immediately apparent from the start of the picture, when absolutely no grain can be detected on the huge blown-up image, making the result quite phenomenal!

Source: http://www.dvdaust.com/film_formats.htm

Nice link!

I stand corrected.

I don't think I've disagreed so much with Ebert in one of his reviews as much as I do on Superman. He claims that Brandon Routh can't pull off the Reeve performance. As I was watching this spectacular movie, I couldn't help but adore Routh's performance as not only the suave Superman, but also as the pathetically dorky Clark Kent. I'd call this the best spectacle film since King Kong.

Indeed, there are flaws, but I think it shoots for enough camp that this can be forgiven.

Gonna see it in about T minus 2.5 hours.
I'll post as soon as it's over.
Thanks for the positive vibes, Tree.
(From one fan to another- I have a tattoo of the Supes logo on my right forearm)

A bit surprised to read Tree's assertion that the movie "shoots for enough camp..." . I thought the main difference between Superman Returns and the Donner and Lester films that brought superman to the big screen is the new film's near absence of camp. I checked Ebert's review after Johann brought it up. The main reason he didn't like the new film is Superman, Kent, Lois and Luthor "all seem to lack any joy in being themselves". Ebert liked the more flamboyant, over-the-top performances in the earlier films. Compare Gene Hackman's Luthor to Spacey's mordant, drier version ("underplayed" as cinemabon states). There's no trace of Margot Kidder's giddy, girlish Lois in Bosworth's 21st century model. Even Perry White is "toned down" (cinemabon). How you regard these differences is largely a matter of personal taste.

Something I liked about Superman Returns is the gradual unveiling of the details of Luthor's evil plan. Then again, Ebert's observation that "the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years" rings true to me. If Florida is under water, I'd move to Patagonia rather than purchase land in Luthor's horrid new continent.

Besides the performances, Batman Returns is indeed reminiscent of the earlier films in many ways. There are a few subtle changes though. Most interestingly, when Daily Planet editor White directs his reporters' investigation of Superman, he tells them to find out if he "still stands for truth and justice". There was a time when Superman also stood for "the American way" but nowadays it's not clear what that means, not anymore.

*Obviously, the IMAX format is the best way to appreciate the film. The IMAX nearby closed last year because of poor attendance. I decided against driving 30+ miles each way to the IMAX in Ft. Lauderdale but reading cinemabon's posts made me wish for that giant screen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis

Besides the performances, Batman Returns is indeed reminiscent of the earlier films in many ways.

---

Indeed. Catwoman compared to Zod could make an interesting essay. ;)

Let's just all pitch money for an official Filmleaf IMAX that's portable.

I just wanted to find out if you were paying attention young man ;)

I'm absolutely awestruck with Superman Returns
Roger Ebert is definitely off base with his review.



Bryan Singer's the Messiah as far as I'm fuckin' concerned.
This is his masterpiece.

Dedicated to Dana and Christopher Reeve, this is the movie of the summer, the year, and possibly the decade.

Yes it's that good.

Ebert refers to Atlas in his review- the first time we see Superman he's like Atlas on the shuttle, when he saves the Daily Planet globe he's all Atlas, and when he's heaving Lex's fucking CONTINENT he's Atlas, Hercules, the strongest being anyone's seen since Hulk. That's what I wanna see in a Superman film- strength personified. And baby, did we ever get it!

Speaking of Hulk, remember in Ang Lee's movie when Hulk falls from the Jet above San Fran? Singer outdid Lee with a similar scene- a poetic scene of Supes plunging to earth after ridding it of the Krypto-continent. Absolutely awesome.



Brandon Routh is perfect. Perfect casting choice and I don't know what the hell Ebert's talking about. He says he saw the original Superman films with Reeve. He doesn't seem to see how Brandon & Bryan are honoring Reeve and the character. I was so happy watching Routh as Clark Kent and as Superman.

It is exactly as it should have been done.
Reeve struck the template. Why mess with what was gold in the first place? I felt the same feelings toward Brandon as I did as a kid with Chris: he's human, he's handsome- what a lantern jaw eh?, polite, noble, serious when he hs to be, can flash a great smile or a wicked grin, he means business when he has to, etc etc.

Kate Bosworth is no Margot Kidder, but she played the role fine.
Perry White? fine.
Jimmy Olsen? fine.
Lex Luthor? fine.

This movie is about SUPERMAN.

And Superman was nailed by the filmmakers.
NAILED, CHACHI.

The opening credits had me stirring in my seat.
That theme...
Titles were just like the original films, but way better.
WAY BETTER.
Updated, some amazing shots, fucking-A beautiful opening titles.
I also loved how it opens with a little info on where Superman's been all this time. Right from the get-go they got it right.
It's plausible (in comix terms :)
Astronomers thought they found the remains of Krypton.
Dude had to go and see for himself.

The first (and best) action sequence really has no peers, in any action movie- go on, I dare you: name an SFX sequence (besides something in Revenge of the Sith) that comes close to that kick-ass, balls-to-the-wall airliner sequence.
That's right- you can't.
Nothing tops it.
Nothing in my movie memory banks can compare to that exhilerating SFX extravaganza.

Ebert says Supes was straining.
Uh, he was CONTROLLING THAT FUSELAGE ROGER.
He had it under control, he was just pacing himself, trying to jockey and figure out how to marshall all those G's before it hit the pitcher's mound.

Jawdropping SFX.
My copy of the DVD will get a workout on that sequence.

Superman WAS straining when he was lifting the continent, but you can blame that on the fuckin' kryptonite.


My favorite scene in the whole film is when he flies up into the stratosphere to absorb the sun's rays, to get his mojo back, and clenches his fist. Sonic boom: back to earth, back to work.
Hell yeah.

If anyone hates this movie, they need psychiatric help.

It's a jolt of sheer adrenaline, a monster blockbuster.
The kind of movie that I pray for from the cinema gods- especially in the summer.

We see Superman as a receiver- his soul is a radio. I love how much care was put into his role for us- he's an archetype, an ideal. He represents hope and healing.
They adhered to the mythos (with a vengeance) and all you can do is say THANK YOU. Thank you Bryan Singer and film crews.

Remember the Crash Test Dummies "Superman's Song"?

Superman never made any money
For saving the world from Solomon Grundy
And sometimes I despair
The world will never see another man
Like him
He could smash through any bank
in the United States
BUT HE WOULD NOT

The movie speaks to the film fan, the comic fan and ignites the idea of hope for humanity. It's just a movie, yes, but it's aiming for something bigger.

I hope it breaks box-office records all over the globe.

I enjoyed this movie except for a few distracting issues I had with it. Even without the IMAX experience, this movie really shot the new version of Poseidon out of the water - this was really powerful stuff and the sound and visual thriller ride was amazing, among the most enthralling for me since Brainstorm (1983). While I can't give this movie an A+, it will have to settle for an A-. Better than King Kong (2005) as I predicted CGI would keep moving the bar upwards and I still believe King Kong will be forgotten.

Superman as savior has been bantied around the past few days (mentioned again on Charlie Rose last night). Singer obviously meant the film to pivot on the scene with Lois when she and the big fella ascend into the clouds (appropriate setting) and he asks her what she hears...

"I don't hear anything," she replies, setting up his next line.
(I won't spoil the scene for those who still haven't seen it)

At this moment in the film, I actually got chills. I believe this scene becomes the pivotal plot point. Who is this man that dresses up in a costume and can perform incredible feats yet resembles the rest of us? Is Superman another way of superimposing a Christ-like figure into a modern social setting and then giving him a label that everyone can accept? After all, he does perform miracles, never tells a lie (commits no sin?), and applies blind justice while referring to his spiritual "father" for advice! The parallels are far from coincidental.

All that, "...and the American way," crap was played down in the comics after the 1960's. We used to be one nation, indivisible, until the social right wing reformist Republicans decided that we must be the chosen people, and not all those other pagen religions out there. So much for freedom of religion. You'd better be Christian or be damned in America these days... which takes us back to the previous comparison!

Also, let us address the absence of camp, as Oscar so deftly pointed out, is indeed intentional by both writer, the actors and the director. Audiences tire of two dimensional cartoon characters and want to see some depth, some humanity, and invest some emotional vestige. The Donner film now plays like Batman on television, with characters rolling their eyes and making grotesque faces. (My son calls it the 'corney' superman). When Christopher Reeves tries to show outrage in the end, the viewer is a bit confused. You would think he'd be glad to be rid of her the way she treats him!

In "Superman Returns," Director Singer says: If you are going to bring a super intelligent being from another world... why not make him intelligent? Sounds... smart to me.

I definitely noticed some Christ attributes.
I was seeing the big picture, unlike Lois.

"The world doesn't need a Saviour"

How many people really grasped what Superman Returns was about?

He "comes back" to earth...

He "helps humanity"...

I absolutely love the fact that they SUPER-IMPOSED.
And they did it so gracefully that the Christians have nothing to say.
What, are they gonna argue with an archetype as magnificent as this?

Careful there, Good Christian. How selfish are you with your religion? How indignant and how tight are you wired about your good book? How fundamental are you?

Would Jesus like this movie? I think he'd love it.
I think he'd have some wine and really dig it.
I'd love to hear his thoughts.
Problem is, he's a God who doesn't share his powers with the rest of the world....

I saw it again yesterday and it still kicks ass.

A lot impresses me about it.

Singer cuts right to the chase, he keeps you interested by pulling out all the stops- a trick Stephen King is known for.

I'm sure there's a director's cut in the works.
When Superman returns to the Kent farm, he's wearing a silver suit with no cape. I wanna know what that's all about.

It does seem a little odd that Lois brings her kid to work an awful lot. But the filmmakers had to figure someway to get Jason into the storyline.

And Supes' rescue by Lois, Jason & Richard seemed a little too convenient. They located him fast- like Batman and Robin find crooks with their detective work. In no time at all they knew where he was- thanks to Jason. But all he did was look out the damn window! It's not like "he felt some force below" or anything..

I read online that there is no "S" on his cape because the SFX people were having a hard time recreating it for all the scenes.
They made up for it by putting it on his belt.

Lex has a sweet boat.

I really enjoyed "KITTY" this time.
Great performance by Parker Posey.
And Mr. Spacey is perfect. "You're not seeing the big picture here"

They mention Gotham City in a news report. Could we see Christian Bale in Metropolis in the future? Or Brandon Routh in Gotham?

Some UFI: Virgin records' mogul Richard Branson is one of the astronauts in the shuttle. Weird. He must have really wanted to be in this movie.

The second major effects sequence (Massive Gatling Gun on the roof) was awesome. It was a brief bit of "The Punisher" in my view. Great moviemaking, incredible special effects.

Bullet to the eye! Who is this guy?!

His name is Kal-El, beyotch...

SUPERMAN RETURNS
Written by Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris
Directed by Bryan Singer


A distant planet explodes, announcing the arrival. It is followed swiftly by large retro/electro credits flying directly towards the audience while a familiar score reemerges after twenty years. Superman has returned. From the very start, director Bryan Singer infuses his interpretation with an energy that reverberates respect and admiration for the legend that is Superman. Care is being taken and a calculated effort is being made not to disparage a character that is beloved by so many, Singer included. At a two and half hour running time, SUPERMAN flies by (not faster than a speeding bullet but fast enough). Not noticing the time ordinarily signifies an enjoyable event but here it serves better as a mask to hide the multitude of strange decisions that make the mighty SUPERMAN RETURNS weak and exposed.

Like any revival of a lucrative movie franchise, the script for SUPERMAN RETURNS went through many hands before it ended up in those of Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, past Singer collaborators (X-MEN 2). Despite the amount of care being given to this project, the script choices, above all else, are responsible for occasionally killing the illusion. The jarring plot points fall into two categories, bizarre and irresponsible. The bizarre is best exemplified in a scene meant to show that Superman has started cleaning up the streets of the world again. After saving many situations from ruin around the world, Superman, played by the impeccably smooth-skinned Brandon Routh, finds himself back in Metropolis, where he is about to foil a bank robbery. The robber has positioned himself on the top of the bank with a rapid-fire machine gun so large that it requires an immense stand to prop itself upon. I am first unclear how the robber felt his mission would go so wrong that it made sense to bring such a monstrosity. Mind you, the building does end up surrounded by police officers so I guess it was good he planned ahead. However, when Superman has the gun turned on him, each bullet is deflected because, and I’m sure had I done any research before going I would have known that Superman is completely indestructible. You can even shoot him in the eye and he’ll get you anyway. He’s that frickin’ awesome. And I know this because Singer just spent a good ten minutes shoving it in my face. Fear not, I gave nothing of the story away as the scene serves no purpose in the larger picture.

Superman stands for truth, justice and all that is good and noble. So why does he have no issue putting the moves on Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), a woman in a long term relationship with a six-year-old child? My brother would argue that nowhere does it say that Superman stands for loyalty but I’m fairly positive he’s supposed to be comparatively selfless. Whereas it makes perfect logistical sense for Lois to have moved on after Superman disappeared six years prior without a word (although, judging from the age of her son, she moved on pretty quickly), it makes for a very poor example of a couple to hope for. Lois’s boyfriend, Richard White (James Marsden working with Singer for the first time with his eyes open), is a good man. Sure, he’s a little jealous of Superman but he’s a good father and a supporting boyfriend and c’mon, how could you not be jealous of Superman? So why should an audience want for Lois not to be with Richard but with Superman instead? Singer expects his audience to root for Lois and Superman because of their iconic status instead of showing us something tangible between them to build on. Their constant flirting paints Lois as a confused woman who settled for the sake of her child, taints Superman as a guy who despite all his heroics is really out for himself, and leads me to wonder if the next Superman movie will begin with Superman helping Lois tell her son who his real father is. Never mind that Lois’ son, Jason kills a bad guy at one point and no one even thinks to see if the kid might be a little upset or if he understands the severity of what he’s done. That’s a whole other level of irresponsibility that I don’t have time for.

Superman is everything that everyone wishes they could be. He changes the world; he saves people’s lives; he is indestructible and inherently good without having to try. What Singer forgets more than anything is that he is also Clark Kent. Clark is not meant to stand out, he is not meant to save the world. However, he does exist. In SUPERMAN RETURNS, Clark is more the myth that Superman is. At no point, do we see any aspect of Clark, the real-life ego of this superhero, manifest himself in Superman. Superman embodies the best of what we all can be but if he is entirely disconnected from the person he really is, then he is not a better version of himself but rather an entirely different version that is trying to be someone he’s not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mouton
Superman stands for truth, justice and all that is good and noble. So why does he have no issue putting the moves on Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), an apparently happily married woman with a six-year-old child? My brother would argue that nowhere does it say that Superman stands for loyalty but I’m fairly positive he’s supposed to be comparatively selfless. Whereas it makes perfect logistical sense for Lois to have moved on after Superman disappeared six years prior without a word (although, judging from the age of her son, she moved on pretty quickly), it makes for a very poor example of a couple to hope for. Lois’s husband, Richard White (James Marsden working with Singer for the first time with his eyes open), is a good man. Sure, he’s a little jealous of Superman but he’s a good father and a supporting husband and c’mon, how could you not be jealous of Superman?

---

Pardon me for being so blunt, mon ami, but there are serious problems with your review. The film makes crystal-clear that Lois and Richard are NOT married, although they are cohabitating. Moreover, Superman Returns provides overwhelming evidence that Jason is Superman's son. Yes, Supe and Lois had sex before he suddenly left planet Earth. Someone could argue that the reason Lois and Richard have not married is that Lois is a modern gal who doesn't believe in marriage, so to speak. But there are scenes that hint strongly that Lois has not overcome the emotional legacy of being jilted by Supe, so she cannot fully trust a man. Or maybe, deep down, she had a feeling all along that Supe is the love of her life and that he would return.

Apparently, i have difficulties catching things that are crystal clear sometimes. Your criticism helped my piece. I would fire my editor if I had one.

I took it as a rare lapse on your part. I wonder if subsequent films will follow the comics story line in which Lois and Superman get married.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I took it as a rare lapse on your part. I wonder if subsequent films will follow the comics story line in which Lois and Superman get married.

---

Never mention that blasphemy again. Superman hasn't been good in the comics for a long time, in my opinion.

Singer carefully crafted the reason for his return, "the world is crying out for a savior." If you start to muddle that succinct message up with more than just implied romance, then the plot gets too convoluted. Hence, when the comic books involved characters other than Superguy woven too deeply into the plot, they lost interest in droves. Saviors don't get married... they stay clean and pure, lonely figures, whose lapse of celibacy is tainted only with rumor.