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.