Ohjaus:
Bryan SingerKuvaus:
Newton Thomas SigelSävellys:
John OttmanNäyttelijät:
Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, James Marsden, Parker Posey, Frank Langella, Sam Huntington, Eva Marie Saint, Kal Penn, James Karen (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Following a mysterious absence of several years, Superman comes back to Earth -- but things have changed. While an old enemy plots to render him powerless once and for all, The Man of Steel faces the heartbreaking realization that the woman he loves, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life. Or has she? Superman's bittersweet return challenges him to bridge the distance between them while finding a place in a society that has learned to survive without him. In an attempt to protect the world he loves from cataclysmic destruction, Superman embarks on an epic journey of redemption that takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space. (jakelijan virallinen teksti)
(lisää)Arvostelut (10)
A comic-book romance at a cost of 260 million dollars? In relation to today’s Spider-Man and X-Men movies, shifting focus from dynamics and action to a love motif is a very bold move in a 150-minute film. Superman Returns doesn’t conceal the fact that it’s a different kind of comic-book movie, but viewers longing for an exciting adventure won’t care about that. Brandon Routh is cool, but the cloying Kevin Spacey comes across as a caricature in his fascist jackboots and thus doesn’t inspire respect. I wasn’t bored by this film, but I would have liked more excitement.
()
A Blockbuster with a soul. It captivates in several action moments (even a train accident on the big screen can be a blast), and the intimate scenes are very pleasant, mainly thanks to the main cast and the chemistry between them, which works flawlessly. Brandon Routh was born for the role of Superman and Kate Bosworth, who is not a bland Jessica Alba-type Barbie doll, exudes soulful beauty and fragile femininity. I don't accept the criticism that Singer is too reverential towards the source material and doesn't try to make it realistic and humanized. It’s Superman! A legendary comic book icon whose existence doesn't need to be subject to fashion trends and it simply doesn’t matter how he can hide his cape under his shirt or what kind of miraculous hairspray he uses. I just hope that some of the themes (fatherhood) will be developed in the sequel. With a margin of about 50% for cinema operators, it is now clear that Singer's film will not pay for itself due to the absurdly high budget (which is not visible in the result) and it would be a great pity to postpone further filming. It’s one of the best comic book adaptations in recent years and it does deserve a sequel. PS: You have to watch it in a cinema with perfect sound!
()
The return of the prodigal son. The familiar graphical rendering of the opening credits gives us a hint as to how Singer approached this comic-book legend: with respect. His revived Superman is a labyrinth of references in which viewers who are not familiar with the previous films or the comic book will get lost, but which fans of the Man of Steel will be delighted again and again as they discover previously unexplored recesses. Singer builds on what others have said and adds in what has been omitted (how Clark learned to fly). He quotes lines, situations and even whole scenes (also from non-Superman films, of course; 2001: A Space Odyssey, Batman and The Shining came to my mind). Superman Returns is both a compilation of previously utilised motifs and a reflection on the transformations that the sub-genre of comic-book adaptations has undergone since its inception. The temporal distribution of the allusions contained in the film is extraordinarily ambitious. The Art Deco design of the interiors and the villains’ costumes refer back to the distant time before the first Superman films directed by Donner, i.e. to the time when Superman was created in comic-book form. Superman Returns works as an autonomous, narratively unified film only with major reservations. The abandonment of conventional exposition and the presentation of the characters and their objectives in the process forces us to become more actively involved, to frequently ask questions (is this the first time that Luthor finds himself in Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, or is it a reprise of the scene from the director’s cut of Superman II?) and formulate hypotheses. We get a certain intellectual gratification from gradually figuring out where we are in the Superman universe, but that is not enough for a whole film. We can marvel at the style, which is admirably pure even in the context of the plot’s unoriginality. Singer abandoned campy exaggeration (though he still has a tendency to engage in it: Luthor is still an overgrown man-child, Lois still swoons at tense moments). The shots are colourful (and their intentional non-realism is underscored by the obsessively symmetrical compositions), but they are coloured in darker hues than before. The more serious stylisation suits Luthor in particular, who in Kevin Spacey’s hedonistic portrayal is not merely an unhappy nobody, but a serious terrorist threat (and an illustration of what could happen if the wrong guy plays God). How else could it be in a post-9/11 Superman movie that exploits (rather than critically reflects) the revival of interest in real American heroes, who’s essence is personified by Kal-El? Despite its darker tone, Singer’s attempt to resuscitate the superhero myth by picking and choosing from the best of Superman is not intended to be revisionist, but liberating and comforting entertainment. If I may say so based on my own experience, you will enjoy Superman Returns more the warmer your relationship is to this man who – even after being in existence for eight decades – has yet to understand that a cape is only good for being sucked into and pulverised by an aircraft engine. I still enjoy his wonderful guilelessness. 80%
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
So I watched it till the end, and I suffered. For me, this is a film that is dead both on the top and on the bottom - it refers to something, but it is not clear what. The film quite selectively chooses what it needs for melancholic sniffing and winking. Brandon Routh has the charisma of a folded clothes hanger, and in his role he appears very gay and youthful, which hurts especially when he parrots the one-liners of Christopher Reeve, whose charisma he wasn’t even close to. Lex Luthor, whom Spacey plays in a psychotic spirit, but with occasional bursts of comedic overacting a la Gene Hackman, is also appalling. The film deserves more pity than respect. The storytelling is drawn out, the attractions unattractive, the plot oiled with the fat of love, and the fatherhood is clumsy. Wooden, dull and bowing so deftly that it gives the original statue an awkward five-head.
()
Is it a bird? Is it a plan? It’s routine! Singer fulfilled his lifelong dream, let's wish for him and for ourselves that he returns to something where he won't waste his talents. ♫ OST Rating: 3/5
()
At the moment when the accident of the trains took place on the screen, I definitively forgave Singer for the great heartache in the form of escaping from my beloved party of mutants. In front of me, an authentic comic drama with elaborate psychology began to unfold slowly but surely, also seamlessly intertwined with two classic first parts. I would really like to have a continuation in this spirit because Routh is a true hero as Kal-El and Kevin Spacey is a perfect bald menace. Moreover, the whole spirit of the film is characterized by the fact that Superman returns only as a prologue to potential sequels. However, as much as Singer played this part brilliantly, the audience does not hear it, and therefore neither do the producers. And that's why this nostalgic (although quite selfish towards new viewers) way of continuing the legend remained just a blind but subjectively perfect alleyway.
()
Superman is back at last... But Singer didn’t manage to take his dream project up to the very peak. You can see how meticulous he is throughout the movie, lots of things and shots are references to Donner’s movie, which is really nice to see, but still falls a little short of perfection. God knows what it is, but somehow it spoils the overall watching experience. Maybe my standards are a little too high after seeing Spider-Man and X-Men , but Superman simply isn’t such an interesting character and part of his fame is based on nostalgia (at the beginning I had difficulty holding back my tears when I heard Williams’ “Superman Theme" thundering away ;) But in any case, Superman Returns is a great movie, with superb special effects and excellent acting performances (Brandon Routh is a flawless Superman and an even better Clark Kent, Kate Bosworth as Lois wasn’t nearly as disruptive as I had expected and Kevin Spacey makes an even better Luthor than Hackman), but it just isn’t as good as it could have been.
()
Surprisingly moderate and quite monotonous for Bryan Singer’s standards, without any significant deviations in both style and plot. However, one cannot deny its clearly visible openness and honesty, which impresses the viewer from the very first minute. The action sequences are almost perfectly filmed – the scene with the airplane is thrilling – but the colossal budget is difficult to understand. Perhaps the missing element of realism is bothersome, it is not present even in terms of the protagonist’s characteristics, but it also applies to the setting where he appears. The airplane they call a Boeing 777 is actually not that, a 4G speed would tear it apart immediately, whereas here it comfortably continues to fly. This is just a fraction of the gigantic nonsense this film has. But if you are willing to accept that and the shots of the embracing couple against the backdrop of the night city do not cause any problems (rather the opposite), you will thoroughly enjoy this movie.
()
Brandon Routh is not Christopher Reeve, but no one is. As Clark Kent and as Superman, he is tolerable, the problem rather arises with Lois Lane. For me, Margot Kidder will probably always be the best Lois Lane we could see on the screens. In the case of the movie "Superman Returns," the creators tried to give her some emotional depth, make Lois and Clark's relationship a bit more complicated, but all of this only contributes to the fact that this film feels incredibly small, intimate, and at times also boring. Yes, it is an attempt to make a comic book different, less colorful, exaggerated, and cluttered, but it's been somewhat forgotten that this was not supposed to be showcasing a relic, but it was supposed to be something that would excite, impress, captivate, and above all, entertain the audience. "Superman Returns" does not entertain nor impress, it just takes nearly two and a half hours of your time. More: http://www.comics-blog.cz/2013/08/242-superman-se-vraci-2006-50.html
()
Bryan Singer, like Christopher Nolan, has done honorably at breathing new life into his comic book hero, but his Superman Returns is a long way from Nolan's Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's hard to say whether it's the fault of the director (which I doubt) or the studio that despite such an ungodly fat budget, the result is basically a slightly above average flick. I wasn't disappointed, but my expectations were not exceeded (as they were with the Batman films). Still, I remain optimistic and look forward to The Man of Steel. Something tells me that this time Singer will step it up and film it to perfection, we'll see. For "Superman’s return" it's rather an incomplete 4 stars.
()