ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: Look, Up In The Sky! It's A Certified Fresh "Superman Returns!"

Critical Consensus: Look, Up In The Sky! It's A Certified Fresh "Superman Returns!"

by Tim Ryan | June 26, 2006

The Man of Steel is back in "Superman Returns." Is Bryan Singer's big-budget adaptation able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, or is it critical Kryptonite?

Great Caesar's ghost! "Superman Returns" is being heralded as excellent summer entertainment, with plenty of exciting action sequences and emotional complexity. The plot involves Superman's return to earth after searching for his father (Marlon Brando!) on the planet Krypton; he finds that Lois Lane has moved on in a big way. The critics say "Superman Returns" is able to pull off the neat trick of sticking closely to the age-old particulars of the Superman myth, while making them fresh. Kevin Spacey is getting his share of props as Lex Luthor, but the scribes say Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, as Superman and Lois Lane, respectively, are solid as well. And while it's not faster than a speeding bullet (some scribes have grumbled about the 157-minute runtime), "Superman Returns," at 78 percent on the Tomatometer, is certainly no "Superman IV." It's Certified Fresh, though still a cut below Richard Donner's original (at 94 percent).

Bryan Singer tries desperately to broker a truce between Superman and Lex Luthor.

Superman Movies:
------------------------
94% -- Superman: The Movie (1978)
81% -- Superman II (1980)
24% -- Superman III (1983)
5% -- Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Related Items

Celeb:	Bryan Singer
	Kate Bosworth
	Marlon Brando
	Kevin Spacey

Movie:	Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
	Superman Returns
	Superman: The Movie
	Superman II
	Superman III

(1-20 of 32 posts) | Reply

Flim Springfield writes:
on Jun 26 2006 06:09 PM

Good to see. I expected positive reviews from the Time-Warner publications, so I'm glad to see they're not the only ones.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jun 26 2006 06:31 PM

It should end up in the upper 70's or lower 80's. Still no Ebert review yet.

(Reply to this)

hinduchocolate writes:
on Jun 26 2006 07:09 PM

I agree with cgcbooks, it was unrealistic to think this movie would stay above 85%, makes you appreciate how well-reviewed the spidey flicks were.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Jun 26 2006 07:16 PM

[b]holy crap![/b]
10pm tomorrow can't come fast enough!

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Jun 26 2006 07:42 PM

i can't wait until this comes out...yes, i want to see it, but im freakin tired of reading about it!

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Jun 26 2006 08:54 PM

the spidy flicks were the first ever for spider-man at that level. we have to remember superman is fighting a battle with the original. not even batman begins which is pretty much herald as the best batman ever for many real fans didn't compare in "reviews" to the first.

(Reply to this)

AlienSeed writes:
on Jun 26 2006 10:16 PM

[b]Great but flawed.[/b]
Just watched it tonight. It was very good, though I'd still place it below Batman Begins and both Spider-Man films. The main problem is that Superman is too freakin powerful, he has no real conflict to face until Luthor unleashes his newest plot about an hour and a half into the movie. Up till then, it's all about him adjusting to the changes since his absence (Lois abandoning him for X-Men's Cyclops lol), and of course Luthor going through his plan step by step. I'm not complaining too much though, I still thought it was an awesome movie, always interesting, but the hero needs some kind of flaws to keep the story from being flawed.

(Reply to this)

hellhole writes:
on Jun 26 2006 11:17 PM

"Bryan Singer tries desperately to broker a truce between Superman and Lex Luthor."

Best caption ever.

(Reply to this)

retroxxx3 writes:
on Jun 27 2006 12:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#838873)
[b]Ebert gave SR two stars.[/b]
Trust me on this one.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on Jun 27 2006 02:09 AM

Suuuuuuuuure he did.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jun 27 2006 06:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#838880)
And he gave Garfield 3 stars. Oh My?

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Jun 27 2006 06:38 AM

[b]Ebert has gone crazy[/b]
I used to watch Ebert a long time ago and I read most of his reviews online now. I know movie tastes are all subjective, but this guy gave Garfield, Garfield 2, and the Honeymooners 3 freakin stars!! I read his Superman Returns review; I'm suprised he even gave it 2 stars. From all the harsh words, you would have thought he would have given it one star or less. I read his Click review too. Although Click might not be as good as Sandler's other movies (and Sandler isn't for everyone) he totally blasts this movie too. It seems Ebert has lost his sense of humor; he describes some of the scenes that are supposed to be funny and gives a serious interpretation about it. To each his own, but it's great a site like this can post so many different reviews and opinions from us so we can get a better feel about a movie. Whatever, I'm still gonna see both of these movies.

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Jun 27 2006 09:19 AM

Thats because this movie is awesome.

(Reply to this)

new12play writes:
on Jun 27 2006 09:40 AM

I'm typically pro-Ebert, but just reading his review, I've found him to be somewhat blinded by his infatuation with what he wants to see in the film. I've already started to believe that Ebert pretty much likes every movie that makes it to the multiplexes. He's given positive reviews for everything from F and the F: Tokyo Drift, Garfield, Da Vinci Code, dare I say it (but the movie is very overrated) Syriana, to the Libertine, Rumor Has It, and even the Longest Yard. I think Ebert is misinterpreting Singer's vision with Superman Returns. Now, I haven't seen it, yet (but am looking forward to it immensely), but I feel Ebert is looking at the characters as the same characters that were in the original movies. Superman has returned to a new era, a new era of thinking, and if he feels that Superman or Clark Kent isn't that same goofy but outgoing man, he's scarred. He has returned to a world where the love of his life has moved on, and he has to deal with that feeling in both personalities he takes. He's not the same flamboyant hero that originally graced the world and was adored. He's returned to a world that could care less for a savior at the moment. So, in saying that, I feel Ebert has let his personal ambitions and wants from the Superman universe to cloud the movie that is actually on the screen. Since I haven't seen it, I can't fully say whether I'll be disappointed, but I won't let how I imagine Superman take away from the magic I'm sure is displayed on that screen.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jun 27 2006 10:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#838885)
That was very well put.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jun 27 2006 10:50 AM

Since most sites I have been to lately are discussing Pirates of the Caribbean 2, I decided it was time to check on the tomatometer rating on the first Pirate's movie. It ended with a 79%. Looks like Superman should finish close to that. I also went to box office mojo and found that Pirates made over 305 million domestic and over 353 million overseas. Superman will have to be mighty super with audiences to top that.

(Reply to this)

JMA writes:
on Jun 27 2006 11:22 AM

I see this movie's tomatometer ending up somewhere in the 80's. There are still MANY critics that haven't reviewed it yet. Most big movies at RT usually have over one hundred reviews.

(Reply to this)

billymatt writes:
on Jun 27 2006 11:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#838873)
[b]EBERT REVIEW[/b]
Ebert just reviewed it.
Didn't like it.
As I remember he loved Superman I way back when.
Didn't like this one.
He called it "Atlas Yawned"

HERE'S HIS REVIEW:

It's no fun being Superman. Your life is a lie, there's nobody you can confide in, you're in love but can't express it, and you're on call 24 hours a day. But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

"Superman II" (1980) was just about as good, but "Superman III" (1983) was a disappointment. "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," with Reeve, bombed in 1987, and then the series was quiet for 19 years. Now the Man of Steel is back in Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," which, like its hero, spends a lot of time dead in the water.

This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. The newsroom of the Daily Planet, filled with eccentricity and life in the earlier movies, now seems populated by corporate drones. Jimmy Olsen, the copy boy, such a brash kid, seems tamed and clueless. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has lost her dash and pizzazz, and her fiance, Richard White (James Marsden), regards her like a deer caught in the headlights. Even the editor, Perry White (Frank Langella), comes across less like a curmudgeon, more like an efficient manager.

One problem is with the casting. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and I suppose as Clark Kent, he isn't supposed to have any. Routh may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve, but there are times when he looks more like an action figure; were effects used to make him seem built from synthetics? We remember the chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) in the original "Superman" movie, and then observe how their counterparts are tongue-tied in this one. If they had a real romance (and they did), has it left them with nothing more than wistful looks and awkward small talk?

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic. We learn Superman was away for five years on a mission to the remains of his home planet, Krypton. In the meantime, Lois got herself a boyfriend and a little son, played by Tristan Lake Leabu, who mostly stares at people like a beta version of Damien, the kid from "The Omen." Now Superman and (coincidentally) Clark have returned, Clark gets his old job, and Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is out of prison and plotting to rule the earth.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind. Spacey plays Luthor as sour and sadistic; he has no fun with the role, nor do we.

As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Jun 27 2006 11:38 AM

Sounds like a perfectly legit review from a critic. Not going to influence me one way or the other though.

(Reply to this)

elizabethbennet writes:
on Jun 27 2006 12:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#838885)
[b]Superb analysis[/b]
I, too, found myself shaking my head after reading Ebert's review of the newest Superman film. What does the man expect? This is a new story, a new adventure, using well-loved characters. Ebert should open his mind instead of holding on to a (albeit deservedly) cherished memory of cinema. Though the original Superman was a great film, the title character should not be hemmed in by what has taken place before. The beauty of a fiction is that a story has plenty of room to grow. I look forward to seeing the new movie with great anticipation, and I doubt I will be disappointed.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Bryan Singer

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links