Other pluses: The stately pace makes for a long (over 150-minute) movie, but helps avoid the rushed, chaotic feeling of many action fantasies. The brilliant notion of having Superman’s “flying” often instead become silent, graceful hovering or floating, is beautifully accomplished. Kevin Spacey is an inspired choice to play a merciless villain with a sardonic edge. Kate Bosworth, as Lois Lane, has a difficult role (torn between two lovers and also between two rather ridiculous headlines Lois has written, one of them implausibly a Pulitzer winner), but she more or less maintains her dignity and credibility.
Christopher Reeve, certainly the best part of the seventies' movie, is a hard act to follow. The part doesn’t require an actor exactly — more like a convincing presence. As written, Superman is also Super-Nice-Guy, and his resolute cheeriness and politeness could become grating. But I believe Brandon Routh accomplishes what he needs to in nearly every scene. Who knows if this should be called acting, or what he could do with a different kind of performing challenge? But, as a physical and vocal presence, he is convincingly and satisfyingly Superman. (He may find it hard now to be accepted playing any other role.)
As for Imax 3D: Thank God for Imax, which is the closest we get currently to the magical sharpness and clarity of the now rarely-used 70mm. It has added to the visual impact of every feature I’ve seen it used for: Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Polar Express. Just as a superior way to see the “flat” scenes in Superman Returns, it’s wonderful. But the 3D effects, used just for a few scenes, are a mixed bag. The flashing symbols onscreen telling you to put on and take off your special glasses are an amusing reminder of the days of William Castle exhibition gimmicks, and they bring this sometimes too-solemn movie down a welcome peg or two. While in wide shots, with clearly differentiated foreground and background, the stereoscopic effect is eye-popping, in several of the darkly lit interior scenes, with their fast editing, the action becomes murky, all but indecipherable – just a lot of blurry things flying around.
Article comments
1 - Ty
"magical sharpness and clarity"
WTF?????
IMAX may be big, but it's the equivalent of a old school 70" big screen (4:3 ratio) TV.
If you want sharpness, clarity, the whole works, it's all about DLP.
If IMAX is the equivalent of one of those old big screen TV's, DLP (in movie theaters) is the 42" crystal clear HDTV.
Your proposition that IMAX is sharp and clear is laughable at best. You have obviously not seen a movie in DLP at the movie theater. It will BLOW you away. It uses no film, purely digital, so no cigarette burns or anything else filmy.
Many more colors and LITERALLY the sharpest picture you will ever see.
Check it out. You'll be amazed.
2 - Anna
I thought that superman wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. To me they skip 1 and 2 and went straight to 3. It left me confuse but, I loved the grahics and the actors. Me personally I pefer the old Superman because of the story line. I was happy to hear the same old music thou =).
3 - Sterfish
You make an intriguing point about directors "wasting" the best time of their careers on comic book films. I think it's a little elitist to say that by doing these films they are getting away from "true" artistic development. Both Nolan and Singer succeeded in bringing art to the superhero genre, something that hadn't been the case in recent memory. In the case of Singer, he's actually honed his skills on these types of films. Compare the direction of the action sequences in X-Men, X2, and Superman Returns, and you will see a progression in his ability.
Nolan and Singer (along with, to some extent, Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi) are trying to redefine the way people view a blockbuster. They have succeeded in creating films that are as good dramatically as they are entertaining. Hollywood has always lived by the notion that big budget summer films are mind-numbing and that only the dramatic films of fall are worth honoring in non-technical categories. I believe that with directors like these at the helm of big movies, we might get to a point where budget and time of release do not dictate a movie's artistic worth.
4 - handyguy
No elitist here...Jackson's Lord of the Rings and King Kong are among my favorites of recent years...and as I mentioned in the review, superhero movies with more directorial personality, including some by Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, and even Singer's own X2, are a lot more interesting to me than these two play-it-safe, restore-the-franchise Batman and Superman entries. They're not terrible, just not very exciting. And Nolan in particular could do better. Singer seemed inspired by the X-Men material in a way he does not in Superman Returns, so maybe he could stick to this genre and make a great film...probably should be based on something more Marvel-neurotic than DC-square, though.