nightline The style is similar like wonder woman. The story is better than wonder woman. The story telling is fluent based on a more complicated story. The main actors had done their jobs and being pretty and attractive to young audience as in wonder woman. The villains is much better than in wonder woman. So how could wonder woman get a score of 8 while this one only has 6?

ryanskywalker-87402 I think I just had a religious experience. Why did no one tell me this was a near-masterpiece?I think the difference this time was viewing it right after Superman: The Movie and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Doing so really heightened how much this complements those, acting as a trilogy capper of sorts. It perfectly encapsulates not only the on- screen film, but the behind the scenes as well. By that I mean, you can feel the passion and the honesty that was put into this production, in the same manner as watching Donner's original masterpiece. Routh is an inspiration, finding the exact balance between playing Christopher Reeve playing the character, and adding in his own mannerisms and ideas as well. Truly, he was robbed of a franchise he worthily inherited. Bosworth is less revelatory but entirely competent as Lois. Marsden does fine in his role, but it's nothing special at all, merely added in for conflict. Spacey steals the show, having what can only be the time of his life as Luthor.The most divisive element of this film is obviously Lois's son, Jason, a possible heir to the Man of Steel. Seemingly randomly thrown in, this plot line stems from a single scene in II, in which we see Lois & Clark unclothed and lying together in the Fortress. This is an exciting addition to the Superman cinematic mythology, and it is mined for all its worth in an introductory capacity.The action is few and far between, but when it comes its in full force. The plane rescue is the easy standout, an exhilarating sequence that is beautifully realized and will leave you breathless. It is, I say confidently, one of the best scenes of superhero action ever committed to film. The climactic fight on the crystal continent is a visceral and heart-stopping setpiece as well.My favorite piece of this puzzle is the timelessness; from the architecture and the clothing to the cars and vocabulary. They never even reveal any event that could date the movie. This allows the film to act both as a sequel to Donner's films when it needs to, but also as a standalone adventure that can take place at any point in Superman's history.I highly suggest watching this in quick succession with the first two films, as it will reveal all the subtle throwbacks and references. Not just perfectly placed lines of dialogue or visual cues, but how this film interacts with and builds upon the other films. It can only be fully appreciated by watching this "trilogy" as just that. I've never enjoyed this film more, and I credit that to my refreshing of Donner's movies. Not only those Easter eggs, but keep an eye out for clever callbacks to Superman's early comic book career.Like Superman himself, the film's greatest strength is also its weakness. It's perhaps too thoughtful at times, too interested in living in every moment to move the plot. In my opinion, though, it's refreshing to see a major franchise film slow down long enough to enjoy a dance or two. It is entirely slavish to what came before. This prevents it from exploring in full force a greater change to the character and cementing a definitive home in the Superman pantheon. While the absence of an origin story is welcoming, it would have been nice to see Singer attempt to reinvent the wheel, perhaps using the Donner films as only a launchpad. Taken as what it is, however, this can only be described as the film Donner would have made in 2006.It's a true crime that Singer will never get to build upon this work. X2: X-Men United was such a leap from its predecessor, I can't imagine what his once-titled Man of Steel would have looked like. Rumour has it we would finally see Brainiac and Doomsday. The biggest loss comes at the expense of the son, whose further exploration we'll never see. Now that's a shame.Simply put, this is a worthy successor to the Donner era, a thinking, romantic, whimsical beast that may have just been to reverent for its own good. Still, there were so many moments of "Wow, THAT'S Superman right there!" Routh nailed the poses with a presence that can't be taught. He flew like he's been doing it all his life. With an exemplary supporting cast, knockout set pieces, and an exciting addition to the mythos, this one earns my highest recommendation, but is destined for under appreciation. Oh well, more for me.

zkonedog I really want to embrace this film with open arms. From the time that I was a child, I sat captivated by various Superman incarnations (most notably the first two Christopher Reeve movies), then got into the "Supes" spirit again when Smallville hit the airwaves on television. When I saw this movie in the theater on its premiere night in 2006, I thought it was absolutely incredible. With a bit of reflection, however, it is clear that "Superman Returns" is little more than wasted potential.For a basic plot summary, "Superman Returns" sees the Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) returning to Earth from a long hiatus of searching for the remains of his home planet Krypton. Upon his return to Earth and re-entry into the Clark Kent persona, he notices some major changes afoot. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now married (husband played by James Marsden) and has a son (Tristan LeBeau), as well as a Pulitzer Prize for the article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". One thing that hasn't changed, however, is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) being up to his old nefarious deeds.I could prattle on and on about why this is a sub-par movie, but that dialogue can be summed up in two key bullet points:-First, is the utterly inconsistent plot/storyline. Though director Bryan Singer wants us (the viewers) to believe that the world has "moved on" from Superman, it is as if nothing has changed whatsoever. Clark still gets a job at the Daily Planet, all the characters act/look the same, and even the typical "Supes vs. Lex" rivalry is renewed with little to nothing new interjected. The only addition? A potential child figure in the life of the returning hero. Without giving away any major spoilers, this is a TERRIBLE addition to the movie and only serves to complicated things more (as opposed to adding any real emotion).-Secondly, the writing/dialogue is atrocious. Spacey is not a good Lex Luthor (though whether by casting or given dialogue I am not entirely sure), Bosworth is a middling Lois, and Routh can only channel Reeve (again, a failure to "move on" in the storyline). The two actors who really stand out are Frank Langella (playing Perry White) and Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), and even they are not on screen all that much.Simply put, "Superman Returns" is a movie for its time...and nothing more. It was made to capitalize on the burgeoning success of Smallville, which had thrust "Superman mania" back into popular culture once again. Singer does an okay job of playing to those who just wanted to see the suit, cape, Reeve impersonation, and flying scenes, but other than that he turns in an utter stinker.Ironically, while the cannon established in this effort wipes the events of Superman III & IV off the map, "Superman Returns" will likely not ever be considered cannon in its own right. For rabid Superman fans, this is frustrating considering the massive potential that could have evolved from a truly great film at that time.The final verdict: Unless you care about nothing else but the visuals, this will be a severe disappointment. You'll want to love it, but it doesn't ever give you a chance.

Paul Magne Haakonsen With my track record of not being overly keen on superhero movies and superheroes in general, then I can't claim that I was particular thrilled when this movie was first screened in 2006. But of course, as I had grown up with the Christopher Reeve's "Superman" movies in my childhood, I would eventually get around to watch "Superman Returns". And hand on heart, then I have actually watched it twice by now.The story told in "Superman Returns" is by no means groundbreaking or overly innovative in terms of superhero movies, nor even for the "Superman" movies franchise. But still, don't get me wrong here, it is still an enjoyable movie for what it was.The acting in the movie was good, although I think that casting Kevin Spacey for Lex Luthor was perhaps a bit odd. He is a good actor, for sure, but he wasn't cut out for the Luthor role. Brandon Routh was good for Superman and Clark Kent, and bears a striking resemblance to Christopher Reeve. And he managed to hold his own well enough and did justice to Reeve's "Superman" legacy.The effects in "Superman Returns" were good, and they really helped the movie along quite nicely.However, I must say that this 2006 movie wasn't particularly outstanding or memorable. But still, it is worth watching if you enjoy the "Superman" franchise. It is a movie that you can watch more than once, albeit with some years in between each viewing.As such, then I am rating it six out of ten stars.