ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Wrapup: "Superman Returns" to Top of Charts Comments

Box Office Wrapup: "Superman Returns" to Top of Charts

by Gitesh Pandya | July 03, 2006

Summary

The Man of Steel conquered the North American box office this weekend as the super hero adventure Superman Returns claimed the number one spot over the pre-Independence Day holiday frame. Back to Article

(1-31 of 31 posts) | Reply

nogard64 writes:
on Jul 03 2006 12:35 PM

kinda suprised to see Nacho Libre staying in the top 5, well good for JB and Hess

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Jul 03 2006 02:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#839471)
Yeah, it opened well. Jack Black is a proven draw at the box office.

I'm more surprised by how well The Devil Wears Prada did. It's way beyond what anyone had predicted. The good reviews and counter-programming helped.

(Reply to this)

ozoz writes:
on Jul 03 2006 03:00 PM

The devil wears prada was a very good film. I am happy to see that it did real well. AS for superman, no comment.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on Jul 03 2006 03:15 PM

Superman was a damn good movie. 'Nuff said.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jul 03 2006 04:20 PM

Garfield will make more overseas in the months to come.

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Jul 03 2006 05:02 PM

i think superman will have good legs.

(Reply to this)

supermanofsteel writes:
on Jul 03 2006 05:45 PM

The movie was mediocre. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great.

(Reply to this)

Jackhammer writes:
on Jul 03 2006 06:59 PM

Suprised that Superman only took in 52 mil over the three day weekend. That falls well short compared to X3 which that took in over 100 mil over a three day weekend. Maybe singer should never of left Marvel for DC.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Jul 03 2006 07:38 PM

after this week Superman Returns is done

(Reply to this)

nickb1016 writes:
on Jul 03 2006 07:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#839478)
[b]Exactly[/b]
He should have never left! i liked X3 but it was nowhere near as good as X2...who knows how much it could have made if he stayed with it. oh well i bet superman barely cracks 200 mill, if it does at all.

(Reply to this)

Count_Vertigo writes:
on Jul 03 2006 10:52 PM

I see Superman Returns showing better legs than expected and reaching 225M-250M. I sat in the IMAX version and was surrounded by everyone from 5 years old to 85 years old. How many films can say they have that kind of drawing power? While it does suffer from some pacing problems, it is still a much better movie than most of the dreck that is out there and deserves it's good reviews. I have no doubt that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest will beat it in the box office, but those two films are the only real competition out there for the next couple weeks. Both should go on to make very healthy profits. And for the still whining fanboys who can't get past Singer leaving the X-Men franchise, get over it. You obviously liked the movie enough to make it the #1 movie of the year so far, so quit your bitchin'. Especially considering the catastrophe we all expected under the hands of Ratner, we should all be relieved and move on.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Jul 04 2006 06:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#839478)
"Maybe Singer should never of left Marvel for DC."

first off, he left Fox for Warner Bros., sir. stop with the Marvel/DC rivalry bullshit, only the staunchest of comic book geeks even cares about that. i enjoy both Marvel and DC characters and could give two shits what comic book company they belong to.

X3 had the reputation of first two films leading into it (which, Singer gave to the series, you have to admit), while Superman Returns had the ghost of Christopher Reeve to contend with, not to mention that there hadn't been a good Superman movie in over two decades. plus, Superman isn't the most flawed character out there, and flawed heroes are always more interesting.

besides, if you really wanna compare Marvel and DC, last year we had Fantastic Four and Batman Begins, correct? FF had the bigger opening weekend, but the numbers dropped off drastically while Batman stuck around for weeks. in the end, FF made about $150 mil domestic while Bats made over $200 mil.

do you really want to compare X3 and Superman Returns too? then let's get down to brass tacks here.yes, both X3 and Superman Returns have their flaws. X3 was too short, Superman Returns was too long. X3 botched the Phoenix Saga, and Luthor's plan stunk. X3's effects reeked of bargain bin budgeting (the crappy wirework, no Pheonix fire effect, and only a Sentinel's head instead of an entire Sentinel, at least give us an entire Sentinel!) while Superman blew its load early with that great plane rescue and couldn't quite match up to that thrill after. still, i think Superman was the better movie because it didn't rush rush rush and didn't cheap out on us (not to mention that Superman didn't undo most of the movie in the final scene like X3 did). at least Superman tried to inject some emotional weight in the film instead of cheaply killing off characters to get reactions from people. not to mention that Superman Returns used James Marsden in an effective role and you ended up caring and actually liking Richard White, whereas they never knew what to do with Cyclops in the X-Men films and he only seemed to be there to keep Jean Grey and Wolverine apart.

and it's "should never HAVE left," by the way.

(Reply to this)

nickb1016 writes:
on Jul 04 2006 07:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#839482)
Well actually the point i was trying to make is that superman is a better movie than x3 but x3 had more potential than superman. by the way i thought the goldengate bridge scene was well done, when comparing special effects take in to account the budget.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Jul 04 2006 08:48 AM

I'm supprised that Superman didn't make more and that Devil made so much. I was dissapointed with Superman it wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't as good as I was hopping it would be. Whatever I'm ready for Pirates.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jul 04 2006 10:16 AM

[b]The film was an experiment in smoke and mirrors.[/b]
Singer completely made a mockery out of the mythos and the characters all lacked morality, especially Superman.
It's a steaming turd and a film that in 10 years time will be condemned more than it is praised. Superman simply has to go through the problems that the Batman franchises had before Begins got it right.

(Reply to this)

drebay40 writes:
on Jul 04 2006 03:59 PM

[b]Really?[/b]
Personally, I liked Superman Returns more than Batman Begins, but both were good, and my mom who usually doesn't like comic book movies loved SR, so I think in the end SR will be remembered fondly.

(Reply to this)

r3plicat3 writes:
on Jul 04 2006 05:47 PM

[b]Hmm[/b]
i liked BR and SR alot. Both were WAY better than X3. X3 was a joke and it wouldve been better if theyd never made it. SR was a treat for any comic fan. They did well. Singer did a DAMN good job.

(Reply to this)

skletonkee writes:
on Jul 04 2006 06:29 PM

[b]down with superman...[/b]
nuff said!!!

;)

(Reply to this)

Insert_witty_name writes:
on Jul 05 2006 06:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#839486)
Well if your mom likes it, its sure to be a classic..........

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jul 05 2006 07:05 AM

[b]Why are people so eager to be complacent? Spoilers[/b]
Superman Returns, perhaps my most anticipated film of the year, go as far as saying of the decade has done something I never thought would be possible: Make me question if this cross I bear is worth lugging around anymore.
Singer has managed to create a film so uninspiring, unoriginal, undemanding and basically a complete rape of the mythos of this character, that one has to question as to whether or not Singer understood the ideals behind the hero as opposed to relying on the breathtaking imagery to pass the film.
He knew going in that he had to simply garnish this plate with scenes from the Alex Ross collection and everything else would either fall into place or everyone would just say �good enough�. He wasn�t sure, but he didn�t care.
The film is poorly paced and cut and I had to question at some moments if they simply forgot to splice scenes in before the curtain went up. There is a scene so confusing and cold, I wondered if Clark forgot that he was raised as a human. Consider this: He lands on earth, returns home to his frial mother who's been pining for him, they share a moment and the next scene has him walking through the doors of The Daily Planet. Imagine Martha's surprise when she goes to his room in the morning and found the bugger didn't even leave a forwarding address. This is a crucial aspect of the film and story. Martha is his only human, moral compass. It's his ties to the past. To wash over it is somewhat disingenious.

The actions scenes that do exist, while thrilling to witness, have no lead up. There is no awe inspiring moment or second that ever gave me that goose bump moment. In the Donner version, we felt the march. That at the height of the cresendo, it wasn�t just Reeve rocketing into the stratosphere, it was the audience. In this film, there is no build up to reintroduce us to the hero.
Things go from these rich action scenes to worse when Singer unhinges all the ideals of Superman and makes him a creepy stalker just eager for a shot on Dateline to show that he�s the most challenging predator to catch yet.
I�m not sure when Superman thought it was a good idea to float outside bedroom windows and using x-ray vision and super hearing, spy on the conversation between two people that he has no business spying on. NSA would be proud. These problems probably started around the same time he thought cock blocking, and penis measuring were still solid forms of chivalry. Why didn�t he just tell Lois that his was bigger than Richard White�s? No need, I�m sure she knows.
Things continue around the same lines, and perhaps Clark would be able to tell Lois that the love he once had for her isn�t dead, if the these freakin screenplay writers actually let Superman speak. Now, this isn�t to slam Routh. In fact, he plays the guy as good as anyone could given the fact he has to mime the freaking part. If he is speaking, it�s all industrious and one syllable answers. I guess Routh can�t complain. Kal Penn got to enjoy a ride on this film without uttering a single line. The talks are insipid, the don�t move with natural punch and basically serve to get from A to B. Where is the wonderful charm that Lois and Clark shared high above her apartment, speaking of the color pink? It�s dead and gone and we are left with Clark simply trying to horn in on a loving family. Wow, last son of Krypton AND a homewrecker. Singer has taken Superman into the 21st Century via Liberalism, and while that will please many, knowing that the most Conservative hero has finally bowed down to the pressures to �get with the times�, what we lose is more damaging. The very fact Singer hasn�t learn that Superman doesn�t reflect current speech patterns, ideals, style and time is forever lost on him and he killed the last true Boy Scouts.
There are moments of absolute wonderment, Singer over supplies us with grandiose scenes. We get imagery of Christ and scenes from Action comics #1. We get a severe beating scene that even Sam Peckinpah would tip his hat towards. But then Singer doesn�t let up and we gear up for another run in case the first one was lost on you.
It��s a shame Singer didn�t just simply rely on the hero that has worked for all this time. Instead he tweaks something that needs no tweaking. The most crucial aspect as to why it didn't work is Singer forgot that, morally Superman isn't shallow. I'm not against him spying, if he acknowledges it's wrong. But he doesn't and he comes off like a creep. This is why the opening with Martha is soooo crucial. Because it's his compass to better things. That even when he does struggle with his morality, someon there is to guide him and ground him. Let's look at Donner's version again:
Jonathan Kent: [after Clark has beaten Brad's car to the Kent farmhouse... by RUNNING!] Been showing off a bit, haven't you, son?
Young Clark Kent: ...Oh, I didn't mean to show off, Pop. It's just that... well, guys like that Brad, I just wanna... well, I know I shouldn't, but...
Jonathan Kent: I know. You can do all these amazing things, and sometimes you think that you will BURST WIDE OPEN unless you can tell someone about it, don't you?... There's one thing I know for sure, son. And that is, YOU ARE HERE FOR A REASON. I don't know what it is, exactly, but I do know this much: it's NOT to score touchdowns.

Superman struggled, but here gets set straight. I also like a Superman who isn't perfect but what do these words mean if we don't put them to use: "They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son"

Superman may stumble with morality, but how can he be a leader to the world if he himself does what anyone else would do? Rememeber, Superman isn't called Superman because of all the powers he has, it's because what he chooses to do with those powers.

(Reply to this)

jjbo writes:
on Jul 05 2006 07:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#839491)
[b]Worth a spoiler alert?[/b]
I dunno. It has been out for a week. But I'm going to see the film this weekend and I was hoping for less spoilerage in a thread about the weekend box office numbers.

(Reply to this)

new12play writes:
on Jul 05 2006 10:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#839491)
Interesting diatribe you had there. I actually thought the movie was made very well. I do agree that there are some pacing issues, and some scenes that needed to be recut or added onto, but I believe Singer did a commendable job reintroducing Superman. If that whole beginning scene is so crucial to you, maybe you should rewatch Superman 2 again. Superman/Clark has no more ties with his mother. He's his own person. He's grown up. If this is considered a semi-sequel to that movie, why would Singer need to overly film a sequence between these two. He's ready to get back to the world that he knew before, the world where he belongs. The movie has an underlying theme about love, so Superman wants to follow his heart and return to where he truly believes he has found love. Just my take.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jul 05 2006 11:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#839493)
[b]I'm not debating he's not eager to get back...[/b]
but surely the way he went about it leaves us cold.And that's the film. Cold, and shallow. Morally unpleasing and sinful the way Singer modified the hero. He's a conservative guy who is stripped down via liberalism so he's "hip" to the 21st century and adaptable with all the other morally conflicting heroes out there. Singer refused to see that the idea that Superman is SO morally pure that that in itself is the conflict. Whether we like it or not, the film still has to stand up on it's own merits. Singer obviously refued to acknowledge that this mythos has evolved since the 78 version. Like I said, the Kents in general are important here, not because I think they are, but because Singer insists on it by making Clark behave immorally. Perhaps if he didn't have a conflict such as this, the Kents don't become critical to the story.
When we see Martha outside the hospital, Singer's intentions are to make us have empathy for a woman who can't see her kid, but fails because if the hero himself doesn't care about her, why should we?

(Reply to this)

new12play writes:
on Jul 05 2006 12:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#839494)
You make a very interesting assessment. But the feeling I got from the film was that, while Singer apparently institutes flaws into Superman's emotional psyche, he never gets consumed by them. I don't want to give away much of the movie with this, but I will say that I felt that Superman never lets his emotional turmoil stand in the way of what he perceives as his ultimate destiny. What he finds out eventually, though, while human, was something the Kents never taught him, but his father himself. I think Superman always stays in control of this, and for that, I applaud the balance. That's why I believe the movie succeeds.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jul 05 2006 01:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#839495)
[b]I felt he was consumed by them...[/b]
I'm not against him getting flaws instituted in himself, my point is not that Superman shouldn't use his powers in such a way, it's that he should at least acknowledge on some level that he knows it's questionable. The film can succeed, but as far as I'm concerned not on the basis of calling it a Superman film. But I'm a purist, for the good and the bad.
I just think many are eager to simply embrace what is given to them because we have nothing else coming down the pike. This is not Superman but a Davinci Code revamp of a great icon.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Jul 05 2006 03:13 PM

**SPOILER ALERT**
I see your point JackHorner, and I agree with you. The worst part of the whole morally conflicting part of the story is (and this is a spoiler), how he deals with his son. Ignoring the fact that Superman is sleeping around, it is odd in the least that Superman's only response to Lois after finding he has a child is, "I'm always around." What crud is that? What is he going to be around for? Is he going to father the kid? Be a real man and actually marry Lois? In the very least, reveal his identity and offer to be an actual father to his son? You would think that Superman, whose father is very dead, would know the importance of having a father in his life. It's just odd. Shouldn't Superman be above this type of stuff? Or, in the very least, be the first person to own up to his mistakes and make them right? I realize the film can't answer all these questions, but it should at least leave us with the impression that Superman is going to make right what he screwed up six years ago. What we're led to believe is that Superman flies off, basically saying, "Have fun raising my kid Lois! And don't bother actually marrying that man you're living with. Stability is the last think us Super-People need!"

(Reply to this)

It. writes:
on Jul 05 2006 08:12 PM

[b]say what?[/b]
about Tom Cruise last year?
remember? oh, not such a great opening!
well, LOL

(Reply to this)

wilkiedriver writes:
on Jul 05 2006 10:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#839497)
[b]He took xmen instability and put it in Supes[/b]
I loved the movie, but the whole thing of "I'm always around" is very weird. I beleive Singer was trying to make Superman look like he will make right, but simply got lazy (or liberal) by handling it this way. Religious undertones(cool)+homewrecker(what!)=WTF.

I was looking forward to how they did the ending, you know, Superman "looks" at the camera (he sorta did this time) flying off into deep space...so I didn't really think "deadbeat dad" or "homewrecker" until I got out of the theater.

Singer probably knows this and will have to correct or answer questions for the sequal.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jul 06 2006 08:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#839499)
The problem arises when we still consider Singer to take a stab at this series again. I'm not interested, whatever he's pushing. I guess I should blame Harris and Dougherty on an equal basis. These kids are lost and they simply took an old screenplay, washed over it with a few of their touches and claimed it was theirs. Any punchy dialogue that was used in the film was simply dialogue form the original. Blah, how uninspiring and unoriginal.

(Reply to this)

chosenone86 writes:
on Jul 07 2006 08:07 AM

I didn't realize there were so many "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" here. You fanboys crack me up. You build a movie up months before it debuts, and when it doesn't live up to your bloated expectations, you tear it down.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Jul 09 2006 06:23 PM

Its funny how this was built up only to be torn down a week later by some pirates. We wanted a normal Superman movie and that is not what we got!!!

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Spider-Man 2

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links