UPDATED 10:20 AM 06/16/06 CST USA
Review from Languatron's Bane added. He "whines" about the movie's "Geek problems", but likes it all the same.
Vash The Stampede wrote in with this review of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Wait...there's a new SUPERMAN movie coming out!?!?!?!?!?!?
In short, Vash pretty-much likes the film - but does have some issues with it.
Beware...
MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!
...but they aren't too bad.
Here's Vash...
Just got back from a screening of Superman Returns.
Know you have had a
bunch of looks, but figure one more can never hurt.
So first thoughts, I
can't quite think of anything that is out and out wrong with this flick.
Everything is done so tastefully, with so much reverence for the character,
and so much love for his world that it's almost too difficult to fault the
filmmaker's for just about anything in the picture... Except for one
problem that I know some of your other contributors have mentioned.
But first, what works about this movie.
Visually, it's very simple, never calling too much attention to its self,
but still managing to feel entirely fleshed out. You get the sense that
With the attention to detail, people actually inhabit these spaces and they
Weren't just constructed on some sound stage. The work of all the
designers, from sets, to costumes, to CGI artists is top notch (it better be
For 250 million dollars come to think of it).
Performances also work. There is no real heavy lifting required on any
one's part. Amongst much more established costars Routh acquits himself
well. By the next one I see him having even greater command of this role.
It was a wise choice to cast performers like Routh and Bosworth who will
grow into these characters even more. (Imagine if this was Nic Cage, oh
dear...)
Ottman does a wonderful job of using his score to keep the action moving
forward. He makes the appropriate nods to Williams and never tries to
indicate or point out the obvious by tugging our sleeves to FEEL (Imagine
Hans Zimmer scoring this...)
I've always admired Singer's ability to command the various elements of a
film and bring them so tightly together that you often are left breathless.
The high point of the film is the incredible airplane rescue that ends with
Superman's glorious "RETURN" in a baseball field. I was left grinning from
ear to ear.
The issue at hand here though is this return happens within the first act of
the film. From here the film switches gears to Lex Spacey's (that's
intentional by the way) adventures in real estate. This gets to what I
thought was the major issue with the film. It's not entirely the most
compelling conflict that the film could be built around. With his balding
mane I almost worried that Lex Spacey might be the slightly more grounded
older brother of Dr. Evil with his own Kitty (Parkey Posey) by his side.
With all the other elements of the film operating on such an accomplished
level, you wonder why a richer conflict that encompassed greater themes was
not crafted.
For example it is hinted that Lex Spacey suspects that Lois'
child is in fact Superman's son. Why would Lex (who hates Supes for putting
him away for five years) leave the kid on the boat to just "maybe" drown?
(Like supes would not save the kid). This after the kid even kills one of
Lex's henchmen with a piano. (Is that enough proof the kid has superpowers
or what?)
Imagine the collateral Lex would have if he took the kid? How
far would superman go to protect his son? (And remember this is not just
Superman's son, but also Clark's, imagine Clark walking around everyday with
the thought his son may never know him). That's a pretty rich emotional
conflict that could have easily created a heart racing climax.
But what do
we get? Lex builds a really ugly island that I'm convinced no one would
ever, ever, want to live on.
There were ways Clark's emotional life could have greater been tied into the
fabric of film, involved his mother even more, and still featured many
incredible set pieces. It's that emotional rush that lingers much more than
the most eye popping of effects.
So is the film a let down? By no means.
You'll get your money's worth I
promise. It's just that if Singer and his boys were committed enough to
create such a rich world and great characters, to take risks with the
mythology by giving Supes and Lois a kid, why didn't they take the extra
step to give him a conflict and an antagonist who truly provided a dramatic
crux for the film?
If Singer pulled that off then we would never doubt that a man truly can
fly...
Now, here's Languatron's Bane with a similar perspective...
I don't get press passes
to movies all that often, since I live in the wrong state, but a fortuitous
visit with a friend yielded a seat at a recent Superman Returns press
screening, and I was so excited that I soiled myself. That is, I
figuratively soiled myself. You're welcome to check my shorts if you'd like.
It's been a few days since I got back, and it hadn't really occurred to me
to write a review. That would be cheating, wouldn't it? (Not really sure
what that means.) But as I read the other reviews posted here, I thought
I'd try to get my two cents in, since there are a few things I think they
missed. Plus, I'm better looking than most. (Uglier than some.)
The big question gets an affirmative answer: Yes, this is a good film.
Visually, it's almost overwhelming. They seem determined to do all the
things they couldn't do in '78 with people hanging on wires, and they more
than deliver. It would take more wires than all the orthodontists in North
America could muster to duplicate the shuttle plane rescue sequence that
marks Superman's real return, yet I couldn't help thinking that it was just
the helicopter sequence from Superman: The Movie on steroids.
Which leads me to one of my biggest beefs with this flick - it is SLAVISHLY
devoted to the original Donner film. It's eerie, really. Anyone who said
this is just a pseudo-sequel is kidding himself. (Or herself, I guess, but
come on, who are we kidding? A woman reading AICN? Please.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: To diffuse the inevitable influx of e-mails and Talkbacks -- women DO read AICN. Whether or not they can stomach it is an entirely different issue...
This is more
Superman II than Superman II ever was. Yes, I know that the original II was
supposedly part of the backstory, but visually, the entire template is drawn
directly from the first film, and the plot points and references demonstrate
a fetishistic obsession with Movie #1, with only oblique references to the
second film. (Don't want to get to spoiler-y, but as many of your reviewers
have revealed, the big "twist," which isn't really a twist to anyone with
six brain cells, calls to mind the second film's arctic bedroom set.)
When Supes cautions the plane passengers not to give up flying because
"statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel," I let out a
mighty sigh. (See, Chris Reeve said the same thing to Margot Kidder after
the non-steroidal helicopter dealie. Ha ha! Just like Movie #1! Only on
steroids!) Most folks didn't catch the reference, as far as I could tell.
I'm a geek, so I got it, but I didn't know quite what to do with it. This
was just one of a multitude of similar "in-jokes" that felt less like an
affectionate nod to Movie #1 and more like this movie is psychotically
stalking Movie #1. It's like Singer keeps dialing Donner's phone number just
to hear him breathing on the other end.
Which leads me to another beef - the Brando footage. Call me crazy, but I
didn't really notice anything that wasn't in movie #1, except maybe the
stuff at the fortress when Lex first arrives there. I had always assumed
that using Brando was an opportunity to finally give the world the sequence
that I've always wanted to see - Jor-El sacrificing himself to restore his
son's powers. It's not there. Which means that Singer just used Brando as
more food for his fetish. I honestly don't get it.
See, for most geeks like me, Superman is a lot more than the Donner film.
Yes, some plot points - the plane, Luther's yacht - were likely lifted from
John Byrne's Man of Steel comic miniseries, but that seems contractually
obligational, not like the kind of sloppy French kisses Singer keeps
planting on Donner. (Which reminds me. Isn't Singer thin, single, and neat?)
As has been noted elsewhere, Clark Kent has not been portrayed as a bumbling
fool in the comics since - well, since the Donner film. Yet here he is, in
all his doofistic glory. It doesn't really bother me in terms of continuity
- you can't cram nearly thirty years of intervening comic book history into
a flick like this, but Singer doesn't care about any other source material
other than Donner. This movie is the ultimate paradox: it manages to carve
new ground and tread water all at the same time. Which is really not that
big a deal once you get used to it.
Enough whining.
Brandon Routh is great. Seriously. There's enough Reeve in
him that he wins you over quickly, but this role is definitely his now. He
looks younger than Reeve, but his voice is deeper, and he actually seems
more gravitas-y than even Reeve did. That may be blasphemy, but Routh really
sold the flick for me.
Kevin Spacey is tremendous, too, although he seems
more hampered by Hackman than Routh does by Reeve. Spacey's venom is more
fun than his camp, but I think that's because the campy Luthor never really
sat well with me even back in '78. Spacey delivers, but I still don't
understand why Lex Luthor hangs with Otises and Miss Tessmacher/Kitty
Kowalskis. (Parker Posey stinks, I think, but unlike many geeks, I always
think Parker Posey stinks. I saw her in a play in New York with Matthew
Broderick called "Taller than a Dwarf," and she was perfectly wretched. I'm
not sure how much of my dislike for her was a spillover from that
experience. But you'll have to admit that whatever you think of her
performance, her character's pretty stupid.) Luthor doesn't surround himself
with incompetents in the comic books, but, again, nobody involved here cares
about comic books that Richard Donner hasn't read.
The only real departure from Donner is Katie Bosworth's Lois Lane. And, to
be honest, she didn't do much for me. Yes, I think she's too young, and -
here's what's weird - too pretty. A little too sweet. Singer goes so far out
of his way to recreate Donner, and then he changes Margot Kidder's
frying-pan-faced spitfire into Katie Bosworth. No matter what you thought of
Kidder, Bosworth is out of place in the surrounding Donner lovefest.
(Actually, Kidder, to me, is the definitive Lois Lane, even more than
Christopher Reeve's Superman. Which means I'm nuts. So take what I've said
about Bosworth with a heavy grain of salt.)
All in all, it was a great night at the movies, and I wasn't disappointed.
My geek problems are represented here in far greater proportion to how they
affected my enjoyment of the film itself. I just hope that in future
installments, Singer can carve new ground without treading water.
Thanks for the write-ups, folks. Well done...
| 
