Overall Rating
  Awesome: 31.7%
Worth A Look: 17.65%
Just Average: 16.67%
Pretty Crappy: 18.3%
Sucks: 15.69%
13 reviews, 228 user ratings
|
|
| Superman Returns |
by Jay Seaver
"Superman returns; worthy adversary still missing."
|
Richard Donner's 1978 film of "Superman" is a great movie, but not because it is perfect. It is great because it was the first time in a long time that superheroes were made majestic, something more than silly adolescent power fantasies. It is great because the parts that work are able to almost completely overpower the parts that don't. The trouble with Bryan Singer's 2006 follow-up is that it borrows indiscriminately from its predecessor, and what it adds is not compelling.It's obvious from the start, where the opening credits are the same blue outlines whooshing toward the audience, although the background is jazzed up with modern CGI. We soon learn that Superman (Brandon Routh) left Earth five years ago to investigate the ruins of his home planet. During that time, archnemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has been released from prison upon a successful appeal (Superman, you see, could not be called as a witness) and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has settled down some, with a son (Tristan Lake Leabu) and a long-standing engagement to Richard White (James Marsden), the son of her editor, Perry White (Frank Langella). Just as Superman returns to Earth, though, Luthor has found his Fortress of Solitude and stolen a set of crystals located there, which he intends to use for a new nefarious scheme, which like his old nefarious scheme, involves stealing missiles in order to wreak devastation that leaves him in control of the world's most valuable real estate. This time, instead of sinking California, he'll create a new continent, even if it floods huge parts of the ones we've already got.
Now, in describing this, I've fallen victim to one of the mistakes Singer and his co-writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris do - I've assumed the reader knows who Superman, Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor are. That's probably not totally unreasonable; Superman is one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world. But the details have changed or been adapted in different ways in the past thirty years - just since Donner's Superman, there's been an animated television series, three live-action TV series, and at least three separate ongoing comic-book "continuities" that are themselves revised every few years. So depending on when you encountered the character, Lois may know that Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same, or not (and in the former case, they may or may not be married); one, both, or neither of Clark's adoptive parents may be alive; Lex Luthor could be a sarcastic "master criminal", a "cave-dwelling mad scientist" with green and purple armor, or a prominent corporate mogul - who either met grew to hate Superman because the "cure for kryptonite" he developed for Superboy cost him his hair, because he's jealous of Superman being the toast of what he considers his city, or he's just had his plans foiled once too often. That Singer, Dougherty, and Harris didn't choose my favorites (married with two living parents, with Luthor an apparently legitimate businessman, thank you for asking) isn't the problem - it's that they assume you're on their wavelength, which is apparently mostly the first two films starring Christopher Reeve. The source of Luthor's hatred of Superman is left aggravatingly vague, and what kind of relationship the title character has with Lois Lane as Clark Kent is completely unknown: Does Lois consider Clark a friend, a former lover, a rival, or a colleague she barely notices? These are two of the most basic important factors in how the audience looks at these characters, and we're given nothing.
Some of the plot is similarly wonky or left to be filled in - how does Luthor know about the Fortress of Solitude? I don't remember Superman II all that well, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the first. Clark is surprised by Lois having a child, but the kid certainly looks more then five years old. Heck, you have to assume that the Daily Planet's staff is dumber than usual not to connect the five-year absences of both Superman and Clark Kent. And then there's Lex Luthor...
During this movie's production, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was actually the thing I worried about the least - with his head shaved, he looks the part, and he's a pretty darn good actor besides. And then the first trailer with him in it hit and I saw how much his performance was influenced by Gene Hackman's take on it, and that's when my enthusiasm started waning; Hackman's Luthor and his henchmen are some of the most cringe-inducing parts of the previous film series. Spacey isn't quite as jokey as Hackman, but the bar has to be higher than that. Luthor must be built up as a credible threat; Superman can do so much physically that Luthor has to make up the gap armed only with his big brain and ruthlessness. We first see him swindling a rich old lady out of her money, and that's mean, but it's also kind of beneath him; setting Superman's archnemesis up as a grifter makes it seem like a ridiculous mismatch. Why not show him doing something brilliant, showing how he could change the world for the better if he were on the side of the angels? To make things worse, the filmmakers set him up with another moron sidekick whom he can callously alienate (Parker Posey's Kitty Kowalski), despite the fact that that didn't work out so well the last time. A supervillain whose a credible threat to the most powerful man in the world does not rely on guards who play the piano with their prisoners or hang out with airheaded bimbos.
You can't really blame Kevin Spacey or Parker Posey for this; they just got handed the worst parts of a bum script. Surprisingly, considering that they don't have near the resumé of some of their co-stars, Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth do okay. Routh gets how to play Clark Kent as mild-mannered without making him appear a fool, and he conveys Superman's loneliness as well as his strength. That's important, because you've got to believe that it's a powerful enough emotion that he'd leave everything he knew for years. In the action scenes, he looks comfortable, neither sneering at his opponents (Superman hasn't done that in fifty years) or looking like he's exerting himself unduly, but also not just looking like he's posing in front of a green screen. I imagine it's boring, mark-hitting stuff, but it's got to be done.
Bosworth's Lois, quite frankly, may be the best I've seen outside the Dini/Timm animated series. She's probably best served by the script, which thankfully doesn't spend a lot of time on Clark/Superman making a fool out of the woman he claims to love. She's independent-minded without being too foolish or snotty, and actually seems like there'd be a point to her existing as something other than Superman's supporting character.
It's a pity so many of her scenes are against James Marsden, whose Richard is the blandest slice of whitebread you could imagine. He doesn't just pale before Superman, he comes in third to Clark, and his presence messes up the whole Lois-Clark-Superman romantic-triangle-with-two-people dynamic without adding much to it other than a non-Clark father to Lois's son. Tristan Leabu is okay in that part, although there are times when he seems much older than five. Frank Langella is growly perfection as Perry White, while Sam Huntington has an unimaginatively dorky take on Jimmy Olsen.
There are times when the movie rises above the disappointment of covering familiar ground or ideas that don't get like they should. It's fun to see Superman in a pose very much like the cover of Action Comics #1, or in space, watching the whole planet. A scene where he rescues a falling jet is fantastic; he has to do everything just so to keep his strength form destroying the plane he's trying to save. And there's Eva Marie Saint as Martha Kent, spot-on in every scene she's in, including a wordless, heartbreaking moment toward the end.
It's frustrating to watch Singer and company give those moments of greatness away after doing so well with them - you see Superman watch over all the Earth and what calls him back is... a bank robbery? That's the best he can do? And one of his last scenes is kind of creepy - it's nice that he watches out for the people he loves, but... boundaries, Superman, boundaries. And yet, despite its faults, I do anticipate the inevitable sequel. It's unlikely to crib quite so many plot points from the previous films, and maybe Singer and company will see what didn't work quite so well.The next movie will have a pretty good cast and crew and be able to be its own thing. It's too bad this movie isn't more its own thing than a bridge to that, but it's fun enough and I imagine it'll look really nice in IMAX 3-D.
link directly to this review at http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=14733&reviewer=371
originally posted: 06/29/06 20:38:48
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
DC Characters: For more in the DC Characters series, click here.
|
 |
USA
28-Jun-2006 (PG-13)
DVD: 28-Nov-2006
UK
14-Jul-2006
Australia
29-Jun-2006
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
