Wednesday, July 05, 2006

MOVIE REVIEW: Superman Returns (2006)

Back in the years 2000-2001, I occasionally jobbed as a contributor for a prominent genre magazine (one no longer in business...or rather, under the same ownership). While submitting article ideas for this publication, I was informed in no uncertain terms that all prospective articles in the magazine had to target sixteen year-olds.

Which means that I couldn't write about Space:1999 or the old Battlestar Galactica, or anything, for that matter, pre-mid-1980s. This edict was a shock to my system; I couldn't accept that popular mainstream magazines would focus only on the "new" and pretend that genre history didn't exist. Indeed, part of the reason that this blog exists today is to serve as a response to that policy. Here I write about whatever the hell I want to write about...old or new.

But that hard lesson about "business" was not so tremendous a shock to the system as Superman Returns, Bryan Singer'scinematic superhero event of 2006. Why? Well, this movie serves as a genuine anomaly in terms of modern Hollywood business-planning. Because Bryan Singer forged a Superman movie for me...a thirty-something year-old guy who remembers and adores the Christopher Reeve films of the late 1970s and early 1980s.  And you know what, today, by-and-large, fans hate, hate, hate it.  It is described often as being too reverential, or "boring."


I found it a pretty satisfactory follow-up to the original films of the 1970s and 1980s, and felt that, in some way, this movie proved that there is no certain approach to reviving a classic film series.  If you re-boot with faith, like Superman Returns, people complain.  If you change everything up, well...people complain.

I hasten to add in regards to this film that there are no sixteen year-olds walking around on this planet who remember these old films from their theatrical runs. Yet despite that fact, Singer has loyally re-used John Williams' stirring Superman theme, and marshaled archival footage of the late Marlon Brando as Jor-El, Superman's father. Furthermore, Singer has crafted his 2006 film as a direct sequel to Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981).

This is a revolutionary notion in corporate Hollywood, make no mistake. Bryan Singer's approach flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and the tack other films and TV shows have steadfastly adopted. Tim Burton's re-imagining of Planet of the Apes (2001) was not the continuation long-time fans desired or prayed for, but rather a bizarre dead-end, a pocket universe that today nobody even remembers (or likes). 


And Ron Moore has recreated Battlestar Galactica for his own personal amusement and political agenda rather than crafting a faithful continuation of what originated in 1978. Why? Because Hollywood cravenly pursues the dollar of the sixteen year-old above all others. So yeah, at least so far as entertainment is concerned, we live in the world of Logan's Run (another reference for older fans...).

But give Bryan Singer his due for his central conceit here. He has adopted a more respectful, more faithful stance than many of his peers might have taken and consequently given all those "old" Superman fans the movie we wanted back in 1983...when we got Richard Pryor in Superman III instead.  So, the film is faithful to the cinematic legacy of this character; not necessarily the comic-book legacy. 


I guess you have to pick your battles...

So, really, considering his creative decisions, Bryan Singer had me hook, line and sinker at "it's a bird, it's a plane, it's..." because he actually took my generation's hopes and dreams into account...something that almost never happens with blockbuster movies anymore. 


Singer made a movie he thought Generation X would like and cherish, and overall, I believe he succeeded in that endeavor. He also made a good movie that audiences of all ages can enjoy together; one about fatherhood and the passage of generations.

Of course, even as I harbored high hopes for this new movie, I went into Superman Returns with the iconic portrayals by Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman rolling around my brain. It's a compliment to say that Kevin Spacey erased Gene Hackman's Luthor from my mind, playing a far more menacing variation of the scoundrel Lex (yet one who could be interpreted as being the same man...given a few hard years in prison). 


As for Brandon Routh...I liked him. This young, mostly unknown talent did a more than respectable of re-casting Superman in his own image. I thought he was very good, very powerful in the difficult role. Routh evidences that sense of innocence that we desire from Superman; that notion of alone-ness, of standing-off and being different from those around him.

For me, Reeve perfectly balanced vulnerability with strength. Routh looks like he was hatched from a Christopher Reeve clone farm (Clonus, perhaps?), and certainly boasts the physical grace and sincerity to be this generation's Superman. However, I did miss Reeve's sense of humor in the role; which was never overpowering, just always percolating under the surface. Reeve was an underrated and accomplished physical comedian (especially in his scenes as Clark Kent), and Routh seemed more mopey and lugubrious in those parts of Superman Returns. Maybe it was the script...or again, merely what we demand of our superheroes today.

A sidenote regarding Routh and Superman. Have you noticed all the buzz recently about "is Superman gay?" This idea really irks me. Not because a superhero couldn't be or shouldn't be gay, but because Superman is being labeled "gay" for all these crazy sociological reasons, and make no mistake, it's meant in a negative, derogatory fashion. Our society has unfortunately come to associate contemporary manhood with swagger and arrogance; with violence and hatred and revenge meted out as "justice." But Superman is not born from such pettiness. He is not born of vengeance or swagger or arrogance. He is a man of decency, objectivity, sensitivity...and true justice. This is how Brandon Routh (accurately) plays the character in Superman Returns, but our society has grown so homophobic that any man who dares to openly express qualities of gentleness or kindness or even brotherhood towards another man is instantly deemed gay. Imagine the headlines when the new Star Trek movie premieres. "Is Mr. Spock gay?" they will shout. Why...he's a...pacifist, after all! He won't fire the phasers and wage war until he's tried to resolve a problem peacefully!!!! What a wimp...must be gay!!!!

It's really sad that our media and politicians are demanding that manliness be judged by the barrel of the gun and by cowboyish military adventures overseas rather than innate qualities of fairness and honesty, dependability and kindness. Must all our heroes be bad boys, I wonder, filled with darkness, angst and the big brood? If so, then that's a shame. Superman has always been my favorite superhero because -- although he carries difficult baggage with him -- he hasn't succumbed to the baser instincts. Truth, justice...well, you know the rest. And, I also admire Superman because throughout the wide pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the one forever in love with a dark-haired beauty of whip-smart intelligence and sharp edges. I'm in love with a woman like that; so I identify with his yearning for Lois Lane.

Which brings me to that reporter for the Daily Planet. I'm not going to say much nice here about Kate Bosworth's version. Bosworth is beautiful and generally acceptable in the role, but she definitively lacks the acerbic spark of most historical Lois Lanes. Margot Kidder was sharp, brainy and truly independent. She needed Superman because she'd always get in over her head...but she didn't know she needed Superman. Bosworth's Lane is bland and boring. Where was the snark? The edge? Heck, I would have taken Teri Hatcher's "Ally McBeal" variation of Lois Lane over Bosworth's lukewarm soup. Lois should have moxie; not be Mommy. Not that Lois can't be a mother but must motherhood blunt all edges, or preclude all traces of independent personality? But again, that's what society expects, I suppose? A woman can't be a Mother and a person all at the same time, right? Just one or the other.

But really, getting two characters right (and one wrong...) isn't too bad, is it?

Outside of the characterizations, I felt Superman Returns was strong and entertaining not so much for its lumbering narrative (which is occasionally tiresome and truth be told, a little dull at points), but rather in the registering of the emotional states of the characters. Superman goes through a lot in this film. Life...death...life...fatherhood, and that was the most interesting arc for me (since I will be a father soon...I may have been more susceptible to this plotline than some). The details of Luthor's evil scheme were not particularly memorable or original, but they at least gave Superman something to play against.

I also found that the new film is not nearly so jaunty and good humored as the old ones. I guess we've come to expect our superhero movies to be serious business, and humor would have been inappropriate. But the original Donner film remains superior because it playfully acknowledged the things that are funny about Superman's life without mocking him. Maybe that's too delicate a balance to achieve in our cynical twenty-first century.

Thematically, Singer's Superman Returns picks up all the important strands left dangling by the collapse of the franchise in 1983. More than any version of the Man of Steel legend, Donner's film captured the religious nature of the Superman tale. Jor-El, a wise, God-like representative of a distant, highly-advanced planet, sends his only son (Jesus Christ) to Earth to live among humanity. The fact that Krypton is almost totally and immaculately white (without dirt, grays or other discoloration) suggests that the world is some sort of utopia or Heaven. That the Kryptonians in that film wear reflective, glowing uniforms (and in many cases boast white manes of hair...) further develops the Heaven metaphor.

But the Christ analogy goes futher. Immediately before sending away the child messiah, Jor-El and his "angelic" people have proven themselves victorious in a war against an insurrectionist named Zod (representing Lucifer). Before being "cast out" to a Hell dimension (the Phantom Zone), this villain threatens to one day return to battle Jor-El and his heirs, an Armageddon that is highlighted in Superman II.

Once on Earth, Kal El is adopted by kindly, bewildered parents (the Kents), regular humans (like Mary's devoted husband, Joseph) and both of them are at a loss to explain his miraculous arrival. Not quite immaculate conception, but close enough for jazz. Then of course, a mature Superman becomes nothing less than mankind's savior as he performs miracles (like saving Air Force One). That Superman is gentle, loving, kind, powerful, and honest also harks back to the stories regarding Jesus.

Superman Returns develops this idea about as far as it can be taken without beginning The Church of Superman. Superman is referred to throughout the film as a "savior" and Lois Lane has won a Pulitzer Prize for an article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." It could have been titled, "Why the World Doesn't Need Christ," right? And then, of course, Superman is stabbed in the side by Lex Luthor, reflecting the Gospel of John, which reports how a Roman soldier stabbed Jesus Christ in his side. More immediately obvious as a Christ parallel is Superman's telltale pose after saving the world from the emerging Kryptonian continent. He hovers in space, his arms outstretched horizontally, as if he is pinned to a cross. Christ metaphors are a dime a dozen in horror and science fiction films (see: Alien 3 and The Omega Man), but in the case of Superman, the comparison has been earned since Superman: The Movie, Superman II and now Superman Returns all rigorously develop the notion.

Visually, Bryan Singer has come a long way since X-Men (2000). I didn't like that film as much as many fans did, in part because of the astoundingly weak visuals. The final mutant battle atop the Statue of Liberty was a mishmash of incoherent perspectives and was so corrupted by incongruous cuts of close-ups that it looked like a bad television show (Mutant X, anybody?) I liked X-2 much better, and Singer appeared there to develop an understanding of the full breadth of the cinema frame, and how to use scope and composition to vet his storyline. I'd say that arc is just about complete with Superman Returns.

Although it lacks the lyricism of Superman: The Movie (just compare Lois's flight with Superman in that film with Singer's anemic, less-effectively scored version here...) Superman Returns does boast a few shots that are downright beautiful....and touching. For instance, this is the first time in film history I can remember that Superman's x-ray vision has been utilized to such stunning - and emotional - impact. That's a development of technology as much as anything perhaps, but that's not the point. Singer is finally proving adept at using his filmmaker's quiver in all senses, from CGI to blocking to mise-en-scene.

Although some fans will argue for X-Men as the reigning champion of superhero franchises, I guess I still point to Sam Raimi's Spider-man series as representing the best of the modern genre. However, that reckoning only came about after Spider-Man II; when that sequel actually made re-watching the 2002 original a much richer, deeper experience. I think Superman Returns may be the same story. I long to have the film on DVD and watch it in sequence with Superman: The Movie and Superman II. The sequel to Superman Returns may add even greater luster to this new Man of Steel...we'll have to wait and see.

All niggling quibbles aside, Superman Returns is a glorious encore, and a fresh take on a hero who has been with America for nearly seventy years. One of the film's finest conceits, and one rarely mentioned, involves the climax. Superman doesn't catch the crook in the end. Instead, the film ends on an emotional note, not a plot point, and perhaps I sensed in that tiny development a new direction for the superhero genre. One where CGI wonders can finally be eclipsed by the wonders of the human heart again. After all, we've seen Superman fly, Spider-man vault from building to building, and even the Hulk go green. The only world left to conquer is inner space; the domain where the super must countenance the mundane and reckon with that. For Superman, his greatest feat - his greatest failure? - could be...fatherhood.

For a fascinating and erudite review of Superman Returns, check out film scholar Kevin Flanagan's take at Virtual Fools, here.

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:59 PM

    When you look back at the years of development that went on in order to get to Superman Returns, it is amazing that the film is even worth watching, much less good. I was so thankful that Singer made a sequel to the Donner films. Being a Marvel guy, I have never really read many Superman comics. So for me the Donner movies are Superman continuity for me. Not to mention, could the origin have been told any better than in the original? Not a chance. Do we even NEED the origin retold? Not unless you were raised on an Amish farm. The Superman origin is almost as well known as that of his inspiration, Jesus.

    Plot wise, I thought it went on a little long. Singer could have told the same story in 2 hours instead of 2 and 1/2. But in spite of that, I felt an excitement sitting in that theater hearing that music that took me right back to being a kid and my grandfather taking me to see the originals.

    I was also glad to see a number of movie cliches were abandoned for this movie. I won't mention them because they are spoilers.

    The Spider-Man movies are still the best but hey, Marvel always beats DC in my book. I do hope that Superman Returns will finally show Hollywood that new is not always better.

    -Chris

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's my take...
    Warning! There are spoliers below!!


    After the dismal piece of cinematic shit they had the nerve to call X3, all my faith lay in Bryan Singer (who directed the first two impeccabley crafted X-Men movies) to deliver us with Superman Returns.


    Superman Returns ignores 3 & 4 and takes place after Superman 2-itself kinda sketchy, but still fun.

    Superman had been gone for 5 years because scientists have found remains of Krypton floating in space. Superman takes a trip to see if anyone survived. In the meantime the world's gotten along without Superman (except that Bush happened) and Lois Lane got engaged and had a kid.


    I've been following the progress of this film since I first heard Singer would direct. Ironically, Bret Rattner, the schmuck responsible for destroying any integrity X-Men had, was supposed to direct Superman. Let it also be known that Rattner didn't think the Phoenix story (the biggest story in X-Men history) had enough meat to make a movie-which is why he threw the mutant cure idea in-whereas Singer said he would have made it a two-parter.
    But I suppose the chance to direct the world's greatest superhero was too irresistible to pass up.

    And he does a bang up job.

    However, Superman Returns is not without its flaws, and it took the keen eye of Blog Monkey to point out a few of these glaring problems.

    Let me start off by saying that Singer took great care to create this movie. It's quite clear that there was a lot of love for the material and respect for the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder-who by the way are still the king and queen of the Superman interpretations. I liked Lois & Clark’s
    new approach and thought Dean Cain & Teri Hatcher were a respectable second. Haven't seen Smallville much, but what I have seen is bloody impressive.


    The Good

    Frank Langella was perfect as Perry White, wise, confident and even funny. He wasn't a charicature. He re-interpreted Perry White and it worked perfectly.

    Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen was perfect. The way Olsen should be. He was the funniest thing in the movie and had great presence. He really balanced out the newsroom and was the only one sympathetic to poor Clark-who still gets treated like shit and was never missed-which is probably what Kal-El wanted.

    Kevin Spacy was a great pick for Lex Luthor, but I think he could been more of a prick. His intro was probably the best intro to an antagonist I've ever seen. Ah Gertrude...Strangely enough-and I think Singer did this on purpose-when Lex was holding his 'wife' Gertrude's hand on her death bed, it seemed as though that was an old Lois Lane in bed holding a still-young & vibrant Kal-El's hand. I interpreted it as a flash into the future.

    I loved how Superman's flight looked like it took a bit of concentration-notice his flight pattern when he lands...

    The little touches like 'Look chief, it's a bird, it's a plane, no look it's...', the orginal Jimmy Olsen (Jack Larson) playing a bartender, Luthor bumping into Lois Lane while brushing his teeth. Great stuff.


    The Bad

    Not all that bad really; I loved the suit. I just thought the ‘S’ was a bit small and that the neck wasn't open enough. Other than that I thought it looked great

    Yeah yeah yeah Kryptonite, enough already, something else please?

    Uhm...no one noticed that Clark and Superman were gone for the exact same time? Kal-El should have used his superbrains and made it so that Clark shows up even a couple weeks later.


    The Ugly

    Kal Penn! Remember ‘Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle’? Penn as Kumar was hilarious and Singer didn't even give Penn a speaking role as one of Lex's henchmen! What a waste!! The comedic element-so sorely missing, and I'm not talking campy here-could have used a little more Penn .

    Singer fucked up on casting Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Just from the commercials I could tell she was wrong for the part. Margot Kidder was bang on and although I'm not looking for clones, my preference after she dealt with Lois Lane is that she's plucky and has attitude. No disrespect to Kate Bosworth, but she was wrong for the part, much like Kirsten Dunst was wrong to play Mary Jane in Spider-man (what about Kate Winslet? Don't believe me, rent Eternal Sunshine of A Spotless Mind)

    Bosworth had no depth, didn't interest me and was way too young. It's been five years since Superman was gone people! Even Brandon Routh as Superman was too young.

    Singer should have went with a comedic actress, someone with great timing and presence. Why not Janine Garofalo or better yet, a relative unknown, but someone who could excude independence and wit.

    There were a bunch of silly little things that went on too.

    Superman's in the hospital for weeks-Uhm...where's Clark? If I were his boss I'd have fired his ass (thanx for the observation Blog Monkey)

    Superman floats up to the strato to hear all sorts of shit going down on the planet then bolts down to stop a serious situation...That would be a bank robbery where the cops are out-gunned.

    Ooh!

    Horrible!

    Forget about the genocides happening around the planet or gang wars, two men in blue-oh, I get it- are about to be shot down. They knew the risks when they joined the force!

    I would have bought the scene if Supes where floating over just his home town, but to prioritize a bank robbery over everything else going on in the world is just bad writing.

    Brandon Routh. Solid, but not enough presence. And no jokes-except for the flight thing, but Reeve delivered it better. Reeve had this magic about him, Superman was even a bit cocky, aloof. Remember that interview with Lois in the first one? Holy shit!

    Again, I'm not asking for a clone, in fact I'd like something a little different, instead I got plain bread, no butter (and a glass of water for dippin'!)


    All in all I enjoyed the movie and will see it several more times but Singer could have taken a few more chances. Lois's kid was a bold move indeed, but in all other areas I think Singer played it a bit too safe. Let's hope a few things can be tightned up on the sequel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:49 AM

    Well thought out review. I think you voiced many of the things I noticed in the film, especially the weaker version of Lois Lane. What stands out for me are the iconic, carefully constructed images of Superman, in space, flying, and rescuing. The sequence of hoisting all that rock into space, then collapsing back to earth is one of the most graphic images in any film or comic book, for that matter. It sums up the power and frailty of Superman, and the relationship between saviour and saved beautifully.

    I think Singer was a little 'deer in the headlights' with this film, as he needed to make it tie the first two films into a new myth-making cycle. Which may explain why Routh is a bit too stoic in his more important scenes. However, I think the sequel will be a knock-out, and on the par with Spiderman One.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:35 PM

    It seems to be inherited wisdom that SR takes place after Superman II and ignores III and IV. Out of curiosity, is there anything in particular in those later films that SR contradicts, or is the point simply that this one doesn't suck?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:06 AM

    Soundacious, in Superman IV, Martha Kent is dead, and Clark is selling the farm. The fact that she is alive in Superman Returns invalidates IV. Also, in Superman IV, Lara's "voice" tells Clark that once he uses the Kryptonian crystal to restore himself, he will have used up all of the residual Kryptonian energy. Again, obviously contradicted by this one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:08 PM

    Thanks, Howard. Never actually sat through IV. Sounds like it just screwed everything up for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:58 AM

    I think it's about time since your post we give the Devil His Due. There is loads of talk since Nov 2008 that if there will be another Supey flick, with the possible exception of Brandon Routh...

    It will be a reboot/restart. Or if Millar gets his wish, re-imagining with a 'darker' Superman.

    This is becoming, for me anyway, a popular and awful trend. It was needed for Batman and Bond-but every other film seems to be...if even one thing seems wrong with a picture or it doesn't make 300 million in a weekend, it's a dud and time to re-group, re-think and re-make.

    I cross my fingers and hope...

    ReplyDelete

My Father's Journal, Epilogue: "My Cancer"

My friends, we have reached the final entry in my father’s journal of his battle with cancer.     I want to thank all the readers who have c...