Superman Returns

'Supes Returns with a Vengeance!'

Have you ever eaten an imitation of something, such as say crab or tofu meant to be chicken and found it to be delicious but not quite right? Unfortunately the same can be said of Singer's recent attempt to make a worthy sequel to the second film of the old-school Christopher Reeves Superman movies by Richard Donner. Singer cut his teeth directing big time comic book movies by creating the X-Men franchise from scratch. So, let's just say I've been wanting to see this film for a while now but things like IMDB's current 6.9 rating have kept it from the top of my list. Now, since the last gloriously rich colors have faded from the screen, I would like to go in depth on why IMDB has that score and where Singer messed up. However, I would first like to point out the amazing job stylistically and directorially Singer achieved with this film. Then to finish, I would like to discuss the stupidity of studio politics that screwed with this film and the X-Men franchise and the possibility of future Superman movies.

The first question about any Superman movie set in the same continuity as the Donner films is can the actor playing Superman/Clark Kent do it right? HELL YEA HE CAN. I never thought I would see the charming acting style of Reeves done so well again after his death, but man, Brandon Routh has the look and the fumbling Kent down perfectly. Although there is something slightly...slightly too perfect about his appearance as Superman and too lacking. Reeves eyes used to sparkle even as Superman and you had the sense that he laughed with them. Routh seems to have not picked up on the laughing trait of Superman but everything else is played up nicely. Also, Routh's Superman becomes much more believable and interesting as the movie begins, he just starts a little awkward which is fair since he is a newbie to Hollywood and he has just been asked to fill one of the most iconic roles in history in the same style as the most iconic actor to have played him. Great job sir! Speaking of superman, another thing I appreciated about this film was that the writing and Singer intentionally play up the Christian undertones and the Christ motif throughout in a manner that isn't mindnumbingly Matrix. I don't know, I had nver noticed the parallels until maybe a year or two before the film came out when I dove back into graphic literature and I am happy to see that it is given more prominence so that the world can understand why Superman survives and is needed as an icon. Other great things involve the sets and the feel of the film and even the angles. Singer has a couple of shots that are obviously his own but because he developed an organic palette of angles and shts based off the ones Donner would have used in the old films, not even the angles Singer creates on his own feel outside the realm of possibility and fit in nicely with the rest of the film. Everything looks like it came from the Donner days of the films and feel slightly 40-50 years older. I have to say though, that I am not so sure I am a fan of the use of modern day materials such as cell phones and laptop computers...as a design aesthetic it just doesn't sit well with me and occassionally felt like potential advertising.

Other things I appreciate include the great actor choices from Parker Posey as Kitty to Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Parker plays Kitty very straight and she eeks out as much as she can given the script. I have to admit that with Kevin's Lex I sort of missed the more old talky-jokey Luthor of Gene Hackman days. However, there are moments such as when he is begging Lois Lane to tell him something that you can see that Spacey saw the old films and easily stole the craziness and attitude of Hackman. He was merely building on it. Spacey's Luthor spent five years in jail and had to bag an old lady to come back and he holds all of that against Supes, so it makes more sense for him to be less jokey and more about cool calculating evil business, and Spacey knows how I like it. The other two big happy castings for me are James Marsden as Lois Lane's fiance and Sam Huntigton as Jimmy Olson. Marsden's character comes off as a good guy with some concerns, which makes sense now that he is engaged to Lois who once had a thing with a man who could move buildings and shoot heat rays from his eyes. He's Superman right? I'm sure Marsden's character is constantly asking just how Super is Superman? Superbig?...anyhow, Marsden never dips into the jealous evil boyfriend territory and even makes you like him if you are rooting for Supes and Lois to get back together. I never knew what was so great about his as Cyclops, but now that I can see his eyes, it makes all the difference. Also, Sam Huntigton as Jimmy Olson is perfect. His nice kid but constantly turning up short when he needs things to work luck is perfectly displayed in Worthington's expressions. I once wondered who Worthington was when I heard he got picked up for a big part in an upcoming movie, now I know and I approve. He's got real skill and I look forward to more of him. Unfortunately the character I got to know the least and remember from the old films the worst is Frank Langella's character. In this film he plays him as a nice news boss who knows how to handle his staff to make sure they get the real "selling" news. He is good, but there doesn't seem to be much to go on.

Lastly, what I love concerning this film is most of the script. Almost every character has dialogue that sounds like it could have come from the actors of the Donner films and that it was therefore a continuance of every character. The fact that the film goes in depth to show what Superman means and to show why he is needed is a very nice touch. I also liked the whole thing dealing with Superman searching for home and the role that home plays in our lives to be very well put together. Although I kind of wish that superman had some qualms about throwing the only giant vestige of his home planet back into space, I understand that the film was long as is and couldn't handle much longer.

Now, as to what really bugs me, and this is not something small, is the script. Although the dialogue and characterizations and scenarios are excellent, and it even does a fine job of setting things up after the second film and explaining the past and giving Superman quite the situation to walk into, there is no excuse, none, for the child. This critique is meant for those who have seen the film so if I have spoiled something, sorry. Superman should never have had a child in this film. It added too much on and felt a little too cliche. I would have introduced the kid in this film and developed the idea of the Supes child in the next film. It was rushed and didn't look good especially since Lois Lane doesn't confess to anyone. Only Luthor and Lois know...what crap. Supes should be able to see his own son and Marsden character should know the truth as well. That is essentially its own little drama in and of itself and should have been another movie. Also, what in the world was all of the is Superman dead junk? Look, Raimi and Singer, you don't need to show the city waiting in expectation, cheering, or mourning to show that a city needs its heroes or supports them. When you do, the action becomes about the nameless masses cheering which is okay for maybe a 2-3 seconds but then it needs to pass because there was no tension in this film. Sure, Supes comes the closest to dying that he ever has, but no one realy believes he'll die, he is Superman! So all of that in the hospital and the slow waiting to see if Superman was okay should have been sped up because the audience wants to know but if we think we already know then the waiting isn't anticipating anything, its just maddening the viewers. And then there is the biggest plop of this film...Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. To her credit, Bosworth pulls off the caring for her son and family thing and at times is able to do the desiring Supes but hating him at the sametime. I think she thought that the craziness of Lois Lane from Margot Kidder's days would have died some since she won the Pulitzer Prize and is engaged with a son and good man...but that is wrong. Sorry, but Lane has much more defiance and crazy will power and a very STRONG personality that Bosworth just never reveals. The old Lois Lane was great because she would spite Superman for the hell of it but you knew from how she held herself and swayed a little that she didn't really spite him and it was just her way of dealing brusquely with the world around her. I really hope Bosworth can gain some piss and vinegar back into her character in the next outing, because it was possible in the writing, just was never utilized in the acting. Now for the other real reason why I despise the child of superman idea. In the past, the films have always been about Superman and his relation to the people and what he means to them and what he means to Lois Lane. Hell, the Dean Cain Superman show survived pretty much because of the excellent rapport of the characters playing Supes and Lois Lane. By introducing Marsden's character into the film, it made sense and it added a layer of spice and one-upmanship, a chance to see something new and different from the Man of Steel besides the hunkydory good guy. He was envious, never held it against Marsden and never got jealous. In all he was a good guy about it. So now the movie ends with this extra layer coming between Superman and Lois Lane which is what the audience wants, especially the females. They might not care about the fighting or the cool shots or anything else, but then you add in the romance with the Superman who is the hunk of dreams and they are there. So not only do you have that layer, but you manage to efficiently change the focus from Supes and Marsden and Lane to Supes and son and how will the son affect everything. The father son theme is a big part of the Supes mythology, but he is supposed to symbolize the savior, Christ, what you will and guess who is commonly accepted not to have had a son? Exactly. The son thing completely clashes with the savior motif of the film and it suggests several things that come across poorly. A. Superman conceived a child with Lois Lane outside of wedlock, conservative christians will love it. B. If Superman is a literal Christ figure, then you are suggesting Christ had a son. I don't care about either theologically, but I know that audience members do, especially those from where I spawned. Also, honestly I never wanna see a movie or television show entitled the Adventures of Superman Jr. Anyhow, with the plus and cons mapped out, here's the stupidity of the studios for you.

This is all from second hand sources called articles that I read and pieced together over time, so the actual attitudes and conversations of said studios could be completely inaccurate or imagined. When Singer was gearing up for X-Men 3, Warner Bros. approached him and impressed with his work, offered him a chance at Superman. Singer, seeing it as the Holy Grail of comic book films knew he had to do it and he was a HUGE fan of the Donner films. When he agreed to it, Fox was terribly upset since he had just finished the box office whopping X-Men 2 and they wanted another soon. They were upset that Singer was going to Warner Bros. to direct another comic film for a rival studio. I believe that Singer wanted them to wait until he had done Superman and then he would have come back and directed X-Men 3, but Fox was pissed so they told him to forget it. He shrugged and off he left. Fox already had a date planned for X-Men 3 and they wanted it to combat the Superman movie in the same summer, so they refused to back down from the planned release date even though they had no helmer to pull it all together. Then they hired Matthew Vaughn after his turn doing Layer Cake but when they insisted that he move to LA to direct X-Men 3, he quit saying he wasn't going to force his family to move from London to LA. And still, they refused to move the release date. As time grew short, with only a couple of months of pre-planning left before going into production supposedly, they hired Brett Ratner. He had lots of studio pressure to create a product to compete with superman and no time to really revise and edit the script like it needed. So, he did a rush job of it creating the X-men film that is the least likable and cofirming what many thought about poor affable Ratner, that he simply wasn't that good of a director whether it was fair to think so or not. Then there was the whole rumored business about the actors. Like I said, Fox had it in for Singer at thsi point and Warner and they wanted to make them pay for not finishing a trilogy. Sony had Raimi after all. Anyhow, apparently thsi hatred spilled over. Rumor had it that the reason Cyclops dies so early in X-men 3 is because he was given a part in the Superman film and in fact at one point the studio considered writing him out all together. Also, during this whole bad blood thing, supposedly Singer met with Famke Jannsen in Australia(the woman who plays Jean Grey) to possibly offer her the part of Kitty. Famke thought about it and told him that she had a big part in the new X-men movie and didn't want to risk losing the part or being written out of it for playing a smaller part in his film. It was understandable and things passed. This bad blood between the two companies did more hurt to Fox's credibility in the long run than WB or Singer, but that sort of pressure and tension can not have helped either camp to turn out the quality product necessary. As for future Supermen installments, WB has said maybe if the script is much lower budget and Singer has stated that he will be returning to the franchise again after finishing his current project Valkyrie and possible one more film just to get the script right. Plus, if Singer doesn't get back soon, then you may see Routh appearing in the new JLA movie that WB is cooking up. So expect more superman in one form or another and I'm betting next time Lois Lane will be tougher after all the flack crappy fanboys and critics like myself have been dishing out.

4.3 out of 5