Superman has always been my favorite comic book hero... partially for all of the obvious reasons - the great powers, etc. - but I also think it largely has to do with the fact that I, too, am a small-town boy at heart with aspirations that reach far and wide. I, too, am a cornball who believes in 'truth, justice and the American way' (yes, that's right - the AMERICAN way - chew on that politically-correct apologist sissies).
One of the reasons I love the original Richard Donner film is because he portrayed the character for what he really is - an overgrown boyscout - and made no bones about it.
And who can deny that Christopher Reeve embraced that role so profoundly that it basically removed any hope of him being recognized for any other performance (we'll call it the 'Mark Hamill' syndrome).
My point with all of this is that I go into a movie with the name 'Superman' attatched to it with a lot of lofty expectations - perhaps unrealistically lofty.
'Superman Returns' is a good movie. That's about all I can say right now. The character is treated with the same love and care as the originals and the homages to the Donner films are almost constant. Brandon Routh is fine, and Kevin Spacey is great. But there was just something missing...
My initial feeling is that SO much effort was put into capturing the magic of the original films (including a musical score lifted directly from the brilliant John Williams scores) that film itself was somewhat self-suffocating.
While Routh's acting was perfectly servicable, I didn't feel like he was given enough character-driven action to really bring Superman to life in this version.
Reeve's Superman had a sparkling sense of humor, a temper, and sometimes even a bit of an ego. Routh was clearly overburdened with meeting a gazillion different expectations, and it wound up making both Superman and Clark Kent seem like a cardboard cutout that the rest of the characters interacted with.
Meanwhile, this broad who played Lois Lane - whatzername - was basically irrelevant. I can say with all honesty that I have NEVER approved of her being cast as Lois, and I was 100% right. She's too damned young for one thing, and she's FAR too 'cutesy' to play a tuff dame like Lois. This actress, whom I'm sure might be good in other rolls but I'm too peeved with right now to even bother looking up her name, was far too 'Prime-Time WB sweeps-week eye-candy'.
Parkey Posey plays Lex Luthor's girlfriend in the film, and frankly I think she would have made a MUCH better Lois. I would actually be willing to bet the farm that Posey was Bryan Singer's first choice, but the studio suits probably pulled rank and said "NAH, YA GOTTA GET SOME HOT YOUNG LITTLE CHIPPY IN THERE!"
My other major problem with the movie is - as with many movies - the presence of a moppety-haired little kid. Lois' son Jason (I think every kid in every movie is named 'Jason') acts as a major plotpoint - I won't give away how, but suffice it to say: I hated it.
Having said all of that, the special effects were great - it was nice to see Superman fly and actually have it LOOK REAL. Its connections to the first two 'Superman' movies was enjoyable ('Returns' is considered a "loose sequel" to 'Superman II' taking place five years later).
Anyway, all in all I'd be lying if I said I wasn't kinda disappointed. I made the mistake of letting my hopes get too high.
As a workhorse to re-start the franchise, I'm sure it'll do fine... maybe if they make another one, I'll like it more. After all, I was equally disappointed by the first 'X-Men' film, but loved the second one. Maybe now that this one is out of the way, Singer, Routh and Warner Brothers in general can loosen their belts a little and let the characters breathe a little more in the next film.
Of course, they'd have to kill off that little kid's character - my... wouldn't THAT be interesting?
I'm anxious to hear YOUR thoughts... so... let the discussion begin!
