
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!

7 comments:
Hmm. While I agree with most of my brilliant fiance's assessment of the film, I am going to have to disagree with his assessment of the role of Lois' son. I liked it. I won't say more, but I liked it. I'm also going to have to disagree with his assessment of Brandon Routh's performance. He tried WAY too hard to literally emulate Christopher Reeve's Superman and in doing so came off as totally artificial and almost asexual. It sounded as if he went though extensive voice coaching to get down to the low octaves that Reeve hit so naturally. It sounded forced and it was distracting and annoying. Somehow, he was not sexy - and the curled snippet of hair that hung dead-center on his forehead looked totally gay, whereas it looked hot on Christopher Reeve.
And yes, Lois sucked. Should've been Parker Posey or some other fiery, fast-talking, whip-smart brunette that even I'd want to make out with.
Kevin Spacey was great?! Boy do you have low expectations. Ha Ha!
Hey, guilty as charged...
My expectations from movies these days is DEPRESSINGLY low.
Apart from the occasional 'Lord of the Rings' or 'The Incredibles', movies these days just aint worth the trouble.
My local theater is always a zoo filled with idiotic mouth-breathers who jabber on-and-on during the movie while their cel-phones blare 'Stayin' Alive'. The prices are insane and then you sit for two hours and come out mildly entertained if you're lucky.
Hollywood execs have been speculating why box-office attendance is down... they pay other mid-level suits to run around and take polls and conduct surveys and run focus-groups all to see why no one likes going to the movies any more... meanwhile, I could have told them in one sentece: NO ONE MAKES GOOD MOVIES ANY MORE!
JF-
You make some good points. There are so many problems with this movie but none greater than the bad story. With that all the other issues with the film fail in comparison. I agree about the whole kid angle too. Singer should have just concentrated on another storyline and dropped the whole "homage" deal. That is the whole reason for his clouded judgement.
I probably hated the movie more than you did though... Just couldn't get past the horrible story and telling.
It's funny that they even felt the need to add the kid in the first place. I guess making a movie about an iconic alien with super powers who battles problems on a global level wasn't enough to fill 2 hours. Yeah, it's much too hard to come up with scenarios for a character like that! Let's crowbar a child into the story too! I wonder how the director of "Ulee's Gold", a movie about a bee keeper, liked the film?
P.S. I disagree with you Leigh. Brandon Routh WAS sexy.
-CG
CG-
ARGH! I KNOW! I FRIGGING CAN'T STAND THAT!
It's as though someone said "Hmmm... nope... this 'Superman' character isn't enough to appeal to audiences..."
I'm sorry, but if you've got a character like SUPERMAN - known the world over - as your startoff point and you STILL can't come up with a decent story, then there's something seriously wrong with you.
I remember a few years ago Wizard Magazine made a big deal about the fact that some new team who had taken over the 'Superman' comics had brought it back from sagging sales... again, if you can't make a buck off of 'Superman', then you're doing something SERIOUSLY bad.
It's the same way with the 'Looney Tunes' characters and those god-awful movies 'Space Jam' and 'Back in Action'. You mean to tell me NO ONE thought a movie with JUST the Looney Tunes characters could be appealing? You mean to tell me somebody thought that the only way to make a good movie with BUGS BUNNY - arguably the second most famous cartoon character EVER - was to jam him next to Michael Jordan and Brendan Fraser????
I hate Hollywood...
LOUIE -
Yeah, I don't disagree with you... there were honestly one or two things I did like about the movie (catching the plane at a baseball game was great). But, you're right... nothing can save it from a bad story.
By the way, for a MUCH better and more insightful review of 'Superman Returns' everyone should go to Louie's site.
Post a Comment