MOVIE REVIEW - "Superman Returns"

* As usual, I begin by stating that my only qualifications as a reviewer extend no further than my love of comics, television and film. I'm not an academic, when it comes to this particular topic. I just talk about what I like and what I don't like. *



So, we saw SUPERMAN RETURNS, last night. Before I get into the meat of the review, here's a sampling:

The Good -
* Routh as Clark
* The threat
* Most special effects
* Nods to the past

The Bad (or just not so good) -
* Routh as Superman
* The plot holes/unanswered questions
* The not-so-subtle symbolism
* Resurrection of the dead, but no dedications (EDIT: According to zpower, from the McDuffie forum, I missed the dedication to Chris Reeve... and maybe his wife, in the credits.)

The Story
This was a well-conceived story, overall.
The idea of Superman abandoning the Earth seems to contradict the lessons learned in Superman II, but I'm trying to overlook that. Once you accept that he left, though, it says a lot about the character.

The threat was also well-conceived.
Unlike Batman Begins, this threat didn't seem like something a movie executive (or old-school comic book writer) pulled out of his or her arse. It was a great nod to the past while moving us beyond it.

There were some apparent holes in the story, though.
I wonder if this was deliberate, as there were elements of the first movie that were only introduced, but were later fleshed-out in the second one. However, all the necessary information was supplied in the first flick. Not so, this time (unless I missed something amidst the annoying giggling of the nearby, young, female movie-goers).

The Acting
Routh's acting, as Clark, was right on-the-money. It was barely there, but it was on-point.
Routh's acting as Superman was a bit understated, but I have the strong impression that this was due, in large part, a creative decision on the part of the director or movie executives (i.e. resurrecting Christopher Reeve). There were times, though, when Routh's Superman seemed to lack heart. For most, though, this was probably drowned-out by the times when he wore his heart on his poorly-stitched sleeve.

*Quick nit-pick: One of the reasons I had a hard time with Routh as Superman was, both, his look and the look they chose for him.
His proportions aside, which changed throughout the film, his nose was prominent. His hair was all wrong for his face. His Super-suit was poorly-crafted and his contact lenses were clearly... contact lenses.

Before you start looking at me like I'm one of those guys complaining because Clark's hair is parted on the "wrong" side of his head, pull up. Here's a picture of Routh, at the movie opening, with his hair looking MUCH better than it did in the film or at press conferences and whatnot. Dean Cain demonstrated that a different Superman look (even with regards to hair) could work and they should've made Superman's hair look more like Routh's did at the premiere (shown above). That, plus an "S" spit-curl would've kept him from looking like he stepped straight out of the late-70's and put on an updated outfit.*

Bosworth as Lois Lane concerned me almost as much as Routh as Superman. When you really get down to it, though, she pulled it off. Her acting was always clean and, if you took away the super-element, it remains so. I'm proud to say that I was wrong about this casting choice.

Spacey, as Lex Luthor, was... well, he was kinda old. BUT, in some ways, that worked in his favor. He, again, seemed to mold his performance around that of his predecessor - in this case, Gene Hackman.
The arrogance was there. Some of the spark and flair was missing, though. I will say, that his ruthlessness was always present and he seemed more deadly than Hackman ever did. Kinda surprising since Spacey's voice is so much less threatening.

Overall, I have few problems with the acting. I guess I can say it was well done.

The Storytelling
I've got issues with the storytelling.
Perry White, as a character, was poorly handled. The acting was fine, but what they had the guy do and say only recognized the bullheadedness of the character, not his experience as a journalist.

The reason for Superman's departure should've been fleshed-out more. Even if they wanted to lay the tracks for sequels (which seemed incredibly likely) they could've and should've told the doggone story. We were introduced to so many layers, at the beginning, then they only focused on the most superficial of them all.

There were times when the only reason there was a threat was because someone did something incredibly stupid or out-of-character. While human-beings have flaws, I don't think we were given any real indication that these particular characters were just being careless or thoughtless, in those moments. No. It was all about the writing and/or directing.

Ultimately, I'm growing into the kind of movie-goer who can deal with unanswered questions in otherwise well-constructed movies. In this case, though, I don't think my objections speak to a lack of maturity, on my part, but a lack of forethought on the parts of the filmmakers.


Recommended?
Yes.
This wasn't a bad movie. It was a good movie that fell short in ways that mattered JUST enough to hurt it, but not enough to kill it.

But you know what? It was still better than Batman Begins.


(EDIT: 1) Some thought that, by the above, I was saying that Batman Begins was a bad movie. I wasn't.

I was saying that, like Superman Returns, Batman Begins was a good movie with a number of distractions or shortcomings.

2) Some also thought I was saying that I didn't care for the nostalgic tone of Superman Returns. Again, that wasn't my position, but I should've phrased it better.

I LOVED the fact that certain movie elements were reminiscent of the previous installments... but there's a limit. I mean, I found myself with a bit of a lump in my throat EARLY in the film because it reminded me of something I was quite fond of (more than even *I* had realized).

The fact that some of those elements appeared so many times throughout the film, though, became bothersome. The fact that Reeve wasn't around, anymore, made that knot in my throat grow even bigger.

Again, an homage can be great. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm just saying that this movie crossed the line by beating us to-death with it.)


Spoilers below: (Highlight to view)

The cosmic stuff they showed at the beginning was cool, until they got too close to some of those planets. As my girlfriend said, the beginning of the Star Trek tv shows looked better than THAT. That really says it all. While I wondered how Superman would or could fashion a spacecraft, I can live with that and it made for a cool effect. I just wonder what was up with the story that Krytpon was still there or something. Hell, I also wondered why he passed out when he got back to Earth. I also wondered why he didn't arrive thousands of years later, like when he FIRST took that trip. I like the kid being his son and I think it's a ballsy, BALLSY-ass move. I respect that they had the guts to go that way. In fact, it was one of those moments I love - the ones that make me think that ANYthing can happen. I wish there had been more of those kinds of moments. Why the hell wouldn't the kryptonite have been KILLING him, instead of just taking his powers away? How could Lex KNOW that this would happen AND believe that a little bit of water on Supes' temple was confirmation of this fact? Pft. That could've EASILY been from... the very large body of water beneath them! The loss of the crystals was kinda sad... and really unnecessary, now that I think about it. So much lost potential. In fact, I'd say that the filmmakers passed on an opportunity to highlight the loss that Superman should've felt, as a result. The heavy-handed symbolism and resurrection of the dead (Reeve and Brando) was bothersome. This will sound bad, but honestly, it felt like emotional manipulation. Maybe that's fair play, but the fact that they didn't even dedicate the film to Reeve, Brando, or any of the other people who made the original movies so damned good kinda smacks of cold-hearted commercialism and... and leeching or something. C'mon. NO cameos besides the sweet Noel Niel? Shame on'em. SHAME! All of those quotes from Brando served little purpose, so it made them that much more shameful. All they did was give Supes something to say to his son, at the end. That's it. He didn't inspire the poor mortals to be greater than they were... and really, after we listened to that speech so often, he SHOULD'VE. (Which is, of course, on the filmmakers and not on the character of Superman or the actors.) So yeah, I enjoyed it, but it fell short in some surprising ways.

EDIT: "zpower" from the McDuffie board corrected me on some stuff...

"West,

I read your blog & pretty much agreed with everything you said. Just a couple of things though (really minor). They did dedicate the movie to Christopher Reeve & his wife; it was in the credits. Also there was more than one cameo. The widow was the Lois Lane from the George Reeves itiration of Supes & the Bartender was the Jimmy from that era."

Thanks, z.

Your thoughts?

** Warning: Comments section is likely to be spoilerific. Proceed at your own risk. **