Superman Returns reviewed - by Evil Robbie

Dial B for Blog has a review of Superman Returns posted that tends to mirror a lot of my feelings about the film.

I do warn you, however, that there are nothing but spoilers throughout the review - and there are lots of uncomplimentary dirty words, too.

I've been trying to figure out how to review the movie since I saw it last week - opening day, 3D-Imax and all - but I'm having some trouble with just how to discuss my issues with the film without throwing down some serious spoilers. So, I'm going to throw down two reviews. The first (starting just below this) will be spoiler-free (and - as it turns out - way less detailed than Chris Ryall's spoiler-free review over at Comics101.com. The second, starting loads of lines lower, will be rife with spoilers.

Consider yoruself warned...

Spoiler-free review

In speaking to a number of folks who have seen the film Superman Returns, I have noticed a very distinct line drawn between those folks who enjoyed it and those who didn't. Non-comic book readers liked the movie. They enjoyed the dramatic additions to the Superman mythos, the connections between the newest film and the Richard Donner films that preceed this one in the storyline, and they liked the special effects. For these folks, the film is an enjoyable ride that begins with Superman returning from a five-year search of outerspace looking for his home planet. He returns to find Lois Lane engaged and moved on from her relationship with Superman in the earlier films, Lex Luthor released from prison and looking to again defeat Superman and rule the world, and the Daily Planet barely changed from his last bit of employement there. In the course of Superman's battle with Luthor, he finds out that much of the world has truly moved on and that Luthor's plot may just be more deadly than anything seen before.

The comic book readers, on the other hand, see a film that pays slavish devotion to the first two films while missing entirely the point of devotion to Superman's history. Brandon Routh's performance stinks of this slavish devotion, merely aping Christopher Reeve's acting job in the earlier films. He has few lines in total and those that he does have, he delivers woodenly. Kevin Spacey's performance as Luthor is likely the highlight of the film as he does exibit a fair amount of menace at most times but slips in the occasional disconcerting light-hearted, jokey throwback to Gene Hackman's performance.

Throughout the poorly-paced film, Superman appears repeatedly to be a Christ figure - willing to give his life to save the world, rising above the atmosphere in a crucifixion pose, being reborn from death (or at least disappearance).

Then there's the inconsistencies throughout the film dealing with Superman's exposure to kryptonite (it kills him in a few seconds, or it takes away his powers, or maybe he can just grit his teeth and get through it okay), his invulnerability (he's weakened and vulnerable while he goes through the atmosphere with no signs of burning up and then hits the ground nearly dead/unconscious but isn't hurt by the impact).

In short, I thought the movie was boring because I never really felt any threat to the leads, insulting to people who have been following Superman in the comics, and slavishly respectful to the Richard Donner films. The acting was barely acceptable, and the special effects made Routh look like a mannequin.

Overall, probably a star and a half out of four.

Warning: Loads of spoilers below



















Spoilers coming, seriously. You were warned.

The movie stunk.

Superman landed on a continent made out of kryptonite and lost his powers, letting Lex kick his backside. Not five minutes later, Supes is lifting that same continent - made entirely of kryptonite, mind you - out of our atmosphere and sending it into space. Apparently, if Superman grits his teeth, kryptonite doesn't kill him. Good to know.

Second problem - the crystals that built the kryptonite continent seem to react with water, right? But not if that water's frozen - like it was at the north pole in the fortress of solitude - or if it's in the air - as humidity or anything. Such crap.

I recognize that science doesn't really match movies, and I'm okay with that. What I do ask is that whatever rules the writers make up stay consistent within the movie. Don't tell me that A explodes with exposure to light in an early scene and then ignore it later in the movie.

Next, I like Parker Posey and that guy who played Kumar. Here, however, they were both wasted. Kumar didn't have a single line at all, and Posey just aped the performance of Ms. Tessmacher from the first two movies.

Superman's visit to the Kent farm was stupid and pretty pointless as far as the story went as was his self-imposed exile into space. Superman - as written in the comics - isn't selfish enough to take off from Earth just because of some quest that he's got that will benefit only him. I'll admit that he'd ditched Earth in the comics, but for reasons much different from the one here - which appears to just be a McGuffin to set the plot in motion.

And then there's the kid.

Holy crap was that annoying. The actor playing the kid couldn't really act - I have no clue how Luthor supposedly thought the boy way sick because he looked exactly as blank and dopey as he had throughout the rest of the film - but his woodenness actually made things better because it made him resemble the actor playing his supposed father.

But the fact that they gave Superman a kid via Lois is just a smack in the face to the comic book fans in the audience. It'd be like having Superman team up with Lex - it's just anethema to the mythos of what we've had for decades now.

And there's Superman's near death. He nearly kills himself by lifting the continent, falls through the atmosphere, hits the ground and is still invulnerable - he isn't injured by the crash landing, and a needle won't go thorugh his skin, right? - but we just saw Lex kick his butt around when Superman had only been exposed to the continent for like two minutes.

Superman is portrayed here as the loyal good guy that he is in the comics, but he's also a man who had a child out of wedlock; abandoned the mother; is now breaking up her steady, relationship with a good man; lies to his baby's momma; and is going to force his way back into the kid's life even though he's been totally absent for the kid's full life. Apparently, Singer - whose debut film might be the best made in the nineties - wanted to make sure that the religious right couldn't take Superman on as an icon for their campaigns again, and he's done that.

Have I mentioned that the movie stunk?