Superman Returns Review
by [email protected] (steveqdr AT yahoo DOT com)July 10th, 2006
Review / Commentary on Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" and The Reeve Superman Series (Spoilers)
by Steven C. Oppenheimer July 9, 2006
I wish I could give this movie 3 stars out of 4. I think it deserves 4 stars for trying so very hard to be grand and epic and heroic. But in fairness, for the film as it actually came out, the best I can summon is **, maybe ** 1/2, in spite of some great special effects, and some very tender scenes between Superman and various characters (his Mom, Lois Lane, and others). Still, I think there is a great deal of potential for the future of the series, as I elaborate on below.
================================================
What follows here is only in part a review of the movie "Superman Returns", and really, rather more of a commentary both on the movie, and on the entire series of Superman movies that it draws from (namely, the Christopher Reeve films of the late 1970's and early 1980's). The reader should be forewarned, I will not be at all shy about including spoilers, so you can expect numerous spoilers without further notice.
First of all, let me say that I generally did like the film "Superman Returns", though partly it was just a sense of nostalgia. I mean, I loved hearing the John Williams music from the original films, and seeing the beautiful opening credit sequence. Yes, the film is a little long, and it certainly has some flaws. But let me start by saying what I thought was positive about the film.
I generally like Brandon Routh in the lead. Christopher Reeve managed to put a little more macho, a little bit more masculinity into the part, and Reeve also managed to put a little bit more humor into the part as well. However, some of the credit for the humor in the Reeve films -- and the lesser humor in this current offering -- is related more to the writing than the acting. Routh has a charm and sensitivity of his own, and with a better script I think we could get more out of him.
Kate Bosworth has been strongly criticized as Lois Lane, and my initial reaction was to agree with that. She just didn't seem to have the sparkle that Margot Kidder had. However, by the end of the movie Bosworth had grown on me to some extent for her spunk and determination. I also think, here again, that there was a problem in terms of the writing. At one point, Clark Kent in the newsroom says something to Lois Lane/Kate Bosworth about their relationship, and Lois Lane curtly replies, "Relationship?", as in, "What the hell are you talking about?"
Throughout the film the director, Bryan Singer, was clearly making an effort to pick up on the story someplace after the Christopher Reeve film Superman II, and to establish the relationships within that framework. However, Singer really missed out here, because in Superman I and Superman II, Lois Lane and Clark Kent *did* have a relationship, and a strong one.
It was kind of a "buddy", relationship, at least from Lois Lane's perspective. Clark Kent was the guy that Lois Lane sympathized with, she kind of teased him about his geekiness, but also tried to coax him, to suggest to him that he should be a little stronger. In Superman I and II she clearly had some affection for Clark Kent, albeit a rather amused affection, and even though she only pined for Superman.
That affection should have been written in the script of Superman Returns. The film would have been much stronger, dramatically, precisely if Lois Lane had actually been pleased to see Kent back -- "Hey, Clark, really missed you, seems like old times now that you are back -- hey, Clark, meet my new boyfriend! You'll really like him, and see, if *I* can finally find someone special, *you'll* find someone special too someday, not someone as spunky as me of course, but someone nice, even if you are geek, you're a nice geek, maybe you should try those SpeedDating events, maybe a SpeedDating for Geeks event, etc." (Not that Lois should literally have to give that speech, of course, but that should have been the general spirit of her response to Clark's return.)
This sort of interaction would have added spark and energy and wit to the scenes with Superman and Lois, and we could have seen how well Kate Bosworth could have handled it. Also, and possibly more important, it would have really heightened the dramatic tension in relation to the fact that she is actually resentful towards Superman for returning. (Well, really, she's resentful towards Superman because he left without first saying "goodbye", but this manifests itself in her ambivalence at his return.)
This approach would have given Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh much, much more to work with. For example, the scene in Superman Returns where Lois Lane poignantly asks of Clark, "Why would Superman leave without saying goodbye?" would have been infinitely more compelling if we saw that Lois really did regard Clark as the old friend with whom she could always talk about the other guys in her life. As it was, in this film, the same question from Lois to Clark is just an off-hand lament to the nearest convenient listening post.
Also, if Clark Kent registered as an important person with Lois, they could have really played up -- much more strongly than they did -- the question, "Hey, why do Clark and Superman return at the same time?" Lois should have been strongly suspicious, and Clark could have really hammed up playing the nerd, to the point where Lois has to say, "Nah -- can't be. Just can't be!!" As it was, the film did play on this riff a little bit, but again, they could have done more it, provided Lois was really *aware* of Clark Kent and connected to him -- even as just a "buddy".
Before turning to the larger issues behind this, let me just comment briefly on the rest of the film. As for the rest of the cast, neither Jimmy Olsen nor Perry White really registered very much, and Lois Lane's boyfriend immediately registered -- and registered much too strongly -- as "the decent guy she settled for". That too would have worked much better if you could really believe that she had fallen for him at least somewhat, even though he was not Superman. Again, better writing was needed, but also I suspect, a different actor. (Yeah, he was good in X-Men, but it just didn't click here.)
Lex Luther, as played by Kevin Spacey, came across very strong; he's gotten very mixed reviews, some positive, some negative ones. I thought he came across fine. I also liked Lois Lane's kid, and I was perfectly fine with the kid being Superman's son.
However, this brings us to the crux of the matter, both in regards to this film and in regards to the fiascos of Superman III and Superman IV back in the eighties.
What happened way back in the eighties with Superman III and Superman IV reflected, at least in part, the fact that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with Superman II. For those who don't remember: In Superman II the story was that a rule was handed down (from ancient Krypton) that if Superman wants to sleep with a "mortal" like Lois, he has to give up his powers.
(Never really understood the basis for that rule, after all, Superman is only super because his alien physiology charges up on power from earth's sun; that hardly makes him "immortal" or God-like, though obviously the creative team back then decided to play it that way. But I think he's basically just a person with a super-charged physiology. Still, there it was, The Rule -- no sex with earth women. To which, if I was Kal El, I'd want to say, "Mom, Dad, you sent me to this planet *why* exactly!?" Anyway, moving on....)
So, in Superman II, Superman gives up his powers, gets a night in bed with Lois, and it turns out to be a disaster -- not the "sleeping with Lois Lane part", but the problems that ensue when evil Kryptonians show up and Superman can't fight them. In the end, Superman gets his powers back, but he also has to deal with the fact that he can't sleep with Lois Lane or any other humans.
So at the end of Superman II, Clark Kent/Superman gives Lois Lane a super-kiss, which makes her completely forget that she knows his real identity and that she slept with him, that they had this relationship, etc. Lois goes back to just being Clark Kent's buddy, teasing and all.
Now, what happened with Superman III is partly that there were some issues in dealing with Margot Kidder, who played Lois Lane. I don't know if the issues were contractual, or if they had to do with the fact that she was actually manic-depressive (I seem to recall that there were some problems on the set as a result of her illness). But, I suspect that in addition to that, the problem was also the real stumper question: What you do about Lois Lane, now that you've just written it so that Superman can't sleep with her?
Possibly, they should never have written Superman II the way it was written. On the one hand, it made for a great story -- Superman has to give up his powers to sleep with the woman he loves. But again, it really boxes the creative team into a corner in terms of how to develop that relationship further in later movies. So maybe they should not have done that storyline at all.
The fact is, however, they did that. So now, to continue the series -- whether back in the eighties with Superman III with Christopher Reeve, or today in the new century with Superman Returns -- the writers have to come up with a strong, plausible, compelling way to make it so that Superman *can* sleep with Lois Lane. (And let me emphasize, it's not just about the sex, but about the expression of love through sex.) Frankly that would be huge creative challenge, and I'm not sure how you go about that. But I also believe that that moves the story line and the characters forward. That's really what you have to do to make an interesting Superman III, or Superman Returns.
What actually happened in the 1980's, with Superman III, was that the creative team just dropped the ball. They came up with some other totally hokey story, where red kryptonite made Superman evil. I suppose a story along those lines could have worked, but as it was written, it didn't. Superman III had a really lousy story, Richard Pryor wasn't good as the villain, and plus the special effects were cheesy. (Of course, for really cheesy special effects, you had to go to Superman IV, which was done on a terribly low budget, and which was total junk.) Plus, Clark spends some time with another love interest, Lana Lang, but the whole question of where that can go was just totally ignored.
In fact, a really good "evil Superman" story might have been done -- but all the more reason you need Lois Lane in the picture, to somehow bring Superman back from evil to good. (Spiderman Spoiler: From the previews, it looks like the upcoming Spiderman III is pursuing a plot very much along those lines....)
As I say, they dropped the ball way back when with Superman III and Superman IV. But in a sense, today's Superman creative team still faces that issue here -- and by choice, since it was a deliberate decision on their part to pick up where Superman II left off. But, once again, the ball was dropped. They wanted to pick up on the tradition of Superman I and Superman II, but without really fully facing the issues head on.
So, Superman Returns: Superman comes back after five years, and he is still pining for Lois Lane. But wait, what about the history that he's not allowed to sleep with her anyway? Shouldn't that trouble him? And on the other hand, Lois Lane has this kid, which she realizes is Superman's kid -- she has to realize it in this film, because her five year old kid eventually beats up a bad guy by shoving a grand piano across the room at warp speed. So, if she didn't know before that he was Superman's kid, she knows it now.
But wait a second. Superman had erased her memory, so shouldn't she have some questions for him, like: "Hey, big guy in the blue suit and red cape, Mr. Everyone's Hero, did you slip me some date rape drug and sleep with me, so that I don't remember sleeping with you, but now I have your kid? Just what's going on here?" (I know, I know, that would be a pretty harsh accusation for anyone, especially Lois Lane, to make against the Big All American Boy Scout From Kansas/Krypton. But still, if you were in Lois Lane's shoes, you'd really have to be wondering....)
So the bottom line, this issue really needs to be resolved. How does Lois Lane explain the fact that she has a super-kid, and how do we change the rules so that Superman can finally sleep with Lois on a more permanent basis? I'm not sure how to resolve either of those issues at all, but I think evading them leaves a huge dramatic hole in the entire series, and needs to be addressed if the series is to continue effectively.
I think explaining to Lois what happened is actually the easier of the two issues. I mean, Superman can give Lois a straight explanation on this issue. He doesn't even have to tell her that he's really Clark Kent, he can give her the essential truth while holding back on that part. He just tells her, "Look, you wanted to be with me, I wanted to be with you, I had to give up my powers." Basically, he tells her the story of what happened, that giving up the powers didn't work out, that he got his powers back, but they couldn't sleep together, this was very painful for her, and he erased her memory as gesture of kindness. So he explains that issue to her.
The bigger question is, how do we get around this rule?
And again, I'm not entirely sure about that. But I do know where I think the Superman story is really meant to go. and I think it's something that's been missed out on throughout the entire life of the whole Superman series -- the movies, the TV shows, the films, the comics, etc. It is supposed to be about Lois Lane finally realizing that Clark as Clark is a good guy, a real man, and it's really supposed to be about her transformation in that sense. (Even the TV show "Lois & Clark" missed the point -- Lois only went for Clark after she finally realized he was Superman.)
And maybe it's supposed to be about Superman realizing that there is some way to reconcile the dual identities, if not to the whole world, then at least to Lois. Maybe there is a way he can make love to her *as Clark Kent* and not Superman, and still keep his Superman powers. How to really write that plausibly, how to keep the sense of mythological proportions, and not make the "change of rule" seem arbitrary, is a huge creative problem. (But that's why these guys are supposed to get paid big bucks, to solve creative problems creatively and believably -- well, as believably as you can get within the framework of a guy who flies.....)
Again, the writers of Superman II went for a story that worked at the time, but clearly did not look ahead to the problems it would cause for the franchise. Still, that history is out there, and if Bryan Singer really wants to maintain the continuity with the first two films -- which I think is a good idea, because they were wonderful movies -- he's got his work cut out for him. I think that in a sequel to this current film, Superman Returns, it's not too late to have Lois Lane/Bosworth re-establish her friendship with Clark -- and even admit that being aloof to him, it was an echo of her aloofness to Superman as well.
Lois Lane needs to realize that the Clark Kent's of the world are really the people to seek out. Superman is an accident of genetics and solar power, but Clark Kent is the decent boy from Kansas. And Superman needs to realize that even as just a man, as Clark Kent, sometimes he can still be a super-man as well. That too, needs to be dramatized somehow.
Early in the film Superman Returns, there is a scene with Clark Kent visiting the old Kansas farm. Standing outside in the morning, looking over the cornfields, he has a flashback to himself as a teenager, racing through the cornfields, leaping high and far through the air, and discovering for the first time that he can fly. The flashback is filled with joy and exuberance.
This film, Superman Returns, was much darker -- not as dark of the recent Batman Begins -- but dark enough. Okay, he's back. Now let's figure out how to get some joy and exuberance back into Clark Kent's life, Superman's life and Lois Lane's life. And mostly, let's figure out how these three can finally enjoy a good, wholesome, joyful threesome together. As for Lois's current boyfriend -- he's bland, but good looking. Maybe Lois has a sister?
One final comment on the Superman Returns itself. The special effects were mostly magnificent. The flying scenes were certainly the best I've seen in any movie, but the other stuff -- even the bullet stopping routine -- was brilliantly realized.
My only nitpick was the costume changes. Early in the film, when there is a crisis with an airplane and an updated space shuttle, Clark Kent goes racing down the street, tearing open his shirt, revealing the famous "S" insignia -- and the next thing, we see him in the sky. No costume change! One of the very best special effects in Superman II was early in the film, when Clark sneaks down an alley, pulls open his shirt, and then in a blur of superfast motion transforms into Superman. I was expecting to see an updated, improved version of that. No such luck.
The second costume change in Superman Returns -- Clark steps into an elevator, then we see him soaring up the elevator shaft -- did he bust through the elevator roof, or what? -- and then his Clark Kent clothes *drop off of him*, and fall down the elevator shaft! What is this, like the old Batman TV show, where some service came by to pick up the abandoned Batmobile parachutes, Clark/Superman now has a laundry service come by to pick up his clothes!? Next Superman movie, I want to see some cool costume changes. It's supposed to be Superman!!
In the end, the next movie needs to be a little more playful, giving both Routh and Bosworth a chance to show some humor, as well as to rediscover their love -- and put it on a firm, lasting foundation. And I do hope there is another movie, because for all its flaws, this one still managed to leave me with affection for both Superman and Lois -- even though, deep down, my heart ached over the tragedy of Christopher and Dana Reeve, who both should have been with us a lot longer.
Comments can be sent to
steveqdr aatt yyaaaahhoo ddoott ccoommxx
(spell "steveqdr" just as written, and you can figure out the rest)
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
