I saw Superman Returns opening weekend and, overall, I enjoyed it. One thing I've got to say is that Brian Singer really "gets" the whole superhero genre. He showed it with the first two X-Men movies and he continues the trend here. (I can't help but wonder what X3 would have been like with Singer directing instead of Brett "things blow up good" Ratner running the show. Oh well.) But enjoying it doesn't necessarily translate into loving it.
Singer understands that it's going to take more than lots of pyrotechnics and fancy flying stunts to carry the movie and that there needs to be an emotional core to these films to really sell the story. And boy, is there an emotional core to this one. So much so that the action almost takes a back seat to Superman's loves and losses, as Lex Luthor gets relegated to "b story" and near-comic relief status. Which is kind of unfortunate, since Spacey is obviously having such a great time playing Lex.
I'd heard early on that, rather than trying to reinvent the franchise, as they did with Batman Begins, Singer was treating this as a continuation of the Christopher Reeve Superman universe, picking up sometime after Superman 2 (and conveniently ignoring the existence of 3 & 4).*
He's done a fine job of that here… so much so that it almost feels like a remake of Superman, rather than a sequel, especially where Lex is concerned. He's trying, once again, to corner the market on new real estate (is that a key part of Luthor's character?), Superman gets dosed with kryptonite and nearly drowned, Luthor's girlfriend is quirky, somewhat annoying and sympathetic to Superman when she realizes what Lex is up to… the beats are all there, it's just the details that are different. Maybe it's meant as an homage.
One of the things I found problematic before heading to the movie was that Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth just seemed so damn young for these roles. (Not to mention almost unnaturally pretty. It's like they're casting from the WB!) She's a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, he's freaking Superman, and they look like they're just out of high school. God, I hope that doesn't come across like some old fart bitching about how young kids are getting… I'm just thinking that you need a little experience behind these characters, and these two just seem too young and pretty. Especially if they're supposed to be the continuation of the characters from S2! Interestingly, I found that once I got into the movie, I stopped noticing it fairly early on, so it turned out to be a non-issue. They're both fine actors and they do a good job of carrying these iconic characters.
However, I do tend to agree with the Entertainment Weekly review when it knocks the actors for a lack of personality. Routh does a great job of capturing the feel of Christopher Reeve's Superman/Clark Kent. Noble and heroic Superman (not that a character choice like that is much of a stretch) and the self-effacing, shy and somewhat clumsy Clark Kent. The problem with that is it felt like I was watching Brandon Routh as Christopher Reeve playing Superman. I never felt like he brought anything to the role. Maybe that's not a big deal for the superhero-blockbuster type movie… after all, no one's coming to see Academy Award caliber performances, are they?
Another thing, which really has nothing to do with the movie, but with the Superman mythos, is the whole flying thing. In the original comics, Superman could "leap tall buildings in a single bound" but he couldn't fly. I'm cool with that. He's got super-strength and abilities, he should be able to leap-frog over the Metropolis skyline. But once you throw in the flying, I get hung up on the physics. Not that I expect good science from my superhero stories. But this one's always nagged me, and I really realized it watching this movie. When Superman is lifting/carrying/pulling huge items (jets, ocean liners, the Daily Planet globe), I can't help but wondering what he's pushing against. I mean, if for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, then he's got to be pushing against something in order to lift these things. But if he's flying, and lifting half a cruise ship… what's he pushing against? And, maybe more importantly, what's he pushing with? Like I said, I'm not looking for good science. But I think we've got magic working here.
Ultimately, while I enjoyed the movie, it's not one I'm terribly excited about. My comments above are part of that. Part of it is simply that Superman's never been one of my comic book faves. Those have always been Batman and Spiderman, so I guess I prefer my superheroes human & flawed (either deeply troubled, as Batman's been shown in recent years, or smart-ass semi-cynical, as I remember Spiderman from the comics.) Superman is just too squeaky clean—too alien. And he's got that whole magic flying thing going on.
*(It's funny… looking at the synopses of these two movies, I realize that I've never actually seen either Superman 3 or 4. How lucky am I?)
Singer understands that it's going to take more than lots of pyrotechnics and fancy flying stunts to carry the movie and that there needs to be an emotional core to these films to really sell the story. And boy, is there an emotional core to this one. So much so that the action almost takes a back seat to Superman's loves and losses, as Lex Luthor gets relegated to "b story" and near-comic relief status. Which is kind of unfortunate, since Spacey is obviously having such a great time playing Lex.
I'd heard early on that, rather than trying to reinvent the franchise, as they did with Batman Begins, Singer was treating this as a continuation of the Christopher Reeve Superman universe, picking up sometime after Superman 2 (and conveniently ignoring the existence of 3 & 4).*
He's done a fine job of that here… so much so that it almost feels like a remake of Superman, rather than a sequel, especially where Lex is concerned. He's trying, once again, to corner the market on new real estate (is that a key part of Luthor's character?), Superman gets dosed with kryptonite and nearly drowned, Luthor's girlfriend is quirky, somewhat annoying and sympathetic to Superman when she realizes what Lex is up to… the beats are all there, it's just the details that are different. Maybe it's meant as an homage.
One of the things I found problematic before heading to the movie was that Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth just seemed so damn young for these roles. (Not to mention almost unnaturally pretty. It's like they're casting from the WB!) She's a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, he's freaking Superman, and they look like they're just out of high school. God, I hope that doesn't come across like some old fart bitching about how young kids are getting… I'm just thinking that you need a little experience behind these characters, and these two just seem too young and pretty. Especially if they're supposed to be the continuation of the characters from S2! Interestingly, I found that once I got into the movie, I stopped noticing it fairly early on, so it turned out to be a non-issue. They're both fine actors and they do a good job of carrying these iconic characters.
However, I do tend to agree with the Entertainment Weekly review when it knocks the actors for a lack of personality. Routh does a great job of capturing the feel of Christopher Reeve's Superman/Clark Kent. Noble and heroic Superman (not that a character choice like that is much of a stretch) and the self-effacing, shy and somewhat clumsy Clark Kent. The problem with that is it felt like I was watching Brandon Routh as Christopher Reeve playing Superman. I never felt like he brought anything to the role. Maybe that's not a big deal for the superhero-blockbuster type movie… after all, no one's coming to see Academy Award caliber performances, are they?
Another thing, which really has nothing to do with the movie, but with the Superman mythos, is the whole flying thing. In the original comics, Superman could "leap tall buildings in a single bound" but he couldn't fly. I'm cool with that. He's got super-strength and abilities, he should be able to leap-frog over the Metropolis skyline. But once you throw in the flying, I get hung up on the physics. Not that I expect good science from my superhero stories. But this one's always nagged me, and I really realized it watching this movie. When Superman is lifting/carrying/pulling huge items (jets, ocean liners, the Daily Planet globe), I can't help but wondering what he's pushing against. I mean, if for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, then he's got to be pushing against something in order to lift these things. But if he's flying, and lifting half a cruise ship… what's he pushing against? And, maybe more importantly, what's he pushing with? Like I said, I'm not looking for good science. But I think we've got magic working here.
Ultimately, while I enjoyed the movie, it's not one I'm terribly excited about. My comments above are part of that. Part of it is simply that Superman's never been one of my comic book faves. Those have always been Batman and Spiderman, so I guess I prefer my superheroes human & flawed (either deeply troubled, as Batman's been shown in recent years, or smart-ass semi-cynical, as I remember Spiderman from the comics.) Superman is just too squeaky clean—too alien. And he's got that whole magic flying thing going on.
*(It's funny… looking at the synopses of these two movies, I realize that I've never actually seen either Superman 3 or 4. How lucky am I?)
Comments