Review 378: Superman Returns
Superman Returns is, in the
words of Roger Ebert, “a glum, lackluster”, joyless Superhero movie that fails miserably to update Superman for the 21st century and brings nothing
new to the table.
After returning to Earth
after a five-year absence, Superman (Brandon Routh) finds his word has changed
drastically. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on with her life and society
has learned how to survive without him. Superman must find a way to reconnect
with the world the people he loves while at the same time prevent his
arch-nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) from carrying out a plan to destroy the
world.
Firstly, the problem with the
film is that it’s not compelling in any way. In terms of plotting, it tries to update
Superman for a new audience and at the same time try to loosely connect to
Superman and Superman II and pay homage to them whilst also pretending that
Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace never took place and the end
result is that the film falls flat on its face under all the homage. I guess the only reason it takes place in modern times is because director Bryan Singer didn't want to make this film a period piece.
It focuses so much on
the homage part that it forgets to do the important job and update Superman for
a new generation. Almost every single scene is laced with Bryan
Singer’s love and affection for Superman and Superman II (he even dropped out
of directing X-Men: The Last Stand to direct this mess). It’s almost as if he
say, “Hey guys, remember the good old days when these the original Superman
movies were popular?” And there are numerous references to those films sprinkled throughout. He wants this film to be just like Superman (1978) but he doesn’t seem to grasp what made it a great film in the first place.
I’m sorry to say but a homage to Superman and Superman II was not what we wanted or needed in this day and age. We had out fun with Reeve and co in the past, now it's time to try something new. So as a result it feels unbilevably weighed down and really downbeat and lacking in energy.
This bizarre combo of sequel and homage makes the film hard to tell what its target audience is supposed to be and what it trying to be. I suppose it could appeal to modern audiences... maybe.
But as previously mentioned this film is incredibly reliant on nostalgia for Superman and Superman II but is set in modern times (even though the film clearly states it's set five years after Superman II). So really the only people who can enjoy this film are those who are too old to enjoy it - failure was the only outcome for this film!
When it's not focussing on the homage, it focuses it's mind on showing us how much the world has changed since Sups left and how Lois Lane has moved on with her life (presumably to update the film for a modern audience) but none of it is interesting and none of it is told with any passion, flair, energy or emotion and at no point is it executed well, as it's secondary to dully crafted scenes that serve little purpose other than to remind us of the first two films and are punctured by stilted, listless dialogue.
Lois' article, dantly titled Why the World Doesn't Need Superman calls back to themes of the first two films; Who is Superman and where it is he belongs? He protects humanity but is he human or are his father's words true? Much like Superman II he struggles with seeking what he wants vs his duty and obligation to protect the world. He turns his back on his true home, Earth, on the off chance that somone from Krypton is still alive and he ultimatly has to learn that the world needs him and that he can't live in the past.
Superman leaving Earth presents a great opportunity to ask questions about his relevance such as Can we live without Superman? Can we really trust someone with that much power especially if he just leaves us defenceless one day? Does Superman as a symbol still resonate with people or is his mortality an outdated one that the world no longer values? Unfortunatly these questions aren't given the food for thought that they need to be properly explored in any depth and is instead relegated to a vauge substitute for a complex lesson that these character could have learned.
When Superman "Returns" everyone just accepts him and no one besides Lois seems to resent him.
Honestly I would rather watch puddles dry, while keeping an eye on sand for two months while watching a TV show with Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot filling their taxes. It's that boring!
In fact this whole film just serves as a 2 1/2 hour excuse to take a bathroom break.
You could honestly leave for the toilet when the film starts and stayed there for the entire 2 1/2 hours of the running time and you would have missed Nothing.
And the story is so clumsily structured, it has no particular beginning and no end and the characters, especially Lois and Superman who have no arcs. They don’t have that king of connection they should have, we don't get a sense of growth in their characters, we don't believe their relationship.
Possibly the worst thing about Superman Returns is that it's a film where absolutely nothing of interest happens, it's just this string of... well nothing that doesn't amount to anything.
At the end of the day, nothing stays with you once you've left the cinema.
I’m sorry to say but a homage to Superman and Superman II was not what we wanted or needed in this day and age. We had out fun with Reeve and co in the past, now it's time to try something new. So as a result it feels unbilevably weighed down and really downbeat and lacking in energy.
This bizarre combo of sequel and homage makes the film hard to tell what its target audience is supposed to be and what it trying to be. I suppose it could appeal to modern audiences... maybe.
But as previously mentioned this film is incredibly reliant on nostalgia for Superman and Superman II but is set in modern times (even though the film clearly states it's set five years after Superman II). So really the only people who can enjoy this film are those who are too old to enjoy it - failure was the only outcome for this film!
When it's not focussing on the homage, it focuses it's mind on showing us how much the world has changed since Sups left and how Lois Lane has moved on with her life (presumably to update the film for a modern audience) but none of it is interesting and none of it is told with any passion, flair, energy or emotion and at no point is it executed well, as it's secondary to dully crafted scenes that serve little purpose other than to remind us of the first two films and are punctured by stilted, listless dialogue.
Lois' article, dantly titled Why the World Doesn't Need Superman calls back to themes of the first two films; Who is Superman and where it is he belongs? He protects humanity but is he human or are his father's words true? Much like Superman II he struggles with seeking what he wants vs his duty and obligation to protect the world. He turns his back on his true home, Earth, on the off chance that somone from Krypton is still alive and he ultimatly has to learn that the world needs him and that he can't live in the past.
Superman leaving Earth presents a great opportunity to ask questions about his relevance such as Can we live without Superman? Can we really trust someone with that much power especially if he just leaves us defenceless one day? Does Superman as a symbol still resonate with people or is his mortality an outdated one that the world no longer values? Unfortunatly these questions aren't given the food for thought that they need to be properly explored in any depth and is instead relegated to a vauge substitute for a complex lesson that these character could have learned.
When Superman "Returns" everyone just accepts him and no one besides Lois seems to resent him.
Honestly I would rather watch puddles dry, while keeping an eye on sand for two months while watching a TV show with Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot filling their taxes. It's that boring!
In fact this whole film just serves as a 2 1/2 hour excuse to take a bathroom break.
You could honestly leave for the toilet when the film starts and stayed there for the entire 2 1/2 hours of the running time and you would have missed Nothing.
And the story is so clumsily structured, it has no particular beginning and no end and the characters, especially Lois and Superman who have no arcs. They don’t have that king of connection they should have, we don't get a sense of growth in their characters, we don't believe their relationship.
Possibly the worst thing about Superman Returns is that it's a film where absolutely nothing of interest happens, it's just this string of... well nothing that doesn't amount to anything.
At the end of the day, nothing stays with you once you've left the cinema.
Director Bryan Singer’s
direction is uninspired and lacking in any flare, soul or passion. He seems to be so excitied to be making a Superman film that he forgot to make something that stands on its own.
The cinematography is bland (because Singer and his DP Newton Thomas Sigel are trying emulate the look of the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films, the colours look very murky and flat).
The cinematography is bland (because Singer and his DP Newton Thomas Sigel are trying emulate the look of the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films, the colours look very murky and flat).
The production design looks nice but lacks flare, the costume design looks like something that was
designed in the late 1970’s and just came back from a weaver who had spent a
modest amount of money restoring it, the score by John Ottman is lackluster, the scenery is bland,
The special
effects are NOT special, there's bearly any action and when there is it's not remotely exciting and just dull (save for the Plane scene, which is mildly entertaining, but for the most part is more reliant on chaos than thrills and completely lacks any tension or excitment because of the over reliance on unconvincing CGI) and instantly forgettable and overall just feels weightless and soulless.
The climax at Luthor’s New Krypton landmass is sleep inducingly dull. The whole sequence comes across as protracted, ponderous and lacking in scope and scale despite threatning a good chunk of the U.S.
Superman Returns is also heavily reliant on the Christopher Reeve era Superman movies in terms of production values and as a result lacks any kind of visual, musical or artistic identity of its own.
There’s never the sense that theres any tension or peril and it takes way too long for anything to happen i.e. sluggish pacing and it feels painfully overlong.
In Superman (1978) the deliberate pacing worked because that film was an epic, it didn’t just take its time, there was stuff that was actually happening in each of its three acts and Richard Donner was working with a lot denser material. It spaned birth to his first adventure in Metropolis whereas this film spans, at most, a few weeks.
The climax at Luthor’s New Krypton landmass is sleep inducingly dull. The whole sequence comes across as protracted, ponderous and lacking in scope and scale despite threatning a good chunk of the U.S.
Superman Returns is also heavily reliant on the Christopher Reeve era Superman movies in terms of production values and as a result lacks any kind of visual, musical or artistic identity of its own.
There’s never the sense that theres any tension or peril and it takes way too long for anything to happen i.e. sluggish pacing and it feels painfully overlong.
In Superman (1978) the deliberate pacing worked because that film was an epic, it didn’t just take its time, there was stuff that was actually happening in each of its three acts and Richard Donner was working with a lot denser material. It spaned birth to his first adventure in Metropolis whereas this film spans, at most, a few weeks.
The acting (particularly from Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth) is amazingly stolid.
What is so bizarre about the cast and characterisation is that Singer didn’t appear to recast all these characters to fit the original Reeve/Donner counterparts. They seem to think they’re the same people we’ve seen before (which in a way, they are). But the main characters are radically different.
Kevin Spacey can usually be a masterful actor but in the role of Lex Luthor, he gives a joyless, one dimentional performance.
What made Gene Hackman so great a Lex Luthor in Superman and Superman II was that he had a sense of humour, he almost had respect for Superman and here, he’s been reduced to stereotypical, humorless, bald villain.
What is so bizarre about the cast and characterisation is that Singer didn’t appear to recast all these characters to fit the original Reeve/Donner counterparts. They seem to think they’re the same people we’ve seen before (which in a way, they are). But the main characters are radically different.
Kevin Spacey can usually be a masterful actor but in the role of Lex Luthor, he gives a joyless, one dimentional performance.
What made Gene Hackman so great a Lex Luthor in Superman and Superman II was that he had a sense of humour, he almost had respect for Superman and here, he’s been reduced to stereotypical, humorless, bald villain.
There is nothing interesting about him and there is nothing threatening about him.
He's just a guy who hates Superman for what he did to in Superman and Superman II. His big scheme of making a new continent out of Kryptonite is convoluted, boring and nonsensical.
He's just a guy who hates Superman for what he did to in Superman and Superman II. His big scheme of making a new continent out of Kryptonite is convoluted, boring and nonsensical.
Kate Bosworth is just hopelessly miscast as Lois Lane, she plays her as an uptight, shrill, no nonsence career woman who comes across as needlessly cold and unimpassioned and none of the spunk, pluck, sass and feistiness that Margot Kidder bought to the role is present her. Bosworth just doesn't convey any of those characteristics in a convincing way.
Additionally, She and Brandon Routh share no chemistry whatsoever. The two couldn’t be duller. They just aren’t that fun to watch.
Additionally, She and Brandon Routh share no chemistry whatsoever. The two couldn’t be duller. They just aren’t that fun to watch.
Frank Langella is sadly wasted as Perry White and does nothing of value to the plot except bark at his employees in a gruff manner. Which Langella does very well but he hardly stands out.
Sam Huntington isn't as likeable as I think he was supposed to be, he just the cute interchangeable guy who hangs about the office, theres not much dimension to his character other than that.
James Marsden has nothing to do in this movie except play the stereotypical, bland, handsome, interchangeable boyfriend character for Lois Lane and an obstacle for Superman-which would be fine except he was such an uninteresting character. He's just Mr. Nice Nice and that's the beginning and end of his character.
The same can be said about Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski, Lex Luthor's henchman, her character is completely superfluous to everything else in the movie. She was such a flighty girl and all she really does is float around and state the painfully obvious and dare I say she's annoying.
Sam Huntington isn't as likeable as I think he was supposed to be, he just the cute interchangeable guy who hangs about the office, theres not much dimension to his character other than that.
James Marsden has nothing to do in this movie except play the stereotypical, bland, handsome, interchangeable boyfriend character for Lois Lane and an obstacle for Superman-which would be fine except he was such an uninteresting character. He's just Mr. Nice Nice and that's the beginning and end of his character.
The same can be said about Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski, Lex Luthor's henchman, her character is completely superfluous to everything else in the movie. She was such a flighty girl and all she really does is float around and state the painfully obvious and dare I say she's annoying.
I've saved the main lead till last; Brandon Routh is a BIG ZERO in this movie and will probably go down in Superman Movie history as the George Lazenby of the series. He exudes no charisma whatsoever and overall gives, glum, wooden and lacklustre performance which mostly consists of him flying around Metropolis or pose in front of camera like a model. He’s timid and brooding when he’s Superman except in the very rare scene where spouts some dialogue and then it just feels like he’s forcing false confidence. He also plays Clark as bumbling but it isn’t charming it’s just awkward and bizarre. Come to think of it, I don't think Routh has that many lines of dialogue.
When Christopher Reeve did it, it felt improvisatory and intentional so no one would tell he was Superman: Clark Kent was the disguise. Hence both personas felt distinct and he liked being Clark because it made him feel closer to people. But the timid uncertain, man wasn’t who Superman was. In this film, he feels that way when he’s playing both roles with nothing really there to distinguish or contrast the personas.
Whenever he's rescuing people, it's not out of a moral obligation, but because he feels guilty for leaving. He comes acorss as an unbelievably passive character which is such a drastic departure from what we've seen before. Because of that passivity, he became even less interesting to watch due to letting things just happen to him.
Not helping matters is the fact that he's supposed to be playing a Superman whose already an established and experienced hero, a legend in his own time, if you will. The problem is that Routh (25 at the time) looks, at best, like a recent college graduate.
Say what you will Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. I've heard plenty of harsh things about those two films but Superman Returns... It's utterly, utterly, utterly useless, 0.5/5.
The Anonymous Critic.
When Christopher Reeve did it, it felt improvisatory and intentional so no one would tell he was Superman: Clark Kent was the disguise. Hence both personas felt distinct and he liked being Clark because it made him feel closer to people. But the timid uncertain, man wasn’t who Superman was. In this film, he feels that way when he’s playing both roles with nothing really there to distinguish or contrast the personas.
Whenever he's rescuing people, it's not out of a moral obligation, but because he feels guilty for leaving. He comes acorss as an unbelievably passive character which is such a drastic departure from what we've seen before. Because of that passivity, he became even less interesting to watch due to letting things just happen to him.
Not helping matters is the fact that he's supposed to be playing a Superman whose already an established and experienced hero, a legend in his own time, if you will. The problem is that Routh (25 at the time) looks, at best, like a recent college graduate.
Say what you will Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. I've heard plenty of harsh things about those two films but Superman Returns... It's utterly, utterly, utterly useless, 0.5/5.
The Anonymous Critic.
Comments
Post a Comment