Short answer: It was a film that surpassed the quality of the script, making up with special effects and human drama what it lacked in coherent plot.
Longer answer below, with spoilers (sorry, couldn’t be helped.):
I’ve always been a firm believer in judging various creative works for themselves, rather than comparing them to previous works. The problem in this case is that Superman Returns screams for exactly that sort of comparison. Basically it’s a sequel to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and it places itself against its predecessors every chance it gets. From repeated music to repeated shots to repeated dialogue, it cries out to be held up next to what went before, unlike “Batman Begins” and that movie’s determination to create a film with a totally different atmosphere from the Burton or (God help us) Schumacher incarnations. The simple fact is that, without the first two Superman films, there is no “Superman Returns.”
So let’s compare them—
Scripts: Let’s face it, neither of them were Pulitzer or even Oscar material. “Superman Returns” has holes you could drive Krypton through. (1) Superman’s departure without a word of explanation to Lois cannot be excused by the concept that he just found it too hard to say good-bye. His unexplained absence was simply cruel. For that matter, why wasn’t she worried about his safety? Contrast the genuinely human reaction of Sarah Jane Smith in “School Reunion” who, after encountering the Doctor after thirty years absence, at first is overjoyed and then cries in an accusing fashion, “I thought you died!” Not Lois, no. She writes a rage-fueled essay about why the world doesn’t need Superman. She acted like a woman who knew she was unceremoniously dumped, but she couldn’t actually have known it. So not accepting the basic premise is something of a problem for me. (2) Luthor’s plan is unclear and confusing. It threatens to cause a tidal wave that would swamp Metropolis, but it never does. Menacing the world, he creates an environment that protects him from Superman. Swell. But there’s nothing protecting him from, say, 500-pound bombs. Or the 82nd Airborne. The notion is that the world will want to do business with him. I’m thinking not. I’m thinking they see him as a threat and act accordingly. (3) I know it’s always been a conceit that the intrepid reporters of the Daily Planet are too stupid to connect Clark and Superman, but c’mon. Clark goes away, Superman goes away. Clark comes back, Superman comes back. There’s stupid and then there’s moronic.
On the other hand, there was nothing truly wince worthy. The film didn’t crash to a halt while Lois Lane recited poetry. There was no WTF moment such as Superman reversing the world or sucking Lois’ memory out of her head through her mouth…in other words, a sequence that erased the necessity of some large chunk of the movie. There was no Otis. The filmmakers trusted the material, as opposed to the original film where it often seemed they didn’t.
“SUPER”ior script: “Superman Returns”
Director: Richard Donner basically made a breakthrough film. It was the first time there had been any serious treatment (at least for the first hour) of a comic book superhero. And what treatment! The screenplay by Mario Puzo gave Superman a sense of scope on par with a biblical epic, and Donner came through. The problem was that Donner made no effort to meld the tone of Puzo’s work with that of the so-campy-you-wondered-where-Adam-West-was work of the three other screenwriters. Consequently, the tone of the film lurches wildly. You can sense it skid off the rails the moment Ned Beatty shows up. The human and heroic elements of the Superman storyline jar wildly with the campy Lex Luthor material.
At least Singer keeps a much firmer hand on his tale. It doesn’t hang together, but at least it’s consistent. We don’t go from high-heroics to high-camp, and the bit where Superman gets the crap kicked out of him by Luthor’s goons is quite possibly the most heart-wrenching sequence ever depicted in a superhero film, surpassing even the death of Uncle Ben. People in the audience was gasping, groaning, even looking away because it was so brutal. Plus there’s all the aforementioned winks and nods to the original (Lois fainting after being rescued and still unable to spell; Glenn Ford’s photograph on the mantle in the Kent home; an extended sequence where Luthor watches a miniature city get shaken to bits was probably a nod to Superman: The Movie where very obvious models were used for the earthquake sequence, as if to say, “Watch: We’re going to do better than this.”) And if Donner dropped hints as to Messianic intent (“And so I give them you…my only son”) Singer drops anvils (Superman drifting helpless and unconscious in a classic crucifixion pose—dying for our sins, presumably, the sin being lack of faith in our “savior”…and, yes, there’s even a resurrection. Plus I loved the Aquaman pajamas, which had nothing to do with anything, but I want me a pair.) He’s even sly enough to re-create the cover to Action Comics #1 as Superman hefts a car over his head.
So, even though we must acknowledge Donner’s breakthrough work, just for the quality of the final product, SUPERior director: Bryan Singer.
Brandon Routh: I did not come out of Superman the Movie thinking that a man could fly. I did, however, believe that a man could fool people into thinking he was two different guys using basically skilled acting and a pair of glasses.
Not so Routh. His Superman is…competent. Decent. Classically handsome, strong jawed, looks great in tights. But in order to be Superman, he needs the tights, the cape, the spitcurl and the special effects.
Chris Reeve, by contrast, could be Superman by simply removing his Clark Kent glasses, straightening his back, deepening his voice, and saying, “Lois…there’s something I have to tell you.” Yes, his Clark was over-the-top, but let’s face it, so is wearing blue and red tights with your underwear on the outside. Reeve’s Superman radiated charisma, power, and a sense of humor. Routh’s Superman, when he’s not juggling real estate or planes, is so low-key he’s almost subliminal. Actually, he’s so low-key he’s almost Clark, glasses or no. He holds our interest without quite piquing it.
SUPERior Superman: Chris Reeve.
Lois Lane: Boy, this one’s a toughie. The problem stems from the fact that Lois is in such two radically different points in her life. Margot Kidder was all throaty wonderment and discovery as she encountered Superman for the first time and fell in love with him. It was all so charming. Kate Bosworth isn’t charming. She’s a mother, she’s in another relationship, she’s got no sense of closure, she’s bitter. There’s a glorious irony in that Kidder’s Lois Lane dreamt of Superman and of winning the Pulitzer Prize, whereas Bosworth’s Lois Lane still nurses anger and is winning the Pulitzer prize for shattering her own dreams of Superman. Some people have also complained that Bosworth is a bit callow to play Lois, especially considering that five years have passed. Bosworth is 23 and looks it. However, despite her youth, I believe her more as a reporter than I did Margot Kidder. But I believe Margot Kidder as Lois Lane more than I do Kate Bosworth.
SUPERior Lois: Tie.
Luthor: Despite the comic opera aspects of the original Luthor, Hackman somehow came across as more menacing. Perhaps that’s because there was a wider contrast in his activities. As much as I feel the comedic nonsense and camp aspects hurt the film, they did serve to set up the chilling moments such as Luthor’s calm response to Superman’s outraged demand, “Is this how a twisted mind like yours get its kicks? By planning the deaths of millions of innocent people?” (“No. By causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.”) and his subsequent advancing on Superman with Kryptonite. But Spacey owes his success as Luthor to the more consistent overall tone of the script and film. The sequence where Kitty freaks out on him upon discovering that he deliberately placed her in harm’s way and he cold-bloodedly explains his reasoning is truly marvelous. Plus, bottom line, Hackman was unwilling to embrace the Luthor trademark of baldness while Spacey happily shaved his head. They were both great, but bottom line, I have to say…
SUPERior Lex: Kevin Spacey, by a hair (or lack thereof).
Luthor’s floozy: They basically both go through the same character arc: They come to appreciate the greatness that is Superman and wind up undercutting Lex’s plan, earning his wrath. The difference is that Parker Posey doesn’t look like she knows why she’s there much of the time, whereas Valerie Perrine is…well, she’s Valerie Perrine, for God’s sake. The sex goddess of my youth.
SUPERior Floozy: Valerie Perrine.
Music: This isn’t even close. There isn’t a note of memorable score in Superman Returns that wasn’t lifted from John Williams.
SUPERior Score: Superman: The Movie.
So basically, in terms of the one-to-one comparisons, it’s a dead heat. That leaves us with the things that don’t match up exactly, and in those, I have to say, Superman Returns leaves its predecessor in the dust. Contrast the absence of someone as over-the-top as Otis with the presence of Richard White, whom Singer wisely chooses to portray—not as a schmuck—but a heroic individual whom Lois could easily fall in love with. Yes, he’s not Superman…but he doesn’t have to be. Consider the far better use of cameos: Noel Neill and Kirk Allyn, the original serial Lois and Clark, had their brief cameo whittled nearly into non-existence in Superman the Movie. Here Noel actually gets to act as the dying old woman in the beginning, and Jack Larson—the TV series Jimmy Olsen—gets a nice sized scene as Bo the bartender. Then there’s the matter of Lois’ son. I mean, let’s face it, with all his physical frailty, the writers tried too hard. They went overboard trying to convince us that Jason’s father isn’t who we all knew he was before seeing a single frame of the film. (Although it sets up an interesting conundrum: Presuming he was conceived during Clark and Lois’ assignation in the Fortress—an involvement that Lois would now have no recollection of—basically his presence is the equivalent of an immaculate conception from Lois’ point of view.) Nevertheless, the young actor does a marvelous job, the timing of the reveal is nicely done, and the scene toward the end with Superman and the sleeping Jason is, quite simply, the best Superman scene ever committed to film.
Overall, then, kudos to the movie makers. They’ve outdone that which they modeled their film on.
Now about that Superman/Batman crossover…
PAD
• 
1″and hearing the crowd gasp and cheer”
You’re going say that the crowd almost universally enjoyed the scene based on THAT?
*****
Not that they liked it, more like they gasped and cheered because they were so focused that the kid had powers, they didn’t notice it.
But, since I don’t even feel it was sigtnificant, I have debated it quite a lot, so I guess there isn’t much more to say
Just saw the movie last night, so here goes: Overall, I walked away disappointed.
Supes:I grew up a fan of the first 3 movies and seeing Routh play Supes made me realize how much gravitas Reeves brought to the part. There are some actors who can change character at the drop of a dime and this is something Reeve did excellently (for a better example of what I am talking about the one man play “St. John in Exile” is jaw dropping). I just felt Routh wasn’t able to project Supe’s innate goodness or Clark’s feelings of being an outsider as well Reeve’ had. Maybe with time his acting will improve, I don’t know.
Story: Enhhh. Liked the idea of keeping with the continutiy of the first two movies. Personally, I would have liked it better if they had gone with the original Donner plot in “Superman II” in order for Supes to regain his powers the energy in the green crystal had to be drained also meaning that he would never be able to speak to his father’s holographic projection ever again.(By the way, will they ever release the Donner version of S2?) Lex Luther was indeed menanacing, but his plan to create a giant land mass and somehow think he would be able to control who lives on it while killing “billions” seemed retarted.It just didn’t seem creative. Why not throw a twist like Lex Luther has become Metropolis’ favorite son since Superman has left(of course deceiving people left and right) and has even managed to smear Superman’s rep. It just seemed to cartoony for me. I did like the addition of the son conceived while Clark was human in S2. It seems like such an obvious plot now I can’t believe its taken this long to follow through.
Music: Why not just bring back the legend himself, John Williams, like Lucas did for the Star Wars movies?
Lois: Enhhh. Would of gone with someone more like the girl from Smallville to tell the truth.
I don’t know how much of the disappointment is due to the director’s vision or the individual components.(Re: Singer’s X-Movies: I still think Magneto’s helmet looks like something he picked up from K-Mart.)
Bottom Line: Spiderman is still on top for best comic movie in the age of cg special fx.
(I also thought it was creepy how Supes was spying on Lois. Just didn;t seem like the modest good natured Supes. Maybe he ran into, I don’t know, Pok-a-dot kryptonite and now has a stalking bent)
Luigi,
Yes, that was another joke. I was playing off Supes’ well-known “Big Blue Boy Scout” image of standing for truth, justice and never teasing his dog. Because, he’s, you know, _Superman_ and Superman doesn’t do that kind of stuff.
Except that he was raised human, and humans _do_ do that kind of stuff. _Smallville’s_ Clark Kent is no angel (though I can’t recall and dog-specific instances of teasing), and I’m sure the young Clark of the Donner/Singer films participated in his share of boyish pranks while growing up.
The thing about Lex’s dog was also part of the joke. He’d (probably) never do anything to Lex’s dog; to Lex, maybe, but not his dog. Though I suppose he would at least be _tempted_ to toss a ball a mile away for Lex’s dog to fetch it, just to annoy Lex. Whether he’d actually _do_ it would depend on a variety of factors.
And for the record, yes I teased my dog from time to time. She didn’t fetch things, though if you threw something, she’d go after it to see if it was food. When she found it wasn’t, she’d just leave it be. No, sometimes she’d be sitting on the couch, minding her own business, and I’d tell her to go home. She’d give an exasperated sigh, make a dismissive wave with her paw, and then proceed to ignore me.
After a minute or so, I’d play with her and/or give her a treat as a “reward” for being such a good sport.
I’d also sometimes play hide-and-seek with her by tossing her leash into the middle of one room, then running into another to hide. She’ d come looking for me, and I’d then take her for the walk the leash implied.
Rick
P.S. Kamil, regarding Superman hearing sound in space, was he actually _in_ space or just high up in the atmosphere? I think it’s the latter, myself. He was probably as high as he could go and still hear sound.
1.(By the way, will they ever release the Donner version of S2?)
*****
Yes very soon when the 14 disc boxed set comes out with Superman 1 on 3 discs (with theatrical and directors cut and extras), Superman 2 on 3 discs (including theatrical, donner, and extras, Superman 3 on 2 dics, Superman 4 on 2 discs (not including a special edition though it is none a good huge chunk of the movie was cut out which would make it a better though still bad film if put in), the fleischer cartoons, the Look Up in the sky superman documentary, and a 2 disc superman returns package, all included. There are krypton scenes but I am not sure if they will be deleted scenes or extended SR. It will not include Supergirl
but for the donner cut(1) 25% of the script he never filmed so that will be lester scenes and (2) there is additional Brando footage (instead of Lara) that they are still negotiating with Brando’s estate to use. Presumably, if the price is right, it will be in
Well, the wife and I just got back from the movie. It was ok.
The problems with the plot, script and general pacing weren’t too great and most of the movie was saved by the work of the cast and FX crew. I would have liked everything to have weaved together a little better. My wife pointed out that you could actually have removed almost every Lex scene and you would have barely caused a problem with the rest of the story. Don’t quite think that she’s that right but pretty close.
The biggest problem I had with it was the casting of Routh as Superman. He looked, sounded and acted so much like Reeve in so many scenes that it just threw me out of the moment or ultimately ended up reminding me of how much better Reeve was with the role. They should have cast someone who would have presented their take on Superman and let the chips fall where they may. The casting of Routh and the supposed directive to have him do Reeve’s take on the character whenever he could (combined with using his lines from the first movie) just made me feel that his Supes is a cheap copy of a better model. Combined with the general need to “homage” the first film every five minutes and I just walked away feeling that I saw an ok but unimaginatively produced copy of vastly more superior film.
Lex Luthor left me scratching my head in this movie, despite Kevin Spacey’s excellent portrayal. When we first see him, he’s been seducing a rich old lady. Why? Does he need money? He’s Lex-freaking-Luthor. He should have secret accounts all over the world that the authorities could never even find, let alone seize. And his land plan seems even more flawed than the one in “Superman: The Movie.” To get away with his plot in “Superman Returns,” he would need an army behind him, not a half-dozen thugs.
And am I the only one who saw the “Superman Dead” headline and thought the next movie’s going to be called “Superman Returns Again?”
Overall, it was a good movie, but it fell short of what it could have been.
To The Starwolf: thank you for mentioning “Zontar: The Thing From Venus” It’s nice to know I’m not the only one that remembers that movie.
And lastly, in the week before seeing Superman Returns, I was reading Q-Squared and watching the Star Trek Q DVD collection. So naturally, I began to think of Superman vs. Q. I don’t know quite what Superman would say, but I just picture Q replying, “Oh, how you DO go on. You’re even more self-righteous than Picard, and that’s something I had thought impossible.” He continues as he creates an avalanche of kryptonite that buries Kal-El, “But at least he was never scared of rocks.” Q then snaps his fingers and disappears in a flash of light to spread his unique charms to the cosmos.
“He’s Lex-freaking-Luthor. He should have secret accounts all over the world that the authorities could never even find, let alone seize.”
Why should he? Because he’s “Lex-freaking-Luthor”? That’s not an answer. Who the hëll is Lex Luthor? Some bumbling criminal with a land fetish who can’t stay out of prison, that’s who he is.
“Hey, has anyone here seen Mallrats? This question re. Superman Returns and the kid, is bothering the hëll out of me.”
Oh, that’s hardly original to “Mallrats.” The topic has been around for decades, most notably addressed in Larry Niven’s memorable essay,”Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.” It appears (among other places, I’m sure) in the short story collection, “All the Myriad Ways.”
PAD
spiderrob8but for the donner cut(1) 25% of the script he never filmed so that will be lester scenes and (2) there is additional Brando footage (instead of Lara) that they are still negotiating with Brando’s estate to use. Presumably, if the price is right, it will be in
Also of note – Donner himself isn’t actually doing the “Donner cut” for the DVD.
an extended sequence where Luthor watches a miniature city get shaken to bits was probably a nod to Superman: The Movie where very obvious models were used for the earthquake sequence, as if to say, “Watch: We’re going to do better than this.”)
I’d certainly agree with this assessment. There was even a tiny Mount Rushmore model that gets destroyed, kinda like how the real one was vandalized at the hands of the Phantom Zone villains in Superman II. I didn’t notice, but was there an Eiffel Tower model that loses an elevator, or a leaning tower of Pisa getting righted?
Super Spoiler Ahead for those who didn’t see the film. Don’t read this if you didn’t see the film!
Here’s my view of Superman Returns for better or worse.
Superman Returns was better than the original. In this version Superman leaves earth for five years to explore the remains of Krypton. In that time 9/11 occurs. Lois writes a Pulitzer Prize winning article “Why We don’t need a Superman.” She eventually develops a relationship with Perry White’s son. We get the impression the offspring is from her bond with her new man. Although after the first hour we get to see who the son’s father really is.
There are scenes that make this movie better than the first version. We don’t have Superman changing the course of time to save Lois Lane. Kevin Spacy plays a much darker and sinister Luther. Frank Langella portrays the newpaper mogul in a less cartoony fashion that Jackie Cooper did in 78′. I have to credit the director Bryan Singer for casting a better Lois Lane. At least this one bears a resemblance to the one in the comics. Unlike the Lois in Superman: The Movie with Christopher Reeve.
There was a controversy behind the 78′ version. The original creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were living in poverty with little or no money to live. It would have been an embarrassment to Warner Brothers and DC comics if there wasn’t a settlement to resolve the matter.
DC artist, Neal Adams helped Siegel and Shuster obtain a legal defense to fight the case. Until recently the son of one of the creators passed away. There is a documentary being produced about how the characters were taken away from the creators. Back in the 1930s there was little known about copyright law. Siegel and Shuster sold the rights only to regret that for the rest of their lives. The recent article about the creators was a sad one. The family has little or no financial benefit from an icon in American Comics. Till this day the family is still struggling against DC Comics and Warner Brothers to get some sort of financial restitution after over 60 years.
There are those who could say that the family is being greedy in asking for some type of financial gain. I’d like to see the new documentary reveal the fact that the creators had been robbed of recognition and financial security.
I don’t know if the same is true in Canada and other countries marketing the new Superman movie; but look at all the merchandise! I remember long ago when the first film appeared there was no where near the amount of cups, T-shirts and anything that could fit the Super logo on it.
I do remember purchasing a $2.25 novel written by E. Nelson Bridewell (from DC Comics). It was an unrelated story that took place in the Superman universe. I never got the chance to read it. From what I’ve read the novel was one of the better ones. I was surprised there weren’t more. At the time Marvel was releasing their own versions of prose novels. The books were written by the popular names of the era; Marv Wolfman, Len (Wolverine CO-creator) Wein, and a few others.
One of the commercial tie-in products I purchased were the Justice League Unlimited DVDs. I wondered why the cartoons were played so late in the evening. Well, the content is adult and is for older kids. In one of the episodes Superman is under the influence of a flower alien parasite that controls his mind. The first scene in his dream state shows his bedroom; with wife Lois Lane. Nothing inappropriate in the way of dialogue, but something I didn’t expect to see in what is supposedly a kid cartoon. In the story by comics legend Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons of “Watchmen” fame”; Superman sees what his life might have been. The parasite also gets a chance at Wonder Woman and Batman, but the parasite ends up on the black hat of this episode. Seeing the villain looked so much like Darkside, I couldn’t remember his name. Perhaps it was Mongul or Mogul.
The other episodes featured Booster Gold. Booster is a man who traveled in the past with current inventions and posed them as his own. To tell you the truth, I stopped reading the comics so long ago, I haven’t kept up with the characters anymore. I just don’t have the time. I do see that the books are oriented to specific age groups more than my generation. Back in the seventies you’d be lucky if you saw at least three titles with the same hero. Today there are four, five and even more with the X-Men and Superman.
There was a special features section that featured the actors. The actor who portrayed the Green Lantern, John Stewart was from MAD TV. It was hard to believe that this fellow had such a deep voice. And here I thought the actor who played the part was a large guy. There were other mini features that showed the physics behind Superman’s powers. Superman supposedly flies faster than the speed of sound. That means video cameras couldn’t catch him. The whole idea of Superman changing in a phone booth is out of date today. Not in the cell phone era at least.
Superman is not the wimpy type that the comics often portrayed him as. That is one of the aspects the new film touched upon. Superman was modernized a bit so new audiences could appreciate him. You could argue that he didn’t fight enough for Lois Lane. However in this film he stood his ground and wasn’t a sap in front of Lois. I did notice how the other actor who portrayed Lois’s new beau was Cyclops of X-Men fame. It looks like he was a contender for the Superman role.
The days of skilled pen and ink rendering is gone. It’s created in a computer. Comics have lost a lot of the nickel, dime charm and technology has taken over. I like new things, but comics have lost their innocence. Especially when the books are $2.99 apiece. It looks like the video games are replacing the regular comics story. That is why I have purchased the DVD collections of some of the old Marvel Comics. So far I purchased the first 500 issues of the FF and Spidey and Mad on DVD and CD ROM. That’s enough reading for me for the next 10 years. I do hope this catches on because I don’t have the room to store all those in hard copy.
If you like the Super hero cartoons your in for a treat this month. I just picked up Superman the Animated Series Season 3. It has 18 episodes with three accompanying directors commentaries. Bruce Timm has a lot to say about the creation of each show and why decisions were made to streamline them for audiences. I’d like to see more comics related animation from him. Each project he’s associated with has respect for it’s source material. When Batman: The animated series premiered all those years ago I was expecting a big letdown. I was glad to be wrong. Comics were part of my childhood long ago and it’s good to see that the classic ones are still around. Although comics are no where near as popular as they used to be, they still have an audience.
Short reviewage follow up:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest >>>>>>>>>>>>> Superman Returns
Yeah, that’s right, I went there.
Lets get down to brass tax here: Both movies are 2 and a half hours long. One drags, the other doesn’t. One has more bang for your buck FX wise and with visual invention, characters, and a madcap energetic energy, the other doesn’t. Basically, if you’re with your ____ and you say, “Lets go see a big Summer Movie!” then plunk down your cash for Pirates over Superman. Because it kicks ášš. A lot. Best Big Budget FX Extravaganza of the summer, fo shizzle.
I couldn’t disagree more. I hated Dead Man’s Chest (thought I liked the first one). The plot was a mess, the villains were just repulsive and disturbing (and not in a good way), and it went on way too long (which I didn’t feel was the case with Superman Returns). The action is cartoonish — I felt like I was watching a Looney Tunes cartoon for most of the movie. It just made me want to watch a Buster Keaton movie instead, because it gave me a new appreciation for cartoonish stunts that are actually being performed by the actor and not by a computer. And Johnny Depp is perhaps my favorite actor, but even I was getting tired of his incessant mugging for the camera.
Of course, I didn’t get to see the last ten minutes or so, because someone in the audience died and they shut the movie off. Seriously.
Historical note about Kryptonite, which was first introduced on the Superman radio series. When it first appeared, Kryptonite couldn’t kill Superman, it just made him as weak and helpless as a new-born babe if he came within 10 feet of it.
There was, however, a way to kill him- one discovered by his enemies in two adventures that featured Kryptonite in a prominent way: “Superman vs. the Atom Man” (1945) and “Superman vs. Kryptonite” (1947). Ironically, Superman himself inadvertantly revealed the means by which he could be killed in the latter adventure. Oops.
And how could Superman be killed, if not by Kryptonite? And, for the record, he remained just as invulnerable to bullets, knives, etc. in his weakened state, as when he was at his strongest.
Simple. He was still a living creature, and all living creatures need….
to eat.
Rick
Because it kicks ášš. A lot.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I’d certainly recommend Dead Man’s Chest over Superman Rehashed.
Based on what I’d read and heard, I went into Dead Man’s Chest with low expectations. I came out thinking it was a very enjoyable movie, and I really cannot get my head around the litany of complaints I’ve read on the ‘net about this film (too long, not funny, not original, can’t understand what’s going on, blah blah blah).
The action is cartoonish
And this is again where I scratch my head.
How was the action in the first film not cartoonish?
It’s still a Disney film, it’s still a Brukheimer film. It’s going to be cartoonish!
There’s a difference between “cartoonish” in the figurative sense (i.e. fun and family-oriented, as in the first movie) and “cartoonish” in the literal sense (i.e. looking exactly as if it came directly from an actual cartoon, as in the second movie).
It also bothered me that they had to find a way to work in virtually every single character from the first movie, and they did it in a way that was all telling and no showing. This resulted in some very elliptical storytelling and exhaustingly expository dialogue.
I just want to say in the superman reality, superman is seen by the public as being superman all the time. Added clark is a fly on the wall that no one pays attention to. So in their world it would be stupid for a God to walk around as a fool. So no one puts two and two toegther that they are the same person. Batman wears a mask. So you know he has something to hide. Superman and wonderwoman dont so you think they are full time superheros.
Saw the flick yesterday; my two cents:
Good: The quick scene during the shuttle/plane crash, when Lois catches that first glimpse of a streaking red-and-blue blur through the window. In my opinion, the best scene of the film. Yes, there’s a predictable build-up; we know Superman is going to save the plane. And really, it’s one of the few scenes where the cosmically-miscast Bosworth earns her paycheck as Lois. But for me – that .5 second scene provided the closest approximation to what I feel everytime I watch S:TM, when Superman flies up the face of the Daily Planet to rescue the dangling Lois Lane. Instant charge, instant thrill, the suspension of disbelief – things which make Superman, super.
Bad: Jason. Ridiculous. Unnecessary. The inclusion of his character, and the resulting relationship dynamic – for me – was identical to the morass that occurred on Moonlighting, when Cybill Shepard’s character was pregnant with either Bruce Willis’ child… or Mark Harmon’s. It spelled the beginning of the end for an otherwise brilliant show… and this Lois/Richard/Superman situation feels the same. A no-win situation.
Ugly: The lack of any reasonable transition from the overall theme and pacing of the film, to the complete-and-utter ášš-kicking of Superman.
I’m as much a fan as anyone of a solid action movie, and no one got a bigger thrill when Wolverine was finally allowed to start using his claws in the X-films, but the sheer brutality conveyed during Superman’s beating was completely out-of-line from the rest of the film. The closest point of reference I could imagine were some of the more violent scenes from “Passion of the Christ” – which assuredly fosters the Christ/Superman parallels.
The scenes of Superman attempting to evade his beating, crawling, rolling, screaming in pain were unnecessary, they were uncomfortable to watch, and I think Singer made an exceptionally bad choice in pulling the trigger on it. Batman can get the šhìŧ kicked out of him, and ultimately exact revenge through the administration of a non-stop beatdown. Hëll, Bats enjoys that sort of thing. Wolverine.. well.. he personifies such. But Superman? Getting owned like that? Not in a Superman film, not when 7 yr old kids are viewing it.
Bad: In line with this, there was never any payoff for the beating he suffered. He’s not going to power up, swoop in, and throw the 3 thugs into orbit. Their deaths were legitimate. But the lack of *any* resolution with Luthor… the fact that the movie ends with Luthor stranded in a semi-comical situation merely widens the gap in reason. Luthor spends the majority of the movie more engaged in sarcastic malevolence than outright homicidal mania. For 5 minutes, he’s Lecter, the Joker, Sabretooth… pick your insane super-villain. Then – without any relevant climax, he’s a schlep on a deserted island sarcastically intimating that the dog’s for dinner.
Sure, it’s a set-up for the next installment, when Luthor and Brainiac/Bizarro/Doomsday/whomever plot to kick his ášš prison-style again.
But the lack of any meaningful climax leaves Singer guilty of clumsy character and plot progressions, and in turn, makes for a bit of lousy film-making.
Bad: I’ve read previously that originally, Superman thought he was either going to be gone, or had been gone, for a few months – unaware that 5 years had elapsed. Had this been implemented into the film, it would have served as a much more entertaining and fulfilling plotline. Yes, the rationale in Superman’s desertion/departure from Earth is arguable… but the concept that he thought he was gone for a few months, but returns to learn it’s been 5 years, would have lent considerable depth to the concept that while not only the world *does* need a Superman, but that he, in turn, needs the world. Another opinion, but jesus… the decision to not incorporate that from a treatment, or script, or adaptation was a massive error.
Who knows: The remaining Kryptonian crystals.
Presumably, they’re now up in orbit on the Kryptonian mini-continent. It looked like apparently “all” of the remaining Kryptonian crystals were stolen by Luthor (basing this upon Superman’s reaction at the empty crystal console in the Fortress).
However, in some of the promotional placards in the theater, Luthor is pictured holding the green Kryptonian crystal, last seen early on in S:TM… the one Clark throws into the Arctic, that creates his Fortress. Unless they’re trying to portray this green crystal as Kryptonite – as opposed to the angular and polished Fortress-creation crystal, it seems like there’s something missing here.
My guess – the remaining Kryptonian crystals will be the driving force behind Luthor’s next lame-ášš plot. Seeing as they’re in space, he’ll probably steal/develop Brainiac technology… or create a Bizarro… in order to retrieve them, so he can live out his dream of personalized real estate.
Last comments:
Brandon Routh. His Superman in the next 2 installments will get better and better – but I think he did a great job.
Frank Langella. Solid as Perry.
Sam Huntington. A well-played Jimmy Olsen.
Parker Posey. Underused talent in this film. If she were 5 years younger (or if they’d cast a slightly older-looking Superman), she would have been a perfect Lois Lane.
So I was glancing thru the novelization in the bookstore and I saw no indication of Jason being anything other than Lois and Richard’s kid. What’s up with that?
While I was disappointed with some of “Superman Returns”, it is still far better than the truly horrible “Pirates” sequel, IMHO. I saw “dead Man’s Chest” at a drive-in and only chuckled occasionally. The feature afterward, “Cars”, was absolutely fantastic, however.
I just saw the movie last night.
Went in with the comic fan mindset, definitely liked the film, saw the plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and chalked them to hopefully getting some of it worked right in the sequel. (They should make one. He’s back, get to a Braniac/Doomsday/Darkseid/show us a good Superman action movie)
But here’s the moment that just sold the movie for me:
The scene you see in the commercials where the crook shoots the bullet towards Superman’s eye. The scene played out in the theater, then you hear this one young boy’s voice just go “Woah.”
My friend and I looked at each other, smiled, chuckled and I went “Ok I no longer have any problems with this film. With a reaction like that, Singer just did everything right.”
You can’t buy more personal validation than that.
Though they should have done the dedication to Christopher Reeve and his wife earlier in the film. Like right after the DC logo.
Posted by: ArcLight at July 11, 2006 01:39 AM
So I was glancing thru the novelization in the bookstore and I saw no indication of Jason being anything other than Lois and Richard’s kid. What’s up with that?
***
There isn’t. Nor is there in the comic adaptation from what I am told. I heard that they didn’t want spoilers to get out, but it may also be that they were keeping some of their options open to the last minute, I don’t know.
I’m as much a fan as anyone of a solid action movie, and no one got a bigger thrill when Wolverine was finally allowed to start using his claws in the X-films, but the sheer brutality conveyed during Superman’s beating was completely out-of-line from the rest of the film. The closest point of reference I could imagine were some of the more violent scenes from “Passion of the Christ” – which assuredly fosters the Christ/Superman parallels.
The scenes of Superman attempting to evade his beating, crawling, rolling, screaming in pain were unnecessary, they were uncomfortable to watch,
*****
That is what i liked about the scene. it was brutal. It was hard to watch. It showed, to me, how much resonance Superman has, and this Superman had. Seeing him so low was emotional, and it was a great feeling when he recovered and shoved the island into space, IMO.
As brutal as the Superman beating was (and even then, not Tarantino brutal or anything), I believe it did its job.
Why?
Because as that scene played out, I heard someone in the row behind me weeping and sniffling.
It’s Superman. He represents the best of us. And he is brutalized. And we weep for the lost innocence that it represents.
Superman Returns.
So now Superman is a deadbeat dad, his bášŧárd son is a killer, and lois is a quick and easy šlûŧ. Superman left Earth without saying anything to anybody, and supposedly right after he promised the President that he wouldn’t let him down again (at the end of Superman II). If Jor-El had missed by a few hours, Superman’s ship would have gone in the ocean, crystals and all, and killed billions of people when it made an island.
Just about everything in this movie is B.S.
Bryan Singer is a good director, but he cannot write.
Warner Brothers needs to sell the rights to Superman so some other studio can actually make a Superman movie, which hasn’t been done in over twenty years.
Superman Returns.
So now Superman is a deadbeat dad, his bášŧárd son is a killer, and lois is a quick and easy šlûŧ. Superman left Earth without saying anything to anybody, and supposedly right after he promised the President that he wouldn’t let him down again (at the end of Superman II). If Jor-El had missed by a few hours, Superman’s ship would have gone in the ocean, crystals and all, and killed billions of people when it made an island. Parker Posey played a lousy two-dimensional rehash of Miss Tesmacher. The insertion of obviously reenacted scenes from Titanic and Passion of the Christ were just pathetic. Two crucifictions and one resurrection was more than too much.
Just about everything in this movie is garbage.
Bryan Singer is a good director, but he cannot write.
Warner Brothers needs to sell the rights to Superman so some other studio can actually make a Superman movie, which they still haven’t done in over twenty years. They need to start over with a Superman Begins. New music, all new actors, most definitely a new director. They need to bar Singer from the set like he was Joel Schumaker. This sloppy attempt at a movie fails on all levels, I hope they try again with a better team than this. I just hope it doesn’t take 20 more years for someone to make an actual Superman movie.
MrE
“So now Superman is a deadbeat dad”
A deadbeat dad is someone who refuses to pay child support. That hardly applies here.
“His bášŧárd son is a killer”
But I’m sure he didn’t mean it.
“and lois is a quick and easy šlûŧ.”
Whaaat? She’s married, you idiot.
Wow, Superman fans are scary — Lois has to be pure and virginal, and Superman has to be the epitome of perfection in every way. You’d think they’d want all the Jesus analogies they can get, because that’s what they’ve turned him into. Or do they not allow any other god before Kal-El?
While I was disappointed with some of “Superman Returns”, it is still far better than the truly horrible “Pirates” sequel, IMHO. I saw “dead Man’s Chest” at a drive-in and only chuckled occasionally. The feature afterward, “Cars”, was absolutely fantastic, however.
hhahaha, wow, I diagree with you on so many levels re. your above post, its kind of mindblowing.
Quickly now: is the glass half full or half empty. DON’T THINK! JUST RESPOND! ASAP!!!!
“So now Superman is a deadbeat dad”
A deadbeat dad is someone who refuses to pay child support. That hardly applies here.
Your logical explanation is getting in the way of a decent quip. And, seriously, he’s off planet for 5 freakin years and doesn’t say Boo to his kid. How is that not a “deadbeat dad”? I mean, COME ON!
“Wow, Superman fans are scary — Lois has to be pure and virginal, and Superman has to be the epitome of perfection in every way. You’d think they’d want all the Jesus analogies they can get, because that’s what they’ve turned him into. Or do they not allow any other god before Kal-El?”
Since day one Superman has been a lying áššhølë for making idiots of his closest friends, colleagues and the woman he loves by pretending to be someone else. And Lois has and always will be a nasty, abusive, man-chasing shrew.
Or at least that’s one way of looking at these characters. In the end, their flaws are what make them identifiable to us real people. While Lois being a single mom may seem scandalous and unconventional to many people, the fact is that there are lots and lots of single moms out there who are doing a hëll of a job raising kids. That doesn’t mean they’re quick and easy šlûŧš or that they deserve to be harshly judged. If anything, they should be given a round of applause.
Superman, however, is still a dìçk:
http://www.superdickery.com/dìçk/1.html
Oh Dear God. Thank you, Barry. Thank you for that website.
I was thinking about Lois’s ring when it came to Jason. I did not notice until I saw it a second time. The ring on her ring finger doesn’t look like a diamond. It was dark. Maybe that explains why Jason is weak and allergic. Lois is protecting him. Also, is this some sort of weird tie-in to 52?
Also, am I the only one who noticed that Spacey had little Rosenbaum Luthor going? Rosenbaum likes to imitate Spacey, maybe he was returning the favor.
The movie as a whole left me unsatisfied. I thought it was great until the boy came into question. I like it better when the original rumors came out that Lois’s had a son, but by adopting Richard’s.
I like Marsden as Richard better than his whiny Cyclops. I mean you look at the comic, Jean dies, a hot blonde takes her place.
Also, one more thought or question really, the thug shooting Supes, Corbin? Maybe Metallo will be visiting Metropolis.
I personally would like to see Supergirl crashing to Earth with a pìššëd øff Granny Goodness behind her with Darkseid close by.
It did strike me odd to see Clark Kent drinking a beer, but then figured alcohol probably doesn’t affect Kryptonian physiology (since we’re ignoring Superman III) the way it would an “ordinary” human. It carries into the whole “Since he gets his power from the yellow sun, he really doesn’t need to eat or drink.” He does so for the taste and flavor, and as Clark, to blend in.