Review: Superman Returns
My first Halloween costume that I remember was a Superman costume. Red cape, mostly, flying behind me as I raced from house to house. I was six years old, and Richard Donner’s Superman was my new favorite, temporarily edging out Star Wars from the year before. I believed a man could fly.
And *sniff* now I can believe again.
Bryan Singer channels Richard Donner, restoring the original mythos, feel, sound and look of the first two Superman movies. Indeed, this is the REAL Superman III – not with Richard Pryor, not with Lana Lang and a giant computer, but with a Superman who has loved and lost, who has gone in search of his real home and who has now returned.
The credits roll in the beginning and I am mesmerized – the same blue outlined letters whooshing past as John Williams’ “Superman March” plays. And I stay mesmerized for most of the film. The casting, a source of great angst for fanboys round the globe, works for the most part: Brandon Routh is a very good Superman; Kevin Spacey is a very very good Lex Luthor; Eva Marie Saint is a welcome touch as Martha Kent; Parker Posey is the Miss Teschmacher that Valerine Perrine could never have accomplished; and Kate Bosworth is a good, if not stellar, Lois Lane. Even the kid, Lois Lane’s son, is good. And as is customary in Bryan Singer movies, James Marsden is on hand to be kicked in the emotional nuts as the soon-to-be cuckold.
The story is masterful, in that it continues the theme of the first two films without becoming repetitive: Lex Luthor gets his hand on those famous crystals from the Fortress of Solitude, and with them plans to wreak global havoc. At the center, just like in the first film, is Lex’s supreme ego and his madness: as in the first movie, it’s all about land and beachfront property (thank your stars there is no “Otisburg” in this version). Superman must confront his fears, save the world, and find a home on Earth as the Last Son of Krypton.
It all works well. The action is wonderful – I saw the film in IMAX and can recommend it overall. The 3-D effects are a delightful gimmick that unfortunately result in blurriness during key scenes. If I had to do it again, I’d love to see it on the biggest screen I could, without the 3-D. But the scenes are thrilling and enjoyable nonetheless, including an airplane rescue that is the pinnacle of Superman action in any of the films. Routh looks like Superman, talks like Superman and flies. In short, it’s a great Superman movie — maybe the best after the original.
Sometimes the film doesn’t work as well as would be hoped. It tries very hard to retain the easy sentimentality of Donner’s original film, with long scenes that go nowhere in particular and with an even longer denouement. The film clocks in at 154 minutes. If you are not in the mood to be immersed in the feel and wonder of the Superman world for a long time without going anywhere in particular, you may find yourself a little annoyed. Fortunately, yours truly is a total fanboy and so I loved it all.
So yes, I give it an A-. It does not do for the Superman franchise what Batman Begins did for that comic book, but it’s close. It’s easily one of the better comic book action movies. Clark Kent’s goofiness, Jimmy Olsen’s curiosity, Lois’ unavoidable love for Superman — these are emotional touchstones for anyone who reads the comic or loved the first two films. Singer realizes this, and hits these points well with fine doses of action, romance and light humor. The result is a worthy successor to a super franchise.
Posted on June 29, 2006, in Movies, Reviews. Bookmark the permalink. 56 Comments.
Steve Evans
RJH
Scott B.
John C.
Susan M
Aaron Brown
ninemoons
John Harrison
kulturblogadmin
Kyle M
Brad
KulturBlogGuest
MCQ
Wm
Rebecca
Ivan
Geoff J
btdgreg
Clark Goble
Aaron R.
Tim J
Ben
Marcus
Brad Williams
gibsonbn
SuperGenius,
I’ve been reading a lot of critics just slamming the film’s plot and everything. What most of those critics don’t realize, methinks, is that the 1970s-1980s Superman films were ultra cheesy, and that critics back then said the same things about their Superman. I’m glad you liked it, cuz Superman is also my favorite superhero, and I plan to see the film and thoroughly enjoy it.
My mom made me a cape when I was 7, but told me not to jump off the roof to test to see if it worked. I tried anyway.
It doesn’t work.
Kevin Spacey is a very very good Lex Luthor.
One of my favorite moments is a Perry moment, though.
I’m looking forward to seeing this on IMAX tomorrow. Should be fun.
Was the original Superman that good? It had it’s moments, but the whole fly around the Earth to reverse it’s rotation and turn things back in time seemed ridiculous–even for a comic book movie.
Eh. Superman (1978) was cheesy, but it at least had some wit in the performances, particularly Christopher Reeve’s.
I’m going today to this one, but I’m not expecting much. There aren’t any good movies today, certainly not any “cartoon” movies to match the cartoon movies of yesteryear. Batman Begins, Star Wars I, II, III, King Kong, and now Superman Returns — all seem to struggle mightily against the reputations of their predecessors.
On DVD, we watched True Lies, a pre-CGI action film from 1993. The action was so exciting! Stuntmen in actual danger! CGI has ruined everything, even the scripts, it seems.
D., Thanks for the backup. But I don’t know how you can say Batman Begins wasn’t great. Superb cast/acting, storyline, action was excellent and not much CGI at all. I would have to say it was one of the best movies I saw that entire year.
Batman trained by Ninjas? It was a bad script, so poorly edited that it was incoherent. And to what end? So poor Katie Holmes could say “I liked the man better than the bat”?
Uggh. I hate all these films. At least Superman: the Movie was fun.
I thought it was awesome that Batman was trained by Ninjas. And I liked the script, the story, the performances (except Holmes), the action, the look and feel, pretty much everything. That’s the last movie I’ve seen in the theater that had me engrossed from beginning to end.
D., Batman was always trained by ninjas — that’s canonical Batman. You just don’t like comic books, rainbows, puppies or candy.
Ha, that’s funny. I’m the guy that loves musicals — I’m the most sentimental one of all of us.
D., do you really have to lump King Kong and the Star Wars prequels in? Those movies don’t fit, I don’t think, because they are not film adaptations of graphic novels or comic books.
…and True Lies is NOT pre-CGI, although it is possibly Schwarzenegger’s best film (definitely top 3). A model of a Harrier was built for all close shots of Schwarzenegger flying the plane, and was dangled from a crane on a nearby building painted out with CGI. (As the Harrier lands, its jetblast is all done in CGI; the CGI blast swirls up a CGI piece of paper which is sucked into the Harrier’s CGI air compressor fan.
I don’t think it was CGI, but I could be wrong. It was… regular matte work.
It’s far more exciting film than Titanic, just 3 years later.
P.S. I lumped all those films together to make a point about CGI. I really am surprised how many people like these films, which are humorless and devoid of content, AND not particularly exciting. I thought the end of Batman Begins with that tunnel break was particularly dull.
Superman: the Movie does have very cheesy effects at the end, but the plot is tied to Lois (she dies, basically), so it has real human dimension to it, the thing that’s missing in all these films. Liam Neeson said (about Phantom Menace) that it was the worst movie experience of his life, and Lucas didn’t know anything about storytelling, about giving the audience basic information. I agree. The only Star Wars movies worth anything at all are IV and V, and in particular, IV, because it is a complete movie by itself without needing the information gleaned from other movies preceding it. And it has the best humor of them — which was drained out of the entire franchise.
The original Batman franchise at least had a vision of design — Batman Begins doesn’t even have that. I was woefully disappointed that Christopher Nolan (the director) fell into the Hollywood trap of more is more (of less and less) after his much more inventive movies Memento and Insomnia.
But honestly? I’ve never liked Bryan Singer, not since I saw The Usual Suspects (and I was WAY ahead of that plot — guessed it in the first 15 minutes) and X-Men is just, hooey.
Maybe my low expectations will help me like this new film, but I suspect, not.
OK, Mr. Grumpy. Movie magic didn’t end in the 40s, man!!
No, it ended in the 90s.
But as somebody who has stated you’ve seen Annie Hall a lot of times, you ought to understand why I like that about you.
D., are you coming out to Seattle to help with the twins? We could use it. Once we have the THX system set up, come on out.
The worst CGI offenders are the new Spiderman movies. I hate every appearance of the cartoon spidey. But overall the movies are fun.
Star Wars is an easy target. Everyone knows they suck.
I thought Batman Begins did have a good human dimension to it. There’s not much of a love story, but I found the Bruce Wayne character’s wrestles with his fear, guilt, and drive for vengeance and, ultimately, justice believable and intriguing.
I am putting my apartment on the market, this month.
What will you be paying for your “manny”? I’ve got to have a job, you know.
We pay our mannies in peanut M&Ms and Netflix rentals.
OIC. Hmm, I’ll have to think about that (don’t need Netflix, for one).
P.S. I knew Batman Begins was ridiculous in the shot where he stands in the cave, “communing” with the CGI bats (for no particular reason). Ugh.
D., you need to read Batman: Year One. All that stuff was lifted right from the comic. Cheesy? perhaps. But canonical, and the fanboys (yours truly) ate it up.
Yes, I’m not a fanboy. I wasn’t allowed to read comix as a kid — one day at a friend’s house, I sinned and spent the whole afternoon reading Archie.
Not sure if you saw the AFI tribute to Lucas or not, but Harrison Ford makes mention of the three “earlier, much funnier movies.”
I agree with D. about the most recent Star Wars flicks–terrible.
(You knew the ending of the Usual Suspects–really?!!)
Fun review here:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060703crci_cinema
About The Usual Suspects, I turned to my cousin at the 20 minute mark, and said “Kevin Spacey will turn out to be Kaiser Sosey.” I could barely stand to watch the rest of the movie.
I’m gonna need the name and number of that cousin.
His name is Steve Bennett, my first cousin, living in Chicago — don’t have his phone number off the top of my head.
Here’s Pauline Kael’s review of Superman: the Movie from 1979:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?060703fr_archive02
Kael wrote:
So for those of us who thought that the 1978 version was cool, perhaps if we had been older and more mature at the time we would have seen it his way. Frankly, I like the old ones and look forward to the Return.
DavidJ, let’s compare notes when you’ve seen it, but I like both Superman and Superman II, and I like the new one in a similar way.
I just came back from seeing the new Superman, and, although I’m not a fanboy in the mold of a Supergenius, I quite enjoyed it. The plane rescue was stunning.
There was a preview for Spider-Man 3, coming out in May of next year. It looks like it will be very dark, which is good news, I think. I like my movies as dark as possible. (Loved Batman Begins for that very reason.)
I saw the Superman movie and didn’t think it was that great. Part of the problem was seeing it in the IMAX theater … donning and doffing the 3D glasses was a bit distracting. Bryan Singer was probably smart to drop X-Men 3 to diversify his portfolio, but I think X-Men 3 was a much better movie. While I recognize Superman’s historic and iconic status as a comic-book character, I still think Professor X, Magneto and Wolverine are each more interesting.
Admittedly, I’m hugely biased. I always liked Marvel Comics better than DC comics.
“I think X-Men 3 was a much better movie”
Dan, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think in this case you are flat wrong. Good luck finding anyone else that agrees with you about X3 being better than Superman Returns.
Seriously, the more I think about your comment, Dan, the more I think you just are insane. I like the Marvel books too, but X3 was mediocre.
Kevin, I’ve seen that trailer too, and I agree that it looks darker – my worry is that it also seemed like four different movies crammed into one: Hobgoblin? Venom? Sandman? Gwen Stacy? I am afraid that it will suffer in the same way that X3 suffered, just too much going on.
(warning, a few spoilers in this comment)
Supergenius, I’ve already met people who agree with me about X3 being better. They aren’t insane either. I wish it was possible to judge the two movies completely independently, but since Bryan Singer chose to take the directing job, we have no choice.
Part of the problem with the Superman movies is that the character is obliged to keep the goofy looking (albeit iconic) costume. When a real life actor attempts to portray the character and wear the costume, it looks silly. Everyone loves to love Christopher Reeves, but he looked goofy wearing it too.
Another problem is the idea that glasses are enough of a disguise to fool everybody, even those closest to Clark Kent, for years. They get away with it in the comics more or less but in the movies it is a total joke. There is even a point in the movie where they start to catch on and then they suddenly arrest themselves and laugh it off. Superman and Clark Kent are each gone for the same five years and then re-appear at the same time … no one notices the correlation. And then Superman is ailing in the hospital at the end of the film and again no one at the newspaper office seems to notice that Clark Kent is missing at the same time (?!?!?!?!) Stupid.
The attempt to bring in God the Father and God the Son imagery (attempting to make him into a Messianic Christ-figure) fell completely flat. It just doesn’t work.
One thing I did really like in this film though … the bit with Lois Lane’s son, the bad guy and the piano. That was good. For the most part though, I think people could wait to watch this movie on DVD.
Supergenius,
So, I just came back and I liked it a lot. One of the problems I think most people have is the flood of comic-based movies we’ve seen in the past few years. With that comes a certain type of expectation — I think Batman Begins (a very cool flick) might have caused people to think that Sman Returns would be similarly dark and show a lot more of how Sman came to be Sman. Honestly, when I compare it to the 1970s-80s Chris Reeve flicks, I like this new one a lot more, and I’m a BIG TIME Sman fan. (In fact, the only comic book I own was the one in 1992 when Sman died). Anyway, it exceeded my expectations, I saw what I wanted to see (lots of flying!), had some images I never thought I’d see Sman get into (nearly getting his a$$ kicked), Sman was respectable and noble like he ought to be, etc. etc. Great film. I plan on buying it.
And yes, danithew has suffered some form of brain damage to think X3 is better. No way José. X3 is utterly forgettable. I left the theater after seeing Sman thinking I was a kid again, thinking Sman is one of the coolest comic book characters to make a movie about.
“Part of the problem with the Superman movies is that the character is obliged to keep the goofy looking (albeit iconic) costume.”
WHAT THE??
Dan, that is Superman’s costume!! seriously, put down the crack pipe. Sorry Dan, you have lost movie cred in my eyes. I know that is something you’ve been praying about, so I apologize in advance for crushing your dreams.
I’d like to know how he puts on the outfit — through the neck? Also, doesn’t it need serious washing after every flight?
D., super-smell is an issue. Maybe those are odor-removal crystals?
As I drove home from the theater, my mind turned to reworking Superman Returns into The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. I was going to tell the story to my wife and see how long it would take her to catch on, but she was asleep.
I watched Superman: The Movie a couple weeks ago for the first time since 1978 or so. I was a little disappointed at first that it wasn’t as enthralling as I remembered; apparently, I’m not twelve anymore. It was still enjoyable, though. One nice feature on the DVD was a music score only soundtrack option. The Superman debut segment works even better with just music.
I love True Lies. But it used a ton of CGI. Come on. This is James Cameron for heavens sakes. He was infamous for pushing the limits of CGI in the 90′s. The difference between Cameron and most others (including Lucas) is that Cameron made great use of it. (Well, until Titanic, although even there I think you can’t fault him for how well the CGI blended in)
I honestly think Bryan Singer came close in Superman Returns. None of the CGI draws attention to itself. (Well except for that annoying CGI opening with all the planets that seemed as much a homage to STTNG as the original Superman) But I really was impressed with the CGI. I was expecting it to be far more annoying than it was. Part of that is though that Singer, much like Cameron, tried to mix live action and the CGI. Further he did a lot of mapping of human movement to make the physics and biology “natural.” Something that far too many animators don’t do.
As for X3, anyone who thinks that is better has just lost it. X3 had the explosions that typically made no sense. (Hey, I just lifted a whole bridge, but I’ll hold back fighting this army by just lobbing cars in random directions) I’ll give Ratner credit in that some scenes were quite good and he channeled Singer well. Further Singer wasn’t that great with action. But overall Ratner was, well Ratner. One of those studio hacks who comes in and makes something brainless with little style. They make lots of money off of the hype of the earlier better films.
I still stubbornly stick by my “insane”, “brain-damaged”, “lost-it” opinions on this matter.
Don’t knock Superman’s costume. That’s just wrong.
Well, we must be honest. Superman’s suit can’t compare to Batman’s. Spiderman’s is also cooler. I don’t think Superman’s suit is bad, just uncool.
Which Batman though? The Tim Burton “hey I’m a knight” filled with James Bond gadget or the much more clean and limited version of the comics? Personally I thought the new Batman did a nice balance between the two although I’d have preferred fewer gadgets. I really liked the original Tim Burton Batman. But it really is fairly unlike the “traditional” Batman.
As for Superman’s costume, that was about the only thing in Singer’s Superman I didn’t care for. The almost brown reds were a bit off putting for me.
I saw it this afternoon. It’s OK; I think I liked it better than Batman Begins.
But really, couldn’t they have spent 5 more minutes on the story? It’s just… incoherent, like all these CGI movies. When people say, did you like Kate Bosworth, the answer is, she was fine, but she had no actual character to play. One moment after another is marred by a “huh?” factor.
The original movie of Superman told a coherent story, even if it was a little cheesy.
.
I’m not following you. What was incoherent? It was the same basic plot as the first film. Indeed a common complaint is that it was basically a remake with Messianic overtones and a slightly more complex romantic triangle.
Here’s an example of a contrived moment, contrived to up the ante in danger for a character, and service the CGI action: Luthor’s boat parks in front of Lois’s house (some kind of palace on the Hudson I guess), and Lois and her son board the boat, and suddenly are kidnapped and in huge danger.
This may be a remake of the first movie, but it has no implausible and poorly realized plot moment like this.
Luthor didn’t park the boat in front of Lois’s house. She went looking for the address that was ground zero for the blackout and found the boat.
But then there is Superman flatlining in the ER with the docs unable to treat him. Then the next thing you know, he is in a private room with a pulse.
And did anybody notice that old lady Gertrude bore a striking resemblence to the Lois Lane in the 50′s TV series? I wonder why?
I saw this last night and thought it was pretty good. Not as good as my husband thought it was, though.
I didn’t particularly care for Lois, the thing with the boy was obvious from the get go, and the religious imagery I found kinda weird—I think it would’ve been better if it’d been more subtle and not bash-you-over-the-head in-your-face.
I didn’t think Lex Luther seemed evil enough. And two other things really bugged me:
The timeline. I couldn’t tell what year it was supposed to be. Maybe it’s all supposed to be timeless but that kind of thing bugs me. I spent a good chunk of the beginning of the movie puzzling over it.
The eyelashes. How much mascara can one person wear? I get distracted by actors’ makeup. And it wasn’t just Lois, it was Superman too.
I thought the actor did a great job portraying Clark Kent. Not quite as good portraying SM, but Christopher Reeves is a hard one to top.
“Good luck finding anyone else that agrees with you about X3 being better than Superman Returns.”
I agree with Dan, so there.
now you’re just being contrarian for no good reason. Liar!
Here’s the thing, Steve: Superman Returns was kind of boring for me. I thought perhaps they’d do something new with it. But we learn almost nothing new about him. Sure, he has a kid that moves pianos. That was probably the most (and only) nteresting thing but less than a minute of the film. It could have been so much more interesting.
And then there’s Lois Lane with her amazing fiancee which could give Superman a few lessons in communication making it hard for me to root for the right guy.
And the whole crystals-are-my-weakness-but-only-at-very-selective-dramatic-times thing was a huge cop out as far as story telling goes. If kryptonite is the only possible thing that makes a movie about a God-like superhero interesting, then make it an interesting weakness instead of a plot hole.
And Superman falling out of the sky making a crater in the ground only to be hospitalized?
And then when Lex Luther has an opportunity to show emotion about his situation, we get rhetorical cliche dialogue like “what have you done” said twice?
But granted, the acting was fine and the special effects were fine. But the story? I would have rather just seen one of the first two Supermans remade.
Thank you Bob.
I think the problem with Superman is that it is difficult to identify with him at all. He’s basically an immortal, all-powerful goody-two-shoes. He’s also an alien from a different planet who coincidentally looks very human.
I said I was biased in favor of the X-Men big-time. One of the reasons is that many of the characters are more multi-faceted in their goodness/badness and they all seem to carry some kind of emotional/psychological baggage. They are also, ultimately, quite vulnerable and in a fight for their very existence.
I’d concede that some of the mutants are rather bland. Angel for one thing … so he has wings and can fly. Is that it?
Sometimes it’s interesting how comic-book characters translate from the comic books to the big-screen. In X3, it appears that Iceman comes into his own … and when he turns icy and headbutts Pyro, well, that was pretty cool in my opinion. In the comics, though he’s been around awhile, Iceman always seemed rather boring.
Stop this insanity RIGHT NOW, you two.
What’s interesting to me is that this Pirates of the Caribbean movie raked in so much dough. I haven’t seen it yet and haven’t seen a ‘Nacle review of the movie either.
My kids went to Pirates when my husband and I went to Superman. The first Pirates is my daughter’s favorite movie, so she’s really into it.