SUPERMAN RETURNS ramblings

[thehefner]

I may have said this earlier, but I'll say it again. SUPERMAN RETURNS reminds me an awful lot of the first SPIDER-MAN. There is quality in this movie, a whole hell of a lot. There were no less than three moments where I was moved to tears. But man oh man, those flaws are gonna bother me more and more with passing time.

First of all, let's look at Superman himself. Brandon Routh turned in a fine performance. Nothing astounding, but he did the job well. No complaints there. Yeah, his costume still doesn't look right, but there were so many moments in this movie where he just WAS Superman. Those moments make this movie worth seeing, absolutely. The Christ imagery and metaphors were clear but not overly blunt for my tastes (I still don't know how I feel about the Christ imagery in SPIDER-MAN 2, personally).

And hell, you want to complain that he was too young for this film? Let's talk about Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth's performance was fine, don't get me wrong. A little bland and lacking in the real Lois Lane bite, but better than Katie Holmes and Kirsten Dunst, certainly. The problem isn't even so much that the actress is 23 as much as the fact that she looks like she's 16! She's so baby-faced, it's utterly jarring. I kept looking at Parker Posey here, constantly thinking about how she would have been so, so, so much better suited for the role.

Ok, so Parker may be too old opposite Brandon Routh. You know who wouldn't be? Erica Durance, the Lois Lane from SMALLVILLE, who is young but doesn't LOOK like a child! She is the perfect Lois Lane, better than even Margo Kidder.

Which brings me to a major difficulty I had with a movie. When it came to conveying the power and the IDEA of Superman? Oh yeah, this movie was dead on in so many places. But the problem is that so many people think that Superman is a "boring" character, not compelling in the least. I think that's utter bullshit, but this movie is not gonna do much to change people's opinions because we don't really get much time at all to get to know about Superman as a person. He isn't just SUPERMAN, he's also Clark Kent. He's Kryptonian but also deeply human and humane. He's both god and man. Yet here, all we see is the god.

What really gets me is that, when you come down to it, SMALLVILLE is more faithful to the comics and the spirit of Superman (aside from the big moments when he's truly being Superman) than SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I mean, seriously. Fucking SMALLVILLE. If a half-baked show like that can do it, why can't a full blown movie with the talent and heart behind it?

The main problem, in my opinion, is that the director's heart was misplaced. In many ways, I'm reminded of Ang Lee's THE HULK. In that, Ang Lee didn't understand the whole Jekyll/Hyde/Frankenstein thing and instead focused on a made-up (not canon) Oedipal drama. With SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer focuses the entire story on a made up (not canon) story of heritage and family.

See, I totally understand what Singer was trying to accomplish with the kid. With Lois Lane's bastard child. It's to say that Superman really is no longer truly alone and that it continues the lineage, the father and the son, all that rich metaphorical bullshit, I understand. It's the true heart of the story he has created. But it's still not canon and it's still crap.

What worries me is what the hell they're gonna do with the kid for the sequels? They've either written themselves into a corner or introduced an element that I really don't ever want to see continued.

And also, Lois Lane having a bastard child? What the FUCK. Come on. It's this kind of utter carelessless for the original characters that really pisses me off.

Which brings me to my biggest love-hate of the movie. Lex. Lex motherfuckin' Luthor. Let me say this first- Kevin Spacey was an utter and complete delight to watch in this movie. Complete and utter delight. He was evil, nasty, funny but actually menacing and vicious, unlike Hackman's clownish Adam-West-Batman-villain Luthor.

But the problem was that he was basically the same as Hackman's Luthor. Now, I should say that my ideal version of Lex Luthor is the one as portrayed by Clancy Brown in the animated shows: a ruthless, hardcore badass, vicious but complex, awesome and utterly, utterly brilliant. This Luthor is a revision of the classic Luthor from the 40's to the mid 80's, which was Luthor was a criminal scientist who would often just wear his gray prison jumpsuit as a costume. He's pretty much the same, only more outright evil, more along the lines of "I WILL DESTROY YOU, SUPERMAN! HA HA HA HA!"

This is not just a nitpick, understand. It's Lex's brilliance and complexity that makes him a real threat, that truly makes him Superman's arch-nemesis. But the Luthor of Donner's and now Singer's Superman movies is neither hardcore corporate ruthless Luthor nor evil scientist Luthor. It's sleazy used car salesman Luthor.

He fucks an old lady for money. We wears wigs. He makes jokes and prances around. He isn't even that fucking SMART, for fuck's sake! He's just a sleazy bastard. And really, what the hell kind of enemy is that for SUPERMAN?

And yet, at the very least, it would have been nice to have seen some actual kind of CONFRONTATION between the hero and villain, eh?

I've done a fair amount of bitching here, but I say again, there was much here that I loved. I particularly loved the little touches like the two Jimmy Olsens hugging (the bartender was played by the guy who played Jimmy in the George Reeves show, bow tie and all!).

But what it really gets down to is that I'm waiting for the sequel. If this were just a stand-alone, I'd be pissed. But as a single chapter in the continuing franchise, I look forward to seeing what they do next. To see if they emphasize the strengths, tone down the weaknesses, fix the problems, and bring better ideas forward. Show more of Clark's human side. If they won't make Lex more of a threat, than how about Superman's other huge threats, such as Zod, Brainiac, or even Darkseid? How about a little more action and a little less meandering? I eagerly look forward to what they do next.

And if we have to see the damn kid again, give him a bloody haircut already.

Comments

[torberg.livejournal.com]

But the problem was that he was basically the same as Hackman's Luthor.

That's because it was somewhat meant to be. This movie was meant as a sequel to Superman II so it was the same characterization, not just character.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I understand that, sure, I'd just hoped in today's day and age we'd see something less campy and more serious.