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

[whimmydiddle.livejournal.com]

You sound a lot like me. Willing to credit & admit & enjoy the film's strengths, but having a hard time forgiving its flaws. (We even agree on some of the flaws.) A very/love hate situation. I liked it enough to want to see it in IMAX. And I want to catch all the small places where they honored the Reeve films-- like the meteorite from Adis Abbaba! Priceless!

It could have been much much worse. It could have been trash. Routh is growing on me a little. I'll take it.

*applause* I thought you were just going to be picky here, but after reading, I agree...mostly. :)

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

Spot-on review, Hef. Except the kid's haircut (or lack thereof) was cute, I think.

I don't follow comics, so I didn't pick up on all that you picked up on, but I can put myself in your shoes enough to empathize, especially about the writers having written themselves into a corner you feel is tangential, irrelevant, and bothersome, if not devastating to the story. I, though, don't mind seeing where this whole "kid" thing goes. It's interesting to me, even if deviant. I would have been happy to trade that for more Man-God vs. Himself conflict, though.

I also agreed about Lois. Something about her seemed less glamorous than the Lois I remember as a kid from the original movie. Don't get me wrong: She was Hot. Almost Natalie Portman-esque, I thought. But. I don't know. Maybe it was the looking-young thing. I couldn't place it. She just didn't seem as good of a match as Superman's Reeve-to-Routh casting analogy.

As for Lex, do you think the fault was in how it was written, or how it was acted? I feel like Spacey made that character everything it was written to be and then some, but that the results missed the mark--you described it perfectly in your Lex-as-sleazy-not-smart bit, and I agree. I'd have liked to see what you describe, and I almost see a Pacino-like figure, if not Pacino himself, bringing that to the table. But, I'm sure you'll agree, it'd have to be a writing and directorial choice to make him more than what he currently is through Spacey. I just kept thinking "Spacey's playing Dr. Evil again," and I halfway expected Danny Devito to run out with cigar-in-mouth and shootin' shit up with an M16.

Here's my challenge to you: Design your own Superman. Character sketches with actors you'd choose and why, along with a basic plotline. Go!

[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.

Re: *applause* I thought you were just going to be picky here, but after reading, I agree...mostly.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Thankee, pally.

Yeah, I will be very interested to see what they do with the kid. Hell, they might even do something brilliant with it. We'll see.

The fault with Lex was squarely on how he was written. In a less capable actor's hands, this Lex could have been totally goofy (like Hackman or, say, Tommy Lee Jones in BATMAN FOREVER), but Spacey at least made him menacing and dark. With less jokes and sleazyness, Spacey could have been the *perfect* Lex Luthor, which is part of the tragedy here. You know who Clancy Brown is? He's been on LOST for a few episodes. His vocal performances as Lex have been spot-on.

God, that Danny Devito thing... oh man, it's so sad, that's just what I'll be thinking now.

I believe I shall take you up on your challenge in a near future post.

[gore-whore-5.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The kid thing was odd, but I did like him passing on what his father said to his son. Still, that one good part doesn't fix what trouble they'll have continuing that character.

I also didn't like how much younger Superman and Lois looked. If it's 5 years in the future, how come they look 10 years younger? I really wished Parker Posey and Kate Bosworth would trade roles. Parker is such a good actress and really looks like Lois that I know she could pull it off. And Bosworth is just a pretty chick to me (although she did a decent job as Lois) so she'd be fine as Lex's girl. And every time I see this movie, I will get more and more bothered by it. Oh well.

But damn do I love Superman. Everybody does. At least they should.

After the movie, I looted through my things and found an old VHS that I used to watch as a little kid with Superman in it. And when I say old, I mean old. Lois looks just like Judy Garland and there is a "new" Merie Melodies cartoon after the Superman cartoon. I have no idea where this thing came from, but I have it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you love Superman. I didn't think you did. A lot of people really dislike him, and it bothers me.

Ohhh man, you're talking about Max Fleischer's Superman cartoons. Some of the greatest animation ever made, period. The last few were crap because the studio cut funding, but the first 10 or so are little masterpieces. If only people would fund animation like that these days.