[](http://www.istherefood.com/wp-
content/uploads/superman_returns_ver2.jpg)”Why the world doesn’t need
Superman”. That’s the title of Lois Lane’s Pulitzer winning article, an
article fueled by the emotions felt after the inexplicable disappearance of
the man she loved. It could just as feasibly be the subtitle of Brian Singer’s
attempt at bringing the Man of Steel back to cinema screens. But what was
Singer’s driving emotion?
Perhaps the bigger question is: Do we really need a new Superman film? Aren’t
the original films iconic representations of a lost age of film-making?
There’s no CGI, no bullet-time, and no attempt at the sort of epic set pieces
that Singer tries to accomplish here. And they’re all the better for it.
That’s not to say that Superman Returns is terrible, although I know there are
those of you out there that take that view - that’s what the comments are for.
It’s just that it doesn’t feel like it belongs. It’s an attempt at recapturing
the original film’s atmosphere, but with so much soulless CGI extravagance
that it misses the point entirely. Comparisons with Ang Lee’s The Incredible
Hulk aren’t entirely unfair: swap tedious psychological pondering with tedious
melodrama and the two have a fair bit in common. In its over-long two and a
half hour runtime, Superman Returns attempts to cram in the themes of lost
love, fatherhood, trust, the meaning of life, and heroism, topped off with a
hint of religious metaphor.
And while it’s unfair to say that none of the themes work on any level, they
don’t carry the sort of depth that it appears the writers feel they’ve
bestowed upon the film. As a final film in a trilogy featuring consistent
actors, carrying the momentum through to its concluding final act and
bestowing a greater sense of emotional attachment on the audience, Returns
might have worked brilliantly. But in a time when cinematic rebooting of super
hero stories are all the rage, it’s odd that this is the film that brings
Superman back.
Which is the other problem: nobody wanted, or perhaps dared, to reboot the
original franchise. Christopher Reeve’s truly iconic portrayal of Superman has
a fiercely guarded place in people’s hearts. As an example, my wife refuses to
see Superman Returns, disgusted as she is that this new film has been allowed
to exist. Singer and co. are either obsessed with Richard Donner’s original
film to the point of mimickery (as some reviewers
suggest)
or are so incapable of escaping the weight of Superman’s cinematic legacy that
they feel unable to change things by too great an extent. The classic score
remains, Marlon Brando’s lines of dialogue are featured heavily, and the
opening titles are created to resemble those of 1978. Albeit with a large dose
of CGI in the background.
The look of the film (although oddly not Superman’s costume) could have been
ripped straight out of the original. The fashions, the look of the buildings,
and the use of colour all have a retro style to them. It’s particularly clear
when looking at Lois Lane’s outfits that this is not meant to be set in the
present day. And while I appreciate the reasons behind the tweaks to
Superman’s costume, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense when everything else
is so lacking in modernisation. Yes, the Daily Planet have attached flat
screen tvs to every available column in their office, but the place still
feels like it doesn’t exist in the present day. Metropolis looks more like
Kong’s New York, than a modern city.
Which presents another uncomfortable clash of old and new: the actors. Given
that the look of the film is so clearly not modern, the actors - particularly
Bosworth and Routh - look incredibly modern. Kate Bosworth, looking for all
the world like a (slightly) younger Dina Meyer, doesn’t do a bad job. It’s
just that the job she’s doing isn’t playing Lois Lane. She looks too young to
believably have a child, acts too young to have been a reporter for as long as
we’re supposed to accept she has, and just doesn’t embody the character like
Hatcher and Kidder have before her. Admittedly, she had a lot to live up to.
But of everyone in this film, nobody had more weight on their shoulders than
Brandon Routh. To give him his credit, I thought he did…OK. I don’t see how
he could ever have lived up to the full expectation of any fan of Reeve’s
original performance. It’s unfortunate that, at times, he’s clearly imitating
Reeve (less as Superman, more as Kent) and this opens him up to a direct
comparison that will inevitably reflect badly. Whether Singer actually wanted
a Reeve-laden performance, or whether Routh felt he was in some way honoring
him by doing it, I don’t know.
I’m not surprised in any way, and I find it quite hard to be disappointed;
this is a new actor, plunged into a role with such weight, expectation, and
power that he would surely fall short by some degree. We’re not talking about
Keaton or Bale as Batman; we’re not even in Toby Maguire territory: Routh is a
complete unknown and carrys the role off as well as anyone else I can think
of. Which doesn’t mean I think the whole adventure was a good idea…
It’s also worth mentioning Kevin Spacey. The most accomplished actor here (or
should that credit go to the criminally under-used Frank Langella? Or the
virtual performance from Marlon Brando?) Spacey fails to make any real impact.
Most of his best lines are included in the trailer, and he’s understated more
often than not, leading to a performance that doesn’t ever really make much of
an impression. His gang of stooges, Parker Posey included, feel like another
throwback to the original films and feel similarly out of place here. Still,
Spacey doesn’t do a bad job per se, but the role seems to be comprised of all
the old Lex Luthor cliches; it’s time to find Superman a new cinematic
villain, methinks. That said, Luthor’s presence does lead to an
unintentionally hilarious scene involving the dramatic discovery of a
collection of wigs.
And, finally, it would be criminal to not mention James Marsden, who turns in
the best performance of the film. I can’t help but see him as a young,
American version of Cary Elwes, and it’s a comparison I’ve never noticed
before. I’ve never really classed myself as a fan, and I doubt I ever will,
but here he comes across as a likable, dashing husband to Lois Lane and he’s
almost certainly the character that conveys the best, and possibly only, sense
of pathos. It’s a testament to the Lois/Superman storyline’s lack of
effectiveness that we root for her husband, not the supposed Man of Steel.
Surely that wasn’t the desired outcome?
All of the above sounds overly negative, and that doesn’t reflect my enjoyment
of the film. Because I did enjoy it. Despite it’s lack of pace, goofy script,
cliched plot, and a final 30 minutes that just will not end, I enjoyed it.
It’s not the best super hero film I’ve seen all year, nor is it the most
emotional super hero film I’ve seen all year: X3 takes both of those titles,
the film that a certain Mr Singer decided not to bother with. To be totally
honest, it’s a bad super hero film, full stop. But it’s not a terrible film,
and it’s certainly not the worst film I’ve seen this year.
As an action-chick-flick for a new generation of Superman fans, it delivers.
For those of us who are fans of the original, or were brought up on it - and
it certainly seems like that’s the audience this is aimed at - it’s an
moderately enjoyable, but unimpressive sequel, which should probably never
have happened.
So does the world need Superman? I’m not convinced. Regardless, Brian Singer
and the studio appear to be, as Singer has confirmed the sequel. Maybe they’ll
follow the example of the Incredible Hulk sequel and give us something a
little more action packed? I can’t help but feel that the weight of
expectation is somewhat lifted after (what will be perceived as) a semi-
successful return to our screens, which will hopefully result in a more
enjoyable second outing for Routh, Bosworth et al.