*Superman Returns

Directed by Bryan Singer
Written by Michael Dougherty (screenplay and story), Dan Harris (screenplay and story), Bryan Singer (story), Jerry Siegel & Joel Shuster (book and characters)


There's a scene about midway through Superman Returns when Superman (Brandon Routh) asks Lois (Kate Bosworth) to come with him, that he has something to show her. They fly high above Metropolis, and he gives her a short but big speech about how, despite Lois' human-empowering, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial to the contrary, people still need saving, and are still asking to be saved. They fly back to the Daily Planet building, where she goes inside and he flies off into space. A moving scene, I suppose, but all I kept thinking was: wasn't there something that he wanted to show her?

And that pretty much points to my fundamental problem with Bryan Singer's latest forway into superhero franchisedom, which is this: the movie isn't about anything.

Much is made in the beginning of the film that Superman is back. Not just that he's here, but that he's back, i.e., that the act of return itself, and therefore his absence, actually had some significance. All signs point to this being where the movie is headed: why did he leave? Why did he come back? How has the world changed in his absence? How has he changed? Will he fit in any better or worse than he did before? Will the world still have a place for him? Will the world welcome him back? Has the world simply moved on without him?

All of these questions, and any other question of relevance or significance, are completely ignored.

Instead, we have some inane plot involving Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor (who also returns, conveniently, at the exact same time as Superman) trying to raise an island off of the East Coast, flooding and killing millions. Can Superman stop him in time? (Duh.)

The casting didn't bother me as much as I thought it would, mostly because Superman Returns isn't nearly as direct a sequel to Richard Donner's Superman and Richard Donner/Richard Lester's Superman II as you've been led by the press and geek sites to believe. Yes, it is a sequel, but it operates just fine (better, in fact) as a standalone, or a reboot if you want to get technical. So, while implausible, it is at least theoretically conceivable that everyone was 18 years old when Superman left, and that's why they're now, what, 23?, now that he's come back. Implausible, but conceivable.

A lot has been made of the long search for a new actor to play Superman, and as actors go, Brandon Routh isn't a bad choice, though he's no Christover Reeve. See, Reeve's greatness was always that he was able to pull off both Clark Kent and Superman with equal aplomb, whereas other screen Clark/Supermans looked either like boxers stuffed into suits and glasses (George Reeves) or, like Tobey Maguire in the Spiderman movies, little boy heads freakishly stuck onto man-bodies (Dean Cain, and now Brandon Routh). Still, anything's better than, say, Nicolas Cage (age-appropriateness aside).

Effects were well-done, for the most part. Note to self: when making an effects-heavy Hollywood blockbuster-type (and especially when using that "rubberman" software that is apparently the pinnacle of visual effects technology today - at least, that's what everyone's using), use effects sparingly, behind lots of shadows and smoke, and in actual speed (sped up, in fact, if possible). Under no circumstances should effects like this be shown in slow motion, with camera lingering significantly over it all. Hollywood, listen: I know you spent a hundred million dollars on it and you want to get every penny's worth, but trust me, "rubberman" does NOT look as good as you think it does (i.e., at all).

So why recommend Superman Returns? Like I said, most of the effects were good, and performances were solid. Plus, I remember actually recommending Revenge of the Sith last year (dear god, can I retcon that review?), and Superman Returns was certainly better than that.