Superman Returns

He’s got the whole world in his hands

2006

Review: July 5, 2006

Director: Bryan Singer

Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey

Advised, but the low-key nature of the movie may leave you waiting for thrills.

THE SETUP:

Superman comes back to Earth, saves shit.

DISCUSSION:

Hmmm, what a surprise. This is totally not the movie I expected it to be. And while I embrace any would-be blockbuster that attempts to shake up the normal conventions of mass movie entertainment, I wouldn’t mind a thrill or two thrown in here or there.

The movie begins with Marlon Brando saying some shit that doesn’t seem to have much to do with anything [this was assembled from outtakes from his speeches recorded for the 1978 Superman]. Then Superman crashes to Earth in a ship very much like the one in the first film. Why he couldn’t just fly back, I don’t know, but this [as well as the farm scenes that follow] serve to ground the scenario firmly in the same world as the first film, if only by replicating whole sequences. Anyway, it’s not long before Superman is back in Metropolis, and back at the office of the Daily Planet as his alter-ego Clark Kent.

After some exposition about how Lois Lane has moved on with her life, we get the whole airplane rescue that we saw in the trailers. I like the way Superman makes a grand re-entrance to the world, but during all this I was kind of like “Okay, but where’s the excitement?” This will be your first clue that director Singer is positioning us to marvel at Superman’s vast power, rather than have an exciting thrill-packed action scene. Okay, but why can’t we have both? The entire thing is somehow so muted and matter-of-fact. Maybe that’s a strength.

Anyway, Lois is annoyed that Superman left without saying goodbye, and has moved on and has a kid and is engaged to a not-bad guy at the paper. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey provides the only shred of fun as a nice, evil Lex Luthor, accompanied by Parker Posey, who, to everyone’s chagrin, doesn’t really get to do anything. She has just seem to have become one of those actresses [like Joan Cusack] who everyone likes to see do what they do, but no one can figure out a good role for them to do it in. Anyway, Lex has stolen some of the crystals from Superman’s fortress of solitude, which grow exponentially while in water, and plots big trouble with them.

There’s some material about Superman saving people here and there, with a bit more concern for the entire world this time, not just his city [hey dude, check out Darfur]. These scenes also prove to be thrill-free, and pale in comparison to the same, infinitely more charming sequence in the 1978 movie.

So Luthor also gets some Kryptonite and shoots it all into the ocean, where it will apparently grow a new continent that will destroy most of the United States. It grows, but it seems relatively small and certainly stays offshore. Was this just a test run? Or did he miscalculate? Superman flies out there, but he’s in big trouble because of all the Kryptonite, and his helpless body gets tossed into the ocean. Will this spell the end of the Man of Steel?

Let’s discuss a bit before we get to the spoilers. In this movie, Superman has a slightly new way of flying, which just happens to put him in the Christ pose, complete with one bent leg, over and over and over. There are also numerous iconic images of him supporting the world like Atlas, most notably when he holds the giant globe atop the Daily Planet on his shoulders. And then there’s all the talk about whether the world needs a savior, and after a while it’s like: “We get it. Superman is like Christ, but in tighter clothes.” Maybe I would have been more into it if they had just come out and called it The Passion of the Superman. And if the first movie hadn’t conveyed his power more impressively and effortlessly.

As it winds on you start to think, like, dude, where’s my climax? Without giving too much away, Luthor and Superman never actually face off, and the climax is more of an act of prowess than anything—and then there’s 20 more minutes of low-key emotional stuff. Okay, fine, I can see how Singer is trying to do something different, so very admirable, but does that mean it has to be such a bummer? I was sitting there saying “Okay, so something HAS to happen at the end,” but after a while it became apparent that nothing was going to happen. The whole focus is on what does it mean to be an outsider, what a god Superman is, and how even gods need to be saved sometimes. Okay, I guess that’s fine, I just don’t care. To me, the scene in Spider-Man 2 where Parker takes off his mask and is unconscious on the subway did a similar thing and was much more moving and effective. And hey, by the way, the first movie made Superman iconic and into a god as well, in a way that I found more palatable for not being shoved down my throat, and with an exciting and moving climax as well. And by the way, the first movie found a weakness in Superman—his own virtue—that’s more interesting to me than boring old Kryptonite.

SPOILERS > > >
One other thing—I could have totally done without the twist centering around the kid. In fact, I could have totally done without the kid. And… if Lois’ fiancée thinks that the kid could be his, doesn’t that mean that she started bonking him like within a month of Superman bonking her? Or was she already doing it with him? And did Superman leave like the day after Superman II ended?
< < < SPOILERS END

In retrospect, the trailer that begins with Luthor at the fortress of solitude and ends with the plane sequence [trailer 2] is a marvel of exposition and exciting editing. I like that a lot better than the movie. It’s a little like that first trailer for Star Wars Episode One, the one that begins with the mower-things coming over the grassy hill. After I had seen the whole movie I was like, “That trailer has a more coherent narrative arc than the entire film!”

This movie seems to be getting a lot of praise for how mature and adult it is for a comic book movie. But you know, back when we used to have MOVIES FOR ADULTS and every single thing didn’t have to be adapted from a comic book, you didn’t have to try to pump up something like Superman with the very, very serious issues it supposedly brings up. I get the feeling [based on the film, I haven’t read anything to this effect] that Singer feels like he should be congratulated for making such a very serious superhero movie. To me this seems like a misguided effort. If you want to invest a comic book movie with unexpected depth, like his X-2 or Spider-Man 2, that’s one thing, but you know, if you want to make Hamlet, go off and make Hamlet.

There’s something in the tone of this movie that seems to be asking for praise, and maybe that’s why I feel so stingy in giving it. I feel like it is setting viewers up: if you don’t like it, you’re an obvious moron who can only enjoy Deuce Bigelow 12 or whatever. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with expecting thrills and excitement [or at least a CLIMAX!] from a summer superhero blockbuster, and if you want praise for making a serious comic book movie, you’ll have to do better than warmed-over Christ-figure bullshit, daddy trauma and abandonment issues.

The more I think about this movie the less I like it.

SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?

You know you will.

RELATED MOVIES:
SUPERMAN [1978] is bright and funny and deep and thematically coherent while still managing to show us a great time.
My essay The Themes of Superman [1978] picks apart the carefully laid-out subtext of that film, which makes an interesting contrast with how leaden this one is.