Superman Returns
In its own way, “Superman Returns” is the most abstract concept for a blockbuster I’ve ever heard. Try to follow me here. It is at once a fresh start of a venerable franchise (like last year’s “Batman Begins”) and a sequel to the first two movies of said franchise that ignores movies in the first cycle (“Superman III” and “IV,” you are the weakest links…goodbye) while recasting the actors who brought characters to life the first time around. Writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, who conceived of the story with director Bryan Singer (all veterans of “X2: X-Men United,” one of the best superhero movies ever), said in an interview they were thinking along the lines of the James Bond franchise, which has endured for 40 years because each movie stays true to the fundamental archetypes laid out in the beginning even when the characters have had changes in actors. You kind of see that mentality in “Returns,” but it works easier when no two films are linked by any linear continuity from one to the other– like in the Bond franchise.
“Superman Returns” takes place five years after… and well, we’ll get to that later. Just know that Superman, and obviously Clark Kent (How is it that people can’t put 2 and 2 together? Nevermind), has been gone for five years, off to find the remnant of his home planet of Krypton after scientists thought they’d found its remains. Now back on Earth, and after a brief reunion with adopted mother Martha Kent (Eva Marie Saint, from such classics as “On the Waterfront” and “North By Northwest,” in an almost pointless cameo for the character), Clark returns to Metropolis and his job at The Daily Planet to find a changed world. Old friend Jimmy Olsen (Sam Huntington, agreeable in the role) is just as happy to see him as ever, and though he rehired him, Daily Planet chief Perry White (Frank Langella, a good choice for the role, though others, specifically the originally cast Hugh Laurie [from the Singer-produced series “House MD,” which caused a scheduling conflict] would have really made the role fly) is just as happy to ignore him as ever, while old flame Lois Lane (now a Pulitzer winner for an article titled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”) is just as determined a reporter as ever, though sometimes oblivious of Clark and so over her crush on Superman. Well, that’s before Superman rescues her from a crashing jet in an experimental test of old nemesis Lex Luthor (who was just released from prison since Superman couldn’t make his parole hearing) and his latest plan for world domination. Some things never change, but some things– Did I mention that Lois has a five-year old son and a fiancee in White’s nephew, Richard? (James Marsden, in a role large enough to explain the near-absense of Cyclops in “X-Men: The Last Stand”) –will never be the same again.
Folks, this is a damn good story for a “Superman” movie. It’s easy to see why Warner Bros. gave Singer, Dougherty, and Harris a go on it with all their financial and marketing weight behind the film (upwards to $250 million). But here’s where the movie begins to lose me: This is a sequel story… to a movie I didn’t feel like we’ve seen yet. From here on out, I will be discussing the film on an almost metaphysical level (by Hollywood standards); feel free to stop reading at any moment and turn to a more traditional critical analysis of the film.
As mentioned before, the movie at once is a restart of a franchise as well as a continuation of the original franchise. (There’s also a third level to that, to be discussed later.) How Singer and the writers developed the story was by having it take place after the events of Richard Donner’s superb 1978 film (and to a lesser extent, the 1980 sequel, from which Donner was fired), which is why the film can get away with the title card at the start of the film, which gets us up to speed, and the use of archive footage of the late Marlon Brando as Superman’s father Jor-El. Well, why the film can almost get away with it. Personally, the movie didn’t engage me on an emotional level the way other superhero films- “Superman: The Movie,” “X-Men,” “Batman Begins,” and “Spider-Man”- that occupy that #1 slot for a potential franchise have. Watching “Superman Returns,” I didn’t get that connection… because I didn’t feel like I was given a chance to make that connection with these characters… or I should say these versions of the characters. Intellectually, I know this is intended to be a continuation of the original film(s)– at least elements in them anyway –but these aren’t the same characters we saw in those movies, and it’s not just a matter of different actors playing them. It was as if there was a history and backstory to these characters that I wasn’t in on. True, Donner’s film presented the origin story in a way that, to many, is iconic (see the casting of Brando) and definitive, something we didn’t get in DC’s other fallen superhero franchise with Tim Burton’s “Batman,” providing an opportunity for Christopher Nolan’s rejuvination with “Begins” to lay it out properly for the first time. But by relying so much on Donner’s original film to fill in any blanks, Singer, a self-professed admirer of Donner’s film (which inspired his handling of “X-Men” and is one of the reasons he became a filmmaker), doesn’t allow his more contemporary take on the universe to truly be its own film, which is a disservice to his cast, who has the unenviable task of following the late Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, and Gene Hackman in roles they made their own.
It’s a shame, too, because Brandon Routh (an unknown soap actor), Kate Bosworth (sporting brown hair instead of her usual blonde), and Kevin Spacey (a two-time Oscar winner whose first was for Singer’s “The Usual Suspects”) are all game talents. As Luthor, Spacey is inspired casting, capable of a darker and deliciously, deviously funnier Lex than Hackman’s largely comic approach; sadly, that ideal “Spacey-esque” version of Lex comes in spurts throughout the film, not allowing his take on Luthor to reach the heights of great superhero film villains such as Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock (“Spider-Man 2”), Sir Ian McKellen’s Magneto (the “X-Men” franchise), Jack Nicholson’s Joker (“Batman”), Jim Carrey’s The Riddler (“Batman Forever”), and Hackman’s own Luthor.
Routh had the most daunting challenge: taking over the role of Clark Kent/Superman from Reeve. That he looked like Reeve in some ways was a point of concern for me, making me nervous that they casted Routh more for his physical similarities to Reeve than his abilities to make the role his own. After five films (besides the two “X-Men” and “Suspects,” he’s also done “Public Access” and “Apt Pupil”), you’d think I would trust Singer to know what he’s doing in casting his films (especially after the “X-Men” films). Unfortunately, I felt Routh’s character suffered the most from the decision to make this story the first with this cast. His performance in “Returns” is keeping in the spirit of the characters, both mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent and larger-than-life hero Superman. But because of the story’s “sequel” feeling, while also feeling like a new beginning, I didn’t begin to feel a connection with Routh’s Kent until the midway point of the 160-minute “Returns” (which moves well, though not as fluidly as “X2” did, courtesy of editor/composer John Ottman– more on his score later –this time assisted by Elliot Graham as an editor), although that I became caught up in Superman’s story bodes well for the finale, which requires an emotional investment for the film to end satisfyingly. I look forward to seeing where Routh and Singer take the character in the next story.
Of the main players, Bosworth is the weakest link as Kent’s love, Lois Lane… but not that weak. Mostly, it’s that she just looks way too young to be a Pulitzer winner and mother to a 5-year old, but she also lacks Kidder’s tenacity in bringing the sharp investigative reporter to life. She’s not bad in the role, though. (Believe me, I was bracing for worse.) She convinced me of the character’s changing attitude toward Superman: at first being pretty cynical about The Man of Steel (Wouldn’t you be, too, if the love of your life disappeared for 5 years with no word?) but then, at the end, risking her own life to help him. And she displays a clear love for Richard and her son, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu), and doesn’t just drop Richard for Superman as she would in a lesser movie. Like Routh, she also has the disadvantage of having to carry an emotional sequel story without having much of a chance to grow into the role first. But also like Routh, I really want to see what she brings to the character in future films by the end.
The rest of the main characters– or actually, the main supporting characters –are well cast and acted also. I touched on Langella as Perry White, Huntington as Jimmy Olsen, and Marie Saint as Ma Kent earlier… Now, to give props (and some notes) to the other major characters. Parker Posey is sly fun as Luthor’s floozy sidekick Kitty Kowalski. (My apologies to the friend to whom I insisted that she was the same character from the first two “Superman” films; she isn’t; that was “Ms. Teschmacher!!”) But like Spacey, you get the feeling that Posey (the terrifically funny actress from Christopher Guest’s fake documentaries) is being reined in a bit. As Richard White, Marsden brings a pretty 1-dimensional role to life effectively by simply making him a good guy. Singer and the writers seem to be setting up a love triangle here, but they subvert that idea interestingly by making him a worthy suitor to Lois, a loving father to Jason, and a loyal ally to Superman/Clark when they have to team up to save Lois. Is he jealous of Superman for what he does to Lois? Yes, but she makes it clear he’s the guy for her, and you can see why in his intelligent and charismatic supporting performance, probably the best outside of the main three in the movie… that is, besides the use of the late Marlon Brando’s archival footage as Jor-El throughout moments in the film, a conceit that actually works better than I thought it might, though in keeping with my issues about the movie, I really wish they had tried to tell the origin story anew instead of basing it on Donner’s version.
So, about that kid. I’m kind of at two minds about it, especially with the big reveal in the second hour. I won’t say more, but quite frankly, do I need to? It’s a good kid performance by Tristan Lake Leabu, by which I mean that he makes the character seem like a kid, and an appealing one at that. You couldn’t ask for more in a performance without nit-picking. But having the kid in the movie brings up more issues with its placement in the timeline of the story (and its place as a faux-sequel to the first two films) than need be talked about. As for the reveal, it seems to be more for a throw-away gag– don’t ask –than any story purposes until near the end, when Singer & Co. seem to have finally brought to light their reason for telling this story, delineating the theme of isolation Superman (and by extension, Clark) feels by not being a human but being around them. Are we going to continue this story arc, or is that it? It’s a similar problem with the handling of the Phoenix story in “X-Men: The Last Stand,” i.e. it seems like there’s more to the story than what we’re being shown. At least by the end of “Superman Returns” you don’t feel like that arc is over… or completely wasted. You just wonder whether it might have been better had the writers saved it for another film. But again, I get why they had it in there.
When a movie costs $200 million dollars like this one did, though, you expect some major bang for your buck, and “Superman Returns” has it all over the place. The production design for Metropolis is inspired in its combination of old-school and new-school architecture, invoking the past while seeming completely in the present. The Fortress of Solitude and the Kent farm are both rendered with loving tribute to Donner’s film, while Lex’s “new continent,” I could explain, but I’ll let the movie take that one, reminding me of the spaceship in Alex Proyas’s “Dark City,” I wonder if some of the same set design was used? They did film in Australia, which was a dramatically realized place for the climax of the film. It’s the best art directed movie of the year thus far. The cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, a Singer regular, captures all of the moods– both bright and dark –at work in the story with equal elegance and craft.
The special effects by Industrial Light & Magic deliver in spades. I was worried going in that it looked like “The Matrix Reloaded” in that they had too much money and were going to make sure you saw every penny, but with few exceptions, this movie lacked that one’s transparent artificiality from a visual level. It comes in handy with the big action scenes, which are all perfectly realized for maximum tension, though some (the rescue at sea of Lois, Richard, and Jason) worked better than others because the feeling for these characters started to kick it. (It is a cool sequence, but that shuttle sequence didn’t do anything for me either time that I saw it.) In the end, though, the most important part in this area is that you believe a man can fly. You do, even if not always invested in why he is flying.
The music. This was actually one of the areas I wasn’t worried about. John Ottman has proven his mettle in genre films before, with Singer (“The Usual Suspects,” “X2: X-Men United”), and without him (“Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”). But between “X2” and “Kiss Kiss” came a shot at scoring “Fantastic Four.” After “X2,” a distinct musical voice for a superhero movie all its own, I was excited about the prospect. But like the rest of that 2005 creative dud, Ottman’s score underwhelmed, sounding more like recycled Danny Elfman cast-offs for the genre than an original creative voice. Surely, even when working with John Williams’s iconic themes for “Superman,” “Returns” would mark a return to form. Well… OK, I’ll admit that I’d buy the soundtrack just because of the way Ottman deftly used Williams’s themes with his original writing. This isn’t a repeat of “Jurassic Park III,” where Don Davis, the gifted composer for the “Matrix” trilogy, wasn’t allowed to deviate on his own original path far from the work Williams did in the first two films. But Ottman has his own identity issues with “Superman Returns.” His original music just didn’t do much for me. His action cues were highlights, calling back to his evocative work on “Suspects” and “X2,” but a lot of his non-theme work had the same issue that came up with “Fantastic Four”– call it Elfman-itis. Sure, Williams’s “Superman” score aside, Elfman is the dean of superhero scores– his “Batman” and “Spider-Man” scores (even the undervalued “Hulk”) are all-timers, but if you want someone to write in his style, just call the man up. Don’t ask an equally talented composer to compromise his own originality by having him write like someone else. My biggest issue was the use of choir to heighten the emotion; it worked wonders for Elfman on the “Spider-Man” scores, but it’s such a cliche at this point that it drags down Ottman’s score when it should soar. In a year when not much music for major blockbusters has stood out for excelling, “Superman Returns,” unfortunately, doesn’t buck the trend but enforces it.
I said in the early stages of this review that “Superman Returns” was an abstract concept for a blockbuster, and after a second viewing of the movie (on IMAX with enhanced 3D sequences that, admittedly, were disappointing), I still feel that way. But there’s a third conceptualization I didn’t really touch on before. It’s clear from frame one that Bryan Singer worships the original “Superman” film. Quotations, both in dialogue and ideas, are everywhere, from the flying credits at the beginning to the use of Williams’s themes to the “cameo” by Marlon Brando to the closing shot of Superman flying high above the Earth towards the sun. It’s enough to make you think that in addition to being a sequel to the first two “Superman” films and a restart for the franchise, Singer & Co. were looking to do a remake (of sorts) of the original film while pretending it was a sequel, you know, like Sam Raimi & Co. did with “Evil Dead II.” The problem is that was a brilliant reconceptualization of a low-budget horror film that had a small cult following at the time, and this was a mega-budget return of an iconic superhero to the big screen, and when a filmmaker is paying homage to something he loves dearly (the original film) so obviously, one wonders when a film like this becomes more like the cinematic equivalent of self-gratification than actual filmmaking.
