June 28, 2006
(UPDATED) Superman Returns-Initial Thoughts
WARNING: I WILL WRITE WHAT IS CALLED "SPOILERS" IN THIS POST THAT WILL "SPOIL" THE MOVIE IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT. DONT READ UNTIL YOUVE SEEN IT!
I have a BILLION thoughts about Superman Returns, which I saw last night. I really dont trust myself to write an accurate review until Ive seen the film again, but I thought I would fire out my initial thoughts in a more rapid-fire fashion.
First off, for anybody reading this who went with me last night, I have to say it was so much fun having so many people show up to see the movie with me. It was just a lot of fun for me so thanks!!
So let me just give my thoughts by talking quickly about each of the main elements of the film:
CLARK KENT: Loved him! One of my friends had a negative reaction to the way Brandon Routh came off in this film, and while Im not so bias as to be impervious to all criticism against this movie (this film was by no means perfect) I would pretty much have to wholeheartedly disagree with any substantial attacks against Routh's performance. The verdict is not in yet on Routh, on whether or not he is truly a good actor or just a great imitator of Christopher Reeve. I do think Routh showed some real promise in the fact that some of his more emotional scenes were entirely believable to me. But even if Routh may never win an Academy Award, he pulled off Clark Kent beautifully. I couldnt have asked for a better portrayal of that character. Every facial expression and line was pulled off with grace and precision, with all of the nervous, shy, and bumbling characteristics of a well-played Clark. It will probably be debated whether or not Routh truly channeled the character of Clark Kent or whether he just channeled Christopher Reeve's 1978 performance. I believe the former. Brandon was Clark Kent. A striking example of this to me was when Clark found out that Lex Luthor was released from prison because Superman missed a court date. Jimmy says something to Clark to the effect of "I bet that really p@#@es Superman off" and Clark responds by nodding and saying "Yeah, A Lot." I cant express it in writing, but Brandon just captured oodles and oodles of Clark Kent in the way that he delivered that line and thats just one of many examples from the movie where Brandon just delivered the line and the look in just the right way. He managed to look just like Clark to Jimmy while revealing a strong hint of Superman to the audience, and I just love that kind of stuff.
SUPERMAN (UPDATED!!!): I cant believe it! I actually posted this whole review and I forgot to put anything in about Superman. What an idiot! Well, now I am updating the post so I hope nobody missed out on my thoughts here. I dont even have much to say except "BEST SUPERMAN EVER!!!" Now dont misinterpret that statement. This is not necessarily the best overall performance ever for Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El as a whole. But as far as Superman is concerned, and soley Superman, he has never shined brighter than in this movie. If this truly was a Jesus movie, then what we get in this movie is a focus on the "divinity" aspects of his character. Clark, the human, has a relatively small role. Superman has a huge role! We see him in some of the most spectacular, awe-inspiring sequences we have ever seen him in! We actually see Superman on screen longer than Clark. Thats pretty much the opposite of every other superhero movie out there. Usually we see lots of the "secret identity" and then we see just glimpses of the hero during key sequences. In Batman Begins, we see mostly Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. In Spiderman, the focus is on Toby Maguire as Peter Parker. But in this movie, the focus is Superman, and thats who Brandon Routh spends most of his time portraying. And I really liked that about the movie. I thought it was unique and I thought Superman really needed his due. This was one of the stronger aspects of the film. And Brandon Routh played him beautifully in every scene. There was not one scene in the whole movie where Brandon Routh did not perfectly capture the essence of the character in every look and every line.
LEX LUTHOR: I mean, come on. No matter what one might say about Spacey's performance (Was it evil enough? Was it too campy? Was he threatening enough?), could any other actor have pulled this role off as well? Spacey was the natural choice for the part. I thought this even before he was cast in the role. I had no qualms about his peformance really. It was just the Lex Luthor I hoped to see on the big screen. Granted, more could have happened with his character. And I think some people will be surprised to learn that this IS NOT a Superman vs. Lex Luthor movie. I was even a bit surprised. I really thought the conflict with Lex would be greater and more central to the movie. But Lex is actually a bit of a sideplot compared to some of the more emotional stuff going on in the film. That was an unorthodox choice on Singer's part, and Im not sure how I feel about it. Lex could have been a more central threat in the film. But instead, he kind of swoops in from the side and then disappears to a deserted island. Nevertheless, Spacey was the perfect choice and lit up every one of his scenes. One of the highlights for me was the scene where Lex and Lois confront each other for the first time. I expected this huge, almost frightening moment where Lex captures Lois unawares. But instead, in a brilliant move on the writers part, Lois captures Lex unawares while Lex is brushing his teeth. It was a truly great moment, where I was really happy Kevin Spacey was in the scene and not somebody else.
LOIS LANE: Ok, this is a more controversial one. I cant say I really loved Lois Lane in this movie or the way Kate Bosworth played her. But I UNDERSTOOD her completely. What people want from Lois Lane is a fast-talking, wise-cracking, confident but nervous, stubborn but easily swept away, psychological mess of a woman. And Kate just plays this really restrained, almost completely un-animated Lois that is bound to disappoint some hardcore Lois fans. On the other hand, I really did have to take a step back and think about where Lois was in this movie. Superman impregnates her and then just leaves for five years. She is now a mother and balancing a relationship with a man she deeply cares for with a hidden love she has for a man she deeply misses. I totally understand why she would have lost some spunk, why she would be missing some fire. It makes total sense. In fact, if Lois had been too animated, and too spunky, it would have probably made me angry because it wouldnt have made sense character wise. Lois in this movie was not a lot of fun, but she made a lot of sense. My main worry is for the sequels. Kate plays an excellent restrained Lois. But can she play an unrestrained Lois for future movies. I sure hope so because we are stuck with her.
RICHARD WHITE: Loved him, loved him, loved him! There were so many ways for this new character to go wrong. For those of you who dont know, Richard White is a brand new addition to the Superman universe. There was great potential for him to go horrendously wrong. But the exact opposite happened. The writers really enobled this character. They didnt just write him as the "boyfriend in the way" of Superman that the audience just despises. The writers could have made him cocky, arrogant, and stupid. (Think of Superman's rival to Lana Lang in Superman III) I am so glad that the writers made this character likeable and made him somebody that you WANT to see in the sequels. You understand why Lois would fall in love with this guy. Hes a hero in his own right. Hes a little bit like the totally human version of Superman. He flies (but he has to use a plane), he's a great writer, and hes just an honest-to-goodness decent guy. This movie has a ton of Biblical parallels (one might say too many for one film) and I think there was definitely an idea here to make Richard a parallel to the Biblical Joseph, the man now responsible for raising a "super-kid" not his own.
THE KID (Jason White): OK, I dont know who will agree with me here, but I honestly think that the addition of Jason White to the Superman mythos was this film's most redeeming factor. I think (well, actually I know) that a lot of Superman fans are really angry that Singer decided to give Superman a kid, especially an illegitimate one. But personally, I think it was a great idea. In fact, I think it was a brilliant idea, perhaps the most brilliant addition to the Superman legend weve seen in decades. Superman has always been a story about some of the grandest themes in human history. He is a Christ-figure, a Moses-figure, the ultimate immigrant, the ultimate orphan, a weighty representation of both divine and human characteristics, a man of early twentieth century modern optimism (The Man of Tomorrow), but also a nostalgic throwback to the pre-modern, mythological man/god of Ancient Greece. So Superman manages to speak to a lot of things about humanity's past, its present, and its future. And yet, up until this point, Superman has never been a father, and a father to a broken family to boot. Superman's biggest weakness in the eyes of comic book fans has alway been that he is too perfect, too strong, too idealistic. Well, Singer has really turned that upside down in my mind. He has given Superman a truly legitimate human flaw. He is an imperfect father to an imperfect child. He now stands for the broken family, and not just the nuclear family of his 1940's and 1950's heyday. His child is not just some fun "super-kid" (although thats what Roger Ebert wanted him to be). No, his son has asthma, and his son is a bit insecure and feels guilty and confused when he throws a piano on top of his mother's attacker (his only super-feat in the film). I absolutely loved this element of the story. The movie itself, which actually lost a lot of steam for me toward the end, was "saved" by a very touching scene at the end where Superman visits his son at his bedside. At that moment, I believed in the film whole-heartedly again and I believed in Singer's vision.
JIMMY OLSEN: Perfect! This guy is the best Jimmy Olsen since Jack Larson (of the 1950's TV show) hands down. For me, nobody will ever beat Jack Larson. But Sam Huntington of the new film is definitely the runner up. He was funny, a great deliverer of his lines, and the only thing wrong with his character is that we didnt see enough of him. I definitely want more Jimmy! I think it was especially great that Huntington got to do one of his scenes with Jack Larson (as the bartender). It was great to see one great Jimmy Olsen pass the torch to another. The highlight scene for Jimmy in this movie might be his scene at the dinner table when he bites into a burrito trying to avoid rising tensions in the room between Richard and Lois. Priceless look on his face.
PERRY WHITE: The new movie brings us a pretty massive reinterpretation of Perry White's character if you ask me. Perry up until now has always been a little bit manic. Hes had a hot temper, gets easily frustrated with Jimmy, and is always pushing Lois. Over the years, it has seemed that Perry's hot temper has been on a continual decline. The 1950's Perry was always hot-tempered. He pretty much yelled all of his lines and a good portion of those lines were "GREAT CEASAR"S GHOST!" The 1970's Perry was fairly on par with the 1950's Perry. He was also very hot-tempered. But the 1990's Perry on "Lois and Clark" was a lot more reserved. He was transformed into a more genial, southern gentlemen who no longer said "Great Ceasar's Ghost" but preferred to say "Great Shades of Elvis!" The hot temper was definitely still there, but it was the more refined, calculated Southern temper that Ive personally come to experience here in the South. And now we have this new Perry White played by Frank Langella. He hardly has a temper at all. He is very calculated, very restrained, and you actually BELIEVE this man knows how to run a major city newspaper. Thats what I actually really liked about this Perry. He was so utterly believable. He seemed like he really could be the editor of the Daily Planet without getting his butt fired for shouting off at the wrong person. I walked away from the movie a fan of this Perry White. And I should note that he does say "Great Ceasar's Ghost" and its a beautifully delivered, well-timed line. I loved it.
KITTY KOSLOWSKI: This is Parker Posey's character in the movie. Now I really like Parker Posey and I loved her in this movie. She just has this quirky, eccentric way that grabs me in any movie shes in, no matter how lackluster. (For instance Blade Trinity and Josie and the Pussycats are two lackluster movies that she really shines in). Nevertheless, I wish this character had been a little less of a rip-off of the Miss Tessmacher character from the 1978 film. It felt less like an homage and more like a direct copy at times. This was one of the more absurd things about Singer's film all around. I loved the fact that he payed so much reverance to the Christopher Reeve films, but at times he overdid it just a bit. He seemed to quote one too many lines from the old films. The most egregious example is when Kitty repeats verbatim an old joke from the first film. When Lex asks her "What did my father always tell me?" Kitty says "Your losing your hair" and then "Get out." OK, I love this joke. I loved it in the first one. But I was really perplexed as to why Singer so blatantly repeated it, almost as if he didnt expect the new audience to be aware of the joke at all. And Kitty is used to this effect a lot. She repeats old lines and old plot points, like coming to feel bad for Superman in the end and deciding to help him out so that Lex doesnt destroy New Jersey. Exact same plot progression in the old film. This is the reason this film is not being called a "sequel" but it is actually being called by many fans a "requel." Its being called a "requel" because its supposedly a cross between a sequel and a remake. And I understand that now, because parts of this film feel simply remade rather than built upon. Curious decision on Singer's part and Im still getting used to it.
THE HENCHMAN: Poorly used. I couldn’t understand why Kal Penn never talked in this movie. Did he not have any lines written for him?!? And yet, they were menacing enough I guess.
MARTHA KENT: Eva Marie Saint is just a classy actress and she is in this movie a lot less than I wanted her to be. Also an underused character, but I kind of understand. This is not a “Smallville” movie and so Martha Kent is not going to play a huge role.
OVERALL THOUGHTS: OK, this is the part I think Im going to have to wait and write more on later after Ive seen the film a second time. Let me just say this. Ive become a big fan of the TV show Smallville over the past couple of years. One of the reasons I like this show is because I get to see some of my favorite iconic characters (Lex Luthor, Clark Kent, etc.) interact with each other on a weekly basis. One of Smallville's greatest strengths is that, although the show has amazing special effects (the best on TV quite possibly) and has at least one great action sequence per episode, the show can only afford to have so much action and so has to rely on good dialogue between the characters. I like the fact that on Smallville, I get to see Lex talk to Clark, Lex talk to his dad, Clark talk to his dad, Clark talk to his mom, Clark talk to Chloe, Chloe talk to Lois, Lois talk to Lana, Lana talk to Lex, etc. etc. I love dialogue. Im kind of a sucker for it actually. It just makes characters come alive for me.
Superman Returns, I am sad to report, comes up surprisingly short on dialogue. Now there is actually a pretty specific reason for this. The true secret influence on Singer in making this new Superman film was not so much the Christopher Reeve films, but perhaps even more so the Max Fleischer cartoons from the 1940's. I love those cartoons. I still think they might rank as the best work of animation ever! And they are also very short on dialogue. Your lucky to hear Clark and Lois say anything in those cartoons. Its mostly just astounding visuals of Superman flying around and saving the day in huge ways. Now Singer's film is unquestionably inspired by the Fleischer cartoons. The way Superman flies, the scope of his super-feats, and the tone of the visuals are all directly borrowed from those cartoons. But unfortunately, in my opinion, Singer also decides to make his film largely silent like the old cartoons. He doesnt infuse his characters with great dialogue. And this hurt the film a lot for me. I want to hear Clark talk to Lois (a lot) and I want to hear Clark talk to Jimmy (they were sitting at a bar together in one scene but they curiously edited out most of their conversation) Clark talk to Perry, Superman talk to Lex, Lois talk to Jimmy, etc. etc. This is by far the greatest weakness of the film. I said last night that the film seems "action top-heavy" and I stand by that. It needed more character development, and instead we got some overly long action sequences, full of amazing spectacle, but lacking character engagement. I am very sad to have to admit that this film, for this reason, was not everything I wanted it to be.
But I still really loved the film. I also said last night, that even before I saw this film, I was incredibly happy and satisfied with so many of the decisions that the filmmakers made. Im so happy that they treated Superman's whole history so reverentially and that they treated him so iconically. I love the look of the film, the scope of the film, their casting choices, their choice of music, their nods to Donner's old 1978 production designs, their brave and well-written screenplay that takes Superman in amazing new directions. I loved, loved, loved so many aspects of this film and I have a feeling that now that my expectations are a little more realistic, the second viewing will be even better. I cant wait for IMAX, to see this film in 3-D! That should be amazing. Im really pumped for sequels! I think one thing that they have done unqualifiedly well is that they have set up a successful franchise where the sequel possibilities are limitless. I think Bryan Singer could easily make a sequel to this Superman movie that is as fresh and exciting as his X-2. I always believed that X-2 made the first X-Men a better movie. And I think the same thing could happen here. If Singer does a sequel (and he better) I think he will work out his kinks and give us something even better.
This is certainly the best film of the summer, and I dont expect anything to surpass it. And its certainly reached my expectations and stretched them a bit. Its not the perfect, greatest-film-of-all-time that I wanted it to be, but it makes a fantastic addition to the Superman universe.
And thats all for now.