Here's an interesting view of this film (from Amazon), which is apparently coming to DVD on Nov. 28: (my school is also having a screening in a few weeks)
Why The World, Lois, and Moviegoers Don't Need a Superman..., September 21, 2006
Reviewer: Phlegmbot "Phlegmbot" (NYC) - See all my reviews
In the new Bryan Singer movie, Superman returns after a five-year absence and discovers a world that's changed -- symbolized perhaps most powerfully by a Pulitzer Prize-winning article written by Lois Lane and sporting the title "Why the World Doesn't Need a Superman."
And, boy, has she hit the nail on the head.
While the film could have taken a look at the things Superman is powerless to stop, from global warming to civil wars, government corruption to battles for oil and weapons of mass destruction, it instead focuses solely on the Last Son of Krypton's personal pain dealing with a world in which a drab and uninteresting Lois Lane--Kate Bosworth--has a new fiance, a son born out of wedlock, and a pal named Jimmy Olsen who is so useless, he can't even take a good picture.
You will believe a man can fly...and that he can break the sound barrier and do battle with the laws of physics in ways never anticipated or considered in previous superhero flicks. He WILL amaze you.
Watching Superman fly into space to listen for trouble is a wondrous moment. You'll be astounded watching him save both a space shuttle and an airplane. You'll smile gleefully when he takes Lois on her first flight in at least five years as Brandon Routh fills the boots and cape of Christopher Reeve admirably. As a new, young actor he doesn't have the chops Reeve had, but he may get there by the time a sequel comes around.
Lois's incessant whininess and bitterness may not solely be the fault of Bosworth, as this is not your mother's Lois Lane -- Margot Kidder's Lois took on armed purse snatchers, punched-out super villainesses from Krypton and was able to leap underneath an elevator in the Eiffel Tower in a single bound. While today's Lois takes a load of beatings without even smudging her lipstick (perhaps she's got a little Superman in her), she's not the plucky independent woman of yore -- she can't even hail a taxicab on her own. What kind of city girl is THAT?!
Kevin Spacey's fun Hackmanesque performance as the treacherous Lex Luthor is a clear homage to the 1978 Richard Donner film, and it's not the only one: from static on a radio signaling Superman's return (reminiscent of the static caused by a magical green crystal in "Superman: The Movie") to a shot of three people trapped behind a glass door (think of the three Kryptonian villains and their oddly shaped prison flying through space); from lines and music cues lifted from that first movie to a small I.D. tag reading "Addis Ababa" (where Lex first discovered Kryptronite) to the dedication to Christopher and Dana Reeve at the end. But while homage is great, there is one very important thing this film missed: the joy of Superman.
This joy is something not overlooked by the people who had brought us "Lois & Clark: The Nrew Adventures of Superman," "Smallville,"--the story of a teenage Clark Kent--and even the syndicated "Superboy"--the less-sophisticated tights-'n'-cape version of "Smallville."
Those other incarnations of Superman have their faults, but the success of each shows what a powerful force Superman is in popular culture. We have all seen a lot of big blockbuster movies -- terminators and spider-men, guys in bat outfits and stories of famous ships, historical figures, fictional gods, and well-known battles of this world's past -- but none of them, in my experience, elicited the complete and total silence, the utter anticipation, this movie did when the credits began.
The audience was as silent as if they were in prayer.
And they were silent when the movie let out -- wondering why they hadn't prayed for a better script.
I'm going to pinpoint the moment this film loses it's way (don't worry, no spoilers): Superman performs a host of heroics throughout the city of Metropolis that will leave you breathless and then, just as the movie gets going (despite some hauntingly disturbing moments that will have New Yorkers remembering 9/11), Superman leaves Metropolis to go tackle Lex.
Both Superman and the movie go out to sea. Until this turn of events, the movie was bordering on Magical.
When all is said and done, you don't even get The Moment -- that big moment when you want to cheer as Superman defeats the bad guy. It simply isn't there, because he never does.
The film merely gets dark and it gets mean. It becomes grim and perilous, and all for no reason, with no real consequence. As, if you're going to venture into true anger and hatred and death and darkness...in the end, someone had better have learned something about themselves and/or the world.
And nobody does.
The needless grim and peril is in part accomplished by putting the life of a young child in danger. Sure, some fantastic contemporary films have put children in peril, but they've succeeded because of their ability to do so with a sense of fun ("Spy Kids") or a sense of realism ("Stand By Me"); when it's done wrong, it's unforgivable ("Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" [which, personally, I loved]; "Dennis the Menace"). There is nothing "super" about a child almost dying just minutes after watching his mom barely escape from a beating that put her in mortal danger -- even when there is a "Super" payoff.
And Superman the new movie never quite crawls out of the mire after that.
Our hero performs one more super-feat once the boy doesn't quite die, but there are no stand-up-and-cheer moments like those that Richard Donner gave us. Where was the "You've got me? Who's got you?" as Reeve's Superman saves both Lois Lane and a crowd on the street from a falling helicopter? You'll find no shock and awe as when the '70s Superman burrows to the Earth's core and fixes the California fault line, and then turns the world back to save Lois Lane (whether you bought it or not). And you don't get to enjoy any real sense that Luthor's received his comeuppance (his punishment is not brought about by the Man of Steel, and is paltry at best).
And then the movie ends, after a long and dreary denouement where characters go back to their lives and nothing terribly new or interesting happens -- although you think it's going to.
While there are questions, such as why it took Lois five bitter years to write her Pulitzer Prize-winning article, or what Clark Kent's excuse is for being gone for so long from The Daily Planet--of which its office and characters are relegated to virtual non-entities--the biggest one remains unanswered by Lois Lane as she tries to come to terms with a world where Superman has returned. Her new article puts forth the question of "Why the World Still Needs Superman"...but she lacks inspiration and produces nothing but a tear and a blank page.
Perhaps she can be inspired to work on the next script -- no one seemed terribly inspired to work on this one. The "complex" problems of Superman come off like teenagers trying really hard to be "deep." If you see it, leave just after Superman saves The Daily Planet globe from a fall and save yourself from the depressing ending.
I still like the movie, I think it has its faults but there's good and bad. But I understand that Superman is something people have loved for so many years and a re-interpetation might be "interesting", but as far as staying true to the original vision....well, it doesn't. It has its own agenda, very different from the comic, previous films and/or shows. Basically it goes to a very dark place. Since the Superman mythos is built on light and hope, I can this why this film was seen as a betrayal of those values by a number of fans.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!