Moriarty Reviews SUPERMAN RETURNS!!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
SUPERMAN RETURNS may well kickstart a new SUPERMAN franchise for Warner Brothers. I have no doubt that Brandon Routh is the right guy for the tights. Throughout this film, he exudes a simple confidence that is exactly right for the character, specifically the way it was conceived for this "requel" to the Donner films. I hope that the next film gives Superman an adversary worth his time, and that we get to see some full-on superheroics that remind us exactly why Superman is considered the most powerful hero in all of comic lore. As it is, this first film is a mixed bag. The script by Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris is, no doubt, exactly what Bryan Singer wanted it to be. I'm just not sure that it's what I wanted to see as a fan. There are things to like, things to dislike, and some genuinely odd creative choices that left me conflicted about the film by the time the lights finally came up in the Steven J. Ross screening room last weekend.
Bryan Singer has surrounded himself once again with some remarkable creative collaborators like production designer Guy Dyas and editor/composer John Ottman, but in working so carefully to tap into the nostalgia that exists for the Christopher Reeve version of Superman, he may have tied the hands of those collaborators to an uncomfortable extent. This is not a reinvention, and this is not an update. It's a throwback, and for some people, that's going to be the exact right choice. Personally, I'm torn. This film is structurally a remake of the original SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, with its major beats lifted directly from that film. It's also sort of vaguely a sequel, although I'm not clear how continuity is supposed to work. It's not even obvious that the Phantom Zone villains have come to Earth already in this film, although if they haven't, I'm not sure when Lois and Superman found time to bump uglies. And, yeah, I know that sounds nitpicky, but when they tell you this is supposed to be SUPERMAN III 2.0, these are the sorts of questions that are raised, questions that the film never answers.
I've got one big one, and it makes me a little crazy: why does no one connect the absence of Clark Kent to the absence of Superman?
I remember a year ago when I asked Harry that question, and he answered, "Well, you remember those Superman robots from the comics that Superman would use when he wasn't around?" Yes, that's a silly answer, but at least it's an answer. This film skirts issues instead of addressing them, and again... it may sound like a little thing, but that's the sort of detail that adds up over the course of a 2 ? hour film, creating a sort of weird dissatisfaction, and it seems like a major story point that should have been addressed. It's too easy to have people simply not notice. How about making things a little difficult for Superman and Clark? How about forcing them to work for it when they show back up? Clark gets his job back off-camera, and it seems like no big deal. Really? At a major daily newspaper, a reporter can just show up again after five years and pick up where he left off? I know how cutthroat the world of journalism can be, and it would be nice if there was at least a nod to the idea that Clark has to be damn good at what he does to be able to pull off the illusion that he's been away and to earn his way back into the game.
These are little things, and it sounds like I'm getting bogged down in the negative. Let's look at the broad strokes. As I said, Routh works. I liked him pretty much as soon as he showed up and started speaking. There's a nice gravity to the guy. I think he's actually too strong a presence for Kate Bosworth, who feels too slight to pull off Lois Lane. She's written as a real reporter, which is good, but Bosworth just never quite strikes the right notes as a mother, as a reporter, or as a jilted lover. She plays everything the same, so there's no nuance to Lois. I know she's a comic book character, but the trick to a performance like this is finding the human heart that makes this more than just pen and ink. You want to see someone really deliver the goods? Look no further than James Marsden, who turns Richard White into something really memorable. He's a good guy, a worthy replacement for Superman, and watching his work here, it makes me even crazier that Singer never quite figured out what to do with Marsden in the X-MEN movies. He's so real, so grounded, and so transparently decent that you end up rooting for him to be the one who Lois chooses. He risks his life for his family knowing full well that he doesn't have super powers. It's the single most heroic act in the film, and it speaks volumes about the character.
What works for me most about the film is the central metaphor, but it's also the things that frustrates me the most. You could argue that the X-MEN films that Singer made were both subtextually films about being an outsider, whether that's because you're gay or because of race or because of anything that you're born with and can't control. It's a potent metaphor, and one that plays to a wide audience. Here, I think Singer's done something a little more specific in turning Superman into a metaphor for adoption. This is a movie all about being adopted. Singer's spoken about how he was adopted, and I can understand some of what he's talking about... I was adopted as well. My sister and I are both from different birth parents, both of us adopted as infants. We've handled it very differently as we grew up. For me, it was never an issue. I've never felt compelled to search for my birth parents, and I've never felt that it really defined me. For my sister, it's always been a major thing, and she's spent years bemoaning the fact that she was adopted. "Why didn't someone love me? Why didn't they want me? Who am I really? Is there anyone like me out there?" I have a feeling she's going to love SUPERMAN RETURNS, because the film plays directly to that sense of abandonment. The whole reason Superman left for five years was because there was a slight chance he might be able to find out some new information about Krypton. Turns out not to be true, but he was willing to throw all responsibility and personal connection aside to go find out.
We're going to have to tread into spoiler territory to fully discuss this, so be warned. If you don't want to know anything else about the actual story, just skip down two paragraphs now. See, here's what I mean about being conflicted. On an emotional level, I see the value in giving Superman a son that he's watching be raised by someone else. He had a child with Lois he never knew about and he left. When he first shows up and sees her son Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu), he's hit by a wave of regret, asking himself, "What if that had been my son?" By the end of the film, once he learns the truth, he looks at the boy in a whole new way, and it's affecting. I know the first time I held my son, it made me feel complete in a way, since I finally have a blood tie to my family, a connection that I didn't even realize I craved. Superman's decision to allow his son to grow up with another father is a selfless one, and it ties things up pretty well.
Emotionally, that is. Because as a story device, I think the kid creates more problems than he solves. When we see the inevitable SUPERMAN sequel, I don't want another story about fathers and sons, and I don't want to see Jason coping with his powers as a young man. We can see that on SMALLVILLE every week if we want to. I want a real superhero action film next time, and this isn't the set-up for that. It concerns me. Normally you bring in a kid once a series is reaching its last legs, and it's almost always a desperate attempt to pump life back into something. By introducing the son in this first film, they've painted themselves into a narrative corner that doesn't seem to have any easy way out.
Enough about that. It's a choice, and as a choice, it didn't work for me. It worked for my wife, though, who unreservedly loved this film. She bought into the Clark/Superman/Richard/Lois quadrangle, and the kid grounded everything for her in a way that obviously impacted her a great deal. It might work for you the same way. What I think will be the weak link for most viewers is the way Lex Luthor and his storyline is handled. By this time next year, I fully anticipate there will be some backlash against this film, even among its most ardent current supporters, and it will all come back to Lex and his truly ridiculous scheme. It's the weakest stuff in the film, and the resolution of the storyline is completely unsatisfactory. Basically, Lex wants to make a new continent using Superman's crystal technology, and in doing so, he'll destroy most of North America. His plan makes no sense, though. The land we see him create looks uninhabitable, cold and miserable, and I'm not sure how or why anyone would want to live on it. I certainly can't imagine anyone paying for the right to do so. Besides, if Lex destroys North America, won't the world's economy suffer a debilitating blow that will render his money-making schemes sort of pointless?
Luthor actually makes a great point early on, and it raises a question that reminded me of a favorite website of mine. Luthor tells Kitty Kowalski (Parker Posey) the story of Prometheus, and she reminds him that he's not a god. "No, gods are little men in red capes who fly over us and never share their technology." Lex claims to want to bring fire to the people, which obviously isn't his motivation.
But it's a good point anyway. If Superman does indeed possess technology from a dozen different worlds that is far beyond our own, and this technology can do amazing things to help our planet, then why doesn't he share it with all the governments of Earth? Why doesn't he give us the means to end hunger or poverty? I mean, I know it's fun catching falling airplanes and blowing out fires with your super-breath, but how about making genuine contributions to better the entire world at once? Again... it's an interesting idea that the film brings up and then just abandons, and I think Luthor would be a stronger, more interesting character if he really had a strong argument to support him as he faces off against Superman. It's easy to write him as a villain who is all bad, but it's more interesting to write him as someone who might not be completely wrong. I think Lex rubbed me the wrong way from the very start, when he's introduced in a scene with an old woman he's been romancing so he could inherit all of her money, much to the chagrin of her family. I wouldn't call his scenes campy, but I would say they're played in broad comedic strokes more often than not, and that will definitely put some people off. Kitty Kowalski is a wafer-thin retread of Miss Tessmacher, and instead of Otis, we get a number of completely faceless and forgettable thugs, including the underutilized Kal Penn as The Guy Who Nods.
I think much of the film is strikingly beautiful, and it's as good an advertisement as the Genesis HD camera's going to get. If this is where we are now with HD, then I think film's days are numbered as more than just a nostalgic thing. People will always shoot on film, but I see it becoming more and more of a niche thing in the next decade. This film is ravishing at times, and the way the flying effects work in the film is a real testament to just how seamless digital composite work is these days. Real attention is paid to the physics of flight, and as a result, there's a serene beauty to many of the sequences that surprised me. The plane crash, while not as long as I'd heard it would be, is a pretty rousing effects sequence. I don't know that it's the sort of scene I'll watch over and over once I have it on DVD, but I think it'll be a kick to see in IMAX 3D at least once. It's not the "greatest sensory thrill in the history of cinema," or whatever Jeffrey Wells claimed it was, but it's nicely staged and it delivers a real charge.
The end of the film is anticlimactic in terms of action, with the New Krypton scene never really becoming the grand set piece that I think it was designed to be. Again... individual moments in the sequence work, and there are some great images, but I think I actually liked the Kitty Kowalski out-of-control-car scene more than I liked anything from the big finish. For the casual fans of the character, there are some things that will be visually distracting, like the odd color scheme of Superman's costume. My wife leaned over to me twice during the film to ask if his cape is supposed to be red, and she laughed at his boots for some reason. Overall, though, this is not a radical reinterpretation, and there are enough nods throughout the film to the whole history of the character onscreen that I think fans will forgive whatever nagging issues they have. And even if they're still griping when the credits roll, that dedication to the memory of Christopher and Dana Reeve should make even the grinchiest grinch nod in approval.
Considering the long and troubled history of development that this film has gone through, it is a miracle that it is even watchable, much less good at all. This is a moderate success, and I hope that the producers listen to their audience and really work to make the next film even better. The groundwork has been laid, and the cast is pretty much there. Just please let go of the idea that Lex Luthor has to be in every film, and give us someone who can stand toe-to-toe with Superman, a threat that really demands his attention. And if you want to get to that World's Finest team-up a few films down the road, you've finally got a Batman and a Superman worth doing it with, something the studio's never had before. I just hope that the homage ends with this film and that whatever comes next strikes out for new ground. The character and the audience both deserve that.
Sorry if this feels rushed, but I just found out about thirty minutes ago that I'm leaving for London tonight. I'll be there all week, but I'll be back with some great stuff for you this coming weekend. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
