The more I think about Superman Returns, the less I like it. Here’s why:
- It’s fundamentally a remake – Without giving away too much away, it’s more or less a remake of the earlier Superman movies. Bryan Singer, who is a great storytelling director, has surprisingly little new to show us.
- Kate Bosworth was miscast – In her early scenes, I found myself asking why Clark Kent would ever fall in love with her in the first place. She’s abrupt and kind of bitchy. And isn’t Lois Lane supposed to be kind of brainy? Plus, Bosworth is 23 years old, and looks it, yet her character’s got a five-year-old son? It isn’t all Ms. Bosworth’s fault–the writers didn’t give her much help. I’m with Norlinda–where’s Maggie Gyllenhaal when you need her?
- Lex Luthor’s evil plan is kind of hokey – And not to mention goofy-looking. And if Luthor’s such an evil genius, why does he put up with Kitty Kowalski (played with her usual verve by Parker Posey).
- Kumar doesn’t once mention White Castle – Just kidding.
- What are the themes? – Superman is an icon from another era, and the film–its characters and plot–has a very dated feel. It’s possible to make a blockbuster which still has relevent themes. Cars is a great example of this. Spiderman has ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. Even the mediocre X-Men 3 has some things to say about genetic engineering and stem cell research. What’s the message of Superman Returns?
- It’s too long – It’s over two and half hours, and there are definitely a few scenes I would have cut (hello, Superman as suburban voyeur?). I know that’s six reasons, but that Kumar one barely counts.
What did I like? Brandon Routh is perfectly cast and manages both roles well–hunky and iconic as Superman, klutzy as Clark Kent. The action sequences are excellently rendered. Spacey and the supporting cast are generally effective. All in all though, I was a bit disappointed.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
I wonder if Kal Penn’s role was severely cut. Another actor, “Hey, it’s *that* guy!”-hall-of-famer James Karen has a line in the trailer and a FRONT-end credit, but doesn’t appear in the film at all! (He’s listed in the end credits as someone named “Ben Hubbard”.) I wonder how drastically edited this film was.
I was also frustrated by the turns of events surrounding the Richard White character…I’ll say no more for fear of spoiling.
I don’t consider the new movie to be a remake of the previous Superman movies … it’s more of a reintroduction of the character to mainstream movie-going audiences. That’s certainly the not-so-hidden theme in the movie itself.
Things I like about the new movie:
1. Routh’s Clark Kent is less of a klutz than Reeve’s portrayal. Much as I liked the original Superman movies (at least the first two), one thing that always bugged me was just how over-the-top clumsy Clark could be. Example: inadvertently wandering into the path of a taxi (and having its front grill wrap around him … yet nobody thinks ‘Hey, that must’ve been Superman!’)
Don’t get me wrong. Routh’s Kent is still shy, quiet, a bit of a nerd, and goofy. Just in a more realistic way.
2. The flying effects in this movie *finally* convinced me that a man could fly (the tagline of the original Superman movie). Obviously, technology has progressed a great deal since the first Superman movie and that’s made the difference.
And yes, the movie was heavily edited, at least in the first half hour (which felt the choppiest to me). The biggest cut? Superman’s return to the remnants of Krypton … you can see a bit of this in some of the early trailers if you look closely enough. I’m hoping they add these scenes to the DVD release.
Well, this is certainly not the first less-than-glowing review of the film that I’ve heard…and I’ve had it on my list of the few movies that I’ll actually go to the theatre to see this year.
I’m having second thoughts. The opening weekend numbers indicate that word-of-mouth has been on par with what you’ve said, Darren. Not good.
Know what I think? I think Singer should stuck around for X3, and Kevin Smith should have been given the writing and directing duties of Superman Returns, like was speculated a few years ago. Then I’d probably feel great about investing the 80 or so dollars to see them both in theatres. As it is, X3 left me a little disappointed, and it sounds like the great Brian Singer misfired with SR.
Clerks 3, here we come.
Uh…2. That’s Clerks 2.
I agree with Superman Returns being pretty much mediocre…but as far as themes go, isn’t it the idea of a world needing a savior? I thought the theme was too much hammered into the audience…
i think they sort of missed their chances theme-wise. sure, there was the obvious “hammer” with lois having written the article about the world not needing superman, but they needed to be a bit clearer on the other side of the equation: superman needs the world.
there were some nice touches with the two very close rescue scenes (first he saves the kid and lois and her husband and then they save him, all of it happening in and around water, suggesting some type of ‘rebirth/new start.”) but i would have liked something a bit more visual, like if they pulled him up by his cape coming after an earlier scene where they talk about the world on his coat tails. (i would have stuck it in as the sub-head on the article.)
darren, as for lex putting up with the people around him, that’s par for the course. remember how good ned beatty was in the first movie? but, and this is because the earlier movies were better, the beatty character allowed lex to explain everything he was planning to the audience and provided a lot of the good comedy and the best leit motif (spelling?). can’t you just hear that tuba piece running through your head?
Wow, Darren you pretty much summarized my feelings about the movie exactly. I didn’t hate the movie, but the more I think about it the less positive my opinion becomes.
I completely agree… I didn’t understand Luthor’s plan at all. You drown half the US, and then expect them to buy condos on your alien rock? Rumour has it that they don’t take so kindly to being flooded.
My biggest problem was that by the end, all i could think is “Okay! He’s Christ! I GET IT!”
Oh I have to get into this one 🙂
Luthor’s plan kind of bothered me, too, because it just seemed like another twisted real estate grab like in the first movie. But after thinking about it a bit, it’s not as much about creating a new continent as it is about getting at Superman. It’s often not about the criminal gains for Lex; it’s about his envy (his eyes *are* green, after all).
Stealing the crystals that contained his dad’s advice and memories and using them to recreate an anti-tribute to Superman’s dead home planet (and laced with kryptonite, no less) is a pretty profound insult. And finishing it by killing him on salted home soil? It’s downright epic, if not biblical.
This movie has problems, and my biggest gripe is that for all the talk of how Superman can inspire people, we saw nothing of the sort in the movie except in small, insignificant doses. But Singer does his best work in the sequels, if X-Men United is any indicator. The visual and philosophical re-introduction of the character was really excellent, even with Lois not making the grade.
[aside – there is a curse over female casting in superhero roles: Halle Berry as Storm, coming across like a Plaintiff on the People’s Court rather than a weather goddess; Katie Holmes’ somnibulism in Batman Begins… need I say more?]
I would have given it a higher grade, but I caught the original the other week and even with commercials, it feels better.