|
Director
- Bryan
Singer
Writers -
Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, based on a story by
Bryan Singer, Michael
Dougherty and Dan Harris from characters created by
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, published by DC Comics
Director of
photography - Newton Thomas Sigel
Editor -
Elliot Graham and John Ottman
Music
-
John Ottman
Production designer
- Guy Hendrix Dyas
Producers -
Bryan
Singer, Jon Peters and Gilbert Adler
Warner Brothers Pictures.
2 hours 37 minutes.
Rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned).
Comic book action, relatively bloodless.
STARRING:
Brandon Routh (Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane),
James Marsden (Richard White), Frank Langella (Perry White), Eva Marie
Saint (Martha Kent), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Sam Huntington
(Jimmy Olsen), Kal Penn (Stanford) and Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor).
THE POWER OF THE PUPPY No multi-bazillion-dollar Hollywood budget can match the power of a
small dog on the big screen. A studio can spend a fortune on spectacular
special effects, and yet a little four-legged co-star can steal the show
by walking across the stage and yipping adorably. In the year’s most anticipated movie — the hugely expensive
Superman Returns, the first Man of Steel movie since 1978
— the most memorable, delightful, and unexpected moment in the movie
belongs to… … a Pomeranian. Something is terribly wrong here.
SINGER’S PASSION Director Brian Singer was
not familiar with the X-Men until he had the
opportunity to make a movie about them. And he did a great job, starting
an excellent comic book franchise with two solid films.
He became a hero to X-Men fans. And he raised the bar
for comic book movies, which may have inspired the filmmakers behind
Spider-man 2 and Batman Begins to greatness. Singer's films found
character and personality behind the superpowers. They took on tough,
contemporary questions with intelligence and meaningful metaphors. And
they boasted some excellent performances. But here,
rejuvenating the franchise of his favorite comic book character,
Singer has
made a film that delivers spectacular action, but
baffles the brain, and comes up far short with its cast.
Superman Returns is about a hero with very
little personality, who's in love with a bland and forgettable woman. He
faces a villain who fails to frighten us. And while he aims to save the
world, he's really responsible for the danger that the world is in.
And that's a pack of problems. Many Superman fans have been hoping Singer would lift the character and
the tradition out of the wreckage of the lamentable Superman III
and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, and restore it to the glory
of Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman: The Movie. Donner’s original
film is still a barrel of fun. It’s memorable as much for its comedy as
its groundbreaking special effects and its likeable cast. While I hear
from the experts that Singer’s Superman Returns has bested the
terrible sequels — wild dogs tried to drag me to the video store to
rent them, but I fought them off — this new movie is still inferior to the
original. I applaud the impressive visual effects and sound design
of Superman Returns — they do
what we expect summer blockbusters to do. There are a couple of scenes that develop some tangible,
nerve-wracking tension. One involves the simultaneous
rescue of a troubled space shuttle and a plummeting passenger plane. The
other takes place during a piano duet, as unlikely as it sounds. None of
the action scenes in Singer's X-Men films come close to this
level of spectacle. And Singer’s most
surprising accomplishment is to pass the Super-torch to an actor who
will prevent backlash from Christopher Reeve fans.
Brandon Routh looks the part, so the transition is fairly smooth. But
as soon as you start thinking about the storyline of
Superman Returns,
everything starts falling apart.
WHAT KIND OF HERO IS SUPERMAN?
I'm in the minority, finding fault with the movie.
Superman Returns has dazzled and delighted most critics. Many of the reviews are pumped up with nostalgia. Eva Marie Saint and
Marlon Brando are in a movie together again! The dying widow who gives
Lex Luthor a fortune is played by the Lois
Lane of the 1950s television series! Listen — that's John Williams's
1978 theme music!
And some Christian film critics are
giving the film high marks
because they're excited to recognize a clearly-marked Christ figure.
But these aspects steer us away from more important questions: Is
Superman Returns a good story? If it’s such a great Christ allegory,
what does it suggest about the character of a savior? Is it really a
meaningful story?
Superman Returns fumbles around, looking for a
theme, and never really finds one. The first possible theme is broadcast in the opening scene, when we look down
at a Scrabble-board that highlights the word "ALIENATION."
And then it's about family, and fidelity, and faith, and... It's about
so many things that it never really finds a focus.
Alienation? Superman's loneliness is partly his own
fault. He's so busy busy answering his questions about his past, and
rushing off to save random
people in peril, that he just can't devote himself to a relationship.
While we're made to feel sorry for this poor, misunderstood, lonely hero,
let's face it... he chooses to be a lone hero.
Thus, the alienation theme doesn't really ring true.
And why bother? Singer explored the same theme far more profoundly in the
X-Men films. (In retrospect, I wish Singer had finished that trilogy.
The storytelling was stronger, the characters were far more interesting
when he was at the helm. If Singer can revive Superman two decades after
it fizzled, perhaps he can save the X-Men sometime soon.)
So, what about "saving the world"? Is that
the theme of this film?
If so, Superman's not
doing a very good job of that either. Like any good superhero, he busies
himself saving people from crises.
But the movie raises our expectations by reminding us, through the voice
of his father Jor-El (Marlon Brando), that Superman is not supposed to
save the world single-handedly. He's supposed to “light the way” for humankind
to follow his example.
And Superman never lives up to that bold charge. He’s too busy
leaping buildings and preventing doomed vehicles from blowing up
to show us "the way." If Superman is a “Christ figure,” why is he
behaving like a typical American hero who operates above the law,
showing us all that we should endeavor to save the world independently
rather than cooperatively?
If
Superman really wants to save the world,
he should learn to hide those weapons of mass
destruction that he brought to earth. While he's off
chasing his question, the bad guys are getting hold of his
super-trinkets and using them to cause great civil unrest. In other
words, the world is in trouble thanks to Superman's carelessness.
How about "true love"? Is that what the film is
about?
If so, Superman is lacking there too. The film picks
up where Superman 2 left off. Superman has just made his
relationship with Lois Lane official, in a carnal sense, and then he up
and flew away. He departed Planet Earth without even saying goodbye to Lois.
This left her in a terrible state, and Planet Earth, which he had sought
to serve, was left vulnerable. In my mind, Lois has every right to be
angry and to move on to another boyfriend.
By the end of this
film, I have no doubt that Superman can catch a
falling aircraft, but I have serious doubts that he can commit himself
to another person or fulfill the responsibilities of a relationship. He
never should have started one in the first place.
We're supposed to hope that he and Lois Lane can work things out. But personally, I found Richard White, Lois Lane's
new boyfriend, to be far more sympathetic and courageous than Superman.
In Superman's day-to-day routine, preventing accidents and saving plummeting planes, he's
not at great personal risk. It's not costing him. He doesn't have much
to lose. Richard, on the other hand, dearly loves Lois Lane and the
five-year-old child who depends on them. He's dependable. He pays for
his commitments. He has everything to
lose. And he makes some brave moves before the film is over that show
true risk, courage, and selflessness. This guy, played with
surprising emotion and energy by James Marsden, is super.
CAST PROBLEMS
Superman’s heroism isn’t the only problem in the film. The cast bringing
this comic to life make things worse.
Brandon Routh strikes memorable iconic poses, and he
throws himself whole-heartedly into the action. But his Man of Steel
lacks personality. There's no discernible intelligence beyond the brawn,
just a sharp-looking Reeve-alike. The script gives him very
little help. I think the much-harassed Hayden Christensen did more with
less in the Star Wars prequels than Routh does here.
Similarly, Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane is D.O.A. Previous Lois Lanes —
Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher — showed personality and spirit.
And they were the right age. Kate
Bosworth looks young enough to be Lane's daughter.
And she shows no range here, more lame than Lane. I have to take it on faith
that she won a Pulitzer for her essay “Why the World Doesn’t Need
Superman,” but it’s easier for me to believe that Superman can leap a
building in a single bound.
Why does Superman go for her? Where’s the spark that would make
Lois stand
from all of the other desperate women the Man of
Steel encounters? I didn't see it, and I
didn't sense any chemistry between the two of them. Bosworth makes a
great cosmetics spokesmodel, but she doesn't
come across as a woman of character and strength.
Kevin Spacey is, well, Kevin Spacey, playing the part of Lex Luthor.
Whereas Gene Hackman created a bold new persona for the famous comic
book villain in 1978, effectively turning the film into a comedy, Spacey
is content to do his usual smug, self-satisfied shtick, playing the part
of a bad guy who is clearly out of his mind. His
wicked plan consists of a super-sized real estate
maneuver. He thinks he can
grow a whole new continent and declare himself
its king. How can he
possibly think he’ll stand to gain from his wickedness?
What's to stop the U.S. military from executing a
swift regime change? Luthor isn't
just lacking in super-powers... he's lacking a brain.
A Superman movie needs a far more interesting and dangerous villain.
As Luthor’s assistant Kitty Kowalski, Parker Posey is funny and
entertaining. She’s one of my favorite big screen comediennes. But here,
her personality is stifled by her costumes and her
pet Pomeranians. Here’s a simple rule: If you want to get your money’s worth from an
actress, don’t let her carry dogs around on the screen. The dog will
steal the show every time.
In fact, the dog gets the film's biggest laugh. Almost a week after
seeing the film, it's the Pomeranian's big moment, early in the film,
that I'm telling people about.
CHRIST FIGURE? NOT REALLY.
But I can’t put too much of the film’s failure on Lois Lane or the
villains. This is a Superman movie, after all, and the guy just doesn’t
inspire me at all.
Intelligence is not this Superman’s strong suit. He’s mostly a mountain
of muscle whose desire to save the world amounts to picking off a few
criminals here and there, and then wasting eight hours a day in a
newspaper office where people are obsessed with celebrating his every
move. Sounds more like super-ego than super-man.
Many Christian film critics are making much of this character as a
Christ figure. And he certainly seems anxious to
strike a Christly pose. He spreads his
arms in crucifix poses, which earns some ooohs and
aahhhs from some of my colleagues. And he makes some claims to cosmic compassion — he can
apparently “hear everything,” including mankind’s cries for a savior.
This suggests there is a spiritual crisis in the world that he wishes to
address.
But Superman's actions show he's more interested in
being a random life-saver than someone who can "light our way." He
prevents car accidents and walks boldly into the blazing bullets of a
machine gun to prevent a bank robbery. The lesson of such behavior
should be “Don’t try this at home” instead of “Make this man your role
model.” He's more likely to find his way into
photo-ops than hearts.
If we really want to celebrate Christ-figures in
film, why are we overlooking films like
Hotel Rwanda or The Motorcycle Diaries, both of which
give us much more beautiful portraits of Christ-like love and sacrifice?
I have a theory about that. We like to watch stories
about people who will save us from trouble. We'd rather dream
about being saved from our own distress than apply ourselves to
relieving the problems of others. A true Christ
figure inspires us to follow his courageous, selfless example and seek
to help the needy. That makes us uncomfortable. It suggests that we are
responsible to participate in saving the world. It asks something of us.
My colleague Steven Greydanus asks if
the heroism of other characters like Lois and Richard
might not have been inspired
by Superman's bravery, but I don't see that. It looks to me more like
heroism required by the plot in order to keep our
favorite hero alive, so we have someone who will take care of our problems
for us. I don't get any sense that Superman's heroics are lighting the
way for anyone else.
NEXT TIME?
So, Superman has returned, but he has a lot to learn
about being a light to the world, overcoming loneliness, and fulfilling
responsibilities in relationship.
I'd love to see a sequel. But allow me to recommend
some improvements: A villain who is truly frightening. A threat that
comes from something other than the baggage Superman brought with him to
earth. I'd like to see his character put to the test, not just his
strength. If he falls in love, I hope we can find someone for him who's
truly worthy of his admiration.
You know what I'd really like? A spin-off about
the brave and faithful Richard White. Or that
lovable but daaaaangerous Pomeranian.
|
