The Return of Superman Returns
By Philip Schweier
April 27, 2010 - 17:53
Obviously, the film did not perform up to expectations, or we would have already enjoyed its sequel and the merchandising to follow. But time and distance can offer a more objective viewpoint, and while it’s not as disappointing the second time around, I think I have a clearer idea of what went wrong and what went right.
While not necessarily a direct sequel to the Christopher Reeve films, I think director Bryan Singer had the right idea to use those films as a backstory to his. It enabled him to avoid retelling how Superman was rocketed to Earth from – aw, you know the rest. Nobody needs to hear it yet again.
Instead, what writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris did was beat the audience over the head with the connection by lifting an excessive amount of dialogue from 1978’s Superman: The Movie. This only served to diminish the originality of their script. To pay homage is one thing; to copy/paste is another.
It is my understanding that Singer’s approach was to challenge Superman on an emotional level, since attacking him physically does not lend to dramatic storytelling. With that in mind, he wanted to portray how the people in Superman’s life had adapted without him during a five-year absence.
Speaking of mother/son relationships, we saw some of it in the relationship between Clark and Martha Kent (Eva Marie Saint), but not enough to be legitimate. For one, the role of Superman’s mother should have been more substantial. His return should have had much more emotional resonance with all his relationships, including family. I regard it as akin to when a soldier returns home after extended duty, and I saw none of that in Superman Returns.
Narratively speaking, that wasn’t the only plot point that seemed swept under the rug. For Lois Lane to win a Pulitzer Prize for her article, “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman,” seems too well-timed, almost unrelatedly so, with Superman’s reappearance. And it also seemed that while a Clark/Superman connection was suspected, nobody commented on the fact that both of them returned to Metropolis at the same time.
While what works on the pages of a comic book may not fly on film, the super-suit in question was so terribly wrong. The cape looked plastic and rubbery, and seemed tacked on to the shirt as an afterthought. The unitard gave Routh a very slender look, almost making him appear too skinny to convincingly play Superman.
If there is a failure on Routh’s part, it would be the flying. Reeve was an experienced glider pilot, and incorporated that into his performance. When the flying was simulated, he soared, swooped and swam his way through the air with the greatest of ease. Routh, on the other hand, seemed to
Without a doubt, Kevin Spacey was the highlight of the film. He was chock full of dark humor, sophisticated menace and sweet dementia, which, in most instances, was played in just the right amounts. It’s unfortunate he is unlikely to reprise the role in future films.
All in all, the film is enjoyable up until Superman rescues the planeload of reporters and lowers it onto the baseball diamond. Once he flies off into the sky, diehard Superman fans are better served to turn the DVD off.
Praise and adulation? Scorn and ridicule? E-mail me at philip@comicbookbin.com
Related Articles:
Superman’s Kryptonian Language in the Man of Steel Movie: A Medium Theory Analysis
Superman Doomsday – The First Warner Animation Premiere Animated Movie
Come Watch the 75th Anniversary Superman Movie
Superman Movie Takes Flight
Superman The Super 8 Movie
Special Reports - The Superman Movie