http://www.moviehole.net/mailbag/20060727_moviehole_mailbag_27706.html
From Moviehole today:
You invited people to post their thoughts on “Superman
Returns”, so here goes.... The first time I saw it, I was on the fence. I couldn't tell if I liked it or hated it. This happens rarely, since usually I will know if I like or hate a movie when it is over. Only two kinds of movies really call for a second viewing: Ones I ****ing loved to death... and ones that get me stuck on the fence.
The second viewing led me to decide... I didn't really like it that much. Sure, it has its moments... but too few of them. The airplane scene was brilliant for a special effects scene, but isn't Superman saving an airplane a bit old now? Superman raising an island and tossing it into space... not exactly exciting.
This leads me to another problem... Lex Luthor. I grew up watching Gene Hackman in the role, and enjoyed it back then. When I got older, I liked his portrayal less and less (though still respected it, for nostalgia's sake.) After a friend told me how serious Lex is taken in the comics, I thought that was how he should be portrayed if a Superman remake or sequel were to happen. Around this time, “Smallville” appeared on TV, and I thought Lex was portrayed properly in that show. What Kevin Spacey did with the role is closer to the “Smallville” Luthor than the Hackman Luthor, but in the end... did we need to see Superman take on Lex Luthor again?
The second viewing also made me realize something... “Superman Returns” is half sequel/half remake. This isn't always a bad idea for a franchise, just look at “Evil Dead II”. But in this case, I may have to blame Singer for his decisions in how the film turned out. People wanted to see Superman treated with respect in a film, and to live up to Richard Donner's previous efforts.
In the original, Lex Luthor's scheme involves real estate. Superman faces Lex Luthor, and is defeated by Lex's kryptonite, then tossed into water. Superman takes Lois Lane for a flight. In Superman Returns, we see basically all of these same things, but with different actors in the roles, and slightly changed situations. Instead of a pool, Superman is dropped into the ocean. Instead of Lex trying to sink California, he raises his own island (which looked like it would sell no real estate, by the way.)
I really think Singer IS the right guy to direct Superman films, I just think he should have been a bit more creative with the final product. He may have wanted to please those who fondly remember the original films, but his devotion to fulfilling their wishes kept the film from having a more separate identity from the previous installments. Singer's intention to use nostalgia of the older films in the new one isn't a bad idea, but I believe he overdid it, and it suffers because of it.
Yet another thing that annoyed me... the kid. Usually, a kid is introduced into a franchise late in the game, when ideas are running low. Why introduce him in the first film? Yeah, this is supposedly a sequel, but for many, it will be the first Superman movie they are exposed to. If a sequel happens, how will the story deal with this kid? It can't be ignored, but it could handicap the franchise before it even gets to move forward.
Brandon Routh.... Not the greatest actor. Sure he can do a Christopher Reeve impersonation pretty well, but I expected more out of Singer's choice. Routh had less dialogue than the rest of the actors, yet his character is supposed to be the center of attention. I'd hate to say it, but Tom Welling may have been able to do the role just a tad bit better (but not by much.)
Kate Bosworth.... Just wrong for the role. I don't want to sound like I'm nitpicking, but she just looks wrong without blonde hair. As for her acting, she isn't bad in general, but she just didn't fit in this movie at all. I don't know who could have played the part better, but I'm sure there are dozens of actresses that could have done a better job easily. Hell, even Parker Posey would have been a better Lois Lane, but she got the wrong role in this film. Also, Kate Bosworth is pretty young for the part, and it shows. If this is to be seriously taken as a sequel to “Superman” I and II, Lois should look at least like she has been out of college for a while, and not like she just recently signed up for it.
It disappoints me that I have these opinions... I was expecting “Superman Returns” to be the best film of the year. Singer is a great director, so I had no doubts of this film being good, based on his previous films (not just “X-Men” and “X-2” either.) I was upset that he abandoned “X-Men 3” for Superman, but thought if anyone could do a great Superman film, it would be him.
To be fair, the movie isn't completely bad. It's just not the GREAT film that I (and I'm sure many others) were expecting. Maybe only a few directors could have done a better or equal job to what Singer did here, so I know the film could have been worse.
In the end, “Superman Returns” is pretty to look at, but quick to disappoint. Its way too long, and has more in common with Peter Jackson's “King Kong” and Ang Lee's “Hulk” (ironically, I enjoyed both of these movies upon first viewing,) than with the “Spider-Man” films, “Batman Begins”, or Singer's own “X-Men” films. I just hope if a sequel happens, Singer will have enough faith in himself to make the franchise his own, and not try to rehash the older films too much. (Just keeping the theme music is enough, come on!) Now that I've vented my frustrations... I feel better. Thanks for giving me a place to get it off my chest