OK, this is a review I wrote over a year ago having just seen the film. I've just had a quick read through it, and a year later I think I pretty much still agree with most (if not all) of the points I made back then. There are some things I've changed my mind about and some things I have realised since which were not even in there, but anyway I thought some of you might be interested.
--------------------------------------------------
After nearly twenty years, Superman has returned to the big screen! Regular visitors to this site will inevitably know that I have been following the progress of this production since long before the inception of it's current incarnation, and have been none too quiet on the matter. So, after over a year of anticipation, excitement, and wild ranting, I have finally seen the film, and am in a position to make an informed opinion.
First overall impressions: very well done. My major concern with this film had been that they would make fundamental changes to the nature of the character, and I am happy to say that this is something that they have very respectfully maintained. There is one point, and quite a major one at that, that I am not happy about, but I will come back to that in due course.
As with any film, the most important elements are the plot and the storyline. These were not too bad, but there were holes in them, and specifically holes in the plot that related to casting issues, but again I'll move on to those. The film begins with Superman returning to Earth after a mysterious absence of five years, and Lex Luthor swindling the heirs of a dying old lady out of her estate on her death bed. After Superman saves the day and makes his big comeback, Luthor hatches a plot to grow his own island using Kryptonian technology, which will eventually consume America, and make him sole proprietor of the most important real estate on the planet, as well as the most advanced technology. Little does Superman know, but this island has been infused with Kryptonite. Cue a dramatic confrontation between Supes and Baldie, Supes on his death bed, some more dramatic rescues, and an anticlimactic ending, and there you have it in a nutshell.
The plot's not too bad, but it's also not particularly inspired. The film carries it off well, and all in all its a fairly passable action movie. But is it any good? Well, this depends on your point of view. From a technical point of view, it is flawless. And by this I mean there is no fault I can find with the film; all the boxes are ticked, so to speak. I did however find it somewhat lacking in a number of respects. The first is that the director does not have an understanding of how the theme music works. This may sound like nitpicking, but the Superman theme music is actually an ingenious composition. Every movement in the piece tells a part of the story of the Mythic Hero's journey, and each bit of the music has a particular significance, but this was not used to good effect. All that has been done is that the title theme from the original score has been a little re-hashed and used in the opening sequence just so they can claim to have respect for the original films, without any true understanding of its application or meaning.
My second gripe with this film is the casting. There have been many incarnations of Lex Luthor, and my favourite has always been the corporate billionaire version, as I find it is the most versatile in terms of story possibilities. I have been saying for years that Kevin Spacey would be an ideal choice for the role of Luthor, because I envisioned him playing this kind of role, of someone who outwardly and publicly appears philanthropic, yet is in fact a murderous and genocidal master criminal. Kevin Spacey is perfect for this, as he is easily able to portray a character as good-natured as he is to portray him as sinister and brooding. Rather than following this route, and using Spacey to what would inevitably have been fantastic effect, director Bryan Singer chose to have Luthor portrayed as an underground villain, and as downright angry rather than sinister. There was nothing wrong with Spacey's performance, but considering that it was him cast for the role and not someone else, I felt that his talent was wasted on such a dry interpretation of the character.
My second casting problem was Kate Bosworth. As I have never seen her in any other film, I do not feel well placed to criticise her talent as an actress, but I will however say that her performance in this film was diabolical. She portrayed a 'teen-angsty' kind of Lois, who came across as being constantly bitter at being unfairly treated because she is a woman (despite this not being the case) for no better reason than feeling like it. There was no chemistry between her and Routh, either as Superman or Clark, and not even any chemistry between her and James Marsden's character Richard, Superman's supposed love rival for her attentions. Overall, her performance was flat, dry, unemotional and uninspiring.
Routh was also, in my opinion, poorly cast. I can see what Singer saw in him as the potential to play Superman, and personally I feel that given a few years seasoning, he could give a memorable performance as the Man of Steel, but as it stands, he is too young and too inexperienced. Spatially, he is a very good actor, and the way he moves is very convincing. But he falls staggeringly short facially and with his dialogue. His voice is horrible to listen to, and lacks intensity, and his facial expressions just seem like a strained and artificial attempt to imitate Reeve's cocky and confident style. As I said, I can definitely see him playing a very convincing Superman in a few years, but I think he needs those few years first. Also, his age doesn't quite work. This ties in with the plot flaw I mentioned earlier. At the beginning of the film, Superman returns having been in space for five years looking for Krypton. The problem with this is that Routh looks young, certainly no older than about mid-twenties, and add to this the fact that he has brown eyes and had to wear blue contacts (contact lenses make your eyes appear much larger), and you have a Superman who would have been well established when he left Earth at the age of about twenty. It just seems wrong to me.
As with the rest of the film itself, the supporting cast were proficient and passable, but again uninspired, with the exception of Marsden who, in my opinion, managed to steal the show from even Spacey. Which brings me to my biggest problem with this film.
***MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!!!!***
Superman and Lois Lane have had a child together. Superman doesn't know this at first, as he thinks the kid she is dragging around must be hers and Richard's, but it becomes undeniably apparent that Superman is the father when the child throws a piano across the room. I don't have a problem with the notion of Superman and Lois Lane having a child together, but I feel that out of sheer respect for the medium if nothing else, it is not the place of a film director to explore what is quite a significant life changing event in a movie if it has not been done in the comics first. Again, this may seem like nitpicking, but it is justified in my opinion, especially seeing as Lois and Clark are married in the comics, and in the film it appears to be the result of a one night stand (presumably from Superman II, just after he gives up his powers). Superman's relationship with the child and Lois is left extremely wanting at the end of the film. I would expect Superman, on discovering that the child was his, to want to discuss the situation with Lois. What in fact happened was that he went to see the child briefly and then essentially told Lois that he'd see her around. This left me feeling very uncomfortable.
The action scenes in the film were all fairly good, although they didn't have me on the edge of my seat. It is far easier to criticise than it is to praise, but I will say that there were a couple of scenes in the film that were fantastic, particularly the rescue scenes, which very nearly had me wanting to clap and cheer! I did however feel that the CGI looked incredibly plastic in places, especially considering that this movie had a final budget of over a quarter of a billion pounds. Two last points, there were a number of references to the comics, Lois & Clark, Smallville, and the original films, which would appear to anyone who recognises them to be homages, but with the exception of a scene near the beginning with a model train set reproducing key moments from the first two films, these references, like the music, did not appear to be understood, and were seemingly placed in the film at random without any meaning. Finally, it is shown in the film that Lois has won a Pulitzer prize for an article entitled Why The World Doesn't Need Superman. There is not a chance that a writer unable to produce a more inspired headline than this would a) win a Pulitzer or b) hold down a job at a 'major metropolitan newspaper'.
As a whole, the film isn't bad, and I will admit that I'll be seeing it again. But I am quite disappointed that I can't say that its an outstanding movie. The film is technically flawless, but it lacks passion and a certain spark. The whole film seems a bit shallow and mechanical, as if produced by a skilled craftsman rather than a talented artist. This I hold Bryan Singer entirely responsible for. His previous work on the first two X-Men films demonstrates this. Fantastically made movies, but flat, lacking depth, and while there is no reasonable fault to be found with them, lacking inspiration and passion. While Superman Returns is by no stretch of the imagination a bad film, it lacks the intensity and energy that made the original Donner movie a classic, and I would class it as more on a par with Superman III and Superman IV than with Superman The Movie and Superman II.
Review originally appeared on The Difference Engine
Seriously, Schumacher's movies are not something to feel proud to base your next movies on.
