Superman
July 2, 2006

OK, I'll admit it. I've been a secret Superman fan for years. No, I can't say I've really read comics since I was a kid. But I've always had a soft spot for the character. Enough that I even continue to watch the horrible show Smallville. (I'll just be about to swear off it and then it'll have a good episode) So it was with some eagerness and some trepidation that we went and saw the film. A few observations independent of the film itself. They didn't really seem to be marketing this one as much as other films. Compare the hype to say Lord of the Rings or even Spiderman. Maybe I'm just not in the right "market segment" anymore. Not that I mind. A little less hype is a good thing in my opinion. The other surprising thing was how few people were at the theatre. We saw it on Thursday evening. We got there an hour early so we could get in line to get a good seat. My wife is 9 months pregnant so we made all sorts of preparations to make her comfortable. We got in and . . . we were the only people there. The theatre wasn't even sold out. Weird. I gather that nation-wide sales were much below expectations. It's too bad because it is a pretty good film.

First off I'll hold off the spoilers for the end. So if you haven't seen it or haven't heard all the chatter you might wish to skip that part. Don't worry. I'll give you fair warning before I give away any spoilers.

I'll start with the review for those of you who haven't seen it. First off don't go in expecting your typically "boom" summer movie. That is it isn't all about violence and action. As such it's quite a bit more low key than I think many were expecting leading to a bit of disappointment. It's not a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark or even a recent bad film like X-Men 3 where the action is more important that the plot. This is, if anything, very much a character piece. Which isn't to say there isn't action in it. Just that the action doesn't grab you the way it does in some films. (A typical feature of Bryan Singer movies I might add - the action was the weakest element in both of the original X-Men movies)

Once you realize what the film is about. How even a near god-like figure can have weakness and conflicts he can't resolve, you'll really enjoy the film. It really is extremely well made.

Allow me to address some of the reactions both critics and friends have had. Yes, plotwise it basically is a remake of the first film with Christopher Reeves. But it is done so creatively that you don't mind. The biggest point most people are criticizing is the portrayal of Lex Luthor. Kevin Spacey gives him a much darker side than Gene Hackman. The goal of Luthor doesn't make a lot of sense but is more about revenge on Superman by the end than any real sensical plan. He's already rich. He's insane and wants to take over the world. That sums up Luther. It's a fine performance in my opinion with most of the comic relief. But I can understand how people exposed to the much more subtle and interesting Lex Luthor of the early scenes of Smallville will be very disappointed. There are no layers to the character Singer deals with. People have criticized Spacey's performance but I think he does quite well with what he has.

The problem is that Luther exists primarily as a foil to Superman rather than as a truly three dimensional character. But I have to admit I still liked it. And that is a traditional treatment of Luthor even if both the comics and Smallville have perhaps done more. In Smallville, at least during the early seasons, Luthor was their strongest selling point. But they also had far more time to invest in him. Singer doesn't. So I can't complain too much.

Don't compare and I think you'll be happy.

The next complaint is Lois Lane. Now I'll admit that I was very, very leery of this casting. But to me while she seems young and perhaps not the woman in her 30's she is playing it didn't bother me enough to make me disbelieve her. I've met plenty of women in their 30's who looked to be in their early 20's. And I thought Kate Bosworth did a fairly good "My Girl Friday" feel to Lois Lane. Indeed one of big triumphs of Singer is a fairly seemless melding of a 1940's art vibe with modern sensibilities. It was quite well done and I thought Lois Lane was a success.

Others have criticized Lane though. They didn't see her as the hard nosed reporter who is simultaneously a single mother. (Well, quasi-single anyway) I disagree, although she could have toughened up the character a bit. Perhaps my low expectations made me pleasantly surprised. But I have no complaints here.

Overall I really loved the film and can't wait to see it again. (Maybe on IMax?) It really plays up some interesting features of the character and also stays surprisingly true to the films of the 70's. Here's hoping it is successful enough so as to spawn a sequel.

Now onto the Spoilers

First I loved the plane rescue. Up to the point that he manages to set the whole thing down by grabbing the nose. Huh? I thought it was great how they played with the physics of trying to stop the plane up to that point. Just being super-strong isn't enough. You have the innate weaknesses of the structures to deal with. So wings are ripping off (supposedly based upon actual stress tests of 747) and people are being thrown around. Then it ends with a kind of questionable bit.

Next the falling glass superman just zaps with his heat vision. Wouldn't that merely produce molten falling glass?

(Big Spoiler) OK so Lois Lane figures out her son is Superman's. But she has, from the end of the second film, no memory of sleeping with Superman. So shouldn't she be at least a little confused on this matter? Make a comment about it somewhere? Come on.

Comments

1: Posted By: Ryan | July 03, 2006 12:23 AM

Maybe Lois did know that she slept with Superman, but didn't want to admit it. That's how I understood it anyways. But I haven't watched the other two films in forever, so my logic could be flawed by a lack on information.

2: Posted By: John Mansfield | July 03, 2006 07:12 AM

I watched the first Christopher Reeve movie a couple weeks ago, and then this new movie Friday night. It was interesting how many details referred directly to antecedents in the first movie. I think the purpose was to establish a long history for this Superman. In this story, he's been Superman a long time and is very comfortable in the role. And the role is that he's God.

He hovers above the Earth, listening to prayers, deciding which petitions to respond to. He's dragged through the mud, stabbed in the side, out cold for how long? Three days maybe? And then his bed was discovered empty. It was pretty audacious, and I think the film makers pulled it off. It was repeatedly said that he's not one of us. No, but he loves us all.

A surprisely important role was Lois Lane's fiance, Richard White. He's the man who isn't a superman. I thought the scene that culminated in Superman reaching out his arm to Richard White in Sistine Chapel fashion was well developed. Gene Hackman's old Lex Luthor was a delight, but that performance has already been done. The darker, vicious tone that Spacey put into the role was a good choice. A simple touch that was good was his resentment at spending five years in prison.

3: Posted By: Clark | July 03, 2006 09:34 AM

Yeah, the messianic imagery was kind of interesting. Especially when he falls to earth with his hands outstretched as a Christ figure. So, given the Da Vince Code this summer does this make Lois Lane into Mary Magdalene? But I agree what could have been forced was pulled off quite effectively.

Ryan, in the second film Lois and Clark get quasi-married. Superman gives up his powers for Lois. Only after he gives up his powers General Zog from Krypton shows up and he realizes why he can't stop being Superman. At the end he erases Lois' memories of all the events including the fact the slept together. Further when they slept together Superman was "human" which makes things rather interesting. i.e what would the offspring be like?

The Richard White character I really liked. Part of what made it so interesting was how much we like the character. (I especially liked the irony of his flying in to rescue Lois Lane) And how can anyone compete against Superman? We end up kind of cheering for White.

4: Posted By: Supergenius | July 03, 2006 10:16 AM

Clark, it sounds like you agree with my review. Could you please tell Danithew that he is nuts?

5: Posted By: Clark | July 03, 2006 04:55 PM

I have to admit that it is hard to figure out what to say to someone who thought Ratner's X3 Singer impersonation was better than Superman Returns.

6: Posted By: Robert C. | July 03, 2006 05:48 PM

Clark (and/or others), as a litmus test, can you give me your quick view of Spiderman 2? My wife was originally excited to watch Superman, but became less excited (which means "let's wait for the dollar flicks") from the underwhelming reviews. Without saying her (or my) thoughts on Spiderman 2, we've both noticed critics often split on that movie for various reasons, so hearing your thoughts will give us an addtional and very helpful data point to interpret your view by.

7: Posted By: Clark | July 03, 2006 08:35 PM

Interesting. Most reviews I read were very positive. This is one that critics seemed to have liked much more than some regular folk. It got a 75% from Rotten Tomatoes which is pretty strong.

As for Spiderman2 I really liked it. It is a very different kind of superhero movie, given the more lighthearted nature of the character. But I think Sam Rami was the perfect choice for the film. There are a few CGI "gotcha" moments in the film. (Moreso the first film) But I thought it was really very well done - one of the better superhero films. I eagerly await the third one.

Batman Begins, the other recent film, I also thoroughly enjoyed. Although I thought the third act was a bit weak and it suffered from some silly elements. (A giant microwave over that would expand the poison in the water? Come on...) The first two acts were superb. I'd have preferred a less gadget oriented Batman but the direction was really excellent. Realistically the director couldn't have changed things too extreme from the Tim Burton film. And he did tweak the script as much as was possible.

Most other superhero films I think are horrible. In fact, truth be told, I almost wish the genre would dry up and folks get more original. That's because for every good director like Sam Rami or Bryan Singer there are a dozen hacks and a dozen studio execs who don't really care about the material. So you end up with movies made quickly hoping to get their return via opening weekend rather than a quality product.

8: Posted By: Robert C. | July 04, 2006 10:15 PM

Cool, we're of the same acidity—bonus points for liking Batman Begins, and icing on the cake that you didn't like the last third of it. We'll see Superman ASAP.

9: Posted By: Blake | July 05, 2006 06:03 PM

Clark: thanks for coming out of the closet as a Superman fan. I'm not merely a fan -- I'm a fanatic when it comes to Supeman. I own a #5 Superman, a #1 Action Comics (yes, I said #1) and about 500 vintage comic books, a complete Superman figure collection and I continue to read the comic faithfully every month. I haven't commented on the film because I was just predestined to like it. Right?

It is easier to simply agree with your review. I also really like Batman Begins and the Spiderman films; I liked the X-men films much less.

Here are my concerns. I didn't like the Salkind/Donner films really. So I didn't like the fact that Bryan Singer merely paid homage to them in this, the biggest budget of all time. Where is the creativity? I didn't like Lois Lane's kid who mostly just stared into the camera and looked anemic. I liked Lois Lane and I really liked that she wasn't played just for comic effect.

Here's my biggest complaint: the film is written and conceived by people who have lost their moral compass. Did I say that? Yep. Here is Superman, the world's greatest icon of morally decent conduct. Yet he turns out to be not much more in the end than a dead-beat dad. Wouldn't the real Man of Steel have the decency to marry Lois before having pre-marital sex? Wouldn't he have the moral fibre to take responsibility for his acts? It seems inevtiable that Lois was having sexual relations with at least two men at the same time and she turns out to be nothing more than a sleezy, materialistic, self-centered journalist. That isn't Superman. It is just Hollywood assuming that everyone in America accepts as perfectly fine the irresponsible sexual activity without commitment and without responsibility that they seem to. I expected better and we get nothing morally worthwhile -- nothing worth risking one's life for.

That said, I'll undoubtedly see the movie again and again --and I'll continue to be frustrated by the moral blindness of the entire enterprise.

10: Posted By: Blake | July 06, 2006 08:27 PM

Clark: How come my post didn't show up on the side bar? BTW I went to see Superman Returns again last night. I enjoyed it even more the second time. I withdraw my critique of the young boy's acting -- he was much more lively and active in the dialogue than I had remembered. I'm still frustrated by the moral lapses of the story.

11: Posted By: Clark | July 06, 2006 10:44 PM

Weird, I don't know Blake. The comments are still a tad buggy. I was in the process of rewriting them but alas didn't have an offsite backup of my work. (Yeah, I'm an idiot)

I'm impressed you own a #1 Action Comics. Dang. Bet you paid a mint for that!

While I liked Singer's film a lot, I do have to agree that I'd have preferred a new take on Superman rather than a kind of sequel/remake of the Donner films. Like you I thought the Donner films were lacking somewhat. There's rumored to be a new "director's cut" of Superman that was more akin to what Donner wanted even though it is actually re-edited by someone else. Since you're a fan you probably know the politics behind it all. The brillant folks who came up with Superman III were running interference on Donner and kept pushing for more campy situations. They got more of that in Superman II and the version that was usually shown on TV had a few extra scenes that they directed. They shut Donner out of a lot in Superman II and Superman III was more what they were looking for.

Given all that I really wanted something a bit more. So, I enjoyed what I saw, but it wasn't up to the reinvention of say Batman Begins (ignoring its third act).

The moral issues are more complex. First I thought it was an interesting riff on the second film. And really that's where your problem is. But Superman doesn't know he has a son until pretty much the end of the film. So I'd hold off on moral compass discussions until the next film which I expect will develop these issues a tad more. I think your complaint is more with Superman II than this one.

12: Posted By: Mark Butler | July 07, 2006 12:40 AM

The reason why I couldn't take the first Spiderman film seriously, besides the wackiness of the bad guy, is the ridiculous proposition that an upstanding young man would be particularly attracted to a young woman who dressed like *that*. Too many modern film makers seems to be dead set on using the morality of the past to uphold the immorality of the future.

13: Posted By: Blake | July 07, 2006 07:31 AM

Clark: Actually, I got the #1 from my Dad. How does it get better than that?

You're probably right that my real beef is with II, but like you I wanted a new take on Superman. Heck, I thought the death of Superman at the hands of a Doomday would have been a great plot.

Mark: Agreed. The Green Goblin was just stupid, stupid, stupid. I liked Doc Oc a lot in Spiderman II -- and I think that Spidey II is probably the best of the genre so far. But there is something enobling about Superman. I really enjoyed Superman Returns more the second time I saw it.

14: Posted By: John Mansfield | July 07, 2006 11:46 AM

Because of the paternity issue, my boys won't see this movie until they are teenagers, and that irritates me. That said, it does fit with the divine image this movie creates of Superman. Mortal men of any worth take care of their own children, but gods find a Mary and Joseph who can give the child a human experience. Superman was raised by the Kents, and now his son is to be raised by Lois Lane and her man.

15: Posted By: Clark | July 07, 2006 02:29 PM

I didn't mind the Green Goblin although I thought the suit was a bit much. But he's kind of a difficult character to figure out how to bring to the screen. I liked the scripting of the character but not the art design. I agree that the sequel was even better. But I loved the first half of the first film where Parker is still in High School. Very well done.

Mark, are you being serious? I don't recall her dressing particularly unusual. No different from most of the women I used to date.

John, why do you think the paternity issue is that significant? I suspect, whatever school they go to, that many of their peers will not have been born in a marriage. It is rather ubiquitous now.

I will say that in Superman II though there was at least the overtones of marriage. And would could argue that the whole sacrifice and "ritual" Superman went through was a quasi-marriage. Contrast this with Smallville where Clark Kent "gets it on" rather regularly with different women. (One of many things about the show I didn't like)

One thing I kind of wish people would do is play up on how Batman and Superman are contrasted in Frank Miller's The Dark Night Returns. Superman is kind of an ultimate Reagan Republican. Further his powers make him a little uncomprehending of how the average person lives. So there are these political overtones that map onto the Reagan conservative ideology or progression and poverty versus the more Progressive version (of what I take Batman, as an east coast Liberal to be emblematic of) I thought it was an interesting overtone. Especially if you consider that if Superman was raised in small town Kansas he probably had a fairly conservative Christian background.

I always thought it would be interesting to play up those origins and then the obvious religious issues of what someone who is basically a demi-god thinks about religion as well as how to save mankind. Afterall the traditional problem of Superman arose within a year or two of his creation. During WWII you couldn't have Superman solve the Nazi problem even though he obviously could. So why do we have this God who refuses to act? It raises some issues not unlike the traditional philosophical problem of evil.

This issue of Superman's power means that writers have to be creative. I think something akin to Alan Moore's The Watchmen would be interesting, only playing up that environment Clark Kent was raised in. (Something that the Smallville series sometimes managed to lope onto - only to undercut themselves the next episode)

I should add, if you haven't read it, Umberto Eco has a kind of interesting semiotic analysis of the Superman myth in The Roll of the Reader. I ought perhaps reread it and summarize a few of the points. There's not that much new in the essay. I suspect most of us can see some of the problems inherent in a comic book that has a near-godlike character but that must simultaneously remain in "our" world. The big point Eco makes though is the role of the narrative and how Superman couldn't marry Lois Lane without it leading to death. (Obviously somewhat dated now nearly 40 years later since Superman did die)

16: Posted By: Brandon | July 08, 2006 12:15 AM

I've always thought one of the interesting things about Superman is that he's actually a mix, in the sense that he has this indefinitely vast godlike power, but he doesn't have indefinitely vast godlike knowledge to match it. So to use the problem of evil analogy, here we have a god who lacks omniscience, or even knowledge in a degree much greater than ours -- and it makes a big difference. We can see Superman as almost like the ultimate test case of the limits of technology. He has (one would imagine) a better sense of how to use his powers well than you or I would, simply from experience; but, after all, his experience is very definitely finite. If (to use the example I think Eco uses) he were to try to solve world hunger by planting all the food needed for it overnight -- what would actually be the result? The food needs to be distributed to those who need it; it needs to be done in an efficient, timely way; it needs to be done in a way that doesn't amount to dumping on already poor agricultural markets; etc. The organizational problem of solving world hunger isn't actually any simpler for Superman than it is for us; he just has a sort of technological superiority -- one Superman being worth a lot of us with our best technological resources. And he doesn't have any more knowledge about how to marshal that 'technology' to handle all the problems than we do. Even worse, given his 'technological' superiority he can do much more damage than we can if he doesn't anticipate all the potential problems. So problems like that, to the extent that we can't solve them technologically, can't generally be solved by Superman either.

Thus, I think Superman as he has developed over the years has tended to take the right route. He counteracts particular types of abuses of 'technological' superiority on the part of others (whether superpowers or superpower-like use of real technology); he occasionally lends a helping hand in the ways any of us might (although obviously he's always more likely to be effective due to his power); and he acts as simply a partner and member of the community in the case of more complex problems, not presuming to try to solve them all himself.

17: Posted By: Clark | July 08, 2006 08:29 PM

I think you're completely right about Superman's major weakness being his mind. Once again I really like the way Frank Miller played that up in Dark Night Returns. There Batman manages to defeat Superman by thinking strategically. It's been an awfully long time since I last read it. But I seem to remember Batman in some exoskeleton fighting Superman with some nuclear explosion configured to block Superman's connection to the Sun. In the midst of all this Batman is thinking, "Clark, you fool. With all your power everything was so easy that you never had to learn to think strategically." i.e. the old adage from Sun Tzu that ones strengths can often become ones weaknesses. (No, I'm not going to look up to get the actual quote from either)

It is interesting that in the film Bryan Singer played up Superman's powers making him even more powerful. Thus Superman hears everything becoming almost like God listening to prayers. I think that's a bit too much power to give to him, not to mention the problems reconciling that with physics. (i.e. there's not much sound one can hear in outerspace like that)

I always thought one ought put limits on Superman due to the nature of natural law. i.e. let Superman be able to fly to near the speed of light. But then let him suffer the consequences when he releases large sonic booms in close proximity to all the windows of the buildings in New York City.

Singer did play that up a bit with the airplane rescue that reportedly was based upon the actual stress and breaking points from certain safety models of a 747. But in other places Superman can act without there really being much by way of consequences.

18: Posted By: Robert C. | July 27, 2006 11:27 AM

I finally saw this movie and liked it, thanks again for the recommendation. I agree with the positive things already discussed, which is why I liked the movie. I mainly just have two comments to get off my chest:

(1) I quite liked Spacey's acting and the characterization of Lex Luther right up until he revealed his plan of building a new continent (with the hokey maps). Then it went downhill fast. He seemed very sophisticated, elegant, and interesting right up until that point and then things went downhill fast. It seems it wouldn't have taken too much work to throw in some extra twist on how the crystal continent would be environmentally friendly or somehow benefit mankind and eventually grow into a superior society or something. Something like this would've made Luther remain interesting with some sort of "great good" motivation....

(2) I can't remember the previous movies, but wasn't there at least some sort of time lapse between Lois sleeping w/ Superman and Lois taking up with Richard. So wouldn't it be clear at least to Richard that the son wasn't his? My complaint is that this issue, with I think is rather obvious, was never addressed. Here's one way that I think would've been easy to slip in: Lois's pregnancy might've lasted much longer than 9 months (after all, why should Superman's offspring have the same incubation period?).

19: Posted By: Clark | July 27, 2006 08:48 PM

I think they wanted Luthor to be insane. i.e. all his "good guy" motivations (some which were quite well done) were really justifications for basic insanity.

While I definitely didn't mind the Luthor in the film the way some did, I must confess I preferred the Smallville Luthor of the first two seasons. (They made him insane in the last two seasons in a clumsy and inconsistent way unfortunately - in the first two seasons he was the reason to watch the show and was written head and shoulders above the rest of the characters)

With regards to Lois there were some obvious issues never raised that hopefully will be in the next film. Note that when Superman and Lois slept together Superman was fully human.

Main Page