Superman Returns (Bryan Singer, 2006)

[tavernier]

Manohla Dargis weighs in:

'Superman Returns' to Save Mankind From Its Sins
By MANOHLA DARGIS/The New York Times

Jesus of Nazareth spent 40 days in the desert. By comparison, Superman of Hollywood languished almost 20 years in development hell. Those years apparently raised the bar fearsomely high. Last seen larking about on the big screen in the 1987 dud "Superman IV," the Man of Steel has been resurrected in a leaden new film not only to fight for truth, justice and the American way, but also to give Mel Gibson's passion a run for his box-office money. Where once the superhero flew up, up and away, he now flies down, down, down, sent from above to save mankind from its sins and what looked like another bummer summer.

The super-size (more than two and a half hours) "Superman Returns" was written by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, working off a story hatched by them and the director, Bryan Singer, after what appears to have been repeat viewings of Richard Donner's "Superman." Released in 1978, that film ushered Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's original comic creation into the blockbuster age with frothy wit and a cast that included Marlon Brando in a creamy scoop of white hair and Gene Hackman in clover. Christopher Reeve, of course, wore the cape and tights, while Margot Kidder did a fine approximation of the young Katharine Hepburn at her most coltish. Valerie Perrine and Ned Beatty added some laughs, while Glenn Ford supplied a pinch of gravitas.

As nutritious as a box of Cracker Jack and just as yummy, "Superman" was at once a goof and a self-conscious bid at modern mythmaking. Years later, what resonates aren't Mr. Donner's action scenes, which look crude compared with what he would do later in the "Lethal Weapon" series, but how fluidly he changes tones from the iconic (as when the supertoddler lifts a truck off his Earth father) to the playful (as when the souped-up adult realizes that the closetlike phone booth is a thing of the past). Mr. Reeve worked the tonal changes with similar ease, delivering a superhero whose earnestness was strategically offset by his fumbling, bumbling, all-too-human twin, who was just the ticket for the post-Watergate, pre-Indiana Jones moment.

Mr. Singer's Superman, played by Brandon Routh, is a hero of rather different emotional colors, most muted. Like Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins," Mr. Singer's effort reworks the legend against a vaguely modern, timeless backdrop that blends the thematically old with the technologically new. The story opens with some necrophiliac wizardry and Brando newly arisen as Superman's extraterrestrial father. Well represented even from beyond, the dead actor receives billing for his spectral turn, squeezed between Eva Marie Saint, who plays Superman's earth mother, and Tristan Lake Leabu, who plays Lois Lane's young son. The Daily Planet's star reporter is in turn played by Kate Bosworth, whose glum mien and curtain of brown hair suggests that blondes really do have more fun.

Lois, however, doesn't enter the picture until after the filmmakers have laid the story's Oedipal foundation, which finds two men saying goodbye to the much older women who will, intentionally or not, shape their destinies. In one corner, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey taking up the role played by Mr. Hackman) bids cold adieu to the crone who will make him fantastically rich; in another, Superman again digs a fiery trough into the Kent family farm upon crash landing. This time, it's the grown man who brings tears to his mother's eyes and who stares at the sinking Kansas (actually Australian) sun, weighing his responsibility to humankind after a five-year hiatus crossing the galaxies to visit his original home.

It's too bad that Mr. Singer and his colleagues don't really do anything substantial with the good-guy-bad-guy routine. Superman may be a super-creation, but it's his villains rather than his dual identity that have usually given him a kick. Unlike his brooding and angst-ridden rivals in the superhero game, his alter ego is only as interesting as the comic book artist or the actor adding shades of gray to Clark Kent's business suit. Part of the charm of Mr. Reeve's interpretation was that a guy this impossibly handsome, who literally towers over everyone in the office, could hide behind a slouch and oversize eyeglasses. It was absurd, but then so too was the idea that a powerful extraterrestrial would hang around Earth to take the kind of abuse perennially heaped on his human half.

That identity allowed Superman to walk among us, but mostly it allowed him and, by proxy, generations of geeks both creating and consuming the character, to engage ritualistically in a sadomasochistic relationship with Lois Lane. A variation on the high school homecoming queen who sails past the shy guy in glasses on her way to a back-seat tumble with the captain of the football team, this trouble-seeking reporter has always brought out what is most human, vulnerable and identifiable in Superman. He gives her headlines; she gives him a broken, or at least bruised, heart. In "Superman II," which was directed by Richard Lester (and an uncredited Mr. Donner), she gave him a bit more, too, thereby transforming the world's most powerful virgin into a one-night stud.

Near the end of the second film, Superman, realizing that he and Lois have no future, wipes away their boudoir encounter with an amnesia-producing kiss. Mr. Singer expends much more time and many more resources to do pretty much the same, erasing part of the past to create what is essentially a new and considerably more sober sequel to the first two films, one that shakes the earthiness off Superman and returns him to the status of a savior. There's always been a hint of Jesus (and Moses) to the character, from the omnipotence of his father to a costume that, with its swaths of red and blue, evokes the colors worn by the Virgin Mary in numerous Renaissance paintings. It's a hint that proves impossible not to take.

Intentionally or not, the Jesus angle also helps deflect speculation about just how straight this Superman flies. Given how securely Lois remains out of the romantic picture in "Superman Returns," now saddled with both a kid and a fiancé (James Marsden), it's no surprise that some have speculated that Superman is gay. The speculation speaks more to our social panic than anything in the film, which, much like the overwhelming majority of American action movies produced since the 1980's, mostly involves what academics call homosocial relations. In other words, when it comes to Hollywood, boys will be boys and play with their toys, whether they're sleeping with one another or not, leaving women to weep, worry and wait to be rescued.

Every era gets the superhero it deserves, or at least the one filmmakers think we want. For Mr. Singer that means a Superman who fights his foes in a scene that visually echoes the garden betrayal in "The Passion of the Christ" and even hangs in the air much as Jesus did on the cross. It's hard to see what the point is beyond the usual grandiosity that comes whenever B-movie material is pumped up with ambition and money. As he proved with his first two installments of "The X-Men" franchise, Mr. Singer likes to make important pop entertainments that trumpet their seriousness as loudly as they deploy their bangs. It's hard not to think that Superman isn't the only one here with a savior complex.

[David Ehrenstein]

As usual Manohla and I didn't see the same movie. But I'm really surprised by the bad reviews this is getting.

I liked it.

The again, I never much cared for Christopher Reeve so. . .

[hearthesilence]

Well, if it's any consolation, I told a bunch of different people about your review, and based on what you wrote regarding the Clark-Lois-White love triangle, they grew much more interested in the movie. Most people I know - not film people - had low expectations, due to an unimpressive trailer and general lack of interest in Superman.

[che-etienne]

Between this review and that of "X-Men 3" (in which she states that there is pretty much no difference between Ratner's and Singer's approach to the X-Men), I'm beginning to think she just has no sense of fun... Now, I haven't yet seen "Superman Returns" so I can't be the judge of the accuracy of this review in terms of the quality of the film... but it seems Dargis is getting a little too carried away by her prejudices here. I think she often does this and sometimes it gives her critiques a little more edge and... I guess I'd call it 'spunk', but at most others she just comes off as lacking imagination. I get the feeling she thinks along the lines that there is a clearer divide between Hollywood pulp and art film than there really is...

...then again I do hold the skewed and what many would call illogical point of view that there's not much difference in stylistic approach between "A History of Violence" and most of the other graphic novel/comic book adaptations that have surfaced over the recent few years. And just because there's a popular superhero in a movie doesn't mean it's potential quality is automatically diminished... at the same time, I'd be naive to think that this film isn't engineered first and foremost towards making a huge profit... it is the most expensive film ever made afterall.

Anyway, I have high hopes for this one. Singer is intelligent. And whatever Dargis thinks, he's no Ratner.

[Antoine Doinel]

[colinr0380]

This is an interesting YouTube review of the film.

Poor James Marsden! It is nice that he is in this film as well as the X-Men films, but I'm feeling sorry for the guy. It must be annoying to always play the decent guy feeling pushed aside by Wolverine or Superman.

[David Ehrenstein]

Well then you should seek out Heights where Marsden plays a naughty bisexual husband.

Wonderful movie -- almost completely ignored.

[Theodore R. Stockton]

Does anyone else think Superman looks like Max Fisher? ... even without the glasses.

[sevenarts]

As usual Manohla and I didn't see the same movie. But I'm really surprised by the bad reviews this is getting.

I don't know, I definitely saw the same movie she did. Considering this was a superhero movie -- let alone a superhero movie about the most traditionally pure, carefree superhero there is -- this had a notable lack of fun to it. There were a few cute little asides that brought the laughs, but mostly I'd agree with Dargis that it was unnecessarily portentous and overwrought. I also picked up on the same overdone Jesus parallels that she did -- it's not hard, considering Superman himself keeps repeating the word "savior" ad nauseum -- and in that light the way he gets humbled by Luthor is particularly interesting to note. I mean, this is a superhero film where the ONLY battle scene consists exclusively of Superman getting kicked around (and stabbed in the side!) by Luthor and some nameless goons. Very lackluster film, any way you look at it.

[The Invunche]

When the hell did Superman go from being Moses to Jesus?

[che-etienne]

SPOILERS BELOW

I see why so many people (critics especially) view "Superman Returns" as 'christifying' the character, but I definitely don't agree with it. One could definitely interpret the film that way, and the film definitely mythologizes and deifies Superman, but in my opinion that's not exactly taking much license with the franchise. Superman always has been deified, and I would even support the argument that the film self-consciously acknowledges this deification and comments upon it. The portrayal of Richard White being my main support for this. He is not pigeon-holed as the substitute lover at all in this film. The film grapples with him as a character, and he even switches roles with Superman at one point in the film when he 'flies' to save Lois, and reaches her before Superman does. True Superman does end up saving them all afterwards, but when he does I feel like Singer even allows us to see it from White's perspective... next to this 'god' what can he do? How can he compete? And yet in the end he does compete and he does end up with Lois... well at least by the end of this film.

Superman may be deified, but the Christ argument for me just doesn't hold up. Sure he sacrifices himself for mankind. He is a savior etc. But he is more so in that he represents mankind's (and more specifically the US's) hopes and dreams. When he is dying, the world holds its breath because it would be as if hope itself is dying. He is less a harbinger than a symbol. Besides there were no comic books back in Jesus' day... and, though I admit the weakness of this theory without more to back it up, (I'm really tired right now) I would venture to say that the heroes in comic books are a great deal like modern substitutes for deities and prophets.

If Superman is portrayed with respect and seriousness in Singer's film, there is an equally campy and playful layer to the film as well, which preserves the comic book tradition, and so I wouldn't say that Singer has forgotten at all to just be fun and creative with the story and characterizations.

So what I'm wondering is why it seems so many people feel that Superman has to be one or the other? campy man-in-tights or god? And why should the deification of superman in this film be such a bad thing? And why does it have to be (to the point of view of certain critics) Christ Singer is pointing to? I feel like all such assumptions are a little pretentious and reading into it a little too much. There is subext here, but does it have to be so clearly defined? Finally, what is the difference really between how seriously some take Superman and how seriously others take say the Lord of the Rings, Dune, or any fantasy, mythology, or religion for that matter? The whole geek thing etc. It is escapism, yes, to a certain extent, but Superman does represent ideals which I think many can believe in and is valuable as a symbol of such ideals, and I admire a film that tries to restore that quality to the character. This film does that, and I would say explores the contradictions of it, and frankly does so in a more nuanced way than any other superhero film I've yet seen. I was also moved by it... in my opinion it really was a fantastic film.

P.S. just saw "Hellboy" finally as well... the end... badass.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

P.S. just saw "Hellboy" finally as well... the end... badass.

Yeah, I dug that one a lot. I'm excited to hear that Del Toro's attached to adapt Deadman! (http://www.latinoreview.com/news.php?id=734)

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm seeing this this week and am debating whether or not to see it in 3D IMAX or not. I've never been a particularly big fan of seeing feature films in IMAX but is this something I should definitely see in IMAX? Will I be missing out on anything if I just check out a regular screening?

EDIT: SPOILERS

Saw this last night, and wanted to like it so much more than I did. Firstly, I'm not a huge Superman fan to begin with - I prefer the more human, conflicted superheroes like Batman and Spiderman. I liked the Christ/Atlas overtones. And che-etienne, it is fairly obvious. Firstly their is Jor-El's whole "I'm-sending-my-son" speech and towards the end after Superman has disposed of Luthor's kryptonite planet, he floats through space in the Jesus Christ pose. Not to mention the scene very early in the film at his home where he is flipping through the news and sees all the violence happening around the world. But the one thing Singer's Superman Returns actually did was to make understand and was the more the focus of his film, was the Superman mythology and how he represents the potentia good of all mankind.

The cast I thought were almost all great. Kevin Spacey nailed Luthor perfectly and was thankfully nowhere close to as hammy as the trailers made him out to be. Routh was perfectly clumsy and heroice while Bosworth was a fine Lois Lane. Posey was somewhat miscast I think - this is just not the kind of role in which she can shine. And I have no idea how you sign up Kal Penn for a movie and not give him more than two lines.

The middle of the movie is downright fantastic, however, the movie stumbles out of the gates and finishes poorly. The exposition at the beginning didn't particularly flow clearly and the ending was completely disappointing especially with how Singer chose to "dispose" of Lex Luthor (gosh, d'you think he'll survive?). I really didn't like how the movie focused on the unrequited love angle (which also took me out of Spiderman 2 - fuck Parker, be a man!) and the film's conclusion felt more like Singer didn't know what else to do, rather than taking it to a logical conclusion while leaving it open for the (not so inevitable) sequel.

Singer tried to mix the feel of classic film romance, with a contemporary superhero movie and came up short on both ends I feel. They didn't mesh well together and ended up creating a movie that I felt was too long for what it actually contained, which were 2 or 3 major action sequences and a lot of Lois Lane "I can't forgive him/I still love him" blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and just a bit of "hooray, Superman is back".

[che-etienne]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant, but I do agree with parts of what you've said about the weaknesses of the film: the diposal of lex luthor and the shakily expository beginning. Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't 'see' the the Jesus parallels and imagery, the most prominent one being his crucifixion pose as he falls back to the surface, butr more I meant to express that I feel these parallels and symbols are just that. For the film or the character to be a metaphor however I feel both would have to be far more comprehensive and fleshed-out in their allusions. A visual reference, even a metaphorical image such as the one here mentioned does very clearly point to Jesus, and I think there's enough in the film that we can say Superman is deified, but I'll stick to the point of view that the film is merely using the image of Jesus and striking parallels without actually mounting the pedestal of Christianity. Yoko Kanno, who wrote the music for the "Cowboy Bebop" series among other things, once gave an interview in which she talked about how symbols such as crucifixes and how in Japan often such loaded symbols are stripped of their meaning, and it is merely the image that remains. To me, that is often a good way of looking at allusions in literature and cinema and the like, since they can often lead to a narrow vision of what something has to mean. "Superman Returns" is enough of a good film for me that more than one interpretation can be applied to it, which is why I feel it's the best comic-based film to date, and one of the best films I've seen so far this year... granted I haven't seen many.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

SPOILERS BELOW

I see why so many people (critics especially) view "Superman Returns" as 'christifying' the character, but I definitely don't agree with it. One could definitely interpret the film that way, and the film definitely mythologizes and deifies Superman, but in my opinion that's not exactly taking much license with the franchise. Superman always has been deified, and I would even support the argument that the film self-consciously acknowledges this deification and comments upon it. The portrayal of Richard White being my main support for this. He is not pigeon-holed as the substitute lover at all in this film. The film grapples with him as a character, and he even switches roles with Superman at one point in the film when he 'flies' to save Lois, and reaches her before Superman does. True Superman does end up saving them all afterwards, but when he does I feel like Singer even allows us to see it from White's perspective... next to this 'god' what can he do? How can he compete? And yet in the end he does compete and he does end up with Lois... well at least by the end of this film.

I didn't want to quote your entire review but having finally seen the film (I don't know why it took me so long), I agree completely with what you're saying, esp. the above observations. I really thought the dynamic between Lois, Supes/Clark and Richard White was one of the most interesting things about this film. The filmmakers could so easily have made Richard the "bad guy" or, rather, the wrong guy for Lois with all kinds of faults to make Superman look better but they don't. Richard is a decent, stand-up guy who loves his wife and kid. He works hard is actually pretty heroic (the way he pilots the plane at the end of the film) but as you point out, how can he compete with Superman? Who ever could? There was a lot going between the three (with the kid thrown into the mix) character then you see in a lot of comic book/superhero adaptations that I really enjoyed.

I also really, really dug the retro yet contemporary look of the film. The way that it was shot, the atmosphere was excellent.