Originally Published June 29, 2006
For years fans have discussed the “Superman curse.” This curse is supposed to fall on the actors who portray the Man of Steel ““ apparently a streak of bad luck comes with playing the part, which began with George Reeves death and continued to Christopher Reeve (who was paralyzed after a horse riding accident).
For a while it seemed as if the curse had also attached itself to the producers of the film series, as they have attempted to revive the movie franchise for over a decade with aborted attempts coming from Tim Burton, Kevin Smith and J.J.Abrams. Millions ““ tens of millions ““ were spent trying to bring a new version to life. Finally producer Jon Peters bought into Bryan Singer’s take on the character and thus, after an additional two years of productions, we have the just-opened Superman Returns.
Which is a mess.
The movie is a virtual remake of the original 1978 Superman ““ the Movie, and in remaking the classic film Singer has tried to force aspects of the original into the new film’s plot (but BIGGER!) and, with only one exception, these do not work. For example, arch villian Lex Luthor, instead of wanting to have valuable beach front property by causing the San Andreas Fault to crack, in the new film wants to create a Kryptonite-filled continent (that will, incidentally, destroy most of the continental US). And Superman, instead of wearing a Kryptonite meteor and nearly dying in a pool as in the first film, is instead stabbed ““ twice ““ by a Krypton shiv by Luthor and nearly dies in the bottom of the ocean. And so on.
The only “reimagining” that worked was a remarkable rescue that mirrored the helicopter rescue from the first film – only this time a prototype space shuttle on top of an airline is in danger. Of course, Lois Lane is on board. Talk about bad luck”¦
As the film begins, Superman has been gone for five years, and that is another issue I have with the movie’s premise. He left because astronomers found Krypton and he hoped that there was still life out there. Like an adopted son, Superman went to seek out his real parents, and found nothing “but a graveyard.” This was a frustrating plot point to myself and many other reviewers, as it has the main character abdicating his responsibility for no good reason (a point the film empathizes by showing Clark watch the news and see all the world strife that has occurred in his absence). This comes off more as a construct of the writers (to allow for the plot situation to exist) than something that is “in character” ““ that is, the character of Superman that was established in the original film.
This brings up the biggest problem with the entire movie. In continuing the original film series with a new cast, this invites, almost requires, viewers to recall and compare the new version with the old. Brandon Routh, in an incredibly sincere performance, is a great Superman, but he does not have the presence and gravitas that Christopher Reeve brought (but then, who does?). Same with Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor versus Gene Hackman’s portrayal. And so on. This is in contrast to Batman Begins (a film that is much superior to this one) where the filmmakers wisely decided to reboot the entire franchise from the beginning.
But Batman Begins was better than the new Superman not just because they abandoned all ties to the original Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films, but because they also had a fresh take on the character. This movie does neither, and, while the new Superman film is superior to the much-maligned Superman IV: the Quest for Peace, there are parts of the previous three Superman films that are more entertaining than any part of this film (and the direct parallels with the original makes this new film pale in comparison).
Not to say that they don’t add new touches to the characters or the premise ““ as you read from the brief synopsis above, they do. However, the new touches, like the additions Peter Jackson made to his unsatisfying King Kong reimagining last year, add nothing with the same weight or power of the original. The new, non-trivial character and plot points – Jackson’s film had a useless cabin boy subplot, Singer’s film has a subplot involving Lois’ son and fiance ““ could have been excised and one could hardly miss it (though the son subplot does pay off nicely in a couple of scenes – no spoilers, though anyone with an IQ of lint could guess the eventual pay-off).
If it seems I am contrasting the new film with the original too much, you are correct ““ I am. But the filmmakers, as stated above, invite the comparisons, and if they did not want such comparisons they should not have created a movie so linked to the classic film.
Beyond that, there is quite a bit of the new film that could have been removed with little noticeable effect, and several of these scenes only exist to parallel scenes from the original Superman ““ the Movie. Off the top of my head: a flashback to Superman as a boy jumping through cornfields, a lengthy sequence where Luthor steals the Kryptonite meteor he uses in his evil scheme (a similar crime in the original is dismissed in one line of dialogue and never shown), a voyeuristic scene where Superman is looking in on Lois’ life with her new family ““ all could be removed with no affect on the film.
This brings up another problem: again, like Jackson’s King Kong, the movie is easily twenty to thirty minutes too long, and I was not the only viewer to feel that way – in the screening I attended I lost count of the times I saw people shifting uncomfortably in their seats and looking at their watches. I’m not impatient ““ I sat through the Lord of the Rings movies absolutely transfixed ““ it just the movie never grabbed hold of me and made me lose myself in the story like that film (among others) did. The final cut is about two hours and twenty-five minutes, and I heard the original first cut was over three hours. Thank goodness they had the common sense to edit it down, because I honestly could not see myself sitting through this film if it was that long.
Not to belabor the point, but there are also editing decisions made by the filmmakers that hurt ““ and lengthen – the film. Example: Superman stops the Daily Planet globe from crushing Perry White ““ great effect and iconic image. Do we need to extend the scene by several seconds showing him slowly lowering the globe onto a car? It’s like the spaceships landing in the Star Wars movies ““ it’s only there because the filmmakers can show it, not because the story demands it. Lots of scenes felt “overlong” and could stand a good trimming. I can see imagine someone doing a fan-made “directors cut” that trimmed this and other scenes – as several did with Star Wars ““ Episode I – that would result in a much more enjoyable film.
Apparently Singer, like Jackson before him, was allowed to indulge himself in the making of this film and in the end produced a slow, ponderous film that was more an effort to sit through than a joy. Visuals, effects and music are all well crafted, but in the end it came off as a missed opportunity to make the world once again believe that a man can fly.
– Joe Dickerson