(d: Bryan Signer, 2006)

You will believe computer generated images can fly.

I should, and will, preface by saying that Superman: The Movie (henceforth referred to as Superman ’78 for differentiation purposes) is one of my all-time favourite films. The acting of Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve, the epic story by Mario Puzo and witty script out Tom Mankewicz, and the grand direction of Sir Richard Donner (honorary Freemo knighthood), what's not to love? A grand, mythic, epic, iconic tale, not only a great "comic book movie", but a great movie full stop.

I'd heard good things about Superman Returns during it's production, and as such I was expecting it to be to Superman ‘78 and II what the Godfather Part III was to the Godfather Parts I and II: The belated companion piece, not quite as good as the original duology (for what could be?), but worthwhile in it's own right. Boy, was I disappointed? The answer to that question is yes, I was disappointed.

As a two-and-a-half hour loving tribute to the original Superman movie, Superman Returns is pretty decent, boasting the same music and the same main titles, and loads of tributes, homages, and non-denominal references. Early on I loved this, when I saw those blue titles zooming out, charging at me like the German army charging in on Russia, it was like "hell yes!". But after an hour or so the giddy thrill of sighting these homages passed, and I realised that that's all this film is: A loving tribute. All the good moments in Superman Returns are ones that echo the original. There's nothing new here. This film doesn't contribute anything to cinematic Superman; it merely rides on the coattails of its predecessor. All it really left me with was a desire to go back and see the original once again.

Superman and Lois's flight, the recital of Jor-El's "father and son" speech, "flying is still statically the safest way to travel", "you really shouldn't smoke Miss Lane", "When I was six my father said to me... get out". Many classics (and even lesser) lines and dialogue and moments have been lifted from the original and reproduced in Superman Returns, even ones that make no sense in current context, such as Clark's usage of the word "swell" (see, in Superman '78, Clark was born in 1948, and grew up in the 50s-early 60s, when words such as "swell" were "in vouge". He then goes away from 12 years as comes back in 1978, where "swell" has long become out of date, "Not alot of people feel comfortable saying swell anymore". Superman Returns however, is set in 2006, a timeline that has Clark being born around 1970, meaning he would never have picked up "swell" and the joke makes no sense. Except of course, as an homage).

Okay, it's supposed to be a follow-up, fair enough. But my beef isn't that it's a loving tribute, but that it's all it is. Superman Returns never steps out of the shadows of it's predecessor. It never becomes it's own movie. While Superman '78 and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut had a strong sense a purpose about it, a tale to tell, that being the rise and coming-of-age of a hero, Superman Returns doesn’t appear to have been made for any better reason than "we had the rights to Superman so we better use them".

What the hell is Superman Returns about? A good story has to have an underlining theme. What is Superman Returns'? Is Superman Returns about a) Purpose: Superman returns to earth after years away to find everyone has  moved on without him and he has to re-find his "place", b) Redemption: Superman's absence means he could testify at Luthors trial, hence Luthor went free and now Superman has to make up for that, or c) Loneliness: Whether or not Superman is alone in the universe? I don't know, and the film doesn't seem to know either. It has three potential themes, and takes stabs at each of them at various points, but what they really needed to do was take one of them and flesh it out. "A" would have been the easiest, "B" the most interesting, and "C", in this emo world in which we live in, the most likely.

But the real problem with Superman Returns is that it’s just so fucking boring. Coma inducing boring. I-think-I’ve-died–and-gone-to-purgatory boring. The only thing more boring than Superman Returns is the Superman Returns DVD special features. There’s none of the sense of wonder, none of then fun, none of the spine-tingling, heart-pumping, shout-out-loud “go get ‘em Superman!” feeling that this type of film really ought to have. Nothing really happens, and what does happen takes forever (it's interesting that Superman '78 and Superman Returns have pretty much the same run time, but Superman '78 manages to tell a hell of a lot more story, while still moving a pretty leisurely pace). And everything is just so subdued: Superman’s suit, Luthor's arrogance, even the Daily Planet, once a hive of activity, has lost all it's energy and pace, with Perry White, once a fast-talking, shoot-from-the-hip, lead-from-the-front, hold-no-bars commander, now just a weary old man (his one attempt at revving up the troops just doesn’t cut it).

On the subject of Luthor, compare the scenes from Superman ’78 and Superman Returns where Lex Luthor outlines his plan. In the original, Gene Hackman's Luthor gives a magnificently arrogant and cheeky speech, outlining his ingenious scheme to turn his worthless desert land into valuable beach front property. In Superman Returns, Kevin Spacey's Luthor, half-bored, mumbles something about creating land and killing "billions of people", a plan that doesn't make any sense as it involves killing the very people who are supposed to be making him rich (If "billions of people" die, who's going to be left to buy your precious land you stupid twit?).

HackmanLuthor's scheme, simple yet ingenious, gives him ownership of the new American West Coast, the most desirable land in the world. SpaceyLuthor's scheme is ill-conceived and needlessly complicated. All his scenes, which make up about half the films total runtime, revolve around the painful construction and point-by-point development of his endeavour (example: In Superman ’78 Luthor reads about some Kryptonite in a museum, and later on Perry mentions that someone broke into a museum “and all they took was some worthless bit of meteor rock”. It’s then no surprise when we later see Luthor with the kryptonite. But in Superman Returns, nothing, not even little things like this, is done off screne. They decide to show us the long process of Luthor and gang stealing the Kryptonite, which involves creating an elaborate diversion for Superman), the endeavour to create shitty land that no-one could possibly want (oh, and something about vague “alien technology”). These Luthor scenes in particular are so “plot, plot, plot”. So bland and linear. There's no delicious deviation. There's no scene with Luthor just being Luthor, hamming it up old-school.

Look, Kevin Spacey, and Brandon Routh, were probably the the absolute right choices for their parts, but despite plenty of screen time each (the 2 ½ hour film (God, I can’t believe I wasted 2 ½ hours of my life on this rot. 5 hours went consider I watched it twice. 5 hours and 5 minutes when you consider that I watched it twice, then washed away my tears of bitter disappointment, drank until all feeling subsided, and then hastily cobbled together this review / brutal attack in word form) is practically divided up evenly between them), they remarkably don’t get much, if any, opportunity to prove it. The "Come on, I know you’re dying to say it….. WRONG!" scene for Spacey, and the very end where Superman recites the "father becomes the son" speech to the kid for Routh (but, of course, it’s cut short), are about the only opportunities that the actors, and their respective characters, get to shine.

The artsy direction and weird camera angles that run rampant in this film don’t help. If you can bear it, check out first scene at the Daily Planet, where the camera spends like a minute at ground level following Clarks feet. How are we supposed to connect with this character, feel for him, when we're staring at his fucking shoes? It’s as if they’re trying to hide Routh from us. If you were to ask me whether I thought Brandon Routh was a good Superman I wouldn’t be able to tell you, because I don’t really get a “feel” for his Superman from this film. This film it shot in a way that creates an eternal barrier between the audience and it. It’s as if there’s someone with a big afro sitting in front of me and blocking the screen. I’m trying to get a look at this new Superman, trying to get a feel for the character, but the film won’t let me.  In Superman ’78 the audience feels like they’re a part of the action, in Superman Returns the audience feels like they’re apart from the action (see what I did there? God, I’m clever. Sometimes I’m not sure that you, the reader, truly appreciate just how clever I really am).

You see, there’s “treating Superman seriously” and then there’s being ultra serious and completely sucking the fun out of the whole concept. Superman: The Angst-ridden Years, is not so much leaning towards the latter as it is falling deep into it, and as a result get’s Superman completely wrong. To quote the 21^st century philosopher Kevin Smith: “Batman is about angst, Superman is about hope” (I almost never quote other people, but when someone says something that’s both smart and insightful and true, then, well, what are you gonna do?). 

Almost as bad / just as bad / even worse is the decision to marry off Lois and giving her a kid. In Superman ’78 we had the Superman-Lois-Clark triangle, genuine in feeling, but also plenty of fun, the comedy, you see, coming from the fact that the two competing points of the triangle are dramatically different in personality, yet are of course the same person. Lois is the dominating figure with the bumbling Clark, but is smitten over Superman. This is clever. In Superman Returns however, we’re subjected to the Superman-Lois-Richard triangle, a sad and dreary mess, far too “real life” for this sort of movie, and destined to end in heartbreak whichever way Lois chooses. Am I the only one who thinks there’s something really creepy about Superman’s stalking of Lois in this film. And the Clark persona, now completely out of the running, third in a two horse race for Lois’s affections, is reduced to kind of a sad, pitiful irrelevancy. Just like the film.

Superman Returns. Good enough casting, decent sets and visuals, but so unexciting, so unengaging, and so unnecessary.

Not to mention boring.

** out of ****