Superman Returns (Singer, 2006)

[X.]

---
"As my movies became more thoughtful, they were also less successful because I think movies aren't intellectual but emotional. Movies work on an emotional level. That's why I go to the movies. I want to cry or laugh and have a good time." – John Carpenter, director
---

In movies what must appeal to us more – intellectualism or emotionalism? How about both? There is no right or wrong answer because every opinion is different each viewpoint is subjective, anything is prone to unending justifications. Film criticism has never been about the search for absolute truth; it is a pursuit for relative truth because our experience of movies is personal. Movies resonate with our value system; they take shape from our core beliefs and the colour of our perspective on life or death. Understanding film as an art form means understanding that movies can and should engage both the mind and heart. I choose to highlight this point – for what could have easily been a footnote – because it can help us to appreciate our own verdict on "Superman Returns;" I have done this especially for those of you who may possibly misconstrue the basis of my disappointment with "Superman Returns," a film heavy on emotional intuition and but lacking in storytelling intuition. An important distinction since these two seemingly counteractive forces operate in isolation yet can be a vital force when harnessed together. Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest directors of all-time, was infamous for employing a plot device called MacGuffin, essentially something that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little other relevance to the story itself. Hitchcock's method of making movies was focussed on storytelling using a rich texture of characterisation – he knew how to unite realism with transcendental themes without alienating the casual viewer. Unlike auteur John Carpenter, Hitchcock, throughout his life, believed in both intellectualism and emotionalism. This conjecture is the foundation of my case against "Superman Returns."

When Bryan Singer ("The Usual Suspects") signed on to direct "Superman Returns," he ended a twenty-year struggle to revive the Man of Steel for the big screen. Singer received unprecedented creative control and financial support from Warner Brothers which was eager to reload the Superman movie franchise (over US$ 200 million as production budget only, the biggest yet for a Hollywood film). The money and love and passion are right there on the screen: What seems to be missing in "Superman Returns" is storytelling intuition. Singer and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris take the MacGuffin (here: to foil Lex Luthor's plan of sinking America into the ocean to make space for a new continent), and they build around it a flimsy thematic framework of archetypal heroes and villains, romance and heartbreak, life and death, religious and social allegories, bullets and tears. "Superman Returns" is an unabashedly emotional film that feels obliged to follow in the footsteps of Richard Donner's 1973 "Superman," an elegant, groundbreaking film that remains one of the best comic-book-to-screen adaptations to date. Instead of brio and wit "Superman Returns" relies exceedingly on the audience's empathy and charity to makes its point. Consider the character of Clark Kent/Superman played by newcomer Brandon Routh: Unlike the late Christopher Reeves in Donner's "Superman," there's little separation between Routh's dual role of the meek Kent and heroic Superman. Both personas are equally tragic; tortured man, tortured superhero. After five years of personal absence, Routh's Superman returns to Earth to discover that Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane has moved on with her life, she's even had a baby (aw, poor superhero!); having once again resumed his Clark Kent alter-ego at the Daily Planet, we then learn that the snooty Pulitzer-winning Lois Lane repeatedly dismisses Kent (aw, poor nerd!). You see Bryan Singer wants us to sympathise with both alter-egos, he believes that we should feel sorry for Superman and Clark Kent de-facto – this undermines the integrity of the Kent/Superman relationship with the audience. Christopher Reeves' Clark Kent/Superman was not only more effable and endearing but there was clarity between his dual personalities. Both knew their place in the world through careful introspection and good ol' fashioned trial and error. The protagonists in "Returns," on the other hand, are all conflicted and disillusioned; their lives entangled in a fever of post-teen angst (the dour serious love triangle between Lois, her boyfriend Richard played by James Marsden and Clark Kent/Superman). This collective grief sits uncomfortably between what is supposed to be the film's narrative – save the world from Lex Luthor, actually just North America, which, ironically, until the third act of "Superman Returns" is the lowest priority on our superhero's to-do list. As the plodding dialogues come thick and heavy, the film oscillates between sappy romance and comedy; it goes from special effects extravaganza to comic book movie to even Greek tragedy; fault lines of "Superman Returns'" content and form begin to bleed the screen for those of us not enamoured by the film's underhanded attempt at exaltation. I place the blame squarely on the director and screenwriters.

Yes, "Superman Returns" is a comic book adaptation. Yes, it's admirable and brave and humble of Bryan Singer to be respectful of the Superman mythology (the comics, the TV series, and especially Richard Donner's "Superman" movies). But should we allow ourselves to forget that reverence alone cannot compensate for poor storytelling? Singer prefers the past as a place of residence rather than a point of reference. At the same time, he wants his film to be ambivalent, to exist in a dreamy safe zone of contemporary socio-cultural familiarity. "Superman Returns" suggests a changed Superman who now stands for "truth, justice, and all that stuff." (The original line goes "truth, justice, and the American way" but the alteration is supposed to make Superman "everybody's superhero"). And here Singer makes another grave error – there's a scene early in the film where Superman, who has just returned home from his hiatus, switches on the TV to see what's happening around the world: The news footage includes an image from the Middle East conflict. Instead of going 'up, up and away' Superman just sits there and sighs; he's probably wondering what colour underwear Lois Lane wears now. ak

Rating:
out of

[shariqq]

...and FiretrUCK You too.

I've already got tickets to watch it on IMAX tomorrow afternoon, and then again regular 2D in the evening, then again next wednesday afternoon and then IMAX friday after that. So yes, I loved the movie.

Brandon Routh makes for a trying Clark Kent, but he was completely convincing in tights. More than anything, his greatest achievement was that he didn't mess it up bad. His Superman is so at peace with his powers. And how can you discount the brilliant turn by Keyser Soze? The only screwed up part was Louis Lane's kid. Why, oh WHY??!!

[kaytee]

Yup Adnan something might have really pissed you off to not like Superman Returns. Maybe the usher at the entrance was not wearing the right thong or maybe it was not your favorite color.

On a more not so serious note , I have plans to watch it on IMAX too on Monday, yes coz the tickets are cheaper (2 for 70).

Brandon Routh's Superman was so fantastic that its a shame that he aint gay

[fizz]

DC comics, the publishers of 'Superman', describe 'Elseworld' as certain dimensions or planes of reality that have existed or might have existed and others than can't, couldn't or shouldn't. Elseworld is a time or a place created during the storytelling of a superhero that takes the approach of what is referred to as Retroactive Continuity; this approach is widely used in comic books and graphic novels because each book or story arc is written by a different set of writers and artists who mould the large histories of each character in their unique vision. If that same analogy were applied to the 'Superman' movies then Richard Donner's 1978 film and its sequel were the first cinematic story arc of Superman while Bryan Singer's 'Superman Returns' is the second. In this world, the third and fourth films never existed.

The use of this innovative mechanism allows a few things to happen. It purges from the history books the errors of previous filmmakers, yet also allows Singer an opportunity to start afresh. Superman's return follows his hiatus of five years spent surveying the remains of his home planet Krypton after word got out that it had been discovered. Finding nothing he returns back to an Earth where Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has found closure during his time away and moved on with her life, balancing a Pulitzer Prize winning career as a journalist and a family with her son Jason and his father Richard (James Marsden). Returning to his former employer, the Daily Planet, under the guise of Clark Kent (Brandon Routh), Superman learns that his arch nemesis Lex Luther (Kevin Spacey, returning to top form) has also gone back to his old habits of world domination having concocted another diabolical scheme of possessing valuable land available to him in the form of a mini continent created out of crystals found from the fortress of solitude. Superman of course has to stop this, but he also needs to come to terms with all the changes that sprouted during his absence.



Singer has reverence for the character and the original film and his overall method is careful, intelligent and respectful because of it. He understands and knows that a superhero is only as appealing to us as his vulnerabilities and Superman has always had Kryptonite, but during the course of the film we discover another, an Earthly susceptibility, that is sure to linger during possible sequels. Fuel for fan speculation has been the casting of newcomer Brandon Routh in the tile role, who looks remarkably like Reeves both in and out of costume, and makes a fine, distinct Superman character all his own. The nerdy Clark is absent, replaced instead by someone more steadfast. Its not the first time Singer has triumphed by picking a relative unknown for a major role (he did the same with Hugh Jackman in his successful stint as director of the X-men movies) and it seems his instincts do him good once again. Many will be concerned with the answer to a different question though. Is this Superman any better than the first? What is forgotten however is that when the first Superman was released (way back in 1978) as movie watchers and fans, our frames of reference were different (even restrictive in some ways). We had nothing to compare one superhero film to. This situation has changed and under present circumstances (where a best of list already exists for Superhero films, both inspired by comics and originals) and 'Returns' fares admirably well against all of those. It is very clear during viewing that this film isn't just made for the present generation – it also has to contend itself with fulfilling the needs of both long time fans and those that will surely walk away as believers aided in no small amount by the use of such iconic imagery as Superman rising high into the heavens to regain his strength from the sun as well as a superb sequence featuring eye popping effects where he saves a plane from crashing into a stadium full of people.

On the downside, all the situations, including recurring themes and even the use of older dialogues, will encourage people to make comparisons with the first film even more strongly. It is an inherent weakness of Singer's technique (that of making his film more a continuation rather than a complete revision) that people will be forced to look back at everything that made the original uniquely satisfying and point out those elements as missing from this film. Running time, though not necessarily the pacing, are sure to also raise eyebrows. At a little over two and half hours, the last son of Krypton overstays his welcome but that could just be the result of the over eagerness of the filmmakers in finally bringing the superhero back to life for the big screen. Superman really is back, and one half of the word 'Superhero' is again rightfully in reference of him.

Rating: 4.5/5

[duffy]

While I was very disapointed with SR, I was wondering if anyone could tell me if the IMAX version is shortened? I know in the past that films converted into the IMAX format have been shortened to accomadate the meduim, and was wondering about SR as, depsite my misgivings with it, I still want to see the 3D bits.

[shariqq]

I'm watching it in ah hour.. will post afters!

[shariqq]

The movie absolutely ROCKS on IMAX 3D. Four sequences have been converted:
1) Young Clark @ Kent Farm
2) Airplane-Shuttle
3) Gertrude: the yatch's collapse
4) Closing fly-out.

The cue for putting on/off the glasses is so cool. Apart from the 3-second flashing green/red glasses at the bottom of the screen, the switch-over is like a huge frame of glasses coming on/off the screen as if the projector is putting on/off the glasses.

[fizz]

IMAX was nice, but not really the incentive to watch this film (as a lot of ppl who turned up purely for the 3D effects expected). Also, in my screening, the put the shades on/off effect wasn't consistent. We would see the sign to put on the glasses, but not to remove them. This meant that some people (especially those who had never seen 3D before) could not differentiate between those sections of the film without any 3D effects and ended up wearing the glasses for about an hour or so of the screening!.

Watching it a second time was still an immersive experience.

[shariqq]

IMAX was nice, but not really the incentive to watch this film (as a lot of ppl who turned up purely for the 3D effects expected)

I agree - IMAX is awesome for the fascination with 3D, but it does not alter the movie as such. Actually, I am glad I saw it on 2D first so that I wasn't distracted by the technology.

Also, 3D is wierd for hurried close-ups. It's ok for mid-frame and long-shots only.

[fizz]

Hero's return wows original director
By James Christie 

The original director of Superman, Richard Donner, was astounded by the big-budget relaunch of the Superman franchise, which opens in the UK on Friday, nearly 30 years after he brought it to the big screen.

The latest incarnation, directed by Bryan Singer, tells the story of Superman's return to Earth after a mysterious absence, during which time the world has learned to live without him.
 
The original Superman film, which starred Christopher Reeve, received critical acclaim and broke box office records in 1978.

Thanks in part to its sincere approach, and the affecting performance of Reeve, it is widely regarded as the standard by which all comic book movies should be judged.

Donner, is impressed by Singer's new vision for the iconic American hero, having attended the film's US premiere.

"Routh is wonderful," says the veteran film-maker, who recently directed 16 Blocks. "He's brought his own identity to the role, and he is Superman."

"Christopher Reeve established something that is and will always be unique, but there is a new young man out there who's a bit of a genius. He's done a beautiful job."

Nonetheless, Donner confesses that seeing Routh as Superman brought back strong memories of Reeve, who died in 2004 from complications surrounding paralysis.

"There are times when there is an uncanny similarity to Chris. And there are times, believe it or not, I swear that he sounds like him."

"I became really emotional as I sat in the theatre and began to think about Chris. I still can't believe that he's not around."

Budgeted at $55m (£29.7m), the original Superman film was, at the time, one of the most expensive movies in history - blockbusters Jaws and Star Wars cost $7m (£3.7m) and $11m (£5.9m) respectively.

And like its predecessor, Superman Returns boasts an appropriately heroic budget of more than $204m (£110.3m).
 
In the late 1970s, the processes required to convince audiences that a man could fly were laborious and painstakingly complicated.

Reeve's Superman soared thanks to a combination of traditional wirework, optical processing and the synchronising of zoom lenses in camera and projector.

Today, the majority of visual effects are achieved through the use of computer-generated imagery (CGI).

In the past Donner has been an outspoken critic of Hollywood's reliance upon CGI, which he holds responsible for the overshadowing of good characterisation and storytelling.

He does not believe this to be the case with Superman Returns.

"Bryan is a good director. The special effects are not overused. He does what needs to be done, but doesn't make it something that's overly produced."

"He's used (CGI) wisely and conservatively, and concentrated on the relationship between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, which I thought was amazing."

Does Donner think there is a comparison to be made between the special effects technology utilised for two films lensed 30 years apart?

"We made the original Superman with all the elements that were available in motion picture making at the time," he says, "and I think we did a hell of a good job with it."

"But what Bryan Singer has done with what is available to him now is a miracle to me."

Before the age of the internet, producers of the original Superman film relied on such tried and trusted methods as newspaper ads and television spots to promote their product.

Today, Superman Returns is able to utilise the internet and other new technology to ensure maximum audience awareness.

During the course of filming, director Bryan Singer recorded 27 video journals hosted online, which allowed Superman fans unprecedented behind the scenes access to the production.

Since its US release in 4,000 theatres, Superman Returns has topped the box office charts, taking an estimated $52m (£28m) over its opening weekend.

Back in 1978, Superman the Movie was initially released in only 500 theatres, where it grossed $7m (£3.7m).

It did, however, earn more than $300m (£162m) worldwide, at a time when the average US cinema ticket was a third of today's cost.

Donner is convinced that Superman Returns signals the rebirth of the Warner Bros franchise, which has lain dormant from cinema screens for nearly two decades.

"The picture's good. It was a two and a half hour movie, but I could have easily taken another hour and a half. I think they'll go onto make a series of wonderful films."

[X.]

That's very sweet, Richard Donner.

By the way, did you guys know that Lauren Shuler produced "Superman Returns"?

Her full name is Lauren Shuler Donner.

[shariqq]

AK is cynically insane.

[ozzylogic]

Apart from the effects, etc. etc., I found Richard Branson's cameo cool.

[shariqq]

Where was he in the movie? I am guessing it had to be the plane-shuttle sequence...

[sulphurhead]

if you check the trivia - it'll tell you that the LCD screen on the plane showing the simulation shows a greyed out "virgin galactic"...

that cheeky monkey, branson