siknerd.com - Home of the World Famous iRANT

So I lied. I've been trying to write my review for "Superman Returns" now for almost a week. Every time I get started, something interrupts me or I just can't get a good rhythm. So here I am, a week later, trying to write a review for a movie pretty much everyone has seen. Lemme just give you a couple of quick hits and we can paste together the previous paragraphs to get what I'm trying to say.

There are certain things one expects when watching a Superman movie besides truth, justice, and the American way. See, Superman was born in a magazine called "Action Comics." Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. With a resume like that, you'd expect "Superman Returns" to be a heart-stomping, adrenaline popcorn flick. The last thing I was expecting to see was a poorly paced, weak character drama that looks more like a failed attempt to win an Oscar than be a summer blockbuster.

Too long. That's the best way to describe its flaws. The movie was too long. The scenes were too long. The dramatic moments were too long. Normally I have no problem with a two and a half hour movie--just as long as the contents justifies the length. "Superman Returns" didn't even come close. The climax of the movie happened about 30 minutes before the credits rolled. Pointless, post-climax subplots were thrown in after the Man of Steel defeated Lex Luthor and saved the day. I understand the Superman character is hard to write for because he's invulnerable (there's no challenge when nothing can hurt him), but if he is going to have to overcome adversity it should happen before the threat is eliminated. Having Supe sit around in a hospital is pointless when we all know he's gonna recover anyway--especially after the bad guy has been stopped.

There were more unnecessary scenes than hero moments, including a terribly superfluous flashback to Clark Kent's youth (it turns out Clark could run really, really fast). Scenes where he returns to Smallville, stalks Lois Lane, and "dies" could have all been cut out.

I thought it was boring. The plot was simple, but acceptable (Lex Luthor tries to--get this--take over the world). I didn't particularly care for Superman having difficult readjusting to the world he left behind. Seriously--it was five years: did he really expect Lois Lane to wait around for him?

And another thing? Are we really supposed to root for Lois and Clark to get together even though she is currently involved with another guy--a guy she has a kid with? For a hero who can never lie and is the benchmark of morals, trying to break up a family for personal interest is not something I could envision Superman doing.

But I've gotten off-track. As I stated numerous times, Superman is not a character drama. The Last Son of Krypton uses his strength and powers to save the day--not get laid. As a Superman fan, I wanna see him picking up cars, flying around, and doing things I can only dream of. In "Superman Returns" there simply wasn't enough of this--at least not proportional to the number of long, boring shots that shows the shows the anguish of those around him (you know what I'm talking about: those shots without any dialogue that are littered in student films and other "artsy" projects).

The special effects were cool. The few times Superman did save the day, my heart was pounding (note to Hollywood: it's not good when the most exciting scene of the movie is within the first half hour and the most boring is in the last half hour). Alas, there just wasn't enough of that. The film sorely lacked a lighthearted feel. There were little comedic moments, something that should've been easily obtainable with the Jimmy Olsen and Perry White characters. All great movies have the occasional, silly little joke; "Superman Returns" did not.

Kevin Spacey was far better than I expected him to be as Lex Luthor. I like Spacey--I think he's a great actor. But in the majority of his roles, he plays a total psychopath--not the evil genius that is Luthor. I greatly underestimated Spacy (he took cues from Gene Hackman's Luthor) and played the role quite well. In fact, he took it one step further than Hackman, opting to present Luthor as bald as a bowling ball.

I'm not sure what to think of Brandon Routh's performance. The best way to sum it up is Routh did an excellent job acting like Christopher Reeves. From his look to the way he spoke, Routh felt like the splitting image of the former Superman. I suppose this is better than the Batman films where Bruce Wayne goes from Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney (like those guys share any physical resemblance). I suppose it was why he got the part in the first place. But Routh brought relatively nothing new to the table other than attempting to fill in where Reeves left off.

Kate Bosworth (or "The Blonde Girl," as I like to refer to her) was pretty awful as Lois Lane--at least compared to Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher, and even Erica Durance's interpretation of the role. Lois Lane is stubborn, bossy, and strong-willed. We only got a glimpse of that in "Superman Returns." Instead, the new Lois Lane is portrayed as a mommy and a family gal. The Lois Lane I know of would never let fear or harm stop her from getting a story. I just didn't see much of that in Bosworth.

I'll be curious to hear how well this movie is received. I know Bryan Singer is like a god to X-men fans--I just can't see Superman devotees reacting the same way. I could be wrong. I could have just been tired or distracted by an awful softball game I played earlier in the day. But these are my initial feelings from the first screening. Maybe it'll change after I've seen it on DVD.

And that's more poorly-written review. At least my feelings are documented.

Older iRANT

Newer iRANT

2006