Man and Superman
I went to see Superman Returns last night, and it's left me with quite a few questions. I think that the movie was cast pretty well. Newcomer Brandon Routh was very convincing as the Man of Steel. He certainly looks the part, and I thought he was as believable as a caped, flying, invincible man could be. Kate Bosworth was inoffensive but unremarkable as Lois Lane. Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey turned in solid performances as Lex Luthor and Kitty Kowalski. James Marsden again plays "the man the leading lady doesn't love" as Richard White. (It's getting to be a habit with him - The Notebook, X-Men - he plays the nice, cute guy that doesn't really get the girl. Will somebody please stop typecasting this dude? James Marsden deserves love, too!! I'm tired of seeing him disappointed on the big screen!) The CGI effects were great, with scenes of Superman in space, saving airplanes, etc., being particularly visually arresting.
I think that I had a few problems with the script, though. First of all, the movie is VERY slow to start. The first twenty minutes are awfully choppy, with WAY too much exposition. Basically, I wanted to get into the theatre and see Brandon Routh in the Superman suit, to see if this new guy was going to give us a Superman we could believe. Well, I did, and he is, but the movie took far too long to get us there.
Secondly, I think that Superman did a few things in this movie that are very contrary to the general public's idea of what Superman should be doing. First of all, it behooves me to set this up: In Superman Returns, Lois Lane is engaged to another man, and she has a son. Superman, under the cover of night, flies to her house (which she shares with her little family) and uses his X-ray vision and super-hearing to spy on a private conversation she's having in the kitchen. WHAT? Superman is NOT a peeping tom, for crying out loud! According to the iconography of the Superman myth, the story we've been telling and listening to about Superman for 50 years, this is really incompatible. Also, later, Superman visits Lois Lane on the roof of the Daily Planet building. Even though he knows she's engaged to someone else, he moves to kiss her, and she stops him. I don't think the Superman I know would be kissing on someone who is already engaged to another man. I don't know, I just felt that, in many ways, this movie tried to dismantle parts of the shiny clean image of Superman. It was incongruent, and I'm not sure I liked it.
I think the whole point of these scenes may have been to make Superman look more human, more falliable. For example, in a scene where Superman has been weakened by Kryptonite, we see him get worked over by a few worthless henchmen. And not just a few jabs to the stomach. I mean, we see Superman crawling through dirty water, running away from these two-bit thugs. It was a very disturbing image, because the American public doesn't think of Superman that way. Director Bryan Singer really took some chances, playing with such an iconic brand like this.
Anyway, I definitely think the movie is worth seeing on the big screen, although not a slam dunk. I will bar any final judgements about this new endeavor to resurrect the Superman franchise until I see how future movies play out.
Any thoughts from you out there in cyber-land?
I think that I had a few problems with the script, though. First of all, the movie is VERY slow to start. The first twenty minutes are awfully choppy, with WAY too much exposition. Basically, I wanted to get into the theatre and see Brandon Routh in the Superman suit, to see if this new guy was going to give us a Superman we could believe. Well, I did, and he is, but the movie took far too long to get us there.
Secondly, I think that Superman did a few things in this movie that are very contrary to the general public's idea of what Superman should be doing. First of all, it behooves me to set this up: In Superman Returns, Lois Lane is engaged to another man, and she has a son. Superman, under the cover of night, flies to her house (which she shares with her little family) and uses his X-ray vision and super-hearing to spy on a private conversation she's having in the kitchen. WHAT? Superman is NOT a peeping tom, for crying out loud! According to the iconography of the Superman myth, the story we've been telling and listening to about Superman for 50 years, this is really incompatible. Also, later, Superman visits Lois Lane on the roof of the Daily Planet building. Even though he knows she's engaged to someone else, he moves to kiss her, and she stops him. I don't think the Superman I know would be kissing on someone who is already engaged to another man. I don't know, I just felt that, in many ways, this movie tried to dismantle parts of the shiny clean image of Superman. It was incongruent, and I'm not sure I liked it.
I think the whole point of these scenes may have been to make Superman look more human, more falliable. For example, in a scene where Superman has been weakened by Kryptonite, we see him get worked over by a few worthless henchmen. And not just a few jabs to the stomach. I mean, we see Superman crawling through dirty water, running away from these two-bit thugs. It was a very disturbing image, because the American public doesn't think of Superman that way. Director Bryan Singer really took some chances, playing with such an iconic brand like this.
Anyway, I definitely think the movie is worth seeing on the big screen, although not a slam dunk. I will bar any final judgements about this new endeavor to resurrect the Superman franchise until I see how future movies play out.
Any thoughts from you out there in cyber-land?
Comments
NB