Review of Superman Returns (2006) by Daniel K — 31 Aug 2013

In 2006 I loved this.

Even now, looking back I reckon that 'Superman Returns' is still probably the second-best Superman movie (edging past the patchwork 'Superman II' and beating the confused 'Man of Steel' by a length). But after re-watching it this past week it became patently clear that it's not the movie I once thought it was. Back in 2006 I wanted to love it, and it was just good enough to convince me that I did, in fact, love it.

Just good enough. Yeah, 'fraid so. It makes me a bit glum to say it - especially since the film has been made from a place of love for Richard Donner's 1978 'Superman', a film I have similar affection for - but in 2013 'Superman Returns' stands as a partial misfire buoyed by a handful of inspired moments, all adding up to the working definition of 'good enough'. That's a heck of a lot better than being a complete misfire, yes, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little deflated by my recent re-watch.

Director Bryan Singer lays his cards on the table from the very opening seconds. Heck, it's obvious where his affections lie even before the film proper begins, with the 'Warner Bros.' logo fading out to the strains of John Williams' 1978 score. This isn't a new beginning for Superman, we're being told; instead Singer is trying to pick up and run with a ball that had already been fumbled by his immediate predecessors. (Exactly when that ball was fumbled is an arguable point, but I'd say it was definitely getting slippery when Donner was removed from 'Superman II' back in 1979/80. Certainly the butterfingers Salkind family had lost control of it by 1983's 'Superman III'. 1987's 'Superman IV' then proceeded to accidentally step on the ball, fall over on its face and drive a rib through the character's lung, putting him on life-support for the next twenty years...) It will always be a debatable point as to whether this mindset of reverence was the correct strategy, whether something fresher, less imitative, would have resonated more successfully with audiences. It's a moot point though. This is the movie Singer wanted to make, the only Superman movie Singer was interested in making, and it's the one we got. So how does it hold up?

Many aspects of Singer's approach pay dividends. The film looks amazing; from the art deco set design to the warm-hued lighting, every frame has a glow about it (even the Antarctic scenes). It's a package that successfully captures a look reminiscent of the 1978 original while also being very much its own thing, something a bit more modern, dynamic and sophisticated. Singer's decision to adopt John Williams' themes was thrilling back in 2006, and this remains one of the film's strongest elements, adding a rousing punch to Superman's heroics (John Ottman's original musical contributions are anonymous in comparison, so I can't help but be glad that Singer leans on Williams as much as he does). And in a year that saw the release of 'Man of Steel', it's great to see a modern-day Superman movie where his actions are more about saving people's lives rather than beating stuff up; it's more fun, and allows for a lot more inventiveness in the set-pieces (as opposed to endless, endless, endless punching. Oh god, the endless punching...).

The casting is less successful, and it's here that a divide begins to open up between 'Superman Returns' and the film that Singer is most looking to imitate. I was a supporter of Brandon Routh's performance back in 2006, and to some extent still am; he took on incredibly tough job, stepping into Christopher Reeve's red boots and trying to convince us that someone - anyone - else could be Superman (it doesn't seem like a big deal nowadays, but it did then). The truth is that, upon re-watching, Routh is a likeable but fairly bland presence, lacking much of the heft required to be really successful in the part. However, at least he's sincere and believable which puts him well ahead of Kate Bosworth, who just plain misfires as Lois Lane; she's way too dull and passive in a role that requires a lot more spark. While it's fun to see Singer attempt to recreate the witty, fast-paced banter of the Daily Planet Office, Routh, Bosworth and Frank Langella (as Perry White) aren't well-equipped for that sort of thing; they all seem to have marbles in their mouths compared to their predecessors, and the energy just isn't there. It's highly unfortunate that Parker Posey (playing Luthor's comic foil, Kitty Kowalski) didn't get to play Lois instead; she's everything that Bosworth isn't - energetic, fun and with effortless comic timing. To be perfectly honest, if you're trying to follow in Margot Kidder's footsteps, casting Bosworth instead of Posey is just plain mystifying. Kevin Spacey is the standout amongst a fairly beige bunch, so much so that his Lex Luthor (along with Posey) often appears to be appearing in a different movie; he's funny, vivid and wickedly alive, adopting Gene Hackman's template but taking it somewhere darker and more unsettling. The sequence in which he decimates an entire town in miniature is very good, simultaneously hilarious, foreboding and maniacally warped.

Okay, a few more issues. (I still do like the film. Honestly.) While I was still generally entertained from beginning to end, it's now obvious that 'Superman Returns' doesn't really sustain its length - the finale lacks the epic weight that Singer is clearly aiming for, the last act drags on for too long - and it too often strives to recreate sequences from the Donner original without reaching the same heights. Supes and Lois's night flight is the prime example; in 'Returns' it stands as a nice enough sequence, but somewhere along those intervening years the magic has dissipated.

But. But when 'Superman Returns' hits, it hits big time. Superman's actual return to the public eye - rescuing a jet-liner in free-fall - is an eye-popping comic-book set-piece with a genuine feeling of peril, edited to perfection and with a hugely satisfying pay-off. Lois's attempt to get a message to the outside world from Lex's yacht - a desperate gambit undertaken with one of Luthor's henchmen playing piano with her son in the same room - is probably the highlight of the film's second half; it's a blackly comic, tremendously playful and highly suspenseful example of Hitchcockian storytelling, something extremely rare in superhero fare. And the beatdown and shanking of Superman by Luthor and his goons packs a real wallop - unlike the CGI bunfight of this year's 'Man of Steel', the blows land with real weight; every contact counts so every punch has meaning. These moments are much better than just 'good', they're terrific and it would be wonderful if the rest of 'Returns' had lived up to their heights. (Well, okay, the cannibal dog is also all kinds of terrific).

So we're left with a bit of a mixed bag, a strange sort of anomaly, not just in-and-of-itself but also within the greater Superman mythos. It definitely makes me wonder where on earth (or off Earth) Singer was planning to take the story from here; how could any sequel function after 'Returns' saddled Supes with a son and Lois with a long-term boyfriend? The mind boggles, but a couple of then-recent examples from Singer's CV make me wish that he'd been given the chance to try - the leap forward in quality between Singer's 'X-Men' and the more dynamic 'X-Men 2' suggests that perhaps he'd have been a bit more comfortable with a Superman sequel having now done all the table-setting. On the plus side, now that we know 'Superman Returns' is a one-off with no sequel in the offing, the final scenes with Supes at his son's bedside have a pleasing sense of 'full circle' to them, neatly rounding off the story that began in 'Superman' and 'Superman II'. There's a decent trilogy here, though my ideal version of 'Superman II' is something that just exists in my head, somewhere between the Donner and Lester versions. Plus if 'Superman Returns' acts as a trilogy closer, he doesn't end up with Lois! Grrrr! Okay, scratch that idea.

So 'Superman Returns' is an entertaining film with epic aspirations that feels faux-epic more often than it feels like the real thing. Like I said above, in places it's fantastic and overall it's good enough, but 'good enough' probably doesn't cut it for most people when the main character has the word 'super' in his name.

I like it. I just wish I still liked it like I did in 2006.