Review of Superman Returns (2006) by Shawno. — 30 Jun 2006

[***SPOILERS***] I enjoyed this movie to the extent that the FX were excellent and the performances were servicable. The subtext in this movie that "we all have the ability to be supermen" was rather poignant, I thought.

This movie fails in many areas though. First, it takes way too long to get the story going. Second, it lacks continuity. If this movie is supposed to take place where Superman II left off (apparently, Bryan SInger thinks III and IV didn't exist), then why did he leave for 5 years? If you recall Superman II, Superman leaves Metropolis to go to the Fortress of Solitude with Lois Lane.

In order to be with her he has to give up his powers and he does. While this is going on Zod and his crew are reaking havoc and taking over the world. Superman finds out what's going on, gets his powers back "(I've been.

..lifting weights."), realizes he has to sacrifice a relationship with Lois and live out his destiny as mankind's protector. At the end of the movie he meets the president and sys, "I won't let you down again.

" That being said, why the heck did he take off for 5 years? My third problem with this movie is that it's even more ridiculous that no one knows Clark is Superman than it was 26 years ago. For God's sake, besides the fact that they look exactly the same and have all of the same physical characteristics (which Richard White pointed out) don't any of those characters find it a bit coincidental that they both left 5 years ago and came back the exact same day?! Another problem--and my wife pointed this out-- If you never saw the first 2 movies or don't know much about the Superman charcter, this movie (although wasting about an hour trying to) does not fill in any blanks or explain any canon.

Bryan SInger apparently forgot that Superman II was released in 1980. The biggest problem with this movie is 2 fold: This a clone of the Richard Donner Superman movies. The characters are almost exactly the same as they were 26 years ago with nothing new brought to them by the actors that play them (and I still don't understand why Clark Kent has to be a clumsy dork.

I don't recall the comics ever portraying him that way.). Lex is a little more vicious, but still not a whole lot different than Gene Hackman's Lex and the cliched girlfriend (Kitty Kowalski) played by Parker Posey is the exact same as every other girlfriend he's ever had.

She's ditzy, does whatever Lex tells her, tries to seduce Superman in order to distract him and has second thoughts in the end about Lex's sinister plans. Sound familiar? She even dresses like them.

The worst part of the Richard Donner clone aspects of this movie is the recycled plot (which, as I noted earlier takes them forever to get to). Lex wants to use Superman's powers to take over the world.

Again, does that sound familiar? I did like the Superman junior subplot, but I had it figured out immediately, it, as the irony was so obvious. I know this review sounds like I 'm bashing this film, but I'm really not, I'm looking at it objectively as an avid movie goer.

I don't understand Tina B.'s pseudointellectual 'Christ in a cape' reference whatsoever. That is about as ridiculous as The Advocate claiming Superman is a homosexual and that everytime he comes out a phone booth, he's coming out of the closet.

First of all, I'd like to explain something to both Tina B. and The Advocate. Superman is a fictional character. The point of Superman (even in this movie) is to inspire us to our own greatness, symboliziing what we can be so that we can prevent what happened to his world happening to ours.

He's not meant to be our savior and his sexual preference (I think it's kind of obvious he's straight, though) is irrelavent. It is quite obvious to me that SInger and company were less concerned about story/plot/character development and more concerned about the renaissance of the franchise and making a ton of money, kind of like Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Batman Begins, it ain't. I'll give them a pass this time, but I certainly hope that the next offering is akin to Star Trek II: The Wrath Khan as far as quality is concerned. For family fun and decent entertainment, I would recommend this film.

For anything more substanitive, I would not.