RoR: Forum

Yes!

I too found "Superman Returns" a happy surprise. The actors were well-chosen and did a great job - from Superman to Lois Lane to Lex Luthor to Perry White to Jimmy Olson to Clark Kent's mother to Lois's son to Lex's girlfriend. The plot made sense. The subtly humorous or campy or cartoon-stylized elements did not overwhelm the picture [Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey chew the scenery, but it kind of fits.]

Someone not often at a loss for precision, I've been struggling to find a word to sum up why the movie appealed to me on a more visceral level than the usual summer action thriller. The closest I can come is the movie's "sense of life" [as Bill puts it]. It was uplifting with no pun intended regarding the hero's superpowers.

It reminded me of a large-scale, grand Greek myth. Normally I shut my eyes during the noisy, crass, explosion filled special effects. But this time --- the machine-gun bullets bouncing off Superman's chest while he marches very slowly forward with a small smile, the intense focused effort to save both the space shuttle and the jet hurtling to its death right into Yankee stadium and laying the plane down ever so gently on the pitchers mound in front of a crowd stunned into speechlessness, and quite a few other scenes --- were a perfect example of control, power, effort harnessed to master the physical universe.

Someone on another Oist website foolishly said that Superman represented brawn and Lex Luthor represented brain. That totally missed what the movie was trying to show us. The movie was showing efficacy, mastery over the challenges of the world. It used someone of superhuman strenght, far-seeing vision, the ability to hear everything as METAPHOR for humans being able to do great and giant things, in the same way that the Greek gods and heroes should not be taken literally today but as inspiration.

Clark Kent / Superman has always been a fascinating character, operating on several levels which is why he's lasted and been loved over the decades. His emotions are real and his personality is distinctive. Brandon Routh manages to portray the struggles he has with personal feelings, the kindness and sensitivity of an enormously powerful person who nonetheless is misunderstood and has to hide a number of things...and also the self-confidence and self-esteem and power of a mythic figure which breaks through when he is using his great power to battle difficult (even for him) challenges.

He also has to deal with a personal disappointment as the movie closes, but he calmly, gently, slightly regretfully accepts that facts are facts and that the situation makes sense and is not in the power of even super powers to change.

I'll see this movie more than once.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/25, 2:24pm)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/25, 2:27pm)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/25, 2:29pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:03pm

I've previously stated here how I loved this movie. Sanctioned and a big thumb's up...up and away!

Post 2

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:33pm

I liked the movie a lot. I didn't consider it near-perfect for a comic book hero flick, as I did "Batman Begins," but it was grand entertainment, and the best Superman film so far.

The original two movies in the franchise were the best until this one, but suffered a fatal flaw: buffoonish villains. A villain always must be a plausible threat to the hero. But you never for a moment could take the Gene Hackman/Ned Beatty "threat" seriously: it was as if Superman were opposed by Moe and Curly from "The Three Stooges."

"Superman Returns" makes the mistake of trying to get Kevin Spacey to ape (somewhat) the Hackman version of Lex Luthor, sinking at odd times to absurd "comic relief." This undercuts the menace from Luthor. But there is nowhere near as much of this silliness as there was from Hackman. Spacey's Luthor comes across far more as a brilliant sociopath. The scene where he and his cronies beat up a weakened Superman is unremittingly brutal and serious: you believe this guy's absolute malice, and that he is a worthy adversary.

Overall, the story is psychologically much richer than any previous installment. The relationships are far more complicated and interesting -- and plausibly handled. The script didn't sink to making Lois Lane's husband a bad guy; the romantic complication came from the fact that he was a wonderfully good guy. The special effects and set design were absolutely first rate, too. Too often FX are a substitute for content, but here, they were an awesome framework for a good story.

I agree with Bill Dwyer on this one -- and also on the "Pirates of the Carribean" sequel. The latter was a disappointment. Too many characters, too many scenes that ran too long, too few real surprises, too much Orlando Bloom instead of Johnny Depp, and too little real wit in the dialogue. Everything to me felt a bit "forced" -- like a kid trying desperately to live up to the image of his much-admired older brother. My advice: rent the original on DVD, and remember how this sort of thing ought to be done.

Post 3

Monday, October 2, 2006 - 7:28am