SUPERMAN RETURNS

 

So why in the heck would I write a post on a comic book movie from over 15 years ago? The impetus for this entry was another of my discount purchases from Edward R. Hamilton. 

Last month I got a three-disc set of Superman movies for about $7. The main reason I bought it was to have the first two Superman films on Blu-ray. I had no interest in SUPERMAN RETURNS--I had seen it only once, when it was theatrically released in 2006, and I hadn't watched it since. I didn't think it was terrible, but it didn't make a huge impression on me, and I never felt any reason to see it again. 

I figured, though, that since I have this set, I might as well view SUPERMAN RETURNS and see how it holds up in 2024, after literally dozens and dozens of superhero movies have been churned out. Would I feel different about it, seeing it again so many years later? 

My opinions on it have not changed. A lot of money and effort was put into SUPERMAN RETURNS, but it never rises above an okay level. 

Back in 2006 a lot of hype was behind SUPERMAN RETURNS. It was the first Superman theatrical film since the disastrous SUPERMAN IV back in the 1980s. It also was directed by Bryan Singer, who at the time was known for his successful helming of the first two X-MEN movies. It was felt that Singer could do for DC what he had done for Marvel--blazing a new trail of comic book adaptations that were loyal to the original issues and characters while still being entertaining to a mainstream audience. 

One also has to factor in the critical and box office success of BATMAN BEGINS, which had come out the year before. It appeared that with SUPERMAN RETURNS, an entire new era of movies based on DC Comics could be possible, one in which the legendary heroes of the company could interact with each other. (No one used the term "multiverse" back in those days.) 

SUPERMAN RETURNS made a lot of money during its initial release, but the reaction among the fans and the critics was somewhat tepid. It didn't rate a sequel, or any sort of follow-up, and it is almost forgotten among the plethora of comic book productions that have been made in the 21st Century. (Some of the reasons for that I'll get into later.) 

The plot of the movie begins with Superman (Brandon Routh) returning to Earth after five years of being away. The Man of Steel had left after learning that scientists had found remains of his home planet of Krypton. After coming home to his mother in Kansas, Superman assumes his Clark Kent persona, and goes back to work as a reporter for the Daily Planet in Metropolis. He discovers that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on from her Superman obsession, and she now has a child, and she's living with another man. Meanwhile Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has wormed his way out of prison and, armed with a fortune he scammed from an elderly woman, is plotting to get his revenge using the very crystals that power Superman's Fortress of Solitude. 

My main issue with SUPERMAN RETURNS is the idea that the title character would leave Earth for five years. (Have you ever noticed how many superhero movies have a plot where the main character avoids being a hero??) Because he has been gone for so long, Superman has a lot of catching up to do, which prevents the story from gaining any momentum. It takes a long time for Superman to actually act like Superman in this story, and when he does, it doesn't engage the audience as it should. (One big reason for that is the 2006 CGI, which has not aged very well. I'll even say the FX in the first two Superman films are way more effective than what was done in SUPERMAN RETURNS.) The movie is two and a half hours long, and it seems even longer. 

The plot (based on Bryan Singer's original story) carries on from the first two Superman films, but it is set in a more "realistic" world. Because of this there's an uncertain tone. A lot of moments (and dialogue) remind the viewer of the Christopher Reeve era, but the film overall lacks the snap and the energy of Richard Donner's work. I believe that if Bryan Singer had wanted to make a more grounded Superman film, he should have gone all the way, and avoided any references to the earlier movies about the character. (SUPERMAN RETURNS got some attention for using Marlon Brando's image and voice, but these scenes just remind you how much better SUPERMAN-THE MOVIE was.) 

Brandon Routh got some flack for his Superman, but I felt he did a good job, considering he had to live up to Christopher Reeve's portrayal. At times, Routh acts eerily like Reeve--he has the speech pattern and body language down--but he isn't as strong of a screen personality as Reeve was. Throughout the story Roush seems detached from what is going on around him--I think that wasn't as much on the actor as it was on Bryan Singer, who was trying to focus on the "lonely alien" aspect of the Superman character. The result is that the Superman shown here is unsure of himself, not the type of thing an audience wants to see. 

Much of SUPERMAN RETURNS focuses on the relationship between the Man of Steel and Lois Lane. Unfortunately Brandon Roush and Kate Bosworth have very little chemistry. Bosworth also comes off as too refined to be the feisty, tough-girl Lois one comes to expect. The movie carries over the running gag of Lois not knowing how to spell certain words, but while that trait was perfect for Margot Kidder, it doesn't work for Bosworth--she seems like the type of person that would lecture someone about their spelling. 

A big deal was made at the time about Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Spacey underplays the character, while at the same time it appears he's trying to channel aspects of Gene Hackman's portrayal. Spacey is at his best when he's showing his rage at Superman, but this Luthor doesn't seem to be a major threat. Spacey's Luthor is saddled with a female accomplice (Parkey Posey) who is essentially a retread of the character that Valerie Perrine played in the early Superman films, which begs the question--if Luthor is such a diabolical criminal genius, why does he surround himself with so many idiots??

If you're going to talk about SUPERMAN RETURNS, you have to mention the plot element involving Superman's son. The fact that Lois' little boy was a product of the Man of Steel wasn't a surprise to me when I first saw the movie--it's pretty obvious. It's also something the plot didn't need, as it makes both Superman and Lois look weak (why didn't he know about this, and why didn't she tell him??). I've never understood why so many big-time franchises go down the "Main hero has an annoying offspring that he doesn't know about" route (Kirk's son, Indiana Jones' son....even James Bond wound up having a kid). If the SUPERMAN RETURNS storyline had carried on, the kid would have had to be dealt with one way or another, and it wouldn't have been to the benefit of the series. 

There were plans for a sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS, but for one reason for another they never panned out. The idea of Bryan Singer leading a DC Comics movie renaissance didn't pan out either. Warners would reboot Superman again with Henry Cavill a few years later, and that take on the character has plenty of issues as well. (It appears that Superman has fared much better on TV than in the movies.) 

Another reason SUPERMAN RETURNS hasn't had much of a lasting legacy is due to the personal issues of Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey, which I'm not going to get into. But even taking that element away, SUPERMAN RETURNS has an underwhelming feel to it. It just doesn't capture the majesty and the power of the Man of Steel. In fairness I have to say that description could also be used for all the other Superman movies, with the exception of the first one directed by Richard Donner.