My review of "Superman Returns".

[Pale Blue Dot]

Critics are never in 100% agreement on a movie. Go to www.rottentomatoes.com for proof. There, you can look up any movie made withing the past 20 years, and you'll see that no matter how critically acclaimed a movie may have been, someone didn't like it.

So what causes us to like or dislike a movie? For me, about 90% of the time, when the film is over I know if I've liked it, and I know why I did or did not. But the rest of the time, I have a hard time pinpointing what swung my opinion one way or the other.

Such is the case with Superman Returns. I liked it, even though intellectually there was a lot to dislike, even loathe. So why do I feel a need to defend it? Why do I feel a strange degree of affection for it?

Let's start with the negative, because that's easier. Byran Singer's direction of actors was terrible. I feel particularly sorry for poor Parker Posey, one of my favorites, who just looked lost and confused. It's obvious that she had no idea who her character was supposed to be, and that is the fault of the director. In fact, with one notable exception, no one in the cast was an improvement on the actors in first two films. And that goes double for Kevin Spacey, whose comtempt for the screenplay is barely concealed throughout.

Then there's that screenplay. Why do well-paid screenwriters get paid to write scenes in which a supposedly brilliant, professional woman brings her 5-year-old son with her onto stranger's yachts? If you need to put the kid in danger, fine. Just don't be lazy; think of a plausible way to do so.

And regarding the big plot twist. I'm going to try to tiptoe around this subject so I don't have to put in a SPOILER ALERT, but you may want to skip this paragraph if you haven't seen the movie yet. There is a major plot twist that depends on something that happened in Superman 2 (they seen to have forgotten about Superman 3 and 4, which is fine by me). But in order for the twist to work in this film's logic, they have to forgot another thing that happened in Superman 2. In forgetting that second event, they have made one character look incredibly callous and even a little slutty. And, they removed a subtext that may have made the story even more interesting.

So why do I like this movie? The action scenes are certainly rousing. Singer pulls surprisingly few punches for a "family-friendly" Superman movie, and this adds to the sense of danger and excitement. A scene early on in which a plane plummets to earth is a great example. It is the best sequence of it's type in any Superman movie, and it shows that the budget was well-spent.

But you would expect as movie made 25 years after Superman 2 to make great leaps in special effects. So that alone can't explain why I want to defend this movie. No, the real reason why I liked the film took me days to figure out, and suprised me when I did.

It's Kate Bosworth.

She's taken a beating around here and with some critics, but I think that's mostly because her character is written so poorly and has to do so many implausible, stupid things. Bosworth, unlike the other actors in this film, rises above the screenplay. When I think about Superman Returns, I think about a scene in which Lois Lane is in a car with her husband and her son. She says goodbye, knowing that there are a jumble of unresolved emotions inside of her. Bosworth, without a word, communicates all of this anquish. It makes the scene, and the movie, interesting.

In the end, a $250 million dollar film was saved for me by an unheralded actress who, against all odds, turned in a great, complex emotional performance. She is the reason why I want to defend this film, and she is the reason why I'd see the sequel.

[Orrex]

1. Regarding that major plot twist

I haven't yet seen it, but I know what you're talking about. Here's how I understand it, FWIW:

Though it seemingly coincides with the events in Superman II, we can't expect a direct, linear correspondence (unless explicitly validated by the current film). Superman Returns is a revisiting of known characters but with revised histories. Do we see Otis or Miss Tessmacher? If not, then are their absences explained?

Better not to try to force continuity between two distinct treatments of the same characters. Enjoy the intersections when they occur, but don't worry too much when they don't match exactly.

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER

Again, MAJOR SPOILER, so I'm going to leave some spaces.....

































In the 2nd film, Lois Lane slept with Superman. At the end, he kisses her, causing her to forget everything. IF she didn't forget, Superman's actions in this film seem even more heinous. Plus, she would have had to sleep with Mr. White close after her encounter with Superman for him to believe that the child was his son. It makes Lois and Superman look like selfish jerks.

There was a religious subtext in this movie. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if she had forgotten the encounter with Superman, and for her to think of it as some kind of immaculate conception? Creative screenwriters could have done a lot with that scenario.

[Orrex]

4. PM'ing you

[Love Bug]

3. I agree with you

There was a lot I liked about the movie (special effects) but did notice a lot of the plot was lifted right from Superman I. Instead of Superman saving a helicopter, he saved a jet (btw -- they way Lois got tossed around inside that jet, how the hell did she manage to not get injured or even bruised?), Lex steals kryptonite from a museum, etc. As for the "twist" -- I didn't see it coming and that's probably because I did see Superman II.

[Cannikin]

5. "Lex steals kryptonite from a museum,"

Did you notice the meteor was from Addis Ababa, the same place they took the meteor from in the first movie. Did he take the same meteor twice or do lots of kryptonite rocks fall there?

[Orrex]

6. Here's the part I can't seem to figure out

Again, I haven't seen the film yet, so bear with me.

My understanding is that it's not a sequel per se, but rather a revisiting of the characters with varying levels of correspondence to the original films. For example, is there a reference to Luthor's previous plot re: the San Andreas fault or his shaky alliance with General Zod?

The point is that it might not be on-target to ascribe too much linear match-up between the Reeve films and this new treatment. The various references are enjoyable but shouldn't necessarily be taken as "this happened just as you saw in those films 20 years ago, which by the way occurred five years ago."

[Broken_Hero]

7. It is apparent

that Superman Returns is a direct sequel from Superman The Movie, and takes quite a bit from Superman II. I hate the side stepping, and what not, of saying its not a sequel, a semi sequel, or whatever. In Superman Returns, preproduction, Singer wanted Zod in Superman Returns, and was trying to get Jude Law to reprise the Terrence Stamp villian, but Jude Law said no.

I think its a sequel to superman I and II...big time. There are so many references to both of them, its astounding...the big one correlation to superman II...is of course, spoiler below................




















Jason being superman's kid, and another one....Parker Posey's character, saying to lex "you act like you've been here before"...during the fortress of solitude bit, and Lex was only in the fortress, in Superman II, remember the "north Ms. Tessmacher, north north north!" bit. There are more correlations to superman II, and superman the movie...I see it as a direct sequel to superman I and II, and just think of Jude Law said yes...Zod would have been in this movie, and there would probably be less confusion on the continuity/sequel business....

[Cannikin]

8. I just have to nitpick. I cant help it. Its Ms. Eve Teschmacher

Not Tessmacher. Damn that was petty. I'll never nitpick again.:thumbsup:

[Ravenseye]

9. I liked kate bosworth as well

A number of subtle emotional scenes she did really well. Like when she was in the plane and saw superman fly past the window...the subtle change in her eye...I just think the subtle stuff like that is the hardest part of acting.

The parts I didn't like of her performance as you mentioned were directly tied to the script, which in places was ridiculous. The part where she trespasses on someone elses boat, who might be dangerous, while on the way to her pulitzer prize award ceremony, with her 5 year old son in tow and her phone in the car....just terrible writing. She could have just as easily, shown up, stepped out of the car, said something like "uh, we should go" and get back in the car to see some goon on the other side blocking her. Cut to her and kid in boat. That way she was curious, didn't endanger her child, and ended up in the same spot.

Not to mention that she was still smoking when she had a kid who was apparently allergic to everything. A kid that delicate, you don't keep smoking because it gets in your clothes and affects him. She could just as easily gone up there and stuck in a piece of nicotine gum and chewed it vigorously to just have superman appear by saying he's glad she quit smoking.

None of that stuff was her fault though (kate bosworth) but that of the screenplay which I think could have used more work.

I liked the film though, overall, but it could have been so much better.