With the release of what is considered to be the most anticipated movie of the summer/year, Man of Steel, there has been a lot of buzz defending Superman's last cinematic endeavor, Superman Returns. Folks are defending it both as a movie and its box office record. While I can't speak with much authority about whether or not it was a flop, I can state with some authority as to why it belongs near the bottom of the superhero movie heap.Bryan Singer came onto the scene, at least for me, with what I consider to be the advent of the modern comic book movie in X-Men (2000). It brought a visceral realism (AKA verisimilitude) to a fictional modern universe, which is something that had never successfully been done before. Then, with X2 he brought it to a whole other level, making the characters even more complex and likable while moving the audience through an entirely relevant story. So, when Jon Peters (the producer who had been charged with producing the next Superman film) got together with Singer, it seemed like a match made in heaven. Could Bryan Singer bring that same realism to a Superman movie? Yes and no.
First of all, Superman Returns is a beautifully made film. The cinemtography is top-quality. The editing and pacing are just phenomenal. The effects were the best of its time, and still stand up nicely today. Singer's ability to utilize the camera in order to move the story along is just fantastic.
The acting is quite good as well. Brandon Routh does a fantastic job embodying Singer's interpretation of Superman. Kevin Spacey is a remarkably better Lex Luthor than his predecessor, Gene Hackman. Every time I watch it, I wish that George Lucas would have cast this little kid as Anikan. I could go on and on.
The music is really great too! Easily Jon Ottman's best score to date (it doesn't hurt that he was encouraged to use John Williams' iconic themes).
You are probably wondering why, with all this praise, I can possibly find it to be a dismal disaster. The heart of the matter is that by Singer bringing his verisimilitude to this project, he changed Superman's character to the point that he was no longer Superman.
Superman stands for many things, but encouraging infidelity is not one of them. It's pathetic to think that Superman would even consider breaking up an engaged couple (and one that has supposedly produced a child, no less!) because he is in love. I know this sounds cliche, but Superman is the ideal gentleman. Recently Charlise Theron starred in a film where her character is a home wrecker and is rightly vilified for such behavior. How is it that we are supposed to see Superman differently or hold him to a different standard? Don't even get me started on Superman as a peeping Tom!
The creation of Superman has been classified as the creation of American mythology, and I certainly agree with that. He is the ideal that we all strive for: a powerful man, both morally and physically, who uses that power for good. Superman represents the best in us. The type of story that Singer, et al. try to tell is a good story; it's just not good Superman story.
A Note on Box Office
People are bringing up that this film made almost as much as Batman Begins, and therefore should have deserved a sequel in the same way. Well, I think that Warner Bros. decided (smartly, IMO) to go a different direction because of the negative reaction to the movie by the paying public, and not the critical community. Fans and critics alike praised Begins, while this film received a lot more of a mixed reaction from both. There is no way that the hype would be as strong for a sequel to Superman Returns as it was for The Dark Knight.
No comments:
Post a Comment