WARNING: THIS IS A SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN’T WATCHED THE MOVIE. SO IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED, DON’T READ THIS ARTICLE!!!!
I got to watch “Superman Return” on the opening night, June 28 and boy! The place was jam-packed and queues were long. It seemed that everybody was eager to welcome the Man of Steel back to the big screen. I would say that the movie is quite good. Worth every penny you’d paid for but I am not exactly enthusiastic to see it again for a second time unlike Spiderman or Harry Potter. Not that it is unexciting but rather I had a seen better movie of the same genre like Spiderman. Prior to the movie, I had been watching the “old” Superman movies played by the late Christopher Reeves on TV.
PLOT
The story of the latest installment of Superman revolves around the “tension” between Superman and Lois Lane with the latter moving on and eventually marrying Perry White’s nephew and she also had a kid, Jason. The diabolical scheme hatched by Luthor could be best describe as only a sub – plot to the main storyline. The plot of the story starts with Superman returning to Earth after a disappearance of 5 years without saying goodbye in order to search for the remains of his home world, Krypton only to discover it as a desolate and lonely place. He returned to Earth only to found out that the world has learned to “live” without him including his love, Lois Lane. In fact, Lois even wrote an editorial entitled, “Why the World doesn’t need Superman”, which won her a Pulitzer. So there you have it, a cynical world and a scorned woman who pretend to have gotten over her love. Throw in the mix is Lex Luthor who manages to serenade an old dying spinster (just assuming) into bequeathing him her entire fortune. He then went to Superman’s lair in the North Pole and steals the crystals and used it to “grow” a whole new Kryptonian continent out in the Atlantic, which would eventually “devour” the entire North American continent. As usual, our hero saved the day but this time, he didn’t manage to get the lady’s hand. Compared to the “old” Superman movies, I would say that the new film has more substance and entirely believable, which is unlike the “old” movies (just seen them recently from the reruns). The old movies are both blatant and idealistic. Superman Returns has a more developed storyline. However, one could find the influence of recent movies like the Matrix and Spiderman to name a few in the film. “Borrowed” from the Matrix are the bullet time actions and graphics and the implicit Christian ideological overlay. The Christian overtone is evident in the movie like when Superman flew Lois to the clouds and asks her if she hears anything. To which, she answered no. Superman then told her that he hears everything and he hears people asking for a savior and with that, he disprove Lois’ thesis that the world doesn’t need a Superman. Or like in the case of the voice of Joe – El, Superman’s father reminding him about the potential of the human race and that he is sending his son to make sure Superman leads them to their potential. Or like the scene wherein Superman in a cross like position fell to Earth after saving the world. All of this tends to emphasize a sublime Christian message. Even so, the movie lacks the philosophical depth of the Matrix. Interestingly, there was a scene where Lois kisses Superman in his hospital bed hoping that he would “wake” up from his coma. This scene reminds me of the scene where Trinity kissed Neo, which not only magically revived Neo inside the Matrix but also transform him into the One. So cliché. As for the influence of Spiderman, it is apparent that the director wanted to project the human side of Superman much like in the movie, Spiderman. The director painstakingly projects that the Man of Steel is not only vulnerable physically to Kryptonite but also to emotional stress. Here, Superman wallows in self – pity, embroiled in jealousy to the point of becoming a stalker, and is genuinely lonely. Although the director succeeded in portraying the “human” Superman but I felt that the connection with the audience isn’t quite “complete”. In Spiderman, the viewers felt intimately connected to Spiderman/Peter Parker but not in Superman. I postulated that it is because in Spiderman, Peter Parker is the main persona and Spiderman is only his sideline or in comic book term, his alter ego. Sam Ramsey (Spiderman’s director) portrays Peter Parker as struggling to juggle being himself and Spiderman. In Superman, the opposite happens. Here, Superman is the main persona and Clark Kent is the alter ego, or to be more accurate, a disguise. The superhuman challenge of being a superhero isn’t present at all, e.g., Clark Kent isn’t pressured to be Superman nor is Superman having difficulties being Clark Kent. He has problems with his love life and that’s it. One of the noticeable “things” in the movie is the director’s adherence to the original Superman, which thus gave the audience a sense of nostalgia and instantly connects with the “old” Superman movies. Scenes like Superman dishing statistics after saving the day. “Statistically speaking, flying is still the safest means of transportation.” Or Lois lane fainting upon seeing Superman the first time. Or Lex Luthor’s comical obsession with real estate and his means of attaining his goal, which instantly reminds you of the first Superman movie. Or the romantic flying date between Superman and Lois Lane. Even the music reminds me of the old Superman. It helps the movie a lot in terms of familiarity. However, what really makes the movie click was the unexpected twist and turn of the plot. It was so unexpected and unsuspecting that one would be totally blown away when it happened. The first twist was the revelation that Superman has a son and he is no other than Lois’ kid, Jason the super kid. Everybody thought that Jason was a human kid born to Lois and her present husband but not between her and Superman. This is because of the myth being established in the previous movies. In Superman 3 wherein Superman went rouge, Superman slept with a woman but she didn’t get pregnant and all throughout the subsequent sequels, there was no hint at all that Superman and Lois ever slept together. In fact, some fans are beginning to wonder if Superman is at all gay. Well, this movie dispels that speculation. The second twist was the “almost” death of Superman. Nobody expects Superman to die in this movie but the director plays it in such a way that death is somehow plausible to the point that it could be expected. It makes anybody watching to stay at the edge of their seat wondering correction, worrying about Superman. Overall, the plot is great.
SPECIAL EFFECTS
The special effects used in the movie is simply awesome and way beyond the standards of the “old” Superman movie. Thanks in part to the latest advances in CGI technology and of course, to the Matrix who started it all. This time around, Superman’s cape is actually flowing when he is up in the air. The most unforgettable part of the special effects scene is Superman’s saving of a free falling Boeing airplane. Damn, it was simply exhilarating! The CGI animation of Superman is also quite realistic that there are times it is difficult to tell whether it is the actor doing the stunts or it was pure graphics.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND ACTORS
As was mentioned, the director attempted and succeeded in humanizing Superman by making him vulnerable emotionally. Even so, there is a limitation to the humanizing factor. The development of Clark Kent on the other hand was somehow stunted in this movie. Here, Clark is literally a disguise. The old movies portray Clark Kent as somehow possessing a separate identity as an average Joe who is tired of being sacrificed to protect the identity of Superman. Notice the awkwardness Clark Kent exudes when he tries to be both nice and geeky as opposed to the natural macho and brutish persona of Superman. That separateness of identity becomes more acute that it came full blows in Superman 3. That tension is noticeably absent in the new movie. Furthermore, in the TV series, Smallville, there is no Superman persona but only Clark Kent. In the TV series, Clark is struggling to live a normal life even though he is anything but normal. Again, one can’t find that here in the movie. Brandon Routh plays well as Superman but he looks too smart and confident as Clark Kent than the traditional awkward geeky nice guy image that Clark should be. Lois Lane played by Kate Bosworth is still tough, feisty but is also somewhat mellowed down compared to the old Lois. She also exudes feminine beauty. I find that meallowing down to be a welcome change not that I’m a sexist but rather I find it to fit Lois’ new role as a mother of a 5 year old and a loving wife. Lex Luthor played by Kevin Spacey on the other hand is somewhat well, not exactly a disappointment or a let down but let’s just say, short of expectation. The problem is not in that Kevin Spacey’s acting (he is actually played the part well) but in both the director and the actor’s understanding of Luthor. The “old” Luthor played by Gene Hackman is flamboyant and displayed theatrical flair. He is the epitome of an arrogant mad genius who desired to become a king even for a day. Kevin Spacey’s Luthor by comparison seemed a lot more subdued and “quiet”. However, I don’t find that to be disturbing. In fact, I liked it. The “modern” depiction of Lex Luthor both in TV (Smallville) and in comic books is a shrewd, amoral, malevolent, manipulative, and machiavellian businessman/politician. Kevin Spacey in the first part of the movie adhere to this modern depiction. His portrayal of Luthor at this stage is best described as a “silent killer”. The problem with the portrayal came in the latter part of the movie when Luthor starts to unveil his evil scheme. Here, Kevin Spacey tried to imitate or more sarcastically, ape the flamboyance and flair of Gene Hackman, which turns out to be a total farce. Furthermore, the director and writer should seriously consider upgrading Luthor’s persona including his IQ. This is because I find his scheme less diabolical but more hairy, audacious, and also elementary. Lex Luthor’s scheme is to “sink” North America and replace it with the Krytonian crystal continet. There is only one problem to that scheme and that is, what they’re going to eat? I mean can you grow anything on an icy crystal wasteland? Ok, so they (Luthor and his cohorts) could make use of soiless farming or hydroponics technology but would that sufficed to feed a population? Furthermore, Luthor possesses the crystals, which contains among others advance Krytonian technologies and database collated from 28 known galaxies. There is somewhere within that database a blueprint on how to built a Weapon of Ultimate Destruction a.k.a. a Doomsday device, which he could use to blackmail the world. In spite of this, Lex Luthor is inexplicably infatuated with “real estate” (remember Superman 1?). Makes me wonder whether or not Lex Luthor is the “world’s greatest criminal genius” or simply the “most diabolical real estate developer the world has ever seen” and complete and utter failure at that! Apparently, the producers wanted to project the “gravity” and “evilness” of Luthor’s scheme and which is why they choose that scheme but it degrades the “seriousness” of the film.
DIRECTION AND DIRECTOR
Bryan Singer’s (the director) take on this latest movie on Superman is to focus on the two main characters, namely, Lois and Superman. The focus is so narrow that everybody else is relegated to second place including Clark Kent and Lex Luthor. The effect of this focus is to provide crystal clear clarity on the theme and is less likely to muddle the issue at hand. The director handles this kind of direction quite well. Too well, in fact that some point in the movie, I had this queasy feeling that it is more of a romance film rather than an action – adventure flick.
ASSESSMENT
Overall, I find the film to be excellent and I actually liked it. It is as I said worth every penny paid. Aside from that, the facts being introduced in this film opens new avenues and possibilities as to the future direction of the film franchise. It would wet anybody’s curiosity as to what will happen to Jason, the super kid. Or how would the love triangle (Superman – Lois – White, the husband) or even the quadrangle (including Clark Kent) would unravel in the next few films. One could only wonder or even speculate but for now, I just like to say, “Welcome back, Superman!”
I got to watch “Superman Return” on the opening night, June 28 and boy! The place was jam-packed and queues were long. It seemed that everybody was eager to welcome the Man of Steel back to the big screen. I would say that the movie is quite good. Worth every penny you’d paid for but I am not exactly enthusiastic to see it again for a second time unlike Spiderman or Harry Potter. Not that it is unexciting but rather I had a seen better movie of the same genre like Spiderman. Prior to the movie, I had been watching the “old” Superman movies played by the late Christopher Reeves on TV.
PLOT
The story of the latest installment of Superman revolves around the “tension” between Superman and Lois Lane with the latter moving on and eventually marrying Perry White’s nephew and she also had a kid, Jason. The diabolical scheme hatched by Luthor could be best describe as only a sub – plot to the main storyline. The plot of the story starts with Superman returning to Earth after a disappearance of 5 years without saying goodbye in order to search for the remains of his home world, Krypton only to discover it as a desolate and lonely place. He returned to Earth only to found out that the world has learned to “live” without him including his love, Lois Lane. In fact, Lois even wrote an editorial entitled, “Why the World doesn’t need Superman”, which won her a Pulitzer. So there you have it, a cynical world and a scorned woman who pretend to have gotten over her love. Throw in the mix is Lex Luthor who manages to serenade an old dying spinster (just assuming) into bequeathing him her entire fortune. He then went to Superman’s lair in the North Pole and steals the crystals and used it to “grow” a whole new Kryptonian continent out in the Atlantic, which would eventually “devour” the entire North American continent. As usual, our hero saved the day but this time, he didn’t manage to get the lady’s hand. Compared to the “old” Superman movies, I would say that the new film has more substance and entirely believable, which is unlike the “old” movies (just seen them recently from the reruns). The old movies are both blatant and idealistic. Superman Returns has a more developed storyline. However, one could find the influence of recent movies like the Matrix and Spiderman to name a few in the film. “Borrowed” from the Matrix are the bullet time actions and graphics and the implicit Christian ideological overlay. The Christian overtone is evident in the movie like when Superman flew Lois to the clouds and asks her if she hears anything. To which, she answered no. Superman then told her that he hears everything and he hears people asking for a savior and with that, he disprove Lois’ thesis that the world doesn’t need a Superman. Or like in the case of the voice of Joe – El, Superman’s father reminding him about the potential of the human race and that he is sending his son to make sure Superman leads them to their potential. Or like the scene wherein Superman in a cross like position fell to Earth after saving the world. All of this tends to emphasize a sublime Christian message. Even so, the movie lacks the philosophical depth of the Matrix. Interestingly, there was a scene where Lois kisses Superman in his hospital bed hoping that he would “wake” up from his coma. This scene reminds me of the scene where Trinity kissed Neo, which not only magically revived Neo inside the Matrix but also transform him into the One. So cliché. As for the influence of Spiderman, it is apparent that the director wanted to project the human side of Superman much like in the movie, Spiderman. The director painstakingly projects that the Man of Steel is not only vulnerable physically to Kryptonite but also to emotional stress. Here, Superman wallows in self – pity, embroiled in jealousy to the point of becoming a stalker, and is genuinely lonely. Although the director succeeded in portraying the “human” Superman but I felt that the connection with the audience isn’t quite “complete”. In Spiderman, the viewers felt intimately connected to Spiderman/Peter Parker but not in Superman. I postulated that it is because in Spiderman, Peter Parker is the main persona and Spiderman is only his sideline or in comic book term, his alter ego. Sam Ramsey (Spiderman’s director) portrays Peter Parker as struggling to juggle being himself and Spiderman. In Superman, the opposite happens. Here, Superman is the main persona and Clark Kent is the alter ego, or to be more accurate, a disguise. The superhuman challenge of being a superhero isn’t present at all, e.g., Clark Kent isn’t pressured to be Superman nor is Superman having difficulties being Clark Kent. He has problems with his love life and that’s it. One of the noticeable “things” in the movie is the director’s adherence to the original Superman, which thus gave the audience a sense of nostalgia and instantly connects with the “old” Superman movies. Scenes like Superman dishing statistics after saving the day. “Statistically speaking, flying is still the safest means of transportation.” Or Lois lane fainting upon seeing Superman the first time. Or Lex Luthor’s comical obsession with real estate and his means of attaining his goal, which instantly reminds you of the first Superman movie. Or the romantic flying date between Superman and Lois Lane. Even the music reminds me of the old Superman. It helps the movie a lot in terms of familiarity. However, what really makes the movie click was the unexpected twist and turn of the plot. It was so unexpected and unsuspecting that one would be totally blown away when it happened. The first twist was the revelation that Superman has a son and he is no other than Lois’ kid, Jason the super kid. Everybody thought that Jason was a human kid born to Lois and her present husband but not between her and Superman. This is because of the myth being established in the previous movies. In Superman 3 wherein Superman went rouge, Superman slept with a woman but she didn’t get pregnant and all throughout the subsequent sequels, there was no hint at all that Superman and Lois ever slept together. In fact, some fans are beginning to wonder if Superman is at all gay. Well, this movie dispels that speculation. The second twist was the “almost” death of Superman. Nobody expects Superman to die in this movie but the director plays it in such a way that death is somehow plausible to the point that it could be expected. It makes anybody watching to stay at the edge of their seat wondering correction, worrying about Superman. Overall, the plot is great.
SPECIAL EFFECTS
The special effects used in the movie is simply awesome and way beyond the standards of the “old” Superman movie. Thanks in part to the latest advances in CGI technology and of course, to the Matrix who started it all. This time around, Superman’s cape is actually flowing when he is up in the air. The most unforgettable part of the special effects scene is Superman’s saving of a free falling Boeing airplane. Damn, it was simply exhilarating! The CGI animation of Superman is also quite realistic that there are times it is difficult to tell whether it is the actor doing the stunts or it was pure graphics.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND ACTORS
As was mentioned, the director attempted and succeeded in humanizing Superman by making him vulnerable emotionally. Even so, there is a limitation to the humanizing factor. The development of Clark Kent on the other hand was somehow stunted in this movie. Here, Clark is literally a disguise. The old movies portray Clark Kent as somehow possessing a separate identity as an average Joe who is tired of being sacrificed to protect the identity of Superman. Notice the awkwardness Clark Kent exudes when he tries to be both nice and geeky as opposed to the natural macho and brutish persona of Superman. That separateness of identity becomes more acute that it came full blows in Superman 3. That tension is noticeably absent in the new movie. Furthermore, in the TV series, Smallville, there is no Superman persona but only Clark Kent. In the TV series, Clark is struggling to live a normal life even though he is anything but normal. Again, one can’t find that here in the movie. Brandon Routh plays well as Superman but he looks too smart and confident as Clark Kent than the traditional awkward geeky nice guy image that Clark should be. Lois Lane played by Kate Bosworth is still tough, feisty but is also somewhat mellowed down compared to the old Lois. She also exudes feminine beauty. I find that meallowing down to be a welcome change not that I’m a sexist but rather I find it to fit Lois’ new role as a mother of a 5 year old and a loving wife. Lex Luthor played by Kevin Spacey on the other hand is somewhat well, not exactly a disappointment or a let down but let’s just say, short of expectation. The problem is not in that Kevin Spacey’s acting (he is actually played the part well) but in both the director and the actor’s understanding of Luthor. The “old” Luthor played by Gene Hackman is flamboyant and displayed theatrical flair. He is the epitome of an arrogant mad genius who desired to become a king even for a day. Kevin Spacey’s Luthor by comparison seemed a lot more subdued and “quiet”. However, I don’t find that to be disturbing. In fact, I liked it. The “modern” depiction of Lex Luthor both in TV (Smallville) and in comic books is a shrewd, amoral, malevolent, manipulative, and machiavellian businessman/politician. Kevin Spacey in the first part of the movie adhere to this modern depiction. His portrayal of Luthor at this stage is best described as a “silent killer”. The problem with the portrayal came in the latter part of the movie when Luthor starts to unveil his evil scheme. Here, Kevin Spacey tried to imitate or more sarcastically, ape the flamboyance and flair of Gene Hackman, which turns out to be a total farce. Furthermore, the director and writer should seriously consider upgrading Luthor’s persona including his IQ. This is because I find his scheme less diabolical but more hairy, audacious, and also elementary. Lex Luthor’s scheme is to “sink” North America and replace it with the Krytonian crystal continet. There is only one problem to that scheme and that is, what they’re going to eat? I mean can you grow anything on an icy crystal wasteland? Ok, so they (Luthor and his cohorts) could make use of soiless farming or hydroponics technology but would that sufficed to feed a population? Furthermore, Luthor possesses the crystals, which contains among others advance Krytonian technologies and database collated from 28 known galaxies. There is somewhere within that database a blueprint on how to built a Weapon of Ultimate Destruction a.k.a. a Doomsday device, which he could use to blackmail the world. In spite of this, Lex Luthor is inexplicably infatuated with “real estate” (remember Superman 1?). Makes me wonder whether or not Lex Luthor is the “world’s greatest criminal genius” or simply the “most diabolical real estate developer the world has ever seen” and complete and utter failure at that! Apparently, the producers wanted to project the “gravity” and “evilness” of Luthor’s scheme and which is why they choose that scheme but it degrades the “seriousness” of the film.
DIRECTION AND DIRECTOR
Bryan Singer’s (the director) take on this latest movie on Superman is to focus on the two main characters, namely, Lois and Superman. The focus is so narrow that everybody else is relegated to second place including Clark Kent and Lex Luthor. The effect of this focus is to provide crystal clear clarity on the theme and is less likely to muddle the issue at hand. The director handles this kind of direction quite well. Too well, in fact that some point in the movie, I had this queasy feeling that it is more of a romance film rather than an action – adventure flick.
ASSESSMENT
Overall, I find the film to be excellent and I actually liked it. It is as I said worth every penny paid. Aside from that, the facts being introduced in this film opens new avenues and possibilities as to the future direction of the film franchise. It would wet anybody’s curiosity as to what will happen to Jason, the super kid. Or how would the love triangle (Superman – Lois – White, the husband) or even the quadrangle (including Clark Kent) would unravel in the next few films. One could only wonder or even speculate but for now, I just like to say, “Welcome back, Superman!”
2 comments:
Spoilers. Darn. Now I know I shouldn't have visited your site when that friendster blog update alert came up! *lol*
Anyway,
My friends who were able to catch the flick told me the exact same thing ----> that Brandon Routh looks too smart & confident for a geeky Clark Kent role. He did a good job, in fairness, though he still falls short when compared to the late Christopher Reeve....that's what most of my friends say. I guess it's quite difficult for anyone to fill in Reeve's shoes, huh?
Told you so! " ). Enjoy the movie.
Post a Comment