Well, Roger Ebert didn’t like it. New York Times found plenty to fault. EW was much kinder, as was Rolling Stone.
I liked “Superman Returns“.
Whenever a movie follows a successful franchise—whether on screen, on stage, or in print—the hurdle is raised high. And sometimes, reviewers can’t let go of how things were done in the past. They compare against expectations, such as in the case of “Superman Returns” the performance of Christopher Reeve as the Man of Steel.
I remember friends dragging me to see movie “Amadeus“. I had read a harsh review in one of the newsweeklies. The reviewer paned “Amadeus” because he viewed the film as being grossly inferior to the successful stage version. The film was stupendous, and it later won an Oscar for Best Picture. The stage version is a different production. The reviewer should have looked at “Amadeus” as its own work of art.
My advice to everyone: Put aside the past and view “Superman Returns” for itself—not for the original “Superman” made nearly 30 years ago.
“Superman Returns” is an engaging movie, with an interesting story that also is emotionally moving. Good movie making is like any art form—compelling storytelling. And “Superman Returns”, like “Batman Begins“, spins a good yarn that pits man against himself. The hero’s enemy is more himself than the more typical comic villain. The brilliance of the script is how it uses rival Lex Luther as a canvass for Superman’s internal struggle.
Maybe the comic book code demands more man against man (superhero vs. villain), but “Superman Returns” makes the classic struggle of man against him—also intertwined with man against nature (Kryptonite)—the story’s central theme. The execution is subtle and emotionally griping. Director Bryan Singer brilliantly makes Superman more Messiah-like and yet vulnerable, and so more like—and so understandable to—mere mortals.
I highly recommend “Superman Returns”. It’s not high art, but the movie is entertaining—and the good storytelling is the major reason. Bryan Singer’s Superman is darker than director Richard Donner’s character. Both men tell Superman’s story as appropriate for their times. The brooding, conflicted Superman works well in 2006.
Superman has plenty of reasons to be conflicted, and even uncertain. He returns to Metropolis after five years to find some people have moved beyond him. He supposedly fights for “truth and justice”, but in this film not the “American Way”. He is savior to the world, which is perhaps more appropriate in 2006 than it was in 1978. While Superman fights for truth, he lives in a world of lies, leading a double life and holding no confidants. He’s solitary and lonely—and yet in the new story there may be someone, after all. I won’t say who or whom, for the benefit for people that haven’t seen the film.
Singer’s Superman is more vulnerable, in a way reminiscent of “Spiderman 2“. The vulnerability, whether from external forces or Superman’s internal conflict, is told well.
I watched “Superman Returns” this afternoon with my daughter and two of her friends. For anyone that can park the old films at the door—and all preconceptions with them—”Superman Returns” is a story for our times told very well. See the movie today.
Editor’s Note: On July 28, 2017, this post was recovered, using Archive.org Wayback Machine, from a snapshot of joewilcox.com during 2006, when months of content was lost while changing blogging systems and webhosts. Date and timestamps are authentic.