Indiewire Browse the indiewire network

VIDEO ESSAY: DEEP FOCUS: SUPERMAN RETURNS

Video by Matt Zoller Seitz & Ken Cancelosi | January 9, 2012 | 27 Comments

Deep Focus: Superman Returns - part 1

Close Panel

Embed Deep Focus: Superman Returns - part 1

Select width of embedded player:
Copied
Play Film

Deep Focus: Superman Returns, part 2

Close Panel

Embed Deep Focus: Superman Returns, part 2

Select width of embedded player:
Copied
Play Film

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The inspiration for this piece, Deep Focus: Superman Returns - Angel of America, comes from a review Matt Zoller Seitz wrote for New York Press in 2006 at the time of the film's release. We have reprinted that piece below with this video essay, which compares the movie to the original Christopher Reeve films, and makes the case for Superman Returns as a neglected gem in the comic book movie genre.]

Review:

Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is no masterpiece. The movie's first act is hobbled by weird misjudgments (including a criminally underused Eva Marie Saint as Ma Kent), and it's so choppy that it seems to have been edited with a meat axe. Kevin Spacey's snidely campy performance as Lex Luthor unbalances the film's otherwise sincere tone. It's also so dependent upon our knowing what happened in 1978's Superman: The Movie and its follow-up, Superman II, that at times it feels like a long-delayed sequel in which the principal cast has been replaced. Yet these flaws don't diminish the film's impact. From the moment that its hero (Brandon Routh) returns to the sky to rescue Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) from a plummeting jet, Superman Returns flirts with greatness. Its greatness originates in its respect for Superman's decency: Routh's graceful incarnation of the character, and Singer's decision to express the hero's goodness in a cascade of iconic images as beautiful as Superman himself.

Superman (aka Kal El, aka Clark Kent) left earth years ago to revisit Krypton to see if there was anything left (there wasn't). He returns to earth in a meteor that lands near his Smallville homestead—a mirror image of his arrival in Superman: The Movie, and a tipoff that we're about to see a bubblegum epic about loss, renewal and the continuity of values. Singer expresses this continuity by reviving elements from the Reeve movies, including John Williams' score, the designs of Krypton, the Daily Planet, the Fortress of Solitude, the Kent Farm and—most strikingly—the late Marlon Brando's hambone performance, revived through archive footage.

Luthor's out of prison (thanks to the absent hero's failure to testify at his trial) and up to his old tricks, scheming around Metropolis with his thug henchmen, his wiseass gal pal (Parker Posey) and two yippy but vicious little dogs. In Superman's absence, Lois Lane (Bosworth, swapping stoic warmth for Margot Kidder's abrasive '70s kookiness) won a Pulitzer for an editorial about why the world doesn't need him, and then settled down with Daily Planet colleague Richard White (James Marsden), nephew of publisher, Perry White (a brusque yet warm performance by Frank Langella).

She also has a moody, asthmatic son (Tristan Lake Leabu) whose existence puts a period at the end of a relationship, which Superman and Lois would rather treat as an ellipse. The tension between Lois, Richard and Clark/Superman forms the film's bittersweet core; she loves him but just can't be with him. Superman and Lois' nighttime slow dance in the skies of Metropolis is richer than the similar scene in 1978's Superman because of its acknowledgment of unrealized dreams. In scene after scene,  implicitly asks what it might feel like to be Superman and to live in a world that has the Man of Steel in it. Routh articulates the first part of that equation with sweet precision. Though he lacks Reeve's sunbeam warmth, he compensates with a soft-spoken, Boy Scout melancholy that's unique among superhero performances.

Singer backs Routh by deftly illustrating Superman's casual mastery of his own powers. When a frazzled Lois leaves the Daily Planet newsroom and takes an elevator to the roof to smoke a cigarette, Clark's X-ray vision allows him to peer through walls and elevator doors and observe every step in her short journey. Then he joins her on the roof as Superman, slyly announcing his presence by blowing out her flame from afar.

Where most comic book movies are paradoxically inclined to make their points verbally—bulldozing heaps of raw data in our faces, a la The Matrix movies, Batman Begins and Singer's own X-Men films — Superman Returns is conceived as a visionary spectacle, a series of mythic tableaus that brazenly liken Superman to Mercury, Jesus, Atlas and Prometheus. It's a sensory—at times sensuous—experience, modeled not just on great comic book art, but on the crème-de-la-crème of machine-age spectacles: 2001: A Space Odyssey and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (Warning, that segue means possible spoilers ahead.)

A slow Kubrickian pull-out from Krypton diminishes Superman's homeworld against a boiling sun, and then obliterates it like a shotgunned chandelier. When Luthor experiments with pilfered kryptonite to produce a new crystal continent, the miniature prototype punches up through a model train diorama like the scale model of Devil's Tower in Richard Dreyfuss' rec room. The film's powerful, often intensely violent final act—in which Superman tries to thwart Luthor's plan, falls into a devastating trap, only to endure a Passion of the Christ-style beatdown and a plunge into the sea—climaxes with a biblically awesome panorama of a Texas-sized landmass ascending heavenward like the mother ship going home.

Singer never stops being amazed at the very idea that a man could fly. Yet, he treats his protagonist as an adult man who pays a price for his goodness. He is physically almost invulnerable, but he is not omnipotent: He can't be everywhere at once, and he doesn't always want to be.

The film's most haunting scene finds Superman floating above the earth, eavesdropping on layers of conversation, then becoming overwhelmed and shutting them all out. He could be a two-fisted cousin of the angels from Wings of Desire. He feels guilt over needing not to be needed, if only for an instant. He's an extraordinary ordinary man—the better angel of our nature.

A critic, journalist and filmmaker, Matt Zoller Seitz is the staff TV columnist for New York Magazine and the founder of Press Play. Ken Cancelosi is a writer and photographer living in Dallas, Texas.

More: Matt Zoller Seitz, Bryan Singer, video essay, Superman Returns, Ken Cancelosi

40 Comments

  • Goerge | January 26, 2012Reply

    This review was great, and explains and details the reasons why this is not only a great Superman movie but one of the greatest movies ever made. Some peoples utter disgust or disappointment with this film and there feelings of it being plain or boring, it's quite simply evidence and proof that the majority of folks are plain and dull themselves, not to be childish and call names. This movie was and is apparently too deep, romantic, thoughtful and thought provoking to be a "successful" comic book movie, because let's face it people, if a movie doesn't make double or more what it costs to make then it is seen as an "utter failure", allot of movies indeed haven't, but those are the movies that are usually geared more towards intellectual or artistic individuals. Much like Superman Returns, it wasn't meant to be Superman kicking ass, which is what most of the majority wanted, but it showed him as a "person" not being human but having human feelings and struggles. Not to mention the amazing nostalgic aspects, the music, the cinematography, the actors, every aspect of the movie is amazing really. There are also religious correlations that the reviewer didn't mention, Bryan Singer admits this fact in the special features, yes I'm a nerd and have the complete Superman dvd set. Superman is the comic book version of Jesus really, Jesus being half God half human, having to struggle with humanity as humans do while also possessing abilities beyond mortal men and using them to help humanity unconditionally, just because he loved humanity. Which if we would have seen a sequel to this movie I'm sure we would have inevitably seen Superman's sacrifice killing doomsday and saving humanity, Superman being Jesus dieing to kill "Doomsday" or to stop our destruction, and sin will lead to our destruction "Jesus crucifixion" Jesus dieing for our sins and saves us from judgment. Do a little research people, and realize how much beloved comic book characters are based on ancient mythology or religious history, Superman like Jesus shows us the better side of life and humanity, them as characters and role models teach us to help others and do what is right. I didn't mean to trail off onto religious issue...but... People need to open their minds and hearts, maybe then our Blockbusters might actually be good movies that enlighten us, and not mindless special effects and action movies, and maybe then our planet and our human race wouldn't be so messed up.

  • adlloyd | January 26, 2012Reply

    Thank you for this very powerful and perceptive review of Superman Returns, which puts into words all the reasons why this film blew me away from first viewing. I had not seen any of the previous Superman films, but was encouraged to see this one by some very positive reviews at the time. It is one of the few films that I was willing to pay to see multiple times in a theater. I especially agree with the video essay's pointing out SR's depiction of Superman as an adult, giving us a model of what emotional maturity looks like. Too often, the "real man" is seen to be someone who strides in and takes what he wants, regardless of right or wrong or how others are affected. Both Superman and Richard show us a different kind of "real man," willing to put others' needs over personal desires, even if it means putting themselves at risk, willing to do what is best for others, even if it means letting go of what they want. From the point where both men head out from the Planet to rescue Lois through to the end, both characters demonstrate this kind of strength and courage again and again in the decisions they make, showing that "heroism" isn't a matter of superpowers, it's a matter of character, which anyone can aspire to. Thank you again for a video essay as deeply moving as the film itself.

  • Phil Early | January 25, 2012Reply

    Great video essay. Quite good. This interpretation, analysis makes more sense for Kate Bosworth's performance. She was resentful. Still it's true Superman and Superman 2 had captured joy in Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. You are defining the themes as if it is a Bergman art film. It was a popcorn entertainment that was defined by it's darker themes. Perhaps as pointed out the influence of 9/11 not being a decade past still weighed on the writers minds. Yet what better antidote to tragedy then optimism, lightness, and laughter? What the first two Reeve films had in abundance. I enjoyed Superman Returns very much, but a defining of it's core dramatic dynamics doesn't make it a great film. It was both a solid effort, and also a disappointment. Certainly more ambitious then recent junk food movie making as Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, but not close to the pure enjoyable success of Superman: (The motion picture)

  • esense | January 24, 2012Reply

    I'm sorry, that's what I call a wishful thinking analysis of this movie, I wish it was as good as this essays says but its not. What Kevin Spacey is trying to do is so ridiculous & silly. The entire plot with Lois, her husband and super kid is boring and takes up most of the movie. And Superman is never in any danger, not even after he gets beat up by Kumar aka Kal Penn, how lame was that. Its a sequel and not a very good one to a franchise that great as it was belongs in the past. Bring on the Man of Steel, I can't wait

  • Stephen | January 20, 2012Reply

    Thank you for this, I found it very interesting. Your analysis has shown that some of the things that some have found problematic about the film, may actually be the most interesting things about it. I think time will be kind to "Superman Returns".

  • xurxo g penalta | January 19, 2012Reply

    wonderful job here! and the film deserve it. probably the last thoughtful take we'll see of superman on film in a long while ... as a related reading i recommend "ALL-STAR SUPERMAN" comic book (not the straight to dvd animation) by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely which is also a mature and emotional story loaded with superman's richly imaginative background; and it's also one of the best superhero comics of the last 20 years. http://www.amazon.com/All-Star-Superman-Grant-Morrison/dp/1401232051/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326964028&sr=1-1

  • Stephen | January 20, 2012

    Yes indeed. Anyone with a passing interest in superheroes, mythology or popular culture should read "All-Star Superman". What a shame the animated movie adaptation missed out on so much of its greatness.

  • Travis | January 19, 2012Reply

    Matt, Matt, Matt: I love you man, but you are so wrong about this movie. Brandon Routh plays Superman with the charisma and subtle nuance of a mannequin in a costume shop window. Kate Bosworth plays Lois Lane like a moody teen, and for some reason their child seems to have been given undiagnosed aspergers. You mention Kevin Spacey's hamminess, but what about Parker Posey, and her little dog too? The movie was a disaster, from the glossy; it simply regurgitated everything from the first movie, newly soaked in the bile of portentiousness, and glossed over with a distancing, distracting digital sheen. Oh, and the Matrix made those Superman=Jesus connections years earlier, and in a way that was simultaneously more interesting, and better integrated into an actual story.

  • Travis | January 19, 2012

    -"from the glossy" (uh, I don't remember writing that...)

  • James | January 16, 2012Reply

    I loved how this movie depicted the Man of Steel as someone isolated by his exceptional abilities. The iconic action sequences in the first part of the film, saving the airliner, confronting the machinegunner are depicted with the right mix of wit and wonder. These are tempered with the characterization of Superman as reluctant messiah with his Pieta-like emergence from the meteor and Routh's pose in space like Michaelangelo's David. Superman's acceptance of responsibility, solitude and destiny have less in common with Singer's X-Men and Raimey's Spiderman and more in common with Scorcese's the Last Temptation of Christ. It may be because Singer shows his characters transition through visual language rather than exposition. Despite the elegiac themes and dynamic action sequences the movie loses its bid for being exceptional. Thematically and narratively here's very little connection between the villain and hero. I don't really care about Luthor's villainous machinations. He doesn't have a compelling story and is not well connected to Superman's internal dilemmas. Everything I like about this movie is almost modest in it's understated introspection and Spacy's broad depiction of the villain is so broad it seem to be from another movie. He was insufficient yang to Superman's yin. A wonderful essay Matt and Ken. Thank you.

  • The Hoobie | January 16, 2012Reply

    I remember watching Superman Returns without very high expectations, but I fell in love with it for the reasons Zoller Seitz describes so well here. Those reasons are why I also loved AMC's late Rubicon. James Badge Dale's Will Travers was very much a spiritual brother of Routh's Superman. In the opening scene of the second episode of Rubicon, a scene that resonated so powerfully for me, we see Travers standing on a roof's ledge, looking over the city. He takes a step forward on the ledge, and because Dale is such a good actor, we can't tell if that step is intentional or unconscious. In a comment on James Poniewozik's blog at the time, I tried to list all the powerful images the shots of Travers on the ledge reminded me of, and one of them was the shot of Routh's Superman that accompanies the link to this article.

  • Greg C. | January 16, 2012Reply

    Thank you so much for posting this, Matt. Like the film itself, your video essay is a breath of fresh air in an all-too cynical, superficial and jaded world. I've stopped trying to debate the merits of this movie with others, as people will simply believe what they want to believe. I'm resigned to the fact that a lot of folks deeply despise it. It doesn't alter my opinion of the movie one bit. People like what they like, and such is life. But what pleases me most about your video is that it touches on so many of the things that I love about this movie. The most important aspect being that it dares to allow the characters to evolve and grow up. That was so unexpected when I first saw it, and so refreshing for a superhero movie. Yes, I loved the nostalgia of it, the look, the tone, the reverential quality it had for the character and what he stood for, the kinship to those Donner films I adored as a kid...I have distinct memories of seeing the original 1978 classic in the theaters as a young boy, my jaw on the floor at seeing Superman fly on the big screen...but to then see a movie like Superman Returns as a grown man, it made me remember why I loved this character so much in the first place. It struck me on an emotional level that was quite unexpected, and most welcome. As you point out so well, Singer's use of iconic and powerful imagery, the wonderful updating and adaptation of John Williams' classic score by John Ottman, and those nods to the past with a twist towards letting go of the past and embracing a more grown-up and mature future made this a movie that, to me, transcended the genre in a way. Or at least distinguished itself amongst the typical fare we get from this genre. It's easily the most beautiful superhero movie to look at, it's the most moving and emotional, and despite its flaws, it resonates like few superhero movies do for me. Thank you again for providing these videos. There are a lot of people out there who do love this movie, and it's nice to have this viewpoint expressed so eloquently. Well done!

  • Brandon Jones | January 15, 2012Reply

    Matt, First off, I love Superman. And don't get me wrong... I wanted to like this film. I'm a Bryan Singer "fan"! But, I feel part of the reason that Superman Returns didn't work was because of the story. The first part of an interesting movie, for me, is the story... And it was that part that I think the creative team failed on. The last time we saw Superman on the big screen before SR was in 1987. So, not only did we all have Christopher Reeve cemented in our minds as Superman (and rightly so, he definitely is still Superman)... but then SR seemingly jumped from nowhere. The story supposedly takes place after the events of Donner's Superman II right? I don't think the movie going public at large was made aware of this, nor did the film really make that evident. 2 or 3 minutes extra at the beginning of the film (referencing the old Donner plot) could've worked wonders I think. Someone said Superman was "all character." I disagree. There was none of that Superman innocence, you know, the kind that makes you smile just watching the guy onscreen? Lois Lane was downright unlikeable. Sure, she's better looking than Margot Kidder, but she didn't have that spunky pizazz that Kidder had; and she had zero chemistry with Brandon Routh. I could nitpick about how the Superman costume was too sleek & that it didn't need to changed... about how Kevin Spacey's plot to sell newly created land from the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude (how would have the right to sell this "land"?) was thinner than his hair. But I won't do that (wink)... The important point to note about what went wrong was the fact that Superman and Lois had shagged in Superman 2, and now Lois was toting around their love child. We learn that Superman bailed on Lois without so much as a goodbye? This was totally out of character for the Man of Steel! My point in all this is that the film makes Superman unlikeable... he wasn't larger than life, he wasn't fighting for truth-justice-and the American way... all that set amidst a gloomy backdrop. Performance wise? There was a great deal of magic missing from Routh's performance... although he nearly got Clark Kent right. Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the film. It's one of those films that left me after seeing it in the theatre. And 5-6 years on, the only real moment of interest that I can recall is the airplane rescue scene. SR just has no staying power. I wish I felt otherwise. As I said, I love Superman. :)

  • p.e. | January 25, 2012

    "We learn that Superman bailed on Lois without so much as a goodbye? This was totally out of character for the Man of Steel!" you are exactly right! Out of character for what is essentially an extension of the character as played by Reeve. Poor Brandon Routh asked to impersonate another actor's finest moments. Still this movie is better then Superman 3!

  • Claudia B. | January 15, 2012Reply

    Superman Returns was all character. It was the Superman film I always wanted to see but never thought I would. See, I loved the first 2 Superman movies with Reeve, but I didn't watch them over and over growing up. He was my favorite superhero, and always will be, but I wasn't exactly an obsessed fan. So when I saw the SR trailers in the theaters and heard the Williams Superman score, I KNEW I had to watch it. It brought back so many sweet memories from my childhood and Reeve as Superman. Had a huge crush on him. I was very curious about the new guy in the role. I was very doubtful about him been able to live up to the role and to Reeve's performance. But Brandon was great. He really was. He embodied the character so well I was shocked. He was so likeable and godlike, and his Clark was even better than Reeve's, IMO. Sure he didn't have many lines, but he said so much with his facial expressions, eyes, and body language. I really liked how the film was about Superman's feelings of alienation. I never forgot how in the first Superman movie Jor-El and Lara say goodbye to their son. Really moving and beautiful scene, it always makes me cry. Lara said that Kal-El would feel too alone and different on Earth because of all his amazing powers. Superman Returns was about that. About a demi god who's trying to connect, who's trying to search for his family. Awesome stuff. Seriously love this movie. It moves me just as much as Braveheart, another film I love.

  • r. j. paré | January 14, 2012Reply

    What film did you guys watch? For me, the only part of Superman Returns that worked was Kevin Spacey's performance. His Lex, is the only character that seems to be consistent with Superman I & II, which this is supposed to act as a sequel to. His Lex, fits quite well with Gene Hackman's performance. Brandon Routh seemed bland and Kate Bosworth as Losi Lane comes off as a high-schooler who ought to be auditioning for Smallville... not a Pulitzer winning, hard nosed journalist, in her 30's with a 5 year old kid - she was utterly unbelievable in the role and every single scene she was in destroyed my "suspension of disbelief." The movie in turn continued the pattern of ridiculous motivations for Lex Luthor, as villain, though.... Real Estate?? Again?? LOL - it seems his only ambition in life is dirty land deals... this is someone with the brains to go up against Superman? The most telling part of this review - the heaps of praise he gives it for being a series of visual tableaus. What this film critic doesn't get, IMO, is that it is supposed to be a story and not film version of a photo gallery. I honestly don't care how snazzy some of the footage can be, if the plot, dialogue & performances don't move me. OK great, if this was film school Singer gets a good grade for his video techniques [I suppose they were alright, in all honesty I don't watch movies that way.. the techie side of stuff can be a cherry on top of a great film... but who notices if you aren't enjoying the rest of the movie?]

  • Michael | January 15, 2012

    I believed Kate Bosworth as a person disenchanted and uninterested in some guy that showed up too late, while trying to balance the more meaningful to her aspects of her life: career, husband, son. She was believable as a person who didn't give a shit about myths anymore, as opposed to the Margot Kidder portrayal of hounding Superman until he revealed himself as one. And that's enough. This wasn't The Adventures of Lois Lane, so why would we need to see her as an ace reporter?

  • Matt Zoller Seitz | January 15, 2012

    We are bothered by the things that we choose to let bother us. Kate Bosworth probably was too young for the part, but so was Brandon Routh, who is clearly younger that Christopher Reeve at the end of "Superman II." (Singer basically pretends the third and fourth films didn't happen.) That didn't bother me because IT'S NOT IMPORTANT. Movies come out all the time in which the leads are too young or too old for the parts they're playing. If you like the movie, it's not a dealbreaker. If you don't like the movie, you fixate on it to an obsessive degree that doesn't really make sense if you take a step back. Did you see "GoodFellas"? Remember when Ray Liotta, who is clearly in his mid-thirties but playing a guy just out of his teens, meets Robert DeNiro's character for the first time? What does the voice-over tell us? "He couldn't have been more than 28 or 29 at the time." This over a freeze-frame of DeNiro, who was 46 when the film was shot. DeNiro with his eyebrows raised so that the 46-year old man lines in his forehead are accentuated, further destroying the illusion that he's 28 or 29. As for Luthor, if you buy into the notion that "Superman Returns" is a film about trying to resurrect the past or raise the dead and finding out what a bad idea that is, Luthor trying to replicate his land deal fits perfectly. I have problems with Spacey's performance, as I indicated in the original review, but Luthor's motivation here jibes with the other two movies and is a beautiful fit for the points Singer is trying to make. Your objections, and the objections raised by others in this thread, are not invalid and I won't try to argue against them. So much of filmgoing is subjective and personal. This film struck me in a very deep place. I loved it, despite all its flaws, because in contrast to almost all other big-budget superhero movies, it's more about atmosphere, characterization and feeling than plot. You didn't like it. You are in the majority. I'm never going to persuade you that it's a good movie. And that's OK.

  • r. j. paré | January 14, 2012

    Just checked & it makes sense, Kate was only 23 when film came out [probably 21 during filming] and Margot Kidder was in her 30's! Kate was simply, horribly, miscast in this role. Tough enough for any college age actress to play a woman in her mid-late 30's.. but one who looks even younger than she is? Sheesh.

  • r. j. paré | January 14, 2012

    Seriously... Kate looked 16 yrs old... I don't care what her actual age was - she in no way made you think you were watching a Lois 5 yrs older than Margot Kidder's in Superman II.

  • weareallfools | January 13, 2012Reply

    Are you kidding me LMAO!!! I don't care how dramatic the narative is this movie never should of seen the light of day!!! Did singer ask Donner to show him his cut of superman 2 cause there would be no point or plot to Superman Returns lol!!

  • Reggie | January 13, 2012

    Ok, you lost me when you ended your post with "LOL" — instead of a coherent argument.

  • Neal | January 12, 2012Reply

    Awesome. Just awesome. I found myself getting emotional throughout this essay and feel a lot better about my closet fanboyism of this film.

  • Anthony | January 12, 2012Reply

    The passion, respect, and nostalgia in this piece got me choked up. Awesome. Shared on FB.

  • Sam | January 12, 2012Reply

    This video essay is wonderful. Thank you for doing this.

  • Geraldo | January 12, 2012Reply

    Fantastic essay! Brought to my attention many things I hadn't noticed about the film's symbology. Congrats!

  • Casey Seiler | January 11, 2012Reply

    I can't believe I'm noting this, but: Superman is Kal-El; Jor-El was his pop. Benefits of a classical education and all.

  • Matt Zoller Seitz | January 14, 2012

    Argh! Brain fart. Corrected.

  • Alex Bledsoe | January 11, 2012Reply

    Just watched your splendid piece(s) on "Superman Returns." I fucking love this movie, flaws and all, and thought you did a great job analyzing it. There's one element you didn't bring up, though: the inversion of "Sleeping Beauty" at the climax. Superman is "asleep" after falling to earth and only true love's kiss can awaken him, but it's *not* from Lois, it's from his son. It's a perfect image of the transition from childhood (storybook) to adult.

  • redonefifty | January 11, 2012

    Nice

  • Claudia B. | January 10, 2012Reply

    My favorite superhero film and one of my favorite films ever. It's gorgeous, intense and majestic. I watched this many times in the theaters. I thought it was going to be like the spiderman films (cheesy), but I was so pleasantly surprised that it was better than that. I love how Singer took it more seriously. I think the drama, score, imagery, subtext, production values are superb. Of course Brandon Routh was also inspired casting, at least to me he makes a fantastic Superman and Clark Kent. I also enjoyed Spacey very much. He was more menacing than Hackman and his hatred for Superman felt more real. In general, I liked all the cast in their roles, even Bosworth, though she was the weakest link, IMO. She was just too young in the role, but she also has her good moments. So yeah, I enjoy this film very much, and one of the main reason's besides the direction and Routh's performance is the subtlety in the storytelling; Bryan Singer SHOWS us instead of telling us with much dialogue (like Nolan does in his Batman films) what's happening and how the character's are feeling. It's a film told with the eyes and through the imagery. I find that very refreshing, especially in a superhero film, which tend to be so formulaic and by the numbers. So yes, I enjoyed your essay very much. I know there are many people that love this film, they just aren't as loud as its detractors. That's usually the way it is.

  • Matt Zoller Seitz | January 10, 2012Reply

    Good company to be in. http://www.zimbio.com/Quentin+Tarantino/articles/262/Quentin+Tarantino+reveals+love+Bryan+Singer

  • Sam | January 12, 2012

    I really hope we get to read Tarantino's review some day.

  • Matt Zoller Seitz | January 10, 2012Reply

    Gee, I wonder if Jay Hardy and G Young are the exact same person?

  • Sam | January 12, 2012

    Poor detective work, Holmes.

  • Holmes | January 11, 2012

    Pretty pathetic accusation when it obvious that Matthew/Mark/Matt/Claudia are all the same person. So I guess a belief that the only other comments left must be from the same person makes sense. After all how many people would subject themselves to such juvenile writing as this article? One? Two? Case closed. Two at the max. Good job puzzling that out.

  • JAY HARDY | January 10, 2012Reply

    One of the biggest pieces of cinematic shit ever to ever rob audiences of their time and money. Very nearly destroyed Superman forever by confirming the claims of his detractors that Superman is indeed "the most boring and dislikable superhero ever" - THIS QFT

  • G. Young | January 10, 2012Reply

    One of the biggest pieces of cinematic shit ever to ever rob audiences of their time and money. Very nearly destroyed Superman forever by confirming the claims of his detractors that Superman is indeed "the most boring and dislikable superhero ever". A soul-suckingly boring, empty, and idiotic film was left as prima facie evidence of the innately boring and idiotic qualities of the character itself. People were left to reason that no better film could be made, because the character really was the terrible and unworkable. This horrendous damage to Superman's public reputation is the legacy of Superman Returns, by turning once marginal accusations into a widespread belief about him. Future filmmakers will have to labor mightily to overcome that.

  • Mark Bourne | January 10, 2012Reply

    A splendid and welcome essay. Thanks for that. Richard Donner's films were the Superman films I wanted in my teens. "Superman Returns" was the one I wanted in my 40s. I question some of the choices in its script (tying it so tightly to the Donner films being #1), but I favor its somber mood and its layers of metaphor and theme. Not to mention that it's the most beautifully art-directed film in the series -- I love its palette of warm, earthy tones rather than an expected comic-book look. It's a lovely, thoughtful film that aims for resonances most "comic book movies" don't or can't. Despite some choices that make me wonder how much studio higher-up intrusion we're seeing on the screen it, as a life-long Supes fan I find that it's the movie my mind wanders back to most often now.

  • Matthew H. | January 9, 2012Reply

    Great video essay. Growing up I never liked any of the original Superman films. I actually like them even less now, save for a few moments here and there. The campy-funtime and overwrought romanticism just didn't gel with me. Perhaps I preferred the more relatable Spider-man or the darker Batman types. And yet, when I watched Superman Returns in the cinema, I was overwhelmed with emotion at the opening titles and John William's Score. As the film went on I was really moved by its at times melancholic and elegiac tone. It somehow pulled off giving him depth and a sense of personal struggle AND the respectful, awed Cultural Icon worship.

Follow Us

Another great case for who 'Should Win' the Oscar -- this time for Best Documentary

Monthly Archives

Most "Liked"

Around The Network

the network

indiewire

categories