Superman Returns

Maybe it will be a surprise, maybe it won't, but Superman is by far, my favorite superhero. I look past the ridiculous amount of powers, the campy outfit, and the flying around the earth to turn back time in the first Superman movie to say that Superman is just down right awesome all the way around.

So back in 2006, Superman Returns came out. To me, it represented the first time that my generation would get a Superman movie. It represented the first time the hero would appear in the modern superhero film which was incredibly exciting. It had a new cast, a new premise, everything just seemed new to this.

However, as you can see in this film, different does not always mean better. But you can also tell from this movie that old doesn't always mean better as well. You'll understand why by the end of this review.

Speaking of old, let's talk about the Richard Donner classic, Superman: The movie.

Its really gone down in history as a classic movie mainly because of the legacy it began. It was legitimately one of the first superhero films, way before superheroes had any type of legitimacy in film. It also had the incredible effects for the time. Watching Christopher Reeves fly was an incredible milestone in film. The tagline of the film was, "You will believe a man can fly" and that's really what the movie did.

On top of that it was a pretty good story. I won't say its the best because years later, a lot of it doesn't exactly hold up. However, it is still a classic and worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

So prior to 2006, there's a choice that needs to be made. Do you make a movie with a totally different tone and cast your bets on whether or not people will like that new tone, or do you work with what has worked in the past and make a movie with a similar tone to the original franchise? Also, do you continue the story started in the Richard Donner movies or do you totally reboot the franchise?

Oddly enough, Superman Returns decided to do a little bit of everything. Superman Returns is not a reboot, but its also not really a true sequel. Its a little bit of both.

Superman Returns takes place 5 years after the second movie in the Donner franchise. It totally ignores Superman 3 and The Quest for Peace. And that's a very good thing because if you watch those two movies, they really are some of the most hilariously bad pieces of work you will ever see.

So if you're going to make a sequel to those original movies, setting it after Superman 2 is probably the best choice you could have made for a franchise like this. The problem however is that not everyone knew where exactly in the timeline Superman Returns was.

What made it even more confusing was the new cast of the movie. Like I said, this movie is suppose to be a sequel and Brandon Routh is suppose to be the same superman portrayed by Christopher Reeve. I mean obviously you can't have Christopher Reeves play the role and if you're going to have a new Superman, you might as well have a whole new cast.

The problem is that the timeline just doesn't really match up. The Richard Donner movies were made and pretty much set in the 70s. Lois and Superman were established characters who looked like they were in their thirties.

Suddenly you get Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth playing these characters as if they look they're about a decade younger. And yet Lois has a kid she looks like she had when she was 12.

Its confusing to say the least.

The movie makes you ask yourself several times, is it trying to be a homage reboot, or is it trying to be a sequel?

The quick answer is... Yes.

Anyways, Superman Returns begins as Kal-El returns to Earth after an unsuccessful 5 year search for alleged "remains of Krypton".  Now the whole idea of Superman really believing that Krypton could still exist after everyone seems to know that it was blown up is a little bit weird, but hey, they needed to get Superman to leave so I guess we'll just let that one slide for now.

Obviously since Superman has been gone, people have moved on with their lives, especially Lois Lane (played by Kate Bosworth), who has since got engaged (to James Marsden), had a kid, and has even won an award for a news story called, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman".

Now this of course does raise the issue of how Lois Lane has a five year old kid when she looks 25, on top of the fact that she looks ten years younger than Margot Kidder did in the first movie. I guess Lois drinks virgin blood or something like that.

But it also raises the question of why Kate Bosworth was cast in light of the fact the reason Brandon Routh was cast was due to the fact that he is the spitting image of Christopher Reeves and almost impersonates him exactly. Why have Routh play Superman like an impersonation, and have Bosworth play Lois Lane as a totally different character?

All while this is happening, Lex Luthor has infiltrated the fortress of Solitude, stolen alien crystals and plans to utilize them in a world dominating real estate ploy.

Now, before I tear into the unfortunate missteps that they did with the plot of Lex Luthor, I must give this movie credit where its due.

Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor has to be one of the best casting choices in a superhero film I've seen in a long time.

Its confusing because in a way, Spacey was cast to emulate and almost impersonate the performance of Gene Hackman from the original film. And while he kind of does that, he also gives a very dark and more sinister look at Lex Luthor that I don't think we ever got to see from Hackman.

I love this interpretation of Lex Luthor. This was one of the biggest downfalls of not continuing this movie into a larger franchise because it let Spacey go from the role he did a fantastic job playing.

Unfortunately, the role, in my opinion was a little bit limiting for Spacey. Like I said, the role was cast to emulate Gene Hackman, and therefore I don't know if this was one hundred percent his own interpretation. There's still inklings of Hackman in there to make it not exactly Spacey's performance.

All of these characters have their own issues they go through and all of it revolves around the fact that Superman has returned after his 5 year disappearance.

You may notice that a lot of this review has focused on the set up of the plot, or the characters and their reactions to plot and not so much the plot itself. What is the plot of Superman Returns?

Well like I said, Superman returns and establishes himself back in the world, saving people like he used to. Eventually he'll have to stop the plot brewing by Lex Luthor but that really doesn't come into play until the last act of the film.

I've heard other reviews that criticize this movie on the lack of public reaction to Superman's absence as opposed to Lois's particular outrage, but I think that's the point.

This movie is not so much a story about Superman establishing himself back in a world that doesn't accept him, its more a love story establishing him back into the life of Lois Lane.

And this has brought me to the single conclusion on this film. Its not a good superhero film, but that doesn't make it a bad film.

If you go into this movie thinking you're going to go see an action packed superhero film, you're going to be disappointed and you're going to be bored.

But the movie does have a lot of pros to it, and one of those pros is the acting. Its not a badly acted movie. The relationship between Superman and Lois Lane is interesting and it does have a mix of emotions. The visual effects of the film are actually pretty good.

The story is a lot more personal and close to home for superman. The focus is not so much on the saving the world as opposed to getting his own world in order.

Now... all of that considered, is it a good film? Well... Yes and No. A lot of the pros I mention about the movie being smaller and more personal are kind of negated by the fact that I'm not sure that was the purpose.

Bryan Singer didn't go into this film to make a small indie film about Superman's personal life, he came into this movie trying to make the next Blockbuster superhero film. Even if he did go into it with that mindset, it doesn't negate the fact that the timeline is confusing, the casting is confusing, and the movie itself is just kind of a long boring movie with little no action.

Now that being said, I think one of the things that this movie had that Man of Steel actually missed out on was the John Williams Superman theme. Along with that, the actual visuals of Superman actually saving people is something that Man of Steel was lacking. The music and the actions do create a combination that sometimes sends off a tingling down your spine as you see a classic superhero doing what they're meant to do.

Overall, Superman Returns is not a bad movie, it just has a little bit of an identity crisis. Its not sure exactly what it wants to be. Does it want to be a personal tale or a superhero epic? Does it want to be a reboot or a sequel? Does it want to be modern or classic looking? Just a lot of questions were raised during this movie.

And whatever Bryan Singer was trying to do, it just wasn't what we wanted from a Superman movie. I think the movie going audience wanted something that gave us the full extent of Superman's powers. Regardless of what you think of Man of Steel, you can't deny that it didn't give the action that we've been wanting from a Superman movie for years.

Superman Returns might not be a perfect movie but I did enjoy it. I enjoyed it when I watched it today and I enjoyed it when I saw it back in 2006. I won't say don't see it, but just be warned, you're not going to get a typical superhero film and for the time this movie came out, that doesn't exactly mean what you think it does.

Those are my thoughts on Superman Returns. What do you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me requests for future reviews I should do. Follow me to get updates on movie news and reviews in the future.

I'll leave you with this. Regardless of whether or not you think this movie is bad, at least its not Superman the Quest for Peace. Enjoy!