…so now that I’ve finally seen Superman Returns, here are some thoughts.
I thought what the movie did exceptionally well, first and foremost, to such a degree that the negatives didn’t bug me all that much, was present Superman as the lonely outsider. From his voyeurism to his silent hovering in space, the character’s relatively mute performance beautifully portrayed that. The fact that he was overcoming that, or at least moving beyond it, made the super-son tolerable because there was a reason for it. It made his 5-year departure reasonable, as opposed to a selfish, out-of-character moment someone earlier suggested it was.
As a spectacle, the movie was fantastic. I loved the cliffhanger scenes that were really just there to show how super and necessary Superman was, because they did just that.
I loved how Routh pulled off the difference between Superman and Clark Kent. I laughed out loud when Lois returned from her love flight, and there’s Clark with his mouth full and napkin tucked into his shirt.
The bad: I thought Lois was miscast. I didn’t like that the Kryptonite could render him so weak that Luthor could knock him silly, yet apparently willpower was enough to lift an island into space. It bugged me that apparently Superman was so close to earth at the end that gravity pulled him back, yet a massive stone island could drift away, unaffected by the earth’s pull. Stuff like that always yanks me out of a movie. But like I said before, the story was about the alien finding a place, and that survived.
I didn’t mind the continuation from the first 2 movies at all. When I heard about the faithfulness, I kind of rolled my eyes. But I would much rather have a movie pick up after two good movies than what Batman Begins did: try to reset the franchise, but horribly bogged down by the gimmickry of the movies it was trying to leave behind.