Boy Wonders Superman Returns

Boy Wonders Superman Returns

A review of the 2006 film

Review Opinion
By boywonders - Mar 14, 2013 02:03 PM EST
Filed Under: Superman
Source: BoyWonders Review

Superman Returns was an "alternative sequel" to the original Superman and Superman II films - alternative as it completely disregards the third and fourth films. Now, even before the film starts, there is a major problem with having this film as a sequel rather than as a reboot; when does it take place? Supposedly it’s been five years since Superman left, which is five years after the events in Superman II. Both Superman and Superman II are set in the "present day", namely the years they were filmed - 1978 and 1980. So this film should be set in the year 1985, but it’s clearly set in modern-day 2006. In no way does this timeline make any sense. If Superman Returns is set in the modern-day (which it is) it's not five years later, more like twenty six years later. In that case; how old does that make the characters? Lois Lane would be nearly 50 and Lex Luther would be... I don’t know how old he's supposed to be so... really really old. The only way that this film would make sense would be to say that it is set in the year 1985 (even though it’s not). I say it’s not because there’s clear indications of technology that wasn't available in 1985.

So if we ignore all logic and say this film is five years after Superman II and in the modern-day, we see the film open with this prologue:

On the doomed planet Krypton, a wise scientist places his infant son into a spacecraft and launches him to Earth.

- How exactly is the scientist wise? If you were on a sinking ship and a guy said “Hey the ship's sinking, shall we get in the life boats?” I don’t think anyone’s reaction would be “Hmm... you are a very wise man." And say the scientist (Jor-el) was wrong about the planet being doomed, how wise is it to send an infant... in a rocket... by himself... into space?

Raised by a kind farmer and his wife,

- What, is the wife not kind to?

The boy grew up to become out greatest protector... Superman.

- The last part of this is imperative just in case you couldn’t figure out what was going on. “Say Tom, which character in this film called Superman Returns gets sent to Earth and becomes our greatest protector?” "Good question Doug, I hope someone tells us soon or I’ll be trying to figure that one out for the whole film."

But when astronomers discovered the distant remains of his home world, Superman disappeared...

- Who are these astronomers who have suddenly discovered these remains? Could Superman not double-check their results with his far greater Kryptonian technology? And why does he disappear? Could he not tell anyone that he was going? And why does he need to go? Once he’s left the Solar System he would lose all his powers, and I presume there might be some Kryptonite floating about so Superman would be the last person who should be checking this out. Could they not send a probe?

Soon after the title sequence, which is frankly boring and has none of the grandness of Donner’s original title sequence, Superman crashes back down on Earth at his adopted parent’s farm. He explains to the wife of his kind adopted father that there was nothing left... predictable as the sun went super nova and engulfed the entire planet.

It then turns out that Lex has married a rich elderly woman for the inheritance, which I don’t think is as dastardly as the film makers seem to think it is. I mean, he’s a master criminal. Superman, the guy who usually stops him, has been gone for five years, and this is all he’s been doing? Lex’s plan this time is to use the power of the Kryptonian crystals in the Fortress of Solitude to manufacture a completely new land mass. Presumably this is a continued plot from the original in which Luther plans to destroy the West Coast of America. Fair enough if that’s his plan, my only question about this scenario is why aren't the FBI or the CIA watching this guy? He’s clearly criminally insane yet he’s allowed to run around and do whatever he wants.

The plot quickly thickens as we soon find out that Superman’s love interest is now married and has a kid, who’s coincidentally five years old. I imagine there are a lot of polarized opinions on the subject of Superman being able to not only have sex with a human but also being able to impregnate one, but there’s so much more that I find horrendous about this film that it doesn't really bother me.

It's the last twenty minutes that bothers me most about this film. Superman gets beaten up by Lex’s stooges, because the new island Lex has built out of Kryptonian crystal also houses large masses of Kryptonite... Why? Why does this massive island have tonnes of Kryptonite throbbing out of it's cracks? It’s made from crystals that Jor-El sent to earth with his son... to help. Isn’t Kryptonite supposed to be radioactive pieces of the destroyed planet Krypton? Why would newly formed land have any? And if the Kryptonite was already a part of the crystal why would Jor-El send it with his son? Isn't Kryptonite supposed to be the rarest material on the planet? Why does every Superman villain seem to have a chunk?

Lex, deciding that watching Superman fall over a ledge, but not seeing his corpse, is proof enough that he’s dead, flies off home. Superman, not being dead as he’s SUPERMAN, decides to lift the island made out of Kryptonite into space... How? Superman has never shown this kind of strength in any of the Superman films, I find it hard to believe that he could lift an island, let alone into space. But wait, hasn’t he also been stabbed with a Kryptonite knife? But wait, isn’t the island also made from Kryptonite the most crippling of substances to him? Three punks just beat the hell out of him and then stabbed him; was he faking being so weak or what?

The problem with Superman Returns is that the plot just isn’t very good. The story doesn’t have a focused driving force. The romance story between Lois and Clark has always been the strongest aspect of any good Superman story, yet in Superman Returns it’s a side story and it isn’t resolved in any way. The film obviously isn’t gripping me if my focus is on anything but the narrative. In the original Superman film, Superman reverses time by spinning the Earth backwards and I’m fine with that, because it was a good solid film that was well paced, well directed, well cast and well executed. Superman Returns has some serious problems, the last one being why is Lex Luther yet again the villain? If you want to make an action film (which I presume someone working on this film did, else it wouldn't have the unimaginative plane scene chucked in with a load of other filler action scenes) choose another villain, one that Superman could punch and not turn to dust.

SUPERMAN Will Feature Three GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Stars - And One Addition May Confirm A Major SPOILER
Related:

SUPERMAN Will Feature Three GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Stars - And One Addition May Confirm A Major SPOILER

SUPERMAN Has Already Earned $10 Million From Ticket Presales; New Magazine Cover Highlights The Cast
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Has Already Earned $10 Million From Ticket Presales; New Magazine Cover Highlights The Cast

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

TheSuperguy
TheSuperguy - 3/14/2013, 3:31 PM
They should have just gone with a reboot instead of the alternate sequel thing.
Mears
Mears - 3/15/2013, 6:35 PM
Although the larger point that the film was pretty action-less, dragged on, and was more of a boring 70s homage- rather than a Superman for the new millennium- you are make quite a few comments poking holes in areas that you are misinformed about.

1st, your comments about the prologue are just dumb. Yes it's trying to catch up folks who may not have seen the original films (but that is where Singer lost it right away, can't make a sequel to a film that you don't think most new viewers have even seen).

2nd, Superman didn't get Lois pregnant, Clark did. I am not sure you watched PART 2. He gave up his powers to become human to stay with Lois and a normal dude. Then they did the horizontal mambo. Later he was re-granted his powers to fight Zod. But it doesn't explain why his kid is 'super-powered'. I didn't so mind him having the kid, but the SUPERBOY aspect didn't sit well with me.

3rd, Lex stole Kryptonite from a museum and fused it with the crystal to create a land mass that took on the characteristics of Kryptonite. That was pretty clear in the film.

4th, An un-explained connotation in the film was Singer's "TAKE" on Kryptonite. Singer adopted the mythos of it simply removing Superman's powers, humanizing him. When Lex saw him sweating, he knew powers were gone, thus the ass-kicking. Him getting stabbed by it was just iconic insult to dramatic injury.

5th, The decision for villain and the lack of 'action' were basically pigeon-holed when Singer decided to make a sequel to films that were more Apple-Pie Americana films versus Sci-Fi Action Films. I fully expected it to look like/feel like an updated version of the 70s film and although I liked about 60% of the film, I assumed it wouldn't be a new coming of action comics!
bs77
bs77 - 3/15/2013, 9:22 PM
Mears touched on most of the counterpoints I would've made.

The Clark/Lois one night stand in SII resulting in a child realyl bothered me in SR. And once the kid appeared on scene and was conveniently 5 years old, all I could think about it how the heck they'd deal with this in sequels. It served no purpose other than Clark repeating some famous Brando lines. It totally handcuffed the writers and director on the next film. The biggest downfall of SR was that it went so overboard on the homage to Donner, that it completely lacked it's own identity, and felt more like a remake of Superman I than a sequel.

The prologue is actually explained in more detail in the novel and some of the deleted scenes from the movie. Superman leaving Earth was a plan hatched by Lex himself. I forget exactly how it went, but he essentially falsified some data and paid off some astromers, so that Superman would leave for Krypton (beacuse Supes is so naive, and astromers are so greedy). Lex knew that there would be too much kryptonite floating in space for Superman to survive. I remember a line where Lex specifically said something about 5 years of his life were wasted in prison and he wanted to take those 5 years away from Superman hence sending him on a deadly fool's errand. In the novel there is a moment when Superman realizes he was duped and barely escapes home. The 5 year absence from the yellow sun combined with stasis during the trip were used in the novel to explain Superman's more "lean swimmer-like" physical appearance when he returned. The novel highlights several poor plot choices at the begining of the story that were left out like; large asteroid chunks of krypton still floating around; those chunks still had large recognizable pieces of architecture remaining;Superman saw remnants of the house of El with his Shield still partially remaining on some achitecture. The amazing part is that he explored the remains for awhile before growing weak, even though the large concentration of kryptonite fragments and lack of super powers would have killed him long before he got close to the planet's original orbit.

The conveniences of kryptonite being everywhere and always falling into Lex's hands is worn out. Smallville killed the special K angle 10 years ago. I just hope if kryptonite appears in these upcoming films, that's actually a rare substance. I doubt if the moon exploded, we get as much moon rock on earth as we have kryptonite that comes from another galaxy altogether.
TheTank
TheTank - 3/16/2013, 1:40 PM
Firstly, even tho Donner shot the movies in the 70s and 80s they were supposed to be timeless and been able to have taken place at any time. Secondly there was an abundance of kryptonite in the island because luthor used a kryptonite sheath around the crystal when he launched it into the ocean, he explains that the crystals utilize the minerals surrounding them, so hence all the kryptonite.

In my opinion what killed the movie is that it was based solely on the Donner interpretation of superman rather than the comics, so all references in the movie were references to that series. I felt that this ultimately confined where the series could possibly go. Also giving superman a kid just messes up and weighs down any fun that could take place in future movies, its something that now can't be ignored, and would totally distract from telling an awesome Superman story in the follow up.

But i really have to stress this...Superman Returns was not panned by critics, I live in NY and all the news papers in the city and on Long Island, gave the movie a glowing review and said it was on the top of the pile of superhero movies. I didn't hate it when it came out, i def was a little disappointed just because i felt like it had no real stirring climax and was basically a rehash of what happened in the first superman movie, just not done as well.

The FX were extremely rushed looking, Brandon Routh said they did every shot green screen and then he finds out when he saw the movie they replaced him with a digital Superman in so many of the flying scenes, and honestly that looked so bad, it made the FX in 78' look better than in 2006.

You barely heard Routh speak in the movie, probably because he can't act, and even tho he looked the part, he lacked total authority as Superman and his Clark Kent was a total imitation of Chris Reeve, it seemed forced, reminded me of Gerard Christopher's Superboy/ Clark Kent. Kate Bosworth was totally miscast and even tho I like Sam Huntington, his Jimmy Olsen was a joke, who runs around with a bow tie on in 2006. Kevin Spacey was spot on as Lex, and even tho Parker Posey is great to look at, the idea of Lex surrounding himself with morons is so campy.

I blame Singer to an extent because he was given very very short time to develop this movie, they asked him if there was anything that he could use from the failed attempts over 10 years, in his movie, and he did. The scene with Superman spying on lois and the kid was taken from Gregory Porier and Dan Gilroy's Superman Reborn drafts, except in those drafts he was spying on some random family, seeing how happy they were and wanting that for himself. The idea of him having a kid was also from the Gilroy draft. The design of the S logo was a slightly modified version of the one McG was going to use in his movie. McGs was a little tighter looking and would have looked better than the variation Singer used.

But again ill say this, and I've said it numerous times in posts. This movie came out at the tail tail tail end of what i refer to as "the first wave of superhero movies" which consisted of the X-Men movies and Spiderman and whatever other movies came out prior good or bad. When TDK and Iron Man came out in 08 it changed everything, both in 2 totally different ways, but totally raised the bar in the genre. You can argue that Batman Begins came out in the first wave as well, and it did but it kinda just managed to sneak through, because its sequel is ultimately the film that defined the series. I wasn't a huge fan of Batman Begins, i thought it was cheesy and took itself too serious, but that same seriousness worked in the sequel. Im really hoping Man of Steel raises the bar again. I dunno Ive always found Superman more relatable than Batman, maybe its because I've always been stirred by what Superman stands for, his powers are just an afterthought to me.
KalElKent
KalElKent - 3/17/2013, 10:07 PM
I hate Brian Singer he killed the x-men(which I like) & nearly killed Superman (my fave hero) but dammit if not for his shitty SR we wouldnt have Man of steel so its a bitter sweet feeling.
PeterParker1991
PeterParker1991 - 3/20/2013, 5:26 PM
Apart from the dopey kid thing, "Returns" stunk. The story was terrible. I read the book and of course there's a lot more details. There should've been more of an explanation or illustration rather of Superman searching for Krypton. Its a shame that only one maybe two scenes in the entire movie are worth watching. And as much as I respect the first two films the 1970's are over. Thank goodness for Man of Steel
PeterParker1991
PeterParker1991 - 3/20/2013, 5:26 PM
Singer really is a dick for leaving X-men to reboot Superman. Seriously
View Recorder