When Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather, was working on the story and script for the original Superman, he remarked that Kal-El's origin story was a great tragedy. I got a similar feeling while watching the newest Superman, that it too was a great tragedy. However, I did not mean it the same way as Puzo. Superman is a great tragedy because the people behind it lost a great opportunity to reinvigorate this character.
Superman (David Corenswet) has been defeated by the "Hammer of Boravia", a machine sent by the malevolent country to stop Superman from interfering with its invasion of neighboring Jarhanpur. His loyal dog, Krypto, spirits him away to the Fortress of Solitude, where Superman's robots help him recover. Once more into the breach, Superman takes on the Hammer which is really Ultraman. Ultraman is controlled by tech billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), who harbors a passionate hatred for the Man of Steel.
One person who does not hold a passionate hatred for the Man of Steel is intrepid Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan). Lois is so intrepid that she is fully aware that Superman is the true identity of her fellow Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent, with whom she is having a clandestine affair. She is not pleased that Clark interviews himself as he is essentially interviewing himself. She also is not keen on him getting involved in the Barista/Jodhpur war (by this time I stopped bothering to remember the nations and started calling them "Barista" and "Jodhpur").
A battle between a new monster and the combined forces of Superman and the "Justice Gang" is really a distraction for Luthor, his main henchman the Engineer (Maria Gabriela de Faria) and Luthor's Instagram-mad mistress Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampio) to break into the Fortress of Solitude. Here, they come upon the message that Kal-El (Superman on his native planet of Krypton) had from his parents Jor-El (Bradley Cooper) and Sara (Angela Sarafyan) sent with him. That message has been garbled, but The Engineer has figured it out.
Superman was not sent to Earth to escape Krypton's destruction or help the Tellurians. He was sent to knock up every woman and rule over humanity as their overlord. This news shocks the world. It shocks Superman as well. This news, however, causes Superman to allow himself to be taken into custody. To his shock and horror, the custody will be run by Luthor, who imprisons Superman in a pocket universe.
Now it is up to Lois and the Justice Gang members to save the world and Superman. Justice Gang ringleader Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion), a Green Lantern, is not keen on involvement. His fellow Justice Gang member Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) alleges that he too is not interested in involvement, but he does so in part to spite Gardner. The final Justice Gang member, Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) is generally uninterested in either side. Mr. Terrific and Lois eventually manage to get Superman and Krypto out of the pocket universe.
That, however, leads to the pocket universe starting to enter our world. This will mean the end of the world as we know it, but no one save Luthor is feeling fine. Will Superman, along with the Daily Planet staff and the Justice Gang, be able to defeat Luthor? Will they also stop Israel, I mean Boravia, from destroying Gaza, I mean, Jarhanpur?
I cannot say that writer/director James Gunn intended for Superman to go wrong but go wrong it did. My sense is that Gunn and everyone involved behind the scenes in Superman went against what original Superman creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz observed. He said that (the filmmakers) cannot be smarter than the material. You have to take the premise seriously, though you can have funny moments.
Superman, conversely, has plenty of moments that are meant to be funny, but which are not. The quipping between Superman and his various robots was not funny. Krypto's dominance in the film was not funny. The commenting about the name "Justice Gang" (which no one apart from Gardner liked) was not funny. Sight gags, such as how Mr. Terrific's garage door opened slowly, were not funny. When the second monster was unleashed, I thought they had brought in Stich to do battle with Superman.
It is surprising to me that people could botch such a simple assignment as Superman. I think it goes to again, the idea that they thought they had to be smarter than the material. It might also be the current notion to make this expansive universe versus a straightforward Superman vehicle. We had cameos from John Cena as Peacemaker. The film started with Superman being beaten down. You had Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo) being some sort of sexual catnip to all the women. He had Eve Teschmacher under his spell.
All that is already curious. The problem that I saw is that Superman is essentially a supporting character in his own film. I presume that the Justice Gang was not actually the more dominant part of Superman. However, it felt that way at times. In a strange way, I felt that Superman was less about Superman and more about Krypto. A lot of time and energy were spent focused on the Super Dog versus the Super Man.
It did not help that Superman has him beaten and battered often. The film starts with him getting battered by Ultraman. He gets beaten by the Justice Gang. He gets beaten by both Luthor and Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), a fellow alien in the pocket universe who can turn himself into Kryptonite. He gets beaten up by what we discover are Superman clones, created by Luthor to anticipate all his actions. This is not a Superman. This is a Super Wimp.
As a side note, the way that Lex Luthor managed to create these clones is, intentionally or not, reminiscent of how Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor did the same thing in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
One thing that was quite frustrating was how we are told one thing only to see that violated. When Mr. Terrific and Lois are looking into the pocket universe, we are told that a river within that universe would kill anything that comes into contact with it. Guess who falls into that river and manages to survive.
I think the actors did their best with what they had. David Corenswet does look the part. He does have an earnestness and sincerity that the character should have. I do question why, as Clark Kent, he has such a deep and commanding voice. I am aware that Lois is fully aware of Clark Kent's other identity. However, there was very little of Clark Kent in Superman.
As another side note, I do wonder why Gunn decided to essentially start our story in medias res. How DOES Lois discover Superman's other identity? Why, apart from what I understood to be jealousy, does Luthor harbor such hatred towards the Man of Steel? How did Jimmy Olsen of all people turn into such a super-slut where women find him irresistible? When it came to Luthor's mistress Eve Teschmacher, I spent much of the film wondering if she was his girlfriend or his sister. Either way, I got flashbacks to the two female roles in Superman III as she could have been either.
Corenswet was well-matched with Nicholas Hoult. Hoult was appropriate in his raging and malevolent turn as Lex Luthor. Brosnahan, conversely, was blank as Lois Lane. I did not care for Nathan Fillion or Isabela Merced's Hawkgirl. The former worked too hard to be abrasive, the latter was almost an afterthought. Gathegi was, along with Corenswet and Hoult, a standout as Mr. Terrific. He has a serious manner that works within the film. Mr. Terrific is not introduced in Superman, though to be fair no one is. As such, his mix of deadpan seriousness with actual skills showcases an interesting character.
Superman, to my mind, is a lost opportunity. You can't thrill to a film that has a pocket universe where monkeys are typing out anti-Superman tweets. You don't care about the conflict that Superman is attempting to stop. If people want to draw a parallel between the Barista/Jodhpur war and Israel/Hamas, they are free to do so. I did not care and don't understand why Superman would side with one side over the other. At one point in the film, Superman insists that he is punk rock.
Justice League is mercifully not a disaster. It certainly isn't as frightfully awful as its predecessor, Batman vs. Superman: Yawn of Justice. That Justice League is not a garish nightmare should not be taken as an endorsement. Justice League is still a bad movie, especially given that it really could have been more. Justice League is really nothing.
A long, massive nothing.
Superman is dead, and this is something the film goes on and on about. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) believes that there is an impending invasion from somewhere, so he starts looking for the various 'superheroes' he's been tracking down. He is reluctant to contact Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), I think in part because he is attracted to her. However, after receiving a secret notice from her Amazon sisters, she believes that the war is 'already here'.
With that, both begin searching for the others, with varying degrees of success. Arthur Curry/Aquaman (Jason Momoa) has no interest. Barry Allen/The Flash (Ezra Miller) eagerly jumps in. Victor Stone/Cyborg (Ray Fisher) is reluctant but ultimately joins.
They have to do battle with Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), a megalomaniac alien bent on world conquest. In order to do that, he has to recover the three Mother Boxes that were left on Earth the last time he tried to conquer the planet. A united force of Amazons, Atlantians, and Men put aside their differences to defeat him and took a separate box to protect. In remarkably short order Steppenwolf takes the first two from the Amazons and the Atlantians (the first on Themyscira/Paradise Island, the second in Atlantis). The Mother Box that Man hid is a little harder to find, but Cyborg knows where it is. He should, as it is the reason he has become part-man, part-machine.
With this third Mother Box, Batman pushes to bring back Superman from the dead. Wonder Woman and to a lesser degree Aquaman are opposed, but they need him both for his strength and to be the symbol of hope that the world needs. With that, we get everyone to perform some weird science and Superman (Henry Cavill) comes back to life. However, he is unsteady and attacks everyone, until Lois Lane (Amy Adams) comes to settle him down.
While Clark is off with Lois getting settled back among the living, Steppenwolf and his Minions are in Russia somewhere getting ready to conquer the world. They can do this because the Mother Box used to perform a Lazarus act was essentially left out there for him to pick up.
Now all our superheroes must do battle with Steppenwolf to save the world.
In a mid-credit scene, The Flash and Superman race to see who gets to the Pacific first, and in the post-credit scene, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) has escaped and on his yacht, gets a "Mr. Wilson" to think about forming a league of their own.
Not being the most familiar of people with DC lore, I figure this is the Legion of Doom.
There's a lot to say with regards to Justice League, but at the top of the list is just how misguided it all is. None of the DC Extended Universe films have been good save Wonder Woman, and I simply don't understand why the production team insists on piling on so much and think the product is good.
I think one of the primary reasons Justice League is bad is because of its antagonist. Steppenwolf is a disaster of a villain. His motivations are boring (world conquest), his methods of battle are ridiculous (he managed to bring down both the Amazons and Atlantians with nary a fight, especially the latter). In fact, I found Steppenwolf to be quite funny versus menacing, with poor visual effects to create this unimpressive villain.
As a side note, I know many people have gone on about how Cavill's upper lip looked bizarre and unnatural, the result of having to digitally remove a mustache he had for another film that he was ordered not to shave off. Apart from the opening scene where Superman looks like The Joker, I don't think this was such a big deal.
Despite how often we were told how great the stakes were, we never felt that they were.
It was all so remote, so distant, disinterested. I never cared enough about the fate of this world to be on the edge of my seat.
Part of that may be due to the actual script, or at least what ended up on film. When the Amazons, Atlantians, Men, and even quick glimpses of the Green Lantern Corps were shown battling Steppenwolf and his demons, I asked when did Justice League turn into Lord of the Rings.
Much has been made of how director Zack Snyder, forced to leave the production due to a terrible family tragedy, was replaced by Joss Whedon, more versed in balancing action and comedy. At times you can almost pick scenes with a lighter touch, yet they didn't melt into a cohesive whole. Perhaps it would have been impossible to mesh them, but there were moments that sounded bizarre.
Of particular note is when Barry is seeing his father Henry (Billy Crudup) in prison and is taken away. Henry tells his son something, but the audience wasn't sure what exactly he said. Some in the audience asked, "Did (Henry) tell (Barry), 'Don't be gay?'".
Despite the film's constant efforts, none of the action sequences expect perhaps, perhaps the first one featuring Wonder Woman was remotely interesting. They may have been big, they may have been long, but they were boring. I confess to fighting off sleep while watching the Steppenwolf/Justice League confrontation in Mother Russia.
Was that why Steppenwolf picked Russia to have "The Unity" of the Mother Boxes?
It is clear Justice League was woefully misguided by everyone concerned: the writers and directors and producers. I don't know how much of a spoiler Superman returning can be when Cavill is listed second in the credits. Again, for how often the film goes on about how Superman was this great symbol of hope and how crime has gone rampant because everyone thought he was dead, the film never made the case for why he should have been brought back.
When he was, we see that the film again shows what Everybody Knows: Henry Cavill is a breathtakingly beautiful man, but he simply cannot act. He was great when he just stood there, giving everyone a chance to marvel at his face and body (save for the upper lip), but when he was tasked to speak, Cavill again showed how dead and wooden he is. I remain convinced Cavill's role in Justice League and Yawn of Justice is due to the recognition that he simply cannot act and the less he's given to say, the better for all.
I frankly don't see what others do with regards to Momoa, who to be fair had a semi-good moment when he inadvertently admitted fear, but it isn't enough for me to want to see a separate Aquaman movie. Affleck too showed he was all wrong for Batman, the scene where he's trying to rally the troops to resurrect Supes being a bit of unconvincing acting.
To my surprise, Miller was good as the eager young Barry, though the quippy nature of his role soon wore thin. He was meant to be the comic relief, but after a while his rapid-fire banter and nervous 'I'm just a kid' shtick grew tiresome. After rescuing some random Russians put in there to heighten the danger (I think), he nervously waves goodbye and says "Dostoevsky", which I figure was his way of trying to say 'Das vadanya'. Thin line between goofy and idiot.
I can't say much about Fisher because he had so little to work with.
Again, the standout continues to be Gadot, who was commanding and kind as Wonder Woman. Given how powerful both Gadot and Wonder Woman were, it's unfortunate how she was at times reduced to eye candy. Twice we saw shots that accentuated Diana's derriere and twice the men expressed a sexual interest in our Amazonian Princess. So much for female empowerment.
It's to where Adams, Diane Lane as Martha Kent, Jeremy Irons as Alfred Pennyworth and J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon weren't even needed and there just for dressing. I was more involved with the fact that I recognized Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen from the original Christopher Reeve Superman films) in a cameo than I was in Adams, whom I think is the worst Lois Lane ever (not a slam on Adams as an actress, but a slam at how she was wrong for the part and has been ill-served by the various scripts in this Extended Universe).
Justice League is only mildly bad. It isn't nearly as horrendous as Suicide Squad, or Yawn of Justice, or Man of Steel. That is not an endorsement of Justice League. That is a tragedy.
I am neither a Supergirl super-fan or a Supergirl hater. I enjoyed the episodes that I saw, though throughout the first season there was a constant shadow falling over Supergirl that no matter how hard CBS tried to shake, it simply couldn't.
That shadow is known as Superman, Supergirl's Kryptonian cousin.
Through most of Supergirl Season One, the Man of Steel was incessantly referenced and name-checked. The show went out of its way to mention him without actually mentioning him. In a certain way, it was almost comical how Superman became "He Who Shall Not Be Named". Most of the time it was a variation of "my cousin", but sometimes it was "the Big Guy", "The Guy in Blue", or maybe even "You Know Who".
Now, I'll grant you that I have not finished watching Supergirl Season One so I am speculating a bit, but I always understood that Supergirl was going to be her own entity, a figure apart from her more famous relative. As far as I gathered, Superman was not going to be a part of Supergirl. Well, perhaps in the future he could be a guest star, but Supergirl was, if memory serves right, suppose to be The Girl (or Woman) of Steel, someone who would function both as well as and distinctly apart from Superman.
Reality, however, soon sat in.
Supergirl got raves (and again, I liked the episodes I had seen), but ratings weren't the greatest. Try as she might, Supergirl was floundering. Part of it might have been that CBS was, as some have suggested, the wrong venue: its audience still looking for Murder She Wrote on Sunday nights. Thus, with a guest appearance by The Flash to help it along (already a sign that the show was not building up its own strength), Supergirl was relegated from the Major Network of CBS to the minor leagues of The CW.
Part of the problem might have been from how the story was evolving. I was beginning to worry that the show was slipping into a 'freak-of-the-week' serial, where Supergirl would meet up with a baddie (either from the comic books or a new one) and defeat him/her by hour's end. That in itself isn't a death knell: for most of Smallville Season One, that was an issue (and a reason I stopped watching). However, Smallville went on for a full decade (whether it should have or not I leave up to those who've seen the entire ten years...how old WAS Lex when it all ended?).
Then again, part of the problem might be that Supergirl, despite what appears to be a generally good cast (with Melissa Benoist and Jeremy Jordan being the standouts), the concept was ill-thought. Were the people behind Supergirl making a television show that would appeal to a wide market that hungers for more comic book adaptations (in the vein of the more successful The Flash, Arrow, or the not-so-successful Legends of Tomorrow)? Or were they creating a television show to 'inspire girls that they could be the same as boys'? In short, was Supergirl created to add to the comic book mythos, or to make some kind of point about gender equality?
If the goal of Supergirl were to show that they were boys' equals, it has decided that such lofty and admirable goals are not worth losing their jobs over. I say this because The Shadow has now taken a discernable form.
For Season Two of The CW's Supergirl, Tyler Hoechlin, formerly of Teen Wolf, will become the newest version of Superman (as a side note, he HAS to be a damn sight better than Henry Cavill. Roast Turkey can act better than Henry Cavill). So far, according to IMDB, he is set to be in four episodes, starting with the season premiere, though whether Hoechlin will be in more is left unclear.
In my view, that's simply four episodes too many.
Why is having Superman on Supergirl a bad thing in my view? Quite simply, what might end up happening is that Superman will end up usurping Supergirl. Clark Kent's alter ego may very well become what River Song was to the Doctor on Doctor Who: become the de facto star of the series and make the title character a recurring, or worse, guest star on his/her eponymous show.
Already having Superman there, lurking in the shadows, diminishes Supergirl as a character. Going back to the third episode (!), our Girl of Steel simply wasn't strong enough to do it on her own. She needed her younger Kryptonian cousin to bail her out. At least in that episode, Fight or Flight, she was open about her anger and frustration at trying to match Superman and not just failing, but having to have said Kryptonian cousin come in and rescue her...like a damsel in distress. If memory serves correct, Clark Kent via text/IM said he wouldn't do that again.
Yet, unless the concept of him coming round to rescue his (supposedly) equally strong female relative was introduced in Season One, Superman's appearance so soon into Supergirl's run is a betrayal of all that Supergirl was suppose to have stood for.
Now, I wonder, will Kara again express frustration that Clark Kent is popping up...or will she, horror of horrors, defer to him? I'm sure that eventually you will see them working together (or would have anyway during the course of the show), but even so, wouldn't that defeat the original purpose of Supergirl (to show that a woman is just as capable as a man if they have the same abilities)? The show is about Supergirl, her evolution into being what National City needs her to be, not about Supergirl's superhero relatives.
I am at a loss to understand why Supergirl felt the need to instead of simply detaching itself further from Superman, it is instead bringing him on. What good will having the one being who could outdo the main character do (apart from maybe, maybe jump-start ratings)? To me, bringing Superman on board so soon, especially for the season premiere, is a sign of desperation and a tacit acknowledgment that few people are actually interested in Kara Zor-El, but in her famous relative Kal-El.
Bringing him back in any fashion (recurring, guest, or most disastrously of all, regular character) would be worse. It would be distracting. It would be diminishing. It runs the risk of having viewers wait until HE gets back rather than have them invest time and interest in his more klutzy poor relation. Should they opt to bring Superman in for ratings sweeps, then The Man of Steel would end up being her savior rather than a mentor. After all, Supergirl would bring him when it needed a boost rather than rely on the title character to do that.
Again, this is total speculation. Hoechlin may just appear in the season premiere, then (if IMDB is accurate) sporadically later on. He may even be well-integrated to where my fears are not materialized and he doesn't diminish Supergirl or Benoist. However, for me, I think bringing Superman to a show called Supergirl will eventually, perhaps irrevocably, take attention from the title character and make her the opposite of what she was suppose to be: independent and strong, one to be judged on her own merits as opposed to what 'the men' could supposedly outdo them in.
I fear that no matter how good the intentions, how clever the scripts, whenever Superman (in the form of Hoechlin) is there, he will be the center of attention, not the title character (that River Song Problem again). I cannot really imagine that Superman will defer to anyone, even his cousin. It would be interesting, even great if he did, if he ceded control to Supergirl, if they truly were equals. Whether they end up being is still at this point unknown.
I can only hope that Superman will not eventually slip into a central character/role. Should that happen, Supergirl will have failed in both her missions: to protect her cousin, and in developing as something distinct from him, serving not as a heroine to little girls, but as proof that when given the chance, girls still can't quite be as good as boys.
Above all else, that would be the worst result of any Superman preeminence on Supergirl.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is a near-disaster, an overlong, sometimes nonsensical film with some bad, downright cringe-inducing performances and an unwieldy story where plot points, down to whole sequences, come and go without rhyme or reason.
As such, the applause for it at the end demonstrate that a lot of audiences simply don't care, so long as they get big moments of wanton destruction that require little to no thinking on their part (akin to a Donald Trump rally). Batman v. Superman is a film that, at least to its credit, didn't play out as one long trailer for the Justice League films we will be plagued with in the near future. It also managed, despite itself, to give Wonder Woman a good debut for her upcoming film. However, the few good things in this monstrosity cannot overcome the bad.
It's been 18 months after the events of Man of Steel. Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Ben Affleck) witnessed the destruction of Metropolis at the hands of Superman (Henry Cavill) when said Man of Steel fought General Zod (Michael Shannon) in their extremely September 11th-type war.
Should I even wonder why Wayne Enterprises apparently is headquartered in Metropolis rather than Gotham?
Anyway, Wayne, still traumatized by the murder of his parents all those years ago, sees Superman as a dangerous vigilante figure, accountable to no one. I figure Wayne thinks the only unaccountable vigilante in the Gotham/Metropolis metroplex (since the two cities are the San Francisco/Oakland version of Comic Book World, being a mere bay away from each other) is him. Batman is a real lawman-outside-the-law, literally branding those he captures (here again, I wonder if perhaps having a bat branded on one's skin would make said criminal MORE popular with the inmates, rather than less. It's not like The Caped Crusader goes after pedophiles like Jared from the Subway commercials). Anyway, despite the warnings from Bruce's manservant Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Bruce Wayne and his alter ego are determined to bring this Kryptonian down.
For his part, Superman's alter ego Clark Kent has shacked up with Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who knows his dual identity. Good thing too, as Lois appears to be in constant need of rescue, starting from when she is used as bait to get at an Islamic terrorist mastermind. Superman can sense she is in danger (Spidey-sense?)...but he cannot hear or see or sense bombs (more on that later). What, does Lois have some sort of 'Danger Sensor' that rings for Supe's ears alone?
For his part, Clark/Superman thinks Batman is a danger to the law. He wants to write Daily Planet articles on The Dark Knight (again, because the Gotham Gazette cannot be bothered to cover this crime-fighter who dresses like an exile from Die Fledermaus facing off against super-criminals who look like clowns or wear green question marks or waddle). His editor, Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) insists Kent cover sports, but Clark essentially ignores him and goes on his anti-Batman campaign.
Into this enters tech billionaire Alexander 'Lex' Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). He is after some kryptonite, which is part of some scheme to use General Zod's corpse to make what he dubs a 'defense mechanism' against Superman and/or any other Kryptonian who stumbles onto Earth (watch out, Supergirl). Standing in his way is the Democratic junior Senator from Kentucky, June Finch (Holly Hunter).
I just realized...Batman v. Superman has three Oscar winners and three Oscar nominees: Hunter, Irons, and Affleck, then Adams, Fishburne, and sadly, Eisenberg.
Finch detests Luthor and won't grant him import permits for the kryptonite...even if his piss were called Grandma's Lemonade.
When Wayne and Kent meet at Luthor's benefit for the Metropolis Library (a most peculiar moment since, despite the two cities' proximity and Wayne's reputation as a millionaire playboy, Kent has no idea what Bruce Wayne looks like), Wayne encounters a mysterious woman with an agenda of her own. She is Diana Prince (Gad Gadot), who manages to outwit Wayne to get what she wants (even though what she is really after she as yet cannot get at). For that, she needs Wayne, and Wayne makes surprising discoveries.
Not only is there an old photo of this mysterious woman, but there are brief video clips of 'metahumans' that Luthor has been tracking. There is one of a kid who can move at super-speed (Ezra Miller), one that is almost merman-like (Jason Momoa) and one that looks like he was part man, part machine (David Fisher). Curiously, these little clips are in files that feature a "Flash"-like lightning bolt for the first, an "Aquaman"-type for the second, and a C-type for a "Cyborg"-style for the third. Oh, and did I mention a Double W for a Wonder Woman?
As part of Luthor's mad scheme, he blows up the Senate conference room where Superman finally shows up to answer questions (because the Senate cannot be bothered to serve subpoenas), thus ridding himself of that pesky Democratic junior Senator from Kentucky. As the hall is blown up, Superman a.) could not see, hear, or sense the bomb, and b.) essentially looks around with a blank expression as he is surrounded by flames and corpses.
The fact that Luthor was to have gone in (down to having a seat reserved) but opted not to at the last minute I'm sure won't draw any attention.
From here, Batman and Superman get into an epic battle thanks to Luthor, who kidnaps Martha Kent (Diane Lane) because he knows she is Superman's adoptive mother, and to save her Superman has to kill Batman. Superman, who knows Batman is Bruce duel it out, but Batman has a surprise for the Last Son of Krypton: he has kryptonite. The battle comes close to having Batman kill Superman when Superman calls out "Martha". Superman is calling for his adoptive mother, but as it so happens, "Martha" is also Bruce Wayne's mother's name. This puzzles and stuns Batman (the fact that Superman called him "Bruce" drawing no surprise). Lois, who earlier had been thrown off the Luthor Building by Lex, is there to explain things, but there are bigger problems.
Luthor has managed to create his super-man, and it turns from the corpse of General Zod to Doomsday. Now, while Superman rescues Martha, Batman fights Doomsday, then jumps in...WONDER WOMAN (who got off an airplane to get there...though whether she used her invisible plane we know not). Superman later joins in, and both he and Lois know that the only way to defeat Doomsday is to use the kryptonite lance Batman had earlier, a lance Lois conveniently tossed into a pool. She has to get it, but gets stuck, so Superman has to get out of the battle to save her (this I think makes the third time he rescued our intrepid girl reporter). Using the lance, Superman kills Doomsday but not before Doomsday fatally injures the Man of Steel.
SUPERMAN DEAD!
As Metropolis mourns, Diana and Bruce go to the funeral of Clark Kent (who was 'killed in the chaos') rather than the state funeral for Superman. Bruce now is going to find the other 'metahumans' to join forces, and we end with Lex, now in prison and with a bald head, and the earth slowly rumbling at Clark Kent's burial plot (bringing back horrifying flashbacks to the end of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
Well, with Batman v. Superman, we get the answer to the question, "Can you make a sequel to a bad film that is even worse than the original and botch the set-up for more sequels?" One watches Batman v. Superman not so much in confusion (though there is plenty of that) but more in frustration, wondering why allegedly smart people cannot figure out how to make something worth our time.
I'm going to start with the aspect that bothered me the most: Jimmy Olsen. He is my favorite character, and from what I'm told, he WAS in the movie. However, from what I'm also told, he was there in the first few minutes as the CIA agent that accompanied Lois Lane, Dupe Deluxe.
OK...I knew things were going wrong when I saw that the photographer (whoever he was) was using FILM for his pictures. Who uses film for still pictures now? I think even the most basic photog uses digital, but no, Batman v. Superman opts to have this photog use film. I don't remember him being called "Jimmy Olsen", or him being relevant to the plot. However, when I saw the terrorist removing a roll of film, I thought...this guy ain't no photographer (not even a cub reporter).
Yes, the fact that from all appearances Jimmy Olsen just popped in (and wasn't his usual self) is in itself bothersome, but I think also indicates how wildly Batman v. Superman miscalculates its desire to be something else, something unique. James Olsen in Supergirl is already hit-and-miss, but if this is the DC Expanded Universe take on the character, I can see why almost all the others went so wrong.
Screenwriters David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio apparently decided the best way to introduce characters from said Expanded Universe was to have little bits playing on a laptop, where The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg are shown for no discernable reason. There's no reason to be there apart from letting us know they are IN this universe. However, I couldn't help think, there MUST have been a better, smarter, more rational way to integrate them into this universe.
Couldn't Bruce Wayne have given a talk where Barry Allen would ask a question? Could not Wayne Enterprises be informed of Dr. Stone's work? When the White Portuguese sailed, couldn't a strange figure be following it underwater?
What a ham-fisted way to integrate these characters, and worse, not only could have cut them out entirely, but how dumb does DC think its audience is by having their emblems pop up on their video clips?
Speaking of things that could have been cut out, what was it with those dream sequences? Of particular note was the one where Batman apparently fights Moth-Men who work for Superman. The film seems so determined to be 'epic' it forgets time to time to be 'rational'. The heavy-handed symbolism works against the film, making it much more ponderous and overly-serious than it should be.
There are so many things within Batman v. Superman which don't make any sense. Why is Luthor so interested in all these meta-humans? How does Luthor find out what Superman's identity is? How does Superman find out what Batman's identity is? How was it that Clark Kent, ace reporter, didn't know who Bruce Wayne was? Why didn't Perry White fire Clark for insubordination? Where was Superman's Fortress of Solitude? Why does he apparently go to the Himalayas to consult his dead father (Kevin Costner)? What was the point of that entire sequence? What was Luthor's ultimate plan? Why was Diana Prince so worried about a picture that looked like it came from Wikipedia? Why, despite Bruce Wayne's master skills at detection, could he not figure out the White Portuguese wasn't a person but a ship?
What, Wayne Enterprises has no way to get Google?
For me, the biggest bizarre aspect of Batman v. Superman was the Holly Hunter character? Since when would a JUNIOR Senator head up a Senate committee? Moreover, since when would KENTUCKY elect a DEMOCRAT? Why not just make Senator Finch the Republican from Washington State...it be just as rational.
For some reason, this leads me to that pesky 'acting' business. Let's get this clear: Henry Cavill is a breathtakingly beautiful-looking man. When he stands still and poses (which he does a lot in this film), he seems ideal to the role of Superman. When he is modeling, he is perfect. It's only when he's required to speak or actually act that Cavill gets into trouble.
Henry Cavill cannot act. With the possible exception of The Tudors, I don't think Cavill has given anything close to what can be called actual acting. Pia Zadora in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians had more range than Cavill in Batman v. Superman.
I think that even director Zack Snyder was aware that Cavill was beyond limited. Despite his character being part of the title, there are very few scenes where Superman or Clark had dialogue. A lot of Cavill's scenes are of him posing or staring at things (if anything, Superman has a penchant for landing). I think there was a conscious decision to limit Cavill speaking unless it was absolutely necessary, but whenever he did, it was if not sad at least disheartening.
Of particular note is when he survives the assassination of I figure more than three Senators. There is the Senate committee chamber, up in flames, dead bodies all around, and Superman just stares about him with no hint of emotion. I was absolutely stunned that even a model as bad in acting as Henry Cavill couldn't bother to get any emotion going.
Somehow, despite himself, Henry Cavill is not the worst performance in Batman v. Superman. That dishonor goes to Jesse Eisenberg. In many ways, Cavill and Eisenberg are similar (though obviously, Cavill is gorgeous and Eisenberg isn't). While Cavill has become an 'actor' thanks exclusively to his looks, Eisenberg has become an 'actor' by doing the same nerdy, rapid-fire delivery, tick-laded shtick over and over again. There were times when Eisenberg was cringe-inducing as Luthor, less evil genius and more annoying nutter. When he 'brings together' Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, I literally covered my eyes at how bad he was. It's as if he were told Lex Luthor is just Mark Zuckerberg as a crazy, incoherent buffoon with delusions of grandeur who has some hare-brained scheme that might not make sense even to him.
While Cavill can be generously called a master of subtlety (if by subtlety, you mean expression no emotion), Eisenberg is the master of wild histrionics, devouring the scenery to a degree not even Faye Dunaway in full Mommie Dearest kabuki mode would dare go.
To my surprise, Ben Affleck is actually not bad in the film (especially since he's slightly above Cavill in terms of acting ability). His Bruce Wayne didn't have much personality, as he was basically a crabby old man, one who had no personality and has no problem being brutal to suspects. Still, given it's Ben Affleck...
The best performance was Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. Again, she didn't have much to work with, but her scenes showed a strong female who in the climatic battle fought furiously, like a true Amazon, Gadot has silenced her critics (myself included), and makes one anticipate for the upcoming Wonder Woman film. My only concern was in what kind of story would involve her.
That isn't as bad as how I wonder how Clark Kent will explain his miraculous resurrection once Superman reemerges.
That I think is perhaps why, for me, Batman v. Superman is a failure. I felt no emotion when Superman met his 'end' against Doomsday (a monster that just popped out because he needed to), especially since I know he will return.
Finally, I detest films that so nakedly evoke September 11th. This one went so over-the-top that it went over-the-line for me.
Muddled, dull, overblown, overlong, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is a film that will be forgotten, a launching pad for a slug of other DC Extended Universe films, mini-trailers for other films.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, is like the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination campaign. We, the common folk, can see them going over a cliff. Those in charge, however, despite themselves, cannot find a way to stop the inevitable disaster from coming to fruition.
Since his debut in Action Comics #1, Superman, the Last Son of Krypton, has gone on to become a true American Icon beloved in all the world. As one can see, the character has been portrayed by many actors over the course of seventy-five years. He's been on radio, film serials, in good movies, in bad movies, in good television...well, you get the picture.
For the purposes of this retrospective we will stay with only the feature-length films based on the characters (so sorry, Dean, Tom, John & Gerard...maybe another time). We begin with Superman & The Mole-Men, which could be considered a version of a pilot for the George Reeves Superman television series, but it was released in theaters (so it counts) and end with the latest incarnation, Henry Cavill's take on the character in Man of Steel.
Now, first my own thoughts on the character. I, like all boys, love Superman. He can fly, he has super-strength, and beneath all that, he is someone who fights for 'truth, justice, and the American way', so he's a patriot. Whether one sees him as either a Moses or a Jesus-type figure I leave to A.) your own religious persuasion, and B.) whether you believe there are actual parallels between the Last Son of Krypton and either the Prophet or the Messiah.
For my part, I think whenever the parallels are heavy-handed (like in Superman Returns), it makes it all rather self-important. I saw the Christ parallels in Returns, and as someone whose Christianity ebbs and flows (sometimes I'm passionate about Jesus, sometimes I come close to taking Morrissey's view of I Have Forgiven Jesus), I didn't care for it. Superman, as great as he is, cannot compare with Our Lord & Savior. He can't even match up against the Deliverer.
Now that I've seen all the Superman films, it is time to render some conclusions.
Despite all the advances in CGI, for me, the Superman films of Christopher Reeve, or at least the first two, are the Gold Standard to which all other Superman films are measured against. In fact, I believe Superman: The Movie, is simply the Greatest Comic Book-based Film of All Time (sorry, Dark Knight). All the elements came together: we have brilliant performances all around, a story that balances humor with seriousness, and really, John Williams' stirring score can never be duplicated or topped. Superman Returns couldn't come up with music anywhere near as memorable, so they just opted to use the original. Man of Steel may have louder special effects and start a whole new Superman film franchise, but will anyone remember the music?
Do they remember it now?
Even after 35 years, when people think of Superman, chances are they hear Williams' breathtaking Opening Theme, which gave Superman that grand epic feel and, I'd argue, makes the adventure one that is fun and optimistic (something its successors, even the last two Christopher Reeve films, were not).
Now, without further ado, let us have The Rankings:
Superman Films in Order From Best to Worst:
Superman (1978)
Superman II: The Richard Donner Version
Superman & The Mole-Men
Superman II
Man of Steel
Superman III
Superman Returns
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
As I've said, Superman is the Citizen Kane of Comic Book Films. It set the standard for all comic book-based films, from those which are also brilliant (Batman, Spider-Man), to those that are very good (Iron-Man, The Dark Knight Rises), to those that are abysmal (Batman & Robin, Fantastic Four). Not only was Superman the first major film based on a comic book, but it had the wisdom to know that, in the words of creative consultant (aka co-writer) Tom Mankiewicz, it could not be smarter than the material. It had to treat the enterprise seriously without being somber, and it could have comedy without being camp. Superman kept that balance.
If Richard Donner had been allowed to finish the second part of the two-part film series, I believe Superman II would have been as good as Superman itself. Sadly, this was not the case, and for me, Superman II (the official release) is a slight disappointment in that comedy was slowly starting to seep in, distracting from the characters in a play for laughs (sometimes at the characters' expense). This is why I recommend the Donner version over the Lester version to complete the two-film series.
Superman & The Mole-Men was obviously made on the cheap, but what it lacks in nifty effects it more than makes up for with a story that serves as allegory. The film is shockingly progressive for its subtle (or not) message about tolerance and the dangers of paranoia and mob mentality. Just as a lynch mob sets their sights on Tom Robinson with only Atticus Finch to stop them in To Kill a Mockingbird, so a wild-eyed mob led by a manipulative man set on killing unarmed creatures who have not harmed them can be stopped by the Man of Steel. If there had been a budget, Superman & The Mole-Men might be more recognized as a minor gem in the Krypton Canon.
Man of Steel falls somewhere in the middle, though whether I shift it from Superman II remains to be seen. If anything lifts it up, it is Michael Shannon's performance as Zod. He never plays the character as anything other than the menace and danger Zod is suppose to be. It almost makes it sad to see a great villain be lost at the end.
Spoilers...
Terence Stamp's Zod is just as good (though maybe his costume is more...70s?), and he is one of Superman II's strengths. However, as I said, the comedy bits are Superman II's weakness, which is why it got pushed slightly down.
The last two Christopher Reeve Superman films are just sad. Superman III at least has a couple of good things in it: Richard Pryor's comedy, the Smallville subplot and Annette O'Toole's performance as Clark Kent's long-lost love Lana Lang. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, however, has nothing to offer a viewer of any kind (except those who love bad films). It was cheap, the message was far too preachy and misguided, and one could not get past a human managing to survive flying into outer space.
Superman Returns, a failed effort to reboot the franchise, certainly looks impressive, but the story was nonsensical (one word: Isra-El), the direction confused (sequel to the first two Reeve films? its own story), and the acting was flat (Routh was good when he stood there, but not believable as a substitute Jesus Christ). Even worse, Superman Returns took itself far too seriously, too downbeat, too morose, too filled with its own heaviness to make it entertaining.
Yes, it made money, and yes, many critics liked it, but why then didn't we have more Superman films with Routh and his little fellow?
BEST SUPERMAN
The answer is obvious. No matter how attractive the Man of Steel may be (I'm talking to you, Henry Cavill), if the person can't act it don't mean a thing. Christopher Reeve could act, and his Superman was a strong man, not just physically but morally. He also had a lightness and romantic nature to his interpretation. When he and Lois Lane are flying through the air in Superman (with Williams' score again serving its role beautifully), we can sense these two characters falling in love.
George Reeves was good as Superman, but not anywhere near as iconic as Reeve. As for Routh and Cavill, well, neither can be called a great actor, and both were hampered by trying too hard to be somber and serious when Superman should be serious but also joyful. Reeve balanced a bit of humor with a serious performance, and with the exception of Reeves, no other Superman actor has managed that balance.
BEST CLARK KENT
Surprised? Well, it's by the thinnest of threads that George Reeves beats out Christopher Reeve. When one is playing a character with dual identities, one is basically playing two roles. Christopher Reeve was brilliant as the bumbling nebbish Clark Kent, which is what the role required. However, what gives George Reeves the edge is that his Clark Kent is what he should be: a real, serious journalist. He plays the character straight and is no fool.
Reeves' Kent also is not afraid to take charge. He is the one who tries to dissuade the mob before Superman has to take over. Reeve's Clark on the other hand, would have stumbled and bumbled across the situation, too frightened to do anything.
Routh got the bumbling part right but he was not so much mild-mannered as he was dimwit, and Cavill was not a mild-mannered reporter at all in Man of Steel, but a journeyman wanderer, searching for his place in this world. One wonders HOW he managed to get a job at the Daily Planet when the only things we'd seen him do were menial, manual jobs (not that there's anything wrong with that...my dad worked construction and was a mechanic).
BEST LOIS LANE
I simply didn't think much of Kate Bosworth in Superman Returns...but then again, I don't think much of her as an actress either. Amy Adams can always do a good job, but she didn't have much to work with. For me, Margot Kidder's combination of wit and cluelessness, her need to be rescued and her sharp journalist skills (in both versions of Superman II, she does put two and two together), her fascination with Superman and near-dismissal of Clark makes her a Lois Lane for the ages.
BEST JIMMY OLSEN
The only good thing in Superman Returns as far as I'm concerned was Sam Huntington's Jimmy Olsen, cub photographer (and frankly, my favorite character in the Superman mythos...wonder what would happen if Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker entered a photography contest). Huntington got the fact that Olsen is suppose to be a kid, eager, enthusiastic, and who worships Clark Kent (about the only person at the Daily Planet, I imagine who thinks well of the mild-mannered reporter).
I think Marc McClure was quite good as Jimmy and it's a thin edge that Huntington has. Sadly, we have no eager young cub photogs in Man of Steel, so we'll have to wait for the sequel.
BEST SUPERMAN VILLAIN
Another by the thinnest of threads. One of the good things in Man of Steel is Michael Shannon as General Zod. However, for Michael Shannon to give a bad performance is close to impossible. I thought about it and perhaps in time Shannon and his Zod will eclipse the other villains the Man of Steel has or will come up against. However, Gene Hackman's combination of genuine threat and inflated egomania make his Lex Luthor a villain equal to Superman's goodness. Who else can come up with such a dastardly scheme that will kill millions of people but have the bumbling Otis as his primary henchman and make both believable and even rational?
With the Superman films, it's clear we have a wild swing between masterpieces and master junk. There is no real in-between.
I look forward to more and better takes on the Man of Steel, Son of Krypton, product of Smallville, Kansas, mild-mannered reporter for the Metropolis Daily Planet, and one of the great figures in modern popular culture.
2013 marks Superman's 75th Anniversary. Man of Steel, the latest attempt to reboot the Superman franchise, is a hit-and-miss affair. Certainly the film treats the material as a grand spectacle, sometimes overwhelming one with the largeness of it all. How one feels about Man of Steel may depend on how one feels about the film twisting the Superman mythos to where it goes against decades of established lore. Those who love big and loud will be thrilled. Those who aren't impressed with big and loud and ask for story and acting to carry a film as much as special effects may register slight disappointment.
We go back to Krypton, which has a lot going on at the same time. The planet is about to explode due to its wanton and reckless use of its core for energy. With the world literally falling apart it seems like the worst time for a coup attempt, but that doesn't dissuade General Zod (Michael Shannon) from attempting a putsch. His friend, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) attempts to talk his old friend out of this, but nothing doing. He will restore Krypton or at least the genetically-engineered Kryptonians (he will decide who has the pure blood, with lesser Kryptonians not faring well).
This might trouble Jor-El, because his wife Lara (Ayelet Surer) has given birth to the first naturally-conceived and born Kryptonian in many centuries. In order to protect future Kryptonians, Jor-El steals the Codex (this skull-like thing that keeps all Kryptonian children...I think) and puts it with a ship that spirits his newborn son into outer space, destination Earth. The coup attempt flops, and Zod with his minions, including Faora-Ul (Antje Traeu) are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. However, there is no joy in Krypton, with Jor-El dead at Zod's hands and Krypton about to die.
We skip the infant's early years and go straight to Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) working aboard a fishing ship. Here, he saves an exploding oil rig, but as soon as his job is done, he disappears. In fact, Clark is now a drifter, going from job to job, knowing of his powers but unwilling to reveal himself. In flashbacks, we see how he came to be this way: his adoptive father Jonathan (Kevin Costner) constantly urges his son to keep his powers secret, while his mother Martha (Diane Lane) does her best to protect him from the troubles of being a child unsure of himself.
Up in the cold Canadian north, a strange ship is discovered. The ship, protected by military man Colonel Nathan Hardy (Christopher Meloni) and studied by scientist Emil Hamilton (Richard Schiff) are intrigued by it, but don't know much about it.Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), reporter for the Daily Planet. Also up there is none other than Clark Kent (under yet another assumed name) who goes there and finds the truth about his past from the ghost of Jor-El. Lois also finds this ship and Clark rescues her.
Lois writes about the ship and her rescuer, but Daily Planet editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) wants nothing to do with aliens. Despite her Pulitzer, Lois is rejected, and goes to an Internet site manager she dislikes to leak the story. The mechanism that Clark used to open the ship's memory also attracted the attention of a released General Zod, who tracks it to Earth and does go on television to tell the humans, "You Are Not Alone". He also tells them of Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, and demands that they turn him over or face the Wrath of Zod.
By this time Lois Lane has already discovered Clark Kent's secret, and after some thought he decides to give himself up. Zod has plans for Kal-El: he will remake Earth into Krypton's own image, which of course means wiping out the native population. Kal-El, torn between his home world and his adopted world, decides he cannot go along with this. With Lane's help (who in turn gets help from Jor-El), they thwart the General's first try, but Zod will not be denied.
Zod sends down machines brought from lost Krypton colonies and is beginning to destroy Earth. Major battles in both Metropolis and Smallville go on, and in the end, the newly-dubbed "Superman" defeats Zod, falls for Lois, and decides he needs a job...one where he can keep track of things. How 'bout a reporter at a major newspaper? All he needs is a pair of glasses.
I am not too surprised that director Zack Snyder or screenwriter David Goyer (from a story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan) wanted to tweak the Superman origins story in order to make the familiar new again. However, there were things in Man of Steel that in retrospect, don't make any sense.
Chief among them is the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman. I'm not a purist who insists everything must stand according to established Canon, but I do wonder why Nolan, Goyer, and Snyder decided to restructure the origins to where Lois knows before Clark arrives in Metropolis that he and Superman are one and the same. There is something shocking, almost galling, to hear her go up to a fully-dressed Superman and call him "Clark".
Another matter I didn't understand was why the government feared Superman at the end of the film. He saves the world, and they still don't trust him? It begs the question, what exactly does Superman have to do to convince them he fights for 'truth, justice, and the American way'?
Why would Zod lead a coup when the planet is about to explode? It does seem rather a waste of his time? It also seems an even bigger waste of Krypton's time locking him up and sending him and his crew out into space when they are all about to die. Wouldn't it have made more sense for THEM to get on that ship and leave Zod and Company on the doomed Krypton?
One more thing that was of concern was the open-ended nature of the film. No, I'm not surprised Man of Steel suggests there will be a sequel (that's almost a given, especially when we get a quick shot of an oil truck owned by LexCorp). What IS surprising is that it ends with Clark Kent going to Metropolis to work at the Daily Planet. Given that Lois already knows Clark's secret identity, what fun will there be in her finding it out?
I had expressed concerns about Zack Snyder directing Man of Steel, and I have found my fears confirmed. Snyder is a director much more interested in the visuals, in how the film zips and zooms across the screen than about the story itself. Here, one can see his penchant for the look of the film drawing attention to itself almost from the get-go. There were constant zooms that weren't needed when Jor-El rides some sort of flying dragon across Krypton. Certainly, some scenes were quite impressive (the recreation of Krypton's history with Jor-El's ghost guiding Kal-El's lesson was well-made, though a bit odd in my view), but the non-linear story (jumping between the present and Clark Kent's troubled past from elementary school to Jonathan's death) made things sometimes seem flat-out weird.
For example, when Zod takes Superman to his ship Kal-El is drugged. Here, he either slips into a bizarre dream sequence where Zod tells him his plans for New Krypton or Clark Kent is actually remembering when Zod stopped by the Kent family farm to show him all this, with this sequence ending with Superman drowning in a sea of human skulls. Therefore, it must be a fantasy, but given that we jump a lot through time in Man of Steel, and given that sometimes it looks like The Tree of Life: DC Edition, it was a bit peculiar to say the least.
The casting of Henry Cavill as Kal-El, Last Son of Krypton, was highly controversial. Granted, casting such an iconic character was fraught with dangers, but somehow, the idea of an ENGLISHMAN (!) playing one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes bordered on blasphemy to many devotees. Now that we've seen him in action, I think that Cavill is an extremely beautiful-looking man who is perfect when he stands still. However, his performance is perhaps the weakest of all the ones in Man of Steel. He certainly is the weakest actor to ever play Superman. Weak not physically perhaps (the film goes to great lengths to feature Cavill's physique) but weak in terms of actual acting. There is hardly a hint of emotion in any of his scenes. I found his Superman to be so passive as to be inactive. There is no sense of wonder at finding a member of his own people, or of worry about his secret being discovered by Lois Lane.
In fact, during the climatic battle(s) that dominate the last third of Man of Steel, he didn't register anything. He might just as well not have shown up for the flatness of Cavill's blank stares.
This is especially sad given that Clark Kent has so much angst to him. I won't use the popular term for Man of Steel's main character (brooding), but he certainly is not a mild-mannered reporter. Instead, this Clark is one driven by self-doubt, by a conflicted idea of having great powers but not being able to form long-lasting relationships (a bit like the Incredible Hulk, only not filled with rage).
The other performances around Cavill were much better. Chief among them is Michael Shannon as Zod. He played the character as a true menace throughout Man of Steel, both as he attempts to overthrow the Krypton Council and when he has his genocidal plans for humanity. Costner and Lane work wonderfully as Clark's adoptive parents, the former quietly offering his words of wisdom and caution against using his powers for fear of being taken, the latter with the quiet nurturing and loving of a mother.
Crowe did a similarly good job as Jor-El, though having his ghost there made him more an Obi-Wan type than a true father to the last son of Krypton. Yet the sadness of seeing his only child have to leave or his desperation to get Zod to stop his madness elevates the performance. Good, not great.
I like Amy Adams, and think she is one of the best actresses around. I would say she does a good job as Lois Lane, though there isn't much to her: no humor, nothing especially special about her that will make her the love of Superman's life. Fishburne gets kind of lost in the shuffle as White, though in his defense he did start out as the tough newspaper editor and only later with all the explosions and disasters going on around him was he reduced to almost nothing.
Let me address that for a moment. Snyder and company decided to do major destruction to the world (and apparently, the IHOP in Smallville), and in this we get two bad things. One, the film begins to become overwhelmed with it all: making the obliteration of Metropolis and Smallville even bigger and more disastrous than perhaps it would be. Two, the 9/11 allusions (the rubble, the rescuing of people we never get to know from the rubble, the ash-covered faces) even after ten years, is still a bit disturbing.
I think this is why, for me, Man of Steel is less than the sum of its parts. We just never get to know the characters. We don't get to know Clark or Superman, just this hybrid of a person. We certainly never know Lois Lane all that well (Perry White even less so). The woman White rescued from the rubble? Why should we care if we don't even know her name? I'm sure they gave it but I never learned it.
I don't think in fairness I can call Man of Steel a failure. Perhaps not a failure but a very weak success.
It was thought that Superman Returns was going to restart the Superman franchise after an absence of nearly twenty years following the abysmal and in many ways, horrifying Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Having as its director Bryan Singer (who had brought the second-tier comic book heroes X-Men to two successful films) was most assuring to comic book fans. Well, guess again.
Superman Returns may have done well at the box office, and may have pleased most critics, but its cold, remote manner, its heavy symbolism and seriousness, coupled with some really idiotic decisions in front and behind the camera, killed off any chance that this Superman Returns for more adventures, at least with this group. In short, Superman Returns is a fiasco in so many ways: artistically, story-wise, and even in entertainment value.
Superman has disappeared for five years. According to the legend (the text that comes before the opening credits), we're told that astronomers may have located what might be Krypton, so Superman has flown off into deep space. Apparently finding nothing, he comes back.
(As a side note, I figure it took 2 1/2 years both ways, leading to many questions about food and rest and possible adventures...as well as how Superman returned in a virtual spaceship, but now I digress).
Coincidentally (although no one else apparently noticed), Clark Kent also disappeared for five years, and now Clark (Brandon Routh) has found his way back to the Metropolis Daily Planet newspaper after some time with Martha Kent (Eva Marie Saint), his adoptive mother. His return thrills junior photographer Jimmy Olsen (Sam Huntington), but apart from him no one seems to care. Lois isn't there to see Clark: she's covering the launch of a new super-jet aboard said jet. Clark learns that Lois wouldn't be happy about his alter ego returning either. She won a Pulitzer for the editorial Why the World Doesn't Need Superman (which might have been a good name for the movie, but now I am jumping ahead). Needless to say, she wouldn't be thrilled to meet the Kryptonian she loved and lost.
Needless to say also, she needs rescuing when her plane is in trouble. For that, we have to back up a bit. Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey), Superman's arch-nemesis, has come into a boat-load of money (pun intended)...the film suggests he did so by "entering"... I mean, "entertaining" a wealthy widow "with the pleasures of his charms". Put that in your mind...Lex Luthor boffing a woman old enough to be his GRANDMOTHER in exchange for cash (making the greatest criminal mind of our age just a run-of-the-mill hooker)! In any case, as a result of his fortune, he takes his mistress Kitty Kowalski (Parker Posey) and henchmen to the North Pole where he either knows or doesn't know about the Fortress of Solitude. There, he learns the power of the crystals from Jor-El (Marlon Brando via clips from Superman).
Luthor had gone down to his Old Lady's mansion (pun unintended), where one of his henchmen (Kal Penn) cuts just a tiny sliver of a crystal to drop in the lake of the massive toy train set located in the basement. This one little bit of crystal is enough to knock out the power all throughout Metropolis, the Eastern Seaboard, and even out into the super-plane and the Air Force jet it's riding on. Hence, when the super-jet goes crazy, Superman comes to save the day.
In any case, Luthor, also learning that Superman Returns, decides to kill two birds with one stone: he will steal Kryptonite from a museum while Kitty serves as a diversion for Superman to rescue. Luthor will also create a new continent with the crystals (while said continent will apparently wipe out the eastern United States, but that's a small price). Lois, who snuck into Luthor's massive yatch with Jason in tow, learns of this scheme. However, Luthor becomes suspicious when little Jason has a strong reaction to the Kryptonite. All doubts about Jason's true parentage are dispensed when he is able to throw a piano across the ballroom to save Lois from another henchman.
Superman saves Lois, Jason, and Richard (who has flown in for a failed rescue attempt...must have been directed by Jimmy Carter), then attempts to confront Luthor on his Lonely Island. However, since the island contains Kryptonite, Superman is weak and cannot fight back. Luthor stabs him with pure Kryptonite and throws him into the sea. Lois however gets Richard to go back for him, pulls out the Kryptonite, and with him restored by the power of the Sun, he goes back, carries the island into space...the same island brimming with Kryptonite that makes him too weak to throw a punch but strong enough to lift it into outer space. This forces the evil group to flee, killing the henchmen in the process. Still, the weight of the world (figuratively and literally I imagine) weakens him so that he crashes onto Earth.
While he lays in a coma Lois, with Richard's blessing, goes to him. In the end, her faith and love in Superman restored, Lois looks up to see her Man of Steel. He in turn goes to the one he now finds is the Grandson of Krypton, who for me shall go by his Kryptonian name of Isra-El.
Superman Returns is a bad film through and through. We know it even before the credits roll because it just throws us in the middle of the story without ever bothering to set up or tell the audience anything. Throughout Superman Returns I kept thinking that screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty (who with director Bryan Singer created the story) A.) either expected the audience to know everything surrounding the Superman mythos already or B.) wanted us to basically figure it out for ourselves.
How can I put it? We as the audience were never formally introduced. Instead, we just jump into the story and are never offered any reason or explanation as to who any of these people were or why they are the way they are. What are their relations to each other? Why is Jimmy so happy to see Clark back? What about Lois? While we know she isn't happy Superman is back (and really, what girl is pleased to see the guy who screwed her and then screwed her over AND left her with a kid to boot), what are her feelings for/about Clark? I don't think the film ever addressed that.
Here is where we start running into so many problems story-wise. WHO is Lex Luthor? Other than that he was sent to prison because of Superman, what real grudge does he have against the Man of Steel? I'm sure many people were imprisoned because of Superman, so what makes Luthor so important? (As a side note, we're told he was set free because Superman didn't show up to testify against him? SERIOUSLY...Superman was the ONLY witness or evidence the state had against Luthor? What kind of world is Metropolis?). Why should we believe Luthor is some sort of master-criminal when his master plan is to create a continent that makes Devil's Island look like the Bahamas? (Really, it was a stupid plan from the get-go, and no criminal mastermind...or sensible screenwriter...would have thought up anything so comically inept). Who are these henchmen (and why is Penn silent throughout the film? Yes, he's not a good actor, but that's beside the point at this juncture)?
WHY is there a massive toy train set in the basement of Luthor's mansion? One can't seriously imagine Lex Luthor, criminal mastermind, playing with toy trains. One can't imagine the Grandma Moses whom Luthor has been screwing figuratively and literally using toy trains either. So who used it, why, and why here? You'd think Luthor could have gone anywhere to test out his oddball crystal theories, so why in the basement holding toy trains?
Again and again Superman Returns never bothers to stop and either show or tell us who these people are, why we should care about them, or really what is going on. Why should we care for Clark or Superman since we don't even know him? Same goes for any of our characters. Superman Returns in this respect feels like we've entered in the middle of the show rather than the start (or restart) of something, and given its two-and-a-half hour running time, there was more than enough opportunity to introduce the story and characters.
Further, Superman Returns does a wild disservice to Lane's character. Exactly HOW does one forget that she got knocked up by the Last Son of Krypton? Further, since Richard (and apparently Lois) believe Jason to be Richard's son, does this mean she was sleeping with BOTH of them at the same time? It just doesn't make any sense. This 'shocking' twist was thrown in just to throw it in, to give Kal-El a way to tie him to Lois on a more permanent basis and attempt to put in Isra-El for the hoped-for sequel.
The revelation as to Jason's true identity is not a shock. It really is a cheat. WE are never told, let alone shown, just how far the relationship entre Lois et Superman ever went. Whenever Lois accidentally suggests that theirs was more than a friendship, she quickly shuts that line of thought down. Now we're being told that Jason is Superman's SON?! Lois never suggests or apparently thinks that Kal-El has anything to do with little Isra-El (as I lovingly call him). It would have been one thing if she weren't engaged or if Richard knew that Jason wasn't his son, but what kind of woman would pass off someone else's kid to a man as his own? Maybe...a slut, or an incredibly stupid woman.
Then again, given nobody made the connection between Superman and Clark's simultaneous disappearance, perhaps everyone in Metropolis is an imbecile.
The performances are almost all universally awful. I once thought that Brandon Routh was actually not bad as the Man of Steel. Certain things have altered by idea. First, there was his abysmal performance in the abysmal Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (please, whatever you do, don't watch it). Second, there was my second viewing of Superman Returns. When Routh is standing or posing as Superman, he is imposing. Whenever he speaks as Superman however, he is stiff, unconvincing, flat, lifeless. There is no emotion in anything he does as either Superman or Clark Kent. It's one thing to give a bad performance. It's quite another to see what Routh managed to do: give a bad performance in TWO roles. He is unconvincing as the bumbling, shy Clark or the strong and sure Man of Steel.
The same goes for Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane. She looks bored as Lane (perhaps in an effort to match Routh's disinterest in the story too). Bosworth I confess is not one of my favorite actresses (I don't think I've ever seen a good Bosworth film) but whether expressing 'anger' or 'romantic confusion' (either with Richard or Superman) she never seems to change her expression.
One other thing about Bosworth in Superman Returns. She speaks too fast when there is no need to (for example, when telling Clark about her 'anger' that Superman just up and left...which would have been a good segway to ask Clark, 'By the way, where were YOU these past five years?').
About the only one who saves himself any embarrassment is Huntington as Jimmy Olsen. He seems to get that this is not suppose to be a Werner Herzog exploration into the dark recesses of the human soul, but a fun film. He brought the only lightness in Superman Returns and kept to the traditional portrayal of Jimmy Olsen as an eager but naive kid. Huntington has the benefit of being the comic relief, and given how somber the whole film is any sense of fun is needed.
Here is where Singer made his biggest mistake: making Superman Returns not a joyful but a somber affair. If you look at all the other actors (Marsden, Langella, Posey up to a point but certainly the silent Penn who just stares around for no reason), we can see that Singer thought of Superman Returns as a 'serious' film, a major epic to be treated with great solemnity. However, in his efforts to make it 'grand' he ended up making it dull and lifeless. Everyone (save Huntington's Olsen) treated everything in Superman Returns with such seriousness, such deep reverence, one would think they were working at a funeral home.
A prime example is when Richard asks Lois about an article she wrote many years ago. I Spent the Night With Superman (only time will tell if there's a double meaning...hint, hint...which Lane quickly dismisses). Both Marsden and Bosworth act as if they were performing Long Day's Journey Into Night rather than a long-term couple discussing the state of their relationship without actually mentioning it.
This tone of self-seriousness, this heaviness that permeates Superman Returns takes all the fun out of the film. Almost everything in Superman Returns (the performances, the story, the cinematography) suggests this is less a dark film than a sad one. The film is just so cold and remote and distant from us that it makes it impossible to really care about anything or anyone in it.
I had mentioned that it felt like we were walking into the middle of the story, and this is because Superman Returns turns out to be quite confused about its identity. The film is brazen in its use of referencing Superman and Superman II to where it suggests that it is actually a sequel to the first two Christopher Reeve films. It just isn't the opening (which not only uses John Williams' brilliant Superman Theme but the same title opening sequence) that it 'borrows' from Superman. Stretches of dialogue from Superman force their way in (in both Superman and Superman Returns the Man of Steel tells Lois, "You really shouldn't smoke, Miss Lane." In Superman, that makes sense: he is pretending not to know Lois, but in Superman Returns that is a rather odd way to address the woman he bedded and wants to win over again). When Kitty asks Luthor if he's been to the Fortress of Solitude before because he seems to know so much about it, Spacey (who is just as serious as everyone else in the film) just turns and doesn't answer...which makes it unclear what Superman Returns is suppose to be.
Having Marlon Brando appear seems to tie the Reeve films with Returns, but then we run into a mess that can't be fixed. IFReturns is a sequel to Superman and Superman II, then we can point out that Superman and Lois made love AFTER he was transformed into a fully-human being in Superman II. Therefore, he was no longer Superman (and thus, had no super-sperm). While this would tie in to Lois eventually giving birth to the Grandson of Krypton and she could have forgotten they had been lovers (which if one didn't watch Superman/Superman II one wouldn't know all this though), it also doesn't answer how Clark Kent could impregnate Lois with a child with his powers if said powers had just been removed.
Just like Twilight never answers how a vampire can produce sperm, Superman Returns (IF it is a sequel to Superman & Superman II) never answers how a mere mortal could create a child with Kryptonian powers.
I found Superman Returns neither sequel or reboot or re-imagining of the story of the Last Son of Krypton. Instead, Superman Returns is this odd hybrid that never decided exactly what it was going to be. That, more than anything Lex Luthor might have planned, killed off any hopes for a franchise with Routh as the Man of Steel, which in the end might be the only saving grace Superman Returns can grant us.
_poster.jpg)
