Last year at Comic Con, Bryan Singer did the Herculean publicity gambit of flying 14 hours straight from Australia to San Diego to show off a 10 minute Production reel. He stayed in town for some 3 hours and then flew STRAIGHT back to resume shooting the next day (the man must have some pretty good meds!). The reel was heavy on nods to the 1978 film - the farm scenes, the Daily Planet and the soaring John Williams music. Reports came out that there were actual tears spotted amongst the faithful. Not sure about tears, but there were some moist eyes for sure. Thing is, they weren't reacting to the reel, but to their memories of the 1978 Richard Donner-Chris Reeve film. Singer has professed his regard for Donner's film, and it has been echoed in the early SUPERMAN RETURNS reviews.
My own memories of the '78 film are pretty strong, too. It played at Bostons's SF/30 --it went over well with the Marathon crowd.
+++ Very Mild Spoilers in review ++++++
I'm not as confident that SUPERMAN RETURNS will go over with this summer's audiences as well (let alone in 20+ years). Yes, there are numerous 'nods' to the '78 film, but, virtually without exception, to the detriment of Singer and the new film. John Ottman is a decent composer, but to start and end the film (not to mention punctuating several key passages during it) with John Williams' magisterial score only highlights the utter blandness of Ottman's music. Brandon Routh may turn out to be a capable actor, but why have him mimic Reeve's performance (right down the end credits camera sweep)?
These homages wouldn't be so irritating if they also didn't illuminate the strange conundrum which is SUPERMAN RETURNS - sequel or remake? It's been said that this is sort of SUPERMAN 2 1/2. Taking place a few years after the Niagara Falls dalliance between Superman and Lois Lane in SUPERMAN 2. But, the pieces don't always fit, particularly since Routh and Kate Bosworth play much younger than Reeve and Margot Kidder (in that way, it's more like a followup to SMALLVILLE). And, what kind of cosmic coincidence grain of salt are we asked to swallow to believe that not only has Lex Luthor waited the 1800+ days since Superman disappeared to hatch his plot (court appeals and all), but ALSO the EXACT SAME MOMENT Lois gets in danger? For a film that's 154 minutes long, there is surprisingly little plot development. The film is 11 minutes LONGER than the '78 film which told the whole origin story AS WELL as the Metropolis tale. Here, we HEAR about the backstory rather than experience it (dispense with some of the rehashed elements from the original series and show this crucial backstory and the trade-off would have been greater).
What's worse is that not only does SUPERMAN RETURNS fail when it apes the '78 film, but that it's tone is far far darker than the advertising or the early reviews have led us to believe. The tone is much closer to Burton's BATMAN films or Singer's own X-MEN entries (this only makes the whimsical winks to the '78 film seem more out of place). I'm not unopposed to a more sinister approach -- but be prepared.
Some of the twists do work (which I will not reveal) and the general level of the production is very good. Special effects have come a long way (but RETURNS' SFX aren't as innovative in 2006 terms as the original was in its era - recall, that STAR WARS & CLOSE ENCOUNTERS hadn't yet been released when SUPERMAN was in production). Obviously, Kevin Spacey is a fine actor, but what Gene Hackman could do in wink or a nod, Spacey if forced to sweat and bluster to achieve. And, could they have wasted Parker Posey any more if they TRIED (no to mention made her look any less attractive)? The revelation is Bosworth, who appears to be too young for the part, but is quite solid with what's she's given to do. Still, I miss Kidder's devilish spunk.
I know it sounds like I hated the film. I didn't. It's just a major disappointment. It's better than SUPERMAN IV and SUPERGIRL. Hopefully, as with SPIDERMAN 2, lessons will be learned on how to make things work far better the second go-around.
On a tech note, the movie was shot All Digital. For the FX, it's a great asset. Most of the exteriors look fine as well. But, the interiors have a compressed mushy digital look that betrays the process.
_________________ Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas
|