![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Superman Returns
My overall feeling: I liked it a lot, and I definitely liked Brandon Routh more than I expected to.
I actually think I liked Routh's Clark Kent *more* than I liked either CR's or TW's. He was sweetly geeky without being too over-the-top, and I think I might have a little crush. I'm more divided about his Superman, though that might be the writing and the costume rather than the acting choices. (I didn't mind the alterations in the color of the costume, but honestly I thought he looked like a plastic action figure every time he was wearing it, which affected my ability to buy him as Superman.) I have mixed feelings about how much they were pushing the overt Christ symbolism, too, both with the Jor-El voiceovers throughout (cool that they could use actual Brando stuff, though) and how he was in the shape of a cross right before he fell.
I also loved Spacey's Luthor. He's not my Lex Luthor, of course, but he was great as a more traditional Luthor, villainous and funny and smart. I loved how much his evil scheme hearkened back to his real estate plans in Superman I, too. And Parker Posey just about stole the movie, for me. I loved her to death, and thought she had all of the best lines in the film, especially in the scene where Lex submerges the crystal in the train village. (And wasn't that a lovely visual metaphor).
One thing I really did not like, though, was the love triangle. I mean, obviously we are supposed to be wanting Clark and Lois to get together, and yet I could *not* hope for that scenario in any way, shape or form. Because even if Jason is biologically Clark's son, Richard has been his father for 5 years, and he and Lois have a good relationship, and so instead of finding all the scenes with Superman and Lois romantic, they were making me cringe. And I was half expecting, the whole time, that Richard was going to get killed off, which was also making me cringe in anticipation. I'm glad they didn't go that route, and I'm glad Richard actually got to be heroic--but I'm really finding it impossible to anticipate Clois in future sequels. And that kind of killed a lot of the emotional undercurrent of the movie, for me.
As for Kate Bosworth's Lois: well, I don't think it was precisely her acting, as much as the combination of her acting choices and bad writing, that made her not ping as Lois for me. I mean, as long as I thought of her as some reporter with a pre-existing relationship with Superman, the movie was fine for me; I just didn't get a Lois Lane vibe from her at all, except maybe in her confrontation with Luthor on the boat.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I think what I enjoyed most were the little character pieces (every single scene with Martha, especially when she was standing outside the hospital; Clark on the farm, looking out over the landscape; teen Clark bounding through the fields; Kitty's realization that Lex's schemes really *are* too evil for her, etc.) rather than the overall plot of the film.
I actually think I liked Routh's Clark Kent *more* than I liked either CR's or TW's. He was sweetly geeky without being too over-the-top, and I think I might have a little crush. I'm more divided about his Superman, though that might be the writing and the costume rather than the acting choices. (I didn't mind the alterations in the color of the costume, but honestly I thought he looked like a plastic action figure every time he was wearing it, which affected my ability to buy him as Superman.) I have mixed feelings about how much they were pushing the overt Christ symbolism, too, both with the Jor-El voiceovers throughout (cool that they could use actual Brando stuff, though) and how he was in the shape of a cross right before he fell.
I also loved Spacey's Luthor. He's not my Lex Luthor, of course, but he was great as a more traditional Luthor, villainous and funny and smart. I loved how much his evil scheme hearkened back to his real estate plans in Superman I, too. And Parker Posey just about stole the movie, for me. I loved her to death, and thought she had all of the best lines in the film, especially in the scene where Lex submerges the crystal in the train village. (And wasn't that a lovely visual metaphor).
One thing I really did not like, though, was the love triangle. I mean, obviously we are supposed to be wanting Clark and Lois to get together, and yet I could *not* hope for that scenario in any way, shape or form. Because even if Jason is biologically Clark's son, Richard has been his father for 5 years, and he and Lois have a good relationship, and so instead of finding all the scenes with Superman and Lois romantic, they were making me cringe. And I was half expecting, the whole time, that Richard was going to get killed off, which was also making me cringe in anticipation. I'm glad they didn't go that route, and I'm glad Richard actually got to be heroic--but I'm really finding it impossible to anticipate Clois in future sequels. And that kind of killed a lot of the emotional undercurrent of the movie, for me.
As for Kate Bosworth's Lois: well, I don't think it was precisely her acting, as much as the combination of her acting choices and bad writing, that made her not ping as Lois for me. I mean, as long as I thought of her as some reporter with a pre-existing relationship with Superman, the movie was fine for me; I just didn't get a Lois Lane vibe from her at all, except maybe in her confrontation with Luthor on the boat.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I think what I enjoyed most were the little character pieces (every single scene with Martha, especially when she was standing outside the hospital; Clark on the farm, looking out over the landscape; teen Clark bounding through the fields; Kitty's realization that Lex's schemes really *are* too evil for her, etc.) rather than the overall plot of the film.
no subject
And it sounds like this is going to hit me right about where the "love triangle" on the Dead Zone series does -- both guys are too good for her.
no subject
My general feeling, though, is that Richard White is a great character for slashers, because he's a really great guy that can be hooked up with Lois when Clark and Lex inevitably get back together. (At least for those of us who can tolerate seriously smushed canons, since obviously the Clark and Lex of Superman Returns are nothing like SV's).
no subject
no subject
no subject
Ordinarily, I loathe love triangles with the fire of a thousand Kryptonian suns and it's often because (a) they're pointless and (b) they're not done in such a way that I, at least, can see the reasons why either relationship constellation would work. What I like about the triangle in SR is that Richard and Kal-El are both good men and I can see how and why Lois works with either of them; the very fact that her choice wouldn't be an easy one is what makes it dramatically viable to me (which is why I'm glad they didn't go the cliched route of making Richard a jerk).
The other thing that got me over my triangle aversion for *this set of films only* (as Singer & Co. hope to do a trilogy) is that it's really clear to me that Richard is, in fact, a place-holder. That sounds terrible, I know, especially because I genuinely liked the character and Marsden's portrayal of him, but that's what he is, right down to the fact that he even flies in his own way. Had Richard been a very different man from Clark/Kal-El and had he and Lois managed to actually *get married*, I'd have, I think, a harder time accepting that eventually he isn't going to get to girl. Because if he'd been different, if Lois had been able to take that final step to solidify their committment, then I'd believe that she was (a) really over Kal-El and (b) hadn't filled the void he left with a mortal version of him. But I think it's very telling that Richard basically *is* Kal-El without super-powers *and* that not only has Lois not set a date to actually marry him, she *doesn't even like to think/talk about it* (which Jimmy told us during one of the DP scenes).
Now, I don't think it's been conscious on Lois' part and she clearly does love Richard in her own way. But ... he's a place-holder. That was so clear to me and it probably is going to hurt a lot when both he and Lois realize it. And if I were a betting woman, I'd bet that the Richard issue is resolved when he takes himself out of the equation in the denoument of the second film. He's a good enough man to do that whole "giving someone up for love" thing (think Norrington in PotC), and I imagine that's how it'll be dealt with. I mean, the creative team could surprise me and actually let the fullest consequence of Kal-El's abrupt departure and long absence stand, but I doubt it.
no subject
no subject
Hmm. I don't disagree with you because that was my issue the second they said Lois had a kid, too. But. I also know that Singer is aware of exactly *why* it's such a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, which gives me hope that if they are intending to end the series on a Clois note, they'll handle it carefully. But like I said, they could surprise everyone and keep Lois and Richard together and it's just something Clark has to accept. Since the grand irony for him is that if he had stayed, or if he had at least told Lois where he was going and asked her to wait for him until he got back, he could have had that life.
no subject
I completely agree with you about the irony of Clark going in search of someone he could connect with on Krypton when he was leaving a son behind. That really *hurts.*
When I think about it, though, I wonder if Superman could raise a son? I mean, Lois is clearly not a model mother (who the hell takes your 4 year old kid into dangerous situations like that?), so it's not like she would be compensating for all the times he had to fly away and save the world.
And if this film is really the unofficial sequel to Superman II (I didn't realize that before reading your review, actually), don't we still have the Larry Niven "Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue" problem? I'm not sure I, personally, would give up a stable parent and the possibility of sex even if I was actually in love with Superman. Unless the whole "Why the world doesn't need Superman" thing was to set up another "Clark giving up his powers" scenario. But I doubt they're going there, since that's been done already.
no subject
I *hate* that Larry Niven article, so I pretty much discount it in its entirety (and really, as a Clark/Lex slasher I can't reasonably countenance it because what's okay for Lex is okay for Lois). SV helped with this, too, since Jor-El clearly slept with Louise without any problem. And in general, Superman has the same capacity for proprioception that you and I do. Niven's article has never been a part of my understanding of Superman, so it's just not an issue for me.
(And that isn't me being ranty at you; it's me hating on Niven's article (partly because there's a vaguely misogynist undertone to it that makes my teeth itch)).
When I think about it, though, I wonder if Superman could raise a son?
It's certainly an interesting question and one I don't have an answer to. Of course, that's what's heartbreaking, to me, about Superman: he has all these amazing powers, and he chooses to use them for Good, but in doing so, he necessarily must cut himself off from any number of normative connections he could otherwise have.
I mean, Lois is clearly not a model mother (who the hell takes your 4 year old kid into dangerous situations like that?), so it's not like she would be compensating for all the times he had to fly away and save the world.
In Lois' defense, she had no idea that Lex Luthor was behind that situation. For all she knew, it could have been some teenager whose science experiment got really out of hand. I agree that it didn't make a lot of sense to try tracking down a lead when she obviously had somewhere else to be right then *and* had Jason in tow, but I can't condemn her for being heedless with Jason's well-being because I didn't see anything to suggest that she knew, or should have known, someone dangerous was going to answer the door.
no subject
I guess you're right that Lois wasn't deliberately endangering Jason, but it still didn't seem like a great idea to be dragging your kid along trespassing on a boat, even if you're not expecting danger.
no subject
See, if I ever wanted to be reasonable about Niven's article, then I'd say that yeah, that's why he had to give up his powers in SII.
But I am apparently constitutionally incapable of being reasonable about that article, so I've always fanwanked it as Lara, at least, having enough sense to know that Kal-El would probably only be able to let himself live as a human, unconcerned with being a protector because of his abilities, if he really was one. In other words, Lara knew that he could probably only ever experience normative happiness if he didn't feel the weight of responsibility that comes with having those abilities.
What? I can fanwank with the best of 'em when I need to. ;-) Seriously, though, I just refuse to acknowledge that article. There are very, very, very few things about which I am fannishly intransigent, but that? Is one of them. I give it *less than zero* consideration and weight.
no subject
An easier fanwank of Lara's speech is that as long as he had his powers, he would be unable to have children with Lois (like maybe they affected his DNA or something?) and since Lara probably has a vested interest in the passing on of Kryptonian genes, she wants him to reproduce.
I thought it was pretty interesting, btw, that they suggested that this particular interspecies mating had had problems, like Jason's asthma.
no subject
Oh, I like that fanwank even better than mine! I think I shall adopt it (and love it and pet it and call it George *g*) because yes. It is good.
I thought it was pretty interesting, btw, that they suggested that this particular interspecies mating had had problems, like Jason's asthma.
Yeah, I really liked that, too. I think it's more realistic than Jason automatically having all of Clark/Kal-El's abilities because you're right, of course: Clark and Lois aren't the same species, so the combination of their DNA shouldn't have been seamless.
Oh, the thing I didn't comment on before in your original post is that I totally agree with you about BR's Clark. I do like him better than TW's version and even, yes, CR's. Part of it is that I'm not a big fan of the idea that Clark is the 'mask' and Superman the 'real person', and Reeve's Clark/Superman dichotomy played into that big time. Whereas with Routh, while I do think Clark is partly cover for Superman, I nevertheless think he's still a *part* of Superman. Like, that's probably the person Superman would be if he didn't have these awesome powers and if he hadn't chosen to use them the way he does. And that person is very sweet and endearing and possessed of this quiet, earnest grace.
As for Routh!Clark vs. Welling!Clark, I think this movie confirmed for me that *for me*, adult!Clark is where it's at. He clearly wasn't *happy* about how much things had changed in his absence, but he also accepted that it was something he'd more or less done to himself and for the most part, he sucked it up and dealt. Plus, again, with the sweetness. To me, the sweetness is at the core of Clark/Kal-El; it isn't just that he's a good, decent man, he's a *nice* one, too, for the most part. And while Welling's Clark isn't actually mean, and he's capable of niceness, it's been a long time -- probably since as far back as S2/first half of S3 -- where I've felt like that sweetness is *inherent* in his character.
So yeah, Routh is my favorite Clark. I loved his Superman, too, but I haven't quite decided where I rank him.
no subject
Yes--exactly. I think CR played Clark a little too much like Superman's mask, whereas Routh played him as one of Superman's layers.
To me, the sweetness is at the core of Clark/Kal-El; it isn't just that he's a good, decent man, he's a *nice* one, too, for the most part. And while Welling's Clark isn't actually mean, and he's capable of niceness, it's been a long time -- probably since as far back as S2/first half of S3 -- where I've felt like that sweetness is *inherent* in his character.
Yes, yes, yes exactly. I don't really blame too much of Clark's characterization on TW--the writers want him to be tortured, not dorky and sweet--but the sweetness is what I like about Clark, and why I loved Routh's performance so much.
In fact, I just tried to post a similar thing on your review, and got an error message (possibly because in another window I was *cough* playing sockpuppet *cough*), but I really liked what you said about the Clark we see on the farm being the real Clark, uniting the layers of Clark and Superman. And since I'm very open to other people's readings of things, I may go see another showing of the movie tomorrow after I watch The Devil Wears Prada, and see if your interpretation of Routh's Superman allows me to see past the plastic cape.
no subject
That is a *perfect* and perfectly succint articulation of it. *applause* I may steal it. ;-)
I don't really blame too much of Clark's characterization on TW--the writers want him to be tortured, not dorky and sweet
*nods* Agreed. We even talked about this a little back when Fragile aired, because what made Clark such a joy to watch in that episode was that Welling had free rein, thanks to the screenplay and probably his own direction, to work with Clark's sweetness for a change.
but I really liked what you said about the Clark we see on the farm being the real Clark, uniting the layers of Clark and Superman.
I know that there is more footage of Clark's time on the farm because I've seen still images of things that were filmed but cut (probably because it was a lot of Clark solitary), so maybe on the DVD, we'll get more that (personally, i would have liked more of meditative!Clark than, say, Lois drippily arguing with Perry over her article and like you, I'm someone who normally likes Bosworth and probably would have unreservedly liked her in this if she'd just been playing Random Girl Reporter Clark Loves). But in those few brief moments we did get, I felt like "That's who Kal-El fully is when he can just be himself."
Sorry to spam your journal like this. It's just that I really could talk about the various aspects of this movie for days, but you, Bop and only one or two others have written really substantive reviews of it so far. (Also, I think I have managed to use almost all of my BR icons in my replies, because I am nothing if not an occasionally sneaky enabler.)
no subject
And your BR icons have been making me a little jealous, but I decided I wouldn't use one often enough to merit making one.
I'd really like to see the deleted scenes from this, because the farm stuff was definitely was my favorite part of the film.
no subject
I saw it, but her experience of the film was so radically different from mine, and her frame of reference for that experience so unlike mine (I love the Donner movie, too, but I don't think it's flawless, I've always had issues with Reeve's Clark and there are aspects of Kidder's Lois that I actively dislike), that trying to engage about it would probably lead to frustration for both of us. Her reaction is what it is, but it's one I can't relate to enough to be able to have a fruitful convo, I don't think.
I'd really like to see the deleted scenes from this, because the farm stuff was definitely was my favorite part of the film.
I have the visual guide to the movie, and I've seen a couple of BTS specials on it now, so I know for a fact that there was more of Clark sort of ... ruminating to himself about what he was going to do now that he's back. For example, there's a sequence where he goes into the barn and finds that Martha has saved five years' worth of DPs for him so he can catch up on everything that happened while he was away. *That* scene is actually where he first encounters Lois' 'Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" article. And at least one of the trailers suggests that his conversation with Martha was longer than what's actually in the movie, because Eva Marie Saint had the lines "Your father used to say you were put here for a purpose" and "The world can always use more good reporters"; I suspect Martha and Clark discussed what he was going to do with himself, and she's the one who suggested he try to get his old job back.
Now. I can see why some of that stuff was cut: no matter how good an actor someone is, people get nervous about the idea of asking audiences to watch someone think to themselves for longer than a minute or two and that material probably comprised four or five minutes of screentime. But personally, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of Clark, in the wake of initially reading Lois' article, struggling *himself* with the question of does he even need to put the suit back on, does the world need him.
The only thing I can think for the shortening of Clark and Martha's conversation is they preferred the impact of Clark just walking back into the DP rather than letting us know beforehand that he was going to go back and then showing him going back. Still, like you, I really liked the farm scenes and one of the genuine complaints I have about the movie *is* that there's arguably not enough of Clark. Had the longer farm sequence(s) been kept in, I probably wouldn't have that problem. Like I said, I can understand nervousness about asking people to watch an actor think for 4-6 minutes. But I hope those sequences are on the DVD set.
no subject
no subject
I just watched Superman III tonight (it was on, and I was curious as to whether it was as bad as I remembered), and even though Singer & Co. are using Superman I & II as their backstory, it's actually movie canon that Superman can have sex with a human. Because he does in SIII, with the villain's henchwoman. Granted, it's during a period where something's affecting him the way red kryptonite affects SV Clark -- making him an amoral version of himself -- but it didn't affect his *powers*. He slept with the henchwoman without killing her, so in movie-verse (as well as SV-verse) Kryptonians can safely have sex with humans.
Not that it matters any more because I've decided that Lois needs to stay with Richard and for the sequels, Clark should get someone like Cat Grant or a *completely-nothing-like-SV's-version* Lana Lang.
no subject
Oh, now that you mention it, I have a very vague memory of that. (Superman III is the one with Richard Pryor, right?) Weird, though, because it makes Superman II just bizarre.
My personal favorite solution to love triangles is generally threesomes, but I suppose that's unlikely to happen onscreen.
no subject
Mmm, yes I noticed that too. But the little mini burning church in Lex's miniature set made up for it for me. Because I found that too cute a touch for words!
I loved her to death, and thought she had all of the best lines in the film, especially in the scene where Lex submerges the crystal in the train village.
She was awesome! That was my favourite scene. I also loved her for bringing a lace umbrella to New Krypton! Hee! And 'weren't there two of those...?' (I secretly wish that Posey had been cast as Lois.)
instead of finding all the scenes with Superman and Lois romantic, they were making me cringe
WORD.
I'm really finding it impossible to anticipate Clois in future sequels. And that kind of killed a lot of the emotional undercurrent of the movie, for me.
Yeah for me too. I don't find the idea of Lois abandoning a good relationship that she's been in for five years romantic at all. And Richard sooo doesn't deserve that. I was very uneasy in the supposedly romantic scenes. Next time I watch the movie, I'm fastforwarding them for sure.
no subject
Posey might have made a better Lois--I'm not sure, actually. Someone's review (maybe LaT's?) mentioned that part of the reason Posey was so good is that this part made good use of her usual range of acting tics, and I think that was true. I'm not sure it would have worked so well for Lois. I generally like Kate Bosworth, too, so I'm going to blame it on writing and directing.
no subject
no subject
no subject