Superman Returns as a Deadbeat Dad
I've always liked superheros. I used to read comic books religiously, especially X-Men and some of the DC titles like Legion of Superheros or Dark Knight Returns. But Superman, well, he's never been my favorite. In the Dark Knight Returns, a 60 year-old, alcoholic Batman comes out of retirement to clean up the streets, and he ends up going one-on-one against Superman, who's become an agent of the government, or a tool of "the man." That was always the problem with Superman, he was so powerful that it took bizarre scenarios to cause him any problems, and it seemed like everyone had a little kryptonite stashed away somewhere. It was too much. But in the movies from the late 70's and early 80's with Christopher Reeve they at least managed to make it funny, and the Superman phenomenon probably peaked with Superman II, with the super-cheesy and quotable nemesis General Zod, who was about ten times more entertaining than Lex Luthor.
More recently there's the TV show Smallville, which covers Superman's teenage years and wants to be some kind of cross between the OC and Buffy. No thanks. But I have a feeling that show is part of the reason they decided to make a new Superman movie, and it might also be part of the reason they made such a mess of it.
Superman Returns seems to want to have it all. It wants to recapture the cheesy enthusiasm of the 80's movies, and also tap into that teenage angst thing as well. This is a mistake. First, Kevin Spacey does an OK job as Luthor, intentionally hamming it up the way Gene Hackman did in the original. Spacey is one of the most over-rated actors on the planet, but his tics and mannerisms work well enough when it's meant to be a joke. He's actually much better at comedy than drama in any case, just look at his version of Christopher Walken as Han Solo on SNL. But aside from his jokey-acting, there's really nothing for him to do. The ludicrous plot isn't so much the problem as is the fact that they spend so MUCH TIME on the ludicrous plot. Parker Posey is merely annoying as Luthor's moll, and the henchman are worse than useless. Kal Penn, who was great in "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" doesn't even get to talk in the movie, and the only memorable moment for any of these side characters is when one of them plays Chopsticks on the piano with Lois Lane's young son.
Which brings us to the crucible of this movie's badness. And here I'm going to offer up some spoilers, but frankly, if you haven't seen the movie yet, do you really care? Superman has been gone from Earth for a few years, looking for remnants of his home planet, and while he was gone, Lois Lane really nursed a grudge against him, going so far as to write an article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" which somehow wins the Pulitzer! So, now that he's back, Lois is even angrier. But she's moved on hasn't she? She's got a son, and she's got a boyfriend who she hasn't married yet. Which is odd, isn't it? Why wouldn't Lois marry the father of her child? Is this an illogical plot device installed just to leave the door open for Superman? But hold on now, the new boyfriend is a bit of a stiff, and Superman (as Clark Kent) seems to bond with Lois's son. Interesting. What could this mean? Well, as we learn later, this asthmatic child seems to have super-strength! Where could this have come from? Hmmm. Eventually it becomes clear that Superman and Lois did the deed and she had a super-baby, and Superman took off, to "find himself" I guess. Now Lois has a new guy, who may or may not think he's the dad, it's not entirely explained, but Lois loves Superman of course. How complicated! And kind of distasteful. Is this an attempt to humanize Superman? If so, it's a disaster. The last thing we need is to imagine what it would be like if Superman were on the Jerry Springer Show. And what's the message here? At the end of the movie, Superman gives the sleeping boy some fatherly sort of speech that his dad gave to him, and then he flies off, telling Lois he'll "be around." That's great. So, he fathers a child and then takes off, but he'll be back every once in a while. How about some financial support, Superman? How about a regular schedule of visits? No? You've got some stuff to do back at the Fortress of Solitude? Oh, ok, then.
So this is what we get when they try to mix 80's cheese with teenage earnestness. An absolute mess with mixed messages galore, and no fun. If they somehow manage to make a sequel to Superman Returns, I hope Batman returns as well, to knock some sense into him.
More recently there's the TV show Smallville, which covers Superman's teenage years and wants to be some kind of cross between the OC and Buffy. No thanks. But I have a feeling that show is part of the reason they decided to make a new Superman movie, and it might also be part of the reason they made such a mess of it.
Superman Returns seems to want to have it all. It wants to recapture the cheesy enthusiasm of the 80's movies, and also tap into that teenage angst thing as well. This is a mistake. First, Kevin Spacey does an OK job as Luthor, intentionally hamming it up the way Gene Hackman did in the original. Spacey is one of the most over-rated actors on the planet, but his tics and mannerisms work well enough when it's meant to be a joke. He's actually much better at comedy than drama in any case, just look at his version of Christopher Walken as Han Solo on SNL. But aside from his jokey-acting, there's really nothing for him to do. The ludicrous plot isn't so much the problem as is the fact that they spend so MUCH TIME on the ludicrous plot. Parker Posey is merely annoying as Luthor's moll, and the henchman are worse than useless. Kal Penn, who was great in "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" doesn't even get to talk in the movie, and the only memorable moment for any of these side characters is when one of them plays Chopsticks on the piano with Lois Lane's young son.
Which brings us to the crucible of this movie's badness. And here I'm going to offer up some spoilers, but frankly, if you haven't seen the movie yet, do you really care? Superman has been gone from Earth for a few years, looking for remnants of his home planet, and while he was gone, Lois Lane really nursed a grudge against him, going so far as to write an article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" which somehow wins the Pulitzer! So, now that he's back, Lois is even angrier. But she's moved on hasn't she? She's got a son, and she's got a boyfriend who she hasn't married yet. Which is odd, isn't it? Why wouldn't Lois marry the father of her child? Is this an illogical plot device installed just to leave the door open for Superman? But hold on now, the new boyfriend is a bit of a stiff, and Superman (as Clark Kent) seems to bond with Lois's son. Interesting. What could this mean? Well, as we learn later, this asthmatic child seems to have super-strength! Where could this have come from? Hmmm. Eventually it becomes clear that Superman and Lois did the deed and she had a super-baby, and Superman took off, to "find himself" I guess. Now Lois has a new guy, who may or may not think he's the dad, it's not entirely explained, but Lois loves Superman of course. How complicated! And kind of distasteful. Is this an attempt to humanize Superman? If so, it's a disaster. The last thing we need is to imagine what it would be like if Superman were on the Jerry Springer Show. And what's the message here? At the end of the movie, Superman gives the sleeping boy some fatherly sort of speech that his dad gave to him, and then he flies off, telling Lois he'll "be around." That's great. So, he fathers a child and then takes off, but he'll be back every once in a while. How about some financial support, Superman? How about a regular schedule of visits? No? You've got some stuff to do back at the Fortress of Solitude? Oh, ok, then.
So this is what we get when they try to mix 80's cheese with teenage earnestness. An absolute mess with mixed messages galore, and no fun. If they somehow manage to make a sequel to Superman Returns, I hope Batman returns as well, to knock some sense into him.
posted by mdl 1550 at
7:39 AM
18 Comments:
I personally have never seen the Superman movies, but I do remember vaguely as a kid watching the tv series when I was a lot younger. After reading your blog I really have no interest in seeing this movie, even though I never had in the first place. It seems in the way you described it, as a estranged love story. It's obvious that Lois and Superman are in love and will always come back to each other. I think that starting off reading your analysis with a background on your past views of superman of course influenced your current view of the superhero. I understand also the logic of your argument describing why this movie stems off a teenage drama. Also, I have and hopefully will never see Smallville, the commercials alone detract me greatly from that genre and I see where you were coming from there. I am glad that I got to get a truthful review of this movie and it really isn't at all shocking to me that they made this action packed heroic story into a tragic love story that harps on the love between a father and a son. Also about that, it is hard for me to believe that just because Superman is that kid's dad doesn't mean that there will immediately be that spark between the two of them, my best friend's father wasn't in her life when she was young and isn't even anymore but when I saw them interact trust me there was no spark of operant knowledge that they were blood related. I just find the whole story very far fetched and 'Hollywood'.
I agree with Ainsley about the part about being bias towards Superman therefore it affected your view of the movie. But I have to agree, I didn't really like the movie when I saw it. I haven't seen Smallville so I can't really relate to the reference but I have seen the OC so that pretty much talks for itself. I also like the idea that this story is very "Hollywood", I mean of course the son has to have super powers and of course he can relate well to Superman despite not having talked to him pretty much. The movie was just so predictable in general. But the ending really bothered me when he just said that he'll "be around". That's just not a good conclusion on any sort of level. It was just kind of a dragged out story that focused less on "Superman the Hero" and more on "Superman the Lover/Father" which doesn't really make much sense because Superman wasn't really made for that role.
I am not really a follower of comic heros but Superman was one of those characters that have become entrenched in our popular culture. The man in spandex wielding extreme powers is a form of escapism that we all crave for. The character of Superman appeals because we all harbored or still harbor grandiose intentions of how we can be a hero and change the world for the better. In this light, we want Superman to do things we cannot do.
Superman was never meant to be like normal people. I do not believe that Superman Returns is a bad movie although I would not rate it as one of my favourites. In it, Superman has this flight scenes where he scoots off from place to place without any sense of attachement or responsibility. In the case of his son, if he did settle down or provide financial support or form a nice,peaceful family unit he would no longer be a "Super"man, he would just be like one of us.
The appeal of his character lies in him being different and unsual. Taking that away and normalising him, would be a mistake in terms of branding and commercially.
I've never read a comic book in my life nor do I really watch superhero movies. I have seen Batman Begins and I thought it was pretty creative, and Michael Cane as Alfred was a nice transition- but that's neither here nor there. I remember coming home from work one day and my sister and her friend were watching Superman Returns, and I couldn't figure out why they were wasting their time. I also had to put up with hearing about the movie and free ticket give aways on the radio at work- so I share some bias against the Man of Metropolis as well.
Let's face it, Hollywood producers just want to make money; and since Superman has done every rediculous thing screenwriters can scribble, the deadbeat dad role seems to be something new. But I've always thought superheros were role-models; their outstanding morales were what made them "super" and were the hidden traits we were left to desire, not their crazy powers (though who doesn't want to fly?). I haven't seen the movie, but just from your review I can tell that this movie does not exemplify a positive message to the masses. As Rama said, he is no longer "super" man- since he lost admirable character, he's now just another deadbeat father.
You presented the back story, the casting of actors, and rated their performance with an intelligent air. The review further confirmed that I will never waste my time watching this movie. I'm not a big Superman fan, but I do like the first loop on the ride at Six Flags. Maybe that rides symbolizes Superman's career; off with a bang and drizzling lamely out until the end.
After reading your analysis I am not so interested in seeing this movie. I actually didn't even know it was out and have only heard bad reviews about it so I wasn't planning on it anyway. I think a lot of the comic books are a lot different than the movies they make them into and that most should just have stayed out of Hollywood. I have never been interested in the TV show Smallville and actually didn't even know it had anything to do with Superman. Although I have not seen most of the shows you refer to in ur analysis I like by using a variety of shows it helps the reader relate to what your main point is. You support your point that it seems to show a lot of teenage issues and drama. I like the fact that you used questions in your response because it gets the reader thinking about them. Although you did not care for the Superman remakes I would if you would like the Spiderman movies. I really enjoy them and think they do a good job of turning it from a comic book to a movie. The third Spiderman movie comes out soon.
From reading your analysis it's very apparent that you have bias towards the man of steel. Your bias is well backed by the idea that creating a virtually indestructable superhero who has to be destructable to a certain extent to be entertaining is idiotic. In my opinion that's what is wrong is the entire legend of Superman. Your argument is well supported by logos and it also uses ethos as prominent weapon as well. Nearing the end you tend to pounce on relevant issues today like single parent families and deadbeat dads. The concept is genious because it works and I'm not just saying that because you're the instructor, but as a product of a once nuclear family turned single parented family, I've witnessed both sides of the argument. Honestly before reading that last part I never even fathamed the thought of superman being a deadbeat dad or even likening him to my own.
Truthfully, I was a little confused about the post on "Superman Returns." Maybe because I have never seen Superman or any type of movie of the sort. In fact, I'm not even a movie person at all. I've seen close to zero classics and I couldn't even follow the names of any actors discussed. That point aside, I do still have opinions about the mixing of superhero style plots and what you described to be teenage earnestness. I don't think it's always smart to produce later, more advanced sequels of such famous movies, for it tends to drown out its authenticity. Furthermore, turning an action movie into a weak drama-filled production is barely ever successful. I mainly agree with your theory about how this movie was simply a horrible film, and it sounds like nothing I would see. However, I must say that if this is going to be advertised as a movie for children or young adults, it is important to keep the family message at the end to show viewers that Superman's life isn't actually reality.
I have never seen any of the Superman movies...but I can understand now that I have not missed much at all. This was a humerous summary, and I was able to read the whole thing!!
I really do hate how directors and companies make sequals that only diminish the whole grandness of the story to begin with!
It is very strange, the plot that is. It does sound like a crazy episode of Jerry Springer...I could imagine the title being "My baby's daddy is Superman, but he's a Super Jerk!" And then Superman would come in and pummel the other man with his superhuman powers..prolly by a flick of the wrist or something.
I would never waste my money on watching a single second of a Superman movie, and Smallville doesn't do it for me either. I'll pass!! This summary/analysis only reinforces my feelings towards such rediculous movies!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, I've never seen this Superman movie, but I'll take your word and not see it. That sounds like a ridiculous plot and Superman's kind of an ass for fathering a child and then leaving and possibly coming back. Lame. I have to GREATLY disagree with you when you say that Kevin Spacey is, over-rated. No, No, No. What about Se7en, Life of David Gale, or The Usual Suspects? I believe those are all fantastic movies with Kevin and i believe he's an awesome, somewhat creepy, actor. Also, I know this is probably going to sound like unbelievably lame and dumb, but i have a HUGE fan of the Superman show with Terri Hatcher and Dean Cain-pretty sweet. It's kinda strange that I haven't seen Superman Returns because I'm sort of a movie buff and have seen an incredible amount of movies and know pretty much every actor/actress. It's my thing and I'm a total movie addict. I will however take your word on Superman because first of all i wouldn't see that movie to begin with and second, you can kind of tell it would be pretty bad.
I haven't seen a full Superman movie or read a full comic so the characters and what not flew right over my head. Aside from the content of the piece, I believe the way it was written was rather effective. Though I haven't seen any of the Superman movies, I don't think I would...especially after reading your post regarding the subject of it. I liked the use of the rather blunt remarks such as "No thanks" and the clever statement at the end...it definitely established an appropriate level of ethos while also having logical arguments and emotional appeals to the auidience.
Well, I have to say I'm surprised so few of you actually saw the movie, and that obviously makes it harder to analyze the content of my review, but thanks for the feedback on the style, ethos, etc. And props to Alexis for stepping up and defending Kevin Spacey with specific films for examples. I didn't really offer any logical argument for my conclusion about his over-ratedness, so that was fair game. I still think he's over-rated, but that's an argument for another day.
Honestly, I saw the movie and enjoyed it very much - I try to enjoy movies to relax and have fun, without picking it apart. However, after reading your analysis, I completely understand ever point you have mentioned, and looking back on the movie - some scenes were definitely cheesy and just, not reasonable. Hollywood thrives on giving the audience happy endings (yes, this is an adaptation of a comic book, and there is always a happy ending) but hollywood tries to stretch the limit to almost beyond believe. There was one scene in the film where Lex Luthor stabs Superman with kryptonite, but miraculously he has complete strength for well over half an hour - just in time to save Lois - then he basically goes into a coma. It really doesn't strike me as being very believable, but then again it's just a movie; I mean no one really has a weakness to kryptonite, do they?
I have a weakness for kryptonite, actually. just don't tell anybody... they might use that knowledge for nefarious ends.
I've never seen the Superman movies, and your bad review on Superman Returns almost makes me want to see it to see how bad it really is. But that probably won't ever happen. I've never been that into superheroes, but I have watched the batman movies and those I liked. However, with superman I just always known him as being a big superheroe, but I never really knew what he did. I've watched a few episodes of smallville, but I never liked that enough to keep watching it. In your review it didn't really sound like a superhero story, it just sounded like a cliche Hollywood movie about two long lost loves with a big secret. I dont like how the great superman is put into that role of a father and lover because it kind of takes away from his greatness almost. I just want to know Superman as saving people and doing the impossible tasks. From your review, Superman Returns seems to try too hard to get a more vast audience by putting in a plot like it did, just to make more money.
I, along with many of my classmates, have not seen any of the super man movies. I have never been a huge superhero/sci fi fan. The summary of Superman Returns pretty much sums up why i can't stand superhero movies. The plot of these superhero movies are too far fetched and outside the bounds of reality for me to have any interest. You seemed to have some previous bias towards superman before even seeing Superman Returns, which somewhat undermines the analysis. However, it was very well written and i have a feeling if i saw the movie i would completely agree with your arguments.
I think that viewing Superman as a "normal person" in terms of responsibility with regards to his son is in interesting way to look at it. If the movie had been about a non superhero, I think that everyone would expect for Superman to somehow get involved in his child's life, but since he's Superman, he is given a pass since he has "more important" things to do. Unfortunately, it seems as if Hollywood wishes to create soap opera plots in movies where such plots are inappropriate.
Of all the comments that I've read so far, everyone seems to be on the same page. I never really read any comic books, and I haven't seen any of the old Superman movies, but I have seen the two Spider-Mans, The Hulk, Batman Begins, and all the other superhero movies that have been sprouting up over the last few years. My friends and I used to have some pretty random arguments, and one time, it involved who the best superhero was. There were some mixed views, but everyone agreed that Superman was the worst. He is just too powerful, and it is way too ridiculous that the only thing that can stop him is kryptonite. What is that all about? At least in the other movies, you know that these hero's powers are limited, so they can get beat or hurt. That is why I had no desire to see Superman at all. I didn't want to see some guy flying around and dodging bullets, with no chance of losing unless someone pulls out some kryptonite. I'm glad that I heard this review before someone had tried to get me to see it..but I'm not too sure that I have to worry about that, considering nobody seemed to like it at all.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home