Could this be the end of my stream of Superman posts? Stay tuned.
I saw it Wednesday at a 2:30 matinee. Not a lot of people since it was a Wed. and people were still at work. If you see it I hope you get a showing with the very cool teaser for Spider-Man 3. But if not, hey, it’s here.
How do I review this film that I’ve anticipated for weeks? Maybe it’s best to list what I liked and didn’t like about it.
What I liked:
Brandon Routh–quite believable as Superman and Clark Kent. Yes, he’s young and soap-opera-star handsome but this is a case where that doesn’t work against him in realizing this much larger than life character. You believe he’s the man.
I enjoyed the scenes in and around the Daily Planet–the art deco set design is handsomer than the somewhat more realistic fluorescent-lit design of the Reeves-era films. The newsroom’s warm browns and wooden tones make it a comfortable home for these reporters.
The super feats work well with our hero doing stuff never seen on the screen before including a great use of super-breath.
Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor is somewhat of an improvement on the Gene Hackman comic relief version. Spacey is allowed to be less campy and more dangerous but giving your villain most of the jokes still undercuts his threat.
The stuff I was pretty neutral about:
Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane has a tough job–She has won a Pulitzer for her essay, “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman,” which is really all about why she doesn’t need the big guy–or that’s what she’s telling herself when of course, she still carries a torch. I didn’t think her portrayal defined the role in a way no one else could have done–she was fine–but just.
Same for the rest of the supporting cast.
Now, what I had a problem with–and this will include minor spoilers of sorts–I’ll try to avoid major revelations, if there are any secrets that aren’t evident from the trailers.
Two major problems with the film–pacing and tone. You can have a good story but if it seems to take forever, you’ll find your mind wandering during long sequences, as I did, such as during an experiement by Luthor that has catastrophic consequences, or a later caper pulled off by Lex’s henchmen or the last third of the film which just goes and goes and goes. Any story about a guy who is faster than a speeding bullet should move briskly. Instead, and this goes to the tone problem, we have a very deliberate tempo that felt like the editors had been told to slow down the action to make sure everyone appreciated how expensive this film was to produce. You see Superman hear an alarm and he zooms off, but it feels like forever before he finally shows up to save the day. This is the same problem that the glacially-paced Superman II had–perhaps director Singer emulated his inspiration too much. Today’s fimmaking is expert at visually moving us through complex sequences without bogging down the momentum and this seriously hampers the film. Carefully snipping 10-15 minutes would have made for a shorter, but more exciting film.
Likewise, the tone of the film is visually depicted in the dim lighting of many scenes–this is right for Batman Begins but it seems depressing for a hero whose costume is the three primary colors of red, blue and yellow and who has always symbolized hope, joy and optimism. I don’t mind dramatic angst in comic book characters, but with a reported running time of close to three hours, there’s very little comic relief amidst the moodiness and strife. When the film ends with Routh soaring above the earth in a deliberate homage to Christopher Reeves’Superman, it felt tacked on rather than an uplifting conclusion to a riveting tale. There are a few other items I could write about and maybe these will come up in response to any comments I get here. If I were to grade this on a four-star system, I’d give it 2 and half to three stars. Do you agree or disagree?
Haven’t seen the film, but in reading reviews, I definitely got the sense that it was something of a downer and that a healthy shot of “hope, joy and optimism” was exactly what it needed. I had planned to see it, but now I’m thinking I might wait for the DVD. I’ve had it up to here with superhero angst and am not in the mood for more right now. In fact, I’m wondering if the genre is about played out, at least for the time being, because angst is all it seems able to manage anymore.
Comment by Gina — July 3, 2006 @ 9:47 am |
I don’t mind angst if it’s balanced with hope, joy, and optimism, not formulaically, but as an appropriate balance to the darkness. These are, after all characters in tights and capes and they can only handle so much realism before the fun is sucked out. The first clue, I think, is that the blue, red and gold of the costume were darkened in the design for the movie. It’s supposed to key us in on the tone of the film, and I think we’re to appreciate that darker mean “serious” thus more worthy of being a dramatically legitimate story. But I think the Spider-Man films offer the standard for balance between darkness and light. We’ll see how they handle this when they explicitly address it in the next film.
Thanks for writing!
Comment by Alex — July 3, 2006 @ 9:58 am |
Still haven’t seen it yet. Trying to work it into my (Extremely) busy schedule.
I did see Click however, if you’d like to talk about that one.
AND I am SO PSYCHED about Pirates 2. I’m going to see it next Saturday and I’m hoping it’s at least as good as the original.
I’ll keep ya posted.
Comment by Ashley — July 3, 2006 @ 11:11 am |
I saw it yesterday.
While Superman is unconscious in a hospital, Perry White (the editor-in-chief of “The Daily Planet”) and reporter Jimmy Olsen are working on a “just-in-case” front page headline:
SUPERMAN IS DEAD.
The month and day that appear with the headline caught my eye: September 29.
That’s the Catholic feastday of the archangels Micha-El, Gabri-El and Rapha-El!
Interesting!
Superman’s native Kryptonian name, “Kal-El,” name sounds like Hebrew. The suffix “El” is one of the ancient names for God, used throughout the Bible. It is also found in the names of great Biblical figures like Isra-El, Samu-El, Dani-El and angels such as Micha-El, Gabri-El and Rapha-El.
“Micha-El” means “like God” or “likeness of God”.
“Gabri-El” means “mighty one of God”.
“Rapha-El means “God heals” or “God has healed”
The prefix of Superman’s name, “Kal,” sounds close to the root of several Hebrew words: “lightness,” “swiftness,” “vessel,” and “voice.” “Kal-El” sounds similar to something in Hebrew that could mean:
“Lightness of God”…
“Swiftness of God”…
“Vessel of God”…
“Voice of God”.
No one seems to know whether the comic-book creators of Superman were aware of– or so much as intended– these Hebraicisms.
Comment by Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. — July 6, 2006 @ 12:16 pm |
Fr. Stephanos,
Thanks so much for your interesting post! There’s lots of discussion out there about the Christological interpretation of Superman. For example, “Kal-El” can be interpreted to mean, in Hebrew, “All God” or “All that is God.” I have an article that should be out at Charles Colson’s Breakpoint very soon on this topic. I’ll post an link to it here at the blog when it appears.
-Alex
Comment by Alex — July 6, 2006 @ 1:23 pm |
oh,i like here
and http://www.heyjokes.com
have a nice day with you
Comment by lisa80 — July 27, 2006 @ 11:37 pm |