Movie: Superman Returns

(aka "Superman III v2.0")

[[[ SPOILER ALERT ]]]   Might as well get that out of the way now.

I'll start with a "rating" of sorts:   I give this movie "4 out of 5 stars". It's a fun movie, with a lot of great special effects, with a decent storyline (not stellar).

Now, on with the nitpicking.

Number one: Superman has a son. This just drips with WRONG-NESS. I mean, there is no explanation, there is no discussion with how Lois Lane ever got pregnant. Those who know that this movie is an "almost sequel" to Superman II (and that Superman III and IV never happened now) will remember that Kal-El and Lois are intimate when he gives up his power to be human. Then, he regains his power to battle General Zod and company. So "obviously", this must be how she got pregnant. As well, the fact that he used "Krypton oogie boogie" to make her FORGET about Clark being Superman must ALSO be part of the equation. But, there is no mention of Lois' long term fiance not being the biological father, and frankly, I'm mystified why this was done. I think it was a DUMB move and took away from the movie and leaves open some horrible storylines if they choose to continue the new series-arc. At the very least, there should have been a brief moment with Lois and Superman discussing this and, perhaps, him restoring her memories (yes, even of the knowledge that he is also Clark Kent). THAT would have made it ALMOST PERFECT, but someone dropped the ball in a major way.

Now that that's done:

I'm glad to see they did not get Kal-El new or modified powers. I was unhappy, however, with the blatant regurgitated quotes and obvious mechanisms from the original Richard Donner Superman movies. Lex quoting things from the first two movies. Lex having a female counterpart who was literally a modernized version of Ms. Teschmacher (whiny about Supes getting hurt, fawning over Supes, treating Lex like he's her husband of 20 years, ad nauseum).

I thought the advertising and in-movie references to Superman as the equivelent of Jesus from the bible to be borderline sacrilege. So much so that I'd be willing to bet good Baptist preachers around the US will be telling people that this is now what their kids need to be seeing, equating a movie actor to Jesus, etc... (and for the most part, they'd be right).

I felt Lex's sojourn into the Fortress of Solitude was also poorly done. He truly acted as if, though he'd been there before, he had no useful knowledge of the fortress in general. This was probably a creative decision by Brian Singer for some stupid reason unknown to me.

Now, despite all my negativity, I did enjoy the movie! I though the new actor playing Superman did an above average job. I was a little disturbed by one part of his "Clark Kent" disguise -- his EYES. When you see the movie, watch his eyes when he's Clark and when he's Supes. His eyeballs get HUGE and almost come out of their sockets at some points!! It's actually comical.

The basic storyline was very good -- taking the original Lex's obsession with real estate to a new level.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I just had a hard time swallowing that they were taking so much creative license versus the original two movies that this is supposedly a "modernized sequel" to. It's certainly better than a Richard Pryor movie (*cough* Superman III *cough*)...

Go see it. It's a lot of fun, and I found nothing I would need to hide from even a little kid.

Things to look forward to: The beginning sequence of Kal-El's trip to where Krypton used to be (what drew him away from Earth in the first place, which in the MOVIE is reduced to a one-screen three-sentence quote).

Superman is back!!