Summer Movie Season STILL Sucks! Superman (sorta) Returns

I really wanted to like this film. I have been looking forward to it since the announcement that Bryan Singer (the director of "The Usual Suspects," "X-Men," and "X-Men II") would be directing it. You see, ever since Warner Brothers' intelligent decision to sign Christopher Nolan to direct "Batman Begins," I started to have a renewed faith in the powers that be over at the studio. I mean, Warner Brothers has a stable of incredible comic heroes (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and the Flash), icons known the world over. Bryan Singer is the one who successfully brought the X-Men to the screen, and I had faith that he would show a reverence for the material. Well....he did, but not the right material.

If you have not seen "Superman Returns" and do not like to read plot spoilers, stop reading here and go see the film. If spoilers do not bother you, keep reading. I might be able to save you a good $8.00 movie ticket.

OK, so here I am at the Navy Pier IMAX Theater in Chicago. It is the Wednesday afternoon of the release of "Superman Returns." I have my assigned seat in the top row of the IMAX dead center of the screen. Everything is going perfectly. I know that the presentation is going to have 20 minutes of 3-D, and I am pumped for the film. As the lights dim, a brief prologue written on the screen tells us a little of the legend of Superman. We then get a view of the planet Krypton's civilization as Marlon Brando's Jor-El (Superman's father) provides a voice-over from the first Superman movie from 1978. We also hear composer John Ottman's rendition of "The Planet Krypton," the same piece of music composed for the original Superman movie by John Williams. The camera pulls back, Krypton explodes, and the main title march from the original Superman blares over the speakers, with the same typeface used for the opening credits of Donner's 1978 film. I AM THERE and loving it. And...it was all downhill from there.

What was good about the movie? In a word, Brandon Routh as Superman. I must confess that I was always a fan of Christopher Reeve's characterization of the Man of Steel, and it seemed as if Routh was channeling the spirit of Reeve in his performance. I kid you not...it was downright eerie at times. The action sequences were exciting, and the Superman moments were fun (streaking in space, flying, facing down a machine gun, lifting a continent...all very cool). What else was good about the movie? Jimmy Olsen, for once, was played note perfectly. This is as he should have been played before and how he has always been portrayed in the source comics. That just about wraps up what was good about the film.

What was bad/disappointing about the film? Just about everything else. Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane did not seem to be a hard nosed reporter, and she and Routh had ZERO chemistry (a sad thing because this was supposed to be a love story in parts). Frank Langella's Perry White was just THERE...not doing much of anything. Lois's kid was annoying. I do not have anything against kids in movies, but this kid was horrible. Last, but not least, Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor. Hoo-boy. What a disappointment. There was only one moment that I believed he was Lex Luthor, and that was when Lex stabs Superman with the Kryptonite shank after having his goons thrash Supes. Otherwise, it was a completely over the top uninspired performance. Spacey obviously did no research on the character of Lex other than to look to Gene Hackman's completely missing the mark performance from 3 of the 4 Superman films. In a recent interview, when he was asked whether he tried to stay in character between shots (as most great thespians try to do), Spacey replied: "C'mon! It's a f---in' comic book, not Othello. Umm, Mr. Spacey, more people (as sad as it is) would be familiar with Lex Luthor than they would be with the villainous Iago from Shakespeare's play. Why didn't you do the research? Heck, Michael Rosenbaum does a great job essaying Luthor on TV's Smallville. All you had to do was watch his performance to get a clue. Spacey's performance was reminiscent of Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face character in the atrocious "Batman Forever." Yes, it was that bad. I blame Spacey, but I also blame the writers.

This brings me to the real weakness of the film-the plot. It was a strictly by the numbers affair that was too long by at least 30 minutes. The pacing was horrible, and the story was all wrong. We saw something similar in Superman: The Movie (almost the same scheme by Luthor) 30 years before. Couldn’t the writers have been more original? There was no JOY in this film at all. It was heavy and pedantic. The writers, in their quest for verisimilitude to the source film material, obviously felt handcuffed by the earlier film cannon. Why should they have been? Goyer and Nolan did a great job in rebooting the Batman franchise by forgetting about everything that had gone on before it. Singer would have done better had he chosen to do the same. There was too much sadness in the film. This is SUPERMAN, not Batman. You can have a serious action film with some sadness, but you can also have joy as well. Heck, the Kryptonian symbol for "hope" is the emblem on Superman's chest. No I am not making this up...I am actually so much a geek that I know this. (What, you thought the "S' stood for "Superman"?) If the man's symbol is related to hope, shouldn't you have some hope in the film?

This also brings me to the characterizations. Having said that I loved Routh's work as Superman, the writers got the character of Superman all wrong. Superman is CLARK, he is not just Clark's alter-ego (unlike Batman, whose Bruce Wayne is the real mask that hides his true identity of Batman). The writers completely misssed the point on the character of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. The writers only needed to look to the recent animated series or the George Reeves version of Clark from the '50s Adventures of Superman TV show in order to figure out how to write for the Clark character, but because of the writers' failure, Clark Kent is a non-entity in this film.

Another problem is the character of the kid and the situations in which the kid is used. First problem..Lois takes her kid onto a suspicious yacht on her way to the...wait for it...Pulitzer banquet. Yeah...right. Child endangerment and chasing a story that could have waited 2 hours. Next, Lois is being threatened by a goon, and her kid reveals himself to be Superman's kid by throwing a piano into the thug threatening his mom. You read that right. A 5 year old committed murder. Nothing is mentioned about this issue in the film. Later in the film, Superman has rescued Lois, her fiancé Richard, and the kid from a drowning death. Lois convinces Richard to follow Superman back into the danger. Nope..uh-uh...I don't buy it. You see, even though I do not have any kids, I have enough friends with kids to know that in that type of situation, the CHILD's safety is utmost in a parent's mind. There is NO WAY that mother Lois would persist in keeping her kid in danger. NO WAY! I know that you all are thinking "Get a grip, Artful, it's a comic book movie." That is not the point. I am willing to suspend disbelief up to a point, but this takes the cake.

Finally, Superman having a kid with Lois out of wedlock. Great role model, huh? The writers, because of their HUGE RESPECT for the 70 years of Superman stories (note my sarcasm), decided to have Superman knock Lois up and leave her for 5 years. I didn't like it one bit. No child support, no communication, nothing. What a great icon, folks. I became rather peeved at this blatant disregard for the character of Superman. This is NOT the character. I still have not seen a Superman film and will probably never see the one that I want (except for the excellent version of the character from the DC Animated universe). Another thing with the kid is that he will have to be in every sequel. Oh, joy. The Superman Family. Just what I wanted.

Here is my recommendation to Bryan Singer. Read the comics. The ones since 1986. Get a grip on Lex Luthor. Luthor has NEVER wanted money...he has always wanted power. He built Metropolis and owned Metropolis. The Lex Luthor in the comics would never have let Kitty live after what she did in the film. He would have dropped her out of the helicopter without a second thought. Lex's motivations come from a desire for power and a desire to be worshipped, and this worship was stolen from him by an alien who swooped in and took away the good will of the citizens that it took Lex a lifetime of hard work to earn. Geez..what a great idea for a 3 dimensional villain. Do you see my point? This is the Lex Luthor of the comic book world. Also, read the comics to learn about who Lois is and who Perry is. Find Superman through Clark; don’t just use the Clark scenes as filler for when Superman has nothing heroic to do. If not Lex Luthor, use another villain. While Superman's Rogues Gallery runs dry after Luthor and Brainiac, you could give him an extraterrestrial menace. Let's not forget that Superman has the knowledge from the "22 known galaxies" from his fortress of solitude. Remember that the comics are about hope as much as they are about action. The personal stories have always been what have driven the comics, but there is joy in the personal as well. Finally, DO NOT MAKE IT CAMPY OR FUNNY IN ANY WAY! No more villain one-liners, no needless humor. Let the humor come from the situations (see Batman Begins).

The summer movie season still sucks. Here's hoping that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is good.

What a bummer of a movie season....the trouble with "Cars"

I have slowly come to the realization that they just don’t make movies like they used to. Have I become a grumpy old man? No…it is just that when I go to the movies, I am invariably disappointed with what I paid for. This summer movie season is a prime example. I have already bored you all with my mini reviews of X-Men and the Da Vinci Code (both disappointing, especially the Da Vinci code [a book that I still refuse to read]). Last Friday, I went to see the new Disney/Pixar film “Cars.” Now those of you who know me know that I love Pixar films. From the original Toy Story on through The Incredibles, I have witnessed a body of work from a group of individuals who get “it.” What, exactly, is “it”? “It” is the fact that the story is the thing. You can throw all of the special effects, exotic locations, and expensive movie stars you want at a project, but if the story stinks, then forget about it. John Lasseter’s creative group at Pixar really gets “it.” I have never been disappointed in their storytelling. I reveled in the Lasseter-directed “Toy Story (1 & 2)” and “A Bug’s Life.” I enjoyed “Monster’s Inc” and “Finding Nemo,” but my favorite Pixar film is “The Incredibles,” directed by Brad Bird. The one thing that all of these films had going for them was the fact that the stories were ORIGINAL. Oh, of course, there were some recognizable archetypes and paradigms that were present in each case (the buddy picture, the little guy overcoming all obstacles, a father’s search for his child, superheros), but in each film, I could walk away and say that I had never seen anything like that before (both technically and storywise).

This brings me to “Cars.” The first problem that I had was that I HAD seen this story before. It was called “Doc Hollywood,” and it was released in the early 1990s and starred Michael J. Fox. Of course, Lasseter and the 7 OTHER CREDITED WRITERS just substituted cars in for people and changed the story to suit the situation, but it was a little too similar to the earlier film. Yes, I said 7 other writers. Too many cooks indeed…I never bought the story. I never bought into the characters. It seemed as if the storytellers (namely Lasseter) was going by the numbers on this one, a safe film as it were. Maybe it was the cars themselves. In all of the other Pixar films, we are dealing with living things, whether they be toys or monsters..they are all based on something that is ALIVE. Woody might have been a cowboy doll, but he was a COWBOY. Mike and Sully might have been monsters, but they walked and talked like living things (and were masterfully voiced by Billy Crystal and John Goodman). No, I never felt warm and fuzzy for the cars. Not one bit. I mean, it is not as if I lack imagination (just ask my folks, who, when I was younger, spent years worried that I lived in a fantasy world). I am able to give the benefit of the doubt to any work of fantasy or science fiction.

One theory is that the people at Pixar just didn’t try very hard. Why, you might ask, would they not try hard? Well, originally, this was to be the last film that Pixar released under their original agreement with Disney. The evil Michael Eisner (former President and CEO of Disney) and Steve Jobs (the CEO of Pixar and Apple) had a falling out, and Cars was to be the last film. In the meantime, however, Eisner was ousted by a shareholder revolt and Bob Iger, the new CEO of Disney, made nice with Jobs. Disney bought Pixar (which they could have done for a fraction of the cost 20 YEARS AGO!), and Jobs now sits on the Disney board of directors. Anyway, this might have been Pixar’s way of screwing Disney, but this is just speculation. I mean, according to the agreement, Pixar and Disney split the profits 50-50, so Pixar would have just been hurting itself by purposefully tanking the film. BTW, if you want to find out more about the Disney situation, I highly recommend James Stewart’s Disney War, a book that chronicles the rise and fall of Michael Eisner at Disney. This is a real page turner!
So what now for Pixar? Well, the good news is that they had a trailer for their next film in front of “Cars.” The film is “Ratatouille,” and it opens next summer. I must admit to laughing more during the preview of “Ratatouille” than I did during the whole of “Cars.” In addition, the Pixar short that preceded “Cars” is hysterical! What now for the rest of the summer? Well, I am still holding out hope for “Superman Returns” and “Pirates of the Caribbean.” I am also looking forward to “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” Will Farrell’s ode to NASCAR. Otherwise, though, I am content to watch my dvds of really good summer films and wonder what has happened to Hollywood.

Do you want my recommendations for good films if you are in the mood for some fun? Well, you cannot go wrong with “The Incredibles” (yes, I know it was released during the winter holiday), “Batman Begins” (the new standard for the superhero film), “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (number 1 on my list of all time favorites), and “Conan the Barbarian.” Yes, I said “Conan.” From the opening quotation from Frederick Nietzsche and the strains of Basil Poledouris’ musical theme “Anvil of Crom” over the opening credits where a sword is created on through the rest of the film, director John Milius really succeeded in doing justice to Robert E. Howard’s Cimmarean warrior. Milius gets the whole primal nature of man (I mean, his filmography includes writing “Apocalypse Now” with George Lucas and Coppola, writing and directing “Conan the Barbarian” (improving on Oliver Stone’s treatment of the script) and writing and directing “Red Dawn.” Taking those three films together, you would have a great testosterone film festival.