Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! No, it's a plane! No...just an unsatisfying return

Most classes devoted to a historical study of film will inform you that the 70’s were a time of rebellion and liberalism in the cinema. European influences are noted as having infiltrated the studio system at this time, and gritty portrayals of sex, drugs and general dissatisfaction with authority prevailed. What most film studies fail to properly illuminate however, possibly due to its gaudy nature, is the rise of the franchise.
In the late 70’s, franchise films began to emerge. Franchises included films such as Jaws, Rocky and the perennial Star Wars. These films lacked the revolutionary mentality of earlier work, instead focusing on a much simpler message. That message more or less surmised that the world was a bad place and that there were bad people within it. But it also noted that not everything was bad. There were good people as well, heroes who would fight for the fulfillment of justice. Not least amongst these “positive message” franchises, was Superman.
Directed in 1978 by Richard Donner, Superman was stylized, bright and positively brimming with hope. This film served as the template for future comic book movies and was eventually hailed by M. Night Shyamalan as the finest comic book movie ever produced. Now, twenty-eight years later, Bryan Singer has surmised, with Superman Returns, “Why improve upon an already perfect formula?”

Superman Returns serves as the sequel to Superman II. Picking up after Superman left to find the remains of the planet Krypton, “Returns” unfolds around his attempt to rekindle the life he once led – both as Clark Kent and as Superman. Interestingly enough, Singer gives us a fantastic scene early on in the film with Clark watching the news at his adoptive parents’ home. In this unique scene, Singer illustrates how the world has changed since Superman’s departure. Wars rage in the Middle East. Violence is everywhere. People seem to have forgotten about extraordinary heroes. Superman, in short, seems trivial.
On top of that, Superman’s gal-pal, Lois Lane, seems to have moved on with her life. In fact, Lois is on the cusp of being awarded the Pulitzer Prize…for an article entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”. And so begins Superman Returns – a film about Clark trying to reclaim all that he left behind, not the least of which is Lois’ heart.
It’s an intriguing premise, made even more fun when Superman makes his reappearance during a climatic airplane rescue. At the apex of this sequence (easily one of the finest Singer has ever directed) Superman comes face to face with Lois for the first time since his departure. It’s a funny, breathless moment that ends on a tremendous upward note. Following this sequence, the film’s cat and mouse game between Superman and Lois begins. And so does the story’s problems.
Before delving into said problems however, it’s appropriate to note an established truth about screenwriting and storytelling in general. It is that every character has something they want to win, gain or get. Even the lesser characters have such needs and wants.
In Superman Returns, the film’s populace largely welcomes Superman’s reemergence; so naturally, Clark’s objective becomes an attempt to woo back the far less receptive Lois. Lex Luthor (played by a vicious Kevin Spacey) wants to get his revenge on Superman, who robbed him of everything he had before his departure. And Lois, perhaps the most important character of the film in my estimation, wants to have Superman, despite her surface level “forget you” mentality. That being established, it is easy to understand the film’s failure.
Superman spends the majority of the film pulling off dazzling feats, but when he attempts to renew his relationship with Lois (a relationship all of the characters in the film readily acknowledge), she rebukes him. While this is generally the fun of any romantic comedy, the satisfaction comes in the joining of the couple. Superman Returns really has no such moments of satisfaction, no such little victories for our hero.
Rubbing salt in the wound is the fact that Lois now has a kid, which may very well be Superman’s. Heck, in the movie’s backstory she even wrote a suggestive article about it (I Spent a Night With Superman). But for some reason, when these two characters come together, they can’t help but share anything more then awkward, stilted dialogue. For two characters who shared a questionable, yet admittedly close past, they sure have a whole lot of nothing to say to one another. Sure, when two people really like one another, there is some level of awkwardness -- during courtship. But when the film implies that Lois and Superman have shared more then awkward chitchat, the work comes into question.
I’d blame this on the film’s actors, Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, but they both have shining moments in the movie not involving their interaction with one another. Either they lacked chemistry, or Singer and his team of screenwriters had no idea how to approach the heated backstory of Lois and Superman. I’d venture that a lack of chemistry amplified an issue that was already manufactured in the construction of the story.
And then we have Lex Luthor’s story-arc, which is so distracting to the film’s core story, that any fun about it is lost. Lex Luthor is a great character, and Spacey brings a certain pettiness and malice to his interpretation, but this is Superman Returns, not Lex’s Big Adventure.
Singer also seems needlessly compelled to outline Lex’s “evil plan” step by step…which really is a stupid plan when you think about it. More compelling is the blind hatred of Luthor’s dramatic need: mess up Superman. Bad. Singer missed a golden opportunity with Luthor. Because Spacey brings such violence to the character, Lex’s arc would have been even better if we had seen his energies spent on the degrading and destruction of Superman – not some half-cooked real-estate scheme. And as a bonus you’d get Lois’ conflict, since she already degrades Superman herself. Fracturing the film’s narrative even further is Lois’ kid, which is really more distracting than anything.

Despite these problems, Superman Returns does seem to get quite a bit right. As mentioned earlier, this is meant to be a sequel to the previous Superman films. Singer doesn’t let that fact slide. Instead, he waves it in our faces by opening the film with streaking blue “laser credits” and the iconic John Williams score.
Brandon Routh’s performance, nothing more then an uncanny impersonation of Christopher Reeves, is geeky, stumbling and outright playful. And Spacey as Luthor is absolutely chilling in his darker moments.
On top of that, Singer seems to be at the height of his directorial technique. The aforementioned airplane rescue is just one of several examples in this film pointing to his masterful command of editing and camerawork. And despite a somewhat unsatisfactory ending, this team of filmmakers has succeeded in creating a universe that could easily sustain another film. The characters and their histories with one another are certainly interesting, if not properly explored.
Ultimately, the problem is, we really shouldn’t need another film. Films aren’t installment plans – Superman set out to win the heart of Lois Lane. While he does nudge us in the right direction, Singer fails to hint at the outcome. That, coupled with the fact that there aren’t nearly enough inspiring moments in the movie like the airplane rescue, makes Superman Returns feel like a brilliant failure.
But in the hands of a director as capable as Singer, this failure can only be seen as sabotage, self-mutilation in a deliberate attempt to build his next franchise. A shame. I would have rather had one extraordinarily satisfying film, rather than 3 good ones.