Well, now that no one is interested at all in my opinion about the moderately-successful-but- already-culturally-insignificant-after-only-3-years movie, Superman Returns, I'll give it anyway. (The reason being it was on commercial TV last night, and for once I was able to sit down and watch a movie from beginning to end.)
Back in June 2006, I posted a bit of Anthony Lane's review, as his generally cool attitude to the comic book superhero genre seemed to match mine.
But I must say, Superman Returns had more pleasures than I expected: it looked great with an obvious big budget; Kevin Spacey proved to be the best Lex Luthor I can recall; and the lead actor (whose name I can't even recall) did a very good job as Christopher Reeve - I mean, Superman. It was just good to hear John William's theme again too.
As nearly every reviewer noted at the time, the Christ analogy was impossible to miss, although I thought there were other allusions to Superman as mythical figure. His pushing the newly created island-continent thing off the Earth reminded me of Atlas, and the subsequent fall through the sky was a bit like a falling angel.
Yet, this same quasi-divinity had apparently shot off for 5 years without realising he had got Lois Lane pregnant.
Talk about your movie mythology trying to have it both ways: all knowing son and saviour hovering in the sky and rescuing people, but not clever enough to use a condom when he bedded Lois in that Super bed that
really needed a firmer mattress. Not only that, he leaves for 5 years to check out if Krypton really had exploded (answer: yes) without apparently giving any prior explanation to his girlfriend. Maybe he left a note she didn't get? I don't think his lack of explanation was ever addressed.
Really, this Superman has trouble with priorities, it seems.
Lois in the meantime had settled for a "safe" boyfriend to help raise her son, while evidently still holding a flame for the absent Super boyfriend.
I thought the movie could have played this troubled modern on/off relationship thing more creatively. We were meant to be sympathetic to the boyfriend, who really doesn't know what's going on, but wouldn't it have been good if Superman discovered he was cheating on Lois? He could then be in some jeopardy and Superman has the opportunity to rescue him. Does Superman rescue the schmuck? Maybe he does, but only on the promise that he (the boyfriend) will be faithful to Lois in the future (but wait a minute - that would prevent or delay Superman's own desired re-union with Lois.)
Maybe Superman could rescue him only if he promises weekend custody of the boy with his real Dad. That would be very Supermodern. Oh, I just thought of another variation - the boyfriend could be having a gay affair - how does the modern superhero movie directed by
a gay jewish man deal with that? At the very least, the movie could have been turned into a precautionary tale against unprotected sex - with a tie-in range of branded Super condoms ( advertising by-line "Don't make a Super mistake".)
Ah, I'm just being silly. Even with its somewhat unfortunate modern love triangle and lack of backstory to justify our hero's actions 5 years ago, I had a good enough time with it. I rate it MHSE (mostly harmless, somewhat enjoyable.)