In my review of Superman Returns, I noted that the more recent movie draws upon the very themes and plot points from Superman II that I didn't care for in that movie. However, that's not to deny that Superman: the Movie (1978) and Superman II (1980) have had a profound effect upon the cinematic versions of the Man of Steel since. The particular mythos created by writer Mario Puzo and director Richard Donner (and to a lesser extent, Donner's replacement, Richard Lester), has had its fingerprints on shows such as Smallville and especially the more recent Superman Returns which would not have even been possible had it not been the movies from almost three decades ago.

Therefore you may or may not know that the Superman II shown in the theaters and released on various video incarnations over the years was not quite the original vision. Mario Puzo of Godfather fame had penned the screenplays of the first two Superman movies staring Christopher Reeve. As the first movie was being made, the sets were used to film scenes that would appear in the sequel as well. This saved time and money and would also guarantee a quick sequel on what most assumed would be an instant moneymaker. According to director Richard Donner, he had about 80% of the second film completed when he had to devote all of his time to finish up the first movie in time for a 1978 Christmas release. During this time, Donner fell into creative differences with producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind and was fired. His name appeared as director for the first movie, but director Richard Lester received credit for the second movie. Some scenes had to be reshot in order for Lester to take credit, and he also completed the remaining 20% or so never completed by Donner. In the end, none of us knew it at the time, but we didn't receive a Superman II exactly the way Donner envisioned it. And perhaps that's why I've always felt that there is a disparity of feeling between the first and second movie. Defenders of Donner say that he respected the mythology while Lester did not, but there may be some amount of bias in play with such accusations, too.

Regardless an internet movement began around 2004 for Warner Bros. to produce a version of Superman II more along the lines with Donner's original vision. Evidently, all of the scenes directed by Donner that did not make it into the theatrical release still existed. The fulfillment of that project is the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II released in 2006 and viewed by myself last night.

Lester's and Donner's movies certainly are different, but probably not profoundly so. It's a mix. There's good elements in both. Plus neither version stands as a work totally directed by either individual. There is the work of Richard Donner that remains in Lester's version, and those creating the new Donner cut had no choice but to include some material directed by Lester because Donner never actually finished his version. If you would care to get a sense of the visual and directorial differences of the two men, I would refer you to the IMDB trivia page for the theatrical release of Superman II (look for the paragraph that begins "Director 'Richard Lester' was not sympathetic to the epic look..."). See also the Wikipedia page for this version.

And while I don't want to give away everything in the new cut, a number of interesting differences can be pointed out. First, the opening is quite different and closely ties in the events of the first movie with the sequel. The events at the end of the first movie had direct impact on the release of the Phantom Zone villains, thus demonstrating that the sequel takes place only days after the first movie. The scene where Lois climbs the Eiffel Tower in Lester's version is completely absent from Donner's cut. But in its place is a wonderful scene where Lois jumps out of a window in an attempt to prove that Clark Kent is Superman. Why this was not used in the theatrical release I have no idea.

Another major difference in the two versions is that Marlon Brando takes center stage as Jor-El in Donner's vision of the sequel. In fact, Brando has more screen time in Donner's Superman II than he did in the first movie. Evidently, after Donner was axed from the project, the Salkinds chose not to use any of the footage of Brando that had been filmed for the sequel so that they would not have to pay him (there had been some lawsuits between Brando and the studio over royalties). If you remember from the theatrical version, Superman faces his mother, played by Susanna York instead. The new Donner version restores all the scenes with Marlon Brando and much of it is quite moving. Even though he is supposed to be a technologically-generated hologram of Superman's dead father, the scenes create a real connection between the two.

As I mentioned in my review of Superman Returns, I felt that Superman's actions in the second movie--to give up his abilities for the love of Lois Lane--was an incredibly selfish and unheroic decision. This is one reason that in general, I don't like the storyline of the sequel. Well, I felt much better after seeing Brando's scenes restored because in this version Jor-El berates his son over this very issue, leading to an "I told you so" moment when a powerless Man of Steel comes crawling back (literally) later in an attempt to retrieve his powers. I was right to believe that Superman's actions were selfish, and even his father agrees with me! In general these scenes with Brando create a much stronger emphasis on the relationship between father and son, something that is totally lost in the Lester version. We also get more of the "Son becomes the father; father becomes the son" dialogue that is repeated in Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. But here it is referred to as a Kryptonian prophecy.

The Donner cut includes a number of extended sequences among the actors including scenes with Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in prison with his sidekick, Otis, played by Ned Beatty. Extended scenes with Valerie Perrine as Eve Teschmacher hint for the first time that there is some kind of actual relationship between her and Luthor. This was always an assumption of course, but until Donner's cut we never actually heard anything about it.

One mildly odd sequence involves a whole scene of spliced together screen tests between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. In the Lester version, Lois proves that Clark is Superman when she sees him stick his hand in fire and not get burned. In the Donner version, she actually fires a pistol at Clark. This scene was used for screen tests between Reeve and Kidder and can be found in the special features sections of certain DVD's of the first movie. Evidently, this was one of the scenes that Donner wanted to use in his version, but never got around to actually filming before he was taken off the project. Although the alternate scene is interesting, the segments of it are spliced together from what are obviously different periods, and in the end distract from the story line. Reeve's hair length and glasses size changes throughout the scene, and this was obviously before he got into the weight room and bulked up a good bit for the role.

One final difference is the ending of the movie, and there's no way for me to describe it without giving it away. You'll remember in the Lester version that Clark kisses Lois and makes her "forget" his secret identity. I've always thought that was a bit hokey, but the Donner ending is much worse. According to the special features on the disc, Donner felt that Clark Kent should never kiss Lois; only Superman should kiss her. Therefore, they resort back to the same horrible solution of the first Superman movie in which he flies faster than the speed of light backwards around the earth, somehow reversing time. Now it's one thing in the first movie when he just backs things up a few minutes and somehow saves Lois from dying (never quite understood how that happened though since he didn't stop the missile--oh well). But this time, it leave the viewer with an entire story (the entire events in the movie) that never happened; although it doesn't explain how he keeps the Phantom Zone villains from being released. Whether or not Donner actually planned to do this the first go round, I honestly have no idea. But I can't imagine making two movies back to back with the same ending. Frankly, it left a very unsatisfying feeling as if I had watched one long dream sequence.

Finally, the disc contains a relatively short behind the scenes look at the recreation of Donner's original vision. Merely tracking down all of the alternative film edits must have been a Herculean task. The comments made by Donner himself seem to reveal that he was deeply hurt by being cut out of the second picture after he had already put so much work into it and had completed the first film. He comments that he felt that he could have made a whole series of quality films with Reeve and Kidder had he been allowed to stay with the series.

I suppose you would have to be somewhat of a fan already to even want to view this version of the film. But regardless, there's really something significant here. I can't think of any time in the history of film that something like this has been attempted--to piece together forgotten film edits--not to just expand a film as often is done in so-called "director's cuts"--but to create an alternative version altogether and restore a film to an earlier intended vision. There are a few minor shots that had to be created new such as a scene of Clark Kent yelling at Lois from a window of the daily planet. It's not hard to tell that it's not actually Christopher Reeve. And according to the behind the scenes commentary, over 200 new special effects were created for this cut, and it was noted that it was a challenge to keep them downgraded to match the technology of a film made almost three decades ago.

I watched this movie on HD DVD. I've found that although newer movies look spectacular in high def versions, some of these older films are a mixed bag. There are some scenes in this movie that look extraordinarily good, but some look quite grainy and the difference in quality seen on a normal DVD vs a high def disc may very well be negligible. Nevertheless, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is available on standard DVD, HD DVD and Blu-Ray Disc. If you're a fan or at least remember the theatrical release, you might be interested to see this remix.

Tags: Superman

A Guest Perspective by Andrew Wells

Forget the comics, the TV shows and the movies for a moment. Think about Superman the icon. Unlike every other comic book hero, Superman has transcended his roots to become timeless. Batman, Spider-Man, the X-men--they all change to fit the times and reflect the society as a whole. But Superman rises, both literally and figuratively, above all this. He’s heroic, magnificent, noble, and larger-than-life. We see our dark side in Batman. We relate to the feelings of being an outsider through Spider-Man and the X-men. But we want to be Superman. It’s not just about flying and stopping bullets; it’s about rising above our natures to become better, to become part of something epic--something bigger than ourselves. It gives us a joyous feeling to watch Superman, because we can hope and imagine that one day, we could be like him.

A great deal of this mythos, as Rick said in his review, has been shaped by the Superman movies--especially the first one. Superman: The Movie is flawed in different ways--some outdated special effects, inconsistencies in the plot, goofy humor, etc.—but director Richard Donner, composer John Williams and Christopher Reeve got the epic and joyful tone right; they knocked that one right out of the park. When Superman flies by us in that last scene, it’s as deeply felt a movie moment as any in history: the most powerful being on earth, and he slows down to stop and smile at us. It’s pure joy and bliss, epic and wonderful, and Donner let us relish that moment

For all the lavish and respectful devotion paid to everything Superman, Superman Returns just doesn’t get that. The opening credits and the final scene will tell you why.

Instead of letting us soar with Williams' theme and feel the vastness of space, director Bryan Singer fills the screen with images as we swoop by various wonders of the galaxy. The movie is too busy trying to keep us interested. The whole movie is like this, with few exceptions.

I’d like to say more, but I’m not sure I really need to. The final scene says it all.

In homage to the Superman movies, we see Superman (Brandon Routh) flying over the curve of the earth, right past us.

But he’s gone too quickly, and he doesn’t stop to smile.

Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com

Tags: Superman, Andrew

I can't remember a world without a Superman. He was part of the modern world's mythology instilled to me by my parents from a very early age. As soon as I could begin reading (which was pretty early), my father bought me Superman comic books. I wish I still had those exact issues. I continued to buy comic books on my own up until shortly before Kathy and I got married in 1990 (I couldn't afford both). The Superman of the comics most familiar to me was the one drawn by Curt Swan, spanning almost three decades until John Byrne revamped the Man of Steel in the mid-eighties. However, I was also very familiar with the early Superman of the late-thirties, forties, fifties and sixties thanks to reprints and collections of stories in books. Superman was always one of my favorite heroes, if not the favorite (with the possible exception of the Fawcett Captain Marvel of the forties and fifties, but that's a subject for another day).

And then there was the Superman of television and film. As a kid I watched (in reruns) the late, great George Reeves (Adventures of Superman) don the cape. In many ways, although he was the Superman of my parents' generation, he set the standard for me as to what Superman should embody as a hero. I was eleven when Superman: The Movie, starring Christopher Reeve hit the theaters. For the two or three years leading up to its release, this movie had been hyped in the comic books with a two-page contest explaining how "You Could Be in the Superman Movie." I wondered if I won that contest if they'd let me play Jimmy Olson. Years later I would find out that the two winners of that contest got to act as stand-in players on the Smallville football team, and if they were actually able to spot themselves in that very brief scene, perhaps there is such thing as super-vision.

Superman: The Movie (1978) marked a shift in super-hero movies, and would not be topped stylistically for at least eleven years until 1989's Batman. Even at the age of eleven, I could tell that this film was treating the character seriously. It had well-known actors like Marlon Brando as Jor-El and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. Even today, it's hard for me to see Hackman as anything but Luthor because that's where I first noticed him. The special effects, though a bit dated today, were cutting edge for the time. The tagline for the movie had been "You will believe a man can fly." And we did. Even watching the film recently, some (but not all) of the flying scenes are quite smooth. Before anyone depicted flying in films was obviously set in front of a blue screen. Not so with at least some of the scenes in Superman: The Movie. Even today, the film stands up fairly well and no doubt that for many, when they think of Superman, they think of Christopher Reeve. To me the movie is well done up until the last quarter or so. The whole turning-back-time-by-flying-very-fast-against-the-world's-rotation shtick didn't impress me even when I was eleven. Plus, as I verified while watching this movie again the other day, Superman still doesn't stop the second missile from hitting, he just saves Lois Lane. It makes you wonder who he didn't save in order to achieve this?

The scripts for Superman: The Movie and Superman II were both written by Mario Puzo of The Godfather fame. Although I liked the story line in the second installment involving the Phantom Zone villains (a great continuation and connection to the first movie), even as a boy, by that time at age 13, I did not care for the personal themes in Superman II. It wasn't merely Superman and Lois lane engaging in unmarried sexual intercourse (something that had never taken place in the comic books), it was the personal choice that Puzo had Superman make. Here was earth's protector choosing to give up his powers and abilities to have a normal life with the woman he loved, Lois Lane. Maybe that's a romantic decision for some, but then and now, it seemed like a very selfish and unheroic choice. It was a choice seemingly made on impulse without thought for the rest of humanity. It was a choice made without wisdom. I could never imagine the George Reeves' Superman making such a choice for Noel Neill (the television Lois Lane).

Superman III, which featured then popular comedian Richard Pryor, is largely unforgettable with the exception of the fight between Superman and Clark Kent (you'd have to see the movie to understand). That scene, to me, is one of the most clever psychological visualizations I've ever seen on film. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, co-written by Christopher Reeve himself, suffers from obviously political overtones and perhaps one of the worst edits of a film I've ever seen. I remember watching the movie and wondering how the characters got from one scene to another, feeling as if something was left out. After reading a comic book adaption based on the shooting script, the story made more sense, but the product on the screen seemed incredibly rushed. The failure of this movie ended Christopher Reeve's run as the Last Son of Krypton.

The nineties saw a number of attempts to resurrect the franchise. For a while Tim Burton was schedule to direct the film. This project went far enough to see teaser posters created. Personally, while I thought Burton was a great match for Batman, I did not want him to touch Superman. The same thing goes for Nicholas Cage, who unimaginably for a time was in talks to play Superman. Cage is one of my favorite actors, but he'll make a better Ghost Rider than Superman.

So finally, after nineteen long years, Superman Returns. Rather than reinvent Superman the way Burton planned, director and story co-writer Bryan Singer, chose to pick up where the Mario Puzo stories of Superman and Superman II left off. Ignoring the events of Superman III and IV (just as well), Superman Returns is a thematic sequel to the first two films, especially the second. John Williams' unforgettable theme music (by now inseparable from the Superman mythos) returns, although Williams himself does not score this movie. The only actor from the originals to return is Marlon Brando in spite of the fact that he's dead! But this was an incredibly clever choice. Another actor from the 1978 film showing his face is Glenn Ford, who played Jonathan Kent in the original. His picture is clearly visible on the mantle in the Kent farmhouse. Even the opening titles for the new film are done in the same style as the original movies. Seeing that lettering and hearing the John Williams' music transported me back momentarily to my childhood.

SPOILER ALERT: Read no further if you haven't seen the movie yet. Superman Returns is everything Superman III should have been in 1983. The events in Returns take place five years after the events in Superman II. Over these five years, Superman (Brandon Routh) has been missing. We find out that in response to astronomers' discovery of Krypton, Superman has been on a long galactic journey to see if anything remains of his homeworld. Finding nothing, he comes home. Of course, it's never explained how Superman can get there and back in a span of five years even though Jor-El has stated that he's been dead for thousands of earth years. Oh well.

During this time, no only has life moved on for Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), she is now a mother and engaged to Richard White (James Marsden of X-Men fame who gets more screentime in this movie than he did in X-Men II and III combined), the nephew of Daily Planet Publisher Perry White (played expertly by Frank Langella, although I miss Jackie Cooper). Hell hath no fury for Lois Lane scorned, and to prove it, she has won a Pulitzer Prize (a goal mentioned more than once in the first two movies) for her editorial, "Why the World Doesn't Need a Superman." It seems the boy in blue left without even as much as a goodbye, something she (rightly) took very personally.

The Richard White character is handled quite well. From a formulaic standpoint, usually an audience is made to hold contempt for any third wheel getting in the way of the characters you want to see hit it off. This is normally necessary so that he can be eventually discarded. When first introduced to Richard White in the movie, I wanted to dislike him, but as the movie progressed, that became something very difficult to do. I found myself feeling sympathy toward White, who was clearly insecure about Lois' past relationship with Superman--I mean, what man wouldn't be? Further, White is established as heroic in his own right, despite not being able to bend steel in his bare hands. Further (I warned you about spoilers), he is not removed from the triangle at the end of the movie, but the security of his relationship with Lois is at least questionable now that Superman's back in town.

The more significant plot point regarding Lois is her five-year-old son--coincidentally the same age as the length of time that Superman has been gone. Hmmm.... I'm going to break a golden rule of movie reviewing for the sake of later discussion and reveal to you that, yes--if you hadn't already guessed it--Jason Lane is actually Superman's son, the result of their coupling in Superman II. Of course, Time Magazine revealed the secret this week before me.

The third plot point revolves around Superman's arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey). Superman has not only been an absentee father to his son, but he failed to make the parole hearing for Luther who is now legally a free man. And having visited Superman's Fortress of Solitude in Superman II, he goes back there to steal Kryptonian technology. Just as in Superman: The Movie, Luthor has a real estate scheme; although this time, he's creating a new continent rather than dropping missiles on an old one. Of course, just like the first time, if he succeeds, billions will die in the process because raising a new land mass will cause flooding of existing ones.

Bryan Singer is an incredible director and story-teller. You can tell he is a true Superman fan, familiar not just with the movies, but also with the comic books. In this movie Superman is doing very Superman-like things--walking through sprays of machine gun bullets, preventing a plane crash, tunneling through the earth. Kathy and I were in a theater on opening day and the audience was quite fun--they applauded and cheered at all the appropriate times. The 1938 Action Comics #1 cover in which Superman lifts a car over his head is reproduced in the movie, something that the true fan will instantly recognize. Regardless of whether in the end a viewer likes this film or not, I can't see how anyone would not feel excitement and awe at the end of Superman's first appearance when he keeps a Boing 777 from crashing.

Although the 1978 film was supposed to make us "believe a man can fly," the flight in Superman Returns is how I imagine it really would be. There's not one scene that looks superimposed over a blue screen thanks to modern computer graphics and computer-based editing. And as opposed to the Christopher Reeve Superman, who when flying at tremendous speeds still never messed up his hair and his cape only lightly flapped, Routh's Superman's hair looks like he's riding in a convertible and his cape really seems to be pulling hard in the wind. Speaking of the cape, Superman's costume in this movie is slightly altered. The colors are darker for a modern audience (watching the original movies a few days ago, Reeves' costume comes across almost like pajamas by today's standards). The "S" on Superman's chest has been slightly altered somewhere between the version we're most familiar with and the original 1940's Siegel and Shuster rendition. However, Singer goes crazy with that S and it becomes superfluous. The S on his belt is redundant to the one on his chest. And there are even little S's on the heels of Superman's boots--oh my.

Besides the aforementioned connections to the earlier Superman movies, there are two nods to the fifties' Adventures of Superman television show. Noel Neill (the Lois Lane of the forties serials and seasons 2-5 of the TV show) and Jack Larson (Jimmy Olson of the TV series) both have roles in the movie. Although their roles are small, they are significant characters, not merely walk-ons such as when Stan Lee makes a cameo in a Marvel Comics movie. Neill's character is in a very early scene and although she was unrecognizable physically, her voice instantly gave her away to those of us familiar with the show. Larson's character is actually in a scene with the new Jimmy Olson (Sam Huntington) which makes it even more memorable.

Speaking of cameos, folks familiar with billionaire adventurer, Sir Richard Branson will spot him as one of the space shuttle pilots in one of the movie's early scenes. I wonder how much he paid to be in this movie? More trivia: Noel Neill has now been in more Superman renditions than any other actor. She played Lois Lane in the movie serials with Kirk Alyn and in the television show with George Reeves. In Superman: The Movie--if you can view an uncut version--she plays the mother of a very young Lois Lane who, while riding on a train, sees a young Clark Kent run speeding past. Kirk Alyn is also in that scene playing Lois' father. Neill also guest starred on a episode of the Superboy TV show.

Brandon Routh obviously won the part of Superman because he bears not an identical, but a striking resemblance to Christopher Reeve. But in all fairness, not everyone would be able to easily wear that costume. While Routh captures the essence of his predecessor, and some of his lines sound almost exactly like Reeve's (in fact, at least two lines are identical to those in the 1978 movie), he also makes the character into his own. When the bank robber shoots Superman in the face--actually in the eye--Routh's Superman looks ticked off in a way that I don't ever remember seeing in the Christopher Reeve portrayal of Superman. And Routh's Clark Kent goes even beyond Christopher Reeve's performance making him not just a nerd, but an outright geek (there is a difference, you know).

Incidentally, according to the trivia on the IMDB, Routh thought he had blown the role when at his first meeting with Singer, he stumbled and spilled coffee all over the table where they were sitting. However, Singer later told him that blunder helped get him the role because it convinced him that he could play not only Superman but Clark Kent as well.
Some will disagree with me, but I never saw Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She didn't have the spirit of Margot Kidder, the charisma of Teri Hatcher, and certainly not the brass of Noel Neill. There was great chemistry between Kidder and Reeves in Superman I and II. But even with characters' relationship estranged, I never saw any such connection between Routh and Bosworth. I kept wondering what Superman saw in this Lois anyway. To me, Bosworth's Lois came across a bit flat and lacks energy, but in interviews of Bosworth I've seen, she comes across that way in real life.

Kevin Spacey makes a wonderful Lex Luthor, who in the end was not quite over-the-top as one of my friends feared based on previews. Rather, he was a much darker and seemingly smarter Lex Luthor than the Hackman version. In one interview that I saw, Spacey says that after accepting the role, he purposefully did not go back and watch Gene Hackman's version of Luthor so that he could make the role into his own. For this type of Lex Luthor, I believe Spacey was the best casting choice imaginable. And fortunately, there was no "Otis-like" character as in the Puzo scripts, which I believe took away from Luthor's character. However, I hope that one day we can get beyond the Puzo version of Lex Luthor who simply seems to pursue one land scheme after another. I like the John Byrne version of Luthor depicted in the comic books who is not only a scientific genius, but also a politician who runs and wins the presidency making Superman's conflict with him even more complex. This is the Luthor I'd like to see on film. Michael Rosenbaum's Luthor on Smallville, by the way, is a nod toward Byrne's version.

One of the strengths of the movie and certainly part of Singer's genius was to tie this Superman movie to the iconic versions from 1978 and 1980. However, in my opinion, this is also one of the film's greatest weaknesses. The ultimate connection to Superman II is the night that Superman and Lois spent together in his Fortress of Solitude. Lois' son is the consequence of this action. So, now the storyline begun with Superman's selfish disregard for all of humanity is now continued with his role essentially as that of an absentee father, perhaps even a "deadbeat dad." He certainly didn't pay child support during those five years he was gone, did he? Rather he left mother and son in the lurch. Granted, he didn't know about the Jason, but he didn't have a chance to find out because he left earth without telling Lois goodbye. C'mon, Superman, get a spine. This is certainly not heroic actions. Is this Superman supposed to look more human to us? Is he supposed to be an example perhaps to unwed fathers because now he's going to take responsibility for the child? I don't know. Again, I could never see George Reeves in this situation, and it's not what I want in Superman. Unfortunately, now that Singer has resurrected this storyline, I can only imagine that I won't see the kind of Superman movie I really want until I'm a very old man, if then.

Plus, here's an interesting continuity question. If Clark Kent (who as Superman had all kind of "extra" never-seen-before-or-since powers in Superman II) removed Lois' memory of events and his secret identity with some kind of super-kiss at the end of the second movie, how in the world does she know that Jason is Superman's son? This question is never addressed, let alone answered in Superman Returns. One wonders whether or not Lois shouldn't speculate that the child was some kind of "virgin birth."

Speaking of such things, it's hard to deny the Judeo-Christian imagery in the Superman myth. Superman is the story of a savior sent to our world from a heavenly father, who's last name just happens to be "El," the Hebrew word for God. In the Christianity Today interview, Singer rightly points out that Superman started out as more of a Moses figure seeing as Superman's creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were both Jewish. However, the story has been written and rewritten by many, many different writers over the years and the Christian imagery has grown. In fact, in the 1990's "Death of Superman" saga, Superman actually died and rose from the grave! There is a new book out that explores some of this imagery in the Superman myth, but from the reviews of it I've seen, too much is being read into the story. A better treatment of this imagery is in John Galloway's The Gospel According to Superman written about three decades ago. Although it's out of print, used copies are still attainable.

Bryan Singer, although Jewish, certainly plays this Christian imagery up in the film. The Superman of this movie hears the voices of everyone at once, like the God of the Bible who can hear the prayers of all people. There's much talk in the movie about whether or not the world needs not just a Superman, but a savior (that exact word is used). Jor-El's words from the first film about sending "my only son" are repeated. Superman is stabbed in the side like Christ, and toward the end, even stretches out his arms in a very Christ-like pose.

Personally, I'd rather leave the Christ analogies out. I love the Superman story, but Superman is not Jesus. And the Puzo-Singer Superman, the one who selfishly gave up his powers and had what turned out to be a one night stand in Superman II, resulting in a son of his own in Superman Returns is not my Jesus. Pardon me for saying this but the Superman of the Puzo-Singer storyline has more in common with Dan Brown's Jesus of the Da Vinci Code than the Superman of the Bible. Forgive me, but I'd simply prefer to keep Jesus and Superman separate (notwithstanding that Jim Caviezel was turned down for the role of Superman for this movie).

Kathy and I saw the IMAX 3-D version of Superman Returns. I hadn't been to a 3-D movie in years, and I thought this might make a good one to see with the effects. However, while fun, it doesn't really add anything to the story and may actually take away from it because the viewer is more concentrated on the effects than the story. In the end, there was less than 20 minutes of the two and a half hour movie that were actually in 3-D with nothing in the second half in 3-D at all except for the final flight scene. My hunch is that the team responsible for adding the 3-D effects simply ran out of time. These days, the final cut of a movie is often completed mere weeks before actual release. The lack of 3-D scenes in the second half and especially during the opening titles (which scream 3-D) seems to give away this tight schedule.

Go see Superman Returns. Overall, it is a good installment in the series. If you saw the first parts of the storyline as a kid like I did, it will take you back to your childhood. Just don't put the Man of Steel on too high of a pedestal. Remember instead that the world actually does have a Savior, and he's not vulnerable to Kryptonite, let alone rash choices.

Tags: Superman

Christianity Today Movies has a great interview with Bryan Singer, director of the upcoming Superman Returns.

The interview is fairly significant because CT really tries to pin Singer down on the spiritual influences in the film. Although Singer comes across as a pluralist, he doesn't deny the Judeo-Christian imagery in the movie. Here's an excerpt of the Interview:

---

The guys who created Superman were Jewish, so I don't think they intended him to be a Christ figure, but he seems to have kind of become that over the years.

Singer: I don't think Jesus … Well, I can't get into religious things, but um…

Well, you are talking to Christianity Today!

Singer: Well, yeah, that's true, so I guess it's going to come up! (Laughs) I think that it [Superman as Christ figure] is kind of a natural evolution, because he began as kind of a Moses figure, of the child sent by the parents down the river to fulfill a destiny.

Kind of as a liberator in response to Hitler and the Nazis?

Singer: Yes. The Second World War presented an interesting dilemma for the Superman creators, because he was a very much an inspirational figure for the troops—and yet even though he was so powerful, he did not simply go clean up the Nazi menace and solve all the problems in Europe. He helped out, but he primarily led by example. He stirred others; he inspired. He left the actual heroism to the real heroes, to the soldiers in the field and abroad, and in that way, he became this very inspiring figure.

And that, obviously, translates into these kinds of allegories, Christ being a natural one, because Superman's a savior. And even more so in my film, because he's gone for a period of time, and then he returns. For me to say that those messianic images don't exist in the movie would be absurd.

The 1978 film seemed to push the messianic imagery, especially with the Jor-El quote about sending "my only son."

Singer: "They can be a great people Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." It's very powerful and very meaningful, that monologue and the other moment in the film where Kal-El's mother says, "He will be isolated alone," and Jor-El takes the crystal and places it into the ship and says, "He will not be alone. He will never be alone." Those two scenes resonated the strongest with me in the making of this movie, which is why I ultimately used Marlon Brando's voice and image.

As a Jewish guy, have you embraced this Christology/mythology, or do you see it as more than that, or what?

Singer: I grew up as a relatively secular Jewish kid in a Catholic neighborhood. I went to a Christian youth club as a kid, 'cause I liked the sports.

Mr. Ecumenical, huh?

Singer: It was very peculiar! And I had a Hindi friend, so I had some measure of exposure to multiple faiths. I have an aunt who's a born-again Christian; I wonder what kind of impression the film will make on her. I think it'll be obvious to her.

But when you grow up in a Judeo-Christian culture, these things find their way into your subconscious and your storytelling. So some of the imagery is, I think, unintentional, and some of it is very thought-out and celebratory. If I try to say, "Oh, I didn't know about that imagery," I'd sound like a fool—or like I was just being insincere.

In an action adventure film, if you don't care about the people that the action adventure is happening to, then the action adventure doesn't work as well. It's not as thrilling and meaningful. So, by calling upon certain romantic feelings, by calling upon certain spiritual feelings, by calling upon those thoughts and ideas and manifesting them in this kind of movie, it allows the audience to have a multiple of experiences besides just fireworks. For me, that's a very important part of the movie.

Obviously this was a very personal and emotional project for you. Was it also a spiritual experience in any way?

Singer: Uh, I think I have a spirituality that I keep very much to myself. I don't talk about it much, because I'm a filmmaker, I'm not a preacher (laughter)! I think spirituality exists in the movie, but I have my own [spirituality]. I pray in my own way, I guess you'd say.

---

Read the full interview. And look for This Lamp's review of Superman Returns late Wednesday or sometime Thursday.

Tags: Superman

I admit it. I've always been a fan of the guy in the big red cape.

There's what appears to be a new (third) trailer out, but it's not on the Quicktime site as of this writing.

Enjoy.



Oh, and that very last scene in the trailer--Ouch! And then, OH MY!

Tags: Superman