It is unusual for a movie in a particular franchise to continue from where the last movie stopped after 19 years, only for it to continue from the second installment and ignore events from the very last prior to hiatus. Superman Returns is the movie in question that continues from where Superman II (1980) but ignores Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987). This movie was released in 2006, the same year as X-Men: The Last Stand, a movie that should have been directed by Bryan Singer who forwent the Marvel movie to direct this DC movie.
The decision to shoot this movie and cause a rift in continuity is something that has utterly left a sour taste in the mouths of movie goers and comic book fans. It is not an excuse that the fourth and final installment that killed the franchise for almost twenty years, is worthy of being ignored along its predecessor. It would have been better to reboot the franchise than produce a sequel after this long gap. That is how the Batman franchise was rejuvenated. The movie Batman Begins, released in 2005, went back to its roots in order to fix the damage left by Schumacher. That film succeeded critically and financially and it spawned two more successful sequels. Yet Bryan Singer did not bother to learn the lesson and do something right.
So the prologue states the premise of the movie. After that, the opening credits are designed to emulate the theme of the comic book superhero, accompanied with the thematic score. The background comprises of a series of planets, which I have already seen in Men In Black II (2002) and Fantastic 4: Rise Of The Silver Surfer (2007). In those movies those planets were being obliterated; here none has been. I guess that it only rips off those movies for the sake of visuals, even though that proved pointless. (For a special piece, the latter ripped off the former, even though this is probably cliched.) But I digress. Then we open up with a scene in Lex Luther's home. I wouldn't even care what goes on here, so I'm moving on.
Superman has been away for five years. He returns home and tries to continue with his ordinary life as Clark Kent. He later finds out that the whole world has moved on without Superman. So does this mean that the whole world no longer needs him? I believe the real question is: has the whole world moved on from the Superman franchise? My answer would be "yes". Anyone who has not grown up with this film will have no idea about the characters in this film. The whole sequence of events will be just a vapor in the eyes of the audience. For anyone who has grown up with the doomed franchise, nobody would want to look back to the failure of the last movie. What is it with sequels that measure up to this trend? A change in actor leads to a change in personality, so you can't really bond with anybody in this movie including the titular character. Christopher Reeves was the iconic Superman/Clark Kent, both of which are now played by Brandon Routh. Gene Hackman was Superman's arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor, who is now played by Kevin Spacey.
How is it a man has been able to disappear from the Earth for five years and think he could ever have his old life again? The should have no chance with the Daily Planet, but does when somebody coincidentally passes on leaving a spot for him. It is beyond belief that he just has this chance again, whether he reigned or just disappeared automatically prompting dismissal. And for that matter, how can nobody link Clark's long absence with Superman's? Would that not prompt some kind of inquiry?
Having reclaimed his job, Clark discovers that Lois Lane is engaged with Richard White, and has a child with him. Clark is gripped in anguish and feels left out. Lois has not married but still has a child nonetheless. He is also told that she has some feelings left for his alter ego, Superman. He takes this little chance left to win her heart.
In the meantime, Luther has hatched a plan to build his own world with the crystals he discovers in the sanctuary of solitude. I'll be blunt: this is cliched and far-fetched, and I wouldn't even think of this as worth my time.
Overall, this movie could have had something, but given the order of events it is not worth scrambling for. This sequel is out of line and is not a movie that rejuvenates a long-hibernating franchise. For a new generation it would have been better to reinvent itself and stick to the roots. This movie was produced to play homage to a series of DC movies that initiated a taste for comic movies, even before Batman saw the big screens worldwide. I could let this film lie as paying homage rather than being a sequel altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment