If this were the crux of the story, the film might work as a (weak) Christ allegory. But in an effort to win the hearts of women the world over, the filmmakers have decided to make Superman a lovesick puppy, longing to win back Lois. Why must Superman – whose stated mission, repeated early in the film, is to “show the way” to humans, who “lack the light” — be tied down by such concerns? It’s not entirely clear. Could it be that the filmmakers think that not only Christians, but young females, are key to the box-office success of "Superman Returns"?
Maybe Lois’ young son is the key to the film. Superman is not divine. He’s susceptible to kryptonite, and his weakness is again exposed here (isn’t it always?). Has he grown weary? As he ponders the mission handed him by his father, is he looking to pass the baton to the next generation?
Routh is fine in the lead role, but even by superhero-movie standards, his part is underwritten. He’s left to stare longingly at Lois through Clark Kent’s glasses, or to grab her, as Superman, for a quick flight above Metropolis, in between a few spectacular rescues. Bosworth brings some moxie – but not quite enough – to the role of hard-bitten journalist Lane. Spacey has fun hamming it up as Lex Luthor, while Parker Posey generates a few chuckles as Luthor’s cohort, Kitty Kowalski.
With Bryan Singer behind the camera, the parts were all in place for a successful rebirth of the Superman franchise. Why, then, is the final product so unmemorable? With the many bones thrown to religious viewers, why is the film so rarely uplifting?
If "Superman Returns" makes enough money to justify a sequel, let’s hope the creators spend a little more time concentrating on a rewarding story and a little less time catering to desirable demographic groups.
AUDIENCE: Teens and up
CAUTIONS: