ROBBY REEDS REVIEW AT DIAL B

[Michel Weisnor]

Superman Returns was not a parody no matter how much you didn't like it.

Pokes Jax-Ur in his good eye.....

As I run for my life!

[Great Rao]

Klar, as someone who has read quite a number of Sherlock Holmes pastiches, I think you have made an excellent observation and I thank you for it.

Superman Returns, like most Holmes pastiches, does an incredible job at imitating the most minute details and of sounding and looking just like the real thing; but it also gets so much wrong and is sadly missing the heart and soul.

And now knowing Superman Returns for what it is - a Superman pastiche - I can appreciate it.

[Klar Ken T5477]

Ah Rao, another reader of Robt L. Fish! :wink:

[Uncle Mxy]

We should probably have a thread for suitably stimulating Superman Returns reviews and recaps.  Here's one to add to the list:

http://teh-no.livejournal.com/120523.html

[nightwing]

I agree "pastiche" is a pretty apt description.  The odd thing is I still like it better than the originals.

As has been remarked above, SR repeats the basic structure of S:TM almost slavishly, with a little of S:II thrown in (like Luthor accessing the fortress).  And in several places, the dialog is a direct lift from the earlier films (in the case of the Jor-El speech now being used by Kal-El at the end, it works.  Elsewhere -- "hope this hasn't put you off flying"..."my dad always said to me"...and so on...it's annoying.  How many of us in real life go around repeating the same speeches all the time?).  BUT...in my case, I think the new film holds together better structurally than the older ones, and does a better job of serving up what I want to see in a Superman movie.  

All of which raises the question: Can a film be superior to another film when in fact it owes so much to said film?  Even if SR does it better, S:TM did it first, so does Singer get full credit for creating something, or is he just the equivalent of a film editor with a huge budget?  I mean, I can make some kick-butt improvements to my house, but that doesn't make me an architect, does it?

Bottom line for me though is that I don't much care.  I'm not really of the opinion that superhero films can qualify as "art" no matter who's making them.  They are commodities, really...franchises, and auteurs need not apply.  It's been said that the Bond films are a series of one film (Dr No) and 19 remakes.  Yet how many people rate Dr No as the best just because it was first?  Sometimes with characters and franchises like these you're allowed to repeat the formula forever with only subtle variations...sometimes the results are better, sometimes worse, but if I like "The Spy Who Loved Me" better than "Thunderball" that's generally accepted as a valid opinion to have.  And if I like SR better than S:TM it's the same thing, in my opinion.

So...has Singer crafted a unique new vision of Superman on film? No, but then I never thought he would and said as much on this board way back when it was revealed SR would be a "sequel" to S:TM and S:II.  But he did create a great piece of entertainment for my money.

No superhero film has ever cracked my Top 20 list of films and likely none ever will.  But taken for what it is...a superhero movie...SR is probably my favorite, with the possible exception of The Incredibles.

[MatterEaterLad]

No superhero film has ever cracked my Top 20 list of films and likely none ever will.  But taken for what it is...a superhero movie...SR is probably my favorite, with the possible exception of The Incredibles.

I've never thought about it, but no super hero movie comes close to making my top movie list either, though King Kong (1933) and Nosferatu (1924) do, and I liked DC comics more than monster or horror movies as a little kid...