The Greatest Trick

5 minutes. That’s all it took for us to switch this off in disgust. Not because what was on screen was repulsive visually, spiritually or any other -ly you can think of, but because the concept of a monster-slayer who works his way through the Universal horror classics (Frankenstein, Dracula, the Hunchback of Notre Dame) apparently gave the writers licence to mash up and spew out accepted versions of well-written horror stories and come up with something so vulgar that it wasn’t worth spending any more time on it. Lowest-common denominator film-making of the type that totally patronises its target audience rather than addressing them as human beings - “these 14-year-olds who are going to see it don’t have any concept of the original stories, so we can re-write them in whatever messy way we want.” Absolute horse manure. No star rating as we didn’t get to the end, but I doubt it would have got more than one.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and a negative image, once embedded in the consciousness, can cause all the negative emotions associated with it to recur whenever one is presented with a similar image. Thus, when one sees a plummeting aeroplane near the beginning of Superman Returns, one immediately thinks of 9/11. To then watch Superman save said aircraft is fantasy writing of the highest order, and it is almost impossible to not cheer. “I hope this experience hasn’t put you off flying,’ Superman says to the rescued passengers. ‘It’s still statistically the safest way to travel.’ In this extraordinary moment, Superman is not only wittily reprising one of his most famous lines from the original 1978 film, but also providing a moment of reassurance and healing for the post-9/11 consciousness of the Western world.

Superman has always been my favourite superhero. There is something about him that makes him the ultimate comic book hero. Perhaps it’s his absolute, clear-cut right and wrong morality. Perhaps it’s because he’s from another planet, instead of becoming a superhero through martial arts training or genetic mutation. Perhaps it’s the messianic overtones, but more of that later.

At this point I must add that Superman and Superman II, the films from 1978 and 1980 respectively, are two of my all time favourites. They are a part of my childhood and as such I find it virtually impossible to view Superman Returns objectively, without comparing it to these movies. Thankfully, it appears director Bryan Singer has the same problem. Correctly believing the origin story has been definitively rendered, he treats Superman Returns as a sort of sequel to Superman II (ignoring the inferior III and IV). His reverential treatment of both the Superman legend and more specifically, Richard Donner’s version of it work tremendously in his favour, and the resultant movie is a sweeping, dynamic epic; thrilling, emotionally resonant, and chock-full of spiritual and moral food for thought. Its not quite as much fun as the afore-mentioned favourites, opting for a slightly more serious tone, but it is something of a flawed masterpiece nonetheless.

Superman returns to Earth after a mysterious absence of five years and finds the world has moved on. After getting back his former job at the Daily Planet as his alias Clark Kent, he discovers Lois Lane is engaged to Perry White’s nephew Richard, has a son called Jason, and has even written a prize winning article about “Why the world doesn’t need Superman”. And if that wasn’t enough, because of his absence, Lex Luthor has been released from prison on a technicality, and is planning another evil scheme using stolen Krypton technology that will wipe out billions.

As Superman, Brandon Routh is a superb successor to Christopher Reeve. He has a unique presence that both pays tribute to Reeve and makes the role his own. The rest of the cast is also excellent. Kate Boswell is too young, but still makes a terrific Lois Lane, Kevin Spacey has great fun as Lex Luthor, and even Marlon Brando makes an important cameo appearance as Jor-El via digital jiggery-pokery, utilizing scenes originally shot for the earlier film. Elsewhere, Eva Marie Saint pops up as Martha Kent; a lovely bit of casting. Sam Huntington and Frank Langella as Jimmy Olsen and Perry White respectively are very good in their limited roles, and James Marsden is enormously impressive as Richard. Finally, there is a “non-annoying kid” role (a rarity in Hollywood) in the form of Jason, played with beautifully understatement by Tristan Lake Leabu.

It’s scarcely worth mentioning that on a technical level the film is everything one could hope for, with outstanding special effects, sound and cinematography (especially in the plane crash rescue). John Williams’ classic theme, nostalgically set to the original film’s silver and blue titles, still makes the hairs on the back of the neck stand to attention. Speaking of music, it’s also worth noting that in addition to Williams’ themes, the film has an entirely new score composed by regular Bryan Singer collaborator John Ottman, which compliment the original compositions very well.

If you are expecting a typical summer blockbuster with non-stop action, then you had best be warned, Singer’s film isn’t so much concerned with special effects (though there are enough to keep ones inner 12 year old satisfied), as the poignant love story between Superman and Lois. For the most part, this is a wise move, though I do think the film is a bit too flabby, and the editor could have lost about twenty minutes. Don’t expect an action packed climax either. Singer instead opts for an enigmatic, but emotionally satisfying low-key conclusion.

The relationship between Superman and Lois raises all kinds of interesting moral dilemmas, as Superman agonises over his love for her; whether it is better to leave her with Richard; a man he knows will treat her and her son well, or to take the more selfish path. It’s the first time Superman’s absolute morality has been so sorely tested, and one is reminded of the temptations that a Christian must face and overcome. In addition, the Christ parallels of Superman have never been more obvious, and because Singer makes what was once subtle so blatant, it can no longer be ignored. However, I cannot discuss this properly without revealing a key twist in the story. If you are reading this and have not yet seen the film, I recommend you stop reading, go and see it, then return to this article, as I am about to spoil the ending.

Please do not misinterpret what follows as my suggesting that Superman is somehow unsuitable for Christians. I simply wish to explain why I feel it is important to be wary of Superman Returns as a straight Christ allegory the same way one can with, say, Aslan from the Narnia stories.

The Superman/Christ parallels have always been clear; a father sends his only son to Earth as a saviour with incredible powers to pour out his life in the service of humanity. But in Singer’s version, the case for humanity needing a saviour is made more compellingly than ever. I won’t go on to bore you with the endless allusions to the Passion story, as I am sure you will spot them yourself, and the imagery is pretty obvious. But for all the spiritual ripples in Superman’s muscles, he is still a character who makes mistakes, and unlike Jesus, does not live a perfect life. At the climax of the film, when it is revealed that Jason is in fact his son, the allegory takes on Gnostic gospel overtones if taken to their logical conclusion, with Lois becoming Mary Magdalene, and Jason becoming symbolic of a Christ bloodline.

At this point I am losing some of you. It’s only a comic book! Why read that into it? Does it matter? Well, it wouldn’t if Singer hadn’t made such a big deal out of the Christ allegories, and as it stands, they are impossible to ignore. Therefore, I would say that provided one explains to one’s children that Superman is not like Jesus (and I feel this is particularly important with the Da Vinci Code still in the public consciousness), there isn’t a major problem. The film is too intense for younger children in any case, but anyone aged about 10 or over would probably be fine with it (depending, obviously, on the temperament of one’s children).

As I touched on earlier, the many positive elements of Superman’s character are much better likened to that of a Christian attempting to walk in their high calling, and facing the painful sacrifices and severe temptations that are an inevitable feature of such a lifestyle, occasionally failing, but ultimately, with all things working together for good, overcoming. In that context Superman Returns, and its paternal revelations, is exciting, truthful and moving.

Simon Dillon, July 2006.

For anyone who isn’t aware, the stress is on the ‘one’ of the title, not any other word, as the action centres on the US Army First Division, (five members of it specifically) who wear a red 1 on their uniforms. Apparently director and writer Sam Fuller carried this story around with him for several years, following his experiences as an American GI in WWII, and it’s dead obvious - it’s extremely episodic, and doesn’t really have a focus beyond “this happened, then this happened, and then we did this and talked about this”. With one exception, perhaps, that being the journey taken by Mark Hamill’s character (the actor riding high in the middle of the Star Wars saga when this was made).

It begins with an assault on North Africa, where we are introduced to the unnamed sergeant played by Lee Marvin (seemingly in a totally different, higher-class film to all the other actors) and his four cocky comrades who just can’t get killed. From there they storm a beach, battle tanks and evade snipers in Sicily, then are involved in Omaha on D-Day and we follow them as they push on through Belgium, Germany and finally to the liberation of a Czech concentration camp. And really, that’s the story. It’s extremely episodic, and might have worked better as a mini-series (which, in my opinion, Das Boot didn’t when it was broken down).

There are some moments of fairly extreme violence and bloodiness, as would be expected from a war film, but lots of the killing is also done with relatively little gore, and swearing is minimal, which makes a change. There are some very affecting emotional notes too, mostly centred around Marvin’s character and how he relates to the children he comes across in particular - he treats them with respect and love, and lots of the film’s heart comes from these moments. But these are isolated incidents in a very messily-directed and poorly-structured film, in my opinion. Fuller makes some very odd editing decisions which did distract; if you’re going to make a “war against nature” picture, à la The Thin Red Line, then fair enough to include gorgeous shots of birds, animals etc. But that’s not what this film is about, so when a tense moment arrives and Fuller chucks in a shot of a pretty bunny rabbit in the snow, it doesn’t make sense. And the depiction of the inmates of the insane asylum was quite shocking by today’s standards; maybe that’s how it actually was when Fuller experienced it, I don’t know, but what you saw showed a terrible understanding of mental illness on the part of the director.

That said, the final sequence focussed around the concentration camp is rightly harrowing, and the actors pull it off well, considering they themselves fully knew of the horrors of the Holocaust when making the film in 1980, but had to play grunts with no idea what they would find when they opened certain doors in that camp. And Mark Hamill is key to this sequence; in the rest of the film, he doesn’t acquit himself particularly well in terms of acting (I really don’t rate him apart from in Empire and Jedi, when by some miracle he was able to pull off good performances), but he just about makes it work at the end.

We nearly turned it off after half an hour, and we would have missed some good moments. But there are much better war films around, ones not hampered by personal experience and a weak-willed editor.

Shorter review for this film, simply because it was 2 weeks ago that we watched it, and it totally lived to our expectations, neither up nor down really. Tom Hanks (see review on The Terminal for general thoughts on his performances) plays Chuck Noland, FedEx employee (think glorified postman) par excellence and seemingly charged with ensuring that things in his company happen fast, fast, fast. Never do we really get an idea of his position in FedEx though, so as far as we know he just delivers packages. For some reason, a Christmas Eve emergency (a package requires him to put off proposing to his girlfriend - what an idiot) calls him to fly across the Pacific, during which the planes comes down and he is stranded, totally alone and with very few resources at his disposal. We watch him adapt, survive and eventually make his home there (and learn about taking one’s time, of course), and four years later he makes a worthwhile attempt to escape.

One thing I was really grateful for in this film was that all the time Hanks is on the island, we never get any idea of what is going on back at home. We don’t have to suffer the bland girlfriend’s (Helen Hunt - who else?) loss, grief, and subsequent moving-on alongside Noland’s isolation. What that does mean is that Hanks totally carries the film, and for that he should be applauded - the beard is a good enough symbol of the length of time it took to shoot this project (although director Robert Zemeckis shot, edited and released the Hitchcock-lite What Lies Beneath while Hanks grew it in the middle of filming) and the hardships seemingly endured by its leading man. I can’t admit to having been amazed by the film, because it just did what I expected it to - the final shots are a fairly obvious conclusion/development for the character, and the things Noland needs to “learn” are signposted in quite an unsubtle and ham-fisted way at the start.

It wasn’t profound, and it wasn’t amazing, but it wasn’t terrible or unwatchable. Just a film. And I feel like apologizing to Hanks and Zemeckis for saying that, because it really is faint praise.

Why was the monkey still undead? That was just one of many plot holes in this utterly gratuitous sequel. The original film’s story, The Curse of the Black Pearl, didn’t exactly bear close scrutiny either, but at least it was a consistently fun romp. By contrast this is intermittently entertaining at best. It’s uneven, has jarring shifts in tone, and is at least thirty minutes too long (again, the original outstayed its welcome but nowhere near as indulgently as this).

The main problem is that director Gore Verbinski seems intent on bringing back not just the main characters, but also all the minor characters. The unique selling point of the first film was Johnny Depp’s hilarious (and Oscar nominated) turn as pirate Captain Jack Sparrow. It would have been better to build a story entirely around him, which could have been a nice spin-off or companion piece. Instead, we get all manner of pointless subplots, which makes the picture bloated and dramatically unsure of itself. Clearly Verbinski is aiming for an “Empire Strikes Back” type instalment (irritatingly setting up a third film at the end), but unlike the brilliance of that Star Wars sequel, this is more like The Matrix Reloaded, ie overlong, overblown and unnecessary.

The plot is so ludicrous and convoluted that I almost can’t be bothered explain it. Dead Man’s Chest concerns a blood debt Captain Jack owes to Davy Jones (Bill Nighy covered in CGI tentacles), who captains the mysterious ship the Flying Dutchman, crewed by soon-to-be-dead survivors of shipwrecks who chose to serve him in a kind of aquatic purgatory instead of facing the afterlife. To outwit Jones, Jack must find a key that opens a hidden chest containing his enemy’s still-beating heart.

However, there are others who want the chest for their own ends, most notably the East India Trading Company’s Lord Beckett (Tom Hollander). He arrests the heroes of the original film Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) before their wedding on charges of piracy in order to blackmail Will into helping him. Along the way, a myriad of subplots come into play, including Will’s father Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgard), who long ago lost his soul to Davy Jones and the return of disgraced former Commodore Norrington, who also has an agenda of his own.

To be fair, the performances are all pretty good, with one or two very funny Captain Jack moments (although his one-liners aren’t nearly as good as those in the original). On a technical level Dead Man’s Chest is also very accomplished, with some terrific special effects and action scenes. The most entertaining of these involves a lengthy slapstick sequence on an island with cannibals near the beginning. But fun set pieces do not a good film make, and in between the fun bits there are longeurs and pointless character development moments, not to mention illogical plot holes and unanswered questions. I realise that in a film this of this nature you shouldn’t care, but I really want to know why the monkey is still undead?

Simon Dillon, July 2006.