the man of metropolis (almost) steals our hearts: superman returns

Early in the film, under the guise of Lois Lane's Pulitzer-winning editorial, "Superman Returns" asks itself a pretty heavy question-- does the world need Superman? The filmmakers waste little time answering with a resounding "Well, duh," but it's a question that's been heard a lot since the movie's opening. In a Hollywood where the real heroes are geeky teenagers in spider suits, geeky middle schoolers in robes and wands, and meek hobbits with furry feet, is there still room for blue tights and a cape?

Well, sort of. "Superman Returns" is welcome in the way all well-crafted superhero movies are, a chance to marvel at spectacle and indulge in fantasy that still resembles our own world (well, sorta: plenty of people would kill for Lois' waterfront mansion facing "Metropolis" from "Brookopolis" or whatever, but it's not gonna happen). Director Bryan Singer, as he did with the X-Men films and even "The Usual Suspects," takes care to endow the characters with dimensions and feelings without letting all that development overwhelm the real show of explosions and last-minute rescues. Some of the most dazzling moments in the film aren't pure action but moments of reflection, like Superman hanging in the stratosphere as he contemplates his fate as the light of the world, or his and Lois' elegant late-night flight. They're both CGI-heavy scenes, but as Peter Jackson has proven and George Lucas has failed to do, CGI is always best when there's a human heart pounding behind it.

Unfortunately, for all the heart (not to mention money) that was clearly put into the film, the result is occasionally spectacular but largely half-baked and messy. The film wastes about 30 minutes in the beginning setting up the concept but basically abandons character setup other than what we already know. In this film Clark will be geeky, Lois will be brassy, Jimmy Olsen will be overeager and Lex Luthor will be evil. Thanks very much, moving on.

It doesn't help matters that talent in this film is essentially wasted or nonexistent. Kevin Spacey as Luthor and Parker Posey as his assistant/girlfriend are glorious in the moments when they're allowed to cut loose, but are largely limited to evil glowering (Spacey) and looking hilarious holding a silly dog (Posey). Bosworth and Routh, on the other hand, are fine but unspectacular, bringing little to their roles that I-- with a very casual understanding of the world of Superman--didn't know already. You can see why Lois loves Superman and why Clark loves Lois, but that much was clear when they were two-dimensional and had word bubbles. Other instances of talent-- particularly the young actor playing Jimmy Olsen-- are shining but brief, because with plots and subplots and the bizarre four-person love triangle at the center of it all, there's not really much more time.

And oh, the plot. Superhero movies, even the best ones, rarely rely too much on plot (quick: tell me about the plot of "Spiderman 2" other than that Alfred Molina was involved). Still, this one is a doozy, something about crystals and real estate that is no less fun or interesting when Kevin Spacey explains it, crazy giggles and all. There seem to be better ways of taking over the world than creating entirely new landmasses, especially when you're an evil genius, and especially when the landmasses you create resemble a rockier, uglier version of the Maine coastline. I went along with the plot initially because I had no other choice, but once I saw Luthor's evil creation, all I could think was, "Come on, who would actually want to live there?"

The one cool trick of the plot, that of Luthor's inclusion of kryptonite in the very foundation of his new world, brings up yet again an interesting question that is never answered: what about a world without Superman? The necessary scene in which Superman is felled by kryptonite is beautiful and painful, the tights black and the cape maroon in the shadows and the mud he's plunged in, mortal and suffering. Who cares if the world needs Superman-- what if the world needed him, and he couldn't be there? It's not really a possibility the film has time to dive into, which is forgivable, but it's a lot cooler than crystals or whatever else Luthor is up to.

In the end, "Superman Returns" is satisfying for what it is, but a total disappointment for what it could be. The ideas and setups are there, from the possibility of a SuperBoy to even a mild flirtation with acknowledging the mild flirtation between Mr. Olsen and Mr. Kent. It seems logical for Singer to play it safe with such an expensive and anticipated franchise revival, and there are few who will be seriously upset with what they find. But because Superman is, in a weird way, every man-- no bat gimmick or sidekicks to work around-- there are limitless possiblities with his character, and it's disheartening to find such a mild effort.

If there are sequels-- and despite all this, I hope there will be-- we can only hope for a little more invention, a little more (coherent plot), and maybe even a little more fun. In a time when so many superhero and action films, included those by Singer himself, have been stellar, it's not really OK to come up with something that's fine but nothing special. But it's Superman, guys, and for him we have a lot of forgiveness left. The world does need Superman-- it always has-- and with a little more effort maybe we can convince ourselves to need this one as well.