Related articles and links |  1 of 4

It's been almost 20 years since director Richard Donner dazzled audiences with Superman: The Movie, and turned Christopher Reeve into a super-celebrity.

In the sequels that followed, a franchise quickly devolved, becoming preposterous and forgettable. But Superman was too popular to stay buried forever, and it's clear that Bryan Singer, the director of the first two X-Men films, was excited to bring him back. At long last, the Man of Steel is stealing scenes again.

Can Brandon Routh live up to the standard set by Christopher Reeve?

Is Kate Bosworth a lovable Lois Lane?

How does Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor compare to the one played by Gene Hackman?

Was it a mistake for Singer to leave the X-Men franchise, which was going so well until he handed it over to Bret Ratner?

Christian film critics do not agree on the answers to these questions. But almost all of them are excited about interpreting Superman Returns as a sort of allegory about Christ.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies), giving the film two-and-a-half stars (out of four), writes, "[T]here is no denying that Singer has pulled out all the stops in his bid to make the biggest, loudest summer blockbuster possible—and he sprinkles the movie with welcome grace notes of visual beauty and comic absurdity."

He also says we shouldn't "make too much" of the film as Christian allegory. "The Superman movies have never shown anyone actually following Superman's inspiring lead; if anything, they have shown people waiting passively for Superman to rescue them. What's more, the Superman of the movies has shown a remarkable tendency to shrug off his responsibilities—first abandoning his powers (and thus the safety of the world) so he could sleep with Lois in Superman II, and now abandoning the world altogether for several years prior to the events of Superman Returns. In addition, whereas the first film had an almost mystical sensibility that lent itself to religious allegory, the new film does not."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says, "Superman Returns honors and builds upon the strengths of its predecessors while gracefully minimizing their weaknesses. Where the earlier Superman films were pioneering, somewhat rudimentary efforts, Superman Returns is a mature, fully realized film that works on the level of the best modern comic-book films, Batman Begins and Spider-Man2."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says, "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." (Note: Hamaker includes what could be interpreted as a plot spoiler in his review.)

Caution! Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) gives away the surprise in his review. But we can safely quote him as saying that the film is faithful to the spirit of the original films, even though it "mostly avoids the campy feel of those movies." As for the Christology, Lyon says, "While they give the movie some spiritual resonance, I actually found them distracting, taking me out of the Superman story and into trying to figure out what Singer and his writers were aiming for in the subtext." He concludes that the plot weakens "Kal-El's rock-solid goodness, and it gives the finale just a whiff of soap opera."

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

June (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50