So for Christmas, besides a super-cool Superman Returns lunch box with the two-disc Superman Returns DVD inside (and dang, I can't find a link for that lunch box online anywhere!), Sandy got me The Tick vs. Season One, available on DVD at long last (and for sale by Disney, not Fox, where the shows originally aired — no idea how that happened). And I was reading the back, and saw a little asterisked notice: "Does not include episode 11".

Well, that made me curious, so I went to TV.com and found that episode 11 is The Tick vs. the Mole Men. I remembered that episode: it involved a beautiful supermodel named Mindy who was pursued by a bunch of subterranean Molemen, who were themselves pursued by the evil Lava King. It turns out that the lead Mole Man is in love with Mindy, who actually is a visitor from the mole lands herself. Once the Lava King is defeated, Mindy returns to be the Mole Queen.

So that left me wondering: why leave that episode out? And that led me to this discussion and a bit of unofficial speculation:

""The Tick vs. The Mole Men" features an unauthorized use of Cindy Crawford's likeness, that's why it will not be included

Officially, the episode is missing for "creative considerations", and "may appear in a later collection". But ya know, I've seen this episode maybe half a dozen times; and I just realized that Mindy Moleford does indeed have a prominent mole, just like some other supermodel.

On the other hand, Comics2Film insists that's not the reason, and that there's another reason that they do know but won't discuss because that would complicate legal negotiations between the parties. I can't imagine who else might have an opinion on this episode...

Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!

Whoa...

Wow...

Hahahaha...

Yes!!!

Yeehaaa!

Whoa...

Those are a few of the spur-of-the-moment thoughts I recall from the time I just spent watching Superman Returns in IMAX 3D.

And just in case I forgot: Whoa...

OK, this review is going to wander a bit. And there may be spoilers. Just so you can't say you weren't warned.

[Oh, no, Mommy. When Martin tells us he's gonna wander, that means it's gonna be real long. I know, dear. But if he wants to stay at Kinko's until after midnight writing a silly movie review, getting eaten up by mosquitos, how are we going to stop him? I'll bet if Superman were here, he could stop 'im. I don't know if even Superman's that powerful, dear. Once Martin starts making up conversations with imaginary characters, he's pretty much past the point of no return.]

Just so you know where I'm coming from here: Superman is my fav'rit. (And if you don't get the reference there, then you just haven't been reading enough Superman.) Oh, I've been teased away by lots of other, newer superheroes over the years; and I enjoy them all: Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel (the original, please), Metamorpho, Green Lantern (every one of them, even Kyle), Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Infinity Inc., Blue Devil, 'Mazing Man (for the truly discerning comics fan), the Flash, the Fantastic Four, the New Gods, the Phantom Stranger, the Outsiders, Black Lightning, Luke Cage... Plain and simple, I love mainstream superhero comics. I know, it's corny and old fashioned. I know, anime or indies are what all the cool kids read. (Actually, I like a lot of indies, too. Anime? Eh.) I know, grown ups aren't supposed to read comic books. And I just. Don't. Care. Make fun of me all you want. I'm sure I would find your hobbies to be just hilarious, too, but I'm too polite to point that out.

But of them all, Superman is the one I've read most consistently. While I can't say for certain, I'm guessing I read my first Superman comic roughly 40 years ago. Well, OK, 39 years ago: with the help of indulgent parents and big brothers, I taught myself to read at age 4; and I gotta believe one of the first things I read was a Superman comic. See, one of those brothers bought lots of comics, and so they were always there at hand. And for not being a big comic fan today, he bought some amazing classics: the first issues of Kirby's New Gods and Forever People, half of the Kirby Jimmy Olsen issues, the last three issues of O'Neill/Adams's Green Lantern/Green Arrow (the phrase "Send me a bill" still sends a chill up my spine), "Spider-Man: No More", and a good chunk of the "Kryptonite: No More"/Sandman Superman saga. Brother Joe, if you had kept those in mint condition, they would be worth some money today. But instead, you let little brother and later little sister read them. Thank you. And again: thank you.

[Mommy, is Martin ever going to write about the movie? Shh. Be patient, dear. He thinks he is writing about the movie.]

And so I've been reading Superman all my life; but in a sense, I've been reading him nearly twice that long. Over the years, I've gotten to read a lot of the historical Superman tales. I'm keeping up with the modern Superman tales. And I've also watched the Superman cartoons, from the Fleischer classics to the 70s not-so-classics to the Super-Friends to the modern cartoons. I've also watched Lois & Clark. Thanks to Sandy, I'm getting to see the old George Reeves episodes that they never seemed to rerun in our area when I was growing up.

But for me, the Superman will always be the Superman of the 70s. Part Kirby, part O'Neill, to be sure; but in larger part, the Superman of the 70s was the work of two gentlemen. Carey Bates was one. But the other, and my fav'rit, was Elliot S! Maggin. (The "S!" is because comics scripters of the day tended to go overboard with exclamation points, so Mr. Maggin felt it was an obligation.) But what made me recognize his name was not his comics. At the time, I was fairly ignorant of who was creating the comics. No, I became his fan after reading his first Superman novel, Superman: Last Son of Krypton. And I became a permanent fan with his next book, Superman: Miracle Monday. No, they're not in print any more. (If you ask nicely, Mr. Maggin may explain why. Wear a spittle shield.) Yes, as a matter of fact, I do own two copies of each. No, you may not have my spare copies. Those are for loaning out to close friends and cherished family members, so that if perchance the borrower loses them, I'll still have my originals.

Those two books, published as tie-ins to the first two Chistopher Reeve movies, are in my opinion the two best Superman stories ever. Period. (The third best happens to be Kingdom Come, the novelization of Mark Waid's ground-breaking story of Earth after Superman gave up The Never-Ending Struggle. When Mr. Waid knew a novelization was planned, he knew just who he wanted to write it; and when his chosen author balked, he decided to sway the author by hook or by crook. And so, the very last page of the comic series has this note: "Dedicated to Elliott S! Maggin." So mayhaps I'm not the only one who thinks Mr. Maggin is his fav'rit.)

[Mommy, I was really bad today. Could you send me to my room? Not yet, dear. I think there's a point coming soon.]

And what made these books so much the definition of the character was a bit of Kryptonian philosophy Mr. Maggin dreamed up: There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very hard to make. And that right there defines Superman at his best. It defines his biggest weakness: no, not kryptonite, but rather a moral blindspot that makes him simply unable to imagine that anyone would do anything but the right thing, and just as much as they are able. He cannot see the world from a criminal's perspective, because it just isn't in him to do so, so criminals can often surprise him. And this philosophy also defines his greatest strength: by always doing what's right no matter what the cost to himself, he inspires the rest of us to try just a little harder. It's not the Super that counts, it's the Man. (We can argue later about whether that Kryptonian philosophy is just a little too simplistic. In the real world, sometimes the best you can do is to choose the least wrong.)

And the fourth and fifth-best Superman stories ever, in my opinion, were the first two Christopher Reeve films. I have never heard a theater crowd explode like they did at "General. Would you care to step outside?" I'm still getting the chills here, just typing that line. Yes, I would have much preferred if they had filmed Mr. Maggin's books instead; but honestly, those were just a little too steeped in DC Universe lore to make good movies for the general public, I think. Even with the too-gimmicky ending in Superman II (come on, where did those powers come from?), those two films were simply the best Superman stories put to film. (Note: were.)

And before you go see Superman Returns, I stongly recommend that you go rent Superman I and II. Let's just ignore III and IV for this discussion, OK? And especially Supergirl. For the purposes of this film, those don't exist. But this film is very much a sequel to Superman II. Not juat "inspired by": it follows directly on the events of the second film.

But beyond sequel, it's an homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman films. And somewhere along the way, I started to see it as an homage to Elliot S! Maggin as well. And without giving too much away, it's an homage to fathers as well.

And one more thing: while it's truly respectful of the Christopher Reeve films, it's better. I expected a lot of things from this film; but I didn't expect to be drying my eyes as I left the theater.

[Yay! He's finally writing about the movie! Hush, dear. You might distract him, just when he's found the point.]

This film starts before it starts: an opening text frame tells how Superman learned that astronomers had found remnants of Krypton, and he left Earth to investigate. This all took place shortly after Superman II. Five years have elapsed. We never really learn much about what he found out there, other than that Krypton really is gone.

But what he finds when he comes back, now there's the story! His mother is still alive, and welcomes him back. (His father died near the start of Superman I.) The Daily Planet is mostly unchanged, except for one vital difference: Lois Lane. She has changed dramatically. She's engaged to Perry White's nephew (Richard), she's a single mother of a rather weak and asthmatic son (Jason), and she has won a Pulitzer — for an editorial entitled, "Why Earth Doesn't Need a Superman". She seems to have moved on; and with that one change, everything in Superman's life is changed, even though nothing else has.

Yes, folks, this is a relationship movie. Oh, it's a superhero movie — and a very cool one at that, especially with the IMAX 3D (selected scenes are in 3D, and they flash glasses on the screen to let you know when to put yours on) — but it's really about Superman's two most important relationships: with Lois, and with his birth father, Jor-El. Even though Jor-El barely puts in an appearance, Superman spends most of the movie trying to live up to his father's legacy. And in the end, he finds that legacy has some mighty big shoes to fill, shoes he never expected. (I won't spoil the ending, even though the "surprise" actually happens about two-thirds of the way through the film. And it wasn't much of a surprise to me, since I guessed it six months before I saw the film.) When he's not trying to live up to the legacy, he's trying to understand how Lois was so hurt by his leaving, and to get her to understand why he had no choice: if he had tried to tell her goodbye, he could never have left. But she's too bitter, for some reason, she can't seem to forgive him.

But while Superman struggles to live up to Jor-El's legacy, Lex Luthor corrupts it. Yes, ol' Lex is back, and meaner than ever; and he uses what he learned about Kryptonian technology in Superman II for his latest scheme: to create a new, Kryptonian continent, so that he can get rich as its owner — while he just happens to drown most of the Americas in the process.

And that's just one example where this film is an homage to the first two. In those two films, Lex's grand schemes always revolved around mega land grabs. In this one, he finally succeeds. Well, for a while. We all know Superman will stop him in the end. (And kudos to the filmmakers: I just now realized just how ironic Lex's final scene is.) Here are some other ways in which this film pays homage to the earlier films:

[Mommy, what's an "omaj"? It means "tribute", dear. Remembering someone in a very nice way. Martin's just being pretentious again, because some of his favorite comics are from a company called "Homage Comics".]

• The opening credits are just about exactly the same design. It was eerie, like I just fell back in time 25 years.


• While newcomer Brandon Routh doesn't exactly look like Christopher Reeve, he certainly sounds like him. In fact, he sounds like him twice. Mr. Reeve affected two different voices for Superman and for Clark Kent. Mr. Routh nails both of them close enough to make you comfortable that you're watching the same characters. (Noboy else consciously imitates their predecessors; but Superman.Clark was the one who counted.)


• Physically, Mr. Routh does very well what Mr. Reeve did so perfectly: play Clark Kent in such a way thatyou really believe no one would notice he's Superman.


• The whole production and art direction is completely modeled on the first two films — especially the Kryptonian technology. The Fortress, the ship, and the all-important crystal are all old friends here.


• The music is a very nice update of the classic John Williams score.


• A running sight gag in the first two films was Luthor's baldness and his various wigs. Well, the gag continues in this film. One very tense but funny scene was when Lois and Jason stumble into an unknown bedroom, and Jason laughs at all the wigs. Lois looks at them, and instantly all the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place (but too late).


• In the first film, Luthor tracks down his first Kryptonite metorite in Addis Abbaba, a city in Ethiopia. In this film, when a meteorite is mysteriously stolen from the museum, the smashed display case includes a sign saying that it came from, yes, Addis Abbaba.


• And the lines. Ah, classic little lines from the first two films show up here. Only now, they're loaded with additional emotional meaning. "I'm always around, Lois."

And there's a lot more. And then, just in case you missed the homage, there's a line in the end credits: "Dedicated with love to Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve." For those who didn't hear, after seeing her husband through the years of his paralysis and doing what she could for his legacy after his death, Dana Reeve died this year from cancer. And the filmmakers paid their homage to both of them.

But that's not the only homage in this film. We also got two guest stars from the old Adventures of Superman series: Noel Neill (who played Lois Lane) and Jack Larson (who played Jimmy Olsen). Their parts here were small, but it was still a nice nod to them and their fans.

OK, OK, so it's an homage; but how is it better? Oh, in oh so many ways:

• The special effects are 30 years better. Superman I was truly ground-breaking for its day. Today, most personal computers can do better effects. Even though everything looks the same in some ways — the Fortress, especially — it all looks better. One tiny example: the explosion of Krypton in Superman I was actually a microscope recording of a histamine cell exploding. In this film, it's a wonderfully detailed CGI rendering. (In 3D, at IMAX theaters!)


• And wow! What special effects. Now I've said more times than I can recall that special effects in movies aren't that important to me. And as a general rule, they aren't. But come on! This is a superhero film! It has to have larger-than-life action! And this film delivers. The airplane rescue is stupendous. The New Krypton scenes are really creepy. And the crushing of Metropolis — well, I have to save that discussion for just a little bit.


• The whole thing just looks better. Street scenes in the first two films had the feel of soundstages, even when they weren't. Here, you just know you can actually walk around Metropolis.


• No offense to Margot Kidder, but Kate Bosworth just looks more like Lois Lane. Also, she got much more mature dialog to work with.


• And that maturity. That's probably the biggest difference. The first two films had just a touch of camp about them. This film plays it straight.


• And where this film particularly plays it straight is with Lex Luthor. I love Gene Hackman; but his Lex Luthor had a lot of the buffoon about him. (Rather surprising for Mr. Hackman, really.) Even though Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor surrounds himself with buffoons, he's really, really scary. And when he tries to be funny, he's even scarier. Think the Joker, and you won't be far off: if he's trying to be funny, it's to distract you from his trying to kill you, or to gloat over having already killed you.


• And yet there is humor in the film; but it's more subtle, more gentle than in the first two films. Some of it's in-jokes, like the Addis Abbaba meteorite. Some of it's very subtle, like the name of Luthor's ship (you've got to look fast for that one). And some of it's pretty clever, like when a kid with a cell phone gets better shots of Superman than Jimmy can get with his expensive camera. (Don't worry, Jimmy fans, he makes up for it eventually.) None of it's laugh-out-loud funny (although I laughed at the Addis Abbaba sign, as did the similar-in-age guy next to me); but none of it's camp, either. It fits the story more naturally.

OK, OK, OK. You liked it. But how is it an homage to Mr. Maggin?

Well, it may not be. That may just be me reading into it. But I really felt like there was, if not a Maggin homage, then a definite Maggin influence, in at least five ways:

• First, there's that whole crushing of Metropolis scene. I won't tell you the details, because that would spoil it. But one of Mr. Maggin's specialties in his novels is what I think of as the "Superman is everywhere" chapter. Some criminal plot or some menace comes up, and it has lots of ramifications in lots of places all at once. This is a job for Superman! See, among his many powers, Superman is just a wee bit faster than a speeding bullet. Faster than that, even. So Mr. Maggin tells the story at Superman's rate of perception as he zips from crisis to crisis and handles each in the most appropriate way: disarming a villain here, crashing two villain-laden hang gliders together there, all while using super ventrilloquism to convince another villain that the plan has been called off. Pages and pages of detailed action, all at a leisurely pace for Superman, and all in under 12 seconds for the villains. Prior to this film, I would've called such a scene unfilmable. In fact, I would've predicted exactly what bugged me about some of the fight scenes in Batman Begins: to make the action believably fast, they would have to make it too fast for the viewer to follow. Well, somehow, director Brian Singer defied my expectations. While the crushing of Metropolis isn't quite as involved as one of Mr. Maggin's "Superman is everywhere" chapters, it's pretty involved. There are a lot of menaces in a lot of places, and Superman manages to be everywhere at once, dealing with them. The scene where Superman flies through the city streets but then rolls leisurely over onto his back, so he can look back and vaporize a whole street full of falling debris — priceless! I just looked at that whole section and said, "Wow! That's worthy of Maggin!"


• In Superman: Miracle Monday, Mr. Maggin has a very poignant scene in which Superman turns up his superhearing and listens — really listens — to the whole Earth at once. And eventually, he hears a kind of symphony; and he hears that he has a part in it. In this film, Superman tells Lois that despite her article on why no one needs a Superman, he can hear all over, and he just keeps hearing people calling for help. It wasn't exactly an echo of Mr. Maggin's scene, but it made me think of that scene.


• There's a definite element of "There is a right and a wrong..." here. This is a Superman who just has to do what's right, no matter what. To be blunt, Superman gets the stuffing kicked out of him in this film, far more than in Superman II; and yet he just keeps trying, no matter what. It's simply what he has to do.


• Mr. Maggin had another recurring theme. In fact, he originally wrote it for a writing class; and when he got a lousy grade, he sent it to DC instead, and they bought the script, and they hired him from there. (And now he's teaching writing. Kids, don't give up just because someone tells you you can't succeed, even if it's a teacher. Sometimes teachers are wrong, too. Did you ever see Superman give up? Huh? Huh?) That story, "Must There Be A Superman?" dealt with the possibility that by solving all of our problems, Superman was stunting our growth and making us dependent on him. He learned to let us solve our own problems, stumbling along the way and picking ourselves up and learning in the process; and he just gave a helping hand when the problems were too big for us. Well, that theme came up in this film, in a briefly remembered bit of advice from Jor-El; and in fact, it's Lois and Richard who end up saving Superman at one point. And Superman also steps back at one point to let people solve their own problems. This is straight from Mr. Maggin.

And the last bit of Maggin influence — Well, I want to close with that. So let me just say that this film, while very good, isn't perfect. It's a bit long. The end, especially, drags a bit, and could've been trimmed at least five minutes. And the director relied a little too heavily on slow motion in a couple of places (although one slow-mo scene that I thought dragged on a bit too long was justified in the end with a wince-inducing special effect that was actually kinda cool, if you're not squeamish about eyes). But those are minor quibbles. In most films, I can come up with a dozen quibbles more than that. None of that stopped me from saying toward the end, "OK, when's World's Finest coming?" (For the non-comic fans: World's Finest was a long-running Superman/Batman team-up book. After Batman Begins and this film, it's time for a World's Finest film.)

Back to that last bit of Maggin influence — and again, I'll concede this may be me reading into it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the theme is so strong in Mr. Maggin's books and in this film, since it is kinda central to the whole Superman mythos. It has to do with fathers. A big element of Mr. Maggin's books was just how much Jor-El loved his son, and how hard he worked to protect him and guide him even though he would be long dead before his son grew up. He left lessons, and he chose protectors, and he chose the best, safest environment he could find for his son. He saw his responsibility to his son as his last, most important duty. And that's pretty much how this film opens; and in subtle ways, that comes up in places throughout the film. And it's how the film ends, as Superman finally fully appreciates just how important those sacrifices were to his father. (And I tried to be oblique, but I probably just ruined the ending for you. Serves you right for being so smart.)

And when I left the theater, I felt — Whoa... I felt — Wow... I felt Hahahaha, and Yes!!! And Yeehaaa! I felt like I was 18 again, seeing this film just after Superman II. I felt awed. I felt invigorated. And a reaction I never expected from a silly superhero film: I miss my fav'rit. I miss my Dad.

[Mommy, Martin sounds sad. Didn't he like the movie? Yes, dear. I think he liked it very, very much. Now goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.]




Update: Bryce Zabel makes many of the same points. But he uses, like, one-tenth as many words. Bet you wish I'd told you that at the start of the review, huh?

Update 2: Ken Lammers has a very different reaction. (Warning! Major spoilers!) That's OK. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. (But, um, dude, if you're going to say that that first action is out of character, then you're going to have to say that the action that led to that action back in Superman II was out of character. It's the same action, really, just cause and effect. And it would never happen in the comics. Movie audiences these days kinda expect it. We can debate the goodness of that expectation, but there it is.)

Update 3: James Hudnall liked it, too, though he thinks there was more room to cut at the end. For those who don't know James, he's a comics writer who has actually written in the Superman series, so I kinda think his opinion has some merit. James also wrote Harsh Realm, which was adapted into a TV series by Chris Carter of X-Files fame. And his book The Psyhco is working its way toward a film version. I first learned of James through his incredible Espers series. And he's a software geek who knows UML. So he's kinda like me, but, umm, cool and all that.

Note: I bumped this to the top, because I got the film from Sandy for Christmas. Merry Christmas, to all! And to all, a good night!

Whoa...

Wow...

Hahahaha...

Yes!!!

Yeehaaa!

Whoa...

Those are a few of the spur-of-the-moment thoughts I recall from the time I just spent watching Superman Returns in IMAX 3D.

And just in case I forgot: Whoa...

OK, this review is going to wander a bit. And there may be spoilers. Just so you can't say you weren't warned.

[Oh, no, Mommy. When Martin tells us he's gonna wander, that means it's gonna be real long. I know, dear. But if he wants to stay at Kinko's until after midnight writing a silly movie review, getting eaten up by mosquitos, how are we going to stop him? I'll bet if Superman were here, he could stop 'im. I don't know if even Superman's that powerful, dear. Once Martin starts making up conversations with imaginary characters, he's pretty much past the point of no return.]

Just so you know where I'm coming from here: Superman is my fav'rit. (And if you don't get the reference there, then you just haven't been reading enough Superman.) Oh, I've been teased away by lots of other, newer superheroes over the years; and I enjoy them all: Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel (the original, please), Metamorpho, Green Lantern (every one of them, even Kyle), Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Infinity Inc., Blue Devil, 'Mazing Man (for the truly discerning comics fan), the Flash, the Fantastic Four, the New Gods, the Phantom Stranger, the Outsiders, Black Lightning, Luke Cage... Plain and simple, I love mainstream superhero comics. I know, it's corny and old fashioned. I know, anime or indies are what all the cool kids read. (Actually, I like a lot of indies, too. Anime? Eh.) I know, grown ups aren't supposed to read comic books. And I just. Don't. Care. Make fun of me all you want. I'm sure I would find your hobbies to be just hilarious, too, but I'm too polite to point that out.

But of them all, Superman is the one I've read most consistently. While I can't say for certain, I'm guessing I read my first Superman comic roughly 40 years ago. Well, OK, 39 years ago: with the help of indulgent parents and big brothers, I taught myself to read at age 4; and I gotta believe one of the first things I read was a Superman comic. See, one of those brothers bought lots of comics, and so they were always there at hand. And for not being a big comic fan today, he bought some amazing classics: the first issues of Kirby's New Gods and Forever People, half of the Kirby Jimmy Olsen issues, the last three issues of O'Neill/Adams's Green Lantern/Green Arrow (the phrase "Send me a bill" still sends a chill up my spine), "Spider-Man: No More", and a good chunk of the "Kryptonite: No More"/Sandman Superman saga. Brother Joe, if you had kept those in mint condition, they would be worth some money today. But instead, you let little brother and later little sister read them. Thank you. And again: thank you.

[Mommy, is Martin ever going to write about the movie? Shh. Be patient, dear. He thinks he is writing about the movie.]

And so I've been reading Superman all my life; but in a sense, I've been reading him nearly twice that long. Over the years, I've gotten to read a lot of the historical Superman tales. I'm keeping up with the modern Superman tales. And I've also watched the Superman cartoons, from the Fleischer classics to the 70s not-so-classics to the Super-Friends to the modern cartoons. I've also watched Lois & Clark. Thanks to Sandy, I'm getting to see the old George Reeves episodes that they never seemed to rerun in our area when I was growing up.

But for me, the Superman will always be the Superman of the 70s. Part Kirby, part O'Neill, to be sure; but in larger part, the Superman of the 70s was the work of two gentlemen. Carey Bates was one. But the other, and my fav'rit, was Elliot S! Maggin. (The "S!" is because comics scripters of the day tended to go overboard with exclamation points, so Mr. Maggin felt it was an obligation.) But what made me recognize his name was not his comics. At the time, I was fairly ignorant of who was creating the comics. No, I became his fan after reading his first Superman novel, Superman: Last Son of Krypton. And I became a permanent fan with his next book, Superman: Miracle Monday. No, they're not in print any more. (If you ask nicely, Mr. Maggin may explain why. Wear a spittle shield.) Yes, as a matter of fact, I do own two copies of each. No, you may not have my spare copies. Those are for loaning out to close friends and cherished family members, so that if perchance the borrower loses them, I'll still have my originals.

Those two books, published as tie-ins to the first two Chistopher Reeve movies, are in my opinion the two best Superman stories ever. Period. (The third best happens to be Kingdom Come, the novelization of Mark Waid's ground-breaking story of Earth after Superman gave up The Never-Ending Struggle. When Mr. Waid knew a novelization was planned, he knew just who he wanted to write it; and when his chosen author balked, he decided to sway the author by hook or by crook. And so, the very last page of the comic series has this note: "Dedicated to Elliott S! Maggin." So mayhaps I'm not the only one who thinks Mr. Maggin is his fav'rit.)

[Mommy, I was really bad today. Could you send me to my room? Not yet, dear. I think there's a point coming soon.]

And what made these books so much the definition of the character was a bit of Kryptonian philosophy Mr. Maggin dreamed up: There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not very hard to make. And that right there defines Superman at his best. It defines his biggest weakness: no, not kryptonite, but rather a moral blindspot that makes him simply unable to imagine that anyone would do anything but the right thing, and just as much as they are able. He cannot see the world from a criminal's perspective, because it just isn't in him to do so, so criminals can often surprise him. And this philosophy also defines his greatest strength: by always doing what's right no matter what the cost to himself, he inspires the rest of us to try just a little harder. It's not the Super that counts, it's the Man. (We can argue later about whether that Kryptonian philosophy is just a little too simplistic. In the real world, sometimes the best you can do is to choose the least wrong.)

And the fourth and fifth-best Superman stories ever, in my opinion, were the first two Christopher Reeve films. I have never heard a theater crowd explode like they did at "General. Would you care to step outside?" I'm still getting the chills here, just typing that line. Yes, I would have much preferred if they had filmed Mr. Maggin's books instead; but honestly, those were just a little too steeped in DC Universe lore to make good movies for the general public, I think. Even with the too-gimmicky ending in Superman II (come on, where did those powers come from?), those two films were simply the best Superman stories put to film. (Note: were.)

And before you go see Superman Returns, I stongly recommend that you go rent Superman I and II. Let's just ignore III and IV for this discussion, OK? And especially Supergirl. For the purposes of this film, those don't exist. But this film is very much a sequel to Superman II. Not juat "inspired by": it follows directly on the events of the second film.

But beyond sequel, it's an homage to the Christopher Reeve Superman films. And somewhere along the way, I started to see it as an homage to Elliot S! Maggin as well. And without giving too much away, it's an homage to fathers as well.

And one more thing: while it's truly respectful of the Christopher Reeve films, it's better. I expected a lot of things from this film; but I didn't expect to be drying my eyes as I left the theater.

[Yay! He's finally writing about the movie! Hush, dear. You might distract him, just when he's found the point.]

This film starts before it starts: an opening text frame tells how Superman learned that astronomers had found remnants of Krypton, and he left Earth to investigate. This all took place shortly after Superman II. Five years have elapsed. We never really learn much about what he found out there, other than that Krypton really is gone.

But what he finds when he comes back, now there's the story! His mother is still alive, and welcomes him back. (His father died near the start of Superman I.) The Daily Planet is mostly unchanged, except for one vital difference: Lois Lane. She has changed dramatically. She's engaged to Perry White's nephew (Richard), she's a single mother of a rather weak and asthmatic son (Jason), and she has won a Pulitzer — for an editorial entitled, "Why Earth Doesn't Need a Superman". She seems to have moved on; and with that one change, everything in Superman's life is changed, even though nothing else has.

Yes, folks, this is a relationship movie. Oh, it's a superhero movie — and a very cool one at that, especially with the IMAX 3D (selected scenes are in 3D, and they flash glasses on the screen to let you know when to put yours on) — but it's really about Superman's two most important relationships: with Lois, and with his birth father, Jor-El. Even though Jor-El barely puts in an appearance, Superman spends most of the movie trying to live up to his father's legacy. And in the end, he finds that legacy has some mighty big shoes to fill, shoes he never expected. (I won't spoil the ending, even though the "surprise" actually happens about two-thirds of the way through the film. And it wasn't much of a surprise to me, since I guessed it six months before I saw the film.) When he's not trying to live up to the legacy, he's trying to understand how Lois was so hurt by his leaving, and to get her to understand why he had no choice: if he had tried to tell her goodbye, he could never have left. But she's too bitter, for some reason, she can't seem to forgive him.

But while Superman struggles to live up to Jor-El's legacy, Lex Luthor corrupts it. Yes, ol' Lex is back, and meaner than ever; and he uses what he learned about Kryptonian technology in Superman II for his latest scheme: to create a new, Kryptonian continent, so that he can get rich as its owner — while he just happens to drown most of the Americas in the process.

And that's just one example where this film is an homage to the first two. In those two films, Lex's grand schemes always revolved around mega land grabs. In this one, he finally succeeds. Well, for a while. We all know Superman will stop him in the end. (And kudos to the filmmakers: I just now realized just how ironic Lex's final scene is.) Here are some other ways in which this film pays homage to the earlier films:

[Mommy, what's an "omaj"? It means "tribute", dear. Remembering someone in a very nice way. Martin's just being pretentious again, because some of his favorite comics are from a company called "Homage Comics".]

• The opening credits are just about exactly the same design. It was eerie, like I just fell back in time 25 years.


• While newcomer Brandon Routh doesn't exactly look like Christopher Reeve, he certainly sounds like him. In fact, he sounds like him twice. Mr. Reeve affected two different voices for Superman and for Clark Kent. Mr. Routh nails both of them close enough to make you comfortable that you're watching the same characters. (Noboy else consciously imitates their predecessors; but Superman.Clark was the one who counted.)


• Physically, Mr. Routh does very well what Mr. Reeve did so perfectly: play Clark Kent in such a way thatyou really believe no one would notice he's Superman.


• The whole production and art direction is completely modeled on the first two films — especially the Kryptonian technology. The Fortress, the ship, and the all-important crystal are all old friends here.


• The music is a very nice update of the classic John Williams score.


• A running sight gag in the first two films was Luthor's baldness and his various wigs. Well, the gag continues in this film. One very tense but funny scene was when Lois and Jason stumble into an unknown bedroom, and Jason laughs at all the wigs. Lois looks at them, and instantly all the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place (but too late).


• In the first film, Luthor tracks down his first Kryptonite metorite in Addis Abbaba, a city in Ethiopia. In this film, when a meteorite is mysteriously stolen from the museum, the smashed display case includes a sign saying that it came from, yes, Addis Abbaba.


• And the lines. Ah, classic little lines from the first two films show up here. Only now, they're loaded with additional emotional meaning. "I'm always around, Lois."

And there's a lot more. And then, just in case you missed the homage, there's a line in the end credits: "Dedicated with love to Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve." For those who didn't hear, after seeing her husband through the years of his paralysis and doing what she could for his legacy after his death, Dana Reeve died this year from cancer. And the filmmakers paid their homage to both of them.

But that's not the only homage in this film. We also got two guest stars from the old Adventures of Superman series: Noel Neill (who played Lois Lane) and Jack Larson (who played Jimmy Olsen). Their parts here were small, but it was still a nice nod to them and their fans.

OK, OK, so it's an homage; but how is it better? Oh, in oh so many ways:

• The special effects are 30 years better. Superman I was truly ground-breaking for its day. Today, most personal computers can do better effects. Even though everything looks the same in some ways — the Fortress, especially — it all looks better. One tiny example: the explosion of Krypton in Superman I was actually a microscope recording of a histamine cell exploding. In this film, it's a wonderfully detailed CGI rendering. (In 3D, at IMAX theaters!)


• And wow! What special effects. Now I've said more times than I can recall that special effects in movies aren't that important to me. And as a general rule, they aren't. But come on! This is a superhero film! It has to have larger-than-life action! And this film delivers. The airplane rescue is stupendous. The New Krypton scenes are really creepy. And the crushing of Metropolis — well, I have to save that discussion for just a little bit.


• The whole thing just looks better. Street scenes in the first two films had the feel of soundstages, even when they weren't. Here, you just know you can actually walk around Metropolis.


• No offense to Margot Kidder, but Kate Bosworth just looks more like Lois Lane. Also, she got much more mature dialog to work with.


• And that maturity. That's probably the biggest difference. The first two films had just a touch of camp about them. This film plays it straight.


• And where this film particularly plays it straight is with Lex Luthor. I love Gene Hackman; but his Lex Luthor had a lot of the buffoon about him. (Rather surprising for Mr. Hackman, really.) Even though Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor surrounds himself with buffoons, he's really, really scary. And when he tries to be funny, he's even scarier. Think the Joker, and you won't be far off: if he's trying to be funny, it's to distract you from his trying to kill you, or to gloat over having already killed you.


• And yet there is humor in the film; but it's more subtle, more gentle than in the first two films. Some of it's in-jokes, like the Addis Abbaba meteorite. Some of it's very subtle, like the name of Luthor's ship (you've got to look fast for that one). And some of it's pretty clever, like when a kid with a cell phone gets better shots of Superman than Jimmy can get with his expensive camera. (Don't worry, Jimmy fans, he makes up for it eventually.) None of it's laugh-out-loud funny (although I laughed at the Addis Abbaba sign, as did the similar-in-age guy next to me); but none of it's camp, either. It fits the story more naturally.

OK, OK, OK. You liked it. But how is it an homage to Mr. Maggin?

Well, it may not be. That may just be me reading into it. But I really felt like there was, if not a Maggin homage, then a definite Maggin influence, in at least five ways:

• First, there's that whole crushing of Metropolis scene. I won't tell you the details, because that would spoil it. But one of Mr. Maggin's specialties in his novels is what I think of as the "Superman is everywhere" chapter. Some criminal plot or some menace comes up, and it has lots of ramifications in lots of places all at once. This is a job for Superman! See, among his many powers, Superman is just a wee bit faster than a speeding bullet. Faster than that, even. So Mr. Maggin tells the story at Superman's rate of perception as he zips from crisis to crisis and handles each in the most appropriate way: disarming a villain here, crashing two villain-laden hang gliders together there, all while using super ventrilloquism to convince another villain that the plan has been called off. Pages and pages of detailed action, all at a leisurely pace for Superman, and all in under 12 seconds for the villains. Prior to this film, I would've called such a scene unfilmable. In fact, I would've predicted exactly what bugged me about some of the fight scenes in Batman Begins: to make the action believably fast, they would have to make it too fast for the viewer to follow. Well, somehow, director Brian Singer defied my expectations. While the crushing of Metropolis isn't quite as involved as one of Mr. Maggin's "Superman is everywhere" chapters, it's pretty involved. There are a lot of menaces in a lot of places, and Superman manages to be everywhere at once, dealing with them. The scene where Superman flies through the city streets but then rolls leisurely over onto his back, so he can look back and vaporize a whole street full of falling debris — priceless! I just looked at that whole section and said, "Wow! That's worthy of Maggin!"


• In Superman: Miracle Monday, Mr. Maggin has a very poignant scene in which Superman turns up his superhearing and listens — really listens — to the whole Earth at once. And eventually, he hears a kind of symphony; and he hears that he has a part in it. In this film, Superman tells Lois that despite her article on why no one needs a Superman, he can hear all over, and he just keeps hearing people calling for help. It wasn't exactly an echo of Mr. Maggin's scene, but it made me think of that scene.


• There's a definite element of "There is a right and a wrong..." here. This is a Superman who just has to do what's right, no matter what. To be blunt, Superman gets the stuffing kicked out of him in this film, far more than in Superman II; and yet he just keeps trying, no matter what. It's simply what he has to do.


• Mr. Maggin had another recurring theme. In fact, he originally wrote it for a writing class; and when he got a lousy grade, he sent it to DC instead, and they bought the script, and they hired him from there. (And now he's teaching writing. Kids, don't give up just because someone tells you you can't succeed, even if it's a teacher. Sometimes teachers are wrong, too. Did you ever see Superman give up? Huh? Huh?) That story, "Must There Be A Superman?" dealt with the possibility that by solving all of our problems, Superman was stunting our growth and making us dependent on him. He learned to let us solve our own problems, stumbling along the way and picking ourselves up and learning in the process; and he just gave a helping hand when the problems were too big for us. Well, that theme came up in this film, in a briefly remembered bit of advice from Jor-El; and in fact, it's Lois and Richard who end up saving Superman at one point. And Superman also steps back at one point to let people solve their own problems. This is straight from Mr. Maggin.

And the last bit of Maggin influence — Well, I want to close with that. So let me just say that this film, while very good, isn't perfect. It's a bit long. The end, especially, drags a bit, and could've been trimmed at least five minutes. And the director relied a little too heavily on slow motion in a couple of places (although one slow-mo scene that I thought dragged on a bit too long was justified in the end with a wince-inducing special effect that was actually kinda cool, if you're not squeamish about eyes). But those are minor quibbles. In most films, I can come up with a dozen quibbles more than that. None of that stopped me from saying toward the end, "OK, when's World's Finest coming?" (For the non-comic fans: World's Finest was a long-running Superman/Batman team-up book. After Batman Begins and this film, it's time for a World's Finest film.)

Back to that last bit of Maggin influence — and again, I'll concede this may be me reading into it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the theme is so strong in Mr. Maggin's books and in this film, since it is kinda central to the whole Superman mythos. It has to do with fathers. A big element of Mr. Maggin's books was just how much Jor-El loved his son, and how hard he worked to protect him and guide him even though he would be long dead before his son grew up. He left lessons, and he chose protectors, and he chose the best, safest environment he could find for his son. He saw his responsibility to his son as his last, most important duty. And that's pretty much how this film opens; and in subtle ways, that comes up in places throughout the film. And it's how the film ends, as Superman finally fully appreciates just how important those sacrifices were to his father. (And I tried to be oblique, but I probably just ruined the ending for you. Serves you right for being so smart.)

And when I left the theater, I felt — Whoa... I felt — Wow... I felt Hahahaha, and Yes!!! And Yeehaaa! I felt like I was 18 again, seeing this film just after Superman II. I felt awed. I felt invigorated. And a reaction I never expected from a silly superhero film: I miss my fav'rit. I miss my Dad.

[Mommy, Martin sounds sad. Didn't he like the movie? Yes, dear. I think he liked it very, very much. Now goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.]




Update: Bryce Zabel makes many of the same points. But he uses, like, one-tenth as many words. Bet you wish I'd told you that at the start of the review, huh?

Update 2: Ken Lammers has a very different reaction. (Warning! Major spoilers!) That's OK. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. (But, um, dude, if you're going to say that that first action is out of character, then you're going to have to say that the action that led to that action back in Superman II was out of character. It's the same action, really, just cause and effect. And it would never happen in the comics. Movie audiences these days kinda expect it. We can debate the goodness of that expectation, but there it is.)

Update 3: James Hudnall liked it, too, though he thinks there was more room to cut at the end. For those who don't know James, he's a comics writer who has actually written in the Superman series, so I kinda think his opinion has some merit. James also wrote Harsh Realm, which was adapted into a TV series by Chris Carter of X-Files fame. And his book The Psyhco is working its way toward a film version. I first learned of James through his incredible Espers series. And he's a software geek who knows UML. So he's kinda like me, but, umm, cool and all that.