I have to admit that I am a DC guy. I never cared nearly as much about the X-men or The Fantastic Four, as I did about Batman and Superman. I found the Marvel characters as well as the lore to be second-rate when comparing them to DC. One of the reasons for this identification, I would have to believe, is the original cinema of Superman that entertained me (and I suppose continues to) with its fantasy and innocent charm.

I have a habit of wanting to know as little as possible about a movie before I see it, so I was pleasantly surprised when Superman Returns opened with the original credit sequence from the earlier films. It is apparently common knowledge that this movie was a sequel to the earlier Superman pictures, but I went in blind, and just hearing the John Williams theme excited me like it did when I was young(er). It is refreshing to see that while other recent comic book movies like Batman Begins and Fantastic Four were made in disdain of their predecessors, Superman Returns is made in celebration of its past, without being afraid of the camp and whimsy that characterized the earlier films.

Now that I've said this, you must realize what a task doing a sequel to a movie that was made nearly three decades ago must be. First off, even if your re-occurring characters were still alive, they would be far too old at this point to reprieve their respective roles. Second, it seems like too much of a risk to assume that audiences today would not be entertained by the innocent fun that they were thirty years ago. It is ascertained that audiences want something nowadays that is a little edgy and somewhat dark. I am sure there are many other obstacles that movie producers must have hurdled to make the film they did, and to list them all would be futile and a waste of time.

The point is, that given the original material they had to work with, and all the options they probably had, Superman Returns surfaces with its ambition and dignity intact. While the viewer may have to suspend his/her disbelief at the age of Brandon Routh's Clark Kent/Superman (he seems far younger than Reeve's rendition), he plays the role with almost creepy accuracy. Christopher Reeve played the dual role so convincingly that it actually lent credence to the idea that no one could tell that Clark Kent was Superman. By making his Clark Kent disorganized, nerdy, and clumsy it made it believable that just by taking his glasses off, his secret identity would remain a secret. Brandon Routh plays this character perfectly, much to his credit, because I can't imagine that it would be an easy role to imitate. Same goes for Kevin Spacey, who really seems to have fun with his Lex Luthor, portraying him with the same kind of off-the-wall camp that Gene Hackman created for his Luthor.

That these characters were done so well is well, well-enough. But what really impresses me is that Brian Singer finds the precise tone of the (better of the) earlier films, and then doesn't deviate from striking it. The special effects are better now, but the movie doesn't turn into a special effects snooze-fest like King Kong did. It has its set pieces, and crafts them well, but when it comes to allowing it's actors to have fun, it doesn't feel the need to interrupt them with obligatory action bursts. Even its sense of humor is very much reminiscent of the original scripts, and I appreciate that even more than I probably should.

So here we have it: a glowing review of Superman Returns, in which I think I may be in the minority of opinion. And as much as I enjoyed watching it, there is a glaring mistake in its script. I can't say what that mistake is, because it comes across as a plot twist, but I can say that it's something that adds nothing to the current film, and plenty of dirty sub-text to the earlier ones. It is such an error in judgment, that if the film had been merely average, it would have destroyed it completely. I am saddened that the filmmakers decided to take a chance on such a pointless endeavor, in an otherwise completely joyful experience.