[Movie Review] I have noticed something about the latest Superman movie, Superman Returns. If you saw the original movies when they came out, you like this one (perhaps second only to Superman II). If you didn’t, you don’t like it. This may be all age related but my rough sample doesn’t quite bear that out.
So I am in the camp that liked the new movie. Put simply, it had a better plot, terrific special effects, lots of nostalga (from the Fortress of Solitude to the original soundtrack), and a far less annoying Lois Lane. It didn’t have the comedic element of Superman II or the first 10 minutes of Superman III but it wasn’t as slow as Superman: The Movie and it is not worth comparing anything to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. The new actor didn’t quite do Clark Kent as iconically as Christopher Reeve made the role but the rest was fine.
But what really worked for me was Lex Luthor. When it comes down to it, he is what I go and see Superman movies for. He wasn’t in Superman III which was its problem (although neither was Lois Lane for that matter) but I have always enjoyed the consistency of his evil plans.
Let me recap: it is all about land. In the original movie, Luthor’s plot was to send a well directed nuclear missile into the San Andres Fault causing California to fall into the sea. Why? Because Luthor had bought up a whole lot of cheap desert land and after his plot succeeds it will all be waterfront property; the most valuable kind. He would make a killing on the stock market. In Superman II, the evil doers are from Krypton but Luthor does a deal which secures him lots more waterfront land: “Australia!” Alas, in Superman IV, the plot is simply to use DNA to create an evil Superman and let’s face it, Luthor goes off vision.
But in the latest movie Lex Luthor returns. I won’t reveal the details of the evil plot but suffice it to say it involves the usual trade-off between the meaningless sacrifice of millions of lives for property rights (in this case, more thought through than Mission Impossible II) for a vast amount of waterfront land. This was entirely satisfying from my perspective and makes the whole endeavour well worth while; right until an ironic ending.
The land strategy is a good one for evil masterminds. As economists know, land is one of those scarce commodities that can generate pure economic profits. In contrast to the acquisition of gold, cash or even knowledge, it has a tangible element that at least affords the chance of long-run wealth for the mastermind. So long as the franchise continues to keep to this vision, we are in for a few more good runs at this.
I saw the first two movies when they came out. Loved them, hated this one. Lex was OK, albeit his idea of real estate has been outed as exclusively about location. But it was hard to care less about anyone else in the movie. Also, they may have got the economics right, but the science? Oy.
I saw the original Superman movies when they came out and loved Superman Returns. So – some tentative support for original hypothesis.
As fantastic as the economic underpinnings and Special FX behing this film are, let’s be honest and admit that Lois was the real draw card. As much as I loved Superman as a child I always thought he had questionable taste in women.
As a Pulitzier-prize winning Mum I thought Lois finally held her own. Before this, I liked Superman III precisely becuase Lois wasn’t in it and Superman needed to move on.
[…] classic, The Princess Bride (both from 1987). You can also look for real estate economics in the Superman movies or some poor commercialisation strategy in Mission Impossible […]