Why Ebert's opinion is wrong

A shocking title to a shocking post, as I'm sure most of you know that I'm a fan of Ebert and his reviews and opinions, even if I don't always agree with them. (And I certainly pray that he recovers soon and gets out of the hospital.) But it's not just that I disagree with his review of Superman Returns, it's that his opinion of the film is wildly hypocritical and, in a way, wrong.

It's often said that opinions can't be wrong. That's true if it's an actual opinion, such as "I think this ice cream tastes better than that one." But not if it's "I think this ice cream is colder than that one." Coldness is measurable, so you could simply measure one ice cream and definitively find out if the person's opinion was right or wrong. Thus it's not really an opinion at all. Similarly, what if you write that Superman should expect Lex Luthor to have kryptonite because he's done so in every Superman movie prior? Well, since Lex Luthor has not, in fact, had kryptonite in all of the movies prior, doesn't that invalidate the opinion formed from it?

If you have not yet seen Superman Returns, do not read his review and do not read any further in this post. I made that mistake and no one else should have to. It's not due to the fact he gave it two stars, but rather because he spoiled a major plot detail. So if you have not yet seen the movie you should neither read his review, nor the rest of this post (this is your second!).

(scroll down for more ONLY if you have seen the movie! Seriously, this is your final warning!)










The major plot detail spoiled is that of Lois' son:

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy.

Most of the people I've talked to did NOT know or even suspect that the kid's father is Superman (even Megan, who has an astonishly high rate of predicting surprise twists). So thanks for spoiling that for me and everyone else who trusts you enough to read your reviews ahead of time. Post in the comments if you were not surprised. But even so, it doesn't excuse the revealing of it in the review. Unfortunately, it appears that even Ebert is willing to ruin a good surprise if he doesn't care for the movie.

This quote also brings up another major problem with the review: making assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Does Lois know that the kid's father is Superman? Certainly she knows when she visits Superman in the hospital. We don't hear what she whispers to him, but I think, at the very least, it is a fair assumption. And thus she probably knows after he throws the piano across the room. But did she know before that? We know that the two of them slept together in Superman II. But at the end of that film, Superman used a 'super-kiss' to give Lois amnesia, so she would not remember that Clark was Superman. Surely she would also have forgotten that she slept with the 'mortal' Superman. So what evidence is there (prior to the piano stunt) that Lois knew the kid's father is Superman? Unless she hooked up with Richard very quickly after Superman left, she probably doesn't think it's Richard's. Speaking of whom, what does he know? Does he truly think he's the father or is he playing the part of Joseph of Arimathea? I'm guessing Ebert would think Richard knows, since Ebert also guesses the kid knows. I have to think the kid doesn't know either, since, as Ebert points out, he calls Richard his daddy. Would a kid call someone their daddy if they knew that person wasn't? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, Ebert's misconceptions don't end there. In his TV review, he said he guesses that Lois knows Clark is Superman. I can't think of a single scene which would indicate that is true, and there are a handful which would refute that.

The other major problem regarding Ebert's review revolves around Superman's abilities:

Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him?

If we want to talk physics, we could say that maybe Superman could immediately stop the airliner. But what would happen to the airliner and everyone inside if they went from hurtling toward the ground to complete stop in less than a second? Well, imagine driving a car into a brick wall at 90mph. We saw him try to slow the plane from spinning and eventually the wing just gave way. So the limits are partly that of the regular world and trying to keep from overdoing things.

And if we want to talk drama, what's particularly interesting about being perfect? What if Superman were able to solve all the problems perfectly without any question? Would that be dramatic? Ebert said it himself in his review of Blade

Wesley Snipes ... makes an effective Blade because he knows that the key ingredient in any interesting superhero is not omnipotence, but vulnerability.

Ebert does not allow for Superman to have any vulnerability but one:

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies.

First, Director Bryan Singer is not counting the third and fourth movies (and I don't recall kryptonite being in the fourth anyhow). And he was not disabled by kryptonite in Superman II, either. So really he's only encountered kryptonite once before.

Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand?

Lex was, in fact, going to pull the stunt without a supply on hand. It's only after Superman returns that he goes to get some. And Superman may not even know Lex Luthor is involved with the oceanic disturbance. We know Lex is the one pulling the stunt, but it's not a certainty that Superman does. And Lois isn't conscious to tell him. Maybe he could figure it out based on the missing crystals and the fact that Lex is out of prison. But Batman is the detective, not Superman.

Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions?

What precautions? Inject himself with anti-kryptonite serum? Even if he knew ahead of time that Lex was out there, why would he expect him to have kryptonite? As far as Superman knows, there was only the one sample that was lost.

How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

As Lex notes, "mind over muscle." He is the "greatest criminal mastermind of our time" and Superman is no mastermind. This is the same reason Lex was able to best Superman in the first movie, which Ebert and I both hold in high regard. And while it's certainly fair to compare this movie to that one, Ebert doesn't seem to allow for the concept of characters changing over time.

Jimmy Olsen, the copy boy, such a brash kid, seems tamed and clueless.

Apparently he considers "brash" to be a compliment. I would equate it with stupid or idiotic. There's no doubt the 1978 Jimmy Olsen was funny, but he was certainly clueless. If anything, this film's Jimmy is less clueless because he clues Clark in to insights about Lois and what's happened over the years.

Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has lost her dash and pizzazz, and her fiance, Richard White (James Marsden), regards her like a deer caught in the headlights.

This is supposed to be a criticism, but it's really a plot summary. Yes, Lois is not the same Lois as five years ago. People change. Back then she was sneaking onto the Eiffel Tower and risking her life to win a Pulitzer. Now she's won one ... for an editorial that didn't require her to leave the office. What's her motivation now for risking her life? And, let's face it, she knew Superman could always save her. Would you get near a hydrogen bomb if you knew Superman hadn't been around for years?

Even the editor, Perry White (Frank Langella), comes across less like a curmudgeon, more like an efficient manager.

Apparently this is also a criticism. I don't understand how, though. I would think someone who worked at a newspaper might recognize that an editor is bascially a manager, and being efficient is not bad.

Ebert apparently will not allow for change, even though the story is following the instructions he gave in his review of Spider-Man 2, which he called

the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman. It succeeds by being true to the insight that allowed Marvel Comics to upturn decades of comic-book tradition: Readers could identify more completely with heroes like themselves than with remote godlike paragons.

And again in his review of Blade, he notes

There is always a kind of sadness underlying the personalities of the great superheroes, who have been given great knowledge and gifts but few consolations in their battle against evil.

Ebert uses that sadness against Superman Returns:

But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?

You can't have it both ways.