He fell from space for your sins.

Here are some awkward and passionate thoughts on Bryan Singer's Superman Returns.

Heavy spoilers follow. Seriously.

What is troubling about this Superman film is that it seems unconcerned with the fundamental questions that it raises about the character; it takes big chances, but only for the benefit of neat moments, and with no concern for what it all comes together to say.

Firstly, the film does not grapple with the primary superhero question; which identity is the mask? Is he Clark Kent, or is Clark Kent a nebbish persona? Is he Superman, or must he project false confidence when he dons the cape and tights? Perhaps he's someone else entirely, someone who is only comfortable enough to show himself in Kansas, and who has about four minutes of screen-time before he is whisked away in favor of the masks.

So who are we watching? The film never decides, and no one seems to care. Least of all Clark Kent, who is content to play the fool while Lois, now attached to Richard and mother to Jason, pines over Superman. The classic Clark-Lois-Superman love triangle is not only sidelined (which I don't necessarily have a problem with) but completely lost (which I do), as is the idea that Clark and Superman are seperate persona within same man. Clark Kent provides a few moments of comic relief while Superman gets all the play. Which is how Superman seems to like it.

The conceit is that Superman, upon learning that astronomers had found fragments of his home-world, set off into space for five years to see what he could find among the wreckage, and has now "returned". The world that he returns to is, we are told, different. Lois Lane has penned a Pulitzer winning op-ed entitled "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman". What this piece says, presumably, is, "Because he's not here," because the minute Superman shows his face again (with its perfect cheekbones and glorious eyes, damn you Brandon Routh), the world erupts in appropriate applause and excitement.

The fact that Superman's five year absence puts his date of departure in 2001 seems like it could be the tip of a really interesting iceberg. Is the film trying to say that the country's potential for hope and decency abandoned it with 9/11? Is it attempting to courageously comment on our country's transformation from beacon of light to ogre of greed?

Alas, this is no tipped iceberg.

So how has the world changed? In short, it hasn't. Nothing has changed since the 1930s, except that everyone has seen Richard Donner's Superman film. Boy have they seen it. And one woman now has a boyfriend. And this is the main concern of the film.

In the universe of DC Comics, Lex Luthor was president for what corresponded to George W. Bush's first term in office. This storyline makes me so happy because it acknowledges the limitations of the character without descending into melodrama. Superman cannot go against the will of democracy. And yet he knows that Lex Luthor is a lying, evil sack of shit. This is an appropriately insurmountable obstacle for Superman. It is worldwide, it is incapacitating, and it is fraught with complication. The conflict that Superman Returns presents is a less complicated one, unless you are a shithead. Which our Superman seems to be.

I will give the film this; Lois Lane's boyfriend is a decent guy. He is intelligent, good looking, and a good parent (unlike Lois herself, who endangers her son with troubling ease). And the fact that Richard is a great guy is both respectable and frustrating; it does not present us with an easy way out.

But this is not a conflict for Superman, and here's why; Lois Lane is now a mom, and she is domestic with a man who is (it seems at first) father to her child. As far as Superman knows, she is happy. End of story. Guess what, Superman? Eat it. You don't have to be Superman, or even ModeratelyDecentMan, to understand that this family has established itself, and that to try any rooftop canoodling with this woman is unconscionably selfish. To see Superman wrestle with this and err by macking it to Mom Lois would be fascinating; to watch it treated as a foregone conclusion that Superman will breach Lois's relationship with Richard is frustrating.

I do not consider myself a purist; do with the character what you will. The fact that the film is not simply an origin story is great. But to ignore the moral gray areas raised by the story belies ignorance not only of this character, but of all character.

In and around the events of this film, Superman does not act like Superman. Here are some things that he does which are not acknowledged to be troubling in any way.

1) Superman slept with Lois Lane without revealing to her that he is Clark Kent. He didn't tell her his real name. This may be acceptable behavior for a fraternity brother at freshmen-ladies-drink-free-night, but it is unbecoming of a superhero. Even a shit superhero like Daredevil.

2) Superman left for Krypton soon after sleeping with Lois Lane. He did not tell her where he was going or why, and did not bother to pick up a phone while he was away. This is why he does not know that his relationship with Lois resulted in a pregnancy.

3) Superman learns of an in progress aircraft disaster from the TV news that happens to be on while he pities himself in a bar. Had that TV crew not been covering that particular flight live and had Superman not been watching TV at that moment, everyone on that flight would probably be dead. This really bugs me, not because Superman needs to be responsible for every human on the planet, but because it makes him so unnecessarily ineffectual.

4) He tells Ra's al Ghul, "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you," and lets him die.

Wait. Scratch that last one. Wrong cowardice.

5) While he could be saving a life or two, Superman invades Lois Lane's privacy by spying on her and her family as they prepare dinner one night. He does this for no reason other than that he is bummed that Lois doesn't like him anymore. Boo hoo.

6) Superman did not call his widow mother while he was away. For five years. Not even to say, "I'll be home by 2006."

Superman. For the love of God, call your widow mother. She worries about you.

These things are truly troubling. The wonderful thing about Superman is that he is, first and foremost, a decent fellow with the power of God. He's no whiny teenage web-slinger or "tortured" dark knight detective ("Ooooh look at me I'm so tortured"). He's just a good guy. And to see what writers do with this limited template of decency is what makes him engaging. But this film is unconcerned with whether he is decent at all. Or, more unsettling, the film seems to set some pretty scary parameters for what is heroic and what is just excusable because, after all, she's just a woman. And you liked her a lot. Once more, boo hoo.

The film treats the revelation of Jason's super parentage as a "cute twist" without addressing Superman's responsibility or abdication thereof. He knocked Lois up and did not even stick around long enough to notice some tummy bulge. And thus her anger with Superman comes to make more sense. My anger with Superman comes to make more sense.

Let us talk about a guy. We'll call him Ralph. Ralph is no Superman, but only a guy with some unpaid parking tickets and a fondness for cheese sandwiches. Ralph finds out that Sally, a woman he slept with five years ago (and hasn't spoken to since, though he cares about her deeply and respects her greatly) got pregnant with his child and went through that pregnancy alone. Because Ralph left soon after sleeping with Sally and hasn't been in touch with her. Even though he loves her.

Ralph feels unimaginable guilt! Ralph must make amends by developing a relationship with the child, but must navigate the choppy waters of the child's delicate ideas of family! Ralph must, like a man, discuss the situation with Sally and Sally's new man, who is a wonderful father for a child to whom Ralph has contributed nothing but DNA.

I bring up Ralph because Superman is supposed to be at least as good as the Ralphs of the world. And if he's not going to be, if the film is going to take Superman in new and flawed directions, at least acknowledge that fathering a child and disappearing is a shitty thing to do.

Other things bother me as well, but I'm trying not to descend into nitpickery.

Kevin Spacey is fine, but his Lex Luthor is a nitwit. Why does he hate Superman? Because he "doesn't share his power"? What does that mean?

Here are things that don't make sense in the movie, and are frustrating because I am not an idiot.

1) Camera phones do not take high resolution, front-page-ready photographs. Their photos are blurry.

2) Who would want to buy real estate on Lex's kryptonite continent?

3) What kind of a major metropolitan newspaper lets people take five year hiatuses? It's addressed with a throwaway line about someone dying, so I guess I'm just nitpicking.

4) How can Superman lift a continent made out of kryptonite? This is definitely nitpicking, since I like this sequence a lot.

5) What kind of reporter, when faced with Superman, who left five years ago for who-knows-where and has been doing who-knows-what, faints? I don't care if you're Lois Lane or Tokyo Rose, you ask Superman a damn question. "Where the shit have you been?" for example.

Lois Lane, you are a shit reporter and a shit mother. And despite that, I still don't think you deserve the old dine-and-dash from your man friends. Especially your Superman friends.

Here are some things that I liked about Superman Returns.

1) Brandon Routh. When he's allowed to do things, he does them well. Especially bumble. He's a great bumbler.

2) Nice moments involving elevators. Clark waving to Lois in a crowded one. Superman watching Lois ascend in one.

3) Lex Luthor violating Superman, first in his home, and then physically. It is really well done, and appropriately brutal.

4) All of the Jesus stuff (of which there is not that much). Because that's good fun.

5) The suit looks great. Good coloring.

All in all, it is a film rich with odd inconsistencies and a fair amount of unpleasantness.