Well, Anthony Lane might be an elitist, but he's funny. I love to
just pick up and read his anthology of film writing, NOBODY'S
PERFECT, and advise any of you who love film criticism to pick it up.
It's available in paperback and very entertaining.
But I do agree that in a couple of months nobody will be talking
about this Superman incarnation.
But Hollywood will be planning the next one, probably.
Now don't spill the Pop Corn.
K.
On Jul 1, 2006, at 5:10 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
** For god's sakes -- THIS IS A STORY ABOUT A MAN WHO WEARS RED AND
BLUE TIGHTS! If you have to think about this too deeply, DON'T
go. All that matters to most is whether the film's 2 1/2 hours are
a waste of time. It might be for hyper-intellectual-effetes and
geeks -- but it was OK for me. "United 93" it's not. "Spider-Man
2" it's not. A best picture it's not.
** We saw it, liked it and thought it was excellent, not spectacular.
** Unlike dramas or "reality-based" comedies, "most" people re-
arrange expectations going into a picture like this, based as it is
on an American comic-book icon dating back to 1938. They do the
same for fantasy or children's films like "Star Wars: Revenge of
the Sith." And this is truly family entertainment NOT aimed at
people who read the New Yorker. Think "E.T." or a kid's film
without too many swear words or any cinematic close-ups of Brandon
Routh's package. This is "Superman Returns."
** It's just a movie; it's popcorn entertainment, for goodness
sakes -- stuff I prefer during the summer. If you're around kids a
lot, this CAN make a difference. All this "savior" talk and
reflections about script and method-acting-quality are "too deep"
for me, man. Most people can do without pseudo-intellectual
observations and psycho-analytic profundities being expressed in
"grave tones" by anal-retentive critics. Imagine talking about
"Superman Returns" like that when you go back to work next week.
You might as well as wear the scarlet letter "S" for SNOB painted
on your forehead.
** My feelings for "Superman Returns" were nostalgic. Brandon
Routh isn't as good as Chris Reeve, but he comes close, and we esp.
liked him during his Clark Kent scenes. I couldn't stand Superman
III and IV, released in 1983 and 1987, respectively. Seeing the
plains of the Midwest and the Kent farmhouse and outer space and
Metropolis felt like re-visiting an old friend. "Superman Returns"
-- with all of its flaws -- could've been horrific. Instead, it's
a miracle that ANY of it works. It's reminiscent at times of the
epic sweep director Richard Donner successfully applied to his 1978
(and still superior) classic.
** Breaking down "Superman Returns" like "Citizen Kane," with
pretentious references like those found in reviews like Anthony
Lane's -- is elitist thinking we expect from the New Yorker. I
love the New Yorker, but this is the same magazine that went
orgasmic about the titanic historic relevance of "Brokeback
Mountain," which I guarantee will be proven wrong within 2 years.
It's dumb trying to sift anything political or religious out of
"Superman Returns," but people won't stop trying.
** In the end, we enjoyed being in an audience sprinkled with kids
and old fogeys with glasses and gray hair. It's that simple. By
September, all of this, including what everybody's written, will be
forgotten.
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
