America's hero, worse than syphilis
You ignore details like the suits Clark must leave all over Metropolis whenever he strips down to his Superduds (does he leave his wallet behind, too?), or that Superman never expects Luthor to have some Kryptonite handy. Suspension of disbelief, yadda yadda. But the surprising amount of critics who praised Superman Returns for restoring his respectability must not have noticed that 2/3rds of the movie was babymama drama skeevier than Kevin Federline's wildest dreams.
Also, if Lois Lane's current flame Richard White believes that HE'S the babydaddy, we may assume that her relationship with the boss's nephew was already in progress when she got busted out with the supersperm. The Man of Steel is down with O.P.P.! How exactly does this film restore his mythic luster again? Do all the slo-mo shots of him watching earth from above really make up for this?
"The movie may not be a single-bound building-leaper but Bryan Singer reconfigures the daddy of all comic-book sagas into something knowing, witty, and even sensitive. - J. Hoberman
(As these last two posts should make evident, there's no reason to assume that rants on here will be at all topical. All that matters is that it's on my mind.)
2 comments:
Uh, I hate to get all comic-book-reader on you here, but what makes you assume SR is in the same continuity as the others? It really does seem like it's just a reboot.
But yeah, that movie was oddly creepy. Almost as if Singer had been reading too much Superdickery.
I didn't mean to imply they were part of the same continuity (though some have said the film was originally meant to be set after II - Jude Law was even supposed to show up as Zod at the beginning!). My point is that in an earlier Superman film, they were able to establish a sexual relationship between Superman & Lois that made him look like a lot less of an asshole. Though we could debate whether he had the right to give her a Superamnesia kiss at the end in that one too.
Post a Comment