David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
