|
Critics are never in 100% agreement on a movie. Go to www.rottentomatoes.com for proof. There, you can look up any movie made withing the past 20 years, and you'll see that no matter how critically acclaimed a movie may have been, someone didn't like it.
So what causes us to like or dislike a movie? For me, about 90% of the time, when the film is over I know if I've liked it, and I know why I did or did not. But the rest of the time, I have a hard time pinpointing what swung my opinion one way or the other.
Such is the case with Superman Returns. I liked it, even though intellectually there was a lot to dislike, even loathe. So why do I feel a need to defend it? Why do I feel a strange degree of affection for it?
Let's start with the negative, because that's easier. Byran Singer's direction of actors was terrible. I feel particularly sorry for poor Parker Posey, one of my favorites, who just looked lost and confused. It's obvious that she had no idea who her character was supposed to be, and that is the fault of the director. In fact, with one notable exception, no one in the cast was an improvement on the actors in first two films. And that goes double for Kevin Spacey, whose comtempt for the screenplay is barely concealed throughout.
Then there's that screenplay. Why do well-paid screenwriters get paid to write scenes in which a supposedly brilliant, professional woman brings her 5-year-old son with her onto stranger's yachts? If you need to put the kid in danger, fine. Just don't be lazy; think of a plausible way to do so.
And regarding the big plot twist. I'm going to try to tiptoe around this subject so I don't have to put in a SPOILER ALERT, but you may want to skip this paragraph if you haven't seen the movie yet. There is a major plot twist that depends on something that happened in Superman 2 (they seen to have forgotten about Superman 3 and 4, which is fine by me). But in order for the twist to work in this film's logic, they have to forgot another thing that happened in Superman 2. In forgetting that second event, they have made one character look incredibly callous and even a little slutty. And, they removed a subtext that may have made the story even more interesting.
So why do I like this movie? The action scenes are certainly rousing. Singer pulls surprisingly few punches for a "family-friendly" Superman movie, and this adds to the sense of danger and excitement. A scene early on in which a plane plummets to earth is a great example. It is the best sequence of it's type in any Superman movie, and it shows that the budget was well-spent.
But you would expect as movie made 25 years after Superman 2 to make great leaps in special effects. So that alone can't explain why I want to defend this movie. No, the real reason why I liked the film took me days to figure out, and suprised me when I did.
It's Kate Bosworth.
She's taken a beating around here and with some critics, but I think that's mostly because her character is written so poorly and has to do so many implausible, stupid things. Bosworth, unlike the other actors in this film, rises above the screenplay. When I think about Superman Returns, I think about a scene in which Lois Lane is in a car with her husband and her son. She says goodbye, knowing that there are a jumble of unresolved emotions inside of her. Bosworth, without a word, communicates all of this anquish. It makes the scene, and the movie, interesting.
In the end, a $250 million dollar film was saved for me by an unheralded actress who, against all odds, turned in a great, complex emotional performance. She is the reason why I want to defend this film, and she is the reason why I'd see the sequel.
|