 | Category: | Movies | | Genre: | Romance |
ok. i should have done this before my paper. but o well, i am doing this now.
chick flick anyone?
well, the tried to reinstitutionalize superman... which i believe wasnt the greatest of ideas. however, i do get a sense that they are doing it to show the more human aspect of superman which is of course is an answer to one of the greatest criticism to him as a comic book hero. i dont necessarily think it is a bad thing but when you try to reinstitutionalize something you should make it great.
and the movie, for me, isnt that great. there were elements of it that are not scientifically accurrate. yes, and i could just here you, but justine!! its super hero movie. superman isnt science. yah, he isnt, but in a movie that sits itself in reality, in trying to grasp human elements it should conform to the laws of physics. is there wind in outerspace or not? make up your mind. is he in the earths gravitational field or not? and was lois lane in outer space? i cant remember anymore.
cinematography wise, it wasnt consistent. i didnt get which part is set in the 1970's and which part is supposed to be now, and why? it would have been great though if it was clearer.
is it because i vaguely remember the superman movies? is it my fault? no. why? coz they are showing it now. they're target audience is the new generations. for them to think about and like superman and be addicted to superman collectibles like their dad, uncles or grandfathers did when the movies showed up in the silver screen. today, it is no longer about sci fi effects, it is about consistency and human emotions created by people moved by their own desire to pursue their identity and purpose. it is no longer an excuse that "it is a good comeback movie" because it categorizes it greatness. if there werent any superman movies before, then its not a good movie?
chick flick?
i still love the love story. though now that im grown up (haha) i feel that lois lane's character should be more dynamic, why superman? come one dozen of women loves him, if you are saved by someone that many times, wouldnt you love him? but superman is beyond saving people because for most part its clark kent. for this to be true lois lane should fall in love with Clark Kent first.
now the good things. there rumors, or should i say information out there that suggests that the creators of Superman Returns is equating (?) superman with jesus christ. and yes i agree with the rumor that they are.
first, he died in a position that we will vaguely remember how JC died. two, Savior anyone? he came to save the world and not to condenm it. that is so JC. three, JC's love is for everyone. you will see in the movie that superman is now international. helping and saving people from different parts of the world like uh, MANILA. and yes we need superman! fourth, there are a lot of criticism that this world doesnt need a GOd that religion is the root of all evil, same with lois lane's pulitzer prize winning article "why the world doesnt need superman?" but at the end, the world does need a savior and there is a God. and not believing in one, doesnt erase the fact that something is there. fifth and most important of all. the SON and the FATHER? oh wait. it is a rumor. the creators is not equating him to JC their equating superman with GOD.
God was present with the istraelites before. he was as real to them as the computer in front of you. God manifested in ways that is seen, touched and heard audibly. just like superman and the world. a savior that is physically present. then we people needed more, so he sent Jesus Christ, his only "bigatin" son. the movie showed a passing of power, superman didnt lose his power but he shared it. what is revealed by the father the son will also be revealed. im excited bout the son. haha.
why is this a good thing you ask? email me about your iniquities. annmarie.castillo@gmail.com
still lutang. 
| |
|
