Tuesday, August 15


I'm skipping the new Superman movie, but I wouldn't miss Anthony Lane's review of it in the New Yorker. (I only read his reviews of movies I'm pretty sure I don't want to see, since I don't want to spoil anything.)

Talking about the archvillan Lex Luthors plan to steal Supermans magic crystals and grow a new continent in the ocean, Lane writes:
Picture my disappointment as I realized that, for all the pizzazz of “Superman Returns,” its global weapon of choice would not be terrorism, or nuclear piracy, or dirty bombs. It would be real estate. What does Warner Bros. have in mind for the next installment? Superman overhauls corporate pension plans? Luthor screws Medicare?
Superman assumes Christ-like status for his efforts—although "his principal solution is to thwartindividual robberies, which is unlikely to put eithe rthe police or the internatinoal aid agencies out of business"—and Lane wonders "will Christians object to the hero's preferred floating technique, which is to descend queitly through space in the Crucifixion pose?"

But regardless, the bigger question is:
If Superman is such a paragon, how come he wants to save a species so universally dumb that not a single member of it recognizes him when he puts on a pair of glasses?


Post a Comment

<< Home