Superheroes
The imperfection of Superman logic: I had this conversation with someone recently, and since i'm watching Unbreakable on TV right now, superheroes are on my mind. While watching Superman Returns, i was taken out of the movie during one fairly crucial scene. Spoilers to follow. He lifts what is essentially a continent of crystals out of the ocean and hurls it into space, but the thing that bugged me was the fact that he is shown to be working hard and struggling to move this sizeable object. this comes after he stops a plane that's lost control and is about to crash. he is shown having to work to stop it. superman struggling to move something suggests a limit to his strength, which actually goes against the understanding that he his powers are infinite. if he is struggling to lift a continent, what is the limit of his physical strenght? can he stop a planet? the assumption is that he could, but then his displays of exertion are illogical. i understand that watching a superhero, even if it's superman, effortlessly lift a continent would bother more people than him sweating to lift it, but it really took me out of that scene and got me thinking about how superheroes are depicted. in Unbreakable (which is actually my favorite Shyamalan movie), Bruce Willis is testing his physical limits by lifting more and more weight while bench pressing, and he is shown exerting more and more effort to lift those weights. but that doesn't really bother me, because even if he has superhuman strenghth, it doesn't imply that he has limitless strength, so the scene still rings true to me, unlike the scene in superman. and yes, i'm a huge dork.
more on shyamalan: the trailer for his newest movie, Lady in the Water, is out, and it's available here. and i think it looks fantastic. but, and here's the rub, so did the trailers for Signs and the Village, both of which, i feel, fail to deliver on the expectation set forth by the trailers and the first halves of the movies. it is the endings to each of these movies that don't really do it for me. while some people would argue with me on that opinion for Signs, I don't think too many would for the Village, which i found to be very dissapointing, mostly because he unnecessarily complicated the story. honestly, wouldn't it have been a shitload better movie if there really were monsters in the woods? but the reason i'm sticking with him, at least for a few more movies, and will go see Lady in the Water, probably opening weekend, is because he is damn good director. my main issue is with him as a writer. he has relied too much on the big twist so far in his career, when he should try making an entertaining movie that is a little more straightforward. making an audience think is commendable and a worthy cause, but forcing the issue with stories that just make the audience laugh when the big twist is revealed (i was witness to this in the Village, more than a few people laughed outloud) makes me wish for a simpler, but more enjoyable, movie. so anyway, here's rooting for a keeper with Lady in the Water.
Comments