Superman Returns (2006)

It's funny how doing exactly what you most desire (which also means declining inadequate substitutes) can lift your spirits.

That's how I ended up - immaculately coiffed, fresh from the hair salon - watching Superman Returns, IMAX & 3-D. I loved it. Let me count the ways....

First, the special effects were good, both with and without the 3-D glasses. (They only had about 20 minutes of 3-D footage total, provided in 4 separate segments. To deal with this, they tell you when to put on the glasses, and when to remove them. I found the concept totally hilarious, but I have to admit it was also a smart move. After all, the evidence suggests that it's a zero-sum game -- i.e., when resources are devoted to the 3-D technology, they are diverted away from character, script-writing, cinematography, direction, plot, etc. So you dramatically improve the quality of your film by reducing the percentage of screen time dedicated to 3-D sequences.)

Second, right toward the beginning of the movie, they show a Scrabble board. I will probably end up watching the DVD to see all the words on it. The only ones I caught on this first viewing, however, by an amazing coincidence, tie nicely in to yesterday's post: in the lower left corner of the board are the words "FOOT" and "FEET". Very cool.

Third, there is a delicious storyline involving a pampered pet dog. It becomes clear, in passing, that the dog has become a cannibal. This is a fun fact, because it goes by quickly, and the film-makers don't dwell on it -- even though the dog is around throughout the entire movie. But then toward the end of the movie, Lex Luthor threatens to eat the dog. Which also works.

Fourth, Superman himself is saved twice in this movie. It's good to see Lois and her family come to the rescue of the superhero.

There are also plenty of things that don't work in the movie, from a logical point of view (particularly Lois Lane's child), but even those sort of have their illogical emotional pull. In fact, if you can overlook the nonsensical elements (as I could), the points being made are rather sweet.

No, my only real complaint is that Lois Lane looks way too young for the role. It's the shape of her face - it's somehow too soft, almost like baby fat, and the nose is way too small, about the size of a child's nose. To me, her appearance undermines her credibility both as a journalist and as a mom.

Tomorrow, I'm off for some camping and whitewater rafting. Unfortunately, it is scheduled to be cold and rainy. Ugh!