Man of Steel

Man of Steel

Poor Warner Brothers.  They had the Batman franchise, but their other super heroes just weren't catching on with the public.  Their attempt to revive Superman in 2006 with Bryan Singer was considered a failure (because it made only $400 million!  Yeesh, how greedy can you get!).  Their attempts at jumpstarting franchises with their other big guns like 2011's Green Lantern fared even worse.  Meanwhile, Marvel was destroying box office records with their second stringers, guys like Thor and Iron Man.  And when The Avengers became one of the biggest blockbusters of all time, DC looked on greedily.  But what were they to do?  Batman had run its course, so they couldn't go to that well again.  Not yet.  No, the choice was clear.  It was time to return to the man who stood for truth, justice and the American way.  It was time to go back to Superman.

I watched on the sidelines as Warners Brothers assembled one of the more eclectic film crews.  First of all, they turned the franchise over to the men who had revitalized Batman, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, who then in turn brought on Zack Snyder (300) to direct.  The cast included a group of actors I never would have associated with a comic book movie: Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, and Kevin Costner.  As each new cast member was announced, I grew more intrigued.  And I was very happy when Henry Cavill got the nod to play the Man of Steel himself.  He's an actor I have liked for a long time (despite the atrocity on mankind that was Immortals).

So I was tentatively excited, but I was also worried.  I kept hearing that this was a "new" take on the legendary hero, re-invented to be in the world we live in today.  Being dark and gritty might work for Batman, but not Superman.  Superman is heroic, he's bold, he's big.  He is not darkness.  He is the light.  That's the whole point.  So I was really worried when I saw the dark palate of the film, the grim tones, the darker suit.  I was willing to give the movie a chance, though.

So how did they do?  Not bad, actually.  My worst fears were not realized.  First of all, the re-invented, more "realistic" approach is actually pretty well done.  While they do change some elements from the origin story, they don't go off the reservation.  They stay true to the most important plot points - the planet Krypton explodes, but not before brilliant scientist Jor-El launches his infant son into space...the ship eventually crash lands on Earth and is raised by an All-American family in Kansas, the Kents.  This is where the story diverges a bit.  Nolan and Goyer want to know what it would really be like for an all-powerful alien to grow up in today's America.  In many ways, he would be an outcast.  He doesn't know who he is.  He can't reveal what he can do.  His senses - heat and x-ray vision, super hearing, massive strength - these are all overpowering and he can't control them.  Instead of encouraging him to use his powers someday for good, his adoptive parents actually try to get him to hide his abilities because they think people wouldn't understand.  They would be afraid.  And they're probably right.  So young Superman grows up, wandering around, hiding his powers, trying to find his place in the world.  Lucky for us, he finds it right before the evil Kryptonian General Zod, who also survived the planet's destruction, arrives on Earth, ready to raise some hell!

I have to say that despite some problems, I was enjoying the first half of the film.  Sure, the opening battle sequence is completely unnecessary, and I was really annoyed by the overuse of shaky cam (why do we need shaky cam in dialogue scenes?!?!).  But for the most part, I was rolling with the movie.  A few folks have complained that the Krypton scenes focused too much on science fiction, but that didn't bother me.  In fact, I felt that some of the science fiction elements actually brought the movie more in line with the comics.  I was generally pleased that Zach Snyder avoided his normal stylistic tricks, but kept with a more simple filmmaking approach (despite the shaky cam).  And the movie's biggest asset is its risky but brilliant casting.  Along the board, I was really impressed.  Cavill is a really solid Superman, Shannon is having a ball chewing the scenery as the villain, Lane and Fishburne are great in the limited screen time they have, and Adams fits into Lois Lane's shoes perfectly, and makes her much more intelligent than some of the other Lois Lanes we've known.  And Costner and Crowe are pitch perfect as the fathers: Costner perfectly embodies the American spirit while Crowe manages to gracefully settle into a more Obi wan Kenobi type role.

So I was starting to enjoy the movie...and then the punching began.  And it didn't stop for what seemed like 7 hours.  The climactic battle of the film is one of the most over-the-top, destructive, ridiculous, and monotonous battle sequences I have ever seen.  The effects all look terrific, but when they feature nothing but someone punching someone else through a building over and over and over again, it gets really old.  Look, I appreciate that modern special effects finally give us a chance to see super heroes wail on each other...but when they are actually unable to hurt each other, it gets old.  And by the time I saw the 783rd building collapse, I checked my watch and just thought, please let this battle be over soon.  Please!  But it didn't stop.  It just kept on going on and on.  And with each punch, I cared less and less.

It's kind of a shame because the first battle with the evil Kryptonians in Kansas is actually pretty inventive, with the combatants using their various powers in different ways.  Superman tries to fight off two warriors, clearly better trained than he is, though not as powerful, while simultaneously trying to protect the U.S. military (who are actually attacking all three of them).  It's a fun sequence, and certainly massive enough in scale to be a worthy climax in any other movie.  But we still have an hour to go!

I just wanted someone to stop punching and say a line of dialogue.  Just any line of dialogue would do.

Clearly, as the movie went on, I liked it less and less.  It wasn't just the fighting.  The storyline kind of goes a bit flaky, with weird plotting, and just blah dialogue. It's almost as if the writers got to the halfway point of the movie and said, "whew, we got this far.  The CGI guys can take it from here."

MINOR SPOILERS HERE BELOW.  I also don't like how the battle ends.  I don't want to ruin anything so I will try to be vague, but I don't like the way Superman wins the battle.  The filmmakers go out of their way to justify the move and it makes sense in the context of the film, I suppose, but it also goes against over 80 years of Superman history.  He just wouldn't do that.  And that bothered me.

But what annoyed me most about the ending is that we have a cute little scene at the Daily Planet, with Clark Kent, Perry White, and Lois Lane all going to work and smiling, as if nothing had happened, as if the whole damn city had not just been torn to smithereens.  There was such wanton destructiveness, with over-zealous special effects guys demolishing massive amounts of the city with explosions that easily would have killed tens of thousands of people, and it's as if nothing had happened.  Nothing at all.  Everyone is all smiles.  The movie has zero consequences.  And I actually found that to be irresponsible.  And it pissed me off.  Nolan and Goyer are better than that.

SPOILERS OVER.

Last thing I hated is the complete misguided score by Hans Zimmer.  Though it isn't thematically strong, I enjoyed his Batman scores and understood how his music fit the mood of Nolan's Gotham.  But he is completely out of his element here.  He has a nice, ascending motif which sounds heroic enough but it builds to nothing.  The rest of the score is cheap sounding synth tracks with some dated guitar overlays from the 1990s.  Even if this movie is more grounded and realistic, Superman is still Superman.  And that still requires music that is big and bold.  And I don't want to hear the excuse that no one writes music like that any more.  There are composers who do it well.  Listen to what Giacchino did with Star Trek and John Carter.  Heck, listen to the superb score John Ottman gave Superman Returns.  Zimmer mentioned in interviews that he initially didn't think he was the right man for the job. He should have listened to his own instincts.

Anyways, enough rambling.  So where does this leave me?  Did I like Man of Steel?  Sort of.  There is a lot to like here.  Goyer and Nolan's take on the character is interesting, the casting is superb, and Snyder's direction is confident.  But there is so much that bothers me.  It's really a mixed bag.  And while the movie has been a huge hit, and the studio is already cooking up a sequel, Warner Brothers had better do better the next go-around.  Because if they make another movie as mixed as this one, they will never reach the heights that Marvel has ascended to.

BEST LINE:

Superman: My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they would reject me out of fear.  He was convinced that the world wasn't ready.  What do you think?

MVP:
Of all the stars in the film, I definitely liked Coster and Crowe the best.  But I'm not picking either of them for my MVP.  Rather, my MVP is going to the one non-star in the bunch, the up-and-coming German actress, Antje Traue, who plays General Zod's second-in-command, Faora-Ul.  She is one tough cookie, full of malevolence without resorting to scenery chewing.  But what impressed me is that she made this much of an impression when she is such an underwritten character.  There is nothing on paper that really sets her apart.  But the fact that the character is so memorable is a testament to Traue's acting.  The second she walks onto the screen, her presence just draws your attention - and that's impressive when she is mostly sharing the screen with seasoned pros like Crowe and Shannon.  She's my clear MVP.  It doesn't hurt that her big fight with Superman in Kansas is easily the highlight battle of the film.


TRIVIA:
Henry Cavill has the worst luck.  He was always directors' second choice.  He was the frontrunner in an earlier Superman reboot, but that project fell through and the studio went with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns instead, with Brandon Routh as the title character.  He was the second choice for James Bond before Eon went with Daniel Craig.  He was the second choice for Twilight's Edward Cullen before the studio chose Robert Pattinson.  And he was also runner-up behind Christian Bale for Batman.  I'm glad a franchise finally came through for him!  

Les Miserables

Les Miserables 

Look, I'm not gonna lie.  I usually don't like musicals.   I respect them, and I appreciate the power of music to evoke emotion, but all too often I find the singing actually takes me out of the movie as opposed to emotionally connecting me.  There are exceptions, of course.  Singing in the Rain is a classic.  I really enjoyed both Chicago and Dreamgirls.  So what about Les Miserables?  Would this all-star film based on one of Broadway's most beloved shows be one of the few musicals that crosses over?

Les Miserables is based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. I'll keep the synopsis vague as to not ruin anything for those who don't know the story.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been released from 19-years imprisonment and decides to break parole in order to rebuild his life as a better man.  Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is a tough-as-nails soldier who devotes his life to catching the convict, ignoring all the visible signs of how Valjean's newfound compassion affects everyone around them.  It's an epic story, spanning decades, and even includes a climactic battle set during the Paris Uprising in 1832.

The story sounded interesting so I was definitely curious, especially with this superb cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bodham Carter...this is quite a cast.  And I was a big fan of director Tom Hooper's last movie, The King's Speech.  But unfortunately, Les Miserables did not totally win me over. 

First of all, there is a lot to like in this movie, starting with the cast.  Everyone is absolutely superb, both in the acting and singing department.  Hooper made a brave choice with the film by recording the songs live instead of recording them in the studio, which is the common practice with musicals.  This experiment pays off in spades, giving the music an immediacy and raw emotional power that is missing when the songs are "produced" in a studio booth.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Anne Hathaway's show-stopping "I Dreamed a Dream," which is about as raw as you can get.

I was also very impressed with the art direction and the overall look of the film.  It's a superb looking film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it scooped up most of the Costume and Art Direction Awards.

What I liked most about Les Miserables was the epicness of it all.  I truly felt like this movie was a massive journey and I had gotten to know these characters over two decades.  When the movie ends, you do not feel like you've watched a movie; instead, you've experienced something.  And that is kinda special.  Ironically, this epic length is also the movie's greatest weakness.  When the movie is not working, it just grinds to a halt...and it is those moments where I literally feel like I am spending twenty years with these people.  There were a few times where I thought, "oh, please, Jean Valjean, if you have any real compassion, you would just stop singing and get on with it!"

There are a few other things I don't like.  I had never seen the stage musical so a lot of this was fresh for me.  And the songs are all quite good and memorable.  But most musicals have dialogue between the songs.  Not Les Miserables.  This movie is all song. There might be all of six lines of non-singing dialogue in the whole film. I wouldn't mind this so much if the music were good, but I actually found much of the this 'inbetween' singing to be tuneless and meandering.  I know many of you are screaming and smashing at your keyboards: BLASPHEMY!!!  Look, I'm not badmouthing the music as a whole.  The major songs are all pretty good, some of them superb, but the music inbetween the big numbers is just kind of painful.

So there you go: Les Miserables in the end is a mixed bag.  When it is firing on all cylinders, it really is terrific.  Usually this is when the show's major numbers are featured: "I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," and "One Day More" are stirring and wonderfully performed, and showcase the raw power that musicals can have when done well.  But it just drags in a lot of other places, sometimes painfully so.  But like I said in the beginning of the review, take my opinion with a grain of salt because musicals just aren't my thing!

But all that said, I do want to address a few points in SPOILER territory.  For those who have seen the movie or know the play really well, here are the moments I liked and disliked.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bodham Carter stage the film's funniest scene when they perform "Master of the House," but with every subsequent scene they appear in, they become less and less amusing and more and more annoying.  Until by the end, they were just tedious.

Damn.  Hugh Jackman can sing.  And I was a bit terrified by his chest hair.  To be honest, I was surprised by most of the cast.  They all have pretty terrific voices.

Anne Hathaway just won her Oscar.  I am sure of it.  She isn't in the film for very long, but she is so heart achingly good in "I Dreamed a Dream."  It's downright haunting.

Almost as good is the relatively unknown (but not for long) member of the cast, Samantha Barks, as Eponine.  She knocks "On My Own" out of the park!

I do want to defend Russell Crowe for a second. He seems to be catching some heat as Javert.  I actually thought he was fine.  It's a different role for him, and while his voice doesn't necessarily sound Broadway to me, I thought his singing got the job done.  I think people are not responding well to him for a few reasons.  His introduction is handled clumsily, with his singing literally coming out of nowhere, causing some snickering in the audience.  And the director does not do Crowe any favors by staging his solo numbers in really goofy ways (i.e. always balancing on railings and silly blocking like that).  In fact, while most of the camera work is fine, I was distracted by the horribly quick pullbacks that seemed to happen whenever the actors hit a big note.  This was just awkward and clumsy and he does it to poor Russell Crowe constantly.  It just seems like they are setting him up to fail.

Speaking of Crowe, I really like the confrontation in the hospital when Javert explains why he refuses to believe in Valjean's reformation.  That Javert came from the same lowly background as Valjean, picked himself out of the muck, and transformed himself into a symbol of law and order...that explains a lot about his character and I think Crowe nails this moment.

Not meaning to go back to this, but those zoom outs really annoyed me!

And why the horribly gruesome bone-breaking sound effect when Javert dies.  It was so loud, it was almost comical.  And why do that to a poor character who just seemed to see the error of his ways??

I also have a problem with the very end when the whole cast appears on a super huge barricade, singing the People's song.  I feel the movie gets its themes mixed up.  Onstage, I'm sure this makes sense because it is a chance for the whole cast to come out and sing one more time. But in the film, it just muddies the waters.  It makes it seem like this whole movie was about The People, the need for Revolution, and the Paris Uprising.  Really, the uprising is just a plot device - and it only really matters to Marius.  And actually, even then, it doesn't seem like it really means that much to him since he is about to abandon the revolution in order to chase after Cosette.  Cutting back to the barricade at the finale, and including Fantine, Cosette and Valjean with the group just doesn't make much sense to me.

Okay, SPOILER OVER.

MVP:
Well, I think I've already made it clear that my MVP is Anne Hathaway.  "I Dreamed a Dream" is usually belted out by powerhouse singers.  Every time I've heard it, it's produced as a big, huge number for a singer with a powerhouse voice.  That doesn't make much sense in the movie, since Fantine is weak, desperate, and dying of tuberculous.  Kinda hard to hit the big notes when you have tuberculous. So she takes the opposite approach.  She doesn't push the song out, she pulls it in, makes it personal, ignores the power and just focused on the anguish and emotion.  It's a remarkable performance.  And yes, she is good in her other scenes, as well.  But it is this performance that wins her my MVP (and probably the Oscar, too).


TRIVIA: 
A lot of actresses auditioned to be in this movie.  For Eponine, you had the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Hayden Panettierre, and Rachel Evan Wood.  Supposedly, Taylor Swift was really close to getting the part.  No offense to any of these ladies, but I think they cast this role perfectly.  Samantha Barks, who had already played the part on stage, was perfect.

Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood

To be fair, I was not expecting much from the new Robin Hood. Constant delays and continuous script rewrites were among the rumors coming down the pipeline. But what concerned me more was that every time word came of a script rewrite, the entire concept of the film sounded different. First, it was supposed to be the Robin Hood story from the Sheriff of Nottingham's point-of-view, then it was supposed to be some sort of Scarlet Pimpernel situation where Robin Hood and the Sheriff were the same person, and then it turned into this "realistic" prequel that the Sheriff is hardly even in. To me this just sounded like director Ridley Scott wasn't sure what story he wanted to tell. And that is a bad sign.

So it is no surprise that the story of how lowly English archer Robin Longstride became a national hero and then infamous outlaw is deeply flawed at the conceptual level. This is a movie in search of itself.

Which is not to say it is all bad. There is too much talent involved, and they strive valiantly to make the film work. The acting along the board is terrific. Russell Crowe is brooding, and a bit in Gladiator mode, but he carries the film admirably on his shoulders. He isn't Errol Flynn, but he certainly isn't Kevin Costner, either. And Crowe and Blanchett, as Maid Marian, have an easy and realistic chemistry. Mark Strong as the villainous Godfrey, Oscar Isaac as King John, and William Hurt as loyal English baron William Marshall, all deliver terrific performances. The art direction and cinematography are all great; once again Ridley Scott's greatest success is in creating another world that is entirely believeable and not 'Hollywood.'

So it really is a shame that the film does not gel together. The first 30 minutes is all over the place, terribly edited and paced. And then the moment at the end where (not a big spoiler here) Robin Hood actually becomes an outlaw seems entirely arbitrary and silly. Inbetween, there are a legion of half formed ideas, from the weird wild children living in the woods who look like extras from Zardoz to a major plot point about a certain character's father that appears for five minutes, says its really important, and then vanishes without any other mention.

It is possible that there is a director's cut lurking out there, just like Ridley Scott's previous epic Kingdom of Heaven. With the extra footage, that film went from mediocre to superb. But I don't know if the extra footage would help Robin Hood. The problems run too deep. Like I said in the beginning, I wasn't expecting much from the film. And unfortunately, I got exactly what I expected...

MVP: I have to give it to the production designers, art directors, and costume team. From the castles to the armor to the look and feel of the villages, this is a world that lives and breaths and feels real. Kudos.

BEST LINE: Can I pick a line so bad it's good? "I declare him to be an outLAWWWWWW!!!!!"

TRIVIA: Russell Crowe at 45 is the oldest actor to play Robin Hood. Which surprises me because Connery looked pretty darn old in Robin and Marion.