"Man of Steel" Is No "Superman Returns," for Better or Worse...

Directed by Zack Snyder, written by David S. Goyer, story by Goyer and Christopher Nolan, starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburn, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, and Michael Shannon - Rated PG-13

 

The Kurgan is not a fan of humanity, but even he didn't kill this many people with his collateral damage...

 

 

 

 

Superman has had a rough (and strange) go of it in Hollywood over the years.  The promising start in the late 70s quickly fizzled out into arguably one of the worst movies ever made with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.  In 2006, the franchise was revisited with Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer’s ode to the Richard Donner films. Returns was a critical and commercial success but somehow was not good enough to spark the franchise.  So here we are again with Man of Steel, a, for lack of a better word, grittier and more sci-fi influenced entry.  My gut reaction to this new version from Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is positive.  Man of Steel is a big, action-packed summer movie and it never slows down during its lengthy 140+ minute running time.  So if you want the short review, quit reading after this paragraph.  Man of Steel is worth the price of admission.  Now, if you want to know how it stacks up in the series (or you’ve seen it and you want to see if we agree or disagree about certain elements), keep reading, because that’s a trickier issue.

 

I referred to Man of Steel as a “gritty” movie above, and that’s a good starting point.  I didn’t want to use that word because it has become so unoriginal in modern cinema.  Gone are the days of a hero wearing a costume simply because that’s what he wore in the comic books.  Now we need a “realistic” hero that wears a uniform almost solely for its utility.  I’m actually okay with this approach if done correctly.  The best example of this is the recent series of Batman films.  I just don’t think this is completely necessary for every hero.  Superman has always been that squeaky clean hero (he still is, for the most part) that stood apart from the rest.  Man of Steel does not make Superman stand apart in the cinematic world; he is on the same level as Batman.  That’s not a bad place to be, but it’s not a different place, either. 

 

The grittiness of Man of Steel isn’t that major of a problem, and a squeaky clean version might have been a disaster.  But I can’t help but look back on Superman Returns and think that that is Superman done right.  No big deal, though; if I want that version of Superman, I have a DVD player. 

 

Man of Steel’s more realistic look is simply awesome, however.  Zack Snyder and his team (including Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan serving as a producer) have crafted detailed and interesting worlds.  From a purely visual standpoint, this film is far and above the best of the series.  That goes for the action as well.  While some of the sequences bordered on exhaustion, they were all impressive and showcased both Superman’s and his enemies’ incredible power.  That showcase of power might leave you feeling a little troubled, though (more on that later). 

 

Great action and visuals can be enough for some people (it certainly goes a long way for me) because of the entertainment value therein, but the casting of Superman and his opponent can also make or break a film like this.  Henry Cavill (Immortals) does a great job as both Clark Kent and Superman.  He is believable, looks natural in the uniform, and, most importantly, he’s likable.  Michael Shannon as General Zod is equally impressive.  I’ve been a fan of Shannon’s for years, but this is most likely the first time many viewers have seen him in a major role (although fans of HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” are already aware of his talent).  Shannon brings his usual intensity to the role.  This is an actor who can convey so much with a stare.  He’s not going to get an Oscar nomination or anything like that, but at least Man of Steel will showcase his talents to a larger audience.  The rest of the cast is just as strong, just in more limited capacities.  Amy Adams turns in yet another good performance as Lois Lane.  Russell Crowe holds the first twenty minutes of the film so well that I almost wished that had been its own movie.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner provide the emotional impact of the film, most notably Costner in some scattered fatherly advice scenes (perfect timing, by the way, releasing this film on Father’s Day weekend).  Maybe it’s the memories of the father-son moments from Field of Dreams, but I found his scenes to be very effective.  And Laurence Fishburne provides some much-needed comic relief as Perry White, the editor of the Daily Planet.

 

I haven’t mentioned the plot yet because, well, it’s not terribly important to a film like this.  Like most, if not all, superhero movies, the safety of the entire world is at stake.  General Zod wants to turn Earth into a different planet that can sustain life for his nearly extinct race, and Superman must stop him.  Pretty simple, really.  Although there are quite a few moments and elements that might confuse you, it isn’t that big of a deal because it’s all done so well.  Of course, if you don’t care for the movie, then nitpicks about character motivation and inconsistencies will bother you much more.  I enjoyed the movie enough to lose focus on those elements and say, “Well, it is a comic book movie…”

 

Man of Steel does stretch a bit into the science fiction world, though, and that might be an issue for some.  I was surprised by how far into Krypton the movie went.  The portion of the film that takes place on Krypton is actually my favorite part, so I was definitely okay with seeing this new world and its technology brought to life.  It might be too much for some viewers.  But hey, The Avengers had an alien invasion and that was popular, so maybe audiences in general dig sci-fi more than I give them credit for.

 

The alien element in general was fine with me, but whenever a powerful enemy to earth is introduced, destruction must take place.  In the past, superhero movies were mainly about preventing death and destruction.  Now, it seems like killing unseen thousands (maybe millions) of people in a film is okay.  Not to spoil anything, but mass amounts of a large city are destroyed in this film, and it’s ridiculous to imagine that everyone made it out safely.  Multiple skyscrapers topple to the ground, yet we only see Superman get upset about humans dying when he has to actually see people in harm’s way.  I know that the audience doesn’t technically see any death happening in these action sequences, but anyone who thinks about it a little is bound to be troubled by what is happening off camera in these scenes.  I don’t know…I know these summer movies have to keep upping the ante with the destruction, but it leaves a bad aftertaste when that destruction involves buildings filled with innocent people.  This is where that “It’s just a comic book movie” line should help me out, but this part was just too much.

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that I like the Superman of Superman Returns a little more.  There was less collateral damage in that film, and it’s a feel-good movie, which is what a Superman film should be like.  Man of Steel is cooler, more action-packed, and more entertaining, but it doesn’t feel any different from all the rest of the superhero/summer movies out there.  This is not to say it’s a bad film.  I’m glad I watched it, and I plan on buying it on video and watching it many times again.  It’s just that it didn’t blow me away.  Perhaps this is simply a result of hype.  Man of Steel is the movie of the summer, what with all of the random product tie-ins (“Try the Super Bacon Burger at Hardee’s!  And be sure to check out Man of Steel!”).  I just got my hopes up way too high.  So I didn’t love Man of Steel.  I merely liked it…a lot.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is just a comic book movie, after all.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

As always, the IMDb boards are a minefield of lovers and haters of the film, and they've covered any complaints I might have with the film.  But I still feel like airing some of my grievances here.

 

I had no clue if the Kryptonians were automatically superhuman when they got to earth or if they had to be exposed to the air.  I know that Zod changes when his mask is off, but the others who weren't exposed still seemed to possess Superman strength.  So was it the suits?  It's not that big of a deal because all the fights would suck if Superman just knocked them out with one punch, but it still left me a bit confused.

 

The biggest question I had after the movie was over was why Lois Lane was asked to board Zod's ship.  Someone on the boards said that it was because she could lead them to the codex.  I'll have to watch it again to see if that's ever stated or implied, but at the moment it seemed like she was just there to make sure Superman got out of a jam and he would've been screwed had she not been there. 

 

Speaking of the codex, all that business of genetic engineering and no natural births on Krypton had to be explained a bit too quickly, which is why I would love to see more of the story from Krypton.  That first part of the film is great, but soooooo much is going on that I feel like I need to watch it a few more times to pick up on everything. 

 

Back to the destruction.  Between this and Star Trek into Darkness, I've seen millions of people killed this summer.  I just don't understand why skyscrapers and entire cities have to be demolished in all of these movies.  Is everyone drinking the Roland Emmerich Kool-aid? 

 

I was hoping the whole Clark Kent wears glasses and Superman doesn't gimmick wouldn't come into play with this incarnation, but I guess some things are sacred.  Can't take Batman out of the Batcave, right?  (Although that facility he was in in The Dark Knight wasn't much of a cave, per se, and people love that one more than all of the others...but whatever.)  I just figured they would abandon that because it's supposed to be a bit more realistic.  I mean, it took Lois a day or two to figure it out?  How hard could it be to identify him in this world they have created?  At least make Superman grow a beard or something when he's Kent.  Speaking of which, anyone else notice that when Clark saw the suit in the ship he had stubble, but he was clean-shaven the very next scene as he was flying around?  So can he grow and discard facial hair at will?  Was there a Bic on the spaceship?  (Or a Gillette?  Is that the tie-in for this?)  All joking aside, there should be more to it than just glasses and a slightly different hairstyle.  If everything else gets the gritty new realistic upgrade, then this aspect should too.

 

Finally, just because I prefer Returns doesn't mean I think Routh is a better Superman.  (Honestly, the goofiness of Returns and Kevin Spacey's performance is what put me over the edge.)  I think both Routh and Cavill are great as Superman in their respective films, but neither would work as well in the other film.  Routh is better for the goofy Clark Kent stuff while Cavill makes for a more believable powerhouse.  Perhaps Cavill could work in Returns, but no way would Routh fit in Man of Steel.

"The Master"

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, and Rami Malek - Rated R

"If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know."

 

 

 

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has become one of my favorite filmmakers over the years.  Since I first watched Boogie Nights, I was hooked (it would be years before I watched his first feature, Hard Eight).  After Magnolia, I thought I had Anderson’s neo-Altman style figured out.  Then came Punch Drunk Love, which, admittedly, caught me off guard.  After a few viewings, I came to enjoy the film and accept Anderson’s true style.  His focus went from a collection of messed up characters to a singular view of one troubled man.  This style was perfected in There Will Be Blood, a movie that I consider to be among the best of all time.  Obviously, my expectations were catastrophic when I went in to see The Master.

I suppose the key question would be, “Is this better than There Will Be Blood?"  Some might think so, but I do not.  Blood left you with a lot to think about, but it was also extremely entertaining and absolutely engrossing…and it has Daniel Day-Lewis.  The Master has its moments, but as entertainment, it leaves a bit to be desired.  And it is certainly a more challenging film.  This is the type of movie that will leave nearly everyone with their own personal interpretation of the film.  I actually love movies like that, but when you stack that up against There Will Be Blood, I have to go with the latter. 

The Master is extremely intriguing, though.  I found myself very involved in the film.  It’s a difficult film to figure out, but that’s the fun part of it.  The weirdness and absurdity of it all make it worth watching.  From the strange concoctions the main character makes to the childish arguments between the two leads, I found myself disgusted and perplexed, but I also found myself laughing.  This is intentional laughter, mind you.  Joaquin Phoenix told Time that he sees the film as a comedy.  I agree to a point.  I would like to hear someone argue that the jail cell scene was not meant to elicit a few laughs, because that scene cracked me up.  So there is entertainment, it’s just a bit unexpected. 

The themes of the film lead to a bit more intellectual satisfaction.  Since the film is loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, there’s a lot to go into down that road (though I think that’s the easy way out).  The bigger questions are about who or what exactly the titular master is.  Is it religion in general, conscience, women, sexuality, addiction, insanity?  The list could go on.  I don’t want to posit theories, necessarily, because I like the idea that the film could be about any of these things and then some.  Some would call that a kitchen sink approach, but it made the film infinitely fascinating to me. 

The other theory floating around out there is that Anderson is the master, and he is just playing a trick on all of us by throwing us a confusing movie with no point.  And supposedly he’s laughing at all of us internet movie nerds as we try to decipher the indecipherable.  There’s nothing wrong with that scenario, really.  In fact, I quite like the idea of Anderson laughing maniacally as he scans the IMDb message boards.  I just don’t buy it.  To each his own and all, but I think there’s a point to this movie.  Also, how could Anderson allow Joaquin Phoenix to give the performance of his career for nothing?  Not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work, or Amy Adams’s. 

The acting is an aspect of the movie that most can agree on, even if they hate the film.  Phoenix, coming off his strange (and hilarious) performance art piece I’m Still Here, is absolutely disturbing, in the best possible definition of the word, as WWII vet Freddie Quell.  It’s an award-worthy performance, and not just because he gets to hit stuff and yell a lot.  Everything, from his twisted facial expressions to his strange posture, emits a troubled soul.  It is honestly one of those performances in which you forget that you’re watching an actor; I can’t think of higher praise than that. 

Hoffman, as Lancaster Dodd, does a great job as always, of course.  He is remarkably believable as the leader of this cult/religion/movement.  It’s also great to see Hoffman team up with Anderson again after a one film hiatus.  He is outshined a bit by Phoenix, but watching these two work together is great.  Their more heated interactions were easily my favorite moments from the film. 

The supporting players do fine work, as well, most notably Amy Adams.  She is the quiet undercurrent of the film, and she deserves a lot of focus, both as a character and an actress.  I also enjoyed Rami Malek’s nervous performance and Jessie Plemons as Hoffman’s son (can you say, “perfect casting”?) made for some interesting scenes, not to mention he has the line that fuels the “Anderson is just messing with us” theory: “He’s just making it all up as he goes along.” 

The other aspect of the film that most can agree on is the fact that it is beautiful.  While this film doesn’t lend itself to grand visuals as often as Blood does, there are still some amazing shots.  In fact, the film is meant to be projected in 70MM, although I didn’t have the chance to see it in that format (not a lot of art house screenings in southern Indiana).  The point is this is certainly a visual film.  I found the images of Phoenix as a sailor at the beginning of the film to contain the most lasting imagery, but the camerawork is effective throughout. 

Another welcome element is the music of Johnny Greenwood for the score.  The work here is not as ambitious as his previous work on Blood, but it is just as effective.  When there’s a tense scene going on, Greenwood’s score definitely amps it up nearly to the point of physical discomfort.  That is a good thing, by the way. 

All of these things come together to make a very effective Paul Thomas Anderson film.  I didn’t “like” it more than There Will Be Blood, but I found myself thinking about The Master and the themes therein much more than I did after watching Blood.  When I walked out of the theater after seeing Blood, I was thinking mainly about how awesome I thought it was.  When I walked out after this film, I found myself contemplating every aspect of it.  Was I as entertained?  No.  But the film has really stuck with me.  I won’t say that this is a film that must be watched multiple times to “get it,” but I cannot wait to watch it again so I can see which theories match up.  I might even come away with something new entirely the next time I watch it.  If that’s Paul Thomas Anderson just messing with me, I’ll take it. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I left with the impression that sexuality is the true master of the characters.  There's the hinted at homosexual attraction between Dodd and Quell, mainly on the part of Dodd, who has to be *ahem* released of his desires by his wife at one point.  That leads to the power Dodd's wife, Peggy, holds over nearly everyone.  And what about that scene in which Quell sees her eyes turn colors?  Finally, what led me to this conclusion was the bookend images of Quell with the sand lady.  Despite his journey, he is still a slave to his sexual desires.  But that's just me.

How messed up are all of those drinks he makes?  Someone in my audience actually blurted out, "Oh no!" after he took a drink of one of them. 

That childish back and forth in the jail cell is fantastic.  It was so great to see Lancaster Dodd, this man of answers, be reduced to yelling, "No one likes you but me!" 

"The Fighter"

The Fighter - Directed by David O. Russell, written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson (story by Tamasy, Johnson, and Keith Dorrington), starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, and Jack McGee - Rated R

Much like Bardem before him, Bale gives the standout supporting performance of the year.

The Fighter has all the elements of a boxing drama that might lead people to worry about it being a clichéd, dull retread of every boxing movie from yesteryear, but the film dashes aside the notion that a boxing drama must be 100% drama and ends up being a surprisingly light, effective film featuring an amazing performance from Christian Bale.

The film is the true story of “Irish” Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older brother/trainer, Dicky Eklund (Bale). The focus of the film is on Micky and his battle to get out of his brother’s shadow and become the champion his brother never was. That sounds simple and basic enough, but the family drama is what makes this film truly effective. Dicky still believes he has a chance of a comeback, and it seems like the rest of his family does as well. No one, aside from his father George, seems to care about Micky’s career.

It’s easy to see why Dicky gets all of the attention. Micky is the quiet type, just sitting back and letting everyone else take care of him. Dicky, on the other hand, is outspoken and charismatic, though he suffers from crack addiction. The film becomes interesting here for two reasons: the treatment of the addiction and Bale.

Drug addiction is usually shown in a very negative light, with terrible consequences. In The Fighter, though, it’s handled a bit differently…with a bit of comedy. Don’t take that the wrong way, the effects of drug use are still shown, but some of Dicky’s antics are humorous. Perhaps the filmmakers didn’t intend for some moments to be funny, but the end result is humorous at times. This is not a bad thing. Drug abusers in films tend towards the melodramatic; it was refreshing to lighten it up just a bit.

The main reason the character of Dicky works, though, is Christian Bale. Bale has given many impressive performances, but he truly inhabits this character. It is obvious from the first frame that Bale is doing something amazing in this film. Bale made every scene he was in better not just with his accent but with pure physicality. There is an element of weight loss, but it’s the way Bale moves in each scene. Whenever he’s talking to a character in a two shot, I kept wondering what Bale was up to when the camera wasn’t on him. While his character doesn’t get much action in the ring, he still manages to turn every conversation into a simulated boxing match. If he doesn’t get the Oscar for Supporting Actor it will be a travesty.

The other performances pale in comparison to Bale’s, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Wahlberg is decent and is notable for the fact that he is back in his range playing an athlete. Amy Adams handles herself well as Micky’s new girlfriend, though I saw her as just a more serious version of her character in Talladega Nights. Jack McGee has quite a few fun moments as George. And Melissa Leo gives yet another strong performance as Micky and Dicky’s manager/mother.

Leo represents the real conflict of the film. She favors Dicky over Micky no matter how many times Dicky screws up. The sincere shock on Leo’s face when anyone stands up to her ridiculous favoritism is enraging and effective. That, along with other situations, makes The Fighter an easy film to get caught up in and enjoy.

One aspect that is hard to truly enjoy is the boxing. Some of it is handled decently and the fights are easy to follow, which is the best you can expect from a film about boxing. Isn’t it time that boxing films ditch the Rocky sound effects, though? Every punch, even blocked punches, carried an overly loud sound effect that became distracting at times. Visually, though, the fighting is exciting and occasionally interesting.

The film is engaging almost throughout and because of that it is easy to get past some of the more melodramatic scenes. The light tone stays intact for the most part, though, only tilting off the rails momentarily.

The nearly comical tone of the film and the realistic family struggles make this an enjoyable film. Christian Bale elevates it to one of the year’s best. It can’t be stressed enough that Bale has given arguably the best performance of his career; no small compliment when you consider Bale’s past roles in American Psycho and Rescue Dawn. Enjoy The Fighter, but be awed by Christian Bale.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I liked the framing device of the documentary. Good way to bookend the film, especially since it starts with Bale on his own, bringing Micky in and ends with Dicky getting up to leave the camera alone with Micky.

The melodramatic scene I referenced above is the part when Dicky’s toddler son wants to watch the documentary. I don’t know, it just seemed over the top at that point.

I dug the soundtrack; it helped keep the tone consistent and it placed the film in its time period well (except for that Chili Peppers' song from Stadium Arcadium, though it sounded right for the scene).

It was interesting that Mickey O’Keefe, Ward’s real life trainer, played himself in the film. That role was not a cameo. I was impressed with him enough to look him up and find his other roles. I was quite surprised to find out who he was.

The funny aspects of drug abuse, just to be specific, were Dicky’s escape route from the crack house (out the window into the trash) and when he knocked out George. Describing it only makes it sound more serious, but those who see it will understand that it could be viewed as funny.