THE GRIM ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN: "Man of Steel" Is An Exciting But Joyless Action Spectacle [SPOILERS FOLLOW]

In my review regarding Iron Man 3, I opened with the following statement: "I have come to the conclusion that serious comic book aficionados should not watch live action adaptations of their beloved characters."

 

Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch), has only reinforced that assertion; and therein lies the rub. Is it a good, well made action film by today's standards?  That is a resounding "yes".  However, is it a good Superman film? 

 

To echo Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner):  "Maybe."

 

The film follows Clark Kent/Kal-El of Krypton (Henry Cavill, The Tudors, Immortals) who was rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton (which has been reimagined seemingly through the eyes of Edgar Rice Burroughs and J.R.R. Tolkien) by his biological father, Jor-El (a very "Gladiator" reminiscent Russell Crowe) to Earth where the orphan gains, if you'll excuse the decades-old statement, powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. As he aimlessly travels the world in search for his place in it, a legion of exiled Kryptonians, led by the driven General Zod (Michael Shannon) have come in search for the orphan in order to restore the lost race. While the film follows much of the established foundation of the Superman legend, it makes a lot of interesting changes; some cosmetic, some fundamental, and not all for the better.

 

Note that I said this films follows Clark Kent, not "Superman". Produced by Christopher Nolan and screenwritten by David S. Goyer, the team that produced the Batman Begins series of films, this film follows the conceit that the film's focus is not on the costumed identity but rather the man beneath (that sentiment being epitomized in the film's title). And, like those films, MoS tries to eschew comic book conventions even as it presents them in live action. For example, the title character is only referred to as "Superman" twice, in a single scene, in an almost throwaway, inconsequential fashion). Also of note is that this film falls more in the realm of science fiction than superheroic fantasy, its imagery and beats very reminiscent of Independence Day or Michael Bay's Transformers efforts.

 

It has often been said that the best science fiction is allegorical to real world events. If so, then Man of Steel paints a grim picture of both.  The planet Krypton is doomed not by an indiscriminate chain reaction, but due to it's inhabitant's misuse of resources.  The planet serves as microcosm for our current concerns regarding energy resources, global warming, and stem cell/cloning research, just to name a few. There is also an art deco montage of jingoistic expansionism that is disturbing, and this is the planet that the hero is from! The planet Earth is no better, to hear Clark's adopted father Jonathan tell it, filled with post 9-11 angst, mistrust and paranoia. 

 

And what of Clark himself? For much of the film he is a powered up Peter Parker. A man with profound abilities who sees himself as a freak who must keep himself hidden even as his inner nature compels him to fly (pun intended) in the face of that anonymity to save lives. It is this conflict that is one of the many that evolve in MoS.

 

As Clark Kent (Superman), Henry Cavill fulfills the promise he showed in Immortals in filling out the Man of Steel's cape, if not his absent trunks. His Clark is a cypher for much of the film, as he should as it reflects his quest for identity. However, once the suit comes on, he unselfconsciously embodies much of Superman's traits, though not all as this is a still nascent, inexperienced Superman who is thrust into a literal trial by fire. However, except for one brief moment when he first takes flight, Superman takes no joy in his powers.  To him, they are a burden even after he has found a way to express them.  Where's the fun in being Superman? In having these gifts?  This films say there is none. Special note should be made to actor Dylan Sprayberry, who portrays Clark as a teenager, for effectively bringing this point home by showing Clark's struggles as a teenager trying to find his place while developing the powers of a demigod.

 

The other actors acquit themselves well:  Russell Crowe practically steals the show as the most proactive, kick-ass Jor-El ever brought to live action, and also given more screen time than any other and makes the most of it. By contrast, Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent looks like he'd rather be off filming another movie at times, but he does give two of the most poignantly touching moments in the film. But, given he's raising an otherworldly being in a paranoid culture, his overprotective dourness is completely understandable. Diane Lane is a serviceable Martha Kent but she neither adds nor detracts. Lawrence Fishburne plays Perry White with all of the gravitas and none of the caricature of the hard boiled newspaper editor. He is given very little to do in this film, but he makes the most of it. Since as of this writing the sequel to MoS has already been greenlit it will be interesting to see his interaction with Clark in future outings. As Second in Command of the Kryptonian forces, Antje Traue, as Faora-Ul is a sexy engine of destruction. Her scenes with Christopher Meloni, who plays a Colonel with a distrust of all aliens, including Clark, especially crackle and come to a satisfying conclusion. The two most notable actors are Amy Adams and Michael Shannon as Lois Lane and General Zod, respectively. Her Lois is plucky, spunky, and courageous despite being fearfully out of her depth. In many ways, she provides what little heart the film has. She has a chemistry with Cavill but not as powerful as one might expect. Shannon plays Zod less as villain and more as a genetically programed fanatic. He plays Zod with as a character literally bred with single minded determination to preserve the Kryptonian race at all costs, even if it means genocide. His "nature" runs counterpoint to Clark's "nurture", as Clark was the first (and last) Kryptonian to be conceived by natural means and, thus, a with the power of choice.

 

Zack Snyder for once eschews his "slow mo" style of presenting action. Instead, "speed" is the name of the game here, even if it comes at the cost of character moments. The narrative flows relatively well between flashbacks and real time. However, the film's last act tries to outdo the climax of The Avengers to the point that it becomes disaster porn to a disturbingly uncomfortable degree. By the time it's over, the victory seems pyrrhic.  The percussion heavy, repetitive Hans Zimmer score only increases that sense of anxiety. It seemed as though he spent so much time trying to come out of John Williams' shadow that he developed the new theme to the exclusion of the rest of the score, which comes across as leavings from Inception and Backdraft.  In terms of action this film delivers. While a couple of CGI scenes are obvious and a couple of moments are inconsistent, this film delivers the type of smack down one would want to see in a Superman film. There are a couple of plot holes as well, a couple of which could lead the U.S. government right to the Kent farmhouse...if Lois Lane had not already done so herself...but for the most part the action sweeps one away from any of these considerations.

 

Perhaps I'm not the right person to write a review.  I actually debated with myself as to whether or not to recuse myself from reviewing this film given, as anyone who knows me will extol, I am a Superman fan for as far as I can remember. Therefore, my observations and opinions will be called into question given my bias. Especially when taken in with one particular plot point at the movie's climax.

 

A lot of factors went into the production of this film, not the least of which is a Court's ruling in the case of Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment (wherein the heirs of Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel are suing the entertainment giant for full rights to the character) wherein the studio had to produce a new film by 2013 or the film rights revert to the family. That, coupled with the Siegel's camp having one rights to all concepts in Action Comics #1 (i.e. the brunette Lois Lane, the strongman inspired costume, etc.), led to this new, more adult take; one meant to distance itself from the source material as judiciously as possible. As such, the film goes to great lengths to prove that this "is not your father's Superman": For example, he's presented as a shirtless sex object (not that there's anything wrong with that, as my brother would say) who is, as blatantly stated by one female character, "hot". Yet other changes take place that are inconsistent with the core character.  For a character who ostensibly has a need to save people, he has no qualms about keeping battles between demigods within the confines of city limits (but then, where would the spectacle be if Superman led his adversaries into corn fields or over an isolated stretch of ocean).  But one thing happens at the film's climax that does away with the notion that he is a "big blue boy scout."  Let's just say the moment justifies the muted colors of the suit and the strum und drang of both the visuals and the score.  Not that there isn't any precedent for this moment in the character's published history. The character did much the same in his earliest appearances and twice in relatively modern times (in one instance against the comic book iteration of Zod). The way the story develops, the ends do justify the means.  It also brings home the themes of choice versus design. 

However, the "S" symbol is reimagined as a Kryptonian glyph signifying "hope", and even Jor-El states in a line cribbed from the comics that Kal-El: "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun," which, coupled with a plot contrivance regarding the housing of genetic coding, lends an even greater messianic complex to Man of Steel (and if that isn't enough to convince you, Snyder provides two heavy handed images to bring that aspect home, including one practically cribbed from 2006's Superman Returns). Kal-El...Superman...is a beacon of hope, of aspiration, of striving to be better people with the gifts that we have either been bestowed or have developed.  However, for Superman to engage in the act that takes place...it brings him, and what he represents, down...diminishes him in some way.  Yes, he reacts appropriately in the aftermath, but it doesn't balance the baseness of it. Yet it was unexpected and, thus, achieved its purpose which was to let the audience know that Superman had arrived...and he meant business. However, in my opinion, it was at the character's expense. However, every generation deserves it's own iteration, and its heroes are reflective of the times in which the stories are told.  Hence, for better or for worse, this iteration is a reflection of where our society stands now and the type of hero that it needs.

As a movie reviewer, I would say that Man of Steel is an ambitious, thrilling actioner deserving to be watched on the big screen, yet conversely and soullessly morose with sporadic moments of light characterization.  In terms of presentation, it is epic in scale with visuals that many Superman fans (and non fans) had hoped to see realized on the big screen.  It is a film that is worthy of repeated viewings for as much of its exploration of themes of choice, patriotism, identity (both national and personal) and bildungsroman as it is for entertainment value.

As a Superman fan, however, it is not a movie I can recommend taking children to see and, moreover, (as pathetic as this may sound coming from an over 40 year old male), a part of me died inside. 

Superman is dead.  Long live Man of Steel.

 

 

 

 

WOULD RATHER BE DOING THE KESSEL RUN? J.J. Abrams Shows His Love for One Space Opera and Disdain for Another in “Star Trek Into Darkness”.

[CAPTAIN, THERE BE SPOILERS HERE…]

 

Star Wars…<ahem>…Trek Into Darkness is akin The Wizard of Oz: The movie works if you allow yourself to be taken in by the spectacle but fail to look for the man behind the curtain. In that, the film is slick, drawing one in with its razzle dazzle. It’s only after you step away and start thinking about it that you realize it’s an onion: The more you peel back the layers, the more likely it will sting your eyes and make them tear.
 

Director J.J. Abrams, working off a script by scribes Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, presents less of a Star Trek film and more of quasi “Star Wars demo reel” meets “Lucas/Spielberg’s Greatest Hits”. Tons of homages to films such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith, just to name a few. The plot centers around terrorism taking place within the Federation itself from ostensibly one of its own, Starfleet Officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, The Hobbit) who is out for…


Oh, forget it. 

He’s Khan.

 

 Yes, that Khan.

 

Khan Noonian Singh, the closest thing to an arch-nemesis that all of Star Trek ever had and antagonist of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Khan declares war on the Federation particularly against Starfleet Commander-In-Chief Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller, Robocop, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns), father to Lieutenant Carol Marcus (Alice Eve, Men in Black III, The Raven).
 

Yes…that Carol Marcus.
 

Ms. Marcus, who is baby mama to James T. Kirk’s love child in the “prime universe”, the main female point of interest in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan...
 

See where I’m going with this?
 

In fact, a complete chunk of the film is basically the closing act of the original Star Trek II…done in reverse. It’s debatable whether or not it counts as homage or pandering as it has been said that in this rebooted universe certain events can occur, just not in the way they previously unfolded. That’s all well and good, but when it goes so far as to crib a certain iconic moment…
 

 

…yes, that iconic moment…

 

Apologies to Zachary Quinto, but Bill Shatner did it better.
 

Look, I’m not going to lie.  I was caught up in the spectacle of the film and had a smile on my face through most of it. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, (the under-utilized) Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana are much more comfortable in their inherited pop culture skins this time around, and the camaraderie between Kirk (Pine) and Spock (Quinto) is a welcome change from their antagonism in the previous outing, though their “bromance” seems somewhat forced at times. Unfortunately for Pine and Quinto, Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had the advantage of having countless filmed hours to build up the brotherhood between the characters. George Takei/Sulu fans will enjoy John Cho’s little moments, and Chekov fans will probably get a little worried when Anton Yelchin’s version is asked wear a red shirt. Simon Pegg brings some comic relief to Scotty (especially in one literal “running gag” that goes a bit too long).  Cumberbatch makes for a very intense, menacing villain but, quite frankly, he could have played a whole different character and still have been just as effective (and don’t get me started on Kahn's characterization inconsistencies given that Eric Bana’s Nero screwed up the timeline centuries after Khan was exiled into space…).

Yet Khan is such a presence in the Star Trek lore that his usage is somewhat of a cheat; a way to artificially create tension instead of letting the story do it on its own, which also (rather unfairly) invites comparison with the Khan of old, who was, in the hands of the late, great Ricardo Montalban, much more charming and charismatic who only let his mask slip when thwarted by his supposed lesser, the infuriating James T. Kirk. Further, his obsessive insanity isn’t manifest until years of exile on Ceti Alpha V. Even worse is that, for whatever reason, this version of Starfleet does not have access to either the internet or history books; it takes a pandering cameo in the form of Leonard Nimoy to explain to the crew of the NuEnterprise how dangerous Khan really is.  And, all that quibbling aside, director Abrams had the opportunity to turn the character of Khan on its ear, but instead of taking the leap prefers to play the safe, familiar route instead.
 

“Past versus present” discourse aside, the film on its own merits contains heavy handed, post-9/11 zeitgeist (but then, this is nothing new of Star Trek as a whole in the past decade plus) and plot holes large enough to fill a black hole, especially in terms to a resurrection in the film…


...no, not that resurrection...

...but one similar to it with the means to effect that resurrection built...rather, telegraphed with all the subtlety of an elephant in a china shop...into the story. However, instead of using the resources at hand to effect said miracle within the ship, let’s just make it more complicated instead in order to justify an extraneously unnecessary chase/fight scene and get another good look at Zoe Saldana’s derriere (you’ll understand what I mean when you see it). 
 

There’s everything a Star Wars…>AHEM<…Trek fan could enjoy: space battles, explosions, gratuitous women in underwear shots (not that I'm complaining on that one), thrills, chills, and lens flare…lots and LOTS of lens flare, which can make a slouching character holding a cup of coffee seem inspiringly heroic. However, the essence of Star Trek (exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life), is given only perfunctory lip service. There are also themes regarding humility (Kirk gets quite a few comeuppances in this film), and nature versus nurture (Spock/Khan) but they also seemed forced.  The film essentially panders in a way that is incongruently, insultingly entertaining.
 

However, the entertainment, and the joy of the film, comes primarily from the actors. The chemistry of all the players is spot on (with perhaps Weller being a VERY minor blip in those terms). Heir apparent to John Williams Michael Giacchino’s score in turns elevates the action but evinces a bit of acoustical boredom; his motifs somehow diminished in presentation compared to that of the previous outing.
 

In a sense, this film is schizophrenic. Some films are just to be taken at face value. Try to dwell on them too much and your brain starts to hurt. Star Trek Into Darkness is one such film. So if you see it, just enjoy it at the moment then think of something else immediately afterwards. In the meantime, we’ll just sit back and wait for the film that J.J. Abrams REALLY wants to direct ("Paging John Williams…John Williams…you’re wanted at the soundstage...").
 

JAZZY HIP-HOP: The Great Gatsby is a Visual, Artistic, and Substantive Feast.

I can say without prevarication that Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is one of the better films you will see all year. A strong statement to make;, especially given how controversial a director Baz Luhrmann, he of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge fame, is. But rarely does a film based on a literary work (in this case, F. Scott's Fitzgerald's novel of the same name) come so close to being almost as artistically rich as the work that inspires it.  Yet this film, a collaboration of Luhrman and primary executive producer Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter (yes, that Jay-Z), presents The Great American Novel as music video. Glitz, glamor, bling, bold brassiness, T&A, lots of style, yet lots of substance...heavy with it. The symbolism comes short of being heavy handed, but given the symbolism replete in the source novel, that is not an indictment.

 

The story follows narrator Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire, who proves he can actually deliver narration that doesn't sound like a whiney Peter Parker), a self described observer who feels disassociated with the world around him, as he befriends and tries to unravel the mystery of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a wealthy, new money socialite who is in love with Carraway's cousin, Daisy Buchanan (a very ethereal Carey Mulligan) who so happens to be married to old money Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Anyone familiar with the novel (and if you've taken English in 11th grade, who hasn't?) knows the story, which the adaptation follows quite faithfully with perhaps a deviation or two. But with this film, it's not the story, but how it unfolds; which it does with visual aplomb, bombast, delight and pageantry. The film opens in style reminiscent of the studio films of the early 20th century and then segues in to crisp modern clarity. - The Jazz of the era is instead replaced with modern hip hop stylings (with an orchestral assist from Craig Armstrong), which may rankle a few purists, but in the context of the film it beautifully works. The past and present comingle, presenting the thematic message that the years may change, but society has not. There are the haves and have-nots, blue blood snobbery, and gumption. The masses still want their "bread and circuses", whether it be found in a speakeasy or in lurid gossip to be found at either a dinner table or a tabloid, reality TV show.  As usual, Luhrmann creates a microcosmic world that exists in fantasy yet can exist anywhere. He uses colors and CGI to good, yet sometimes overbearing, effect yet still manages to get the themes found in the novel visually represented.

 

And it does not just stem with the visuals. He ekes out performances that completely captures the blasé, banal vapidity that most of these characters embody which is laced with an existential despair that makes itself evident in fleeting moments throughout the film. The first half of the film is one big party, where everything is all smiles and NSA fun. It's when Gatsby achieves his initial objective does the party shut down. Once the party's over, life's harsh realities make themselves unavoidably manifest. Luhrmann then shatters the illusion, bearing the true heart of the novel. Colors are muted into dark greys, save for a flashing green light and the colors of a dilapidated eye doctor's sign (both important pieces of imagery in the novel). New York, so blazingly idealized in the beginning of the film, becomes visually oppressive representation of John Upton's "The Jungle". It's as if he films two different movies, and the transition is jarring as one would expect as though one were coming out from a drinking binge. The pacing and editing is uneven at times; scenes go on a little longer than they should while others more worthy of development get a short shrift, but the film holds your attention even at the slowest of spots.

 

This film would be nothing without Leonardo Dicaprio in a role that almost seems tailored to him. His still boyish good looks and charisma are used to good effect in the role, and presents the character of Gatzby as an imperfect mask: It occasionally slips only long enough to be caught by anyone paying attention. However, it is only Nick Carraway and the audience that catches on to them. Gatzby is, in a sense, as chameleon-like as the actor who portrays him. Yet Gazby is a cypher in a world that does neither seeks nor desires purity of truth or passion. He is an enigma to the shallow world of which Daisy is a part. Yet for all his bombast and usual clipped, almost punctuated dialogue, Gatzby is painfully real. Whether he is a hopeless romantic, delusional fool, or Machiavellian villain is for the viewer to decide, but Dicaprio's performance is such that the interpretation could be any, all, or none of the above. This is one time that an Oscar nomination would be deserved. The same, however, cannot be said for Maguire. Carraway undergoes his own journey within the novel but the character's arc gets the short shrift here. Nothing is made of his infatuation with Jordan Baker (a very porcelain Elizabeth Debicki), and the changes in the character's demeanor seem quick and forced. Maguire does the best he can, but he is simply not nuanced enough to make the transition smooth or believable. While the character is the observer who feels divorced from what he observes, he also serves as the reader's/viewer's eyes and ears. Perhaps as this is a visual telling the character becomes extraneous. Nevertheless, the character's arc suffers from this.

 

There is so much going on in this film, both visually and subtextually, that a simple review is inadequate. That being said, The Great Gatsby is a film that should be experienced. It might not get you an "A" in American Lit class, but it will certainly help you get a better understanding of how rich the novel truly is.

POLARIZING: IRON MAN 3 IS A LOVE IT OR HATE IT FILM.

I have come to the conclusion that serious comic book aficionados should not watch live action adaptations of their beloved characters. 

For many, including myself, those characters are akin to family; their adventures have accompanied us throughout some of our, if not our entire, lives; the core concepts and history of any given character is as sacred as biblical scripture. To change any aspect that would change any fundamental aspect of those characters would be verbotten; akin to a figurative backhand.  

Historically, "Hollywood" doesn't feel the same way. After all, the filmmaking industry has given us a buffonish Lex Luthor; a battle armored Batman; an Alfred Pennyworth who abandons his post; a motorcycle helmeted Captain America; an organic web shooting Spider-Man; and a Hulk with daddy issues, to name a few. Some changes seem justified "in the real world", but when a comic book property is being adapted, it is inherently understood that neither the characters nor events that are being adapted would take place in the real world. Thy can be accepted on paper, and even in animated cartoons, but not live action? In my opinion, it is a rather condescending attitude to take not just to the material itself, but to the fans who have enjoyed those stories all this time.

That being said, Iron Man 3 will be a "love/hate" film. Joe Moviegoer will love it, purists will hate it. 

Purists won't hate it because of Robert Downey, Jr.  He brings "Tony Stark" to manic life, his mania being augmented by the combination of a life change and the psychological ramifications of the events of Marvel's The Avengers.  His performance may border on comedic caricature on a couple of spots, but his performance is so arresting it hardly matters. They won't hate it because of the action as, once it starts, it doesn't let up. Even the quiet moments, few that there are, are fraught with tension even as they lead to the next pyrotechnic display. They won't hate it because of the underlying disquiet engendered by the theme of terrorism, especially heightened due to the tragic events in Boston, MA. They won't hate it for the story, per ser, which involves Tony Stark going up against an international terrorist known only as "The Mandarin" (Ben Kingsley), and dealing with a sin from his past.  They won't hate the addition of the Hollywood trope known as "the precocious child" (in this case, Ty Simpkins, as a boy genius in the making), which, at least here, is serviceable as the character humanizes Tony and provides some comedic relief.  They won't even hate it because of the over abundance of CGI, which has advanced in these films so much that they meld seamlessly onto the entire celluloid canvas. 

Purists will hate it because, without spoiling anything, they take certain core concepts in Iron Man lore, over 40 years worth, and shit on them like someone with painful, cramping diarrhea after eating two day old bad sushi. Purists will hate it because of how the story resolves itself. Those purists would be justified in their attitudes. There is a reasonable expectation of certain things to hold true when watching a story that involves any pre-established character. 

However, filmmakers go for the widest audience possible, and make choices based on what would best achieve that goal. And the name of the game is reinvention, whether it be a female Dr. Watson in the TV series Elementary or an African-American "Perry White" in the forthcoming Man of Steel.  The thing about Iron Man 3 is that, like most action films of late, there is the reliance of constant twists and turns to the point of saturation, which to a degree dilutes the story itself. Yet the changes made, for the most part, work if one only experienced Iron Man through these films. But even I, who is not as invested in Iron Man as others would be, found myself wondering were the changes really necessary?  That is a question for each individual to answer for themselves. But it seems as though Hollywood, (Disney/Marvel Studios, inexplicably, in this case) is looking down on the material even as they exploit it to profit by it. And if that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I can only imagine how the "Marvel Zombies" would feel.

Director Shane Black brings on the action and the funny, managing a balancing act that does not quite come out even but is nonetheless entertaining. Brian Tyler manages to turn in a score that surprisingly has identity; it showcases the action but makes effective use of piano solos to highlight the introspection and, yes, vulnerability that the God-complexed Stark wrestles with. The rest of the cast are top notch in terms of their roles, with veterans Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau, Don Cheadle, and Paul Bettany; and newcomers Guy Pierce, James Badge Dale holding their own with the magnetic (pun intended) Downey, Jr. But the real scene stealer, as the ostensible big bad, is Ben Kingsley, who looks like he is having the most fun he's ever had on a film shoot. The movie, despite going overlong with some scenes, moves at a brisk pace, seeming shorter than its actual run time. 

I enjoyed the film, but frankly I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known any of the published backstory. However, reinvention is the new entertainment buzzword (both in film and in DC and Marvel Comics now as well) and it is here to stay. I cannot recommend Iron Man 3 for any fans of the actual comic.  For the average person who just wants a two hour actioner to pass the time, it would be an enjoyable romp.

Though I have to say, the post-credits scene did take some of the sting out of it.  

ROGER EBERT

As an arm chair, sometimes film reviewer/critic, I would be remiss by not acknowledging the passing of arguably the most recognizable and influential figures in his field, Roger Ebert. My first exposure to Ebert was not in the pages of The Chicago Tribune, but in the syndicated “Siskel & Ebert: At The Movies.” It was that program that I first realized that film criticism was a serious profession. It was fascinating to watch he and Gene Siskel arguing over the same film like human representations of “Statler & Waldorf.” They were almost as entertaining as (some) of the films they reviewed.

The world of film criticism runs a spectrum between a simple “I like it” to the lofty echelons of nigh abstract intellectualism (A.O. Scott, anyone)? However, the best thing about Ebert was his ability to represent those two extremes. He knew what he liked. While he did not give praise lightly, when he did it was done effusively. When he hated something, his singular wit would especially shine through.

Over the years, I found myself agreeing on a lot of his reviews, disagreeing on others. However, I could not help but respect his opinions because they were for the most part, validated.  If I had to pick any reviewer as an inspiration regarding film analysis, it was him. He reviewed films intelligently, like so many of his peers. Unlike many of them, however, he was accessible.

Film reviewing will not be the same; trite, but true. R.I.P. Mr. Ebert.

American Culture Critic will return with new posts shortly.

A GOOD DAY TO GO SEE "A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD"

            The Die Hard series is a unique animal in the world of film franchises. Whereas some films seem generic and eventually creates its own niche (for better or worse), Die Hard goes the opposite route, starting off with a very unique concept/style and devolves into a generic action thriller with the words “Die Hard” stamped on it. Such is the case with A Good Day to Die Hard. The original was a taut thriller that was plausibly conceivable with a protagonist who could hurt, bleed, and fear for his life; in other words, an actual human being as opposed to a two-dimensional super hero. As the series has progressed, the concept has lost its uniqueness, taking on the more generically traditional action spectacle tropes.

            The plot finds John McClane (Bruce Willis) going to Russia after his son Jack (Jai Courtney) who has assassinated a Russian citizen and is awaiting trial. Being that this is the McClane clan, Jack is estranged from his father, as his sister Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, returning in what is simply an extended cameo) was before him. Therefore, like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, and other 80s action generation-bridging films, the majority of the film is focused on themes of estrangement and (the inevitable) reapproachment. Oh, there’s also something about a Russian scientist/prisoner named Komarov (Sebastian Koch) who has a file that can exonerate him while bringing down a high ranking Russian official (Sergei Kolesnikov) but, this being a Die Hard film, nothing is quite what it seems and the double crosses occur as expected.

            The main problem with this film is that Bruce Willis seems as though he is a guest star in his own film, with the majority of the focus instead going to Courtney’s “Jack”. Courtney gives a serviceable performance and actually makes what could have been a petulant character somewhat sympathetic; but then, that sympathy could be metatextually infused by the viewer given the cinematic history of the series. Initially, Willis seems to be sleepwalking, his time worn, grizzled, hang dog features giving a sense of tired weight to his character. However, as the movie progresses, and though it still looks as though he is phoning the performance in, Willis comes alive with the snarky wise-cracking demeanor that we’ve come to expect from the put-upon McClane. As in the previous outing, Live Free or Die Hard, McClane has evolved into more of the action hero he initially was the antithesis of but, given the characters history, it’s easy to understand how his character can have be allowed some aplomb desipte the increasingly outlandish situations he finds himself in.

            There are a couple of cleaver homages to the first film, if one knows what to look for. However, other than the name, occasional references to the original Die Hard score, and the requisite “Yippie – Kay – Ye” line, there is really nothing that differentiates this film from any other generic actioner. However, that doesn’t mean that this film isn’t an enjoyable romp. Director John Moore (working off a script by Skip Woods) is no John McTiernan. However, despite a slow start and somewhat uneven pacing, the action sequences move furiously.  Moore does, at times, manage the unenviable task of infusing suspense into the quiet moments; few that there are, that is. Willis and Courtney are believable as father and son, but their chemistry is nowhere near that of the combination of Willis and Reginald Van Johnson or Samuel L. Jackson (but much higher than the pairing of Willis and Justin Long). The action sequences border on the ridiculous, but enjoyably so.

            In the end, it’s a good day to go to the theater. Die Hard has, depending on one’s point of view, (de)evolved into a grand shoot-em-up spectacle. It’s nowhere near the standards of the 1988 original, but as an entertaining way of passing over an hour and a half it does the job.