"KICK ASS 2" DOESN’T LIVE UP TO IT’S NAME, BUT COMES CLOSE.

[SPOILERS AND LANGUAGE]

 One of the major tropes of the “super-hero” genre has always been the conceit of the “secret identity”, which is also known as the “dual identity” because in most cases the presented persona of the hero or heroine is opposite in temperament to the person’s own.  Prototypically, Clark Kent was conceived as nebbishly emasculated compared to Superman’s virile animus. Bruce Wayne’s ennui masked Batman’s righteous fanaticism, Diana Prince was meek and mousey compared to Wonder Woman’s feminist self-possession, and so forth. Peter Parker was also meek but unlike Clark Kent, who simply put on a klutzy act, this was his gestalt personality. However, he felt truly alive and free to be himself when he donned the mask of “Spider-Man”.  Eventually, the issue of who was the real person and who was the mask became a point debate that, for many of these characters, still remains unanswered. Kick-Ass 2, written and directed by Jeff Wadlow, based on the comic book characters created by Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr., has its own identity conundrum as it is disjointed in presentation. 

Set a couple of years after the first Kick-Ass, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has put aside the Kick-Ass persona and resumed the normal, albeit frustrating, life of a high school student.  When he finds said lifestyle lacking, he decides to resume his career as Kick-Ass in order to regain his sense of purpose.  Mindy Macready (Chloe Grace Moretz) has honored her promise to her late father (Nicholas Cage, who appears only in photograph but whose ghost is felt in the form of the showcased Big Daddy costume, which is displayed in eerie inverse juxtaposition to similar scenes in Frank Miller’s 80s’ “Dark Knight Returns” mini-series) by continuing her war on crime as Hit-Girl, though doing so without the knowledge or consent of her adoptive father Marcus Williams (Morris Chestnut). When he does find out, however, Mindy is forced to renounce her identity in order to find out what it means to be a “normal” girl.  Meeeeeanwhiiiiillllllle, at stately D’Amico manor, Chris D’Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is still wanting revenge against Kick Ass for the death of his father when fate gives him inspiration to become the world’s first super-villain, “The Motherfucker”, which leads to disturbing consequences for practically all involved.

In watching the film, I came away with two impressions.  One:  That the director/screenwriter tried to elevate the film in scope and importance beyond the source material. Two: That this quest for relevance has created inadvertently a schizophrenic film.

For example:  Throughout the film, characters repeatedly assert that they live “in the real world”, but when you have characters like Mother Russia (Olga Kurkulina, who looks like Colonel Ninotchka from G.L.O.W. jacked up from five steroid cycles) possessing a nigh invulnerable hide who can pick up a lawn mower with less effort than a pen, or characters like Dr. Gravity (Donald Faison, who’s only shining moment in the film is a sequence that was undoubtedly cribbed from self-described real life vigilante Phoenix Jones’ experiences) having a bat that can be made into a high-tech tool right out of a bondage fetish catalog, the lie is placed to the conceit. Is it real, or is it fantasy? And therein lies the inherent problem with the film.  It is self-consciously self-aware. In its attempt to be hip in an “in on the joke” kind of way, it undermines the flow of the story, making almost a parody of the parody/ Case in point:  Moments of comedy are followed by moments of sadism, and vice versa; a styling most especially epitomized in a short but potent performance by Jim Carrey as Col. Stars-N-Stripes. At times, Carrey’s performance is played as caricature but there is also an underlying hint of tragic gravitas.  Unfortunately, the Colonel isn’t in the film long enough to have either possibility explored.[1]  There are moments where the director reveals the absurdity of the costumed super-hero (or villain) by placing them in mundane surroundings. But beneath that veneer one can see either the sadism or heroism of the individuals that don them. The action and fight scenes are presented in both comedic and realistic fashion, a combination that works at times, but also lends an uncomfortable feeling to the proceedings.

The film skirts with issues of fetishism and ego, but they are cursorily viewed. However, all other thematic elements in the film are heavy-handedly presented. The only hint of subtlety comes, surprisingly, from John Leguizzamo as Javier, Motherfucker’s bodyguard and surrogate father figure, who may or may not be what he seems. Take a gander at his facial expressions and body language when certain lines are said; it’s a performance that is better than the movie, quite frankly, deserves.

The film is ambitious and one gets the sense that Wadlow wants to get the material to rise above itself, to actually say something.  However, ambitious his intentions, the messages he presents are mixed.  He tones down the “Quentin-Tarantino/acid trip Adam West Batman” aesthetic established by director Matthew Vaughn in the first film and juxtaposes it against a teen bildungsroman, following the two main characters as they follow a similar path though starting from opposing directions. He plays with Jungian and Freudian psychological questions regarding gender roles, acceptance/rejection of father figures (literal and figurative), and chauvinism versus feminism, among others.[2] However, the presentation of each, and their attempt at resolution, comes off as incomplete and tacked on; one which is especially felt in Mindy’s high school journey.  It’s like an ill-fitting puzzle, where pieces are forced into place where they do not belong, making for a picture that is not quite there. The sad thing is that the elements are obviously there, but either left unexplored or cut off too abruptly to lead to a satisfying conclusion.

Fault cannot lie with the actors, though in some cases the performances belie the characters, as in the case of the (ostensible) lead.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s physique has changed significantly since the first Kick-Ass however very little has made to disguise that fact in the beginning of the film, making it difficult to believe that he has been retired, thus detrained, since the events of the first film. Despite this fact, he is believable and hits all the right emotional beats when called for. The big draw of this film is star-on-the-rise, Moretz.  The Hit Girl character became a breakout character and an overnight feminist icon.  However, her popularity is such that could breed overexposure, thus minimizing her effectiveness on screen.  To the film’s credit, it follows the “Incredible Hulk” edict of “less is more”. However, on a whole, Moretz must be given major props for being able to give a performance that skirts the line between strength and vulnerability and do so with credibility.

Someone should give Mintz-Plasse the “most annoying villain” award at the next People’s Choice Awards, because he actually makes D’Amico more annoying than the first film. Like Carrey, it’s a performance that works even as it undermines itself. His character performs deeds that are horrific, but seem to stem more from petulant tantrum than a place of actual evil.  Sadly, as his incarcerated Uncle Ralph, Iain Glen (Game of Thrones) evinces much more evil in five minutes of screen time than Mintz-Plasse does for the entire film. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Mintz-Plasse’s presents a bravura performance or it misses the mark. 

All in all, Kick Ass 2 is an enjoyable film. Unfortunately, the lack of follow through in terms of themes and even within the characters themselves (there is one particular instance wherein a character’s lack of foresight leads to a tragic consequence, yet said character neither is made aware of it nor is made to deal with the consequences of said action), gives the film an unfinished feel. 

Personally, I wanted to like this film more than I did because it is entertaining; it’s not just particularly fun.  It is, in a sense, too self-important; which could be forgiven if it was treated as a straight up parody of the genre.  However (and to his credit), Jeff Wadlow made an attempt to make a more substantive film that ends up being a mixed bag.  Kick-Ass 2 is good for what it is but it could have been so much more, and the hints of that greatness-that-could-have-been that are shown but left unexplored is what ultimately lessens the whole.

           

---

[1] Supposition on my own part, but I wonder if the majority of Carrey’s scenes ended up on the cutting room floor due to his very public disownment of the film due to its level of violence as a response to the events of Sandy Hook.

[2] Which are matters that go beyond the scope of a simple movie review, but may be followed up as a separate essay on this forum at a later date.

ENTER “THE WOLVERINE” – “The Wolverine” Is a Satisfying Mixture of Cinematic Styles, Making It Unique for its Genre

[SPOILERS DO FOLLOW, BUB]
 

This has been a big action packed summer.  Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, Red 2, Star Trek: Into Darkness, etc. Each filled with action heroes and explosions galore. You would expect the same from the latest entry from the Marvel staple of comic book heroes.  However, The Wolverine, directed by James Mangold, is not what you expect.

 

This is a good thing.

 

Following the events of 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand, Logan (Hugh “jacked up” Jackman) is in self-imposed, boozed-infused exile in the Canadian Rockies as penance for having killed his love Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix (Famke Janssen, who appears intermittently throughout the film as either a spirit or a manifestation of Logan’s guilty conscience). However, he is brought out of seclusion by a mysterious girl named Yuiko (Rila Fukushima) as emissary for dying Billionaire industrialist and samurai Shingen Yashida (a role shared by Hiroyuki Sanada and in youth by Ken Yamamura), whom Logan saved from the nuclear annihilation of Nagasaki during the Second World War, who offers a solution to Logan’s inner turmoil. The film’s action then moves to Japan, wherein Logan must not only deal with the prejudicial double whammy of being both gaijin ("foreign devil") and a mutant, but must also protect Shingen’s granddaughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) from that Yakuza and ninjas. Yet, in the midst of all, Logan must also contend with the mysterious loss of his mutant healing ability, thus adding an extra element of danger to the proceedings.

 

While this sounds like a typical summer actioner, the film’s hook actually lies in its characterization. Directed by James Mangold (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma), working from a screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Scott Frank, and Mark Bomback (the skeleton of which is based off of the 1982 “Wolverine” mini-series scripted by Chris Claremont with art by Frank Miller (Sin City, the abysmal The Spirit)), the film is lusciously shot with a film noir sensibility done in independent movie/art house style though the result is more Clavell than Kurosawa. The film is visually vibrant in color and brightness; so much so that even the nighttime/darkness scenes seem to shine (a welcome antithesis to the barely perceptible night scenes of, say, The Dark Knight Rises), though the 3D of the film calls attention to much of the CGI flaws and can render background actors into toy soldiers.  

 

Themes of immortality and its tragic nature have been previously explored in other fantasy based fare such as Interview With The Vampire and Highlander, but never has it seemed so personal.  There’s something more…genuine…about this film, which contains a heart that the previous Wolverine film lacked. This lies in part due to Jackman’s portrayal (fifth going on sixth) as Logan who, while not quite his comic book basis, fits Jackman like a well-oiled glove (as oiled as his physique in this film, which provides a lot of eye candy for those who seek same). In this film, Logan is an “Urban Ronin” (city dwelling, master-less Samurai) who is adrift in a sea of his own pain due to immortal life and love lost.  What is commendable about Jackman’s performance is that, despite having played the character repeatedly, the performance is never phoned in, unlike Sean Connery’s last couple of turns as “James Bond” (especially You Only Live Twice, which also took place in Japan). Jackman gives as much heart into his role as he did in the first X-Men film. As such, the audience is rewarded with a much more introspective take on the character.  Yes, Logan moves through much of the film with a scowl that would make Clint Eastwood green with envy.  However, Jackman gives the character more depth that actually befits the subject matter. His story is told in the “show, don’t tell” mold, and it is something to watch. One look can evince volumes, and his Wolverine has stories to tell.

 

Jackman’s performance does not take place in a vacuum.  As Mariko, Tao Okamoto proves to be an adequate foil and love interest. Under Mangold’s guidance, Okomoto’s body language takes what could have been a forced romance and transform it into a natural progression. However, Fukushima’s Yukio practically steals the film as Wolverine’s crimson hued “Robin”, if you will, who is precociously beguiling yet steel of resolve. Fukushima’s chemistry with Jackman is such that one would want to see more Wolverine stand-alone movies with their respective characters buddied up. Their partnership truly works. 

 

The same cannot be said for Svetlana Khodchenkova as “Viper”, a mutant scientist/assassin who is more annoying than menacing, looking more at home on a catwalk than in a secret laboratory. While Khodchenkova succeeds in making the audience want her character to get her comeuppance, dramatically speaking, it’s for all the wrong reasons. Playing Jean Grey for the fourth time, Janssen is not given much more to do than to act ethereally; a powerful character reduced to mere catalyst for the main character’s emotional beats. Will Yun Lee, who showed promise in what little he had to do in 2002’s Die Another Day, portrays Harada, a character who is at cross-purposes with Wolverine. He takes what could have been a stock two-dimensional “rival” character and imbues it with a sense of sympathetic dignity. Sanada and Yamamura give interesting contrasts in their shared portrayal of the character of Shingen at different ages that add to the story. 

 

The film’s action is both internal and external, both of which acoustically realized by Marco Beltrami’s mood/scene-appropriate score. When the action does get external, however, it does so in “take no prisoners” fashion. One extended fight sequence is something right out of the Hong Kong output from the ‘70s. A bullet train sequence, one of the film’s highlights, strains both credulity and physics with over-the-top pulse-pounding panache. But, as aforesaid, it’s the quiet moments that shine, crackling with an intensity that is no less arresting than guns, arrows, and Adamantium claws.

 

What few flaws exist stem from the story's narrative execution.  Some of the plot turns are glaringly obvious if one knows what to look for (even if one did not know the comic backstory of any of these characters), especially when it comes to “the big reveal”. The story beats, however, are off track. There is a sequence at the beginning of the film (cribbed from the comic mini-series) that parallels Logan’s journey. Without giving too much away (too late, I know), “wounded animal” and “mortality” motifs play a huge part in the film. However, the emotional realizations and payoffs seem to arrive much earlier in the narrative than they should; impacting their emotional resonance and minimizing their effectiveness. Thus, the end of the film is not as powerful as it should be. Some ingredients were added to the recipe too soon, and a cinematic feast is reduced to a soufflé, albeit a completely enjoyable one.

 

The film skirts the line between what “Wolverine” fans want to see in live action and what Hollywood finds acceptable for its movie heroes, though it does come to some acceptable compromise (as evidenced in one scene that takes place in a high rise building).  However for the casual movie goer, The Wolverine is a solid action picture with plenty of high stakes, action, and romance. Most importantly, and more so than any other superhero actioner this year…yes, any other…The Wolverine has heart and is a highly recommended must see.

 

Oh…needless to say…stay through the credits!  You will not be disappointed.



SEEING RED (2)

After the surprise hit that was 2010's RED, then directed by Robert Schwentke, a sequel was inevitable. Based of the DC Comics comic of the same name, the film was a quirky, tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink actioner about a group of ex-spy operatives who are known as RED ("Retired Extremely Dangerous"), specifically Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) who simply wants to pursue romance with Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a middle-American customer service agent. However, he is targeted for termination by outside forces seeking to tie up loose ends from one of his past missions.

 

This time around, Moses is still trying to establish a normal life, unaware that Sarah is dissatisfied with the state of their relationship. Lunatic spy Mavin Biggs (the always entertaining John Malkovitch) warns Frank that they have been targeted yet again.  The formula runs the same in "RED 2", but this time directed by Dean Pariost who, like he did in Galaxy Quest, brings a bit of gravitas amidst the lunacy. However, in comparison to the previous film, this works to the story's detriment. This time, Moses has to contend with three ghosts from his past, one of which is an agent with a grudge (G.I. Joe's Byung hun-Lee) recruited to kill him, another femme fatale agent recruited to seduce him (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and an asset that worked on a weapon of mass destruction (a very campy and clearly enjoying it Sir Anthony Hopkins). Helen Mirren and Brian Cox also return and are as delightful as they were before, while Neal McDonough takes on a similar role to that of Karl Urban in the previous film (alas sans the charm, humor, or sympathy of Urban's performance). All the actors make the most of their roles (and there is a geeky joy in watching two actors who've played Hannibal Lecter share a scene). However, while the witty repartee of the returning regulars is clearly in evidence, it gets bogged down by Pariost's darker direction. It's more streamlined than the first outing, but not as breezy; there are scenes that could have been edited more tightly. Reflecting this darker turn is the score by Alan Silvestri, who eschews Christopher Beck's fun score for something more in line with any generic actioner. 

 

Yet RED 2 is still fun and enjoyable. Despite it being a more streamlined film, it's still carried by the interpersonal relationships by the characters, who are all clearly having a good time with tongues firmly planted in cheek. In this case, exotic locations and enjoyable performances a good film make.

 

Besides, any movie that asserts that baldness denotes sexual virility can't be all bad. ;)

YOU'RE [NOT SO] DEZZZZZZZPICABLE! "Despicable Me 2" Tries To Do Too Much, But Is A Fun Film Nonetheless.

In a summer season filled with big, dark action films, Despicable Me 2 is a refreshing change of pace. 

 

The story takes place sometime after the events of  the first film.  Reformed evil genius Gru (Steven Carrell) has settled into his role as father to his adoptive daughters Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier, who's given very little to do) and Agnes (the precocious-sounding Elise Fisher, as adorable and "awwww" inducing as she was in the last film). However, when a top secret laboratory in the artic has been stolen by a giant magnet and secreted to parts unknown, Gru is recruited by a top secret spy agency ("AVL", the "Anti-Villain League") to help recover a chemical agent that was being developed there. Meanwhile, Gru has to deal with the not-so-avuncular Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand, an a too-short appearance reminiscent of Michael Caine in The Dark Knight Rises) defection from the family to pursue more world-dominating pursuits, his daughter Margo's experience of first love/crush, and the barely-tolerated wackiness of his assigned investigative partner, Lucy (Kristin Wiig, whose character is in great need of a Valium/Xanax cocktail). And, if that weren't enough, Gru's faithful minions (voiced by directors Peter Coffin and Chris Renaud) are being abducted for some nefarious purpose.

 

If it sounds like a lot is going on, it's because there is. However, this movie seems more like "The Minions Take Manhattan" rather than Despicable Me. Coffin and Renaud understood that a major part of the first film's success stemmed from the amusingly adorable minions so they are given much more screen time with vignettes peppered between the main story. Unfortunately, it works to the plots' disadvantage as the resolution of each storyline seems underdeveloped and rushed. Not that there is any action, mind you (especially in a sequence that parodies the recent resurgence of over the top action blockbusters), but there's never really any sense of danger with any of these situations.

 

But in this movie, there really shouldn't be. While some of the comedic bits don't work as well as they should, this film does have a charm that engenders an ingratiating smile whether you want to or not (even with the slew of bald jokes that pepper the film...).  It also manages the rare feat of bringing something new to the table but still feel comfortingly familiar. The new improved Gru may not have the same bite as the villainous one did, but under Carrell's vocal ministrations, he proves to be just as compelling. As his off-kilter yet capable companion, fellow DM veteran Wiig (who voiced Miss Hattie in the original film) endearingly holds her own. Yes, the resolution of their own plot line is predictable but the journey to the endpoint is entertaining to watch and, frankly, a lot more honest than most live action efforts. The film skirts the line of racist stereotype with Mexican restaurateur Eduardo (an almost vocally unrecognizable but commendable Benjamin Bratt, who was brought in literally at the last minute after Al Pacino left the part over "creative differences"), but does so with aplomb; skewering without being offensive. The stars of this film, however, are the minions, who practically steal any scene they are in.

 

The films flaws are minor and, ultimately, inconsequential. When it works, it works. When it doesn't, it still manages to engender a smile.  There's enough to keep the kids happy while bringing enough slapstick and subtext to entertain the adults (or the adults with the kid still alive inside). Isn't that ultimately what we should get from films like Despicable Me 2? If so, then this one delivers.

MARTIN/ZIMMERMAN

Three observations:

1.  Justice, by its very nature, MUST be blind.

2.  There are no winners in this; only losers all around.

3.  As a society, we have a long way to go.

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 wants, if not 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 to the central conceit of 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 reversed. It’s debatable whether the last third of the movie counts as "homage" or "pandering". After all, the producers have said that in this rebooted universe certain events can (re)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…

 

...well, with apologies to Zachary Quinto, 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. Primary players Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, (the under-utilized) Karl Urban, and 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 to wear a red shirt and is reassigned to Engineering (a subtle nod to the Chekov/Khan conundrum of Star Trek II). 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…).

Khan is such a pervasive 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 rakishly charismatic; a self-contained villain 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, which never took place in this universe. 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. Oh, the film gives new reasons why both NuKirk and NuSpock would have a mad on against Khan, but it feels forced and contrived.
 

“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 for no other logical (pun intended) reason other than 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 more comeuppances in this film than the character has gotten in its entire existence), and nature versus nurture (Spock/Khan) but they also seemed forced.  The film essentially panders in a way that is incongruently insulting but 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. Though, quite frankly, his theme for Khan is much more inspired and satisfying than the turgid brashness of Nero's theme.
 

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...").