Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Review

BvS? No, more like just BS! But seriously, this movie blows.

American Hustle - Review

Now that the 86th Academy Awards have come and gone, I realized that I never reviewed any of the Best Picture nominees. Don't really have any excuses this time, just kind of dropped the ball. Well, now that I know who won and lost, I don't have to make any pleas about who I hope will win, instead I get to complain about the films that took home awards they didn't deserve and the more deserving films that went home empty handed. So, first up is American Hustle, director David O. Russell's crime thriller/drama/comedy (it has bits and pieces from many genres) and what I consider the most overrated film of 2013. I already discussed this one a little bit in my Oscar predictions stating that despite receiving critical praise and ten Oscar nominations (though it didn't win any), I was somewhat befuddled by the film's immense acclaim. I know I'm in the minority here, but despite the efforts of a talented cast, a previously successful director, and worthy subject matter, there was just something missing from American Hustle and as a result, it failed to click. Maybe there's some irony in that title, because after watching it, I genuinely felt hustled by the filmmakers.

In a a loose dramatization of the real-life ABSCAM scandals, the year is 1978 and Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale), while nothing particularly impressive to look at, is one of the best con-artists in the game. With a number of seemingly legitimate businesses, Rosenfeld is an expert at the craft of scamming, whether through counterfeit art deals, illegal merchandise, shady loans, or many other means. While attending a friend's party, he meets the sultry Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), a stripper/business clerk who takes an interest in Rosenfeld's business. The two form a partnership in Rosenfeld's con-games and start a casual relationship (despite Rosenfeld being married to a woman who, even though she hates him, refuses a divorce). When Rosenfeld and Sydney are caught by FBI agent Richie DaMaso (Bradley Cooper), he offers them a chance to avoid a prison sentence if the two cooperate with the FBI to help them track down and catch some other big-name criminals and con-artists. What follows is essentially a clusterfuck of mishaps involving cons, scams, swindling, friends becoming enemies, enemies becoming friends, the mafia, corrupt politicians, and shady FBI agents.

Now, American Hustle is not necessarily a "bad movie" but after watching it, I couldn't deny the fact that there was just something missing from it, and for a while, I couldn't put my finger on what that was. It certainly wasn't for lack of ambition, effort, talent, or decent subject matter. On the contrary, with a director like David O'Russell, subject matter as interesting as the ABSCAM scandles, and a cast consisting of immense talents like Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner selling the hell out of their roles, I had pretty high hopes for this flick. Maybe it was the raised expectations that killed this one's potential for me, but even after a second viewing, my thoughts hadn't changed. It's hard not to draw comparisons to Goodfellas while watching American Hustle, as it seemed like O'Russell was going for the style of "bleak/dark drama with comedic undertones" that Martin Scorsese has made a career out of. While there's nothing wrong with a filmmaker drawing inspiration from a near-perfect masterpiece like Goodfellas, American Hustle ultimately feels like an average imitation of a quality product, a thought only supported by the fact that there actually was a Scorsese film in 2013 with similar themes. It's like David O'Russell showed Martin Scorsese his film, and Marty responded by saying, "Nice try kid... but let me show you how the pros do it" and then proceeded to show him The Wolf of Wall Street.

With all that said, it's not fair to criticize a film for not being as incredible as Goodfellas (few are) or to throw David O'Russell under the bus for not being Scorsese (again... very few possess even a fraction of Scorsese's filmmaking talents). I will say this much, there are a few things about the movie that I like. With David O'Russell's sharp eye for visuals, the filmmakers did a commendable job recreating the 1970s. Everything from the outfits, the sets, the soundtrack, the makeup, and the hair (actually the hairstyles are probably the best part of the film) are accomplished with some stylish flair and a nice attention to detail. The actors are generally well-cast too, with the standouts being Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence (though both have done far better work in previous films). At the very least, you can't deny the absolute commitment each actor brought their respective role. The same could be said for director David O'Russell, who clearly put every once of his energy and talent into trying to deliver a quality product. Plus, the pacing is generally solid, the film finds a decent rhythm, and the script manages to throw in a chuckle-worthy scene once in a while. At the very least, the film isn't without any merit.

So like I mentioned before... I was originally quite perplexed as to why a film with so many positive elements could feel so unfulfilling. The cast, the direction, and the concept are, for the most part, generally solid. So what happened??? Well, despite the good individual parts, nothing really comes together all that well. It tries to be three things at once, a dramatic character study, a screwball comedy, and a heist/grifter film (with some socio-political undertones). Unfortunately, it doesn't really get any of those three parts right. The comedic elements are the only parts that come close to working, as I did get a few chuckles out a couple scenes, despite the humorous moments being very hit or miss. The characters, however, are probably the most disappointing part of the film, because they come close to working but not quite. They're mostly just comedic archetypes with little depth or personality that fail to rise above generic cliches. I won't dock the film points for it's characters not being likable or for being egotistic, narcissistic, or shallow (since that was clearly the point), but I will dock them for not being interesting. The basic set-up and heist story starts with promise but it culminates throughout a confusing and convoluted narrative yet still in ends with an outcome that I predicted five minutes into the damn film. Plus, the tone is all over the map and the style is never consistent. Because the film tackles so many ideas and stories, it continuously looses focus and by the time is over over... it just felt lifeless. A film with multiple plots and stories can work, but it takes one hell of a filmmaker to make it work... clearly David O'Russell was not up to it. The main problem, however, despite it's sheer energy, is that it lacks bite. It doesn't really much to say about the insanity of it's story aside from "we live in a messed up world", which is true but I was expecting more.

As I've mentioned, I know I'm in the minority here, but no matter how I look at American Hustle, it just doesn't do much for me. Maybe it's because I've seen so many films do exactly what American Hustle was trying to do, only so much better. If the movie sounds like it's up your alley you could check it out, or you could watch similar yet far more compelling films like Goodfellas, or more engaging movies like The Sting, or funnier flicks like A Fish Called Wanda... all of which are similar to American Hustle just better. If you're looking for a more recent film, then watch Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. I wish I liked this movie, I WANT to like this movie, but no matter what American Hustle is nothing more than mediocre.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Man of Steel - Review

Considering the state of cinema in this day and age, it's always important to keep one's expectations somewhat in line. That's not to say that, considering the rising prices of movie tickets, one shouldn't expect a quality flick whenever they go out to the movies... that's perfectly reasonable. That said, if you expect that every film you pay to see to be some kind of a masterpiece... well, you're most likely setting yourself up for disappointment.  I mention all of this because the hype surrounding Man of Steel has been pretty immense. I certainly don't envy the pressure Zack Snyder must have felt in bringing back Superman to cinematic world. I mean, this isn't some offbeat or semi-famous superhero... this is Superman we're talking here. He's arguably the most well-known, influential, and flat-out important character to ever grace the medium of comic books. That's not even the half of it though. For starters, there hasn't been a truly worthy Superman film to hit theaters since 1980's Superman II. Not to mention, DC Comics hasn't exactly been on fire with it's movie adaptations outside of Nolan's Batman films. The only other DC movie to recently grace the silver screen was 2011's Green Lantern... AND IT SUCKED! To top it all off... this movie also shoulders the responsibility for a jumping off point for a in-continuity DC movie universe AND a Justice League movie! That's a lot of responsibility to bare, and most filmmakers probably wouldn't be up to the task. So yeah... the hype on this film has been quite substantial, to say the least. I'm going to do my best to review the film strictly on it's own merits, but I'd be lying if I told you that my affinity for comics, appreciation for the Superman legacy, and the state of DC's movie division didn't, in some way, affect my opinion for this movie. With all that said, how does Man of Steel fare?

Man of Steel is a complete reboot of the Superman film series, with absolutely no continuity within the previous Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh timeline. The film opens up on the planet Krypton, a distant world on the verge of total apocalypse after the depletion of it's natural resources. Knowing of the planet's imminent destruction, the high ranking scientist, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer), send their newborn son, Kal-El, to planet Earth, to ensure his survival. Amidst all the chaos on Krypton is a conflict started by General Zod (Michael Shannon), a military leader who is bent on taking control of Krypton and preserving it's name, even by violent means. After murdering Jor-El, General Zod and his small band of soldiers, are banished to the Phantom Zone and sent into the depths of space. After Kal-El's ship leaves Krypton, he lands on Earth in the town of Smallville, Kansas. Here, he is taken in by Jonathan & Martha Kent (Kevin Costner & Diane Lane), local farmers who name him Clark and raise him as their son. As Clark grows older, he develops incredible powers including incredible strength, speed, and senses. Knowing that he is not of this world, Clark spends most of his youth as an outcast, discouraged by his parents from using his powers until the time is right. When Clark reaches adulthood (played by Henry Cavill) he becomes a drifter, travelling from town to town working random jobs, helping people when he can, but keeping a low profile. This all changes when he meets an ambitious reporter from the city of Metropolis named Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who earnestly seeks information about this mysterious man with incredible strength and a penchant for saving the day. Soon after meeting Lois, Clark learns of his origins and takes on the mantle of Superman, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman's destiny suddenly becomes more real, as General Zod and his army make their way to Earth with their sights set on planetary destruction...

I'm going to do something here that I don't normally do. Even though I mentioned that I was aiming to give this film a strictly objective review without any bias from previous Superman films/shows/comics/etc, I feel it's best to at least mention where I'm coming from, at least on the film end. The 1978 film, Superman: The Motion Picture directed by Richard Donner, was the first comic book film to receive a big budget studio treatment. While comic book movies had existed beforehand, this was the first property to receive such a lavish treatment, from it's large budget, recognizable cast, and groundbreaking special effects. Newcomer Christopher Reeve played the Man of Steel, and became synonymous with the role. Even today, he is generally considered by many (myself included) as the best actor to take up the cape. The film itself is, even to this day, by all accounts excellent, and still one of the best superhero films of all time. 1980's Superman II was a worthy follow-up, adding Kryptonian enemies into the mix along with some memorable action scenes. While some of the special effects haven't aged well and a few parts drag a bit, it's still a pretty great film on it's own right. 1983's Superman III took a more comedic direction, adding comedian Richard Pryor to the cast, while providing Superman with a new set of foes. The film was... pretty bad actually. While it had a few decent scenes, it never was as engaging as it's predecessors, plus the film's attempt at comedy completely backfired when it turned out the jokes were painfully unfunny (an unfortunate mark on Richard Pryor's near-flawless comedic record). As for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace... the less said about that disaster the better. After the abysmal failure of the fourth entry, the series remained in development hell for nearly 20 years, with filmmaker after filmmaker trying (and failing) to resurrect the franchise. Names ranging from Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, McG, JJ Abrams, and others all tried (whether as a director, writer, producer, or whatever) in to bring Superman back to the screen. It wasn't until 2006 when Superman made his return in... Superman Returns, a pseudo-sequel to the Richard Donner flicks directed by Bryan Singer. The film was... okay overall. It benefited from some strong direction, good special effects, and an enjoyable supporting cast. Unfortunately, it suffered from questionable story-choices, a miscast Lois & Clark, and too many similarities to it's predecessors. So yeah... despite a strong start, Superman has had kind of a bumpy ride on the screen the last few years.

So after all that, how's Man of Steel? Overall, it's pretty good... not perfect, but a damn good effort and, for the most part, a worthy entry to the iconic series. Is it the best in the series? No, not even close. The first two still loom pretty high, but this entry is miles better than parts III & IV (granted, that's not saying much), and does improve on some of the flaws from Superman Returns (that said, there were some things in that film that were done better than this). Still, while it's fairly unavoidable, it's unfair to judge a film based on how it compares to it's predecessors and/or source material. Judged strictly on it's own merits, it's well-made from a technical standpoint yet kind of flawed, though ambitious, from a narrative perspective. What works and what doesn't wasn't totally obvious right away, and I had to sit on this film for a bit to give a fair review. After a week of contemplating, I think I've got it.

I've mentioned before that, as much as I like Nolan's Batman films, I'm not exactly on board with the influence they've had on films today. It seems like pretty much every genre film these days has to be dark, drab, and edgy... and Man of Steel is no exception. Listen, I'm not saying that all Superman films have to be lighthearted and campy, or that there haven't been darker themed stories in previous Superman comics... it's just that it seemed like whoever was responsible for this film (whether it be Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, or whoever) tried to combine darker Batman-like themes while still trying to incorporate Superman's uplifting themes of hope, justice, patriotism, etc. The end result is... kind of messy and unfocused. Most of the film is so somber, drab, and melancholy, that it's attempt to portray tones of heroism and hope often fail to connect. That's not to say that there aren't certain elements of the story or individual scenes that don't work. The flashback scenes of Clark's upbringing in Smallville are pretty good, even if they do contain a few cliche'd or overdone tropes. I also really dug the opening set on Krypton, which arguably contained the film's most memorable scenes. At times, the story works, but as an overall narrative... it's kind of disappointing.

For all of the film's flaws, the strong cast helps to elevate it. Henry Cavill makes a strong impression as the new Superman, showing some promising dramatic ability and holding his own in the action scenes. Because of the film's somber tone, he spends most of the movie in a depressed or angry state, and doesn't really give him the chance to truly explore his character's personality. Michael Shannon pretty much owns his scenes as General Zod in a memorable scenery-chewing performance. Shannon has always been an underrated character actor, and I'm hoping his role as Zod will lead to bigger and better parts. Russell Crowe turned out to be a good choice as Jor-El, giving an enjoyable portrayal of Kal-El's Kryptonian father, and helping to forget his bland performance in Les Miserables. Two of the stand-outs were Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Martha & Jonathan Kent (Clark's Adoptive Parents), making the best of their relatively small parts with some of the film's standout scenes. The only actor who comes up a little short would have to be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Amy Adams, and she generally does a good job here as Lane, but her character is one of the film's most underdeveloped, and as a result Adams has a hard time making any real impression. Plus, the chemistry between her and Cavill is pretty much non-existent.  Any of their on screen "romance" (and I use that term loosely) is forced, rushed, and thrown in basically as an afterthought. The rest of the cast is across the board good, no real complaints acting-wise.

Director Zack Snyder has received... let's say "mixed" reactions toward some of his previous film efforts. He was mainly showered with praise for his surprisingly decent remake of Dawn of the Dead and the good-but-not great adaptation of Frank Miller's 300. His adaptation of the "un-filmable" graphic novel Watchmen polarized audiences, but I'm in the camp of people who pretty much loved what he did with the film. His most recent film, Sucker Punch, while ambitious and well-intentioned, didn't quite strike the chord I think he was going for and is generally seen as a failure. Still, while he hasn't quite made a masterpiece yet, there's a lot about his directorial style that I've liked. In an industry plagued by remakes, imitations, and lack of originality, Snyder has always attempted big, audacious, and risky projects bringing his unique visual style to the final product. While Man of Steel's story was hit and miss, Snyder's direction did a lot to bring something interesting to the film. For starters, the guy has an incredible eye for visuals. While the film did include a little more shaky cam than I would have appreciated, it was still full of beautifully composed shots, incredible effects, and a general artistic style that honored it's source material and tried something new. For once, I didn't feel like the film was simply trying to capture the feel of the 1978 and instead tried changing it up... that's commendable. The scenes on Krypton were probably my favorite, in how they designed a planet that was reminiscent of the classic look but also felt unique. I was a little disappointed by the new Fortress of Solitude though, mainly how they changed it from a cool-looking alien-ice castle into a fairly generic spaceship, albeit with a few nifty Kryptonian influences. As for the action... it's pretty much incredible. It runs a bit long at times, namely in the finale, but between some great cgi, expertly paced fights, and big explosions, there's more than enough to satisfy any action junkies looking for their fix. From a strictly visual perspective, the film is not quite perfect, but pretty close.

So is Man of Steel the Superman film we've all been waiting for??? No, but we're getting there. The script had it's issues, both in narrative and tone, but there were some good ideas and promising set-ups. That said, the cast was solid, the action was exciting, and the visuals were pretty spectacular. To no surprise, the film ended with strong hints toward a sequel, and while I don't think this film was perfect, there's a lot to work with and much potential for another. If you haven't seen Man of Steel yet though... I'd say check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

The Muppets - Review

I think the first few lines of the opening musical number for this movie pretty much summed up my reaction after hearing that a new Muppet movie was in development: "Everything is great, everything is grand, I've got the whole wide world in the palm of my hand!" Okay, well maybe I don't quite feel like the world's in my hands, but news of the long awaited theatrical return of Jim Henson's legendary characters sure got me excited. As a kid, the Muppets never failed to make me laugh, be it the TV shows, the movies, or the television specials. What surprises me is how, as an adult, I still find them funny. Alright, I guess some of the Muppet productions haven't quite held up (the cartoon spin-offs and some of the later movies haven't exactly gotten better with age), but even the worst of the Muppet movies are, at the very least, entertaining on some level (Muppets From Space). Does the new Muppet movie live up to Jim Henson's legacy?

The Muppets, while more or less in line with the series' previous movie canon, is something of an in-continuity reboot. It's been well over a decade since the last theatrical Muppet movie, and since then the Muppets have all split up and gone their separate ways. Kermit lives a most secluded life in his Hollywood mansion, Miss Piggy is a famous fashion designer in Paris, Gonzo has become a plumbing magnate, Fozzie is the lead singer of Reno Muppet impersonation group called The Moopets, Animal is in a celebrity anger management group, and... the list goes on. When 3 Hollywood tourists, Gary (Jason Segel), his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams), and his Muppet superfan brother Walter (who happens to be a Muppet himself) discover a plot by a greedy Oil tycoon named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to tear down the Muppet studios to drill for oil, they form a plan to reunite the Muppets to band together and save their beloved studios.

I'll be first to admit that the plot for the movie isn't really groundbreaking. There's nothing inherently bad about it, but it's just been done before. It's basically The Muppet Movie meets The Blues Brothers. In the end, that doesn't really matter because the script delivers on where it needs to. In other words, the movie is really funny! The film was mainly pitched by the film's star, Jason Segel. Apparently Segal has been a long time fan of the Muppets who co-wrote the script with Nicholas Stoller. Make no mistake, this is probably the funniest film I've seen this year. I admit that might have something to do with the fact that the comedy scene has been somewhat lacking in 2011, but I don't want to sell the movie short because I was laughing almost the whole way through.

As funny as the movie is, there are more than a few things to nitpick. First off are some of the non-cameo human characters. I kind of hate to criticize any of the non-Muppet actors, since nobody gave a bad performance or anything like that. It's just that almost all of the funniest lines and parts went to the Muppet characters, and whenever they weren't on screen, the movie lost a little steam. Jason Segal and Amy Adams are both good actors with great comedic ability but most of their scenes without the Muppets at times would lead to the occasional chuckle, but nothing more than that. Plus, the romantic subplot between the two was mostly unnecessary, tacked on, and irrelevant (although, it did lead to one of the more enjoyable musical numbers).

The other character I have mixed feelings about is Chris Cooper as the villainous Tex Richman. While Cooper was clearly having fun with the role, his character was pretty forgettable. He's little more than a generic evil rich person whose recurring joke was saying the words "Maniacal Laugh!" whenever he was discussing his evil plans. I can see that they were going for a tounge-in-cheek generic villain, but it didn't really work. He lacks the goofy appeal of Doc Hopper from the first movie (a fast food tycoon who sells fried frog legs) or the natural comedic abilities of Charles Grodin's jewel thief from Great Muppet Caper. These are relatively minor nitpicks, but worth mentioning nonetheless.

The direction is hit and miss too. Like I said, the actors are all mostly solid when you consider the film's tone. That might be perceived as a flaw in other movies, but with the movie's inherent hammy tone, everyone fits in pretty nicely. Still, some elements of the production design look a little too cheap and inconsistent. Plus, there wasn't a whole lot of visual flair to the cinematography. None of it is in-your-face awful, but rather just kind of meh. That said, the puppetry work is as solid as ever and some of the dance choreography is well done. Again, these are mostly little nitpicks that are fairly insignificant to the big picture.

There are only a few things a Muppet movie needs to get right, and this movie nails every single one of them. It's a back to basics and return to formula Muppet movie that succeeds in their signature sense of humor and storytelling. Were you hoping for catchy musical numbers? How about the characters trademark slapstick or fourth wall humor? Or maybe you're a fan of the celebrity cameos? This movie has all of the above. The music is appropriately catchy, the jokes are spot on, and the cameos are plentiful. It features a soundtrack of new songs as well as reprisals of a couple classics, Rainbow Connection and Mahna Mahna. The jokes are appropriately goofy but also clever enough to not be annoying. As for the cameos, Jack Black, Alan Arkin, Emily Blunt, Neil Patrick Harris, Zach Galifinakis, Sarah Silverman, and many others all bring their comedic charm for their brief appearances. It's a classic Muppet awesomeness the rings back to the glory days of The Muppet Show and the first movie.

In short, I loved this movie! It's not a perfect film, but it succeeds in everything it needs to. It's a fun comedic romp that both adults and kids can enjoy. All I can say is that it's great to have the Muppets back. Highly recommended!

My Score: 4 out of 5!