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!

Les Misérables - Review

It's quite a surprise to think that it's taken this long to finally get a film adaptation of Les Misérables, one of theater's most successful musicals. The musical, of course based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo, saw a thirty-plus year run on Broadway along with productions in Britain, Paris, and all over really. While I have always wanted to see a stage production of Les Miz, it has unfortunately not happened. I would have loved to get the chance to see it, but I never lived in an area near where it was playing. So if your a fan of the play and are wondering how it compares to it's movie counterpart, I cannot answer that as of now. Still, the movie has actually been getting a fair deal of positive buzz, with mostly good reviews, enthusiastic responses from audiences, and eight Oscar nominations. Though I don't personally know that many extreme Les Miz fans, it seems like those said fans have overall reacted quite positively to what they received with this adaptation. There's definitely plenty to work with here to make a good, possibly great movie musical for the ages. With that being said, what did I think of the movie? It's actually pretty good... for the most part.

Set in 19th century France, Les Misérables tells the story of Jean Valjean, who is first introduced as a convicted felon just completing a 19 year prison sentence. Upon receiving his freedom, Valjean struggles to find work and nearly starves to death. Desperate to start a new life, Valjean breaks his parole, forms a new identity, and flees to leaving his previous life behind. He is pursued, however, by Javert (Russell Crowe), the police inspector with a fierce determination to catch Valjean and throw him back into prison for breaking his parole. Meanwhile, Valjean meets up with Fantine (Anne Hathaway), an end-of-her-rope woman turned to prostitution in order to support her young daughter, currently in the care of two corrupt innkeepers. Valjean, seeing this as his chance at redemption, determines himself to help Fantine's little girl, named Cosette. With Valjean still haunted by past and Javert on a relentless hunt to take him in, his freedom and redemption may come at a bigger cost than first realized.

Listen, I know that the stage musical (and likely by extension, this film adaptation), has a large and very enthusiastic fanbase. So, I will preface this review by re-stating what I mentioned above... namely, I did like the movie! Didn't love it, not one of the year's best, and certainly not one of the best musicals ever made, but an overall above average film slightly elevated by some strong elements. Making movies in general is hard, making films based on stage productions or musicals, especially one as "show-y" and bombastic as Les Miz, is an incredible challenge. Plays that are known for giant spectacle or large epic production numbers like (based on what I've heard) Les Miz have certain styles that don't translate particularly well on film. I often think of Andrew Lloyd Weber's adaptation of Phantom of the Opera as a good example. It's a great play, not so much because of subtlety or nuance, but rather because the grand scale, huge special effects, are operatic musical numbers are a blast to watch live. The 2004 film adaptation tried to recreate that same feeling, and while it was a worthy effort, it didn't really work. That sort of bombastic spectacle looks really overblown and often kind of goofy on film. Les Miz, fares a little better on that front, but falls victim to many similar problems. The songs themselves are great, the ideas are interesting, and most of the actors are good, but the ambitious style and abstract storytelling just doesn't translate as well as I hoped.

I'll start off by talking about what I did like... the cast. Hugh Jackman is probably best known as the claw-wielding mutant Wolverine from the X-Men movies. While he is frequently cast in action films, many didn't know that the guy has a background in musical theater. With a few stints on Broadway, the guy has shown he's a legitimate triple threat... a great actor, talented singer, and enjoyable dancer as well. Make no mistake, he was a damn good choice for the role of Valjean. Jackman sells the dramatic scenes are carries musical numbers like the true talent he is. Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine has received widespread praise as well. Despite only being the film for about fifteen minutes, she sells every minute of her brief role to perfection. When she sings what is arguably the play's most memorable song, "I Dreamed A Dream," the whole sequence is just a close up of Hathaway with no cutaways or anything. Had it not been for her spot on acting, that sequence would not have worked, but Hathaway's voice and range of emotions is just perfect and stands as one of the film's most memorable moments. Short role for sure, but Hathaway is just so perfect, it's one of the film's few truly great qualities.

The rest of the cast is a bit hit and miss, but overall they work. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the scam artists/innkeepers caring for Cosette, providing a fun musical number and some welcome moments of comic relief. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are also solid as the two lovebirds caught in the turmoil of the 1832 Paris Uprising. Overall I can't really complaint... except for Russell Crowe. This is a real bummer, because Crowe is one hell of an actor who is no stranger to overblown period pieces (like Gladiator for instance). Unfortunately, apparently someone didn't tell him that he had to sing here... because he really can't. While it's not the worst voice I've ever heard, vocals clearly aren't the guy's strong point. It wouldn't be so bad if he only had one or two musical numbers, but since most of the film's dialogue is done melodically, you're constantly subjected to the Crowe's off key numbers. Had it not been for Crowe, I might have rated this film a bit higher. Still aside from the one exception, most of the movie's success came down to the film's cast selling the hell out of their roles. That is what ultimately saves the film from mediocrity.

The rest of the movie also has its ups and downs. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is something I do find quite interesting about the film. That is that is one of the few film musicals to feature live singing. In most movie musicals, actors pre-record their songs in a studio and lip sync to their previously recorded tracks while filming. For Les Miz, the live singing really gave the actors a chance to bring some real emotion to their songs, namely Fantine's aforementioned number. The songs may not work as well as a soundtrack or without the movie to provide context, but for the movie itself, they work. The production design is pretty good, with some impressive sets and artistic designs. The same can be said for the creative costume designs as well. The cinematography and editing, however, is more than a little flawed. For a reason I can't explain, the film has way more dutch angles than was needed. There were some times I was thinking, geez this movie has almost as many as Battlefield Earth (but not quite). There's not a whole lot of rhythm to the editing either (this being a musical, that's kind of a problem). Plus the action and battle scenes toward the end are presented so erratically that they become kind of disorienting and hard to follow. The story itself kind of convoluted as well. I like the basic themes and ideas, and the characters present some intriguing set ups, but the abstract style, while probably effective on stage, just doesn't work as well here. It starts off as Valjean's story of redemption and retribution but then inexplicably becomes about Cosette and Marius along with the 1832 uprising with little explanation or logic. Plus, the film runs at almost three hours. This leads to more than a few noticeable dull moments that really hurt the film's pacing. In the end, it somewhat comes together but there's a lot of flaws along the way.

So Les Misérables... it's good, but not great. There are some really strong performances, some memorable songs, and some real artisitc ambition at play here. There's also some really confusing moments, some not-so-memorable songs, and very flawed pacing. Still, I am glad that I saw it. I think most will find something to enjoy from it too. So I give it a recommendation, but not a particularly enthusiastic one.

My Score: 3 out of 5