"Man of Steel" Review

He isn't the most popular superhero, but he is one of the oldest. Like him or not, everyone knows who Superman is. And not counting animation, it can be said that he hasn't had a decent adaptation since the days of Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve. Lord knows he's been deserved of one, and on paper, Christopher Nolan was the man to make it happen. 

Man of Steel tells the tale of a young man named Clark Kent who has always had unique abilities, and is confused when he finally discovers that he is apparently the sole survivor of the planet Krypton. But when more of his people arrive looking for an ancient Kryptonian artifact, Clark must make a decision that will that change his life, and the world forever. 

If you're going to go by the comic origin of Superman, there's not much room for creativity. There's mainly room for stylistic decisions. Another challenge is trying to bring a grounded sense of realism that Nolan films focus on. Whereas in Batman it is a much easier pill to swallow, the idea of bringing reality and creativity to a god-like alien is much more difficult. 

In some respects, Man of Steel is original and possesses a unique style that stands itself out in a way that will distinguish it from the other adaptations. It has a visual distinction that can't be denied, utilizing costume and design choices that haven't really applied to the Superman mythology before. 

However, as much as it attempts to be unique, it somehow loses the sense of the uplifting and signature spirit of Superman. It may be because of the enormous pressure on director Zack Snyder, or it could be because there are parts of the film that seem too complicated or not appropriate to the character, but somehow it just seems to lose its way. 

There's nothing wrong with the acting however. Henry Cavill, whom you may recognize as Charles Brandon from the Showtime series The Tudors or as Theseus from the film Immortals, plays Clark Kent. While he doesn't have the same innocent charisma as the legendary Christopher Reeve, he does bring a newer sense of confidence to the character that both modernizes him and keeps him from growing stale. He grows during the film from a man lost in the world into the character we all know. I am very interested into where he takes him next. 

While there's no man that could ever iconize General Zod in the way that Terrence Stamp has, Andrew's Standout for this movie is Michael Shannon who tries his damnedest to put his own (dare I say it?) stamp on the character. He never feels like an all out monster, his motives are pure, but his execution is what makes him our villain. As dastardly as he can be, Shannon's Zod is someone that you feel for. That's where the audience identification comes in. He isn't the most memorable villain, but he gives the most chilling performance in the entire film. 

Amy Adams takes Lois Lane in the direction of a self-confident, assured woman who doesn't feel like a damsel in distress. It is certainly a refreshing change of pace from the Lois who always gets kidnapped to the point that villains in the comics refer to her as "the one Superman always saves." It is a brilliant character decision, and Adams is the one to pull it off. 

I would certainly give this movie a look. While it never really feels like the Superman we've come to know, it is by no means a bad movie.

B- 

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" Retro Review

For today's review, I have chosen the movie that started it all for me. I was 14 years old, and at that point I had no idea what I wanted to with my life. But then one fateful trip to Alice in Videoland with my Uncle Sean changed all that. I spotted the DVD on the shelf and had recognized the logo from a trip to Walt Disney World. We rented it, returned home, popped it in the player, and I was dazzled. The stunts, the thrills, the adventure, the music, the dashing hero coming to the rescue. It was the most engaging film I had ever seen, and from then on, I knew I wanted to be.....an archaeologist. Of course that didn't pan out. I bought a couple books and thought at one point that I would actually find the Ark of the Covenant, or even the Holy Grail (which at the time I thought was real). But then I realized my heart wasn't in that. What I really admired about the film was the spectacle. The story, the characters, the production. I knew then that my future was in film.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, is about noted archaeologist Indiana Jones who is hired by the United States government to find the lost Ark of the Covenant in the year 1936. However, he also has to compete against the Nazis who seek the Ark for their own nefarious purposes. He brings along with him his friend Sallah who is loyal through and through, and old fame Marion Ravenwood, with whom he has a history.

As much as this review is a love letter to this film, this film is a love letter to the adventure serials of the 1930s. Of course Steven Spielberg and George Lucas aren't asking you to come back to the theater every week, that would be silly. Yet, if that was to happen, I would do it. Together, this tag team of emerging talent creating such a beautiful tale, that is well executed, well acted, all together a work of art. A masterpiece.

Some may consider the ending a bit "Deus ex machina", yet I choose to look at it under the microscope of a man in the 1930s. Like my other favorite movie Die Hard, the film isn't the most intellectually engaging of stories, yet it doesn't try to pretend that it is something that it isn't. The adventure is a roller coaster of nostalgic amusement. It's not meant to make you think about the politics of the 1930s, it's not even meant to push christianity upon you, the purpose of the film is to root for our hero, watch him beat some bad guys, dust himself off, and save the day. It takes you back to a simpler time, during the depression, and prior to the outbreak of World War II.  Back then, it was about escapism. The thrills of the film take you away from it all.

Harrison Ford is our hero in the hat, Indiana Jones. Having just come off a particularly memorable turn as Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back, Ford is given the keys to a franchise he can call his own. Given that he only received the role after Tom Selleck dropped out, he gives his all to the role, and I'll be darned if this isn't his most memorable performance to date. Compared to the hulking action heroes of the 1980s, Ford is a scrappy underdog that most men could relate to. He has a spirit of adventure that is equally thrilling and relatable. He is perfectly, and masterfully cast in the role of a lifetime.

The music runs alongside the action in away that it only does from John Williams. The tense beating of the orchestra sets the mood for some of the film's most memorable scenes. The main theme of the film is both uplifting and catchy to the point that you will recognize it even if you've never seen the film.

The stunt choreography is also brilliant. The amount of things that they can think of to do with a bullwhip outside of its intended purposes are astounding. Again, the staging and the physicality of it all makes for particularly memorable cinema.

See this movie. See it again. Then see it a third time. I am often asked what my favorite movie of all time is, this is the closest answer you will ever get. It is masterful, beautiful, and iconic. It's the move that changed my life. If it doesn't do the same for you, it will at least take you for a thrill ride.

A+

"Thor: The Dark World" Review

There is a reason why I consider Kevin Feige the smartest person in show business. He has been at the helm of Marvel Studios since 2007, and more than anyone else, he is the man singlehandedly responsible for The Avengers, the films that led to it, and the films that come in its wake. If you read any interview with the man, he speaks clearly, he uses down to earth language, and he understands what an audience wants. I'm not at all claiming that he is the man who crafted Thor: The Dark World, but he is the farmer who decides on the crops and plants the seeds.

In Thor: The Dark World, Jane Foster accidentally awakens an ancient evil, prompting Thor to return to Earth to bring her to Asgard. When the evil Malekith raises the stakes, Thor has no choice but to turn to his imprisoned brother Loki for help.

What worked so well about the first Thor movie was the masterful blending of genres. This time, they decided to throw some more into the mix. Start with some fantasy, a toss of science fiction, a dash of swashbuckling adventure, bits and pieces of a thriller. Blend for 112 minutes, and you get Thor: The Dark World. The recipe works again for this movie, it is compelling and full of twists and turns that you don't see coming. However, someone seemed to spill a little too much humor into the blender. What could be an otherwise magnificent movie is ruined by spontaneous jokes and gags in areas where the film should be taking itself seriously.

The genius of Kevin Feige that shows up in this film is the hiring of Alan Taylor as the director. Well known for his work on the popular HBO series Game of Thrones, Taylor brings that sense of realism, grittiness and human interest with him. The film is able to find footing in the tone established in the original film, and also some of the trademark style from out of Westeros.

Chris Hemsworth returns as the God of Thunder with a newfound sense of responsibility for the people he must protect. He clearly has a handle on who the character is, and where in his life Thor should be. We have watched Hemsworth develop alongside Thor in these past few movies, and thats what makes his performance all the more interesting.

Kat Dennings goes hand in hand with my issue about the amount of humor in the film. Her character (once again) does nothing except pander for cheap laughs. Dennings is not a bad actress, but her style is more at home in her sitcom.

The only other issue I have with the film is the performance of Christopher Eccleston as Malekith. He just never feels interesting. He comes across as two dimensional, with no personal investment in his characters motives. I can't help but feel the original choice of Mads Mikkelsen would have given a much more chilling take on the character.

Andrew's Standout for this iteration would be the always welcome Tom Hiddelston as Loki. It could be easy to believe that his popularity would be waning at this point, and his inclusion in the film is mere pandering to the millions of fan girls that worship him. However, he avoids this completely by offering a new, fresh take on the character. He is reeling from the consequences of his past actions, and comes across as a compelling anti-hero. He is like a quarter being flipped. You can call it in the air, but you can never be sure on which side he will land.

On every level, it's just as good of a film as the original film. It merely suffers from an abundance of humor and an uninteresting villain. I still say check it out. It is incredibly well made.

B+

"Thor" RE-Review

As promised, I have rewatched Thor and here is my new, updated review in my standard format.

When he disobeys the express wishes of his father and King Odin, Thor, the crown prince of Asgard and God of Thunder, is exiled from his home world and sent to earth stripped of his powers. In order to return to his home and loved ones, he must prove himself worthy enough to lift his enchanted hammer Mjolnir. But there are also dark forces at work here too.

The outline of the plot is nothing spectacular, I will admit. However, it is the execution that makes it stand above being a cliche. Rather than just another run of the mill sword in the stone, it is a well thought out merger of science fiction and norse mythology. The inclusion of the Marvel Universe spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D., not only ties the film into the events in The Avengers, it also finds some realistic grounding to extraordinary circumstances. When you see someone who considers himself a God come to Earth and does nothing to prove it, your first instinct is dismiss him as insane. However, the audience who is well aware of his true nature will see this as an adventure for him to reclaim what is rightfully his, and a masterful blending of genres.

When he was first cast in the title role, Chris Hemsworth was only known to American audiences for his very brief role as George T. Kirk in the 2009 reboot of Star Trek. It was not a lot to go on to judge if he was right for the role, yet it wasn't enough to deem him unfit to don the cape and armor either. When he first comes onto the screen as Thor, you can see his youthful exuberance, mixed with the notion that this character has experience. He is a fresh face, but at the same time, it never feels like an origin story, thanks to Hemsworth. He forges the role into something he can call his own.

Tom Hiddleston is clearly Andrew's Standout. His Loki is humble yet cunning and ruthless. The most dangerous people are the ones you don't think are dangerous to begin with. In the beginning, you have no obvious reason to distrust him, and that's a testament to Hiddleston's ability. He hides his true nature so well, that to an audience unfamiliar with the mythology, they couldn't sense that he is the true driving force.

The rest of the cast all deliver stellar performances that stay true to the original comic book incarnation of their respective characters, but at the same time have a contemporary feel to them.

However, Kat Dennings' character Darcy is a force that is not necessary to the overall feel of the film. She feels much like a pander to the MTV crowd. Her inclusion contributes absolutely nothing organic. However, I blame it on the writing.

The special effects are rather dazzling in comparison to other fantasy films such as the update of Clash of the Titans, and the choreography is marvelous with fight scenes of epic proportions.

See this film. Not only is it a decent movie, it's a step towards The Avengers that never just feels like a puzzle piece, but rather stands out as it's own as excellent filmmaking.

B+

"Last Vegas" Review

In 2009, a film called The Hangover opened in theaters and absolutely took the world by storm. There was no one reason that it was as mammoth of a success as it was, and given the star power and premise behind Last Vegas, there was no reason it couldn't work again. But in the process, the makers of the film seem to have forgotten to give it an edge.

Last Vegas is about four friends reuniting for the bachelor party of the last one of them to be married. However, two of them still have some bad blood between them that could ruin everyone elses party.

While there is a certain amount of comedy to be found in Last Vegas, the big laughs are far in between. And save for two scenes that stand out above the rest, there is nothing to really make you fall out of your seat with laughter. The trouble with the movie is that it plays it way too safe. There is no danger, no major conflict, not really much of anything that keeps you guessing. What worked about The Hangover is that it pushed the envelope. It went to places that some movies were just too afraid to go. There were scenes that you just could not believe. With Last Vegas, it more or less "disneyfied" that story into something extremely tame and rather predictable.

What got to me the most however, is the same problem that I had with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There were far too many jokes about how old the characters were. While it's understandable to want to have a little fun with that idea, at some point you just say to yourself "Ok, we get it. They're old, let's move on."

There certainly is no problem with the acting. These four legends certainly work their craft and try to make the most out of a subpar script. Morgan Freeman and Kevin Kline make rather amusing oddballs, and Michael Douglas does his best "Gordon Gekko on holiday."

However, the brightest candle, and thus Andrew's Standout, would have to be the bold and blunt Robert De Niro. He stays true to the long standing tough guy persona he has spent his career molding. He is clearly enjoying himself, but never gets too goofy. Most of all, his performance has the most emotion out of the group, and certainly the most heart.

Overall, it's a PG-13 geriatric Hangover that's never quite as funny as it should be. I say save your money, go to a Redbox in a few months, and watch it in the comfort of your own home.

C

ORIGINAL "Thor" Review

Once more, I've dug into my archives and unearthed my original Thor review written before the formation of the blog. Again, this was prior to my development of my now trademark review pattern and grammar skills. I am republishing now seeing as Thor: The Dark World is opening this week. I will be re-reviewing the original film in my newly established standard within the next week. However, let's take a trip down memory lane and see my on the spot thoughts. The rest of this post is my original, unedited, review. 

The first question. Was "Thor" worth waiting 2 hours in an empty food court, and shelling out $13 to see in 3D in a mall movie theater at midnight, filled with stoners giggling about some Tyler Perry poster in the lobby? 

Absolutely. 

Last year, I went into "Iron Man 2" with major expectations. When I left the theater, I was pleased, but I felt somewhat cheated. Like something was missing. "Thor" not only fulfilled every expectation, it exceeded those I didn’t know I had. It felt like a more like a movie and less like the “Easter egg hunt” that "Iron Man 2" turned out to be. "Thor" has it’s eggs to be sure, but none that distract from the story. 

The absolute breakout star of the film is Chris Hemsworth. No question. He begins as an arrogant, self-serving, war hungry warrior. It’s clear and charismatic, and not filled with underlying tones that you need to look for. When he is on Earth, he finds himself, learns who he needs to be, yadda, yadda, yadda. What keeps you from being bored with such a common film trope, is Hemsworth’s charm and epiphany that you nearly see through the characters eyes. It feels unique, even though you’ve seen it in almost every movie ever made. 

Tom Hiddleston is the perfect casting for Loki. The best comparison of his character would be the version of Voldemort that we see in "Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets". He seems innocent, and you get the feeling that he is trying to help you. But when you least expect him too, he reveals his true colors. He doesn’t show them for quite some time, but it’s a fun ride to take. 

I could go on about every character, but you won’t hear anything you don’t hear from any other critic. “Natalie Portman is cute and witty.” “Anthony Hopkins is a great, authoritative, domineering Odin.” Blah, blah, blah. 

What I do want to point out is Kat Dennings character “Darcy”. She really pissed me off. The simple minded jokes, and comic relief are not necessary from her, the film has humor moments without her. She feels too much like a scripted pander to mainstream audiences. While she succeeds in that respect, she fails to be interesting to those who simply enjoy good acting. 

The special effects don’t feel like your run of the mill eye-candy, they feel like a pure work of art. They dazzle, enchant, and bring you into a world of fantasy, as though you could actually go there and experience it first hand. 

The battle sequences rival those in Lord of the Rings, with bold stunts, and more than simple wire-work. 

The music sets the mood perfectly, and the costumes are extravagant and elegant. 

All-in-all, Thor is pure Asgardian gold. The story will keep you on the edge of your seat until the last production logo fades off the screen and the lights turn on. (Hint: Stay after the credits.) If you do not like Thor, there is something terribly wrong with you. 10 out of 10.

"Enders Game" Review

DISCLAIMER: I can not in good conscience condone the statements or the beliefs of author Orson Scott Card. His statements against the gay community are horrid and uncalled for. I have many gay friends, all of whom are great people. Any discrimination against that lifestyle is something I can not and will not agree with. I hope someday we can live in a world where this type of backwards thinking is frowned upon by our society as a whole. 

Ender's Game, set in the year 2086, is about a young man named Ender Wiggin who is chosen by Colonel Graff to lead his peers into battle against an alien force. The only question is, does Ender have what it takes?

I have never read the book, so I am not aware of how faithful it may or may not be.

The movie has excellent performances, and astounding special effects, but it never feels like director Gavin Hood knows what he is trying to do. More than a handful of the scenes feel needlessly complicated, things that seem rather interesting are pushed to the side, and in the end, there are more than a few loose ends. You'll leave the theater with more complaints than pleasant memories. While there is a good chance that these things are explained in the original novel, my logic is if you're making a film based on a book, don't start with the preconception that your entire audience has read it and will fill in the missing pieces.

The character development also feels forced. When we are first introduced to Sergeant Dap, he is the typical, hard nosed yelling drill sergeant. Yet the next time we see him, he has a completely new attitude towards Ender.

The biggest issue I have with the film is that it attempts to get a message across, but the film itself is never clear in what that is. It is obvious that movie is trying to focus on bullying, but in what respect? Are they saying that we should fight back? Are they trying to tell us that we should walk away? In the midst of adapting the screenplay, I think Hood lost track of what the point is, if he even had one to begin with.

Asa Butterfield stars as Ender, and plays him with a shy yet knowledgable persona. He is great at portraying social outcasts as we've seen in Hugo, and here is no different. He brings his best to the role, yet the development that is rushed upon him by the writers isn't enough to make for it.

For the second time in 2013, a film completely wastes the talent of Sir Ben Kingsley. He brings his years of wisdom, and his trademark attitude to the role of Mazer Rackham, but he is not utilized as much as someone of his caliber should deserves. Once again, he does great in his role, but it's not hard to imagine someone lesser known could have done just as well.

Viola Davis is equally brilliant in her role, yet she too is criminally underused.

Hailee Steinfeld from True Grit features in the role of Petra Arkanian, and she does masterfully as well. I do appreciate that Hood chose not to take her in any obvious direction.

Once again, Andrew's Standout is the always welcome Harrison Ford. He portrays Colonel Graff with his usual gruff and angry demeanor but also with a paternal intuition. He adds humor when necessary, and his character may be the only one that stays true to their initial personality throughout the picture. Ford is consistent with who he is, yet shows off a wide range of emotions.

All in all, Ender's Game is a confusing mess that is only saved by it's proficient acting and decent special effects. I would skip the film and see something more stimulating.

C+