The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

What can I say? You may or may not have read my review on the first of the Hobbit trilogy -- An Unexpected Journey -- so I'll sum it up by saying that I went into it expecting a Lord of the Rings movie and was completely let down.

How does The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug compare to the first? Well damn, you'll just have to keep reading to find out.

The more thought I put into this, the less I find a review is even worth it. If I see a really good movie, I am very happy to talk about it with anyone who'll listen. And then it seems the more I talk about it, the more I love it. Forcing myself to discuss a movie I am unhappy with has an equal and opposite effect. I really want to enjoy these Hobbit movies, so reinforcing my disappointment by going over the flaws again and again isn't helping anyone.

To some extent, I learned my lesson after An Unexpected Journey. These movies are not The Lord of the Rings. They really want to be. And maybe if LOTR didn't exist, these would be really powerful, exciting, epic films. But they're all just a shallow half-hearted reminder that something better has already been made and, if your ass is in the theater, than that better something is likely in your DVD collection already.

This time around, I went into the theater with lower expectations. And that was a good move. Basically, everything wrong with the first movie had rippled through to the second. Yes, I read the book. But no, I am not such a hardcore Tolkien fan that I'll rant about every minute deviation from source. That being said, it was once again painfully obvious when the narrative when into uncharted territory. Characters and plot threads that were written in to add screen time have no purpose other than to say and do things that can warrant some flashy special effects work. And once again it is at the expense of any unified central narrative. I admit, Bilbo and the dwarves are finally expanded on, something that was painfully lacking in the first entry.

I think back now and can't seem to remember any of the dialogue from the film. You can tell what scenes the filmmakers thought were important and actually gave some attention to: Thranduil and Legolas interrogating an orc, and Bilbo talking to Smaug. Everything else was "let's throw in a few more shots of New Zealand here" and "wouldn't it be cool if the eye of Sauron showed up and just zoomed in and out of the screen for about ten full seconds?"

I did get to see the high frame rate version this time. And I will say that the headache-inducing visuals, like those from the first film, are made much more crisp and solid in 48fps. The IMAX 3D was pretty impressive. The scale -- especially of Smaug -- was accomplished very well. But again, no five consecutive minutes of the movie can be watched without an idiotic leap in logic, a contrived plot move, or a dumb (meant to be funny) look on Martin Freeman's face.

--------------------------------------------

Anyways...of course I will go see the third one next year. Because I am a sucker. I would like to hear from someone who really loved it and thought it was brilliant (as long as that same someone is more than ten years old). As I said, it makes me depressed to sit and reiterate the things I didn't like about a movie that I spent years anticipating. Now all I anticipate is the "Everything Wrong With..." video. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link to the first one.

P.S. Why the fuck are more of the orcs CGI? In the original trilogy there were orcs and Uruk-Hai. The Uruk-Hai were the bigger fiercer ones. And they were all played by humans in makeup. We got scenes like this:

Which, by the way, made us give a shit about the characters. In these films, the supposed orcs are all giant and white and fake as fuck. Are we finally at a point where it's cheaper to just digitize some bad guys instead of put some makeup on a guy? If that were the case, they could've saved half the movie budget if they had just removed the dwarves altogether.

The Wolverine

As I have been repeating for the past couple of months, the movies this summer were generally underwhelming. But in my boredom lately, I rented and watched two blockbuster summer films that I suspected would be worth my time, but perhaps not my money: The Wolverine and World War Z.

Unfortunately, this blog lacks a section for movies that are no longer in theaters, not underrated, and not necessarily bad. Then again, now that I think about it, I can tag this post with as many labels as I want, so what the hell, I'll just use a combination of categories.

First up: The Wolverine, Hugh Jackman's sixth -- but apparently far from last -- portrayal of the adamantium-clawed mutant.

I was planning on seeing this film in theaters when it came out. And then...I didn't.

Anyway, the convenient thing about watching a high-profile movie months after its release is the opportunity for a clean slate; having put the summer movie season behind me, I literally had no expectations going into this film. I'm learning that the key to enjoying a comic book movie is to not take it too seriously. I'm not sure when I started expecting every superhero to match Nolan's Batman, but I think it was around the same every studio and filmmaker tried to convince me that I should.

The Wolverine is a reminder that these movies are meant to be fun. Hugh Jackman -- who apparently never ages and seems to be in better shape than ever -- loves playing the ferocious but lovable Wolverine. He manages to expertly balance the character's intensity with his aggressive good humor (he's had plenty of practice) to the point where he is always exciting to watch. And in a film willing to hold back on the overly fantastical to focus more on one man's inner struggle, Jackman is really given room to explore the role in ways that somehow seem new, even after half a dozen appearances on the big screen. On top of that, the action is rarely over-the-top or gratuitous (for the genre), which sets this film apart from other 2013 tentpoles.

Overall, this movie is worth a viewing. If you are an avid fan of the X-Men films, I think The Wolverine, along with X-Men: First Class, mark a new era for the franchise(s) and hopefully herald a revival to the genre. As usual, I'm not saying this movie is flawless; but it is an immense improvement upon it's predecessor X-Men Origins: Wolverine and an indication that a full-length film can focus on a single mutant and not get boring.

Oh, and this movie cranks up the level of gore and mature language very effectively. I do not believe either of these things make a good movie, but the fact is you don't realize how silly a ruthless, foul-mouthed killing machine with razor claws is without some spraying blood and a few 'fuck yous' until you get just that. Hopefully future iterations of the character will have a similar level of violence.

Thor: The Dark World

Well, it's midterm season. And as usual, the only way I can cope with the stress is with an egregious amount of movies and television. As you'll see in the next couple of days, I have been busy the last two weeks. Not only with schoolwork, but also with my Netflix account and my movie theater.

The amount of movies -- on top of that stress I mentioned earlier -- has made it difficult for me to process everything I have been watching. Which means my reviews are not going to be particularly insightful (as if they ever were). On the plus side, they'll probably be a little bit shorter than usual.

First and foremost, yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing Thor: The Dark World. You know who's in it and what it's about, so I'll just get to it.

First off, let's ignore the fact that the poster reminds us of another movie...

Yea, this one

As alluded to by the posters above, I went into theaters wondering how this film would compare with Iron Man 3. By now, there is no reason for me to reiterate the issues Mark and I, and much of the Marvel fan community, had with IM3. However, being that it was the most recent Marvel studios film, and the first entry in the Phase 2 film line-up, I couldn't help but use it as a template for the Thor sequel.

That being said, I was very pleased with the latest adventures of the Asgardian prince. Unlike the Iron Man films, which rely solely on Robert Downey's Jr.'s witty banter, the Thor films have an entire cast of colorful and endearing characters. And what I enjoyed most about The Dark World is that, with the exception of the new bad guy and the absence of agent Coulson, the cast is unchanged from the first film. As a result, just about every character is taken to the next level, in terms of depth and personality. Even the nine realms, particularly Asgard, are explored to a greater degree. All of this effectively expanded and enriched the universe, which is exactly what a sequel is supposed to do. And because much of it took place off earth, it eluded those questions that plagued IM3 (such as, where are S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers during all this).

My biggest complaint is that the movie felt short and somewhat rushed. The villain was hardly explored, and the powerful weapon, which will apparently return in later films, was barely explained beyond its ability to destroy the universe.

This is not the best superhero movie out there. But I will say that it surpasses its predecessor, and is much less groan-inducing than this year's earlier superhero films. All of this to say that my excitement and curiosity for Marvel's Phase 2 have been reignited. If you enjoyed Thor, I think you will definitely enjoy  Thor: The Dark World.

12 Years a Slave

My efforts to make up for a lackluster year of movies with as many "awards season" films as possible are well under way. Last week, Mark and I brought you some thoughts on Gravity, and clearly we had quite an impact, because it has been steam-rolling the competition at the box office for the past couple of weeks. Mr. Clooney, Ms. Bullock, you're welcome.

Which brings us, or rather just me, to another notable October release, 12 Years A Slave. This year has been pretty strong on the African (-American) history flicks, with Lee Daniels' The Butler receiving a lot of attention, and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom set to hit theaters before the year is out. Though, truthfully, I saw this movie for one reason, and one reason only: Michael Fassbender.

That's not entirely true; but I do love that guy. And if actors are the reason you go to the movies, I can tell you 12 Years a Slave features a lot of them: in addition to Magneto, there's Metro Man, the Rhino, Khan, Omar Little, and that guy who gets beaten to death with a bowling pin in There Will Be Blood...Oh I'm sorry, I can't seem to get into art-house mode. I meant that alongside Fassbender, there's Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti, Benedict Cumberbatch...um, Chalky White, and...that guy who gets tortured and killed in Looper. Seriously though, Paul Dano is a talented actor, but he always plays a sniveling weasel that other actors get to hit. (And if my nods to The Wire and Boardwalk Empire aren't clear enough, that's Michael K. Williams I am referencing.)

Also, you don't have to point out that this movie is about slaves, but all of the names I mentioned belong to white actors. It's not because I am a racist. In fact, I, too, found the cast a bit imbalanced. I'm sure it says something about either the studio and its expectations for the film's reception, or the director's interpretation of the dehumanizing anonymity that the institution of slavery inflicts on history through the use of unfamiliar black actors. Or something.

Anyways, can I just review the fucking movie now?

It should not really come as a surprise that Michael Fassbender found his way into this film. Two of director Steve McQueen's (no, not the one that died in 1980) previous projects -- Hunger and Shame -- have featured the versatile actor. This time around, thanks to Brad Pitt's production company, we can now say that the number of words in a McQueen title is directly proportional to the film's budget, since, as I mentioned, this film is loaded with familiar, albeit pale, faces.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup, a happy family man living in New York in the 1840s, who is kidnapped and forced into slavery. At first Solomon tries to maintain his identity and dignity, but he slowly succumbs to the realities of slavery. Even his name is stripped from him, and he becomes simply Pratt. I'm going to spoil the end right now, but I don't think it's a big deal, and you'll see why. Solomon makes it back to his family. Boom. Cat's out of the bag. Anyways, what becomes more and more obvious and unsettling as time goes by after leaving the theater, is that this happy ending is meaningless. This free man was kidnapped and enslaved, and that's unjust. But during his time in the South, we, the viewers, witnessed the horror of slavery in all of its forms. And when Solomon escapes and regains his freedom, it almost seems unfair. He leaves the others behind, left to die, nameless, in a system that has been around for centuries and will linger for another couple of decades. There is nothing particularly special about Solomon our protagonist, other than the fact that something unfair happened to him, and in the end, his situation was righted. And so we're left wondering -- only to realize that we know clearly enough -- the fate of Pratt's contemporaries.

The strengths and weaknesses of this film are kind of the same. We are introduced to each antebellum southern male archetype: the benevolent patriarch who cares for his slaves, the brutal and pitiful plantation owner who justifies his actions with whiskey and the word of God, the abolitionist, and an array of overseers. While it makes sense to offer these extremes, in terms of the narrative, and the trials of Solomon, it tends to walk the line between character and caricature, reminiscent of that other popular slave film, Django Unchained. On a separate, some of the dialogue delivery was a little wobbly, and it felt like high school students reciting half-memorized Shakespearian verses. Likewise, it seemed a bit forceful whenever a character would wax poetic on a core theme of the film, like slavery, freedom, equality, etc. The audience has the right and the intellect to walk away with their own opinions; and for a film where the subject matter is made so vivid and unrelenting, having the characters repeat the themes verbally is unnecessary.

Overall, it is a powerful movie, full of memorable performances. Mark read a review comparing it to Schindler's List, which, subsequently, is the expectation I had going in. In a way, I agree that the honest and straightforward approach to slavery is similar to Spielberg's vision of the holocaust. There is no glorifying of anything, not even the protagonist. And when the protagonist "wins/gets away/saves lives", no one really wins. Only see this movie if you are ready to be force-fed some cold, hard truth. If you leave the theater feeling a little queasy, it's not that month-old nacho cheese you just devoured, it's your guilt as a human being.

Gravity

Now that Mark has a full-time job, and I am, once again, a full-time student, it looks like these blog posts are going to grow increasing infrequent. There's really nothing we can do about that. But we are going to keep it going nonetheless.

Today we talk about Gravity, a film currently in theaters, starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It seems sci-fi is back in style these days, and this entry seems like the formal invitation to a new era of the genre; once again humanity is at a juncture where the window between reality and science fiction (and breakthrough filmmaking techniques) is as transparent as ever, and Cuaron is obliged to shove our faces through it for a look at the other side.

(I'm not sure if I just made a metaphor or something. My point is, watch out for broken glass. Just kidding, it's actually that there are no screens on the windows at Alfonso Cuaron's house. ...Hey, here's a review for Gravity. Enjoy.)

Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. Let’s see if I remember how to do this. So I just saw Gravity, in 3D, in theaters. And that’s really the only way to see it I think. It’s one of those movies where the 3D plays a role in building the world we’re thrown into (or out of). And that is one aspect in which this films holds nothing back. They clearly set out with an idea of what they wanted to do, and they went and did it as perfectly (and accurately) as possible. I’m not saying the movie was flawless; don’t get me wrong. But the detail that went into the parts that were done well was pretty seamless.

Mark:  Gotta agree with you completely. I was blown away by the depth that the 3D brought to the movie.  This is one of the cases where the 3D immerses you in the environment; it’s not just going for gimmicky shots of things flying towards you, but rather to make you feel like you’re floating around in space with the characters.  And damn, Cuaron really makes the most of it, especially in those first 15 minutes, effortlessly moving you around the ship.  Did you know that was all one take?  Makes it all the more impressive to me.

Dylan: Well, it depends on what you mean by one take? Much of that scene was just faces added into an entirely CGI render. Or at least that’s what it seemed like. But the fluidity of it all was very impressive. And in response to what you consider 'gimmicky' 3D, I argue that a lot of times the 3D effect are very purposefully gimmicky. For example, in every single scene of Bullock inside of a ship there was a pen floating past her face. Did she take the pen along with her? Why did the American, Russian, and then Chinese crafts all have the same pen drifting around the cockpit? (Maybe it was a 2001 reference.) Anyways, there was also the water and the fire and what not. But the thing is, while these are here EXACTLY for gimmicky purposes, they still work to illustrate the physics and chemistry of this bizarre and unnatural setting, which is perfectly juxtaposed at the end when we return to Earth and everything is somehow familiar but also foreign.

Mark: Alright, let me clarify my two points.  By one take, I mean that there was no editing, no jumping from person to person when they speak, or to another area around the ship.  The camera floats, as if in space, all around the immediate environment.  yes it was all on green screen and whatnot, but never once does it edit.  For me it helped draw me in to the world so much more.  And as for gimmicky, I meant like the only times 3D is being used is for things to fly at the camera.  And things do, like the pen, or water droplets, or rocketing satellite debris, but it's to add tension or for the purpose of making us feel more involved in this world.  I think the one time they really did it is when Clooney’s character let go of something and reached out to grab it.  But that was really it.  But no matter what issue or problem there might have been with a moment in the film, the pace that it kept throughout, with the tension never giving up from the moment it started, made sure I was always enthralled.  That and the absolutely gorgeous visuals.  

Dylan: That’s what I really loved about it. First of all, from a physicist’s perspective, you know I would go into this thing analyzing every detail. The title was a challenge for me. And I haven’t seen that much detail go into outer space since 2001, and that was done fifty years ago. In fact, I would have left just left out the introduction in the beginning about how nothing can survive in space. It's the 21st century; hopefully we are all aware of this fact by now. The visuals were incredible, and, as Clooney’s character occasionally states outright, the horror of space and the astonishing beauty are one in the same. It’s an uninhabitable hell, and yet you can’t help but envy the view. The scenes of moving debris were phenomenal. 

The only thing I found a little annoying was the first person perspective inside Bullock’s helmet, specifically when she’s spinning or breathing heavy enough to fog up the window. I’m not entirely against the idea, but there were a few shots that went on just long enough to make me look away from the screen, a little dizzy. I understand that we are being immersed in her reality, but if it forces you to look away, it’s forcing you back OUT of that reality. So that’s my main complaint. The other uses of first person -- climbing along the outside of the ship, trying to escape debris, etc. -- were really cool.

Mark: I didn’t have as much difficulty with those scenes, but I can see where you’re coming from.  They really play the disoriented feeling of what she’s going through, which is perfect, but I can see it being a little too perfect.  And the other thing that I loved about how this movie progresses is how it’s really quite terrifying, but it’s not trying to be a horror movie or anything.  The fear comes from how real it all is; that something like this could happen.  That in space, the smallest mistake or failure is so much worse.  And those moments when Bullock’s character is moving as fast as she can, trying to figure how to continue, you know that time is running out. And this is when things become truly terrifying: the lack of sound.  We all know that there is no sound in space, but this movie plays it perfectly.  There is a scene when she is working to open a hatch, and we see that debris is flying past, but she doesn’t know.  There’s nothing to alert her.  And we’re stuck in this tension; will she get it?  Will she get hit?  Knocked off?  And that pulls you in more.  And because no sound is there to add effect, the score pulls double duty, and holy shit does it create a whole other level to the tension.

Dylan: Yea, the score really was well done. Very subtle; nothing distracting. I’m not sure what the casualty report is for people in space. How many astronauts have had to deal with untethered slingshotting through space? I can’t think of any disasters like that. And this one is a real doozy. Russia fires a missile at one of their own satellites, but they do a shitty job, and cause a chain reaction that seems to destroy every other satellite in orbit, creating a massive debris field. This is a pretty catastrophic situation that sounds like it’s going to affect most of humanity. I’m kind of curious what’s going on on the ground during all this. But yea, I guess the drama in space is interesting too hah. Anyways, my point is, unless something goes really, really incredibly wrong, situations like this hopefully do not happen. Which is why, having seen this movie, I am more interested than ever in going into space; I think it would be awesome. But, maybe that’s not what I was supposed to take away from it all.

Mark: Yeah, because I was feeling less than interested at going into space after seeing this.  And I was thinking that everyone on earth was seeing absolutely nothing.  Based on what was happening, they had to be totally communication blackout, since most satellites were gone.  But that’s not the story here.  As for our leads, I have to say I was really surprised by Sandra Bullock.  I always thought she was an alright actress, better with comedy than drama, but she totally owned this role.  For the most part, it’s all on her, and she carries really well.  And Clooney was, well, he was Clooney, but damn he does that well.  It’s not very often that you get a movie that’s very much original, heavy, with spectacular CGI, that’s carried by a single person.  And I just realized that Life of Pi was that in a way, but I would consider this so much more than just a pretty movie.  All of its parts are great, and together it’s damn near brilliant.

Dylan: You said it on the acting. I’ve never been a fan of Clooney or Bullock. But while Clooney seems to play the same character in every movie, I am starting to fall for his charm. Bullock I have even less respect for, but she seems to be reworking her career in a very good way. Also, I did not see Life of Pi. But since you brought it up, what are your thoughts on Gravity’s possible performance come Oscar time? It definitely excels in a number of categories, not just effects. And it’s also impressively dominating the box office these past two weeks.

Mark: I was thinking about that, and honestly, the way that this is both a critical and commercial success, I can see it going up for a lot.  While there will be competition, this will be the frontrunner for most if not all the technical awards.  I think that the score was as important to this movie as the CGI, so that’ll probably get some love.  And on the major side, I would love to see Cuaron go up for directing.  He’s always done well, but this is doing so well that I can’t imagine they’ll ignore him.  And really, I think Bullock deserves at least a nomination.  This is all her.  And like I said, she carries it well.  What about you?

Dylan: The reason I ask you is because you’re much more in tune with the awards season drama than I am. I usually don’t even see the major contenders until the following year. But since so much of 2013 has been pretty crappy in the movie department, I am trying to stay interested on developments over the next couple months. Thinking back, this may be my favorite movie of the year so far. Certainly the most original. But who knows what the 'academy' will think.

Mark:  One behind-the-scenes thing I found interesting, which you may not be aware of, is how much Cuaron had to fight to keep his vision of this film.  The executives wanted a male lead as well as a love interest.  I believe the love interest came into play more once Cuaron wouldn’t give in and kept his female lead.  It was just interesting thinking how different this could have been.  Do you think it would have changed how you viewed this movie if the executives won out?

Dylan: I’m going to say yes. Only because it became excruciatingly obvious to me the point the director was trying to make with a female lead, specifically at the very end when Bullock stood up, and the camera, level with her ankles, panned up to show her sculpted, heroic body fresh out of the water. The survivor. The heroine. It reminded me of Ellen Ripley, but that’s probably because I kept thinking of the tagline “In space no one can hear you scream” from Alien. But yes, I think it made a difference having a woman. And I did not have a problem with it. 

Mark: I agree completely, and I also got the Ellen Ripley vibe from her, and from the whole movie. And it worked perfectly.

----------------------------------------------------

And there it is, kids. Go see Gravity. It is one of the best movies of the year, and possibly one of the most original films of the past couple of decades -- especially in the science fiction department -- not just because of the story and subject matter, but because of its manipulation of modern filming techniques to present a story in a way we haven't really seen before (fuck Avatar). On top of that, as we discussed, it will resonate not just with critics, but with audiences as well. And I think this film is going to be remembered as a turning point in filmmaking and storytelling on many levels.

Elysium

Reviewer: Mad Mark

So I will be the first to admit, I am not a huge fan of most of District 9.  Now hold on, put down that pitchfork and napalm, there were a bunch of things throughout that movie I liked about it.  How seamlessly he blended the fiction with reality through story and CG, as well as the stellar first and second acts.  I really enjoyed the documentary style of the beginning, and I was still engaged when Wickus was on the run.  But when people started exploding and it kinda lost itself in the violence, I was lost.  So all this rambling sums up my interest in Elysium: interested but very wary.  From what I’d seen, Elysium was more action and excitement, so I was conflicted about it.  But still I found myself in the theater.  So I hoped this would have that action, but blended better with the politics and story.

Oh how hopelessly naive of me.

Man, the next Wii is intense.

First off let me say that this is by no means a bad movie.  There is a lot here, much like District 9 for me, that was done right.  And then there were a lot of places where it misstepped and cracked it’s skull open.  And then exploded.  I guess, on the highest level, this story was incredibly predictable and straightforward.  Things happened obviously without skipping a beat.  Things happened conveniently for Max (Matt Damon) throughout the movie.  Not always good, what with the whole lethal blast of radiation after we watch as his life as an ex-con trying to go straight proves difficult in an unforgiving world, but still, everything lead into each other without any turn.  And any pretense for a “twist” was shown and obviously set up a few scenes prior.  But what of the political messages and social commentary, cry the voices in my head?  They’re there.  Right there, on the surface for all to see.  And that’s where they stay.  Oh so the 1% sit in space while the 99% survive in squalor, forced to look up at what life could be, fully knowing that they’ll never reach it?  Yep, don’t expect it any deeper than that.  Headlines from recent newspapers are lifted and given a sci-fi tune up and then thrown in.  Medicare?  Machines that heal literally anything, but only the 1% can use them.  Why?  Cause the 1% are dicks, as it seems on Elysium.  Immigration laws?  Jodi Foster blows illegals out of the sky if they try to make it to Elysium, but then this is seen as a tad, shall we say, brutal.

Speaking of Jodi Foster, that was one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen from her.  It was bland and uninterested from the word go.  And she puts on an accent that can’t be placed, and while you can use the logic defying statement of “it’s the future”, no one else has it.  She’s a cardboard cutout; no depth or complexity.  That really goes for everyone.  Damon gives Max some emotional depth, but he gets to concerned or angry and flips between the two.  Sharlto Copley returns as Kruger, the psychotic agent of Foster’s Minister of Defense, who plays evil like it’s the only song on the jukebox and it’s free song night.  He’s entertaining to start, with his wild abandon style of murdering, but soon it just becomes grating, since there’s nothing else he can do.  And there are moments when there seems to be something else to him, but then he kills that and keeps killing and shouting and killing.  And let me bring up the love interest/plot progressor Frey (a bland Alice Braga).  There, I brought her up, which is about what they did with her in the movie.  I honestly forgot she was in the movie for stretches because she felt so irrelevant until she was used to move Max along.  There are a plethora of side characters, but each is as forgettable as the last, so lets not waste anymore of your time.

And then there was the violence.  I have no problem with violence, as long as it serves a purpose.  Wanton violence does nothing but diminish the impact of the story and this movie reveled in it’s violence.  Or to be more specific, reveled in the explosions.  Honestly, Neill Blomkamp is the artsy, more refined clone of Michael Bay.  Now before anyone thinks I’m giving Michael Bay some praise or something, let me explain.  Almost every death happens via some variation of explosion.  Almost always, as well, in slow motion.  Making us really watch as the futuristic tech does it’s thing and then explode.  And of course the violence is on the level of Drive, in that Neill pulls no punches.  When one characters face blows off, we watch it break into bloody pieces.  And then later watch the medicare machines rebuild it, healing that elevated case of tension, much to my chagrin.  It’s only to look again at the violence and carnage.  And the final climactic fight between Max and Kruger?  It’s an over edited mess; I couldn’t make heads or tails as to who was hitting who until we stopped to show them standing apart before diving back at each other.  And guess how it ends?  If you can’t, go see this movie.  At least you’ll be surprised.

And then it ends as predictably, as explained earlier in the third act.  Just with some emotional baggage that feels weightless when we realize how little was given to the building of the relationship between Max and Frey.  Oh there were flashbacks as them as kids, but not nearly enough to make me care about the choices he was making for her.  And then we end.  And here I am now, mouthing off like a know a damn about this.  But in my opinion, as this is all it is, the movie was good.  It has a lot of faults, some very glaring and others just subtle ones the bugged throughout.  But it was still an absolutely gorgeous film with some stunning set pieces.  This was a technically brilliant film.  It’s just a shame that the story and acting can’t even reach that same height.

Only God Forgives

I'm a movie critic. And not even a professional one. I do this because I like movies and have seen a lot of them. If you asked me to make a movie, I'd probably make a pretty shitty one. Knowing what goes into a good movie does not qualify me to make my own, just as knowing what goes into a delicious meal does not enable me to cook one. There's a critic for just about everything. I know art when I see it, though I can't always say what's significant about it and whether or not it has any value. Or, for that matter, who it has value to.

This is a review for Only God Forgives. Mark and I have been looking forward to this one pretty much since it was announced. It is Nicolas Winding Refn's first film following Drive, and also happens to star Ryan Gosling. It is our consensus that Drive was pretty damn good, so we had high expectations going into this one.

I'm going to make this review short and sweet, because the more I think about this movie, the more frustrated I get. Take a good look at that poster up there. Get a feel for the colors. It's trippy, it's different, it's cool. Now watch this trailer for the movie:

Pretty badass. More humorless, ass-kicking Gosling. That's a plus. An intense and formidable bad guy. Check. A stylish and exotic backdrop. Got it. But before you find yourself dishing out money at the box office, let me just say that whatever movie you put together in your mind after looking at that poster and watching that trailer...it's better than Only God Forgives. The poster tells you everything you need to know about the style; every visual is draped in dark neon colors. And Ryan Gosling is essentially his character from Drive; he just kind of stands there until it's time to beat something to death.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that he does very little death beating this time around. After his psycho brother does some psycho things for some psycho reasons that are never revealed, and gets himself killed, Gosling's character Julian is tasked by his mother to find and eliminate his killer. As you can imagine, things pretty much go straight downhill from there.

When going into a film directed by Refn, it is best to leave your expectations at the ticket booth. His films seem to dance on the border between fantasy and reality, structured storytelling and lucid stream of consciousness; Bronson and Drive are relatively straightforward, albeit very odd, but Valhalla Rising just baffles me. And it's with the latter that I would pair Only God Forgives. The pacing of this movie is all over the place; we'll get a chase scene through the dark, neon streets of Bangkok followed by six minutes of Gosling staring at a stripper and sort of touching himself. We are never really told who is who, or why things are happening. I inadvertently found myself pretending that Gosling's Julian was the same character from Drive, in the events following his flee from Los Angeles. At least that way I felt compelled to see his story through to the end.

If this movie is a puzzle to be sorted and pieced together before the big beautiful picture can be taken in, then I think maybe some of the pieces are upside down, and maybe others have been chewed on by the dog. My point is, I just can't seem to wrap my mind around what this film is about and what it's telling me.

That bit I wrote in the beginning about art and criticism is my disclaimer. Everyone has their breaking point when it comes to tolerating and even appreciating artistic film-making. Mark and I have walked this line in the past, on movies like Holy Motors and Brick. For me, Only God Forgives was just too far out there. Every film is a work of art. But the thing about art is that it rarely has mass appeal, and it usually baffles people. I can't say this film is a masterpiece, and I can't say it's shit. Maybe that's for other critics and filmmakers to decide. But for the (possibly above) average moviegoer, such as myself, it was not very enjoyable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to comment with your interpretation of the film, or just what you thought of it. Unfortunately, not being in wide release, I doubt many people are going to see this one until it comes out on Netflix or something. At any rate, I would love to know if anyone else got more out of it than I did.

Monsters University

I have had enough with the sequels and the reboots. This entire summer has been one uninspired rehash after another, across pretty much the entire spectrum of genres. Granted, earlier this week, Mark and I discussed Pacific Rim, possibly the most original big-budget movie of the season. Oh, who am I kidding? It is unquestionably the most original. However, in that same post, I point out that, at the box office, Pacific Rim somehow placed third after two sequels, neither of which really had any reason to be made.

To some extent, we really didn't need this sequel (prequel, technically) to Pixar's hit Monster's Inc. Pixar seems to be struggling with coming up with original ideas these past few years, with uninspired movies like Cars 2 and Brave. But who can blame them when they're competing with at least two Dreamworks movies a year and, nowadays, heavy competition from other animation studios? Naturally, they want to stick with what they know.

Let me get to the point: I saw Monsters University the other day.

Viewer: Dylan Duck

Time Elapsed Since Release: Almost a month

Like I said before, this movie probably doesn't need to exist. However, Monsters Inc. was one of the better titles in what I consider the first generation of Pixar films, and I was excited to revisit the world of the monsters with Mike and Sully. I should also mention that, much like Andy's struggle to put his childhood behind him in Toy Story 3 struck a chord with me a few years ago, the cartoon re-imagining of college life, fraternities, etc. featured here is what really got me into the theater.

So here we have an origin story of sorts of the special bond between Mike and Sully. At college the two of them are the complete opposite; they immediately resent each other, but are put into a situation where they have to trust each other and work together in order to become professional scarers at Monsters Inc. It's not vital to have seen Monsters Inc. before seeing this movie, though it would help explain some of the jokes and allusions to future relationships that this picture is full of. In this way, Monsters University has a solid stand-alone story, but certainly works to enrich its world and the characters that you probably already know and love.

Much to my satisfaction, the film also does a pretty good job satirizing the most memorable aspects of college life: dorm life, classwork, professors, crappy food, a variety of inane clubs, and most of all, the social life. What the movie, being a sequel, inherently lacks in originality, it makes up for in its boldness to center around subject matter more applicable to college students and adults. I found myself chuckling at the many tongue-in-cheek references that had to be softened just enough to appeal to younger audiences, and I was never disappointed that the joke couldn't go all the way. For example, we never actually saw the characters drinking at the frat house, but there was a quick beer pong scene as well as several shots of solo cups littering the floor. It's refreshing to get a college movie that doesn't rely on fart jokes and gratuitous nudity to get a laugh.

Now onto my complaints, of which there are only two. One pertains to the relatively predictable plot and two-dimensional characters. These past three years Pixar has been testing my patience with shallow, unoriginal productions. Before all that, we had Wall-e, Up, and Toy Story 3 -- three films that were equal parts childhood fantasy and emotional roller coaster -- one right after another. And so there I can't shake this expectation for a deep, heartfelt film. While it is enjoyable to watch the bond form between two lifelong friends, the emotional element of the film leaves a bit to be desired.

My other complaint is with the ending. This is kind of a spoiler, but since it doesn't have very much importance to the rest of the movie, I'm going to mention it anyway. In the end, Mike and Sully get expelled before their first year is over. A montage during the credits explains how they go on to work at Monsters Inc. and eventually become scarers. It seems strange to me that the moral of the story is: 'even if you are a talented and dedicated student, you may realize that your dreams are unrealistic and unattainable. So...do something else. Work in a mail room, or become a janitor.' I'm not sure I want my kids taking that away from this film. But hey, maybe that's just how I, a 20 something college grad understood it. Maybe it's different from the perspective of someone younger.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie. What other animated films are out there right now? Despicable Me 2; I saw the first one, but didn't really get it. Turbo; I guess talking snails are all the rage this summer (see: Monsters University and Epic), but no thank you, Ryan Reynolds. So if you're looking for something different this weekend, I can't really promise Monsters University isn't something you've seen before. But if you enjoyed the original, I would recommend it. The voice acting is very good, the story is decent, and the animation, as always, is impressive.

Pacific Rim

Mark and I saw Pacific Rim on Friday, but in my laziness I have not posted this discussion about it until today. However, this does allow me to see how the movie performed over the weekend, in case that pertains to our talk. In this case I think it does. It's true that this has been the summer of blockbuster let-downs. A lot of high-profile titles that have left people scratching their heads as to what was the point. However, this past weekend, we got a movie that is not a reboot or a remake of any kind.

And how did this movie fare? It came in third at the box office. A fact that wouldn't be as painful if the first and second slots weren't held by Despicable Me 2 and Grown-Ups 2. There is zero originality left in Hollywood, but I guess that's exactly what the average movie goer wants. Every Adam Sandler movie in the past decade has been an enormous disappointment, and yet people still pay to see him act like a handicapped child. Thank you, America, for proving that you really are as dumb and tasteless as everyone assumes.

Too much? Well, if you're still reading, maybe you agree with me.

Viewers: Us, though we did not sit in the back row
Time Elapsed Since Release: 0 hours

Dylan: It’s refreshing to have a big budget apocalypse/future movie that doesn’t in some way feature New York being destroyed. From that alone, I say this movie is pretty original.

Mark: And damn does Del Toro make those destroyed buildings look pretty when they come down.  Well, this whole movie is damn pretty.

Dylan: As the title indicates, we’re dealing with the Pacific Ocean and the surrounding lands. Which for some reason took me a while to realize. Giant beasts come out of the ocean and start wreaking havoc wherever they can, which ends up being places like San Francisco, Manila, and Hong Kong. And the whole time I was thinking “wow, we might actually be safe from this one. That’s different.”

But yea, I thought the sets were fantastic. The Hong Kong scenes were just magnificent. The scale worked, the CGI worked. One thing I have been thinking about is the camera work. This is the kind of movie where you want to see the action. But the action is so big, how does the filmmaker go about showing it? If you’re too zoomed in, you can’t tell what’s going on and it’s just stuff moving and blowing up, ala the Transformers trilogy. But if you’re zoomed too far out, you don’t really get the sense of how huge these things are and the creatures and buildings just look like models. In the end I was really impressed by del Toro’s blending of the two so that we saw plenty of the action in panoramic, but also got plenty of street-level perspective as buildings came down and cars and trains and boats and bridges and what not were tossed around.

Mark: Yeah I was so thaknful that this didn’t turn into one of the other summer blockbusters in which the filmmaker thinks we need to be right up in the action where we can’t even figure out who’s thrown the punch or whatever, like Man of Steel.  Instead we sit back and take in all of the giant robots and monsters duking it out in the ocean or city.  And what blew my mind was that when they’re in the city, surrounded by building, it never felt cluttered.  Nothing was ever blocked off by some debris.  We never lost sight of them, and the action stayed as frenetic as it was in the ocean, albeit slow cause we are talking about massive things here.

And on that, what I love the most is that the Jaeger’s and Kaiju all have this tremendous sense of weight to them.  in Transformers, they were jumping around and flipping and shit like they weighed nothing.  But here, we watch how long it takes for them to wind up a punch, and then cutting back to the pilots made it even clearer.  It made it all feel so much more realistic, but never lost that sense of fantasy.

Dylan: I wouldn’t be a good little physics student if I didn’t say that this movies takes some liberties with the unforgivable laws of motion and gravity. That being said, I agree that it honors just enough to make the action tolerable. There were a few moments that I found annoying. Like how the Jaegar can be carried by a half a dozen helicopters when it’s the size and mass of a skyscraper. But overall, I found it pretty believable.

My other comment is how amazing the detail is. The sets were gorgeous. But I’m talking specifically about the Jaegars and the Kaiju. I loved that each Kaiju was a little different. And each one sort of had a perk. As they got harder to fight, they had more abilities, from wings, to acid spit to the ability to emit an electromagnetic pulse. And each one looked completely unique from the others and from any other monster we’ve seen on the big screen before. Del Toro has always had an interesting eye for weird creatures, and he really gets to play with that here.

Mark: And what I like, too, is that even on such a massive scale you really see the details on everything.  And I don’t mean just the Jaegers and Kaiju, but the cities too.  The neon lights in downtown Hong Kong shining off the wet streets and Jaegers, creating this almost dreamlike quality.  But then the gritty aspects after you see everything destroyed.  There’s a scene with the aftermath of a Kaiju attack, and it could have easily just all been CGI, but it’s a real set and that gives more realism to it.  Not to say the CGI doesn’t feel real, because it does.  But I think we’ve established how amazing it looks.  How’d you like the story?  And the characters?

Dylan: I was about to get to that. I thought the characters were kind of lame and cliche. Now, I can’t really complain, because this movie delivered exactly what it advertised: giant monsters fighting giant robots. But I thought Jax from Sons of Anarchy was just playing the same character. And the emotion just seemed so out of place in this movie. Whenever Mori had an emotional moment with either Jax or Stringer Bell, people in the theater with me just laughed because it seemed kind of contrived. The human drama was there, but didn’t really need to be. I thought the father-son dynamic of the Australian team was kind of interesting and I sort wanted to know more about the Marshal's past.

Mark: Well luckily Del Toro wants to expand this universe, so we might get a prequel of the early days or something along those lines.  But, i’ll agree that most of the characters were one-note, but on one level, that’s all they needed to be.  The human element needed to be there, but this was the right amount.  If the movie got too emotional or dramatic, it would detract from the monster fighting.  But I thought, if anything, they struck a good chord with the serious characters and comedic characters.  I enjoyed the science team; I thought they played off each other well and helped to break what could have been a overly consistent dark tone.  Cause you can’t have a super serious tone with monsters v. robots, it would feel too disjointed.  And as always, Ron Perlman was just fantastic.  But just to say, I thought Charlie Hunnam (Jax) was surprisingly upbeat for most of it.  Aside from the seriousness of the battles, he always kept a smile, to balance everyone else.  I found it remarkably refreshing to have a lead who wasn’t either insufferably smug (Kirk from Star Trek or Tony Stark) or fairly depressing (Superman).

And I thought the story was good.  Cliched at points, though it played with the cliches so it didn’t feel as obvious.  And if you pay attention, you’ll see where things are going very early on.  But it was the opening that set the stage for this whole movie, and I thought it was just brilliant.

Dylan: Yea the opening scenes brought us right into the action and showed us just what we had to look forward to for the rest of the movie. I’d like to see a sequel (or prequel) with a little more humanity in it; better dialogue, more interesting characters. I know that’s asking a lot these days, but just as the weight and scale of the Jaegars added to their believability, some more three dimensional character would definitely add some credibility to the entire film. Yes, I want to see giant robots smashing ships over giant monsters' heads, but it would help if I cared at all about the tens of thousands of people dying every time one of these battles takes place.

Mark: Yeah, hopefully this does well enough that they’ll go on and expand it, and with that Del Toro will know that he’s definitely not lacking in the action but just needs to bump up the character depth.  But even saying that, this movie deserves to be seen.  It’s damn fun, looks amazing, and is something original in a summer that’s been drowning in remakes, sequels, and reboots.  It’s giving us something new, which for the first time gave me some tension while watching.  Cause I didn’t know who might be killed.  Instead of Star Trek where none of the leads were ever really in danger or Man of Steel where obviously Lois or Perry isn’t going to die, this brings back those old days of being held in suspense of what’ll happen to the characters.  So go see it damn it!

Dylan: Yea, I don’t usually say this, but I kind of wish I had seen it in Imax 3D. I just felt like the screen was too small. I would go see it again. But I doubt I’ll get the chance. The color-scheme, scale, cinematography, everything is just begging to be seen in high definition. So I would definitely recommend a viewing in one form or another.

Mark: Yeah, I’d see it again, and try to get to at least an Imax, cause damn, it would look amazing on that.  Best summer blockbuster this year.  By far.

-------------------

UPDATE...

Dylan: So I went back and saw this bad boy in IMAX 3D. You may know already that I don't really care for 3D; I find that even when the filmmakers and studio promise that the 3D looks better than the 2D, it usually muddles the visuals and just costs more to see. (Also, up until recently, I had to wear prescription glasses underneath the 3D glasses, which was just humiliating.) But Pacific Rim is probably the first film I have ever seen in 2D and thought to myself "wow, I need to see this on a bigger screen." So I gave it a whirl and, holy shit, did it look magnificent. I remember I saw Avatar in 3D. That's about all it was good for. But Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D is an entirely new experience. It is never gimmicky at all (nothing flying at the screen). It serves only to make the beautiful destruction so much more visceral and mind blowing. If you haven't seen this movie yet, and, box office statistics from the past few weeks suggest that you probably haven't, I highly recommend that you see the movie in this format. You will not regret it.

Man of Steel

Mark and I saw Man of Steel in theaters this past weekend. It's a pretty low budget indie film that you may have not heard of. Especially in this season of over-the-top blockbuster superhero movies. It is a coming of age story of a boy from a broken family struggling with his identity, in a cruel world.

Viewer(s): Both of us

Time Elapsed Since Release: 10 days or so

Dylan: Finally a dual review for a theatrical release. You know, I should really apologize to our readers. I had predicted a month or two ago that this would be a big summer for movies and that we’d be seeing and writing about a lot of them. That hasn’t really been the case. But don’t blame us, blame Hollywood; it has sort of turned out to be a crappy season for movies, as you may have learned from our Iron Man 3 and Star Trek into Darkness reviews. Or better yet, maybe you went and saw some of them yourself.

Dylan: So today we’re looking at Man of Steel. Man, I’m really getting tired of these moniker titles. Since everything is constantly getting rebooted, I guess they think it’s cooler to either use a hero’s epithet, or the original comic title. The AMAZING Spider-Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, The Wolverine, The First Avenger, etc. As if a more elaborate name means a better movie. It’s already overdone. But anyways, Man of Steel is the new Superman movie, duh. And we try to determine if it lives up to all the hype.

Mark:  You know we’re off to a good start with a review when the first gripe that’s brought up is the title.  Which I agree that making the title Man of Steel is just latching onto the trend that all of the movies are going with.  Which Nolan kinda started, but it reflects the gritty reboot process that everyone is doing.  And they really work for the gritty in this.  Sometimes it works to add tension and build the setting, but other times it takes things to much darker places than we’re used to with Superman.

Dylan: You might be right. I guess I don’t really know the other Superman films that well. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the original Christopher Reeve movie at least once from beginning to end. But one thing I can’t really agree on is when people say that this is a more realistic take on Superman. They compare it to what the Dark Knight trilogy does for Batman, which is bullshit. Sure, the movie is incredibly long, and modern special effects allow us to see more outer space and alien tech and what not. But it’s no more grounded in reality than any other Superman movie. And a lot of the plot devices call back to the cheesiness that we’re all familiar with. I was praying there wouldn’t be a scene in which Superman puts on a pair of glasses and suddenly is unrecognizable. But of course it happened. The whole idea of Superman is inescapably silly, no matter how much Nolan gets to toy with the script.

Mark: Well it’s certainly darker than the original Superman movies, which had more of an emphasis on an awkward Clark Kent and his banter with Lois, and obviously since they didn’t have the technology, the action was fairly limited.

Dylan: There was plenty of banter this time around...

Mark: Well when I say banter, I mean between Lois and Clark that created the initial chemistry that would grow between them.  And on how out of place Clark acts in the big city, how he acts so timid with Lois to hide his identity.  Goyer doesn’t do banter, not with this movie.  They just talk and try really hard to make me think there’s chemistry there.

As for the darker tone, I really just put it in with all the destruction and death that comes from Zod and his plan concerning Earth and all the humans.  It’s not like with Batman, where we focus on how corrupt and horrible Gotham is once you peel back the rich aristocracy that Bruce is from.  And we watch him descend into the underworld to fight it.  The world is big and bright in Man of Steel and suddenly goes ridiculously dark in the third act.  Though it did look really fucking good.

Dylan: So you think there should have been more banter, is that what you're saying? Becaues I agree. Instead, Lois and Superman pretty much fall in love just because that's what we expect them to do. And that's that. Also, didn’t Superman end in Lois dying (temporarily), or was that the second one? Just curious.

Mark: That was the first one.  But then he flew around the world really, really, really fast and turned back time, allowing him to save Lois and stop Lex from even firing the nukes.

Dylan: Haha, right. Well that’s kind of dark. And the physics and logic of this movie are only slightly more respectful to human intelligence than they were back then. I’d like to give some examples but I don’t want to spoil anything. I’m thinking of when Superman goes to destroy that machine. It’s Kryptonian so it weakens Superman (which, by the way, pissed me off. I had read that there wouldn’t be any Kryptonite because the writers thought it was too much of a cop-out. So they say that the alien crafts and shit have a ‘Kryptonian atmosphere’, and instead, that weakens Superman just the same. So in fact they did use the plot device that they originally said was too convenient.) And the alien technology beats the shit out of him. How do we see him being affected by this? He coughs. How does he overcome the challenge? ...well, he just does. There are the necessary shots of him losing, and then he just stops coughing and wins.

I’m trying hard not to be nitpicky. But it is definitely that kind of movie.

Mark: Well, yeah, I didn’t read anything about them not wanting to use kryptonite, but the whole different atmosphere thing did ring pretty much the same concept.  And my only way of looking at it is that he used all the power he had at that last moment to deal with the machine.  Up to that point, we had no idea he could do such a thing, but I’d chalk it up to him really utilizing his powers.  But that’s just me defending what is a very obvious hole in the story.

But one thing I want to point out about the story is in the original, when Lois “died”, there was real emotional weight, cause we’ve spent the whole rest of the movie setting these two up.  Giving them plenty of time to interact in human ways, as both Clark and Superman.  So when her death came, and it was a slow death, it was really shocking.  But in this, the relationship between Lois and Clark/Kal is kinda forced.  She gets a couple of super serious conversations with him and suddenly it's love.  They set it up to do this for the second movie, but they rushed into it for this one.

Dylan: Yea, I was wondering how much they glazed over, assuming that we would know it from previous films and not want to see it again. You’re right, they were pretty much immediately in love. I also felt like the Daily Planet characters -- Perry White (who, creatively, is now black) and Jimmy (read: Jenny) Olson (who, creatively, is now a girl) -- were thrown in there because we needed to see them. And when they were put in danger in the third act, I really didn’t feel like enough attention was given to them for me to care. I mean, sure, what was happening to that city was pretty fucking scary. But the dynamic between Perry, Jenny, and that other dude meant nothing to me. Was it a love triangle of some sort? I couldn’t figure it out.

It’s the same thing with people’s acceptance of aliens. A whole movie could have been dedicated to a realistic reaction of the world to this kind of knowledge. But they pretty much accepted it right away. Lois and the military didn’t seem all that fascinated. And then Lois told Perry, and rather than him saying something like “this isn’t a tabloid. You’re fired, you crazy bitch”, he’s like “Lois, this world is not ready for something that huge.” Well, you’re taking it pretty well yourself, old man. And so does the world, five minutes later, when they find out too.

Mark: Well I put the acceptance thing as shock.  Like you’re too stunned at the revelation of it and the devastation of it to really stop and think about what is happening.  Again, this seems to be set up for a sequel.  Now that the threat is gone, they can focus on the fact that it happened; that aliens exist, and that one of them is still here.  And he’s from the same race that just annihilated half of Metropolis.  So, that’s my take on that.

As for Perry and gang, they were there for cameos.  It’s a Superman movie, they have to show up, even in their new forms, because it’s iconic.  I think it would have been a big move to not go to the Daily Planet, just have Lois.  You know she works for them, but it won’t come into play until the sequel.  And when they were in danger, much like how Star Trek Into Darkness didn’t have the balls to pull the trigger on it’s characters, neither would Goyer and Nolan.  That would be too dark.  But really you don’t fuck with canon.  Not unless you’re willing to take the fan backlash for taking a chance, and with how DC is trying so hard to become something like Marvel, they won’t risk it.

Who do you think were the strongest performances?  Or at least you’re favorite?

Dylan: Is that a serious question? The obvious answer is Michael Shannon, and even he was just making the best of what he had to work with. Some of his lines were just laughable. And there were a hundred obvious flaws in his diabolical schemes. But he made me believe he was the bad guy, for sure.

But before I forget, in response to what you just said: I think a slower, more intelligent sequel would really bring things back around. We’ve managed to throw in all the necessary players (with the obvious exception of a new villain, which will probably be Lex Luthor), now it’s time to give them some depth. That’s where the realism and humanity comes from. Not by trying to make a more sensible origin story.

It’s unfortunate, but these movies are starting to have very predictable and obviously similar setups. This one will of course be compared to Batman Begins. But it’s also like The Amazing Spider-Man, Star Trek, and Captain America; rebooted origin stories that only serve to line us up for a sequel that may or may not be better. Because personally, I was not a huge fan of Batman Begins. For me, and I think a lot of other people, it was The Dark Knight that really made me fall in love with the trilogy. So hey, maybe Man of Steel 2 will do that for me.

Mark: I agree mostly with you.  Shannon has proven time and again how great he is (see our last couple of reviews).  Whether it’s being serious or just going over the top, like with Zod, he’s just so enthralling in his acting.  And I thought Christopher Meloni was one of the few who was able to bring out more emotion in the story.  How his character arc goes throughout is one of the more interesting, especially when he faces off with Faora.  And I actually thought, regardless of how little time he had, Costner had a hell of an emotional presence whenever he was on screen.  Cavill is good as Superman, but he’s not given anything to go with to give him depth or anything.  Which is kinda the problem all around.  Goyer created his crazy story and tried to be all gritty, but without the Nolan brothers writing too, it didn’t have any of the depth or complexity to it.

And yeah, it’s in the sequel that we should see the depth.  I have to assume that now we’ll get Lex Luthor to come into play.  And this will create the conflict of the mind rather than the conflict of strength, like with Zod.  And we got plenty of that conflict.  I swear, the only thing I could think of during that punch up with Zod was how insane the fighting got.  It was the cartoon fighting we’ve always seen, what with them punching each other through buildings, across the city, into fucking space.  It was a blast to watch, but it just went on.

Dylan: One thing the sequel needs to do is get rid of Costner and Crowe. Every time we should’ve seen Cavill have some sort of deep moment, it was just externalized by a scene where one of his fathers explained out loud exactly what he was going through.

But yea, the fight scenes were just what I would want. And somehow we have yet to mention him: Zack Snyder does a damn good job. 

...and now I’m already regretting that sentence. Because a lot of his techniques piss me off big time. But the fighting at the end was pretty nuts. And just like you said, it was still cartoonish, but it worked.

Mark: Well I’m fairly certain you’ll get your wish about Costner and Crowe.  But what do I know?  And yeah, Snyder was actually a lot better than I thought.  I mean, his action scenes are still as over the top with gorgeous CGI explosions as ever, but when the camera slows down, and you get those intimate shots, like with little Clark running around with the red cape, that was actually just great.  One thing with Snyder is that he can do a lot of different film styles, what with the aforementioned CGI  stuff, but then the different composition with the flashbacks, and it’s like someone else has taken the helm.  And I appreciated getting a different feel when things changed tempo.  He’s much better than I’ve ever given him credit for.

Dylan: Sometimes I wonder how much of that is luck. Not to discredit the guy, but I think of 300. I really like 300, and I don’t really know anyone who doesn’t. But the same techniques he used to make it unique and awesome are the ones that, if you watch it again, you find kind of annoying. And this is kind of the same way. There are certain things he kept doing over and over again when he approached the action sequences. Some of it worked, at least for a time. But once you caught on to it, it got pretty irritating. In 300 it was the ramping. In this, it was the quick zoom-ins and the shaky cam.

Mark: I agree.  I’m not saying it was perfect, far from it. But he did a good job with what he had.  And I also put some of it in that Nolan was right there.  It was very much a group effort, just not everyone in the group was pulling their weight.  But at the end of the day, I’d recommend it.  It’s a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and it’ll keep your attention without ticking you off like some other blockbusters have.  At least for us.

Dylan: This is probably a stupid question. Was it scored by Hans Zimmer?

Mark:  Yeah.

Dylan: I figured. He is obviously the next generation’s John Williams. So I guess it’s appropriate.

Anyways, the movie is entertaining. It’s essentially a checklist of things the writers think we want to see and DC needs us to see so that they can move forward with the next step of their extended universe. But that seems to be the case with all of this summer’s action franchises. This one just does a better job of it.

Mark: Speaking of extended universe, did you catch the little easter egg in the film?  Or at least the one I did, I don’t know if there were more.

Dylan: I caught two. A Wayne Enterprises satellite and a LexCorp truck. (In addition to about a hundred product placements.)

Mark:  Where was the truck?  Oh sweet jesus, the product placement.  IHOP anyone?  Maybe 7/11.  God, it wasn’t even trying to be subtle.

Dylan: Amazing how no matter how much flame and debris clouds the air, and how every building is destroyed, you can still see the Sears logo shining bright. The truck was just something that was quickly destroyed or thrown into a building or something. I’m sure if you googled it, you could find a blurry screenshot.

Mark: Oh, ok, so it wasn’t setting anything, just putting it in there for gits and shiggles.  Well, wanna know something cool I found out?  Before they got Shannon for Zod, they were gonna go with...pausing for effect...Viggo Mortenson.

Dylan: Wow. That would have been interesting. And I can kinda see it. But Shannon was just fine.

Mark: Right, cause all I can picture is his character from Eastern Promises.

Dylan: Yea that's the image I had as well.

Mark:  Right?  Like that’s the one character he’s done that fits what Zod would be like.  Zod as a Russian gangster.  Super violent and intense.

Dylan: And then we’d get an epic naked wrestling match (hopefully through space or something) between Zod and Superman. And what self-respecting American wouldn't want to see that?