Justice League (2017)

Justice League (2017)

Directors: Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon

Cast: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Jason Momoa, Amy Adams, Ezra Miller, J.K. Simmons, Jeremy Irons, Billy Crudup, Diane Lane, Amber Heard, Robin Wright

I started collecting comics when I was nine years old. I discovered the world of comic books through a neighbor of mine who had mountains of them. Back then, you were either a Marvel fan or a DC fan, it was always a clash of who had the best superheroes. Who would win if they ever fought against each other? Who was the most powerful? And it was all about those big events like Marvel’s ‘Secret Wars’ , where all of the heroes got together to defeat an all-powerful villain. Nowadays, these clashes have translated to the silver screen. Who makes the best comic book movies? Marvel or DC? Are you with Warner Bros. or are ya with Disney? Maybe you’re like me and enjoy both sides equally, I mean, why side, when you can have all the fun and enjoy the whole shebang? Cool thing is that each production company is always trying to make the biggest and the baddest comic book film ever made, all to please us, the viewer. They don’t always succeed, but boy is it fun to watch them try. Up to my writing this, I’d say that there’s no doubt that Marvel is winning the day in terms of who makes the best comic book movies. Marvel seems to have the formula figured out, and they are ahead of the game, no doubt. But DC is slowly learning from their mistakes. Is Justice League a step in the right direction?  

This time around, Batman is trying to gather superheroes to form a group of heroes to protect the earth from a coming threat. Apparently, a villain called Steppenwolf is hell bent on world domination, but in order to do so, he has to recollect three “mother boxes” that will give him the power he seeks in order to achieve his goals. Will Batman gather the team in time, and if he does, will they be enough? How can this world without a Superman confront such a threat?

For those of you not in the know, this film had a bumpy road towards the silver screen. Zack Snyder was directing it, but he suffered the death of a loved one, so he stepped down to deal with that. Warner Bros. decided to hire Josh Whedon director of Avengers (2012) and Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in order to finish the film. Whedon did a couple of re-writes and reshoots and boom, we got Justice League. Warner Bros. took the opportunity to make the film a bit “lighter”, the reason for this being that audiences have felt that DC movies are “too dark and brooding”, well, at least when compared to Marvel movies, which are bright and shiny and know how to juggle heroic elements with comedy. 

This whole making DC movies lighter thing has been going on for a while now. Warner Bros. has been reactionary in this sense, they react to whatever Marvel does. And I think that’s actually part of the problem, they aren’t trend setters. They are following, reacting to whatever Marvel does. In this sense, Marvel has proven themselves the leaders of this whole comic book movie craze. Warner Bros tried making Suicide Squad (2016) lighter and funnier with some reshoots, but that turned out to be a failed experiment. With Justice League, DC finally found the right balance between comedy and super hero antics, and it’s all thanks to Whedon’s influence in the project. The funny moments are truly funny, well written and effective, so I’d say you guys can rest assured the film delivers.

In terms of these six heroes coming together, I’d say they did a good job as well. I gotta say I had a kick out of seeing all these heroes together on the silver screen. Nobody is left behind, they all shine, they all kick ass, they work together. It’s cool seeing their different personalities clash. Some are seasoned veterans, others are just learning how to be heroes. How cool is it to see Flash afraid of getting into battle? I’d say he is the one that grows the most as a character, learning how to grow into the role of a hero. Flash also has the funniest lines in the film. For the record, I like Ben Affleck as Batman. Momoa is the badboy of the group as Aquaman. Cyborg is surprisingly crucial to the story. And Wonder Woman is growing to be the leader of the pack. And speaking of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, she looks even more beautiful on this one, I have a crush on this girl. She’s just stunning on this film.

On the negative side, the villain is your typical “world domination” type, which felt very “been there done that”. The villain being a completely computer generated character didn’t help matters much in terms of giving it life, Hollywood has to learn that lesson. We want thespians Hollywood, not pixels. No matter how cool they may look, nothing will ever replace the performance of a real actor. In this type of film, the villains shenanigans are just a trigger to get our heroes in motion and what really matters is how they get from here to there, how they go about it. The McGuffin this time are three powerful items called “The Mother Boxes” and basically, they are what moves the plot along. It’s the type of film where the villains motivations don’t matter as long as we get that cool superhero action, which can be seen as a negative point. In a good honest to god great film, everything is that much better if we care about what’s moving the story along. You definetly feel the voice of two different directors, and a bunch of producers messing with the movie, as a result the film does feel a bit uneven. It feels a bit disjointed in terms of tone and style. But whatever, Justice League is a no brainer. It’s meant to be a fun movie and in that sense, it delivers every step of the way. There are surprises and cool moments that will have those geeky fans wetting their pants with joy. Stay for the two extra endings!

Rating: 3 out of 5

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Laurence Fishburn, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter

As a movie buff, I’ve never liked it when people hate a movie intensely before it is released. Sure, a film can show signs of being a stinker just by looking at the trailer, but it is my belief that every movie should be given a chance (well, almost every movie) before you decide to pour every ounce of hatred upon it. A recent example of this is the new Ghostbusters movie set to be released this summer 2016. As the trailer played before Batman vs. Superman, I heard actual audience members boo at the screen. Sure these aren’t the original Ghostbusters, but what’s with the immediate hatred without having seen the film? They can’t base their hatred on a three second trailer! Is it because they are women? Is it because it’s not the original cast? I don’t exactly know, but there they were, booing at the screen to a movie they have not seen yet. Case in point, Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) a film that audiences came in hating from day one. Again, I decided to give the film a fighting chance, to prove itself to me. How was it?

Behind the Scenes Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

The premise for Batman vs. Superman is that the world now sees Superman as more of a threat than a protector. His fight with general Zod in Man of Steel (2013) caused many deaths, and so now people don’t trust him, in fact, they’re thinking that if something should push him off the deep end someday, he might actually make the entire planet disappear! Lex Luthor is one of these people who sees Superman as a threat, so he orchestrates a way to get Batman and Superman to fight, so that Batman can kill Superman and therefore wipe the threat from Luthor’s mind. Will Batman have what it takes to go up against the Son of Krypton?

Now if you ask me, all the hatred comes simply because its cool to hate a big budget movie that stars Ben Affleck, an actor whose career seemed to be in an inevitable downward spiral after he starred in a string of bad movies like Daredevil (2003) and Gigli (2003). But that was all left behind when he vindicated himself by directing and winning a couple of Oscars for Argo (2012), suddenly he was on the proverbial comeback. Gigli was finally left behind in the dust like some long lost fuzzy memory. But apparently, people still associate Affleck with failure, because his casting as Batman is one of the many things that people immediately draw upon to bad mouth Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). Good thing about Affleck is that he’s resilient, he hasn’t given up. He figures it’s all about making good movies, good scripts and good solid performances, which is exactly what he’s been sticking to lately, and its worked. To me he has more than demonstrated he’s a good writer/director/actor, a multi talented individual. And he’s awesome as Batman in my book, in fact, I personally dig his Batman more than Christian Bales, who always seemed kind of like a half crazed Batman. Affleck’s plays him more like a cool, calculated businessman.

The film itself is a bit unbalanced, because it doesn't stick to one story line, it leaves some threads hanging, and starts others up. I don't mind seeing hints at future plot lines, because Marvel movies have been doing the exact same thing in their movies for years and nobody seemed to complaint then. DC/Warner Brothers is simply applying that successful cliffhanger formula to their movies, what’s the big deal? Is there a double standard with using this formula? Its okay for Marvel to do it, but not for DC? I frown upon that and say that it’s cool that DC movies are giving us small glimpses of things to come within their cinematic universe, which in my book is vast and unexplored. But I do agree the film needed a bit more focus. Follow through with what you propose with your plot lines. What happened to the whole story line about the world feeling Superman is a threat? What are the governments of the world gonna do about it and why aren't they taking action? This story line wasn't followed through, and then they introduce Doomsday and Flash and Cyborg and Aquaman. Still, even with these flaws, fan boys were eating up this movie. I know it, because I felt the wave of awe when the geeks (myself included) got a glimpse of these visages of the future. People actually cheered and clapped when Wonder Woman first appears! So naysayers, don’t hate this movie for hates sake. Sure it's got flaws, but I had a blast with this movie anyways!

It’s both a Superman film and a Batman film, both get equal screen time, both get explored. I mention this because I read complaints that the film is more about Batman than Superman, but I do not agree with these comments either, in my book both characters get the exposition they deserve. Superman is seen as more of a threat than a savior! When had we seen that story line played out in a Superman movie? Never! Superman is seen as a god like figure, who can either be our benefactor or totally annihilate us if he chose to, a concept explored by Alan Moore and Zack Snyder through the character of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen (2009). So in a way, this is Zack Snyder revisiting some concepts he’d explored before. Actually, this whole idea of the superhero suddenly turning into a threat to humanity rather than a savior seems to be the hot ticket in Hollywood, Captain America: Civil War (2016) will apparently explore the same themes, with Captain American being seen as a threat to humanity, because of all the destruction he’s caused. Suddenly, Captain America: Civil War doesn’t seem so original. But whatever, something tells me that will be an awesome movie anyways. I just wish Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice had explored this plot further, to its full measure, instead this idea is only half explored.

Just so you know, what the writers behind Batman vs. Superman did was they took parts of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and mashed it up with parts of The Death of Superman story line, primarily issue #75 of Superman. I kept seeing elements and images from both of these story lines popping up, so you might want to give those two story lines a look. Finally, I even liked Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, he was a formidable villain.  He has no super powers, but he knew exactly what buttons to push in order to get the ball rolling. Sure he’s maybe a bit to jokey, but that’s Eisenberg's own personal take on the character. I have a feeling we’ll see this villain evolve into a serious threat in the upcoming films. Finally, I’m looking forward to the growth of the DC cinematic universe. I had a blast with Batman vs. Superman, loved how it mixed its serious tone with the exaggerated antics we’ve come to expect from a comic book movie. Naysayers are hating for hates sake, pay no mind to them and go see this fun slice of comic book cinema, warts and all.

Rating: 4 out of 5   

Her (2013)

Title: Her (2013)

Director: Spike Jonze

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams

In order to truly understand Her, I suggest you first watch Sophia Coppola’s Lost in Translation (2003), you see, there’s a connection between both of these films; one comes as a response of the other. This is not to say that you can’t get anything out of watching the film without understanding its back story, but you’ll get a whole different perspective on them once you understand where they are both coming from. So this is how it goes: once upon a time not so long ago, Sofia Coppola, the youngest daughter of legendary film director Francis Ford Coppola, grew up with quirky music video director named Spike Jonze; their friendship blossomed and grew until in 1999 they ended up getting hitched. So anyhow, to make a long story short, their marriage ended in 2003. In order to deal with the divorce Sofia Coppola, though denying it a first, wrote and directed a film that expressed her feelings on the break up; that film ended up being Lost in Translation (2003), which curiously was released on the very same year she divorced Jonze.

In Lost in Translation, Scarlett Johansson plays a woman who’s married to a photographer, played by a very loopy Giovanni Ribissi. The photographer is so wrapped up in his career that he completely neglects Scarlett Johansson’s character and she ends up befriending a much older man played by Bill Murray; they end up developing a platonic romance even though their age difference is huge. The loopy, sort of absent minded photographer was actually Sofia Coppola’s version of Spike Jonze. The way I see it, that character was a cartoon like version of Spike Jonze, it’s how Sofia Coppola saw Jonze. So if we are to read between the lines, we can deduct that Coppola felt neglected by Jonze during their marriage because he was so wrapped up in his film career, which was beginning to take off back then. “I was trying to figure it out when I was writing that” she said in an interview to ONTD. That’s one thing I can say about the Coppola’s: they make very personal films that talk about their life experiences, sure they’ll deny the hell out of it if you ask them, but truth is, they are simply sharing their life experiences with us. Beautiful thing about these films is that even though they are extremely personal in nature, we can still enjoy them and get a lot out of them because they are genuine reflections of the human spirit, of what it means to be ‘us’. Her is another good example of an extremely personal film; detailing the thoughts and situations that go into a divorce. 

Jonze sets up a shot

So, fast-forward ten years later and now its Spike Jonze’s turn to address how he feels about that divorce. From what I can tell after watching Her, I think it’s safe to say that it was Jonze who ended up the most heartbroken from that divorce and he projects himself in the character of Theodore; a very sensitive man who truly misses his wife and can’t seem to stop remembering the good times he had with her. This film feels as if ten years later, Sofia Coppola still lingers in Spike Jonze’s soul. In that same interview to ONTD , Sofia Coppola mentions that “Spike didn’t end well” so I’m not just talking out of my ass here. Jonze was truly broken up and we can definitely pick that up from watching Her. So, it is understandable then that the main character in Her; Theodore Twombly, is mopy and anti-social; he can’t take the fact that he is about to divorce his wife Catherine of many years; who by the way looks a heck of a lot like Sofia Coppola! 

Many other things let us know that Her was made in response to Lost in Translation; Scarlett Johansson was the main character in Lost in Translation, while on Her she plays the voice of the operating system for which Theodore falls head over heels for. In the film, Theodore and Catherine grew up together which made the divorce that much more difficult, same as with Jonze and Coppola who also grew up together. Actually, if we want to get really detailed, some shots in the film are extremely similar, starting with Theodore’s room which looks a heck of a lot like Scarlett Johansson’s hotel room in Lost in Translation. Point is, if you want to really understand Her, you should watch Lost in Translation while keeping all these things in mind. Just remember that in Her, Theodore is Spike Jonze’s alter ego, while in Lost in Translation Charlotte was Sofia Coppola’s alter ego. The difference between the two films is that they are told from different points of view, one film is from the female perspective, while the other shows us the males point of view; which instantly makes both films all the more fascinating to me. It's like hearing both sides of the story; interesting thing is that both of them make sense in their own ways. They both got interesting points to make, and we can learn a lot from both films. 

But trust me, you don’t need to know any of this to enjoy Her, seen without all the context behind it, you can still get a lot out of it. The film works on two fronts:  it works as a comment on relationships, break-ups and male/female dynamics, while at the same time it throws a bit of commentary on society’s current obsession with social media and technology. Her is not for everybody, its a very cerebral film, which relies heavily on dialog, so if you like that in your films, you'll love Her. It seems to me that a lot of people where having a difficult time digesting the fact that Theodore was falling in love with a computer program. But you can’t go in thinking this is a silly premise, after all, this is a science fiction film, we are here to escape into a fantasy world where anything can happen. Her takes place in a slightly futuristic version of L.A., which by the way, Spike Jonze brilliantly shot in China, making China look like a futuristic version of L.A. How genius is that? So anyways, be ready for a film in which the main character falls for an artificial intelligence. What I loved about it is how Theodore’s obsession with his computer program represents our obsession with technology, an obsession that only serves as a way to alienate us from real human contact. Take a bus or a train and you’ll see more than half of the people connected to their phones, i-pads and I-pods, sometimes all at the same time! Are we growing apart as a human race? Are we in desperate need to reconnect with our fellow humans? Well yes we are and I’m glad we have films like Her to point that out.

Rating: 5 out of 5   

American Hustle (2013)

Title: American Hustle (2013)

Director: David O. Russell

Cast: Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Robert DeNiro

It seems that greed is America’s new favorite theme; in the tail end of 2013 three films have been released dealing with this theme. I guess Hollywood has it in their minds that bad economy will make people desperate enough to plan scams and get rich quick schemes, so Hollywood has taken it upon themselves to play the role of our collective conscience, reminding those desperate individuals out there the results of letting greed control our lives. The three movies I’m talking about are The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), The Counselor (2013) and now American Hustle (2013). All three of these movies depict desperate people making sneaky deals, conning people, stealing, doing all sorts of illegal things in order to get the proverbial cash. What makes American Hustle different from the other two films is that it takes place in the flashy 70’s.

Like The Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle is also based on real life events; hence the movie starting out with a title card that reads “some of these things actually happened”; which at the same time lets us know that the story is not entirely true and that artistic liberties were taken with the story. But basically, this is the story of a con artist who ends up working with the feds in order to capture a bunch of corrupt politicians. That’s the jist of it, the plot isn’t all that complex; what moves the story are the complications that arise, and the crazy characters that inhabit the film, this is one of those films in which the over the top performances take center stage.  

First off we have Christian Bale playing Irving Rosenfeld, the master con artist. Now, you’ve probably heard the stories about how in previous films, Christian Bale has transformed his physique in order to play characters that (for whatever the reason) look extremely skinny or sick, malnourished if you will. For example, for The Machinist (2004) Bale became a walking skeleton in order to play a sleep deprived factory worker, how he looks in that film is truly shocking. For Werner Herzog’s Rescue Dawn (2006) he lost weight yet again for a scene which required him to look like a food deprived prisoner of war; and in David O Russell’s The Fighter (2010) again he lost a lot of weight in order to play a junkie. The thing with his character in American Hustle is that it’s a complete turnaround of what he’d done in those films, on American Hustle he actually gained 40 pounds in order to look like this dude who simply doesn’t care about appearances. You should see the beer belly on this guy! It’s kind of hard to believe he is the same guy who played Batman a couple of years ago. DeNiro himself didn’t recognize Bale when they met on set! They had to be re-introduced! So anyways, Bale plays a character that’s so sure of himself that he doesn’t care what you think of him, you simply have to accept him that way. So anyhow, Bale’s transformation for this film is astounding yet again. Gotta give it to Bale, he is committed to his roles. 

Then we have Jennifer Lawrence whose career is literally on fire. Here she comes hot off her Oscar win for Silver Lining Playbook (2012) and her commercial success with The Hunger Games movies and delivers the most entertaining of all the characters in American Hustle, on this film she is quite literally a show stealer! She plays Rosalyn Rosenfeld, wife to Christian Bale’s con artist; basically she’s this trashy New Jersey housewife who chain smokes and dances to The Beatles “Live and Let Die” as she does her house cleaning. Her New Jersey accent is thick, and she’s loud and in your face, loved her performance. She’s already won a Golden Globe for it, who knows; maybe she’ll get another Oscar? Then there’s Bradley Cooper playing this crazed cop hot on the tail of the dirty politicians, his sole purpose is to make a name for himself, he looks hilarious with those curls. Actually, everybody here looks hilarious; in fact, it feels as if every actor’s sole job was to make themselves look as imperfect and eccentric as possible. Bale looks like a slob, Cooper looks funny with the curls, Lawrence looks trashy and Amy Adams…well, she’s just over the top sexy on this movie, showing so much cleavage it’s not even funny, but of course that’s not all there is to her character. I have to admit, Amy Adams is growing on me as an actress, here she plays a focused, icy cold lady. So expect all actors to have these crazy over the top looks, they feel almost like parodies of 70’s style and fashion. But I guess that was the idea with this movie, to go as over the top as possible.

This film reunites director David O Russell with Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Robert DeNiro, all of whom worked together on Russell’s Silver Linings Playbook (2012); it really is a joy to watch all these talented actors together on the screen, at least on the acting department you know you’re not gonna get short changed. Speaking of DeNiro playing a gangster, I couldn’t help and think of Martin Scorsese while watching this movie; it feels like a homage to Scorsese movies. It has Deniro, gangsters and desperate hustlers, I couldn’t help myself. Still, when compared with The Wolf of Wall Street and The Counselor, I’d say that The Wolf of Wall Street comes out on top, simply because it’s the fastest paced and bat shit insane of the three. American Hustle, in comparison seems tame; this is not to say it isn’t a good film or a funny one, it’s just slower than Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street which to me felt like a movie high on all the cocaine it portrays. Still, American Hustle has an amazing cast, entertaining characters and the whole 70’s vibe going for it, which still makes it a worthwhile ride. David O. Russell, the director of this film has said that the emphasis on his films is not plot, but characters and there’s no better example than American Hustle. I have to admit it wasn’t as memorable as I was expecting, but the cast and performances elevate the film and makes it entertaining enough to make it one of the best of the year.

Rating:  4 out of 5  

     

Man of Steel (2013)

Title: Man of Steel (2013)

Director: Zack Snyder

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Antje Traue, Laurence Fishburne

Review:

Without a doubt Man of Steel is the hottest ticket in town; the quintessential ‘movie of the summer’, it’s the “gotta see” of the summer season; so of course I was excited as hell to see it. I had my ticket a whole week before it was released, nothing was gonna stop me from seeing this one! The anticipation was a turn on as they say. The last cinematic incarnation of Superman was Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006). Those of you who saw it know it was disappointing in the sense that we rarely saw Superman doing anything very super; unless you count being a super stalker, a super power. He spent too much of his time brooding over Louis Lane rather than kicking some ass. So naturally, the big question on everyone’s mind is will this new Superman finally kick some ass? The answer to that question is a resounding yes! There’s so much ass kicking on this movie that you won’t know if Superman is saving or destroying Metropolis!

Since this is the first film in a new chapter of Superman films, Man of Steel has to go through the rite of passage of telling, once again, Superman’s origin story which we’d already seen in Superman (1978) and Superman Returns. But don’t worry, the good thing is that Man of Steel does it through a series of flashbacks, we don’t really dwell too much in Superman’s teenage years. Like the story of Jesus in the bible, Clark goes from being a child to being 33 years old in the blink of an eye, which by the way is also Jesus’s age in the bible. Same as Jesus; Kal-El is sent by his father to earth to “save them all”, so the parallels with Jesus Christ are pretty blunt on this one, actually there's more of them: Clark ends up being a fisherman, just like Jesus was a fisherman. Hell, Superman’s father tells him “you’ll be a God to them”, so yeah, there’s tons of biblical references on Man of Steel. Superman is even portrayed as having Catholic beliefs, which for me is one of the weak points in the film because this was never a part of who Superman is, its one of the reason why I lowered the score a bit. But unfortunately, according to this film, Clark is brought up in a Christian family. Clarks earth mother Martha Kent (played by Diane Lane) even wears a crucifix on her neck throughout the movie, so yeah, Superman’s a catholic on this one. Why did the filmmakers choose to go this route with the character?  

The thing about Superman is that he is supposed to represent the best in humanity, our best qualities, our highest morals, so I’m guessing this is why they gave him a Christian background, because Christianity portrays itself as a belief system with high moral values, never mind the pedophilia and the mass murders they’ve committed throughout history, Catholicism is supposed to be wholesome, keywords here being “supposed to be”. So then we have Clark sort of trying to hide the fact that he’s Superman because his earthly father, Jonathan Kent tells him the people of earth simply wouldn’t be able to deal with it, one lady who witnesses Superman’s strength starts saying that he is a God send. So Clark is always walking that dubious line between maintaining his secret, or coming out to the world as a super powered alien being. I enjoyed how they explored that angle of Superman changing people’s perceptions of why we are here. They go a bit into how Superman’s existence finally answers the question “are we alone in the universe?” I wish they’d gone a bit deeper into that, I personally think a whole new religion would pop up that would worship Superman, but they don’t go that far into it. So as you can see, this Superman movie gets quite existential. 

"We going to church today mom?"

Superman has always been portrayed as an American icon. His very suit is made up of two of the colors of the American flag. In the old television shows he was portrayed as a character who stood up for “truth, justice and the American way”. So I guess that’s why there’s so much product placement on this film! I counted Sears, 7-Eleven and IHOP amongst the companies that paid moola for their name to appear on this movie. I personally hate that whole “American Way” aspect of Superman, because really, a guy that powerful would be a citizen of the world, not of the United States. If Superman is that noble, that wholesome, he would see past borders and nationalities, he wouldn’t be “as American as they come”. But that’s the way they want to portray Superman on this film and with this movie they’ve really gone all the way with that whole idea. I mean, right before the movie started, they gave a commercial for the U.S. Army in which they compare the American military to Superman as if saying that American soldiers are real life heroes, never mind that most of them die in the line of battle for their countries egotistical reasons, sometimes for reasons that the soldiers themselves don’t even understand. Never mind that the American military is used to invade and conquer other countries simply because they have lots of oil, never mind all the atrocities they’ve committed, like bombing schools and hospitals, never mind that they are the nation that has killed the most people in one single swoop; they are heroes! So, this is a movie that takes Superman, the most powerful being on earth and puts a ‘Made in America’ stamp on it. The most powerful being on the planet is an American, and he’s working side by side with the U.S. Army! Barf. Personally, I hated that about this movie, but no worries, this didn’t hinder my enjoyment of this massive summer movie blockbuster.

And when I say massive, I mean massive! When Supes and General Zod go at each other it is a dangerous affair which puts the citizens of Metropolis in true peril. On this one you won’t get people eating Ice Cream and talking on the phone as Gods are fighting each other destroying the city like in Superman II (1980). Nope, on this one the citizens of Metropolis have to run for their lives or get killed in Zod’s wake! Buildings are toppled, cars fly up in the air and massive amounts of concrete is destroyed when these guys go at each other. The battles are epic and certainly surpass the fight between General Zod and Superman in Superman II; a film which I still enjoy very much. Before this whole superhero revival thing that started with X-Men (2000), Superman II was the best of the superhero movies for me. But of course, it was quickly surpassed by many of the superhero films that are so common today, like say for example The Avengers (2012), which set a new standard for superhero films. And there’s no denying that this new Superman movie is influenced immensely by The Avengers, we get dimensional portals, an alien invasion in a major city and superheroes dueling in the skies; sound familiar? It’s because that’s exactly what The Avengers was all about too. But don’t fret, this isn’t a Xerox copy of The Avengers, yet there’s no denying the influence that film has over this one. I would go on to say that it’s the first official film to be influenced by The Avengers in that it’s trying to reach the same levels of destruction and epic scope.

Yet, the film goes its own way offering us many original elements. For example ‘Krypton ‘, Superman’s home world is a wonder to behold; I loved how they portrayed the different levels of political hierarchy. The technology of the planet mixes the organic with the technological in a really interesting way. The whole deal with Superman’s father, and who he was on his planet, loved that whole bit. We get to see why the suit, why the ‘S’, why the super powers, basically, all the ‘why’s’ about superman are answered. This film simply explains things better. But what we really wanted to see with this new film is Superman kicking ass right? So don’t worry my friends, there’s tons of that! This movie delivers on the spectacle arena, you won’t be disappointed. As a summer blockbuster, this movie functions to perfection, without a hitch. Casting wise the film is perfect, Henry Cavill as Kal-El was perfect casting, he looks the part. There was a moment where I thought I saw Christopher Reeves face, but it could have been my nostalgia goggles messing with me. Amy Adams as Louis was great, she isn’t bitchy or cartoony, she’s just a smart reporter, though I do feel that Louis and Clark’s love on this movie comes out of left field because there’s nothing to really validate it or spark it, it simply happens, it feels like they fall for each other simply because that’s what happens between Louis and Clark, not because they genuinely fell in love. Michael Shannon is great as Zod, but I was expecting a more intense portrayal of the character coming from Shannon, who is used to playing intensely nutty characters. Still, he doesn’t mess things up, it’s just that I thought he’d do something just a little more over the top.

  

Bottom line is this movie didn’t disappoint with its spectacle and massive amounts of destruction, the only reason why the film looses a couple of points for me is for using Superman to spread patriotism (which to me is simply another form of fanatism) and for making him a catholic, which just sucks, Catholicism was never a part of the equation; but the rest of the movie? Freaking awesome! A great summer blockbuster that won’t disappoint in terms of constantly showing you cool stuff. I mean, how cool was it that Superman finally used his heat vision and his super speed? Trust me on this one you’ll see Superman doing stuff you’ve never seen him do on any other movie, like for example, seeking the council of a Catholic priest. After the film finished, the audience stayed behind expecting one of those cliffhanger endings that the Marvel and Fast and the Furious films have popularized so much, but don’t waste your time, you’re not going to get it here. The filmmakers opted not to give us a cliffhanger as if saying: "this is a DC movie not a Marvel movie and don’t you forget it!" I'm positive that this movie will make obscene amounts of money, and I'm sure a sequel is certain, actually, both David Goyer the films writer, and Zack Snyder, the films director are signed to return. The success of Man of Steal will determine if we will ever see a Justice League movie, so if you want to see that movie happen, go on and see Man of Steel. If Man of Steel is any indication, we should be in for something  special, DC style. 

   

Rating: 4 out of 5  

The Muppets (2011)

Title: The Muppets (2011)

Director: James Bobin

Cast: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper

Review:

Of course The Film Connoisseur was going to review the new Muppet movie, I grew with these crazy characters, and by that I mean I watched the show on television back in the 70’s, when it was just about the coolest show on earth. The Muppets were really something back then, they even made it all the way to theaters, with three pretty darn good movies. The Muppet Movie (1979), The Great Muppet Caper (1981) and The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984). These first three movies were Muppet films orchestrated by the original creator of The Muppets, Jim Henson (and his right hand and partner in crime Frank Oz) and for that alone they are the ones that matter the most to me. These are the ones that really have that true ‘Muppet’ feeling to them; they had the most Jim Henson and Frank Oz in them. Every other Muppet film that’s come afterwards - with very few exceptions- hasn’t had that magic to them.  

I guess a lot of the magic behind The Muppets came from the folks doing the puppeteering. Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Dave Goelz…these were guys who puppeteered and voiced these characters for years and years! But then came the death of Jim Henson, and it’s as if The Muppets had lost their father, their creator. Brian Henson (Jim Henson’s son) took the reins of The Muppets for a while there. He directed a couple of the Muppet movies like A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) and Muppet Treasure Island (1996), the last two good Muppet movies in my book. A Muppet Christmas Carol in my opinion had a lot of that Muppet magic infused into it. It was a Muppet movie that still ‘had it’, and honestly, it’s the one I watch the most, I love that one! Muppets from Space (1999) was alright, but nothing out of this world. And don’t even get me started on the abortion that was The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz (2005); that one was a real waste of celluloid, an embarrassment. Thing is that The Muppets now belong to Disney, who seem to be gobbling up every property they can pick up. Hell, even Marvel Comics is a Disney property these days! And now so are The Muppets. Would Disney treat The Muppets with the dignity and respect they deserve? Considering they are so beloved by people everywhere? How was this new Muppet movie?

With this new movie, what Disney was aiming to do was present The Muppets to a whole new generation of kids with a colorful, happy, shinny and new sing-a-long of a movie. At the same time, they went with the nostalgia factor and tried to please all those Muppet fans from around the world by making a film that pays respects to these beloved characters. And they did just that. This new Muppet movie is an explosion of happiness, I dare you not to have a smile on your face the whole time! The movie presents us with the idea that the world has forgotten about The Muppets who were once famous and had their own variety show on television. Their fame has waded and they’ve all gone on with their lives. Kermit has retired and lives alone in his mansion, Mrs. Piggy works for a fashion magazine in Paris, Gonzo has his toilet making company, Fozzy sings in a Muppets Cover Band, they’ve all forgotten who they used to be together and have moved on. But something is about to bring them together: a greedy businessman wants to buy The Muppet Studios so that he can destroy it and dig for oil. Fortunately, the contract states that if The Muppets can make 10 million on their own, then they can save the studio and not sell it to the greedy business guy! And so, the Muppets are off to resurrect their television show so they can make their 10 million dollars and save The Muppet Studios! Will they achieve their goal?

The biggest worry I had was that this new film wasn’t going to be special, that it wasn’t going to have that Muppet magic. To be honest, the movie did alright. I mean, it wasn’t completely magical, but it did manage to keep a smile on my face for most of its running time. They got one thing absolutely right, they made it into a musical, with people dancing and singing with a smile on their faces all the time. Everything is shinny and happy and colorful. Many of the classical characters are back, it’s so cool to see them again on the big screen! The story for this film is all about what the first Muppet movies were all about: putting on a show, entertaining people and making it in the big time! But would they be the same Muppets we’ve always loved? Would this new Disney version of The Muppets nail it? I’m feeling like they did. The whole gangs back, they might look slightly different in very small ways (Fuzzy the Bear for example) but it’s the same characters. The same style of humor, the same slapstick, self referencing, and breaking the fourth wall type of jokes we love to see in these movies.  

   

Funny thing about this new Muppet movie is that FOX recently asked the question “are liberals trying to brainwash our kids?” in reference to this new Muppet movie. Ha! Goes to show who’s really controlling the media. I thought the news reporters were supposed to be objective with their points of views? Yet right there, by asking that question they are taking a side and assuming that everyone in American has to be a conservative capitalist! These comments on FOX news are so nausea inducing, they see that a film is sending out a message against evil businessmen (of which there are many in this world) and immediately see it as a threat to their way of life. You know what FOX news? So what if this new Muppet movie is speaking against capitalism? Isn’t the United States of America a free country, with freedom of speech as part of its way of life? Yes? Okay then, what’s the big surprise? I guess conservatives are scared that liberals will spread the germ of communism through the United States…oOoOooOOoohh scary! Gimme a break! And you know what FOX news; of course liberals will speak against capitalism! That’s what liberals do, that’s why they are called liberals, because they want to be free and speak their minds! And of course its liberals making films, artists are going to be liberals by nature; so deal with it! They aren’t trying to brainwash anybodies minds, they are just saying what they feel, if you like it cool, if you don’t like it then don’t go and see the movie. Last time I checked, saying what you feel was still okay in this country. It still is isn’t? We still got freedom of speech? Or have they written some new law that prohibits people from speaking their minds? I guess FOX is going to have to criticize a whole bunch of other films that play with the same theme of the “evil, greedy businessman”, in fact why don’t you just go full on fascist and prohibit films such as these? Ban them? Or make the whole world boycott them by saying your comments on FOX….jeeez…Look final word on this is GREED is a great evil that’s eating up the world isn’t it?  And movies that speak against it are doing a fine job in my book, so hooray for this new Muppet movie and its capitalism bashing themes.

Last words on this movie…it had the magic and sense of humor that the original Muppets had. I loved how they focused the whole film on them trying to start up their show, because that’s what the Muppets were always about, the theater, performances, entertaining the masses. Though the story has been used in other films before. This new Muppet movie is similar to films like Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo (1984), Waynes World 2 (1993), and The Blues Brothers (1980), all films where the good guys have to put on a show to go up against the evil business man type. Yet, in spite of its generic story line, the film is very entertaining. Jason Segel and Amy Adams play their roles innocently enough, like to kids falling in love for the first time. They lead a real innocent kind of romance through out the movie. I felt like their story was tacked on, I don’t know if we really needed the whole Jason Seagel/Amy Adams story line about them wanting to get married and she feeling ignored by him. They could have left that whole plot line out and focused more on The Muppets and the show, and their problem. On these movies, humans were always secondary, almost like window dressing. But not on this one, they decided to give a little more importance this time around to the human characters. There’s a lot of cameos on this one, but some of them feel really wasted! A stand out cameo comes from Zack Galifianakis as a bum, and Jack Black as…himself. But other cameos seem like wasted opportunities. The new songs were catchy and fun, except for Chris Coopers rap song which just felt out of place. But ultimately, this was such a nostalgic film for me. I must admit I enjoyed it so much when they sang “The Rainbow Connection”, I got teary eyed, which I’m guessing was what the filmmakers where going for. To have the target audience reconnect and remember the old movies with this one, to awaken that feeling of familiarity with The Muppets. I gotta be honest, they kind of achieved it.    

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Fighter (2010)

Title: The Fighter (2010)

Director: David O. Russell

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams

Review:

Movies about boxing always work because they serve as a metaphor for life. You know how sometimes you feel like putting on some boxing gloves and punching life right in the face and knocking it the hell out? That’s what boxing movie do for ya. They make you feel like a winner. Its why films like the Rocky franchise have survived for as long as they have, the struggle of life translates well to these films and you feel like that boxer up there, giving it your best to beat life. Ever been in a theater during one of these films? There’s a reason why people holler at the screen during these boxing movies: they feel they are right up there with the main character, trying to beat life and come out victorious.

The thing about boxing movies is that in order to make a good one, you can’t really focus so much on the fights themselves, because if you do, you risk falling into repetition because so many movies that have come before have already explored that formula ad nauseum. Films like Gladiator (1992), all the six Rocky movies, The Boxer (1997) The Hurricane (1999), Cinderella Man (2005), Girlfight (2000), Million Dollar Baby (2004) and Raging Bull (1980), have all been there and done that. Boxing movies can sometimes go the same way most sports movies go: the boxer starts out not boxing very well, he looses a fight, then he gets better, and finally in the end he wins. If you do that with your boxing movie, you’re walking on tired ground. We’ve seen that already. And this is the very same reason why I hate sports movies in general, they are all the same. The team isn’t too good in the beginning, they confront whatever personal situation is not letting them move forward with the game, then they practice, then they get good and finally they win.

The trick to a good boxing movie is to focus more on the story behind the boxer. Who he is as a person, and go deep into his personal struggles. And I’m happy to say that this is exactly what The Fighter did. The film itself doesn’t really focus on the fights; it focuses more on the fighter, and his life. In this case, it’s the life of two real life boxers: Micky Ward (played by Mark Wahlberg) and Dicky Eklund (played by Christian Bale). Micky is trying to make it as a boxer, unfortunately he is considered a “stepping stone”; a fighter that is used to help other fighters rise to the top. But he is trying to get past that. He really wants to make it big. Unfortunately he is managed by his mother who only cares about taking small fights and making little bits of money with each one. What Micky wants is to make it big. Another thing that brings Micky down is that he is trained by his brother, who is a crack addict. Micky needs to cut ties with his family is he is ever going to make it. Will he ever muster the strength to leave them all behind?

The Fighter is predictable yes, you’ve seen one boxing movie, you’ve seen them all. And yeah, at first he sucks, then he gets better, then he wins. But what’s great about this movie is that it didn’t make a big deal about the fights themselves. The first few fights are quick moments in the film, they aren’t these long drawn out affairs filmed in slow motion or anything. They save the biggest fight for the end, but the rest of the film isn’t about the fights themselves, which a lot of boxing movies do a lot. Instead the film focuses on the two brothers and their struggles with trying to make it out of poverty. They are part of a huge family, they have something like 5 sisters, plus the two brothers. And the sisters always got something to say, though they don’t do much themselves. Micky’s family is the best example of trailer thrash there is. None of them have any education. It seems as if all they do is hang around the house all day gossiping, smoking cigarettes and watching television. But when it comes down to an opinion about something, they are all hive minded and think the same, especially when it comes to Micky’s new girlfriend whom they don’t like at all. They think she’s an “MTV girl” whatever that means. So Micky is trying to make it, but you get the feeling that his family is holding him back. They live under that hive mentality where the family thinks that no one can ever leave them to go and search for something better. Still, theres always that struggle. And yeah, its true, blood is thicker then water. And that’s really what the film focuses on, that struggle between pleasing yourself and following your dreams, and disconnecting, yet not forgetting about family.

The best thing the film has going for it is Christian Bale’s performance. If you’ve been keeping track with Christian Bale’s career, then you know the man is a freaking chameleon. He can transform from one role to the next like no other actor can, and personally, I think it’s about time the guy won an Oscar. Ever seen how thin he got for his role in Brad Anderson’s The Machinist (2004)? The guy was playing a sleep deprived individual, and to best portray this character he lost 63 pounds! Then he buffed up for Batman Beings (2005) and looked better then ever. He did the weight loss thing again when he played a U.S. fighter pilot who gets shot down and tries to survive in the jungles of Lao during the Vietnam war in Werner Herzog’s Rescue Dawn (2006). On The Fighter he went through the weight loss thing yet again to portray a crack addict. Gotta hand it to Bale, the weight loss thing really gets the trick done. But its not just about how thin he looks, his performance is really what sells the character to us. He really talks and acts like a crack addict! His character is responsible for some of the more funny moments in the film as well. As I write this, Oscar Night 2011 hasn’t happened yet, but Bale is nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category, and if you ask me, I believe he deserves that Oscar.

He isn’t the only one winning awards for his performance on this film. Melissa Leo who plays Micky and Dicky’s mother, won a Golden Globe, A Screen Actors Guild Award and a Broadcast Film Critics award. And Bale won all those awards right there with her. Both are nominated again for The Oscars. Mark Wahlberg hasn’t won any awards, and he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, even though he is the central character of the film. I agree with that though. The real stars of the show are Bale and Leo, they offer up the strongest performances. Its not that Wahlberg did a terrible job, it’s just that Bale and Leo outshine him performance wise that’s all. So we got a film filled with great performances, backed up by the fact that it’s all based on real life events. Director David O. Russell (I Heart Hucakbees and Three Kings) choreographed all the fights according to the footage that was caught by the cameras of HBO sports when they really happened. He even filmed the fighting sequences with the same cameras the HBO crew used back in those days; it gives the fighting sequences that look that television used to have before the High Definition days. Makes it all the more genuine.

Rating: 4 out of 5