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  

Waterworld (1995)

Title: Waterworld (1995)

Director: Kevin Reynolds, Kevin Costner

Cast: Kevin Costner, Dennis Hopper, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Tina Majorino, Michael Jeter                       

Review:

So I couldn’t end my ‘post apocalyptic blog-a-thon’ without reviewing Waterworld; the most expensive post apocalyptic movie EVER made. It’s right up there with other huge budget post apocalyptic films like I Am Legend (2007) and Costner’s own The Postman (1997), so in essence, Waterworld is actually king of all post apocalyptic movies, at least in terms of how much it cost to make. This was to be ‘Mad Max on Water’, in my book that’s a pretty exciting concept, best of all they perfectly achieved it! This was The Road Warrior at Sea!  In scale, Waterworld is bigger than any other post apocalyptic film out there to date. This was a film that cost 175 million dollars to make and it was the most expensive film that had ever been made at the time; period! Sadly, even though so much time, man power, money and efforts went into making this particular picture, it didn’t make as much money as expected, and so it was deemed a box office flop. It made its money back (255 million when all was said and done) but not enough to call it a winner. Kind of the same thing that happened to The Golden Compass (2007), huge budget, made its money back, but not enough; not what the studio was expecting. Waterworld was considered a failure upon release. But why? Was the film as bad as some of the press it was getting? Why was it getting so much bad press?

My professional opinion on Waterworld is that it in fact does not suck. In fact, I salute Kevin Reynolds for having shot this film, making this film was one hell of a task! I was re-watching it last night with some of my friends and we were having a blast with it. We all agreed, the millions spent on the film where up there on the screen, I mean you could see the nearly 200 million dollars it cost to make. There’s this extended action sequence where the villains known as The Smokers, attack the main atoll that is one exquisitly well orchestrated action sequence! It includes hundreds of extras, jet skis jumping in the air, explosions, boats, machine guns, they even had planes flying all over the place! They certainly pulled out all stops on that one. Normally, we as an audience just think “wow, cool stuff!” but sometimes we don’t even think about all the hard work and logistics that go into organizing a scene like that one. To complicate matters, everything was literally shot in the ocean; a mile off the coast of Hawaii. So we’re not talking about a fake CGI ocean in the background, this was the real ocean! Director Kevin Reynolds was to have an experience with nature while making this film, a la german director Werner Herzog, who also films most of his films in real locations under the most strenuos circumstances. Reynolds was going to make a tough movie, out in the wild, but it was going to be an experience! Making a movie out in the open sea was one of the main factors that made making this film such an arduous task.

When the time came to make this movie, Reynolds asked Steven Spielberg who’d shot most of Jaws (1975) in the open sea, about the pitfalls one might expect when shooting a film on open water. Spielberg’s answer? “I would never shoot another picture on water” But Reynolds went and did his picture in the ocean anyway, this wouldn’t be the first time Reynolds’s confronted problems while  making a film, but then again, making a good film is never an easy task. Problems are someting you simply have to overcome when making a movie. For example: catastrophe started from day one, when the two main actresses in the film (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino) almost drowned when a boat sank and dragged them down into the ocean with them! A major set actually sank into the ocean! They had to stop production on three occasions because of Hurricane warnings. There was also some on set hostility because crew members didn’t have comfortable accommodations. Rumors where running around that two stunt men had died while shooting an action scene, which was never true! In other words, this production was a genuine, true blue, cluster fuck of a production. The result? Kevin Reynolds abandoned the picture and Kevin Costner himself ended up directing part of it. The final cut of the film was not overseen by Kevin Reynolds, creative differences frustrated the director so much he left it in other peoples hands to finish the picture. Reportedly, Reynolds and Costner had differences on the way things should be done. According to IMDB, Reynolds felt that Kevin Costner “should only star in films he directs, that way he can work with his favorite actor and director” Since then, Costner and Reynolds have put all that animosity behind them, but during and after Waterworld things got ugly between them. 

But in spite of all these production woes, I’d say they got away with making an excellent post apocalyptic action adventure, one of the best ones out there when we come down to it. I need to go on right here and speak about this films production values, which are amazing. Great steps where taking to build the sets, the post apocalyptic vehicles and make all that post apocalyptic wardrobe for all those actors, I mean this was a huge production! They even had an army of jet skies! Everything on this film was made especially for it, this alone represents a gargantuan task. But aside from this films amazing production values, we also get a great cast and interesting (albeit not always likable) characters. Same as in Dances With Wolves (1990), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and The Postman (1997), on Waterworld Kevin Costner plays a rebellious leader, only on this one he is a hero against his will, an anti-hero of sorts. I saw this character as representing the loner, surviving in this cruel world, trying the best he can to look out for no one but himself. Can’t say I blame him considering the kind of world he lives in: one completely engulfed by water! No dry land to be seen! This guy is so tough that he doesn’t even have a name; through out the film he is simply called ‘The Mariner’. He hates kids, and doesn’t want the responsibility of having one. Basically, he comes off as a major butthole through the whole film, but of course, as any true hero would, he soon learns to show his tender side. Deep down inside, in spite of his apparent selfishness, he cares. So we get the true definition of the anti-hero. Like Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China (1986), The Mariner is a loner, and remains one through out the entire picture. He loves ‘em and leaves ‘em; he’s true love is really the ocean.  

Speaking of the ocean, the waters are dominated by a group of villains called the smokers, lead by a dictator called ‘The Deacon’ a man who believes that everything should be run on oil, that humanities problems are solved through war and devastation.;  he believes in ruling over the masses as if they were cattle. His modus operandi is lies and manipulation. All he cares about is finding the mythical dry land, so he can exploit it! He tells the people he receives visions so great, that when he sees them he cries, which is all bullcrap of course. So we get a great villain with The Deacon, as played by the always amusing Dennis Hopper. On this one Hopper is in crazy mode, being evil even to little girls! This is something that’s kind of amusing about this movie, the little girl in the film called Enola (Alone backwards), has a map tattooed to her back, and she’s kind of like the prophesized child or whatever, but everyone treats her like crap! Especially The Deacon who tells her things like “He’ll see what’s left of you in a goddamn jar!” and “How about a cigarette? Nothing like a good smoke when you miss your mom, it’s never too late to start” So we get an amusing villain, one that represents the worst in government. And yeah, this is a film that hits on dictatorships and the dirty nature of politics. The Deacon is a leader who puts on a show, as if he was the peoples savior, but deep down inside all he cares about is using the people to achieve his twisted purposes. He sees dry land as something to be exploited to the max, so at the end of the day, Waterworld is a very environmentalist picture. The villains on this film sail around on an oil tanker called ‘The Exxon Valdez’, an allusion to the Exxon Valdez environmental catastrophe. It seemed to me that the filmmakers behind Waterworld see these oil hungry companies as villains; enemies to the environment who should sink to the darkest levels of hell. The villains in the picture represent a society (much like ours) that’s completely reliant on the black blood of the earth. So Waterworld can be added to this batch of films that begs the powers that be to find and develop a new, cleaner form of energy; one that doesn’t place so much stress on our planet.

So what we got here ladies and gentlemen is a film that got a lot of bad press before it even got out. Not sure exactly why this happened, could it be that both films speak about environmental issues and bash on the way the governments of the world are running things? Could it be that fictional bad press is created to bring these types of movies down? This kind of situation kind of reminds me of what happened to John Carter (2012), another environmentally friendly film, that spoke about a new form of cleaner energy, and that also criticized governments and society. It also got bad press even before release and it wasnt even a bad film. Maybe the powers that be want films of this nature to flop so the create bad press around them? Things to think about, it wouldnt be the first time that the publics opinion is manipulated by the powers that be. Ultimately, sometimes people like to see the big guy go down, in fact, they love seeing it happen. Just look at Britney Spears, she was big for a while, then she was shot down by the very same people who made her. People love bad news more than good news. Reynolds himself said in an interview he did for Den of Geek.com: “People were so hungry for bad news, because it was so much more exciting. They just said it, and it hurt us” Reynolds own take on Waterworld? “I don’t think it’s any better or worse than most summer blockbusters, it’s somewhere in the middle. I think yeah, it’s certainly got its faults, but I think, you know, on another level it works quite well compared to some of the other big films. By the end, people, they wanted it to be a disaster. And in fact, Lou Wasserman, who was head of MCA at the time, he said that he thought the bad press on the picture cost us 50 million at the box office.” So folks, after all is said and done, the evidence tells us that Waterworld was unfortunately a film that for some reason the press chose to kill, same as many celebrities they zero in on and whose careers and lives they destroy. I say this film needs to be given a second chance and seen for what it was never seen as upon its original release: an enjoyable action adventure flick, and one of the most impressive post apocalyptic films ever made. By the way, I recommend checking out the director's cut, it makes for a more epic and complete viewing experience. 

Rating: 4 out of 5   

   

The Postman (1997)

Title: The Postman (1997)

Director: Kevin Costner

Cast: Kevin Costner, Will Patton, Olivia Williams, Lorenz Tate, Giovanni Ribisi

Review:

To me, The Postman is the Gone with the Wind (1939) of post apocalyptic movies, and that’s probably not a popular opinion but I stand by it. Normally, seeing a post-apocalyptic film equals watching a low budget, badly written/acted film. The big budget post apocalyptic film that is shot like an A-film, with A-list actors is not the norm. They exist, but they are not in the majority. This was a huge production, it cost 80 million dollars to make. It was shot in beautiful locations all over the United States, it has a great cast, it’s based on an award winning book yet for some reason, critics decided to lambast it as “worst movie of the year” It was even nominated for various Razzie awards. The problem is that sometimes, once an important reviewer or critic decides a film is bad like say Roger Ebert for example, then the rest of the world has to agree, simply out of fear of appearing stupid.  Then suddenly everyone believes a film is terrible just because of one or two prominent people thought so, this to me is what causes the death of some films. Maybe the themes and ideas are to liberal and so all conservatives and the media gang up to give it a bad reputation? Whatever the case, I personally though this movie was all kinds of good. Maybe a little repetitive with its themes and maybe a tad bit too long, but in no way would I say this was a bad movie!

A man and his donkey

In The Postman we meet a lonely, nameless nomad who wanders across a post apocalyptic wasteland America living his life in peace, traveling across the country with his trusty mule ‘Bill’. They go from town to town performing Shakespeare for the entertainment hungry survivors of the apocalypse. One day, while performing in one of these towns, the nomad gets picked up by a group called ‘The Holnists’, a military group looking to grow in size so they can take over the country and start a new tyrannical form of government. But the nomad, whom everyone now calls ‘Shakespeare’ doesn’t want to become a part of this army, so he escapes and takes his chances out in the world, on his own, the way he’s always done. On his travels he stumbles upon a mail truck, with the mail man dead inside. The only thing that remains is the mail mans skeleton, the mail mans uniform (which Shakespeare quickly appropriates to shelter from the cold rain) and a bag of old letters. The nomad then takes the post man’s uniform and the bag of old letters and travels to a nearby town, posing as a postman who comes to bring mail. He tells them he is a representative of the United States Government and that the government is re-establishing itself, that they have a new president called ‘President Richard Starkey’ and he tells them that things are getting better and better. He lies to them because he wants to give them hope. In this post apocalyptic world, The Postman becomes a symbol of hope to those who have none.

So this would mark the third time that Kevin Costner worked in a post apocalyptic film. The first was a film called Testament (1983), a film that took place within a typical American suburb and how the community reacts to a nuclear attack. I’m sure this film must have been specially chilling to watch during the 80’s when a lot of people lived in constant fear of dying in a nuclear holocaust. The film’s a pretty realistic portrayal, not over the top, not comic-bookish. In contrast to the realism of Testament, the second Costner post-apocalyptic film was Waterworld (1995), a comic book of a movie which portrayed Costner as a loner surviving in a world in which the ice caps have melted. Most of the land is buried under water and so, a society that survives in man made atolls is the only thing that remains. He plays something of a selfish asshole that only cares about his own survival, yet ends up learning to help others anyways. I enjoyed Waterworld for various reasons, all of which I’ll be getting into on my upcoming review for it. Then comes The Postman (1997), which Costner made shortly after Waterworld, and maybe that’s partially what hurt it a bit. Both films have many similarities. They are both post-apocalyptic, their both about a loner, and like Dances with Wolves (1990) and Waterworld, this loner comes to aid a group of people against a tyrannical form of government. It seems like for a while there and maybe without realizing it (or maybe entirely on purpose?) Costner made a series of films with extremely similar situations and themes. So by the time The Postman rolled in, it felt like he was being redundant. This in my opinion might be the only thing that brings The Postman down a bit.

In all other departments The Postman feels epic, well acted, well shot. It’s a beautiful film to look at, sometimes too beautiful for a post-apocalyptic film. At times it actually feels like a western. At heart, it’s a film that speaks about the best and worst things in human nature.  What makes America, America? Is American what we want it to be? This is the kind of film, like many others before it that criticizes certain elements we still see in the modern world: war, tyranny, greed and complete Disregard for human life. Why treat others as less because of their skin color? Why try to dominate man for your own selfish purposes? Why can’t we all just live in peace in this world? Is this just idealistic thinking? Perhaps, but the world would definitely be a better place if we all strived for happiness, peace and understanding and that’s why I enjoyed this film, it strives to remind us that even though we live in a messed up world similar to the post apocalyptic world of The Postman, there’s still hope. We can still strive to make society and the world better, yeah, I got faith in humanity that way. Why should a film be castigated for promoting peace?

Maybe this film got heat because its main character doesn’t want to be part of the army? The Postman tells a military leader “a fighter is the last thing I will be” Same as Chaplin’s character in The Great Dictator (1940) The Postman cares nothing for war and killing, he just wants to fall in love, to sing and dance. Some of the warmest scenes involve just that. By the way, The Great Dictator, one of Charlie Chaplin’s masterpieces (dare I say his most important one) is an equally subversive and controversial film because of the anti-military message it puts across. One of my favorite lines in The Postman is “wouldn’t it be great if wars could be fought just by the assholes who started them?” Now there’s an idea! But no, during war the ones that die are the people, not their leaders.

Some might get the idea that because of its pacifist message The Postman is an anti-American film; which is probably why it had a tough time at the box office, but it isn’t. It’s a film that wants a better America, a better country to live in, a better form of government, and lets not keep things centered only around America, this film simply wants a better world period. Not a tyrannical one, not one centered on war. This is probably the reason why in the film, they make a new American flag and on its white lines it reads “The Restored United States of America” At one point, the villain tells The Postman “you don’t care about anything! You value nothing! You don’t believe in anything! That’s what makes me better!” and The Postman answers “I believe in the United States!” letting us know that yes, this is a film that cares for its country; it simply wants a better one. One of the main characters in the film is looking for a better place for her child to be born in, cause this place they are currently living in simply isn’t it. Society as we know needs to improve, evolve and become something better. It needs to achieve its full potential. So what we have here is a film striving for a better world. War isn’t it. Being part of the military isn’t it either, in this film, the good guys, the peaceful men fight only because they are forced to. You ask the filmmakers behind The Postman and they’ll tell you: peace is where it’s at.

Rating: 4 out of 4 

Revenge (1990)

Title: Revenge (1990)

Director: Tony Scott

Cast: Kevin Costner, Madeleine Stowe, Anthony Quinn, Miguel Ferrer, John Leguizamo

If you asked me which one I prefer over the two Scott brothers (Ridley Scott and Tony Scott) I’d quickly tell you that I lean more towards Ridley Scott’s style of filmmaking. It’s not that I hate Tony Scott’s films, it’s just that I enjoy Ridley Scott’s films a whole lot more because they are more cerebral and artsy, and I love artsy. Ridley’s films satisfy my brain as well as my thirst for art and spectacle. Tony Scott is the complete opposite; he focuses more on making commercial films that play by Hollywood’s rules and I enjoy Tony Scott’s films for entirely different reasons, they are crowd pleasers, they are fun and fast paced, they are action packed. Where Ridley’s films make money as a by product of the quality of his art, Tony’s films are the other way around, money making comes into the equation first. And that’s exactly what he is best at: making profitable action films. Tony is the director behind such box office hits as Top Gun (1986), Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) and Days of Thunder (1990), all big Hollywood productions with big stars and wide appeal. Sometimes, he branches out and does more experimental films; the results have been films like The Hunger (1983) and Domino (2005). And finally, if you ask me, Tony Scott is at his worst when making simplistic, vapid films like Unstopabble (2010). But most of the time, his films are entertaining and highly watchable. 

Ridley Scott Directs 

Tony Scott has also ventured into the revenge film territory. He has made two films of this variety, both of which are excellent within the revenge film genre. The first one he made is the film I will be reviewing today: Revenge (1990). His second entry into the revenge film sub-genre was the Quentin Tarantino scripted: True Romance (1993), a film I have revisited on more than one occasion. The reason why Tarantino got Tony Scott to direct True Romance was that Tarantino saw and loved Scott’s Revenge (1990). Tarantino has been quoted as saying “I’m a huge fan of that movie. In fact, that was the reason I was supportive and really tried to make it happen that Tony directed ‘True Romance’. I was like I want the man who directed ‘Revenge’ to do my movie”  In fact, the dvd cover for the unrated director’s cut of the film has a Tarantino quote that says “I consider ‘Revenge’ to be Tony Scott’s masterpiece”, so hey, Tarantino backs the hell out of this movie. And when you watch it, you actually feel like your watching a Tarantino film in many ways.

The story is all about fighter pilot Michal Jay Cochran (Kevin Costner), who’s just retired and is ready to just kick back and relax. His friend Tiburon ‘Tibey’ Mendez (Anthony Quinn) a Mexican ‘business man’ whom Jay once flew to Alaska for a hunting trip, invites Jay over to his mansion in Mexico to enjoy a couple of days of relaxation. Problem comes when Jay meets Tibey’s wife Mireya, who is a stunning beyond belief  beauty (Madeline Stowe). Jay and Mireya are immediately attracted to each other. They develop the kind of attraction that you just can’t stop. The kind of love that’s going to happen no matter what; the kind of love that can get people killed. And so the question arises, will Jay and  Mireya go through with it? I mean, if you knew the object of your affections was married to a stone cold gangster, who is also your friend, would you even think about going through with it? Well, all I can say is that if you saw Madeline Stowe in this movie, you’d understand why Jay decides to screw it all and go for her, which of course get’s him into massive amounts of trouble.

Friends or Foes?

 This movie was great for various reasons; first and foremost, it’s a great revenge film. The complications and situations that happen in this film are worthy of a Tarantino film; you almost feel like he could have written it himself. For example, just in terms of characters doing all sorts of crazy things for love, this one is very similar to True Romance (1993), yet another film in which two characters risk their lives for romance. In Revenge, Jay and Mireya fall madly (and blindly) in love with each other. Their love sets in motion a chain of destructive events; but they don’t care; they can’t seem to keep their hands off of each other. Who cares if Mireya is married to a stone cold killer? They are in love! Anthony Quinn playing the role of Tiburon ‘Tibey’ Mendez, Mireya’s gangster husband, is a real asset to the picture. Tibey seems at first like a nice kind of gangster. He plays tennis with his clients, loves his smoking hot wife and treats Jay like a son. But don’t double cross him or you’ll see his ugly side. There is this moment in which you get to know how pissed off Tibey can get: two of his henchmen attempt a hostile take over of Tibey’s operations; he quickly lets them know just who is boss. And when he discovers what’s going on between Jay and Mireya, boy, he really shows just how much of a vengeful villain he can be. The most tense scenes in the film come from those moments when you get the impression that Tibey kind of knows what's going on, but he's just toying around with Jay. You get this uncertain feeling creeping up on you: Does he know or doesnt he? Great stuff. 

 And this is where I take a chance to talk about Madeline Stowe, one of the most beautiful actresses to grace the silver screen. From the first moment she appears on screen she stuns, and the sex scenes on this film are really something else. I saw the directors cut of the film (the only version you should see of this film) and the scenes where steamier than one would expect from a Hollywood film. Tony Scott really made an effort to make this film erotic, I think it worked because I am now officially a Madeline Stowe fan. After seeing her in this film you certainly feel like this is the kind of woman you’d get yourself in trouble over. Anthony Quinn’s character asks Jay at one point “Do you think my wife is beautiful?” and Jay hesitates to answer, afraid that Tibey might get the wrong idea, but I quickly answered for him with a resounding “Hell YES!” So we got a solid cast on this one. We also get Miguel Ferrer who plays sidekick to Costners character for about half of the film, and John Leguizamo tags along in one of his very first roles ever. Leguizamo isnt really given much to do, it’s one of those roles where the actor isnt really experienced or famous yet so he doesn’t really say much. But he’s there, and he does have one cool scene all to himself. Reportedly, Leguizamo partied so much one night that he barfed on Tony Scott, which probably explains why Leguizamo hasnt worked with Tony Scott ever again. 

 My only problem with the film is the way things are resolved in the third act. The resolution didn’t gel well with a story, the kind of build up we get through out the whole film makes you think things are going to end up really badly between Jay and Tibey, but alas, things are resolved rather blandly instead. This is a trademark move from Tony Scott. While his brother often times makes films that don’t have the happy ending tacked on to them, Tony is the kind of director who actually fights to include them on his films, again showing his affinity for Hollywood style filmmaking, the mega happy ending has got to be there to satisfy the audience, so people go home happy. For example in the Tarantino’s original script for True Romance, Christian Slater’s character dies a horrible death. Tony Scott didn’t want that ending for his film, so he fought to include the mega happy ending we see in the film with Patricia Arquette and Christian Slater on the beach with their new born baby looking all shiny and happy. Revenge doesn’t exactly have a happy ending, but the main problem in the film is solved in a fashion that didn’t seem to fit the film, which kind of promises a nasty showdown in the end. But that was my only real problem with the film. The rest of it was perfect in my opinion.  

Revenge was a film that had was a hot property at one point in Hollywood, way back in 1979. You see, it took the film little more then ten years to get to the silver screen. Before it was turned into a film, it was a novella by author Jim Harrison. Once it was printed on Esquire magazine in 1979, many a Hollywood director wanted to produce and direct this project. Amongst the actors and directors who were actively seeking to direct this film were: Jack Nicholson, Kevin Costner, John Houston, Sydney Pollack, Jonathan Demme and even Francis Ford Copolla himself, but it was Tony Scott who ended up directing and he did a great job with it as far as Im concerned. It might get a little too light for a revenge film at times (especially during it's third half) but it does get pretty intense, it has some really gripping and cringe inducing moments and it’s a bit different than other revenge films because of its marked sensuality. Highly recommend this underrated Tony Scott film. 

Rating: 4 out of 5