Man of Steel

2.5/4 stars

After the wise decision to abandon the story arc of 2006’s laborious Superman Returns and give the franchise a true reboot under the supervision of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, fans had hope that Man of Steel would be the film that finally does for Superman what Nolan and Goyer’s Dark Knight trilogy did for Batman. Seeing Zack Snyder, director of the excellent Watchmen adaptation, at the helm certainly didn’t hurt either. But Man of Steel is at best a partial success in this goal, burdened with an excess of increasingly meaningless action scenes and too little background to hold them together.

The film opens with an extended sequence set in the last days of Krypton, starring Russell Crowe as Superman’s biological father Jor-El and featuring plenty of action scenes of its own. This sequence serves to introduce the origin of Superman himself, as well as antagonist General Zod, and the primary McGuffin. The first thing that struck me was this film’s incredible lack of patience. It’s always providing us with beautiful, interesting things to look at and almost no time to take them in. This Kryptonian prelude manages to feel overwritten and underdeveloped at the same time.

When the movie gets going, it does manage to draw compelling versions of the Superman cast. Henry Cavill plays the title role with all the requisite charm and authority, and Amy Adams’ Lois Lane may be one of the best interpretations of the character yet. There are good supporting performances too, particularly Laurence Fishburne’s intimidating but fatherly Perry White. Two of my favorite television actors, Richard Schiff and Tahmoh Penikett, are also seen, but sorely underutilized. The script also provides plenty of interesting opportunities for dramatic hooks and variations on the known Superman mythos. But the film doesn’t seem to care about any of this back story it introduces, as it pushes aside any chance for real drama or unpredictable complications in favor of more straightforward action sequences. Superman has no time to establish himself as a hero, or have any interaction with most of his supporting cast, because the moment Clark Kent discover the truth about himself, he inadvertently broadcasts his location to General Zod and the rest of the Kryptonian refugees, and from there the action hardly takes a breath.

Michael Shannon’s turn as Zod is another missed opportunity. Shannon is a fantastic actor, capable of playing a rational yet ruthless enemy. But the plot robs him of any real chance to communicate with Superman with anything other than his fists, leaving the stakes of their conflict feeling half-baked. On the occasions when the movie does pause for a dramatic moment, it’s usually a flashback of young Clark being taught some formative lesson by Pa Kent. There’s nothing wrong with these scenes per se, and they’re made no worse by Kevin Costner’s familiar paternal presence, but Goyer hits the same note too many times, and in the process, misses the opportunity to have Clark’s character development more relevant to the people he interacts with in the main story.

Man of Steel has all the ingredients necessary to be the kind of superhero epic that stands beside The Dark Knight or the recent string of quality offerings from Marvel. But it isn’t that movie, nonetheless, because the filmmakers decided they had time for more explosions and special effects, but not enough for good storytelling.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2.5/4 stars

It's not that great to be this Wolverine! ...Okay, sorry about that.

How much I like X-Men Origins: Wolverine (hereafter referred to simply as Wolverine) seems to be largely a function of my expectations at the given moment. Starting from my pessimistic prediction that the film's makers would keep all the badass grittiness of the Wolverine character's backstory and dispose of everything insightful and soulful about it, the film exceeds expectations. On the other hand, measured against the spate of ridiculously good superhero movies to come out recently, Wolverine is fairly lacking. The conclusion that I've come to though, the one I think is important, is that when you put the movie that was made next to the movie that was almost made, the one that could have been made, Wolverine is not a waste of time, but is somewhat disappointing.

This is a movie that succeeds in being both action-packed, and at times very close to introspective. Knowing from both the comic book history and the 2000 film X-Men that the story must end with Wolverine having lost his memory takes something away from the emotional experience of the character, but that's the hand that the film has been dealt. The movie delivers on its premise; it reveals the tragic history of amnesiac berserker of whom we are so fond. It begins with an excellent, and very Watchmen-like opening credit sequence that takes us through the many years that Wolverine and his brother Victor fought together in various wars (he's more than a century old, you know). From there, we see how he became involved with the government wetwork team that would change his life, enhance his powers, and make him the mutant we all know today. It's a good story, and the filmmakers get it mostly right, and tell it with flair.

So what's the problem? It's the little things. Some of the changes between the movie universe and the comic book universe, like changing William Stryker from a radical preacher to a general and the director of the Weapon X program, are wise and serve the storytelling. Others, like the handling of Deadpool, a cult favorite character who becomes one of this film's biggest adversaries, are pointlessly irreverent. People want to see Deadpool, not just his name on somewhat similar monster. And then there's Wolverine's brother, Victor Creed. He's supposed to be Sabretooth, and seems very much like that character. At the same time, maybe he isn't in this universe - he's certainly not the same Sabretooth we met in the 2000 film. And then there's how artlessly the pieces are pasted together to get things to where that movie finds them, with cameos by Cyclops and Professor Xavier that only serve to remind us of how they were ridiculously killed off in the last entry in this series (2006's X-Men: The Last Stand, sorry if you haven't seen it yet). The last quarter or so of the movie (including its manifold credit cookies) are basically a mess.

Wolverine is an enjoyable action movie and an okay superhero movie. But for a comic fan like me (I've read many comics, and stuck with X-Men related titles the longest) it is like the rest of the film series: imperfect in all the most irritating ways.

In the Valley of Elah

2.5/4 stars

In the Valley of Elah is a movie that tries to be a mystery, a tragedy and a political statement. As a mystery it is dense and unpredictable (if somewhat dry), as a tragedy it is well acted and strikingly composed. However, the film's political agenda derails its success in other areas.

Tommy Lee Jones is the protagonist, a father who tries to solve his son's murder even as he grieves. His quiet intensity and constrained emotion are the film's greatest asset, and a reminder of Jones' incredible talent. He plays a character struggling with many emotions; anger, guilt, courage and determination, and he balances them all with great restraint. Charlize Theron gives a well drawn performance as the ambivalent police detective who helps him. The supporting cast includes numerous talented actors and strikes the right note as well, even if this often only requires them to be somber.

Whether or not they agree with the film's political sentiments (a condemnation of war in general and the Iraq war in particular), viewers will find that they rob the film's conclusion of the emotional payoff we should be feeling. Instead of playing as ingenious plot twist, the mystery's solution seems like an arbitrary deux es machina, designed to take us by surprise in the most tragic way possible. The use of a flashback at the end to twist the knife undermines the spare and direct storytelling style that the movie has established, and its powerful final image seems an unearned contrivance. Paul Haggis, while a highly talented writer and director, also has a history of such heavy-handedness (see Crash). In the Valley of Elah is another entry in his catalogue that overshoots the correct balance between drama and message.

Leaving Las Vegas

2.5/4 stars

Readers of my other blog will remember my affinity for the Pogues song Fairytale of New York, which is about the reminiscence of an Irish couple’s early idealism faced with the harsh realities of poverty and addiction that they endure. Leaving Las Vegas is a film that is very much like that song in spirit. Both capture, with equal honesty and intensity, the joys and horrors of a tumultuous relationship. Indeed, one of the things that impressed me most about Leaving Las Vegas is the tender sweetness of the love story. Many films have demonstrated that it is not that difficult to show strife and dysfunction, but this one tempers it with an alluring yet realistic vision of potential happiness for its characters.

The cinematography and the soundtrack are smooth yet expressive. The camera work goes from intimate to distant, lucid to hazy depending on the needs of the scene, entrancing the viewer with powerful images, melodic delivery and calculated reticence. I found the various love songs that the soundtrack calls upon to be especially effective; they can convey the dreamy quality of romance, but also the uncomfortable spiraling of a relationship that is out of control. Actors Nicholas Cage and Elisabeth Shue do a good job of keeping even the happy moments tense and ill at ease, and the terrible ones retain a faint optimism.

Still, even with everything that works, the film is not perfect. What makes the aforementioned song so enjoyable is that despite its bitter outcome, it still has beauty as a song. The film is not so graceful. Captivating as it may be, Leaving Las Vegas proves clumsy whenever it tries to do anything of any real subtlety. The tragedies of the film are always grotesque, they only vary in scale. Even when their unhappiness is beneath the surface, it is monstrous and unlivable. The film gains points for being unflinching, but loses points in realism. The lovers say awful things to one another for no apparent reason. Too much of the emotion is expressed by the characters simply stating the way they are. “I came here to drink myself to death,” says Nicholas Cage. “I’ll go back to my glamorous life of being alone. All I have to come home to is a bottle of mouthwash to get the taste of come out of my mouth. I’m tired of being alone,” says Elisabeth Shue, when Nicholas Cage suggests that he might leave. Such lines powerful but aren’t convincing. The actors lack nothing in conviction, but their nuance leaves room for improvement.

Aliens

2.5/4 stars

A unique achievement... I think this movie may hold the record for keeping the audience on the edge of their seats for the longest continual time. Not that that's necessarily pleasant.

Written June 27. 2007.

Mission: Impossible III

2.5/4 stars

An improvement over number two, this movie comes back to the M:I concept a little bit, but the script is ultimately shallow and simplistic. Biggest offense is the undisguised McGuffin of the Rabbit's Foot. Biggest standout is Hoffman's twisted performance.

Written June 28, 2007.

Marie Antionette (new review!)

2.5/4 stars

I wouldn't have thought it possible for Sophia Coppola to create a boring movie. Her previous effort, Lost in Translation, is gorgeous, bittersweet, introspective and funny. With Marie Antionette, once again, I appreciated what was offered visually, I liked the characterization (as executed both by Coppola as writer and her cast) and enjoyed the soundtrack. Still, I found the movie dragged on, it was ultimately unsatisfying, and yes, boring. I think of it as an important virtue to be able to have patience for movies that reward it, but Marie Antionette simply doesn't have enough going on to justify its slow pace and length. It isn't that the construction is poor, it's that the purpose is lacking. Take for instance a scene that occurs about a half hour into the movie, in which the title character stands naked in a room full of important visitors, waiting for them to ceremonially dress her. The scene is a funny and effective illustration of the way in which status and expectations have deprived her of a sense of self. But at half an hour into the movie, we know all this already. What would have been an effective scene in the first fifteen minutes becomes a sign of a film struggling to take off. The film meanders, and can't seem to settle on a message. Its trappings exude that it wants to be a movie about a bad girl, but it can't bring itself to portray Antionette as anything less than a saint. She cheats on her husband, but she's forgiven for that at first by his inattention to her, and second by her self-sacrificing decision to stand by him. She parties too much, but the film seems to say that doing so is her only way of winning back any degree of teenage self expression, and besides, she is shown to have great compassion for her people and those around her anyway. The movie is aggressively modern in its execution, but gets weighed down in courtly period drama. There is an obsession with historical flavor, but a lack of historical context. This brings me to my final objection (I would say that what comes next is a spoiler, except that this being a historical movie, you probably already know it, and anyway the movie doesn't show it), the fact the movie makes no mention of Antionette's execution. I've read all sorts of reasons why this is a brilliant decision, but it seemed to me to be the film unable to stomach its own subject matter. Perhaps actually addressing the main character's downfall would bring some resolution to whatever arc the film is trying to build, after all you can't have a tragedy if you ignore the tragic ending. As it is, this is an overly long movie that ironically omits its final act.

American History X

2.5/4 stars

Don't get me wrong, it's powerful, but there are major problems with this movie. If it leaves you feeling uneasy, it may not just be because of the disturbing subject matter, but also the failure to treat it with the proper weight.

Written June 29, 2007.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

2.5/4 stars

Good and not so good in almost equal measure here. Good: Thurman, Rainn Wilson, Anna Faris. Disappointingly off their game: Luke Wilson and Eddie Izzard. Always unbearable: Wanda Sykes. I do like to see a world with superpowered characters in it where it's still made clear that the superbeings aren't the center of everyone's lives. My favorite part might be the banter between Wilson and Wilson that reflects this.

Written July 18, 2007.

Sin City

2.5/4 stars

Propelled by a distinctive style and an entertaining storyline, these unfortunately do not overcome uneven performances (some are inspired, but there are a few times in the film when you wonder why a competent director would keep the take you just saw) and an unnecessary degree of unpleasantness.

Written September 8, 2007.

A History of Violence

2.5/4 stars

This movie was well constructed and well acted enough to capture my attention for its duration, but it's ultimately disappointing in its pointlessness and ocassional implausibility. (For instance, Mortensen's crazy ninja skills don't seem quite justified by the fact that he used to be a hitman, especially since none of the other hitmen in the movie have them.) All in all, it's unpleasant enough with too little purpose that I can't recommend it. Oh, and William Hurt's Oscar nomination for such a short and cliched appearance, so obviously beneath his talents, is laughable.

Written October 15, 2007.

Die Another Day

2.5/4 stars

Possibly the worst Brosnan Bond movie, next to Tomorrow Never Dies. As always, Brosnan's performance is the strong point. It's sad, considering how well Brosnan fit the role and made it his own, that the movies they put him in couldn't be better.

Written October 15, 2007.

Forrest Gump

2.5/4 stars

While it has moments of effective resonance, overall I find this movie to be a little overrated and kitschy in its intentional and shameless emotional manipulation.

Written November 12, 2007.

Superbad

2.5/4 stars

Not as impressive as 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up, this movie's structure is a mess and the material is subpar for this team.

Written January 27, 2008.

Juno

2.5/4 stars

It seems like once a year there's an indie movie that all college students simultaneously go crazy for. So, when I say that Juno is this year's Little Miss Eternal Sunshine, this is more a simple fact about the state of current events than a complaint. Nonetheless, while I've seen a lot of quirky, clever films in this genre, I've never seen one that tries so hard to nail it as Juno. It's interesting how the indie film/indie rock/indie culture aesthetics work together to build hype for a movie like this. I knew for instance from the start of the film that I'd be hearing Piazza New York Catcher at some point, and I wasn't disappointed. The film is similarly unchallenging in almost every other respect. In the title character we've got probably the most blatent Mary Sue ever put on film. The movie doesn't really bother to give us characters with flaws (except for the strawmen we're clearly supposed to dislike) but icons that epitomize what the filmmakers see as cool. All this isn't to say that I didn't find Juno enjoyable (though at times it became far too absorbed in its own cuteness), but rather that it isn't substantial enough to live up to its hype.

Written January 27, 2008.

Saved!

2.5/4 stars

Teen comedies aren't known for creating three-dimensional, introspective portraits of characters; in fact it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the genre subsists on stereotypes. Surprisingly, the biggest strength of Saved! may be its well drawn cast of characters. Disappointingly, the film falls short of its own standards in this area. Considering that when the movie was concieved, pitched and advertised, ridiculous caricatures of Christians were probably the main selling point, the film does well at avoiding that temptation. It even ends on an optimistically ambiguous note regarding the existence of God, and rather than being a jaded entry in a tiresome culture war, it becomes a thoughtful portrayal of a loss and recovery of faith. But as fair as the movie is to Christians, it remains unfair in all the familiar ways to the truth of being in high school. After spending an hour setting up personalities, relationships, conflicts, the film gives us a disappointingly typical outcasts vs queen bee climax. And just once, can the boyfriend in one of these movies posess any attributes at all beyond being good looking, awkwardly charming and unrealistically tenacious? This film, almost universally awarded four stars by my friends, certainly could have been a lot worse. But if we're being honest here, it could also have been much better.

Written April 18, 2008.

Pineapple Express

2.5/4 stars

By some strange coincidence, I saw two movies this weekend that involve older men dating 17 year old girls. One was Pineapple Express, the other Woody Allen's 1979 film Manhattan. You could hardly be blamed for not wanting to consider the similarities between these two films, but they do share a certain honest quality in their dialogue and their treatment of relationships. This is the primary draw of Pineapple Express. Seth Rogen is quickly becoming one of my favorite comedic performers, and I suspect I'm not alone in this. As a writer, he's certainly very good at coming up with one liners for himself and crafting hilarious exchanges, both improvised and on paper. However, like the other prominent film that has Rogen in a writing credit, Superbad, Pineapple Express suffers from a rather nearsighted construction. While these movies get a lot of mileage out of joking around between their leads, they fall short whenever they try to be movies. The bigger setpieces, such as a car chase and a massive shootout are unsatisfying, and the arc of the film itself is meandering and lacks closure. You will laugh a lot in this movie, but unlike superior Apatow produced efforts like Knocked Up or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, you won't leave the theater satisfied that you saw something entirely worthwhile. There's something very cheap about the ending of Pineapple Express, the way various elements are left unresolved (like the aforementioned girlfriend), and the random, credibility straining manner in which others are resolved. Maybe other viewers will be less bothered by this than me, but you get the impression that it was thought that every important part of the movie could be improvised, and through some magic, the end result would be okay. I prefer a movie that knows where it's going, what it's doing, and can provide a why for the things that it shows us.

Written August 16, 2008.