Saturday, June 29, 2013

Movie Reviews: Man of Steel.

(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
         Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally  predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
     Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
    What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
    But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro).  Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment.  Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him  slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman.  However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
    Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Movie Reviews: Les Miserables

             (Note: I started writing this three months ago. I started writing it the 23th of February, but then life got in the way, and I became too busy finish it. Thus, why I make a reference to the Oscars being two days in the very first paragraph, because that was the day I started writing. Forgive me, if you're annoyed by this. Every thing up to the 6th sentence of the third paragraph was written in February. Anyway, enjoy, regardless of the time of writing.)
        In two days, the Academy Awards ("the Oscars") will occur in the Dolby Theater in Hollywood. In this ceremony, special awards are given to films that were critically, though sometimes not financially, successful films of the preceding year. Organized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, these awards have been a tradition since 1929, celebrating the best in cinema during that particular time. This year, the Oscar nominees include "Argo", "Lincoln", "Zero Dark Thirty", and other critically praised films. However, I am going to focus on one particular nomination: "Les Miserables."  Now, exploring the depths of youtube and Metacritic, I have found that a lot of people REALLY like this film. Some were blown away by it, and some were brought to tears by the performances. There are a lot of reviews declaring this film, "AMAZING", and "BRILLIANT", and "STUNNING". And that leads them to attack other reviewers for criticizing it. I refer you to the "What the Flick" review of Les Miserables. Now, the critics in that video were heavily criticizing the film, some very legitimate, but some somewhat harsh. The notable thing, however, was the comments. Most of the comments went to the effects of "Les Mes rocks, and these people don't like any movies, if they hate this film." This is of course indicates a high admiration for the film, and a confusion if one dislikes the film.There are a lot of people who like this movie. I'm not one of them. In fact, I think it is largely mediocre; let's see why, shall we?
     The story, based on Victor Hugo's 1862 novel and the stage adaptation of that work with music by
Claude-Michel Schönberg, is set in post-revolution France between 1815 to 1832. It revolves around Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a convict who has been paroled by prison guard Javant (Russel Crowe), but is rejected due to this. After being taken in by a priest, and moved by his kindness when Valjean steals some silver from the priest, and when two policemen confront the priest with Valjean and the silver, the Priest actually defends him, Valjean decides to skip parole and start his life anew. He becomes a respected factory owner. In his factory, one of his employees, Fantina (Anne Hathaway) is fired, despite having an illegitimate child to care for. To make ends meet, she becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean finds out that another man has been captured under the impression that he was Valjean. Whilst dealing with the implication, he comes across Fatina, who is being confronted by Javant, now a policemen and several others, over her assaulting a customer. After Valjean saves her and sends her to a hospital, he decides to come clean with the court about to convict the false Valjean, before visiting Fantine. After learning that Fantine has an illegitimate child, and narrowly escaping Javant, he finds Fatine's child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen), living as a virtual slave to a con man and his wife (Helen Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen), and after paying him in exchange for the child, decides once again starts a new life, with Cosette in tow. Skip forward another few years, and Jean Valjean has settled in Paris with the teenaged Cosette (not played by Amanda Seyfried.) However, their tranquil life is disturbed by a brewing revolution against the new king, lead by two young men named Marius ( Eddie Redmayne), and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit). On top of that, Marius falls in love with Cosette, and Javant, now a having a Captain Ahab-style obsession over Jean Valjean, wants to crush the rebellion. Can Jean Valjean help the rebellion, and approve of Cosette and Marius' romance.

First, I'll get all the things I like about the film out of the way. Most of the actors do well. Hugh Jackman does very well in the role of Jean Valjean, and the character himself is very likable, very noble, and very developed. Anne Hathaway does a terrific performance at the beginning of the film, and does a very powerful, emotional song. However, contrary to what the trailer show, Anne Hathaway is only in the movie for that amount of time. I really like the set designs, and how it easily conveys the setting of the piece, and creates an authentic atmosphere. Some of the other songs are also very nice to listen to, though I will elaborate later. Overall, there is many things to like about the film..

That said, there are some things I find distracting. The main one? EVERYONE SINGS THEIR LINES! No, literally, nobody says anything. They sing it. And to me, that is very irritating. Okay, maybe people like the innovation, but I was just annoyed that they were singing all the time. I didn't like it because there is no transition between musical number. That is to say, I cannot tell where one ends and the other starts. The musical number sort of all merge due to this, and thus individual songs lose some of their impact as a result. Also, it doesn't allow us time to calm ourselves, and get ready to enjoy the next musical number. Perhaps it's a pet peeve, but it just kept bothering me throughout my viewing of the film. This is my main problem with the movie. There are a lot of smaller problems I have. One is Russel Crowe's voice. Yeah, even people who like this movie don't really like Russel Crowe's singing all that much. The thing is, his voice always seems off tune every time he sings. I hear this is because he is a rock singer, and thus he is more adapted to that style of music then to opera, but I have never heard him sing rock, so I wouldn't necessarily know why. Also, he didn't really act that well. I suppose it's just that off-tune voice that keeps bothering me during his more emotional moments. Finally, I suppose the cinematography was crammed. I mean, these are very nice set designs, but we don't get time to enjoy it. Instead, the shots simply cram them into each shot, and it really is too much in one shot at times. It's hard to enjoy the scenery when its crammed into a single shot. Once again, probably a pet peeved, but these sets are very large and very nice looking, and the only time we get to enjoy them is the ending.

I suppose I don't necessarily dislike the movie. When I came out of the theater in December, My feeling was "meh..." It was largely okay in my opinion. Not a great film, but not one of the worst I've seen. I was only discontent with the reaction to negative criticism to the film, where people would blast anybody that has a negative opinion regarding the film. I don't know. If you like the film, fine, go right ahead. You are entitled to opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion. If you read this, and you really disagree with me, leave it in the comments, explain why you like the movie, just be a little bit respectful about my opinion, alright. Anyways, if I were to give this a percentage of how good it is, with 100% being absolutely perfect, I'd give this a 70%. Some good things, some bad things. If you can tolerate the constant singing, then you'll probably like it alright.

Percentage :70%

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Hello

Hello,
  I'd prefer to keep my identity anonymous, so just call me Mr. RC. This is my very first blog. I currently have nothing to discuss, just sort of a experimentation with the medium right. Good bye, I hope to see you soon, whoever's reading this.