Man of Steel - Washed Out, not Up

DC and Marvel have a bit of a rivalry.  They’re the two biggest comic book companies.  DC’s been at it since 1934, with titles like “Action Comics” (where Superman started) and “Detective Comics” (the title that introduced Batman).  Aside from WWII era heroes like Captain America, Marvel’s most well-known characters didn’t come around until Stan Lee and a couple of collaborators started creating the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, and more in the 1960s.  These two companies publish all except four of the American comics I buy on a regular basis.  Right now, I think DC is doing a better job of giving its universe a clear direction and overall story.  And, for the most part, I’m enjoying DC titles more than Marvel titles.

But this blog is about movies, right?  And in the movie department, I think that Marvel is doing a better job of giving its universe a clear direction and overall story.  Marvel obviously has a plan with Iron Man, Thor, Spider-Man, Captain America, and the Avengers.  And the movies have been really fun!  Last year’s Avenger’s movie was absolutely amazing, and one of my favorite movies of the whole year.

I’ve already written about my thoughts on Iron Man 3.  And even though it upset me in a big way, it was still really well done.  And even though Thor has never been one of my favorite characters (I’ve never bought a Thor comic book), I’m looking forward to Thor 2 in November.  (As an aside, the X-Men and Wolverine movies seem to be unconnected to the Avengers movies… at least so far.  But I have a feeling that Spider-Man will be meeting up with the team eventually.)

Lately I’ve been thinking about why I like the Marvel movies so much.  What I’ve come up with so far is that they still feel like comics, even though they’re live action on a big screen.  The heroes and the villains are colorful and larger than life.  The plots involve grand, evil schemes that need to be foiled by the good guys for the world to keep spinning in a nearly-normal fashion.  And even if there’s some darkness, there’s also light—literally and figuratively.  The big battle in the Avengers happened in bright daylight.  There’s plenty of humor to lighten the mood.  And the heroes, while they have to face difficult moral decisions at times, are able to keep themselves relatively unsullied.

Don’t get me wrong.  I loved the most recent Batman trilogy.  It was dark and brooding, and it really fit the character.  It seemed like there was some effort to make the characters and technology more realistic than they are in the comics:  the Batmobile was a small tank; Ra’s al Ghul wasn’t immortal; the Joker wasn’t quite as colorful, but he was definitely evil; and Bane, while a really big guy, was just a really big guy.

Superman is almost a polar opposite to Batman.  He’s solar powered.  He thrives in the light.  There’s nothing dark or brooding about him.  He works to inspire hope, not fear.  I believe that he only keeps his Clark Kent persona as a secret identity so that he can have normal interactions and relationships with people.    Besides that one (admittedly large) secret, he’s completely open and honest.  He doesn’t even hide his face.

While dark and brooding works well for Batman, it’s a bit out of character for Superman.

Not that “Man of Steel” was really dark or really brooding.  There were parts of it that were very light—literally (a big daylight battle) and figuratively (Clark’s smile, for one).  But the colors were washed out,  not as bright as previous Superman movies.  Superman’s costume was muted in tone.  The villains uniformly wore black.  And, strange as it sounds for a movie about an alien with superhuman powers, it had the same “realistic” feel to it that the Batman trilogy had.  Maybe that’s going to be the signature of DC superhero movies.

I want to be clear that I really liked the movie.  I thought that, with one exception that I’ll go into shortly, it was very well cast.  It had superb special effects.  The design of the Kryptonian technology, costumes, and ships was really cool!  There are a lot of movies where sci-fi armor looks cheap, plastic and cartoonish.  That wasn’t the case with “Man of Steel”.  The whole thing felt grounded (another funny thing to say about a movie with a main character that flies), and that isn’t a bad thing.  It just didn’t blow me away like the Avengers’ movie did.  I loved it, but I didn’t LOVE it.

I have to say that, until “Man of Steel”, Christopher Reeve was the best Superman portrayer in my opinion.  But Henry Cavill was spot on.  To echo the words of one of the female characters, he’s kind of hot!  Michael Shannon, who I think I’ve only seen once before, was a great Zod.  Some actors are just made to play bad guys.  He’s one of them.  Superman’s two fathers, Jor-El played by Russell Crowe, and Jonathan Kent played by Kevin Costner, were very well cast.  Even though it was a smallish part, I thought Costner’s Jonathan Kent was one of the best performances I’ve seen from him.  Perry White was played by Lawrence Fishbourne, and there’s nothing I can find wrong with that casting.  The only cast member I had a problem with was Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

Lois Lane is nearly as well known as Superman.  In every portrayal of her that I’ve seen—in movies, TV, or comic books—she’s assertive, no nonsense, confident, and fiery.  She’s got steel in her.  Amy Adams had probably three-and-a-half out of those five characteristics.  She was no nonsense and confident, somewhat assertive, and she definitely had steel, but she just wasn’t fiery.  She was too gentle and quiet.  She was more like water than fire (if that makes any sense).  I think it’s generally a good thing for actors to make a character their own.  But in this case, Amy Adams wasn’t a good fit for me.

In the last decade or so, the action in action movies has become faster, more frenetic.  Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the combatants apart because they’re moving so fast.  To some extent, that was the case in “Man of Steel”.  But I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.  Fights between superpowered individuals should be fast.  They should be messy.  The makers of “Man of Steel” did a good job of helping out the audience, though.  Even muted, Superman’s costume had enough color to it to see who had the upper hand and who was taking the hits.

I liked the story of the movie.  I liked that it showed how Clark Kent became the man that he is.  I liked the initial attitudes of people toward Superman, and then seeing how they changed.  I liked that Zod had a reason for what he did that was beyond vengeance.  There was some funny science, but I can usually forgive that in a comic book movie.  Also, the movie makers seem to have forgotten that bullets ricochet.  I kept wondering why people kept shooting, even when the ammunition seemed to have no effect at all.

So, to sum up, “Man of Steel” was no “Marvel’s Avengers”, but it was still a very good movie.  Henry Cavill was a great Superman, but Amy Adams was a mediocre Lois Lane.  The action was spectacular, and the design of the Kryptonians was really cool.  I’m looking forward to a sequel!

Star Trek - Sequels Are Never as Good as the Original, Right?

Sequels are never as good as the first installment.  It seems like the filmmakers identify what worked best in the original and try to do more of it, but it ends up feeling forced.  For example, I loved “Cars.”  It was well done all the way around.  There were great characters.  It was clever.  The story was fun and had a point without being too heavy handed.  “Cars 2”, on the other hand, wasn’t nearly as good.  Mater, who was a great foil for Lightning McQueen in the first movie, was overdone in the second.  The subtle touches of “Cars” that made it clever weren’t nearly as subtle in “Cars 2”.  And the story was more silly than fun.

But the rule of disappointing sequels doesn’t always hold.  Here’s a list of “2’s” and “3’s” (or beyond) that, in my opinion, were as good as or better than their “1’s”:

“Spider-Man 2” (the Tobey Maguire era)

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”

“The Dark Knight”

“Toy Story 2” and “Toy Story 3”

“Hellboy 2”

“Men in Black 3”

“Shrek 2”

“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn”

“Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home”

“Star Trek First Contact”

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

(Is there a pattern there?)

Yes, I thought “Star Trek Into Darkness” was as good or better than J. J. Abrams’ first foray into the world of “Star Trek”.

Two of the things that I loved about the first movie were the portrayals of familiar characters by new faces and the way the series was rebooted.  All of those elements were present again in “Into Darkness”, all with the same feel as “Star Trek”, and all in the proper proportions.

True Trekkies would probably call me a heretic, but I like Chris Pine’s Kirk much better than I like William Shatner’s.  Pine has a much less annoying speaking cadence.  He has appropriate swagger and confidence.  And he’s not bad on the eyes, either.

Zachary Quinto as Spock is spot on.  He and Chris Pine play off each other very well.  I also enjoy the dynamic between Spock and Uhura.  It is a relationship new to the rebooted series, and it brings a new depth to both characters.  They are polar opposites, with Spock being cold and logical and Uhura being warm and passionate.  The blue uniform he wears and the red uniform she wears are almost symbolic that way.  And speaking of Uhura, I am excited that she has more of a part in the new movies.  Zoe Saldana has a lot of presence, more than I remember Nichelle Nichols having.

The rest of the Enterprise crew is just as well cast as Kirk, Spock, and Uhura.  Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy is almost a clone of DeForest Kelley’s.  McCoy’s pessimism is fun, as are the continual metaphors and “I’m a doctor, not a [fill in the blank]” lines.  Simon Pegg as Scotty is hilarious.  It’s nice to see Sulu’s competence and ambition as portrayed by John Cho.  He handled his time in the Captain’s chair very well in “Into Darkness.”  (Oops, that was a spoiler.  But not too much of one…).  Anton Yelchin plays a very different Chekov than Walter Koenig did.  This new Chekov is a bit more high-strung than the original.  He seems to have more of a personality.

The two J. J. Abram’s “Star Trek” movies have a great cast.  The actors didn’t try to outdo themselves in “Into Darkness”.  They just seemed to continue on from where they left off in “Star Trek.”

And I can’t leave the topic of actors/characters without talking about Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison/Khan.  (Gah!  Another spoiler.)  I haven’t seen him in anything other than “Sherlock” (if you don’t count his silhouette in “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”).  He’s great in “Sherlock”.  And he’s amazing in “Into Darkness.”  His Khan has a subtle menace at times and a not so subtle rage at other times.  He’s just as scary as Ricardo Montalban’s Khan.

I read a couple of reviews of “Into Darkness” that didn’t appreciate the reuse of the Khan story.  They thought it was lazy.  But it worked for me.  I enjoyed the parallels as well as the differences.

First of all, the last movie introduced an alternate timeline that came about because of a group of Romulans that traveled into the past and changed it.  However, everything that happened in the Star Trek universe until that change stayed the same.  That includes Khan.  His origin is still the same.  It isn’t a stretch to think that he’d surface in the new timeline.

Second, just because Khan reappeared doesn’t mean that the story is the same as it was before.  In the original series, he was rescued and revived by the Enterprise crew.  Without giving spoilers, that is not what happened in “Into Darkness”.  In the original series he tried to take over the Enterprise as a first step toward his goal of the domination of the human race.  His goal in “Into Darkness” was much more destructive and far less grandiose.

Finally, elements of “The Wrath of Khan” did appear in “Into Darkness”.  But even those elements were changed.  Doers of certain deeds were changed.  There were heroics all the way around by the Enterprise crew, but in different ways than were previously seen.  So even though Khan was brought back by J. J. Abrams and company, there were plenty of things that made it different from the original.  And, to my point at the beginning of this, it didn’t feel overdone or forced.  It seemed like a natural progression of the new story.

That’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its flaws.  The science was a bit iffy here and there.  At the beginning there was a volcano on a planet that would have destroyed said planet if it had erupted.  But I’d think that whatever pressure is causing the eruption in the first place would still have to be relieved in another way so that the planet and its inhabitants would remain in danger.  (By the way, the planet’s name was Nibiru.  Wasn’t that the name of the planet that was supposed to destroy Earth on Dec 20, 2012?)  Also, the logic of putting the meeting room of Star Fleet’s big wigs relatively unprotected spot doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Then again, the bridges of all the Star Fleet ships are right at the top and relatively unprotected—though every enemy shot seems to miss them.

To sum up, this is one of those not-so-rare sequels that is as good as or better than the original.  The characters were great, and the story was a lot of fun.  I liked how elements from the original series were added back into the new timeline.  But looking ahead, I’m a bit nervous about the future.  This was most likely J. J. Abram’s last time at the helm of a Star Trek movie.  I hope whoever gets the captain’s chair next continues the trend of making sequels that are even better than the previous installment.

After Earth - Everybody Hates M.

“After Earth” got horrible critic reviews.  And, according to Flixter as of 12:40pm on June 1, 61% of movie watchers liked it.  I do agree that it isn’t the best movie that I’ve ever seen, but it wasn’t as horribly unwatchable as some of the reviews I saw made it out to be.

So I have to wonder, is part of the reason that critics panned the movie that M. Night Shyamalan directed it?

I really enjoyed Shyamalan’s first three movies, “The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable”, and “Signs”.  I thought “The Village” was creepy and scary, but I didn’t hate it.  I really liked the twist at the end.  “Lady in the Water” was bizarre, but I didn’t hate it either.  I haven’t seen “The Happening”, so I can’t comment on that one.  “The Last Air Bender” was highly criticized for its casting.  The acting wasn’t the best, and the special effects and costuming were kind of cheap.  But it was fairly faithful to the animated series that the story was taken from.  Again, I didn’t hate it.  As entertainment, M. Night Shyamalan’s movies do just fine for me.

Admittedly, my standards are probably not as high as others.  Especially movie critics’ standards.  I learned a long time ago that I don’t always agree with them.  But a lot of people do pay attention to what they say when deciding if they’ll go see a movie or not. 

I’m not going to say that “After Earth” was amazing.  In my opinion, it had too much Jaden Smith and not enough Will.  But I think that was the plan—Will and Jaden in a movie together where Jaden would be the main character.  So that wasn’t Shyamalan’s fault.

The story had a ton of holes in it.  As co-writer of the movie, that could definitely be blamed on Shyamalan.   But you could also blame the other writer, Gary Whitta.

Jaden Smith looks worried/terrified through most of the movie.  But he had the same expression for a good portion of “The Karate Kid” (or as I like to call it, “The Kung Fu Kid”), so that might just be his natural mode.  As the director of the movie, Shyamalan was responsible for the acting—but the ability of the actor comes into play as well.

Yes, there were plenty of things wrong with the movie.  But there were things I did enjoy.  I liked the cinematography (even the computer generated bits).  I liked the design of the sets.  It was a very pretty movie to watch.  I liked the symbolic journey of Jaden’s character, going from a frightened, guilt-ridden kid to a confident young man at peace.  I also liked the change in Will Smith’s character from an absentee father to one with pride in his son.  And I was able to get around the holes in the story (with a little bit of eye rolling) to enjoy the whole of it.

Don’t pre-judge this movie just because M. Night Shyamalan was involved in it.  If you like sci-fi flicks, this isn’t the worst one you could see.  Out of the movies I’ve seen this year, this one isn’t at the bottom of my list (that spot goes to “G. I. Joe Retaliation”).  It isn’t the best (so far, that spot goes to “Star Trek Into Darkness”).  But it was just fine for a Friday after work.  And I’ll probably buy it when it’s available on Blu-ray.