Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: The most anticipated superhero film of the year, Man of Steel reboots the famous Superman character. With Batman all done, DC surely hopes to have a new franchise to compete with Marvel's uber-successful Avengers. Unfortunately, Man of Steel gets the Clark Kent origin aspects all wrong, and the superfluous addition of The Daily Planet bogs things down. If you came for the action, though, you likely won't be disappointed. This fledgling franchise is certainly salvageable, but it's off to a rocky start.
After a few other (disappointing) films in other genres, it's back to the good ol' summer blockbuster with Man of Steel. When it comes to superheroes, they don't come much more famous than Superman and, like Batman, it's always interesting to see a new adaptation of such a classic character. The first trailer was subtle but really got me excited for the movie: Christopher Nolan, the mind behind the newest Batman trilogy, was producing, and the style seemed fresh. I really didn't even look at the reviews for this much before going to it, since I was going to go see it anyway and I didn't want my expectations to be set. Man of Steel was directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) and stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Michael Shannon.
On a distant planet, an advanced civilization stands at the brink of extinction. A scientist, Jor-el (Crowe), tries to convince Krypton's leaders to preserve what they can of their species. His plans are interrupted by a coup from General Zod (Shannon), however. Before Zod can catch him, though, Jor-el sends his infant son into space along with a special item. By the time Jor-el's son, Kal-el, reaches Earth, his home planet is obliterated. The young Kal-el is taken in by a Kansas farming couple, the Kents, who raise him as a human and try to have him suppress his superhuman abilities (afforded him by the difference in atmospheric conditions from his home world).
Driven by an innate need to do good, however, Kal-el (known as Clark; Cavill) still ends up showing brief displays of his power and having to keep moving on. Clark eventually finds another crashed Kryptonian vessel and, using a computer chip that his father sent to Earth with him, discovers his true origins. Just in time, too, because General Zod, having escaped the destruction of Krypton and his prison, is out for revenge and.... something more.
Man of Steel has a good cast, but the performances are often hampered by the script. Henry Cavill, a young British actor (apparently also in The Tudors TV show which I haven't seen), is the latest brawny guy to don the blue-and-red suit. He seems to have potential but... despite being the main character, of course, we don't really get to know this new Superman. It should be noted that for a number of scenes Clark is portrayed by other actors during flashbacks. The most distinct characteristic that we get of Cavill's Clark is a sense of patience and restraint but there's much to be fleshed out in what I assume will be several sequels. Michael Shannon plays the villain General Zod; he does a good job as an evil dude, but despite having what seem to be an intriguing, complex history/motivations, is fairly one-note (I'm blaming the script over the performance here).
Playing the new Lois Lane is Amy Adams, a much more recognizable name than the new Supes. She's a good actress and has plenty of screen time (I would argue too much), but beyond a few plot points, is really unneeded in this film. Like Cavill, I can see her doing well in sequels, but it seems she's in the movie because the filmmakers thought Lane had to be in it and worked her in somehow. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner play the Kent parents; two big names, of course, but boy does the script let them down. Their scenes are pretty much little variations of the exact same thing; I have to assign them a little of the blame, too, though, as they aren't able to squeeze anything out of the script, either. Lawrence Fishbourne is fun as the new Daily Planet boss Perry, and I look forward to seeing him in sequels. Finally, Russell Crowe is also very watchable as the noble Jor-el (although he acts much more like a knight than a scientist).
Despite being such a popular, recognizable character, Superman is not easy to make a film around. As he is virtually invincible, it is difficult to generate a compelling threat for him. Interestingly, Man of Steel succeeds pretty well at this task - but fails in several other ways. Most notably, it botches the origin story. I am not referring to the scenes on Krypton, but rather growing up as Clark Kent on Earth. The introduction of Clark's powers happens way too soon and frequently. While some are cool in themselves (especially the oil rig), they are so isolated and without context that there is no real meaning to them other than showing off. Only later do we get more subtle scenes of young Clark's struggles, which by then seem insignificant compared to prior displays. I've already mentioned the repetitive, go-nowhere nature of the Kent parents' roles (a tornado scene is especially bad). Finally, while it can be very effective to interweave the origins through the present-day plot, it is poorly, jarringly done in this film and further hurt by the above strange choice of sequencing.
An area of more mixed result is that of action. On the positive side: the scene where Clark learns to fly is pretty damn cool. Also, the first big fight really takes superhero action to a new level of power, yet the CGI holds up and it feels reasonably plausible (for a Superman movie). It is quite entertaining, and there is a healthy degree of suspense despite the mass destruction. In the finale, however, we are treated to the same basic kind of action - just on a bigger scale and with little of the previous creativity. Additionally, in the battle to save Earth a whole bunch of people are killed (you don't see them individually, but it's not hard to imagine) and this seems out of place for Superman, who is better designed to save people than wreck bad guys. A few final notes: the film does not often try for humor, although it has a few scant laughs (including one great scene aboard Zod's ship). Hans Zimmer (from Nolan's Batman films) did the score; it doesn't stand out like some of his previous work, but is pretty good.
***
All in all, Man of Steel is a disappointment. After reading more about it online and thinking back to the film itself, it seems clear that DC/Warner Brothers hoped to make kind of a combo Batman Begins (with its darker tone and origins component) and Avengers (with epic stakes and action). The Begins half failed pretty spectacularly - despite even having the same writer as Begins, it's by far the weakest part of the film. As I heard one fan muse, they should have left out the Daily Planet crew - including Lois Lane - entirely; perhaps they would have had more time to better develop the rest (not that the film is short; it's 2.5 hours). It's true that you'll find this kind of spectacular action and effects in only a handful of films each year, but I think that less of it would have made a bigger impact here. I will say, however, that the movie does at least have a good ending - in the way Superman defeats Zod, and the set up for sequels. They have a talented core - Cavill, Adams, Fishbourne - that, with so little real development in Man of Steel, ironically gives them a lot of room to grow moving forward. If you're craving a big action spectacle, this should satisfy you; otherwise, you might want to wait for the DVD (where you can skip to the fun parts!).
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: "Comedy of the summer" buzz is growing quickly around Seth Rogen's directing debut. Co-starring Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, James Franco and many others, This Is the End has major star power, but, in The End, it also seems somewhat wasted. The "unique" premise quickly wears off, and a few chuckles here and there aren't enough to prevent this film from fading from memory.
The summer movie season chugs right along, and the release schedule serves up another change of pace in genre: my first comedy of the year. Before the summer, I thought it more likely that I would see The Internship (with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson). I enjoyed that pairing in Wedding Crashers, and the premise was interesting. However, it's been critically panned and my most recent theater experience, Now You See Me, made me want to find something better reviewed. Enter This Is the End: considering the type of comedy, I was quite surprised to see it get such positive scores (including an "A" from Entertainment Weekly). I enjoy some of the comedians in it (though not my favorites), so I decided to give it a shot. This Is the End was co-directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, and stars Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson, James Franco, et. al.
Jay flies in to L.A. to hang out with his old friend, Seth Rogen. The two have fun with drugs and video games, and then Rogen invites Baruchel to come along to a party at James Franco's house. A little shy and just wanting to be with his friend, Jay is not happy about it but he agrees. At Franco's place they find an assortment of Hollywood stars including Rogen's good friends Craig Robinson and Jonah Hill. To escape the party, Jay goes to a convenience store and takes Seth with him. That's when, quite literally, all hell breaks loose.
Returning to Franco's home for safety, the massive gathering is quickly reduced to just a few survivors: Rogen, Baruchel, Franco, Robinson, Hill - and an unexpected guest. As the six squabble about what is going on and how to survive, the situation continues to deteriorate, causing the entitled comedians to consider whether the whole world is turning into a big joke on them.
Obviously, the cast is one of the most star-studded in recent memory, with each actor playing his/her celebrity self. Rogen, also directing, is co-lead; due to this he plays as much of a "straight man" in this as exists, and isn't all that funny. Baruchel is the other lead and even less funny; a better actor, perhaps, but he doesn't fit with the film's comedic style. James Franco, I have to admit, is one of the best actors in this one; despite still being fairly unlikeable, he has some decent moments. Jonah Hill has been falling fast in my ranks of current comedians, and continues to fall here (admittedly, he suffers from a little of Rogen's straight-man role). Rounding out the main cast is Craig Robinson; as a supporting character in The Office, he was funny, but he has a lot of work to do to fit in bigger roles like this one.
Fortunately, there are some impressive performances from other members of the cast. Danny McBride, whose part is smaller than those above but still substantial, is probably the funniest guy in the movie. He seemed to be freer - by choice or command, I don't know - to do whatever the hell he wanted to, and it worked well. Danny portrays himself as a truly terrible person here, but entertainingly so. Michael Cera also has a brief (unfortunately) part at the beginning; he plays himself way against type, but does so so well that it's utterly believable and equally funny. Other comedians (Jason Segel, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, etc.) appear but don't really contribute any humor.
In many ways, This Is the End seems to be a whole new kind of comedy, but the essence of it is not all that original. Yes, the comedians are all playing themselves - but they are still acting, and so the fact that their names are their own quickly becomes the only real (yet superficial) connection. Yes, it's a comedy within a disaster/horror movie, but this doesn't strike me as being any different from the many recent parody movies like Scary Movie (none of which I've seen, granted). But strip away all the flash and quirks: is the movie funny? It supplies chuckles, sometimes even a little more, throughout. But there are no truly hilarious scenes or even jokes. The main problem here, and I think it's true of many, many recent comedies, is that the plot structure/drama aspect of the film serves not to create and support the humor but rather to drag it down.
***
This Is the End was the opposite of Now You See Me: I wasn't really that interested in it based on premise/commercials, but went to see it due to good reviews. Well, both cases have let me down in consecutive weeks. I will admit, however, that my perspective on comedies may just be out of whack at the moment; I can't remember the last time that I saw a great, new comedy film. As disappointing as, say, The Campaign was (I gave it a "B-"), in comparison to this and other recent comedies, it looks pretty damn good. Maybe I need to adjust my scores for comedies based on lower expectations? Sense of humor is a fickle thing, different not only from person to person but also within one person based on context (mood, company, etc.). I guess what I'm trying to do here is figure out why I didn't particularly enjoy This Is the End despite good reviews from most others - and why comedies in general have been letting me down lately. As I mentioned previously, there are some chuckles to be had here, but by the end, are they worth the price of admission? I don't think so.
Score: * out of ***** (F)
Long Story Short: Beyond its intriguing premise, Now You See Me is an utter disaster and the worst film I have seen this year by far. The cast includes an array of exciting personalities but the film completely wastes their talent (to be fair, some of their performances are similarly poor). Those hoping for some cool magic tricks, heists and getaways will be very disappointed, as will those hoping for tonal consistency and plot coherence. Avoid like the plague.
At last, I have experienced my first dud of the 2013 movie season. Generally, I balance the premise and talent (actors/director) of a film with its score on Rotten Tomatoes; this leads me to skip some movies that look fun on paper but by all accounts seem to be dreadful, and on the other hand to try some films that otherwise I would not have. Note: the only trailers I watch now are those I see in the theater because A) they typically give too much away, yet also B) are usually misleading (in that really cool trailers can be made from really crappy movies and vice versa). My "gamble" on The Great Gatsby a few weeks ago paid off; this one, not so much. Now You See Me was directed by Louis Letterier (2008's Incredible Hulk... should have warned me!) and stars Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, and others who surely wish not to be named.
Right off the bat, Now You See Me introduces the main four magicians: the arrogant, sarcastic sleight-of-hand expert Daniel (Eisenberg); the expert show woman (and former assistant to Daniel) Henley (Fisher); the clever, funny, and ruthless mentalist Merritt (Harrelson); and the young, eager but unpolished Jack (Franco). All of them receive an invitation from the same mysterious host, and they find something that shocks even their experienced eyes.
Fast forward one year, and the four magicians are performing together in Las Vegas. They have some neat tricks, but save the best for last: they send a banker from the audience to his bank in France and rob it right in front of him, then dump the cash on the audience. The FBI puts agent Rhodes (Ruffalo) on the case, joined by Interpol agent Vargas. The two hunt for "The Four Horsemen" magicians, mocked and helped along the way by former magician Thaddeus (Freeman).
The cast of Now You See Me was a main attraction for me; however, not only does the script fail them terribly, they aren't able to do much at all to salvage the mess. The lead is agent Rhodes, played by Mark Ruffalo - a mistake right off the bat, as he is probably the most boring character in the film. Rhodes is ridiculously stupid, and constantly shouts his cliched FBI dialogue; before long, you're rooting against this "good guy." I'm not very familiar with Ruffalo, but he was either disinterested or not a great actor anyway. Acting legends Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman team up again as supporting characters, but their presence merely adds to the colossal waste of potential in this film. Neither one seems to phone it in (Freeman has a much bigger role), but the script was basically written with those actors in mind and doesn't give them anything new to do.
Now for the magicians themselves, whose screen time is bafflingly brief. Eisenberg's Daniel is sort of the leader; the script clearly tries to make him a cynical yet likable (presumably, since the magicians are portrayed as modern Robin Hoods) lead, but I found nothing likable about him at all. Jesse is great at being cynical, but the script goes overboard and there's nothing behind it. Harrelson as Merritt is the lone semi-bright spot in the film. He summons a healthy dose of his charisma and manages the devious yet gentle-hearted magician balancing act that Eisenberg fails. I know Isla Fisher can act (from Wedding Crashers and Great Gatsby) but boy, does she try to convince us otherwise in this film. Dave Franco gives good energy and enthusiasm but to me he is incredibly off-putting and unlikable.
If I knew what kind of movie Now You See Me was trying to be, I might be able to make suggestions of how it could have been improved. I think the most accurate genre for this film, though, is "mess." What seemed to be the main attraction of the film - based on commercials, at least - was the magic. However, except for the first bank robbery (which only rose to "intriguing" level), the magic elements were utterly unmagical. To make matters worse, the shows were filmed in such a way that it felt like watching a commercial (particularly with Fisher's narrative); maybe this was the point, but if so, it was a terrible idea. But the magic shows are only changes of pace here; most of the action is spent on the incompetent agent Rhodes and his "helper" agent Vargas (played by Melanie Laurent, who looks bored as she inevitably becomes Rhodes' love interest). Soon after the first magic show/bank robbery, it becomes impossible to follow what the hell the magicians are up to (let alone why) or what the authorities are doing/can do about it. Oh, and as a final note, the film tries to incorporate a sense of humor, which falls flat save for perhaps a chuckle or two.
***
Although Now You See Me is a terrible movie, one that I nearly walked out of early, the one redeeming factor is that there's a certain sadistic pleasure in reviewing such films. Now You See Me is similar to other films (i.e.: Adjustment Bureau) in that the original idea really had some promise. Clearly, the director and/or writer and/or producer had many of the actors in mind, too (most of whom are usually quite fun to watch). Then it started to fall apart, very rapidly. The first huge problem is the script. The writer(s) basically took elements of a bunch of modern genres (primarily heist) and smashed them together, completely marooning all the characters in no-man's land. Next, either the director was understandably confused by the script, or just not good (also quite possible). He changes tone so many times that, even if any of them weren't utterly unoriginal, they all cancel each other out; it basically cycles from silly to darkly serious to noble-minded (the Robin Hood aspect). Well, I could probably go on, but I think that is sufficient skewering for this review. In case it wasn't already obvious, avoid this film at all costs (including shouting it down as an option for a group watch). If you want to see a movie about magicians, check out the excellent The Prestige (Christopher Nolan) instead.
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: J.J. Abrams returns to the helm of his rebooted Star Trek (presumably for the last time before he takes over Star Wars) and this one is even better than the first. Pine and Quinto (Kirk and Spock) once again lead an impressive ensemble with brilliance. Into Darkness also shares its predecessors sense of humor, and bumps up the action a notch or two. Unfortunately, it also suffers from a somewhat underdeveloped plot and villain, like the first. Still, it sets a bar for 2013 summer blockbusters that will be hard to beat.
I was hoping to have seen another film - and written another review - sooner than this, but sometimes things don't go as planned. I'm back with another post, though, and barring further setbacks should be putting out more on a consistent basis this summer. I have been a fan of the Star Trek franchise for years, although almost exclusively the spin-off series - I've never seen the original TV show and have seen just bits and pieces of the original films. Nevertheless, I was intrigued in 2009 when super producer J.J. Abrams was rebooting the original for a new movie and I liked the result a lot, particularly the cast. Due to that film's success, and the great reviews coming in for this one, it was a no-brainer for me to see the newest installment. Star Trek Into Darkness was directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch.
Into Darkness throws the audience straight into the heat (literally and figuratively) of a mission by the U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew. Displaying his usual courage - as well as recklessness - Captain Kirk (Pine) manages to avert disaster for a strange new world in addition to saving his first officer Spock's (Quinto) life. On returning to Earth, however, Kirk is rewarded with a demotion, losing his command of the Enterprise. At the same time, a terrorist within Starfleet's (sort of like the U.N./NASA/U.S. military combined) own ranks makes trouble and then flees to a distant planet.
With Starfleet discombobulated, Capt. Kirk decides to take the hunt for this terrorist into his own hands; he is given back command of the Enterprise (come on, you knew this would happen, it's not a spoiler!). The manhunt turns into something much bigger, however, and Kirk must rely on the input of his still-new but tightly-knit crew to put it all together and arrive at peace and justice.
As in 2009's Star Trek, the cast of Into Darkness is one of the strongest parts of the film. Returning as Captain Kirk, Chris Pine is even better than before as the star of the franchise. Having already introduced him last time, we don't get as much of his smart-ass brashness (both a good and bad thing) and Pine really settles into the role and now fully owns it. Sometimes franchises with a significant new villain give the shaft to secondary characters, but this is not the case for Quinto's Spock, fortunately. Really, everything I said about Pine as Kirk is true in this case as well; not only that, Quinto gets some of the most poignant scenes in this one and nails them. Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison (no, that's not just a typo of my own name) is well-cast as a cunning, dangerous, chilling villain. However, the script didn't fully take advantage of his character and so he is a welcome addition but a frustrating one at the same time.
With events flying at full throttle, Into Darkness incorporates the supporting crew members to an impressive degree. Simon Pegg continues to be an inspired choice as perpetually exasperated (and hilarious) chief engineer Scotty; Zoe Saldana as Spock's partner Uhura disappears at times but really shines in one particular sequence; Karl Urban as Dr. "Bones" McCoy is a reassuring presence through most of the film; and even John Cho (Sulu) and Anton Yelchin (Chekov) get some very nice moments. Finally, there are a few new Starfleet officers who fit right in, but that's all I'll say about them.
Some have complained that J.J. Abrams' style has transformed Star Trek into a clone of its heated rival, Star Wars, thanks to heavy doses of action. As a Trek fan myself, I can feel some sympathy for that view... but I feel more strongly that the new style is very entertaining (note: I could see Star Trek becoming something like Batman in that different creative teams - director/actors/writers - come up with their own distinct takes on the franchise). With a few exceptions, the action in Into Darkness has a purpose and is meaningful. And when the inspired minds of J.J. Abrams and his writers combine with the incredible CGI artists, the results are some of the most spectacular sequences in Hollywood. Despite a darker tone - hence the title - Into Darkness retains about the same amount and quality of humor as its predecessor, Pine and Pegg being the standouts. Finally, building on the themes of the 2009 film, Into Darkness boasts a sweeping score (by Michael Giacchino, frequent collaborator with Abrams) that resembles some of adventure film's other classics.
***
I almost gave this film a straight "A". I really wanted to, and at some point perhaps I'll upgrade it. The cast is great - probably the best part about it, really. It has a great, and appropriate, sense of humor. The pacing is very good, and the action is balanced (although at times gratuitous - a race through space and a one-man demolition by Harrison come to mind). I think with respect to the Enterprise crew, the film is very tight. However, as with the 2009 film, the villain and plot elements could have been significantly improved with a little more effort. I understand that Star Trek technology is not just fake but also implausible; still, a more "authentic" feel of this made-up universe would be nice, rather than slapping Trekkie-things together haphazardly as is convenient for the plot. The more specific plot problems also relate to the villain: there was so much potential but the result felt kind of empty. I kept waiting for another twist to reveal the real plans of the cunning Harrison, but it never materialized. Again, though, the strength of characters, humor, and action (with cool music as bonus) are easily enough to make this one of the year's top films so far. I just hope they work on the aforementioned issues - present in both films - for the next installment. Highly recommended for all.
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: The Great Gatsby returns to cinema, with big-name actors and a stylish director. Although slightly long, this version is very enjoyable and well-done, at least for those like me who've read the book but don't remember it in detail. DiCaprio shines as Gatsby, and Maguire, Mulligan and Edgerton round out a strong cast. Add interesting visual and musical atmosphere, and this is an adaptation of a classic worth seeing.
Week two of summer movie season saw the release of a non-action/comedy blockbuster: another film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. I like having a change of pace like this (see also: 2012's Hope Springs), as a variety of genres helps to keep each of them fresher by having less direct competition. I read Gatsby, as 99% of the U.S. population does, in high school. While I didn't remember many of the plot details, I remembered having enjoyed the novel more than most other assigned readings. Although a mediocre score on Rotten Tomatoes made me hesitant to see it in the theater, a personal recommendation convinced me to give it a try. This version of The Great Gatsby was directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carey Mulligan.
I did not go back and check to see how closely Gatsby follows the source material, but I'll provide the usual brief plot overview for those who haven't read it/have memory like mine. The story follows Nick Carraway (Maguire), a young man who moves to New York City in the 1920s to join the unprecedented craze going on there (part of the "Roaring '20s"). He lives in a modest home amidst immensely wealthy neighbors: next to him is the mysterious Jay Gatsby ("new" money), and across the bay are the Buchanons ("old" money), Tom and Daisy. Although Nick is low on the business totem, he is Daisy's cousin and he soon joins the Buchanon's wild party scene.
Nick also checks out a party next door, at mysterious Gatsby's. The reclusive man reveals himself to Nick, a man who can get him what all his wealth has been unable to: get Daisy's personal attention. Nick can only watch, however, as his wealthy companions are dragged down by the very world that built them up in the first place.
The Great Gatsby cast is well-chosen, and the leads live up to the expectations of their roles. Leonardo DiCaprio is a particularly good choice as Gatsby. He is able to portray a man who has become very comfortable with his wealth and power, and yet socially uncomfortable, particularly with those closest to him. He inspires sympathy, yet his selfish and ruthless sides show themselves both subtly and, at times, quite dramatically. Toby Maguire does a great job as Nick, too. Toby's youthful appearance helps to convey his character's naiveté, but his acting also does the trick. He plays a nice, quiet guy, one who is a pawn and then sorrowful witness to events. Both Buchanons are entertaining to watch, too. Daisy is more of a passive character than an active one, but when given the chance, Mulligan depicts the "object of obsession" as an imperfect, deceptively complex woman. Joel Edgerton as Tom is even better, portraying a stiff, aloof aristocrat early, then showing brutal cunning as his part grows larger toward the end.
The Great Gatsby is an entertaining drama, one that appeals visually, mentally and emotionally (apologies in advance for misinterpreting the themes of this literary classic). Although I'm unfamiliar with the director, apparently he has a flair for extravagant visuals, and this film reflects that tendency. Luhrmann goes all out with the party scenes, effectively conveying the carefree attitudes of the characters - although Nick, the eyes of the story, is hesitant at first. Luhrmann is somehow able to transition from this into one of the most effective - and hilarious - scenes, when Nick introduces Gatsby to Daisy. The positive tone carries on through much of the middle act, before the dream starts to come to a halt. The perfect ending (for Gatsby, at least) seems so close - and the cast makes the reversal seem simultaneously shocking and predictable. The fall from there is easy to foresee, but no less powerful as it happens. A final aspect is the music: although I've heard many complaints about it, I didn't mind the infusion of modern styles. They still have plenty of period music, too, and to me the hip-hop was a nice way to place this adaptation in time without affecting the story itself.
***
I really don't understand why this adaptation of The Great Gatsby is getting such middling reviews from the nation's critics. Although I should note, again, that I don't remember the novel itself in any detail, nor do I consider myself a literary critic in any way, shape or form. But taken by itself, as a film, I think it's very good; not perfect, but one enjoyable in several different ways. The cast, obviously such an important aspect of a character-driven film, is engaging, effective and entertaining. The film has great style, especially in the party scenes used to exemplify the period, but it doesn't get in the way of the characters and story moving forward. And the story is a good one to revisit in today's society - though the film wisely does not try any kind of overt messaging. My biggest gripe is with some of the pacing. At the beginning, the editing is a bit cluttered, and they try to squeeze in a little too much; at the end, it's the opposite, several scenes are dragged out a little too long. So I recommend you give this one a try: it's certainly a nice change of pace at the theater this time of year, but it would be just fine if you wait to see it at home, too.
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Iron Man 3 is the first big blockbuster of the summer, with huge expectations as perhaps the second most popular superhero in film (to Batman) and coming off last year's megahit, The Avengers. A new director is brought in, a risky move but one that pays off with a fresh feel for even the familiar elements. Robert Downey, Jr. continues to deliver the goods, and his Tony Stark story is as compelling as ever. Unfortunately, the action and villains are the worst of the series. Still, it's an energetic, entertaining - and hilarious - summer event.
The summer movie season begins! While it doesn't always have the best films of the year, summer is always packed with big event films, and so I plan to be heading to the theater on a regular basis for the next few months. The first release of the summer is often among the biggest, and the same is true this year: after the spectacular success of The Avengers - not to mention the popularity of the other Iron Man films - Iron Man 3 hit theaters with huge expectations, and it wound up making $175 million last weekend. Fun fact I read recently: Robert Downey, Jr. has now starred in a film that made over $500 million (worldwide) for each of the past six years. As I enjoyed the other Iron Man films and The Avengers, this was a no-brainer for me to go see. Iron Man 3 was directed by Shane Black (Jon Favreau did the first two) and stars Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, and Don Cheadle.
Despite the spectacular triumph of Iron Man and his pals in fending off an alien invasion, Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.) is an anxious, jittery mess as the latest chapter begins. He has become obsessed with preparing for the possibility of another cataclysmic event, leading longtime partner Pepper Potts (Paltrow) to worry about him. Out in the world, a new terrorist threat has emerged under the persona of the Mandarin (Kingsley), who has been launching attacks at random around the world, bewildering efforts to stop or capture him. Stark pays the Mandarin little attention until one of his attacks affects Tony directly. Tony flies off the handle and it backfires, big time; through a series of events, he finds himself stranded in the American heartland.
Unable to rely on his high-tech gadgets or Iron Man suit, Tony has to use his natural wits and intuition to figure out how and why the Mandarin has been launching his attacks. In a nod to the first Iron Man, Tony must grapple with the consequences of his previous carefree lifestyle that alienated many he came into contact with. Oh, and of course, there are plenty of explosions along the way.
The cast of Iron Man 3 is a mixed bag. Most importantly, though, Robert Downey, Jr. reprises his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man. I, and apparently millions of others, find that Downey, Jr. is a perfect fit for the role: he does a fantastic job of realistically balancing his character's cynical, egotistical side with a streak of selflessness and bravery. He is bitingly hilarious, and in the next moment inspires great sympathy - not an easy trick to pull off. His partner, Pepper Potts, is played by Gwyneth Paltrow again. I think that Pepper's role - in the series overall, and in this film in particular - is creative and interesting, but the writing for Pepper is poor and Paltrow's acting is often too shrill when she's in an action or tense scene. Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes/Iron Patriot has little to do in this film; honestly, his part could have pretty easily been cut out entirely, which is a shame because Cheadle is a tremendous actor.
Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin is great. I won't go into any more detail than that. Guy Pearce plays Killian, another villain. He's pretty good, but early on he's entirely overshadowed by the Mandarin, and later in the film his character becomes a little absurd. Other notable roles: James Badge Dale (The Pacific) seems to have a great time as a henchman, and is fun to watch... Rebecca Hall is kind of in no-man's land in virtually every respect possible... Jon Favreau (yes, the previous director) gets a bigger role as head of security; he hams it up but is a cheerful presence... Ty Simpkins is actually pretty good (huge praise for a child actor).
On a general level, Iron Man 3 has a similar mix of elements to the first two films of the franchise: lots of humor; more focus on the "alter ego" (Tony Stark) than most superhero films; but plenty of action, too. Still, new director Shane Black certainly puts a distinctive style into this film, so while many faces are familiar, the feel is considerably different. How does that work out for the various elements? It strengthens what was already perhaps the best superhero alter ego, Tony Stark. I loved how they actually showed the side effects of the massive Avengers battles on Tony. They bring in contacts from Stark's bad boy past. And yet the tone in many of these scenes is a little more cheerful than in prior installments. Finally, the humor is about on par (ie: excellent) with the others.
The style change has a different result on the superhero aspects of the film. Granted, I've never been particularly blown away by this element of the Iron Man films: too much of the action seems overly arbitrary. Of course, all superhero films are unrealistic, but Iron Man's abilities seem to vacillate to fit the needs of the plot a little too much for my tastes. This weakness gets amplified substantially in Iron Man 3, where at several points I found myself saying "if you just did ____ earlier in the film this would have been a much shorter movie!!!" The attack on Stark's home - I know you've seen parts of it in trailers/commercials - is one of the most ridiculous and, amazingly, boring actions scenes in recent memory. Kingsley's acting as the Mandarin is the high point for the enemy and its plot. It's just too much of a mess, and pay close attention otherwise key information will pass you by and be assumed as common knowledge from that point forward.
***
Well, for the fifth straight film, I'm stuck in the "B"s. I must say, though, that this was a much more interesting film to consider than the others, which were pretty straightforward "B"s. Iron Man 3 has much more variety, both good and bad. It all starts with expectations: when low, a movie can soar, but when high, a movie can get bogged down. Iron Man 3 certainly had high expectations (like last year's The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit). I think that it was a great decision to insert a new director who made the project his own, with its distinctive style. And the Tony Stark story was carried forward with great skill and some clever interweaving with prior films. Unfortunately, the weakness from prior films - the action and villains - was only worsened here. A superhero film simply cannot get an "A" rating if its superhero elements are poor. Still, it's a high-quality production with strengths in creativity, humor, and Robert Downey, Jr. Come to the theater with tempered expectations... but still, come see it in the theater.
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Oblivion is a pretty typical modern sci-fi action film, with the twists and turns that those movies have incorporated as standard practice. However, whereas many of those films shoot for the stars and go straight into the mud, Oblivion holds it together for an entertaining event: a veteran, skilled action star (Cruise); noteworthy visual effects; restrained, effective suspense; and a plot that holds together long enough to keep the suspension of disbelief.
Well, I didn't plan to have another extended delay between movie reviews, but that's what happened. I hope to see another film from April, 42 (the Jackie Robinson film), sometime, and I had hoped to catch this one sooner than I did. But as of this week, the "official" summer movie season has begun, so the reviews should start to come in a lot more regularly (starting with Iron Man 3). About this film: when I saw the trailer for it in the theater, I was quite intrigued: an interesting sci-fi premise, plus Tom Cruise whom I enjoy as an actor. Unless it got terrible reviews, I was determined to go see this - a warm up to the summer blockbusters. Oblivion was directed by Joseph Kosinski (only his second feature film!) and stars Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, and Olga Kurylenko.
Some sixty years in the future, technicians Jack (Cruise) and Victoria (Riseborough) are alone on a very different Earth from the one we know. This one has been devastated by the destruction of the moon, and the alien invasion that followed. What remains of humanity has fled to a space colony near Jupiter, and Jack and Victoria have the mission of overseeing the salvage of whatever resources can be collected from Earth. Jack goes down to the surface, spotted with half-buried artifacts from bridges to skyscrapers, each day to maintain the fleet of drones that look for remaining aliens, while Victoria keeps watch from their base high in the atmosphere.
With just two weeks until their mission is complete, Jack and Victoria begin to feel a strain in their relationship. Victoria is eager for more human company, but Jack feels a growing pull toward his home planet and isn't so sure he wants to leave. Meanwhile, mysterious beings watch silently from the shadows...
Obviously, there isn't a huge cast in this sci-fi dystopia, but there are some interesting characters. Tom Cruise as Jack is the lead, as Cruise typically is. There really isn't much about Jack that distinguishes him from a generic male lead: he is physically and mentally very capable, and somewhat rebellious. But Cruise has gotten so good at this type of role that he makes Jack likable and fun to watch, even if unoriginal. Riseborough as Victoria actually gets a more interesting, though far smaller, part. She loves Jack to the point of obsession, and is fiercely protective of the relationship. You can tell she winces internally each time Jack resists their orders, fearing that they will be separated. Neither Olga Kurylenko's acting nor her character, Julia, add much to the film. I won't give any details about her since it would spoil things, but even in a raft of similar small parts for women in action films, this is a poor one. I was hoping that Morgan Freeman would have a larger role than he did, but even still, it's good to see him. I do hope he gets more to do in the next of his film's that I see.
Like last year's Looper, the makers of Oblivion seemingly took pains to really remake Earth for the purposes of the film. The most obvious effect is in the sweeping landscapes through which Jack flies his nifty hovercraft. Nature has reclaimed almost all of the land; Jack lands in the stadium where the last Super Bowl was played, and it looks like the Colosseum. there's also the Empire State Building, Washington Monument, bridges, and so on. The massive emptiness also helps to heighten the suspense, showing how exposed and alone Jack is as he does his work. The action in the first half or so is used cautiously and effectively, although in the second half it turns more to sci-fi cliche. One thing I liked about a lot of last year's films was that, although they were not intended as comedies, many had great humor; Oblivion really doesn't have much at all - but at least it doesn't make horrible or cheesy attempts at it, either.
***
Oblivion makes the fourth "good but not great" film I've seen in a row in 2013 (although the year began with the excellent Zero Dark Thirty). I'm perfectly happy that I went to the theater to see it as it's an entertaining film and one meant to be seen on a big screen. Tom Cruise is an eminently watchable actor, in my opinion, even in a role without distinction. The film has great visuals, as well as some nice suspense and an interesting plot. The writers were smart: they knew the audience would be able to see twist(s) of some kind coming even if they tried to hide it, so they downplayed the importance of keeping them secret and unveiled them in a mostly reasonable fashion. Oblivion is also nicely paced. On the down side, the writer and director seemed to grab for more sci-fi cliches for safety in the second half as events speed up and become larger in scope. What is an entirely personal story in the first half becomes a little confused as to its priorities in the second half, dragging even the best parts of the story down a little bit. Still, Oblivion is a very solid sci-fi action flick, where many in the genre start with good intentions and completely fall apart. You'll be able to tell by watching the trailers if you would like this, so if they interest you, I recommend you give it a try.
