Movie Review Round-Up #2 - So Many Movies I Can't Come Up With a Witty Title

I've had the opportunity to watch a lot of movies lately, and they've come from different sources - Netflix, Redbox, and even a couple new releases in several of our favorite local theaters. I have to say that it's rather amazing to me how delivery of material like this has changed over the course of my lifetime. I've witnessed first-hand the creation, boom, and subsequent decline of traditional, brick and mortar businesses geared towards movie rentals. With things like digital downloads through streaming services and vending machines that are capable of pushing out Blu-ray discs, movies are as accessible as they've ever been. I don't know that we'll ever see a day when going to a theater is passé, however it should be clear to Hollywood now more so than ever before that people aren't going to willingly drive to a cinema and plunk down their $10 to see a movie just because it's new or starring a beloved actor (yes, I'm pointing at you Lone Ranger). Why should they when they can just wait a few weeks or months and see the same film for $1.50 in the comfort of their own home? It's a marvelous time to be a fan of movies, is what I'm getting at. Here's my take on some recent selections.

Man of Steel

 It was going to take some doing in order for Warner Brothers and the Superman film franchise to recover from the disaster that was Bryan Singer's attempt at rebooting the series with 2006's Superman Returns. That film was filled with nostalgia and made every attempt to recapture the feel of the days when Christopher Reeve donned the signature costume that's as iconic as any superhero garb, and that was a major factor in its failure - that and the fact that Brandon Routh has the personality of a sheet of plain, white copier paper. How then can a character as beloved as Superman return to prominence? By including a creative mind like that of director Zack Snyder with a story that takes the "big, blue boy scout" in a more gritty and much darker direction than has ever been put on film before.

 Man of Steel stars Henry Cavill as the hero so incredible he carries three names - Superman, Clark Kent and Kal-El. He's surrounded by the characters you would expect to see; Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), as well as his doomed parents Jor-El (Russel Crowe) and Lara-El (Ayelet Zurer). Michael Shannon appears as the villainous General Zod, an oddly adored character (mostly for having said "Kneel before Zod!") which was played previously by Terence Stamp in Superman II.

The story is more or less what you'd expect to see out of a film that's supposed to serve as a jumping-on point for new and old fans alike. You have Supe's origin story, now told with vastly more detail than has been laid out before. Personally speaking, I was very impressed with scenes depicting the struggle between Jor-El and General Zod on Krypton - I probably could've watched an entire movie about their conflict, the imprisonment of Zod and his forces in the Phantom Zone, and Krypton's cataclysmic end. Details regarding Kal-El's arrival on Earth and his upbringing by the Kents is told through flashbacks as we meet Clark fully grown, a man who's spent his life attempting to hide his abilities from humanity for fear of what revealing himself might mean. Clark finally accepts his destiny as Earth's savior when Zod escapes and locates the son of the man responsible for his banishment.

This is the sort of Superman film a modern audience needs. Plenty of action, solid writing, a quality cast, and the vision of a director who can make a potentially bland character into an identifiable hero who has flaws just like everyone else. Audiences got their fill of Superman engaged in a battle of wits as that formula didn't exactly lead to a remarkable product in Superman Returns; rather, this time around we see the full impact of what would happen if a group of beings who are essentially God-like in their combined powers and resiliency brought conflict to our world. It's a no-holds-barred final act that's as fulfilling as could be, but it has one major flaw in my opinion.

Throughout the whole of the film, we're shown how Jonathan Kent tried to inundate his found son with the responsibility his powers brought. Pa Kent knew Clark had a chance to be a hero or a villain, hence why he tried to show him how to appreciate humanity for all its weaknesses. I can't help but compare the battle between Zod & Superman in Man of Steel to that in Superman II. Reason being, in the older film Superman shows great concern over the fact that a trio of evil Kryptonians are about to lay waste to all of Metropolis which is why he draws them away from civilization. In Man of Steel, Superman doesn't seem too concerned about the fact that the fight he's engaged in is going to wreck a good part of the city, maiming or killing God only knows how many bystanders in the process. There will always be causalities of war, sure, but this is a little too egregious of an oversight to ignore.

Still, I enjoyed this and I hope the momentum this film will generate puts Superman back on track. Unfortunately I don't think it will be able to kick start a movement towards a Justice League motion picture; there's no sense of organization to the DC Comics characters as it relates to their inclusion in a potential epic mash-up, which is exactly what MARVEL was able to do with their heroes leading up to The Avengers. Something that big has to fit logically inside a greater body of work and right now there's nothing to tie these various characters together.

/5 Superman Underoos


A Good Day to Die Hard

When you get to the fifth movie in a franchise, you're either talking about a series with enough story left to tell that it requires more sequels or one that makes barely enough money to still be considered a bankable hit. The Die Hard series definitively falls into the latter category.

A Good Day to Die Hard stars Bruce Willis as aging New York cop turned avid terrorist hunter John McClane. This time out he's on the way to Russia in order to help his son Jack (Jai Courtney) who's somehow managed to get himself involved with the doings of ne'er-do-wells who either want or have nuclear weapons. As it turns out, John's son is actually a CIA operative who hasn't exactly had a superlative relationship with his father. The two attempt to patch things up whilst shooting at people and surviving repeated calamitous incidents involving jumps out of windows from ridiculously high elevations.

I was 8 years old when the first Die Hard film was released. I'll be 33 in a few weeks, which means this series has been going on for the bulk of my life. That's rather amazing to consider, especially now that this franchise has continued even though the movies are more or less paint-by-number. McClane inevitably gets thrust into a situation where he has to protect or defend a person or resource, gets bloodied in the process, but ultimately prevails. The only real differences are the person/thing to be protected and the villain he's facing, although even those have been fairly predictable as John seems to have a thing for Germans and Russians.

This is the sort of movie you watch because you're a fan of the players involved or of the series itself. I still watch them because I have always thought Willis' performance in the original Die Hard was one of the best anti-heroes ever and I hold onto hope that that McClane is still out there, even though I think the best of him got used up way back during Die Hard With a Vengeance. That was the third film in the series and would've been a very suitable conclusion in my mind. It seems as though we're in for at least one more go-round with McClane as the sixth film to be titled Die Hardest has already been announced.

/5 Hans Gruber death faces




The Expendables 2

Speaking of movies that get made simply because of the fact someone out there still cares about our community of aging action stars from the 1980s & 90s, The Expendables 2 is here to show us all that just because you're drawing Social Security doesn't mean you can't use machine guns and save the world.

Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jean Claude Van Damme, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris, and the guy from those awesome Old Spice commercials - they're all here, and so is Thor's brother. No, not Loki, Chris Hemsworth's brother Liam (who didn't have much of a career prior to dating Miley Cyrus; apparently he got the better end of that deal). It's a huge cast, needless to say, and while it's a wet dream for people who still fawn over these actors it's really an attempt to grasp at straws for relevancy.

This is like seeing an aged professional wrestler (leave it to me to make a pro wrestling reference), popular in his day who should've been long-retired but hasn't because he either needs the work or still loves the business, having matches on cards that draw fans in the dozens instead of thousands. There's nothing about this that's redeeming. I watched Expendables 2 and I kept hoping for something truly awesome to happen but as it went on it became more farcical and genuinely depressing.

Time to hang up your ammo belts, boys - we'll always have Terminator 2 and Demolition Man to remind us of how awesome you are.

/5 Chuck Norris beards





Cloud Atlas

Every so often a movie comes around that attempts to make profound statements regarding how we, as human beings who exist for a mere moment in the grand scheme of things, could possibly be so intertwined with one another that a perception like love stands to span multiple lifetimes. Could an emotion be so strong as to leap through time, from one body to another, unbeknownst to those experiencing it? This is the underlying notion behind Cloud Atlas, a movie so esoteric that it could also be labeled pretentious.

Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and Hugo Weaving all star in this picture as multiple characters who find each other, albeit in several different lifetimes. Beginning in the Colonial era and moving on through time into the future where mankind has abandoned Earth, the plot of Cloud Atlas centers around how love and kindness can be the ultimate trigger of change in our world as this is a recurring theme explored by every iteration of the souls of these characters.

Cloud Atlas reminds me very much of The Red Violin, a film which follows the history of a cherished violin as it is passed from one owner to another throughout several hundred years. They both are movies that attempt to show how a singular event, ideal or object can flow through generations, involving a multitude of players who may or may not know of each other or how their motivations may ultimately affect the world around them. I think The Red Violin is a better movie, if for no other reason than the fact that it doesn't have the sort of overwhelming agenda that Cloud Atlas does.

This doesn't strike me as the kind of movie casual audiences are going to be able to grasp or even care to watch, for that matter. There are a lot of moving pieces here, none of which are lined up congruently as the pacing has us jumping around from one timeline to another. It is, however, a well-acted piece and the cinematography is fantastic as are the special effects. (Side note: There are a LOT of rather disturbing prosthetic noses and eye make-ups in this movie.) In essence, it's more of a technical achievement than anything else.

/5 Asian Hugo Weavings



Despicable Me 2

Animated films have come a long way since I was a child. Back then cartoons were for kids and adults were shamed for watching them. Now studios realize that adults are the ones taking their children to the movies, so why not make those movies appealing to the child and the adult thereby doubling your audience in the process? Pixar, Dreamworks, Universal, and all the rest have realized this, which is why I have no qualms about having gone to see Despicable Me 2 the week it opened.

DM2 picks up where the first left off. Gru (Steve Carell) has made the transition into life as the adoptive father of 3 little girls - Margo, Edith and Agnes - and is now a former super-villain, having given up his old ways for the sake of being a family man. He finds himself unwillingly recruited into the role of a crime fighter when Lucy (Kristen Wiig), a member of the appropriately named Anti-Villain League, comes to ask for his assistance in a not-so-subtle manner. The two of them must find out who has hijacked a quantity of PX-41, a substance capable of mutating ordinary beings into ravenous monsters, before this new criminal mastermind can unleash their fiendish plot on mankind.

This is a a movie with a lot of heart as Gru's transformation into a hero is perfectly facilitated by the presence of his daughters. They are his world and he would do anything for them, and that's a fantastic message to send out these days when so many children and adults could use a good parental role model.

Steve Carell is brilliant in just about anything he does and Kristen Wiig makes for a great addition to the cast as she has a core understanding of comedic delivery. I certainly hope we get a third movie out of this series as there's definitely room to grow here. Is GM2 better than the original, though? That's a tough call as I found both films entertaining - I am somewhat inclined to say the original is slightly funnier than GM2 but that's really splitting hairs for the sake of doing so.

/5 Fluffy Unicorns


Oz the Great and Powerful

The Wizard of Oz is one of the most beloved films of all time, and rightfully so. It was a technical marvel in its era and the performance of Judy Garland is one that can truly never be forgotten. An attempt to recapture that same magic with a prequel is a tough challenge but director Sam Raimi has given it his best with Oz the Great and Powerful.

Everyone knows by now how Dorothy winds up in the land of Oz - she and her family's home are swept away from rural Kansas by a horrible twister which transports her and her dog Toto to a land of munchkins, witches, and wizards. In this same manner does Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco), a small time traveling carnival magician and con man, find himself getting whisked away, albeit in a different vehicle (a hot air balloon). As it turns out, his arrival in Oz was expected as a prophecy foretold of his coming - unfortunately for him, whoever wrote the prophecy left some big expectations as the people of Oz had been longing for the great wizard they'd been promised. Oz must determine what he's to do in this new world and which witch is the witch he should be trusting.

I will be completely upfront with you in admitting that I am not a big fan of James Franco. I have yet to see a piece of work from him that has struck me as being tremendously worthy of praise as everything I've seen of him comes off as an actor who's trying not to look like he's acting. Maybe that's just me - regardless, I think the role of Oz probably could've gone to half a dozen other leading men in his age range and the end result been better. He's not necessarily bad here, it's just that a more vivid personality might have been a better option than him. (Sam Raimi has his favorite recurring partners, of which Franco is apparently one, which is why Bruce Campbell and Sam's own brother Ted still get work.)

Franco had the good fortune to be stood up next to three beautiful actresses in the form of Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, and Michelle Williams, each of who play the infamous witches of Oz (Weisz & Kunis being wicked, and Williams being good). I can't not point out that it's almost impossible for me to see Mila Kunis and not immediately put Meg Griffin's face over her own. I've clearly watched too much Family Guy in my life for that to be happening to me.

All in all, Oz the Great and Powerful is an entertaining movie and definitely capable when it comes to fleshing out the back story as to how Oz came to be how it is when Dorothy arrives. There are a couple little tributes here and there to the future of Oz, as you might expect, and I almost wish there had been more of them.

 /5 Stoned James Franco Faces

The Darndest Things Happen Inside a Movie Theater

My wife and I recently went to one of our favorite movie theaters, that being the Columbiana Grande Stadium 14, to see Man of Steel. Columbiana Grande is a state-of-the-art theater equipped with all the modern amenities theater-goers expect nowadays, including digital projection, 3D systems, online ticketing, and just about every snack food you can think of up to and including mini corn dogs by Nathan's. (They're amazing, quite frankly - get it, corn dog, hot dog, frankfurter, frank? The jokes aren't as funny when I have to explain them.) I would go there more often than we do as I've always enjoyed the cinema, however the fact that it's about an hour's drive from where we live makes trips that frequent illogical considering the price of fuel and whatnot. Unfortunately we're not blessed with a local movie theater; there was a small, 4-screen theater in Orangeburg but it closed last year, so now our only alternative for new releases is to drive to Columbia or Lexington. Aside from the exorbitant prices for tickets and refreshments, I find that the only unpleasant (albeit sometimes entertaining) thing about going to the movies is the fact that there are other people in the theater besides just my wife and I.

Typically, we tend to wait a few weeks after they've debuted to see new movies in order to allow for the initial hubbub about the thing to die down. In the case of Man of Steel, we went after only a week's passing which wasn't so bad in all honesty. Don't get me wrong, the house was nearly packed but we arrived early enough that getting a good seat wasn't a challenge. A "good seat" for us is either a spot on the end of a row or, better yet, a loveseat row (that being a row made up of only 2 seats). There are only a few of these loveseat rows within certain theaters at Columbiana Grande, hence why early arrival is necessary if you hope to get one of them. We even have a preference when it comes to which loveseat we take. One of the loveseats is situated directly above the theater's entrance, meaning you not only get a nice, semi-private section to yourselves but you also get the added benefit of a shelf upon which you may rest your snack, beverage, cell phone or what have you. Beware, though, as this shelf can be treacherous!

Case in point, for our Man of Steel screening we both got a tray of nachos. The nachos come in a bag, which is both good and bad; good in that you get a consistent, sanitary serving but bad in that you have to get the chips into the tray yourself while sitting elbow to elbow with God only knows who. I make it sound like you're having to replicate the scene from Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise is dangling from the ceiling like a fish on a hook even though it's about as simple as can be. I'm always cautious about bag opening, though, because I'm prone to yanking them open too forcefully and sending the contents flying in every direction. Instead of having to use my lap as a staging area for my nachos, I made good use of the shelf by carefully positioning the tray in a safe zone (i.e., far enough back from the edge so that the tray wouldn't fall over thereby dousing some unsuspecting theater patron with molten cheesy goodness), popped open the bag of nachos and arranged them in my tray. Unfortunately, I may have been too eager to get to my nachos as I sent one chip flying off the shelf - fortunately, there wasn't anyone coming into the theater at that moment, so I didn't have to go through that embarrassment.

At least my spillage was minor and didn't involve liquid...

I think everyone who's been to a movie lately realizes how big beverage servings have become. This isn't a new trend, though, seeing as how the same is true of cups you get at any fast food restaurant. I got a large soda before we went in to see Man of Steel - I don't remember how much it cost but it came with free refills which is why after the movie was over I decided to get my cup topped off. One more for the road, as it were. I didn't drink all of the refill (the cup barely fit into the holder in my truck) so when we got home I brought the cup into the house and left it on the kitchen counter. The following morning I took the top off the cup and looked down into the murky, now severely watered down and totally devoid of carbonation left-over Coke. I couldn't help but wonder how much fluid that was as I poured it down the drain. I got out one of our measuring cups (a 1 cup/8 fluid ounce measuring cup) and used water to calculate how many cups my movie theater cup would hold. Turns out this behemoth, without ice and filled to the brim, can hold 6 cups or 48 ounces of fluid. That's the equivalent of 4 cans of soda. And people wonder why things like diabetes and obesity are so prevalent nowadays.

I wrote all that to say this - two people dropped their beverages during the movie, one who was near the front of the theater and another who happened to be sitting directly behind us in a loveseat row. I didn't freak out when I heard the cup hit the floor, thereby jettisoning its contents in a deluge, even though I had a bad feeling my feet were about to get wet. I can honestly say we never felt or saw as much as a dribble of cola on our row, which I can only attribute to some sort of containment apparatus separating the upper and lower rows. There's the off chance that the folks sitting behind us may have expertly deployed whatever napkins they had to try and sop up the spill. (Hopefully the victims of the other spill were as lucky as we were.) Whatever the case, I'm just glad I didn't walk out of that theater with shoes left sticky from almost half a gallon of soda.

The topic of children and movie theaters is a touchy subject. As a theater owner/operator, you can't not allow someone who is capable of buying a ticket into your establishment (a justifiable exception being people who are under the influence or who might pose a danger to themselves and others). Doing so would be contrary to everything for which our capitalistic society stands. This is why business people and theater patrons alike have to hope that parents and their children don't do anything while watching a movie that would inspire violence. I can't tell you how many times I've had a perfectly good cinematic experience get ruined by some kid or their parental unit(s). At this point, it's almost like an understood, expected casualty of war. You know when you buy your ticket that there's a chance you're going to walk out of that theater having thought about whether or not you could justifiably gut-punch a child or otherwise wish a plague of boils upon their mom & dad for having brought them out of the house in the first place.

Personally, I think parents have to know their child before making the decision to bring them to a theater. This means realizing that kids of a certain age shouldn't be in a theater, period, specifically babies or any child so immature that they stand to have an emotional outburst during the picture. Not only is this a potential distraction to others inside the theater but what are you, as a parent, getting out of going to the movies if you have to spend 20-30 minutes in the lobby trying to satiate Junior's shivering fits? It doesn't make sense from either point of view, is what I'm getting at.

Older kids who are either undisciplined or just plain unsupervised is a different matter entirely. Babies can't help that they're babies but kids who are old enough to know better and act-out anyway should be dealt with in a way that is efficient and effective. In an ideal world, they'd get one warning then out comes the duct tape (the stuff is truly limitless in its use). In reality, we're left having to wonder why their parents aren't doing their jobs. Theater etiquette should be taught at an early age, and refresher courses should be offered to adults seeing as how there are a lot of people out there who have no idea what it means to observe courtesy towards others while watching a movie.

I'm not attempting to say that I was a perfect child or that I never did anything to disrupt the moving-going experience of someone else. Sure, I acted out as a child while at the movies and even in church. You want to know what happened to me when I did? Grandpa's finger meeting the back of my skull in a flicking motion that was, in all honesty, like getting hit with a Louisville Slugger. It hurt and I didn't appreciate it at the time, but I'm a grown man and I know that if he hadn't cared enough to direct my behavior I might be in a very different position right now. My point being that children should be loved and nurtured but that they also need discipline in some form or another. How would the world be different right now if the word discipline had never become unjustifiably synonymous with abuse, we'll never know.

There's that pesky soap box again, always getting underneath me when I'm trying to write...

I just spent three paragraphs harping on why kids and movie theaters don't mix, whereas I could write a piece the size of a senior thesis as to why a lot of adults shouldn't ever be allowed to set foot inside a theater. Seeing as how the length of this blog entry is getting out of hand, instead of charging a multi-pronged assault on those theater patrons who are old enough to know but too ignorant to do so, I'll focus on one aspect of their behavior which is consistently and persistently disruptive, that being the usage of cellular phones.

Movie theater chains have done what they can, for the most part, through signage and various pre-movie public service announcement campaigns in an attempt to dissuade customers from whipping out their phone during a screening. (Not only have they made a point to state how annoying it is for someone to engage in a conversation during a movie, they've also gone so far as to tie in visibly using a phone to potential copyright infringement. Plus, they tack on the incredibly intimidating and overly emphatic seal of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, just for good measure.) The only problem with this strategy is that it trusts people to police themselves when people are, pardon my French, assholes by in large meaning they don't care about ruining the experience of someone else. They've apparently never been distracted from a pivotal scene in a movie by the veritable spotlight that blasts upwards out of someone's lap into the darkness of the theater after they've activated the screen of their phone. I see this happen all the time and I'm never sure what's going on; that could be someone checking their Twitter feed or it could be the people of Gotham City sending out a distress signal to Batman. The bottom line here, in my opinion, is that if you're so important that you can't be separated from your phone for 2 or 3 hours you probably have no business being in a theater. By all means, stay home - the world may need you at a moment's notice!

Even with my musings and complaints about how people can affect a night at the theater, I must admit there's something about the communal experience of taking in a film together as a group (or mob, as is sometimes the case). The shared reactions and emotions are quite the thing to behold. I guess you could say that it's part of the magic of the movies. All I know for sure is that I'm glad I don't have to go to the movies by myself anymore, thanks to the cute little blonde girl I call my wife being by my side. I never do get tired of how it feels when she squeezes my hand during a tense moment of a film. It reminds me that she's there, it reminds me that we're together, and it reminds me that we'll always be connected.