Man Of Steel

There are three great cinematic mysteries that keep me up at night. Three unanswered questions that keep running on a loop in my head like that 90’s pop song you can’t stop hearing (I’m talking to you Barbie Girl by Aqua). These are, in no particular order, (1) In Jaws 4 The Revenge why does the family, believing a great white shark is out to get them, move to the Bahamas (a warm water island) instead of say the land-locked state of Indiana? (2) In Casablanca why is Captain Renault portrayed as a womanizer when clearly he is gayer than any three Cher impersonators combined? And (3) Why, in this modern era of superhero summer tent pole films have they not been able to make a decent Superman movie?

With Zach Snyder’s Man of Steel, my list is now down to two. Not because he made a good Superman movie but rather because in failing to, he provided all the reasons why it is simply not possible to.

Man of Steel is what is now referred to as a “clean reboot”. This movie, like most of today’s movie going audience, moves forward pretending like Bryan singer’s 2006 Superman returns never existed. In MOS, we have the ubiquitous origins story – Krypton is about to explode, a baby is born, he’s put on a rocket ship destined for Earth, you know the rest. The difference is in MOS, Jor-el (Russel Crowe) steals something called a “codec” which will allow any Krypton survivors to repopulate a new planet. Turns out Kal-El (superbaby) is a bit of a miracle birth, the first natural birth on Krypton in generations. General Zod (Brilliantly played by Boardwalk Empire’s Michael Shannon) is sent to a space prison of sorts but not before he vows to find the son of Jor-El and destroy him. So to recap. A benevolent father sent his only son, the product of a miracle birth, to be earth’s salvation while a force of ultimate evil tries to stop him. Maybe this isn’t a clean reboot after all?

We then see a grown up Clark Kent living a nomadic life, drifting from job to job, using his superpowers when he has to. The most interesting part of the movie comes in the stretch where through flashbacks we see Clark Kent as a boy struggling with his new found powers. He wants to use them to help people but his adoptive father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) does all he can to dissuade him. Jonathan argues that the world is not ready for someone so special like Clark and he fears that he will either be exploited by the government or treated like a circus freak by the media. Watching young Clark struggle with wanting to help in crisis situations while not going against Jonathan’s wishes is the part of the movie that gave me hope I was finally going to get a great Superman movie.

 I was mistaken.

 What happens after this point is heavy on plot and short on story. Zod and his hench-people arrive on earth and demand that they turn over the son of Jor-el. Clark turns himself over to the authorities and allows himself to be turned over to Zod. Perhaps the strangest and cheapest device in this movie is the ghost of Jor-el who appears as a “consiciousness” and can communicate to people and manipulate objects magically in the living world. This is where Man of Steel really started to lose me. It relies too heavily on Jor-El giving his son the answers. When Superman is in his deepest jeopardy, it is the ghost of Jor-el who gets him out of it. In fact the solution to the climax is provided not by the protagonist, but rather by phantom Jor-el and Lois Lane (Amy Adams). This struck me as way too much Deus ex Machina for me to stomach.

The latter portion of the movie is Superman and Zod engaged in an orgy of CGI fight and flight. They throw each other through buildings, into tanker trucks, destroying most of Smallville’s key infrastructure all the while getting nary a scratch on one and another. A minute or two of this can be visually stimulating. 10-15 minutes of it leaves you wanting to shout at the screen “WHAT IS THE POINT?!?! YOU’RE NOT EVEN HURTING EACH OTHER”.

And this is the ultimate reason it is impossible to do a decent Superman movie these days. When he has a human villain, he can physically overpower him so it becomes difficult to maintain any sense of jeopardy. When the villain is one or more of his Kryptonian equals, there is too much emphasis put of elaborate CGI fight scenes that don’t lend themselves to any real sense of jeopardy or suspense. In the greatest Superman movie ever made, 1981’s Superman II, when Superman realizes he cannot physically overpower Zod and the others, he outsmarts them by luring them into a brilliantly devised trap that neither his enemies nor the audience can see coming. There is a moment when we are genuinely fearful that Superman has surrendered himself to them. This is the kind of suspense that -can only be created by a well-crafted story. All the CGI in the world can’t replicate what that does for the audience’s enjoyment of the movie.

 Man of Steel fails because devoid of all of the CGI pyrotechnics, there isn’t really any story to speak of. Superhero movies are great when they deal with the alter ego dealing with the weight and responsibility of the masked hero. Think of Spiderman and “With great power comes great responsibility”. Or go back again to Superman II. In that movie, Clark Kent was wrestling with whether he wanted to be Superman anymore. He toyed with putting his own needs before the needs of the world. When these movies work, the ultimate victory is not the victory over the villain but rather the victory over his own inner doubts and fears. That is story and it is the element that is sorely missing from Man of Steel.

Would I recommend seeing this movie? I’ll say this. Seeing this movie in the hopes of enjoying a great superhero story makes about as much sense as fleeing to tropical waters if you’re hoping to avoid a vengeful shark attack.

Need I say more?

Paul

Have you ever invited someone out to a social event, you know, someone really cool? Maybe you hadn't seen that person in while and you were really looking forward to just kicking back and sharing some laughs. Then when they show up they've brought four or five of their really annoying friends with them. And what you want to say "you can come in but these losers have to take a hike." Of course you don't do that for two very important reasons: (1) The unspoken rules of polite society forbid it and (2) Unlike me, there's an excellent chance you're not a major league A-hole.

I separate myself from the rest of you because I feel like I should be able to say "you losers go take a hike". And nowhere did I feel that urge stronger than sitting through a screening of Paul. I loved the title character but was either bored or annoyed by the cast of characters who surround him.

Paul is the latest offering from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who previously gave us Shaun of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007), and Run Fatboy Run (2007). In Shaun and Hot Fuzz, they succeeded in providing a fresh and cutting send up of some much loved movie genres. Here they try to do the same thing with the Speilberg/Lucas fanboy cannon. Pegg and Frost play Grahame and Clive, two British sci-fi fans who travel to the US to attend Comic-Con and take a tour of the famous UFO sites of the American Southwest. So how fitting that while out on the highway at night, they see a car go off the road in front of them and upon further investigation, discover Paul, a foul-mouthed slacker alien. The guys take Paul in their RV and their road adventure has officially begun.

Right away, I like Paul and find him very funny. When he's on the screen, I find myself enjoying this movie quite a bit. The problem is, when he's not on the screen, the movie begins to suffer almost immediately. The reason for this begins with the two human leads in the film.

The great thing about doing a genre spoof is you are able to use shorthand with the characters. Two sci-fi fans at Comic-Con? Got it. Say no more. We know who these guys are. Socially awkward, uncomfortable with women, terrible fashion sense. But because we are so familiar with those archetypes, unless you give us something fresh and interesting about them, we will get bored very quickly with them and sadly that is what happened here. Outside of generic sci-fi geeks, I can't tell you anything noteworthy about these characters.

Even more problematic for me was Ruth Buggs, the love interest for Graeme played by SNL's Kristen Wiig. Wiig is very convincing in the role of a sheltered fundamentalist Christian whose abhorrence for all things scientific should be a nice contrast for Paul. Now there is lots of room for satire and sharp commentary in the debate between science and religion. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't engage in any of that. The filmmakers seem to want to suggest that Paul's existence nullifies everything Ruth once believed so now she is free to drink, swear, and get stoned. I don't think I can end the debate but I don't see why we can't live in a world where Darwin's principles and intelligent design can co-exist. Why can't we have aliens and God (in whatever form you believe He takes: God, Yaweh, Oprah) peacefully co-existing? By portraying Christians as all slack jawed idiot Yokels, this movie really took a misstep for me.

Perhaps the biggest misstep involved the character development or lack thereof. SPOILER ALERT – There is a scene at the end where Paul tells the guys. "So I guess we learned a bunch of valuable stuff about being true to ourselves and all that crap." This is supposed to be a clever way of pointing out that they haven't really learned anything or changed for having gone through this journey. We are almost supposed to feel like that kind of character growth is a lame device of movies of yesteryear. But I wanted to scream at the screen 'If you have actually learned something about yourself for going through the journey, there might have been a satisfying ending. The majority of the plot involves them being chased by the authorities. That could provide some genuine character development but does not here.

I should point out that there are some genuine laughs in this film. Seth Rogen is great providing the bite behind Paul's personality. And the guys do a nice job of referencing all the big blockbuster movies of the 70's 80's and 90's including a Titanic reference that was very clever. But in the end there was too many lost opportunities for this movie to work as well as it should have.

I loved seeing Paul on the screen. I just wanted to tell the other characters to go take a hike. They're ruining my quality hang with my good friend Paul. I can say that because, don't forget, I'm a major league A-hole.

Or at least, that's what I'm constantly told.

The Adjustment Bureau

We used to play a game in university that would entertain us until the wee hours of the morning. Whenever there was a lull in the conversation or a collective sense of boredom was achieved, somebody would throw out a crazy hypothetical.

"Would you rather be immersed in a bathtub full of live cockroaches or dive into a pool of tobacco spit." And with it, another round of "Would You Rather" was underway.

This game is endless fun for two main reasons (1) It can be adjusted to whatever level of appropriateness you desire. For children it could be…Would you rather have a superpower or have Christmas never end? Ours always seemed to be a choice between two of the most disgusting situations imaginable.

And this brings me to the second reason why this game is so much fun: (2) You have to choose one of the options. You don't get to say "Those are gross! I'm not doing either." As soon as that is an option, the whole point to the game is lost. You have to make a difficult, if nauseating, choice.

After watching The Adjustment Bureau, I feel like writer/director George Nolfi ether never played "Would You Rather" in college or if he did, he cheated.

The Adjustment Bureau is an adaptation of The Phillip K. Dick short story "The Adjustment Team". Dick's short stories have served as the base for other sci-fi thrillers like Blade Runner (1982), Total Recall (1990) and Minority Report (2002). This movie, like its predecessors has a very Dickish feel to it. (Sorry but I don't know what the "Dickensian" equivalent is to Phillip K Dick)

It tells the story of young U.S Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) on the eve of his first U.S. Senate election. Norris comes off as a typical movie protagonist politician: Bright, sincere, and likeable. Sadly though, not likable to win this time around. As he is in a hotel bathroom practicing his concession speech, he is shocked to see a beautiful young woman emerge from one of the stalls. This is Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) who is hiding from hotel security after crashing a wedding in the hotel. Though their encounter is brief, there is clearly amazing chemistry between them and it ends with a passionate kiss.

Of course this was only supposed to be a one-time chance encounter. So when Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie), a fedora wearing guardian angel type falls asleep on the job and allows David to get on a bus he was never supposed to be on, trouble ensues. Elise is on that bus and when they meet up again, it becomes clear they are very close to falling madly in love with each other. It is now time for the Adjustment Bureau to launch into action.

David arrives at his work to find his coworkers in the boardroom in suspended animation getting their brains scanned by a man we know only as Richadson (Mad Men's John Slattery). A chase ensues and they reluctantly have to tell David what is going on. They are a team that ensures that everything happens according to the grand plan. When something happens to threaten the design of the plan, they step in and make sure things get back on track. Richardson explains that tiny things like a dropped cell phone call or somebody missing a flight because they can't find their keys could be chance but are more likely the work of the Adjustment Bureau. They tell David that Elise is not part of his plan and he is to forget about her and not tell anyone about what he knows.

Right here this movie sets up some really interesting material. There is no end to the debate on free will versus pre-destiny and David is right in the middle of that debate. Also, many people believe that everything happens for a reason and there are greater forces out there affecting our lives in ways we are not aware of. So right here the movie has me with an interesting set-up and a rich thematic canvas on which to paint.

Flash ahead to three years later and while taking that same bus as before, David again sees Elise walking down the street. He chases after her and explains that the reason he didn't call before because he lost her number. Not really a lie since Richardson burned the card with her number on it so David couldn't call. They go for lunch and we can see them falling in love all over again. Much to the chagrin of the Adjustment Bureau.

What follows next is a lot of cat and mouse games with the Bureau guys using their magic powers to try to keep David from being with Elise. But where it gets even more interesting is when they bring in someone higher up on the team, Thomson (Terrance Stamp) the one they call "The Hammer". Thompson tells Norris that his destiny is to become President and change the world in a positive way. Elise's destiny is to become a professional dancer and then a famous choreographer. But it they get together, neither of those destinies will come to be and she will wind up teaching dance to six year-olds for the rest of her life.

Now this is where I think the film is at its most gripping. They have brilliantly set up a scenario where the protagonist has to make a life defining choice. And something of a Sophie's choice at that. I give Nolphi along with Damon and Blunt full credit for making the chemistry between the characters feel very authentic. You love seeing them together on the screen and you can't help but want to see them together in the end.

So this is why the predicament is so tough for David Norris. Should he put his personal desires ahead of the positive change he can affect on the world stage? And does he have a right to take away her future without her ever knowing what the implications are? In short, he is engaging in the ultimate game of would you rather.

Would You Rather spend the rest of your life with your true love or you both enjoy the ultimate career success for the rest of your lives?

And this is the point where a flawlessly executed fantasy thriller completely falls apart for me. Without giving away the specific ending, it's safe to say Nolphi lets his character wriggle out of choosing one or the other. And in doing so, completely undoes the great work up until this point. I felt like we needed to see what choice he makes and if he is able to make peace with it. But he violated the key rule of would you rather by not making his guy stick to one and only one of those choices.

In fairness to Nolphi, I know that the ending was reshot after an early test screening. If they went with the Hollywood ending after the more difficult ending didn't play, that could explain the choice. Even still, it stands out to me a huge missed opportunity. This movie is well paced, fun, interesting and overall very enjoyable. It just comes completely unravelled in the third act.

So should you go see this movie? Well let me ask you this. Would you rather pay $12 to see a movie with an ending that stays true to its premise or pay $12 to see a fairly enjoyable movie that sells out big time to the Hollywood ending?

You have to decide.

 

 

Hall Pass

I'll let you in on a little secret. Screenwriters may appear shy and unassuming but we can become consumed by jealousy greater than that of any three real housewives of Orange County combined. Our obsession is the one sentence high concept pitch that is both crystal clear and loaded with comedic potential. When a screenwriter sees a trailer for one of these ideas, he spits out his popcorn, slaps his forehead and involuntarily blurts out "Why didn't I think of that?"

Only two films in the past five years have made me do just that. The first was Ricky Gervais' "The Invention of Lying" and most recently, the Farrelly Brothers' "Hall Pass". The latter being a movie about a couple of married guys whose wives give them a one week hall pass from their marriage.

Because it is one of those great concepts, there was a lot pressure on the Brothers Farrelly to not screw it up. Sure, these guys delivered the comedy classics Dumb and Dumber (1996) and There's Something About Mary (1998). But let's not forget that they are also responsible for Stuck on You (2003) Fever Pitch (2005) and The Heartbreak Kid (2007). No question over the past decade, they've had more misses than hits.

Part of the Farrelly's challenge is their recipe for comedy is a delicate balance of gross out scenes with sincerity and sweetness. They can get away with the Cameron Diaz hair gel scene in Mary because we root for Ben Stiller to win over the great unrequited love of his life. If that balance is off just a bit, we end up with Shallow Hal (2001). In Hall Pass, they again seem to have the balance just right.

In Hall Pass, they present us with two best friends Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) who have seemingly happy marriages but can't hide their wandering eyes. Part of it is their delusional belief that if they were single, they would be picking up all the time. The other part is neither of them is getting as much action on the home-front as they'd like. Fred's way of dealing with this frustration and how it backfires on him is almost worth the price if admission by itself.

So after Rick's wife Maggie (Jenna Fisher) gives him the one week hall pass, Fred's wife Grace (Christina Applegate) follows suit. And with the premise cleared, we launch full into Act Two and this is where the movie stumbles a bit for me. Of course the guys can't succeed right away and I anticipate the epic fails as they set off on this adventure. The problem for me is too much time is spent on them avoiding trying to pick up women. There is a whole sequence of them stoned on a golf course that seems to be there for no other reason than the sand trap sight gag.

And just as I'm about to file this in the "Stuck On You" category of failed execution, something really interesting happens. They start to explore the opportunities the wives have with this week of hall pass. Maggie and Grace go away to a resort town where a baseball team is wrapping up their season. The older coach is crushing on Maggie while the early 20's baseball stud is hot for Grace. What makes this interesting is we don't know exactly where this story development is heading. We believe that the wives could easily be successful if they wanted something to happen. But would they?

Whereas the guy's scenario was a little more predictable. There were many failed and clueless attempts to find a woman who will sleep with them. To be honest, that section of the movie is mostly forgettable. I thought things really picked up when it became more about what the wives were doing while away and the developing relationship between Rick and Leigh (Nicky Whelan), his favourite coffee barista. When it stopped being about forced comedy and more about the temptation of this one beautiful young woman who is not your wife, it started to feel more authentic. I feel like the last 30 minutes saved the movie from the previous 30 minutes.

Wilson and Sudeikis are both charming and likeable in these roles. They are able to play the comedy for big laughs when necessary and give the touching emotional speech when required as well. The breakout star of this movie is Whelan who did a nice job of portraying the sexy temptress while still having a likeable girl-next-door quality to her.

This is by no means a great movie but I do believe it is a good comedy. It has enough big laughs with the gross-out humour to satisfy long time fans of the Farrely's. And the emotional storyline is sufficiently sweet and competent. This movie has both a nice zinger of a last line and end credits bonus that helps to end it on a high note.

So if you are looking for a model for your high concept broad comedy with heart, this is not a bad one to look at. And if you are working on such a script, best of luck with it. I hope it goes well.

But don't let me find out about it. Or I will destroy you!

A Solemn Promise To The Readers of Seluke’s Movie Reviews

It has been exactly half a year since I last posted a review on this blog. It was September 5^th and how I long for those innocent carefree days. You see I got caught up in living the lifestyle of a screenwriter in Canada. It's all dom perignon for breakfast and lighting up Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills after lunch. It was la dolce vita and I was enjoying every minute of it.

"Who cares if the needs of my faithful readers weren't being attended to," I would often wonder aloud. "What could possibly go wrong?"

And then it happened.

I'll never forget the chills that came over me when I heard the phone ring. I didn't know who was on the other end of that phone, I just knew it wasn't good. I picked up the phone and braced myself for the worst. Even still, I wasn't prepared for what I was about to hear.

"Tony, it's Bruce. I just saw 'How Do You Know?'"

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" I cried out. "How did this happen?"

"It was Paul Rudd in a James L. Brooks film. The same guy who did "As Good As It Gets" he explained.

"But that movie sucks," I told him. "It redefines the term "unwatchable".

And I'll never forget the words he said next…"I wish you would have told me that four hours ago."

He was right. It was all my fault.

I wish I could tell you Bruce recovered from seeing that steaming pile of dogcrap, but we all know better. For the rest of his life he will be a broken shell of the man he once was. And all because I wasn't there to prevent it.

So I make this solemn promise to you all. I will never leave you again. I will post a review every week from now until the time they stop making movies. And after How Do You Know, that may be sooner than you think.

Never again will I allow my awesome lifestyle get in the way of my duties as a movie reviewer. With great power comes great responsibility…to make sure nobody EVER sees How Do You Know and others of its ilk.

Tomorrow I will be posting a review of Hall Pass. After that, I will post at least once per week, often allowing you to choose the movie you want reviewed. Together we can prevent another tragedy like the one that happened to Bruce.

As for what can be done to help Bruce, his only wish is that you all send me lots of money in the…wait…hold on…my lawyers inform me I am not legally permitted to ask you to send me money in the mail.

So I won't.

Wink wink.

 

The American

Some movie titles are fairly self-explanatory. Nobody went into Dude Where's My Car expecting to see a subtle yet complex commentary on the human condition. Showgirls was also one of those titles that pretty much tipped its hand as to what kind of movie-going experience you were about to get. But when I saw the title The American, I was puzzled. What exactly was this movie going to be? Would be a movie about:

• A guy who couldn't pick out his home state on a map?
  
• A guy who believes Barrack Obama is really a secret Muslim
  
• A guy who is convinced we (Canadians) all live in igloos and take sled dogs to work
  
• A guy who could name all the cast members of Jersey Shore but not one Supreme Court Justice.
  

Of course, it wasn't any of those movies (although I am actively pitching two of them). In fact, this movie was nothing like I thought it would be. It was slow, methodical, nuanced, character rich, and unpredictable. When compared to other Hollywood Studio Films, it would be considered...well... un-American.

The American tells the story of Jack, a seasoned veteran of the spy world played by George Clooney. In the opening scene we see Jack spending some quality time with a lady friend in a remote winter cabin in Sweden. Snipers try to take Jack out but he manages to foil the hit and get away to fight another day. Of course we see what Jack must do to ensure his safety and we are instantly acutely aware of just how high the stakes are in Jack's world.

Director Anton Corbijn has a background in stills photography and this is evident from the very first image in the screen. This film is set in Sweden and Italy and the aesthetics in this film are magnificent. But at the same time, Corbijn is able to make the danger and suspense feel real. This isn't like a Bond film where we are aware we are watching a popcorn film. This movie feels more like a documentary crew followed an international covert hitman for a while. The tension is real and visceral.

This is especially true when Jack takes up residence in Italy for a few months. He is given a cell phone and other gear by his contact/handler but Jack doesn't keep it. He is suspicious about how he was found in Sweden and now can't trust even those who were his closest allies. But without certainty that they are working against him, he takes a job assisting a female hitman. Hitwoman? Hitperson? Assassin! She needs a special compact sniper rifle and Jack's job is to build it for her.

At this point in the film, I kept waiting for the pace and action to ramp up. Certainly there must be double-crosses and high speed highway chases coming but alas, they did not. See what I mean about refreshing? The majority of this storyline involves Jack collecting materials, building and testing this custom made sniper rifle. The other major storyline involves Jack's budding relationship with an Italian prostitute he visits named Carla played by the very beautiful Italian actress Violante Placido. Two things I could tell about this actress right off the top: she is very charming on screen and her agent has never heard of a no-nudity clause.

Very slowly and very methodically, these two storylines start to come together. Jack is becoming more and more suspicious about this job he is doing while at the same time, his relationship with Carla goes from professional to authentic. And while he wants to believe she is really falling for him, he can't allow himself to be taken in by her. Though he never says it aloud, we are thinking the exact same thing he is – could she be a spy plotting his assassination. What this film does exceptionally well is allowing these suspicions to fester without being ham-fisted about it. Yes there are some things that seem off but they are also easily explained. So what is the truth? The audience's frustration exactly mirrors what Jack must feel every moment of his life. We get a taste of what it is like never knowing if we can believe what is unfolding in front of our very eyes.

Methodical as it may be, this film does build to a climax where both storylines are resolved. We finally find out what is real and what is not. But again, even though there final confrontations and cat and mouse chases, it still feels very muted. The best sequence in the movie comes when Jack delivers the rifle to the hit-…assassin. Here is another great cat and mouse scene except we're never really sure who is the cat and who is the mouse.

This is a movie that is not for everyone. If you need the MTV style of lots of action, lots of smash cuts to hold your attention, this movie is not for you. However if you want a refreshing change and a well told, if understates suspense piece, you should see this movie.

But don't be fooled by its title. With a Dutch director, methodical story space, frequent nudity, and lack of explosions, what are you really seeing?

The European.

 

Tomorrow’s Review is Reader’s Choice

There are two new movies opening up Friday: (1) Going the Distance, a Drew Barrymore and Justin Long Romantic Comedy. (2) The American, a George Clooney movie which I assume is about a guy who couldn't identify France on a world map. Or it could be a romantic spy drama but that seems unlikely. I would also entertain votes for Machete.

Which one will I see and review? That's up to you. Vote for your choice either in the comments section below or on the Facebook page for Seluke's Movie reviews. Whichever movie gets the most votes will be reviewed.

Act now. Operators are standing by.