150 Movies in 90 Days: Man of Steel

June 15: #17, Man of Steel

By the way, when Superman flies, it's really just telekinesis

 

With fan reaction (if not critic reaction) having been positive by the time I saw Man of Steel yesterday, I figured I would end up liking the movie. After all, I generally like superhero films, and I’m one of the few that actually liked Superman Returns. What I wondered was whether the film could live up to the promises delivered by the trailers, which showed a subtle, personal take on Superman’s origin story.

For the most part, the answer was “yes”.

To me, the most interesting parts of the movie were in the first half, when Clark Kent was not yet Superman and instead was drifting from place to place, unsure how to life his life and occasionally having flashbacks to the even earlier times of his childhood. Kevin Costner is perfect as a Kansas farmer and Superdad who imparts the values in Clark that he’s known for almost as much as his superpowers.

Diane Lane is great too, although to me, she still looks too good to be a simple farmer’s wife who’s supposed to be pushing 60 by the time the story starts picking up in the modern day. That’s Hollywood, though, where men get to play a decade younger and women have to play senior citizens by the time they hit their mid-40s.

The action sequences are amazing, which we all expect by now. Warner Bros. spared no expense, either, with very liberal amounts of flying, fighting, and fiery explosions throughout the movie. Whether young Clark is lifting a bus out of a lake, young adult Clark is single-handedly holding up an oil rig to allow workers to escape, or Clark has become Superman and is battling Zod (played mostly effectively by Michael Shannon), everything is top-notch and often jaw-dropping.

In fact, one of the questions left behind by Man of Steel is how quickly the actual human beings inhabiting Earth could trust or forgive him after the billions of dollars of wreckage that is caused by his battles with Zod in the film. After all, while Zod clearly isn’t someone who can be trusted, the fact is that if Superman hadn’t landed on Earth, Zod wouldn’t have followed and knocked over a dozen skyscrapers years later.

Where Man of Steel falls short of earning elite status among comic book superhero movies is the rivalry between Zod and Superman. If the pacing feels off, it’s likely because the moment that Clark dons the iconic cape, Zod shows up and demands he turn himself over to them. Though Zod claims that he will not harm anyone if Superman complies, Supes doesn’t trust him. Why? We don’t know. He’d known him for all of zero seconds at that point and had only discovered his own true origin just before Zod showed up.

Zod was himself sentenced to what would have seemed to be an eternity’s worth of imprisonment, and I’m not entirely sure how he escaped in the first place. Anybody who knows anything about Superman knows that his home planet explodes, but Zod’s escape is kind of glossed over. I believe the escape had something to do with Krypton blowing up, but they knew Krypton was going to blow up. By sending Zod off to the Phantom Zone, they actually allowed him to live while all of the law-abiding citizens of Krypton died. Now that’s being tough on crime, right?

Let's be honest: it's kinda hard to follow TERENCE FUCKING STAMP, though

Another problem with Zod’s quick arrival is that the predictable romance between Clark and Lois Lane seems very forced as a result. Ultimately, it’s just kind of a shame that once we get deeper into the film, the personal element of the film is ditched in favor of action set piece after action set piece.

I’m nit-picking, though. What doesn’t bother me is the end of the film, which I won’t spoil on the off chance that you haven’t seen it yet. Suffice to say that we’re back in the same old argument about what a superhero who’s been around for decades “would” or “should” do, with comic book fans crying foul about one of their icons acting in a way they deem to be incompatible with the character himself.

Well, deal with it, fanboys. Interpretations of characters change, and there are dozens of examples I don’t even need to cite here, including plenty of changes that have been made to Superman himself over the decades. Ultimately, I had no problem with that, although Clark showing up at the Daily Planet with glasses and a bad haircut hardly makes sense. Isn’t there supposed to be at least a half-assed explanation of how people magically can’t recognize Clark as Superman or something? Instead, someone who would have been the world’s most famous person after the events of Man of Steel walks around anonymously because he puts on some glasses. Still a great movie, though. Grade: B+

150 Movies in 90 Days: The Iron Lady and Tower Heist

So before today, my slow start had left me with 136 movies to watch in just 66 days. That means I need to watch two movies every day for the next 66 days, along with a handful of three-movie days tossed in for good measure. Yikes. Good thing I watched two movies today, huh?

June 14: #15, The Iron Lady

“We will stand on principle or we will not stand at all.”

I wasn’t all that interested in watching The Iron Lady, but decided to anyway when I found it at my local library on DVD. (Remember, friends: visit your local library often!) I do not know much of British politics and knew even less about Margaret Thatcher before watching this film, but I’m a sucker for great acting performances, which means I’m also a sucker for Meryl Streep.

Let’s get it out of the way: Meryl Streep is great here, hitting all the highs, lows, and even effortlessly portraying Thatcher in her later years as she (apparently) experiences dementia. Now, whether the film should have shown those years is apparently part of a big debate, and even the framed narrative that it creates is very much hit and miss, with most of the hits coming on early in the film and the misses coming later as the gimmick wears thin.

Historical inaccuracies are a part of biopics, but when the subject is an important world leader from the modern era, I think a little more accuracy is required. Specifically, the idea of presenting Thatcher as the lone female member of Parliament is troubling, as it cheaply stacks the odds against her when no exaggeration was really needed. A seemingly slight choice like that can easily take a biopic into propaganda territory. Even after Thatcher becomes Prime Minister, there are no female faces in the House of Commons, although in reality, there were 27 when she was elected and 43 when she left office.

Some other choices also led to mixed results: the use of archival footage showing riots and other events interspersed with new footage of the actors filmed in high definition is jarring. The footage is visceral and jaw-dropping, but makes it hard to suspend your disbelief when we cut back to what are obviously just actors on a set.

The story itself is good enough, but stronger early on before politics completely take over. When that happens, the film is so careful to stay neutral that it doesn’t really say much at all. Thatcher was determined and controversial, but what else was she? Grade: B-

June 14: #16, Tower Heist

Did you guys know that Matthew Broderick is still alive? Me either!

I’ve had Tower Heist on my radar since it came out in theaters and I heard that Eddie Murphy makes an appearance as his old self in the film. As someone who was watching Eddie Murphy Raw and Coming to America dozens of times before puberty, I’m always willing to forgive all of Eddie’s PG-rated sins if he decides to go back to cussing and actually being funny again.

I’ll confess that I didn’t know much else about the film until I grabbed at my local library the other day (I mean it; patronize your local library!). I mean, I surmised that there was a Tower, and that at some point a Heist would go down, but other than that, I didn’t know anything.

It turns out that Tower Heist has a really clever plot where some average hotel workers who have had their savings accounts swindled by a white collar criminal decide to recoup their money the only way that they can: by stealing it from said criminal’s penthouse apartment. Not only is this a great setup, but you can’t deny the timing, since white collar criminals have been particularly unpopular over the past ten years or so.

I think I’ve usually enjoyed heist films because I also enjoy films with capable ensemble casts. Tower Heist certainly fits the bill, as everyone involved performs wonderfully, including Eddie Murphy in a role that is quite a bit less substantial than I thought it would be, but still very entertaining. In particular, Alan Alda of MASH fame is terrific; he’s alternately likable as a rich, yet relatable person and easy to dislike as a cocky, unapologetic criminal once he makes his turn.

Even Ben Stiller is surprisingly restrained in this, which is good, because if he went full-blown Stiller on us very often it would totally destroy the mood of the film. Stiller is the leader and a straight man for the most part here, and he sticks to his role dutifully. 

Anyway, the movie is really good right up until the caper itself, when I feel like some liberties are taken that make it lose a little steam. That and a somewhat unsatisfying ending leave Tower Heist feeling a little flat, but it’s ultimately still a good heist film. It’s also unfortunate that much of the humor outside of Murphy’s scenes isn’t very effective, but I think the great premise and pacing make up for it. Grade: B

150 Movies in 90 Days: Done With Die Hard

June 12: #13, Live Free or Die Hard
June 13: #14, A Good Day to Die Hard

Now with more annoying hacker hipster types and twice the family drama!

So, when you think to yourself, “What’s missing in the Die Hard franchise?” do you come to the conclusion that the answer is definitely “that cocky prick from the ‘I’m a Mac’ commercials”? Of course you don’t, because you're a rational human being with a functioning brain, not an overpaid suit sitting in a board room somewhere trying to figure out how to unnecessarily make a classic franchise “cool to kids nowadays”.

I’ve long had a theory about aging music acts. One reason why they fail in the long run is that twenty years after they were last relevant, they try to “update” their sound. They either go full-blown adult contemporary or worse yet, try to go with whatever is popular in the current era. News flash, aging rockers- your fans want you to do more shit that’s JUST LIKE the shit that they liked in the first place! If you’re a hair metal band, MAKE MORE HAIR METAL. If you’re a 70s rock band, MAKE MORE 70s ROCK.

And if you’re making a new Die Hard movie, just MAKE ANOTHER DIE HARD MOVIE. Let’s not complicate things.

The fourth film in the franchise, Live Free or Die Hard, does okay in that regard. John McClane shoots lots of people, and Timothy Olyphant, though he spends nearly the entire movie in a control room, is a good (if slightly plain) villain. Though it pains me to admit it, Justin Long (as Matt Farrell) is even tolerable much of the time. Kevin Smith makes an appearance, and he’s great. So what’s wrong with Live Free or Die Hard (besides the title which seems like a phrase that should be tattooed below an image of a bald eagle tearing through an American flag)?

- McClane’s daughter, Lucy McClane (sorry, I mean “Gennero”…yes, the same thing her mother pulled back in the first film) is an annoying character played annoyingly by an annoying actress.

- About 40% of the film is spent watching somebody hurriedly type on a keyboard because HACKING.

- Longtime staples of the franchise are just plain gone, such as McClane teaming up with everyday blue collar folks (no, computer hackers don’t count), and where’s the obligatory black guy for McClane to team up with? THESE THINGS MATTER.

- At one point, when Farrell would literally seem to serve no further purpose, McClane is about to leave him behind and I literally yelled, “FINALLY!” at my TV, only for Farrell to apparently hear me and go, “No, I’m coming along.”

Like almost every other Die Hard film, this one’s about twenty minutes too long. However, it also has an action scene set in a tunnel that is absolutely amazing and worth the price of admission, even if that price is watching the Die Hard franchise limp towards a slow death. Grade: C+

If Live Free or Die Hard is an awkward title, A Good Day to Die Hard is the one where the series finally lives up to its potential of a title that sounds like a Hugh Hefner biopic. It’s also the movie where the series goes full blown 24 on us and finally overloads on shots of people scurrying around in a control room, hurriedly speaking in code while being filmed with a shaky hand-held camera.

The story wants to be intelligent, but it doesn’t need to be. A Good Day to Die Hard tries to appeal to its aging fan base with a story of political intrigue when truthfully, that’s not why any of us choose to watch a Die Hard movie. Like the aging rock bands from earlier, this film misses the point and therefore, loses its audience.

Ditto with the shoehorned family drama, as we watch McClane and his son, who is a secret agent, bicker at one another incessantly throughout the entire film. It was like being in a room with my dad and my older brother for more than five minutes, honestly. When they’re not trading sarcastic comments, McClane’s son is whining about McClane not being a good dad. Meanwhile, McClane as a father is still not a good look. He alternates being annoying with simply being a total prick.

So, they’ve replaced McClane’s quips with family bickering. Fun! And to top it off, you get the least charismatic, least interesting set of villains in the franchise’s history, along with a totally obvious plot twist to go with it. Does McClane even exchange barbs with the villain? No, not really. Again, that would have taken valuable screen time away from McClane and son awkwardly working out their issues in front of us.

I've taken the liberty of writing my own original dialogue for A Good Day to Die Hard, just to show how easy it is to write awful scenes full of unnecessary, poorly-scribed father/son drama.

OLD MCCLANE watches as MCCLANE'S BORING SON fumbles with wires, not knowing which wire to cut.

OLD MCCLANE: Would you stop being such a complete disappointment and cut the fucking wire already?!? No wonder I never paid attention to you when you were a kid!

MCCLANE'S BORING SON: Oh, should I cut the wire? Like how you cut me out of your life, "John"?

Then, later on:

OLD MCCLANE and MCCLANE'S BORING SON burst into a room to rescue a hostage...that isn't there. Instead, there's a bomb and the door locks behind them.

OLD MCCLANE: Where the hell's the hostage?

MCCLANE'S BORING SON: He's not here...just like you weren't at any of my birthday parties, baseball games, or graduations.

OLD MCCLANE: I HAD SHIT TO DO DAMN YOU.

MCCLANE'S BORING SON: And look- there's a bomb! It's a trap!

OLD MCCLANE: I haven't felt trapped like this since your mom told me she was pregnant with your worthless ass.

See? It's easy.

Another issue is that with the new emphasis on realism and gritty authenticity, some of the head-scratching moments that wouldn’t have bothered me in earlier Die Hard films stick out like a sore thumb. For instance, when the McClanes work their way out of their handcuffs with their hands behind their backs and in full view of the armed henchmen behind them, or when John McClane suddenly realizes something is up at a key moment of the film when literally nothing suspicious is happening whatsoever. Also, as Taken 2 showed us, countries without “United States” in their names are automatically uncivilized and have little to no police presence, so you can blow up all the shit you want, no biggie.

You know what, though? There's a pretty amazing chase scene in the film. The scene even succeeds despite director John Moore's attempts to undermine it with a jarring tendency to cut to a zoomed-out camera that looks like it's being shot from a TV news helicopter, then abruptly zoom in on the vehicles. It's an absolutely ridiculous scene, but it's fun, unlike the rest of the movie. And it's early in the film, so when the chase is over, you can just turn it off! Grade: D+

150 Movies in 90 Days: Rise of the Guardians

June 12: #12, Rise of the Guardians

I pledge not to use the words "magic", "innocence", or "belief" in this review.

 
I feel like Rise of the Guardians is a generic enough title that it could be for a movie about anything: hobbitses protecting a ring, a documentary about video game console fanboys coming to the defense of their system of choice, or in this case, creepy versions of all the myths we teach children about coming forth to fight the boogeyman.

Well, not all of the "Guardians" are creepy. Santa Claus just kinda looks like a biker. He's got tattoos on his forearms- one says "Naughty" and one says "Nice". Oh, and he's Russian and has eyebrows like Heihachi from the Tekken games.

The Easter Bunny, though? He looks creepy as hell. Not just because he's Australian, either. I guess there's no way to make a 6'1" bunny that walks on his hind legs without the whole thing setting off someone's creepometer, but still. You've gotta try.

Surprisingly, they do a good job of making the Tooth Fairy, a woman who collects the teeth of children obsessively, into a somewhat normal character. Sure, they come up with the dumbest excuse ever for why she keeps childrens' teeth to do so (they store your memories), but whateves. The Sandman is tiny and mute, but nobody gives a crap about him.

Apparently, the Man on the Moon chooses Guardians, which yes, is pretty dumb. Work with me here. Some of the other changes, mostly made for comedic effect, are pretty amusing- yetis make all of the toys for Santa, and the elves are completely incompetent. There's a natural rivalry between Santa and the Easter Bunny that is hit-and-miss, but often results in moments worth a chuckle.

Then there's Jack Frost, our protagonist. He doesn't want to be a Guardian: "You're all hard work and deadlines and I'm all snowballs and fun times." Jack Frost works as pretty much an representation of the irresponsible teenager who just wants to have fun and not accept responsibilities. Unfortunately, he's the key to defeating the boogeyman (actually, "Pitch Black" for what I assume are copyright reasons?), so the group has to convince him to help them do so, and away we go.

My brother, Chris, saw it with his wife and kids in 3D and enjoyed it, and I can see why. There are some great set pieces, including a ride on Santa's sleigh that I'll bet was amazing in 3D. There are some battles that work really well, to the point where the film almost seems like The Avengers, with Santa and friends standing in for the Marvel superheroes.

The animation is exceptional during the flashier scenes, but when things slow down, I'm just not a big fan of the style itself or many of the character designs. The designs kind of remind me of the style of the Shrek films, which I don't really like, and to me are a little bit "uncanny valley" instead of endearing in the way that Pixar's art is. Still, this is a likable enough film with good pacing and enough original ideas to go along with the borrowed mythology, and hey, the kids liked it. Grade: B-