Man of Steel

Man of Steel

2013

Science Fiction

3.5 stars out of 5

Man of Steel is an interesting re-boot of the Superman franchise. Co-written by Christopher Nolan (Memento and the recent Batman/Dark Knight trilogy), one can both appreciate Nolan’s expertise at writing and also his darker vision of the various comic book heroes making their way onto the big screen. I like his dark vision and find his angst-ridden heroes much more interesting to watch in the movie format than the more comic book-like versions envisioned by others.

Nolan writes his characters as if they were real people that just happen to also be super heroes. Without taking anything away from the 1978 Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve version of Superman (which I also liked), Nolan, co-writer David Goyer and director Zach Snyder have created a tale that makes far more sense (as if that were necessary) of Superman’s origins, his lost world of Krypton, and both sets of his parents and their foe/ally General Zod.

Act one opens with the young Superman-to-be, Clark Kent being parented by Jonathan and  Martha Kent (David Costner and Diane Lane). Told in flashback mode during significant events in his future, we learn of the upbringing by a remarkably wise and prescient  Jonathan. In the movie’s most moving and significant scene, we watch Jonathan stop young Clark with an upraised hand – saving the secret of Clark’s super powers , but at the cost of Jonathan’s life. And tragically this occurs just after a family quarrel between Clark and Jonathan. Clark takes this heritage of love and sacrifice into adulthood: still wondering who his natural parents were/are, why did they send him away, and having learned of the space craft he arived in as a baby, wondering whether he is even human or not - pretty heavy baggage for your average teen.

Clark (Henry Cavill) struggles for awhile as a young adult. He continues as an adult the various acts of heroism he started as a child, saving those in need of saving; and doing this despite the risk of revealing to the world his existence. This remains a secret he carries with some difficulty. He eventually finds another Kryptonian spaceship and via its on-board computer and a special artifact that orignally arrived with him as a baby, he learns of his natural parents (Russel Crowe plays his father, Jor-el), their devotion to and love for him, and significantly their world view of hope; hope despite the desperate peril of their times. They place both this boon of love and knowledge on Clark/Superman, but also a very heavy burden of responsibility towards the people of Earth, and to the heritage of the kinder, gentler souls of lost Krypton.

The above must seem like a good case of over-anaylsis of a comic book story, but it was genuinely the way the first two thirds of the movie affected and informed me. Of course, there’s always that final third of such a movie. That final third is why I give this movie three and half stars instead of the five I contemplated watching the early parts of the movie. A General Zod on a mission shows up, and in a profoundingly unsettling way, we watch Zod and Superman literally destroy New York City/Metropolis in a very disconerting, building collapsing manner. It goes on forever. I get it – it’s a comic book story and the movie-makers had a gigantic FX budget.  Still such a disappointing conclusion to what was in the beginning a very intelligently written and acted (Crowe in particular) story.

As just noted, Russel Crowe brings some significant acting to his protrayal as Jor-El, Michael Shannon does quite good job at making Zod a real person with a real motivation for what he does. Amy Adams plays Lois Lane in a fairly throw-away fashion for someone of her acting caliber. This is in the final act a very violent movie. Adults that like comic book science fiction will enjoy the end, adults that like believable people with real emotions and motivations will enjoy the first two thirds.

Les Miserables

Les Misérables

2012
Musical/Drama
4.5 stars out of 5

I love musicals. I have since I was a child and first saw Oklahoma! From it through at least one Elvis quasi-musical (State Fair with Ann Margaret) to Moulin Rouge,  I wonder if I have seen one that I hated (Grease comes to mind; sorry). Les Misérables occupies for me a rare position - easily one of the best pictures I have seen in the past five years.

The story of Jean Valjean as expressed in Les Misérables is based originally on the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo and also on the musical theatre productions that go back to 1980 Paris. The salvation of Jean Valjean, his pursuit by the tortured Inspector Javert and the stories of Fantine and Cossette provide more than sufficient story material just on the surface level. You could also follow the movie for its depiction of how desperate the plight of the poor were in early 19^th century France, and the indifference of almost everyone as an allegory to modern America, and you would not be displeased.

However, there is an even deeper layer to the story, and it is best revealed in the first act. There one is nearly overcome with emotion as you watch the love and devotion of the local Monsignor when he forgives Valjean’s thievery, and thus starts the wheels of redemption that eventually saves Valjean from himself, not to mention from Javert and society at large. This scene is followed very shortly by what I consider the highlight of the entire movie: the step by step degradation of Fantine culminating with her incredible song of dreams lost. The other notable part of the story involve the moral ascent of Valjean after he re-covers his soul; especially when this is contrasted to the moral descent of Javert as he clings to the law and his tight walk along a moral precipice.

The story arc, theme and technical artistry aside (watch the camera angles of the boat being dragged into the not so dry dry-docks or consider that all the singing was recorded live), the acting and singing are for the most part just superb. Both Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean and Anne Hathaway as Fantine sing and act at the highest levels. Meanwhile Isabelle Allen as young Cossette and Samantha Barks as the adult Éponine sing superbly. And even though I usually cringe when I see another love triangle, in this movie I get to see Éponine, the adult Cossette and Marius (played by Amanda Seyfried and  Eddie Redmayne, respectively) sing their way through it, and it makes it more than watchable, it makes it a work of art.

To be sure there were things I would have wished done differently: chief amongst them, I would have re-written the movie to remove the discordant comic elements and inadequate singing of Sacha Baron Cohen as Thénardier. I did like having Helena Bonham Carter in the role of Madam Thénardier in order to provide the dark counterpoint to young Cossette’s beautifully sung “Castle on a Cloud”. And though criticized by many, I also like using Russell Crowe as Inspector Javert. Yes, you can discuss his vocal limitations. However, his solo atop the rooftops of Paris as he sings and walks the knife edge between life and his own doomed redemption,  and then once again this time above the Seine, Crowe proves his worth for the role. His dramatic abilities and fair to good singing makes for a more than competent Javert.

From the amazing opening to the lyrically described triangle to the tragic but redemptive ending, I loved this movie, and strongly recommend it to anyone even mildly interested in musicals.

Broken City

Broken City

2013
Crime/neo-Film Noir
3.0 stars out of 5

As I watched this movie, I almost stopped after the first third and wrote a scathing review. I thought it should be re-named Cliché City or Dumb and Dumber III. But for even so inept a movie, I thought that it was inept of me to not watch the entire movie. So, I slogged on, and was surprised in the second act, and even more so in the final act.

Like so many, I loved “Chinatown” and then later “L.A. Confidential”, and when I saw this movie’s description and that it starred Russell Crowe and Mark Wahlberg, I thought great, a new Film Noir with two excellent actors. As I note above, the first act quickly disabused me of that idea. Crowe, an actor I greatly admire (see for example The Insider) plays sleazy Mayor Hostetler in a manner so over the top; I kept asking myself, is this intentional? How could he so overact this part? Wahlberg plays (and very well I might add) Billy Taggart, a disgraced and humbled former detective hired by the mayor to investigate the mayor’s wife Cathleen, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones. Billy stumbles along taking pictures and not understanding a thing. Billy is so not paying attention, and after one too many dead giveaways that all is not as it seems, you start wonder how Billy ever graduated from Grade School let alone made it to detective.

However, as the movie progressed, it pulled me in. There are no big twists by movie’s end that could not be seen from a mile away, but it does have a satisfactory story arc and an acceptable ending. The other reason to watch is to catch another performance by Jeffery Wright (currently stealing the show on HBO’s Boardwalk Empire as Dr. Narcisse) as he plays the police commissioner working for whom? This latter point is the one part of the movie that kept me watching – I was never sure until the end in this character’s case.

No graphic violence, but mature themes keep this one for the adults.