Film Flare

Man of Steel review (no spoilers)

Well here it is at last, the most eagerly anticipated superhero film since Iron Man 3. Man of Steel has an awful lot riding on it. The revival of a stale film series (Superman Returns anyone?), the potential to spearhead a series of DC licensed films culminating in a Justice League film, or, 'doing a Marvel' as it should be called. 

So, after a snowballing advertising campaign, it's finally time to spit out all of the hype and see if the film is any good.

 

 

It almost breaks my heart saying this but I was....disappointed in this film.

I think it's the best Superman film I've seen so far and quite possibly the best the film could be but the weaknesses of the film aren't belonging to the director, or cast, but to the character itself.

 

I was hoping, based on the trailers, that they would explore the emotional frailty of the character and present a new, Nolan/Goyer-esque unravelling of Kal El, to give him some emotional grounding. They don't really, there are several flashbacks to his youth and his difficulties growing up which provide many of the best scenes of the film but once he dons the famous cape and the action really starts, the film has nothing new to offer other than really, really good CGI and an epic scale which earlier film couldn't realistically create.

 

The cast is a varied bunch, Henry Cavill provides a physical presence and is actually very capable in the role. Amy Adams as Lois Lane, not so much. If she's a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, then I'm Vladimir Putin's favourite hunting rifle. Laurence Fishburne is really quite good in a small role as Perry White and Ayelet Zurer provides a nice evil henchwoman to the General Zod antagonist.

And whilst we're on the topic of General Zod, it must be mentioned that is a really, really good villain. His portrayal by Michael Shannon is intimidating, honest and nuanced in ways you wouldn't have expected it to be. His character is easily one of the more outstanding parts of the film. The other standout character for me is Kevin Costner, the 'earthly' father rather than the smug, superior Jor El (Russell Crowe). Costner's Johnathan Kent is the main reason the 'young Superman' scenes work so well, providing an honest and human voice.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, once the costume is on (no red pants on the outside anymore), the non-stop action really begins. It's visually stunning but lacks force or threat. It's like watching the fight scene between Neo and Agent Smith towards the end of Matrix Revolutions, in the sense that there's a lot of impressive effects, being thrown about the place and loads of collateral damage but very little honest threat or drama. Having these super being fight each other and throwing themselves hundreds of yards, or destroying buildings all over the place is very impressive to watch, but it just underwhelms in almost every other respect.

 

I think it's the weaknesses of the character that let me down, Superman is just not interesting. The secondary cast is interesting (Zod, father Kent, etc) but Superman himself, even when shown his moral turmoil as a youth, is just very one dimensional. There's none of the lovable rogue of Tony Stark, or the moral darkness of Batman. Even goody two shoes Captain America has an honest appeal to him, a humanity. But Superman isn't human and his powers are godly.

The other oddity about the film is the universe that's been created for other DC heroes to fill. There's other planets, super beings and absurd technologies. How's a hero like Batman (Nolan/Goyer Dark Knight type Batman) going to have any real impact in a world like that? The answer would be a re-introduction, a new actor, having the character reinvented into this universe with new toys, tricks and powers. 

 

When leaving the cinema, we heard another patron say "The film would have been good if Joss Whedon had directed it." 

Whilst harsh on the visual genius of Zack Synder, it does highlight just how Marvel still have a large advantage in the cinema stakes. Even Gods in the Marvel films have very human flaws, something that Superman for one finds hard to replicate. 

 

Despite the last 500 words saying otherwise, I didn't dislike the film. I was just hoping for so much more. I was hoping that the film would bypass the flaws of the character and deliver an emotionally engaging Superman. Instead, you get an emotionally engaging young Clark Kent and then forty five minutes of CGI cities falling apart.

It's also painfully unfunny. Seriously. They try to put some jokes in there that are so flat, so badly timed. They'd be funny if Joss Whedon had directed it.

 

Trailer

  

 

 

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/19

Good evening everyone.

 

This week, because of the release of shiny PS3 game The Last of Us and online nerd-a-thon DOTA 2, I have only had time to watch one film this week. Luckily, BBC iPlayer was able to deliver and it was showing a film I had heard much about but never got around to seeing. 

 

Valhalla Rising (2009)

 

Directed by super-hot Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, this film is a oddly quiet, low key piece of cinema which thrills and frustrates in almost equal measure.

Starring Danish super actor Mads Mikkelsen (Pusher and Pusher 2), this film has almost no dialogue at all but is instead told through visual style and grim faces. It is a potent piece of physical acting to be dangerous and yet to remain as blank and mysterious as he does. His one eye (the character is called One-Eye) gives away very little apart from at key points but it is the movements that give away much of what goes on in his head.

The rest of the actors are a grim looking bunch who propel the story along in six chapters, each in chronological order of a larger plot. The story is oddly small and mythical, a kind of nightmarish fairy tale. It deals with One -Eye escaping from a mountain tribe and meeting some crusaders who them sail off to the holy land, but don't find it. 

The film's real strengths lie in the senses. It is a marvel of the eyes and ears. The shots of the mountains (the whole film was shot in Scotland) are hostile and brutal, giving way to the ethereal unease of the voyage itself. The scenes of the voyage is like imagining a grimmer, more depressing Rime of the Ancient Marine. The film also had very little dialogue or music and instead just has a hypnotic soundtrack of wind and waves that adds very much to the hostile yet dreamlike quality of the film.

In many respects, it shares stylistic similarities to Refn's more recent work, such as Drive. The quiet anti-heroes (in the case of Valhalla Rising, One-Eye is mute) that give very little away with facial expressions but it is through their actions that they 'speak'. The film has much more emphasis on making the natural seem slightly unnatural and it is in this world the larger than life characters seem at home. There is also a strong emphasis on colour and red in particular. This is a difference from Refn's earlier works which were filmed so closely to the characters themselves, the films almost became POV.

 

However, I can see that the film would be almost impossible to enjoy for a great many people. It is not a 'fast' film. The lack of dialogue and soundtrack, in addition to the long, handheld shots of mountains and woods would drive many people to claim the film is pompous and the plot itself, dealing with the topics that it does, could be considered self-important. 

But certainly, when I watched the film, I was arrested by the dreamlike nature of the sounds and sights and this unsettling film carried me along until it was over. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it as I would have enjoyed many films, but I experienced it and am glad I did so.

 

 

 

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/18

Good Monday everyone,

 

After my brief hiatus entry, entitled 'A Brief Hiatus', I am back with a vengeance.

Well, the film I'm about to review has the ever lovable Tom Sizemore!

 

But this film ain't Natural Born Killers, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, Heat, Strange Days, True Romance, Born on the Fourth of July or Enemy of the State, nope, this film is....

 

The Relic (1997)

 

I had never heard of this film before last week but find Tom Sizemore at least watchable in everything I've seen him in. This is his first leading role I've seen him and whilst he plays a pretty generic detective/officer character, he injects it with enough charisma to carry the part farther than expected. He also helps the film deliver some charm and humour about it and he is by far the best part of the film.

The other lead, Penelope Ann Miller is one of those scientists that appears in this type of film. Intelligent, fiesty and plays a loose and flirty role against the male lead. She does this perfetly well but she isn't as able to add as much to a cliched role as Sizemore is able to.

The rest of the cast do a reasonable job with the material but the script is certainly not fantastic.

 

The plot of the film is a loose adaption of the 1995 novel of the same name and deals with a monster that haunts a museum just before an exhibition on superstition. There are also elements of science fiction and body horror. The film is much more effective at the start when the creature is heard but not seen. The film uses the setting extremely well to create unease and the collision of heavy superstition and science is nicely handled.

Towards the end of the film, the events move much more into standard monster horror territory. The CGI impresses enough and the creature effects (by Stan Winston) do a perfectly god job but after the buildup and scientific ideas the film highlights, the design is hideous, but not quite as impressive as I was hoping.

 

All in all, the film was really quite good and certainly if you're in the mood or enjoy films like Lake Placid or Anaconda maybe, then this film fits nicely among them, with the addition of a nice scientific element to boot.

I enjoyed it. Maybe it counts as a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure none the less.

 

Trailer:

     

 

 

 

Oh, just a brief footnote (and foottrailer):

Riddick trailer 2. A seemingly perfect blend of the great Pitch Black and the inventive, but disappointing, Chronicles of Riddick.

 

 

A brief hiatus

A good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

It is with heavy heart and moist eyes that I must now tell every one of you loyal readers that this will be the last Film Flare entry.

 

Until Monday 17th June!
Haha!

Got you with my scimitar wit and deadpan delivery didn't I?

Didn't I?

Well bollocks to you! This is hard to convey over internet words.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to be around for the next week and a bit so it'll go quiet on the blog front until my return.

 

If you're in need of a fix, consider my very first Film Flare entry, helpfully entitled '1'. Or, if you wanted a super crazy blast from the past, how about my first ever blog entry from my blog before Film Flare, the impressively named Audio Flare.

 

See you around.

 

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/17

A hello and good evening once again to Film Flare's Film Diary! 

*applause*

*applause dies down faster than expected*

Oh!

 

I saw some films this week, this is them.

 

Jack Reacher (2012)

 

Ever since hearing the news that Tom Cruise was to play a character described as being a 6'5" feet tall, shit brick house of good old fashioned american muscle, I had my doubt as to the success of this film. More specifically, the success of the film to replicate my enjoyment of the Lee Child book, One Shot, on which the plot is based.

And with the critical reviews coming in essentially saying 'meh!', I wasn't too thrilled. Ending its box office run as one of Tom Cruise's lowest grossing films, it seems unlikely that the rest of Child's novels will be filmed as part of a series.

 

Which is a shame because this actually isn't a bad film, at all. At times tense (very tense in several places), exciting, funny and with Cruise in one of his more human roles, I actually enjoyed this quite a lot.

But it isn't perfect. Here's why.

 

1) The Plot:

It doesn't make too much sense. The actual shooting most of the film does revolve about is explained in satisfying detail but the overall story as a whole does lose its way and the villain (eerie look director Werner Herzog) has little to do other than look eerie. It's like there were two or three scenes of exposition and character forming script that was cut from the final film. It doesn't kill the film off but the 'why' of the crime, after the 'how' isn't quite worthy of the film.

 

2) The fight in the bathroom:

The film is one pretty comic moment and that is how Cruise's Reacher evades the police after a thrilling car chase. It's a nicely done idea that is torn straight from the novel. However, another attempt at comedy comes during a fight scene in the bathroom that is WEAK SAUCE. It's stupid and clumsy and feels totally mishandled, even if the intentions of such a scene were good. Trust me, you'll know the scene when it happens. Feels totally out of place.

 

3) The peripheral cast:

Cruise is great, Rosamund Pike is great (and well written), Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo are both fine. Jai Courtney has so little to do, which is odd because his character actually seems always ready to do something either very cool, or interesting. But it never occurs, he's the token henchman for the villain. He does have a cracking fight with Cruise though. As mentioned, Herzog's character does pretty much nothing.

 

Apart from these points, the film I thought was fine and I'm certainly glad I saw it. There's no real reason for me to rewatch it but I enjoyed it and it satisfied the need for a good thriller film, nothing great, but good.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)

 

Hell yes!

This film is a solid foundation of my childhood, if only because it was a time when Keanu Reeves smiled on film.

Re-watching this again for the first time in.......10, maybe 15 years. It has lost little of its charm.

 

A sweet, oddly intelligent 80's classic film about time travel with Bill and Ted travelling back in time to gather historical figures, with help from Rufus (George motherfucking Carlin!), who is from the future. 

The reason?

If Ted fails history, he will be sent to military school and their band, Wyld Stallyns will not exist and it is the sole reason that the future is a utopian vision, thanks to Wyld Stallyns.

 

It's stupid, but funny. The film really enjoys the idea of having future and past Bill and Ted cross paths at several times and there is a really funny gag involving Napoleon and a water park called Waterloo.

It has a rocking soundtrack and a cool story and outlandish (and badly aged) special effects, it has Sigmund Freud trying to chat up girls in shopping mall and Beethoven going ape shit on a keyboard. It's silly fun.

 

Very enjoyable!

 

Trailer: