Man of Steel (Directed By Zach Snyder, 2013)

I’ve never been a particularly big fan of Superman. Mostly because he’s pretty overpowered. Like, really overpowered. It’s kinda ridiculous how strong he is. But I’ve never found him to be that interesting a character, and thus I wasn’t that interested in seeing Man of Steel.  Until that third trailer. Oh god, that third trailer. As I went into this film, I thought that, if nothing else, they’d made one of the most ‘hype-inducing’ trailers I’d ever seen. However, I was very surprised, and impressed by Man of Steel, because Zach Snyder (and David Goyer) made the smartest and ballsiest move I think I’ve ever seen. They didn’t make a superhero film.

Superman is the archetypal superhero. He has traditional powers, a traditional backstory, alter-egos, love interest, the works.  He’s arguably the longest lasting superhero, and pretty easily the most famous. So I was very pleasantly shocked by Snyder’s shift into ‘Space Opera’ with Man of Steel. Most obvious in the opening sequence on Krypton, and the almost Shakespearean relationship between Zod and Jor-El (and subsequently Kal-El), Snyder clearly has opted for a more Grandiose, Thor-like feel to his retelling of Superman’s origins. And I would say he has been resoundingly successful.

Man of Steel succeeds where Thor failed too, providing excellent action sequences that never fail to shock and thrill. Yes, they’re ridiculously over the top, and I don’t even wanna get into the damage caused, but they’re entertaining none-the-less. I would particularly highlight the fight scenes with Faora (Zod’s second-in-command) as some of the best action I’ve seen in the last few years.  The effects in general are top-notch across the board, and I especially liked the interpretation of Krypton, with its insect/crustacean-like style. As the titular Man of Steel, Henry Cavill is fantastic. His performance easily balances confidence and humility, whilst still bringing an everyman quality that the son of Krypton needs to stay grounded as a character.

                Now then, the bad stuff. I would say that a good 70% of the writing is terrible. Both in dialogue, and story. Whilst the Kyptonian parts are solid (helped in no small part by excellent showings from Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon), the writing both for and concerning Lois Lane and Jonathan Kent is shoddy, with iffy performances from Amy Adams and Kevin Costner. Whilst this is mostly down to the writing on Adams’ part, I feel with a stronger performance she could have sold me better on the character and her motivations. Kevin Costner’s delivery is strange and often stilted, and the plot points surrounding this character are completely ridiculous (I won’t say anything more to avoid spoilers).  That said, these speed bumps only draw you out temporarily, before the fast-paced action draws you back in.

                So, despite the odd terrible line and poorly developed character, Man of Steel is great fun. I can easily see why someone may grow tired of the relentless explosions and punching that make up the film last 40 minutes, but I never did. Granted, I am basically a six year old inside. But I think, with an open mind, we can all find that part of us through this film.  The kid inside, who wanted to be a superhero.  

The Town, and A History of Violence.

The following are shorter reviews, for some less recent films I've been meaning to watch. I've tried to keep them concise, but I can't resist a chance to ramble...

Film: The Town (Ben Affleck, 2010)

The Town is a relatively simple film. I am sure it, and the book it was based on, were trying to saying something important about crime and the American class system, but this was lost on my British sensibilities. What I was left with was a very well made thriller, with a good cast and excellent behind-the-scenes work.

       Ben Affleck is an excellent filmmaker. Whilst his acting career has had its lows, his work behind the scenes has gone from strength to strength. The Town is all the more pleasurable to watch, knowing that Affleck this year was given much acclaim for his work on Argo, a very similar type of film.

       The Town features a solid cast (even Blake Lively is decent in her limited role), with an intriguing performance from Jeremy Renner, and an amusingly vicious turn from Pete Posthlewaithe. The plot is simple, with the tense and innovative action sequences making up for the more clichéd aspects of the romantic half of the film.

Whilst I wouldn't hastily re-watch it, The Town was enjoyable, and I would definitely recommend it. Hell, I think I actually prefer it to Argo.

Film: A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005)

This film is brilliant. Whilst taking some time to get started, it moves along at an impressive pace for the second and third acts. The time taken to set up the protagonist's pleasant family life is particularly appreciated in hindsight after the closing scene.

The acting is reasonably consistent from the supporting cast, with William Hurt and Ed Harris clearly enjoying themselves in their roles as mobsters. And man, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic. This is the first time I've seen him in something outside of LOTR, and I'm looking forward to catching up on his career. He plays both sides of his character to perfection, and his face in the long shots that close out acts 2 and 3 will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.

Howard Shore's score is superb, used just sparingly enough in each scene to not become over-dramatic. The cinematography in this film is also excellent, although using lots of long-takes will always put a film in my good books. Whilst the sexual and violence scenes are graphic, I wouldn't consider them to be gratuitous, as they are necessary to the themes and development of the characters (which I won't get into now).

As a whole, whilst I was skeptical during the first half an hour, I was enthralled by the end. I would heartily recommend this film.

Mad Men, Pilot.

TV Show Episode: Mad Men, S01E01- Smoke gets in your eyes

Casual racism! Old school Technology! Everyone is sexist and smoking! Mad Men does an excellent job of whacking you in the head with its 1960s setting like a mallet. This pilot episode spends so much time throwing its lofty status as a period piece at you that it suffers for it. That’s not to say it isn't brilliant though. First off, the setting is, technically speaking, excellently realised. The costumes, the sets and the attitudes of the people quickly place us in the era with gusto. But is it too much gusto?

Pilots are a tricky thing. Ignoring pleasing the executives, a pilot needs to establish the setting, the characters, and enough overarching plot to get the viewers interested. And the worst thing is, there is no established ‘best way’ to make a pilot. There are successes and failures from every angle. On one hand, Breaking Bad throws you straight in the deep end with the plot, the characters and the setting, before stepping back and giving itself some room to breathe. On the other hand, whilst Game of Thrones does hit you quickly with its more fantastical aspects, it slowly brings in the characters, and leaves much of the plot until they have been well established, even leaving much of it until the subsequent few episodes.

                Mad Men focuses on the setting almost to a fault, with no real overarching plot being set up, and some characters faring better than others. The character of Don Draper is challenging to describe in this first episode, with the phrases ‘complex protagonist’ and ‘tormented hero’ not accurately describing the shades of grey Draper is painted in. In many ways, this draws you out of the show, as I found myself spending too much time struggling to decide how I felt about Don; normally an antihero fits neatly into the  antihero-shaped box (See: Walter White, Jesse Pinkman, J.D from Scrubs, who I’ve discovered in re-watching is far less sympathetic). That said, John Hamm is wonderful at portrayed this multi-faceted ad-man, with his performance perfectly capturing the feel of shady brilliance that the writers clearly intended. Indeed, the acting from the entire cast is top-notch across the board, with Christina Hendricks and John Slattery already sliding out from the pack as characters to watch.

                Peggy however, is given far less characterisation. Despite some notion towards being the audience surrogate for this pilot, Peggy comes across less as our lens into this world of Madison Avenue, and more of a writing device for sexism to be thrown at by the rest of the cast, again further emphasising the time period. Whilst I’m positive Peggy will get more to do, the episode focusing on Don is at the clear cost of her character. Then again, the show is called ‘Mad Men’; it is hardly surprising that the pilot focuses on the tumbling hero seen in the credit sequence.

                As a whole, whilst Mad Men has some issues as a functional pilot, this is largely from me nitpicking. My confusion with the character of Don is intentional, and the fact that it clashed with my preconceptions of how a main character should be defined is definitely a good thing. If they had steered away from some of the more hackneyed references (the photocopier joke is abysmal) I’m sure I would have been less overwhelmed by everything going on. That said, it’s a great show, and I look forward to seeing where it goes over the next six seasons.  

1st post - Much Ado about Nothing

(This will probably become an actual structured blog eventually, but for now i'm just going to put up my thoughts on various things, mainly film and television.)

But yes. To Work!

Film: Much Ado About Nothing.

    Given my longstanding adoration of all things Whedon, it is hardly surprising how much I enjoyed this film. What is more surprising to me is how well it stands on its own merit, rather than the love I hold for those involved and the backstory behind its production.

    If you didn’t know, Joss and friends enjoyed idly frolicking away their weekends interpreting Shakespearean plays for no other reason than their own mirth. Eventually someone brought a camera and suggested they actually film it. Thus, here stands, filmed entirely in Whedon’s own home with a few close friends, a heartfelt and amusing adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s best plays.

   The antithesis of a Lurhmann production, Whedon’s work is more subdued in its style (seen particularly in the choice to film in black and white), although don’t let that fool you. Whilst not only being substantial in its emotional weight (cough cough Gatsby), Much Ado oozes charm and flair. Whedon’s trademark gift for witty dialogue and rich characters shines here, and although the great Bard himself must of course take much of the credit for this, the director’s touch is very noticable. The physicality of the staging (that’s a thing, right?), and the brief moments of brilliant physical comedy are especially notable, which leads me to one of this film’s greatest strengths; the leads.

     Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker as Benedict and Beatrice show themselves as masters of both comedic and dramatic acting. I hope bigger and better roles come to them as a result of this work. Whilst all the supporting characters are brilliantly cast and their acting is as on form as ever, I would particularly take note of Clark Gregg and Sean Maher, the former masterfully stealing the spotlight in several scenes, the latter blowing Keanu Reeves' strange performance in Branagh’s adaptation out of the mind with excellent presence as the villain. Nathan Fillion is, as always, wonderful.

   I loved this film. I normally find myself frustrated by Shakespearean dialogue (yes, I’m a pleb), and whilst I was lost at times, the direction and acting kept me both in step with the plot, and glued to my seat. I only hope this garners the attention it deserves.