Movie Reviews | vincentpbarras

Man of Steel

Getting more things right than wrong, the summer blockbuster Man of Steel starring Henry Cavill successfully reboots the genre after a period of only seven years since Superman Returns.

Seven years apparently is the wait time to reboot a series… if the last reboot didn’t do that well. In June 2006, after a nineteen year absence of Superman movies, Superman Returns, starring Brandon Routh and directed by Bryan Singer, opened to generally positive reviews but did not overpower the box office, thus killing all dreams of sequels. It’s 2013 and the Man of Steel emerges with a hunky Henry Cavill in the title role and director Zack Snyder, and while it’s certainly not a knockout, it’s not a dreadful addition to the franchise. Whether it ignites further sequels, only time will tell.

The curse of both Superman (1978) and Superman Returns (2006) was the overwhelming presence of supporting actors who outshone the man from Krypton. In 1978, both the iconic Marlon Brandon as Jor-El and Gene Hackman as villainous Lex Luthor left almost no room to notice the relatively unknown Christopher Reeve as Superman. In 2006, Kevin Spacy as Lex Luthor outshone the also fairly unknown Brandon Routh, whose career hasn’t exactly gone places since donning the cape. Have no fear here, because the supporting cast, while good, does not overshadow a nicely subtle performance by Henry Cavill. Though his character hasn’t much of a story arc, Cavill has a genuine, inviting smile and strong screen presence that make you root for Kal-El, the survivor of a doomed planet. Already buff from his role as Theseus in Immortals (2011), he added twenty more pounds in a ten-month routine to prepare for the iconic role, and it shows. There is naturally the shirtless scene on a burning rig that makes people question how the fire always burns the shirt away but never the pants, but a nude superhero would not have garnered a PG-13 rating.

Though the main story arc hasn’t changed that much since the original movie thirty-five years ago, there are some genuine surprises. Krypton now has a reason for its demise—too much core-mining of its own planet—and the people of Krypton have been genetically engineered for their future roles similar to A Brave New World, hence making natural childbirth unnecessary. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) have decided to have a natural birth, though how this went unnoticed by the people of Krypton raises questions. Knowing the planet is dying, Jor-El takes the Codex, an archive of the genetic codes for all of Krypton’s heritage lines inexplicably housed in an ebony skull, transfers all its DNA information into his newborn son, Kal-El, and jettisons his son to Earth. General Zod (Michael Shannon) attempts a military coup but is thwarted by Jor-El and the High Council, who banish him and his followers to the Phantom Zone, only to be freed shortly afterwards by the exploding planet. We also learn that Kryptonians, in their arrogance, farmed other planets and converted them with atmosphere processors into habitable planets, but habitable only for their race. In a unique plot twist, Zod uses one such device to start converting Earth into a new homeland suitable for the recovered race lines hidden in Kal-El’s body.

Director Zack Snyder and co-authors David. S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan of Memento and Batman series have employed the flashback approach to convey key moments in young Clark Kent’s life. There is a linear tale the covers Clark’s life from birth on Krypton to present day crisis involving General Zod’s assault on Earth, but frequently—and jarringly—we are propelled back in time to see incidents in Clark’s upbringing that naturally will affect what he’s doing in the present. We meet the parents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) and see events like a bus accident where young Clark miraculously saves all the students and restrains himself from using his powers to thwart the typical bullies that comes in all shapes and sizes. Interestingly, we see the vulnerable side to Clark, whose superpowers overwhelm his tender sensibilities and are only soothed by time, effort, and his mother’s comforting voice.

There are several satisfying elements to the movie. This movie thankfully removes Lex Luthor’s presence and doesn’t create the Clark Kent alter-ego until the very end, which sets the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman on a different trajectory. Amy Adams is always a welcome face in movies, even though her Lois Lane isn’t that remarkable a role. As portrayed by Michael Shannon, General Zod is not just some power-hungry megalomaniac, but a man bred to defend and protect his race whatever the cost. You see the contradiction writ large on Shannon’s face, earning a brief moment of sympathy not generally reserved for villains. The film has several type cast roles—Richard Schiff, the geek scientist, Christopher Meloni, the hard-nosed Colonel, Antje Traue, the villainess sidekick—but the standouts are the supporting roles again. Costner, Lane, and Crowe fully understand that less is more, and their nuanced work adds poignancy and emotional depth to the movie, especially in Costner’s final scene. Lane in particular makes Martha Kent a sympathetic presence that later adds an element of humor: Cavills will pound one of the bad guys yelling, “Don’t you attack my mother!”

But this is a summer blockbuster, so the special effects are both incredible and relentless. The impressive world of Krypton has floating pods that act as computers, telephones, and anything you need. While the production team is to be commended for making the fights between the seemingly invincible foes quite realistic, almost as if the camera can’t quite catch the incredible back-and-forth fighting, it never seems to end. After a spell, fight-fatique sets in and you wonder when these immortals will finally tire or how can they die? There are several implausible moments, as when Adams traipses after Cavill into the deep recesses of a polar ice cap, and why is there a genesis pod on Earth, other than to conveniently be used as a plot device to banish the remaining bad guys from earth? Apparently, the makeover crew from The Hunger Games is invisibly on hand as well, because the very scruffy, hair-tustled Cavill enters the genesis pod, but emerges in his caped uniform, perfectly coiffed and neatly shaven. And why don’t Zod and his sidekicks instantly start to feel stronger upon arriving near Earth?

I left Man of Steel liking it more than I thought I would. With naturalistic performances bolstering the film, it could have exchanged about ten minutes of fight scenes for more plot and character development. It’s a worthy addition to the comic book hero, and hopefully a reboot won’t be needed, at least not for another seven years.

--July 4th, 2013

With a likable cast led by the enigmatic Tom Cruise, Jack Reacher actually succeeds despite some faults. It explores thought-provoking questions and challenges our ability to follow plot lines, though it swerves through a few too many genres. Still Cruise and Robert Duvall are worth the admission price.

Jack Reacher

Director Christopher McQuarrie’s movie begins in a most unsettling fashion. A bearded sniper in a small delivery truck goes into a parking garage, setting up his equipment for the impending carnage. As the camera merges into the rifle’s scope, the audience cringed to see the potential victims, first a business man and woman, then random walkers, but our hearts dropped upon seeing a young African American woman and then a nanny and her young ward, a frail young girl reminding everyone of Sandy Hook. When the shooting finally begins, McQuarrie has us secretly rooting for innocent bystanders, hoping against hope that everyone survives and the shooting ends. From that moment, we are hooked.

Jack Reacher has many such hooks, not the least of which is the ensuing capture of James Barr (Joseph Sikora), a most un-bearded suspect but not an innocent man by any stretch. In an intriguing bit of backstory, Barr asks for the one man who knows of Barr’s guilt from a stint in Iraq: Jack Reacher. Tom Cruise plays Jack, the former military policeman who purposefully fell off the grid but is pulled back because he believes his old nemesis Barr has indeed committed this crime. Slowly, Reacher discovers that this slam-dunk of a case is too pat and too easy for the methodical Barr to have committed, and Reacher pairs with Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike), a lawyer who defends Barr not only because he might be innocent but also to butt heads with her father, the powerful District Attorney (Richard Jenkins), and his main Detective Emerson (David Oyelowo).

Another intriguing angle the movie pursues is having Helen actually interview the relatives of the victims of the shooting. Reacher challenges her to get to know who the victims were, and in a heart-wrenching scene not usually reserved for action thrillers, Pike has a poignant but ultimately disturbing scene with Rob Farrior (James Martin Kelly), the widower of Chrissie Farrior. It’s a brutal depiction of the devastating loss such a death brings and how raw emotions are so close to the crime.

The chief assets, however, are its stars. In his element playing an unlikely hero, Tom Cruise is at his most affable and effusive, smiling and twinkling, but Jack Reacher feels like a composite of many of his previous roles. At 50, Cruise even uses his sex appeal in irony as, in an obligatory shirtless scene, he dismisses the flirtatious opportunity with Pike when twenty years ago, it would have turned out differently. Most of the cast (Pike, Jenkins, Oyelowo) acquit themselves nicely, but who could resist seeing Robert Duvall as a likable shooting range owner who manages to steal every small scene?

And yet for all these hooks, there is a certain sloppiness to the movie, as if it cannot decide exactly which genre in which it fits. There is a Three Stooges moment when local men attempt to subdue Reacher, but their own ineptness and the small quarters in which the thugs are attempting to bash in his skull work against them. They literally knock each other out instead of laying as much of a finger on Reacher. And cue the evil music as “The Zec” arrives, an ominous, milky-eyed villain played with indiscriminate accent by Werner Herzog. Who he is, why he’s there, and why he’s called “the Prisoner” is never fully explained. The ending simply unravels, and the murky motives left more questions than answers.

Still, there’s a lot to like in this movie, even for all its faults. Star appeal goes a long way, and Tom Cruise still has it.

Tom Cruise still matters. It’s been nearly thirty years since his breakout role in Risky Business, but he has since achieved superstar status not only for his blockbusters but also for his turbulent personal life. He still manages to churn out movie after movie that demands fat paychecks and decent box office receipts, though every so often he manages a sly dig at himself (think Tropic Thunder) or a genuine acting turn (Oscar nomination in a supporting role for Magnolia). With Jack Reacher, Cruise has returned to tried and true action/suspense thriller, slightly reminiscent of his David vs. Goliath character from The Firm.

The Hobbit

It's long, it's Jackson, it's a trilogy. Those words sum up the movie, which is still visually stunning and moving in parts. Still, it has a slightly stale sense of "We've all seen it before" attitude, as if The Hobbit were merely a retread of The Lord of the Rings but with only a few different characters. Still, director Peter Jackson knows how to deliver the goods to the adoring faithful.

Twenty-two years ago in a moment of youthful insanity, I attended the midnight showing of Dick Tracy with Warren Beatty, Madonna, and Al Pacino. Considering in retrospect how uninspiring that movie was, I’m rather ashamed to admit that I wasted a midnight showing on it. I have not ventured to a midnight showing until 2012 when Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit came to the movie theatres, and while it is a good show, you leave with a sad sense that you’ve seen this all before. It’s essentially a Lord of the Rings retread, a 2.0 version that didn’t necessarily improve on the original, but brought you a hint of the original’s magic with none of the originality of the first trilogy.

Now I will admit to being a fan of the animated cartoon from 1978, and I own several small items of memorabilia from it. My father bought me the illustrated version of The Hobbit with numerous full color pages of the cartoon. He even went so far as to carve a small figurine of Bilbo Baggins… that I must find, now that I think of it. The vocal talent (Orson Bean, Hans Conried and John Huston) lent gravitas to the story and the old-fashioned animation was top-notch for its day.

Peter Jackson’s bloated spectacle bears little resemblance to the gentle cartoon of three decades ago, except to serve as the origin of the same story: thirteen dwarves depart on an adventure to recapture lost wealth from the dragon Smaug, and they need a burglar to help them. Hence they call upon Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who has no previous rogue experience, but is still nominated for the part by the kindly but mysterious gray wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellan, reprising his role from the first trilogy.) In the book, they encounter various obstacles—I need to re-read the book; it has been thirty plus years—including being shipped down the river in wine barrels, but none of that happens here yet because Jackson has augmented the story with supplemental material from J. R. R. Tolkien’s other works to flesh out the story, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Did we really need ALL that detail in the story?

Visually arresting and stunningly shot, the film has, for better or worse, a feel of we’ve-all-been-there-before that saps it of some, not all, of its incredible energy. Two particular moments stand out. In one of the more familiar scenes, Bilbo has run into the emaciated and computer-generated Gollum (motioned and spoken by the always-incredible Andy Serkis) who loses his special ring—yes, the One Ring To Rule Them All ring. Bilbo finds it and when Gollum hunts him down, does Bilbo simply slip the ring on his finger as in the book? No, he must fly in the air and the ring magically slides on his finger, exactly as it did on Frodo’s finger in the previous trilogy. When you borrow material from your own movies, originality is sorely lacking. In another sequence, Gandalf and company are trapped atop several trees, on a precipice no less, and in order to call for help, Gandalf speaks to a butterfly. I only wonder if it’s the same butterfly that brought the same huge eagle to the rescue from the previous film. Been there, done that. Next!

The film also had a paint-by-numbers feel in that it had to cover things one expects from such adventures. The dwarves must drink beer and belch and be extremely nimble at both ransacking and then cleaning up Bilbo’s house. There must be a great battle involving overwhelming odds, and the underground battle with goblins does not disappoint, though you have to wonder how they went through and lost not a single party member. One must visit the elves so we can meet Elrond (The Matrix’s Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (the glowing Cate Blanchett), and even the white Wizard Saruman, before he turns to the dark side. (Though waning a tad, ninety-year old Christopher Lee is still showing he can command a screen presence.) There’s a goblin villain Azog, who has had previous run-ins with the Dwarven king-to-be Thorin (a digitally-shrunk Richard Armitage), but there’s only a hint of the dragon Smaug, tantalizing hidden from view by Jackson. And why must Jackson turn barely-there characters like the animal-loving brown wizard Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) into an addle-minded buffoon is beyond me? Comic relief perhaps?

And yet it is still a grand adventure with breathtaking cinematography and incredibly preposterous British accents everywhere (really, I didn’t know Trolls were all British?) It’s expected and Jackson delivers. If only it weren’t the same essential buffet he served before, it would seem sparkling and brand new. We’ll have to settle for having the same meal with an old friend.

Les Misérables

The longest running musical in London's West End has been faithfully transformed into a sweeping epic that loses none of its emotive, stirring music and adds an emotional intensity of seeing these familiar characters face to face as they work though Victor Hugo's epic of French history. With an impeccable cast (Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Sasha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Samantha Barks, Amanda Seyfried, and the revelatory Anne Hathaway) and crisp direction by Tom Hooper, it adds to a rich holiday movie season.

At a recent Christmas party that was winding down, the host asked the remaining four guests what was their favorite musical. The answers came in the following order: Les Miz, Les Miz, Sweeney Todd, Wicked, and Les Miz. I have always been fascinated by the hold Les Miz, short for Les Misérables, has on people, and I must admit to being only a recent convert. A fan I am; a purist I am not. So it was with some trepidation that I went to a premiere of Les Miz for I have witnessed many musicals that, in the process of conversion to film, have lost something vital. Not so with Les Miz. Tom Hooper, the Oscar-winning director of The King’s Speech, has brought the sweeping epic to life in a way that not only does justice to the music, but adds great emotional depth as well.

That musical today holds the record for the longest running musical in London and the second-longest in New York City, behind only Phantom of the Opera. It distills Victor Hugo’s tome concerning the turmoil of France from the end of the Napoleonic era to the student revolt of 1832. The characters are rich beyond measure, and both the musical and the movie provide context and depth to those characters. From the wronged and redemptive Jean Valjean, to the rigid Javert, from the students in revolt to the lovely ladies working their trade, they mirror the world in which we live. Names like Marius, Enjolras, Gavroche, Eponine, Fantine, the Thérnadiers, all bring alive a certain reverence to a Les Miz fan, and here most fans will appreciate the musical beauty that the film endows their favorite characters.

The story is familiar to all the musical purists. Jean Valjean is released in 1815 after serving a nineteen-year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread for his sister’s dying child. Motives never mattered to the intransigent Javert, who vows to keep an eye on the recently paroled Valjean, never once referring to him by name but by number: 24601. No one will hire or help the convict, except a kindly bishop, and the movie, in a masterstroke, casts Colm Wilkinson as the bishop. Wilkinson originated the role of Valjean on Broadway and makes a heart-warming presence in this film, especially when he forgives Valjean for stealing the bishop’s silver. Now Valjean is conflicted, but he realizes that he had a chance to change and he does.

The remaining two thirds of the film focuses on how Valjean changes his life for good. Valjean becomes a pillar of society, employing hundreds of women, one of whom is Fantine (Anne Hathaway, more on her later.) Valjean’s overseer unjustly fires Fantine, forcing her into a life of prostitution to support her ailing child Cosette. The world’s oldest profession saps what little life Fantine had left, and in a moment of karma, is rescued by Valjean, who vows to remove Cosette from her manipulative schemers, the Thénardiers, and he raises the child to a life of privilege. Nine years later, Valjean and his daughter Cosette are embroiled in the abortive student revolt of 1832, and that paths of the Thénardiers, Javert, Valjean and Cosette, all cross with student rebels (Enjolras, Marius, and Gavroche) to reach a satisfying conclusion.

I cannot recall a movie that worked so hard at assembling the perfect cast. I have seen Hugh Jackman on Broadway in the play The Boy From Oz, a role for which he won a Tony, so I already knew he could sing. He epitomized Jean Valjean, and even managed to hit those incredibly high notes required for the part. Russell Crowe carries intensity into all his roles, and Javert is no different. Here Crowe broods as usual, but he brings an aching understanding as a man whose only steadfast rock in life is the law, and yet he saw how the law misses so much of the human condition. I was fully prepared to criticize Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers and yet they brilliantly added the necessary ingredient of comic relief to a play so laden with heavy drama. Eddie Redmayne as the love-sick Marius and Amanda Seyfried as the innocent Cosette make the perfect star-crossed lovers. Aaron Tveit, whom I’ve also seen in Broadway’s Catch Me If You Can, played an intense Enjolras, and Samantha Barks broke everyone’s hearts at the love-lorn Eponine, pining for a man she cannot have. Even Daniel Huttlestone as the plucky kid Gavroche and Isabelle Allen as the waif Young Cosette could not have been more appropriate.

The music of Les Miz is its chief asset, but Tom Hooper chose a different route than what most musicals take. All scenes were taped live, with the actual singing as the camera rolled, versus singing a recorded version and then attempting to lip-synch to match the music. It’s a bold gamble that pays off immensely, especially for Anne Hathaway as the tragic Fantine. After losing her job and any means of supporting her little daughter Cosette, she sells her possessions, even her precious hair, and turns to prostitution. In one harrowing, uninterrupted take, she sings what is perhaps the most famous ballad from the show: “I Dreamed a Dream.” In every facial expression, Ms. Hathaway conveyed all the heartache and disappointment we all have felt somewhere about this life not being everything we had hoped. When that song ended, and Ms. Hathaway regained a steely composure, I heard a lady in the movie theater say, “And the Oscar goes to…” I have little doubt she may be right.

The singing on the spot adds an elegance to the movie that brought many in the theater to tears more than once. Samantha Barks singing “On My Own,” and Eddie Redmayne’s take on “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables,” both stand on their own as musical excellence refined. When those two characters huddled together in the gentle drizzle to sing “A Little Fall of Rain,” it was evocatively beautiful. But I am still haunted by Anne Hathaway, who on her deathbed is clutching for her imaginary daughter. It is but one of the jewels on display in the poignant Les Miséables, a musical that has successfully made the transition into an even more affecting movie.

Lincoln

The movie has been out for some time--I usually avoid movies on opening weekends--but Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is a masterful blend of political history, personal tragedies, and civics lessons. With a stellar cast--Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, James Spader--and impeccable direction, it's one of the highlights of the winter season.

I have been privileged to witness great stories and great performances, sometimes in the same movie, but the true privilege was to see them with my father. Though I’ve seen dozens of films with him, the one that moved me deeply comes from 1985, Steven Spielberg’s The Color Purple. It was an intensely moving experience, made a little more tragic in its complete Oscar shut-out a few months later. There was so much to appreciate and absorb in that wonderful movie, and I witnessed several Oscar-caliber performances, but it was Spielberg who harnessed all the right elements to make a movie of immense power. I was rather surprised my Dad took me, but I’ve been forever grateful.

This past Sunday, I and my Dad went to see another Steven Spielberg work Lincoln. Though it’s twenty-seven years later, Spielberg has not lost his touch in bringing powerful stories to life with astounding performances thrown in for good measure. Based on the Pulitzer-Prize winning book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, as good a historian as you’re likely to find, the movie Lincoln centers mostly on the passage of the 13th Amendment shortly after Lincoln’s re-election. Spielberg’s movie also ranks as a fine civics lesson on the art—some would say it is more akin to making sausages—of passing laws, especially during the difficult turmoil of the Civil War. Engrossing and enticing, the two-and-a-half hours flows swiftly to a conclusion that everyone knows is coming, and yet, it still seemed slightly startling.

Passing an Amendment actually is an arduous task; between the founding of the nation and the Civil War, only two Amendments had been passed if you take the Bill of Rights out as a group passed in one lump. That’s two changes in over eighty years, and the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery had a difficult journey. Proponents like Representative Thaddeus Stevens (a fiery Tommy Lee Jones) wanted to go further, but in a moment of political understanding, Stevens toned down his rhetoric to appeal to moderates. Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) felt the Amendment would stand no chance of passing if the member of the House of Representatives found out that Lincoln was secretly allowing a visit from the Confederacy. In order to appease Conservative Republicans epitomized by Preston Blair, Jr. (Hal Holbrook, clearly the octogenarian playing Blair who was in his early 40s), President Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) agreed to meet representatives from the Confederate States to discuss possible surrender terms. Lincoln, through Seward, hires three political activists whose sole job is to scrounge the necessary votes from lame-duck Democrats to herald passage of the Amendment. Those three men (Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes and an overweight James Spader) were the precursors of today’s lobbyists,” delivering patronage jobs to Democrats who lost the election, but would could continue to vote for five more months until the new representatives took over.

And yet the political story merges seamlessly with the personal. The Lincoln family is represented by his wife Mary (Sally Fields), his adult son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his adolescent son Tad. Facing a tragedy no mother should face, Mary Todd had already buried one son and the pressures of that and political life took a toll on her. One of the most impressive scenes involved a fight between Abe and Mary over Robert’s desire to enlist in the army, and Mary’s fierce defense against losing another son in so short a time to so brutal a war. It’s one of the best scenes in the movie, with ferocious acting from two acting giants.

To say that Daniel Day-Lewis embodies President Abraham Lincoln almost seems an understatement. From his folksy delivery of stories to his steely resolve not to lose control as the war sapped the nation’s energies and future generations, Day-Lewis has earned the title as one of cinema’s most gifted actors. That determination has been on display for some time, from his Oscar-winning roles in My Left Foot and There Will Be Blood, but here there seems to be an extra purpose: to make Abraham Lincoln accessible. Other actors have tackled this ominous part: Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, even Hal Holbrook, who won an Emmy for a television portrayal, but this seminal performance reveals a determined, confident, self-conscious leader trying to save a country while preserving its legal system sometimes with extra-legal methods. This may earn Day-Lewis a third Oscar, adding him to the select ranks of Ingrid Bergman, Walter Huston, Jack Nicholson, and Meryl Streep.

The movie has already earned Golden Globe nominations and more awards will likely follow. Spielberg’s touches are ever present—an early battle scene, a still shot of Lincoln from behind—but the scene that still lives with me is near the end of the movie. Lincoln is going to the Ford Theatre, and his butler always reminds him to bring his gloves or face Mary’s wrath. Lincoln hated wearing them, so he drops them on a table, where the butler picks them up but chooses not to remind the president. The camera alternates between the butler and the back of Lincoln walking away down a long hall. We all know that would be the last time Lincoln trod the floors of the White House, but the African American butler (uncredited in IMBD database) could not have known. The look on his face, however, seemed to say it all, the admiration of a great man mixed with just a hint of regret. I’ve had the look whenever I bring my Dad, now 86, back form the movies and I’m watching his frail figure limp down the hall to his familiar bed. At least I don’t regret telling him that I love him; those are always the words I leave him with.