Film Review: Hirokin: The Last Samurai

This film's cover caught my eye: I wasn't expecting anything great, but I was at least enthralled to see some samurai dude on another planet hacking and slashing away at some aliens or something.

Surprisingly, there's not much hacking or slashing involved; a few cheap and stupid fights, but nothing more. One of the more inventive scenes involved the fighters chained to a post, and whenever the chain slackened, a big spike would come down and murder a hostage. Aside from that, the film came off as being rather dull.

The story didn't really captivate me either; it's full of dull and lifeless characters, going through the motions of some drama and plot that I really couldn't care about. The movie overall tried to hard to resemble films like John Carter and Prince of Persia, but both are miles better.

This film must have been made on the cheap. It sports okay, but never exceptional, photography and editing. Acting and writing are serviceable at times, but they are often marred with certain levels of cheese, amateurism, or plainness. This production uses a limited amount of sets, props, and costumes. Music is very generic too.

1/5 (Entertainment: Poor | Story: Very Poor | Film: Very Poor)

Read More

Film Review: Iron Sky

In movies, Earth has been invaded by aliens, vampires, ghosts, monsters, supermen, gods, plants, zombies, and so much more! However, Iron Sky presents one more fantastic and deliciously ludicrous invasion story: this time Earth is invaded...by Nazis from the moon! That's right, the Third Reich is alive and well on the dark side of the moon, still harboring a ridiculously over-the-top fanaticism for a culture and ideology that is now over sixty years dead. As silly and cheesy as this concept is, the film plays things out with a firm tongue-in-cheek attitude, and with plenty of satire. At the film's last act, however, we are treated to a splendid space battle involving stellar zeppelins hauling moon rocks, and Nazis flying around in flying saucers!

As you can surmise, the story is as silly as they come, going so far as to toss in every German or WWII reference the filmmakers could think of to emphasize the scope and scale of the ridiculousness (with spaceships named Siegfried and Gotterdammerung, with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries playing during every battle scene, Hitler himself would have been proud). Characters aren't terribly deep or moving, but there is definitely a strong political agenda that surfaces; with one character looking a little too much like Sarah Palin, and a spaceship blatantly called the George W Bush, the film really strikes a blow to the right wing, harping on resource depletion and senseless warfare.

The film looks rather cheap. Its photography and editing generally get the job done. Acting and writing are incredibly zany and over-the-top. This production uses okay-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are pretty mixed; some of them look terrible, but they are still better than other films I've seen, and I really admire the detail and imagination that went into them. The music used in this film is really weird, but also really cool.

Iron Sky is one of the funniest, silliest, and more thrilling B-movies I've seen. For anybody with a good sense of humor, it comes recommended.

3/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Marginal | Film: Average)

Read More

Film: Why Man of Steel Totally Rocks

Man of Steel is the latest Superman film; it has garnered its fair share of critical bashing, but audiences have been soaking it up and loving it.  I am among those who have enjoyed the film; I feel that it's the current best adaptation of the character and the world he inhabits.  By comparison, the older Superman films show their age through their high levels of camp and cheesiness.  In this post, I'll try to express what it exactly is that makes Man of Steel one of the most definitive Superman films of all time (and I'll try to keep it spoiler-free).

Man of Steel vs Steel!

• Obviously, the spectacle is top-notch.  From the demise of Krypton to the battles on Earth, the film runs hard and fast.  It has to, because these are superpowered god-like characters we're dealing with here.  When Superman and General Zod clash, they will cause mass destruction in their wake.  Every little action causes an equal and opposite reaction.  It has never been this realistic before; the Metropolis battle in Superman II is pretty tame and static by comparison (and ultimately marred by too many campy gags).  Man of Steel gives us a grand, awe-inspiring (and possibly terrifying) glimpse of what it would be like if Kryptonians really did have a big smackdown on the Earth.  Best of all, this is the exact type of carnage that's expressed in certain Superman comics.
• Planet Krypton, and Kryptonians themselves, have a greater depth and style than before.  You see glimpses of them in the older films, but they inhabited a bland, seemingly barren crystalline world, and they all wore robes and weird flashy outfits.  In MoS, Krypton looks like a magnificent cross between Barsoom from John Carter and the houses of Dune.  Everything is otherworldly and exotic; there are machines everywhere that have a weird bio-mechanical look to them.  It's clearly a working world with its own population, ecology, social structures, and culture; there's more to it here than what was shown in the older films.
• Superman's powers are more realistically proportioned in MoS.  In the older films, Superman catches a helicopter with one hand at a weird angle, and still manages to fly it up to the building's rooftop without it toppling over or anything.  He supports the wing of Air Force One without causing undue stress to the aircraft.  He lifts up all of the San Andreas fault, by lifting the rock at exactly one spot.  In MoS, the physics of Superman's impossible actions are more realistically balanced; when he lifts or pushes things, the objects react realistically.  It's especially apparent during the oil rig scene, where he pushes one one support structure, but can't keep the entire thing from falling apart; it's enough to let people escape, but it's not like he's miraculously saving the entire structure either.
• Other scenes exhibit some really wild levels of physics.  The machines General Zod uses create gravitational anomalies that send jet fighters spiraling out of control (in addition to flattening land all around them and maintaining a ring of debris in the air).  The Phantom Zone is not just a mirror floating in space; it's a black hole device.  Not only is this all really cool sci-fi material, but it also reinforces the Kryptonians as being an advanced race.
• Superpowers are handled in more interesting ways in MoS.  In various flashbacks, it is a struggle for Superman to control his powers; it's part of his learning process.  Even after mastering such abilities as super-strength and flight, the film pits him against such impossible odds that it makes the fight more compelling.  Zod and his gang are equally superpowered, so their struggle is genuinely prolonged and challenging.  All the Kryptonian machines weaken Superman, making the struggle even more intense.  Other films never made it this tough on Superman.
• Superman's existence has always had the greater implication that there is life on other planets.  It's not a concept that's explored much in the older films; people were just happy to have Superman saving the day over and over again.  MoS addresses the issue differently; Superman is an alien, and people are scared and threatened by him.  He is an outcast and a "freak" to the school kids in Smallville.  The military treats him indiscriminately as a threat.  He spends the entire film earning the trust of mankind, and that's probably a far more valuable struggle than having the people automatically accept him.
• In spite of these issues, deeper themes emerge.  In his youth, Clark Kent is constantly scolded by Johnathan Kent to keep his identity a secret, and to keep his powers a secret, because of the greater implications.  Johnathan understood that Superman's existence would freak people out, maybe cause worldwide panic, and would challenge everything people knew or believed in concerning the universe and faith.  At the same time, Johnathan taught Clark the most important lessons about being human:  suffering and self-sacrifice, concepts that Kryptonians clearly didn't comprehend, but Superman is made to so that he can relate to fellow men and make the morally correct decisions.  Superman could have just as easily taken the same route as General Zod, subjugating or destroying humanity, but he doesn't, thanks to his experiences among humans, and the lessons from both Johnathan Kent and Jor-El.
• Morality plays into the story really well, and the clash between Superman and Zod is more like a clash between the ideals of morality and amorality.  Moral decision-making even plays into the film's climax, and I believe Superman's actions actually makes him a stronger character, because he took the Utilitarian approach and did things for the greater good of humanity.  He's still a champion of moral righteousness, but he doesn't get as cheesy or overly-good as the older films.
• There has always been a certain theological vibe to the Superman mythos.  Superman could be an analogy to Christ, in the sense that he was sent to Earth by his father to save the people, and in the sense that he never does any wrong.  In MoS, this is all further reinforced by the suffering that Superman endures; he spends most of the film being bullied or ostracized, but thanks to his moral standing, he never fights back or acts up, he just takes it.  MoS also explores a rich mythology that mirrors the theological struggles between God and Satan:  the conflict on Krypton seems to mirror the devil's rebellion in heaven, and Zod is always working to try and subvert Superman's morality.  Even the Kryptonians, depicted as genetically-engineered beings, could be seen as being analogous to angels, because in both cases, they do not have free will.  Of course, the fact that Superman gets his power from the sun also persists, reinforcing the theological parallels.
• As far as minor characters go, I was pleased to see that Lois Lane is actually smart for a change.  Her previous portrayals by Margot Kidder and Kate Bosworth were rather goofy and daft; she always put herself into danger, she could never spell worth a darn, she was always cold toward Clark but warm toward Superman, and she was always fooled by the glasses.  None of that happens in MoS.  In fact, I feel she actually looks and acts like a real reporter here.  Above all, since she tracks down Superman herself, she discovers his identity right away, so the film never has to play games about it, and their eventual attraction is all the more real.  I suspect that, if a sequel is due, she would probably spend her time protecting Superman's identity, rather than trying to figure it out, and I think that would be far more worthwhile.
• General Zod isn't just out to arbitrarily conquer Earth, like in Superman II.  In MoS, his actions are made to be more compelling, because he's working to rebuild his lost homeworld and people.  In his Kryptonian mind, his ideals justify the eradication of mankind.  The fact that he has no morality and no empathy toward humans also makes him more terrifying.
• Man of Steel has a lot of heart in regards to showing the main character's lessons, experiences, and origins.  Best of all, it manages to be warm, without getting overly sappy or drawn-out.
• I even like Superman's new outfit.

Critics have made certain statements regarding Man of Steel, and these are my counterpoints to them:

• The film lacks humor or joy.  This complaint doesn't make sense to me.  Who says Superman has to have humor or joy? There was enough of it in the older films.  Humor and joy are not what Superman needs right now; I find the serious adaptation refreshing.
• Superman's fighting caused too much damage.  Well, what was he supposed to do? If Superman zoomed around the whole city, saving everybody he could, then who would stop General Zod and his machines? The General even claimed that "for every person you save, I will kill a million more." Having Superman trying to save every single person is futile, especially with the grand scale of the invasion; his only hope was to tackle the problems head-on as they occurred.  Superman initially handed himself over, hoping to save Earth from such carnage; when that didn't work, he focused on the machines, before they could completely wipe out the world.  Then he took on General Zod, before more lives could be taken.  If it wasn't for that, Superman would have strung himself out, trying to save so many lives, while General Zod would have taken so many more and eventually won.  The fighting was necessary; the fact that it caused to so much damage was merely an unfortunate consequence.  Nit-picking about this seems additionally pointless to me, because you could make similar complaints about all the Transformers films or Marvel's Avengers.  Plus, in the original Superman movie, Superman is shown saving a bus, a train, and other random things, but what about everybody else affected by that earthquake? His actions there seemed a bit fruitier than in MoS.
• The film is cold and heartless.  A common Zack Snyder complaint, but as I said in my review, I think MoS is his warmest film yet.  I felt that the characters were warm, and their portrayal was appropriately intimate and nuanced.  I believe that the script, camera-work, and acting made it all work.  Most importantly, I understood the characters and could relate to them.  However, this will be a subjective viewpoint; it'll work for some people, but not for everybody.

Read More

Film Review: Man of Steel

"One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world." - Kevin Costner

I've only ever read a few specific Superman comics, but from those issues, I always knew that a better film adaptation was long overdue. Sure, Richard Donner's film was fun and imaginative, and Bryan Singer did his best to make an earnest adaptation, but every Superman film has been so cheesy, silly, and shallow that they never really stood the test of time. They may always capture the hearts and imaginations of fans, but the Man of Steel deserves more. He needs a challenge. He needs a story worth telling.

Following in the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel finally delivers an earnest, powerful, hardcore rendition of Superman. There is no camp or cheese here; this film is a straight-faced, serious, and inspiring take on the classic hero. It starts off strong on planet Krypton; it's not the lavish, dialogue-heavy, crystalline world we saw in Superman: The Movie, this is an imaginative and working society under fire, and that in itself is a sight worth seeing. Things slow down a lot on Earth, but for the film's last half, the action hits hard and fast, and never lets up until the end. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most frightening and intense scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It can be rather exhausting for audiences, but this was the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: the epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

Fortunately, the story for this film is quite sound as well. Some viewers might not dig it though, because nothing about it is traditional or expected. Clark Kent's origins in Smallville are told in a series of flashbacks, mixing up the narrative substantially. He doesn't work at the Daily Planet in this film, so there are no games between him and Lois Lane regarding his secret identity.  Frankly, I like these directions better, because it forces the film to focus on the most important aspect: the Man of Steel himself. This film explores the main character on a more intimate level, showing the lessons he learns from living among humans, showing the importance of moral strength and moderation, and showing the emotional vulnerabilities of the character as he matures. Through it all, the traditional themes surrounding Superman emerge; he is still something of a Christ-like figure, and he still does everything for the greater good.

Many viewers will make the same complaints for Man of Steel that were already made for Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and 300: heartless, cold, and lacking in depth. Although I can understand the complaints for those films, I felt Man of Steel was the warmest film Zack Snyder has made to date. Even though the film doesn't offer a terribly complex story or any depth in minor characters, it does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

This film looks visually impressive, with strong photography and editing. Many shots appear shakey and jarring, but I rarely found it problematic. I really enjoyed how tight and intimate certain shots are. Acting is not bad: I felt that Henry Cavill was very good as the title character, Amy Adams played Lois Lane in a sensible manner, while Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe stole the show repeatedly. I didn't mind every other performance either. Writing is good. This production has fine-looking sets, props, and costumes; special effects tend to be a bit on the glossy, fake-looking side, but are still astounding. Even though Hans Zimmer's score doesn't offer any memorable themes the way John Williams did, I felt it was beautiful at times and appropriately bombastic other times.

More critical audiences may not see much beneath the film's nonstop action scenes, and others might be asking "why so serious?!" Honestly, this is the Superman film I always yearned for. Man of Steel delivers the gargantuan spectacle I always craved, but with just the right amount of attention to the central character.

5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

Read More

Film Review: Superman Returns

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one." - Brandon Routh

Approximately nineteen years since the last Superman films, Superman returns with loads of flash and style! Mirroring the original Richard Donner film, Superman Returns starts off with a magnificent opening credits scene, featuring those same 3D blue letters flying at you across imaginative stellar backdrops. With modern effects, Superman's feats became truly epic and awe-inspiring. Among the film's highlights, the Man of Steel saves a crashing airplane, deals with dozens of problems when Metropolis suffers an earthquake, and in one defining scene, he lifts a huge chunk of planet Krypton out of the sea and heaves it into space.

In between the fun action scenes, the film suffers some slight drag. There is still a fair amount of comedy involved, but it's never as campy as the last four films. For the most part, this was probably the most earnest Superman movie at the time of its release. It's largely admirable, but it also feels a little stilted in a way.

Most fans have been outraged over certain creative decisions regarding the story. I can't deny that I've always been put off by the film's portrayal of Lois Lane, who continues to be rather daft, but not with the silly charm that she had before; this Lois makes dumb decisions, and drags her kid along with her. That's right, she has a kid now too. And there is a certain something about this kid that never sat right with audiences either. Superman himself remains quiet, almost creepily so, especially when he uses his X-ray vision to spy on Lois. Lex Luthor returns with yet another outlandish real estate scheme.

Despite these complaints, the story had a few great strengths of it own. The film boldly explores Superman as an outsider, and the film bears many fantastic scenes that emphasize who he really is. That scene where he floats in space and listens to the sounds of the city, or that shot where he holds up the Daily Planet globe, and that part where he flies above the clouds and soaks in the power of the sun, are all big, epic, character-defining moments. A few good flashbacks regarding Superman's past, and some really fun throwbacks to the first pair of films, give the film a little more depth as well. I also feel that the last act, with Superman literally struggling against a piece of his own homeworld, is thematically interesting.

This film has some excellent photography, with lots of interesting angles and movements. Editing is solid. Acting is not bad for what it is: I didn't mind Brandon Routh as Superman, and Kevin Spacey has a lot of fun as Lex Luthor. I never liked Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane though. Writing is generally not bad. This production uses some good, slick-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects; it's especially cool to see that they all match up with the original films too. Even though John Ottman's music score uses the same themes as John Williams, he also provides a lot of good original compositions as well.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Read More

Film Review: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

"Is the world gonna be vaporized?"

"No. It's the same as it's always been, Luthor. On the brink. With good fighting evil."

-Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve

Superman: The Movie and Superman II were decent (if not a little dated and cheesy) adaptations of the classic comic-book hero. Then, Superman III came along, with so much absurdity and camp; I didn't think it could get any sillier or dumber than that. Then I saw Superman IV.

Suffering from massive budget cuts, this film was cut down to a short, cheap, silly affair. Given the story, I doubt this movie would have been that much better with a bigger budget anyway. The film starts off with a few pointless character-building points and bits of Daily Planet drama (a subplot that ultimately could have been cut out completely without sacrificing much). For the last half or so, however, the film's real meat is in a long, epic, and rather silly clash between Superman and Nuclear Man. Oh, it's pretty cool to see a guy with claws shooting red lightning bolts everywhere, but all the encounters between this villain and the hero are made pretty short and stupidly. Among the absurdities in the film, one of the most defining testaments to this film's weaknesses has to be the scene where Superman rebuilds the Great Wall of China simply by staring at it.

The best that can be said is that the film skirts along the "so bad it's good" threshold. It's not terribly boring or dull, just poorly executed. It is to Superman what Batman and Robin is to Batman (although I always found B&R a little more endearing).

The plot for Superman IV gets a little pushy (and rather one-sided) with its themes of nuclear disarmament. It is ultimately a weak plot, with barely any characterization involved. As daft as most scenes are, it all comes off as shallow and forgettable.

This film has its share of okay photography and editing. Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, and Jackie Cooper all reprise their roles admirably; Mark Pillow is deliciously over-the-top as the villain. Writing is not terribly great. This production has a rather weak array of sets, props, and costumes. Special effects vary from scene to scene; some look cool, others look terrible. The music score continues to repeat the themes already established by John Williams.

Fun, maybe, but definitely the weakest and silliest film in the Superman franchise. Unless you're looking for something to make fun of, you best avoid.

2/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Awful | Film: Poor)

Read More

Film Review: Superman III

"Computers rule the world today. And the fellow that can fool the computers, can rule the world himself." - Robert Vaughn

The first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve were enjoyable and imaginative romps. Without Richard Donner behind the wheel, however, the task fell upon Richard Lester to continue the series. The man previously touched up Superman II for its release, so why not?

The problem is, Superman III cranks up the camp and cheese so much that all sincerity is stripped away. Even the film's opening credit scenes are a long-running joke...literally, it's one comedic slapstick gag after another, strung together in an almost Vaudeville fashion. The rest of the film is littered with similar gags, and they often aren't that funny. At the center of it all is Richard Pryor, for some odd reason; the man seems totally out-of-place in this picture, with all his bumbling, mumbling, and unfunny antics. Oh, there is action as well, but it is of an absurd nature. The climax is a series of cheesy and unlikely events that pushes this film into bad B-movie sci-fi territory.

To be fair, the story has its merits. It does touch upon some interesting ground, first by taking Superman back to Smallville for a while, and secondly be having him literally battle himself. The film also touches upon a few clever ideas, regarding oil dependency, the advent of computers, and the notion that a computer could become self-aware (I think having Superman battling a powerful AI is an inherently cool idea, but the film plays it out so cheesily that it falls way short). Otherwise, the film's story is strangely unremarkable; most of the side characters are shoved to the side, in favor of a new cast of rather uninteresting people, and most of the story is displaced by the comedy and camp.

The film has its share of decent photography and editing. Christopher Reeve offers the most earnest performance here, while the rest of the cast really hams it up. Writing is pretty bad. This production seems to use a lot of ambitious sets, props, and costumes, but a lot of it hasn't aged well, and parts of it look cheap and gaudy. Music is not all that great either, despite the usual reprise of John Williams' original theme.

Good for a laugh or two, but ultimately weak in so many ways, Superman III earns a marginal score from me, and represents a steep decline in quality from its predecessors.

2.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

Read More