A Tale of Two Movies...
In keeping up with the trend of writing informal movie reviews this summer, I'm going to write about two movies I saw this past week. I thought they were falling on deaf ears, but thanks to you Rachel Landers, I will push on and write more.
Superman Returns- I've never been a huge comic book fan. However, I do own a couple, and most of them are the "Death of Superman" and "Funeral for a Friend" story arc. Even if you don't read comics, you know by pure instinct that Superman is important. Truth, justice, the American Way, etc. So his death not only shook the comic book world, but the world in general: the greatest and most recognizable superhero had finally fell to the one thing we never thought could touch him: death.
With that said, I hadn't seen the 70's films until this past year. Why? I'm not sure. Just something I never got around to. As I was watching tv one day, I stopped on a movie that had this cosmic opening credit sequence and what was obviously a John Williams score. For a minute I thought it was some odd re-editing of "Star Wars" (George Lucas fucks with his films enough to warrant such a train of thought) and continued to watch out of pure curiosity. It turned out to be the first "Superman" movie, directed by Richard Donner and starring Christopher Reeve. For the next hour and 40 minutes, I was completely seduced. It was both entertaining and touching, developing a relationship between Clark and Lois that was at times awkward and comical. After that, I bolted out and rented the other three movies, which while entertaining, never quite reached the magic the first movie demonstrated to me.
"Superman Returns" takes place 20 years after the fourth movie. Supes has been in space after astrologists reported that there was some activity in his home part of the galaxy. After finding nothing, he comes back to Earth to once again become the people's protector. The world is torn apart by war, terrorism, and poverty. It's a different planet from the movies of the 70's and 80's, where American idealism was at something more of a high. Instead, people live in fear and feel betrayed by Superman's absence. Even his love Lois Lane has penned a Pultzer Prize winning article entitled "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman." The tone for the film is essentially set here, as a once reliable and respected superhero struggles to find his place again while fighting the self proclaimed "greatest criminal mastermind," Lex Luthor.
Like absolutely nothing had changed, this movie sucked me in. The credit sequence had me giddy in ways that I can't write about here, as the amazing Superman theme blared over and over again. It was a direct recreation of the series' infamous credit sequence. It was then I knew that Bryan Singer had a tremendous amount of respect by the credit sequence alone. The special effects were amazing, and the action sequences coupled with that amazing John Williams/Ottman scored had my body releasing endorphins that are usually reserved for either sex or eating chocolate.
The other giddy geek parts of the film included the pack of smokes tumbling out of Lois' purse to Luthor's line about "beach front property." It was safe to assume that I was the only one who saw the originals, since I chuckled at these character traits.
The real revelations here are Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth. Routh because he picks up right where Reeve left in the original film, and Bosworth because she picked up right where Margot Kidder left off. Routh plays Clark Kent with the same wide eyed wonder that Reeve did, and it was just so exciting. Bosworth's performance, however, entailed something more. The Lois Lane of the early films was sharp, intrepid, energetic. She was cocky and outspoken. However, the one in this film is slightly withdrawn. Quiet and married with a kid, but still an excellent reporter. Superman leaving forced her to grow up; she no longer could harbor a school girl crush on somebody that wasn't present. She turned that love into anger and resentment, but it doesn't take long for her to crumble under Superman's blue eyed gaze. Twenty years apart or not, true love is forever.
The only weak link here is Spacey's Lex. I guess because I love Gene Hackman so much in the originals, that I may have had some prejudice going into this one. He was serviceable, did what he had to do. He's Kevin Space, you know he's always going to give 110%, but he just wasn't the Lex I wanted.
Bryan Singer was the perfect man for this film. His work on the two "X-Men" films proved that he knows, better then anyone else, how to bring emotional depth to these characters. Of course, one of the Globe reviewers bitched that the films this summer have been too "emotional." The duel edged sword these guys review movies with is ridiculous. I cannot stress enough how much the Globe staff sucks at reviewing movies.
If you are skeptical about this movie, don't be. Yes, it does drag in some parts, but it does move at a reasonably good pace. They even have the obligatory "Superman does 13 good deeds rapid fire style" montage, which is always majorly exciting. And for anybody who doesn't want to see the movie because they are afraid it won't stick to the comic book closely enough, I say this: stop being an idiot. I've written this about a half million times, but I'll keep writing it until I'm blue in the face: comics, books, graphic novels, video games, etc. act as SOURCE MATERIAL for films. They aren't the basis for an entire movie (with the exception of "Sin City"). There would be too many sub plots, too many characters to follow, too many things to keep track of. The most rabid of these people (and I hate to sound redudant because I've commented on this before) are the Harry Potter fans. Of course the movies aren't going to be EXACT recreations of the books. Who would want to see a 4 hour movie with every scene of Hermione, Ron, and Harry sitting in the library talking about nothing and every Qudditch Match? It would get boring. The only interesting Harry Potter movie in the series thus far has been "The Prisoner of Azkaban," simply because they hired a director who wasn't afraid to take liberties with the visual tone of the story, or throw a wrench in here or there narratively. And yet, you ask any Harry Potter die hard, and they will say it was the weakest. Just remember: movies are movies. They aren't comics, novels, or video games. Accept the story for what is being given to you, not what you already know of the story or are expecting of the story.
Ok, next.
Miami Vice- Put simply, I'm a huge Michael Mann whore. I love every movie he has ever made. His visual style is unique. His story telling is impeccable. And he knows how to make a gritty, gripping crime film.
So my skepticism was high when I saw that he was making a film based on the television series that launched his career, "Miami Vice." I couldn't gauge what it was going to be. Was it going to be a campy throw back in the vein of McG's "Charlie's Angels" or Todd Phillips' "Starsky & Hutch." After I saw the first trailer, any fear of that was alleviated. I should have known Michael Mann was way too smart to resort to camp.
Ricardo Tubbs and Sonny Crockett are back undercover, doing what they do best: busting up drug cartels. But again, they are in a drastically different world from the one we knew in the 80's. Instead of sun drenched Miami avenues and pastel blazers, we get night time shots with violent thunderstorms and dull gray buildings. The whole visual tone fits the tone of the story itself: we are fighting a losing battle against an enemy that is far more organized and technologically advanced then any of our police or government departments could dream of.
But don't tell that to Crockett or Tubbs. They are uber serious, and uber into there work. They romance the enemy, they fire with deadly force, they cross and then double cross. And both Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell play their parts well. I have no complaints against them, never have. I've always enjoyed the characters they play, and this is just another example of them enabling me to escape into a movie.
Mann used the Sony/Panasonic Genesis camera to shoot this film. I did (what I thougt was) an excellent report on digital cameras and project in cinema today for my Tech Com class last semester. Considering me and my professor didn't see eye to eye on anything, he gave me a bad grade and I gave him an insulting remark. But anyway, Mann is really the only director uses the digital camera to enhance a story, rather then to enhance special effects. Both this and last year's "Collateral" are given this hyper reality feeling through the use of high def cameras. They also shoot better in low light situations, which would explain all the night shoots.
All in all, two good movies in two weeks. I'm pleased with this summer's choice, and next up on my list M. Night's "Lady in the Water."
Mark