Edge of Tomorrow review

28676_Quad+date.indd
It’s probably too late to rescue Tom Cruise’s latest film from box office oblivion, but I would like to go on record saying that the financial failure of EDGE OF TOMORROW represents the greatest inverse relationship between quality and ticket sales since TWILIGHT sent breathless teen girls storming into theatres.* Easily surpassing the summer’s successful action-oriented science fiction (the incoherent THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2; the over-rated X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED), EDGE OF TOMORROW  defies low expectations set by the coming attractions trailers, which promised little more than a standard-issue futuristic battle movie. Though loaded with special effects, military hardware, and alien invaders, EDGE OF TOMORROW actually explores a clever conceit in an imaginative way, engaging viewers’ Sense of Wonder, along with their appetite for adrenalin-soaked thrills. Though the end result is not all it could have been, EDGE OF TOMOROW is about as close to sophisticated science fiction as we are likely to see this season.
Cruise plays Major William Cage, a public relations flack whose job is to boost morale back home while our soldiers duke it out with aliens in Europe. The latest gizmo in the war is the “Jacket,” an exo-skeleton that supposedly enables even neophyte soldiers to go head-to-head with the invaders, after only minimal training, laying the groundwork for a D-Day type invasion. Unfortunately for Cage, General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) wants him to cover the invasion live, from the front lines. In a beautifully wrought scene that immediately tells us we are in for something different, Cage attempts to decline the order, at first demurring, then hinting blackmail, and finally fleeing. Captured and stripped of his rank, Cage is sent to the front lines anyway – but as canon fodder rather than as a journalist. Knowing him for a deserter, Cage’s squad mates do little to train or help him, and somewhat predictably he dies in the first wave of the assault. And that’s when things get interesting…
Unfortunately, the central surprise of the story is already given away in the promotional campaign: whenever Cage dies, he jumps back in time to the moment when he woke up to find himself in his new squad. Though this sounds a bit like the comedic GROUND HOG DAY, it works more like a videogame: Cage is not simply repeating the same 24-hour cycle over and over; he goes on for as long as he survives – hours, days, maybe weeks – before death hits the proverbial Restart button for him. Along the way, he teams up with Rita (Emily Blunt), a soldier who believes his incredible story because she previously possessed the same ability. She trains him (over and over and over), hoping to reach a level where he will be skilled enough to get off the beach where Earth’s counter-invasion was (is, will be) slaughtered.
Eventually we learn that time-travel is a power possessed by the aliens, who used it to be ready for counter-attack. Cage, like Rita before him, inherited the ability when he killed one of the aliens, its blood pouring over him. Rita lost the ability when she received a blood transfusion, so the joke becomes that Cage cannot risk mere injury: he must succeed or die; every time he is merely wounded, Rita kills him to send him back to the beginning. As the old saying goes, practice makes perfect: eventually Cage and Rita learn what they need to know to defeat the aliens, but as fate would have it, Cage loses his ace-in-the-hole, forcing a final assault with no hope of a second chance…
By its very nature, EDGE OF TOMORROW has a great deal of repetition built into the story line. Fortunately, Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (working from a draft by Jez Butterowrth and John-Henry Butterworth, which took its central idea from Hiroshi Sakurazaka’s novel All You Need Is Kill) includes numerous clever variations during the re-runs, and eventually the editing becomes more elliptical, omitting scenes we have watched before and skipping ahead to the new material, as Cage gets a little farther in his quest each time. The strategy does not totally work: as we move into the second act, there is a sense of approaching tedium; fortunately, the third act moves in a new direction, removing the Rest button and creating a more conventional suspense scenario.
Until then, however, EDGE OF TOMORROW works in very interesting ways. Starting Cage off as a coward and a deserter, the film is obviously setting up his transition to warrior-hero, but that transition does not play out as expected. Cage never becomes a gung-ho Top Gun-type hotshot. By the time he has learned the skills he needs to survive on the battlefield, he has been through the battle so many times that it seems like old news; he moves through the carnage by rote, following his practiced moves and anticipating every attack, almost bored by the action.
Instead, the suspense turns on an emotional hinge: Cage knows that, when he finally succeeds, he will lose his alien-inherited ability and, with it, loose any chance to reset the clock and resurrect those who died beside, including Rita. In one fine scene, we see Cage reluctant to proceed, ostensibly from a fear of flying, but Rita soon deduces that his hesitation stems from having played the scenario out multiple times without finding a way to keep Rita alive.
Edge of Tomorrow 2014 Tom Cruise
Little touches like this hint at an even more sophisticated film than the (very entertaining) one that we have. At first, Cage’s ability seems like a gift – which it is, to the extent that it allows him to defeat the enemy. However, on a personal level, it inevitably results in days, weeks, perhaps months of repeated actions; the chance to go back and fix mistakes leads to frustration, even boredom, as Cage goes through what must feel like a lifetime of re-experience the same few days and hours again and again. There are hints regarding the psychic toll this takes, but by necessity those suggestions remain in the background, overshadowed by the action-adventure scenario.
Fortunately, director Doug Liman (THE BOURNE IDENTIFY) delivers action as exciting and fast-paced as anything in a Michael Bay film, but he grounds the action in the drama and builds gradually to a climax that doesn’t seem like just more of the same, after two hours of previous bullets and bombs.
Liman also knows how to milk the inherent black humor in the situation. After it comes clear the Cage will die multiple deaths over the course of the film – to the point where the thought of dying becomes a typical, almost daily experience – Liman litters the frames with potentially lethal hardware, as when Cage visits Rita in a training room equipped with some nasty looking razor-edged hardware, meant to simulate attacking aliens. We’re safely in SOUTH PARK territory (“Oh my god, they killed Kenny!”); even a simple dialogue scene becomes fraught with tension, as we wonder whether a stray alien-simulator will take Cage out in mid-sentence.
As is apparently obligatory for all action-packed movies, EDGE OF TOMORROW is presented in 3D. As far as live-action movies go, the third dimension works tolerably well, enhancing some of the battle sequences and adding an extra layer of creepiness to the aliens. Liman has always been good at rendering comprehensible action scenes: sure, they seem to zip by, but they’re not simply a blur of images and quick cutting – you can tell what is happening, and all the more so in 3D.
Performances are strong all around. Emily Blunt is fine as Rita; though I’m not sure I buy her as a super soldier, her passionate commitment to the cause contrasts nicely with Cage’s personal concerns. Brendan Gleeson is good as the general who sends Cage into battle, and Bill Paxton absolutely relishes his turn as a master sergeant, eager to haze the new recruit – an officer busted down to enlisted man for desertion.
Cruise himself gives one of his best performances ever. His early scenes of fatuous confidence, predicting victory during a series of media appearances, contrasts wonderfully with the unpleasant surprise he registers when General Brigham assigns him to cover the war up close. Cruise makes Cage believable even as the character is attempting the unbelievable – turning down an order from a superior officer; you really see the wheels going round inside the guy’s head as he imagines that if he plays this right, he will walk away. And of course it’s hysterically funny to see “Maverick” Mitchell run like a coward when he realizes that nothing he says will get him out of the situation.
Unlike X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED, which used its time-travel plot as little more than a gimmick to get the new and the old X-Men cast into the same movie, EDGE OF TOMORROW makes at least an effort toward exploring the ramifications of its premise, and does so without  adopting an aura of pretentious seriousitude. To some extent, the film sells out with a contrived ending, but I’m willing to cut the filmmakers some slack. No, it’s not the science fiction masterpiece  it could have been, but EDGE OF TOMORROW is great entertainment, with a good idea or two. It proves that summer flicks do not have to be dumb to deliver the goods (though apparently they do need to be dumb to become blockbusters).
[rating=3]
Recommended!
edge-of-tomorrow-international-poster-vertical
FOOTNOTE:

  • Though in the case of TWILIGHT, the imbalanced weighed in favor of box office over quality.

EDGE OF TOMORROW (Warner Brothers Pictures: June 6, 2014). Directed by Doug Liman. Screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie and Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth, based on the book All You Need Is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka. PG-13. 113 mins. Cast: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, Jonas Armstrong, Tony Way.

Godzilla – Radio Film Review

Yep, GODZILLA is still King of the Monsters (and a helluva tourist attraction).
Yep, GODZILLA is still King of the Monsters (and a helluva tourist attraction).

Turns out maintaining a presence in the social network only makes life more complex for a film critic. I had to delay my viewing of GODZILLA ’til Sunday, meantime trying to avoid the various hosannas and the occasional nay-say (not to mention Steve Biodrowski’s own in-depth analysis) being splattered all over Facebook, Twitter, etc. An impossible task, actually, and I went into the theater a little anxious over whether what little feedback had filtered through to me was somehow going to skew my reaction, for good or ill.
Happily, I was well pleased with GODZILLA. Not staggered, no, but grateful that director Gareth Edwards managed to pay homage to the history of the franchise while adding some crucial elements to the exercise, elements that I explore in my review for WBAI 99.5FM’s HOUR OF THE WOLF. Click the player to hear what I had to say.

Right-click to download: GODZILLA – Radio Film Review

LISTEN TO HOUR OF THE WOLF
EVERY THURSDAY AT 1:30 AM
ON WBAI 99.5FM IN NEW YORK CITY

[serialposts]

Godzilla: Spotlight Podcast 5:19.1

Godzilla art crop
Godzilla has stormed into theatres, and he’s too big to fit into one podcast! That’s right: this week the Cinefantastique Spotlight will be presented in two parts. The first features regulars Lawrence French and Steve Biodrowski, along with special guest Steve Ryfle (author of Japan’s Favorite Mon-Star: The Unauthorized Biograph of the Big G). Listen in for insightful commentary about the new film version of GODZILLA, from Warner Brothers Pictures and Legendary Pictures, which has crushed the box office competition flatter than its titular monster razing a skyscraper to the ground.
Come back soon for Part Two!


[serialposts]

Godzilla (2014) review

Godzilla art horizontal
Is Legendary Pictures’ GODZILLA the perfect re-imagining of the classic kaiju character as the star of a Hollywood blockbuster? No. Is it a decent antidote to the disappointing 1998 film from Sony Pictures? Yes. Does that mean the new film is a mediocrity that falls somewhere in the middle? Hell no. For all its dramaturgical faults, GODZILLA captures the fundamental nature of its radioactive reptile in a manner that eclipses its weaknesses, like the shadow of Godzilla himself eclipsing the efforts of the puny humans frantically scurrying beneath his feet. Unlike Rolland Emmerich and Dean Devilin in their 1998 fiasco, which diminished its GINO (Godzilla In Name Only) into nothing more than an over-sized lizard, director Gareth Edwards and screenwriter Max Borenstein realize that Godzilla’s power lies in his stature – not only physical but also metaphoric. Godzilla must be more than large enough to fill the IMAX screen; he must be large enough to fill our collective imagination.  This is GODZILLA’s singular triumph: it invests its titular character with a Sense of Wonder that outweighs his mere bulk, lingering in the mind after that last building has toppled and the last roar has faded from the soundtrack.

THE STORY

godzilla05GODZILLA begins with Dr. Ishiro Serizawa1 (Ken Watanabe) and his assistant (Sally Hawkins) examining a giant skeleton of a beast apparently felled by a pair of prehistoric parasites, one of which heads toward Japan, where a nuclear power plant goes haywire, causing the death of Sandra Brody (Juliette Binoche). Years later, Sandra’s husband Joe (Bryan Cranston) has become estranged from his son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) while devoting his life to proving that his wife’s death was the result of something more than an ordinary accident. The parasite (later dubbed a MUTO, for Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) reawakens and goes searching for its mate, and the U.S. military, led by Admiral William Stenz (David Strathairn) wrestle with the thorny problem of how to stop apparently unstoppable creatures with an appetite for nuclear material – including bombs. Fortunately, in the words of Dr. Serizawa, the MUTOs are being hunted by an ancient apex predator, Gojira (a.k.a. Godzilla), who will restore the balance of nature upset by the MUTO’s access to a vast new food source, thanks to the proliferation of nuclear energy.
Borenstein’s screenplay (developed from a story by Dave Callaham) is stretched a bit thin in its attempt to provide an epic-sized vehicle for its titular monster. The problem is not with the number of incidents – there is plenty happening in the film. Nor is it necessarily with the characters, who are sketched in basic terms but are more than serviceable (aided by solid performances). What’s missing is a larger dramatic conflict – the sort of moral quandary that invested the original GOJIRA (1954) with a memorable gravitas, rendering the film as something much larger than a mere genre piece.
The closest GODZILLA comes to this is with the decision to use a hydrogen bomb in an attempt to distract the radiation-hungry monsters from converging on San Francisco – a decision opposed by Dr Serizawa, whose father died in the nuclear blast at Hiroshima. However, this element winds up being less a thematic development than a plot device, galvanizing the human action during the titanic tag-team wrestling match that makes up the third act.

THE DETAILS

godzilla-trailer-02The story deficiency weakens the film but, fortunately, is not nearly enough to knock the crown off the King of the Monsters. The plot may be thin, but that is almost beside the point when director Edwards imbues the images with a serious tone that renders the action believable even when it is at its most incredible. (In a weird way, GODZILLA is like Darren Aronfsky’s NOAH, which unabashedly embraced not only genre fantasy but also sheer physical impossibility  while simultaneously selling its tale with a layer of straight-faced realism – cognitive dissonance be damned.)
Edwards’ gift, previously displayed in his low-budget MONSTERS (2010), is the ability to depict an apparently believable, human world, in which unbelievable monsters exist, affecting people’s lives and altering their very perception of the world – even when the monsters are off-screen. Consequently, when the monsters do show up, their appearances register not as obligatory set-pieces carefully and generously distributed to satisfy genre junkies (I’m looking at you, PACIFIC RIM); instead of empty spectacle, GODZILLA evokes a sense of overwhelming tragedy, of civilization poised on the brink of destruction, of humanity perhaps on the verge of extinction.
And in case you haven’t heard, Godzilla is off-screen quite a bit, but that’s all part of the film’s carefully wrought strategy.
Edwards plays his hand like a master card sharp, holding his trump cards in reserve until he can lay them down when they will score the most points. He teases us with a series of tantalizing glimpses: a massive shape surging beneath a battleship; a glimpse of a tail from behind a building; a brief battle seen via televised news report; dangling claws and chest scales illuminated by flares; dorsal spines slicing through the ocean like the shark’s fin in JAWS.2
Edwards is not enough of a visual poet to carry off the gambit completely. The tease does lead to a massively satisfying pay-off when GODZILLA finally emerges in all his glory, but until then, the slow build-up sometimes seems merely slow. The opening sequence of Dr. Serizawa examining the underground remains of another Godzilla skeleton, for example, is merely adequate, when it should be awe-inspiring, sending shivers of anticipation down the spine. A little patience may be required from over-eager audiences, but that patience will be rewarded many times over. When the King of the Monsters finally unleashes his most famous power near the end, it’s a jaw-dropping moment of glorious spectacle, but it is all the more satisfying because it is not played as a sop to Godzilla geeks eager to sate their hunger for more of what they saw when they were kids attending bargain matinees in their local theatres; instead, it is depicted with all the immediacy of something newly discovered, and for at least one brief moment, the neophytes and the veterans can unite in communal joy, as if both are witnessing the event for the first time – an impression enhanced a thousand fold by the awestruck audio reaction from the screen, as one character gasps: “DID YOU SEE THAT?!…WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!”
I may seem to be over-emphasizing a single moment, but there is a method to my madness. The fundamental failing of the 1998 Godzilla was diminishing – or even completely eliminating – the awe-inspiring aspects of its monster. Boronstein, Edwards, and the technical craftsmen embrace this aspect and bring it to convincing life, partly with modern, high-tech cinematic craftsmanship, but mostly through the use of a human perspective on the events, which allows the audience to engage directly and uncritically, without undue reliance on suspension of disbelief, ironic detachment, or fond nostalgia.
That’s the power of this GODZILLA: not in “re-imagining” or “re-booting” the past, but in taking raw materials from the old films and refining them into something that feels newly created instead of merely recycled with a bigger budget and better effects. Yes, it’s still only a movie, but you don’t have to keep telling yourself that to gloss over the weaknesses; you can simply be enthralled – not from reliving old memories, but from enjoying this experience now.

THE MONSTERS

godzilla_2014__the_winged_muto_by_sonichedgehog2-d7aqlg7With Godzilla playing coy throughout most of the running time, it is up to the MUTOs to satisfy the film’s monster movie mayhem requirements. This mated pair  – a larger female, a smaller male with wings – are insectoid in appearance, with elements seemingly borrowed from Gayos (an opponent of Godzilla’s rival, Gamera) and the Orga from GODZILLA 2000, not to mention the titular creatures in Edwards’ own MONSTERS.  Though destructive and frightening, they do evoke a tiny spark of sympathy when the male passes along a tasty treat (well, an H-bomb) to its companion: if only they weren’t going to breed and overrun the world, they might seem almost endearing. More to the point, they make for intimidating foes – one purely terrestrial, the other aerial – as they deliver a monumental tag-team beating to Godzilla.
Godzilla himself retains the classic elements of the familiar design – a scaly, upright-walking dinosaur with dorsal fins and an angry, reptilian appearance – but those elements have been adjusted. Once a mere 100-feet tall, this new Godzilla towers over his older selves, at 350 feet. He also looks heavier, more muscular, like the kaiju equivalent of a barroom bouncer, and his face suggests a battered old boxer, used to receiving and dealing out punishment.
Of course, this Godzilla has been rendered with modern computer graphics instead of a man-in-a-suit, but the problems of CGI (cartoony movements, lack of inertia) have been overcome, providing marvelously realized special effects with the spirit of the best of Godzilla’s old Toho films – which is to say, the action is allowed to play out so that you can see it, without any editorial razzle-dazzle to goose up the sequences (I’m looking at you, Michael Bay). There is a convincing sense of momentum to the monster’s actions, and the massive scale is effectively suggested by slowing the  movements down (though not as much as in PACIFIC RIM); the 3D photography, though not essential to the film’s overall effectiveness, enhances the illusion that we are seeing large objects at a distance (as opposed to the old-fashioned miniatures, tricked up to look big by placing them close to the camera lens).
There is a tactile quality to the monsters, which makes them seem like living, breathing creatures, not just computer-animated creations, and Godzilla actually gives something approaching a performance, in both his facial expressions and his body language. (His post-battle collapse suggests an exhausted warrior falling like a deflated balloon, leading to an image almost as iconic as the final panel from The Death of Superman.)
Interestingly, this performance was captured without the use of performance capture. Though mo-cap specialist Andy Serkis (who played Gollum and King Kong) consulted to enhance Godzilla’s movements, the special effects footage was actually computer-animated. (Director Edwards says motion-capture would have worked had Godzilla been fighting another two-legged beast that could be portrayed by an actor, but the multi-legged MUTOs required CGI handling.)
The result is somewhat akin to the 1990s era Godzilla, a massive hulk that implacably repulses the attacks of any opponents. Though the story pushes him into heroic mode, there is nothing benign in his countenance; rather, this is a mean-ass junkyard dog who just happens to hate on the thing attacking San Francisco. Oh well, the “enemy of my enemy,” as the saying goes.

THEMES

The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control and not the other way around. Let them fight.

Godzilla takes one for the team at the Golden Gate Bridge.
Godzilla takes one for the team at the Golden Gate Bridge. Military action backfires, nearly killing civilians, but for the intervention of the Big G.

Thus speaks Dr. Serizawa, precipitating the final act of GODZILLA. If he sounds a bit oracular, delivering the film’s message here and elsewhere rather unapologetically, that is actually an appropriate part of Godzilla’s tradition. Godzilla was conceived in 1954 as a none-too-subtle metaphor  – in essence, a walking nuclear weapon, a living embodiment of the perils of the atomic age. This element diminished throughout numerous sequels in the 1960s and ’70s, which eventually turned Godzilla into a hero defending Earth from alien invaders such as King Ghidorah. When the character was revived in the ’80s and ’90s, his atomic origins were acknowledged once again, though the emphasis shifted. Godzilla was no longer merely a nuclear menace; he was nature’s reaction to mankind’s tampering with the atom. Thus he could be seen as in some sense a righteous character, an anti-hero whose city-stomping destruction was the consequence of mankind’s actions but whose defense of his territory yielded benefits for humanity, who otherwise might have been destroyed by the numerous monsters Godzilla defeated.
The new GODZILLA film follows through on this later idea. Godzilla is still a prehistoric creature awakened by nuclear science (by an atomic submarine rather than an atomic bomb, if I heard correctly), but he is not necessarily here to extract vengeance for that awakening. Instead, the MUTOs are the real monsters of the story, their nuclear appetite for destruction fueling the plot, and it is Godzilla’s job to balance the scales (though not without collateral damage).
Though not literally faithful to Godzilla’s original conception, the Warner Brothers film is a smart updating that speaks to current concerns; like a text translated into a new language, it has been rendered in a form that speaks to its new audience, conveying the ideas if not the exact words.
When GOJIRA (later released as GODZILLA KING OF THE MONSTERS in the U.S.) stomped into Japanese theatres in 1954, it was seen not only in the context of the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; it directly referenced U.S. H-bomb testing in the Pacific Ocean, which irradiated the crew of the Japanese fishing boat, The Lucky Dragon. This sort of topical reference is used in the new film, but with fear of bombs and nuclear testing no longer at the forefront of our public consciousness, Edwards and Boronstein opt for an attack on a nuclear power station, eliciting painful recollections of the ill-fated Fukushima plant. We may no longer lose sleep over nuclear Armageddon, but Fukushima reminded us radiation poisoning is still a fearful long-term problem – and one that may be symptomatic of a larger problem regarding our treatment of the planet on which we live.
GODZILLA brings that fear to life and embodies it in the MUTOs, whom Godzilla must destroy to save the Earth. This may seem like a bit of a cheat, robbing Godzilla of his own metaphor, but it works in the context of this film3, which suggests that humanity is incapable of fixing its mistakes. We are told that, after Godzilla was awakened, the subsequent nuclear bomb tests were actually unsuccessful attempts to destroy the beast. Though not emphasized, this is a subtle condemnation of U.S. Cold War policy, in which the answer to the problem of nuclear weapons was – wait for it! –  even more nuclear weapons.
The point is underlined when the military initiates its plan to destroy all three monsters with yet another H-Bomb, hoping that the blast will be enough to destroy creatures that would otherwise thrive on the resulting radiation. The insanity of the proposal is not lost on Dr. Serizawa, who – in one of the film’s most touching moments – displays a pocket watch that belonged to his father – a watched that stopped when his father died at Hiroshima, its frozen hands like an eternal reminder of the horrific event. A chastened Admiral Stenz can only silently acknowledge Serizawa’s point and then continue with the plan anyway – because that’s what the military does, regardless of whether it makes sense.
The result very nearly causes even greater destruction for San Francisco, which is averted only because of the combined efforts of Ford and Godzilla (in one of the script’s nicer touches, the human protagonist is actually given something more important to do than simply watch the monster action from afar). This stands in marked contrast to the more archetypal message of American science fiction films (such as Godzilla’s progenitor, THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS), which suggested that nuclear science, working hand in hand with the military, would solve any of the problems it caused.
GODZILLA is clearly less optimistic about our abilities to auto-correct ourselves.

CONCLUSION

With its nuclear disasters and tidal waves suggesting nature thrown out of balance by mankind, GODZILLA pitches itself as a pop-message movie laced up in genre attributes. Though the actions of the human characters may be somewhat generic, the film itself is anything but. Whatever its weaknesses, GODZILLA sells itself, its message, and its monster to the audience – unabashedly and unapologetically. It suffers no undue restraint from fear of indulging in the absurd, but nor does it rely on audience good will to see it over its dramatic short-comings. Unlike PACIFIC RIM, this is no Geek Movie, simply sending out dog whistles to the tribe of the already initiated. This GODZILLA works overtime to earn any good will it receives from the audience, and for that reason, it works as well for newbies and initiates alike.
Or put it another way: In an era of over-hyped blockbusters, each straining to be bigger, louder, and more cataclysmic than the competition, GODZILLA takes a relatively low-key approach to deliver not just what fans want but what audiences need: incredible entertainment that seems somehow credible.
[rating=4]
Out of five stars on the CFQ scale: must see.
Spanish_Godzilla_2014_Poster
GODZILLA (May 15/16, 2014). From Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers Pictures. Directed by Gareth Edwards. Screenplay by Max Boronstein, from a story by Dave Callaham. Music: Alexandre Desplat. Cinematography: Seamus McGarvey. Editing: Bob Ducsay. Production Design: Owne Paterson. Special effects: WETA Digital, Jim Rigiel; John Dykstra.  PG-13. 123 minutes. Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Straithairn, Akira Takarada.
FOOTNOTES:

  1. The name of Watanabe’s character conflates the first name of GOJIRA director Ishiro Honda with the last name of Dr. Serizawa, the character who sacrifices himself to destroy the beast at the end of the original film.
  2. Other critics have noted similarities to Steven Spielberg’s gradual revelation of the Great White, but a more apt comparison would be to Ridley Scott’s clever did-you-or-didn’t-you-see-it game in ALIEN.
  3. This plot device also recalls GODZILLA VS HEDORAH (1971, a.k.a. GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTERS), in which Godzilla’s opponent was a metaphor for the harm mankind had done to the environment. Since Toho films stopped making Godzilla films in 2004, director Yoshimitsu Banno had been trying to launch a sequel to GODZILLA VS. HEDORAH. The project eventually led to the current GODZILLA film, on which Banno receives an executive producer credit, so it is perhaps not too surprising that there would be some similarities.

[serialposts]

Man of Steel: alien anchor baby makes good

Superman soars - briefly. The film seldom does.
Superman soars - briefly. The film seldom does.

Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer ground Superman in reality. But when something is grounded, can you expect it to soar?

If you want to know all you need to know about MAN OF STEEL in just over three minutes, Hans Zimmer’s theme music is a perfect synecdoche – a small part that effectively stands for the whole. Beginning with a delicate piano motif, the cue soon swells larger, with rhythmic percussion and strings building to a powerful crescendo of undeniable power – which somehow never finds a soaring melody that will lift the music off the ground and send it into the stratosphere.
The problem, you see, is that producer Christopher Nolan, director Zack Snyder, and writer David S. Goyer have grounded the new Superman in reality. And when something is grounded, you can hardly expect it to soar.

ANGST AND ALIEN ANCHOR BABIES

Although most of elements are familiar (Krypton, the Daily Planet, Smallville, etc), MAN OF STEEL attempts a radical recreation that consists of discarding any reverence, any sense of comic book escapism, in favor of approaching the material as if it were something new – if by “new” you mean something that hews closely to the blockbuster superhero science fiction genre of the past few years, with a dour sense of angst that makes television’s SMALLVILLE look like a frat-boy comedy by comparison.

An alien ship gives Clark a clue to his true identity
An alien ship gives Clark a clue to his true identity

The approach pays appreciable dividends: it’s not as if anybody is going to miss the comic relief antics of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE’s Otis and Miss Teschmacher, and it’s always nice to see a little dramatic weight added to the familiar framework. MAN OF STEEL is not just about super-heroics; it is about the alien Kal-El finding himself and his place on his adoptive world of Earth. In a sense, it is the ultimate story of an alien anchor baby who makes good, earning his place among the natives.

REALITY VS. FANTASY: THERE ARE NO WINNERS

There are, however, two problems with this approach. One is fundamental to the nature of the source material. The other is a failure of artistic vision – or, perhaps, never.
PROBLEM #1: No matter how much Snyder and company try (and they do), MAN OF STEEL can never truly ground the Superman story in a completely convincing sense of verisimilitude. This is not even a piece of hard science fiction; it is a fantasy in which some Kryptonian rebels are sentenced to the Phantom Zone, which conveniently saves them from the apocalypse that befalls their planet.

The Kryptonian rebels reappear with the inevitability of movie logic.
The Kryptonian rebels reappear with the inevitability of movie logic.

Meanwhile, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) has sent his son Kal-El (Henry Cavill to Earth), where he tries to keep a low profile. Coincidentally, just as the cat is start to come out of Schrodinger’s box, the Kryptonian rebels, led by General Zod (Michael Shannon) show up; with all the planets in all the galaxies, it took only thirty-three years to cross countless light years of space and find their way to Earth at exactly the crucial turning point in Kal-El’s life. And needless to say, although their ship was intended as a prison, it has more than enough alien weaponry to make INDEPENDENCE DAY look like a trip to Disneyland.
In case I have not made my point clear, let me spell it out: this is a movie in which certain generic elements, whether or not they are believable or scientifically plausible, must play out in a certain way, because that is the movie we paid to see. Call it movie logic, dream logic, or comic book logic, it’s gotta happen, and there’s no way it will ever seem really “real.”
PROBLEM #2: “Grounding a story in reality” is a gambit. You lose some of the fun of indulging in a safe, enjoyable fantasy. What you get in return is the gravitas that comes from playing the previously safe formula as if their are now serious stakes involved, with life-and-death situations no longer pitched at the level of kids playing shoot-em-up in the backyard but more akin to a real-life tragedy witnessed on television or – worse yet – up close in person.
I’m not sure this path is the right one for the Man of Steel. It works for Batman in the Christopher Nolan films because Batman is, after all, the Dark Knight – it literally says right in his nickname that his proper tone is dark. This approach also works for James Bond in the Daniel Craig films, because 007 is a spy doing dirty work in a dangerous world; jettisoning the escapism and camp brings the character to a fuller realization of what he should be.
This approach does not necessarily work for Superman, who was always a boy scout fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman is a fantasy, an ideal – not a reality or anything even approaching reality, unlike Batman and Bond, who are mortals (even if extraordinarily well-equipped and skilled mortals).
However, giving Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer their due, their approach could have worked – if they had stayed true to it. But they refuse to go all the way. Where do they stop short? Collateral freakin’ damage – that’s where.
Superman (Henry Cavill) prepares to confront Zod amid the ruins of Metropolis.

When Superman throws down with Zod on the streets of Smallville, he doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the damage he is causing, and the film simply assumes that it is only property damage, as if there were no chance their might be human beings in the buildings that are being pierced and punctured by a pair of superhuman Kryptonians blasting through like cannonballs.
In the later battle in Metropolis, the sheer scale of destruction suggests the inevitability of casualties, but these do not weigh heavily on Superman’s mind, nor do the filmmakers expect us to care much, either (until it becomes a plot point, and then it’s a big deal only because it forces Superman to get his hands a little dirty). In fact, this is so far off the radar that, in spite of some lip-service threats from the villains (“for every one you save, we will kill a million”), Zod and company never actually use hostages under a death threat to blackmail Superman into surrendering.
You have to give the script credit for kinda, sorta almost giving us a reason why Lois has to be on the plane flying into danger.
You have to give the script credit for kinda, sorta almost giving us a reason why Lois has to be on the plane flying into danger.

Up until then, we are in the familiar movie-movie world, in which the only lives that matter are those of the audience identification figures – in this case, Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who despite being rather resourceful and not particularly helpless, manages to fall out of an airplane, so that everyone else on board can die in a crash while she is saved from a precipitous fall by the inevitable arrival of the Man of Steel.
By the way, did I mention that the airplane is carrying a weapon that will destroy Zod’s ship, but there is one of those unexpected last-minute hurdles that are supposed to juice up the suspense. This is a particularly lazy one: the Kryptonian control stick (essentially an alien flash drive) that is supposed to slide into a slot, doesn’t, but exactly what’s wrong is never explained, and the solution to the problem is hardly more sophisticated than banging on a TV set.
In short, it’s a moment that is there because it was expected to be there, not because anybody cared enough to come up with something interesting. Which would be fine in a comic book movie with its tongue in its cheek, asking us all to sit back and have fun. It’s not so fine in a film that is asking to be taken very seriously.

THE RULES OF SUPERPOWERS: THERE ARE NO RULES

Jor-El tells his wife – and by extension, us – that the radiation of Earth’s young yellow Sun will be absorbed by Kal-El, making him strong as he grows up in this alien environment; he also tells us that Earth’s atmosphere is a little more nourishing that Krypton’s.
So, fine, Kal-El sucks up solar energy for thirty-three years, and it makes him really super. Then he steps aboard Zod’s spaceship and immediately loses his powers because he is breathing Kryptonian air (which we are now told will not support Earth life).
Uh, huh? So the sun didn’t really have much to do with it after all?

Zod (Michael Shannon) learns to use heat vision rather quickly.
Zod (Michael Shannon) learns to use heat vision rather quickly.

Also, Zod and his minions (including Antje Trau as Faora) are instantaneously as strong as Superman. Not only that, they immediately know how to use their new superpowers as if they were born with them.
So I guess, soaking up solar radiation and testing his powers for thirty-three years did give the Man of Steel much of an edge.
This becomes particularly amusing when Zod brags that he, unlike Kal-El, has trained as a warrior all his life, as if this will give him an advantage in their fight to the finish. I’m not sure how training in weapons or even in hand-to-hand combat is going to prepare you for flying at super-speed and tossing opponents through buildings. Knowing how to block a right cross while delivering an upper-cut simply is not going to help you much when your opponent flies into with the speed of a bullet and the power of a locomotive.

KAL-EL: THE MAN, THE MYTH, THE GOD – OR AT LEAST THE SON OF…

Despite these mis-steps, and an overabundance of action for attention-deficit viewers, MAN OF STEEL understands the mythic proportions of the Superman story. As much as the film tries to portray Kal-El as a man trying to find his way, he is much more than that – not just a superman but a savior of mankind, someone who will not solve all our problems but will set a shining example to be followed.
The Christ parallels have always been there (the son sent down from the heavens), but MAN OF STEEL pushes them further than before, specifically making Kal-El thirty-three (the age at which Jesus started his public ministry) and even placing him in a church when he has a crucial decision to make, a stain-glass window of Jesus behind him, as he weighs the wisdom of sacrificing himself.
Cavill is an excellent Kal-El – totally different from Christopher Reeve, somber without projecting self-pity, serious and thoughtful (and unfortunately, without the clear demarcation between the Clark Kent and Superman personas). For a character who seems strong enough to carry any burden, Cavill somehow manages to convey the weight pressing on his character’s shoulders, especially when Zod’s relentless hostility, which allows no room for surrender, forces a life-or-death choice upon the formerly innocent Kryptonian.

Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) has a heart to heart with Clark about his alien origin.
Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) has a heart to heart with Clark about his alien origin.

The rest of the cast is almost equally good, especially Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent. The other stand-out role, of course, is Zod, which Shannon embodies with power and authority but without the operatic grandeur that such a large-than-life malevolent force should convey.
As Lois, Adams ditches Margot Kidder’s wackiness in favor of a cool professionalism that does not preclude a certain hint of romantic interest in her “rescuer” (as she initially calls him, before learning his identity). Hopefully, any sequels will explore the romantic repartee between Lois and Clark.

CONCLUSION

Russel Crowe briefly wonders whether he wandered into a Star Wars movie.
Russel Crowe briefly wonders whether he wandered into a Star Wars movie.

MAN OF STEEL contains more than enough supersonic action to fill not only a superhero movie but also an alien invasion movie and a planetary romance as well (there is something Barsoomian about Krypton, with Jor-El riding a winged, reptilian steed). The special effects are often outstanding; although the high-speed blur is somewhat over-used, diminishing the effect of the fights, the scenes still pack more punch than the battle from SUPERMAN 2 (1981), which too often had an almost Peter Pan-look to its aerial altercations.
More impressive than the bang-boom-bash, however, is the way that the flashback structure (we initially skip Clark’s early years, glimpsing them in bits and pieces later) allows for occasional quiet, dramatic moments that help make sense of the action, providing a clear sense of the formative experiences that have brought the character to the moment when he must finally stand up and bring those past lessons to fruition.
In moments like these, the grounded reality pays off; the action seems a bit more than spectacle – more a test of character on a spectacular level.
Now if only the film had found a way to add this gravitas without allowing the gravity to pull its hero so close to Earth. Superman needs to soar – like a bird, like a plane – breaking not just the law of gravity but also the sense of mundane reality. If you sense something missing in MAN OF STEEL, it is this: a Sense of Wonder.
Update: In the first draft, I neglected to mention that the post-production 3D conversion works very well. The look is almost natural – i.e., not distracting – during the quieter scenes. And of course, it magnifies the impact of the special effects sequences to magnificent proportions.
[rating=3]
On the CFQ Scale of zero to five stars
New Man of Steel PosterMAN OF STEEL (Warner Brothers: June 14, 2013). Produced by Christopher Nolan. Directed by Zack Snyder. Written by David S. Goyer, from a story by Nolan & Goyer, based on characters created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Raged PG-13. Running time: 143 minutes. Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Antje Traue, Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff, Christopher Meloni, Kevin Costner, Ayelet Zurer, Laurence Fishburne.

Man of Steel 58% rotten on tomato-meter

Man of Steel Superman with soldiers
Film critics escort Man of Steel to the "rotten" jail.

Two days ago I noted that MAN OF STEEL had an impressive 84% rating among critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, more reviews have come in, and the rating has plummeted to 58%, moving the film out of the “fresh” category into the “rotten” designation. Statistically, it is not immensely surprising that the early average rating would be somewhat volatile – it takes a while for enough reviews to be averaged together to give a broad consensus – but it is remarkable that almost all of the trend has been in the negative direction, creating a 26% drop in two days.
Perhaps later reviewers have been over-reacting against the early positive reviews. Perhaps more traditional fans of Superman are getting a glimpse of the rebooted version and not liking what they see. Personally, I found MAN OF STEEL to be a mixed bag, but on balance the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. No doubt the film will still be a superhero at the box office, but what initially looked like a triumph that would silence naysayers and skeptics, now seems to be a bit more polarizing.

Jack the Giant Slayer: Review

Jack-the-Giant-Slayer-Poster-439x650There’s no magic in this beanstalk, and viewers foolish enough to spend money on tickets are likely to feel as cheated as Jack when told he’s been swindled out of a horse and cart for a few worthless beans. The root of the problem lies in a fatal uncertainty about exactly what JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is supposed to be: a grim fairy tale, a light-hearted adventured, or an epic LORD OF THE RINGS knock-off. Whatever the intent, with its British flavor and oddball mix of humor and horror applied to a fanciful childhood tale, the film recalls JABBERWOCKY (1977). The misbegotten result would seem to suggest that only Terry Gilliam should direct Terry Gilliam films. (After all, if he couldn’t get it right, why should we expect anyone else to?)
The jumbled screenplay (credited to four different writers) mixes in bits of “Jack the Giant Killer,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and the “King Incognito” plot device (in which a royal personage takes on the guise of a peasant in order to get a street-level view of the kingdom). There is also a love story and a villain plotting to overthrow a kingdom, and needless to say, there is a third-act ogre battle.
If this sounds like more than enough to fill up an entertaining movie, then I am not doing my job, because JACK THE GIANT SLAYER feels empty – of warmth, romance, humor, and most especially wonder. The exposition plods; the jokes fall flat; the adventure stalls; and the love story withers on the … beanstalk, I guess.
Director Bryan Singer is undoubtedly talented, but he does not have the required deft touch for this sort of thing, nor does his frequent collaborator, screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie. The opening prologue is a cut-rate version of THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, telling us what we need to know without making us care. The “clever” cross cutting between Isabelle the Princess and Jack the farm boy foreshadows their eventual union, but the parallels are ridiculously exact and leave the end result in absolutely no doubt, so that the love story feels over before it begins.

Two heads are not better than one for this giant
Two heads are not better than one for this giant

Unable to install a Sense of Wonder into the proceedings, Singer and McQuarrie eventually resort to visceral  shocks. Giants (whose visages are impressively detailed if not cleverly designed or particularly expressive) munch and crunch their victims, both animal and human, which seems a bit daring (though not explicit, thanks to the PG-13 rating), but in the end it amounts to little more than gratuitous titillation, something seen and then forgotten in time for the happy ending.
In a way, this points up the difficult of transferring fairy tales to the screen. The strength of the original lies in its simplicity and in its literary form: terrible things happen – as when, for example, the Big Bad Wolf devours the first two of the Three Little Pigs – but those deaths are abstract and symbolic on the page, a warning that bad behavior leads to bad ends, while the audience identification figure survives by doing the right thing. The characters are archetypal, without distinguishing details to bring them to life in a way that would make them mourn their demise. Children can enjoy these stories without being traumatized, enjoying the thrill of fear and the cathartic satisfaction when their hero triumphs, often by exactly a grizzly retribution on the villain – a safe, simple morality tale that works precisely because there is no gray area to cloud the issue. Movies, which usually at least attempt to create individual characters have it a lot tougher; the visceral impact is stronger, eclipsing the moral point, which in any case is usually not profound enough to warrant being expanded beyond a few pages.
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER certainly has little to say that would suffice to justify the running time. Unless you think it is profound wisdom to opine people of lowly station may aspire to something bigger. Or that a princess should get to know her kingdom. Or that her father shouldn’t marry her off to a scoundrel. Strangely, for all its attempts to build Eleanor up as a strong female lead, her role remains that of a damsel in distress; her appearance in armor is just another form of bling, not indicating that she is actually going to do anything.
Ewan McGregor
Ewan McGregor

But wait, not all is lost. Although romantic leads Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson are undermined by the script insistence on keeping them bland (Hoult made a much better lover when he was a zombie in WARM BODIES), the supporting cast shine through. Ewan McGregor is dashing as the princess guard, Elmont; his confident smile hits just the right tone – almost tongue-in-cheek, but not quite. Ian McShane is an impressive king. Bill Nighy provides an intimidating voice for the lead giant, General Fallon.
Best of all is Stanley Tucci as the scheming Roderick. In fact, he is too good. He makes you hate him so much you want to see him dispatched with – well – dispatch, but if and when that happens, what else has the movie got?
Stanely Tucci steals the giant's throne - and the movie.
Stanely Tucci steals the giant's throne - and the movie.

Well, the film does have that colossal confrontation toward the conclusion, when the giants rain down on humanity like organic meteors. The siege is reasonably well done because it relies not only on visual flair (giants hurling burning trees over the castle walls) but also on at least halfway believable depictions of how a human army might attempt to hold off a horde of giants. Truthfully, a bit more could have been done with this (showcasing – for example – how leverage might be applied by a smaller adversary to topple a larger foe), but at least the screenplay pulls off an interesting variation on “Chekov’s Gun” (you know, the one that’s loaded in the first act and therefore must be fired in the third) – in this case, a leftover magic bean that Jack puts to good use at a crucial moment.
As is almost obligatory these days, JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is being presented in 3D engagements. Although officially not a post-production conversion, the film often looks like one. The early quiet scenes (of our lead characters as children, listening to bedtime stories) do provide a nice sense of depth, as the production design offers a genuine fairy tale ambiance. But once Jack and the Princess grow to young adulthood, and the action-adventure elements take over, Singer opts for camera angles and lens choices that create a resolutely flat look, with only a mild separation between the characters and the backgrounds. In a few cases, when we see human from the POV of giants looking down, the results are noticeably bizarre, with the human form stretched to ridiculous proportions, suggesting Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four.
Nicholas Hoult rides the beanstalk
Nicholas Hoult rides the beanstalk

JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is another sad example of a big-budget movie with all the production value Hollywood can offer (including a fine score by John Ottman) but little in the way of inspiration. If not for the spark of life provided by the cast, the film would be dead as a diver after leaping off the rocky cliffs of the giant’s land in the clouds. In striving to be big in execution, the film feels small in imagination – a fact strangely underlined in Singer’s occasional choice of downward camera angles that lend a diminutive-looking stature to the giants. Taking something meant to be large and making it look small is no great accomplishment. If, instead, Singer had taken Warwick Davis (who shows up in a bit part) and cast him as a giant – now, that would have shown at least a touch of wit.
[rating=2]
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013). Directed by Bryan Singer. Screenplay by Darren Lemke and Christopher McQuarrie and Dan Studney; story by Darren Lemke & David Dobkin. A production by Warner Brothers Pictures, New Line Entertainment, Legendary Pictures. Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Eddie Marsan, Ewen Bremner, Ian McShane, Warwick Davis, Bill Nighy.

Man of Steel in 3D & IMAX June 14

Warner Brothers releases their reboot of the Superman franchise, which has been dormant since the disappointing SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006). Zack Snyder (SUCKER PUNCH) directs from a screenplay by David S. Goyer, from a story developed by Goyer and producer Christopher Nolan, based on the character created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The film offers another origin story, with the young Kal-El being sent to Earth by his father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and growing up with Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) before turning into Superman (Henry Cavill) and confronting his father’s mortal enemy General Zod (Michael Shannon). Also in the cast are Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Christopher Meloni ans Colonel Hardy, and Jadin GOuld as Lana Lang.
U.S. Theatrical Release Date: June 14
Man-of-Steel-logo-300x278

'Dark Knight Rises': TV Spot #3

Here’s the third TV spot for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, this time concentrating on Bruce Wanye (Christian Bale) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).
Also starring Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Click to Enlarge
Click to Enlarge

Directed by Christopher Nolan, from a screenplay by Nolan and Jonathan Nolan (story by David S. Goyer).
In theaters and IMAX July 20th from Warner Brothers Pictures, DC Entertainment and Legendary Pictures.

'Dark Knight Rises' — Trailer 3

“Warner Bros. Pictures’ and Legendary Pictures’ THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is the epic conclusion to filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.
Leading an all-star international cast, Oscar winner Christian Bale (“The Fighter”) again plays the dual role of Bruce Wayne/Batman.
The film also stars Anne Hathaway, as Selina Kyle; Tom Hardy, as Bane; Oscar(R) winner Marion Cotillard (“La Vie en Rose”), as Miranda Tate; and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, as John Blake.
Returning to the main cast, Oscar winner Michael Caine (“The Cider House Rules”) plays Alfred; Gary Oldman is Commissioner Gordon; and Oscar winner Morgan Freeman (“Million Dollar Baby”) reprises the role of Lucius Fox.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES in theaters July 20.”

Certainly a different tone from Marvel’s THE AVENGERS trailers, as the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy approaches its end. Hopefully, there will be some note of triumph mixed into the tragic-appearing final act.