Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Man of Steel (2013) - FilmReview

Article author: Alwyn Ash


Following a classic is the hardest task of all...

In 1978 director Richard Donner gave us the ultimate Superman experience, a perfect delivery of action and adventure, science fiction and character-led emotion. Cast in the role as Kal-El, aka Superman/Clark kent, Christopher Reeve delivered a unique performance, a part that would make him a household name and a hero to children all over the world. There was a haunting quality about Krypton, its inhabitants, and the way in which the world's end came about. The casting was superb, with names like Marlon Brando, Susannah York, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman attached to a feature film that would forever remain in the hearts of all Superman fans.

Sadly, 35 years later and Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) produces a typical modern-day mess of a reimagining, where CGI overwhelms a story that could have been far more subtle and rewarding, and action that explodes far too carelessly and not in keeping with what Superman represents. Just how can the Man of Steel fight his enemies so deliberately and with such destruction that the well-being of the innocent is overlooked? Superman should want to protect the people of Earth and yet it is he who causes more carnage than should be allowed - Reeve's Man of Steel would always have been the first to protect a single individual than risk destruction on a greater level. And yet, even though it isn't shown, just how many might have died because of Henry Cavill's quest for justice?








As with many later Hollywood offerings, Man of Steel relies too much on special effects and little anything else, far less interested in storytelling on a deep personal level and leaning more towards those teachings at the George Lucas school. One cannot help but see Krypton as a set piece from one of the Star Wars prequels, with scenes that could have been cut down and simplified, instead allowing for better development of a world close to its final days, its people desperate but accepting of their fate. There was a strange beauty with Donner's imagining of this world, however Snyder's attempt simply leaves this reviewer waiting impatiently for Krypton to end so that the remainder of the film can be told. And that, sadly, is another problem...

Man of Steel is too inconsistent, with not enough attention paid to developing young Clark's life with his new parents. Yes, we are introduced to moments in his life, but the overall flavour leaves a sour taste. Although most of us know his life story by heart, Man of Steel should have been an epic tale of discovery and growth, a boy learning of his unusual gifts and developing them, guided by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). But there is a shift, and we see an older Clark involved in a dramatic oil rig rescue - yes, as Clark, not Superman!

Even his relationship with Lois Lane (played by Amy Adams) is rushed and clearly not given time to develop. Underdeveloped characters is a major issue with this feature, no time spent to really get to know anyone or care about them. Overall the casting is good, with Cavill an excellent choice for Superman. But where is the true essence and heart of this comic book character tale? It is simply no where to be found!

One of the delights of the 1978 vision had been the Fortress of Solitude, a gigantic crystalline structure and Superman's Krypton home on Earth, in the Arctic. This was the moment when Clark, via "memory crystals", would learn more about himself, his origins, and his purpose. The interactive holographic "ghosts" of his parents and other members of the Kryptonian race visually impressive. So sad, then, that Man of Steel 2013 fails to resurrect that same magic, instead producing a less visually-pleasing representation of a dead Jor-El (Russell Crowe) as Superman's guide. It was as if Zack Snyder's imagination had been banished to the Phantom Zone (prison dimension).

Final criticism lies with the fight sequences between Superman, General Zod (Michael Shannon) and Sub-Commander Faora (Antje Traue), many of which are overblown and too drawn-out; why do some Hollywood movies look like they have been integrated with computer games these days? Again, there are ways to develop action without overuse of CGI...

Whether a sequel to Superman Returns (2006) would have been the better option, who knows? But Man of Steel serves as just another Hollywood menu of CGI and action that compromises both plot and characterisation.



Sunday, November 25, 2012

The Amazing Spider-man - FilmReview

Article author: Alwyn Ash


Director spins a Webb that surpasses previous installments...

If you felt that James Vanderbilt's story of the famous Marvel Comics character had come too soon after Sam Raimi's trilogy then you are not alone. I, too, had been deeply concerned by the reboot tag. Why a reboot and not a sequel? However, my viewpoint has changed somewhat after watching Andrew Garfield in action as teenager Peter Parker/Spider-man. Though Tobey Maguire's performance set a benchmark for the webbed superhero - I had always been a fan of Nicholas Hammond, and The Amazing Spider-Man television series which ran for two seasons from 1977-79 - in film, Garfield's handling of the role has gained him far more points in my opinion. And although the chemistry between Maquire and Kirsten Dunst as high school crush Mary Jane Watson was a delight to watch, there is no doubting the far superior chemistry between Garfield and co-star Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.

And so to the plot: this is probably where I feel a "reboot" wasn't particularly necessary. Except for the look into Peter Parker's history, and his parents, the spider bite is still there, obviously, and the teenager's realisation that he has undergone a DNA "change". However, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) and his Lizard alter-ego could have sat quite easily in a Spider-Man 4 feature.







The special effects are simply superb, though the Lizard doesn't really make much of an impact as a super-villain. I guess full credit for this movie must be given to Garfield, who's character is seen as a geek, bullied and never truly fitting in. The death sequence of Uncle Ben (played here by Martin Sheen) is beautifully and painfully told, as is Peter's relationship with his Aunt May (Sally Field) throughout the film. There is warmth and positive direction in a feature that could have gone so badly wrong. The decision to reboot was explained too, with director Marc Webb decribing this new outing by saying "we're not making Sam's movie again. It's a different universe and a different story with different characters."

At the heart of the tale we have a boy learning to become a man while at the same time coming to terms with his new abilities. And, as with previous stories in this franchise, his love for the girl who catches his eye, in this case high school classmate Stacy. The Amazing Spider-man does feel more grounded than Raimi's vision, though perhaps its conclusion fails to satisy completely.

I have always stated that I am no comic book fan, and so these cinematic productions are my main glimpse into the worlds of Marvel and DC Comics. Perhaps fans will have felt more excitement by the Lizard's inclusion - Dr Curtis "Curt" Connors had featured in Raimi's Spider-man (in brief mention only), Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3, and had been played by actor Dylan Baker, though there was no transformation into his alter-ego - but for this reviewer there was something lacking in the villain role this time around.

I have to pay tribute to James Horner's score for the film, which was simply wonderful throughout and embraced the emotional string just that little bit tighter.

The simple question is, does The Amazing Spider-man stand up boldly and proudly next to the success that was Batman Begins or sit in shame with Superman Returns? With a sequel already coming our way, the former is likely. Though how long this franchise can be sustained with Garfield in the lead role is unknown.