Superman and.....Moses?

Thanks to a rainy morning in Washington D.C., my wife and I decided to skip the National Zoo and stay inside.  We decided instead to take a quick trip to nearby Georgetown and do what many people do on a rainy day…..go to a movie.   We’ve been wanting to see “Man of Steel” (MOS) anyhow, so this was a good opportunity to do so.

When I first started seeing the previews for MOS a few months ago, I was a little disappointed to see that the makers of the movie decided to do an “origin of” version, something that was done in the prior two Superman movie productions (1978 with Christopher Reeve and 2006 with Brandon Routh).  I guess every few years we need to be reminded how Superman came about.

This origin story was the best, however, and it was definitely worth watching again even though I already knew the story.  The plot actually closely mirrored that of Christopher Reeve’s “Superman I”, with a bit of his “Superman II” sequel thrown in for good measure.  Reeve’s “Superman I” told the story of the birth of Kal-El (i.e. Superman) on Krypton, and the measures his parent’s Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van take to ensure his safety from their dying planet, which involves sending their infant son to a safe planet earth where he is discovered and raised by earthling parents.  MOS basically tells the same story, but takes it a step further by including the story of General Zod, the villain who was in Reeve’s ““Superman II”.   

The first 25 minutes dedicated to the origin story was intense, action-packed, and riveting.   Russell Crowe in particular was at his best as Kal-El’s father.  The ole race-against-time-to-get-their son launched-into-space-before-their-world-blows-up-or-someone-stops-them scenario, though obvious, was well done, and possibly the best part of the entire movie. 

Once on earth, the story immediately fast forwards to the now-named Clark Kent in his 20’s working on a crab boat, ala the popular TV show “The Deadliest Catch”.  The writers definitely borrowed some of the fisherman “lingo” and even mimicked some of the personalities on the show, which made me snicker since I watch the show.  Clark Kent’s youth is retold in numerous flash backs that are triggered by several traumatic incidents.  The flash backs combined with these incidents help draw a picture of who the real Clark Kent is.  A particularly nice touch was how both of his fathers (a spiritual Russell Crowe and the earthly Kevin Costner) encourage Clark on how he can help and benefit the human race, but not until they are ready for it.  This requires much restraint from Clark, both as a youth when being bullied, and as a young adult (SPOILER ALERT!) when he chooses to refrain from using his “super” powers in public to save his father’s (Costner) life so not to be prematurely exposed and potentially cause even greater havoc and possible panic. A true sacrifice and a pretty moving scene.  I must intervene with a comment though.  Not to sound insensitive, but, considering the situation he was in, I don’t think I would have done what Costner did for someone elses dog. That’s all I’ll say. You’ll have to see the movie to understand what I mean! Regardless, this was an angle not really addressed in prior Superman movies, and one that was particularly effective.

The movie continues with the predictable re-emerging of and ultimately even more predictable final confrontation between Superman and General Zod (although in the latter, I wasn’t always sure if the goal was to defeat each other, or see how much of the city they could destroy).  And that brings me to the negative part of my blog:  too many CGI effects!   The second half of the movie consisted heavily on fighting and the battle between Superman and the US military vs. General Zod and his gang. Action is good, but, in my opinion, when the CGI graphics get extensive, the action begins to look even more fake than it is.  Then it starts to get old.  And that’s why I didn’t enjoy the second half of the movie as much as the first.   Not to say that there weren’t some good things happening during the latter half of the movie.  In particular, it was interesting seeing the struggle Clark Kent had to deal with when he became Superman.  After being taught all of his life to be peaceful and restrained, Kent is forced to be the complete opposite as Superman, which isn’t easy for him. And he had to learn that the hard way several times throughout the movie.  Again, this was another interesting spin on Superman that wasn’t really addressed in the prior Superman movies.

As far as the acting goes, Russell Crowe was vintage Crowe as Jor-El, as mentioned earlier. Costner and Diane Lane were very good as Clark’s earthly parents.  Amy Adams (does she remind anyone else of Nicole Kidman?) was good as Lois Lane. Speaking of which, I really liked the Kent/Lane relationship in this version.  It wasn't all lovey/dovey like in past Superman movies, but a relationship built more on respect.  I'm sure that'll change if there's a sequel, but it was the right approach in this film. Lawrence Fishburne, a terrific actor in many movies, was an interesting choice for Daily Bugle editor Perry White.  In the comics and past movies, White is shown as the hyper, nervous, screaming type.   Fishburne’s portrayal is completely opposite.  And sorry original Superman fans, but there is no Jimmy Olsen in this version. Maybe he'll pop up in a sequel. Playing General Zod was Michael Shannon, an actor I must admit I wasn’t previously familiar with.  Although I thought he was very effective in the role and played a formidable bad guy, his face reminded me of a younger version of David Letterman/Garrison Keillor combined.  I couldn’t always get past that!  But that’s just me.  One thing I did like about this portrayal of General Zod that wasn’t done in “Superman II”, was how they went a little deeper and explained what his motivations were….a deep loyalty to his people and near dead planet. He admits a couple of times in the movie that his friendship with Jor-El made some of his actions particularly difficult.  Not that we sympathized with him, but we at least understood him.  In “Superman II”, General Zod was basically a one-dimensional bad guy who liked to do bad things for the sole reason of world domination.  

Oh, I almost forgot Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman!  Again, he's an actor I wasn't familiar with but did a very good job in a very risky, visible role.  I thought he was particularly good as Clark Kent.  And I’m sure the ladies won’t be/weren’t disappointed.  A couple of shirtless, full-body camera pans early on were obviously included specifically to snag their attention. I have to say that when he first became Superman and was fine-tuning his flying abilities, the CGI shown of him flying erratically in the distance reminded me of a scene in 1939’s “Wizard of Oz” when the Wicked Witch was flying above the citizen’s of Oz spelling out her warning to Dorothy with her smoking broomstick as her black cape is flapping around. Again, that’s me.

As I wrap up this blog, I have to mention an aspect of the movie that was particularly interesting.  Before seeing the movie, I had heard from a few people that there were some religious overtones presented throughout the story. And while watching the movie, I definitely noted some subtle references. Some were on screen, but most in the dialog itself. I won’t go into great detail, as I don’t want to give much away, but some examples include an apparent reference to Moses (Superman is from one race who, in order for him to survive, had to give him up to be raised by members of another race; he has to come to grips with his own heritage just as Moses did); the disclosure from Superman that he was “33 years old”, which is widely believed to be the age of Jesus when His earthly ministry was at its peak (and the age he was crucified).  And Jor-El’s spiritual appearances, particularly one where he confronts and helps Lois Lane, were very “Holy Spirit" like (follow me, listen to me, trust me).  The musical score even at times sounded “spiritual”, at least to me. 

As a result, after seeing the movie, I decided to do a little research on the screenwriter, David S. Goyer.  Goyer, I discovered, was raised Jewish (as were the original creators of Superman back in the 1930’s). In a recent interview, Goyer stated that prior to writing the screenplay for MOS, “I read the Old Testament again, especially the book of Exodus and the story of Moses”.  In another interesting quote from the same interview, he also stated that “Superman has always struck me as a combination of Old Testament and New Testament; he’s a sort of fusion between these two figures, both Moses and Christ.” So there you have it….Superman himself was inspired by the Bible!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “3”, particularly for the first half of the movie, and the very final scene, which provided a nice lead-in to the sequel.

San Francisco and the Starship Enterprise.....

SPOILER ALERT! You probably won't want to read the following until you see the movie!  Some plots critical to the storyline of the movie will be revealed and could affect your movie-going experience!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To boldly go where no man has gone before...." is the well known motto of the USS Starship Enterprise and it's crew of space explorers.  In the new "Star Trek Into Darkness", the second prequel to the popular 1960's TV show, the writers instead decided to tackle some very familiar territory.  And in quite a unique way.

Taken partly from Star Trek's 1967 episode "Space Seed" and mostly from 1982's "The Wrath of Khan", the writers chose to explore the origins of perhaps Captain Kirk's greatest adversary, Khan Noonien Singh. Khan was one of a group of genetically engineered "supermen", bred to be superior to man in every mental and physical capacity. Khan had been the most successful of the group, ruling western Asia until he was deposed and put into a "cyro sleep" (with his crew of 72) before being discovered some 300 years later by Kirk and crew. What happens next depends on whether you believe the TV show or the movie.

Set some 20 years before the TV series, "Star Trek Into Darkness" again focuses on the earlier days of Captain James T. Kirk and his popular crew of Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu and Scotty. Not to give too much away, but Kirk and Khan are thrust together and lock horns as a result of a vengeful act committed by the latter. Or was it a vengeful act?  That's actually one of the writing highlights of the movie, as we really don't know what Khan's motives are.  Revenge or self-fulfilling?  Feel sorry for him or root against him?  We're really not sure.

This battle continues throughout the movie with many nice twists and turns included that keep us guessing. Some blatantly obvious references and parallels to "The Wrath of Khan" are shown, and although I'm sure some people thought them cheesy, rolled their eyes, or snickered when seeing them, I actually thought they were done well and a nice touch overall. And as expected, there is frequent non-stop action and special effects out the kazoo, with the Dr. McCoy and Scotty characters providing the occasional but much needed comic relief.

The movie concludes with Khan and his crew being put into "cyro sleep" tubes, which is where the TV episode picks up the story some 20 years later.  To refresh my memory, I watched the 1967 "Space Seed" again prior to writing this. Inconsistencies between the two are inevitable, but there are some that really stood out.  First and foremost, when Kirk and company first confront Khan in the TV episode, it is very clear that they had never met him before (unless the crew of the Enterprise suffered from some sort of space amnesia which we're not aware of). Also, Khan is described as being Indian and from India. Ok, Ricardo Montalbán (actor who played the original Khan) is certainly not Indian, but Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor portraying Khan in the movie is a blonde Englishman....not even close!  Finally the 20+ years Khan was "asleep" seemed to have zapped him of much of his powers. In the movie, he was quite the fighting machine. In the TV show, although stronger than an ordinary human, he didn't have anywhere near the physical abilities he had in the movie. These inconsistencies, and a few others, however, didn't take much away from my enjoyment of the movie.  It was thoroughly entertaining and lots of fun.

The writing was fabulous, as I mentioned earlier, and the acting spot on.  The makers of this film and it's 2009 predecessor did a terrific job casting the roles of a younger Kirk, Spock, etc.  As a fan of the original TV show, I was initially a little skeptical that this could pulled off. But it was. In fact, I'd love to see Zachary Quinto, who plays Mr. Spock in the movie, get some real attention during award season early next year.  He took a big risk by agreeing to portray an icon TV character, and he's really nailed it. Spock is a complex character, and I don't know how many other actors could have pulled it off the way he has. He was good in the 2009 Star Trek movie, but really excelled here.

Speaking of Spock, there is one storyline in this movie that was introduced in the prior movie I don't really care for, and that's his relationship with Commander Uhura.  Never really made sense to me. There is no inkling at all of a past relationship between the two in the TV show.  Plus I don't get the attraction.  I suspect that the writers (or movie execs) insisted on some sort of love interest plot be included. Most movies seem to include one these days, whether they have anything to do with the story or not. So why not Star Trek as well?

As an added treat for us bay area folks, the majority of the non-space scenes in the movie take place in San Francisco, somewhere in the 23rd century. You'll be glad to know that the Golden Gate Bridge is still around! So if you've ever wondered what San Francisco is going to look like 200 years from now, or had the desire to witness a space craft crash into the San Francisco Bay, you'll get your chance here.

In conclusion, the movie did have some storyline contradictions with the original "Khan" story, and there were certainly a few "check in your brain" moments, i.e. Chekov holding on to Kirk AND Scotty with one arm as the two dangle perilously off a bridge. And yes, some of the high tech, futuristic gadgets used by this Enterprise crew are not only more sophisticated than the ones used some 20 years later, they no longer seem to even exist 20 years later.  And I still don't get how the current Spock is able to channel in to the future Spock. But despite all of that, I found the movie very well made and particularly enjoyable. My favorite 2013 summer movie so far.

If you haven't seen "Star Trek Into Darkness" but plan to, I'd HIGHLY recommend watching the original 1967 Star Trek episode "Space Seed" and the 1982 Star Trek movie "The Wrath of Khan" first. And if you have seen the movie but neither the TV episode or 1982 movie, definitely try to watch them (both are on Netflix instant streaming and Amazon Prime). You'll appreciate and enjoy "Star Trek Into Darkness" more if you do.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a 3.5. Worth the price of a full ticket, but try and see it at a matinee if you can.

Iron Man vs........the zombies?

Seems like a lot of movies these days are attempting to find a reason to include zombies into their plot, and unfortunately Iron Man 3 is no exception.  But first the good news.....

Contrary to the first two Iron Man movies, Iron Man 3 seemed to have more Tony Stark screen time than that of Iron Man. But since that means more Robert Downey Jr., it's definitely not a bad thing.  Downey Jr, in my opinion, has always been the best thing about the Iron Man movies, and getting to watch him do his thing even more in this sequel was probably the best thing about the movie.Not only do we get large doses of the expected Tony Stark humor, but we also get to see more of the real Tony Stark.  From his passion for Pepper Potts to his compassion towards a young boy, we get to experience full spectrum of what makes Tony Stark tick.  There is even a time in the movie where Stark is forced to use his brains over his brawn, which was a particularly nice touch by the screenwriters.

The story wasn't bad (with one exception...keep reading!) and kept you guessing though out most of it. The special effects were some of the best ever put on screen. And there were plenty of them.  And not all involving Iron Man. One of the new gimmicks in the movie was the evolution of an army of computerized Iron Men.  There were so many that at times it was difficult to identify the real Iron Man. Another gimmick was the development of an Iron Man suit that could be summoned remotely.  As a result, anyone who knew how to summon the suit could literally become Iron Man (evidently the Iron Man suit isn't that difficult to master).  And, because of this technology, we were briefly introduced to the first occurrence of "Iron Woman'.  You'll have to watch the movie to see what I mean!

The acting to me was only adequate. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle were fine in reprising their roles as Potts and Colonel James Rhodes. But that's pretty much all they did.  Didn't particularly care for Guy Pearce as the villainous Aldrich Killian. Too much pretty boy, not enough sinister.

And that brings me to the Mandarin.

Portrayed by Academy Award-winner Ben Kingsley,  the Mandarin had been advertised via previews as the primarily villain in the movie. And although partly true, the Mandarin ended up being a huge disappointment for me. And in more ways than one.  Although the character had a promising start in the movie, and potentially could have become one of the most memorable villains in silver screen history thanks to Kingsley's protrayal, that all changed about half way through the film.  As much as I'd like to say why, I won't so not spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it.  But it's suffice to say that the Mandarin in this movie isn't close to the original Mandarin that was introduced as a notable villain in a 1964 comic book. A Mongolian nobleman in the comics, the Mandarin was a genius scientist/tactician and gifted strategist who possessed superhuman martial arts skills in a addition to possessing energy blasting rings.  The only similarity to this Mandarin and the one portrayed in Iron Man 3 was physical, thanks to the the make up job of Kingsley.  And with that, I'm not going to say any more except that I nearly fell out of my seat when the storyline of the Mandarin took an abrupt turn!

Another disappointment were the other villains of the movie....the zombie-like creatures I mentioned in the opening paragraph, who were unfortunate of victims of an unsuccessful medical experiment conducted by the aforementioned Killian.  Although not technically zombies, these characters were obviously designed after them, likely due to their (somewhat disturbing) popularity in movies in recent years with younger audiences.  Unfortunately, I no longer fall into the "younger audience" category anymore, so they pretty much bored me.

In a nutshell, the movie was particularly entertaining if you like Robert Downey Jr. The action and visuals will definitely hold your attention, which is more than I can say for bad guys in the movie, who, like I said, were primarily aimed more toward the teen and 20-something group.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a 2.5 for Downey Jr. and the special effects and action (although I wouldn't pay much more to see it in 3D).  Outside of that, it would definitely be worth a trip to your nearest Red Box.