Stuff by Steve

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The second installment of the recent “Pirates of the Caribbean” series of feature films. This week: Government corruption targets Will and Elizabeth right before their wedding ceremony and the mythical lord-of-the-sea Davy Jones tracks down Jack Sparrow to settle some old business.

The thing I like the most about the recent “Pirates” series is the style; it seems to perfectly blend the enchantment of Disney’s Magic Kingdom attraction with big-budget Hollywood production values. A large part of that is owed to Johnny Depp who, with his rendition of the quirky pirate Jack Sparrow, singlehandedly provides the heart of the “Pirates” mythos on the screen. So much so, in fact, that they have added animatronic likenesses of Depp (pretty convincing ones, too) to the “Pirates” ride in Disneyland (et al). I find this amusing, considering that Orlando Bloom is allegedly the hunk. Anyway, style alone cannot hold a movie together. That is unfortunate, since this movie really needed something to hold it together. I found the whole thing to be just a bit too… much. Too over-the-top, too many bad guys, too many close calls, too many love triangles, and too many cliffhangers. Regarding the latter point, the ending is of the infuriating “to-be-continued” variety, where all of a sudden the credits roll and leave a great many questions unanswered. Be advised to prepare yourself for that empty, unresolved feeling, followed right after by treacherous thoughts for whomever put the release date of the next movie in May 2007. As for love triangles, I found it odd that the writers chose the course they did in this matter (I’ll leave out the details to spare the people who like surprises). I understand the need for sexual tension - every good movie about swashbuckling scoundrels needs a healthy dose of it (I call it the “Han Solo Rule”). And with Will and Elizabeth finally together, the original love interest is neatly tied up. So, what to do? They went the wrong way, in my opinion; it just seemed implausible. But what do I know about the heart of a woman? Having said all of that, almost everything else about this movie was a joy to watch. The characters were interesting enough and the computer-generated creatures were very believable. I found Davy Jones to be a bit on the un-evil side, though, probably due to his lisp. I just can’t take a guy (er, cephalopod) seriously who flutters his lips and slurs his “S” sounds. The Kraken, on the other hand, was quite fearsome, and I look forward to more undersea terror in the summer (Oooh, I just thought of a great idea for a monster movie!). Speaking of perils, the writers did a great job of coming up with unique and intriguing predicaments for the main characters. The story kept my attention throughout, and it was involved enough that I had to watch it a few times to catch everything. Some plot twists seemed a bit inexplicable, but I am giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that these loose ends will be tied up in the next movie. Overall, this was an enjoyable adventure romp and a more-or-less worthy sequel to boot (ha ha). I liked it enough to buy the DVD at full price, and it ended up being my favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:

Superman Returns
X-Men: The Last Stand

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The Superman mythos is revisited with a new movie that loosely ties into the early ’80s versions. This week: Superman returns from a visit to the remains of his home planet, only to find that things have changed between him and Lois Lane. One thing that hasn’t changed: Lex Luthor is still an egomaniacal butt-munch.

Plans for this movie go back years. I think it all started when the casting director for “Superman” discovered Christopher Reeve in 1977. They said, “We’ll never find anyone who looks more like Superman than this guy. Let’s clone him!” Thus, 28 years later, Brendan Routh gets the part, since he looks exactly like Christopher Reeve. It’s creepy. Seriously, this movie has a bit of a story behind it, starting with how Nicholas Cage was once considered for the part (dodged a speeding bullet there, if you ask me) and ending with how Warner Bros. called up director Bryan Singer and asked him to ditch X-Men in favour of what is probably North America’s best known popular legend. I bet he didn’t think twice. And so, with the first two X-Men movies under his belt, Mr. Singer proceeded to weave a masterpiece. Almost. Maybe it was nerves, maybe it was corporate pressure, or maybe he just liked it this way, but I felt that he missed the mark in his portrayal of “The Man of Steel.” I know many will disagree, especially since the production values in the movie were so high. Cinematically, everything was tight. The sweeping camera shots were all perfectly done, giving a sense of awe to Superman as he soared over the earth. In fact, this is the first time that I can say that I felt that someone was flying around in a blue-and-red suit, and they just happened to catch it on film. Every time Superman took off, it was a breathtaking moment. The plot was fine, as well, although pretty standard fare. And both Brendan Routh and Kevin Spacey were spot-on (although, in deference to the more important gripes I have, I will not mention how much I had to repress my gag reflex whenever Kate Bosworth came on scene - whoops, too late). What was my beef, you ask? It came down to who Superman was as a person. As with most superhero movies these days, Superman was portrayed as having a human side. This is all well and good, as the internal struggles of one who should have no worldly problems are superb dramatic fuel. However, Superman is the ultimate boy scout, and introducing the potential of an illegitimate child just rubbed me the wrong way. Call me provincial, but the one character that should have no hint of a moral flaw is Superman. Plus, it was super-cheesy (ha ha). I have long believed that the addition of cute kids to an adult storyline is a sign of desperation to appeal to an audience when you suspect that your regular material may not do the job. There might be something there, too, since there was no chemistry between Superman and Lois Lane, and the much needed comedy afforded by Clark Kent’s bumbling was nowhere to be seen (to be clear, he bumbled, but it just wasn’t very funny). I enjoyed the movie overall, but that angelic-chorus moment was missing where I should have felt that this was the best movie ever. I’d like to see it again, perhaps to discover that my opinion has mellowed somewhat, but for now it ended up being my least favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
X-Men: The Last Stand

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The third installment of the recent X-Men series of feature films. This week: trouble brews as Magneto continues his campaign against humans, but the X-Men have bigger problems as Jean Gray mysteriously reappears, not quite herself.

X-Men has been a fine series of films, with the second movie breaking the sequel stereotype and surpassing the first in quality and depth. This third movie is easily the worst of the lot, but in the same way that orange creme chocolates aren’t as good as hazelnut centres or coffee cremes. I still like them, but they aren’t my favourite. The truth is, it could have been much, much worse. See, Bryan Singer, the writer/director of the first two movies, was sitting in his cabana one day reading his mail. He thought to himself, “Let’s see here, we’ve got a pre-pre-pre-production overview of the new X-Men movie script. I’ll have to give that a look-see later while getting my knee-cap massage from my incredibly well-paid house staff… Wait a minute, what’s this? A letter from Warner Bros.? They want me to direct Superman Returns?!!?” At this point he cancelled his knee-cap massage, called every single one of his production staff from the first two X-Men movies, and moved down the block to the WB studio backlot. The new director did a good job, but you could tell that the magic was gone. The movie didn’t seem to have the same charm or wit, and the pacing and plausibility started edging into “Batman and Robin” territory. I liked that the story was more serious than the last two (kind of an “Empire Strikes Back” thing, I suppose), but while it should have been psychologically disturbing, it was far more disturbing that it played out like an old light-hearted episode of “The A-Team.” I mean, a lot of people died in this film, including one or two principle characters, and everyone else who remained alive seemed to shrug it all off like they had discovered their milk had just expired but-you-know-they-were-on-their-way-to-the-store-anyway. Maybe the problem was the dialogue, which was almost non-existent; it was an action film through and through, and as such it rarely paused for any much-needed introspection. There were many high points, however. I was pleasantly surprised with how well Kelsey Grammer portrayed Beast. Things could have gone either way on that one, and it really worked out for the better. We were introduced to several new mutants, although far too little time was spent on anyone for there to be any real character development. The special effects were incredible, and for maybe the first time I felt that the “powers” of these super-heroes and super-villains were tangibly portrayed. I think the best part of the movie was in the form of the ethical questions it raised surrounding the mutant “cure” that formed the baseline for the story. If you chose, you could let your mind delve into the issues that were presented, and make any comparisons to real-life ethical debates that permeate our culture today. This alone created the most value in the movie, in my opinion. Otherwise, it was just an okay action flick with pretty people and Kelsey Grammer in it, and my second favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Superman Returns

Synopsis: A professional assassin discovers that even he can feel burned-out and befriends a middle-class businessman in the process.

From the synopsis above, you’d think that I watched “The Whole 9 Yards.” Oh, if it were only so. There were so many things that I enjoyed about this movie and so many things that I found completely appalling. As with “9 Yards,” the premise is prime fodder for a dark-ish comedy about the troubles of a hit man who learns that he is past his peak. The thing is, pulling off a dark comedy requires a deft, subtle hand that understands the sensitivity of the audience and also knows how to write smart slapstick. “Matador” was a haphazard affair that, while sometimes funny (and I admit that it was sometimes funny), kept foisting unwieldy amounts of low-brow jokes on the audience like a salesman pushing the high-commission products. Still, the film had some good ideas; it really tried to develop some depth to its characters, and in many ways did a good job. But to truly accomplish this task, it required a backdrop a lot less absurd and disturbing. I appreciated the introspective interplay between the two main characters - it was genuinely moving to see their friendship develop - but I couldn’t appreciate it as fully as I wanted due to the constant desire to jump in the shower to wash the icky feeling off. And this was the main problem. I understand that foul language (and other forms of obscenity) can add levity to a situation when used deftly. When scene after scene of cursing and Pierce Brosnan boinking start pouring out of the screen and all over my good time, I get cranky. Keeping it light and, dare I say, innocent is what makes depressing subject matter work for laughs, and this movie was neither light nor innocent.