Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Week of Steel​

As usual, I'm late to the party.

Rest assured that whatever I lack in promptness, I'll make up for in grandiosity. What that means is, starting tomorrow, I'll be doing a week long examination of all of Superman's big screen adventures. I'll begin with that guy up there on the far left and work all the way over to the one on the far right.

Oh, just for good measure, we'll even get that girl in here. You know, the one who dresses like him.

Yeah, her.

 

[dell71]

Superman: The Movie
<strong>Directed by Richard Donner.</strong>
<em>1978. Rated PG, 143 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Reeve
Margot Kidder
Gene Hackman
Ned Beatty
Marlon Brando
Jackie Cooper
Glenn Ford
Valerie Perrine
Trevor Howard
Phyllis Thaxter
Marc McClure
Terence Stamp
Sarah Douglas
Jack O’Halloran
Larry Hagman</em>​

Believe it or not, there was a time when studios were reluctant to green-light superhero flicks. So, in 1978, it was a fairly sizable risk putting a ton of money behind Superman and bringing him to the big screen. Fears of the studio bean-counters weren’t exactly quelled by knowing that the titular role was to be played by the then largely unknown Christopher Reeve. He won the role only after Patrick Wayne dropped out due to his legendary father John developing cancer. The list of other actors who either wanted or were approached for the role is lengthy. Strangely, among the guys who wanted the role were Neil Diamond and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those approached include Robert Redford, Paul Newman and Christopher Walken. Nonetheless, with Reeve donning the cape, <em>Superman: The Movie</em> went on to become a smash hit and the first domino to fall on the way to our current state of cinematic domination by men in tights. Granted, this was a slow process, at first, but we’re definitely there.

As the title suggests, we’re treated to a full-blown origin story on the man of steel. We start where such a movie must, during the last days of Krypton, our hero’s home planet. It’s about to explode and Jor-el (Brando) knows it. He puts his infant son, Kal-el, into a spaceship and sends him off to Earth. By the way, before this happens we see Jor-el as part of a council that banishes General Zod (Stamp) and his cronies. What I didn’t understand as a youngster shoveling popcorn into his mouth while sitting in a surprisingly empty theater, was that this is one of the greatest instances of foreshadowing known to man, immediately setting up the plot for the sequel and never mentioning it again. Anyhoo, Kal-el crash lands on Earth and is discovered by the Kent family who take him home to Smallville and name him Clark after figuring out he ain’t from ‘round here. See, our yellow sun, as opposed to Krypton’s red one, gives him the powers that make him super. He eventually grows up, moves to the big city, Metropolis, falls in love with Lois Lane (Kidder) who isn’t exactly in love with him, and winds up trying to stop criminal genius Lex Luthor (Hackman) from committing the grandest real estate scam in the history of land.

Turns out Christopher Reeve was a perfect choice to play Superman. He embodies the character so much he almost literally becomes him. To many of us he is indeed Superman, even thirty plus years later. His Clark Kent is precisely who he should be as a guy trying to hide just how awesome he is. Once the cape is visible, Reeve strikes all the right poses and seems to be being earnest when spouting some of the cornball lines Superman must. The things he stands for are lofty ideals, but that doesn’t stop them from sounding cheesy when said aloud. To say them and make someone else believe you is no easy task. Reeve accomplishes this in the most natural manner.

Our supporting cast is also excellent. Margot Kidder seems an odd choice for the iconic Lois Lane, but she proves to give the once prim and proper reporter a much needed modernization. On the contrary, ancillary characters such as Perry White (Cooper) and Jimmy Olsen (McClure) are wisely left as they’ve been for decades before this film. The same goes for the Kents back in Smallville. Oh, the character he plays is in no way a traditional part of Superman lore and is insignificant in this movie, but look for a cameo by Larry Hagman who was just about to take the world by storm as J.R. on the night-time soap <em>Dallas</em>.

On the bad guy’s side, Gene Hackman is fun as Lex Luthor. Though Hackman gets top billing after Supes himself, it’s Ned Beatty as the bumbling Otis that is the real linchpin of all of Lex’s scenes. It’s a very underrated performance. The two, combined with Valerie Perrine as Miss Teschmacher, are an effective comic trio. The drawback is they might be a little too funny. As a result, Lex is stripped of much of the menace the character has always been endowed with. Instead of a bald, snarling maniac obsessed with the idea of destroying Superman, we get a smug egotist who dresses like Thurston Howell III, wears bad toupees, and behaves not entirely unlike Moe of <em>The Three Stooges.</em>

Back when it came out <em>STM</em> felt really big while you were watching it. This is due to two things: the special fx and the music. In the time that’s passed, many of the fx have aged poorly. Early on there’s a shot of teenage Clark running alongside a speeding train that is just cringe-worthy. However, since it’s something that never happens again we can let it slide. What’s a little harder to forgive is how noticeable it is that nearly every time Superman is flying it’s obviously his image super-imposed over the city skies. Shots of him flying at night, or in space, with nothing other than a black background fare much better. On the other hand, organically created stunts have held up pretty well. This gives the movie a bit of a herky-jerky feel. Enough of the good ones work, but we’re taken out of the movie by some of the things we can’t help but notice.

There are no such issues with the music. It dominates the soundscape and every note of John Williams’ score is appropriately placed. I’m no classical music snob…er…connoisseur, but this is magnificent stuff. Each arrangement, especially the theme song is just flat iconic and still sounds fantastic. Given my limited knowledge in this area, you can take the next sentence with a grain of salt. This is easily one of the best scored films of all-time.

Even with its flaws, including the now legendarily silly climactic scene involving the reversal of time, sorta, we still have tremendous fun watching <em>STM</em>. It uses the franchise’s familiar tropes to become pretty much what we think the origin story for Superman should be. Christopher Reeve’s outstanding performance, and that score, pulls all of the other elements together to make this is a real treat. It is by no means perfect, but it is still a very entertaining watch.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[Senser81]

Please watch, review, and score.

Thanks

 

[Senser81]

More for dell...Do you like Joe Mantegna movies?

 

[dell71]

Please watch, review, and score.

Thanks

Just this video or the whole movie?

More for dell...Do you like Joe Mantegna movies?

Couldn't remember anything he'd done before Criminal Minds (my wife loves that show) so I had to look up his imdb page. Can't say there's much on there that I like (or have even seen).

 

[dell71]

Superman II
<strong>Directed by Richard Lester and Richard Donner.</strong>
<em>1980. Rated PG, 127 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Reeve
Margot Kidder
Gene Hackman
Terence Stamp
Ned Beatty
Jackie Cooper
Sarah Douglas
Jack O’Halloran
Valerie Perrine
Marc McClure
E. G. Marshall</em>​

Finally, Lois Lane (Kidder) figures out that Clark Kent is indeed Superman (Reeve). With this little secret now out in the open, at least between the two of them, they declare their love for one another and live happily ever after. Well, not quite. Clark finds out that to be with Lois, he has to give up his powers and live as one of us mere mortals. Apparently, why isn’t important because he never asks. He just plops his in-love ass in the chamber that zaps him into being a regular dude then promptly hops into bed with his favorite intrepid reporter. There is only one little problem with all this bliss. Our hero soon discovers what we already know: General Zod (Stamp) and his two minions have arrived on Earth with designs on running the joint. In case you’re not familiar with this bit of Superman lore and don’t remember him from his cameo in the first Supes movie, Gen. Zod is an evil SOB that was banished from the planet Krypton for basically the same thing. Here on Earth, of course, he and his subordinates, Ursa (Douglas) and Non (O’Halloran), have the same powers Superman had before he zapped himself. Realizing this normal guy crap literally doesn’t fly, Clark figures out how to get super again and takes on the terrible trio.

In true sequel fashion, the focus is more on action this time around. It is spread throughout as opposed to being back-logged to the film’s latter stages like in its predecessor. It makes this a fun movie. Of course, with all that action comes more reliance on special fx. The problem with this is those fx have aged very poorly. In the first movie, the biggest problem is that Superman doesn’t always look like he’s really flying. Most other things still look decent. Here, flying is still an issue, but multiplied with four characters having the ability of flight. Additionally, Zod and friends wreak lots of havoc, but much of it is too clearly fake. It gives the movie a cheesy look.

Still, archaic technology is not this movie’s biggest problem. I can chalk that up to it being made in 1980, with much of it actually shot in 1977 and 1978 while the first movie was filming. The story takes shortcuts and often throws logic to the wind in favor of hurrying to the next action sequence, or dropping in some comic relief. For instance, Lex (Hackman) and Miss Teschmacher (Perrine) make it to the North Pole from Metropolis in a couple days traveling first by hot air balloon, then on foot. Largely, this is to set up later events, but also so we can get a hearty laugh out of seeing Miss Teschmacher pull a dog sled while Lex yells “Mush!”. I haven’t even mentioned that none of us human folk seem particularly cold when they get there, by the way. These sorts of things go on quite regularly. Unfortunately, Otis (Beatty) only makes a cameo appearance this time around so the laughs don’t go over so well. Even worse, we only get to many of these scenes because someone, usually Lex, intuits something he shouldn’t. I don’t care if he is “the greatest criminal mind of our time.”

Lots of this film’s problems stem from the fact that the director of the first film, Richard Donner was fired before he could finish filming this one. As stated, he had actually shot much of it simultaneously with the first movie. It is generally estimated he completed three quarters of the movie before being dismissed. Reasons for his firing vary depending on who you ask, but one thing that’s often mentioned is the tone of the movie itself. It seems the powers that be wanted to make it a more fun, possibly campy, affair while Donner wanted to take a more serious approach to the material. They brought in Lester who filmed the remainder of the movie, most of it with that lighter approach, slapped the two parts together, and voila! <em>Superman II</em>.

Despite all this, this is still an entertaining watch. The fact that it turned out as well as it did is remarkable. Along the way, we get a number of now iconic scenes. There’s the sequence at Niagara Falls with our hero performing two rescues, one as Superman and one as Clark. There is also the moment Lois realizes for certain that the two men are one and the same. Later, there are Clark’s two fights against a trucker in a diner. The first, a now powerless Clark taking a brutal beating, makes us really feel the extent of his sacrifice for Lois. His first battle with Zod and crew is still epic, aged fx and all, as is the climactic scene with all of the principals at Superman’s home. Finally, there’s the memory wiping “super kiss.” These all work wonderfully and can make us forget, or gloss over, the movie’s weaker points. Okay, the “super kiss” is silly, but you get the idea. Of course, we have another stellar turn by Christopher Reeve in the titular role. And with three of the most memorable words ever spoken by a movie villain, “Kneel before Zod,” Terence Stamp makes himself a legend in Superman annals.

Hmm, the rose colored glasses through which we glimpse the past. I was reminded of this while watching <em>Superman II</em>. I may as well come clean before continuing. When I watched this as a youngster, I thought it surpassed its predecessor in every way imaginable. Its heavier focus on action clearly had a hold of me. I’d seen both movies at least half a dozen times each by the time I was thirteen, plus another half dozen times or so over the next fifteen years. Until this past week, I hadn’t seen either in its entirety in over a decade. And no, I’ve never seen “The Donner Cut” of the film. Nonetheless, I proudly championed this as the best superhero flick of all time until Tim Burton’s <em>Batman</em> came out. Even after all these years, I still felt it was one of the top ten the genre has ever seen. I still enjoy it, but let the truth be told. It just doesn’t hold up as well as its predecessor.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[j.hen]

*cough* *cough*

 

I finally ordered it off of Amazon for $.01 (shipping was 3.99, so $4) Watched it tonight. Worth every penny.

 

[dell71]

^kinda back-logged but I'm getting there. On with the man in blue...

 

[dell71]

Superman III
<strong>Directed by Richard Lester.</strong>
<em>1983. Rated PG, 125 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Reeve
Richard Pryor
Robert Vaughn
Jackie Cooper
Marc McClure
Annette O’Toole
Annie Ross
Pamela Stephenson
Robert Vaughn
Margot Kidder</em>​

Superman ignores a bank robber even though he is already in the vicinity and the guy engages in a shootout with a cop in broad daylight on the streets of Metropolis while strangely oblivious citizens casually go about their business. Our hero does save Miss Ambrosia (Stephenson), this movie’s version of Miss Teschmacher while a blind man triggers a seemingly unending string of “accidental” hijinks and shenanigans merely by stumbling around. This is all part of the bizarre opening scene of <em>Superman III</em>. It’s an exercise in slapstick more fitting of a Marx Brothers movie than America’s favorite boy scout.

Also right at the beginning, we meet Gus (Pryor). He’s really down on his luck. He’s been jobless for thirty-five weeks, thirty-six including this one, and is no longer eligible for unemployment benefits. In a light bulb moment, he decides to go to school to learn computer programming where he learns he has a gift for hacking. On the first job of his new career, he embezzles thousands of dollars through a scheme involving fractions of pennies. Many of you will know, this was famously re-used in the movie <em>Office Space</em>. Little does Gus know that his new boss, Ross Webster (Vaughn) is not only a billionaire, but an international criminal, and is on to him thanks to Gus showing up to work in a flashy sports car. Still, Webster admires Gus’ guts and puts the chap to use in his efforts to rule the world.

As far as Supes goes, his life takes some interesting turns. First, Lois Lane (Kidder), having forgotten everything that happens in <em>Superman II</em>, goes on a much needed vacation and disappears only to return for a few minutes at the end of the movie. Next, Clark goes home to Smallville and connects with Lana Lang (O’Toole). I’ve always wondered what’s with him and all the Ls. Lois Lane. Lana Lang. Lex Luthor. That one time with Linda Lovelace. No? Okay, I made that last one up, but you get the picture. Moving on. We also find out that 99.43% kryptonite doesn’t kill Superman. It just makes him damn cranky.

<em>Superman III</em> is the most uneven watch of the franchise’s movies. While the first two both used silly comic relief from time to time, this installment gets downright vaudevillian. It’s like the filmmakers had the overwhelming fear that audiences wouldn’t be able to cope with the movie’s darker scenes without a pratfall or two to break up the tension. Yes, there are darker scenes. They have to do with that not-quite-kryptonite I mentioned. The climax of this is perhaps the most iconic scene of the series, a physical battle between Superman and Clark Kent. The rest of the plot plays out better than its ever been given credit for. Webster, our stand-in for Lex Luthor has similar delusions of grandeur and uses Lex-like tactics to make his dreams a reality. This includes building Gus a super computer about the size of an office building. It gets a bit silly, okay very silly, but no more than Superman turning back the hands of time.

As for Gus, he’s probably the most polarizing character in the canon. It seems strange that the people behind a title as wholesome as <em>Superman</em> would even entertain the notion of casting Richard Pryor. Apparently, they saw him on a talk show gushing about how great he thought <em>Superman II</em> was and figured it was a great idea to write a role for him in the next sequel. Actually, he isn’t bad. Many of the funnier, and less idiotic moments are his. This excludes the predictable and not very funny skiing gag, but that’s the best looking stunt in the movie so I can let it slide.

Let’s continue speaking about how things look. Though we can occasionally still see the obvious, the special fx are greatly improved over the first two flicks in the franchise. Thankfully, this is most true with regards to our hero flying. It’s not perfect, but done better. Our suspension of disbelief isn’t as tested whenever he takes off. The movie as a whole is helped by the fact that, as always, Christopher Reeve is the quintessential Superman. Like I said earlier, the ending gets really goofy, making it harder to swallow. <em>Superman III</em> is clearly a few notches below its predecessors in terms of quality. While I can’t tell you that this is some gem that you’ve all misunderstood, I don’t find it the desecration of Jor-el’s grave others have.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Supergirl
<strong>Directed by Jeannot Szwarc.</strong>
<em>1984. Rated PG, 138 minutes (Director’s Cut).
Cast:
Helen Slater
Faye Dunaway
Peter O’Toole
Brenda Vaccaro
Peter Cook
Maureen Teefy
Hart Bochner
Marc McClure
Mia Farrow
Simon Ward</em>​

I’ll start this review off with a confession. Supergirl is a character I’ve never really understood. I’m perfectly fine with female superheroes. After all, little girls need super-powered beings to look up to just as much as little boys, however much that might be. My problem is this particular hero shouldn’t exist. Her origin story clearly and deliberately subverts that of the most iconic superhero of all time, Superman. Of course, the good people at DC Comics never consulted me on this when looking for ways to capitalize upon Superman’s success, building his own brand and their comic book empire. Nor did the Salkinds (Ilya and Alexander) approach me when they were looking to do the same theatrically after their trilogy of Superman movies considerably fattened their wallets. So, here we are.

Here is the Kryptonian city of Argo. It was founded by Zaltar, played very strangely by Peter O’Toole, in something called “inner” space after the planet exploded. Huh? See what I mean about destroying Superman’s story? A significant part of his myth is that there are no more like him, save for the evil General Zod and company. Their villainy maintains his uniqueness. He’s someone with absolute power who somehow hasn’t been corrupted absolutely, despite that old saying. This is what makes him worthy of even being called Superman, but I digress. It would be completely unfair to hold any of that against this movie. Keeping that in mind, from here on I’ll stick to what makes this movie good or bad on its own.

The story here is not only that Zaltar founded the city, presumably of Krypton’s only survivors, but that he powers the whole thing with a small metal ball called The Omegahedron. Without it, we’re told the city will only last a couple days. For such an important piece of equipment Zaltar sure is loose with it. He carries it around for frivolous activities such as making random trees because Krypton has none and he seems to like all things Earth. Just so you don’t forget this is a spinoff from the Superman flicks, young Kara (Slater) immediately asks “Earth? Is that where my cousin went?” Okay, fine. What I can’t let slide is that somehow they not only know that we call her cousin Superman, but even that his other name is Clark Kent. Oh great. We’re not even five minutes in and I’m getting a headache.

To worsen my pain, let’s get back to the all-important Omegahedron. After Zaltar is done playing with it, he decides it’s a good idea to let Kara play with it. True, she’s not a little kid, but in the brief time we’ve known her, we surmise she isn’t the smartest Kyrptonian by a long shot. So, of course, shortly after she starts goofing off with it, the thing goes flying out the window and into “outer” space. See what they did there? Here is where it should be mentioned that Zaltar has a ship that seats one and could conceivably chase down their power source. Unfortunately, they’re not sure if anyone could survive the trip. Zaltar offers to take the risk, but the others talk him out of it. It must also be mentioned that even before any of this happened he was talking passionately about leaving Argo. He’s visibly bored with the place. This plus his next statement makes me seriously doubt he’d ever come back if he did go after the thing and find it. He tells his people that since this is all his fault, he should be banished to the Phantom Zone. Something about while their suffering will be short, his will be forever. Woah, woah, woah, wait. If I’m one of the others, he doesn’t get off that easy. We’ll all be dead in a few days while you get to keep living? Nope. Ain’t happening. Z would have to ride this thing out right here with me.

Anyhoo, while the arguing is going on, Kara apparently has nothing better to do than touch and explore everything like a child in a supermarket and winds up climbing into the ship which instantly closes and launches. Why yes, silly, her destination is Earth. Of course that’s where the Omegahedron was headed. In <em>Superman: The Movie</em>, it took little Kal-El about five years to make the journey. Zaltar is obviously an engineering genius, even by Kryptonian standards, because Kara and the ball land here in what seems like an hour or two. Since it hit the ground a few precious moments before her, oddly with no more force than a tennis ball thrown by a toddler, the Omegahedron is picked up by budding sorceress Selena (Dunaway) who scurries off with it to her house after unceremoniously dumping her stuffy boyfriend Nigel (Cook). By the way, her place looks like she definitely did her interior decorating with some form of witchcraft. She shows her new find to, but doesn’t share it, with her BFF Bianca (Vacarro), this movie’s Miss Teschmacher. Sort of. Meanwhile, Kara lands in the lake a few yards from where the ball hit, emerges fully costumed as Supergirl (?), gives her new powers a test drive, and begins the quest to find her city’s power source. Oh, she also enrolls in an all-girls’ college where she coincidentally (not really) becomes roommates and besties with Lucy Lane (Teefy), little sister of Lois.

Speaking of characters from the original franchise, we’re very quickly told that “Superman is on a peace-keeping mission to a galaxy possibly millions of light-years away.” That makes no sense whatsoever, but since they needed a way to let viewers know Christopher Reeve will not be making a cameo as was heavily rumored, I’m cool with it. Unfortunately, Jimmy Olsen (McClure) isn’t so lucky. He shows up as a love interest for Lucy. Who did he piss off to have to be in this flick?

And speaking of love, this is what <em>Supergirl</em> is really all about. That’s right, folks. All the trouble starts because Selena wants a piece of Ethan (Bochner), the young-buck landscaper who works at the college. Being a witch, she casts a love spell on the dude, but through some “super” circumstances created by her, he winds up falling for Linda Lee. Oh, by the way, that’s our hero’s alter-ego. Since she’s naturally a blond, her disguise is basically going brunette. Better than glasses? Maybe. Well, we spend most of the movie watching Selena try to abduct the boy-toy and kill Linda, only to be repeatedly thwarted by Supergirl. After way too long, she figures out the two are indeed one and the same. Eventually, Selena does gain some measure of victory. Only then, fairly late in the movie, does she decide that ‘hey, this Omegahedthingamajig might actually help me take over the world.’ Yawn.

The movie, much like this review, goes on for far too long and idiotic and/or unexplainable thing keep happening. Like I said before, our hero isn’t the brightest, so even her rescues don’t always utilize logic. This makes her a great match for Ethan since he’s as dumb as a box of Kryptonite. Still, after barely being able to string two words together, he’s suddenly reciting poetry off the top of his head (much of it rhyming) once he’s struck with the love potion. Later, the good people of Midvale are out in force protesting Selena’s rule. They hadn’t even heard of her five minutes before. And excuse me, but for the main villain in a superhero flick, she’s awfully shallow. She’s more sad than menacing. It’s like some cougar got sick of striking out on her quest for a young stud and went mad. To her credit, Faye Dunaway gives it her <em>Mommie Dearest</em> best, but she doesn’t have much to work with. Similarly, Brenda Vaccaro gives us plenty of husky voiced attitude, a compliment by the way, but what for? What does she get out of it if Selena is successful? Now that I think about the possibilities, I’d rather you not answer. Still, it’s all too much ado about nothing.

Conversely, our heroine struggles to hold our attention. While Dunaway is able to create a fun role out of the rubble of her character, Helen Slater takes the blank slate she’s given and gives us precisely that. She looks okay flying around, and not completely terrible, just mostly, during the action sequences. However, there doesn’t seem to be anything behind those pretty eyes of hers. She’s almost perpetually in a catatonic stare-down of whomever, or whatever, is in front of her.

Back to that flying around, for a moment. Supergirl in the air and most of the special fx have actually held up pretty well, compared to even <em>Superman III</em>, released just the year before. It’s the one area where I say this is easily on par with the rest of the franchise, to that point. Mind you, this isn’t nearly enough to recommend it, but a nice surprise nonetheless. If you do see it, do so to witness the massive amounts of scenery chewed by a very game Faye Dunaway. Or to see Peter O’Toole turn in what is probably the strangest performance of his career. Or maybe just to satisfy your own morbid curiosity, if you’ve never seen it. Just don’t go in thinking it will be any good.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
<strong>Directed by Sidney J. Furie.</strong>
<em>1987. Rated PG, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Reeve
Margot Kidder
Gene Hackman
Mariel Hemingway
Jon Cryer
Jackie Cooper
Marc McClure
Sam Wanamaker
Mark Pillow
Robert Beatty
Jim Broadbent</em>​

Knowing when to say when is an important quality in life. We all struggle with it from time to time. For me, it’s often whether or not to watch one more movie before heading off to bed. After all, this one is only ninety minutes long. And I don’t feel tired. And I promised myself I’d rewatch the entire catalog of Superman’s cinematic live-action, feature-length films. Press play.

For Warner Bros., its caped star, and his cast mates, drunk off the riches of three box office hits, the all-important question was whether or not to make said movie, a fourth Superman. Pushing away is often impossible for slovens, particularly when the behavior in which they’re engaging seems to be bringing them happiness in the form of millions of dollars.Thus, we have <em>Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.</em>

During the 1980s, the arms race between the United States and Russia was a huge deal. Seemingly every night, there was talk of newer, better nuclear missiles and defense systems that both sides were working on and/or stockpiling. With the Cold War raging, many felt full-scale combat was near and would include those missiles. The end of the world felt imminent. Our fears showed up in films such as <em>The Day After</em> (made-for-TV), and none other than the fourth chapter in the saga of Krypton’s favorite son.

If it feels like I’ve been stalling, it’s because I have. However, since this a review, I guess I’m obligated to actually talk about the movie. Here goes nothing. Sigh.

Superman (Reeve) is going about his normal day-saving routine. His employers at his side-job, The Daily Planet, are hemmoraghing money and the paper is being taken over by media mogul David Warfield (Wanamaker). His daughter, Lacy (Hemingway), is smitten with Clark. Despite repeated warnings from Lois (Kidder) that she isn’t Clark’s type, she press on trying to seduce him in the most PG manner possible. Meanwhile, Supes’ arch-enemy Lex Luthor (Hackman) busts out of prison, yet again. This time, he does so with the help of his nephew Lenny, played by future <em>Two and a Half Men</em> star Jon Cryer. Sadly, Otis and Miss Teschmacher are nowhere to be found. Anyhoo, Lex gets back to the business of figuring out how to kill Superman. Finally, the world grows disenchanted with our hero when a little boy asks him to rid the world of nuclear weapons and he doesn’t respond.

Rest assured, after some soulful contemplation because, you know, he’s not supposed to interfere with human affairs even though that’s exactly what he always does, Superman decides that he will indeed remove every nuclear weapon from Planet Earth. He simply gathers them all up in a gigantic net, flies them out to space and hurls them into the sun. The end. I wish. By the way, for some strange reason, after he’s made a public announcement at the U.N. and has already started getting rid of them, everyone keeps testing missiles, including the United States, and are surprised when he snatches them up. Really?

Anyhoo, what our hero doesn’t know is that hidden in one of these missiles is a test-tube baby Lex created by using the DNA he extracted from a strand of Superman’s hair which he stole from a museum using a not-so-heavy duty cutting tool. I wouldn’t feel the need to mention that if this strand wasn’t literally holding up a 1,000 pound weight by itself. Well, once this missile reaches its destination, the sun incubates it and spits back a fully grown and costumed Neanderthal Lex christens Nuclear Man (Pillow). Of course, Lex is sure his bouncing baby boy will destroy Superman, once and for all.

If you can’t already tell, or don’t already know, what’s happened so far and what’s to come are both stupid as all get out. The story, which star Christopher Reeve helped write, is beyond heavy-handed, the jokes are unfunny and the dialog is way worse than terrible. For the most part, Lex just regurgitates everything he said in the first two movies (he’s not in <em>Superman III</em>), but to much lesser effect. Nuclear Man quite literally behaves like a caveman, but not in any enjoyable sense whatsoever. His fights with the Man of Steel are lame. And just wait til you get a hold of his weakness. The most interesting scene in the entire movie is watching our hero try to pull a double-date with Lacy dating Clark while Lois interviews Superman in the next room. They could’ve just made a corny rom-com completely out of that premise and had a better movie.

Still, all of these flaws could be forgiven, or at least concealed, if the action is well handled. Unfortunately, it is not. Everything is cheap looking. Somehow, flying sequences here, in a 1987 movie, look worse than they did in the 1978 film. This is especially sad because there’s a lot of flying with Supes guiding all those missiles way from Earth one at a time. Plus, Nuclear Man flies. As mentioned, their fights with one another are less than thrilling. Predictably, one of them involves a damsel in distress. In this case, it’s Lacy. Flying in face of all logic and science, bad pun intended, this includes Nuclear Man taking her into outer space without so much as a helmet. And she’s perfectly fine. This can’t be serious, can it? Maybe, just maybe, the filmmakers have outwitted us all and weren’t actually making a genuine attempt at a Superman flick. Maybe they went all-out spoof and the joke is on us, though I seriously doubt it.

Dear reader, I’m not of the popular opinion that <em>Superman III</em> was a total abomination. Even though I find it somewhat enjoyable, I fully understand it pales in comparison to the two movies before it. However, it is a movie that practically had to be made. </em>Superman II</em> was a huge success that many feel is better than its predecessor. The world clamored for more. If nothing else, it’s promised to us at the end of Part II. Part III made money but was widely loathed. Therefore, Part IV didn’t have to be.

<strong>MY SCORE: 0/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Superman Returns
<strong>Directed by Bryan Singer.</strong>
<em>2006. Rated PG-13, 154 minutes.
Cast:
Brandon Routh
Kate Bosworth
Kevin Spacey
James Marsden
Parker Posey
Frank Langella
Sam Huntington
Eva Marie Saint
Marlon Brando
Tristan Lake Leabu
Kal Penn</em>​

After all these years, scientists here on Earth aren’t so sure that the planet Krypton actually exploded. In fact, they think they’ve found it. Of course, this is all Superman (Routh) needs to hear for him to immediately hop on a ship and try to go there. After being gone for five years, he returns to find we mere mortals appear to be getting along just fine without him. Even Lois Lane (Bosworth) seems to have moved on. She’s now engaged to rich guy Richard (Marsden), has a child and won a Pulitzer Prize for penning the article “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Ouch. Don’t fret, the world does indeed need the Man of Steel. Someone has to deal with Lex Luthor’s latest real estate scam now that he’s made parole, largely due to the guy in the cape not making to any court dates or hearings on account of him being in deep space searching for a planet that isn’t there.

Before moving on, there are a couple of important things to note about <em>Superman Returns</em> starting with its relation to the rest of the series. <em>Superman IV: The Quest for Peace</em> was something much worse than dreadful and, thus, the franchise killer. <em>Superman III</em> is also widely loathed. Therefore, <em>Returns</em> posits itself as a direct sequel to <em>Superman II</em>, completely ignoring those other movies.

<em>Returns</em> made plenty of money, but in the time since its release, how it is regarded as a film is becoming increasingly negative. Revisiting it for the first time in a few years myself, I maintain it does some things very well. First and foremost, for me, is Kevin Spacey’s portrayal of Lex Luthor. In my opinion, his is the best live-action version of the character. The way Spacey plays Lex is the way I envision him when I recall my youthful and sporadic reading of the comics. Second is the special fx. Most of the time, it looks right. Granted, this is largely a by-product of it being made almost twenty years after the previous installment, but the technological advancements are put to good use. This is most noticeable during our hero’s rescue of a falling plane. It’s a spectacularly rendered sequence that puts the plane rescue in the 1978 movie to shame.

Yes, there are problems. The biggest seems to be that it is overly reverent of that ’78 flick. This movie is nothing, if not a two and a half hour love letter to <em>Superman: The Movie.</em> Many of the scenes in <em>Returns</em> are simply things ripped from the original and re-purposed to fit this narrative. Superman crash lands on Earth, in Smallville, that plane rescue, the romantic flight with Lois, etc. Even Lex’s scheme is basically the same. The difference being he’s using kryptonite instead of nuclear warheads.

Ah, kryptonite. Since it’s become woven into the fabric of our great country that anyone’s weakness is referred to as their kryptonite, I’ll not explain it, even for those of you who have somehow never watched anything Superman. Oh wait, I actually did explain it. Moving on. The point is, the way it’s handled here doesn’t make any sense. Throughout the character’s history, whenever the substance is anywhere near our hero he becomes pretty helpless. Here, how it affects him is rather inconsistent. In short, the way he saves the day seems to be impossible. Even for Superman.

Finally, there’s the movie’s heavy-handedness. It’s long been know that the story of Superman parallels that of Jesus Christ. For viewers who weren’t aware of this, <em>Returns</em> hammers the point home repeatedly. The movie is saturated with biblical and other mythological references. Often, this is in the form of dialogue with lots of talk about saviors, Jor-El sending us his only begotten son, and a direct reference to him as a god. Other times, it’s our hero listening to everyone’s thoughts and prayers. This, along with how this movie views its predecessors makes this film’s adoration of its protagonist transparent. It’s so much so, it practically begs us to worship at the altar of Superman. By itself, that’s a tough pill to swallow. It’s even tougher when all of this is juxtaposed with the baby-daddy/jilted lover subplot. Yeah, our savior is a bit creepy, this time around. He pines over Lois so much, he hangs outside her window spying on her and her family. It’s rather off-putting. That he still carries the torch for her is not the issue. It’s that he’s so whiny about it, and a little weird, too.

That said, I don’t have the problem with the actor that plays the role many seem to. I thought Brandon Routh was perfectly fine. He’s got a spooky resemblance to Christopher Reeve and his Clark Kent is spot-on with the way Supes’ alter-ego has been cinematically represented. I think the way Superman is written fails Routh horribly, though. The same is essentially true for Lois Lane. Bosworth’s performance in the role isn’t necessarily bad. It actually isn’t bad at all. Unfortunately, she’s hard to reconcile with what type of woman we think Lois is. I understand that as a mother and soon-to-be wife her motivations and ambitions may change, but drastically altering such an iconic figure is risky. In this case, the risk doesn’t pay off.

What does all this mean? It means <em>Superman Returns</em> is an uneven watch. It’s not particularly good, nor particularly bad. Moments of greatness are too frequently followed by something that makes you roll your eyes. It romanticizes the main character to the nth degree, but the changes that are made grate against our own notions of who Superman is. All of this makes it occasionally frustrating and easy to bash. I feel some of the bashing is warranted, some is not.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Man of Steel
<strong>Directed by Zack Snyder.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 143 minutes.
Cast:
Henry Cavill
Amy Adams
Michael Shannon
Russell Crowe
Kevin Costner
Diane Lane
Harry Lennix
Richard Schiff
Laurence Fishburne
Antje Traue
Ayelet Zurer</em>​

As if there were any doubt this was going to be an origin story, <em>Man of Steel</em> begins with the birth of our hero during the last days of existence for the planet Krypton. A bunch of stuff happens, including the banishment of General Zod (Shannon) and his troops for attempting a coup in order to do what he deems necessary to save his world. Instead, Krypton goes boom and Jor-El’s (Crowe) bouncing baby boy crash lands in Smallville. A little over three decades later, the boy’s past catches up with him in the form of a very angry Gen. Zod and crew. The total annihilation of the Smallville IHOP, the Smallville Sears, and pretty much all of Metropolis ensues.

Despite us being told otherwise for a couple years, <em>MoS</em> does indeed try to do for Superman (Cavill) what Christopher Nolan (here, a producer) does for Batman. It attempts to dive deeper into his psyche than ever before while dropping him into as real a world as possible. It even apes that franchise’s dead serious tone. In fact, it’s almost completely devoid of humor. The Clark Kent we’re given, before becoming Superman, is a morose lost soul quite literally drifting through life. It just so happens that incredibly tragic events tend to unfold in his presence. He, of course, is compelled to save lives.

This all sounds fine and plays out in an interesting manner. The problem is it subverts three quarters of a century’s worth of Superman lore with something that doesn’t always seem as if it has been thoroughly thought through. The most egregious of these is the relationship between our hero and Lois Lane (Adams). Within fifteen minutes of Clark, and us, meeting her for the first time all of the charm and mystery of one of the most iconic love affairs in American pop culture history is flushed down the drain. In short, she knows everything we know. This robs us of them meeting and building the dynamics of their complicated romance. Mostly, that means we don’t get to see her being enthralled by Superman, but not Clark, while our hero struggles with whether or not to reveal his secret to her. Within the context of this movie, what they have works okay, but doesn’t seem to bode well for the future installments that are almost sure to come. To be fair, Lois herself is well-presented as a relentless investigative reporter and Amy Adams plays the role quite nicely. For me, her best work since <em>The Fighter</em>, a couple years ago.

There are some problems with Superman himself. More specifically, his relationship with his Earthly father Jonathan Kent (Costner) doesn’t always make sense. Jonathan is presented as the great philosophical force in Clark’s life. Unfortunately, his advice is generally for Clark to not do anything, ever, regardless of the situation. Just don’t. Costner gives us his best wise old sage performance, but circumstances render everything that flies out of his mouth pure rubbish. None of his “advice” works out too well for either as what eventually happens comes across as wholly preventable, stupid and failing to teach the great lesson it seems the filmmakers intended.

There’s also the nagging issue of human beings reaction to our hero. Almost no one is ever in awe of him despite him doing things they know to be impossible. For instance, there is a scene where a bunch of military personnel are sent to retrieve Superman for a meeting with Zod. None of them had ever seen him before and had no idea what he’s capable of. Still, when they first lay eyes on him and he’s suspended in mid-air they react much like he’s a waiter at that Smallville IHOP refilling their drinks. Why should we, the viewers, be amazed by him when it’s clear that no one on the screen is. The exception to this are a Smallville classmate and his mom. The boy witnessed a young Clark push a school bus out a lake, saving dozens of lives including his. The mom is convinced that this was an act of God.

Ah yes, God. It’s long been known, and I’ve even written as much, that the story of Superman mirrors that of Jesus Christ. Here, that aspect is played up quite a bit, in ways that are sometimes subtle, others times not. His conception is different from anyone else’s on his planet, he is sent to our world by his father, receives guidance from his father’s ghost, and is thirty-three years old when he comes into his own. Not so subtly, we’re told, more than once, his abilities make him a God to us and he is rather fond of striking a pose similar that of Christ on the cross. Then there’s all that mumbo jumbo about where the genetic code of every future Kryptonian is hidden. Surely, a way to remake a world in his image. That said, the religious subtext doesn’t overwhelm the movie like it does <em>Superman Returns</em>.

Never fear, good citizen. I know I’ve spent a lot of time pointing out the negatives, but there really are some good things about <em>MoS</em>. For starters, not all changes to our hero’s accepted history are bad. How Clark discovers the truth about himself and gets his costume are both nice additions to the canon. The latter works particularly well. It makes much more sense than having him, or Martha Kent (Lane) design it and lends it some much needed practicality. After all, can anything created from Earth’s fabrics be able to withstand all he goes through without being bulky and immobilizing? Maybe, but cost would be prohibitive. After all, he’s not some billionaire from Gotham City.

Something else that works is the one thing that clearly marks this as a Zack Snyder movie. That’s the visuals. It simply looks great. Our hero flying around is fantastically rendered as are his many feats of strength. The same goes for Zod and the other Kyrptonians. Additionally, no matter how massive the destruction they cause, it all looks pretty real. This includes falling skyscrapers and vehicles haphazardly thrown about.

Making use of all that technology, we get an action-packed final act. By the way, it’s an act that completely consumes the last third of the film giving us plenty of bang for our buck. As mentioned, Metropolis gets torn up pretty good. By that point, the plot just about disappears. Since it is a bit wobbly it’s a welcome change. We’re left with only the simplest part of the story: the hero fighting the villain.

This villain is also a plus for the movie. In <em>Superman II</em>, Gen. Zod wants to take over everything merely for the sake of it. He wants nothing more than fame and glory. Here, he as a much bigger purpose and an unlimited reservoir of conviction. Thus, it is not really his goal that makes him the bad guy, but the means he’s willing to use in achieving it. Shannon aptly conveys this, helping to save the movie from falling prey to its own shortcomings. What I say next may seem blasphemous to some of you, but I like this version of the character better than Terence Stamp’s legendary portrayal. True, I don’t think he exactly says “Kneel before Zod,” but I guess you can’t have everything.

<em>MoS</em> is a movie that has to deal with expectations more than any superhero movie since, ironically, <em>Superman Returns</em>, with the possible exception of <em>The Avengers</em>. After all, the mythos of Superman is fairly common knowledge and as close to American history as a fictional character can get. Therefore, even the least critical viewer might be upset when you start dicking around with the story, let alone what the die-hard fanboys might think. For that reason, I think it might be a tad too ambitious for many. At least with <em>Batman Begins</em>, Christopher Nolan had a little known area of his protagonist’s life to explore. No such dark corridor exists for Superman, in terms of his origin. People just want the story mostly how they know it and a good villain for our hero to square off against. We get a very good villain, but not always a good story. I don’t think this is a great film, but I certainly don’t think it’s bad, either. I’d say it’s slightly better than <em>Superman Returns</em>, but not up to the level of the first Christopher Reeve flick.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[Senser81]

Just this video or the whole movie?

Either

 

[dell71]

Either

Trying to get a hold of the movie because I heard this heavily inspired "The Car."

 

[dell71]

Rise of the Guardians
<strong>Directed by Peter Ramsey.</strong>
<em>Rated PG, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Pine
Alec Baldwin
Hugh Jackman
Jude Law
Isla Fisher
Dakota Goyo
Khamani Griffin
Jacob Bertrand
Kamil McFadden
Olivia Mattingly
Dominique Grund</em>​

Turns out there really is a slew of mythological beings collectively known as the Guardians watching over our children. As we learn very early on, in this movie if not in real life, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman are all indeed real. They’ve all been on their jobs since the end of the Dark Ages when they brought hope to the world, overthrowing the rule of the Pitch Back, AKA The Boogeyman (Law). Now, the bad guy is back to reclaim the world. On the advice of The Man in the Moon, The Guardians go outside of their ranks and turn to the reckless and mischievous Jack Frost (Pine) to help them stave off Pitch.

We immediately notice that the design of each character, with the possible exception of the Tooth Fairy, is a bit off from what we’re expecting. This is actually a stroke of genius that adds depth and personality to iconically mysterious figures. It brings them a bit closer to us, enough for us to identify with, as much as that’s possible. As intended, the one we relate to most is Jack. Far more than any of the others, he’s one of us. He’s unsure of himself and longs for attention and approval. That said, the Easter Bunny might be the most fun. He’s wary of Jack, downright dislikes him and lets it be known. Hugh Jackman has a great time voicing the character and it shows.

Character designs not withstanding, the movie has an interesting overall look. It seems to sit somewhere between full-blown CGI and traditional animation. This works nicely. Even better is the contrast between the bright, cheery colors surrounding our heroes and the gray pallet that adorns the villain. It reinforces the notion of good against evil.

Speaking of evil, it’s the bad guy that really makes the movie work. Jude Law is simply amazing. His methodical cadence is symbolic of Pitch’s carefully measured actions. Most of the time he’s also unsettlingly calm. To boot, he exudes confidence that he will be victorious, making him a very formidable foe.

On the surface, things boil down to that good guys/bad guy stuff. That aspect alone is fun, but there’s more to it than that. It plays on our childhood hopes and fears to create both excitement and dread. On an even deeper level, it’s possible to see the entire plot as a test of faith and what happens if we don’t have it. No, this doesn’t get preachy and it’s not an advertisement for any religion. However, the theme is present. More than any of this, it’s just plain fun to watch.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Intouchables
<strong>Directed by Olivier Nakache.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
François Cluzet
Omar Sy
Audrey Fleurot
Clotilde Mollet
Anne Le Ny
Alba Gaïa Kraghede Bellugi
Cyril Mendy
Christian Ameri
Marie-Laure Descoureaux
Absa Dialou Toure
Salimata Kamate</em>​

We follow the adventures of Philippe (Cluzet) and Driss (Sy). Philippe is a wealthy quadriplegic with a rebellious teenage daughter and an attentive and devoted staff. Driss, has applied for the job of being his live-in healthcare assistant despite not having any experience in the field whatsoever. Fresh out of jail, he just wants to get proof he’s actually searching for a job so he can receive unemployment benefits. When the two men meet they have a conversation that intrigues Philippe who decides to hire Driss despite his obvious shortcomings and a plethora of more qualified applicants. They become bestest buds through some trials and tribulations, mostly due to differences in social class. Based on a true story.

For the most part, <em>The Intouchables</em> is a charming movie. We enjoy watching this relationship develop between two guys from opposite ends of the universe. Their influence on one another is interesting and there is humor all along the way. There is also no denying that Sy has serious presence and dominates the screen as Driss. His smile lights it up and it doesn’t feel false when his character switches into angry mode. He never seems to have an unsure moment. It’s truly an infectious performance. As Philippe, Cluzet’s work is no less commendable. He emotes perfectly with just his face and endows the character with a perfect vulnerability. Quite the opposite of Driss, Philippe is a man filled with insecurities and one who has not had a friend in quite some time.

While the bromance aspect of our story works wonderfully, the movie struggles with Elisa (Bellugi), Philippe’s daughter. There is much fuss made about her, but the little bit of screen-time she gets doesn’t justify it. For example, there is a scene where Driss goes on a rant to Philippe about how she must be disciplined. Of course, this happens after he has a bit of run-in with her. He makes it seem, and others agree, as if she has chronic behavior problems. Nothing to this point establishes this so it doesn’t hold as much weight as seems to be intended. She’s barely seen, before or after this event and feels very much on the fringes of her father’s life. Members of the staff fare much better as Driss makes numerous sexual advances on Magalie (Fleurot), to no avail, and develops a kinship with Yvonne (Le Ny).

Similarly to Elisa, Driss’ own family exists only on the very edges of the plot. They’re only a device to show growth in him, but only does so in regards to his allegiance to Philippe. The one situation where he helps them out is something he probably would’ve done regardless of his own circumstances. This is merely a symptom of the the bigger problem. If you’ve been following me, you may know that I’m sensitive (overly?) to the use of the Magical Negro. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, I’ll explain. A Magical Negro is a black character with special powers who is only present in a story to use these abilities to benefit the white protagonist. Often, but not always, this involves sacrificing oneself for the well-being of his white friend. If you’re still not sure, think about the main (only?) black characters in <em>The Legend of Bagger Vance, The Green Mile</em>, or any one of a number of movies starring Morgan Freeman - <em>The Shawshank Redemption, Driving Miss Daisy, The Bucket List</em>, etc. Even in the most well-meaning of pictures this reeks of tokenism and, worse, a longing for the good old days of servitude. The Magical Negro is generally an American phenomenon, but is certainly present in this French production. Driss fits the definition to a tee. His special ability is getting Philippe to enjoy life. No matter how much anyone else cares for Philippe, they simply cannot get him to be anything other than the rich invalid they cater to.

That this is based on a true story makes it easier to swallow. That is, until the end when we see the actual people who inspired the movie. The caregiver does not appear to be black. I’m not against a person of one race playing a person traditionally thought to be of another so long as we’re talking works of pure fiction and race is not intrinsic to the character’s story. To use an extreme example to illustrate my point, Jamie Foxx will play a traditionally white villain in <em>The Amazing Spider-Man 2</em>. I’ve no problem with this because the person he plays is only white because he was drawn that way many moons ago. Nothing about him suggests he has to be white. However, that same actor could not switch his role in <em>Django Unchained</em> with that of the slave-owner portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio. In other words, a person who more resembles the real life person may have provided us with the same cinematic experience without the racial undertones.

Then again, maybe not. Sy’s performance is so wonderful, I’m not sure another actor could replicate his magnetism and wring the same joy out of us. This is my dilemma. Emphasis on the word ‘my’. It’s possible I’m reading too much into it, looking at it from too American a viewpoint. Besides, there have been a number of good movies guilty of the same offense, a few of them great. Again, <em>Shawshank</em> immediately leaps to mind. That said, punctuated by my lengthy and overdue exhalation, <em>The Intouchables</em> is warm, funny, and despite its title, touching.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[Senser81]

Trying to get a hold of the movie because I heard this heavily inspired "The Car."

Try harder.

 

[dell71]

American Reunion
<strong>Directed by Jon Hurwitz.</strong>
<em>2012. Unrated Version, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Biggs
Alyson Hannigan
Seann William Scott
Eugene Levy
Chris Klein
Thomas Ian Nicholas
Eddie Kaye Thomas
Ali Cobrin
Mena Suvari
Tara Reid
John Cho
Jennifer Coolidge
Dania Ramirez
Natasha Lyonne
Katrina Bowden
Shannon Elizabeth
Neil Patrick Harris</em>​

After two less successful sequels, and way too many straight-to-DVD spin-offs, the gang from the original <em>American Pie</em> is back. Steeped in raunch, fueled by a handful of classic scenes, and coining a term that’s spawned thousands of websites I don’t want my kids knowing about, that film instantly took its place in the pantheon of teen sex romps. This time, it seems the entire school missed their ten-year high school reunion and are getting together for their thirteenth.

Jim (Biggs) and Michelle (Hannigan) are still married and have a little baby boy, but no sex life. Oz (Klein) is a TV host on a sports show and has a free spirited model for a girlfriend. Kevin (Nicholas) is married to someone we don’t know and the movie doesn't really care about except for the fact that she doesn't make the trip. Finch (Thomas) is a globe-trotting adventurer who makes his way back to town for the special event. Stifler (Scott) is still Stifler and still living with his mom (Coolidge).

Among the various subplots that spring up, the most prominent involves Jim’s former next door neighbor Kara (Cobrin) whom he used to babysit. She’s turning eighteen this weekend and has the hots for him. You can decide for yourself whether she’s important to the movie because she actually poses a real threat to Jim’s marriage or because she spends a considerable amount of screen-time topless. That’s followed closely by Jim’s dad (Levy) trying to get back into the dating game now that his wife has passed. As for the other guys, old flames show up: Heather (Suvari) for Oz and Vicky (Reid) for Kevin. In all cases, things play out just as expected.

In a nutshell, that things proceed with so little in the way of surprises is this movie’s biggest problem. There’s nothing we don’t see coming, including ninety percent of the gags. A good portion of them are rehashes from the original, or recaps to make sure we remember what happened in that first movie. For instance, we’re shown Jim’s famous video taping scene several times. With so many telegraphed blows thrown, it’s no wonder our funny bone manages to dodge a high volume of them.

Occasionally, there are laughs. Most of them are due to Eugene Levy and that lovable awkwardness he always brings. For me, he is by far the funniest person in the whole series. It seems the movie itself, and really the entire franchise, wants it to be Stifler. I usually put him behind Jim, but I’ll give him second this time. He does give us the one truly unpredictable scene we have. It involves revenge on some young punks and not even his buddies know what he’s up to. Throughout the movie, he behaves so outlandishly as to scarcely seem human, but this forces to laugh on a couple of occasions.

The final act plays out somewhat strangely. I feel I have to reiterate that this has nothing to do with where all the narrative strands end up which is precisely where we thought they would. Nor does it have anything to do with the film using this time to give a cameo to seemingly every person who had a part in the original. That’s also to be expected. In fact, we wonder why they’re all back-logged like they are. What’s odd is it’s handling of these people. A number of them walk onto the screen and immediately announce their sexuality. They stroll over to one of our main characters who recognizes them and asks how they've been. They then respond with something like “I've been good and, oh, I’m gay now.” Who does this? Let’s forget about the fact that none of these people were gay before and concentrate on how they present themselves. Is the movie trying to be politically correct, or is it making some grand statement in support of gay right? Or, is it making fun of homosexuals? Either of the first two would be preferable to what it feels like which is the latter. If that’s the case, the movie even does a poor job of this. It seems to point a finger at them and laugh simply because they are gay and without having them do anything that could possibly make us laugh. The one possible exception being how uncomfortable Stifler’s Lacrosse buddies make him. Other times it comes across as if it’s a punch-line, but without the rest of the joke. As evidence, whenever a character makes their declaration there’s a pause in the dialogue like a public speaker might employ when they expect applause or laughter. This inspires neither.

Then there’s the even more bizarre reunion of John Cho’s character and his buddy from the first movie. It is their exchange from that original that gave us the term MILF. Here, when the two see each other, they repeat only that word to one another what feels like dozens of times during a tearful embrace. Again, what’s the joke? Are we merely supposed to crack up because they say this word? Or, is it because, as is heavily implied, they’re getting back together after breaking up their homosexual relationship? Or, is it simply the franchise patting itself on the back for birthing, or at least naming a sub-genre of porn. Maybe it’s all of those things. I dunno. In any event, it isn't funny.

The bottom line is that <em>American Reunion</em> is a middling comedy, at best, that doesn't always let us in on the jokes. The ones they do aren’t always funny. Occasionally, they are but not nearly enough to call this a good movie. Much like Stifler, it’s desperately clinging to its glorious past and fails to really recognize the changing of times, therefore stunting its own growth.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[Buzzman]

I have to agree that Jude Law in Rise of the Guardians is one of the mot impressive voice work I've seen in a cartoon.