Man of Steel review (2013, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Zack Snyder)

 

A long-needed, by some measures, reboot on a hero that has outlasted time itself. The seminal, archetypal comic-book superhero has been graced, and disgraced, by film many times before this outing. Superman has seen his ups & downs on film, with the 1970's original holding up all these years while the disastrous third & fourth entries, not to mention the criminally boring "Returns" take in '06, have held him back for the crowds. 

We've got Clark Kent/Superman meeting up with Lois Lane, presumably before he's even landed a job at her newspaper, to deal with an incoming party of fellow Kryptonians. They're suggestively hostile from the get-go and Superman is forced to put himself front & center, as he usually is, to try and keep humanity safe. However, General Zod & friends mean to restore their homeworld (also Clark's) by any means necessary, even if it means that billions die. Clark, like the Transformers of Michael Bay's on-screen creation, chooses humanity over his own and battles them to save the world. The implications really do seem high on paper, but they aren't when you are made to watch over two hours of film. 

So, storyline aside, how does this film hold up?

Well, it's not the best, nor the worst, screen adaptation of the world's most famous superhero. It's really quite a mediocre film, in spite of the good intentions that were obviously put into its conception. Production values are the highest the franchise has ever seen, and the action sequences raise the bar for comic book films quite frankly. But, and this is a weakness I've always felt plagued the man in blue in all mediums, the story is lacking. The characters, the plot, and the narrative don't hold up to the technical aspects, as well as when the film is having so much fun. 

Since we're talking about a character of enormous, pretty much godlike abilities, his roster often sees him pitted against often similar foes. Thus, it must follow that the action should mesmerize viewers. What few action sequences there actually are in this overlong, two and a half hour jumble of lens flares and conspicuous high-definition trickery, are quite impressive to behold. With entire buildings being smashed like sandcastles, automobiles and even locomotives being flung like playthings, gravel and dirt being pulverized by the sheer brute force of the Kryptonians; it's hard not to have a "gay" old time when these sequences bless the screen.

Everything else, though, holds it back.

Just about anybody who is anybody knows about Superman, and really all that matters about him. He's THE superhero, he swears not to kill his foes (especially humankind), he manages to fool everybody with the most obvious disguise ever conceived, he's practically a god with his exaggerated strength & durability and all that, he bears a weakness to a rock, and Christopher Reeve is practically synonymous with the character. So growing him in this film not only ends up falling flat, but is kind of unnecessary given its approach. It's also kind of odd that at the get-go, he reveals his abilities to many people (albeit ones in grave danger) and seemingly no one recognizes him. But I digress, because no other character even warranted the same amount of depth, or attempt at such anyway.

Another problem I have with the film are the flashback sequences. They are the sole reason the film is overlong, and gets quite tedious. Each one fails to add substance to the plot, or add character to Superman and others whom we were theoretically supposed to care about. They really could have been omitted entirely, and nothing of value would have been lost. Who were they trying to kid with these? Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, pretty much everybody knows about Superman, so why fixate so much on his past and the growth in his mastery over his natural Kryptonian abilities?  After all, the mixed bag that was Smallville provided all that these flashbacks portray just fine. Anyway, if you watch the film, you can safely skip them and you won't be confused by the milquetoast plot.

Like the plot, the soundtrack, which in a great film would elevate the experience, accomplishes nothing out of the ordinary. It's your typical series of forced "Boom, BOOM, BOOOOOM!!!" notes to suggest, almost beg, you to feel something according to the wishes of the designers. It didn't work with me. How the hell a nearly forty year-old film accomplishes a more memorable soundtrack, whereas this film, in spite of its sheer production value ended up with a run-of-the-mill Hans Zimmer-esque one, is beyond me.

The acting doesn't quite bode well, either. Henry Cavill is the lead, and as a result of his performance here with very few high notes (his emotional reaction after a pivotal death scene in the film is one of them), he is expendable. Amy Adams is Lois Lane, and in spite of her cheery screen presence, the romance plot between the two doesn't build logically. Kevin Costner played Superman's adoptive father a bit too stoically for my tastes, but Diane Lane does fine as a hard-as-nails & protective adoptive mother. The folks who play the Kryptonians are alright, but only two of them really have an actual identity of sorts, and then there's Chris Meloni who was a surprisingly decent Colonel Hardy who even stood up to direct confrontation with one of them -- twice!

One last thing to point out is the excess of run-time. The film lasts, before the credits roll, for roughly two hours and ten minutes, and it is overlong. This feeling sets in fairly quickly, truth be told, considering that most of the "plot" consists of flashbacks and another re-tread of Superman's origins. It's rather jarring when the film seemingly shifts gears to introduce an actual crisis about halfway through its duration, because it's almost as if this was an admission from the filmmakers that this film would set audiences asleep with all of its filler had they not bothered with the Kryptonians at all. So at least it's definitely not a Superman Returns.

It's still a film mostly filled with fluff, with very few (but effective) thrills. There's way too many unnecessary elements at play to recommend it, as I would personally urge viewers to skip to the halfway point of the film. You, as a viewer, lose nothing in doing so because the writing is so poor that you miss nothing important. We all know about what happened to Krypton; we all know that Clark ended up with a farming family who helped mentor & shelter him from the world; we all know that he falls in love with Lois Lane; and most of all, we know that he's fucking Superman! You don't have to waste roughly half of the film explaining all of this, especially when it amounts to nothing but rehashing. I guess that's how it boils down. Next up: Batman v Superman, maintaining the rather uncharismatic Cavill and introducing the tonedeaf acting hijinks of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader.

C-

The Good:
+ High production value ensures some pretty sights
+ Nerdgasm inducing fight sequences

The Bad:
- Henry Cavill is boring in the role of Superman
- Way too long, and wastes too much time on unnecessary origin stories
- The flashbacks. God damn it.
- Superman kills somebody, when he had so many other options to consider instead. He's supposed to be highly-intelligent as well, Zack Snyder!
- The fight sequences end, and are succeeded each time with the boring plot.
- Borderline non-existent plot, as indicated above. 
- Nothing memorable about the soundtrack.

The Amazing Spider-Man review (2012, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Marc Webb, Columbia Pictures)

 

Sam Raimi's reign of terror ended with the flop that was Spider-Man 3, and I'm all the more grateful for it. 'Twas an overrated series of films, with the flaws of the entire series culminating in one grand display in the final, abhorrent installment. I was hoping that in the future, someone would give the web-head a more deserving film treatment than the Evil Dead director gave us (not to slag off on that series of films at all). For the most part, I felt that The Amazing Spider-Man accomplished that.

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is down-to-earth, likeable, understandable, and has a mischievous streak with a bit of hidden genius thrown in. He compares, in my mind anyway, quite favorably to the insufferable Tobey Maguire portrayal of the hero. Garfield approached his role in a human way, and wasn't so hyper-fixated on his love interest (Emma Stone's adorable & likeable Gwen Stacy) like the borderline stalker that was Raimi's Peter Parker. It's a plus that no one plotline takes almost complete precedence over the others, aside from the main plot where Peter inadvertently drives an ambitious scientist with a chip on his shoulder to become the Lizard, and that he has to stop said villain from turning New York into his twisted new science experiment on a grand scale. 

There are also a few funny scenes in this film, also driving home the down-to-earth approach. In one, Peter Parker one-ups Flash Thompson as the latter continues his minor role as the bullying jock in school, with a triumphant conclusion to the scene. In another, as he's spending time with Gwen Stacy on the high school bleachers, a football flies in his direction. He grabs the football effortlessly (because, you know, he's Spider-Man) and casually tosses the football away, which ends up denting the field post for all to witness. Little scenes like this remind you that you're watching an adaptation of a comic book, the likes of which are not always dark and brooding and, ugh, realistic affairs.

Tangents aside, The Amazing Spider-Man does miss a few notes, or seemingly lose sight of previously established ideas. His spider-sense ability is just short of non-existent throughout the film's duration; he's strong with his arms but isn't the most agile superhero I've seen (Raimi's Spider-Man, while insufferable, seemed a bit more powerful in this regard); the quantity of action is strikingly lacking. In some ways it is a more faithful adaptation of the comics than the Raimi films, but in others it is not. Yet at the same time, it appears to follow some of the same threads as said films. If I just confused you, then we're in the same boat.

The lead-up to Spider-Man's inception in the film differs only slightly from that of the previous installments, and the film gets dragged down a bit by this. One should consider that the first Spider-Man film was no less than ten years before this film, and that most audiences have not forgotten that film's plotline, so this is definitely an unnecessary re-hash. Or it could be that it takes up too much of the film's duration and starves it of its own potential for outstanding action sequences. The brief plot, whenever it props up, regarding his parents' disappearance is a new angle that is not unwelcome, but it gets tossed in the backburner by some point in the film for a more engaging storyline for casual audiences.

One could conclude that because the film is a little more than half of a retread of a film that hardly warranted a remake in the first place (only some adjustments were necessary, such as the overtly melodramatic tone, the excessive 'romantic' plotline, and the daft handling of the Green Goblin villain & his costume). The film needed more of its own identity; more to set it apart from the considerably still-young originals. In spite of this, The Amazing Spider-Man held up just fine.

B-

 The Good:

+ A very moving chemistry between the two leads.

+ Andrew Garfield nails the role

+ Our hero isn't obsessed with his love interest to the point of being a creep.

+ A few funny scenes

+ Slightly more dedicated to its source material

The Bad:

- Retreads so much of what we saw in the 2002 original.

- Disappointing villain

- It makes little sense that the entire city hasn't spread the word on Spider-Man's identity by the end of the plot, considering he revealed himself & his abilities multiple times to many people.

- Rather low-quality CGI.

- Squanders its run-time for the retreaded origin story, thus depriving the viewer of what could have been fantastic action sequences.

-/+ Its sequel...what the hell?

(Rather Unnecessary) Bandcamp Profile Promotion

No, I'm not an artist on the site, but I am a fan. My collection is nothing of note at the time of writing, but it's better than nothing at all. What a coincidence, though; I bought Nothing's "Guilty of Everything" and thus it is part of the collection.

https://bandcamp.com/garrettwill

The Obtuse Approach to Jon Stewart's Comedy

It's deliberate, I tell you.

No one who watches Jon Stewart's brilliant The Daily Show with a halfway open mind equates said program with hard, genuine journalism. It's a fucking comedy program meant to satirize and outright humiliate what should be sources of hard, genuine journalism. Fox News, CNN, and even at times NBC/MSNBC are the usual suspects, kind of in that order for most recurring. Jon said it himself practically ten years ago why he has the usual sources for mockery and satire: they're absurd.

Yet people will tell you, stupidly enough, that he's "not just a comedian." The closest you could come to agreeing with them is to accept that yes, Jon Stewart has a position, and it is a liberal one, but the comedy he puts out speaks for itself because that's what his audience (which includes myself, although I don't tend to watch television and am not personally subscribed to any networks his program airs on) expects. If you want to know what his actual positions are, then stop being a fucking pussy and put him on your show. Oh and don't pull a Tucker Carlson with the smartass remarks and strawmen, a la Crossfire circa 2004. Be a man and probe for the answers like any respectful person in the media would, because media figures of that descriptor are few & far between these days.

But I haven't gotten to the real deal about this post. The following guy is what I want to delve into:

 

The above mug, for the uninitiated, is the rather droll "professional media critic" who has celebrated the anniversary to his rather lukewarm hop over to the Fox News legion on June 20, 2013. If you're a "media critic" working for the mainstream media, then by principle, you cannot be taken with nary a grain of salt in terms of credibility. Even worse yet that he's toiling for the plutocratic horde at Fox News, but that's not the focus here.

Howard has gone after, you guessed it, Jon Stewart on at least one occasion, even sharing some ire for the equally brilliant Stephen Colbert. Just like many of Stewart & Colbert's critics, they're obtuse about the credibility of their respective programs. But this is all deliberate, you see? Both programs, particularly The Daily Show, mock the wasteland that is the beltway media for the status quo circlejerks that they are, and Kurtz, who knows who he is working for, slams Stewart & Colbert for it. Recently, Kurtz pretty much begged for the attention that Stewart's program would afford his by asking, or more accurately begging to be a guest on the program:

You'd like that wouldn't you, you hack? Too bad you're too small fry for Stewart's program to waste time on, because you contribute almost nothing to any conversation. Be glad that you even have a job on that joke of a "news" network, you joke. And yes, he is "just a comedian", at least in regard to anything from his program that you and your overlords loathe so much. So here you are carrying out the usual labours hoisted upon the dogs at Fox News, attacking a fucking comedy program time and time again, never accomplishing anything in your favour. You didn't have a valid criticism of Stewart's segment that you've shown, so you figured it'd be best to leave such for the odd incident where you'd be featured as a guest sitting next to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, possibly getting Tucker Carlson'd into the shadows of irrelevance you so sorely need at this point. Keep the dreams a comin', Howie, 'cause it probably ain't gone happen any time soon.

The Division on the Pipeline Projects

When even our Federal Government engages in divisive language to belittle the opposition to these projects, red flags go off -- big time.

As I live in Calgary, I am exposed to a lot of pro-oil & gas press that, taken in such quantities, can lead one to believe that the pipeline projects as they are today are entirely in the best interests of the country. While the Keystone XL pipeline has, allegedly anyway, passed safety and environmental regulations & concerns (and why wouldn't it? Shipment via train isn't exactly a contender for risk-free), the Northern Gateway pipeline has yet to overcome such hurdles. Keystone XL faced an odd delay from the Obama administration earlier this year, but the Northern Gateway has barely even handed in its papers for grading.

Now, one glaring omission from many voices in the media, and indeed from the companies at the helm of these projects (Keystone XL & Northern Gateway), is that of the actual benefits to stand from these developments. Indeed, while they promise significant economic benefits to the country, and to Western Canada in particular, they have yet to specify any actual figures or proper theoretical models as to how these benefits would roll out. Just who, and how, will these projects benefit? None of the pro-pipeline people can satisfy a proper answer.

But that can be discussed later. What's more important is the public opinion, and given its importance in the green-lighting (or not) of these projects, it needs to be stressed in detail. 

Whereas the Keystone XL has overcome the regulatory criterion necessary to even greenlight the thing (but still produce a deliberately delayed mandate from the White House), the Northern Gateway pipeline has to assure everyone who isn't the Harper cabinet just how safe the project is, before and after the very likely event of a disaster. People need reassurances. People need to know what they're shouting "Yay!" to. People need to be told proper, not misleading fucking information!

Hilariously, regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline, Enbridge, the company responsible for the project, has done just that. They've committed one of the gravest sins possible in the shaky field of public support; they have misled the people who, granted by the B.C Government, have the final say on whether the pipeline gets built or not. Public perception is vital here, and Enbridge has done poorly in their quest to muster the necessary support to get the ball rolling. Enbridge put out this video back in '12 (the linked video below is NOT from EnbridgeMedia themselves, by the by):

They shot themselves in the foot with this animation, because anyone with access to the internet (that includes YOU, reader) can see that the Douglas Channel does NOT resemble the wide-open, cozy ride that Enbridge wants you to believe it to be. Below is a screenshot that I took at the same time of writing this piece, with highlights of visibly risky areas in the actual shipping route(s) (keep in mind that alternate routes would have to be taken under certain circumstances given that ice does buildup in the channel):

The squares represent what would be forking routes for the oil tankers to take (and need you be reminded that these ships, while not quite HMS Titanic in size, are quite large?). It's certain that there will be, if hasn't been already, a predetermined route through one of each square at each fork of the channel, but what of emergency measures? This channel does get inundated with ice at the worst of times, and if they can't navigate one stretch because of it, then they'll have to take the other. Just look at the Southern fork and tell me that it won't end up like watching these cumbersome hulls attempting a pro-level slalom with broken skis?

With the exception of highlighting the port (Kitimat, in this case) on the bottom, the circles represent clusters of small islands that can further prove difficult in the shipment of bitumen. While I certainly am not omniscient enough to indicate all manner of rocks inconveniently and often just barely combing under the surface of the water at points, there are bound to be such obstacles as well. Of course, that's what sonar detection units were made for. And then there's the incidences of windstorms, and collateral from mudslides to look out for! And then there's bound to be even more than what I've listed above. Holy cynical Jesus is there ever the bevy of potential dangers in this whole project, right?

Does Enbridge think people are this stupid? Did they hope and pray that the people whom they're trying to sway to their favour are, or were at the time the advertisement went its rounds, too lazy to find out the truth for themselves? All it took for me to get the above image, that which roundly contradicts the story Enbridge tried to weave with their pitifully misleading route tour animation, was to use Google. Specifically, after clicking the grid icon next to the bell you see at the upper-right, I selected the immediately available Maps option and zoomed into fucking Kitimat. So little effort, and so little respect for the idiots at Enbridge responsible for this animation (both in designing it and giving it the go-ahead). People should be fired, methinks.

Now, that is a two-year old mistake for sure, but Enbridge has yet, to my knowledge anyway, make up for this gaffe with genuine apologies or, better yet, admittance of where they were wrong. Today, Enbridge engenders a majority disapproval from the local communities. The latter is obviously obviously ignored by the media at-large and indeed, outright insulted by our own fucking Federal Government. The press, and as mentioned the fucking Tories want you to believe that those who oppose a project spearheaded by a company that has been called out for its misinformation tactics are "radical" and, in towing the Cold-War era propaganda ethos, "receive funding from foreign special interest groups" to obstruct "real economic benefits for the country."

That kind of fear-mongering via name-calling not unlike the usual banter heard on elementary school playgrounds was trotted by then-idiot of 2012 Jim Oliver (then Natural Resources Minister), and echoed by our third-time re-elected Prime Minister, or more fittingly, Emperor Stephen Harper in his oh-so stoic and condescending tone. I know you're probably gasping for air but bear with me here; actually concerned citizens who have every right and every reason so far to be blocking this project are, to this day, being diminished as obstructionist, anti-Canadian assholes by the press and the government.

I think it speaks volumes about a company, and its pipeline project by proxy, when they feel the need to put out misinformation that portrays a fantasy world wherein Enbridge won't have to double-down in order to ensure the project is as long-term and safe as possible. If anything, the lack of reassuring confidence and accurate information on their part is a telltale sign that they don't believe in their own project and their ability to muster a 'yes' vote. 

One of the often-touted arguments in favour of this pipeline is the promise of significant economic gains. An oft-heard soundbite tells everyone that this pipeline will generate jobs. There's certainly no doubt that jobs will be created, since the pipeline won't build itself and it will have to be monitored and maintained over time. However, Common Grounds magazine conducted an interview in '12 with an economist about it, and he raises some thoughtful insight about it: http://commonground.ca/2012/03/gateway-pipeline/

Now what about money for the country, the provinces, and the companies involved? The Vancouver Sun states, "The pipeline is estimated to be worth $300 billion in additional gross domestic product over 30 years. Governments are expected to net an estimated $80 billion in tax and royalty revenues over those three decades: $36 billion for Ottawa, $32 billion for Alberta and $6.7 billion for B.C. Saskatchewan would net an estimated $4 billion." (Source)

Those aren't scientifically-derived numbers, they're simply estimations. That's well and good, but while I did state earlier in this piece that they have yet to provide actual figures or theoretical models as to how we'll make money and how much the country and the involved provinces will rake in from the pipeline, my point still stands. Are these estimates really the best the complicit press can drudge up? Where's the basis for those numbers? And really, when you look at the numbers they came up with, B.C, where the most intensive operations will take place and who stands to see a nigh-inevitable disaster occur on their turf, will make a measly $6.7 billion that is just a fraction of Alberta's $32 billion?

As per the usual, and logically-sound environmental concerns, some 300 scientists have come up with this response to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel report back in December 2013:

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel's review:

1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent's yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

 (Source)

Will it all be worth it when a disaster almost certainly does occur, and British Columbians have to pay the tab, and British Columbians have to roll up their sleeves to clean up the mess that Enbridge will almost certainly skimp on on their part? Is Enbridge still surprised that the people have not come to their side because of the lack of compelling arguments and reasons that this pipeline should go through sooner than later?

I don't really know, but based on what I do know, most of which Enbridge has not, and will not tell anyone, the project as it stands is not what should come to pass. It's shady, there's too many risks involved, it is scientifically unsound, the economic benefits are more crude & vague with little backing to them, many of the more prominent and vocal proponents have been more hostile and belligerent than necessary, and most of all, Enbridge has provided mostly misleading information regarding its safety and how the benefits will outweigh the losses.

Word of Mouth #12: Bane - Don't Wait Up

Bane - Final Backward Glance (Music Video) on YouTube

This album was released on May 13th, 2014, through Equal Vision Records.

A former member of Converge has helped to make Bane into the hardcore act it is today. Sadly, though, this is reported to be their final album before calling it quits as a band. Will they try solo avenues? Or will there be new ensemble acts to come in the future? Whatever the case may be, the hardcore scene will lose an important band when they throw in the towel. This is their last hurrah, so to speak, and it's a good note to leave on if this news is true.

Farewell, Bane, thanks for your contributions to hardcore. You will be missed.

Word of Mouth #11: Trophy Scars - Holy Vacants

Trophy Scars - Gutted stream on PureVolume

I love, fucking love Trophy Scars, and that's why I'm glad to be doing this.

This album will be released on May 6th through Monotreme records. 

I was formally introduced to these guys with their "Hospital Music..." album back in '10, which is a fantastic listen if you like post-hardcore mixed with jazz & blues, and you don't mind (or better yet, you like) tempo changes. I haven't nabbed any subsequent album from them since then, but I was immediately grabbed by the news of this release. I've listened to the linked song a few times now and that's what's going to get me ordering the beast, because it's just that good. What say you?

Thanks again for great music, Trophy Scars!