Movies Spotlight – December 2014 – Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott is a British film director and producer who has made many of our most iconic films since his breakthrough with 1979’s Alien. He is known for his stunning visuals and often his grand scale and scope.

This month he has a new epic – Exodus: Gods and Kings – telling the tale of Moses and Rhamses. They grew up as brothers (Moses, an adopted brother), but as they became men their paths deviated. Moses saw the tyranny by which Rhamses ruled and the cruelty he showed his slaves, many of which shared the same background as Moses. They were just less fortunate. Seeing only injustice, Moses decides to lead a slave rebellion against Rhamses with the endgame of finding the slaves a new home as freed men. Here is the trailer.

Early Career:

Scott attended the Royal College of Art, helping to establish its film department. He started making short films and working as a production designer during the early 1960s. He also began directing episodes of British television. In 1968, Scott and his brother Tony founded Ridley Scott Associates, a film and commercial production company. Scott directed numerous commercials during the 1970s.

In 1977 with The Duellists, Scott made his feature film directing debut. The film won Best First Film at the 1977 Cannes Film Festival. The film is about two officers, D’Hubert and Feraud, who have a life-long grudge with one and other, engaging in multiple duels seeking justice for their perceived grievances.

Science Fiction:

The Duelists made Scott a star director overnight, allowing him to pursue projects in Hollywood. His initial plan was to next adapt Tristan and Iseult, but then he saw Star Wars. This changed everything. He became enthralled by large scale, effects-driven films and science fiction. Scott accepted the job to direct Alien. The film was a smash hit critically and commercially, as Scott expertly created a cinematic experience that is both a terrifying horror movie and a cool and visually impressive sci-fi adventure featuring a strong female lead (Ripley played by Sigourney Weaver). Directors are still trying to replicate it to this day (including Scott himself).

Next, Scott made what is probably an even better sci-fi film with 1982’s Blade Runner. Here, Scott works with Star Wars’ star Harrison Ford, in a film that blends sci-fi elements with a hard-boiled detective narrative. It is a masterpiece of design, style and directing. And, like Alien, Blade Runner again redefined the sci-fi genre.

From there, Scott made the adventure fantasy Legend, starring Tom Cruise, the poorly received crime drama Someone to Watch Over Me, and the action thriller Black Rain with Michael Douglas.

Scott once again found his touch with 1991’s Thelma & Louise, telling the tale of two women who murder a rapist and then go on the run. Again, Scott made a film that is iconic to this day (especially the film’s ending) – also, look out for a young Brad Pitt. Scott earned his first Best Director Oscar nomination for his work on the film.

Scott finished off the 1990s with three less than stellar outings. First, the Christopher Columbus biopic 1942: Conquest of Paradise (a film that paints Columbus as more of a villain, contrary to the popular view at the time), then the doomed sailing adventure drama White Squall, and finally G.I. Jane, an action drama starring Demi Moore about a woman who is offered the chance to be the first female trainee in the U.S. Navy’s elite SEAL/C.R.T. selection program (it is probably Scott’s worst film to date).

Award-Winning:

In 2000, Scott directed his greatest critical triumph, Gladiator. The film also marks the director’s first collaboration with Russell Crowe, whom he has worked with four more times since. The film about a Roman general who is betrayed and sold into slavery only to return to Rome years later to seek revenge as a gladiator won five Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor (for Crowe). Scott received his second Best Director nomination.

Scott next made the forgettable The Silence of the Lambs sequel Hannibal (side note, watch Bryan Fuller’s TV series Hannibal; it is brilliant); however, he followed it up with his best film of the decade: Black Hawk Down. This war drama recounting the true events of a failed mission by U.S. armed forces in Somalia garnered Scott his third Best Director nomination. It is gripping and one of the best war films ever made.

Scott then directed the fun crime drama Matchstick Men about a phobic con artist and his protégé who are about to make a big score when his teenage daughter suddenly crashes the party. It features a great performance from Sam Rockwell.

Scott next returned to epic historical dramas with Kingdom of Heaven. The film has a massive scope and scale as well as a wonderful cast. Scott’s director’s cut of the film was deemed too long to be released in theaters by Twentieth Century Fox. Thus, they release a shorter, lesser cut. The film played to mild reviews and box office. Thankfully, Scott’s cut was eventually released. It is well worth seeking out.

Scott then set up three films with Russell Crowe to close out the decade. The first is the mediocre romance drama A Good Year about a career obsessed man who has a life revelation while in Provence. Next, the very good biographical gangster film American Gangster about Frank Lucas and the cop who took him down (Denzel Washington is quite good as Lucas). And lastly, the action thriller Body of Lies, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio. What makes the film unique and interesting (in addition to it being a strong thriller) is that it takes the position that maybe U.S. intelligence tactics are flawed.

Trying Something New & Revisiting the Past:

Okay, Scott made one more film with Russell Crowe, throwing his hat into the Robin Hood adaptation bin. The film finds Robin in the thirteenth century as a man who conspires to combat local corruption in his village – an uprising that leads to a power struggle with the crown itself. It was not well-received, but personally I think it is a decent enough action adventure drama.

Scott then decided to return to his past, making a prequel to maybe his most famous film, Alien, in the form of Prometheus. It is a highly flawed film, as the story and character motivations are pretty well ridiculous; but visually, it is marvelous. Scott again does make something that is stylistically impressive and fairly scary and thrilling as well. It is just too bad that the film makes almost no sense.

Author Cormac McCarthy writes very dense novels. The most popular adaptation of one of his works his the Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men. McCarthy met with Scott, however, to try something different, making his first foray into screenwriting. Their collaboration gave birth to The Counselor, probably 2013’s most misunderstood film. It is brilliant, as it tackles the nature of good and evil within man, playing out mostly through a series of conversations. Critics and viewers expected something different, something more action-packed. It is a gem that will eventually find its audience.

Upcoming Projects:

Scott has a number of science fiction projects upcoming. The first, due in 2015, is The Martian. It is about an astronaut who is stranded on Mars, struggling to survive until help can reach him (or her). Scott has assembled quite a cast with Jessica Chastain, Matt Damon, Jeff Daniels, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, and Chiwetel Ejiofor.

In 2016 and beyond, Scott has a sequel to Prometheus, a sequel to Blade Runner and a sci-fi thriller series set up at Fox called The Hot Zone.

Scott Free, Producing Films and TV:

Through his production company Scott Free Productions, Scott has also produced a number of highly successful films and television programs. Here are the highlights: In Her Shoes, Tristan + Isolde, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Cracks, The A-Team, The Grey, Stoker, Out of the Furnace, The Gathering Storm, The Company, The Good Wife, and The Pillars of the Earth.

Upcoming, Scott is producing the eagerly anticipated NFL Concussion drama (currently untitled) from Peter Landesman, starring Will Smith.

Career Highlights:

1)      The Duellists (1977) – director (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

2)      Alien (1979)* – director (Blu-ray, VideoOn-Demand, Trailer)

3)      Blade Runner (1982)* – director (Blu-ray, VideoOn-Demand, Trailer)

4)      Thelma & Louise (1991) – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

5)      Gladiator (2000) – director, producer (Blu-ray, VideoOn-Demand, Trailer)

6)      Black Hawk Down (2001)* – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

7)      Matchstick Men (2003) – director, producer (DVD, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

8)      Kingdom of Heaven (2005)* – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

9)      American Gangster (2007) – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

10)   Body of Lies (2008) – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

11)   Prometheus (2012) – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

12)   The Counselor (2013)* – director, producer (Blu-ray, Video On-Demand, Trailer)

*Editor’s picks

Noah (2014) – Review

Review: Noah is a visually impressive and character-driven adaptation of the story found in Genesis (which is very similar to other flood narratives from other comparative mythologies, predating the Book of Genesis). The film is about the world of men coming to an end. First there were Adam and Eve and they had three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain killed Abel and his descendants have built the empire of man, spreading man’s dominion over the world, but also corrupting and destroying the world with their greed and desire to consume everything without regard. Seth’s descendants, however, have been at peace with nature, living off the land and trying to be good in the eyes of the creator. Many years have passed; Noah and his three sons are the last descendants of Seth while Cain’s descendants have all but ruined the world. The creator speaks to Noah, giving him a task. He must build a great Ark to shelter the innocent (the animals and his own family) as the creator is sending a flood to cleanse the world of all other living things and their wickedness (except animals that live in salt water, they are fine, but all fresh water life is doomed as they have no place on the Ark and cannot survive the salt water). For Noah, this task is a great undertaking that will test his resolve and faith in the creator.

Let me start this review by first saying that like any other film adaptation based on something previously released, I base my review on the film alone and not on its relation to the story it is using as its inspiration. They are two sole and separate things (something people tend to forget and get upset when adaptations are different than they imagine they should be). Noah the film is not beholden to Noah the story in the Book of Genesis in any regard whatsoever. Writer-director Darren Aronofsky has his license as a storyteller to do whatever he wants with its characters, themes, and narrative, to adapt them to the narrative he wants to tell (the story of Noah is merely the base from which to build his own narrative), as any other filmmaker has with any other story they may be adapting. Again, each is its own completely separate thing with its own merits (and/or faults). I specifically and explicitly say this here because this story holds significant meaning to many who may or may not like this interpretation solely because of the way it compares to (their own interpretation of) the source material (although, one might argue that the story of Noah’s Ark in the Book of Genesis, like many other stories throughout the Bible, is an adaptation of other narratives that predate it, like the Sumerian flood in the Epic of Ziusudra or the Mesopotamian flood stories in Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts, taking, leaving, adding, and changing story elements to fit its own purpose).

Aronofsky’s narrative has a lot going on, and speaks to today’s audiences and addresses modern concerns. The film is in a way timeless, as these characters could exist in the past or far in the future (or even on a different planet). Aronofsky never explicitly refers to it as Earth (although, it is more or less inferred). The world of man is a dark and ugly one. Their cities are a stain upon the earth and they use everything without regard for the future (strip mining, butchering animals, and so on). Meanwhile, Noah and his family live solely off the land, only taking what they need and they are vegetarians. Aronofsky is clearly equating the world in which Noah lives to our own, one that is ravaged by decades of pollution and seemingly irreversible slights against nature. One in which we still value today above tomorrow, disregarding the long-term consequences that our actions have on the planet. Noah lives in harmony with his world while Tubal-cain (the King and descendant of Cain) and his people have destroyed the world around them. The creator favors Noah while wishing to eradicate everyone else. This could be read as a cautionary tale, in a sense. If we, as humans, do not change our behavior, our Earth may forever be ruined and become a barren wasteland that no longer supports life (as it is shown in the film). I am not much of an environmentalist; but from what I have read, the Earth’s climate has already been profoundly influenced by our current way of life, and while this may not be catastrophic in our lifetimes, or even the lifetimes of our children, it will be cataclysmic one day, a day that is being ever accelerated forward by are disregard today. Noah is a warning maybe? The great flood may not be immediate for us; but as the polar ice caps melt (at frighteningly alarming rates) and sea levels continue to rise, the great flood very well may eventually eradicate many of today’s major metropolitan areas gradually (apparently, this review is going to be a little preachy…happens).

The world of the film has an adventure fantasy feel to it, filled with monsters and magic (something I always felt too when I watched the cartoon stories at Sunday school, as if the world once had magic and other fantastical things and creatures, but they were all lost in time). Aronofsky, however, does a good job making these elements feel at home in his narrative. The animals are all slightly different from real animals (for example there is a dog looking animal that has scales or armor of some kind – like a dog mixed with an armadillo, but it works given the harsh conditions of the world in which it lives). Again playing into the notion that this may be like our world but is not our world (either in terms of taking place on a different planet or so far in the past or future that it is unrecognizable).

The aesthetic for the film is fairly dark and muted, as the world is mostly just a wasteland. Yet, when Aronofsky does use color, it creates something quite striking visually, juxtaposing the bleakness in which most of the narrative exists. I really like the manner in which he displays the story of creation and Adam and Eve (and so on). Along with Noah’s visions of the coming flood (which can also be taken as his conversations with the creator), these sequences seem to play almost like hallucinations with wonderful silhouetted figures and magnificent time-lapsed photography. If nothing else, Noah is visually impressive.

Like Aronofsky’s other films, Noah too is at its heart a character piece. Yes, the visuals and scale make this an epic, but Aronofsky is much more interested in the mental strain that Noah being chosen to carry out the creator’s task is having on the man and his relationship with both his family and mankind as a whole. It is a great burden – to be the one ultimately responsible for allowing mankind to essentially cease to exist. Noah believes that it is the creator’s intent that all men should die, leaving the world for the innocent (i.e. the animals, bugs, fish, and so on). This creates terrible tension in his relationship with his family. Noah seems to descend into madness and the film becomes very claustrophobic upon the Ark, almost as if the film has taken on the tone of a horror piece. Yet, Aronofsky does this to allow Noah the ability to make a profound choice between the love he feels for his family and the responsibility he feels he owes the creator. Love versus pain and death, in a sense. While the building of the Ark and gathering of all the animals is grand and epic, it is these emotional questions that make the film truly interesting and compelling on a deeper level.

I also found the dichotomy between Noah and Tubal-cain to be very interesting. Noah is obviously the hero of the film and Tubal-cain the villain (there is even a scene of Tubal-cain murdering Noah’s father in the prologue), but it does not always feel that way. Tubal-cain gives a rousing speech at one point, rallying his people to take the Ark and live, preserving humanity. This speech plays in such a way that it almost wins over the audience too. Humanity has its faults, yes, but as selfish beings we always root for our own preservation above all else. There is a part of us that wants to see humanity continue, because there is always hope that tomorrow will be better (even if we seem to only act in a manner that champions today). Plus, Noah is half-crazed and unlikable by this point in the film. We too find that the ambitions of the creator (to cleanse the world) are secondary to our own survival, and thus for a moment, we may root for Tubal-cain (even though he is mostly despicable). And later, when Noah is on the Ark, alone with his family, vowing to carry out what he believes is the intention of the creator for all human life to end, splintering his relationship with his family, we again find ourselves rooting against Noah. But in the end, he chooses humanity, hope, and love, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of the audience, finding his way through the madness and coming out the other side willing to start again, hopefully forging a better world.

Overall, Noah is a grand film experience with wonderfully illustrious and impressive visuals and a gritty and emotionally compelling central character-driven narrative. Noah must endure great personal strain and sacrifice that takes a mighty toll on the man. That said, parts of Aronofsky’s film are a tad heavy handed and the pacing is at times a bit slow. This is an epic blockbuster-style film that features all the flash and bang of other blockbusters, but lacks the overall entertainment, instead creating a deeply gritty emotional character journey. In this sense, it is a blockbuster that is not actually a blockbuster at all. It is very ambitious, and for all its little faults, still manages to be something quite spectacular.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Noah is very much in the same vein as Darren Aronofsky’s other films (it is his sixth feature). It is dark and gritty and at its center features a character falling prey to seemingly un-yielding outside pressures (it reminded me of my favorite of his films, Black Swan, in moments). Noah allows Aronofsky to look at the darkness in man; but unlike Black Swan, this time the protagonist can find his way out the other side, allowing the audience to also see the good in man, the redeemable quality of man, and that man ultimately has choice/reason – the thing that sets him apart from beasts (who are presumably ruled by instinct and not reason). It is not just that the creator rules the world and men are but his pawns to do with what he will; man ultimately has to make his own choices, to be good or bad (simply put), for himself alone, as it is man who must make his home in this world. This was my take away from Aronofsky’s film at least.

As stated above, the aesthetics in the film are fantastic. Clint Mansell’s score very well might be the best part of Noah. It is powerful and not what I was expecting, featuring very dark overtones (I should have remembered who was directing the film). The score accompanies and accentuates the emotional journey of Noah and his family, while also giving an even more epic feel to the grand scale of a few of the sequences. Matthew Libatique’s cinematography is very good. The film is almost void of color, as Noah’s world has regressed into such a state that it is seemingly no longer habitable. It is barren and lifeless. This juxtaposes wonderfully with the beautiful greens that find their way in once the forest to build the Ark is generated. The mountain where Noah’s grandfather lives also is strikingly juxtaposed to its surroundings. Once on the Ark, when the film becomes rather claustrophobic and takes on more of a horror/thriller tone (trapped in a floating rectangle with a bunch of sleeping wild animals and father’s gone a bit crazy – it almost feels like The Shining), the photography is very gritty, again complementing the intended emotional experience. My favorite photography, however, came during the sequences that involved the characters silhouetted against the colored sky – very beautiful. Mark Friedberg’s production design is impressive as well. The most astonishing visual in the film is the completed Ark (which they built to scale, using the measurements in the Book of Genesis). The interiors of the ark are cool as well.

 The cast overall is very good. Douglas Booth, playing Noah’s oldest son Shem, is probably the weakest, appearing in the film as not much more than a pretty face. Logan Lerman, playing Noah’s second son Ham (who named these kids), has the difficult task of being the rebellious and envious son. It is an upward battle (in our modern culture in which audiences are sort of fed up with “emo” as a thing) that Lerman never quite wins, but he is decent. Emma Watson, playing Noah’s adoptive daughter Ila, is very good, and in some ways is probably the second or third lead. Ila’s journey is much more emotionally compelling than Shem or Ham’s. She was left for dead when Noah found her and raised her as one of his own. There is a special bond between them, which makes it all the more heartbreaking when Noah and Ila come into direct confrontation. Watson is able to hold her own in her scenes opposite Russell Crowe’s Noah (when he is very intense). Anthony Hopkins plays Noah’s grandfather Methuselah with sort of a whimsical hamminess, but it works in the context of fantasy troupes (he feels like he might be out of The Princess Bride to some extent). Ray Winstone is very good as Tubal-cain. He is in moments the villain and the hero. He is ruled by his own self desire (but who is not). Given the fact that he knows that his world is about to come to an end and Noah has the only means of potential survival, it seems only human for him to do everything he can to survive. Winstone, however, does a good job reminding the audience that he is despicable overall though – that he is indeed the villain. Jennifer Connelly is also very good as Noah’s wife Naameh. Connelly brings a lot of strength to the roll and can go head-to-head against Crowe in the very dramatic moments (she has maybe the best in-scene performance of the film when she tells Noah how it will be if he continues down his intended course once on the Ark). Crowe is great as Noah, a deeply conflicted character. There is so much turmoil and pain in his eyes. Crowe is able to exude such love and affection in one moment and then utter conviction and madness in another. The film would not work without his strong work at its center.

Summary & score: Noah has imposing and thrilling visuals, but its character moments make it something compelling and not just a fleeting popcorn blockbuster. Noah’s internal struggle with the seemingly impossible task he is asked to perform results in a film that is intense and emotionally involving at its core. 7/10

Man of Steel (2013) – Review

Review: Man of Steel is a massive action/adventure film that is tonally much more serious than most superhero fare. The film is about Kal-El (Clark Kent), an alien being who struggles to find his place on Earth (deciding how to use his remarkable gifts). He is torn between two worlds. He has spent his entire life on Earth, growing from a baby into adulthood, but his alien abilities make him a god among men. Should he show his true self and potentially be hated and feared for his differences and power or should he stay hidden, keeping to the fringes? That is his choice. However, he is forced to reveal himself to mankind, to protect them, when warriors from his destroyed home world come to Earth seeking revenge for what his father did years ago (a man they consider a traitor).

From the opening scene of Man of Steel it is clear that director Zack Snyder has a grand vision for Kal-El and the world in which he inhabits. Snyder wants the film to feel epic, and thus kicks it off with the humongous battle for Krypton, ripe with wonderful sci-fi/fantasy styled action. He never really lets up from there as almost the entirety of the third act is one elongated action sequence between Kal-El and General Zod (and his group of Kryptonian warriors). Again, the set pieces are grandiose in scale with seemingly much of Metropolis destroyed during the melee, but it works because both Kal-El and Zod are titans fighting in a world incapable of restraining their power (thus, there is a lot of collateral damage as one would expect). The magnitude of their combat also greatly plays into the final decision that Kal-El must make regarding Zod. There is no Earthly force that can stop Zod, therefore it solely rests with Kal-El to make a tough choice.

Snyder, somewhat following in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan’s (who produces this film and co-wrote the story) The Dark Knight Trilogy, takes a much more serious tone with both the character and world than fans of superhero films have become accustom to (especially given Marvel’s model for producing films that are on the lighter, entertainment first side). Man of Steel is very weighty in its drama, as Kal-El spends the whole film soul searching and trying to live up to the hopes of his two father figures. There is almost no reprieve from the intense action and emotional drama, which for some will be all too much.

Yet, as an origin story about a being caught between two worlds in addition to the clear narrative reflecting how mankind often treats outsiders and the pain and suffering incurred as result, Snyder made the stronger dramatic decision to play the film as a deeply emotional and momentous struggle. Kar-El’s path to becoming ‘Superman’ would not feel as earned or important if it was easy (both in terms of overcoming the main villains and his emotional journey finding who he is and who he wants to be). Like Nolan, Snyder invests a lot more in the journey of his lead character than the average lesser genre fare, and it pays off as Kal-El’s narrative resonates with the audience on a more profound level. His struggle actually means something, and is not merely presented for the audience’s entertainment.

Though, the film is highly entertaining too. The action scenes are supremely massive, to an extent that audiences have maybe never seen. Yet, they still work because the audience is invested in the characters. However, one of the film’s weaknesses is also the scale of its action scenes. For viewers who are only peripherally engaged (viewers who for whatever reason do not buy into Kal-El’s narrative journey) the magnitude of the action scenes can feel overwhelming. And again, there is almost no respite from the exacting tone of the narrative.

Another weakness that holds Man of Steel back from being among the genre’s best films is the one dimensionality of General Zod. He is perpetually intense and seemingly crazed. Snyder does not make any attempt to connect emotionally with the character, rather presenting him purely as a potentially unstoppable force of sheer one-sided rage. Zod is thus nothing more than a plot device, an obstacle that must be overcome, and not a fully fleshed out character (like the best genre villains), which undermines the overall power and impact of the narrative.

However, Snyder does make up for it with the great work he does with his other supporting characters, particularly Jor-El and Jonathan Kent – Kal-El’s father figures. The strong character moments that Snyder gives these characters, in addition to their dramatic interactions with Kal-El, make up the film’s emotional core and drive Kal-El’s narrative journey. Their relationship with Kal-El is what enables the audience to connect with him and relate to him. Lois Lane also plays an important role both for the audience and Kal-El. She provides the audience with an additional perspective into the narrative (as an outsider looking in), while serving as an important emotional step in Kal-El’s journey. She is the first human (outside his family) that he feels that he can completely trust, which allows him to find the will to step into the light (so to speak). Snyder handles this relationship well, but also leaving a lot for potential sequels (as the film is about Kal-El becoming Superman and not his relationship with Lane).

Man of Steel also resonates due to its look at modern society’s seemingly intensifying fear of people that are different. Without becoming overly political, there is a palpable discontent in how many feel towards those they deem as outsiders – a distrust, if not complete hatred. This stems from ignorance and anxiety regarding the unknown. The world just feels like a more dangerous place (whether it really is or not), which seems to drive people inward, shunning what they do not know or understand. Snyder’s narrative offers a symbol of hope to remind people that it is within all of us to be accepting, moral, and trust in others. Zod is utterly engulfed with the perseverance of his own beliefs at the ultimate cost to all others (which seems to be a very real, and scary, feeling today among some groups, American or otherwise). Kal-El is able to succeed because he puts his trust in the greater good, setting aside and sacrificing selfish motives.

Superman represents the good of mankind while Zod the close-minded hatred. This juxtaposition however makes the final confrontation between them all the more shocking. Kal-El is not presented by Snyder as the infallibly morel being that Superman has been represented as in past characterizations.  In Man of Steel, he is limited by his own humanity, which makes him more interesting and allows his narrative journey to resonate to a much greater degree than past Superman films.

Man of Steel is imperfect and does not stand among the genre’s truly brilliant films (like The Dark Knight Trilogy and Spider-Man 2). That said, it is very entertaining and emotionally engaging, and more specifically a great modern superhero film (and massive summer blockbuster).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Zack Snyder is an impressively visual director. Man of Steel has many wonderfully iconic and grand moments and visuals that serve the character well. However, again he seems to favor his over-the-top visuals to content. Man of Steel does have a strong dramatic narrative, which is what makes the film work so well, and the action set pieces are incredible, but they are also a bit overpowering, dulling the overall experience (but it is not to as devastating an effect as with Sucker Punch or the weakest moments of Watchmen). He is able to find a better balance with this in comparison to his past few films, which gives me hope that he will get better as a filmmaker. Man of Steel is a great start, and I look forward to seeing what will likely be an even better sequel (assuming Nolan returns as well to guide Snyder a bit). This is my favorite of Snyder’s films to date.

Following his brilliant and immense scores for Inception and The Dark Knight Rises, composer Hans Zimmer again gives Man of Steel a similarly dominating score (utilizing commanding drums). However, the genius of Zimmer’s work is in the smaller emotional moments. He is able to capture the sheer grandeur of the film while conveying the theme of hope that the character encompasses. It is fantastic work (as usual).  Amir Mokri’s cinematographer fits the tone that Snyder has set for the film visually. His lighting creates a harsh world, mirroring Kal-El’s own internal struggle. Though, it is the moments in which happiness and light are let into the frame that are the most breathtaking. The flashes of Kal-El as a kid wearing a cape playing with his dog in the sunshine are visually and thematically magnificent. Alex McDowell’s production design does a good job of creating Krypton, which has a very sci-fi fantasy feel. Meanwhile, his sets on Earth are grounded in reality, making the Kryptonians all the more extraordinary by comparison.

The cast is good throughout. Laurence Fishburne, Christopher Meloni, and Antje Traue are strong in small supporting roles. Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe (as Jonathan Kent and Jor-El respectively) are excellent in vitally important roles. Their great dramatic work pulls the audience setting the tone and the narrative in motion. Michael Shannon has a special gift for looking like he is on the verge of a complete mental break, exploding into unyielding madness. That is how he plays Zod. It is too bad the character is not given more character development. Amy Adams does a good job with Lois Lane. She is strong enough to fit the part, but also emotionally engaging enough to feel like the right ally to help Kal-El find his way. Henry Cavill makes for a superb Superman. Physically he has the right look, and dramatically he hits the right tone as well. He is able to convey the deep and troubling struggle that he is having internally, creating a character that the audience cares about.

Summary & score: Man of Steel is Superman’s most ambitious and ultimately grandest cinematic undertaking, packed full of monumentally epic action sequences and effective dramatic heft. 8/10

Les Miserables (2012) – Review

Review: Les Miserables is highly ambitious and surely to be loved by diehard fans, but as a film its utterly tedious, agonizingly so, and overlong. The film is about the convict Jean Valjean who breaks his patrol and spends his life in hiding from a determined police inspector Javert. A kind Bishop saves Valjean and he devotes his life (while still in hiding) to making amends. After Fantine, a former employee of Valjean’s, is unknowingly fired and left in destitution, he makes her a promise on her deathbed to care for her young daughter Cosette. In the meantime years after the French Revolution, the poor of France still find themselves in harsh conditions. A few revolutions plan to insight another revolution. One of these revolutionaries, Marius, falls in love with a now grownup Cosette. All the characters’ paths converge in Paris on the brink of revolution.

Director Tom Hooper seems to have firstly set out to make a very literal adaptation of the stage musical. The results are both wonderfully grand and disastrous. The film is an epic, as Hooper takes on the visuals on a massive scale (which he sets the tone for with the film’s first images). The sets, costumes, performances, musical numbers and their choreography, everything is big. Hooper also recorded all the singing live on set, which pays off. The overall production is very impressive.

Hooper plays the musical as if it were on the stage, with all the musical numbers included as well as the dialog sung (for the most part), yet stages the film within the real world. On stage this works because everything is very theatrical and the audience can suspend their disbelief given the atmosphere of the medium in which they are viewing the play. However, in cinema, this results in many moments feeling incredibly strange (particularly when conversational dialog is sung) and even silly, taking the audience out of the film and the drama, making the whole artifice more apparent (which is not what Hooper was going for).

Hooper also has the actors engage the camera often breaking the fourth wall, which is strange as the film seems to be mostly firmly rooted in reality (as much as it can be with characters perpetually singing). It is as if Hooper wants his characters’ dramatic moments to be even more impactful for the audience (as if the great performance on top of the singing about said emotions was not enough – the audience must be jarred out of their apathy).

Cinema as a medium is built on close-ups on star actors – their performances mostly coming from their ability to emote with their faces and eyes. The problem with doing a literal rendition of a stage musical (in which most audience members cannot see the faces of the actors and thusly must be told their emotions) is that having musical numbers on top of sung dialog about emotions (and even mundane less important details) becomes overly redundant and in the case of this film tedious to a fault because the audience is already getting all the emotion from the actors’ faces and performances. The best films are told visually and economically through character moments. With this film, the actors tell the audience what they are feeling with their faces (as Hooper uses a ton of close-ups to great effect) but then decay the emotion into meaningless tedium by also singing about it at length. It just burns out the audience, because they understand what the characters are feeling through the performances and visuals, the continuous singing ever expanding on those feelings becomes too much and boring taking the audience out of the film (but again, diehard fans will probably love how true the film is to the source material because they love the music and every word of every song and piece of sung dialog).

The film probably would have worked better and been just as, if not more, powerful if it was adapted to a more film-friendly narrative form. Really, just be having the conversational dialog spoken as opposed to sung would have helped tremendously (as this is the biggest culprit in diminishing the dramatic returns). Also, using the best musical numbers to reinforce the characters and dramatic moments of the narrative would have given particular character moments and key narrative moments much more power and resonance. This could have (and should have) been told in much more economical way.

That is not to say that the film did not have any great moments, it does. Fantine’s dismal reflection of her current place after she gives in and takes money for sex is incredibly moving and dynamic. It is a showstopper (hear it here). There are also many other great visual and musical moments, but again as the film goes on the tedium only grows which renders many of these moments only brief bright spots in an ultimately tiring endeavor.

Getting back to film as an economically told narrative medium. This film is overly long (at 157 minutes it’s runtime is not ridiculously long, especially since it is an epic) due again to the laborious nature of this adaptation and the pacing is also slow. The narrative probably could have benefited from lesser musical numbers and characters being trimmed. But, the main issue really resides with Hooper’s adaptation not translating to the medium well as it is.

Les Miserables will likely please its fans (those that adore the musical), but ultimately is an arduous cinema experience despite all its fantastic elements.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Tom Hooper is a great director (as can be seen with his very good film The King’s Speech), but Les Miserables is almost a complete failure as a film. Well, maybe failure is not the right word as Hooper’s visuals are wonderful and iconic in many ways. He is able to get great performances from his cast. His blocking and use of a kinetic camera are also fantastic. However, the film and all this good work are completely destroyed by Hooper’s decision to literally adapt the musical. It simply just does not work in this medium. Being a slave source material is most often not a good thing, as the source is created and perfected for a different medium and thus when translated to a new medium changes need to be made for it to best play in that new medium. For example Joe Wright’s adaptation of Anna Karenina from earlier this year – (Whether or not it worked) Wright has taken the classic novel and turned it into something completely different – a visceral visual experience. He took the story and made something new for the different medium. It is ambitious and refreshing. The same can be said for Robert Wise’s The Sound of Music (which was also a very successful stage musical first). Wise made possibly the greatest film musical of all time by taking the stage play and making it something different, a wonderfully visual experience taking full advantage of what film offers as a medium. In both these cases, the directors took the source material and made changes to take advantage of what cinema offers as a storytelling medium. Hooper tries to make a film that is the stage musical first and also a grand visual experience second, and I think it failed. I do look forward to what Hooper does next, but I found Les Miserables very disappointing.

Danny Cohen’s cinematography is for the most part wonderful, as he showcases the bleak reality of both the film’s narrative and the literal world in which the character reside. There is also a beauty to his lighting; particularly in the way he is able to capture the face of the actors. Their faces are lite allowing the audience to fully capture their emotions even when (as they often are) shrouded in darkness. However, Cohen and Hooper also have some awkward framing in a few shots that is noticeable (again taking the audience out of the experience). It is minor and only happens a few times, but still feels strange (most notably is the framing of Valjean taking with Marius after Marius has recovered – right as the scene begins the frame is tilted to the right for seemingly no reason). Eve Stewart’s production design is maybe the best aspect of the film (though, Fantine singing I Dreamed a Dream is right there too). Her sets are grand in scale, but also seem to feel very intimate. Her work fits the overall tone of the film very well.

The performances are strong throughout the film, however that said some of the singing leaves a little to be desired. None of the singing is bad, but some of the actors are noticeable stronger leading one to question why all the main parts were not cast with strong singers. In smaller roles, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, Daniel Huttlestone, Colm Wilkinson, and Isabelle Allen (who is adorable) are brilliant and mostly outshine the leads. Anne Hathaway steals the entire film as Fantine. Her singing, as stated a couple times above is magnificent. However, as good as her singing is, it is her heartbreaking performance that resonates the most. She just goes to a different level. Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried and Russell Crowe are good dramatically, but their singing is greatly overshadowed by others. Hugh Jackman is powerful and entirely dramatically engaging as Valjean (despite the fact that he practically looks like Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride near the end of the film). However, his performance is destroyed completely by the tedious nature of the film, so much so that it almost becomes laughable, which is really too bad as it is among his best work.

Summary & score: In many ways Les Miserables is a great film, but in more ways it does not work. 6/10