Justice League – Review

Before I begin, I have a confession.

Occasionally, I must preface my review with a warning that my initial impressions have been heavily influenced by outside objects or persons.  In this instance, my good pal, Kevin and I walked into the Raleigh Mission Valley Theater in a highly spirited mood that stemmed from our mutual pleasure of each other’s company coupled with our recent consumption of large quantities of coffee.  Kevin — a man of many enviable traits including his insatiable appetite for life, a hearty laugh and good humor — accompanied me to the theater while sharing my disdain for DC’s previous comic book films (Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad).  We expected no better from Justice League.  

And then the movie began…

2015! Where We’re Going We Don’t Need…Those

It’s the year 2015!  Marty McFly, a teenage time-traveler arrives 30 years into the future and tours a strange version of his hometown of Hill Valley.  He spots flying cars, robot waiters, fax machines plugged into every room and a holographic preview for the upcoming film Jaws 19!  “The shark still looks fake,” Marty muses.  

Well, as we fast approach the actual 2015, promises of car flight are quickly being squandered — nevermind any promises of hover boards or self-drying jackets.  The writers of Back to the Future Part II couldn’t even foresee the most viable form of telecommunication: cell phones!   Nor could they have predicted such devises would become the most coveted item in the known universe!  (How many people read the news on Syrian crisis?  Now how many people opened news media the moment Apple announced the Iphone 5c?  I rest my case!)  In fact, the future is so incorrect, it even shows a stupid teenager grabbing for fruit from a futuristic kitchen tray, when, in reality, the kid probably grab something way less healthy — from a bowl.    

But a Jaws 19!?  Maybe the notion of successful film franchises reaching extreme installment numbers has become less of a joke and more of a sad reality.  Despite being two years away, the Internet (another unforeseen technological wonder.  Sorry fax machines!) has provided us with some semblance of a magic globe to prepare us for the coming future events.  There’s a string of announcements to help us prophesize the cinematic output of 2015, which will surely become the biggest summer in Hollywood history.  Naturally, they’re all established franchises. 

Let’s begin: 

Mission Impossible (TBA):  I defend Mr. Tom Cruise to this day.   Despite his recent stable of underperformers, I suspect Tom will be running victory laps the next time he scales laser sights (and sofa seat cushions) in his fifth secret mission.  MI4 was the best installment yet; its episodic structure allowed the franchise liberties to reinvent itself and incurred the same level stress-inducing tension across multiple continents.  It remains a passable franchise that will hopefully ride high off its rehabilitation delivered by Pixar director, Brad Bird for the last outing.

Fantastic Four (March):  The first two dreadful films left Fox with an uphill battle to climb.  A second attempt with only generate comparisons between this and the recent batch of successful team-based heroics,  which I doubt Fox can overcome.  A rebranded Fantastic Four is a desperate attempt by the studio to ignite a fresh franchise and possible larger universe shared with the X-Men, another saga facing its twilight years.  It simply five years too late.  Flame out!

Harry Potter spinoffs (TBA): I truly enjoyed this series, even if I always felt that it was essentially five films stretched out into eight: There’s new teacher who’s reveal to be a servant to Valdemort; Harry and crew mope around the library for hours and discuss their predicament; Valdemort takes four films to gestate from fetus to a noseless Ralph Fiennes and takes another four to be vanquished.  Now the saga is being elongated even further.  With the Potter group facing adulthood (both onscreen and off) there’s the obvious inclination to spring a new crop of films about the next generation.  But Potter’s world rested solely on the holy scriptures of J.K. Rowling.  Without her direct involvement — there’s promises she’ll churn out the screenplays, but I doubt she’ll have full authorship — there’s a danger that Potter’s successors will lack the same magic.  Plus, the saga needs time to foment.  Let’s enjoy the Muggle world for a little while longer.

Jurassic Park (Summer): I want a Jurassic Parkfilm that builds upon Steven Spielberg’s foundation that’s surrounded by 50 miles of electrical fence and the most aggressive carnivorous animals we’ve ever seen.  (Seriously, are raptors smart enough to open doors but dumb enough after already downing two humans, one of whom was Samuel L. Jackson?  Maybe they’d be satisfied if they got first dibs on Wayne Knight…) The Jurassic Park franchise had already run tired by the second film.  The villains were restricted to being single-minded angry predators who roared, destroyed and pursued.  The friendly herbivores were slowly demoted to brief money shots, which gave opportunities to parade John Williams’ fabulous musical theme.  An ideal Jurassic Park sequel would be a film in which the park actually opened and was greeted with thousands of tourists.  Obviously, we can expect mass carnage.  But perhaps the next installment will propel beyond the monster-around-the-corner gimmick.  It’s been 20 years and special effects are no longer dazzling enough to break records.  This installment capitalize on the a more original conception rather than the dull monster movies they ultimately became.  Otherwise, just keep these dinosaurs extinct. 

Star Wars (TBA): When the scroll reveals Episode VII, it will be ten years since the last Star Wars installment put a final ribbon on Lucas’ second trilogy outing into a galaxy far, far away.  But, unlike Harry Potter, this series’ newest trilogy might benefit without the involvement of its creator.  Although director  J.J. Abrams is not the second coming that so many “Lost” junkies decree, he’s a proven master at making fun, albeit disposable films.  The inevitably announcement of returning veterans Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and a very cantankerous Harrison Ford may pose a double-edged lightsaber for the franchise.  However, Disney has maintained the integrity of its recently acquired properties (Marvel, Pixar) and could produce a saga that won’t necessarily reinvent, but might provide a respectable return to form and undo the damage left behind from the prequels.  It is a franchise I await with trepidation, but with a morsel of new hope. 

Avengers 2: Age of Vultron (May): I gotta concede that Marvel is not brushing aside its nerdy origins with a title like that.  Unlike Abrams’ Star Trek, Avengers aims to broaden its comic-book influence rather than its audience.  Given the original’s $1.5. billion intake worldwide, I’d argue that’s a safe tactic: You already got the world’s attention…just keep em happy!  Disney’s hold on Downey for two more installments was the wisest move: You can make do without Iron Man for a while, but you can’t live without him with Avengers.  The only obstacle may be the two more years we must wait, which will provide a series of tests on the longevity on its supporting players like the Cap’n and Thor. 

Finding Dory (June):  Pixar possesses the power to make me cry more than any other studio (or most life events for that matter).  But their feeble attempts to dip back into the ocean have caused me emotional turmoil in other ways.  All may turn ok for the Finding Nemo sequel with the return of original scribe/director Andrew Stanton, which may keep this fish from getting flushed straight down the toilet.  Meanwhile, Pixar’s most bankable sequel The Incredibles remains MIA and their original, daring concepts are being slowly swept away. 

Bond (November): One of cinema’s institutions remains licensed to kill after 50 years!  Bond’s most recent adventure was one of the best and the upcoming sequel’s plans to restore some of its classic Bond motifs is a welcome one — even though it leaves the skeptic in me wondering how long it will before Daniel Craig starts surfing giant tidal waves and absconding inside invisible vehicles.  Bringing Skyfall director Sam Mendes back for another adventure leaves me hopeful.  Now just give Bond a decent beverage preference (Heineken??).  I’m thirsty for some vodka martinis, shaken or stirred. 

Batman/Superman (July)/JLA?  Warners faces a dire franchise shortfall.  I cannot decree which decision is worse: Potter or DC?  Either option is a lame-duck, but Warner’s attempt to emulate the Marvel formula a losing battle.  I won’t bore you with my criticisms, which I admit grow as tiresome as Zack Snyder’s action sequences.    The studio’s questionable casting choices, its second-place finish, and lack of an original vision make DC’s crusade into the seemingly invulnerable comic-book craze may start to hit Kryptonite. 

Independence Day 2 (July): Will Smith’s recent box office faltering means that he’ll join the ranks of Harrison Ford, Stallone, Cruise, and Schwarzenegger with a return-to-roots career resuscitation.  But ID4, a film I truly loath, is overwhelming lauded by my friends and family for its seemingly innocent and fun ride.  If ID4 2 (or is it ID2, ID42??) sinks into dark, cynical territory (Man of Steel!) in keeping with the current movie trends, it will garner yawns and disdain.   Plus, Hollywood’s ramped world destruction model has worn audiences down in 2013.  The first film has demolished our favorite landmarks with director Roland Emmerich destroying the rest of them in his inferior follow-ups.  May the aliens’ ship stall before they try for a second invasion attempt! 

As long we’re discussing franchises, perhaps a Back to the Future Part 4 is within walking distance.  Despite the true 2015’s stark contrast from that which was prophesized back in 1989, there will still be movies, many of which are accompanied by a numeral. 

“The aliens still look fake!!”    

Summer School: Lessons learned from failures and (a few) surprises

My posts have been spare this month because — among many things — I have been on a movie strike!

August releases like Elysium and The World’s End showed promise.  However, the trailers really suggested a sense of faint entertainment.  I remain content to sit and ponder for films that might offer genuine “experiences”.  In other words, neither was enticing enough to justify eight dollars.  Yes, I’m being prejuduce — maybe even unfair, but I’ve reached displeasure breaking point where the only remedy would be to completely withdrawl from the multiplex.  By going cold-turkey, I will rekindle my desire to sit in a beige-colored room filled with wining toddlers, loud and bright smart phones and a bevy of spectators who have no clue have far their sly comments travel even in a room filled with barrage of noise and light coming from Man of Steel’s frenetic conclusion.   

But I remain a voyeur of moving frames.  I maintain my ritualistic travels to Durham where Jim Carl and the good folks at the Carolina Theatre remind me what good cinema is: a collective experience where part of the fun is the love displayed before the lights fade and projector rolls to life.  And no, I’m not referring to previews to NBC’s Fall line-up, which even includes a post-summary for all the lucky folks who thought they could avoid such nonsense by entering the theater just one minute prior to showtime.   

When I think over the studios inferior summer lineup, I can’t help but ponder over the pre-movie tactics that piss me off long before the studio logo appears.  Example: Man of Steel held a “private” early screening sponsored by Walmart.  My screening ran late due to power outages.  Two of my friends had to bail, leaving me with a pair of unredeemed passes.  This eventually lead to a long debate three Walmart employees in order to procure equivalent to something that resembled a refund.  (At one point, the customer service rep accused me of not attending the screening at all!).  But before I had to endure the Walmart store, the movie finally began only to include a prelude: a “behind-the-scenes” featurette, which revealed plot elements and other things that were better saved for the actual film.  Why on earth would Walmart have to show a “making of” to folks who have not only purchased tickets, but already have their butts in the seats ready for the show?

It was the kind of disaster that made my theater-going experiences pain-inducing rather than inspiring.  The sooner movie theaters learn to trim the fat — no car ads, no concession ads, no sound-quality boasting demonstrations after the start time — the better I’ll feel about walking into the monstrosities that have made theater-going feel like an order from the McDonald’s dollar menu.  (Also, it takes less time for McD’s to arrange for my chicken wrap than it does the theater cellphone silence alert to conclude.  The one that claims your phone can “dream”.) 

But, let’s review some things about this dismal summer that, hopefully, studios will note:

• Positive word-of-mouth.  It’s what got This is the End above $100 million and what kept Superman from flying past $300 million in the US.  Man of Steel‘s final $600 million worldwide tally easily trumps that of 2006’s Superman Returns, which accrued only $400 million.  But WBs is trying to save face by proclaiming an early victory, even though you get the sense that they (and most analysts) were expecting (and hoping) for much, much more.  Despite its defenders, Man of Steel’s steep 60%+ plummet in its second week reveals that many people swayed to my side and left dismayed by Supes redressing.

• Audiences don’t always grow/niche audiences remain.  Star Trek’s first sequel in its re-imagined universe didn’t plummet “into darkness”, but with its box office figures merely matching its predecessor, the franchise remains stuck in a “cult” status.  J.J. Abrams insistence of regurgitating old Trek lore polarized audiences.  In fact, Trekkies recently decreed it last in a list that ranked all Trekkie films (including the comedy gem, Galaxy Quest), meaning that Abrams attempt to reach broader demographics has backfired.  His reinvention was neither fresh or globally appealing.  Let Trek be Trek.  

•  Sequels to successful Disney fodder can’t topple originals.  Despite Toy Story 3’s massive success — which remains Pixar’s box office champ — Disney’s transfusion of Pixar from an original concept factory into a sequel factory has not paid the dividends.  Despite Monster’s success, its inflated 3D price wasn’t enough to propel past Up’s massive balloon or even Ratatouille’s huge appeal overseas.  Planes — which was not produced by Pixar — is a massive dent to one of Disney’s few critical and audience-approved assets.  
  

• Imaginations still scare.  One of the few summer bright spots was The Conjuring, an unoriginal, but very effective little thriller that exceeded box office predictions.  But its success is its ode to old-school techniques; its most disturbing moment involves the protagonist and audience staring at a shadowy doorway and wondering what terrors linger within it.  It’s a reminder of 1999 when The Blair Witch Project destroyed the all-star, effects-laden The Haunting.  With films like Paranormal Activity, the horror genre remains strong and affords opportunities for directors to toy with audiences using old-school tricks — and innovation.  

• Movies are too damn expensive.  I’m not just talking ticket prices!  In a 21st century world in which dazzling feats, breath-taking locales and thousands of extras are all composed from pixellated computer graphics, how is it that The Lone Ranger is bleeding Disney out of $250 million?  Despite the economically dire US State like Michigan (which just promised $35 million in tax credits so WB would convert Detroit into Gotham City), studios are investing six-figures into almost every one of its tentpole films.  Even if you account for inflation — Superman 1 and 2 (1978 and 1980) would cost only $150 combined — movies are more expensive than ever and have more tools and clout to trim costs.  When Woody Allen can make his $9 million Manhattan on the actual location, but neither Spider-man nor the Avengers can fight on their real home turf — and still cost $200 million using CGI, soundstages and hardly any stars — there’s a problem, especially when these films depend on foreign revenue in the amount of $500 million just to break even!  It’s time to look to the “little guys” like World’s End, The Is The End, The Conjuring and even Dispicable Me 2 (which cost $80 million) to push Hollywood away from its A-movie budget mentality.  Otherwise, Lucas and Spielberg may been correct in their prophecy of doom.  

• We still like dramas.  The Butler remains a shining example of adult concepts that can defeat action fare like Kickass 2 (also see last year’s shining example when Marigold Motel defeated Resident Evil).  Despite last year’s resurgence in adult and indie hits like Moonrise Kingdom, the franchises are still being churned out at a great ferocity.  But gems like The Way, Way Back are encouraging saviors.  But we need another Moonrise or…dare I say it…My Big Fat Greek Wedding; something to really push the adults away from Netflix and back in the multiplexes to cast aside the stench of aloof teenagers and angry single parents (no offense, but take your angry children home for a nap instead of the movies, please).  

• Big explosions no longer cut it.  The golden days of Die Hard and Chuck Norris continue to dwindle with each underwhelming B-movie disappointment.  Fast Six’s huge gross owes much to its diverse cast and established action, which includes tight cars and hot chicks.  However, unestablished franchises are pressed to earn the good will of audiences with some fresh selling point.  Blowing up the White House was a money shot in 1996 when Independence Day stormed the theaters.  Nowadays, it simply doesn’t dazzle us. 

I really was saddened by the success/failure ratio.  However, I must plead that I missed movies like Despicable Me 2, which may have improved my winning rate.  But I also steered clear of RIPD, Wolverine, and The Lone Ranger.  This Summer has been humid in my fair state, but the cinema has had one hell of a dry spell and I’m feelin’ thirsty. 

Affleck Assumes The Cowl: It’s NOT Horrible

The web is ablaze with nerdy discontent.  Today, Warner Bros. announced Ben Affleck would assume the role of Batman for the upcoming Man of Steel sequel.  While rummaging through the countless responses, I stumbled across dozens of criticisms that reference Affleck’s original comic book fallout, Daredevil: a film produced a decade ago when Affleck’s street cred was nill — where he chased B-movie follies like Gigli, Jersey Girl and Surviving Christmas.  Affleck was a laughing stock and the idea of him donning spandex and cool gadgets was never reconsidered.

But Affleck has resurrected his career by working behind-the-scenes and clamoring for more challenging roles.  He lit up the screen in the otherwise underwhelming Hollywoodland, where he portrayed George Reeves, the TV actor most noted for portraying Superman and, ultimately, passing away under cryptic circumstances.  Immediately following his impressive acting turn, Affleck took to the director’s chair, where he continues to grow with each pass.

His performances (despite Hollywoodland) were never deep or awe-inspiring.  But Affleck has developed into a competent leading man; the kind who used to send shivers down the spines of the female demographics and earn respective nods from their respective male dates.  In other words, he’s a perfect foil for Henry Cavil!

I’m not upset by WB’s decision.  Obviously, there would have been better choices.  But Affleck’s not the worst they could have made.  (Ryan Gosling is a better actor, but he AINT BRUCE WAYNE!)

The idea of casting a respected thespian to play against Cavill’s Superman could have been a greater mistake.  I have only seen Cavill in one film, but I can tell that his magnetism and charisma are based more on his looks and confidence rather than his acting chops.  A brilliant performer would counter Cavill’s Superman in ways even more devastating than Kryptonite.

This announcement is not devastating because the idea of a Batman Vs Superman film helmed by Zack Snyder has already been a turn-off long before discussions circulated regarding the film’s cast.  Affleck once rejected an offer to helm Justice League, so it is somewhat surprising that he would take an acting gig rather than utilize his much stronger directing prowess.  In a perfect world, Affleck would assume both duties and allow Snyder to recoil back to his low-grade fodder.

I’m guessing Affleck’s decision was a concession (and sure-fire method of securing his great-grandchildren’s future).  It’ll give him power to produce other projects for WB, which remains a studio that hosts and nurtures talents, such as its multi-decade collaboration with Clint Eastwood.  Those two forces have produced dozens of films: some of which were the studio’s choices; others in which were Clint’s passion projects (“money-losers”).  Yet, they’ve established a healthy rapport that’s lead to a wonderful stable of work.  I suspect Affleck has earned a free ticket to greenlight 2-3 “passion” projects for putting on that cowl.

Affleck was probably nobody’s first choice for Batman.  He certainly wasn’t mine!  But, I’m in the state of displeasure to look beyond Snyder’s bastardization of comic-book lore if it provides Affleck reign over more smaller, personal and otherwise more interesting work.

Affleck has re-earned his street cred, just as Affleck B.F.F. Matt Damon legitimized his masculinity with his Jason Bourne films.  There were naysayers with Damon’s casting just as there with Daniel Craig’s announcement for Bond.  And speaking of Batman, anyone remember the backlash against Michael Keaton back in 1988?  “Beetlejuice!?”

I suspect Affleck’s failure as Batman would have more to do with the incompetence of the writer and director.  Affleck wasn’t the worst thing about Daredevil.  He certainly won’t be the worst thing about Batman.  The countless scathing criticisms all trace back to a dire time when Affleck was Hollywood’s bastard child pretty boy.  This recent Affleck is different.  With so much bad news circulating the entertainment circuit, hiring a multi-Oscar winner for Batman vs. Superman is not the news the world deserves, but the news it needs right now!  Although I’m a die-hard Superman fan, I’m pulling for Affleck’s Bats!

Where’s the love?!? Why Women Can Save The Summer…

Recently, I read a fascinating article by Susan Wloszcyna at RogerEbert.com about Hollywood’s inability to allow females to script and direct their gargantuan box office franchises, especially the ever-popular comic book lore.   As a result, this lopsided approach has isolated half of the movie-going demographic (the ones without the Y chromosome).  Our nerd culture is being marionetted by male film-makers who, most likely, spent the childhood summers reading comic books rather than scribing love letters.

The box office implosion of The Lone Ranger can be attributed to many reasons  — the niche Western genre, Johnny Depp’s tired “weirdness” factor, the eclectic advertising…  But, how about the film’s complete lack of romance?  Instead, the film — like many summer fare — has been supplanted with the “bromance” factor.  It’s a sad state of affairs when the most developed romantic subplot is found in Fast and Furious Part Six, which, incidentally, spends more screen time teasing the homoerotic tension between the Rock and Vin Diesel while hottie Jordanna Brewster idles in the backdrop.

I’m beginning to wonder if Hollywood looks at its precious teenage audience as a series of the Fred Savage character from 1987’s The Princess Bride.  “Is this a kissing book”?  If you get too lovey-dovey, you must cater to the “Twihards”.  Too little and you must invoke mass chaos and destruction.  Look at the comic book films, which typically push a sloppy, bare-minimum bit of love intrigue.  You can almost feel the relief when Batman’s first would-be girlfriend, Rachael Dowes is killed off in The Dark Knight.  In the next flick, Bruce is seduced by a co-worker, Miranda (Mario Cotillard) mainly because the script calls for a big plot development later.  You can feel collected chuckles of virginal boys when Batman suddenly feels the urge to enact coitus. 

The recent box office champions (Iron Man 3, The Avengers, Dark Knight Trilogy) hinder any claims that romance must be integral to successfully break box office records.  However, if you took the figures and factored in inflation, you’d get a different story.  According to boxofficemojo.com, the all-time champions remain Gone With The Wind (when admission cost you a quarter back in 1939), Star Wars, The Sound of Music, E.T. and Titanic.  Scroll down further and you’d find Doctor Zhivago and even Snow White.  Almost all of these films are love stories.

Despite my personal qualms with the L-word these days, I still appreciate a good romantic tale.  This explains why I continue to lambast Twilight, praise Pixar (Up!), and forever dream of the day when my Kryptonian powers reach fruition so I can impress my soon-to-be-future-wife with a flight around the Statue of Liberty.

Speaking of such, Man of Steel disappointed for many reasons, one of which is Amy Adam’s Lois Lane, whose role felt more obligatory rather than necessary; her passionate kiss with Cavill’s Superman feels forced and uncomfortable.  Like Batman, these comic book characters put in love scenes as an afterthought. Even Robert Downey Jr. seemed to have more fun poking and prodding his male sidekicks rather than engaging in a duel of words with girlfriend, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) in the latest Iron Man installment. 

Like any good nerd, I contemplate on how I would make a Superman film.  I always fall back on the story between Clark, Superman, and Lois.  When scribe, Tom Mankiewicz was first drafted to rewrite Richard Donner’s 1978 version of the Man of Steel, he stipulated that the love story must work.  Therefore, he created a moment in which Supes, Lois and Clark have their respective exchanges, flirtations, and emotional boundaries.  By investing in the time and insuring competent casting, the emotional core was built for an inevitable payoff.  It remains the only reason why I love the infamous “time-reversal” conclusion.  Who wouldn’t risk a time paradox or global chaos if their lady’s life was at stake?

Obviously, a love story is possible with a solid script, no matter the writer’s sex (it worked for men like Shakespeare, Rostand, those two twin brothers who wrote Casablanca…)  But the male-oriented flavor remains daunting.  The sentiment seems restrained to understanding the male psyche.  Rarely do we get to peak into the mind and soul of their women they love.

It’s obvious that Hollywood remains one of the best examples of gender inequality.  Females have 20% of the speaking parts, rare receive top billing, possess no political or economical or creative clout within the studio system.  If you pull almost any cast and crew credit on IMDB, you notice a severe case of testosterone overkill.

It’s that continuous inequality that’s making Hollywood more and more dull.  Even the “chick-flicks” are manufactured by the male writers and directors, such as numerous the Nicholas Sparks and Jennifer Aniston trite that pretends to understand mutual, unconditional love.  Even the more female-empowered films (any recent film starring Melissa McCarthy) are being written and directed by males.  

If I were to do a Superman flick, the first thing I would do is draft a competent female co-writer, who can instill many of the key feminine sensibilities I simply cannot recreate — or even understand.  Man of Steel is a pure example of David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan, and Zack Snyder rummaging through ideas that have to do with identity, destiny, and lots of explosions, gunshots and punches.  And crap, they forgot about Lois Lane!

My favorite film of the past decade remains Lost in Translation, which was written and directed by Sofia Coppola.  It was innocent, surreal and genuine; a non-traditional love fable between Bill Murray, a has-been actor facing a mid-life crisis, and Scarlett Johanson, a young, naive newly-wed plagued by doubt.  The two form a bond that’s unspoken; reach a mutual understanding that’s conveyed merely by how they read and react to each other.  There’s no explosions or severe tension, but it spoke volumes to me on human connections.  I don’t know if Coppola’s gender deserves some credit for the film’s success (she’s not reached anything to match this film since).  But Coppola clearly has the kind of talent that Zach Snyder misses, whose interests in relationships always involves placing the two leads in front of the camera and proclaiming their mutual affection without actually trying to display it based on sheer magnetism and chemistry.  (Speaking of teenage chuckles, does anyone remember the sex scene from Watchmen?  Do you remember resisting a cloying urge to explode into laughter?)

When you spend $200 million on a film, it would be worth a few more pennies to hire a few female script doctor to pepper up the love that’s missing in the movies.  The ladies will thank you for it.  The teenage boys may end up smiling just like Fred Savage once his grandpa finished the love story.  “As you wish…”

Love always,

Superheroes Can’t Rescue Warner

So, I hated every singular ounce of Man of Steel.  But many of you didn’t…and, as a result, there will be many, many more.  Warner Bros — the studio behind this century’s most lucrative franchises like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Hangover, The Dark Knight Trilogy — has been banking on Superman’s return, not only in the hopes of restarting a fresh franchise, but a plethora of them.  WB’s DC comic book lineup, which includes Supes, Bats, as well as many other characters who have either failed cinematically (Green Lantern) or remain untested (Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman).  When Marvel’s Avengers became the third highest grossing film last year (only behind James Cameron’s Titanic and Avatar), WB started pushing even harder to accrue the same success with its own stable.   I suspect they’re too late.  

Now that franchises have become the Holy Grail of movie studios, Warner is more desperate than ever for its comic book properties to save face.  Its non-comic properties have either run dry (Potter, Hangover), remained dormant (Lethal Weapon, Dirty Harry, Gremlins), or approach their final curtain call (Lord of the Rings), Warner Bros is hedging its bets the comic book movies will remain the prominent genre in movies. 

The comic book craze may seem invulnerable; its risen to new heights thanks to The Avengers and its immediate sequel Iron Man 3, which propelled past the coveted billion dollar mark faster than you can yell “Excelsior” (you comic fans get it, right?).  Seeing infinite shades of green, studios like Sony, Fox, and Disney are prepping new installments of Thor, Captain America, X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four, just to name a few.  WB has already greenlit Superman’s sequel for a 2014 release.

Despite Hollywood optimism in all thing geek, I fear the craze has reached a peak and is dangerously close to over-saturation.  The sheer number of releases continues to increase.  This year will mark at least four major releases connected to a DC/Marvel brand.  Marvel’s stable alone has become so dense that its placing releases in Winter (Thor 2) and Spring (Captain America 2) just to keep from competing with themselves.

Warner Bros hopes that a Justice League feature will springboard its own share of solo efforts.  If they succeed, we could see as many 10-12 comic book titles hit our multiplexes in a singular year; a far cry from a decade ago when Marvel began its dominance in yearly increments (Spider-Man in 2002, Hulk in 2003, Fantastic Four in 2005).  We had time to relish each new fore into our nerdiest of fantasies.  Now we’re being bombarded with them.   

In just ten years, we’ve seen Batman, Spider-Man, Superman get face lifts and murmurs that X-Men, Fantastic Four, and even Daredevil will have soon have fresh, younger (and cheaper) casts and stories.  I suspect Disney will buy Robert Downey Jr. a small country just to retain his services for future Avenger films.  But if RDJ doesn’t bite, Disney will likely reboot their Iron Man series too.

At some point, we will grow tired of it all.  I believe the comic book film was already nearing a fragile turn with Superman Returns and Spider-Man 3 left films geeks in dismay.  But then 2008 came.  Christopher Nolan splashed a fresh coat of face paint on his diabolical Joker in The Dark Knight and Downey made Iron Man more pleasurable outside of the metal plating than within it.  The Avengers carried the franchises to new level of crowd-pleasing epic swag.  But after both Avengers and Superman destroy an entire city — whether it’s call New York or Metropolis — where do you go from here? 

Superman and Batman may seem infallible presently, but each have had their share of disasters and mishaps.  For example Batman Begins accrued a modest $50 million opening weekend, which looks downright feeble next to Dark Knight or Man of Steel.  But Begins was coming off the disastrous Batman and Robin — which, along with Spawn marked the end of one comic book era.  It wasn’t until 2000 that X-Men renewed audience interest (and studio faith) in the genre.  Despite Batman’s longevity, he had to “re-earn” his respect in the cinematic spectrum. 

Warner’s strategy remains safeguarded.  Despite Man of Steel’s little Easter Eggs — its references to Wayne Enterprises — the studio is playing close to the chest.  Unlike Marvel, which pushed full-speed ahead with an expanded universe and early promises for an Avengers movie, DC is hedging its bets.  Instead of using singular features to cross-promote a giant team-up film, WB is using a reverse philosophy, which, nevertheless, is aimed to reach the same quantity of releases per year. This means that any hopes of a slew of DC features won’t occur until 2016/2017 at the latest.  Will audiences be there to greet them?

Despite DC’s own bevy of unique characters (and who wouldn’t want to see WB try it’s hand at an Aquaman feature?), I cannot envision anything other than a direct copy of Marvel.  And despite your preference, there will be a large polarized audience.  Some will crave more from Marvel, whereas others will push for DC.  Comparisons will remain up to the point where we have two films which bills a half-dozen cats wearing spandex and masks.  It’s feasible that DC will take a page from Marvel and inject a unique spell over it’s individual comic properties — whatever they decide those will be.

But over saturation will become the genre’s Kryptonite.  Already, I’m seeing ads for Thor and not feeling the excitement, just a sense of deja vu.  “It’s Loki taunting Thor from a jail cell!”  “Wait, wasn’t this in ‘Avengers’?”  “No, that was in ‘Dark Knight’!”  “Nope, it was in ‘Silence of the Lambs!!'”  But Marvel as a whole has retained my interest.  Their films always entertain — some more than others.  DC, besides it Dark Knight trilogy, has unraveled as a series of films built upon focus group research and a lack of imagination.  So far, I’ve seen no signs that they won’t attempt to replicate the Marvel Methodology.

The universe is becoming far too crowded with tight-wearing demigods and not enough rationale for them all to co-exist.  I get the sense that I’m not alone as the tepid response to Wolverine’s trailers suggest.  If Marvel remained the only dog in this race, the genre would have better chances to keep movie-lovers engaged — and not bored.  The comic book resurgence was built on audience desires to finally see the X-Men and Spiderman on screen and for Superman and Batman to return after a long-winded absence.  Now, I get a sense that we’re getting everything from Santa and some of the presents will remain unopened or untouched.  There’s bound to be a time when audiences will be in need of rescuing — from the superhero. 

Man of Steel–Review

Dear Superman,

My name is Chris.  I’m your biggest fan!  I’m also adopted and have blue eyes.  I hope I’ll grow up to be just as tall as you.  I do not think I will ever be as handsome.  I just finished watching Man of Steel.  I’m sorry to say, but I hated it!

I just didn’t like it as much as Superman II, which I watch on my VCR every day.  The new movie makes you look mean and sad.  Why is that?  I prefer it when you are funny and happy.  I also didn’t feel like I knew you.  You don’t really get to have fun with your cool powers.  Like, for example, when you start to fly, I never felt like I was flying with you.  You went too fast!  You also talk like a robot and many times you don’t talk at all.  When you fight the bad guys, my ears and eyes hurt.  I couldn’t follow along and almost took a nap after a while.  When you fight General Zod, I couldn’t understand what hurts you and what doesn’t.  It kinda felt like Transformers.  Did you like Transformers?  I didn’t!  It was okay that this movie told me where you came from.  I didn’t know you came from Pandora.  I didn’t know your two dads were so cold.  Maybe you should start asking your moms for advise.  Kevin Costner acts like an army guy.  I’m glad he’s not my dad.  Plus, he does something very, very stupid in the movie.  I did like Lois Lane.  The red-headed actress was very serious, which is good, because Lois should be…at times.  I don’t know if she’s the right woman for you.  I don’t see you two clicking when you two talk.  You can do better.  I liked how you looked in this movie.  You look tough!  But you kinda bored me.  You always talked about important things and many things I didn’t understand. 

Man of Steel feels like Superman’s I and II combined.  But it went by so fast.  I felt cold, tired, angry and frustrated.  Superman, I don’t understand why you had to be like Batman.  In fact, those Dark Knight movies feel light and fluffy in comparison.  Did you watch The Avengers?  I think your new movie should be more like that!  I don’t like it when you brood.  I’m happy you’re back in movies, but I think this is the worst one I’ve ever seen.  Yes, even worse than Part IV, which at least tried to make me smile.  I feel sad now.  Can you try to do better next time?  You’re still my favorite and will always be.

Your pal,

Chris
(1983)

P.S.  I would stay away from Zack Snyder.  He scares me.

Countdown to Man of Steel Part V: Superman Returns (2006)

Why the world doesn’t need a Superman…

At the end of both versions of Superman II, Clark returns to the diner where a bully had beaten him up during him brief stint as a human.  With his powers fully restored, Clark issues a little payback.  It might seem out-of-place for the Boyscout to exact some revenge, but I believe it was a crucial.  It showed Superman, despite the humble, idealistic crusader for “truth, justice, and the American way” was still…just a man.  

Superman Returns is world-class film-making hand-delivered by Bryan Singer, who revered Richard Donner’s initial Superman films so much that he had to opted to pay homage in every crevace he could find.  Already starting the comic-book film craze of the 21st century (that grows to this day), Singer bypassed a third outing in X-Men to restore Superman to the same heights attained in 2002’s Spiderman and the previous year’s Batman Begins.  But Singer never gives his new Superman (Brandon Routh) a bully scene.  Instead, Routh — looking the part — is too noble.  You get the sense that Routh’s Superman would ask you not to talk during the movie, even if the theater was empty.

Returns is a direct sequel to the first two original films; seemingly ignoring any traces of Pryor or Nuclear Man.  Although Returns makes for a much better third chapter, Singer borrows so many elements from Donner’s version that it feels like we’re treading the same waters.  He aims for the same awe and loving resonance.  The film merely tickles our emotions.  We’re never left with the same giddy excitement and romantic intrigue. 

The film opens with a long paragraph — which feels more like Cliff Notes than “Star Wars” — informing us that Superman took a five-year journey back to Krypton, leaving the Earth to fend for themselves.  Singer tries to instill Superman’s real-life long-term cinematic absence within the confines of his sequel.  However, this plot element lacks any payoff.  Why on Earth would Superman abandon his mother and girlfriend to return to a planet that was fully destroyed.  As we would guess, Superman’s journey was in vain.

Singer attempts to continue Donner’s themes: Superman’s alien origins, his lonely path, his inability to live the life of a normal human.  Singer uses John Ottoman’s music to convey a sense of melancholy.  There’s a nice scene when a morose Superman flies into the heavens, having just learned that Lois has denounced him.  (Yes, he spies on Lois using his super-hearing and x-ray vision.  Yes, it is creepy.)  During Superman’s absence, Lois not only got married, but she has a son.  Superman retreats to space and lamented stands guard, honing his super hearing over the world for signs of trouble.  By no coincidence, he hovers in a Christ-like pose. 

Singer’s Superman Returns succeeds by instilling a sense of fun and awe that’s been missing since Superman II.  The Metropolis civilians have a naive sense of innocence — the kind that Donner imbued.  Unlike Gotham City, his Metropolis is bright and futuristic.  The detriment is that Superman’s absence doesn’t seem to have hindered the world.  Of course, we catch brief glimpses of the news.  Superman/Clark witnesses violence, destruction, and chaos, but the idea that the world has turned upside down since Superman’s departure is lost.  Why does the world need a Superman?

As much as Singer aims for our heartstrings, his failures have much to do with the casting.  Instead of allowing Brandon Routh to ingrain Superman with his own ingredients, Routh seems to constricted to mimicking the character brought to life by Christopher Reeve.  Unfortunately, Routh lacks the same chops to present Clark as a complete square.   Also, his Clark doesn’t possess the same character deviations from his alter-ego, making his mild disguise borderline asinine. 

Routh’s Superman is noble to a fault.  Routh unsure as to how to play Superman outside the confines of the stoic, goody-two-shoes.  Reeve always seemed confident playing the Boyscout with the slightest edge to him humanity and dimension.  But Routh always speaks to Lois in plain-spoken English with never the slightest inflection.  Singer fails to give Routh liberty to reveal fallibility which makes for one uninspired Superman.  Routh remains Superman Returns’ biggest stumble.  The kid simply looks like…a kid! 

Routh fails to inject his dual roles with the same sense of duality and deviation.  His Clark Kent remains a square, but Routh pulls away from the outlandish buffoonery that made Reeve’s so infectious; his disguise so credible.  His goofy grin and piercing gazes are slightly creepy. However, his Superman remains an utter bore; strengthening the arguments that Superman is merely a one-dimensional character.  

For the role of Lex Luthor, Singer recruited veteran, Oscar-darling, Kevin Spacey, who, surprisingly, lacks either the menace or the humor of Hackman’s performance.  There are numerous sequences when Spacey seems to be sitting back waiting for something to do.  Singer attempts to recycle many of Hackman’s ego-maniacal self-parody trait — Luthor even has a new trophy fling (Parker Posey) who grows fond of Luthor’s nemesis, although her rekindled conscience lacks a genuine payoff. 

Kate Bosworth plays Lois, who’s bitter that Superman took a five-year-hiatus.  Who could blame her?  However, Bosworth is so invested in Lois’s disappointment that there is no freedom for her to embrace the quirky, humorous side delivered by Kidder.  Her banter with Perry White lacks the 1940s screwball sense, but feels more like an actual debate with an actual editor.

Regardless of the acting mishaps, I enjoyed Superman Returns upon my revisit, although my level of engagement was based on outside resources.  Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder’s strong characterizations helped fill in the holes left open by their inferior successors.  The use of John Williams score incurred memories and emotions during Routh’s “return” as well as his final curtain call: a final flight in outer space (although Routh denies us any affirming grin).  Returns also gravitates so close to the original material.  Lex’s real-estate schemes, Superman’s romantic barriers, and the usage of Kyrptonite all feel like retreads.  It remains a loving tribute that sticks too close to the chest.  It remains a testament to the likes of Richard Donner, Margot Kiddor, Gene Hackman, and Christopher Reeve.  Superman Returns disappointed because I simply cannot accept any substitutes.

Wrap-Up

The Superman films was the first successful, big-budgeted comic book franchise.  It single-handedly legitimized comic books as viable movie properties.  What was considered merely childish fodder became a respected medium for family demographics.  Parents could appreciate a man in tights with the same latitude as their five-year-old son. 

The first two films remain one of the biggest gambles in Hollywood history.  Unfortunately, the Superman films are the victims of some miscalulations and poor decisions.  Just as they took off, they prematurely faltered.  One has to wonder where the franchise would be had Richard Donner remained.  Therefore, there will always be a sad, unfortunate kink in a saga that should have blossomed rather than wilted. 

Despite Superman’s fall from grace, his lasting legacy withstands thanks to the indeniable impact that Christopher Reeve made on our culture.  Like any icon, Superman was in his prime at an early age — and those will be the times we remember best: a floating icon who inspired us, who made us wonder.  Even if Henry Cavill’s take fails to take off the ground, I’ll always believe a man can fly — ALWAYS.   

Countdown to Man of Steel Part IV: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1988)

You will believe a franchise can die!

Superman IV swoops in for one futile attempt to restore its good name.  Instead, it crashes and burns like the nuclear holocaust it attempts to lambast.  Like Superman III, it mistakenly references current events; attempting to imbue anti-war messages while relishing in the splendor of seeing Superman exchange bouts with his super-powered opponent.  Like Superman II, part IV underwent a change in management; this time the franchise migrated to Canon Films — a low-budget factory that churned out dozens of B-movies films in 1980s.  To entice Christopher Reeve to return, Canon gave the star script control and the promise to produce a personal project of his choosing.  Yet, Canon faced dire financial constraints and subdued their Superman installment with budgetary cuts and time-restrictions.  The final product was the series’ first commercial bomb; an implosion so great that Christopher Reeve and company never returned to make Superman soar one more time.  Instead, we’re left with a 90-minute civics lesson and a dozen hair-brained, half-baked ideas that couldn’t be rescued even with Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman marking their full returns.

The budget limits are glaringly obvious as the credits soar right and left to the far reaches of Earth.  A Russian manned spaceship collides with an asteroid.  Superman flies toward the camera, but something is already amiss.  The effect looks terrible; Superman no longer seemingly floats, but bobs and stutters as if his oil needs changing.  He revisits his Fortress of Solitude (which negates the ending of Donner’s original version to Superman II).  The sets are merely a models and a projected series of paintings and cheap props.  Even Christopher Reeve is beginning to show signs of wear-and-tear; his once sculpted body looks less imposing as it once did. 

Despite the bad effects and cheap props, Superman IV’s script is so tepid and ridiculous.  The once funny, energized Daily Planet banter has been degraded into childish quips.  “All men like me!  I’m very, very rich!”  “The people of this city depend on us and we can’t let them down!”  The nuclear arms race is referenced early and becomes the centerpiece to Superman’s plot.  Yet, the specifics are omitted.  In 1988, audiences could, supposedly, understand the nature and severity of the crisis.  In 2013, we’re left drawing blanks, wondering why Superman spends most of the first half sitting and contemplating rather than flying across the skies.  Superman finally decides to get political: something Donner, Mankiewicz and the Salkands slyly avoided.  Rather than rescue cats from trees, Reeve must now perform trash pickup for the countries of the world; dispatching nuclear missles by cobbling them together in a giant fishing net and flinging them into the sun.  Still with me?

Besides compromising Superman’s basic heroics, we also lose the awe and intrigue of his romantic fling with Lois Lane, despite Kiddor’s enhanced participation.  During Clark’s pensive, depressed state over the affairs of the world, he gradually escorts Lois to his balcony and leaps off with her in tow.  Lois, surprised and terrified, is suddenly rescued by Superman still donning Clark’s thick-rimmed glasses.

Why would he reveal himself again?  One would argue that a distraught Kal-El needed reconnect with Lois for comfort and support, but also at the expense of reawakening her memories that he originally severed in Part II.  In an dazzling display of insensitivity, Superman engages another kiss that smears Lois of her short-term memory.  So, is Superman constantly revealing his secrets to Lois only to labotomize her?  If so, Lois may be subject to more mental roofies than a guest at Amanda Bynes’ house.

With Superman’s relationship with Lois remaining stagnant, Clark, meanwhile, is constantly courted by the Daily Planet’s newest managing director, Lacy Warfield (Mariel Hemingway).  Like Superman III, the new romantic interests have their sights on the overtly square Clark Kent.  Yet, this element remains unexplored.  Instead, the filmmakers throw in an unexplained comedy of errors where Superman inexplicably doublebooks dates with Lois (as Superman) and Lacy (as Clark) simultaneously.  What ensues is a “Mrs. Doubtfire” sequence with Clark and Superman sneaking away and switching roles to deceive their respective dates.  Despite the intrigue of witnessing Superman utlize his infinite speed, the scene remains a novelty rather than any critical plot element. 

But Superman loves to mess with women’s heads. 

Gene Hackman marks his first return to the franchise since 1978.  He appears older, but at ease with taunting Superman and walking away to collect the check.  His Lex Luthor escapes from prison thanks to his lame, cloying teenaged nephew Lenny (John Cryer of “Two and a Half Men”).  He attempts to stall Superman’s attempt to disarm the world by cloning Superman using the son’s energy. 

Hence, he creates Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow in his sole acting role), an 80s-band-drummer-turned-arch-nemesis.  In fairness, Nuclear Man serves as Luthor’s tool and is limited to barking lion roars and spurting threatening one-liners.  His fights with Superman do provide a sense of scope missing it the last installment.  However, their ongoing bouts, which involve the destruction of the Great Wall of China, an active volcano in Italy, and the Statue of Liberty demonstrate the depreciating special effects.  It’s during these moments when Superman IV feeble effects work resemble the films of Canon rather than Donner and the Salkands.  The sound effects also hearken to Canon’s mill of crap, including their other bigger-budgeted follie, Masters of the Universe. 

Superman IV runs at a mere 90 minutes and it shows.  None of it subplots bear any weight.  Instead, the subplots of shamelessly interlaced with no rationale.  For example, Lacy is placed in jeopardy near the film’s conclusion because, apparently, Nuclear Man caught sight of her on the cover of the Daily Planet.  Imagine if he ran across a Glamour.  There’s also mention of the Daily Planet’s buyout and transition to tabloid journalism which does nothing but give Perry White (Jackie Cooper) and Jimmy Olson (Marc McClure) something to do. 

Christopher Reeve exited the Superman franchise one final time by hovering above the Earth’s surface and smiling at the camera before flying off-screen.  Seeing the film again, it’s jarring how ten years ages a person.  Yet, Reeve remained steadfast in presenting both Clark Kent and Kal-El as unique entities that presented some credence to facade.  Yet, Reeve’s investment in turning his final outing into a morality tale broke the rules of fantasy and wonder.  It reminds me of the first film where he rescued Lois above bystanders who applauded and cheered.  It was a wonderful fantasy.  It was a world with a Superman– a fabulous dream that eventually ended.  But Reeve remained the glue that presented the saga from becoming a laughing stock.  Instead, Superman IV remains a film where all of the elements failed to meld together.  Superman went from stopping an earthquake to stopping a speeding train merely by STEPPING on the rails.  But Reeve never faltered even during the most embarrassing moments. 

Therefore, Superman IV will remain a turkey, but I can never laugh at it.  I can only smile with the S-Man and celebrate as he bid his final adieu — one last time — even in the state of utter defeat. 

Countdown to Man of Steel Part III–Superman III (1983)

Superman versus Superman versus Richard Pryor. 

When I look at the poster for Superman III, I see a different tale from what was intended.  I see Christopher Reeve – stoic, all-powerful – straining to curl his lips, feigning behind the heavy burden of towing co-star Richard Pryor; a far cry from his trademark grin that ended parts I and II.      

Superman III takes a perfectly prepared gourmet meal and tosses in some new extra ingredients that ruins the taste.   After establishing a mythology, Part III tosses in a comic performer — Richard Pryor — and an disconnected theme – computers.   With Richard Lester fully in charge, Superman III attempts to imbue more comedy, less scale.  It also commits a fatal error by trying to reflect modern times, which dates the film in ways that the previous films avoided. 

We see the film’s weak hand in the first five minutes.  Rather than propelling us through the splendor and awe of the cosmos, a pre-credit sequence subjects us to a waiting line at an unemployment office.  (Maybe Part IV should begin at the DMV.)   An unemployed Gus Gorman (Pryor) glimpses a matchbook ad, immediately takes a computer job and slowly attains a skill level that dwarfs any M.I.T. grad.  When billionaire tycoon, Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) catches him embezzling company funds, he seduces Gus into becoming his technological patsy.  When Superman interferes, Webster gets Gus to replicate Kryptonite.  However, a missing element thwarts their plan to kill Superman – but, instead, turns the Man of Steel evil.     

The film is bifurcated; devoting one-half to Pryor’s comedy distilled for family audiences.  Rather than showcase Pryor’s comic gifts, Lester places Pryor into some bizarre – and unfunny – physical pratfalls, including an inconceivable free fall from the top of a skyscraper – while donning a pink cape.  Pryor is also subjected to moments where he dons a cheesy, giant cowboy hat and engages in a verbal dispute with a mule.  Pryor does manage to play a convincing dote, but there’s no dimension and his stints are simply never funny.  . 

Margot Kidder has now been demoted to brief appearances at the film’s beginning and end.  She’s on a trip to Bermuda!   Deeming Lois and Superman’s romantic intrigue had run its course; Clark is now reunited with high school crush, Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole), during a high school reunion in Smallville. The new romance offers potential for unraveling new elements to Superman.  It allows us to glimpse the Man of Steel as Clark, not the Clark disguise, but the Clark we remember from Superman’s prologue.  Rather than explore the “man” between the Clark disguise and the “Superman” symbol, the film only focuses on Lana’s personal crisis.  Their blossoming romance pales when we reflect on Lois and Superman exchanging glances while flying circles around the Statue of Liberty. 

Superman III’s best contribution is Superman’s evil turn.  Yet, the film – keeping within the restrictions of its family demographic – doesn’t explore this twist far enough.  Instead, evil Superman is regulated to a feeble prankster, puffing out Olympic torches and straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa.  Reeve’s evil twist is about as menacing as Tobey Maguire’s evil Spiderman, where one performance tricks — the other dances.  Also, there is some bizarre conflicts in Superman lore, such as when evil Superman takes to the bottle in a Metropolis bar and becomes inebriated.   Since Superman is capable of being drunk, does that make Superman susceptible to poison also? 

The evil arch does conclude with an interesting twist when Superman “splits” from his Clark identity.  The two engage in fight for good and evil, which posits the question: Does Clark represent the good, human conscience? 

“Bill, glance over to your right.  Did I have too much Captain Morgan’s or is that Superman gulping down Jim Bean?”

Once Superman regains his moral fiber, he engages in a final confrontation with Gus’s “super computer”.  But the sequence feels lethargic and lacks the imagination and scale we witnessed in Superman’s California rescue or his bout with the three Kryptonian villians.  Superman III has one impressive sequence when he rescues a Smallville bio-laboratory from a fire.  We actually get a sense of how power Superman really is, such as when he freezes the surface of a lake and tows the giant ice layer onto the blaze and extinguishes the threat.  But Superman’s greatest feats, such as his Columbia rescue are limited to only quick snippets while Pryor “explains” the sequence to his villain. 

The moment when Pryor reiterates Superman’s actions displays the lack of imagination at work.  Pryor was hired for the third Superman film based on an interview he gave to Johnny Carson where he enthusiastically mimicked his favorite moments from the first film.  This gave the Salkands the idea to incorporate two bankable factions.   Instead, it merely polarized them. 

Superman III pales when compared to its predecessors in regards to scope, awe and excitement.  It retains the high production values, but none of the heart.  There is no one singular scene that destroys Superman III as a whole.  On the surface, Superman III should have been a disaster.  Instead, its focus is merely misplaced.  It feels like 2-3 films routinely intercutting.  It also suffers the wounds leftover from Richard Donner’s premature dismissal.  Instead, Superman III corroborates how Richard Lester clearly lacked the same level of interest in what made Richard Donner’s films the classics they are today.  Superman III remains entrenched in 1980s popculture and serves solely as a product of that era.  It’s the misstep that hindered the Christopher Reeve saga worse than any Kyrptonite could.