Man of Steel

MAN OF STEEL

Review by John Wood

I never said, "The superman exists, and he's American." What I said was,"God exists, and he's American." – Dr. Milton Glass, Watchmen.

Are you ready for a new take on Superman? Well Warner Bros think so and under the producing eyes of Christopher Nolan and the divisive but amazingly stylised auteur Zack Snyder, we have a new take that really takes advantage of the Big Screen. This year’s biggest summer blockbuster (until maybe Pacific Rim) has hit and knocked what superhero action can do out of the park. Snyder has brought us for the second time since Dr. Manhattan, Dr. Milton’s wet dream.

As an origin film, get ready for the story to tread old ground, unless you have managed to avoid Superman to this point. After being sent off to Earth by Jor-El (an enjoyable Russell Crowe) as Krypton is falling and completely against the wishes of General Zod (Michael Shannon), young Kal-El grows up in a town under the new name of Clark Kent and tries to keep his abilities and secrets hidden. But General Zod makes a promise. He will find the boy and retrieve the Codex that Jor-El sent with him, so that they can build a new Krypton.

The team do everything they can to keep it fresh, from opening with a massive action set piece set on Krypton to a radically different filmic style for a comic book film. One look at the photos or trailers of the film show this new grainy, raw and darker take on this hero. Kudos must be given to Snyder for sticking to a visual design, it is a difficult job to aesthetically link a planet like Krypton to the farming world of Smallville, they are all very different, but the style really blends them quite beautifully. This isn’t like Thor with the difference between Asgard and Earth being quite pronounced. The only problem is that it is all shot quite shakily. It gives the film this real handycam quality, that could take time to get used to, but it never quite sat right with me. It also hurt some of the fights, it made it quite difficult to see what’s going on at some parts, one can’t help feel it was a bit too much.

Even the new suit is more darker then the old versions.

By this point you might be wondering what my thoughts of the story are. The truth is, it’s not as good as the visuals. There are many typical Summer Blockbuster plot holes that it falls into and it’s quite a shame. David Goyer, who co-wrote The Dark Knight trilogy with Nolan and his brother, has a problem of really giving the characters purpose. Without spoiling anything, one must question why Lois Lane was such a focus point for Zod. 

But how is Superman himself? Henry Cavill is a fine Superman, he definitely has the build and the ability to really bring out the drama in each scene. It’s a shame then that we don’t really see the other side of him. This lack of a brighter side also leads to another issue with Lois Lane played by Amy Adams. Their relationship just feels forced rather than natural, I counted quite a few moments that they could have hinted at a meaningful connection but the film just doesn’t give it. It’s a shame that Amy Adams plays Lois quite well, but she is only really used to push the storyline for Superman. If there is a sequel, this is one thing that should be addressed.

But Clark Kent is nothing without the morality compass he is presented around him. The Clark parents that adopt him played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are serviceable and enjoyable even if their methods are a little questionable. With Jonathan Kent being a complete opposite of his biological father, opting to rather keep Clark in the shadows, this decision really doesn't stick and leads to one of the film’s most baffling moments. It is one of the worst reasons for character in superhero movies for quite some time.

The ensemble cast including Christopher Meloni and Laurence Fishburne amongst others all do a fine job, but don’t expect much for them. It’s General Zod’s Michael Shannon that really smashes this film, while he is still under the trappings of the script, he manages to show a man who just cannot be stopped and the path of destruction he leaves behind him is purely astounding.

Improves every scene he is in.

This leads me to the action, which really is far and beyond some of the most intense and fast battles ever seen in film. Zack Snyder also actually avoids using the slow-mo effect that has been over saturating his films since 300. The film constantly outdoes itself with destruction which is saying something considering how big the opening was. If you want a blockbuster to enjoy the spectacle, this is your film.

Overall the film surprised me; I usually don’t care for Superman, but this film made me happy to see him. I do wish that they did take a step back and enjoyed themselves more. They don’t have to be as bright and fun as the Marvel films, but let’s enjoy Superman a little more next time he comes back.

RATING: SIMMER

World War Z

WORLD WAR Z

Review by John Wood

Zombies have been quite possibly the most used horror device in the history of cinema, especially in the last 20 years. So much so that it actually starts getting hard to tell apart the good and the bad in the genre. World War Z does everything it can to reach for greatness and to be one of the best in the genre but stops itself far too soon and this makes it quite a long slog.

The movie starts off quite intelligently, the usual credits are in place but rather than simply waving through the names, the audience gets all the news stories and exposition necessary to get the film started. The audience then gets to meet Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family briefly before they all come under attack by zombies in a following scene. It really is that fast. The opening introduction of the Zombie takeover is visceral and intense and the film rides on this steam for a little while. This is until Gerry gets forced away from the family to work for the United Nations to find a cure or at the very least a reason for why the infection stated. What follows is a globetrotting adventure for Earth’s salvation and it’s here where it jumps through the typical end of the world narrative hoops.

Only one in focus and different colours, the mise-en-scene is hilarious.
HE IS THE HERO! GET IT!?

It’s a shame we spend so much time on Brad Pitt, as there are some fantastic glimpses of how the world is surviving through this ordeal. Whether it’s a cop throwing away his job for some food, or a family deciding to barricade themselves, we get small snippets of the true potential that this kind of narrative can present. But glimpses are all we get before Brad Pitt becomes the hero of the world and runs through the paces. The problem is not that they went down this line, but rather that it is so mundane and forgettable that it should be nothing more than a big budget Friday night movie on TV, rather than a film with lofty ambitions.

While I have not read the book the film is based on, the multi-character narrative concept I have heard about would have been perfect for a TV show, a film to follow that could be diluted. However with the lack of care for the family at the middle of the film, I couldn’t help but feel that with some tweaking the character story of Gerry Lane was small enough to include another two more vignettes and we could have had a real World War Z film.

The special effects are also pretty weak.

The major offence of the film was the lack of payoff, the film’s trailers point at some massive blockbuster moments but the final act is a disappointing letdown that really feels more of an obligation then a natural progression of the film.

The Hollywood summer blockbuster season is usually full of brainless action films, and usually it can be a lot of fun, this movie just has the brainless.

RATING: FIZZLE

How my rating system works

Hi this is a quick post to clear any confusion, since I have been asked how I rate movies I have decided to break it down. As you may have noticed only one film has a numerical score. That was my first review and as such I was still working out how it all worked. However my intention now is to give a blanket term to the film, so that its not dealing with percentages or out of whatever numbers. Since the name is Sizzle Reel, I had a friend who pointed out some clever ways to incorporate that rather then say good, bad or mediocre.

KEY
SIZZLE - A truly great film, when I put this in a review it is a really recommended watch.
SIMMER - A film that reaches for greatness but stops itself. These films aren't bad but since they are not good either they have the possibility of merely being forgettable. If you are really excited for it, go for it.
FIZZLE - Basically not worthy of your time.
DEAD ON ARRIVAL - WORST FILMS EVER aka After Earth

Of course my rating is just my own opinion, if you want to send me a message or write a comment about your thoughts I would love to see them.

Cheers

Monsters University

Monsters University

Review by John Wood

Prequels are difficult. Straight up prequels have a battle, a battle made harder by the fact that all building of sustainable tension isn’t possible. The audience know what’s coming, we know where the characters go next and as such film-makers need to decide whether they pretend they don’t know the future or the film is full of Easter eggs. This film goes for the latter.

Pixar have always been heralded as the company to beat in terms of fantastic animated cinema. Even their weaker movies still get Oscar glory (yes, I’m still hurt by Brave) and as such there is an expectation to what they do next. Now Pixar isn’t new to sequels, they made two amazing Toy Story sequels and a bad Cars sequel, but this is the first time they have tackled a prequel. If they had to do one, then Monsters Inc is a fine place.

10 years ago I BEGGED for this movie.

Monsters Inc followed Mike and Sully, a duo who were at the top of their scare game. They were known as the best to collect power from kids screams. This movie, Monsters University, takes place years before and tries to uncover how they got there and how they became friends during their time as university students.

Straight up it’s a generic set up and one that has trouble in its first act really being more then it is. During the first hour it became apparent that Pixar have effectively made their first real intentional piece of fluff. It is Pixar’s first real comedy, if you got rid of the monsters and actually just made them the actors, it would effectively be sold in the same way as The Internship or even Animal House. This isn’t bad, as there are some great moments of comedy, but it was quite weird to see how Pixar was almost dumbing itself down.

New characters in a prequel? PREPARE TO BE FORGOTTEN!

However, while not having a massive twist or a big reveal, the third act changes quite effectively and glimpses of Pixar brilliance slowly come in. It is not enough to take it to Pixar heights of quality, but it’s a firm reminder that we are dealing with Pixar and that they know how to wrap a film. It won’t beat the Door Chase scene climax from Inc but that’s okay.

The major concern is that while the film includes cool throwbacks to old characters and awesome set ups for them for the next film, it does hurt the film quite a lot. Without trying to spoil the original, it’s hard to really care for the scaring aspect knowing what we know about the following film.

If you just go to the film hoping to be reunited with old friends, then the film works. If you go in expecting a film worthy of Pixar, you will be disappointed. It’s just a fine kids film that still beats a lot of the competitors work.

RATING: Simmer

Only God Forgives

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

*SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL WINNER*

Review by John Wood

What does violence in films mean to you? Sometimes it is a comment on society like seen in Kubrick’s A clockwork orange or Full metal jacket. Or perhaps the violence is purely for fun and a throwback to the good old exploitation days like that seen in Quentin Taratino’s works.

But Only god forgives is something else, it is pure intensity, visually stunning and uncensored in its violence. While it is a film that is very hard to compare with, it is also a perfect median point for the two styles.

Only god forgives is set in the bright fluoro lights of Bangkok, in an area with a seedy underground full of young teens fighting in boxing rings and tonnes of prostitution. On the surface the film centres on Ryan Gosling’s Julian, whose brother, Billy, was killed by a man who was getting revenge for his prostitute daughter. All this murder is being watched over by the police inspector Chang (played by Vithaya Pansringarm), who uses his martial arts sword as a badge and is the towns own judge, jury and executioner. The family dynamic is troubled even more when Julian’s crazy mother Crystal comes to town asking for revenge for her son. Without going into details everyone gets too deep and it becomes a dark dog eat dog world.

Get ready to see this expression... a lot.

However the film manages to focus more on what is not said, the relationship between Crystal and Julian is only briefly hinted at, and there is a fair bit of story to search for behind what the film is showing. In saying that though, the film seems pointlessly vague, almost as if the director feels it will be more respected if he hides the true plot. Overall there is stuff to be found under the surface but don’t be surprised if you realise it isn’t much.

The performances are a bit scatter-shot, with Julian and Chang basically not doing much. Most shots are simply them staring into a camera or fighting. Its Kristen Scott Thomas however who steals every scene, her vapid and unlikable Crystal really raises the bar of just how evil and manipulative a mother can be and it’s her performance that is worth sitting through the film for.

A fantastic example of how great the film looks.

There is some extremely graphic stuff in this film, it walks a fine line between necessity and exploitative. The film wouldn't be able to effectively show the cruel world without it, but in some scenes it’s intensity veers close to being a gimmick.

It is such a tough film to sell, many will walk out extremely hating the slow build or the large amount of silence in the film, while others might be satisfied with all that extra story under the surface. It’s definitely not a terrible film, just inaccessible.

RATING: SIMMER

After Earth

AFTER EARTH

Review by John Wood

When I was ten years old I wanted a Spice Girls CD. Years later I would realise that gift choice was quite an odd request. However come Christmas I open up the CD shaped gift and inside it was the soundtrack to ‘The Lion King’ (a MUCH better choice in retrospect, thanks Mum). But the point is, it wasn’t what I wanted. This is a traditional Christmas story.

Now a traditional Will Smith Christmas story is Willow Smith asking ‘Can I sing about my hair?’ or Jaden Smith asking ‘Can I star in a Sci-fi summer blockbuster?’ It is pretty hard to disappoint with such big presents. However what Will forgot to add was that the sci-fi would be directed by rapidly declining skills, respect and killer of the The Last Airbender film franchise, M. Night Shyamalan.

Not pictured: Interest.

Yep, this review will not be kind.

The story follows Kitai a young and self-righteous idiot, on the home planet of Nova Prime after Earth was evacuated, who tries to be a soldier just like his dad Cypher. A character played by his real life father Will Smith in a performance that seems like he is purposely trying to be worse than his son, something that unfortunately he still fails at. After hearing he wasn't accepted as a soldier and by the wishes of his wife, Cypher takes Kitai with him on his final mission. The trip there is terrible and they crash land on, you guessed it, Earth, and even though there is many people on the ship only the two of them survive.

So what could have been a great opportunity for Will and Jaden to adventure together begins…

Except it doesn’t. Cypher breaks both legs, so unfortunately he is placed behind a table for the entire film while Kitai tries to find a rescue beacon placed in the other half of the ship one hundred kilometres away. What follows is mediocre action beat followed by mediocre action beat with some truly terrible monologues that outstays it’s welcome.

'I will stay here son, while you go out and be a star'

The movie has some terrible CGI and some purely awful plot devices, the only positive I have for the film is that it at least didn't torture the audience for long, it actually seemed shorter than what it was. But maybe that’s because I actually felt like I was sleeping through it.

M. Night Shyamalan cements himself as a director with lost potential, it's getting harder to remember his original films that put him on the map. Maybe he just needs to go away for a few years, maybe a decade, find his groove and come back and surprise us.

In the film there is a quote that Cypher says to his son, ‘Danger is real, fear is a choice’.

Fearing this movie is indeed a choice, but trust me on this, the danger of sitting through the year’s worse is real.

RATING: DEAD ON ARRIVAL

The Internship

THE INTERNSHIP REVIEW

By John Wood

Have you ever gone to see a movie that was sold as a comedy but walked out realising you never laughed? It seems to be the same with all of Shawn Levy’s films, which include Date Night, Just Married and the revamped Pink Panther. Well the newest film by this comedy mind is the product placement heavy The internship.

Story created and co-penned by the film’s star Vince Vaughn, The internship tells the incredulous story of two salesmen whose business is recently bust thanks to the internet. While searching on Google for more jobs, the lead character Billy (played by Vaughn) thinks he should go work at Google, even though he has no experience. He brings Owen Wilson’s character Nick along with him, and after the worst possible webcam interview, they get offered an internship to Google for the summer.

Because Movie logic.

'LET'S JUST YELL UNTIL THEY SAY YES!'

It’s this logic that needs to be placed firmly in mind during this film that hurts the story. Nothing truly sticks and it actually seems to bad mouth the younger demographic, insults the middle aged audience and offends anyone older than 40. One would have trouble realising just who this movie is targeted at.

The film tries too hard to make the audience feel, so much so that one can almost see the director’s strings throughout the film. Random love interest? Check (made worse by the fact that it’s Aussie Rose Byrne). A villain? Check and played by Max Minghella, known for playing the same role in The Social Network. Also a last minute reveal of a true good guy? Check… like on three separate occasions. But the biggest violation of the clichés is the terrible ‘ragtag’ group that Nick and Billy are surrounded with they are simply paper thin stereotypes that the writers see a physical trait for and bad mouths them.

It's strange, I still can't decide if this game really is better or worse then how it looks on screen.

The audience could feel more love and hope for these characters if it all didn’t feel so selfish for all the leads. Culminating in an ending that actually hurts EVERYONE that is trying to get a job at Google and makes the world completely unbelievable.

It could have been worse, they could have set it at Bing headquarters, but if that was the case at least we might have got a laugh out of it.

RATING: FIZZLE