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

FAST AND FURIOUS 6

Review by John Wood

Back in 2001, when The Fast and the Furious was released, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker were little-known actors trying to get a big break in Hollywood. What happened after that first film is history, but since then the franchise has continued, globetrotting in adventures that have ranged from worst movie of the year contenders to fun summer blockbusters. It has never received great critical success (nor does it seem to go after it), but the sixth film in the franchise not only tries to outdo what this vehicle has done before – it actually manages to wreck the car up in the process.

The franchise is under the tank.

The plot finds all of the established characters of the last five films working together with the police to uncover the truth about Letty (a character presumed dead since the fourth film) who appears to be working for new criminal mastermind Shaw. The overall plot includes billion dollar chips and secret backstories but the film never feels like it is a bigger story then that original synopsis.

If you haven’t followed this franchise, it would take quite a long time to catch you up on what has happened previously. This is a problem director Justin Lin (who also directed the first paintball episode of Community) dives headfirst into. The opening montage catches everyone up as best as it can, and expects you to remember all the characters that have been introduced in the series thus far.

The movie fails due to this. For true fans of the series, the call-backs to previous characters really heighten the world and allow the fans to see where everyone has gone over the years. However, this brings the film’s storyline into a massive mess – plot threads run everywhere, and the need for all the characters to have backstories, plans and motives ruins anytime to convincingly set up the film’s villain Shaw (played by Luke Evans). Throwing in Dwayne Johnson’s cop Hobbs as a main character (alongside the already extended cast) bogs down the film and really throws off the ratio of action scenes to story. This is bad enough by itself, but with a story this riddled with plot problems it really disappoints.

The action scenes themselves suffer from a need to ramp up faster. Rather than open the film with a big action scene, the film slowly builds until they reach the type we are expecting in the last 30 minutes. There never feels like anything is at stake, and even when side characters crash in the opening action beats, there are no real consequences. When the action ramps up in the final two sequences, the film does throw everything it has into it. But by that point, it’s too little, too late.

His character is better on the sidelines but Dwayne is still highly watchable.

In 2011, when Fast and Furious 5 (or Fast 5 in the states) came out, it mainly ditched the street racing story that was so prevalent in previous titles and made an Ocean’s Eleven-style film. It was the series highpoint, and following it would be a major challenge. It’s a shame to say that Lin has gone back to old tricks, like those found in the terrible fourth instalment. However, the now-expected credits sequence in this film must be seen, as it is probably the film’s highlight and seems to lead to a possible series finale. Lin won’t be returning to direct, but has instead passed the duty onto Saw helmer James Wan.

Perhaps a new pair of hands at the wheel is just what this franchise needs to kick it up a gear?

With a hole-riddled script, terrible supporting characters and a tedious opening act, this movie definitely didn’t feel fast, but it did leave me furious.

Rating: FIZZLE

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_puVuHoR6o

The Great Gatsby

Review by John Wood

Love him or loathe him (loathe being the odd majority in Australia recently) but Baz Luhrmann is back with his newest extravagant and indulgent film ‘The Great Gatsby’. This movie is pure Luhrmann, but regardless of your stance this is not a bad thing.

The novel, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, of which the film is based on, is often described as the all American classic. With such lofty claims for the source material the film was always going to be a hard sell, however what follows from the opening shot is a surprisingly enjoyable stab at the themes mentioned in the book.

Tobey Maguire plays Nick Carraway, at the end of his tale, reciting to a doctor all the events that led him to where he is now. After a short opening we see the toll that this tale has to the man and he is led to write the story down. It is here when the major gripe started to rise. It feels like Baz Luhrmann’s previous film ‘Moulin Rouge’, here we had a writer, narrating his story of a young man untouched by the cruel facts of life and meets someone that will change him forever. Now I know ‘Moulin Rouge’ is the thief, if we are discussing what story came first, however Baz’s insistence on thematically and stylistically having this same naïve character who has never truly gotten drunk before leading to a crazy party is unoriginal from him now. Surely someone must have pointed out these familiarities? But no, the ensuing 2 hours follows almost beat for beat many of the high points of the other film.

With that being said being compared to what can be argued as his best work is much better than a comparison to ‘Australia’, especially when he is complimenting his previous fantastic style. The first party scene that happens almost 30 or so minutes into the film is visually arresting, and the modern music actually compliments more than taking the audience out of the world. Here was some lavish partying that immediately makes the audience jealous they weren’t there (even more impressive in 3D believe it or not), it elicited the emotions that ran through people when seeing the big opening numbers at ‘Moulin Rouge’ (last comparison to that film, promise!).

Outside of all the visual flair found in the parties are the main actors, Carey Mulligan as Daisy, an impressive Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan and Gatsby himself Leonardo Dicaprio doing all they can to keep the story of lost love and wealth moving along when the lavishness no longer stands for itself. For the most part they succeed, all the characters get to recite some amazing dialogue ripped straight from the book with brilliant timing and emotion. However the favourite was newcomer Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker who really lights up her scenes with natural style and flair, a true woman transported from the 1920’s world and implanted in this film.

The film falters by its inability to pace, something that may not have been helped considering the need to be faithful, but after a while the high octane fast cuts of parties and beautiful locale, get bogged down by moments of slow build-up that never really feels to go anywhere, there is many times when the actors are just looking at each other. While the director was clearly trying to show these characters unable to express what they wanted, it seemed simply unnecessary after the third or fourth time.

Also the film incorporates a lot of CG, due to the filming taking place mainly in soundstages and it is never quite polished enough, most of the world just seems flat or fake and it gets hard to soak up the world when this is the case. Another point on the technical side is the editing, one scene has Gatsby driving with Nick at high speeds while having a discussion with him, but many of the shots show Leo saying nothing, it looked bizarre and showed just how slapped together some of the scenes were.

The film is quite simply a mixed bag. It is no way as bad as you might expect, but on the other side it is nowhere near as dazzling as one would hope. The man may say he is great, but I wouldn’t go that far.

3/5