Justice League Unlimited - Season 3 (2005-2006)

(Image from Wikipedia)


Justice League Unlimited - Season 3 (2005-2006)

I reviewed the first two seasons of this excellent animated superhero series last year, and this is really more of the same quality material, which is great. The broad story arc this season has Gorilla Grodd and Lex Luthor managing a new supervillain society to counter the Justice League, while Luthor tries to resurrect Brainiac and once again acquire God-like powers. There are some standalone episodes, but the majority of them deal with this storyline. Interestingly, the main superheroes seem to have an even smaller role this year with the majority of screentime being devoted to the 'B' and lower level characters, which is nice though I did miss the presence of the enigmatic Batman. The A players do show up for the big moments however, and the rarity of their appearances makes their brief screentime all the more dramatic.

Once again the show presents an action spectacular with terrific comic book visuals in motion - very very entertaining, even if the thematic substance the last two seasons went for is somewhat lacking. The major drawback in this season is a handful of weak episodes, including a truly dire female superhero cage-fighting one that surely represents the entire show's nadir. All in all though, it's good stuff and a natural continuation of the show from the last season. Shame that this was the final batch of episodes, but I guess all good things must come to an end.

Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman (2006)

(Image from IMDB)

Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman (2006)

I haven't got much to say about this, really. It's a fairly informative and seemingly thorough but somewhat dry and ultimately unremarkable documentary about the history of Superman. Released at around the time of 'Superman Returns', it is obviously a tie-in for that film and is narrated by one of its stars, Kevin Spacey. Starting with the origins of the character in the 1930s, it chronicles his various incarnations in media, from the comics through to radio shows, cartoons, TV series, and movies, while also portraying the character and stories as a modern myth that stays relevant by adapting to the social climate of the day. There's plenty of interesting little nuggets, and some downright embarrassing stuff from the character's past. Many people related to the various incarnations of Superman are interviewed; for obvious reasons these tend to be people from Superman's more recent history. One of the disappointing aspects is that many key players fail to make an appearance - I can understand an elder statesman like Gene Hackman not showing up, but Tom Welling seriously had better things to do? All in all, this would have made for a fine extra on the Superman Returns DVD, but doesn't really warrant a separate release.

The Tick - The Complete Series (2001-2002)

The Tick - The Complete Series (2001-2002)

Wicked men... you face, The Tick!

So says eponymous protagonist The Tick (Patrick Warburton) during the opening credits of this short lived half hour superhero comedy series. The Tick is a dim witted but very powerful superhero who, in the pilot episode, moves to the big city and forms a crime fighting duo with Arthur (David Burke), an unimposing former accountant turned superhero. Together with fellow superheroes Batmanuel (Nestor Carbonell) and Captain Liberty (Liz Vassey), they fight evil some of the time (usually offscreen) but mostly deal with smaller scale, weird personal and domestic situations, and spend a lot of time quarreling or being confused. There's no action in this, it's more like a bizarre superhero sitcom, and it's pretty funny. The show looks great with its goofy bright colours and wacky costumes. Best of all are the performances by Patrick Warburton as the ridiculously thick but earnest Tick and Nestor Carbonell as the lascivious and somewhat dodgy Batmanuel, who are both laugh out loud funny. Only 8 episodes were produced before unjust cancellation, which is a shame. It may not be brilliant, but it is very good.

The Flash - The Complete Series (1990-1991)

The Flash - The Complete Series (1990-1991)

I loved this show as a kid, but I can now relegate it to the ranks of crappy shows that prove I was an idiot and had no taste while growing up (a crime all kids are guilty of!). Not that I'm not an idiot now, but it's all a matter of degrees. I digress, let me get back to 'The Flash'. Based on the famous DC Comics character who can move at incredible speeds, the show stars John Wesley Shipp as Barry Allen, a forensic scientist who in the pilot episode gets struck by lightening, causing him to be endowed with the power of super speed. The lovely but bland Amanda Pays plays his friend and confidant Tina McGee, a scientist working at the 'Star Labs' research facility. After putting on a costume that can resist the wear and tear of his speed, Barry takes on the persona of "The Flash", fighting crime in the seedy city of... Central City.

'The Flash' clearly tries to evoke Burton's 1989 Batman film, with a similar aesthetic - dark, grimy, stagey looking city - and a terrific Danny Elfman theme. Only this series is way more flawed then that landmark film. First, the good. The acting in general is decent, and the visuals and effects are impressive for their time. The costume looks pretty cool. And the theme, as I said, is pretty darn great. Now for the negative. The stories are, for the most part, rubbish. Formulaic, derivative, predictable, and downright boring at times. The writing is painful, full of exposition, weak characterization and silly gags. The show reeks of the eighties - and it came out in the nineties!

The plotting is terrible and juvenile, and really for the first half of the season many of the storylines could have come out of your average lame cop or 80s sci-fi/action show. Most of the episodes demonstrate one thing - how incompetent the Flash is. If there's one thing you'll learn watching this show, it's that the Flash is a moron who, despite the incredible advantage he has over his adversaries, time and time again gets taken down by someone sneaking up from behind and conking him on the head. Seriously, I began to watch each episode eagerly anticipating the moment when The Flash falls for the same trick that undid him in each of the previous episodes. Or the old 'normal human somehow reacts faster than the Flash' maneuver, which also works whenever it's convenient for the plot and the sneak up from behind trick has already been used in the episode.

Problem is that the villains were too lame for the show, and the only way to create conflict was to have The Flash make an ass of himself. If he applied himself with even a modicum of competence, the villains would be behind bars before the first ad break. So instead of seeing awesome Flash action, we get to see him waste his powers on banal things. A crappy hallmark of the show is were Barry does speed cleaning or speed chores for comedic effect. This seems to be where most of the effects budget went. Things improved in the latter half of the season with stronger super-villain types showing up, most notably Mark Hamill as 'The Trickster', but it still wasn't enough.

'The Flash' is a sometimes entertaining but all too often infuriating show, and one that deserves to be skipped, I'm sorry to say. I looked forward to seeing it since my nostalgia tinged memories informed me that it was a TV classic. I now know better. Curse you, memory, curse you! Hopefully the upcoming movie will help to elevate the live action status of this iconic hero.

Superman III (1983)

Superman III (1983)

Superman III is a bad movie. It's a shame too, because it has some really standout elements, but the overall impression is one of overwhelming negativity. Director Richard Lester takes over the franchise fully, and shows us where the weaker elements in the original cut of Superman II came from (as opposed to Donner's much better but flawed Director's Cut). Even the first two movie had a goofiness to them, but this Superman is way too comical and the fact that Richard Pryor is the star is testament to that fact.

The story begins with Pryor's character Gus Gorman teaching himself to become an Über-computer programmer and subsequently getting employed by the villainous Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) to manipulate computer systems to wreak havoc and make money. Superman (Christopher Reeve) intervenes, so the villains hatch a plan to get rid of him by 'creating' kryptonite. Their kryptonite isn't quite right and it winds up making Superman evil instead of killing him; he then goes around the world causing trouble and making himself hated in the eyes of the world. A sub-story involves Clark Kent reuniting with his high school crush Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole, who went on to play Martha Kent in the TV series Smallville).

As a comedy it just isn't that funny to be honest, although there are some hilarious moments. Pryor is clearly the focus of the movie instead of Superman, which is unfortunate seeing as how it's a Superman movie. The plot meanders in near random fashion and is about as absurd as it gets (an impressive feat given some of the stuff that happened in the first two films). The Superman stuff in the film, it must be said, isn't half bad, and Reeve's turn as the evil Superman is fantastic and culminates in a pretty terrific fight sequence in a junkyard. He evidently relished doing a new take on the beloved character, and his performance here once again solidifies his status as the perennial Superman. Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is hardly in the film, but Annette O'Toole is a more than satisfactory replacement and her 'poor single mother trying to get by' storyline is fairly tolerable.

The production has a cheap look and continued the gradual degradation in quality of the series that began with Superman II and that culminated in the spectacularly awful Superman IV. The effects work is fairly mediocre overall. And as for the music, the renditions of John William's original themes are downright awful.

Superman III is enjoyable at some levels, both as a comedy and as a superhero adventure, but is never fully satisfying as either. It's one for Superman completists only, and isn't really something I'd recommend to anyone, though if it's on TV and there's nothing better to watch one could do far worse.

I AM IRON MAN!

The Iron Man trailer is now available online, direct links are at Dave's Trailer Page. This looks incredible! I don't know jack about Iron Man, but Jon Favreau's adaptation is going to be good if this trailer is any indication. I mean, the cast is terrific on paper - Robert Downey Jr, Terence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges - and Favreau proved he had the special effects chops with Zathura, but I still didn't expect it to seem so... cool! I was expecting a B-level superhero film like The Punisher, Daredevil, or Fantastic Four, but this looks like being a bona fide well made, well intentioned film!

Robert Downey Jr. seems like genius casting as a cocky, self-centred multi-millionaire arms dealer. I'm glad this isn't going for an overly dark or dour approach and has some humour thrown in. It may be another origin story, but this origin actually seems a little more interesting than most. The glimpses of Iron Man in action, although it was mostly of the first bulky suit that he creates, looks spectacular! And the actual costume... wow, it looks stunning!

It's due for release in May 2008, so there's a long way to go, but I'm already dying to see it.

Ghost Rider (2007)

Ghost Rider (2007)

Nicholas Cage finally appears in a superhero movie. Shame then that the movie, the adaptation of Marvel Comic's 'Ghost Rider', is so risible.

Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) is a stunt motorcycle rider, the best in the business. He's a superstar. Unfortunately, when he was younger he made a deal with Mephistopheles / the Devil (Peter Fonda) to save his dying father (Dad copped it anyway, proving that a deal with the Devil will get you screwed no matter what) - he gave up his soul. Mephisto wanted Blaze to one day be his 'Ghost Rider', a sort of demonic bounty hunter / henchman. Sadly for Blaze, fate has awful timing; just when he is reunited with his childhood sweetheart Roxanne (the luscious Eva Mendes), he's forced into service, turning into a super powered flaming biker with an exposed, flaming skull! A Demonic guy named Blackheart and some of his henchmen are looking for a hidden 'contract' that belonged to Mephisto which, if acquired, would give him power to rule the world. Mephisto orders Ghost Rider to stop Blackheart and his demonic henchmen from getting the power that is rightfully his. Being Ghost Rider takes its toll on Blaze however, and threatens his personal and professional life. Blaze is finally pushed to the edge when sweet and innocent Roxanne's life is put in peril!

Actually, thus far it sounds fairly decent if decidedly generic, but it's in the execution that things get truly bad. Director Mark Steven Johnson tries to take things a bit too seriously but can't come up with the goods to match the intended tone. The plotting and characterization are anemic and perfunctory and more than a little dumb, and the performances seem to live up to the script. Everyone seems bemused. The only (sort of) exceptions to this are Peter Fonda as the sinister but one dimensional Mephisto and Sam Elliott as the enigmatic 'Caretaker', an ally to the Ghost Rider. Cage himself barely registers, although the effects driven Ghost Rider persona is quite fun. The film admittedly doesn't look too bad; in fact it looks quite decent at times, especially when the effects are firing on all cylinders and the Ghost Rider is blazing across the landscape. Sadly, the close ups of the flaming skull just come across as ludicrous and are poorly animated - I'm not really sure how anyone could have made it an effective live action visual, but then again it didn't need to be quite as cheesy as it is here. Which brings me to the action - there is none to really speak of. Seriously, Ghost Rider engages in a couple of fights with Blackheart's goons but they're over before you know it, and the final 'battle' is also mostly uneventful.

'Ghost Rider' is an uninspired and only marginally entertaining comic book adaptation. A part of me feels that these superhero origin stories are way past their sell by date, and that no matter how good this film could have been there would still have been a feeling of deja vu. We've even already seen a guy mucking about with figures from Heaven and Hell in the far superior Constantine, which interestingly enough wasn't an origin story. So perhaps the Ghost Rider origin story never stood a chance. Another part of me realizes, however, that regardless of how stale the movie template is, this film is weak on all other merits and could have been better.

Heroes - Season 1 (2006-2007)

Heroes - Season 1 (2006-2007)

'Heroes' was probably the most talked about TV show to air recently; to say that there was a lot of hype surrounding it would be an understatement of epic proportions. I've just finished watching its much lauded inaugural season and I must say that while it is poor in many ways and quite overrated, I still enjoyed it immensely.

'Heroes' is a sci-fi drama that tells the story of a disparate group of people who begin to discover that they have super powers. It focuses on their personal lives, how they deal with their powers, and their role in much larger machinations taking place around them. These machinations involve a shady organization that monitors these so called 'heroes' and a powerful, reclusive and shady businessman manipulating events from behind the scenes. Also in the mix is a super-villain named Sylar (Zachary Quinto) who is going around stealing other heroes' powers, killing them in the process. The overall story told in the season (dubbed 'Volume 1') focuses on the struggle to stop Sylar and also prevent a massive explosion that will decimate New York City. While each character has his or her own story they are all linked to each other and to overall events, and their paths and storylines cross on many occasions.

The main characters (spoilerific stuff in this paragraph - the powers described are only gradually revealed in the show) include Nathan Petrelli (Adrian Pasdar), a politician running for congress who can fly; his brother Peter (Milo Ventimiglia), a nurse who has the ability to absorb and use the powers of others; Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka), a Japanese corporate drone who has the power to manipulate space and time; Claire Bennett (Hayden Panettiere), a cheerleader who can heal herself; Isaac Mendez (Santiago Cabrera), a painter who can draw the future; Matt Parkman (Greg Grunberg), a police officer who can hear people's thoughts; D. L. Hawkins (Leonard Roberts), an ex-con who can phase through matter; Nikki Sanders (Ali Larter), a woman with super strength and a split personality (not sure if the latter is a power or not); and Micah (Noah Gray-Cabey), a kid who can manipulate electronics. Also in the mix are Claire's father Noah Bennett (Jack Coleman), who is part of the shady, unnamed organization, and Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy), an Indian geneticist who is studying the 'hero' phenomenon. There are also several other powered and non powered supporting characters throughout.

This show is very much in the vein of shows like 'Smallville'. And by that I mean it isn't very well made. Like Smallville's first few seasons though, it's fairly entertaining and has enough likable characters to be watchable. There's nothing here that is imaginative or original, but the show is perhaps somewhat unique in being the first ensemble 'comic book like' TV series. Seeing as how I enjoyed the show, I'll start of with the negatives (of which there are a lot) and cap things off with the positives.

The main problem with this show is the writing, which is at times quite awful. The feeling of things being made up as they go along rarely feels more blatant than it does in 'Heroes'. There are story strands which are started, go nowhere, and then disappear without a trace (a police investigation subplot, a character's stint in prison, a mentor subplot), and arcs that are dragged out needlessly (most of Hiro's adventures, Nikki / DL / Micah). The overall structure is meandering, unfocused and random, and relies far too heavily on contrivance and coincidence and the seemingly magical ability for characters to hop from place to place and be in the right place at the right time (the coincidence aspect is aping 'Lost', but in that show 'fate vs. coincidence' is actually one if the underlying themes. In 'Heroes', it's just there for the sake of it). The discovery of powers and the way people handle them is touched on superficially at best, with the protagonists (and therefore, the writers) never really examining the deeper ramifications of such powers. The powers themselves quickly become something prosaic and fail to elicit any sense of awe or wonder.

Further evidence of poor writing comes in the form of illogical, nonsensical events and gaping plot holes that beggar belief - on more than one occasion, a character in a position to kill another character spares them for no other reason than that the writers needed the character alive for the continuance of the story. Not an episode goes by where there isn't an egregious lapse in logic on the part of the writers. The powers of the characters are another problem - while they're cool in principal, there are too many occasions when the story cops out on having them actually be used. In fact, some of these guys are just TOO powerful, and so they are conveniently made to be unable to use their powers in a satisfactory manner, or the powers are simply ignored altogether in situations where they might come in handy. To round out the list of complaints are the cheesy dialogue (the word 'hero' is used like a billion times), pretentious narration, incredibly nonsensical 'science', and an over-reliance on clunky exposition.

Apart from the writing, the production values are also surprisingly unimpressive and cheap looking, with some so-so special effects and a lot of overblown gore. The action is very limited and what little there is, is poor. Visually the whole thing looks bland and unexciting. The package is wrapped up in music that is grating and horribly repetitive - I normally like the use of vocals, but in 'Heroes' its obtrusive and annoying, and feels like its trying too hard to lend the show dramatic weight.

The characterization isn't very good to begin with, and it isn't helped by some of the weaker members of the cast, particularly Quinto as the evil Sylar, who is as badly acted as he is written. Also on the weak front are Cabrera, Roberts, Larter, and Gray-Cabey. On the mediocre front are Ventimiglia, Ramamurthy, Pasdar, and Panettiere. Fortunately, though, there are a few really good performances from Masi Oka as Hiro, Greg Grunberg as Matt Parkman, and Jack Coleman as Bennett. Oka in particular is the show's heart; he's the only one who seems to have any fun and liveliness, and given the wackiness of the story his light heartedness was an apt and welcome reprieve from the dourness of everyone else. Grunberg's Parkman is also one of the few characters who has fun with his powers and plays around with them, and is one of the few who feels real and relatable. Coleman's Bennett is initially really annoying as a mysterious figure who keeps popping up everywhere, but his character really develops over the course of the season and by the end he's one of the few that remain interesting. Additionally, there are some really good supporting characters and guest appearances throughout the season.

Despite all of my complaints, I still enjoyed this show! It's fun, feels like a comic book, and the X-Men like premise coupled with the long-form story structure had me hooked. Some of the characters are truly likable and interesting, and even when the focus is on the ones who aren't the show never gets boring. There are some very cool moments and use of powers, and some of the character drama (Hiro & Ando, Bennett & Claire, Parkman and anybody else) is actually interesting. I also have to admit to getting a kick out of seeing these characters meet and interact. A large part of the appeal is the anticipation of what's going to happen down the line; even when an episode is poor there's always the hope of more interesting things to come.

Conclusion - 'Heroes' is bad on an objective level, and I have to say I'm bemused by the critical kudos it has received. Since I liked it I'm still looking forward to the second season, despite the truly awful final episodes (ones that highlights most of the show's flaws in a nutshell). The show's really a guilty pleasure that relies on a coolness factor, one that will likely wear off pretty fast. There's always a slim chance it'll improve over time, but I'm not going to cross my fingers. As long as it can stay fun and entertain, I'll probably continue to watch. I say probably because my experience watching 24 over the years has shown me that in poorly written dumb but fun shows the bad stuff eventually begins to greatly overwhelm the entertainment value.

Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

I watched the first Fantastic Four film a few months ago and wrote about it here. My conclusion was that it was a fairly mediocre but entertaining film that seemed true to the tone of the source material. The sequel features the same cast and director, and is more of the same.

The story once again juggles its characters, their relationships, and a threat to humanity. This time, Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) is about to marry Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) but have problems because of their super-hero lifestyles and celebrity status. Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), meanwhile, worries about ending up alone as a result of his immature and outrageous behaviour, while Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) continues his relationship with the blind Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington). The arrival of the mysterious and seemingly unstoppable Silver Surfer (Doug Jones and the voice of Laurence Fishburne) causes chaos as he creates massive craters around the world to prepare it for his master, the planet eating Galactus. An old enemy, Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon), returns and joins the Fantastic Four to help stop Galactus, but he may have ulterior motives.

And that is the gist of it. In a nutshell. Oh, there's also a subplot about Johnny being affected by the Surfer resulting in his powers being swapped with one of the other FF whenever he touches them, an effect that is milked dry for comedic effect.

There's nothing much to really say about this sequel that differs from what I said about the first one. It's definitely much bigger in scope, but the FF action is again mostly unspectacular. The Silver Surfer sequences, however, fare better and the finale which predominantly features him is far more satisfying dramatically than that of the first one. Tonally this film is again similar, being a mix of light hearted drama and comedy although the comedy aspects aren't as funny, mostly because Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm seem to have less screen time. Nonetheless, both Chiklis and Evans still deliver performances that are on a par with part one. Ioan Gruffud is a bit better this time around, a bit more assertive and slightly more convincing as a leader. Alba and McMahon sadly don't deliver anything beyond what they brought to the table the last time. The visual effects are also once again mixed, though the Silver Surfer isn't half bad and Fishburne's somber voice works for the character despite being initially distracting.

All in all, it's unspectacular, unmoving, and will fade from memory fairly quickly, but is not bad as a light hearted piece of disposable entertainment. I'm not exactly looking forward to any more sequels from this franchise to be honest, but if one does come along, I'll probably check it out.

Fantastic Four (2005)

Fantastic Four (2005)

Over hated. For some reason, people (and by people I mean film fans and comic book buffs) loathe this movie like Wile E. Coyote loathes the Road Runner. This adaptation of the Fantastic Four comic book series was met with derision before and following its release. I'm bemused, because while I'm not a fan of the film, I think it's decent enough, and it seems to be true to what little I know of the Fantastic Four. It certainly seems more accurate an adaptation than X-Men, which was much better received.

'Fantastic Four' tells the story of Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), and shady corporate millionaire Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon), five people who have some history between them. It all begins peacefully enough, when all five of them go to Von Doom's space station to carry out an experiment devised by Reed. Things go pear shaped and all of them are exposed to some form of radiation. Back on Earth, the four heroes discover that the radiation has altered them - Reed can stretch his body, Sue can turn invisible, Johnny's whole body can ignite into flames, and Ben becomes permanently transformed into a rocky Hulk like figure. When they use their powers to save lives during a disaster, they are embraced as heroes by the public and dubbed the 'Fantastic Four'. Unbeknownst to everyone, Von Doom also gains powers, which he uses for evil. The Fantastic Four, who have personal issues with each other, work to try and find a 'cure' for their problem. When Doom attempts to wipe them out, they are forced to put aside their difference and unite against him.

Hmm, that's a pretty accurate summary of the plot, which isn't great but isn't exactly terrible either. The film works as a comedy drama with action, and most of the time the focus is on the personalities, problems, and interactions of the Fantastic Four as opposed to the plot. It's a light hearted superhero film, at odds with the typically action heavy, serious, and 'dark' comic book adaptations - this fact seems to have annoyed people more than anything else. To me, it's a valid approach - I always thought comical character interaction was what the Fantastic Four was about. The writing isn't great, but it works for the most part, and it's often quite funny - some of the faux techno-babble is hilarious, though I found it hard to tell if it was always intentional. The characterization isn't deep, but it's effective and befits the film's tone. The cast are a mixed bag - Alba and Gruffudd are bland but adequate in their roles, and McMahon is one dimensionally villainous. Evans and Chiklis are the highlight though - their exaggerated and larger than life approaches are the most entertaining aspects of the film.

The film is a mixed bag in more ways than one - there's nothing memorable about it visually, with occasionally dodgy effects and bland production design. Director Tim Story's effort is nondescript, and it's the performances and writing that wind up carrying the film. The action sequences are not particularly great, but the way the Four use their powers in battle (and throughout the film) is ultimately satisfactory.

While my assessment of the different aspects of the film seems less than enthusiastic, the overall mix of mostly mediocre elements with a few great elements results in a film that is fairly enjoyable overall. It ain't great, but it's not as bad as some people make it out to be.

Don't make Ed Norton angry...

You won't like him when he's angry. That's because he HULKS OUT! In news that still seems completely inconceivable, excellent actor and Fight Club co-founder Edward Norton has been cast as Bruce Banner, the cursed scientist who suffers from anger management and skin pigmentation issues when he loses his temper. And I thought my apoplectic fits of rage were bad!

Yep, the sequel to 2003's critical and commercial failure, entitled The Incredible Hulk, is actually happening and is due out next year. It seemed to all the world that it was destined to be a direct-to-video calibre sequel / re-imagining, but this casting news suggests the movie might actually be good, seeing as how Mr. Norton rarely associates himself with crappy movies.

I like the first film, even though it's seriously flawed. Ang Lee's angsty tale of father-son relations was too dour and slow for the most part, but the Hulk SMASH stuff was great. The director of the sequel, Louis Leterrier, has made some fun and thrilling action flicks, and word has it the sequel is going to have more Hulk smashing and less brooding and less unkempt Nick Nolte. And hopefully, less Hulk Poodles. Eric Bana was great in the first film and I wouldn't have minded seeing him return, but Ed Norton seems like an inspired choice for a replacement. To echo the sentiments of many a film geek, I've gone from complete indifference to actively anticipating this film.

Unbreakable (2000)

Unbreakable (2000)

I can remember when this film first came out there was a lot of hype and expectation behind it. Writer / Director M. Night Shyamalan was coming off the unexpected mega success of The Sixth Sense and had already been hailed as a visionary. The reception Unbreakable ultimately received was lukewarm however, both critically and commercially. Reaction to it seems to be extreme either way - this seems to be one of those 'love it' / 'hate it' films where few people take the middle ground. Shyamalan the man is in many ways like this film - ambitious, distinctive, arrogant, and a tad pretentious. And just like this film, the man is loved and hated in equal measure. I can understand the dislike for his personality, but I have to say that as a fan of his filmmaking style I can't understand why some consider him to be a talentless hack. I love both Sixth Sense and this, and though I'm not such a big fan of Signs or The Village, I still enjoyed them and think that, at least on most technical merits, they're very well made. I'll take distinctive non-mainstream stuff over the derivative garbage that's churned out so routinely any day of the week.

But back to Unbreakable. The film is essentially a superhero origin story with a difference. That difference is that it's mostly a drama, an unconventional take on a genre that is almost exclusively action oriented. Unbreakable is a realistic and thoughtful interpretation of the superhero myth, a film that imagines what a real world superhero might be like. David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is a security guard who works at a university football stadium. He's having trouble with his marriage and is on his way back from a job interview in another city when tragedy befalls the train he's on. It derails, and David ends up being the only survivor; miraculously, he walks out of the hospital completely unscathed, accompanied by his wife Audrey (Robin Wright Penn) and son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark). Shortly thereafter, he receives a note from a man named Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) that makes him start to wonder about why he survived. He seeks out Elijah, who turns out to be the owner of an arty comic book store. Elijah suffers from a rare disorder that leaves his bones extremely brittle; he postulates that perhaps David is the opposite of himself - a person that is stronger than normal human beings, whose purpose is to protect the weak and helpless. Although David is naturally skeptical, his desire to make sense of his miraculous survival leads him to re-examine his life and see signs that suggest Elijah's theory might be correct. In closely related subplots, Joseph begins to look up to him as some kind of superhero, and his wife attempts to reconnect with him and save their marriage.

I find the realistic drama take on the superhero origin story to be an interesting premise, and in Unbreakable it's well executed. It plays to many superhero / comic book conventions - the costume, double life, Achilles' Heal, villain, etc - while still being grounded in a realistic world. The thing that irks a lot of people (besides hating the premise itself) is the lugubrious tone of the film. It's dour to the point of distraction, and I have to say it's a legitimate complaint. In shying away from the colourful antics of normal comic book movies, Shyamalan has gone to the opposite extreme. Still, the approach clearly works for the fans of the film, including me. I find that it accentuates the mundane reality of Dunn's world - he's a taciturn and humble individual who has been living an unfulfilling life and lacks purpose. The tone of the film coupled with the slow, deliberate pacing and self-important dialogue give the film an air of taking itself too seriously, which is also a legitimate complaint. But what can I say, I dig it, and I don't think it's a flaw that derails (heh heh) the film. I must confess though, there is some grating dialogue and one scene involving a kid and a gun that is just surreal and miscalculated; these elements sometimes draw you out of the film completely.

Although the script doesn't go into incredible depth, the characters are fairly well fleshed out, and the story builds up to a satisfying conclusion (including the obligatory M Night twist at the end). Dunn and Elijah Price are the chief protagonists, and their relationship, as well as David's relationships with his son and wife, are major aspects of the film. Dunn and Price are given plenty of backstory that inform their characters, with Elijah being perhaps more fleshed out and interesting than David. The performances are very good all round. I think Willis has always been a terrific in comedic and action roles, but here he does a great job playing the nondescript and bemused David Dunn. Samuel L. Jackson is excellent as the enigmatic genius Elijah Price, playing a role completely unlike the typical Sam Jackson role. Robin Wright Penn and Spencer Treat Clark are also solid in their roles, and Night once again proves that he knows how to pick good child actors.

Visually the film is very interesting and distinctive. Lots of long takes with the camera positioned almost like an invisible observer peeking in on the lives of these characters, giving it a pseudo docu-drama feel. The use of muted colours also enhances the tone of the film, while colour motifs and the occasional flash of bright colours are also employed as storytelling devices. Despite being a drama, there are loads of memorable scenes in the film that stick with me - the train station sequence, Dunn's battle with the orange jump suit man, Elijah's incident with the stairs, lifting weights, carrying Audrey - to me these moments are just a perfect combination of the various elements of the film that just click. The thing that really seals the deal is the fantastic soundtrack by James Newton Howard, which complements the film perfectly and also lends a real thumping 'superheroic' feel to it.

Alright, I love this film, it's one of my favourites. I can't really claim that it's a great film. It's definitely flawed in many ways, and I can understand that some people might dislike it as a result (though I can't understand the vitriol), but those flaws are too minor to detract from an interesting and entertaining (yes, slow paced doesn't mean boring!) cinematic experience. Shyamalan's films are always interesting, and Unbreakable is no exception. I'm certainly looking forward to whatever he comes up with, though I think it would also be nice to see him diversify a little in the future.

Superman II - The Donner Cut (2006)

Superman II - The Donner Cut (2006)

When I was a kid, I used to watch Superman over and over again on VHS, so much so that I think the movie is now permanently ingrained in my memory. Needless to say, when the opportunity arose to finally see Superman II (this was years after it was originally released), I was more than a little excited. At the time, I loved it and thought it superseded the original - Superman's battle against the super villains in Metropolis was unlike anything I'd seen before. Many years later and with slightly more discerning cinematic taste, I realized that it was a much weaker film than the original. I still love it, but will be the first to acknowledge that it ain't all that great.

Which brings me to this, the Donner Cut. Superman I and II were originally meant to be shot back to back by director Richard Donner. After the release of the first film, he was fired and replaced by director Richard Lester, despite having already shot most of the sequel. Once on board Lester re-shot some of Donner's footage and added in his own scenes to complete the film that was finally released in cinemas in 1980. After Lester's film came out, fans wondered what Donner's film might have been like, and speculated about the possibility of seeing Donner's 'cut' of the film with his original footage. In 2006, they stopped wondering, because Warner Brothers and Donner (and his collaborators Tom Mankiewicz and Michael Thau) finally obliged by stitching together the available material to create a cut of the film - the 'Donner Cut' - that most closely represented what he had originally set out to make. Details of the history of the film and how the Donner Cut came into being can be found in the Wikipedia article.

Now that the protracted preamble is finally over, I can get around to actually talking about the film (major spoilers ahead). I think I should start off with a caveat (that is expressed at the start of the film as well) - this film isn't technically complete. Since Donner never finished shooting all of his scenes, it's cobbled together from his available footage, Lester's footage, some recycled footage from the first film, and footage from screen tests. Having said that, the finished work feels reasonably complete.


The story picks up with a recap of the first film, which concludes with Superman / Kal-El (Christopher Reeve) hurling one of Lex Luthor's (Gene Hackman) nuclear missiles into space. When it explodes, it shatters the Phantom Zone prison that was holding the three Kryptonian criminals - General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran) - who were imprisoned by Jor-El (Marlon Brando), Kal-El's father. After a brief massacre of some astronauts on the moon, the villains head towards Earth. In Metropolis, meanwhile, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) begins to suspect that Clark Kent (a cunningly disguised Christopher Reeve) might be Superman, and unsuccessfully (and rather ludicrously) tests this theory. The two are then assigned to investigate a scam at the Niagara Falls, and while there Lois finally tricks Clark into revealing his secret. They head off to his Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic, and after a bit of super sex, Kal-El asks his father for permission to be with Lois. Annoyed, Jor-El tells his son that he can't be Superman and have a normal life at the same time. Kal-El chooses to lose his powers and be with Lois as the frail Clark Kent.


This was of course a big mistake, since in the interim the super villains had arrived on Earth and decimated a small town, raided the White House, and essentially taken over the entire world. The mortal Kent rushes back to the Fortress of Solitude to try and get his powers back and force a confrontation with Zod and his gang, who are pissed off that the 'Superman' they've heard so much about is actually the son of their jailer. Lex Luthor, who has by this point broken out of prison, lends his 'genius' to the evil trio in exchange for rulership over a few small portions of the globe.


That's virtually the whole story in a nutshell. Broadly speaking, it's virtually the same as the original Lester version. The execution, however, is quite different. Over half of the footage is new - unused scenes or alternate takes - that change the tone of the film and lend it much more dramatic weight than the Lester version. Gone is much of the campy comedy that plagued the original, gone are the bizarre super powers used by the villains and Superman himself (although Zod still has a bit of telekinesis). This version sits more comfortably alongside the original as a companion piece. It is certainly more dramatic, and the scenes featuring Marlon Brando are golden (they were cut from Lester's version to avoid paying Brando royalties). The villains in this version are far more menacing because their comical moments are excised and some of the footage featuring them in action comprises alternate takes that make them seem more ruthless. The goofiness of Lex Luthor is still present, and it's one of those love it or hate it aspects of these films. The romance between Lois and Clark is still childishly charming; this is an element Lester got right in his version as well. Clark's identity being revealed is handled much, much better in Donner's version despite the fact that it's screen test footage that runs too long and is incongruous in almost every way.


While there's a lot to like in the Donner Cut, if I'm being honest I'll have to admit there are also lots of flaws. Much of these are due to the fact that Donner and his team had to use 25 year old material to assemble the film, and he never finished shooting his version, so some compromises had to be made. The structure of the film is a bit shaky. The opening Eiffel Tower action sequence from the Lester version is gone, which means the real Superman action only shows up towards the end of the film. The buildup to the confrontation in Metropolis also feels a little awkward, with the story jumping from Lois and Clark to the super villains spasmodically - there are some scenes which feel like incomplete snippets. A lot of the music is also noticeably recycled from the first film, probably because the music that was done for Lester's version was a bit rubbish. The main problem I had with the film was the logical inconsistencies. In this version, Superman sleeps with Lois and then speaks to Jor-El and gives up his powers. It seemed more logical that he would have done it the other way round as he did in Lester's version. Also more sensible is Lester's method of having Lois try to get Clark to reveal his identity (compared to the first attempt in Donner's Cut) - both are insane, but jumping into a river seems somewhat less fatal than what happens in Donner's version. The big twist at the end of Donner's film - Superman rewinds everything back such that the whole movie never happened - is a huge cop out, as it invalidates the whole film. To add insult to injury, the final scene of the film contradicts the time reversal! Donner apparently never thought of how to end the film before being fired and was thus forced to bolt on the ending from part I, though I suppose it would have been next to impossible to create a brand new ending for this cut in any case.


Aesthetically, apart from the screen test footage, everything is as good as in the Lester version. The sets and costumes are all the same as in part I, so no surprises there. There are some new effect sequences that were created to complete the film; some of them are noticeable, but not in a jarring way. The highlight of the film in both versions is the battle between Superman and the super villains in Metropolis, and it's still quite spectacular today despite the aged effects work. Most of the battle was directed by Lester, so I can't give Donner credit for it.


Which brings me to the performances. What more can be said about the late Christopher Reeve's Superman? He IS Superman in these films, bringing the character to life in every way possible; Brandon Routh doesn't even come close. Reeve's physicality and mannerisms as both Superman and Clark Kent are flawless and charming, and he somehow sells the duality of the character. Margot Kidder is also the best Lois Lane there has been - she's goofy and childish but also believable as a tenacious reporter. Hackman delivers an unpopular interpretation of the Luthor character, but for what it's worth I think he did it well; he is comical but still manipulative and vicious. In this version the super villains have less screen time, but they are more effective as a result. Terence Stamp seems colder here, but this probably has more to do with the editing and alternate footage used. And last but not least is Marlon Brando. I'm not certain how seriously Brando took this role (probably not very), but he adds so much gravitas to the film and is sorely missed in the Lester version.


So what's my final verdict on the Donner Cut of Superman II? It's a mixed bag to be sure - the main problem is that while ostensibly complete (for the most part) it's not really a complete film, and can't be judged as such. It shows the potential for being something that could have been great had Donner been allowed to finish it properly back then. As it stands, the Lester version is more complete and stands on its own feet as a whole film, but is something that never aimed for the epic feel of Donner's. Donner's aims for something grander and more in tune with the original. The fact that his version can't reach those heights isn't really Donner's fault. Watching it we can see what might have been. Objectively I'd rate them equally, but ultimately I much prefer the Donner Cut.