Daredevil – The Director’s Cut (2003)

Daredevil – The Director’s Cut Review
Review #160

3/5 stars

Director – Mark Steven Johnson

Cast – Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau

——————–

A blind Ben Affleck fights crime in 2003’s Daredevil. He is a lawyer, which puts him in an interesting ethical position. By day he defends the down-trodden and upholds justice, and then by night he kicks ass of those he believes are criminals. He isn’t awfully scrupulous about who he beats up, either… in one scene he beats up a whole biker bar to get to someone. He’s a very violent superhero, apparently not as particular about his rules as Batman, for example. Baddies end up kicked off steeples, faces smashed in, and thrown under trains. Hardly in the best tradition of the bar, surely.

Daredevil, or Matt Murdock as he is known at the bench, received his powers as a young boy, after an accident at the dock yards where he is blinded by an unnamed toxic substance. (Smack a “Hazardous Material” sticker on a barrel and it’s amazing what you can get away with.) He finds he is able to “see” with a primitive radar, and finds his other senses greatly enhanced. Soon after, his father, a boxer who is past his prime, is killed after refusing to throw a fight. This spurs Matt on to fight injustice no matter the cost.

On a side note, why the hell does every superhero have to be an orphan? Superman, Spider-man, Batman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Wolverine… Those whose parents weren’t prematurely killed still have father issues, Iron Man and Thor for example. It seems an oddly specific affliction to give a group of characters. But, I digress.

Daredevil’s life becomes purely dedicated to rooting out evil-doers. His house is full of crime fighting gear and multiple replacement costumes. I sometimes wonder where these people find their tailors. I love it when movies go into a costume origin, ala Spider-man or Batman. Even the Fantastic Four. We don’t get that here, but I suppose we wouldn’t want too much of that. The origin story is (perhaps wisely) whizzed through, gotten out-of-the-way as neatly as possible. That is done well here, and the way Murdocks radar sense is shown is quite interesting. we get right into the story.

The story itself is fairly generic, and I won’t bother repeating it here, especially as its lack of flair really brings the movie down. There are some mildly interesting characters, from Bullseye, an anarchic Irishman with astonishing aim, to Jon Favreau’s character, Matt’s best friend. Some are less interesting, like Jennifer Garner’s Elektra, a rich girl who doesn’t like how her father tries to control her. (More daddy issues…)

The movie works best when delving into the murky side of New York society. There is a great morally ambiguous reporter (played by Joe Pantoliano), who is trying to find out Daredevils identity. The man who “owns the town”, Kingpin, is played excellently by Michael Clarke Duncan, who knows just the right amount of showmanship to bring to the role. There is another great little character, played by Coolio, whom Murdock defends in a murder trial. There is a flashy griminess to the movie that works very well with the source material.

Never in a superhero movie has it been more evident that the superheroes we all know and love are vigilantes, through and through. This is due to the juxtaposition of Murdock’s legal life and his other, extra curricular activities. Does he truly believe that all men deserve a trial by twelve men, good and true? I don’t think he does, and by extension he brings into light that most other superheroes mustn’t either. I suppose the Nolan Batman does bring his catches to the cops… but in general, superheroes seem to be our right-wing feelings brought to the fore. “If we know he’s guilty, just bring him to justice your own way!” The dangerous thing is how right it feels…

OVERALL

Daredevil: The Director’s Cut is an improvement over the original, and has a grimy likability. It’s story falters dramatically, however; it just doesn’t have anything that interesting. The actors bring their best to their parts, but can’t stop some cheesiness that finds its way in. Not an awful movie, but not great. A decent little middle-of-the-roader. I would recommend it to superhero fans, though!

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Up next is X-Men: The Last Stand.

——————–

TRAILER

“Daredevil” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Ghost Rider (2007)

Ghost Rider Review
Review #156

2/5 stars

Director – Mark Steven Johnson

Cast – Nicholas Cage, Eva Mendes, Wes Bentley, Sam Elliott, Donal Logue, Peter Fonda

——————–

– followed by Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

——————–

Who’d have thought that Nicholas Cages’ most subdued performance in years is as the guy with the flaming skull head…

Ghost Rider is, of course, based on the Marvel comic book of the same name. This particular super hero (who is not as firmly imbedded in the public consciousness as Superman or Batman) is the alter ego of motorcycle stunt driver Johnny Blaze. When angry, or in the presence of evil, he transforms into a skeleton with a flaming motor bike, black leather outfit (with spikes), and of course the aforementioned flaming-skull head. He whips a chain around, can light random things on fire, and is general a goth’s wet dream.

Is he the bad guy? Well, not really, though the movie certainly want us to think he is bad-ass. I mean, he wears leather after all. In practice he is nothing more than a reckless Spider-Man. But he has no unique world view, no over-riding idea to set him apart from any other superheroes. The best we are given is int he movies final lines, where he says he will keep his powers to be a “spirit of vengeance”, wandering around being good. Ghost Rider is so generic and dull in his powers (or at least as he is presented here) that he needs the hellfire and damnation angle just to make him interesting. The same is true of the movie itself. There is a neat little edge to the movie (it is essentially a gothic western, if that is even a term), but without that it is just another origin story of another frikin’ superhero. It has the same plot beats, the same ideas, and we get the same result.

Even Peter Fonda (as the devil) and Wes Bentley (the devil’s son) phone it in. Peter Fonda in particular looks plain bored, and I don’t blame him. He strides into a scene, looks vaguely ominous and then strides out. And it’s always “…blabla the Devil Himself.” Have you noticed that?

OVERALL

Ghost Rider tries for something new in its tone, but forgets to have an interesting story. Combine that with a hammy yet bored-looking cast, and we get a strange mix of dull and bizarre. Not really recommended.

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up is Fantastic Four.

——————–

TRAILER

“Ghost Rider” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Batman and Robin (1997)

Batman and Robin Review
Review #154

1/5 stars

Director – Joel Schumacher

Cast – George Clooney, Chris O’Donnell, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Alicia Silverstone, Pat Hingle, Michael Gough

——————–

– follows Batman Forever

———————

As I sat watching the mind-numbing neon nightmare called Batman and Robin, I couldn’t help but think of the previous movie I watched for this series that I’ve called Superheroes: Bottom to Top. But while Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was awful due in large part to its low budget, this movie suffers for having too large a budget. Put simply, it doesn’t know where to stop, from it’s outlandish set pieces (which might have been fun for kids if not repeated so relentlessly), to the overt sexuality of the constantly-narrating Poison Ivy, which went too far for a kids movie.

And I think they thought they were making a kids movie. That’s what everyone wanted apparently, after the slightly dark first two Batman films. Well, parents groups, you got your wish. This movie has the tone of a Looney Tunes short, complete with whistles and bweeps during fight scenes, but unfortunately without the fun. The baddies refer to Batman and Robin as the heroes, and are self-aware enough to know they are the villains. The dialogue is right out of a comic book, full of exposition and plot-pushing. Let’s drop in on Poison Ivy talking to herself… “Mammals, a day of reckoning is coming. The same plants and flowers that saw you crawl from the primordial soup will reclaim the planet, and there will be no-one to protect you!” It seems Schumacher takes the dynamic duo as seriously as the Hasbro execs.

For that matter, so does Clooney.” Sleep walking” would perhaps be the term. Michael Gough seems to give it his all, and in fact his story becomes almost touching. Almost. Meanwhile, Uma and Arnold ham it up. They seem to think they’re in a children’s play. Well, who are we kidding. They are.

Now all this is not to say that a light tone and a tongue-in-cheek spirit can’t work. It just doesn’t here. Bright colours and jokey quips are well and good, but here it feels like being hit over the head with a neon baseball bat.

All-in-all the movie just reeks of corporate desperation. Director Joel Schumchaer himself admitted to being under pressure from toy companies to make a movie that would sell action figures. Ice Skating Batman, Hockey Goon sold separately! I don’t know if they succeeded. Out of pure spite I hope they didn’t.

OVERALL

Batman and Robin deserves its bad reputation and then some. It’s garish, loud, obnoxious, and dull. Enough said.

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up, Superman 3! Not sure why I put an exclamation mark there…

——————–

TRAILER

“Batman and Robin” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace Review
Review # 153

1.5/5 stars

Director – Sydney J. Furie

Cast – Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Jon Cryer, Sam Wanamaker, Mark Pillow, Mariel Hemingway, Margot Kidder

——————–

– follows Superman III

——————–

Christopher Reeve didn’t want to make a fourth Superman film. After the campy Superman III , released in 1983, there weren’t even any plans for a follow-up. But the rights were sold to the low-budget production company Cannon Films, and Reeve was approached to reprise the role that made him famous. He eventually agreed, but only if Cannon agreed to finance a pet project of his, which became the critically applauded Street Smart. Reeves was even promised story input. But as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace went into production, Cannon reduced the budget multiple times. Apparently Reeve himself said to other cast members that the movie would not be very good. That was an understatement.

It’s a shame too. Apparently Christopher Reeve personally recruited Gene Hackman back to the franchise, and it was his idea to have the movie revolve around the disarmament of nuclear weapons. The movie makes a nice effort to show Superman as a citizen of the world, and the anti-nuclear weapon stance is, of course, commendable. Now while it beats that particular drum a little too heavily by the end (and the X-Men movies did much better with the “superheroes meets politics” theme), I really think it shows the movie’s potential.  But “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, and while it may be a stretch to call sitting through the movie to be a hellish experience, it’s not that far away.

The special effects are worse than those int he original film, released 10 years earlier, the story is clumsy and heavy-handed, and the whole thing isn’t even consistent with the mythology set up by the previous movies. The best word for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is, I think, “drab.” The actors appear bored (except for possibly Gene Hackman, who is cut down by an absurd script and even more inappropriate “theme music”), and the villain cooked up by Hackamn’s Lex Luthor looks like a constipated member of a glam rock band. Most rock bands have better pyrotechnics, though…

Poor Christopher Reeve. He wanted it to be so much better.

OVERALL

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is an under funded mess of a movie, made all the more infuriating by the (albeit small) glimpses of what could have been. The story is dull, the actors are tired, and the special effects are awful. In a scene taking place on the Moon we can actually see the black curtains at the back of the set.

It really says it all when the stock footage of volcanoes erupting seems out-of-place because it is of better quality than the rest of the movie…

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up, Batman and Robin! Shudder…

———————

TRAILER

“Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

Thor (2011)

Thor Review
Review # 150

3/5 stars

Director – Kenneth Branagh

Cast – Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard

——————–

– followed by The Avengers

——————–

Thor continues Marvel’s journey to the intensely awaited The Avengers. Directed by Kenneth Branaugh (of all people), the movie follows the titular arrogant supernatural being/god as he finds himself banished on Earth after a brash attack on a similarly supernatural group of beings called Jötunn (or “Frost Giants”). To regain his superhuman abilities and the respect of his father, Odin, Thor must find humility and lose his arrogance. Or something like that.

Anthony Hopkins appears as Odin, Colm Feore plays the Frost Giant King, and Stellan Skarsgard mentors Natalie Portman’s young and ambitious scientist. I get the feeling that a cast like this would not have been possible without Kenneth Branaugh’s involvement as director. And seriously, how the hell did they get Mr. Shakespeare to do a superhero movie? In interviews Hopkins and Branaugh constantly mention the “Shakespearean themes” in the story. Well, there is a squabbling royal family, I guess that counts.

Released just months before Captain America, there was a lot riding on the success of the two films. Imagine if they both tanked and hadn’t found an audience, especially as The Avengers had already been started. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have been lost. But it wasn’t that likely, was it. The question remains though, could they find a way to make the films work?

They did, for the most part. Thor finds himself mingling with already introduced characters such as Agent Coulson, numerous references are made to Iron Man and other future Avengers, and the tone (on Earth anyway) is kept as realistic as we have come to expect. There may not be a huge amount of chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, and the script gives them even less to work with, but it does get by, and in a fairly pleasant fashion.

Thor is best looked at as a part of a whole, that whole being the Avengers franchise. It serves to introduce both the character of Thor and his villainous brother Loki, and also the concept of supernatural beings as superheroes. Up to this point in the Marvel-verse superheroes are the result of serums (The Incredible Hulk and then Captain America), or super-suits (Iron Man), so to introduce gods into the equation seems a little off. All in all the movie meshes itself in well to the established continuity, and that is really all it wants to do. A more unique story would have been welcome, but what we have here is done well.

OVERALL

Thor is fairly unremarkable, though the special effects and most of the visual design is great. The script holds back the movie, which, while solid and workmanlike, likes to dips its toes in the pool of cliché once or twice too often. It is best seen as a build up to The Avengers, and as such it does what it is expected to.

——————–

TRAILER

“Thor” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

118 – The Green Hornet (2011)

The Green Hornet REVIEW

3/5 stars

Director – Michel Gondry

Cast – Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christopher Waltz, Cameron Diaz, Edward James Olmos, Tom Wilkinson, David Harbour

——————–

Acclaimed French director Michel Gondry, whose work spans from the ethereal Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to the decidedly more mainstream Be Kind Rewind, once again has tried his hand at pop filmmaking. The director, known for his stylish visuals, may seem at first glance to be a good match for a fun superhero flick. What we get is actually more in common with Rogen’s movies and sense of humor. What is perhaps more surprising is that these elements are the strongest part of the movie. In an interview Gondry said he approached The Green Hornet as an action film with comedic elements, not as a comedy. Unfortunately the action and most of the superhero elements, when played straight, are quite weak. It’s a shame, too, because Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, and especially Christopher Waltz are very funny.

In general this movie doesn’t try hard enough to be different from the myriad of superhero movies and even basic action movies, that surround it. It never tries to be a parody, and for that I applaud it, but by the last third the movie it forgets its comedic roots (I maintain the movie is a comedy at heart, despite what Gondry says) and gives us one long, generic action scene that at the end is shown to have no plot value whatsoever, as the Macguffin of the scene turns out to be worthless. Pointless…

Christopher Waltz as the villian is excellent here, and does more to “de-construct” the superhero genre than Kick-Ass ever will. His remarks about “branding” himself and becoming more scary were bang on the money, and funny as well.

I guess all in all The Green Hornet could have used a sense of what it was. Is it a comedy based around an action movie or an action movie with some funny bits? Personally I think the former is where it succeeds best, but a bit more focus would have been nice. That, or at least make the action interesting…

OVERALL

The Green Hornet certainly gets an A for effort, but it loses grasp of what could have made it a good movie in the first place. Gondry shows surprisingly little directorial flair here, and phones int he action sequences. It’s a pity, cuz we could have had an excellent little movie here, instead of just a passable one.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Green Hornet” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

100 – The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The Incredible Hulk REVIEW

3.5/5 stars

Director – Louis Leterier

Cast – Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson

——————–

The Incredible Hulk, directed by French action director Louis Leterrier, continues the slew of superhero movies we’ve been getting recently. It is set in the same Marvel Universe as Iron Man, and the upcoming movies The Avengers, Thor, and Captain America, but we do not know that until the end. This is not a sequel to Ang Lee’s 2003 movie Hulk, but is a reboot of the series.

Edward Norton takes the role of Bruce Banner, a scientist who accidentally exposes himself to massive amounts of radiation while undergoing an experiment. Unable to control the beast that he can periodically become when angry as a result of the accident, he flees the country. The father of his fiance, General Ross (played admirably by William Hurt) chases him, wishing to find a way to make a weapon out of the Hulk.

Edward Norton is effective as always, but I have never been as huge a fan of Norton as others seem to be. William Hurt is excellent as the General hunting Banner down, but the true standout in the movie is Tim Roth as Blonsky, a soldier working under the General. He eventually injects himself with a serum, attempting to recreate the effects of the Hulk, and he becomes a beast known as the Abomination. Roth retains his British accent for the role, and is natural, menacing, and entirely believable.

The movie itself is gritty and tough. The new Hulk is a darker shade of green, and a little oily looking. (This may be a reflection on the slightly “off” CGI used with the Hulk though.) The movie in general seems to have been tinted slightly green, as a recognition of its main character, and that look works very well.

The Incredible Hulk really tries to get to the heart of its main character, to display some feeling and create empathy. It tries but ultimately fails to do this, or at least in as lofty a manner as it wants to, mainly because it sticks to the tried and true formula of this type of movie. There is not much here that we could not have guessed beforehand that we would see. Banner doesn’t like being this uncontrollable, check. His girlfriend has moved on and he doesn’t like it, check. He forces himself to fight the Abomination at the end, check. I sometimes think that when you can’t get the level of emotional intensity needed by focusing on the characters (Fantastic 4 is a perfect example), you shouldn’t try. Directors should remember that these characters already come with a certain level of emotional investment, and shouldn’t push for too much of it in their films if it doesn’t come naturally.

The action in the film is good however, it is quick, clean, and often brutal. Once or twice it may get a bit fanciful, mainly after Blonsky gets a low dose of “super soldier” serum (or something). I think the main problem with the movie is that whenever there is not an action scene the dialogue often feels draggy, unfocused, and repetitive. I don’t want to speak of what I do not know, but after hearing of Norton’s constant script meddling I can’t help but wonder if this comes from him? Maybe?

OVERALL

The Incredible Hulk is strong when it comes to action, but the whole thing comes off as tired, mainly due to its meandering non-action scenes. A little less of the repetition and less cliché would have produced a lean, mean little movie. This one is fat and mean, and could have done with some trimming. However the effective action and the superhero universe references let me recommend this, but mainly to superhero fans. And hey, it’s better than Ang Lee’s Hulk.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Incredible Hulk” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–