The Lone Ranger Review

A Lone Ranger movie today is a hard sell. Our most recognized heroes are dark and brooding (“The Dark Knight Trilogy”‘s Batman), young heroines that appeal to the young-adult book readers (“The Hunger Games”‘s Katniss) or colorful characters fighting world-shaking enemies (The Avengers). Where does the Lone Ranger fall, a character created in the 1930s and rooted in a time even earlier than that? Hollywood has recreated classic heroes for modern audiences before: Christopher Nolan did it with Batman and most recently Zack Snyder did it with Superman. Superman as a character, especially after the Christopher Reeve clone that was “Superman Returns,” was someone that needed an extreme makeover in order for audiences to embrace him. For the most part, “Man of Steel” succeeded. Despite a controversial ending, the film succeeded as a reinvention because it stripped the Superman franchise of all the familiar elements of the Richard Donner/Reeve era while also embracing who he is as a symbol. It wasn’t your grandpa’s Superman, but it was still Superman.

In the case of the Lone Ranger, the problem may be that he is, in essence, a “grandpa’s superhero.” He’s a Texas ranger in the 1860s with a strict moral code that included always using proper English and never shooting to kill. A hero worth admiring in the 1930s, even worth admiring today, but one that may not resonate as well. In an effort to bring this masked avenger to modern movie-goers, the team behind the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise infused the same type of thinking they used for those movies into the new “The Lone Ranger” movie: big, loud, far-fetched exploits and Johnny Depp. The problem is that they didn’t bring any of the fun and enjoyment from those movies over to this one. “The Lone Ranger” is an awful, tiring, obnoxious experience.

What makes it so awful? When you have a movie where the sidekick gets top billing because the studio isn’t confident in its main star, or title character for that matter, you already know you have problems. Armie Hammer plays the masked man and Johnny Depp plays his Native American savior/sidekick Tonto. Hammer fumbles and slouches his way through the movie, never appearing very heroic. His John Reid/Lone Ranger is a bumbling idiot, portrayed as a buffoon who gets lucky. Then you have Depp, white-faced to make him look less Johnny Depp-like but you never forget that it’s him. He pulls out every trick in his utility belt to give the movie an extra little sense of enjoyment, and sometimes he succeeds. But it’s hard to get past the fact that he’s basically playing a Native American Jack Sparrow. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are supposed to have each other’s back, but that’s thrown away in favor of a wannabe “buddy cop” relationship. The Ranger treats Tonto like crap, and vice versa. Even “kemosabe” doesn’t mean “faithful friend” in this interpretation.

So at it’s core, “The Lone Ranger” is a “Pirates” clone in the old west minus anything enjoyable. It tries way too hard to be a fun blockbuster and in the end isn’t fun. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer (seriously, what is HE doing making a Lone Ranger movie) and director Gore Verbinski never seem to know when to quit and with a running time of two and a half hours (already too long in itself) it feels like four. “Go big or go home” clearly doesn’t work for a film that should have never been intended to be a “blockbuster.” But despite its insistence to cram as much unnecessary story, unneeded characters, and over-the-top action set pieces, it still manages to find time to get a little “dark” in spots. Villain Butch Cavendish eats someone’s heart right out of him and there’s cannibalistic bunnies. Why? I don’t even think the writers know.

If the movie had been stripped down and did away with its unnecessary components, it may have been a tad more enjoyable; Helena Bonham Carter’s character is the definition of a throwaway character and the film is narrated by an aging Tonto display at a fair in the 1930s. Again, why? But for it to be a truly good movie, literally everything about it could be changed. I get that Disney wanted to try and cash in on the “Pirates” popularity and do something reminiscent of that, but it just doesn’t work. At all. Not to sound cliche, but I like to think of how better the movie had been had it taken a “Batman Begins” approach to the Lone Ranger and been more realistic.

Alas, that’s not the case, and we’re left with a rather dull effort despite how bombastic it tries to be. To its credit, when the famous “William Tell Overture” (The Lone Ranger’s classic theme) begins to play, I got a little excited. It’s followed by a train-chase sequence that’s actually kind of exciting. But by that time, it’s way too late. It was clear way beyond that point that this movie is a parody masked as a Lone Ranger film, never taking itself seriously and ripping the heart and soul right out of the title character. Who is that masked man? Who knows. Nobody asks.

1 star

World War Z Review

So…sequel?

This was my first thought once the end credits began to roll for “World War Z,” the zombie epic from director Marc Forster based on the novel “World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War” by Max Brooks. The ending is so vague, so abrupt, that it’s hard to imagine Hollywood not turning this into a franchise of sorts. And having began but not finished the novel (I got half way through), I don’t know how much the final film version borrows from it’s novel counterpart. At a certain point, I hit a wall while reading the novel and didn’t go any further. It’s basically broken up into a series of sections, with survivors from all over the world giving their personal accounts of the zombie plague. It’s like a documentary in novel form, which would have translated into a sort of “District 9” like approach if Forster and the writers had chosen to go this route for the adaptation. Instead, “World War Z” is an unexpected summer blockbuster, and instead of hitting a wall half-way through, the film never lets up.

It’s “War of the Worlds” meets “28 Days Later.” Brad Pitt is at the heart of this epic, playing United Nations employee Gerry Lane who has seen his fair share of conflict and mayhem across the globe. This is why he’s recruited to accompany a young scientist, thought to be humanity’s “best hope” for finding a cure to the plague, to South Korea. This is the first stop in a series of stops that include Israel and Wales, as Gerry traces clue after clue to find a way to stop the plague once and for all. Pitt carries the film on his shoulders. Lane’s commitment to protecting his family, who can only stay on the U.S. Naval vessel they’ve take refuge on if he agrees to help find a cure, gives the film a much needed beating heart among so many of the undead. Pitt is fearless in facing the zombie army.

It’s no secret that the film had its fair share of development problems, which included countless reshoots and rewrites, notably from “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof. Despite these problems, the end product turned out to be a solid entry into the zombie genre, anchored by the star-power of Pitt. Forster’s action sequences see an improvement from his James Bond disappointment “Quantum of Solace.” The film balances wide-spread chaos with confined terror in a way rarely seen in zombie films. Having a PG-13 rating, the gore takes a back seat to the action, but it’s no less thrilling.

The world-wide effects are felt as Lane faces this globe-spanning spectacle in four key areas. Lane and his family first face the terror in Philadelphia, and gets his family out of harm’s way. Once they hole up in an apartment complex and are extracted by a helicopter, Lane treks to South Korea where the first mention of the word “zombie” came out of. This leads him to Israel, then to Wales after a devastating plane crash. The first time the zombies show up on screen is a delight, even if it has a post-9/11 fear of terrorism feel to it. The apartment scenes are awesomely suspenseful, and the first time we realize that maybe “World War Z” has some scares to go along with its mayhem. It’s also made clear it has some silliness to go along with it, too, whether it’s someone accidentally shooting himself in the head (it’s outrageously funny, though) or a phone ringing at a terrible time. The stand out scenes, though, are in Israel, where the zombie-ladder we saw in trailers and thought looked stupid is given some context. When the zombies make it over the wall, it’s a free-for-all of epic proportions.

Despite so many locations, the film is finely paced, even if it’s apparent that reshoots took place. Early in the film, Matthew Fox of “Lost” shows up for a full five seconds, and it would be safe to assume that his character had more screen time prior to reshoots. It’s probably for the best, though, as his character supposedly would have been part of a nasty “love triangle” to be developed more in future films. No.

Overall, “World War Z” is the surprise of the summer so far, an entertaining zombie film with an interesting solution to stopping the undead. Whatever problems took place on the set aren’t apparent in the final product. Forster proves he can direct action sequences as long as they include a surplus of flesh-eating monsters, and Pitt carries it with heart and bravery. Despite some silliness and an anticlimactic ending, the film is an unexpected thrill-ride.

4 stars

Man of Steel Review

There is no kryptonite. No bright red underpants. No distinctive hair curl. Lois Lane is a strawberry blonde. Perry White is black. Jimmy Olsen is a woman. The Fortress of Solitude is an alien spaceship frozen beneath the ice. There is no Lex Luthor (that we’ve seen). There’s no John Williams score (which is fine. Hans Zimmer’s is brilliant). And instead of jumping right into the Daily Planet, this Clark Kent is a nomad, picking up odd-job after odd-job under the guise of a fake name while on a spiritual journey. No, this is not your grandpa’s Superman. Despite the fact he’s lived on Earth for over two decades, this Superman is still alien to us, not only physically but emotionally. He’s detached, the only strong relationship with other people seeming to be his adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. This Superman has a choice. His destiny is not set in stone, and he can either grow to be a force for good…or bad. It’s this uncertainty that is this Superman’s kryptonite. For all his strength, he’s still not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be used for. He just knows he has a purpose. This makes him vulnerable. But when he finally dons the suit with the S-shield proudly across his chest making him a symbol of hope, this is when Superman overcomes that vulnerability.

It’s this kind of thinking that makes director Zack Snyder and producer Christopher Nolan’s Superman much different from past interpretations. Superman has always been portrayed as the ultimate embodiment of good. There was no choice. Kal-El was always destined to be a savior and, while they always knew to keep his identity hidden from the rest of the world, the Kents raised him to use his powers for good. In this rebooted, bold incarnation of the character, he has the choice to go in the opposite direction than that of which we know. Kal-El/Clark Kent was obviously meant for great, heroic things. We all know he’ll don the blue suit and red cape and be that symbol of hope. But the fact that his path is so uncertain here makes the journey that much more interesting. Jonathan Kent, played respectably by Kevin Coster, is a stern fellow, more stern than we’ve ever really seen the character. He guides Clark, but not in the way you’d expect. He believes Clark was sent there for a reason, but he doesn’t pretend he knows the answer. He’s willing to let people die to hide Clark’s secret, not because he’s a dishonorable man, but because he has so much faith in the destiny of his adoptive son, and so much belief that the world isn’t ready for him yet.

This Superman is still trying to find his place in this world and by the end of the film I think he’s found it. Telling the origin story could have been a gamble that didn’t pay off, such as “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which was pretty much the same origin tale with different actors. But it hasn’t been portrayed on the big screen since Richard Donner’s “Superman: The Movie.” While many aspects of the origin story are similar, a modern retelling still proved to be a gamble that paid off. This is the perfect set-up film, one that establishes Superman in a different way for a different generation. The film opens on Krypton. It’s an introduction that reminds me of Star Wars or Star Trek. This retelling is much more sci-fi than what we’re usually accustomed to seeing. Krypton is brought to life in a brave, albeit CGI-ed heavy, way. Russell Crowe leads the first twenty minutes with a Jor-El that does its best to step away from the Marlon Brando character we all associate with Superman’s biological father, diving and fighting his way through a mob of soldiers in order to save his newly born son from the decaying planet. We see Michael Shannon’s Zod in full-force, leading a military coupe as their world dies around them. It’s a chaotic opening that sets the tone for both the more somber moments and the high-flying action of the rest of the film.

Just as Superman’s destiny is not set in stone in the film, neither should his character. Many reviewers are calling this Superman, played by the square-jawed, soon-to-be-rising-star Henry Cavill, too gloomy. He’s never able to crack a smile, apparently. One shouldn’t expect Tony Stark-like charm from an alien being still searching for his purpose. There isn’t a predetermined set of rules that say Superman should be a lighthearted ray of sunshine. Yes, Superman in essence is not a “dark” character. His symbol after all does mean hope and he gets his powers from the bright rays of Earth’s sun. But for years people have been clamoring for a Superman that steps away from the boy-scout routine. Cavill’s Superman is more serious and, like Costner’s Pa Kent, more stern. He gets angry. He shows emotion. He doesn’t put up with bullshit-he throws down hard with Zod and takes down a spy drone plane. And most importantly, he’s willing to make the hard choices. That’s a Superman that needed to be seen on the big screen. But just because he’s a little more edgy, doesn’t mean he can’t crack a smile. Cavill doesn’t get to show off his pearly whites all that often, but when he does we ‘re reminded that there is something indeed human about this alien after all.

As for the rest of the cast, Amy Adams is a Lois Lane that can hold her own as she should be. I was very bothered by Kate Bosworth’s Lois in “Superman Returns.” She felt like a victim, waiting for Superman to save the day. This Lois seems much more willing to take charge. Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane don’t get much to do as Perry White and Ma Kent, respectively. Zod is a worthy villain to kick-off this resurrected franchise. Not to be compared to Terrence Stamp’s original performance, Shannon’s Zod is an angry, obsessive individual and while we’ve seen the villain on the big screen before, he’s still able to give Superman a run for his money in the power field, which Snyder uses to great advantage. While the fight scenes can often be dizzying, it’s nice to see Superman actually throw down with another on his level of strength. The property damage is undoubtedly through the roof, but one crater in the middle of a city is nothing compared to all of humankind being eradicated. Snyder impressively strips the movie of his signature slo-mo routine in favor of quick zoom ins-and-outs. The action feels heightened in a sense-maybe this is how Superman feels all the time.

All this praise, where are the flaws? The film is not perfect by any means. Richard Schiff and Christopher Meloni play throw-away characters as your average scientist and army colonel. Because every super hero movie needs a specific scientist and army person to help save the day. The military takes to Superman’s arrival a little easier than maybe they should have. A huge part of the film is about how the world would react to Superman if he revealed himself, and yet there isn’t much focus on the reaction in the midst of all the building-toppling madness. But this is what I’d like to see in a sequel. Now that Superman has established himself, lets see some fallout from it. Like the Dark Knight trilogy in a way pokes at the economic crisis, lets see this new Man of Steel franchise take on modern social politics. Snyder and Nolan have crafted a very different take on Superman, but the character needed different. He needed “cool.” If people give it a chance, this Superman can accomplish wonders. It can be an ideal to strive towards.

4.5 stars

Iron Man 3 Review

Phase Two of Marvel’s Avenger’s Initiative begins with a bang with “Iron Man 3.” After the disappointment that was “Iron Man 2,” the adventures of Tony Stark got back on course with “The Avengers” which could have been called “Iron Man and the Hulk and Friends.” The appeal of Iron Man struck audiences when his first solo film back in 2008 managed to be one of the best superhero films around. It was also the first building block for Marvel’s cinematic universe that would eventually lead to last year’s “The Avengers.” Looking back at the after credits scene in which a rather Nick Fury-looking Samuel L. Jackson came onto the screen to announce to the world Marvel’s plan, it’s still hard to swallow just how successful Marvel’s plan was; a millions-of-dollars gamble that ended up not only being a cash cow, but the movies turned out pretty good for the most part, too. Sure, the aforementioned “Iron Man 2” was a disappointment, but even that wasn’t terrible. “The Incredible Hulk” didn’t resonate as well with audiences as the studio would have liked, but it wasn’t a complete failure, and spawned a Hulk in “The Avengers” that stole the show. And while “Thor” and “Captain America” weren’t the box office smashes the Iron Man films have been, they managed to be enjoyable and successful enough to garner sequels.

The point here is that this entire Avengers thing wasn’t a sure bet, but Marvel managed to pull it off. It wasn’t perfect, but the pay off with Joss Whedon’s super hero extravaganza was well worth it. Now that the dust has settled and Marvel is rolling in cash, the next phase has begun to prepare for part two of the Avengers. Iron Man 3 kicks things off well enough. It’s not fantastic, and doesn’t live up to the first film, but it’s steps ahead of “Iron Man 2” and feels like a slightly different take on Iron Man than what we’ve seen. Director Shane Black steps in to replace Jon Favreau, who directed the first two films. The change in direction is felt throughout the film, but the Iron Man character, or should I say Tony Stark, manages to stay intact.

What I’ve always liked about the Iron Man films is that it’s not just about the super hero. From the beginning, the films have done a good job of focusing on the man in the suit while also staying true to the super hero roots. With a talent like Robert Downey Jr. playing the character, it’s hard to not peel back the suit as much as possible. It can be argued that “Iron Man 3” spends too much time on Tony the man and not the super hero, but it delves a little deeper into his demons and brings the trilogy full circle in a way. When we are introduced to Tony Stark in the first film, he is a egocentric, womanizing billionaire, and we have witnessed him mature throughout the franchise.

But where the films have played up Tony Stark, his supporting cast has never really gotten the spotlight they may deserve. The same can be said here, but it’s an improvement. Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts finally gets some things to do rather than just being Tony’s secretary and lover, the damsel in distress that every mainstream super hero movie seems to need. She’s still sort of that, but becomes more of an aggressive character than what we’ve seen. And Don Cheadle’s Jim Rhodes gets a complete makeover, making the transition from War Machine to Iron Patriot. In the comics, Iron Patriot was the altar ego of former Green Goblin Norman Osborn, who formed his own team of “dark” Avengers, which was comprised of villains posing as super heroes. So the film puts a very large twist on that. I don’t exactly know if it was completely necessary. The U.S. government already has a star-spangled superhero in Captain America. But in the context of the film I suppose it makes sense; they don’t exactly want a weapon of mass destruction being called War Machine at a time when a terrorist is threatening the country.

That brings me to the villains. The film plays heavily on our fear of terrorism. Iron Man’s greatest foe in the comics, the Mandarin, is presented in a new light as an international terrorist gunning for Tony Stark. Ben Kingsley has fun with the character and I personally wish he could have gotten more screen time than he did. Alrdrich Killian is the second villain, a businessman working for the Mandarin with his sights on ruining Tony Stark’s legacy and a connection to Extremis, a project that is turning amputees into super criminals. All the Iron Man films have featured a psychotic businessman in some way, but Killian is different and Guy Pearce infuses a good balance of charm and insanity into the role. The only thing I didn’t like about the character was that I don’t feel his motivations or goals were made all that clear. Does he want to destroy Tony Stark? Does he want to take control of the country? Does he want to fuck Pepper Potts? Why’s he so pissed to begin with? It can piece some of it together, but the rest is still a tad confusing. There’s a huge twist at a point in the film that I don’t think anyone saw coming that I am conflicted over. Part of me can’t help but be disappointed because this isn’t exactly the movie I signed up to see. But the other part respects Shane Black for making such a ballsy move.

So despite some missteps story wise, the film is a good character study of the title character in the aftermath of the battle with Loki’s army in “The Avengers.” He forms a special bond with a little kid that almost steals the show and reveals Tony’s humanity. But just because Tony spends a good deal of time outside of the suit doesn’t mean the action sequences aren’t up to par. In fact, they’re the best out of all three films. An attack on Tony’s home and a plane sequence are the standouts, the latter being exhilarating on the big screen. A big complaint about the first two films was that the final battles were both very disappointing and too fast. Black seems to have heard these complaints and went all out with the conclusion to this film. It’s an orgy of Iron Man armor, explosions, and high-flying spectacle.

Overall, “Iron Man 3” can be considered a risky departure from the first two films, and “The Avengers,” in terms of storytelling but never loses the appeal and charm of the character. Stark may be maturing, but he’s still as much of a wise-cracker as before. The film ends on a relatively questionable note, which becomes even more questionable considering the recent disputes over Downey’s contract. Whatever happens with the future of the Iron Man franchise, “Iron Man 3” can be considered a respectable conclusion to a trilogy.

3.5 stars

Star Trek Into Darkness: Spoiler Review

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

J.J. Abrams is one tricky bastard. The sequel to his 2009 reboot is every bit as surprising in its revelations as it is exciting in its edge-of-your-seat action. Near the half-way point of the film, Abrams drops a bombshell on the audience. The thing about it, though, is that the revelation may be more surprising in the fact that that it was never leaked than in the fact it was in the film. Abrams treats his secrets as if they’re his enemies; he keeps them close. The filmmaker is a master at keeping what he has up his sleeve there until the end product is released to the public.

The surprise in question is the fact that, wait for it, Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain is not John Harrison as we’ve been lead to believe. He’s actually Khan, who, as fans of the original Star Trek would know, is one of the series’ most notable villains. As someone who hasn’t seen “The Wrath of Khan,” the moment when Cumberbatch utters the phrase “My name is Khan” didn’t have as much of an impact as it did with the people behind me, who were obvious fans. But I am familiar with the film and character, so I knew the overall impact it would have on the film as a whole.

It’s hard not to imagine how the film would have been if Abrams had taken more chances story wise. The reveal that Harrison is actually Khan did two things: it offered a major turning point for the film which called back to classic Star Trek. But it also put a new kind of pressure on the film, whether intentional or not. Khan is a classic Trek villain and probably the most well known. Abrams did take a chance introducing him into his take on the franchise, there’s also a lot of what-ifs. What if Abrams hadn’t made Khan the villain? What if he stuck with what the character had been previewed as? A rogue Starfleet operative seeking revenge, who may be a nod to Khan, still would have made for an interesting character, especially under the dynamic performance from Cumberbatch. The fact that he’s Khan elevates the film for moviegoers familiar with the character to a point where maybe they’re more invested in his actions, but not much else beyond that. It reminds me of the Robin-dilemma in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Nolan chose to introduce a character that is as Robin as Robin can get without going fully-Robin. Except in this case, Abrams chooses to go fully Khan.

So does it pay off? After the reveal is made, the bar is set higher for the villain’s actions, even to someone who hasn’t seen the original “Wrath of Khan.” Keeping that in mind, I’ll say that Khan is a cunning, powerful, and worthy villain that is much more dynamic than Eric Bana’s Nero in the first film. Throughout the movie, Cumberbatch had complete control and it was always a thrill to see what he’d do next, even if his plan is reminiscent of most movie villains’ plans nowadays (the whole get-captured-because-I-want-to shtick . The only problem I had with the villain was the way he’s taken out. He’s built up to be so powerful, and then is defeated by a few stun gun blasts and a swift punch from a raging Spock in a battle that pits Khan, the unstoppable force, with Spock, the immovable object. This leads to a slightly disappointing conclusion, in which the events of the film are wrapped up so briskly that it’s hard to comprehend just what was so important about the whole thing if it weren’t for how engaging it was while it was happening.

But Khan’s defeat isn’t the only thing about the conclusion that disappointed me about this film. Towards the finale, Kirk dies an unexpected death. The scene is powerful, and adds an extra layer of emotion to a film ripe with action and entertainment. We see Spock in un-Spock-like form, nearly breaking down, as Kirk passes away behind a glass door after the two make a moving exchange. It falls expertly into the film’s theme of life and death, and what exactly that means to each character. This is all undone as Kirk is promptly brought back to life at the end using Khan’s blood. In a series that is sure to spawn a third entry, Kirk’s death probably would have been a poor marketing strategy, especially considering just how fun Chris Pine’s take on the character is. But from a story-stand point, the loss of the character would have been a total game changer and I would have liked to see how it’s handled in a third film. It also would have been a good send off for J.J. Abrams if he doesn’t come back for the third installment. His contribution to the franchise would have been left with a U.S.S. Enterprise crew reeling from the loss of their captain and perhaps a Spock who’s more in touch with his emotions.

Despite these gripes with the ending, I highly enjoyed the film from start to (kind of) finish. The film is a force of action, entertainment and thrills to be reckoned with. If it doesn’t surpass the first film in this category, it at least equals it and gives it a run for its money. It also adds another layer of character development, at least to Kirk and Spock, who’s friendship is a driving force for the film when Khan isn’t on screen. Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine are perfect as Spock and Kirk, respectively, and have a good chemistry on screen as their friendship evolves. Simon Pegg and Karl Urban as Scotty and Bones are terrific comedic gems despite the film delving into darkness.  Zoe Saldana’s Uhura and Alice Eve’s Carol don’t do much, but what the film lacks in powerful female leads it makes up for in testosterone to the max, every feminist’s nightmare but an orgy of action that satisfied me.

Overall, I would see the film in theaters again. Maybe in 3D since I saw it in 2D. I think Abrams dropped the ball on some missed opportunities to make this a real game-changing sequel. It’s not “The Dark Knight” or “Empire Strikes Back” in that regard. But it is an absolutely enjoyable film, one that is very well done under the craftsmanship of Abrams. It’s hard to tell at this point what will become of Star Trek now that Abrams is on board Star Wars, but time will tell. We waited four years for him to go Into Darkness. If we have to wait even longer than that for Abrams to come back, then so be it. He’s more than proven he’s the guy for the job.

4 stars