Showing posts with label Edi Gathegi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edi Gathegi. Show all posts

July 14, 2025

Superman (2025).

Review #2399: Superman (2025).

Cast: 
David Corenswet (Clark Kent / Superman), Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane), Nicholas Hoult (Lex Luthor), Nathan Fillion (Guy Gardner / Green Lantern), Edi Gathegi (Michael Holt / Mister Terrific), Anthony Carrigan (Rex Mason / Metamorpho), Isabela Merced (Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl), Skyler Gisondo (Jimmy Olsen), Sara Sampaio (Eve Teschmacher), Wendell Pierce (Perry White), Beck Bennett (Steve Lombard), Mikaela Hoover (Cat Grant), Christopher McDonald (Ron Troupe), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Jonathan Kent), Neva Howell (Martha Kent), María Gabriela de Faría (Angela Spica / The Engineer), and Zlatko Burić (Vasil Ghurkos) Written and Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy, #932 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, #2006 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3)

Review: 
"Over the years, I'd think, 'How was I going to do Superman if I ever had the chance to do it? How can you take a character like this, who's perceived as old-fashioned by many? There have been so many different permutations of the character throughout the years, so how could you do it for a modern audience? I knew what I wanted to do in creating a story that was both utterly human and utterly fantastic at the same time – and I think the movie bounces back and forth between those two poles in a relationship that's incredibly complex. It also has all the fantastic elements that we've never really seen in a Superman movie: the flying dog, the giant Kaiju, pocket universes, science and sorcery, and all these things that were in the old Max Fleischer cartoons."

Oh, has it been a while since we had a Superman (as originally created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster) movie? We all know that the comic book movie owes a great deal to Superman (1978) when it comes to the great spectacle of worthwhile storytelling and special effects that Richard Donner stated had the aim of "Make a love story...and prove a man can fly.” Three different directors all tried to make their own follow-up to that movie to varying results. Man of Steel (2013) was an endeavor to make a "modern Superman...in his relationship to society and/or the modern world" that resulted in a hard-headed but curious movie fit for die-hard admirers of its director Zack Snyder and, well, others. But the pursuit of the dollar had Warner Bros. craving a mashup for the next Superman-related movie rather than a straight sequel, which resulted in the film formerly known as the last movie with Superman in the title, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016. Long story short: it sucked. Two years later, James Gunn actually was approached about writing and directing a Superman film, but he had doubts about taking on the characters and instead took the perceived "easy path" with making what became The Suicide Squad in 2021. In 2023, Gunn was announced as being in on what became this film, stating that his inspiration came to him revolving around the heritage of the character and looking forward (as opposed to calling it Superman: Legacy, which was the original title). With a budget of over $200 million, I'm sure this new venture in to making people want to check out further DC characters in film or television will work forwards rather than say, backwards (well, I could always go back to All-Star Superman or one of those other stories/shows that inspired this film, but I digress). 

I think I had about the right type of expectations with this film in tabbing it as one to take my mom to see on opening week.* While I'm not sure exactly how this film will sit in my memory a year from now, I can say without a doubt that this was a fun experience. If the story of Superman the hero is one of a man who strikes as a symbol of hope amid times of fear and confusion (as one does when created in the days of the Great Depression), you could say that is a movie for the energetic at heart. It has its loose moments of footing with tone, and it certainly will inspire plenty of curiosity over select story beats, but it ultimately soars enough to make the 129-minute trip worth it. I don't find it too wise to go over the story of a movie in theaters beat by beat, but let's get some stuff covered. It's interesting to essentially drop into Superman three years down the beat of heroism (incidentally, The Batman (2022) elected to go with a title character two years spent in the suit that reaches an endpoint of aspiring for hope, food for thought), as reflected in a few lines of text for the intro, among other things. I rolled with it, mainly because I would expect audiences to just go with a man who can fly without starting on alien planets or in Kansas. For a character that might as well be the biggest boy scout possible, Corenswet does relatively alright with the expectations sprung from the numerous portrayals one has heard/seen before**, although I imagine one would aspire for a bit more on the side of Kent, which is left a bit on the wayside for a chunk of the film, particularly since Krypto the (rascal) dog is in the mix. At least the sequences spent with Brosnahan are engaging to the extent needed in rigid charm, one that suggests that maybe kindness is some sort of punk rock. Admittedly, there are plenty of Lex Luthors to have experienced in terms of varying levels of ruthless ambition and the conflict that arrives from "mind over muscle", or with this film, "brain beats brawn". Hoult proves the highlight of the film in audacious confidence for what arises in the classic tale of wanting the admiration of thousands when being incapable of really understanding what it means to give and receive it in the first place.  The rest of the ensemble is fairly enjoyable for some hits in humor, with Gathegi and Fillion each having neat little moments of timing (others might say Sampaio proves a worthy new Teschmacher, but see for yourself). The Boravia-Jarhanpur aspects of the film are fairly interesting in the idea that you could interpret as oh, any conflict from abroad in the last few decades, although I wonder if there was the tiniest bit of inspiration gleamed from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), a movie where Superman early on decides to rid the world of nuclear arms but eventually comes to the conclusion (as one does in a plot too stupid to really explain) that he isn't the one to give the gift of freedom from war and that he wishes the Earth could be seen by folks the way he sees it as "just one world." It probably reflects well that Burić makes for a blustery caricature to carry the weight of bluster and facades for all to experience, suffice to say. The CGI mayhem is relatively on point for what you would expect from the film, albeit on a scale that is more interesting with character moments such as say, Krypto or one certain sequence with Terrific than big fights, which are fine in a way that seems worthy to hope for improvement in staging the next time around, especially when having a good deal of fun with a souped up movie that likes what it sees in super dogs and splitting climaxes. The scene with the Kents (who are folksy enough to fit the bill, when compared to past renditions) probably lifts the movie up the most when it needs it for a movie that basically states that one (crisis of confidence or not) is made by their choices they make rather than being made by what someone tells them to do.*** In a time of eroding confidence in truth, justice, and a better tomorrow, it is nice to see a movie sincere enough to make one realize that what people really want is honesty with their entertainment, and if it means thinking differently about what we aspire to see in hope, then so be it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Fun fact: Seven years ago, I actually put on the Superman Returns DVD and showed it to my mom. It was a funny time watching that tedious movie, suffice to say. I doubt I would show her the, shall we say, "prehistoric comic book movies" in Superman and the Mole Men (1951) or the 1940s Superman serials. Or those Fleischer shorts, which I probably should check out at some point.
**The more interesting debate for Superman portrayals is if one likes Tim Daley or George Newburn best in animated form.
***Strangely enough, I was thinking of a certain speech of crisis and confidence that happens to have been spoken on July...15, 1979. Also, consider how Superman gets out of a certain jam (glass, trust me), one that isn't done by trickery but by showing who he is when consequences strike right in front of him.

November 30, 2024

Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Review #2321: Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Cast: 
Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart), Grant Bowler (Henry "Hank" Rearden), Matthew Marsden (James Taggart), Graham Beckel (Ellis Wyatt), Edi Gathegi (Edwin "Eddie" Willers), Jsu Garcia (Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia), Michael Lerner (Wesley Mouch), Jack Milo (Richard McNamara), Ethan Cohn (Owen Kellogg), Rebecca Wisocky (Lillian Rearden), Christina Pickles (Mother Rearden), Neill Barry (Philip Rearden), Patrick Fischler (Paul Larkin), Sylva Kelegian (Ivy Starnes), Jon Polito (Orren Boyle), and Michael O'Keefe (Hugh Akston) Directed by Paul Johansson.

Review: 
You may or may not know the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Born and educated in the Russian Empire, she moved to the States in 1926 and wrote a handful of novels and plays (I vaguely remember reading Anthem as a high school freshman over ten years ago but can remember more about Orwell's Animal Farm by a landslide). Describing the book as her magnum opus and one about "the role of man's mind in existence", the book grew a certain following among libertarians among a wide variety of reviews (one review said that within the novel, "a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"). Every year, over 400,000 copies of the words of Rand (including the novel) is donated to high schools by an institute that bears her name. For decades, there had been rumblings of trying to make the novel into either a film or a miniseries, with Rand even trying to make a screenplay before she died in 1982. The rights ot the film had been given to her heir in Leonard Peikoff, who had sold an option on producing the film to investor John Aglialoro in 1992 (a chairman of Cybex International and a member of the Board of Trustees of The Atlas Society). Through failed attempts at a miniseries on TNT and a project overseen by Howard and Karen Baldwin and Lions Gate Entertaiment that went nowhere in the 2000s, Aglialoro eventually took it upon himself to write screenplay with Brian Patrick O'Toole (as opposed to using the script by Randall Wallace that would've somehow made the movie into a two-hour work) that eventually got into production just two days before the film option was to expire. Stephen Polk was replaced by Paul Johansson as director just before filming began; Johansson is mostly known as an actor to go alongside directing fourteen episodes of One Tree Hill and go figure that this is his only directing credit. Shot over the course of less than six weeks for apparently over $10 million (speculation was that it actually was $20 million, but at any rate, "red camera technology" was used to get digital images for the film), the movie had to go through covert marketing outside of the usual norm that saw promotion from whatever "FreedomWorks" is. The movie never was released to more than 500 theaters at any point during its release cycle that started in April of 2011. Aglialoro went so far as to call critics who panned the film as "lemmings" that were scared of Ayn Rand and called it motivation to get the sequels made, which were done with lessening budgets and different directors and cast for each successor in 2012 and 2013. 

Honestly, I don't really try to put much of a political slant in these reviews (editorializing is more fun in calling Evel Knievel a bum than trying to spend sentences on Michael Moore, for example), I just go for what might be interesting (with Turkey Week being the "fun" alternative). It was either going to be this film or God's Not Dead (2014) and I shudder to wonder if I picked the sillier movie by accident. You just have to love a movie where an overhead shot cuts to a closeup where one says, "In order to save my family's business [actor pause] I'm going to have to abandon it" which is then immediately followed by a guy playing with a train set. I just have to ask myself: what in the actual hell is this movie? Where the hell did the money go to make a movie that has the trappings of a Hallmark movie? Do libertarians treat this movie like folks treat religious movies? The only thing "epic" about this movie is that it has the absolute weirdest sensibility about storytelling and dialogue that feels like it was written by aliens. This weirdo rendition of 2016 somehow makes the real one look sane by comparison, complete with obsession for trains. The jargon that gets spoken on screen makes me appreciate the technobabble heard on Star Trek episodes because at least those episodes didn't feel like pants about to rip in two from stress or involve a "State Science Institute". Folks disappear when people ask about "John Galt" while their photo turns to black-and-white that lists their name as if it was an NCIS episode, with the last guy being "on strike". People either share exhubrance for being in boardroom meetings or trains in a manner that suggests the movie is actually the product of someone actually having sex with a boardroom or train. I suppose there might have been something about "makers vs. takers" and capitalism to talk about here, but the whole experience is hollow and not at all compelling enough to not move past being a self-righteous screed about governments and money that has the persuasive power of a homeless man talking to you about certain men being the Devil for 97 minutes. The only amusement I get is the random bits with name actors trying to make sense of playing such weird caricatures, whether that involves Armin Shimerman (best known as Quark on possibly the best Star Trek show in Deep Space Nine) talking about "social danger" metals or Polito and Lerner playing spooky elites. Schilling and Bowler don't prove ideal to serving these leads because the characters have very little depth to actually deliver substance (you would almost rather see a hammy actor) that might actually make you wonder if they swapped brains with Neil Breen. Beckel just gives off crazy vibes. By the time one gets to burning oil wells for the climax (okay, funny word to use for the film but still), one is as satisfied in getting to the "End of Part I" title card as one would be in finding that one's housekeys were on the roof. As a whole, this is a baffling movie to watch, having little to offer people in actual production value that looks and feels cheap in the ways that matter most for a hollow experience. It somehow seems out of date and out of touch in terms of delivering a point beyond meandering mealy-mouth mush.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Candidates that fell by the wayside for our fifth and most successful Turkey Week in terms of terrible crap seen: 
Mitchell (1975), If Ever I See You Again (1978), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Simon Sez, 
 Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, Killing Me Softly, Project Moonbase, Shanghai Surprise / Body of Evidence, The Slime People, Don't Go in the Woods, H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come, Folks!,
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Billy Jack Goes to Washington, Return to Blue Lagoon, 
The Starfighters, The Identical / God's Not Dead, Date Movie, and 2024's Reagan / The Crow. 

We shall see where the road takes Turkey Week in 2025.