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.

Alien: Romulus.

Review #2247: Alien: Romulus.

Cast: 

Cailee Spaeny (Rain), David Jonsson (Andy), Archie Renaux (Tyler), Isabela Merced (Kay), Spike Fearn (Bjorn), Aileen Wu (Navarro), and Daniel Betts (Rook) Directed by Fede Alvarez (#839 - Don't Breathe)

Review: 

Admittedly, there isn't much of an excuse I can come up with that explains why I forgot to watch Prometheus (2012) or Alien: Covenant (2017), which if you remember were the previous two films of the Alien franchise released into theaters (counting the Alien vs. Predator films sounds futile). Plans for this film first came out in 2022 for...release on Hulu. These plans changed for the best, if only because, well, we are not friends of promoters of streaming experiences. The film was written by Fede Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues, who have previously worked together on Alvarez's 2013 Evil Dead film and Don't Breathe (2016). Evidently, the film has already made back the money on its $80 million budget in a week.

Admittedly, the pursuit of better things by the youth when it comes to exploring space is at least a useful way to approach making a standalone film for a series built on, well, alien terror. Of course, the one thing I really should have learned was to not peek at the Internet for even the slightest second, if only because hearing the vaguest of early reviews comparing this film to Rogue One (2016) gave me the tiniest bit of pause. I might get the opposite effect that I did with that film in which maybe I will appreciate Alien: Romulus better if I saw it again a few months removed from the initial sense of optimism that was soon met with mild entertainment that has a really good look befuddled by a mild script (when not deluged with trying to reference every single Alien film, for better or worse). Ever get a decent film that you have to carefully say "yes, I liked it despite saying these quibbles that seem like gripes"? This is Exhibit A, right here and there. It seems pointless to say to watch the movie rather than just hear gripes so you can interpret on your own, but hey, you have your time and I have mine, let's just run it down. For starters, I like the general look of the film, mostly because if you are going to wedge yourself between the Scott/Cameron films, you'd better have the commitment to not stick out like a sore thumb (so yes, there are some pretty well done effects) It manages to invoke some of the terror involved in deadly creatures that happen to be desirable in the corporate human sense. The dynamic between Spaeny and Jonsson is actually pretty interesting from the perspective of surrogate relations and examining just what matters most in the lines of loyalty and beyond. Each of them are pretty good in their roles, especially when it comes to handling the dilemmas of the last act (some created by themselves, some by circumstance). In terms of actual factual moments of the last act, it is a pretty neat one in getting to the point.

And then one gets to the "Rogue One" part of the film and one immediately wonders who the hell thought this was a great idea. Yes, one does in fact see a face from the past in the film through the art of effects (such as an animatronic). The character of Rook happens to look like Ian Holm (who passed away in 2020), although it isn't exactly just seeing Ash from the original 1977 Alien. Nothing about seeing Rook seems necessary here (the Holm estate can be happy, of course) beyond just doing a reference just for the sake of it, which pretty much hinders the movie in some respects to actually, well, get moving on its own feet. One is watching a 119-minute movie that only seems to really get going when it strikes the familiar vein of people getting chest-bursted (as opposed to trying to ape bits from Aliens because...?). The characters are mildly involving, but maybe I have missed something from previous films, because it seems this one had the most folks where I was basically waiting for them to get killed (well there was Alien 3, the one that thought taking out most of the survivors of Aliens and putting Ripley on a dude-criminal planet, but it's been a while), particularly in the case of Fearn, who at least has the most satisfying end scene. With so few people around to start the film, one really has a spaced-out amount of terror that is, well, decently executed. As a whole, it invokes some of the wonder and terror that had shaped the first two Alien movies (i.e. the only ones that are really, really good) before trying to play familiar with the others one for a synthesis that is touch-and-go in actual effective power. It is a fine crowd-pleaser that has most of the right elements when it comes to atmosphere and conviction while doing mildly fine in the overall outcome that reminds one that there is a fine line between familiarity and checklist material. I'm not sure exactly where the movie rests in the series when it comes to quality a few years down the line, but being a decent ride sure seems worth remembering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next time: Ishtar.

Madame Web.

Review #2185: Madame Web.

Cast: 

Dakota Johnson (Cassandra "Cassie" Webb / Madame Web), Sydney Sweeney (Julia Cornwall), Isabela Merced (Anya Corazon), Celeste O'Connor (Mattie Franklin), Tahar Rahim (Ezekiel Sims), Mike Epps (O'Neil), Emma Roberts (Mary Parker), Adam Scott (Ben Parker), Kerry Bishé (Constance Webb), Zosia Mamet (Amaria), and José María Yazpik (Santiago) Directed by S. J. Clarkson.

Review: 

"Was it what I expected? Yes and no. There were elements of it that were incredible, and you were like, 'Wow, I'm on this big movie set and get to do all these amazing visual effects.' Then, in some ways, it's just like another day on set. I think that's a really healthy balance because it can be so intimidating, like a steamroller coming at you, and you've just got to get on and try to wrestle it. You can't stop it, and you change direction at your own peril."  - S. J. Clarkson

Is it wrong to go to a movie because of curiosity for how bad it could be? I had wondered just what movie directed by a woman had the worst rating prior to seeing this, and strangely enough, it was a film directed by Cheryl Hines in Serious Moonlight (2009). The next three in "least worst" were: Twilight (2008 - probably not that bad, but dire), Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), and Hot Pursuit (2015). Now now, you might be saying highlighting terrible movies made by women is a bit ridiculous, but isn't equality all about highlighting terrible movies of both genders? March is National Women's History Month, so why not highlight a first-time effort? Actually, S. J. Clarkson has been a director since the early 2000s, all of which being in television, whether that was Doctors or Jessica Jones. Clarkson was tapped to direct by 2020, and she would be one of the handful of numerous writers behind this adaptation of the comic book character (as created by Denny O'Neil and John Romita Jr for The Amazing Spider-Man comic in 1980, and apparently Web has never been featured in their own comic). The screenplay was done by Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker, and Clarkson, while the story was done by Kerem Sanga, Matt Sazama, and Burk Sharpless. Apparently, the work done by Sazama and Sharpless on films such as Morbius (2022) was worthy enough for Sony to want to see them return for another film in their so-called Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Honestly, even for someone as weird about movies involving action like me, I forgot that Sony has tried to their own set of films based on Spider-Man characters (such as the two Venom films and Morbius but not the Spider-Verse films, I guess). One might wonder if it seems like beating a dead horse to talk negatively about a movie rather than highlight something else. The easy answer to that is: what plane of reality do you live in? One can see all the movies they want that they say is "good", but a significant amount of stuff is still bad. In fact, some of it is really bad, so why try to act one is above it? The funny thing is I don't even care that much about talking about the divide of comic book movies and, well, movies, since I've been playing pick and choose for the last few years anyway (unless it seemed good like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as opposed to stuff that I figured, well...). With that being said, I went into this film expecting a silly movie for 116 minutes, and the best thing to say is that I got to see it all by myself in a theater (this film has been out for almost a month, so...).

This was delightfully terrible to watch. Apparently, instead of being set in the 1990s, the timeline was changed to 2003 during reshoots (as told by posters of Beyonce, namedropping Idol, red Mountain Dew and a retro clock I had like 10 years ago). One wonders how much energy was present before the reshoots...because there sure is little of it here. Not one actor seems to be invested in a film that has a character that spends most of their time saying "look out!" when it comes to the action sequences. Okay, so I knew a very little bit of what "Madame Web" was in the comics and figured two things: one, that she was vaguely related to Spider-Man and 2. the name sounds like one would use for a brothel owner. The resulting film did not help matters, because really her powers here just seem like cheating more than anything. "Web" can see...somewhat into a future. Sure, she can't foresee when she'll get blinded and crippled (so she can avoid it), but she can conjure up plot exposition (for when she has mommy issues that come to the forefront for like, one scene) and tell people when to duck when being confronted by Generic Bad Guy or open a window so a pigeon won't bonk into it. The movie seems to think it is envisioned like a suspense thriller, but little of that comes through for a movie that makes really wonder why Web wasn't thought of as an adversarial character or one that has...to learn something about the nature of their power. What the film really involves is "film made by committee", such as the idea of three teens (played by adults) that are teased as future Spider-People with suits...just for visions. I can't tell what was funnier: the main character leaving the three teens she basically kidnapped on accident in the woods so she can go to her apartment to study (exposition) notes or her leaving them with her friend (with a pregnant sister-in-law) so she can go to Peru and find exposition with a secret tribe of spider-people. The answer is Option C: a Pepsi sign being a big part of a climax where absolutely nothing of scale is shown for interesting detail. If you told someone this was reported as being made for $80 million, they probably would say "what, did the accountants hide it?"  

Honestly, Johnson is the "best" part of the film, if only because among all the drained performances trying to get through a film of bluescreen, the ounces of amusement to be had here come because of her. Maybe there was an interesting script somewhere in the original drafts that had something to do with the perils of knowing the future. Instead, one is left adrift in a sea of awkward characterization that probably nobody would've made work with the way this film was sludged in and out. At least she tried. Less successful is Rahim, seemingly playing a villain in the art of "ADR" that isn't even defined at the bare minimum of "how did they get here?" (how does one go from stealing a spider in Peru to being rich - use your imagination, I guess). The adversary he plays is "slightly strong with poison, totally legit guys", can't shoot webs, and has visions that three spider-women will kill him. Honestly, making a movie where a nut is on the loose that believes he has to hunt some people down to save himself could made an idea for a thriller (particularly since he has hands on tech that means he can look at public cameras like it was the Patriot Act), but, well, he has no sense of menace present. Hell, I know he has some sort of poison with touch, but, like, one couldn't have gone for the overkill route and carried a weapon too? Sure, he would probably go Bond Villain route and talk rather than shoot when presented the chance, but, well, it would at least present the chance of a trait to think about. The random guy next to you when in line for something (fast food, shopping, paying bills) probably will spook you more than Rahim in this film, but again, sounding like one is being ADR'd helps no one. The trio of Sweeney-Merced-O'Connor have about as much energy as one has when trying to make excuses for why they aren't going to the local theater on their day off, with the scene of each explaining why they can't go to the cops when in their predicament is unintentionally amusing for the execution of those lines in juxtaposition with being unintentionally kidnapped (since each is ridiculously stuck in a bad spot like rich parents or, um, their dad was deported). The web of how they are tangled with Johnson (junk mail! awkward encounters! flipping a paramedic!) makes me laugh just as much, because it has the charisma of someone trying to find reasons to have a reason to keep talking to you in line when high school ended 15 years ago. Scott is the only other person in the film for more than a scene (unless you count Mamet going "I'm scanning the data" as being there longer), and it probably should mean something to be playing "Uncle Ben" other than, oh, right, this could have been any name, which kind of goes for Roberts (daughter of the cool Roberts in the family - Eric) for a movie with the level of stakes that are lower than how much kibble one should give their pet for dinner. If one really thinks about it, the most befuddling line is one at the end that seems like a joke, when Johnson's character says "that's what he thinks" about a guy seemingly about to enjoy becoming a uncle with none of the responsibility. I feel like Madame Web being around as a pal to a guy kind of means...one would be troubled by knowing they are going to be doing more than being an uncle to a child. But I'm sure the "greater good" precludes that in the same way that the Future Spider-Girls (trademark) must stay on the path to do Totally Heroic Stuff (while Web gets to say bless you five seconds in advance for cheap party tricks and maybe wear a suit because why?). Making a "gritty" attempt at a comic film probably had some idea of meat on it before it was hacked by some sort of studio notes, or God forbid, it actually was worse (someone should put a false rumor of having the original script just for the idea of a troll campaign to Release The Less Crappy Madame Web Cut). On the whole, folks probably already know the movie stinks, but it seemed ripe to make fun of a movie aptly appropriate for the era of bloated studio filmmaking that tries to make franchises and streaming the thing to try and suck all the life out of what should be the simplest thing: fun. The only fun worth having with Madame Web is to make fun of it, and it will likely rank as one of the most amusing features to namedrop for fun in the coming future.

On that note, Happy International Women's Day. Go see better movies! 

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.