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.

Thunderbolts*

Review #2378: Thunderbolts*.

Cast: 

Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Wyatt Russell (John Walker / U.S. Agent), Lewis Pullman (Bob Reynolds / Sentry / Void), Geraldine Viswanathan (Mel), Chris Bauer (Holt), Wendell Pierce (Gary), David Harbour (Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Valentina Allegra de Fontaine), and Olga Kurylenko (Antonia Dreykov / Taskmaster) Directed by Jake Schreier.

Review: 

Sure, why not? I don't read many comics, but screw it, let's do a bit of digging: Thunderbolts originally had their own comic book line in 1997, as originally created by Kurt Busiek with art by Mark Bagley. I suppose most people who know about the group would call them "anti-heroes or super-criminals", so we'll go with that. Eric Pearson, who had written the screenplay for Black Widow (among other things, as pointed out here), pointed out that the character played by Pugh felt like a "natural leader", and he brought that idea to Marvel that eventually brought attention to making a movie, although re-writes were done by Joanna Calo that saw each credited for the screenplay (Lee Sung Jin apparently did "additional literary material"); evidently, the twist at the end is the one big thing that survived from the original script. This is the third film directed by Jake Schreier, previously the director of a handful of television shows and movies such as Paper Towns (2015). Folks who might have been curious about the movie past opening week probably already know why an asterisk [*] is in the film title, but, well, sometimes I do look like an idiot and forget to think about that before taking time to watch a movie in a theater.

Sure, it's a group of misfits coming around together to make a team dealing with a certain type of threat beyond just themselves. Sure, it probably will strike a bit differently for those who are more or less invested in what happens with folks with heightened responsibilities or, well folks who need a super-kick in the pants. Sure, it is a familiar one in mayhem and entertainment value (126 minutes), and maybe it is more of a movie for those who've invested their time with these characters beyond movies (read: streaming shows**). But I did like the ride the film went on, one that wanted to have an ensemble worth watching to see where their chemistry could go from there and succeeded in most of their goals, mostly on the strengths of the middle of the film when you have these folks in the set-up. With that in mind, Pugh does make for a quality lead to focus on first, wracked with vulnerabilities that come in the feeling of being wrapped in doubts and the traps of in one's head about regrets and trying to do anything other than just being the cog in the metaphorical ass-kicking machine, which namely involves weariness. Pullman makes for a capable last piece of the puzzle that arises in gloomy people on the inside that has his own battle in self-doubt that is an interesting presence to see grow in terms of what one is beyond just "Bob", suffice to say. Him and Pugh make an interesting connection when it comes to realizing the importance of seeing people beyond just a shadow, although the threat presented with the Void stuff is pretty fascinating for a time. Russell is entertaining in that cocksure attitude that could only come from attempts at overbearing confidence that fascinates me when realizing that he apparently was meant to be the actual threat in the original vision - sometimes changes are for the better. Admittedly, there isn't as much to say about the character played by John-Kamen beyond realizing, yes, it has been seven years since Ant-Man and the Wasp. Louis-Dreyfus mostly coasts on her own timing to make what is basically a thankless role into one that is semi-interesting in terms of craven power-searching. Stan comes here and there in that shakiness that comes in trying to seem different beyond brooding heroics with "U.S. Congressman mode" (with a hairdo that reminds me of Billy Mitchell) that one knows will probably have something to really do later on, I suppose. Admittedly though, it is Harbour that holds the movie together in support because of the warm amusement that he generates (the Russian accent is up to you, though) in that ambition to be in the spotlight in heroics without just being craven for it all. In general, the movie works best with the ensemble and having actual fun there, since it can be a funny movie at times with the mishmash of quirks more so than its action sequences, which are fine in the routines (debate about lighting all you want, naturally) and the inevitable that comes in trying to reconcile the status now established for a rag-tag group that has their first big team-up basically relying on a group hug (to deal with the threat from within) to make it out. In that sense, it is a fine movie, maybe not nearly as great as it might have aimed for in overall execution but still a fine one in entertainment value for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Call me a nerd, but I lost interest in the idea of watching a Black Widow movie in theaters because why the hell would I watch a movie that will remind me that the character is dead rather than Hawkeye (who I barely can tell you about)? I never even really considered Hawkeye much of a member of the Avengers. Even the Hulk, the one with the weakest movie in Phase One, had a movie to introduce him to "the MCU", but Hawkeye? Really?

**Look man, I just can't do shows that sound like overextended movies on streaming places. Hell, I couldn't even do Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for longer than like a season, and that was even with the whole "so Agent Carlson is there but not in the movies, because...?" Daredevil might as well be a ghost with how he is treated in movies, and we do not speak of the Hulk on television. The MCU should've taken a year-ish break anyway, since the best movie after Endgame was, what, Guardians of the Galaxy 3?

Selma.

Review #1646: Selma.

Cast: 
David Oyelowo (Martin Luther King, Jr), Tom Wilkinson (Lyndon B. Johnson), Carmen Ejogo (Coretta Scott King), André Holland (Andrew Young), Tessa Thompson (Diane Nash), Giovanni Ribisi (Lee C. White), Lorraine Toussaint (Amelia Boynton Robinson), Stephan James (John Lewis), Wendell Pierce (Hosea Williams), Common (James Bevel), Alessandro Nivola (John Doar), Lakeith Stanfield (Jimmie Lee Jackson), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Fred Gray), Dylan Baker (J. Edgar Hoover), Tim Roth (George Wallace), Oprah Winfrey (Annie Lee Cooper), Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Bayard Rustin), Niecy Nash (Richie Jean Jackson), Colman Domingo (Ralph Abernathy), Omar Dorsey (James Orange), Ledisi Young (Mahalia Jackson), and Trai Byers (James Forman) Directed by Ava DuVernay.

Review: 
"You know, the thing that I was really interested in doing with the film is making King more than a catch phrase, more than a holiday, more than a street name in a black neighborhood, more than a stamp, more than one speech. I mean, I wanted him to be a man, a living, breathing man."

It's interesting to find a new voice for film, particularly when it comes to ones that took their time to march forward with their own stories to tell. Ava DuVernay grew up in California, but during her summer vacations, she would travel down to her father's childhood home in Alabama, near the city of Selma. The experiences spent with her father, who had seen the marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, would prove a lasting influence. She studied at the University of California, Los Angeles in English literature and African-American studies, but her first career interest was in journalism. It was not long before she shifted into public relations, for which she would work in for a few years. She made her first venture into film with a 2005 short (Saturday Night Life) before making her first documentary with This Is the Life (2008) and her first theatrical effort with I Will Follow (2010). The film was written originally by Paul Webb, although DuVernay would do uncredited re-writes during production. The original director in mind was Lee Daniels, with Oyelowo (who starred in DuVernay's second film, Middle of Nowhere) having to lobby for years to be considered as star, with intentions of casting Liam Neeson and Robert De Niro as Johnson and Wallace before DuVernay came in.

At any rate, what we have here is a fairly stirring film. It runs on the energy to stir emotion about a story it wants to tell involving a march for freedom that came not from one man but from many that came from various backgrounds with their own parts to play. It is pressure that matters most here, one that shows the drive for the vote as a collective. It is the fury of being counted after years of being stepped on that viewers will likely see through the lens of the present alongside the past, where literacy tests fading away don't mean an easy aftermath. If the accuracy is to be debated, at least one can't say the film doesn't have the vision to look like a crisp period piece, right down to shooting on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Oyelowo manages to step forward and does well with strength for a tough task at hand with making King out to be more than just an icon heard on old tapes. He carries the film along with calm measured patience, one who we can see as the main face of a movement with no long doubt or thinking of him as just the entire landscape. In other words, what we have is someone with aspirations to go with flaws just like someone you would know without being relegated to biopic sticking points. Wilkinson does just as well on the other side of the film's line of focus, having his own presence of immeasurability, one that mixes with Oyelowo in the struggle for the right to have others be heard going through the game of policy. Ejogo goes well for her part in soothing measurability in time usually spent paired with Oyelowo, a pillar of strength in her own ways that fits well for the first portrayal of C. King on film (Ejogo had played the role 13 years prior in a production for HBO in Boycott, which dealt with the Montgomery bus boycott). Others stick out in their own ways, such as a persevering Holland or with James. Appearances by Stanfield and Roth stay with the viewer after they leave the screen, for varying reasons.

The strange thing that arises from the dialogue might be the fact that I did not realize that King's speeches were actually under copyright, for which that meant the script had to dance around that with re-spinning of dialogue (Dreamworks and Warner Bros at the time had been given a license for those speeches for a biopic...in 2009, and a decade has passed with no biopic). As one might expect from a historical film, there was a bit of wringing with some of its aspects in depicting certain moments, with the debate being discussed probably just as much as the lack of award nominations for the film as a whole. With a moment like Selma that still had some of the players (both in the march and less connected) still alive, this is particularly interesting, such as the statement from Andrew Young, who stated that most of the film was true while having quibbles with the portrayal of the relationship between Johnson and King. Consider the statement made by DuVernay, who felt that she is a storyteller, not a historian when it comes to a film that isn't a documentary. Honestly, sometimes a film can still be great even if it isn't 100% to the point, such as the case with Malcolm X (1992), which had its own omissions and composites within artistic license (Lee's vision of Malcolm X might as well correspond to a statement DuVernay made involving history being interpreted though the lens of one who reads or experiences it). Quibbles over the portrayal of civil rights moments is nothing new, as noted with films such as Mississippi Burning (1988), for example. But hey, does it count for the film if it speaks to things about King's life that I didn't know beforehand (such as Mahalia Jackson being called by him to sing to him)? Maybe it is an indictment of what we know and don't know from studies in school when it comes to folks like James Reeb or with Jimmie Lee Jackson. There may be many Bloody Sundays, but that doesn't mean it is easily forgotten, particularly when it is one that can be seen on your screen with your own eyes. In that sense, the film does fairly well for itself in generating tension and deep curiosity for the events of 1965 in what happened then and what has happened since then, one that organizes itself with flourish in 128 minutes of events and pace that mostly hits the mark. It isn't a perfect film, but it still manages to do well enough for itself in gripping entertainment to pull a punch where it is still needed now.

Next Time: Closing time comes for Black History Month on the movie side, for which we end with Fences.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Hackers.

Review #1128: Hackers.

Cast: 
Jonny Lee Miller (Dade Murphy / "Zero Cool" / "Crash Override"), Angelina Jolie (Kate Libby / "Acid Burn"), Fisher Stevens ("The Plague" / Eugene Belford), Renoly Santiago (Ramόn Sánchez / "The Phantom Phreak"), Matthew Lillard (Emmanuel Goldstein / "Cereal Killer"), Laurence Mason (Paul Cook / "Lord Nikon"), Jesse Bradford (Joey Pardella), Lorraine Bracco (Margo Wallace), Alberta Watson (Lauren Murphy), Penn Jillette (Hal), and Wendell Pierce (Special Agent Richard Gill) Directed by Iain Softley.

Review: 
I suppose it makes sense that this I encounter Hackers, since it seems to linger on how hip and weird it wants to be, even if it shows its age more so than actual people from the 90s. After all, what other movie can you think of that showcases Jolt Cola? (of which I can safely say I have had a cup of). Or offbeat hairstyles and fashion choices that make bow-ties seem sane by comparison? No doubt, the highlight of this is seeing the virtual environment and computer screens that we can see on people's faces without much problem. This is a film that certainly had some sort of curiosity about hacking and cyberpunk subcultures, where Rafael Moreu (screenwriter for the movie) talked with actual hackers to help develop inspiration for the movie, which the cast also ended up doing, to the point where Miller attended an actual hacker's convention. By the time this film was released, hackers even had their own manifesto out in the open. Sometimes, the best thing to say about a movie is to say that it's "just a movie", for better or worse. How can I take this movie seriously when the stakes and situations presented are so ridiculous in execution? This is a film that has a scene of our main lead hacking a local TV station's computer network to get it to show The Outer Limits (not that there's anything wrong with that choice) and leads into a hacking showoff with another hacker that has the imagery of cassette machines fighting over what tape to show. On one side of the film is a bunch of hacker heroes who like to roller-blade and listen to electronic music, while on the other side is a villain who un-ironically goes by "The Plague" who likes to skateboard around when working who plays the cliche of the corporate adversary, complete with a theft scheme right out of Superman III (1983). Actually, the fact that Penn Jillette (of the comedy magic duo Penn & Teller) is featured in a supporting role probably doesn't break the top five of weirdest things to note in this movie. One could probably write an entire essay over the strange nature of a film made in a time where people weren't as familiar with the Internet as they are today - you're reading this on a virtual screen, after all. Although the movie (made on a budget of $20 million) was not much of a success with audiences at the time, it does endure with its own cult following.

Miller does an okay job at handling a main role, but there are times when he feels a bit dry and not always too interesting, particularly when others are on screen who stand out in their own ways. After all, you might say he's a hacker, not a fighter. Jolie (in her third ever appearance on film) for example, has a certain kind of energy and nature to her that invites interest even with her closed off character and a hacker rivalry with Miller that goes (mostly) the way one would probably expect. They do share some chemistry with each other, at least, although the fact it is in a movie as weirdly built as this one is amusing. It proves amusing to see itself try to subvert the cliche romance, mostly because you'll find yourself involved with the hacking more. Santiago is fine, and Lillard certainly inspires hit-or-miss moments with his scene-stealing moments of hacking and weird hair. Mason and Bradford round out the hacker group, and they are both fine in their brief time. Clearly, the one who munches attention is Stevens, the keyboard cowboy (as he puts it) who makes the experience worth it in playing the role of the adversary without taking it too seriously or too amusingly. In lesser hands, it would've come off as silly nonsense, but Stevens is adept at being compelling to watch be the smug and clever foil, even if the stakes aren't particularly too high. Oh sure, a bunch of oil tanker fleets will capsize to cover a hacking scheme, but there is something truly amusing about the levels of tension (and occasional humor) the film wants to draw for its climax, complete with rollerblading, hacker-themed pirate TV show hosts, and splotches of color and imagery for a hacking showdown. Interestingly, the cyberspace effects are not computer generated imagery, but instead naturally created, using methods such as animations, motion control, or other methods. The cutting edge-ness that I'm sure the film had in 1995 is more of a soft edge now, but there is something to watch in its entertainment value regardless, whether for laughs or not. It's dumb and cheesy, but there's a certain feeling to its cheese that makes it one you can't reject too easily out of hand. I'd hesitate to easily call it a cult classic, but it's certainly the kind of film you could watch late at night and point at with chuckles, for better or worse, even if I can't quite give it a positive endorsement. It isn't much as a crime film, but it is certainly something on an entertainment level. It's entertaining junk of the weirdest order even with over two decades of age behind it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.