Say Anything

If you are of a certain age/generation (mostly likely Generation X-which I am a member of) than you’re probably a John Cusack fan. This fandom is mostly due to 3 films-The Sure Thing (1985), Better Off Dead (1985), & Say Anything...(1989). I would like to take a closer look at each film.                                                                                Last & certainly least is Say Anything...(1989). I think this film is highly overrated. Yes a lot of women especially those of my generation will tell this is one of the most romantic films ever made & they will cite the scene with Lloyd Dobler (Cusack) holding up the boom box under Diane Court (Ione Skye) window as it plays “In Your Eyes” as a big reason why. Ah the beauty of Hollywood magic! If you have seen the behind the scenes footage of that scene the real song that Cusack played on the boom box was Fishbone’s “Turn the Other Way.” But the film’s writer/director Cameron Crowe knew that wasn’t right & he kept looking until he found in “In Your Eyes” which obviously was the correct choice. Through I like the scene (and in real life the cops properly would had a talk with Lloyd Dobler about this) one scene does not make a romantic movie.  This is a case where wrong casting almost sinks a movie. Iona Skye isn’t up to the lead role of Diane Court who is described by two of Lloyds friends is “a brain trapped in the body of a game-show hostess.” Iona Skye isn’t pretty enough to be game-show hostess, nor does she comes across as brain. The scene that best illustrates this is her father who runs an old folks home is under investigation by the IRS for filing false tax returns. He isn’t reporting his true income because the IRS believes he’s keeping his residents money after they die. Diane doesn’t believes this so she goes to talk to man who leading the investigation (Philip Baker Hall who gives a wonderful performance. He is both sympathetic & determined to get this person for the crime he is believed to have committed.) She tells him that she thought that by wearing grown-up clothes that he would take her seriously. The problem is she isn’t wearing grown up clothes, she’s wearing the clothes that an 18 year old young lady would wear to hang out with her friends or go out with her boyfriend. The outfit is a white buttoned up shirt with the sleeves rolled up & button up, a pink miniskirt, & keds. This is a young lady who was the valedictorian of her graduating class and she’s going to England on a fellowship and this what she wears to go talk to IRS agent in charge of her father’s case? Was there something wrong with her graduation dress or the outfit she wore to her interview for the fellowship? What a shame because John Cusack is so right as Lloyd Dobler. This is probably his best performance. Equally good is John Mahoney as Diane’s Court father Jim Court. He seems like the kind of dad anyone would want until we learn his terrible secret. He is indeed keeping his residents money after they die. But he isn’t doing it for himself; he’s doing it for his daughter. He doesn’t want to her to want for anything. Talk doing a horrible thing for a noble reason. There’s a great scene involving this IRS subplot. Jim Court’s attorney is eating take-out food at the desk of one of the IRS agent investigating the case. He (Jim Court) has decided to plead guilty to the charges so the attorney & the IRS agent are bartering over jail time (which the IRS wants & gets) & the amount of a fine (an amount is agreed upon). What makes this scene so good is there is no emotion between the two. Its presented very matter- of-factly as two people who have done this sort of thing before & will again.  Another strength of the film is the script especially the dialogue. The film is filled with memorable dialogue which the majority does a great job of delivering expect for you guessed it-Iona Skye. Monday morning quarterbacking it there are only two ways to fix this film-replace Iona Skye or flopping the roles. Let’s look at the first option. Who was the appropriate age at this time (1988-89) who are both pretty & smart? I’m not gonna lie I had a hard time with this. I read a book “Pretty In Pink: The Golden Age of Teenage Movies” which was about teen movies of this time period & the author (Jonathan Bernstein) thought Uma Thurmond should have had the role. I also read on the website Pajiba that Jennifer Connelly almost got the part of Diane Court & through I didn’t come up with her once I read it that seems like she would have been the best choice. She certainly fits the part as it was described by Lloyd friends, what a pity she didn’t get the part. If she had or Uma Thurmond had than the film would be very good/great like it should have. The only other option and the one that really intrigues me if they had flopped the parts; in this scenario Lloyd is the valedictorian who has the fellowship to England & Diane Court is an ordinary student who he falls for. This would have worked because you could have her dad not wanting her to fall for a man who isn’t going to be in the country too much longer. You could keep the subplot about the IRS because Jim Court still would have had the same motivation. What’s good about this scenario is Iona Skye could still be Diane Court. The way she plays Diane Court is as a pretty (through not game show hostess pretty) young lady who is earnest, likeable, and has a good heart which totally fits this scenario, not the one that was filmed. Sadly you can’t do this so what you have is a movie that aspires for greatness and could have achieved it if the part of Diane Court had been played by someone else or if the parts had been flopped like I mentioned. Let this be a lesson to anyone making a movie-just like how a good cast/cast member can elevate poor/so-so material, a bad cast/cast member can damage good/great material.

Man Of Steel

“Man of Steel” tried a different approach but still suffered a similar problem to “Superman Returns” because it invited comparisons to not only “Superman the Movie”, but its equally good sequel “Superman II”.  This is an origin movie so we return to Krypton. This time around the mystical quality that pervaded Krypton in the original Superman is replaced by a typical depiction of high advanced civilization that is commonplace in sci-fi/fantasy movies. This terrible decision (taking away the mystical/mythological aspect of Superman) makes it like every sci-fi/fantasy. As a result Man of Steel has meh feeling to it. Its hard to understand why the filmmakers thought that by removing what made Superman (both the character & his universe) unique would work.  The filmmakers made what appeared to be a smart choice by not making Lex Luthor the villain. Instead General Zod & his followers are the only villains in this version of Superman (the first time since Superman III that Lex Luthor didn’t appear in a Superman film). Lex Luthor is never mentioned & there’s only fleeting references to him (the LexCorp skyscraper & a pair of tanker trucks that has the LexCorp painted on them are shown). This decision seemed like good idea; but alas it doesn’t work because this time around General Zod doesn’t work. This is strange because on paper Michael Shannon as General Zod is a great idea! For some reason General Zod in this version of Superman isn’t a good villain.  Perhaps its because his motivation in this film is different than what it was in ‘Superman II’. In this version Zod’s motivation is to use a terraforming "world engine" to transform Earth into a new Krypton and use the codex to repopulate the planet with genetically-engineered Kryptonians, killing all of Earth's indigenous life in the process. Admiral, but it just doesn’t work. General Zod in Superman II just wants a world to rule & he gets that opportunity. What is also curious about General Zod in Man of Steel is he doesn’t seem like a bad ass, whereas in Supeman II he does. What makes this interesting is Michael Shannon is built like a linebacker & Terrance Stamp is built like a slot wide receiver. However, something about Terrance Stamp screams “not to be messed with” & that isn’t the case with Michael Shannon. Also continuing a trend that was started in Superman Returns there’s next to no joy in being a super hero in the DC Movie Universe. Moody super heroes are the trend in super hero films, but with the exception of Batman that is not the M.O. in DC Comic Universe. Why in this film did the filmmakers decide to make an issue of Superman being an Alien. Yes, pretty much everyone knows that the reason for Superman’s powers is because he’s an alien. But the way its treated is similar to a 50’s sci-fi movie where aliens were a menace.  There’s also no time for romance in this Superman film so why did the filmmakers include Lois Lane?  In fact hardly any of the characters have room to breathe. The exceptions being Russell Crowe as Superman’s Biological Dad Jor-El who appears like he had a blast making this film, Kevin Costner as Superman’s Earth Dad Jonathan Kent who brings the right amount of gravitas to the part (through the way he is killed by being sucked into a tornado & waving off Clark Kent/Superman so he wouldn’t reveal his powers by saving him is stupid), Richard Schiff as Dr. Emil Hamilton who just is really likable & believable in this part, Christopher Meloni  as Colonel Nathan Hardy who also bring gravitas and a center to the movie whenever he’s on screen, and Antje Traue  as Faora-Ul  she’s a Krytptonian villan who unlike General Zod is a bad ass. The scenes with her & Meloni crackle with energy & vitality. Her character contributes the only memorable line of dialog of the film- “A good death is its own reward.” The scene where Dr. Hamilton & Col. Hardy sacrifice themselves by flying Superman’s space ship into the Phantom Zone & take most the Krytonian villians with them is especially moving. It reminds us viewers that sometimes in order to save the world a person or persons have to pay the ultimate price to do so. There’s a good scene where Meloni says Traue phrase to her as the ship is headed into the Phantom Zone. That’s pretty sad that all the characters who stick out & help the move the plot along are supporting characters. None of the major characters stick out & they all seem strait jacketed by their roles. This is never more evident than in the much ballyhooed & debated scene where Superman is forced to kill General Zod. This is necessary because its the only way he can save the world. But the way its shot & Superman’s reaction afterwards ruin the impact this scene should have.  You don’t feel anything because its handled badly. In fact after the scene is over hardly any mention is made about that. Think about that, this paragon of virtue –Superman-commits an act that goes totally against everything he believes & yet we don’t get a scene of how he has dealt with the guilt/remorse he probably feels. That’s bad filmmaking & inexcusable.  The film didn’t do well with the critics Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 56% & through it’s the highest grossing Superman film of all-time it only did ok at the box office-$668 million. That was good enough for Warner Bros &DC Entertainment to green light a sequel Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Let’s hope that this Justice League movie (which it is because Wonder Woman, Cyborg, & Aquaman are in it) fixes the problems that were in this film and is the Justice League movie comic book movie fans have been waiting to see. 

Sleepless in Seattle

Summer of 1993 Movies-Sleepless in Seattle

Sleepless in Seattle being summer movie is interesting because it is not what one would consider a summer movie. There's no action, through its funny it wouldn't be consider a comedy, and its genre (romantic comedy)  is all but extinct. Sleepless in Seattle being a summer movie is an example of what is called counter programming in Hollywood. That is when a tv show/movie is released and it is the opposite of what is on that night or this case the opposite of the type of movie that comes in a movie season. Sleepless in Seattle is really two movies in one with one movie being really good and the other movie being ok. Surprisingly its the movie with Meg Ryan that's really strong and the one with Tom Hanks that is ok. In 1993 Tom Hanks wasn't what is he now which is a 2 time Oscar winning actor whose really respected and his movies can be expected to have a strong opening weekend which will make money. His career up to that point had been really up and down. He got his start in the tv show Bosom Buddies but it his role on an episode of Happy Days (in which he played a guy who learned karate so he could get his revenge on the Foz) that lead to his big break on the big screen. Former Happy Days star Ron Howard (now a director) heard about Hanks performance and after seeing it decided to give Hanks a starring role in the film Splash. It was hit and lead to him getting starring parts in movies. He was a few years removed from a notorious flop-The Bonfire of the Vanities. The film he had done before this had been a hit (League of Their Own-1992) so his career was in an uptick. The plot of the film is "Sam Baldwin, a Chicago architect, loses his wife Maggie to cancer. He and his young son Jonah start anew in Seattle, Washington, but Sam continues to grieve. A year and a half later, on Christmas Eve 1992, Jonah—who wants his father to find a new wife—calls in to a radio talk show. Jonah persuades Sam to go on the air to talk about how much he misses Maggie. Hundreds of women from around the country who hear the program and are touched by the story, write to Sam." One of the women who listens to the program is Anne Wilson a reporter for the Baltimore Sun and she is the woman that audiences get to know as she falls for Sam and tries to figure out to meet him.  How 90's is using talk radio as major plot point? Also why someone who is grieving the loss of a spouse would move to Seattle  (the suicide capital of the U.S.) is beyond me. As I mentioned earlier this storyline is ok and that's because almost everyone in it is trying so hard. There's a really touching scene when a co-worker of Sam's gives him the business card for his shriek so Sam can call the shriek. Sam gets angry and shows the co-worker that he has lots of these types of cards. There are two characters in this part of the movie that are really good. One is Rob Reiner who is really amusing as a friend of Tom Hanks character who tries to help his character get used to what its like to date in the 90's. The other is Gaby Hoffman as Jessica the friend of Jonah (the son of Tom Hanks character). She is very believable as this character and is the best character in this part of the movie.  This problem with the Tom Hanks part of the movie really amplifies just how superior the Meg Ryan part of the movie is. Everyone in this section of the movie is believable. Meg Ryan comes across as a likeable person who has gotten their dream job (she's a reporter for the Baltimore Sun) who wants more out of her personal life. She is engaged but its to that stock character in romantic movies of the person who is allergic to everything. Considering how annoying these characters usually are its surprising that Bill Pullman who plays the part really isn't. Fortunately for him better times were around the corner as he would later get the girl in While You were Sleeping (1995) and he would help save the world in the monster hit Independence Day (1996). Also in a bit of good times are ahead foreshadowing is David Hyde Pierce (Frasier) who plays the brother of Meg Ryan who gives her advice on life! A real standout as far as likeable character in this part of the movie is Rosie O'Donnell who has the best line the movie. She works with Meg Ryan at the newspaper and the 2 of them along with 2 male co-workers are talking. One of the male co-workers says " It's easier to be killed by a terrorist than it is to find a husband over the age of 40!" Meg Ryan says that its not true and that there was a book written on how that wasn't true and asks the the male co-workers had read that book. One of then ask had anyone read that book. Rosie O'Donnell character then says "That's right it's not true, but it feels true." Rosie O'Donnell if she had stuck on this track probably would have a very good career as a character actress and it would have been interesting to see if the controversy that has surrounded her would be as big as it is if she had stayed an actress. This movie was one of the first to really embrace pop culture. The pop culture item it really embraced was the Cary Grant film "An Affair to Remember." Both Meg Ryan and Rosie O'Donnell characters are seen crying over the movie in their section of the movie and in the Tom Hanks section of the movie a friend of his wife (Rita Wilson-Mrs. Tom Hanks in real life) is seen crying over the movie. There's comparison between women liking this movie and men liking the Dirty Dozen that at the time seemed like big deal but isn't now. "An Affair to Remember" would go onto to hurt the film because its climax (2 people agree to meet at the top of the Empire State Building) would be how this movie would end but with a twist. The twist is that Jonah (Tom Hanks character's son) receives a letter from Anne in which she mentions meeting there. He sends her letter (which Anne believes is from his Dad) agreeing to this. Thanks to his friend Jessica (whose Mom works at a Travel Agency) he goes there.This could never happen now and it was a problem then. When Sam and Anne do meet at the top of the Empire State Building (with Jonah in attendance) it is pretty magical.  This movie do good with the critics (71% per Rotten Tomatoes) and with the general public (it grossed $227 million).  The film has a great soundtrack that was a wonderful collection of pop standards that was a mixture of singers from the 40's to the 90's. It was beautifully shot by one of the great cinematographers of all-time (Sven Nykvist) who was a multiple Oscar winner best known for the films he did with Ingmar Bergman. This film was a real highlight for its director Nora Ephron who had one of the most interesting lives of anyone who has ever worked in film. "Sleepless in Seattle" is one of the best examples of why its genre-romantic comedies-should still be one of the more popular film genres. Perhaps it will become popular again.

Cliffhanger

Ah the summer movie! The movies that are style over substance, mindless entertainment, the movie equivalent of fast food, while this is often the case; its not always the case. The summer movie even through it seems like it has been around for awhile is relatively young. The summer movie can be traced back to one seminal film-Jaws (1975). I'm not going to get into the history of Jaws because that is well documented in a large number of books, dvds, etc., but I will explain how Jaws set the stage for the summer movie. Jaws like a lot of summer movies was based on a well-known property a novel written by Peter Benchley. It went wildly over schedule and over budget. The primary reason for this was because the movie was shot on the ocean with a mechanical shark that had been built for fresh water and not salt water. In 1975 there was only season to release a potential blockbuster movie and that was the fall. Summer back then was considered the dumping ground for movies like winter is now. The studio releasing Jaws (Universal) decided to see if they could change that in order to make a profit on Jaws. In order to do this they instituted two practices that are now commonplace with summer movies-a wide release (440 theaters) and heavy adverting on tv. Both of these practices played a big hand in Jaws becoming a blockbuster. In fact Jaws was the first film to gross a $100 million dollars and was for a brief time the highest grossing movie of all-time. When Star Wars come out a few years later and over took Jaws as the highest grossing film the summer movie season was officially born. The summer of 1993 is the year that the summer movie hit it stride as 7 films all well known and well received by both the public and the critics were released.  I believe 1993 is best year of summer movies and is the summer movie equivalent of 1939. If you are a movie fan than it common knowledge that 1939 is considered to be the greatest year for film. This makes sense because that year had a lot of films that are considered classics (Gone with the Wind, The Wizard Of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach) that also had some of the greatest movies star ever in them (Clark Gable, Judy Garland, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne).  I know it seems that I'm doing the inverse of 1939 but like the ballyhooed 1939 movies the summer films of 1993 films has some striking similarities. In both cases these movies have actors/actresses who are well known to the average person along with the movies that they appeared in in those years are well known to the average person. The most obvious parallel is that both years were dominated by a single film that were each based on a best selling novel. These films tend to overshadow the other films because of the level of success each film enjoyed but a closer examination will show that were still other compelling enjoyable films that deservedly commanded the spotlight. Sit back, relax as I take you back to the best year of summer films-1993.  

The first of the impressive films that come out in summer of 1993 was Cliffhanger. This is a summer movie at its finest. This is one the most enjoyable movies I have seen.  I love this film. A key reason why this film was so successful and why I like it so much/remember it fondly is that it has one of the greatest trailers in film history. In 1993 there was no internet so it was harder to promote a film on national/global scale. About the best way to do that back then was the to air an ad during a major sporting event like the Super Bowl which this film did. After that trailer aired it turned Cliffhanger into a must see. The trailer also did something that is really hard for a trailer to do it effectively sold the film without giving too much of the film's plot away. This trailer should be required viewing for anyone who putting a film's trailer together. Cliffhanger has a relatively simple plot that is expertly told. The plot is a group of thieves "attempt to steal $100 million dollars in uncirculated $1,000 bills belonging to the U.S. Treasury Department which are in three suitcases via a daring air-to-air transfer but the transfer is foiled by an undercover FBI agent and the three suitcases are lost among the mountains. The suitcases holding the money have beacon locators  but the thieves need expert help locating them in the mountainous terrain." This movie is jam packed with some of the most remarkable action sequences ever seen. The good thing about these action sequences is that they advance the plot they're not just done to distract the audience or for the sake of action.The most intense of these sequences is the opening one which is reminiscent of the opening sequence of a Bond film in that it has little direct bearing to the plot but in this case does provide an interesting back story to the main plot. The sequence is HalTucker (Michael Rooker) who is a mountain climber and rescue ranger is stranded on a narrow peak in the Rockey Mountains, called "The Tower" with a knee injury. He has brought along his girlfriend Sarah who is an inexperienced mountain climber. Along come 2 other climbers and rescue rangers Gabe Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Jessie Deighan (Janine Turner) to rescue them. Hal and Sarah are to be rescued by getting into a helicopter via  a steel wire. Hal does this with no problem. Sarah harness breaks and she is left dangling over a deep chasm. Jessie can't save her because she flying the helicopter & Hal can't because of his injury. So Gabe goes out to save Sarah, but is unsuccessful; her gloved hand slips through Gabe's and she falls to her death.
This description does no justice to how harrowing this sequence is. Other strengths of this film are beautiful cinematography (it was shot in the Italian Alps even through it set in the Rockies) and really good pacing courtesy of director Renny Harlin. Another of the film's strengths is the acting. Say what you will about the film's star,  Sylvester Stallone, you have to respect the fact that he's been really successful in really cutthroat business (Hollywood) for four decades. He's really good in this film and a key reason why it was so successful. This film is an anomaly among Stallone's films in that it was it was hit and didn't get a sequel/start a franchise.  This film should have lead Janine Turner become a bigger deal because she was really good and she has really chemistry with Stallone. Rooker as always was really good and so were most the villains.The exception being the lead villain played John Lithgow. A big reason why he wasn't very good as the villain is that he has a very bad British accent. It is surprising that he was asked/decided to do a British accent and its equally surprising that he's so bad at it.   The film was hit at the box office grossing $255 million and did goodish with the critics (69% per Rotten Tomatoes-I think it should have been much higher). There has been talk of remake but I hope that it never happens because remake more than likely would suck and its highly doubtful that a remake could as good.

 

Jurassic Park

 Summer of 1993 Movies-Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park is one of the best known and loved summer films. Its really not hard to understand why because it has a great concept as it plot-dinosaurs are brought back to life and are put in a theme park for people's enjoyment. It has probably has the most important technological breakthrough to ever hit films as its biggest selling point-cgi-which allows just about anything to be brought to life. The film was based on a novel by Michael Crichton who is one of the most interesting people to have worked in film. He was an MD who got his MD from Harvard. He wrote novels so he could pay for school. His first novels were written under a pseudonym because as he explained in the making of "The Andromeda Strain" (the first novel of his to be turned into a film and the first novel published under his real name) that a key component of grades in Medical School is peer evaluation. And he thought that if his classmates knew he was writer they would think less of him, thus their evaluations would be lower. Even after attaining success and fame under his real name he continued to write books under a pseudonym. Eventually he would write books under his real name. He also became a writer/director. Because he was doing this he didn't write as many novels. By 1989 his writing/directing career was over with because for the most part his films weren't very successful. The Jurassic Park novel came out in 1990 and the film success (he co-wrote the script) allowed him to get back into film-making but mainly as writer/producer. The film grossed $1.03 billion which made it for awhile the most successful film ever made. This was one of the first films that relied heavily on the foreign box office to become a hit.  In fact it was the film's foreign grosses that allowed it to become the highest grossing film. The film also do well with the critics 93% per Rotten Tomatoes. So with this kind of success at both the box office and with critics it has to be good? Depends on what you want from a film. If your looking for a film that is a spectacle than this is the film for you. When the dinosaurs are first seen it is pretty magical. It also has a memorable score by probably the greatest film composer of all-time: John Williams. If on the other hand you want a film that you have an emotional attachment to or a great plot that carries you away than its not. I fall into this camp. The human characters in this film are given no room to breathe. They really serve no purpose except to be killed by the dinosaurs or to give exposition. A real shame considering that 2 of characters when give time are memorable. Those are John Hammond and Dr. Ian Malcolm. John Hammond is the creator of Jurassic Park and he has two of the most famous lines in the film "Spared on expense" and "This park was not built to cater only for the super-rich. Everyone in the world has the right to enjoy these animals." As portrayed by Sir Richard Attenborough he comes across as the kindest grandfather with a real twinkle in his eyes who happens to be a billionaire. But as the film goes on his part diminishes and he is kinda of cast as the villain which also hurts him. Jeff Goldblum has an absolute field day with the part Dr. Ian Malcolm. He serves as the conscience of the film and the Greek chorus. He also has the funniest line in the film via this exchange with John Hammond-
"All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!"
 "Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
What prevents him from dominating the film is he gets hurt (a broken leg) and is given morphine to help with pain. This makes him passive for much of the movie. So positive was the response to this character that when Michael Crichton wrote a sequel called "The Lost World" he made Dr. Ian Malcolm the main character. There was just one small problem he had appeared to killed him off in the original novel. This was explained away by saying that it was untrue. The fact that the acting is weak in this film is surprising given that the film's director Steven Spielberg is well-known for being able to successfully combine strong characters with spectacle. I think the reason the acting is weak is because Spielberg mind wasn't totally on the film when he was making it and because he wasn't physically present when the film was being edited. He was prepping Schindler's List when Jurassic Park was being shot and he was shooting Schindler's List when it was being edited. He edited Jurassic Park via satellite and he left the primary editing up to his friend George Lucas. As many a film lover will tell you and George Lucas will admit strong characters/acting aren't a forte of George Lucas this may explain why the film is heavy on spectacle and light on strong characters/acting. At the end of the day this film was a huge success at the box office, is fondly remembered by many people, was a watershed for special effects, and spawned a successful franchise. The latest entry Jurassic World released in June of this year is already in the top 5 of the highest grossing films of all time and the main theme from the this film recently top the Billboard Classical Digital Songs. An impressive feat that just adds to the legacy this film has attained.

Daredevil:Lost in the Shuffle

When it comes to movies based on comic books one thinks of Marvel. Why shouldn't they? They're in the midst of a very successful streak of hit movies. This wasn't always the case. In fact for decades when it came to success on the big screen its rival DC was the clear winner. But this success is misleading. It was all achieved with its two flagship characters of Superman and Batman. Movies made with other DC characters have failed. In the midst of DC's movie success big screen success for Marvel proved to be elusive. Two movies based on two of their more popular characters (The Punisher and Capt. American) barley got released. Then fortune smiled on Marvel. DC's streak of hit movies hit a snag when both the Superman series and the Batman series ground to halt after 4 movies a piece (I'm obviously not counting the Batman movie based on the tv show). Then in the late 90's (1998) Marvel enjoyed its first big screen success. It came from an unlikely source. The hit movie was based on a little known character named Blade whose half-human/half-vampire and Afro-American. The movie did have a huge asset; its star was Wesley Snipes. The movie spawned two sequels. From there more success followed. The X-Men series, the Spider-Man series, the Fantastic Four series, and Ironman which is going to become a series. With success came some disappointments (2 Hulk Movies) and some failures (2 Punisher movies and Ghost Rider). In the midst of this success a film based on a somewhat lesser known character was released and it has never gotten the credit it has deserved. The movie was Daredevil. Daredevil is an unlikely superhero for two reasons-he's blind and he doesn't have what one would consider normal superpowers. You see he wasn't born blind but got this way as result of some nuclear waste being spilled on his eyes. This causes his remaining senses to be heighten. From there he builds his body up to that of a great athlete's. The movie showcases this with many action sequences. The movie also features great cinematography and cgi. The acting is pretty stellar across the board. This starts with Scott Terra as young Matt Murdock and David Keith as his father Jack Murdock. They are able to establish a convincing relationship as father and son. Its a tribute to their talent that despite their brief amount of time they leave an impact on the viewer. When Terra goes blind but discover his heighten remaining senses allow him to do more his joy at this discovery is palpable. As for Keith he works wonders as the doomed Jack Murdock. You shouldn't like the guy because he won't allow his son to defend himself from bullies and is indirectly responsible for his going blind. The son hears from the bullies that his dad is working for a mob boss know as Fallon. Not believing them and having it denied by his father he discovers otherwise. He sees his father shaking down a man at some docks. While fleeing the scene he suffers his accident. Jack Murdock makhes it up to son by refusing to throw a fight Fallon wants him to throw and wins the fight. As result he is killed by the film's main villain the Kingpin. Additional kudos to three of film's main characters. Jennifer Garner is fetching, charming, and suitable athletic as Elektra Natchios. Her meet cute scene with Matt Murdock which starts in a coffee shop and ends at school play ground and involves see-saws is charming and romantic. Her athleticism serves her well in her fight scenes. Colin Farrell manages to bring menace, "fun", and "magic" (his words) to role of the villain Bullseye. Plus any villain who main motivation for hating the hero is "because he made me miss and I never miss" is refreshing. Then there's Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin (aka Wilson Fisk). I knew he could be menacing; just look at the size of him. I knew he had pretty good acting range (his Oscar nomination for the "Green Mile" and his comedic turn in the "Whole Nine Yards") demonstrate that. I did not think that he could pull off the necessary sophistication to be believable as the Kingpin of crime for New York City. This trait he wears like one of the custom made suits his character wears. I also want to give a shout out to Joe Pantoliano who gives another of his stellar performances as investigative reporter Ben Urich. There is a somewhat major problem with the movie. It stems from the actor playing the lead role. Ben Affleck is very adapt in the action sequences and anything involving comedy (aided in this capability considerably by Jon Favreau playing Matt Murdock's law partner Franklin "Foggy" Nelson. Farvreau is an absolute delight in the role.) He has very good chemistry with Garner which transcended the big screen and bled over into real life. They are married with two daughters. No his problem stems from the fact he doesn't posses the necessary acting chops for the role. This is a man who has lost both his parents, his sight, and eventually will lose his girlfriend (or so we'll led to believe). Yet you would never know it. He never shows it on his face or in his body language. Terra as young Matt Murdock does show it. I feel a better choice would have been his "BFF" Matt Damon. He looks almost exactly like the character as it drawn, we know he can handle the action (thanks to the Bourne movies), ditto with the romance and he has the acting chops. However this deficiency is almost paper overed by the fact that in practically every scene Affleck's in so is one or more of the other characters. Unfortunately the film did not do well with the critics. According to Rotten Tomatoes, a movie review database, only 44% of film critics gave it a favorable review. It did good at the box office with a gross $102,543,518. There was talk of a sequel but instead there was a spin off for Elektra which didn't do anything at the box office ($24,407,944 on a budget of $43 million) or with the critics (according to Rotten Tomatoes only 10% of critics gave it a favorable review.) There's also been talk of been talk of a reboot. That means new actors and crew for different take on the character. Its shame there wasn't a sequel and I hope there's not a reboot. The film takes on the tricky task of combining an origin story with action, romance, and comedy and makes it look easy. The film does what all good entertainment does it leaves you wanting more.

The Mask of Zorro vs The Legend of Zorro

He's been the star of 60 stories, been the main character for 40 films, has been in both live action and animated tv shows, and has been the inspirations for countless comic strip/comic book characters. Relax I'm not gonna make you guess. I'm referring to Zorro which is spanish for fox. He made his debut in 1919 in the serialized story The Curse of Capistrano. Zorro is the alter ego of Don Diego de la Vega a nobleman and master with the sword and the bullwhip during the Spanish colonial era of California. In the 90's the big screen rights to Zorro became available. On a documentary that I saw on the dvd for what became 'The Mask of Zorro" I learned that lots of studios and production companies were vying for these rights. The people in charge of them sold em for less because one leading industry light promised his personnel involvement in the film. Who is individual? It was Steven Spielberg who served as executive producer. I don't think I need to explain who Steven Spielberg is. Nor do I need expound upon his enormous contributions to cinema. With him on board the everything went pretty smooth. First there was the choice of director. It was decided that Martin Campbell would man this important post because he had just help relaunch the Bond franchise. With that issue settled next came casting. Anthony Hopkins was approached for the important role of Don Diego de la Vega because of the prestige he would bring to the project as well the gravitas he would provide. He initially declined the role because he was suffering from a back condition. However he had back surgery which alleviated the condition and allowed him to take the role. Next came the role of the younger man who would take over the mantle of Zorro. For this role it was another easy choice Antonio Banderas. He made history as the first Hispanic to play this role. With those two on board Spielberg exerted his influence and had cast as the leading lady a young actress he had seen in a tv movie about the Titanic. Her name was Catherine Zeta Jones and this provided to be her big break. By the way Steven if you should see this post please contact me I have a few ideas for movies. Folks this film was the reason movies were made. Three powerful actors who have a great screenplay at their disposal and are being guided by a man who knows how to get the best out of both them and the screenplay. Plus Banderas and Zeta Jones don't just have chemistry they smoulder in each other's presence. I doubt you will ever see two people who look more right together but also intellectually and emotionally belong together. The stunts are phenomenal. This picture also took the time to build in humor. This adds to the picture's enjoyment. Rarely have I ever enjoyed myself more at a movie. If only they would make more movies like this than film would be a better place. This film was hit with the public ($250,288,523 worldwide) as well as the critics (85 % of critics gave it a favorable review according to Rotten Tomatoes an on-line movie critic database). Not surprising in light of this success a sequel was planned and made. If only this wasn't the case. The first film can be summed by Catherine Zeta Jones' character after her sword fight with Zorro "vigorous." This one "The Legend of Zorro" can be described by one I ascribed to it-paunchy. That how Antonio Banderas looks and that how he and the film act. The smoldering chemistry that existed between him and Zeta Jones has evaporated. This film really suffers from the loss of Anthony Hopkins whose character died at the end of the first one. To be fair it took seven years for this follow-up to made. In Hollywood the rule of thumb is to try not to take longer than five years to make a sequel. Otherwise the public might forgot. The plot is so convoluted I'm not even going to attempt to describe it. The first one had a good one about Hopkins and Banderas wanting revenge against the two main villains for personnel reasons and the villains trying to buy California from Mexico with stolen gold from Mexico that Mexico didn't know about. In addition to the lack of chemistry that now exist between the two leads; the writers who wrote the first film, but this time around only came up with the story had the stupid idea of seperating them. This diminishes any chance Banderas and Zeta Jones might have had of regaining their chemistry. The way they are separated might be the most ludicrous in film history. So bad is the plot and this movie I had forgotten that one of the villains in this movie was in it! I had my memory jogged on this point when I was looking up info on wikipedia. The lead villian the always excellent Rufus Sewell is even defeated. If you want to see how great a villian he can be see either "A Knight's Tale" or "The Illusionist". The film resorts to the cliche of the super kid. He happens to be the son of Zorro. Wisely the filmmakers drop this before it gets too irritating. While the film did ok at the box office ($142,400,065 worldwide) it was dud with the critics (25% gave it a favorable rating according to Rotten Tomatoes). When a sequel is this bad it almost kills the pleasant memories of the first film or films. Its because of sequels like this that sequels have the bad name they do and usually deserve. With this said please do yourself a favor and see the first one. You'll be glad you did. On the other hand please do yourself a favor and skip the second one. You'll be glad you did!