Maybe 'Above Average'?... "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Rated PG-13 for violence

Starring Sean Connery, Naseeruddin Shah, Peta Wilson, Tony Curran, Stuart Townsend, Shane West, Jason Flemyng

Directed by Stephen Norrington

The Story:

In an alternate Victorian era where characters from literature are actually real-life, a group of adventurers is gathered to stop a madman's quest for world domination.  Led by Allan Quatermain (Connery), he is joined by Captain Nemo (Shah), vampire Mina Harker (Wilson), an Invisible Man (Curran), the immortal Dorian Gray (Townsend), Dr. Jekyll (Flemyng) and US Secret Service Agent Tom Sawyer (West).  Their quest begins, but can even this formidable assemblage of adventurers save the world?

Probably.

Based on a comic book series by Alan Moore that I never bothered to read, the idea is actually very smart and clever.

Thinking back to old Looney Tunes cartoons where the books could come to life and characters could jump in and out of each other's stories, why not have a world where literature's finest fictional characters are actual flesh and blood?

In the annals of comic book movies, this one is easily overlooked by the heroes in spandex.

It also didn't have the oomph of a lesser known property, like Men in Black, to just take the world by storm and create its own franchise.

You can point a dozen fingers with what may be wrong with the film.

Too many characters?
Too many characters that moviegoers might not be that familiar with?
So much infighting among the heroes, nobody cares about them catching the bad guy?

That said, this is a much better film for Connery to work in than the remake of The Avengers.

However, for the final film in his distinguished career, this film is a bittersweet farewell to one of the cinematic legends of the screen.

I would not have been opposed to a sequel if they could tighten up the storyline, and perhaps lured Connery out of retirement, but now too many years have passed, and it just wouldn't work now.

Speaking of alternate universes, in mine, Shane West would have been hired to play Spider-Man in the Sam Raimi franchise.

Younger than Tobey, this is the guy I was hoping would have become the web-slinger.

Much like this movie, I am left to lament "what could have been"...

Final Grade: C

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: It's okay, but nothing I would go out of my to own.  If it was on, and I couldn't find the remote, there are worse things to sit through again.

It's A Super Weekend...Part One... "Man of Steel"

Man of  Steel  (2013)
PG-13 Violence

Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shanon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane

Directed by Zack Snyder


Man, I really miss John Williams' score.

The Story:

On the doomed planet Krypton, Jor-El (Crowe) sends his son on a rocket towards Earth hoping that his son will grow to become a great man.  On Earth, the infant is found and raised by Johnathan and Martha Kent (Costner & Lane) on a farm in Smallville, Kansas.  Johnathan warns their son Clark ( Cavill) that the world isn't ready for a man with his powers, yet Clark is compelled to do good things to help his fellow man.  When plucky reporter Lois Lane (Adams) stumbles upon the story of a lifetime, will she reveal to the world what she knows about this super man ?  When General Zod (Shannon) comes from the Phantom Zone to find young Kal-El, will the Earth survive a Kryptonian invasion?

So many questions...

Let's get to the answers!

When it comes to expectations for this movie, it helps to set the bar low.

No, lower than that.

:)

Forget what you've seen on the screen from Marvel, this is DC.

"There is No Fun Allowed In This, Or Any DC Universe Movie!!"

They are not going for the sheer fun and popcorn atmosphere.

No, DC wants to be grim and moody.

They want atmosphere for their universe.  If you loved the Dark Knight trilogy of films from Christopher Nolan, has DC got the film for you.

Because basically, Nolan and David S. Goyer have taken the big blue boyscout and sprinkled a great heaping of bat-grit to the world of Superman.

Hey, it worked for Gotham, why not Metropolis, right?

And it does work, don't get me wrong.

I'm just saying, if you're thinking that this movie is going to resemble any Marvel franchise, whether Disney, Sony or Fox, you couldn't be further from the truth.

The same was always said about the comics.  Marvel was fun, and it felt like it could happen in your own backyard.  DC always had that feeling of fake-ness to it.  Whether it was the writers or the settings, things are more real in New York or Chicago than they are in Metropolis or Gotham.

The movies are going to do much the same.

You're not getting the movie franchises you want from DC.

You're getting the franchises you deserve!

;)

"New York?  Compared to Metropolis, New  York Got Off Easy"

For the most part, this movie gets way more right than it gets wrong, whether that wrong is personal opinion/choice or straying drastically from the source... it's a bit of both.

Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) is black, not a problem with that.  He does a great job with the limited screen time that he has.

Jimmy Olson is non-existent, apparently changed to Jenny (Rebecca Buller) for reasons I still don't fathom.  Apparently they needed a damsel in distress for that one pivotal scene.  However, in the comics, Jimmy Olson was that damsel. ;)


It's things like that that puzzle me the most with many comic adaptations.

I'm more critical of DC because I don't have the same passion for the characters and simply revel in the fact that they are onscreen anymore.  Remember, seeing Superman on the silver screen is old hat at this point.  Now I want to see it done correctly.

However it seems like everytime they do something right, or something not-so-stupid, then something odd pops up that just made me wonder..."why" ?

"I am so Tired of Diapers..."

For example, I think Jor-El was used effectively throughout the movie.  Wasn't a fan of the way Krypton was portrayed with flying dragons, but whatever.  His coming back to help Clark (and Lois) was interesting and amusing.  I say, yay, they did a great job with Father # 1.

But...

I think it was pointless what they did with Johnathan Kent.

"Stop, I Want To Die Needlessly..."

I'm not just talking about the scene pictured above.
Though in the grand scheme of things, that may just be the stupidest death in the history of cinema.
For those not familiar with the source of the stories behind the movie, when John Byrne took over Superman in the 80s and DC "started fresh", one of the many things he did right in this reader's eyes: He let Johnathan Kent LIVE!!

Why should Clark Kent come from two broken homes, wasn't one enough?

But no...

To layer extra angst on Superman, you kill his second father.  I didn't agree with that decision in the 70s when they did it, I still disagree with it now.

Perhaps it was for the best though, as the portrayal of Kent in this film is someone who keeps telling his son that the world isn't ready for the power you possess...they will hate and fear you...

Oh. My. Goodness.

This is not the X-Men!

All of these complaints aside for a moment, this was leaps and bounds ahead of Superman Returns... ugh... that movie makes me throw up a bit inside my mouth just thinking of it.

: )

Henry Cavill made a great Superman for me.  Having not seen a majority of his film/television work, he is a "new face" to these eyes, and find him to be a worthy successor to the long line of caped Supermen that have come before him.

He's a little angrier than he probably should be, but again, I'll lay that at the feet of Nolan and David Goyer who wrote the script.

It was becoming a bit of a running joke at the end though, that the angrier Superman got, the stronger he got.  What, he's the Hulk now?

"Superman...Smash!"

Considering that the "S" supposedly stands for "Hope" on Krypton, much of the hope that Superman should inspire to the general populace is muted in this new screen version.

A darker suit.  Less humor.

We'll see where it goes from here.

I've heard much criticism about the climactic fight scene and how destructive it is.

It is definitely all of that, and then some. 

Oooh, look at what we can do to Smallville and Metropolis!!

Yes, after about 10-15 minutes into the fight it starts to feel like severe overkill.  I don't even want to think about what the real death count would be if Superman and Zod really went toe to toe like that.

I get it, and really, I shrugged my shoulders and can live with it.

But there is a buzz among some criticisms that I've read/heard that the destruction is Superman's fault and he's not a hero...

What the heck?

Apparently at that point, I watched a different movie than others.

The fighting was due to Superman trying to save the Earth, and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the bad guy.

Or the military for opening fire over a civilian population.

: /

Heck, the big fight scenes were the best part of Superman II, so it was inevitable that the nearly 40 years later, the stakes are going to increase.

Granted, Superman should have whisked the fight out to the desert, but I get it. 

This is the Nolan Superman, we have to have grim and gritty.


Finally, I have zero problems with how the fight ended.

Faithful to the source material, as written by Byrne decades ago.

That's Superman's greatest strength, he has that power but chooses not to use it.

This was a lose/lose situation, and I thought it was handled correctly.  This sets up the fact that he knows what he is capable of, and must ensure he never does it again.

Final Grade: C+