The Future is a Few Months Away

I have written a few things about some of the Fall 2013 movies I am interested in seeing. Please take some time to take a look at what I have written, as the future of our nation and our nation’s water supply depend on your immediate action.
Sample This—documentary about the beginnings of hip-hop. I don’t like hip-hop, but since the subject of the film takes place in the 1970’s, I am intrigued. Narrated by Gene Simmons. As long as Gene doesn’t have Terry Gross to kick around, we will be safe.

Jayne Mansfield’s Car—directed by Billy Bob Thornton, starring Billy Bob, Robert Duvall, and Kevin Bacon. Thornton’s “Slingblade” is a classic. His film, “Daddy and Them” is very good and worth a watch. As long as Billy Bob doesn’t have that guy from that Canadian radio talk show to kick around, we will be safe.

C.O.G.—based on a story by the great David Sedaris, no relation to Andy Sidaris, so there will likely not be any topless women running around Hawaii in this one.
Don Jon—wirtten and directed by the always reliable Joseph Gordon-Levitt, star of “Mysterious Skin,” “Hesher,” and “50/50.” If you haven’t seen any of these, Netflix them immediately. Even though, based on first impressions in the trailer, I do not like any of the characters in the film, I expect it will be good. It stars JGL, Scarlett Johansson, and Hold Me Closer Tony Danza. To the best of my knowledge, this film does not star anyone who has ever verbally abused a radio show host on the air.
Bad Milo—It had me at ““a pint-sized demon living in his intestine.” How can you go wrong? Gene Simmons does not narrate this one.

Captain Phillips—Not to be confused with “Captain Ron.” The trailer is great. Starring Tom Hanks and directed by Paul Greengrass, director of the brilliant “United 93,” it is the true story of “Captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates of the US-flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in two hundred years.” As far as I know, Captain Phillips does not have a pint-sized demon living in his intestine, though that would probably make the story that much more exciting.
Machete Kills—Michelle Rodriguez as She, the eyepatch-wearing badass who deserves her own movie, is the primary source of appeal for me. The trailer for “Machete Kills” is not promising. The film features several Hollywood troublemakers/attention-getters---Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Vanessa Hudgens, and Lady Gaga. I liked the first Machete film quite a bit, so I will see this one at some point, though confidence is not high.

The Fifth Estate—Not a sequel to “The Fifth Element.” I am cautiously optimistic about this one. It stars the great Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock,” “Star Trek Into Darkness”) as Julian Assange, the founder of Wiki Leaks. I am interested in how Wiki Leaks was started so I am interested in this film, though the trailer makes it appear that some stuff will explode and go boom. Much tenseness is promised.
Kill Your Darlings—The title makes it sound like an early 90’s movie about murder and romance. It turns out it is a 2013 movie about murder, maybe no romance. Romance is much more fun than murder. The synopsis is as such: “"Kill Your Darlings" is the previously untold story of murder that brought together a young Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and William Burroughs at Columbia University in 1944, providing the spark that would lead to their Beat Revolution. This is the true story of friendship and murder that led to the birth of an entire generation.” Sounds promising but it also sounds like something that could fail miserably if the performances are bad or the script is asinine or shallow. It stars Daniel “Harry Potter” Radcliffe in a grownup role as Allen Ginsberg and Michael C. Hall (“Dexter,” “Six Feet Under”). SPOILER ALERT: At the end of the film, Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac end up on Dexter’s table.
Parkland—The story of what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Has a great cast including the great Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton, Marcia Gay Harden, and Jackie Earle Haley. Based on the book, “Four Days in November,” by Vincent Bugliosi. Set to be released on October 4, 2013. Also not narrated by Gene Simmons, but I think there is a Peter Criss solo on the soundtrack.
Dallas Buyers Club—“Matthew McConaughey stars as real-life Texas cowboy Ron Woodroof, whose free-wheeling life was overturned in 1985 when he was diagnosed as HIV-positive and given 30 days to live. These were the early days of the AIDS epidemic, and the U.S. was divided over how to combat the virus.” This sounds like an interesting film. McConaughey was outstanding in “Mud,” a film released earlier this year. Lately I have liked or been interested in seeing every other Matthew McConaughey film. He was good in last year’s “Bernie” and he was ok in “Killer Joe,” a film that was problematic, though his performance was the least of it’s problems. I have absolutely no interest in seeing the other big McConaughey film of the fall, Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street,” a film that, from the trailer, looks to be an absolute chore to watch. I prefer indie McConaughey over big-time McConaughey.

Thor: The Dark World----Until I saw Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers,” I never gave the character of Thor much thought. He seemed like a dull superhero, one who deserved as much inattention from me as Captain America, the guy from the Fantastic Four who wasn’t Ben Grimm, or The Archer. In Whedon’s film, Thor proves to be an awesome character. Liam Hemsworth's performance was great and that hammer is just plain cool. In “Thor,” a film that was much funnier than I expected, his character is solidified as one of the best of the Marvel universe. Does that sound geeky enough? Plus there’s Sif, Thor’s female fellow badass from the Thor World, played by the extremely gorgeous Jaimie Alexander, one of the most attractive actresses around, wow…………………………93ke=………..oh, ok, whoops—I’m back. So, uh, yes Thor!! The trailer for the sequel promises more humor which was very much welcome in the first movie. The bandwagon criticism community of the internet seemed to be inclined to say we shouldn’t like the first film, but I ignored them and went ahead and enjoyed it, not just a little bit, but quite a bit.

Nebraska—The epic story of two warring Omaha families, fueled by sex, lust, murder, and deception, set against the cutthroat world of corn shucking. Oh wait—that’s not right. “Nebraska” is about this: “When a cantankerous old man (Bruce Dern) naively thinks he's won a million dollars from a magazine sweepstakes, his son (Will Forte) reluctantly agrees to escort him on a road trip from Billings to Lincoln to claim his prize.” It also stars Bob Odenkirk, Saul from the brilliance of “Breaking Bad.” “Nebraska” is directed by the great Alexander Payne who gave us the excellence of “Election” and the even greater excellentness of “Sideways.” “I’m not drinking any fucking merlot!!” I have very high hopes for this film as it is, as mentioned, in the capable hands of Alexander Payne.

Saving Mr. Banks—The subject of the film sounds promising. It is about the making of the 1961 film, “Mary Poppins” and all the trials and tribulations that apparently were involved in making that movie. Confidence is not high, however, as this film is a Disney production, so I am concerned that it will be a 2 hour long pat on the back to Disney. It does feature a great cast including Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson (who I am guessing will play Julie Andrews), the great Paul Giamatti, and Rachel Griffiths. I am not a big fan of “Mary Poppins,” however, if “Saving Mr. Banks” can avoid reminding the audience about how successful and wonderful the Disney studio is, it could be pretty darn good.
The Monuments Men---George Clooney and Bill Murray in a film together cannot be bad. I will give anything Bill Murray is in a chance and I am usually rewarded. Even the underwhelming “Passion Play” starring Murray, Megan Fox, and Mickey Rourke was worth watching, if only for that film’s ALF reference. The Clooney-directed, “The Monuments Men” is set during WW2 and also features Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, and Matt Damon.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty—The trailer for this film, based on the James Thurber short story was mesmerizing, kind of like the trailer for “Cloud Atlas.” Lots of cool images to look at but wondering if the entirety of the film will be any good. It stands a great chance of being good as the story of Walter Mitty is a “classic story of a day-dreamer who escapes his anonymous life by disappearing into a world of fantasies filled with heroism, romance and action.” It is directed by and stars Ben Stiller as Mitty, Kristin Wiig, and Sean Penn. It has the feel of one of those films that could be either a giant hit or a colossal failure. It’s just a feeling I have. I am hoping for the giant hit. No word yet on the rumor that the soundtrack will feature a much-anticipated and much-talked about duet with Paul Stanley and Miley Cyrus. Audio has been leaked, though, of Ben Stiller verbally abusing Gene Simmons on an August episode of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

My Apologies

It appears that my blog was hacked. This so-called review of Terrence Malick's recent film, "To the Wonder," found itself onto what has, up til now, been a place of intelligent reflection of film and, sometimes, extraneous other things that pop into my head. Unfortunately, this mess, this abomination of the English language, was posted here and I cannot figure out how to remove it. Hopefully it will not be here for too long. My regular readers will surely recognize that this "review" of "To the Wonder," which, by the way, is not Malick's best, but is another impressive achievement in cinematography, is not up to my usual high standards of writing. I hope that whoever it is that wrote this bile will find it in his or her heart to contact me and explain to me why my blog was chosen for attack. What have I done to deserve such hostility? Perhaps it was just a random act. Whatever the case, readers, please do not hesitate to continue reading my blog. Do not allow the actions of an uncivilized miscreant to sully your enjoyment of my words.

what i really wonder is why i wat watched this

So I popped in this dvd I saw in the Red box machine and startid watchin it. I tell you it was the most borring thing ever in the world…- Its some movie by some guy named Terrence Mallick who might as well be a Obamma suppporter7 for all I know…. This movie is full of just people standin around and not doin much of nothin all day long. Far as i can tell: all these people do is just travel all around the wurld and complane a whole lot. That new bat man guy Been Afflick is the husband of this french, America hatin! woman who hates the uSa. 14 notepad….]

all I can say about this movie is that if Obana wasn’t presidint i dont think this mallick guy could be able to make a movie at alll. Has this guy malllick even maid a movie befor??!!!!!????????!!!!!?????????5 I mean its like he just know got a camra and shot a bunch of stuff and hadnt ever seen somethin good like Battleship or Identitty Theef that funny movie with the ole funny fat gal in it. Shes a hoot. If only mallick had put her in to the Wonder or put a battleship or action seen in this movie it wuld have Ben a hole lot more interestink. Plus this “movie” end quote trys to say that Oklahomma is better then Texass. WHAT?#????????!!!!!!!!?????!!!?^^ how can that dum state up there be better than the land of Texas???????? We got all the good stuff hier like the most best education, the Cowboys, the U T Texas Longhorns Hook Em Horns!!!!!, barbeeq, lots of land all over the place, and 7 months of summer!!!?? All that hear in this state not in that place up north of hear. At least, Okie isnt like those Obamma lovin weerdoes up in Vermont where they love all the queers and let them get marryed like there some kind of normal people which they aint. For Yor information I aint a gay queer and I dont like movies about those people. All the hippees in californyya love the gays but I think they need to stay awaye from us in texas. Now I aint sayin nothing bad about them. I have a lot of queer friends who who always say i should go to there partyes and such but I never say no cause i don’t approve of wht they stand for. They always talk about wantin to see my package but i dont order nothin from UpS no more cause they support the terrorist lovin Obannna and his co hortes. I aint no liberale who thinks all this stuff is write. Is it what it the say it for but now: how????!!!!? It’s like tryin to bern a candle with an icecube. It aint morale!!??!!!! What if terrorists took over america?? Its like that really. So this movie isn T much else but a big anti America movie full of french peepel who just should go just live over there with all the hippees in vermont9(!! If I cant see a good America movie with my famile and just see a movie with the popcorn and hot dogs of america than what good is seein movies unfortunateley??!!?? My daddy said if it walks like a duck and axcts like aduck, then it jmust be what it is a duck……What about the children???

I'm Not Wacko About It, But It Was Entertaining

Between 1981 and 1983, four horror movie parody films were released: “Student Bodies,” “Wacko,” “Pandemonium,” and “Saturday the 14th.” I have now seen one of them. The film in question is Greydon Clark’s 1981 film, “Wacko.” Greydon Clark is known mostly for his low-budget horror and sci-fi films such as “Without Warning” (1980) and the fun killer cat movie, “Uninvited” (1988). He also gave us a film I really need to see sometime called “The Forbidden Dance,” (1990) which I hear is an awful movie classic. It’s about the lambada, so how bad can it really be, right? The “Mystery Science Theater 3000” version of his 1985 “Final Justice” is a classic MST episode, however, I have not seen the film without the services of the crew of the Satellite of Love. “Dance Macabre” (1992) starring Robert Englund also sounds wonderfully bad so I will have to check out that one also.

Clark’s two science fiction films from 1980, “Without Warning” and “The Return” were underwhelming so I had low expectations as I began watching “Wacko.” His killer cat movie, “Uninvited” was ok given the subject matter, however, that one was underwhelming also. “Wacko” proves itself to be better than the three Greydon Clark films I have seen. Influenced by “Airplane,” Clark inserts many silly, goofy jokes into this film, many of them being sight gags and clever one-liners. The copyright year of the film is 1981, the same year “Student Bodies” was released, so I do not believe that Clark was influenced to make his film based on any trend of multiple horror parodies being released, as “Pandemonium” was not released until 1982 and “Saturday the 14th” was not released until 1983. “Wacko” tells the tale of a killer who wears a giant pumpkin on his/her head. No spoilers here, hence the “his/her.” There is another killer in the mix as well called The Lawnmower Killer. The Lawnmower Killer struck 13 years prior to the action of the film. Detective Dick Harbinger, played by a more disheveled than ever Joe Don Baker, seeks out the Lawnmower Killer and has done so for 13 years. A young woman named Mary Graves, played by Julia Duffy, who would go on to play Stephanie on the tv series, “Newhart,” from 1983-1990, is in the center of the action, trying to avoid being a target of any kind of killer, whether it be one with a lawn mower or a pumpkin on it’s head. All the while, she is courting a young man named Norman Bates. Yes, that’s right. Some of the jokes in “Wacko” are extremely labored and, as a result, fall mercilessly flat. Fortunately, the majority of the jokes in the film work, making “Wacko” a pleasant experience and not a labor that Hercules would have refused, asking if there was just another stable full of cows he could clean instead. Yes, I think that Hercules and even most of the cows would have enjoyed “Wacko.” Some of the gags are very clever, especially one involving a “door prize.” There are several sight gags to watch out for as well. Luckily, there is a minimum of thuds in the film, such as a brief appearance by Jeff Altman in a terribly written role as a high school principal. This is a terrible character which should have been excised from the film. Another groan-inducing scene involves what typically makes for a groan inducing experience and does not fail to do so in this case—a car chase, cars flying through the air, ala “The Dukes of Hazzard,” and banjo music playing on the soundtrack. None of this has ever been funny and never will be. I was wondering where the fat sheriff was so he could throw his hat on the ground for extra comedic impact. Thankfully for the viewer, this particular scene is pretty short, so it gets over with in short order. It helps that “Wacko” is only 82 minutes. It is compact, it does not linger on any unnecessary or boring scenes that stall out the film. Like “Airplane,” it is a collection of jokes and sight gags that parody a given genre of films. Unlike “Airplane,” it is not a comedy classic. “Wacko” is, though, a pleasant and funny enough way to spend 82 minutes if, by chance, you ever find a copy of it as it was only ever released on vhs and laserdisc. No dvd release of the film exists. If, you should desire to learn any more about the film, and this should be one of your desires, check out the podcast entitled, “The Projection Booth” and look for the episode on which “Wacko” is covered. The episode includes a thorough 30 minute interview with director, Greydon Clark, in which he answers many questions about the making and distribution of the film. I enjoyed “Wacko.” I place the likelihood that I would ever watch it again at a solid 60 percent. That is a high compliment.

Make "Fruitvale Station" Your Next Stop

It is uncommon to see a film in which the script is written so perfectly that at the end of the film, you, perhaps as an aspiring writer, say to yourself, “This is the kind of script I want to write.” Such was the case with me after seeing writer and director Ryan Coogler’s feature debut, “Fruitvale Station.” What an amazing debut!! “Fruitvale Station” tells the story of Oscar Grant, a 22 year-old Oakland, California man who, after an evening out celebrating New Year’s Eve, 2009, is killed, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, by a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer after an incident on a BART train. The actual incident, as recorded on a bystander’s camera phone, is the first scene of the film. The audience understands the stakes and knows what is going to eventually happen to Oscar. At first, I found showing this footage to be in bad taste, however, as the film develops and you learn more about Oscar and his family, I found this decision to be a brilliant one by Coogler. Like last year’s “Amour” and “Argo,” “Fruitvale Station” makes me want to tell everyone I know how great this film is and encourage them to see it and encourage them to have a discussion with me about the film after they see it.

The wonderful script follows Oscar Grant (Michael E. Jordan) for one year before the incident on New Year’s Eve of 2009. Oscar is not perfect. In the first few minutes of the film, we learn that he has cheated on his girlfriend at least once, maybe more than that. He can’t hold a job at a grocery store because he has a punctuality problem. He sells dope on the side to make money. Conversely, we learn that he has more good attributes than bad. This is important to the script, because if he was an all-around scumbag, the audience, or at least I, would not have cared about him at all. It is important that the script does not portray Oscar as a saint or somebody that anyone should necessarily admire. His positive traits endear us to him as he has a strong relationship with his mother (Octavia Spencer) and grandmother (Marjorie Shears). He has an innate desire to help people. Despite his fidelity problem, he loves his girlfriend and his daughter, Tatiana, played very well in an understated way by Ariana Neal. The script could have shamelessly easily hammered home the fact that Oscar has a daughter and that he loves her, playing to the emotions of the audience, especially those members with children. In Coogler’s script, the fact that he has a daughter is simply just one of many facts we learn about him that make us feel badly for the inevitable. His having a daughter is not used, as sometimes is in films with inferior scripts, to divert our attention to the negative portions of Oscar’s character. In not doing this, Coogler proves himself to be a very intelligent screenwriter who does not take the easy way out.

As she did in “The Help,” Octavia Spencer proves herself to be one of the leading actresses in film today. I cannot wait for the next film in which she will appear. I hope that she continues to pursue dramatic roles such as in this film or dramatic roles with a bit of a comedic touch as she played in “The Help.” She is extremely talented. Also of note is the performance of Melonie Diaz as Oscar’s girlfriend, Sophia. She plays Sophia as a tough woman who is frustrated by Oscar’s immaturity, while at the same time, loves him despite his faults. Michael E. Jordan gives an excellent performance as Oscar. Oscar is portrayed by Jordan as a multi-layered man, not just some street thug that the media or the general population might simply shrug off as “just another hoodlum.” This is the true achievement of the film. As written and performed, Oscar Grant is a human being to whom all audience members can relate. He is not a saintly man by any means, but he is not a dangerous menace to society either. All of us are imperfect in some way, however, most of us want to do what is right. The storytelling in “Fruitvale Station” is so deftly constructed that I couldn’t help but be interested and feel compassion for the characters in the film. The film is not about race or race relations, however, it is clear by what happens in the train station to Oscar that race and circumstance were factors in what happened. This is not the first film to depict an event such as this one, however, the way in which this film is constructed and written is flawless. I felt as if I was in this environment with these characters. Specific events depicted in the film, on purpose, of course, however, done without a feeling of being forced reinforce the fact that Oscar is not, at heart, a bad person. A scene at a gas station involving a dog is an especially brilliant piece of filmmaking that endears us to Oscar. “Fruitvale Station” does not cover the happiest subject matter, however, it will thrill true film-lovers, those who relish outstanding storytelling and strong performances. It has the rare ability to take the viewer through an emotional journey which leads to an unhappy event, though, in doing so makes the film lover in us excited by the fact that we have just witnessed brilliance in filmmaking.

"Sharknado" Did Not Blow Me Away

While reading this, please keep in mind that I have driven from Dallas to Austin, a five hour car trip, on two separate occasions to see “fun bad” movies. The first time was to see Al Adamson’s 1981 bad but fun masterpiece, “Carnival Magic.” The second time was to see the cheesy 1979 Scott Baio/Ron Palillo thrill ride, “Skatetown U.S.A.” I had never seen either film prior to these separate trips. I was glad I went to both screenings. Had I turned on “Sharknado” and began watching it by myself, there is a zero percent chance I would have stuck with it after the first ten minutes, however, I would have driven five minutes to my friend’s house to tell him not to waste his time with it.

“Sharknado” doesn’t have any of those car driving up on the curb kind of awkward moments. It is not bad enough. It is not funny enough. The point here is that I willingly seek out bad movies, movies that are famous for being bad. I fully realize that the makers of “Sharknado” were attempting to make a tongue in cheek film. One simply can hear the title of the film and understand what he or she is in for. The thing is that when you plan on making a tongue-in-cheek film, it is always a good idea to add some humor and make the thing funny. Take a film like “Cabin in the Woods.” In this film, Joss Whedon successfully lampoons everything silly and stupid about slasher movies and any other kind of “dead teenager movie,” as Siskel and Ebert called these “Friday the 13th” clones of the 1980’s and the current resurgence of the “dead teenager movie.” DON’T READ THE BOOK OUT LOUD!! DON’T READ IT AT ALL! NOTHING GOOD EVER HAPPENS WHEN YOU READ THE BOOK OUT LOUD!! Whedon’s mocking of this genre is spot-on. “Sharknado” is a bad movie, but it fails at being bad. “The Room,” “Samurai Cop,” “Birdemic,” and “R.O.T.O.R.” are examples of movies that are successful at being bad. These four films did not set out to be bad, they were just so awkward that their awkwardness make them entertaining. You could use the saying, “it’s like watching a train wreck,” though I’d rather watch “The Room” than watch a train wreck. I would, however, prefer watching a train wreck over watching “Sharknado” again. “Sharknado” is one of the first films I have watched during which I honestly could not care less what was going on during the thing. It is full of inconsistencies. Whether or not these inconsistencies are intentional or not is up for debate. If the filmmakers were intentionally mismatching the sky in various shots, intentionally adding horrible lines of dialogue, creating horrible CGI sharks and tornados, this would imply that they had written a clever and funny script, which is not the case. While watching this film, I felt as though the makers of it didn’t give two shits about the audience. It felt as if they thought the audience was stupid and that a half-ass effort would be good enough. I am retaliating by intentionally writing a half-ass review for it. I did have fun watching “Sharknado” with two groups of friends, however, the fun was had due to the fact that my friends were with me, not so much “Sharknado.” I am glad I saw it as it satisfied my curiosity and I was looking forward to watching it due to all of the social media hype surrounding it. By no means did “Sharknado” blow me out of the water, but it certainly did blow.

I Did Not Feel Ripped Off by the "Man of Steel"

“Man of Steel” is a good superhero/action film, but it’s not the great superhero/action film I was hoping for or that the Superman character deserves. There are many very good things about the film, however, as a whole, thanks to a heavy reliance on fight scene after fight scene and CGI effects after CGI effects in the final hour of the film, it loses some of its impact. In effects-heavy films, I tend to lose a lot of interest and my mind begins to wander as what I am seeing on screen does not require much thought. I don’t have to pay attention to dialogue or story arcs or any nonsense like that. It’s just explosion, fight, fight, explosion, gas tanker gets thrown onto a building, blah, blah.
The first 90 minutes of Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” are excellent, as he has given us a new vision of Krypton and Smallville. There are many thoughtful moments during this first hour and a half of the film. The performances by Russell Crowe as Jor-El, the beautiful Ayelet Zurer as Jor-El’s wife, Lara Lor-Van, Diane Lane as Martha Kent, and Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent are all outstanding. They each bring the right amount of emotion and gravitas to their roles.

Henry Cavill is fantastic as the Man of Steel. He is never referred to as Superman in the film. We learn what the “S” on his costume means. Cavill’s performance is not as great as that of Christopher Reeve in the Superman films of the 70’s and 80’s, however Reeve’s performance would be very difficult to top. Cavill reminds me of a young Aidan Quinn and this is not at all a bad thing. Cavill brings a nice amount of humor to his performance, though, the film, to its detriment, does not allow for many moments of levity. The reason why the 1978 Superman film is so beloved is due, in part, to the humorous performance of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and Ned Beatty as Otis. These characters provided some laughs, an element always welcome in the best of action or suspense films. Why did so many people love “Argo?” Because it was so damn funny. “This is the best bad idea we have, sir.” “I'd rather stay home and count the wrinkles on my dog's balls.” “Argo” is full of funny lines while telling a very exciting story. There is no mystery revolving around why it won the Oscar for Best Picture of 2012. Didn’t everyone love what the Hulk does at the end of Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers?” Humor---add it. It always works. Adding humor to an action film does not mean that it has to lose its seriousness or lessen the thrills. While displaying a touch for light-heartedness, the script of “Man of Steel” does not allow for many such moments, rather, giving more screen time to things going boom and a very, very long fight sequence during the final 45 minutes of the film. That is where the film fails and a thud can be heard in the theater. Fortunately, as mentioned, the first 90 minutes of the film are fantastic, leaving less than an hour of the film’s remaining running time for bang-boom-explody moments. The fact that the movie opts for so many such moments, though, burdens it and interrupts the momentum it had created.

Overall, I did enjoy “Man of Steel,” despite its faults. The film has quite a few more impressive moments than mind-numbing moments. Michael Shannon as Kryptonian villain, Zod, delivers a good performance, though, at times, he sounds like he is from the American South. Shannon is an excellent actor as can be seen in his previous films, Werner Herzog’s “My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done,” and Jeff Nichols’ “Take Shelter.” It was nice to see the character of Zod fleshed out and given more depth than he was given in “Superman 2.” The scenes at the Daily Planet were a bit dull and did not add very much of interest. Lawrence Fishburne is fine as Perry White, though his character seemed unnecessary in this film as Clark Kent as Daily Planet reporter is not established until near the end of the film. Amy Adams as Lois Lane is fine as well, however, the character of Lois Lane in “Man of Steel” feels a bit superfluous as well, and I don’t mean she seems sick. I recommend “Man of Steel,” however, if you are adverse to constant, mindless action scenes, the final hour may drag for you. Snyder’s new vision of a familiar story does resonate throughout enough of the film, though, to definitely make it worth seeing, especially in a theater. I saw the film in 2-D and at no time wondered how it would look in 3-D so I suppose I was entertained enough to not have wished that I would have spent more money to have the mindless action scenes thrown in my lap. “Man of Steel” ranks fairly highly in my list of superhero films and it is worthy of your money. Warner Brothers will be happy to take it, I’m sure.