Movie Review: Man Of Steel

                                                    

 

 

 

Sometimes, being proven wrong can be fun.

For a little over a year now, I've been hearing bits and pieces about the (then) upcoming Superman flick. Very little gave me cause for optimism. I was pleased to see a villain other than Lex Luthor would be used. As much as I enjoy Lex, he's been overused in the films (five times in eight big screen appearances, if you count the three serials; if you don't, four out of five movies). I was hoping for Brainiac, but Zod works too.

Everything else, though, had me concerned. Most of the film was going to be about Clark Kent's journey to becoming Superman. That's great, but I just finished watching that same journey over the last ten years on the TV series "Smallville". Loved it, but I wasn't interested in seeing another version condensed in under two hours. Jonathan was supposed to be unsympathetic, Jor-El was to survive the destruction of Krypton, and the script had Superman....killing someone. Adding insult to injury, the iconic John Williams score from 1978's "Superman--The Movie", used in every Superman movie since, now considered to be 'the' Superman theme, would not be heard, nor would Superman's name even be in the title.

And then there was the new costume.

I wasn't seeing any reason to go to what was sure to be a travesty. I ranted against this abomination to God and Man, let alone the legacy of Superman. I denounced it fire and brimstone style. I cheered while others did the same.

                                       

After it was released, though, I started hearing good things about it. At first, I didn't take these words seriously--after all, I heard good words about 'Star Trek: Into Darkness" and my initial misgivings turned out to be vastly understated. Surely "Man Of Steel" would be comparably bad. But, just as I felt I needed to give the new Trek film a fair shot, I wanted to give this new Superman film the same. So I did.

I liked it. I liked it a lot.
                                 
                                

In some ways--not all ways, but some ways--this may be the best Superman film yet. Certainly this is best of the lot for action sequences. The fight scenes, which are many, may be the new bar from which others will be judged. The drama was intense. There were surprises, and good ones at that (not really bad ones, like finding out the Starship Enterprise is also, by the way, a submarine).

Yes, we do get a retelling of Clark's journey to becoming Superman. And even though we've seen a very good one (and better) in "Smallville" this was pretty compelling, too. Jonathan Kent did not, in my view, come off as unsympathetic. Yes, he did tell Clark--who had just been outed to a few people by preventing a busload of kids from drowning--that maybe he should have just let them die, rather than risk people seeing his powers. But it's not that Jonathan didn't care if several kids died, his primary concern was protecting *his* child. Which, realistically, is the primary concern of most parents. Jonathan even, by a look to Clark, make it plain he expected Clark to do nothing and let him (Jonathan) be killed by a tornado. All out of love for Clark, and a sense that Clark is destined for great deeds...just not yet.

And here is the heart of the story. When Clark relates this later to Lois, he tells her--and us--he abided by his fathers' wishes and let him die because he trusted Jonathan's judgment. Trust is the big issue. Jor-El and Zod each wants the other to trust them, but neither does. At the end of the movie, Superman lets an Army General know he can be trusted, and points out he's going to trust him (the General).
                                     

Jor-El, despite what you may have heard, not only does not survive the destruction of Krypton, he is murdered by Zod well before Krypton explodes. Jor-El's later interaction with Clark/Superman is in the form of a hologram, a device used in both the first two "Superman" films with Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and in "Smallville" with Terrance Stamp as the voice of Jor-El.

Superman does indeed kill in this film. It's towards the end, when he's forced to take the life of General Zod. He doesn't take it lightly. He has Zod in a headlock. Defeated, and unable to see a future, Zod puts Superman in a situation where our hero is forced, against his will, to kill him.

Zod is one of Superman's three legendary foes (the others being Lex and Brainiac). This may be his best presentation. Terrence Stamp's iconic performance, in a cameo in "Superman-The Movie" and a major villain in the sequel, cannot be diminished. But while Stamp's Zod is a power hungry dictator bent on conquest and forcing the House of El (Superman's birth family) to submit ("KNEEL before ZOD!!"), Michael Shannon's version is a dedicated Kryptonian intent on re-establishing the Kryptonian race. And just as Jonathan Kent was willing--reluctantly--to let others die (himself included) in order to protect his son, Zod accepts the human race will have to be sacrificed to resurrect his race. There's no joy in wiping out humanity; it's just a necessary step. As he tells Superman, his, Zod's, only reason for being is to protect Krypton. With his failure, he has no reason to continue. Cornering a terrified young family with heat vision, beams of pure energy slowly moving towards them, he almost begs Superman to kill him and save the family. Zod could easily just look at them and vaporize, but he doesn't. He deliberately gives Superman ample chance to save them--but only by killing him. When he does kill Zod, Superman yells in grief.
                                                     

I found myself agreeing with the decision not to use the John Williams theme. This is a totally different telling of the legend. It deserves its own score. I wasn't thrilled with what was offered--the weakest of all Super Scores, I think--but it was okay.

The costume remains the one horrid aberration. It's just ugly, period. It has no redeeming value. In defense of director Zack Snyder, this was forced on him by the studio, due to a years-long lawsuit brought against them by the heirs of Superman's creators, Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster. Let's hope this is resolved by the sequel.

And, yes, the word "Superman" should have been in the title.

Fans of the aforementioned "Smallville" will find plenty of nods to that series as well. Many people who have appeared in the series over the years are in the movie (in different roles). Not the least of these is Amy Adams, Lois in this film. Also look for Alessandro Juliani, who played Dr. Emil Hamilton in "Smallville". In this movie, he plays a radio operator in a scene with....Dr. Emil Hamilton (Richard Schiff).

End of the day, this was not the catastrophe I feared, but a really good Superman movie I'm glad I watched. It proved you can have a very good Superman film without anything cute or suggesting slapstick. I didn't know that was possible. Get rid of the atrocious costume, and you have a very, VERY solid Superman flick.

Only question I still have is this.....Brainiac next time?

"Man Of Steel" is currently playing at a theater near you. Kneel to my opinion, and go see it.


Up, up and away to the Geeky Conservative's Homepage!

Email Praises to the Name of Uncle Steve at geekyconservative@gmail.com

Remembering Sammy Terry...and Bob Carter

                                                                

                                                            

 

 

Part of my childhood died last week.

 

If you grew up in central Indiana in the 1960's (for that matter, from the 60's to late 80's) you knew who Bob Carter was.  Or, rather, you knew his secret identity...Sammy Terry.

 

For those outside of Indiana, 'Sammy Terry' (the name is a play on the word 'cemetery') was a ghoul who hosted horror movies on WTTV Channel 4 on the weekends. For most of the show's run, it was titled "Nightmare Theater" and aired at 11:30 PM on Friday nights.  It had other names over the years--it began as "Shock Theater" (owing to the fact that the horror movies bought from Universal Pictures was called the "Shock Package"), and eventually was simply "Sammy Terry".  Sometimes it was on Saturday nights.  Usually Sammy would host two movies, but sometimes, only one. On occasion, he would be hosting a B-drama, or even a low budget science fiction film.

 

                           

 

But Sammy Terry himself was always consistent.  Rising from his squeaking coffin in a dungeon setting, dressed in black except for his blood red cloak and cowl and yellow gloves; his chalk white face grinning at the camera; and his sinister laugh, he gave viewers a spooky, wholesome night of fun.  His banter with his pet spider, George (who spoke in the same unintelligible squeaks as Cousin Itt from 'The Addams Family'), and his commentary on the films were usually more entertaining than the films themselves.  Unless the movie in question was a classic, like the original 'Dracula' or 'Frankenstein' I usually read while the movie played, until Sammy came on.

 

Sammy frequently read fan letters on the air. I had a few read, and was always thrilled to hear him read them. I wish there were VCRs in that day, as I would love to have those in my video library. 

 

He also made personal appearances. The first one I saw him at was at the Indiana Theater in downtown Bloomington.  I was ten or eleven, and my father took me to see his stage show, which started around 11 PM. After the show, a fairly grisly horror movie was shown which neither of us were interested in...so we went home, and I ended up watching the rest of his TV show for that night.

 

Bob Carter didn't drop his alter ego after the show was canceled.  He continued to appear as Sammy Terry at charity events, children hospitals, and regular stage shows.  His popularity did not wane, even though about twenty years passed before he quietly retired.

 

Last week, at the age of 83, Bob Carter, the original Sammy Terry, and creator of that character, passed away.

 

In the years between the end of the TV show and his retirement, I learned a few things about the man who was the spooky, creepy, beloved Sammy Terry.  Mr. Carter was a strong family man, with a deep faith in God, and active in his church.  He loved telling jokes and stories, and was friendly to all who met him. I experienced that firsthand, when I saw him for the last time, at a stage show many years ago at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater....the same place I first saw him, back when it was known as the Indiana Theater. 

 

                                   

                         Bob Carter, as Sammy Terry, signing a magazine for me several years ago.

Three years ago, in declining health, he asked his son Mark (who bears a remarkable resemblance, and has inherited his father's incredible voice) to take over the character. In a TV interview, in costume, the younger Carter brought up his hope enough interest in Sammy Terry would bring him back to TV on a regular basis.

 

Although the interest is there, "Nightmare Theater" hasn't returned.  The reason, I suspect, is local TV throughout the country has evolved...and not necessarily for the better.  WTTV, back in the day, was known for local talent hosting talk shows, cartoon shows, and of course, Sammy's 'Nightmare Theater'.  Other independent stations throughout the country had the same.  Those days seem to be gone. TV stations today seem less interested in community involvement as they are with the bottom dollar. And who can blame them?   With cable, social media, the Internet and video games competing, their audience is dwindling with that dollar.

 

However, Mark Carter is still playing Sammy at public events and personal appearances.  I'm glad. I hope children and some folks a little older will be able to enjoy a taste of what made my Friday nights thrilling once upon a time.  The official Sammy Terry website is offering videos of some of the original "Nightmare Theater" shows, so you can see both. I'm glad of that, too.

Mark Carter, as Sammy Terry, pays tribute to his father, who created and first played the character in this video on the Sammy Terry website.

   

 

Friday nights though, ain't what they used to be.  At least those of us who grew up in central Indiana have those memories.

 

Good luck to Mark Carter, who is now Sammy Terry, and continuing the legacy.

 

Goodbye to Bob Carter--and thank you for all the Pleasant Nightmares....

 

 

                                  

Bob Carter 1929--2013

 

 

Return to The Geeky Conservative website.

 

geekyconservative@gmail.com

 

Movie Review: Oz: The Great And Powerful

Over the weekend,  I went off to see The Wizard.

 

Specifically, I watched "Oz: The Great And Powerful", released by Disney and re-teaming star James Franco and director Sam Raimi (from the Spider-Man trilogy).  Filmed pretty much as a prequel to the 1939 MGM classic "The Wizard Of Oz", this film tells the story of how Kansas con man Oscar Diggs (Franco) is swept up by a tornado and dumped into the wondrous land that bears his nickname--Oz.  Once there, he has to decide which of three beautiful witches is, in fact, the villainess who murdered the good King at some point before his arrival. Along the way, he slowly transforms from a self-centered, gutless lout to a man of honor and courage.

 

Over two hours long, the film is never dull, keeps you engaged, and has bits of fun nods to the 1939 original. Best of all, it takes one of cinema's most sinister characters--the Wicked Witch of the West--and has you feeling sympathy for her by film's end.  After seeing this, next time you watch Margaret Hamilton's portrayal in the earlier film, you'll wish the witch could have found redemption.

 

When Diggs first arrives in Oz, he is met by the beautiful Theodora  (Mila Kunis) who believes he is a great wizard foretold in prophesy Theodora is kind and gentle, and believes the lies of her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) who has told her the King was murdered by his own daughter, Glinda, the Witch of the South. Because the audience knows (from either the Oz books or the 1939 movie) that Glinda is a  Good Witch, it's pretty clear on the outset that Evanora is evil.

 

Oscar and Theodora are obviously interested in each other, much to Evanora's dismay. She goads Oscar into traveling to the home of the 'evil' Glinda, for the purpose of destroying her.  If he does this, she tells Oscar, the fabulous wealth in the Oz treasury will be his, as will as the position of King.  She also suggests to Theodora that Oscar has made advances towards her (which he had not).   By the time Theodora realizes her sister is the villainess of the story, she already is convinced--wrongly--that Oscar has betrayed her. In immense emotional pain, she willingly takes an apple offered her by Evanora knowing it will transform her to evil as well, taking it only to end her torment. It is then she transforms into the Wicked Witch of the West, with a striking similarity to Margaret Hamilton's appearance in the original film. This is also when we realize Evanora is the Witch who is inadvertently killed when Dorothy's house lands in Oz in the MGM classic.

 

The end of the film has Oscar and his new friends using Oscar's stage tricks to dupe the people of Oz, as well as the evil sisters, into believing he is the wizard they were expecting, as he  manages to rescue Glinda.  The witches are defeated and banished, though Oscar--still playing the part of a powerful sorcerer--gently tells Theodora--the Wicked Witch of the West--that should she find goodness within her again, she would be welcomed back. Her bellowing "Never!" as she flies away via broomstick is heartbreaking, as we know that was her last chance.

 

The film ends on an upbeat note, as Oscar and Glinda are embarking on a new romance, and he has cemented the friendships we made in the film.

 

Pay attention to the credits--as in "The Wizard of Oz", several of the actors seen in the black and white Kansas sequence play different characters in the rest of the movie, set in Oz.

 

There are several homages to the 1939 film as well, including catch phrases similar to classic lines in the earlier film, this time with different meanings ("I'll get you, my pretty!").  A lion appears early on, as does a reference to scarecrows.  My personal favorite, in this film that is NOT a musical (as the 1939 one was) comes when Oscar meets the Munchkins for the first time, and they break out in a song-and-dance number which would have fit right in with the earlier film...until an annoyed Oscar manages to stop it.

 

This is a family film, which anyone should be able to enjoy.  If you're a fan of the original, then so much the better.  For prequels done right, be off to see this wizard.

-----

 

Email Uncle Steve at geekyconservative@gmail.com

 

Return to The Geeky Conservative's Homepage!

Movie Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness (Or "Diet Trek II: Into Darkness With My $7.50")

SPOILER ALERT: While this review doesn't give a summary of the film, it does discuss key events. Or events that may have been intended as key events.  If you plan to see the film, (which would be an error on your part) do that first, then read My Wisdom here and gnash your teeth in lamentation of not heeding the warnings of Uncle Steve.
-----
 I need to confess right off that I'm not a fan of the 2009 reboot of Star Trek. I love the original universe; Star Trek occupied far too much of my time as a young man. Good memories. The reboot bothered me a lot, though. I thought--and still think--it wouldn't have been a half bad movie if all the characters and the universe they were in were director J.J Abrams' original creations, and not those lifted from a franchise he admits he never liked.

One of the problems I had with the first film in the reboot was the apparent erasing and resetting of the Trek universe I spent most of my 50+ years watching and loving. The character of Ambassador Spock--Leonard Nimoy, reprising his famous role as Captain Kirk's former First Officer--fell into a tear in space after failing to stop the destruction of the Romulan homeworld. A Romulan named Nero (??), blaming him for the catastrophe, followed him, and apparently changed history. So everything I knew was gone. Since then, the producers and Paramount have been ambiguous over whether or not this was a true reset, or if Spock and Nero simply crossed over into one of the many alternate universes seen over the decades of Trek TV episodes and films.

I decided to go with the latter theory--after all, games, comics and books since the first film insist the original universe is still intact--as it made this new version more acceptable. With that in mind, I felt the second film in Alternate Universe might be pretty good.

I was wrong.

Right off the bat, we learn the Enterprise in this universe...is also, apparently, a submarine. Seriously. I tried to remind myself this was another universe, but whatever universe you're in, this stretches credibility razor thin.

To rescue (new) Spock from certain death, (new) Kirk violates the Prime Directive, a highly revered law that prohibits Starfleet from interfering with a society's natural development (in the course of saving Spock, Kirk had to reveal the existence of the Enterprise to a race that was barely past caveman status). Fine, Shatner's Kirk violated the Prime Directive almost every other episode just for fun. Chris Pine's Kirk, though, got demoted. Also fine, that's realistic and unexpected. What wasn't unexpected was the highly unprofessional way Kirk and Spock argued in front of Admiral Pike. The conversation was funny, to be fair--and I did laugh. But in front of Pike?

More fun like this happened later in the film, with Lieutenant Uhura and Mr. Spock (who are in a relationship) arguing over his lack of expressing feelings for her. Kirk, to our amusement, gets in the middle of this. Problem is, they are all in the middle of a very dangerous situation involving Klingons which requires their strict attention. They're supposed to be professionals. They were acting like teenagers.

After a terrorist attack at a Starfleet facility housing records, an emergency meeting of top brass, Captains and their first officers is held. The terrorist is identified as a rouge intelligence agent named John Harrison (who we later learn is Khan). Kirk realizes the attack is really a decoy, since protocol would require senior Starfleet personnel to respond doing what they were doing--meeting then and there, in that room, which was then attacked.

Not bad, except Starfleet would have altered any protocol of that level once an intelligence agent went bad. At least, you would expect them to.

In "Star Trek II-The Wrath of Khan" we see Khan listening in on communicator messages between Kirk on the planet surface and Spock on the Enterprise, followed by evidence they were speaking in code to throw Khan off guard. Lieutenant Saavik later comments on a Starfleet rule they obviously followed about talking strategy in such situations.

In this film, however, Kirk and Scotty are talking strategy via communicators with no worries about being monitored....even though Scotty is on another Federation ship which is hostile.

Speaking of that other ship, she's commanded by Admiral Marcus, yet another Starfleet big shot gone bad. Fine, virtually all Treks in the Original Universe had them too. But Marcus' whole ship seems to have turned as well. Is respect to the oath that much of a joke in Starfleet?

At times, it seemed plots were just dropped. As noted earlier, Captain Kirk was demoted to Commander/First Officer early in the film. Spock was transferred off the Enterprise, and Pike was reinstated as Captain of the ship. Almost immediately, though, Pike is killed. Kirk gets the captaincy of the Enterprise back, and has Spock reinstated as his First Officer. An interesting plot resolved in about twenty minutes. Operation: Fail!

The subplot of the aforementioned Spock/Uhura romance really didn't go anywhere either. I got the impression J.J Abrams wanted to yell "Look! A white guy kissing a black girl! And...and...an ALIEN kissing a HUMAN girl! We're progressive! Woo!" Now, I could be wrong about this, but since we didn't get any actual drama here, Abrams just had it sit there, one wonders.

This second film in the reboot seemed to be wondering as it went along if it should be a remake of the second film in the original Trek Universe. Khan had information that made Kirk mistrust Admiral Marcus. Could Kirk trust Khan? I figured what was what before Kirk did. Not because I saw the real "Wrath of Khan" about four million times, but because Kirk was pretty dense throughout the film. In fact, Kirk questioned himself a lot in this film. That might have made an interesting plot for the first film, but by this point, he should have more confidence in himself.

Benedict Cumberbatch, to be fair, was given a thankless task. Had his character not been Khan, but, say, another tyrant (or Joachim, the name of a follower of Khan's in the original episode "Space Seed' and of another follower in the Wrath of Khan film) his role would have been outstanding. He gave a masterful performance. But all I could think was "You're not Khan. (Ricardo) Montalban is Khan. You're not Khan." Not his fault. J.J's fault (or Bush's fault, if you ask Barack Obama).

The whole remake idea of "Wrath of Khan" might have worked, if they stuck to the premise that Khan (or Joachim, if they used that character instead) had been mistreated by Admiral Marcus, and ended with Khan heroically sacrificing himself to save Kirk (or, for true poetic justice, save Spock--who of course died because of Khan back in the original second film). But, instead, Khan had to be a villain in the end (Admiral Marcus would have been enough--Peter Weller is that good).

But instead, we had an incredibly stupid scene of Kirk sacrificing himself the same way Spock did back in "Wrath", complete with Scotty, substituting for McCoy in calling Kir...um, Spock down from the bridge to say goodbye to the dying hero. To add true insult to injury, we had the insulting, aggravating scene of Spock responding to Kirk's passing by yelling "KHAAAAANNNN!!!"...just like Kirk did in "Wrath of Khan" when Khan told him he was just going to leave Kirk in the middle of a dead planet. J.J, this wasn't Saturday Night Live. This was supposed to be an actual Star Trek film.

Kirk's death wasn't the drama it was obviously supposed to be. One problem with a film in a franchise is that we know ahead of time--whether we want to or not--if a main character dies. We knew months before 'The Dark Knight Rises" the film would end with Batman faking his death so he, as Bruce Wayne, could get on with his life. I wasn't sure how Kirk would come back, but I knew he would (and unlike Spock in "Wrath", he would come back by film's end).

There were more depressing moments. When Scotty was in the bar, in leisure clothes and got a communicator call from Kirk (I guess Starfleet communicators don't work just for Starfleet calls) actor Simon Pegg seemed to be doing a very good Don Knotts imitation. I half expected him to call Kirk "Andy" by mistake. The Klingons? Yes, they looked tough and menacing. So do a lot of real life street gangs. Every incarnation of Klingons before this looked more than menacing. These guys were a disappointment. Not really fond of the new Klingon ship design either.

Finally, Leonard Nimoy's cameo as "classic" Spock was just heartbreaking. First, he just doesn't look well at all. I'm hoping it's makeup, with the idea Spock has really been through the wringer with all that happened in the last film--I don't recall Nimoy looking like that in the last picture I saw of him, which i don't think was all that long ago. But he is in his eighty's.

Second, his (Spock's) comments reinforce the idea this universe is not one existing side by side (more or less) with "my" Trek Universe, but rather the same universe, which he accidentally changed last time. Just sad.

And third, Spock notes he swore not to reveal anything to his younger self, as Spock the Younger needed to find his own answers. And then reveals everything to his younger self. Worthy of a Mel Brooks film. Not worthy of a real Star Trek film.

The film did have some good points, though. Using Carol as a plot device against her father (as opposed to making her a love interest for Kirk--again) was one. McCoy and Carol's working on the torpedo was another, and a nice homage to the scene in "Star Trek 6-The Undiscovered Country" in which McCoy helped Spock recalibrate a torpedo to hit a cloaked Klingon ship. Mentioning the Gorn and Christine Chapel was nice too. I loved hearing the original series theme for the end credits music. And, of course, the special effects were phenomenal. That alone is worth seeing on a large screen LED TV, on BD.

Sadly...that's pretty much the only reason to watch it at home. Granted, the bar set by the second film in the first Trek legacy is pretty damn high. But the second film in this second 'legacy' can't even see that bar.

'Star Trek-Into Darkness' is playing at a theater near you, and is rated PG. You have been warned.

Back to THE GEEKY CONSERVATIVE's homepage!