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!