Reviews

I guess this would be the third iteration of "Superman." It seems that for every increment in CGI advancement, there's some reboot of some tired franchise. For director, Zack Snyder ("300" and "Sucker Punch") whatever storyline or nuanced acting there is, is smothered in a hailstorm of bombastic action sequences. A lot of stuff blows up, and cities completely destroyed. Despite the highly technical aspects of these scenes, there's that "Roland Emmerich fakery" that defies the logic of practical effects. The third act of this film gave me a Krptonite headache. The pacing of this film was nonstop sledgehammer action. Oh sure, there were weepy flashbacks of a young Clark Kent and his human father (Jonathan Kent played by a subdued Kevin Costner).

As Superman movies go, writer David Goyer and Christopher Nolan provide a little more story as far as Kal-El's and Kryton's history. I found Russell Crowe far more interesting than a somewhat silly performance by Marlon Brando trying not to do Don Corleone, and masking his "accent" with a horrible British one in the original Superman motion picture (Christopher Reeve). General Zod (Michael Shannon) is far from the corny performance by Terrance Stamp. Amy Adams is a perky (and cute) Lois Lane. And Henry Cavill is handsomely brooding.

But perhaps that's the problem with this film. The acting is so subdued. So serious. Superman is a comic book. There's little or no humor in Snyder's film. As some publicist pointed out, "This film is a more real depiction of Superman..." Real? It's Superman, there's nothing "real" about this guy. If there was ever an oxymoron ever said by some Hollywood mouthpiece.

By no means is "Man of Steel" a bad film. It simply blends into the blandness that is the current state of superhero movies. Batman, The Avengers, even Iron Man (though that movie was saved ONLY by the performance and charisma of Robert Downey, Jr.). In "Man of Steel" Cavill is just another good looking guy in tights. He's not a bad actor, just bland. Clark Kent seemed to be a more interesting a character. But all of that was overshadowed by mind-numbing explosions, toppling buildings and military weapons being annihilated.

Warner Bros. has already put into production "Man of Steel 2." Perhaps the arrival of Lex Luthor. Though, it's hard to top Gene Hackman. Kevin Spacey tried, but didn't quite measure up.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" is the second installment in the reboot from director J.J. Abrams. As summer "blockbuster" movies go, it is entertaining. And like most of these movies, it's slim on story. If not lazy.

Abrams and writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman take us for a ride that seems all too familiar. (Spoiler Alert) "Into The Darkness" is the third iteration of "The Wrath of Khan." No Ricardo Montalban, but Benedict Cumbertbatch as the bio-engineered super human. (Actually, the character Khan first appeared in the original TV series episode 'Space Seed.') I suppose the director and writers can call this film an "homage." But this is a reboot of the series, and you'd think the brain trust would find another plot line. Trek fans would probably find the storyline just fine.

Kirk (Pine), Spock (Quinto), Dr. McCoy (Urban), Scotty (Pegg), Sulu (Cho), Uhura (Saldana), and Chekov (Yelchin) embody the style and mannerisms of the original series cast (Shatner, Nimoy et al.) even better now. They seem comfortable together. And the writers have brought back much of the humor and banter (for instance, Spock and McCoy) that made the original series fun. To that end, "Star Trek Into The Darkness" works. This ensemble cast is sailing at warp speed.

Now that the U.S.S. Enterprise has run its course of old story lines, perhaps now, if there is another Abram's Star Trek, their five year mission in space will actually go where no man has gone before.

"42" is a good biopic in the tradition of many sports hero biopics. Formulaic, yet still inspiring. Like many of these types of films, we don't see deeply into the emotional psyche of the hero. The relationship between Robinson, Branch Rickey, and reporter Wendell Smith are key. Much is made about the racial torment Robinson had to endure. But that's the core of this film. We know Robinson's accomplishments as a ball player; rather "we" are put into his shoes. We see and feel his frustration to constant taunts. But Robinson kept his composure. Robinson to Rickey, "Are you looking for a Negro who is afraid to fight back?" Rickey, "I need a Negro with the guts not to fight back." How he managed to keep his cool isn't really explained, other than Rickey's ever-present support. Some inferences are made, but not clearly. It's nice to see old Ebbets Field brought back to life.

The "Dude" is back. And with a dog. Jeff Bridges plays a struggling, middle-aged writer (Jon Katz) who of course has writers block, adopts an abused border collie. Another "crazy dog" who's hijinks resemble Marley from "Marley and Me." The dog is seemingly untrainable. Par for the course. Katz already has two wonderfully mannered labs. So why is Katz to blame for his so-called anger with the collie? Who wouldn't be frustrated. But as the wise old dog whisperer told Katz, it's not all about the dog, but Katz and his inner anger. Okay, well, I didn't see Katz or Bridges playing someone who was particularly nasty. But what to do about the writer's block? Then comes the cliché epiphany. Write about his experience with the collie. Viola! I like Bridges. Who doesn't. But this movie plodded along with the same "bad dog" gags one has seen a thousand times. And of course, there's redemption, as dog accepts man and vice versa. And all is well in the world. Not the greatest dog movie around. If it wasn't for Jeff Bridges, I wouldn't have kept watching.