MiguelM Reviews

Superman Returns (2006)

Bryan Singer Doesn't Return

[8/10 · 30 March 2007]

More than a decade ago, Bryan Singer gave us a brilliantly dark vision of crime and horror in The Usual Suspects. Since then he has done almost nothing but comic books. Granted, he does comic books better than anybody else, except maybe Sam Raimi, and Superman Returns is as good as his X-Men films and much better than Richard Donner and Richard Lester's movies from the seventies and eighties.

Singer gives us a Superman who returns after a five year absence to find that Lois Lane is engaged to Perry White's nephew, with whom she's raising a son. She may be on her way to collecting her Pulitzer Prize for her essay "Why the world doesn't need Superman," but she's still drawn to her man of steel. Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane is a reporter with a good instinct for finding the truth, who takes risks to find the heart of her story in spite of Editor Perry White's indifference. Bosworth has the good fortune to get a well-written Lois Lane (for a change), and she gives us the best Lois Lane we've ever seen. Kevin Spacey may be wasted in the campy role of Lex Luthor, whose comic-book megalomania couldn't ever be genuinely scary, but he's funny and menacing at the same time, and his dialog (unlike Gene Hackman's in the 1978 film) is written with genuine wit. As Superman, Brandon Routh has the biggest shoes to fill. While he's not quite as charismatic as Christopher Reeve, he makes the part his own.

Some of Singer's updating of the legend clashes with the source material. Superman hovers up above the city where his super hearing lets him pinpoint people in trouble. (I thought that was why he joined the Daily Planet!) But he has a good feel for how the story should flow, and he puts a refreshing twist on the cliché of the hero coming in to rescue the heroine. He also has a very good eye. From the sepia-toned interiors to the dark crystal waterfalls, his film has a satisfying comic-book grandeur. But Lex Luthor's diabolical scheme is just too silly to make a good story.

Still, I enjoyed this comic book enormously, but I'm still waiting for the return of the Bryan Singer that gave us The Usual Suspects. That film started out as a crime film, but as it took us deeper into its rich, disturbing underworld, it transformed into a horror film. Where is the man who gave us that masterpiece? He's been gone for twice as long as Superman, and, Lois Lane to the contrary, the world needs people like him.

Dante's Peak (1997)

Volcano Plays Its Part Very Well

[8/10 · 3 January 2006]

Yes, there are some cheesy, hollywoodish moments in this movie, but the actors bring enough charisma and presence to hold the story together. Pierce Brosnan makes a convincing scientist, whose passion and desire to protect the townspeople plays off nicely with Mayor Linda Hamilton's similar concerns.

But what I most want to say is that the volcano itself was both believable and accurate. So I want to commend the filmmakers for having enough integrity to make an entertaining film within the boundaries of scientific accuracy. And face it, you don't go to a movie like Dante's Peak to see insightful drama, or peer deep into the human psyche. The people and the volcano play off each other very nicely. It's not often you get a film with both chemistry and physics.

De-Lovely (2004)

Exquisite! (But Not Enough Dancing)

[9/10 · 3 July 2004]

As a big Cole Porter fan, I had high hopes for this movie, and I wasn't disappointed. It was great to see Kevin Kline get a role that he could really sink his teeth into, and gives the role all the gusto that Cole Porter deserves. We can genuinely see his love for Linda Porter slowly grow as their marriage continues. Kline plays it like a man who doesn't know if he's even capable of loving this woman, and tries (and fails), but slowly, his love for her creeps up on him when he doesn't expect it. It's easy to claim that a beautiful woman is an artist's muse, but it's much harder to show it believably. But the way Kline and Ashley Judd play off each other, (and with a fine script by Jay Cocks), I could easily believe the way she inspired him.

Cole Porter's songs are sung exceptionally well by all the singers, and I especially loved Elvis Costello, Sheryl Crow (who I didn't expect to like), Alanis Morissette, Natalie Cole, and Robbie Williams. (Maybe that's why they're stars.)

Cole Porter's songs have always made me laugh, but I had no idea how much they could make me cry.

Having said all that, I don't understand why they didn't put in more dancing! Cole Porter's songs were made for dancing, and it seems a waste of an opportunity. (But I love to dance, so I'm biased.) But that's a quibble. The story worked very well, and the music was weaved beautifully into the story.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)

Pretentious, Elitist Nonsense!

[3/10 · 3 July 2004]

This is the most elitist film I've ever seen. But it's an exquisitely photographed piece of pretentious nonsense. Writer/Director Greenaway seems to equate the cruelty of the working-class thief with his lack of appreciation for fine art. I'm particularly amused by how many people want to see this as a metaphor for Margaret Thatcher's oppression of the working class -- the politics of the film are the exact reverse of that metaphor. In Greenaway's vision, the educated are helpless victims of the ignorant working class. (Does Greenaway forget that his beloved Shakespeare had no formal education?)

He seems to have made the movie as a poison pen letter to the ignorant masses who showed no interest in his previous pretentious movies. The truth is that Greenaway makes boring art films. (And I love a good art film, but it better deserve that label.)

It's still a very well acted film, with superb cinematography. The sets and costumes are so color coordinated that, when Helen Mirren moves from the red room to the white room, her dress changes from red to white. And most moviegoers don't seem to notice. But it's set in a very artificial world. (It's a pretty small world, too. It only consists of four rooms and a parking lot.) We get no sense that there might be some authorities investigating the crimes committed in the film, or that our heroes might just move away to avoid the cruel thief. Greenaway's universe is as small as his vision. Many moviegoers are mesmerized by the stunning visual design, but it wasn't enough to hold me in. The thief's graphic brutality is downright repugnant. For all it's visual pretensions, the story is completely tasteless.

Ladyhawke (1985)

Good movie, Bad Score

[16 July 2003]

This could have been a wonderful movie if it wasn't for the ridiculous musical score. The filmmakers did a very good job of creating an exquisite medieval atmosphere. With their beautiful sets and locations, and gorgeous cinematography, they worked hard to carry me into the middle ages. Then the thumping music started up and yanked me out of the past and plunked me down right back into the 20th century. What were they thinking?

That said, it had a very good story and wonderful performances by the three leads. Rutger Hauer's intense presence, which leaves me unsure if I should trust him or fear him, adds just the right amount of tension to his scenes. Matthew Broderick plays his part beautifully, and comes of as charming without looking like he's trying too hard, and Michelle Pfeiffer was exquisite. Her presence and beauty enhance the film's magical story.

It's too bad the action scenes are staged terribly, and the climax is just clumsy. This could have been a much better movie. (I'd love to see a good remake.)

Credit for the very original story should go to the first screenwriter, Edward Khmara. Contrary to the claims of the film's marketing crew, it's not an 800 year old story, or an ancient legend, it's the product of Edward Khmara's imagination, and he should be given proper credit for it.

** SPOILER WARNING **

What were they thinking showing us a full moon just days before a total eclipse? They should have shown us a crescent moon, shrinking over a few nights to the tiniest sliver of a moon. (Haven't filmmakers ever seen a crescent moon? Somehow, in the movies, the moon is always full. A crescent moon is also beautiful, in a different way.)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Visuals: 10; Story 6

[7/10 · 21 November 2002]

For me, the book was all about Harry overcoming his self doubt, which is a struggle that we all can identify with. The movie was faithful to the narrative, but it left out Harry's struggle with self doubt. That's like doing Gone with the Wind without the Civil War. I can see why kids loved it, but with a little effort, it could have been so much better. Still, I loved seeing Diagon Alley and Hogwarts brought to life, and the actors were all terrific. So in spite of the watered-down story, the child in me was very happy. But the adult in me (45 yrs) hopes the next ones will be better.

True Romance (1993)

Good acting, poorly directed

[5/10 · 28 April 2001]

As I was watching this movie, lots of things just felt wrong. For example, the way the met seemed so trite, until I learned more about it later on. Overall, the movie didn't work for me. And the ending was a complete cop-out. The hero never has to look at the things he has done, and doesn't even find out what happened to someone he was very close to.

Then I read Q. Tarentino's script. Wow! It was so much better than what we saw on the screen. He didn't tell the story in chronological order, so the things that didn't work for me in the movie actually worked really well in the script. And the ending made a whole lot more sense. It's a shame that Director Tony Scott tried to improve on the script. It would have been much better if done Tarentino's way.

Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Well acted, poorly directed

[4/10 · 28 April 2001]

It's quite a feat to take a really good play, give it a great cast, and still manage to make a bad movie. I've liked many of Bruce Beresford's movies, but this one just didn't work. He doesn't have any sense of comic timing, so a lot of the humor falls flat. And it's a real shame because the actresses are all wonderful. They play off of each other really well, and they really feel like sisters. It's worth seeing just for the acting.

Microcosmos (1996)

Breathtaking!

[10/10 · 6 June 2000]

This is a truly astounding movie. Aside from the exquisite photography, it worked as a parody of movies. It had action scenes, drama, a terrifying monster-movie sequence, slapstick, romance, and ballet. (You can see quotes from this movie in A Bug's Life.)

But mostly it was cast of insects, spiders, and other tiny creatures, taking us into a world that's often very different from our own. (Have you ever thought about how an ant takes a drink of water?) The bugs, some beautiful, some comical, and some scary, have a natural charisma that's unmatched by human actors.

Don't miss any opportunity to see this on a big screen with an excellent sound system. (I travelled 60 miles to see it that way and was glad I did.)

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

George Lucas has crossed over to the dark side.

[2/10 · 31 May 2000]

The first Star Wars movie can be seen as a metaphor for the rebel filmmakers taking on the evil empire of Hollywood. For the rebels, telling a good story was everything. In Hollywood, marketing ruled. Only in Hollywood would filmmakers do dumb things like these: Designing a scene to be turned into a video game. (The pod race.) Putting in a character solely for comic relief. (You know who!) Writing a story that's driven by action, instead of by characters. Star Wars was the work of a true storyteller. The Phantom Menace was ruled by merchandising. George Lucas has crossed over.

The Atomic Cafe (1982)

Mind-blowing documentary

[9/10 · 31 May 2000]

This movie presents all of our nuclear propoganda without comment. As the movie progresses, I found myself astounded by what we were willing to believe. It's all very well put together and presented very clearly. It's highly entertaining on its own twisted terms. And it's horrifying because it's all true.

Ghosts of Mississippi (1996)

Good movie, very accurate

[1 February 1999]

This movie tells a fascinating piece of our history, how one man could escape justice for so long. It was very moving to see how he was eventually brought to justice.

Part of what made this a good movie was the way it didn't doctor the facts to make them more acceptable to a film audience. They stick to true history, and the most outrageous details in the film were true. (Particularly the detail of how the gun was found.) I like a film that respects an audience enough to tell the real history.

True Romance (1993)

Overrated fantasy

[5/10 · 1 February 1999]

This is a film that started out strong, then fell apart. The only thing that saves it is the acting, which is superb. Patricia Arquette is particularly good.

Clarence (Christian Slater) plays a complete fool, who lives in a fantasy world, and tries to live out a movie fantasy. Reality occasionally rears it's ugly head, but never when Clarence is around to see. He never has to face any consequences for his foolishness. He never even finds out that his actions lead to the death someone close to him, much less grieve for the poor fool.

The ending is a complete cop-out. We're asked to maintain the same state of denial that Clarence is in. (Don't read the rest of this paragraph if you don't want to know.) Imagine if the Godfather ended with Michael and his wife breaking out the Champagne bottles to celebrate his victory over his enemies, then living happily ever after.

Years after seeing this movie, I found Quentin Tarantino's script in a bookstore. Wow! What a great script. It's the same story, but it's structured differently, and it works a lot better. It also has a much more believable ending, which doesn't descend into codependence. It's too bad Tony Scott had to butcher the film. Don't see this movie. Read Tarantino's script.