Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Just when the heartbroken fans of the “Superman” series thought that things couldn’t possibly get any worse, they were forced to think again. As impossible as it may seem, “Superman IV” managed to be even worse than its antecedents. The production company that made this film was well-known for being ridiculously stingy, and it shows in the special effects. This film was created in a time period where the nuclear weapons threat was still a big deal, and they incorporated that theme far too heavily into the storyline to be taken seriously. And somehow, everyone forgot how to act.

It’s hard to believe that the “Superman” franchise could have possibly allowed a film like “The Quest for Peace” to be made, but when it passed the production torch to Golan-Globus, all bets were off. The Golan-Globus production company was always notorious for being miserly, and the film’s original $36 million budget was cut to $17 million post-production. Therefore, the special effects suffered greatly. There were giant black lines around the characters every time they flew, the fight scenes looked terrible, and the running time was cut to less than an hour and a half. The latter didn’t stop anyone from impatiently checking their watches while watching, though.

One of the things that make “The Quest for Peace” so amazingly pitiful is WMD-smothered storyline. The film was created in a time period where nuclear weapons were the political centerpieces of all governmental actions, and Christopher Reeve strongly advocated to make that the primary theme of “Superman IV.” Well, his heart was in the right place, but his idea was a giant flop. Superman decided to put all of the weapons he found into a giant net floating in space, and then throw the net straight into the sun. This was cheesy enough, but then they went so far as to include a super villain called Nuclear Man. How hard is it really to incorporate some subtlety?

Both Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder stated in an interview that they considered the fourth and final film to be vastly substandard to the others, and Gene Hackman said something similar. Their opinions on the film may actually have affected the effort they put into their roles. All three of them did terrible jobs acting, and it made an already appalling film even worse.

Overall, “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” was one of the worst films ever made, and it shamed “Superman” forever. The film had a very low budget, which led to seriously low-quality special effects. The nuclear weapons theme was too obvious and way overused. The main actors did terribly this time. This film isn’t worth seeing at all, and it doesn’t earn a single star.

Superman: The Movie

It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s most definitely the best Superman film ever made. Even now, more than thirty years after its debut, Christopher Reeve’s “Superman” has no match. This is the movie that kicked off the introduction to comic book movie genre, and oh, what an impressive genre it is. The whole film is an epic adventure, devoid of any complaints. This is the movie that brought us the best theme song ever written short of “Star Wars,” and some of the best characters ever to hit the big screen. The incredible success of “Superman,” unfortunately, birthed several sequels that singularly destroyed the character for more than thirty years, but he is starting to make a comeback. Of course, no one will forget the stunning first entry to the series, the most superb superhero movie ever.

The film is essentially split into two parts: The first is the origin of Superman, which takes itself very seriously, and goes on for almost half of the movie. We get to see Marlon Brando in one of his best roles, the destruction of the Kryptonian home planet, and all the events leading up to Kalel’s first time wearing the iconic costume of Superman. The second part is his move to the city of Metropolis, where Superman joins the Daily Planet newspaper, humor begins to take prevalence, and the delightful Lex Luthor makes his entrance. Each half is like a separate movie, and both are well done.

No man has ever been as perfect for the Superman role as Christopher Reeve. He embodies the character effortlessly, and switches from the suave, confident Man of Steel to the bumbling, nerdy Clark Kent with remarkable duplicity. It almost makes you believe that no one can tell the difference between the two just because of a pair of glasses. Margot Kidder as Lois Lane and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor were incredible, and they were actually a good match for the talent of Reeve himself. In addition, the characters of Ms. Tessmacher, Otis, Jimmy Olsen, and Perry White were great accents to complement the excellence of the film.

One of the very best parts of “Superman” is the great theme song. Composed by the musical genius John Williams, it is extremely catchy, and set a new musical standard for all movies. The sheer scale of the songs, and the blasting orchestra that sounds amazing whether you have surround sound or broken headphone speakers, is truly remarkable, and sets the tone of the entire film.

The excellent film that is “Superman” gets 10 out of 10 stars, for being everything a critic or viewer could possibly want in a movie. The film screams perfection, and superheroes can never be looked at the same again. This film will make you believe a man can fly.

The Social Network

Never before has a film surprised me as much as this one did. Utter exasperation and disinterest were my initial reactions to the news that a movie about Facebook was being made. I soon, however, realized how very wrong my first impression was, and was reminded once again that I should never judge a book by its cover. Or rather, a movie by its seemingly ridiculous premise. “The Social Network,” or “The Facebook Movie” as it is often called, was an amazing picture, and was an example of modern filmmaking at its finest. It was filled with riveting performances by a skilled cast, and was beautifully written and directed. This is most certainly a drama worth seeing, and will no doubt take a few Oscars home for its trouble.

Part of what made this film so wonderfully mesmeric was the great acting. All of the performances in the film were expertly done, and impressed the heck out of me. Jesse Eisenberg, who recently starred in “Zombieland,” has truly broken out of his shell for this film. He was truly captivating in his performance as Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, and played his odious and hateful character amazingly and in a curiously likeable way. Justin Timberlake has finally proven to me that he can, in fact, act, and he portrayed Sean Parker, the creator of Naptser, marvelously, with zest and charisma. In this film, I was actually most interested in Andrew Garfield’s performance, as he is set to play the new Spider-man in the upcoming 2012 reboot. I was at first quite skeptical of him, but now I’m sure that Spider-man is in good hands. Armie Hammer, through some camera stunts, played both of the Winklevoss twins, and he played them superbly.

The film is filled with outstanding actors, but that isn’t necessarily enough to make a good movie. The winning formula also requires skilled writing and direction, which I am pleased to say it contained in excess. The film was astonishingly well-written by Aaron Sorkin, a screenwriter and playwright well-known for his rapid-fire dialogue and extended monologues. He made the film witty and smart, and gave the actors plenty of opportunities to open up and really express themselves. The film was adeptly directed by David Fincher, the genius who created “Se7en,” and a man who specializes in making dark and stylish thrillers. He certainly pulled through on this one, and he gave the whole picture a polished, high quality look that really stays with you after you leave the theater.

For such an ostensibly terrible idea, a movie about Facebook turned out to be one of the best films of the year. “The Social Network” contained outstanding writing and was brilliantly directed, and had an incredible cast. It deserves ten out of ten stars.

The Wizard of Oz

There isn’t much left that I can say about this film that hasn’t been said millions of times by critics much greater I. The film is a timeless classic, and it will be a part of American culture forever. The famous lines, the enchanting characters, and the amazing songs are well known and well loved by everybody. The renowned story is light-hearted and fanciful, but at the same time is dark and, in fact, rather sinister. I think that is one of the reasons I love it so much, and indeed why everyone does. Undeniably, “The Wizard of Oz” is one of the most famous movies ever made, and it deserves every bit of its fame.

When the film first came out in 1939, it wasn’t very popular at all. In fact, it flopped at the box office, and didn’t win even one Oscar later. Over time, however, through annual screenings of the film on television and rapidly growing popularity, it soon became what it is today, the number one most watched movie of all time and top ten best movie of all time. “Oz” is also the number one most quotable movie of all time. “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore…” The list goes on and on. You would also be extremely hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t know who the Wicked Witch of the West was, or someone who didn’t love and appreciate them. That goes for the musical side of film, too, i.e. “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”

The film starts off light-heartedly and pleasantly, with Dorothy vying for her aunt’s and uncle’s attention as they go about their morning chores. But then, ominous music begins to sound and the malicious spinster Mrs. Gulch approaches the farm, meaning to take away Dorothy’s dog Toto. A lot of the film is like that, where everything is happy and wonderful and then all of a sudden, things take a turn for the dark and gloomy. But since this is a family film, and the special effects are anything but remotely believable, a lot of the dark nature of the film is hidden. Nevertheless, that threatening, sinister element remains, and it makes for a much more gripping and interesting story.

It is near impossible to find a film at the level of “Oz,” by means of fame and popularity, or by means of sheer quality. The quotes, the characters, and the fantastic songs are constantly referenced and spoofed. The story is joyful and child friendly but is mixed with dark and sinister undertones, in very pleasing way. This film deserves a strong ten out of ten stars, and I only regret that I can’t give it more. “The Wizard of Oz” is one of the greatest of all pop culture icons, and will remain so for a long, long time.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Years ago I read a review of “Willy Wonka” that said it was the kind of movie that parents love to drag their kids to and then both of them, kids and parents, get bored. I highly doubt it. I’ve never met a soul who didn’t like this children’s fantasy, kid or adult. Since its release in 1971, it has become seamlessly institutionalized in society, now as famous as such films as “The Wizard of Oz.” It contains that element of warmth and adventure that was missing in 2005’s Tim Burton remake, and actually feels like there is a moral to it. Plus, there could not have been a more perfect actor to play the big man himself than the great Gene Wilder. “Wonka” is a textbook case of what being a true American classic entails.

The film is, of course, based on Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” book. “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” captures the spirit of Dahl’s children’s literature, which mixed typically bright and cheery flights of imaginative fantasy with unexpectedly dark and bizarre undertones. However, there were many places where this film strayed from the original storyline, the most memorable of which being the sort of 60s psychedelia scene in the scary tunnel and the rival candymaker who wanted to steal Wonka’s formulas. Another bonus to this picture is the famed musical side of it. Such numbers as the “Oompa Loompa Song” or “The Candy Man” are excellent and have spawned an endless number of references and spoofs.

“Wonka” is highly reminiscent of “The Wizard of Oz,” though it is not quite at Oz’s level. A child goes on a magical journey filled with laughter, adventure, fantasy and song and learns a valuable lesson along the way. In the film, these elements mesh perfectly to create the ideal family movie, the kind that brings that warm fuzzy feeling inside. There wasn’t even a semblance of that feeling in the remake. There was no clear moral to be derived from it. It was dark and unlovable and just created a nauseous feeling.

The best part of “Willy Wonka” is, well, Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder did a fantastic job portraying the complex character that is he, especially when compared to the anti-social freak with a severe case of arrested development that is Johnny Depp’s version of Wonka. Wilder’s bright blue eyes and wide smile give him the appearance of a pleasant and appealing adult; thus, when his eccentric qualities show through, it becomes much more shocking, and interesting.

“Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is a fabulous movie with a terrific blend of family film qualities and an amazing actor for Willy Wonka himself, both of which the remake sorely lacks. This is a classic worth owning, and it earns 9 out of 10 stars.

The Blind Side

Without doubt, “The Blind Side” is one of the best dramatic films of ‘09. It tells the real life story of Michael Oher, an oversized pro football player with a troubled childhood. The film focuses on his teenage years, when he gets adopted by an extremely munificent family and they help pave the way for a good college and a career in football. The cast, and especially the Oscar-winning Sandra Bullock, did an incredible job portraying the various characters. While this is based on a true story, it is obvious that lots of parts were left out of it. The entire yarn is so completely sugarcoated it gets pretty banal. But, if you let it, the movie does a very good job of warming the heart.

What really makes “Blind Side” worth its ticket price is its incredible cast. Sandra Bullock is one of Hollywood’s best actresses of all time, and it really shows when you watch her in her more emotional scenes of the film. She won an Oscar for her performance in “The Blind Side,” and she most definitely deserved it. But I won’t shortchange the rest of the cast. Quinton Aaron played Michael Oher, and he pulled off the character nicely. Tim McGraw was a strange, but apparently wise choice to play Bullock’s husband. Jae Head played Bullock’s son, S.J., and he is a very talented little actor. He made his debut in 2008’s “Hancock,” and he will almost certainly do well.

Having a good cast in a film is essential, but what really makes a movie first-rate is having a high-quality story to go with it. By all means, the story in “Blind Side” is top-notch, but it doesn’t seem quite accurate. As this is based on a true story, it would seem that there would be all kinds of real-life themes, and plenty of hardships to go around. This is not the case. I’m sure that there were plenty of events that the film just left out, because I don’t seem to remember the world being happy and perfect just 20-some years ago. All throughout the movie our characters run into problems, but they miraculously find their way out with ease, while simultaneously portraying all humans as wonderful and selfless creatures who love to help people. It’s a sugarcoated world, but if you’re not too cynical about it, you can still sit back and enjoy the great show that is “The Blind Side.”

There is no doubt that “The Blind Side” is one of the greatest movies of the year. All of the dramatis personae involved were very good actors. Especially Sandra Bullock, who completely stole the show. The story seemed unrealistic due to unnecessary sugarcoating of the real events, but it was still a deep, heartwarming ride. “Blind Side” is definitely worth seeing, and even buying. It deserves 9 out of 10 stars. It will restore your faith in humanity, however temporarily.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

There was really no good reason to remake “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” The 1971 version was just fine, thanks, and I think it’s best if we pretend this one doesn’t exist. Normally, I’d say Johnny Depp would be perfect for a role like Willy Wonka, but he gave the character a really weird personality that just didn’t fit the Roald Dahl or the Gene Wilder version at all. Also, the movie didn’t work in the logical sense. Of course, the whole basis for the movie is to create an unrealistic world, but it started to really annoy after awhile. The acting was also pretty bad in this film, with the exception of Charlie himself. “Charlie” fails on too many levels to be decent.

The part of this film that falls the shortest is the way the movie portrays Willy Wonka himself. Johnny Depp is usually the very best actor available for playing the weird and creepy, so I had high hopes for his depiction of the character in this film. But instead of making him a kind but intimidating candymaker trying to teach brats a lesson, they just turned him into an all out freak. In the original, Wonka seemed to walk around dreamily, appearing lost in his own, chocolaty world. Depp’s version is lost in some chocolaty planet. Which makes it all the weirder when famous director of the strange Tim Burton tried to humanize him by placing emphasis on reconnecting with his father. This Wonka doesn’t resemble the one from the original Roald Dahl book or the one from the 70s movie. It is monstrously wrong, and ruins almost the whole movie.

There were also some serious problems with the realisticness in “Charlie.” I was very irritated in this respect by the people in the movie. A little boy shrinks to the size of a bar of soap and his dad is hardly fazed. Young children are slowly picked off by an uncaring, psychotic man and the families continue with their tour of the factory, unconcerned. A flying glass elevator smashes through Charlie’s house and his family is not in the least upset. There seems to be a pattern developing here. All of this happens partially because of the weird way Burton made the movie, and also the terrible acting of the cast. The only good actor was little Charlie Bucket himself. “Charlie” is a substandard film in all aspects.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” had potential. It had the perfect director for the job, the perfect Wonka for the job, and it had been long enough to wait on the remake to get people interested to see it. But it ended up being terrible. Wonka was represented in an overly psychotic way, and the actors were terrible and never showed emotion when horrible things happened. “Charlie” is not worth seeing if you’ve seen the original, and it only deserves 4 out of 10 stars.

Clash of the Titans

Disappointment is the only word I would use to describe how I felt exiting the theater. “Clash of the Titans” suffers mainly from the same thing that brought down “Alice in Wonderland.” The 3D effects were awful simply because the movie was transformed into three-dimensional instead of being filmed that way. Also, I was extremely let down by the special effects. All of the best scenes for CG action were given away in the previews. The original story was messed with too much, and ended up not making much sense. This film had potential to show up the 80s original, but instead it totally botched it.

“Clash of the Titans” was originally filmed for 2D, but in post-production it was hastily converted to 3D. As such, the effects looked worse than those old View-Master toys we had as children. They actually dwarfed the visuals. Your eyes feel like they are being pulled out of your head because the visuals look like they have been stretched back into the screen instead of towards you. It is a very unpleasant experience, and not at all worth the extra cash.

In a movie such as “Clash of the Titans” it is absolutely necessary that the special effects be perfect. And they succeeded in that area. The effects were very, very good, all the way through. In the previews, we saw main character Perseus battling various evil creatures. And that was about all that happened in the movie. In other words, all of the good action scenes were spoiled in the previews, which took all of the fun out watching them. “Oh yeah, I remember that, I saw it in the trailer…” was all I was thinking throughout the two hour running time. You could get the gist of the entire movie without ever having to pay money to see it.

This film is, of course, a remake of the 1981 “Clash of the Titans.” In the original, the hero Perseus killed monsters and traveled to the Underworld all to save his one true love from Hades’s wrath. In this version, he does all these things because he’s ticked off at Hades for killing his family and because he has daddy issues with Zeus. Not only is this identical to the storyline of February’s “Lightning Thief,” but it also totally changes the essence of the film, in a bad way. At least in the original, Perseus had a good reason for risking his life over and over again for the girl. In this film, it just doesn’t add up.

Overall, “Clash of the Titans” was just a bad remake of the original film. It’s best special effects were all shown in the theatrical trailer, and they were worsened by cheap, headache-inducing 3D effects. The story was screwed around with, and the end result was terrible. This film isn’t worth seeing in theaters, and especially not in 3D. It gets 4 out of 10 stars. You’ll get what you want in the original.

Where the Wild Things Are

“Where the Wild Things Are” is a deep, heartfelt movie that will make your inner child run wild. The film was surprisingly dark in some areas, and it is certainly not a movie for little children. The Wild Things themselves were very childish, and each one represented a piece of Max’s (Max Records) self. Like the storybook, there wasn’t much of a plot, but the voiceovers were beautifully executed and a new, talented child actor has been unearthed. This is nothing like we’ve ever seen.

The film is actually more centered for adults than kids, despite being a children’s tale. It deals with themes that are too deep for young children to fathom. Children may blindly enjoy what they see, but they won’t understand it. For adults, particularly adults who read the Maurice Sendak book, it will stimulate a feeling of nostalgia, and will be more appreciated for its meaningful, albeit dark, message.

The highlight of the film, of course, was the Wild Things themselves. The creators of these creatures, which incidentally was Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, integrated furry suits and CGI flawlessly, making them look very convincing, and just like the creatures from the book. What the book didn’t have, though, was any personalities of the Wild Things. This film, however, gives them each a defining personality trait of Max himself. Lead Thing Carol is Max’s creative passion, the unintentional fuel for his violent, pre-adolescent tantrums. As such, he’s closest to Max, but during the film’s darker scenes, also the monster who presents the greatest physical hazard: the rage that threatens to consume him. KW, of course, is Max’s love for his mother and sister, the people who, given his absent father, make his world, and who he fears will abandon him. Judith is his spitefulness, Ira is his calm side, Alexander is his insecurity, Douglas is his reason, and the unnamed bull is his sadness. Again, not a theme that could be easily understood by young children.

Like the storybook, there was little to nothing of a plot. Basically, Max got angry and ran away to the land of the Wild Things, and a wild rumpus ensues for the remainder of the film. Thankfully, a detailed plot is not really needed for the visionary movie that is “Where the Wild Things Are.” All of the actors in the film were great, including a new child actor from Portland, Oregon who happens to be very talented. Undoubtedly his success as the lead role here will spawn plenty of film opportunities for him elsewhere.

With great acting, meaningful ideas, and a surprisingly dark and adult attitude, “Wild Things” is a very novel movie for certain. The entire show is wistful fun for adults and mindless fun for children. It deserves 10 out of 10 stars, and it is worth the theater experience.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

“The Lightning Thief” has been compared to “Harry Potter” in several newspaper reviews. One even told Harry Potter to move over, because a fantastic new fantasy series was moving in. Well, the “Harry Potter” franchise has got nothing to worry about. “Lightning Thief,” to put it bluntly, was perfect. That is, perfectly awful. The movie made no sense at all, everything happened too quickly, and the main characters were terrible actors. It wasn’t faithful to the book in any aspect, and they left out too many important pieces of information to make a sequel. But we’ll see another one anyway, come 2012. “Lightning Thief” brings nothing new to the fantasy genre, and it puts the best-selling books to shame.

Only eight year-olds and younger could really appreciate this film, and even they couldn’t if they’d ever read Rick Riordan’s best-selling “Percy Jackson” books. The director, Chris Columbus, made the movie as though he’d just read a summary of the book on cliffsnotes.com. There wasn’t a single action sequence or plot device that didn’t in some way contradict the way it was written in the novel. They took out almost all of the good scenes from the book and stuck in exceedingly stupid ones that didn’t need to be there. The way the film progressed through the mess of a story was totally chaotic, and left its audiences with tons of questions that were never resolved in the end.

I still question the filmmakers’ casting choices. Logan Lerman was cast to play Percy Jackson. This would be okay under any other circumstances, but the problem is that he did a god-awful (no pun intended) acting job! When he discovers that his mother is dead, he just stands there with kind of an awkward smile on his face. As for Ron and Hermione -oops, I mean Grover and Annabeth- they were a little better, but not by much. At least the satyr provided plenty of comic relief. As for Pierce Brosnan and Uma Thurman, they played their parts well. But the other cameos were wasted on roles that allowed absolutely none of their acting talent to seep through. As for the inevitable sequel, I have just one thing to say. “Boycott.”

“The Lightning Thief” was definitely the worst movie of ‘09. It messed with the story so much that the book’s version and the film’s version didn’t seem to have any relation at all. Also, the main actors in the film were terrible. They rarely showed emotion of any kind, and when they did, it was just expressions of confusion. Overall, this movie is just pure Hollywood trash, and is not worth seeing at all. It only deserves 1 out of 10 stars.