SUPERMAN Review

Neither the character nor the symbol that is Superman (or Clark Kent, for that matter) has ever been considered cool, or edgy, or frankly all that interesting. Often referred to as the oldest living Boy Scout, Clark Kent and his alter ego have always meant to crystallize what was pure about humanity as imbued by those on the outside looking in. So, in a world where everyone is believed to have ulterior motives and no one’s intentions come purely from the goodness of their own heart where, and how, does Superman fit in? This seems to be the angle with which writer/director James Gunn - a man mostly known for telling saccharine stories about scumbags - has approached his Man of Steel movie for, while this is the first piece of Gunn’s larger, brand new DC cinematic universe, it is just as importantly a justification for why the character of Superman matters just as much as the Superman character does in today’s divided climate. Gunn didn’t seem a natural fit for a story anchored by a hero whose facets are limited if not a little one-dimensional but when viewed through the prism of questioning said character - and I mean Superman’s sincere mission of serving humanity in order to make the world a better place, just to be clear - when that character is called into question by those who once believed in him but have been turned mercilessly against him by the billionaires that control the narrative, the story automatically turns from one about fighting for truth, justice, and the American way to one asking and hopefully challenging audiences to investigate what those terms mean based on the source that is spouting them. 

It is no secret Gunn knows a thing or two about having ones past dug up in order to smear their name and reputation as Superman is subjected to very much the same treatment here. It is also no secret the current President and Lex Luthor would rather make detractors disappear than actually allow for said truth, justice, and the American way to be upheld, but it is somewhat surprising how overt this text is in the film and how it sustains itself throughout. A throughline involving Dinesh Thyagarajan’s Malik “Mali” Ali is the most visceral and brutal part of the film that now resonates in more ways than Gunn likely even intended when he initially wrote it. Is it a little funny for Gunn to equate his experiences to something on the scale Superman might experience? Sure, but in taking this approach to the character the writer/director finds his way to a hero who is both consistent with what the movies of the past have presented (I was just the right age to prefer Batman to Supes) while making the character, if not necessarily punk rock, at least a little more cool and edgy than we’re accustomed to. Further, Superman’s frustrations here fit the more modern aesthetic and world of the story as opposed to the retro ideals of Americana that seemed of the past even in the 1978 original. Superman, and Gunn’s version (and movie) specifically, still amounts to the belief that if we’re all a little kinder to one another the world will be a better place, but David Corenswet’s portrayal never for one moment makes us think we should mistake his kindness for softness; he is very much determined to do what it takes to keep basic human decency intact regardless of fabricated policies and political decorum.

VACATION Review

It was something of a surprise this new sequel in the Vacation series that also intends to serve as something of a reboot or re-make, but isn't really, included the line from the trailer about how this Vacation will indeed stand on it's own. It seemed a piece of dialogue specifically designed for the marketing campaign so as to let audiences know the movie itself was aware of what it represented and the pressures it might face in convincing audiences it was worthy of the challenge. This line, when given in the trailer, almost made the film more endearing (hey, it knows it has a lot of work to do), but the fact they included it in the final product gave an entirely different impression-one of desperation even. Maybe desperation is the wrong word, maybe a lack of confidence is a better way to put it. The statement itself wants to impose a sense of confidence though, a bold statement of this particular film being it's own thing and being successful on it's own terms whether there was an original or not. Of course, if this were a world where the original Vacation didn't exist we would have (a slightly altered) We're the Millers and that would be it. Instead, as brand recognition and nostalgia are at an all time high thanks to social media and our heightened sense of self-awareness it would be wrong to not try and capitalize on every big brand of generations past. And thus, we have what is essentially a remake (but it's a sequel!) of/to the original film where Stu from the Hangover movies plays a grown-up Rusty with call backs aplenty just in case you didn't get that this was in the same timeline as the 1983 film, but that it's still supposed to stand on it's own. These call-backs are of course intended to make audiences familiar with the 1983 version recognize the correlation and laugh while those who aren't will hopefully just laugh because...the comedy is timeless? All of these particulars don't really matter though as this is little more than a ninety-minute comedy intended to make audiences chuckle. When taken on such simple terms, it does it's job well enough. My qualm is why couldn't we do something with these actors/directors/writers that maybe didn't rely on tapping into nostalgia? If we keep re-making and re-visiting old properties what are future generations going to reboot or re-make? Or even worse, be able to call their own?

First Red-Band Trailer for VACATION Reboot

It's hard for me to admit, but I haven't seen any of the Chevy Chase Vacation films sans Christmas Vacation as the in-laws enjoy watching that every couple of years or so when Christmas in fact rolls around. I've seen bits and pieces of the original as well as parts of Vegas Vacation on TBS or TNT at some point in the past, but never have I sat down with the intention of watching any of these straight through. That looks as if it will change this year as Warner Bros. has decided to not necessarily reboot or re-make what you would typically label as a sequel, but kind of is, as it continues the story of the Griswolds, but more by treating us to the next generation of the family that started it all. Given I don't have as much of a history with this series I likely don't get some of the references or jokes that play in this trailer, but as it states outright this is a Vacation that will stand on its own and I can only hope it proves itself right. Ed Helms is playing the grown-up Rusty Griswold who is intent on picking his family up out of its current slump by recreating his childhood vacation to Walley World. Christina Applegate is playing his wife with Leslie Mann filling the role of sister Audrey. Both Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen for what I assume are glorified cameos while Horrible Bosses and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 scribes John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein take on their first directing gig. Vacation also stars Chris Hemsworth, Steele Stebbins, Skyler Gisondo, Nick Kroll, Charlie Day, Kaitlin Olson, Regina Hall, Keegan-Michael Key and opens on July 31st.

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: SECRET OF THE TOMB Review

I'm a big Frat Pack fan and always have been. The juice has long since run out on their heyday and I can admit that, but even still it is nice to see a few of them get back together every now and then even if it's for another installment of Ben Stiller's big family franchise. These films are harmless and if they're good for anything it's the excuse to see Stiller and Owen Wilson on screen together again. As much as I'd love for the likes of fellow Frat Packers to show up in this kind of movie, playing different historical figures that might place Paul Rudd as Lancelot, Will Ferrell as one of the ancient Greek statues, Jack Black as one of Attila's huns, Steve Carell and Vince Vaughn as a few of the neanderthal's while Luke Wilson would be the easiest of the bunch by adding in another cowboy to help Jedediah and Octavius (Steve Coogan), I know it will never happen, not at this point. No, at this point it would only feel like a last resort of types as even Stiller returning to this franchise five years after Battle of the Smithsonian feels a little desperate in the sense he needed something guaranteed. I can remember walking into the original (at the age of nineteen) with a sense of excitement still, not only for why Stiller might have chosen this obvious family entertainment as his next project, but for the inherently interesting premise that came along with it. It was a film fine for what it was with a fair amount to offer in return. It was obvious from the beginning what it was positioned to be and it achieved those goals, clearly, as now eight years later we are talking about the third film. Still, with this third and presumably final chapter in the story you can feel the sense of obligation to it all. There isn't a natural energy to it, but more a forced sense of fun in that it was a rush job to capitalize on the holiday season and the fact if another year went by it really would be too late to make another one. You can feel the strain of time on Stiller in particular as he can't seem to commit enough again for us to not see through his trying facade. It's not so much that it feels like movies such as this have lost there wonder, but of course the fact I have lost my wonder for movies such as this. My only hope when I see a film such as Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb is that it reinstills the wonder I found as a child in these make-believe adventures, but that wonder was in limited supply here.