I’ve gone on record saying that I’m more of a Marvel fan than DC. I’m not saying anything bad against DC. It’s just that Marvel’s had a better track record as far as their filmography is concerned. Also, I’m rather worried that DC might be rushing towards a ‘Justice League’ movie without properly developing it first. But DC fans rejoice because this year, for the first time since 2008, you finally have the best superhero film of the year… though 50% of you will no doubt disagree with me.
9. MAN OF STEEL
AKA the most polarizing film of the year; people either loved or hated this movie. There was no middle ground when it came to this one… and as far as me and my friend Matt was concerned, we’re on the side of those who loved it. He even calls it the best superhero film since ‘Spider-Man 2’. While I don’t necessarily think that this is the best of the genre, there are still many reasons as to why I think this is a terrific superhero film. The first, and most important, is that perhaps for the first time ever in these, ‘Superman’ is portrayed as more than just an icon. Don’t get me wrong, ‘Superman’ is an iconic superhero and Christopher Reeve was fantastic in the original ‘Superman’ movies (even the crappy ones). But let’s be honest, he’s not the most ‘interesting’ superhero out there. We’re talking about a character that’s pretty much invincible whose only weakness is the substance known as Kryptonite (and even that is kind of lame because it makes Superman too weak to do anything… thankfully it wasn’t even in this movie). That can get rather boring after a while when nothing can stop him. So I’m relieved that this film was the first where Superman was given real proper character development.
His struggles living amongst us on Earth actually make him pretty relatable, even though he is an alien from another world. He’s a fish out of water, and we see how he grows into the hero that we all know and love. Many have argued which of Superman’s two identities are his true ‘mask’; Superman or Clark Kent. As this movie shows, I believe that they are one in the same. Superman is a character with incredible abilities and that makes him a hero in the eyes of humanity but at the same time, he was born and raised in the town of Smallville and as such, grew up with the middle-American values that came from him being the son of Jonathan and Martha Kent. Let’s look at that controversial moment after Clark saves his classmates when their bus crashes into a lake. When Jonathan tells him that he has to hide his powers, Clark asks him what he was ‘supposed to do’… just let them die? Jonathan replies with a simple, ‘Maybe…’, but that doesn’t mean that he was saying that Clark should have just let them die; he’s just worried about how the world will react when they find out about his son’s powers. The same scenario applies to the scene where he dies in a tornado. I don’t see that scene as a pointless self-sacrifice. Again, he was worried about Clark’s secret getting out so he made sure that Clark did not try and save him, even though he obviously could. As such, this is one of the most emotional moments in any film this year and in fact I’d say this death was better handled here than in the original Superman movie.
Speaking of death, let’s talk about what is probably the most controversial aspect of the film; the apparent ‘collateral damage’ that Superman causes during his fight with General Zod and his army of Kryptonians. There’s no denying it, Metropolis gets annihilated during the final battle; there’s plenty of property damage and a lot of people probably died as a result of it. But here’s the thing… did anyone actually die as a result of Superman flying around and fighting Zod and his army? If there was, then I didn’t see it. Maybe some did, but thankfully the filmmakers didn’t show it. Most of the death and destruction was caused by Zod, not Superman. How about the just as controversial scene where Superman defeats Zod by snapping his neck and killing him? Yes, I’m aware that Superman is a character that doesn’t kill. With that said, this scene can hopefully establish that in future movies and let’s face it Superman didn’t really have any other choice. Zod was about to kill some innocent civilians and even if Superman tried to stop him, he would probably keep trying to do it. And you know, in the last ‘Superman’ film to star Zod, Superman did kind of kill him in that one too. Just saying…
In the lead role of Superman, Henry Cavill is excellent; he doesn’t say much but he is still very charming and likable. As Lois Lane, Amy Adams has great chemistry with Cavill and I did like that, in this continuity, Lois actually figures out that Clark is Superman… and thank god they didn’t use the ‘mind erasing kiss’ plot point from the theatrical cut of ‘Superman II’. Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner are both fantastic as Superman’s two fathers, Jor El and Pa Kent, respectively. They both influence Superman’s actions throughout the course of the film, and in the case of Jonathan, no it’s not letting people die as I already established. The bottom line here is that this is a new take on the character of Superman and regardless of your opinion on the film; you can’t fault the filmmakers for trying something different. I’ll admit that I was rather hesitant about this film going in, if mainly because of director Zack Snyder’s previous film and my pick for the worst film of 2011, ‘Sucker Punch’. In that sense, let me just say that, Mr. Snyder, you proved me wrong.
Number 8 is the next entry in a series that, coincidentally, held this exact same spot in last year’s list. It’s at this spot again this year, though this entry is actually vastly superior to its predecessor.
8. THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE
I really did like the first ‘Hunger Games’ movie, even with some of its flaws. That is because, after a horrendous series known as ‘Twilight’, this series that was also based off of a popular young adult book series had far better writing and a superior female lead in Katniss Everdeen. Still, the first film did have the whole thing about the shaky camera work during the actual Hunger Games. I didn’t really mind it that much, but there’s no denying that it was present. ‘Catching Fire’ on the other hand is a vastly superior movie and it’s interesting to note that, from what I’ve heard, this is sort of the least favorite book in the series for most people and yet, depending on how Parts 1 and 2 of ‘Mockingjay’ turn out, this might end up being the best in the whole film series. For one thing, you’ll be pleased to hear that the shaky cam and fast editing is no longer a problem here. I guess you can attribute that to the fact that in this film, the other competitors in this film’s Hunger Games are all adults so it’s not as brutal compared to them being kids in the first film.
But aside from that, this film really manages to explore the universe much more. It’s probably because the filmmakers had a better budget this time around, but regardless you get a greater sense of the turmoil amongst the districts of Panem. That idea of ‘expansion’ also extends to the character development, particularly the relationship between Katniss and Peeta. I love that the writers did remember to add in that plot point about how Katniss played up their relationship in the last movie to the audience, something that the last film did not include at all. Jennifer Lawrence is once again outstanding as Katniss, and Josh Hutcherson really shines this time around as Peeta. Of course, the rest of the cast is excellent as well, from the returning players (Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, etc…) to the new additions (Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, etc…). Many consider ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ to be the film that really got the Harry Potter franchise to where it is today and in that regard, ‘Catching Fire’ is the Hunger Games’ ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’. Nothing against Gary Ross and what he did in the first movie, but Francis Lawrence ended up making the superior film.
Number 7 is easily the most underrated movie of the year. It did get good reviews but it wasn’t really a big hit at the box office.
7. RUSH
Now at first glance from a box-office perspective, ‘Rush’ may not initially seem like a box-office flop. It earned $90 million worldwide, surpassing its $38 million budget. But take away exactly 70.1% of that gross and you’ll see that, here in America, it only grossed about $26 million. I’m guessing the main reason why this film didn’t do so well here in the states is similar to why 2011’s ‘Warrior’ didn’t do so well. I’m pretty sure that Formula One Racing is not exactly the most popular sport here. But there’s more that this movie has in comparison to ‘Warrior’ besides the fact that it wasn’t a bit hit stateside. ‘Rush’ is the story of the rivalry between F1 racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda during the 1976 season, a season where they both experienced their own personal highs and lows and yet neither is portrayed as the bad guy. They’re both very compelling people and you root for both of them at the same time. Not only that, but they are both totally different people. Hunt is the playboy with something to prove while Lauda is the calculating precisionist whose life is put on the line after a near-fatal accident at the German Grand Prix. Not only are these two characters very compelling to watch, but Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl are both outstanding in the roles. I’ll admit that I’m not a big fan of director Ron Howard’s work (‘The Grinch’ is a Christmas classic and ‘Apollo 13’ is terrific, but ‘The Dilemma’? Ugh.), but this easily one of his best films to date and one that is highly underrated as far as its box-office performance in North America is concerned.
Check back tomorrow for Part 3, for Numbers 6-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment