‘300: Rise of An Empire’, the sequel to 2007’s smash hit
‘300’, hits theaters this weekend. However, instead of doing a full review of
the previous film, I decided to do something a little different. Instead, I
decided to do a retrospective of the films of its director, Zack Snyder. Snyder
may not be directing this new ‘300’ but is still very much involved with the
project, serving as both a producer and co-writer. Snyder’s come a long way
since the original ‘300’, which at the time was only his second film. Now, he’s
right in the middle of the developing DC Comics Cinematic Universe after
getting it started last year with ‘Man of Steel’. His directorial filmography
is rather small (only 6 films to date that have currently been released) but these
films cover a fairly wide variety of genres, from horror films to superhero
films. Those are the films we’ll be looking at today. However, I’ll saving one
of the films for a full review that will be coming out in the next few days.
Why? Well, because I have a bit of a history with this film as I once called it
the ‘Worst’ film of its year. I didn’t want to watch it again, but I’m willing
to do it just for you guys.
DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)
For what was Zack Snyder’s first film, it was one that could
have possibly ended his career right then and there. Why? Well, that’s because
his first film was a remake of one of the most famous horror films of all time,
George Romero’s 1978 classic ‘Dawn of the Dead’. As we all know, remakes are usually
frowned upon, especially if they are remakes of classic horror films. But in
the case of Snyder’s ‘Dawn of the Dead’, it turned out to be one of the better
horror remakes to have ever come out, especially in recent years. Now first let
me start by saying that I haven’t seen the original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ so I’m
unable to compare it to the original, something I don’t really like to do
anyway when talking about remakes unless it’s really necessary. As far as I can
tell, it retains the same general plot of the original (a group of survivors
hiding in a mall during a zombie outbreak) but Snyder manages to do enough to
make it its own film, like by having fast zombies instead of slow ones. In the
end, I’m sure that the original is still the better film as admittedly this one
does drags at times and there are a few too many characters to follow. Still, Snyder
manages to give us a horror film that is entertaining and sometimes even very
suspenseful. Simply put, it’s one of the few good horror remakes.
Rating: 3.5/5
300 (2007)
While ‘Dawn of the Dead’ received some pretty good reviews,
it was really ‘300’ that made Snyder as famous as he is now and why not? ‘300’
is, to put it bluntly, just awesome. It’s a visually stunning and downright fun
popcorn flick, and one that’s also pretty dang quotable. I mean come on, who
hasn’t at least once yelled ‘THIS… IS… SPARTA!!!’ (It’s such a memorable
moment). Yes, the movie can sometimes be a bit cheesy as a lot of dialogue
consists of the characters just yelling everything (that aforementioned
‘SPARTA’ included). It’s also clear that, while this is technically based on a
‘true event’, this film isn’t exactly historically accurate. After all, this is
primarily based off of the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller and
while I haven’t read it (which is actually a pattern I’m starting to notice in
regards to Snyder’s films), it feels Snyder kept the film as faithful to the
graphic novel as he possibly could. Also, while the movie is admittedly a case
of ‘style over substance’, that’s not to say that it’s completely empty-minded.
There are still some pretty strong themes here and there, like honor and the
will to stand up for your people against all odds, which was the exact
situation King Leonidas and his men faced when they went up against the much
larger Persian army. ‘300’ is epic and awesome and we wouldn’t take it any
other way.
Rating: 4/5
WATCHMEN (2009)
(Note: The following
review is for the ‘Director’s Cut’ of the film. I had seen the film before on
TV and if I’m right, I was watching the theatrical cut. However, my friend Matt
recommended that I watch the Director’s Cut, which he feels is the superior
version… so here we go.)
After the massive success of ‘300’, Snyder moved on to
another graphic novel adaptation, though I think it’s safe to say that this one
was clearly more notable than Frank Miller’s story… Alan Moore’s ‘Watchmen’,
regarded by many as the greatest graphic novel of all-time; film adaptations
were attempted before by directors like Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass, and
Darren Aronofsky, but many deemed the story to be ‘unfilmable’. Lo and Behold,
it was Snyder who finally solved the problem with his take on the story. Now,
for the record… I have not read the graphic novel… I know, trust me, I’ll get
onto that. But as for the film itself, ‘Watchmen’ is one damn good movie. Like
‘300’ it’s visually beautiful and incredibly entertaining. However, unlike
‘300’, this one benefits from far better writing, case in point being the
graphic novel itself.
For someone who is rather unfamiliar with the source
material it’s a quite fascinating story of superheroes where only one of them
actually has superpowers while the others are more like vigilantes… and they
don’t always do the ‘right things’. For example, you have a character named
‘The Comedian’ (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who is perhaps the biggest
standout of the film even though most of his scenes are just flashbacks as his
character is killed at the beginning of the film) who is pretty darn unsympathetic
and yet that’s mainly because he is someone who had basically become
disillusioned with the ideas of life and the American Dream. It isn’t until the
end of his life when he finally expresses remorse for what he’s done; and
that’s just one of a whole group of interesting characters. Is it completely
faithful to the graphic novel? Not really, but Snyder did his best to make this
story work on film and some of the liberties that he took with it (like showing
the death of the Comedian or not using the ‘alien invasion’ at the end of the
film) actually do work out for the better. I agree with my friend Matt in that
the ‘Director’s Cut’ is the superior version of the film as the scenes that
were added into this version help the movie as a whole flow much better. The
theatrical cut is still a pretty good movie, but this is the version that I
mainly recommend.
Rating (Director’s
Cut): 4.5/5
LEGEND OF THE GUARDIANS: THE OWLS OF GA’HOOLE (2010)
Next up we have ‘Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of
Ga’Hoole’, based off of the ‘Guardians of Ga’Hoole’ book series by author
Kathryn Lasky. I do remember reading these books when I was younger, although I
don’t recall actually finishing any of them. But anyway, our focus is one the
film adaptation which, from what I can tell, covers the plot of the first three
books in the series (‘The Capture’, ‘The Journey’, and ‘The Rescue’). I have to
say that I was surprised when I first heard that Snyder was directing this
film, primarily because this was after he had come off of two R-rated films in
‘300’ and ‘Watchmen’, films that certainly garnered that high rating. To date,
this is the only film he has made that has been given a rating lower than
‘PG-13’, and it’s an animated movie at that… this animated film is also one of
the most underrated films of its genre. It features some incredibly beautiful
animation, especially during the flight scenes. Snyder’s trademark slow-motion
style is perfect for this kind of film. This aspect of his filmmaking has never
really bothered me, except when it’s overused (see next film for proof of that).
But in the case of this film, it really works and, well, is also rather
necessary seeing how it would be kind of hard to tell what was going on without
the use of slow-motion during the owl fight scenes. The story may be just a BIT
standard, but the animation is outstanding and this film also boasts an
impressive voice cast, including the likes of Helen Mirren, Joel Edgerton, Hugo
Weaving, and Geoffrey Rush. Bottom line, this is one animated film that I feel
has gotten overlooked. It is really worth checking out.
Rating: 4/5
SUCKER PUNCH (2011)
...Full Review Coming
Soon…
MAN OF STEEL (2013)
Originally, I actually wasn’t going to cover this film in this
retrospective because I already had just a few weeks ago when I did my ‘Top 12
Films of the Year’ posts and I didn’t want to repeat myself too much. But, upon
request, I decided to include it after all. The following is basically serving
as a quick sum-up of what I’ve said before.
‘Man of Steel’, probably the most polarizing film of 2013.
People either loved it or hated it and after two viewings, I found myself
firmly fitting into the former group. This was a fresh new take on the
character of Superman and his lore; one that was pretty much the first film to
treat him more than just an icon. That’s nothing against the Christopher Reeve
films or the character of Superman as a whole. But let’s be honest, a character
that is pretty much invincible can get a little boring after a while. That is
why I really liked how this film did an excellent job of showing Clark Kent’s
struggles trying to fit in on Earth even though he’s from another world. Henry
Cavill, while not given much to say in the role of Superman, is fantastic and
the first actor that can really stand toe to toe with Reeve’s iconic turn in
the role as far as performances are concerned. The whole cast is terrific from
Superman’s two fathers (Jonathan Kent (played by Kevin Costner) and Jor-El (played
by Russell Crowe)) to Michael Shannon as General Zod. While Terrence Stamp’s
Zod from ‘Superman II’ is still the most memorable interpretation of the
character, Shannon’s Zod is far-better written as a ‘misguided villain’ who
thinks he’s doing what is right when it really isn’t.
As for the ‘collateral damage’ that has perhaps been the
most controversial aspect of this film, I’m not too bothered by it. I mean yes,
the city of Metropolis pretty much gets annihilated during the finale and most
of the damage does come from Superman flying around and fighting Zod and his
soldiers. But at the same time, you don’t see someone actually dying as a
result of Superman. It’s Zod who’s responsible for most of the ‘death and
destruction’ that occurs during those scenes. At the same time though, maybe
the sequel will do something that can address this, maybe through the
introduction of this universe’s Lex Luthor (to be played by Jesse Eisenberg). I
can definitely see Lex using this event as part of his plan to get rid of
Superman. Then we come to that controversial neck-snapping committed by
Superman against Zod… again, I’m not bothered by it because while I am aware
that in the comics Superman does not kill, this scene can serve as the catalyst
that results in him never doing that again… and for the record you do see him
show remorse for doing it afterwards.
So, in the end, I realize this new Superman is not for everyone
and I understand. It was a new take on the character and I can see how some of
the things in this movie might turn some people off. But at the same time, you
do have to appreciate that the filmmakers did do something new instead of
retreading familiar territory (looking at you, ‘Superman Returns’). That is why
I view ‘Man of Steel’ as one of the best superhero films of 2013 alongside ‘Iron
Man 3’. At the same time though, I’m kind of worried about the route they’re
currently taking with the sequel which, until an official title is confirmed, I’m
referring to as ‘Batman vs. Superman Featuring Wonder Woman and whoever else
they want to add into it’.
Rating: 4.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment