I've read a lot of places that James Cameron spent the better part of a decade waiting for the technology to catch up to what he wanted to do in "Avatar." Looking back, I wish he'd spent a bit more time working on the script and not having it be a retread of "Dances With Wolves."

Cameron has created a movie that is visually stunning but lacks any depth when it comes to story or characters. Every plot point is clearly telegraphed well in advance and the characters rarely grow beyond their original character description. Within five minutes of meeting everyone, I knew pretty much how their story would work out and be resolved before the final frame unfolded. It's a shame really that a movie that looks this good can be so empty. It's the Lays potato chips of movies.

I've also read a lot about how some audience members have returned to the movie multiple times because the world of Pandora is so immersive and they want to feel like they're a part of the culture created there. Looking beyond the environmental message that Cameron beats you over the head with like a two-by-four, I was reminded a lot of my recent experience watching "The Invention of Lying. Both movies, on some level, deal with the question of how human beings find a greater meaning and order to the universe and their lives beyond just themselves. Where "Lying" was a satire and offered up the viewpoint that religion is based on a lie, "Avatar" seems to say that we find meaning from how we're connected to the world and each other. On Pandora, all things are connected and can interconnect, which is a fascinating concept if one that isn't necessarily all that well explored or thought out.

But we do see some moments where the natives do have their own types of religious expression, related mostly to the natural environment of their world, and how that has a greater meaning for them. They worship and find meaning from a mother earth figure, which plays into the final act of the film and serves more as a deus ex machina than offering anything substantive to say about Pandora, the characters or the story.

The movie has some opportunities that it really fails to explore, including the fact that in the real world, Jake is paralyzed but in his avatar body he's able to use all his limbs.

There are some interesting ideas that could or should have been explored in a better script and story. Unfortunately, "Avatar" ends up being all style with little substance.

And I'd say that, quite frankly, if you were looking for a better genre film to put up for best picture, "Star Trek" was far more deserving...

Labels: movies

|
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Star Trek" (2009)
For years, we've wondered what a big-screen, big-budget version of "Star Trek" would look like. With the latest installment in the long-running franchise, we can now say the answer is, "spectacular."

Of course, if you want to see a visually stunning piece of film-making that doesn't quite capture exactly what it means to be "Star Trek," you don't have to look any further than 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

I have to admit that going into this new "Trek" film, I was worried that style would win over substance. I also have to admit I was worried that any attempt to show us the first meeting of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of the classic crew would just annoy the continuity purist deep within me and diminish my opportunity to enjoy the film.

Yes, other franchises have had reboots and I've enjoyed them. But I didn't have as big an emotional investment in James Bond or Batman as I do "Star Trek."

Thankfully, the central conceit of the movie--a time travel storyline that effectively reboots most of the "Trek" universe ("Enterprise" is probably the only television franchise not rebooted and it does get a small shout-out here)--says, "Yes, we know there's this long, rich history, but we're starting over with a clean slate, so don't worry about it." And, for the most , it works, though I do have a few niggling, nitpicky details that the script ignores or overlooks (two big ones--Kirk's older brother George isn't mentioned and the fact that everyone in Starfleet has a detailed knowledge of the Romulans when the original series established that the Romulans were an extremely secretive group of people in the aftermath of the Romulan War...but that's my inner "Trek" geek coming out....)

In a lot of ways, rebooting the franchise may be the best thing to happen to it in a long time. Also, having the movie come out as the single entry from the "Trek" universe also helps. I say this becuase it allows the film to take some chances and not have to worry about how a series on television will deal with the after-effects. Also, by saying "hey, we're starting over again," you can make some changes, such as the destruction of Vulcan or the death of Spock's mother, and have them stand without having to find the "Trek" reset button. I really think the big winner in this reboot is the Pocket Books franchise for the sheer number of new novels mining some of the things brought up here that I'm sure will hit the market in the near future.

As for the movie itself, it's good. It borders on great and it's spectacularily fun entertainment. The story arc of watching Captain James T. Kirk come of age and find his place in the universe is nicely done . The parallels of Kirk and Spock work because that dynamic drove a lot of the better episodes of the original series. And for those of you who might say you don't buy the two being in conflict as we see through a great deal of the film, I point you to "Where No Man Has Gone Before." In many ways, this film is like that episode, showing us the early stages of the friendship to come.

The big question on many "Trek" fans will be--is it as good as "Wrath of Khan?" No, but then again, there's little that (to me) is as good as "Wrath of Khan." Part of that is that "Khan" is a love letter to the Trek fans. It also works because it offers us the best big-screen representation of the classic series characters. For this new "Trek" we're rebooting and while we have all of our old assumptions about the characters in place, they're still new and growing and developing.

For the most part, everyone in the film is well cast. My concern about recasting the crew (because who can play the roles again in quite the same way?!?) proved to be a bit more baseless than I'd assumed, though I still miss Shatner as Kirk. I do think Chris Pine captures the essentail swagger that is Kirk and the moment when Kirk takes command of the Enteprise is a great one. The way it works and the confidence you feel that, finally, Captain Kirk is where he needs to be and Nero would be better served to turn tail and run becuase his plan is about to fail spectacularily is one of the better in the movie. And, the film does have a large scheme in which Captain Kirk and company do get to save the Federation and the universe.

And, just like "Batman Begins," the movie comes to a point where it ends, but leaves you wanting more. As I walked out, I was ready to see the next installment and see what the series has in mind next. I think the next film could be better because it won't have to do the heavy lifting of introducting everyone to the audience and will be able to get in there, show the characters interacting and tell a great story. I'm hoping the next installment will be for "Trek" what "Dark Knight" was to "Batman Begins..."

Labels: movies, Star Trek

posted by Michael Hickerson at 5/10/2009 06:09:00 AM | |
Saturday, July 26, 2008
X-Files: I Want To Believe
When I heard the news that Mulder and Scully would be returning to the big-screen, I was filled both excitement and trepidation.

Excitement because when the X-Files was on its game, it was one of the best shows ever made. And trepidation because, well, seasons eight and nine. Or as I call it--when Chris Carter got way too convinced he was some kind of genius.

So, a new X-Files movie. It could have been great, it could have been not so great.

Having seen it, I have to say it's firmly in the middle.

It's not great, but it's not terrible. It's a throwback to the old monster of the week stories with very few references to the overall mythology of the show. Long-time, hard core fans will catch a few Easter egg references to some of the best episodes and if you're really eagle-eyed, you catch the Chris Carter habit of throwing in names of friends and family in the background. I caught at least two (the name of a store owner and the names in Mulder's cell phone). But I am willing to be there are more.

Six years have past since Mulder and Scully went on the run to end the series. Mulder is still a recluse and Scully works at Catholic hospital. Her biggest case is a boy with an incurable disease--well, except for a radical treatment involving stem cells. Mulder lives out in the woods and....well, it seems he spends all day clipping out articles from the paper about strange cases. The FBI has a case, involving a possible psychic former priest who is leading agents to parts of bodies and has a connection to a case of a missing agent. The FBI needs Mulder and decides to forgive and forget if he'll help them. Scully convinces him and soon Mulder is back on the case, dragging a reluctant Scully with him.

The story is about faith, which went along with some of the themes of the series. Mulder had absolute faith in the unexplained and Scully had her own Christian faith that developed over the series run. The movie starts with a lot of unanswered questions about how these two have had their faith shattered and are looking for something to believe in. Pretty soon the old dynamic develops where Mulder believes, but Scully doesn't.

The biggest problem with the movie is that Mulder and Scully are kept apart too much. Scully has clearly moved on while Mulder hasn't. This is supposed to provide some conflict and it does to an extent. But the best scenes are when David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are together, playing off each other. When they're not together, the movie doesn't quite work as well and when the two are in conflict, it feels like they're trying to keep them apart for dramatic purposes and not for a really organic reason. (As in organically dictated by the unfolding storyline).

Eventually, the plot threads all converge and we get an interesting finale and a promise for more, should the box-office results warrant it.

But is the journey worth the ride? Yes and no. I say that because Chris Carter is clearly trying to please too many people with the script by he and Frank Spotnitz. They create Mulder and Scully conflict but also have some scenes for those "shippers" who felt that Mulder and Scully just HAD to be together (I was never in that camp). They avoid too many connections to the conspiracy, settling for a monster of the week plot without the scariest of monsters. It ends up being a serial killer story with a possible connection to the psychic priest, but in the end the story tries to cover all its bases and have "everybody win." That ends up being a bit unsatisfying.

Of course, the movie is visually well done and it's nice to see some familiar faces again. The one recurring role that needed to be included was and the music by Mark Snow does a good job setting the mood.

I fear, however, that the movie came out too late. Not as in six years too late, but as in the week after the best movie of the summer. I have a feeling Dark Knight will eat X-Files lunch this week and this will be the last time we see Mulder and Scully together.

But it will leave you with a better taste in your mouth than the horrible series finale...

At least that's something.

Labels: movies, x-files

posted by Michael Hickerson at 7/26/2008 05:33:00 PM | |
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Dark Knight
Batman Begins is about the journey Bruce Wayne undergoes to become a hero to Gotham City and Dark Knight is about the consequences of that decision--not only on Bruce, but everyone who comes into his sphere of influence.

It's a sharp, compelling movie that proves that summer blockbuster can appeal to all sides. It has explosions, crashes and superbly done action, but underneath that is a layer of something deeper and more thought provoking than just your ordinary action thriller. The story is about choices, decisions and consequences and the impact of all of those on the central trio of the film--Batman/Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent.

As the movie begins, it's a year after Batman Begins and Gordon with his ally Batman is making a difference. Ordinary citizens are donning Batman like outfits to battle the forces of corruption. Onto the scene comes the new district attorney, Harvey Dent, who becomes part of the crusade. Because of an early success of battling the mob and corruption in Gotham, the events of the second half of the film are set in motion.

The Joker, who Batman and the police have been pursuing, emerges from the shadows, telling the mob that their problem is the Batman and offering to take him out. But what the Joker is doing is throwing disorder into the order that everyone is striving to create. He's a wild card, unpredictable and rogue. The Joker isn't bound by the code of ethics and rules that bind the other three and he slowly begins to push their buttons, especially with Batman.

The idea of what makes a hero and just where that line is between good and evil that makes the movie fascinating. Also, the movie doesn't shy away from having our heroes have to make hard choices and live with them. The Joker creates scenarios that are all no win for everyone and stands back as choices are made and lives are shattered. It's only after he's seen how far he can push the trio that he makes his ultimate move--deciding to take over Gotham City.

This is not your typical summer blockbuster. It's dark, it's going to make you think and it's going to entertain you no end. It doesn't have easy answers and while it will leave you yearning for the next installment (and there had better be a next one), it leaves our heroes in a place similar to Empire Strikes Back--with the good guys taking one on the chin.

All the praise you've heard about Heath Ledger's work as Joker is well-earned. His take on the Joker is mesmerizing. The scenes where he recounts how he became scarred are among the scariest and most compelling in the movie. But while Ledger is on another level, so is everyone else in the movie.

If you've not seen it, go and see it now. Don't wait.

I will offer one warning--this is PG-13 for a reason. If you've got kids under 13, it might be best to make them wait to see it. This is a dark, scary movie and there are some parts that could be disturbing to the under 13 crowd. Heaven knows I'm over 13 and I found some parts disturbing myself.

Disturbing, compelling, though-provoking and everything it promised to be and more. Dark Knight delivers. Best movie of the summer.

Labels: movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 7/19/2008 10:01:00 PM | |
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The book is always better...
We've all heard the old adage, "The book is always better" (to which I add the caveat: if it came first and isn't a novelization based on the script).

Two movies I've seen lately only confirmed this for me. And the shame of it is that I was really looking forward to seeing both.

The movies are The List and The Ruins, both of which were books first that I really liked. The other similiarity is that both novels were adapted for the screen by the authors involved in writing them. And while I know that in every book adapted for the screen, some things have to be compacted and some eliminated, I find myself scratching my head as to why the authors decided to do what they did in adapting their novels for the big screen.

The first is The Ruins, which if you've not read it is a scary little book for the first three-quarters. It does start to stretch the premise a bit thin by the novel's last quarter, but it's still a compelling little read. It's not great literature by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still a good summer time read. The story follows two American couples on a spring break and a couple of other guys who head out into a Mexican jungle looking for some off-the-beaten-path Myan ruins. They find the ruins, covered in some kind of native plant and meet a group of natives who try to warn them away from the site. But once one of the girls steps on the plant, the group is forced onto the ruin and not allowed to leave. Why you ask? Well, turns out the plant is a pretty nasty one.

The story is pure horror and some pretty horrible things happen to our heroes out there. One guy falls down the shaft in the middle of the ruins, breaking his back and suffering a gruesome, slow death. One girl gets a cut and the plant works its way inside her, leading to her becoming obsessed with getting it out and taking steps to get it out. There is a LOT of blood and gore in this one and if you're not up for that, then I'd suggest not seeing it.

And while the gore and such is over the top, it was no where nearly as bad as the mental picture I had in my head when I read the book. Yes, it was all cringe-worthy and I had to look away, but it still was no where near as unsettling as the novel.

The script also made some interesting choices in what it dropped. One aspect that is dropped is one of the girls keeps falling asleep on watch, thus allowing the plant to creep in and attack. It also highlights the basic selfishness of the character. In fact, a lot of the character stuff is dropped from the book. Instead, we get four pretty people who are in a really bad situation. The impact of the characters' demise is better in the book because we care about them as people and not just as "the blonde girl", "the blonde guy" etc.

And the movie makes some odd choices, reassigning roles from the book. I won't say much as it will ruin the final half of the movie and the book, but it's jarring enough that it took me out of the movie.

The movie does play a lot with the book's ending, though it does leave the final stinger in tact. The problem with that is the same one I had with the book--it's working too hard to set up a potential sequel or have that Twilight Zone-like jolt that it just doesnt' work.

Then there was Robert Whilow's The List.

Based on the contempoary-Christian legal thriller, I had high hopes for this one and had been looking forward to seeing it since I heard it was being made into a movie last year. It seemed to take forever to come out on DVD (it was never at a theater near me that I could see) and I have to admit I was really eager to see it.

And maybe I had my expectations too high. But this movie was..well, just not that great. The acting was wooden and unconvincing. Maybe part of that is that a lot of the story is the internal struggle of our hero as he goes on his own spiritual journey and eventually comes to realize the only answer is a relationship with Jesus. The thing is that in all of Whitlow's novels is that this journey never feels forced and it's not always "black and white" like other novels, where you know who is going to be saved by the mid-point of the novel and who isn't. Whitlow makes this journey feel authentic in his stories..and that journey just doesn't have the authenticity it needs here.

I'm not sure if the script is to blame or the acting. Or the direction. Or maybe all three. Universally, the acting is pretty much not that hot, even Malcolm McDowell as the villain. Of course, it's hard to hear McDowell doing a really bad Southern accent and trying to look menacing. And maybe it's that I read the book, but the plot twists are too telegraphed by the script to be a shock, instead leading us to think our hero is a fool and a turkey for not seeing them coming.

I wanted to like both of these movies. But I came away disappointed by both. Which is a shame as I think done right they could have been blockbusters.

Labels: movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 7/15/2008 02:36:00 PM | |
Monday, May 26, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The good news: Indy 4 is more satisfying that Star Wars: Episode 1. And it's better than Temple of Doom, even though I still like Temple of Doom.

In many ways, it's getting the band back together for a reunion tour. It's a lot of fun and if you take it for the nostalgia value, it's a lot of fun. They're not reinventing the wheel here. You're going to hear a lot of your old favorites and, sure, the guys all look a bit older, but that said I still had a good time seeing the movie.

It does get off to a slow start, but man the iconic image of Indy putting on the hat that was in the trailer....if that doesn't give you goosepimples, then maybe you need to go and see the new Ashton Kutcher film. Oh wait...don't. I want to stop encouraging Hollywood to make movies with him in them. Seriously, America, help me out here.

Anyway, I saw it, I liked it and it's another quality summer blockbuster. That puts me at two for two this summer and I've enjoyed both. From what I've read, you either love Indy 4 or you hate. Put me in the love it camp and ready to add it to the other movies in the DVD collection...

Labels: movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 5/26/2008 04:53:00 PM | |
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Getting Christian fiction right
A few weeks ago, I posted about two contempoary Christian stories I'd experienced and how I'd come away from both feeling a bit unsatisfied.

Interestingly, one weekend I'm posting about how dissatisfying I find certain contempoary Christian stories and the next weekend, I see a Christian film and read a Christian fiction novel that both get it right. The movie was "The Second Chance" and the book was "Mountain Top" by Robert Whitlow.

The secret as to why these are so good--they don't feature characters who are cardboard cut-outs, nor do they present the world is absolutes. Both stories feature strong characters who have struggles, questions and hiccups in journeys through life. In both presentations, the characters are human, facing real human trials, journeys and awakenings.

"The Second Chance" is the story of two ministers, one played by Michael W. Smith. Smith's character has strong musical talents and is pursuing a ministry at his father's mega-church. Smith's character is basically being groomed to take over the pulpit when Dad retires or moves on to start another church. Which leads us to our second minister, an African-American preacher who runs the second chance ministry in the heart of downtown. The Second Chance church is supported by the mega-church, who sends a lot of funding their way but rarely show up in the form of volunteers or ministers to the community. Smith is sent to learn from the experience. In the course of the film, the mega-church is given a chance to sell the property of the Second Chance church and intends to use the funds for its global outreach.

At which point the question arises--what is the best way to fulfil the Great Commission? Which is better--reaching the lost in other places or reaching the lost in your own city and community? Thankfully, the film walks a fine line of not coming out and declaring one better than the other. Instead, we are led to understand the values and merits of both types ways of walking the walk and fulfiling the Great Commission.

And along the way, many of the characters have some real and intriuging revelations. Smith's character realizes that he has a different call to ministry than he originally thought. The African-American minister realizes he may need help more than he lets on and that help can come from the most unlikely of sources. Even the character of Smith's father realizes that he's lost sight of what is important to him in his ministry and what he's trying to do.

The thing is , the movie reaches a point where all three men have undergone there own journey of faith and then it ends. There are still some questions left unresolved and the movie veers away from having a happy, last-hour repreive ending that would have, quite frankly, seemed out of place. Instead it leaves the viewer contemplating what is the more important change that has been made in the lives of the characters we see on-screen.

"Mountain Top" does a simliar thing.

"Mountain Top" is the latest offering from Christian legal-thriller author, Robert Whitlow. Whitlow has been one of my favorite authors since I picked up his great story "Life Support" a few years ago. Whitlow averages about a novel a year and I always find myself looking forward to each new story.

As Whitlow has grown as an author, so have his books. At first his stories were about lawyers who found their faith due to a series of trials (no pun intended) in their lives. In "Mountain Top" we meet Mike, a lawyer turned pastor, who is asked to represent a local man accused of embezzling funds from a local church. But the twist is--the man, Sam, has dreams from God about various local community people, that he writes down and shares with the parties involved. Sam had a dream of Mike defending him and while Mike is reluctant at first, he eventually agrees to represent the man.

As the story unfolds, Mike faces a series of trials--pressure from the church elders about his role representing Sam, a startling confession from his wife and his starting to have his own dreams inspired by the Holy Spirit. The story takes Sam on a journey of faith as he questions his ministry and where the next stage in life should lead him.

Of course, along the way, there are some twists and turns in the legal manuevering and we find out that Sam is being framed as part of a larger, overall conspiracy.

Again, the characters here are human. Mike's wife, Peg, confesses a secret to him and it's one that Mike has a hard time with. We see Mike struggle with forgiveness and at one point he puts his foot firmly in his mouth, saying the exact wrong thing and unintentionally hurting his wife. But even though that happens, the story shows the two reconciling, working through the issue and coming to a new, stronger place in their marriage.

And then there's Sam, who's been out there, witnessing to anyone who will listen for years (or even those who aren't willing.) Sam sends out letters to people, talks to them and plants seeds that will one day later bear fruit. Sam send a letter to Peg before the story starts that has an impact on this story. Also, he and Mike go to the hospital to visit a potential witness in the trial, only to end up ministering to the man and his wife in her final hours. Sam is one of those who is open to the unexpected calls to ministry in his life.

But in both stories, all the characters are human. Sure, in Whitlow's novel, there has to be an obvious bad-guy, but even in the midst of his persecution, Sam prays for them. The stories are well done becuase they don't offer any easy solutions, but they also don't make things black and white either. Both are about the journeys of characters and as the audience, we go along for part of the journey. Both stories wrap-up, leaving you wanting more and curious about the next stage. But they also leave you satisfied that this one part of the journey is complete.

I highly recommend both of them to you.

Labels: books, movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 4/05/2007 07:20:00 AM | |
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Spider-Man 3 Sneak Peek
NBC ran a new, one-minute promo for Spidey 3 last night during Heroes.

All I have to say is--awesome. Can't wait. Will be first in line to see it.

That was before I surfed over to the seven minute sneak-peek on NBC's web site. The footage there is extensions of the scenes from Heroes including one long, sustained battle between Peter and Harry Osborn.

Spectacular.

You'd better hurry if you want to see it. NBC takes the footage off-line this evening.

Or you can see it right here, though it's not in HD....

Labels: movies, spider-man 3

posted by Michael Hickerson at 3/06/2007 06:51:00 AM | |
Friday, February 09, 2007
Movie: Children of Men
I saw Children of Men last night. Haven't read the book yet, but it's on my list to be read.

The movie was stunning. If you've not seen it yet, you owe it to yourself to watch it. It's amazing, but I will warn you--it's not a feel good movie. It's also rated R for a reason. (Definitely not for the kiddies).

One of the bleakest pictures of a future distopia since Blade Runner.

How it didn't get nominated for a ton of Oscars is beyond me...

Labels: movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 2/09/2007 02:15:00 PM | |
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Superman II: The Donner Cut
For film geeks of my generation, there are two "holy grails" of the 80's that we'd love to see. One if the Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly footage from Back to the Future (Stoltz was replaced by Michael J. Fox after a good chunk of filming took place. The footage is rumored to exist, but was not included on the DVD package a few years ago). The other is the Richard Donner version of Superman II.

For those of you may not know, the original plan was to film Superman and Superman II at the same time to save money, time and having to re-sign the actors to huge contracts should the first one do a huge business at the box-office. However, delays and budgetary overrun led the producers and studio to concentrate on getting the first of the two films into the can and onto the movie screens in an attempt to make back some of the huge amounts of cash the movie was losing.

When it came time to go back to finish filming Superman II, the producers of the first movie fired director Richard Donnor from the project despite the fact that Donner had completed most of the shooting on the sequel (reports vary from Donner claiming he had shot 80% of the film to the producers saying it was more like 20%). A new director was brought in, some scenes were re-filmed and large chunks of the film were changed. Superman II went on to huge commercial success and all fans were left with was speculation, rumors and stories about what could have been had Donner's original vision of the movie been allowed to see the light of day. (Indeed, there was an infamous Starlog article from back at the time of the films release that hinted about the trio of villians toppling the Washington Monument as well as Superman slamming into the Statue of Liberty during the battle in Metropolis).

For years, there have been web sites that detailed the story behind the scenes as well as the differences between what Donner what wanted for the film and what we got on screen. And while fans clamored for the Donner cut, Warner Brothers denied they had the footage and could put together a cut of the film for the fans.

Until now.

Earlier this year, rumors surfaced that with the release of Superman Returns, Warner wanted to find a way to repackage and remarket the Superman catalog. A special edition of the first movie was released a few years ago, along with bare bones releases of the other three films. Rumors went wild that Warner was going to give the fans what they wanted--the Richard Donnor cut of the film. Having heard this before, I was skeptical about it and didn't actually believe the news until the official announcement was made earlier this year. As part of the DVD release of Superman Returns, fans would be treated to the option of seeing the Donnor cut of Superman II. It would be a separate release and while not officially canon, it would be the best chance fans would have to see this version of the film.

I have to admit, as a geek, I was pretty excited by the news.

I will freely admit I've seen the original version of Superman II a good number of times over the years. Freed of the burden of setting up the Superman mythology, the story is fun, fast moving and generally entertaining. I'd even argue that from a pure enjoyment standpoint, Superman II is a better movie than the first one.

But even as a kid seeing Superman II in the theaters and on TV, something always felt off about it. It seemed disjointed at times, especially in the final reel when Superman must defeat the trio of villians and somehow resolve that Lois knows his secret identity (with the infamous "forget me kiss").

Now, at last, we can see as close to the original vision of the movie as we're going to get. And, for the most part, it's a much more satisfying film. For one thing, the entire plot of Lois figuring out that Clark equals Superman is much more satisfying. And the love story between the two is far more satisfying and bittersweet here than it is in the original version. In this version, there is no "forget me kiss", but instead Superman turns back time again (thus making Lois forget while he remembers and reversing the damage done by the trio). This ending works better becuase Lois has a vague idea she's discovered something important but can't recall what it is, while Clark/Superman is left to suffer in silence, knowing the woman he loves could and does love him, but it can never be.

And there's a difference in how the trio are freed from the Phantom Zone. This time it's less random and more a consequence of Superman's actions from the first film. (One of the two missiles that Lex Luthor launched in the first film and he diverted in space shatters the Phantom Zone mirror, freeing the villains). It's not a huge difference, but dramatically it works better.

But the biggest difference in the involvement of Marlon Brando of Jor-El. When Donner was fired, both Brando and Gene Hackman withdrew from the project. Hackman's footage was still used but Brando used his clout to ensure the footage he'd filmed could and wouldn't be used. This lead to Clark/Superman having to debate the decision to give up his powers with his mother, Lara and not Jor-El. For the most part it worked, but having seeing the Brando footage and how the loss of his powers is resolved here (Jor-El sacrfices himself for a second time to restore Clark), the Brando cut is better. The debate between Clark and Jor-El about giving up the powers and then the nobel sacrifice of Jor-El to restore and save his son is more effective.

Of course, there are some other differences which if you've seen the original version you will spot. The cutting of the trio's wake of terror and destruction, counterpointed with Clark and Lois going to the Fortress is a bit different and adds a new layer to the storyline. Seeing Clark willing give up his powers as we counterpoint to the president surrendering to Zod and wondering where Superman has vanished to is a nice touch.

But is this cut perfect? No, not really. As I said before, it's as good as we're going to get. Donner didn't film all of the footage he wanted and it shows. The Donner Cut relies on some screen tests in order to complete the storyline (you can tell because of the editing and the glasses Clark wears). And while these are obvious, you won't mind becuase its where the story takes you.

So, if you're a film fan or a Superman fan, you owe it to yourself to see the Donner cut of Superman II. Technically it may not be perfect, but where it counts (the story, the acting, the way all the pieces fit together and work), it's perfect.

Labels: movie review, movies

posted by Michael Hickerson at 12/12/2006 10:31:00 AM | |