Director: James Gunn
Starring: David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan & Nicholas Hoult
Rated: PG-13 (violence, action & language)
Runtime: 2 hours & 9 minutes

 
Neither the character nor the symbol that is Superman (or Clark Kent, for that matter) has ever been considered cool, 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 is pure about humanity, as perceived 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 one's 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 that the current President and Lex Luthor would rather make detractors disappear than actually allow the truth, justice and the American way to be upheld, but it is somewhat surprising how overt this theme 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, which now resonates in more ways than Gunn likely 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. Furthermore, Superman’s frustrations here align with 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.

Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor, a villain so easily portrayed in the vein of any one of the current tech billionaires wielding their power through the President, holds the real weight of the substance of so much of what Gunn attempts to explore here. Hoult, an actor who has consistently shown dynamic range and a penchant for small choices that leave large impressions no matter what number he might be on the call sheet, chews every piece of scenery he’s given here with fierce precision. Luthor’s plot is a perfect example of how Gunn balances homages to past Superman films while firmly planting his film in the realm of modern parable. Yes, it would seem Luthor is simply a power-hungry criminal mastermind capable of deceiving the governments of several nations into allowing him unchecked power, but Hoult’s performance, coupled with Gunn’s writing, elevates the standard serialization of superhero stories and stock characters into something more specific. It wouldn’t be difficult to walk away from Gunn’s film with more than the sense of adventure and rush of nostalgia it delivers but it’s almost impossible not to glean parallels to the conflicts in today’s world. Luthor’s plan to feed a U.S. ally discounted weapons in turn for ownership of land in the neighboring country they’re invading is so obviously Israel and Palestine coded that it’s seemingly impossible to ignore. What Gunn is saying about these conflicts or what points he’s attempting to make are what might provide the most debate, but aside from the aforementioned notion of people over policy and human life being of more importance than the semantics of interfering in foreign policy to ensure actual justice is delivered there is plenty more going on to convey the film’s point of view; essentially telling us that over complicating conflicts is a tactic to make what is clear seem questionable.

Ironically, some of the film's missteps stem from its complexity and the convoluted nature it assumes for a large portion of the second and third acts. The most glaring convenience or manufactured aspect is, unfortunately, the hinge on which the public turns against Superman. Lex Luthor reveals Jor-El’s original message to his son as one not of compassion and loyalty, but rather one that emphasizes Kal-El's superiority to the citizens of Earth and suggests it should be easy for him to rule over humanity. Gunn almost makes it seem as if this is a fake out, a doctored bit of audio sent by Luthor to the press in order to give him the leverage he needs to make the “illegal alien” status stick and have people doubt Superman’s intentions, but we never double back to this point. Instead, we seem expected to eventually ponder, “Oh, well I guess that really is true” after a certain amount of time has passed despite Edi Gathegi as Mr. Terrific delivering a line about “knowing those forensics guys” and “ how they don’t mess up” that is the most unconvincing thing in a movie featuring pocket dimensions and shapeshifting aliens. The fact that the message is authentic pays off narratively, but is executed clumsily, given the slight confusion it elicits. Superman’s imprisonment leads directly to the two-fold climax that to some degree also feels manufactured specifically to include Mr. Terrific and other Justice Gang members in Green Lantern Guy Gardner (Nathan Fillion) and Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). We don’t wince because the portrayals are fun and their inclusion adds to the feeling Gunn is aspiring to make a superhero movie in the vein of a Saturday morning cartoon but these leaps we’re asked to make sometimes feel a little taller than the buildings Superman can usually handle in a single bound. 

I took my 10-year-old daughter with me to experience “Superman,” not because I thought she might enjoy it (in fact, I wouldn’t have put money on it striking a chord with her), but the trailers did something right as she came to me asking if she’d be able to see it despite the PG-13 rating. The fact that we were still getting “this film is not yet rated” tags on those trailers up until recently made me think it hued closer to a PG than the PG-13 it was destined to be straddled with, so I said, why not? Other than the aforementioned moment with “Mali” the violence is mostly comical and even surrealistic at times (proton river, giant gremlin eye-gouging) but while her primary complaint about the film was that Clark Kent and Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) kissed too often and for far too long what struck me most about her reaction and our discussion afterward is that she simply couldn’t fathom why Luthor had so many seemingly normal people working for him and actively against Superman, so clearly the force for good. What is so powerful about the movies is that no matter the vast difference of moral codes sitting in the theater when you sit in that seat the lines between who to root for and who to vilify become one, but Gunn seems to have intentionally cast actors that looked like they could just as easily manage a call center as they could Luthor’s command center. This pointed effort to portray just how manipulative wealth and power can be when it comes to common sense awoke something in my daughter’s sensibilities. We didn’t get too deep in the weeds on Gunn’s potential analogies, but that what are essentially cronies come across as seemingly normal employees who on a weekend we might easily carry on a conversation with isn’t only intentional but begs the question of what compels them to serve as cultish acolytes for a man so horrible his desire to be the most powerful person on the planet is more important than the planet itself is pointed, indeed. 
 
If you’re not looking for social or political commentary, though, there is still plenty to pick from at Gunn’s opening day DC buffet that will satisfy. Clark Kent is barely in this movie which means we get A LOT of Superman, in his suit, flying and fighting, with Corenswet making his titular hero one who lives up to the ideals of that classic Boy Scout image while giving the man of steel that punk rock edge that actually forgoes our suspicion or dubiousness of his honorable objective and instills a trust in him; he also gets his ass kicked. A LOT. The “in media res” choice allows Brosnahan’s Lois to be a solid foil for Clark and Superman by foregoing the awkward introductions and tedious dynamics of their relationship, dropping us into the middle of it. Lois isn’t relegated strictly to the Daily Planet set either, getting a character arc that teams her with Gathegi’s Mr. Terrific, who truly steals the show with his deadpan delivery, genuinely cool gadgets, and hyper-intellect. While Hawkgirl and Sara Sampaio’s Eve aren’t afforded the screen time to be as fleshed out as their counterparts in Guy Gardner and Skyler Gisondo’s Jimmy Olsen they all - including Anthony Carrigan’s Metamorpho - feel of a piece and more importantly, a universe, that is cohesive in its goofiness. Leaving the theater it was hard not to think of Gunn as kind of a genius, not because his “Superman” movie is necessarily great - it’s really good, it’s really fun, has a ton of heart and is genuinely moving at times along with being a movie I’m eager to see again and suspect will have a very high re-watchability factor - but mostly because he just gets it. Emphasizing the human over the meta and the man over the super, Gunn’s screenplay consistently illuminates his central thesis without ever coming across as heavy-handed. He also manages his affinity for animals with Krypto in ways that (surprisingly and much to my relief) don’t overwhelm, but instead payoff in a classic screenwriting structure fashion in which Krypto is not only characterized differently than expected but whose actions end up being key plot points. Ultimately, this version and Gunn’s vision for Superman is as a hero for our time. It will be interesting to see how this ages, though if history has taught us anything it’s that the parallels to the real world won’t wear thin anytime soon and that despite Superman not being the coolest, edgiest, or most “punk rock” hero that maybe the coolest thing to be right now is simply a kind, caring human.

I’m a classic film buff, but I’ve always admitted to having two huge blind spots when it comes to classic film – I’ve never watched many silent films or international films.

Well, the mission I’ve undertaken this year of watching the 12 highest placed movies on the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Films list won’t exactly help me conquer some of those international flicks, but there are two high-profile silent films on the list: Buster Keaton’s “The General,” which I watched and enjoyed in February, and Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights,” which I’ve chosen for July.

“City Lights” came in at No. 11 on the AFI list, making it the highest-ranked silent film in American film history.

Importantly, I didn’t hate the film. But I also didn’t particularly enjoy it, which, I know I can’t help the way I feel about something, but it almost makes me feel like a bit of a film idiot, which is funny, because I think many people I know would refer to me as a film snob.

“City Lights” is a love story. Still, it’s told almost so much through the hijinks that Chaplin’s famous The Tramp character gets himself into when he’s not interacting with his love that maybe it hijacks the film – or that’s just me putting too many modern film constructs into my take.

It's those hijinks, whether it’s saving a millionaire from suicide, entering a boxing match to earn money, or the film’s opening scene, which finds The Tramp sleeping on an about-to-be-unveiled monument, that are among the funniest moments and best scenes of the film.

Yes, the final scene of the movie, which some have called one of the greatest moments of acting in film history on the part of Chaplin, is lovely, but I’m not sure I spent enough time with The Tramp and the flower shop girl, played by Virginia Cherrill, enough to care all that much.

In fact, I’m more interested in the relationship between Chaplin and his drunken millionaire friend, played by Harry Myers, because that’s the relationship the film seemingly spends more time on, and it’s where much of the film’s slapstick comedy comes from.

I will admit I’ve also never been the biggest fan of slapstick, and well, what else are you going to get from the silent era?   

The movie is a bit too set-piece after set-piece for me, and not enough of a cohesive story, which again is probably me misunderstanding the genre a bit. However, Keaton’s “The General” felt more cohesive than “City Lights.”

I don’t know. Have I become a film idiot?

Director: Joseph Kosinski 
Starring: Brad Pitt, Damson Idris & Javier Bardem 
Rated: PG-13 (language & action)
Runtime: 2 hours & 35 minutes

 
“So, what is it about?” A couple of different characters pose this question to Brad Pitt’s Sonny Hayes - a washed-up Formula One driver who lost his shot at greatness at a young age and never found his way back - to emphasize an absolutely crucial character trait necessary to justify why a 60 year-old might be afforded the biggest stage in racing, but if we apply it to the film itself the answer is pretty straightforward: “F1: The Movie” is a comeback story, an underdog tale, and a redemption arc that we’ve seen play out a thousand times before cloaked in a world myself and no one I personally know cares anything about. While this might not be true of most viewers around the globe, this lack of insight makes the goals of the film immediately striking to the uninitiated such as myself: immerse viewers in the world to the point they’re invested in the story it’s telling while successfully executing a fresh take on how that story is told. 
​
From a storytelling standpoint, this is as simple as old school versus new, an old pro coming back into the fold of a young man’s game to show the “soft” rookie how it is done. Director Joseph Kosinski (the king of legacy sequels featuring colons) gives us everything we could want in such a sports drama from flashbacks to the aforementioned turning point in our protagonists life in a hurried, intercut fashion forcing us to piece much of it together ourselves down to the inevitable third act twist that presents an unforeseen challenge to the core team just as they’ve learned to put aside their differences and come together for the greater good. While much of the plotting in “F1” can be seen coming from a mile away, what’s most invigorating is that it doesn’t try to upend expectations, but in fact, Ehren Kruger’s screenplay wholeheartedly embraces them with Kosinski crafting his film to excel through every one of them.

I also assumed Kosinski’s work on “Top Gun: Maverick” would fully equip him to, if nothing else, give the racing sequences such an edge they would inherently elevate the rest of the film no matter how standard it might turn out to be and while the races themselves are undoubtedly highlights and arguably the reason to seek the movie out in the largest presentation/format possible the stuff in between is not so easily dismissed. It’s easy to say the film is about an F1 driver coming out of retirement to mentor another up-and-coming driver, but of course, that’s not what the film is really about. For what appears to be relatively uncomplicated, there are several readings one could apply whether dealing in the Brad Pitt of it all or different industry analogies but what it’s truly tackling is drive, if you will - wanting something so bad, getting so close to a goal you can taste it, then asking if one becomes bitter to the rest of the world when it doesn’t work out and how long does one maintain such allusions of grandeur? Fighting to resist the narcissistic feeling that the whole world is against you, wondering why we do these things to ourselves, why others are blessed to live your dreams when they don’t seem to care as much, want it as bad, or - and most importantly - deserve it as much? It doesn’t make sense and worse, even when you try to walk away it’s impossible to fully extinguish the hope that one day the opportunity to see the life you know you deserve pan out will show itself; that you’ll one day be able to feel the feeling you’ve been chasing since the first time you experienced it, if only for one more time. How long do you hold onto that dream? There is a point at which it becomes desperate, right? The character of Hayes is self-aware enough to understand such perceptions and the film is smart enough to know the literal win isn’t the only thing Hayes is chasing in his quest for fulfillment but it also shows us that for someone born of such grit, determination, and belief in one’s self that, should the opportunity present itself, they’ll never be able to give up on that dream - even if it kills them. 

It's worth adding that, as mentioned, I know nothing of the world, the rules, the culture, or the necessary skill it takes to compete in Formula One and while this movie could be entirely blasphemous for fans of the sport it’s hard to imagine this being the case given how fascinated the film is with the lifestyle of those inside this environment. The science of what it takes to make the cars work to their maximum efficiency, the amount of money and business behind it, the “thrill of fighting to the death for a tenth of a second” – all of it could equally be seen as an allegory for the movie business. So much time, so many resources, individuals who dedicate their lives to the craft, and to what end and for what reason? Spending untold amounts of time and money to find a second here or there feels akin to doing so to create two hours of material meant to entertain. We do these things, create these challenges and obstacles in our lives, to obtain an ambition we for one reason or another - cannot let go of - and so for Hollywood to have created this film, a throwback of cinema’s glory days starring it’s golden boy about the old guard coming in to revitalize the practices of the modern ways of thinking feels as synergistic as the cooperation between the corporations that came together to create this most exhilarating of commercials.  

Speaking of feelings impossible to ignore, Pitt is one hell of an attractive and charismatic dude. We’re not 10 minutes into the film before we’ve been treated to how methodical his Sonny Hayes is, how strategic he can be, or how much of a wrench he is being thrown back into this world three decades after he was forced to walk away, he will in fact prove to be. From the way he races to the way he conducts himself, none of it necessarily jives with the current status quo or mentality of the people at the top. Yes, “F1” is a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced, mega-action, summer blockbuster that puts you in the car with Pitt on some of the fastest Formula One tracks around the world featuring a pounding Hans Zimmer score, a montage when you need it, and just the right amount of double-crossing internal turmoil and corporate espionage to keep things lively and in line with the traditions of and expectations for movies of this ilk. If that’s all you need, this delivers in spades. To its credit, though, by being hellbent on making a particular kind of film, “F1” more or less improves upon each trope it tackles. 

Fortunately, this also makes way for some key differences in the “formula,” one of the best being that while we are expected to not only believe Sonny’s old tricks might still work in the world of professional racing but more so that this world needs to be reminded of Sonny’s brand of cocky, “swan”-ness that breeds the type of competition that’s been lost among modern drivers and all the “noise” continually echoing around them in their publicity bubbles. Sonny hasn’t been given a damn thing. Yes, the notion of time and experience being on Sonny’s side no matter how much innovation has taken place in the generations that have come after is one we’ve seen time and time again, but Sonny isn’t inherently blessed with such knowledge and skill, he’s no racing savant, he puts in the work and the way Kosinski and co. intently illustrate how Sonny does so, from reading manuals late at night to running on the track to get a feel for the terrain down to being able to listen, take criticism, and integrate said criticism into his strategy is a refreshing turn of the key while Pitt still maintains an aura that allows Sonny, through his own vision and inability to believe he doesn’t know best, to rise to the occasion every time his superiors push back. 

My sense is present day criticism might be too quick to dismiss “F1” as too formulaic (pun intended) for its own good, but I cannot help but think the formula will work in favor of the film eventually. Despite the predictability, despite audiences knowing where this road will take them as they pass all the recognizable milestones of the genre along the way, none of it means it’s *not* what people want to see. The moment Kerry Condon (effortlessly charming) shows up we know the romantic arc she and Pitt’s Sonny are destined to fulfill. The same is true of Damson Idris’ Joshua Pearce, the hotshot rookie so self-centered and arrogant it’s aggravating at times, who will eventually put aside his differences with Sonny and come to appreciate his personal brand of mentorship in order to form the winning partnership necessary to save Javier Bardem’s ass. Audiences are aware of how archetypal these characters are, but Condon, Idris, Bardem and especially Pitt (Sarah Niles and Simon Kunz are also pleasant surprises) offer enough acuity to alleviate the clichés. The final lap of the final race featured in the film delivers genuine full body chills as the previous 150 minutes has been so nimbly edited, paced and constructed to perfectly set the viewer up for this moment and all it is meant to induce. It checks all the boxes, sure, but it sustains itself and successfully uses said formula to deliver what is a familiar yet satisfying experience in the present thanks to its handsome mounting and carving out of enough distinguishing facets in its otherwise boilerplate set of story and characters that it will inevitably serve as comfort when revisited down the road.