Saturday, June 29, 2013

“Man of Steel”: DC's Less Than Worthy Attempt To "Avenge" Marvel [By Herbie J Pilato]

In their mutation from the printed/digital comic book world into the live-action feature film universe, Marvel’s superheroes are overwhelmingly the victors while to DC’s camp go the spoils, the clunkers and the position of a distant second best.

Marvel not only continues to throw all the right the heroic punches, as much as it consistently enters the ring with sheer, unadulterated courage and innovative product. 
To put it simply, Marvel has guts – they deliver their superior human flicks in the right manner.  They stick to the mythology of their selected comic book origins and hold back on the edgy innovation.  It’s still there – but they don’t make such a big deal out of the alterations – as does DC.

For what seems like eons, DC, and its Warner Bros. studio partner, have been dragging their collective butt in spotty attempts to, for one, get their Justice League (as a group or individually) up on the big-screen.  Although their Christopher Nolan-directed Batman/Dark Knight trilogy was a massive hit, and the new Nolan-produced Man of Steel, directed by Zach Snyder, has granted a potent shot in the arm to the Superman franchise, the success of Marvel’s multi-guided Captain America/Thor/Iron Man/Avengers movies (not to mention their Spider-Man flicks, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield editions) have far superseded (sorry) DC’s less-than stellar entries into the genre (hello and goodbye Green Lantern). 
To put it simply again, Marvel’s wonder mutants are just a lot more fun to watch; they have more pep, the casting is spot-on – and their “joy factor” is tremendous.

On the other hand, DC’s super frenzy of motion picture heroes lack the vibrant spirit and color (in tone, cinematography and costume) of their comic book page origins.
Man of Steel (MOS), for one, is utterly vacant of joy – not to mention downright depressing (which itself goes against the very core of the original Superman comic-book mythology).  What it then lacks in figurative character it additionally lacks in characters, period, namely, The Daily Planet junior photographer Jimmy Olsen.

Most likely, Jimmy may show up in a sequel (probably in some dark form; which see later dark references).  But that’s not good enough.  He should have been in this initial reboot, if anything, in place of that ridiculous Steve Lombard reporter character (annoyingly played by Michael Kelly).
And are they kidding with the hand-cam cinematography?  Millions of dollars were allocated for this movie – and portions of it are filmed like a low-funded Billy Jack remake – minus the cinescope?!

Equally disturbing is the over-whelming volume of sound, the overt-destruction of Smallville and Metropolis (thousands had to die?!), and the excessive alien-space/sci-fi-ness to it all. 
It was all so distracting and disappointing, as were some of the casting choices, the actors and their acting; the writing, the dialogue and the directing.

Helmer Snyder might know what he's doing with large-scale, action-adventure landscaping, but when it comes to intimate scene-editing , and guiding actors and getting legitimately human emotions and interactions from and between them – well, Tom Whedon (The Avengers), he ain’t. 
I found myself actually shaking my head through a good portion of the film, in awe of how sophomoric was its execution in general; and while assessing specific aspects of it such as the miscasting of villain General Zod (played by Michael Shannon with a seemingly-Mary Poppins voice), and those Russell Crowe-Jor-El/mirror/on-the-Krypton-vessel moments (Seriously?!).

As to Henry Cavill, who embodied Clark Kent/Superman, the dude's great looking – but his presence just isn’t big enough, vertically and dynamically.  He's too short - and that cape was too long (it’s clearly dragging the ground, tattered and dirty in certain moments – and that no one would catch that – or that anyone would allow that to make it on screen – is head-shake worthy).  Cavill clearly worked hard to get that body - but Superman is BUILT...not developed.  There's a difference.
Christopher Reeve, who is considered by scores as the one and only true cinematic-Superman, was born with his form (God bless him), while Cavill had to develop (and sometimes pump it up before shooting (which was painfully obvious in a few scenes with the actor’s awkward physical movements).  Reeve was 6', 6," larger than life and had personality.  Cavill is just "life," minus the personality.

And although casting an African-American actor (Laurence Fishburne) as Perry White was a progressive move on the studio's part, having Amy Adams portray Lois Lane was a mistake.  She just didn’t do it for me.  (And since when does Lois Lane have red hair?  Apparently, since she developed absolutely no on-screen chemistry with Clark Kent.)
Overall, the MOS presentation was again, just too dang dark, dingy and sad and, consequently, I was sad upon leaving the theatre.

Unlike, the essence of DC’s Batman, Superman is not dark by nature.  Therefore, it’s totally acceptable that the Dark Knight trilogy would be dark in tone, in character, in story, and in execution.
But as explained in the earliest DC comic books (and to some extent, in the later editions) what transpires in the life and development of Superman, from an organic standpoint, is ultimately quite upbeat.  Firstly, in attempt to save his life (which they ultimately do), his parents jettison him from their dying home planet of Krypton to Earth.  He falls into the farm fields and loving arms of the childless Martha and Jonathan Kent (in MOS played by a ridiculous Diane Lane and an okay Kevin Costner).  They raise him to be a fine upstanding young man, who retains an assortment of additional extraordinary powers, including astounding strength, heat vision – and the ability to fly.

How cool is that?!
Super cool!

So, why in tarnation would the DC/WB crew decide to darken that world and destroy that optimistic and hopeful view with the heavy-laden Man of Steel?  As Cavill’s Clark tells Adams’ Lois in one scene, the S on Superman’s skin-tight garb is his home-world monogram for hope. 
Thank goodness he explained that because otherwise one wouldn’t have surmised as much upon viewing the rest of the MOS.

With its implementation of the movie, the DC/WB camp may have figured that since director/producer Nolan did such a great job with his dark take on Batman that he could pull a similar stunt with the Superman films. 
But such has not transpired.  In fact, with Man of Steel, the dark issues were merely intensified with Nolan’s decision not to direct the project, and to instead hire Snyder – who, as mentioned, guided the equally joyless (and very bloody) 300.  In effect, a Kick-Ass film director does not a kick-ass Superman film, make (or something like that).

Certainly, DC/WB made a noble attempt to hire Nolan and subsequently Snyder.
The objective was to think out of the box and make something really different.

That’s all fine and good.
But in doing so, one cannot - nor one should not - go too far outside the box, or one may not find any audience outside at the box-office.

Clearly, this did not happen with MOS.  The movie is doing extremely well.  But I’m not so sure that is a testament to its quality as more to its brilliant, massive and somewhat desperate-looking marketing campaign.
And please note: this cinematic opinion isn’t about a baby-boomer’s misunderstanding of a contemporary take.

Good is good; well-done is well-done – in any era and in any genre.
The music of Frank Sinatra and Beethoven will always be great music whenever it’s heard.  Casablanca and Citizen Cane will ever be considered genius filmmaking in any decade in which they are screened.

In like (or dislike) manner, sub-par movie-making is sub-par movie-making, whether the budget is a college-bound five thousand clams or a multi-million dollar studio-endorsed epic like Man of Steel.
With that said, in only in the last few minutes of MOS do we catch a mere glimpse of the fun the entire production might have  embraced and showcased from the get-go had Snyder, Nolan, DC or Warner Bros. saw the forest through their superhero tee’s and camera angles.

For my money, whoever is in charge of the sequel (or the Justice League, in general, for that matter), should hire a happy director (who will at the very least start things off by bringing back that original bright red and blue costume!).
Because this time, we have nothing but a loud, noisy, spiritless film in which Superman (spoiler alert) actually kills someone – which once more - goes against the very grain of everything the character has stood for from day one (in DC Action Comics Number 1). 

And if DC ever hopes to catch up with Marvel’s supersonic hero-based films and their perfectly-balanced mix of success, quality and sincere critical acclaim, then first off, Nolan and Snyder have to exit the arena.  From there, DC, WB, and whoever replaces Nolan and Snyder, will then need to step into the ring with their gloves off and they’re thinking caps on, and leave any clouded-egos at the door.
If not, the consequences will be dire, with less than worthy product like Man of Steel – the very core of which in the big-screen, superhero scheme of things, seemed like an empty and hallow re-telling of the Tin Man - without the heart or a personality.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Marie Osmond's New Hallmark Show Is Bright Spot on Daytime TV

Marie – the show – and Marie Osmond – the human being – are welcome entries to daytime television.

In the warm and welcoming tradition of yesteryear’s Mike Douglas and Dinah Shore talk/variety shows, Osmond’s new daily hour on The Hallmark Channel brings a class, elegance and sophistication to today’s TV that has been sorely missed for far too long.

A showbiz veteran of over five decades, with a seemingly immortal, youthful glow and energy, Marie Osmond is a non-stop powerhouse of talent on every level.  We all know she sings, dances, and acts to excel (the Friday night ABC variety show that she hosted with her also-charismatic brother Donny, is legendary in the world of classic television).  But many of her other diverse attributes may not be so obvious…at least not until you watch any segment of Marie.

Thankfully, Marie on Marie goes against the grain of the mean-spirited, edgy, non-stop sarcastic banter that is so prevalent on other talk shows of today.  Instead, Marie employs her wit and media savvy with a pervading grace that actually lets her guests talk, and she makes every attempt NOT to interrupt them.  She’s nothing but a cordial host, as if she was speaking and entertaining her guests and, subsequently, her viewers – in the intimacy of her own home.

In the Marie segments I have seen on television, and during a recent and delightful visit to see the show in person, that’s exactly the atmosphere that she creates.  She makes you feel “at home,” whether she’s chatting with a celebrity or a member of her studio audience.  Unlike many public personalities who are only “nice” when the cameras roll, Marie treats everyone the same: with respect.  On or off camera, she asks real questions about real life (“How’s your Mom?”), and plays no favorites, only because she makes everyone feel like they are her favorite.  As a result, the viewers at home are brought to the party as if by special invitation – and just plain don’t want to leave or have that party end.

A multi-entertaining icon, Marie’s truest talents rest with her God-given ability to communicate, her sense of humor (which is direct; but never hurtful or insulting), and her ability to see everyone as equal.  Her joyful spirit, combined with enormous talents, and her generous heart (she’s raised countless millions for with, for one, the Children’s Miracle Network charities), allows Marie Osmond, the gifted human being, to present Marie, the show – as nothing less than a gift to those who watch, embrace – and make – television.

In turn, Marie and Marie, make television history.

For more information, see link below.