Review: WORLD WAR Z

WORLD WAR Z
Two out of Four Stars
Directed by Marc Forster
Starring: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, Daniella Kurtesz, James Badge Dale
PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images.
Verdict: Brad Pitt's Marc Forster-directed zombie epic finally reveals itself after a famously tumultuous production, and the result is scattershot, with a cripplingly inconsistent story flow and the basic pitfalls of making zombie terror for a PG-13 rating (while also showing ingenuity for getting such ideas across), but there are also undeniably astonishing sights of zombie apocalyptic mayhem and destruction on an incredibly massive scale and Forster's direction provides great moments of nerve-wracking intensity.

WORLD WAR Z is a strange beast and was always destined to be.  Writing the first draft of the screenplay, writer J. Michael Straczynski described the book on which the film is derived as, "[reading] like a UN Report."  The book, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, written by Max Brooks (son of comedy filmmaker Mel Brooks), is intended as exactly that; it is a pseudo-historical account, comprised of personal accounts of a zombie apocalypse.
Zombie movies are traditionally low-budget affairs, rarely with budgets upwards of $30 million.  The first major zombie film was George A. Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968), made on a shoestring budget, and his 1978 follow-up, DAWN OF THE DEAD was produced on the modern equivalent of about $1.7 million.  Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD, which can be partially-credited with reinvigorating the zombie sub-genre, was made for about $26 million and was a major hit with a worldwide gross of $102 million.  WORLD WAR Z was greenlit with a budget of $125 million, a very large budget for a zombie film to begin with, but over the course of a very troubled production, including extensive re-writes and re-shoots, the estimated tally reached around $190 million.  At best, it might have been able to make back its budget.
By the time I went to see it though, WORLD WAR Z had already far exceeded expectations with a $66 million opening weekend gross, even up against MONSTERS UNIVERSITY and the second week for MAN OF STEEL.  Critics had even been favorable to it overall, so I was favorably interested myself, however, having seen it now, I cannot fully recommend it.  I'm not very partial to the zombie genre though, and that information may be useful to a reader investigating whether or not to spend the time and money.  I love SHAUN OF THE DEAD, and I enjoyed ZOMBIELAND, and on a moderate level, the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and 28 DAYS LATER, but I'm pretty indifferent to the rest.  The zombie genre generally functions as a justifiable scenario for gory carnage (you get the human gore and such, but the stipulation that the zombies are soulless and technically not "human"), but in the finer cases, with socio-political commentary, but for WORLD WAR Z to fit the desired PG-13 rating, gory carnage must be replaced with something less direct, namely, suspense, that being the intention at least.
Unlike this past February's zombie rom-com, WARM BODIES, though, WORLD WAR Z has the benefit of a widely-scoped aesthetic, which justifies a less intimate type of violence, and when it sticks with this advantage, the thrills are awesome.  The loose plot, follows former (as of recent) U.N. investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) as he traverses the globe in the midst of a worldwide zombie epidemic to locate the source of the virus.  Early into the film, as the epidemic first makes itself known, there are astonishing and intense scenes of city-scale destruction as legions of zombies swarm the streets, indiscriminately feasting on the uninfected and wreaking havoc in their bustling numbers.  These scenes clearly use CG zombies rather than live actors in makeup, but in some ways, it works to make them seem more unnerving.  The more intimate scenes much more troublesome for this PG-13 zombie thriller though; as director Marc Forster tries hard to convey the strongest idea of ghastly horror without actually showing it, the effect comes off as coy and distracting.  The zombies who do appear as actors in makeup are gruesome enough, but, and maybe it's just me, but the sounds that they make (most notably in these closeup cases) are like inhaling while vocalizing, and it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
The greatest weakness of the film is definitely in its plot structure though, and in a film so convoluted in the creation of its story process, it's not very apparent where exactly things have gone wrong, though it can probably be attributed to something in the rewriting stage.  There isn't a lot of story; it really is just Pitt's paper-thin character traveling the world between a small several locations, talking to people about the virus and then bolting once zombies break into whatever stronghold he's in at the time.  It's insubstantial and messy, and at times, more than a little convenient.  Furthermore, the conclusion borders on being too dumb, even for a summer blockbuster.  There are a few scenes involving Lane's family, being kept on an aquatic Army base of sorts, and with little going on there either, but they keep reminding us that they are there too.
To his credit, Pitt still makes an alright leading man, even when his character has minimal scripted personality, background or particular character traits to speak of.  But even Pitt can't bear the weight of a would-be epic all by himself.

Review: MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY  (FAMILY/ANIMATED)
Two and a Half out of Four Stars
Directed by Dan Scanlon
Voices of:  Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Helen Mirren, Peter Sohn, Joel Murray, Steve Buscemi, Nathan Fillion
Rated G (scary moments, mostly mild)
Verdict:  Technologically stellar and gorgeously rendered, Pixar's latest work is merely watchable if unimpressive in just about every other department, with surprisingly thin characterization, an airy formula and a shortage of humor.  Regardless, it is fine family entertainment; likely to delight children and watchable enough for the older audiences escorting them, even if it won't last long after you leave the theater and may not be worth going to for the viewers who remember seeing the original in a theater, that is unless you can find someone under ten to tag along.

Pixar, the studio that is "all about story", is not what they once were.  Their newest film, MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, which returns to the world of MONSTERS INC. when the scaring team of Mike Wazowski (v. Billy Crystal) and James "Sulley" Sullivan (v. John Goodman) first met in college, is their most formulaic film to date by far, albeit not their weakest film.  While it's far more watchable than the obnoxious toy commercial that was CARS 2, the characterizations are nonetheless strikingly thin, the laugh rate is low and often cheap and the overall product feels hollow and airy.
Being a Pixar film, their since-tarnished reputation of greatness makes one prone to be overly harsh, so it is important to emphasize that it's still a largely positive film, especially for its main demographic of families and children.  While MONSTERS INC. was one of the more innocent films of Pixar's "Golden Age", MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is actually juvenile, but will delight those under the age of ten, while being watchable and even somewhat entertaining for their older escorts.  However, unlike top-notch family entertainment ought to, it probably doesn't offer enough for most of those older viewers who might be tempted to brave the children-dominated crowd without one of their own.
After the more Sulley-centric original, Mike takes the spotlight in MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, which opens at his childhood, when he first witnesses the going-ons at Monsters Incorporated's Scare Floor and is inspired to devote his life to becoming a Scarer.  Through years of hard work and devoted studying, Mike is admitted into Monsters University's prestigious Scare Program.  Despite his hard-pressed devotion, Mike finds himself shown up by Sullivan, the son of a legendary scarer, who coasts by on his family name and natural ability.  After they get in a conflict during a testing session, Mike and Sulley are ejected from the Scaring Program by the hard-boiled Dean Hardscrabble (v. Helen Mirren).  With the approaching campus Scare Games, Mike sees his last chance to become a scarer, but competitors must be in a fraternity, so he joins the only frat accepting anyone:  Oozma Kappa, a traditional assortment of misfits who've also been kicked out of the Scaring Program.  Short on one member, and Sullivan having nothing to lose, he joins the Oozmas, to the chagrin of Mike, but as the Oozma's best hope.  Further upping the stakes is Mike's bet with Hardscrabble, that if the Oozmas win the Scare Games, she'll re-admit them into the Scare Program, but if they lose, Mike and Sulley will leave the school.
Strong points first; the CG rendering is magnificent, beautiful, and it ought to be, considering how long they've been at it.  It honestly looks like a true, real world environment, and a lot of the set designs are very stimulating.  The film's use of technology is definitely its greatest point of recommendation.  Occasionally, there are some really fun visual surprises, especially a Scare Games challenge that takes place in a library.
Entertainment-wise, it has enormous value for younger audiences, with plenty of colorful, soft-edged characters and visual humor; for older audiences, the it is very watchable, although it is less likely to engage them for the very same simplicity which makes it so ideal for children.  There are plenty of nods to classic (and far more R-rated) college comedies, and those who were children when MONSTERS INC. was released twelve years ago might have fun picking up on the occasional nods and origins to various elements and characters from that film. 
And even for all the simplicity in the prequel to Pixar's arguably most innocent film, there's also a couple of refreshing themes that are touched upon, if lightly, that many children's films avoid at ridiculous costs.
Now, the negatives; most prominent is the film's heavy reliance on formula.  The story rarely, and hardly ever, deviates from its formula of one measure REVENGE OF THE NERDS, one measure ANIMAL HOUSE and half a measure of THE DEFIANT ONES, all watered down to suit a family audience in a way that has been seen too many times before.
The humor is surprisingly infrequent for Pixar, and the success rate of the gags is disappointingly low as well, often due to an eye roll-inducing cheapness.  Where the film's humor works best is when it plays it weird, such as the Gonzo of Oozma Kappa, Art (v. Charlie Day), who delivers some surprisingly funny and bizarre quips in response to unlikely situations.
For a film that works so successfully on a visual level, most of the new monster designs are sadly bland and uncreative, relying largely on a few basic shapes in a set of colors.  Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as the creepy Hardscrabble who looks the part of a hybrid between a dragon and a centipede, and Art, who resembles a purple, furry arc with a face in the middle.
I think the biggest disappointment here is the weakness of the characterizations.  MONSTERS INC. wasn't the richest of Pixar's best, but the characters were well-layered and filled out.  These characters, including the ones returning, feel incidental, with little more than a minor bit of soul-probing late in the film.  Added to this is the film's pacing and generic plot leave the film with a hollow, airy feeling, like a lacking of substance.
Then again, the hollowness allows the film a breezy sense of being, so while you may not take away much, it isn't boring.  So go out and take the family; it's as good or better than most of the slim pickings of family films out there; not because everyone else is still behind Pixar; but because either due to the competition's progress, or Pixar's apparent lack of focus, the field is more leveled these days; but MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is familiar, comfortable and harmless.

Short Film: THE BLUE UMBRELLA, Directed by Saschka Unseld
Three out of Four Stars

The animated short film playing with MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, as per Pixar tradition, is a mildly charming fantasy about a romance between a pair of umbrellas in the city.  Again, the technology is the true star here, as the short film is primarily a showcase for incredible "ultra-photorealistic" computer rendering.  The fantasy/romance angle feels slightly reminiscent of PAPERMAN, the short film that played with last year's WRECK-IT RALPH, but falls far short of that standard.  On the other hand, it's pleasant and sweet, with some excellent eye candy.

Review: BEFORE MIDNIGHT

BEFORE MIDNIGHT  (ROMANTIC DRAMA)
*Four out of Four Stars*
Directed by Richard Linklater
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy
R for sexual content/nudity and language.
Verdict:  Jesse's and Celine's love story comes to its third chapter almost 20 years after it first began (in both the film and real time), as their relationship is strained under the pressure of middle age, parent and spouse responsibilities and unrealized ideals.  Darker and more ambitious than its predecessors, it is no less fulfilling, beautiful, intelligent and emotional; continuing one of the greatest romances to ever grace the screen.

It's been nearly twenty years since a young American man named Jesse (Ethan Hawke) approached a young Parisian woman named Celine (Julie Delpy) aboard a train traveling through Austria and convinced her to spend a night with him getting to know one another in Vienna in the summer of 1994, in the 1995 release, BEFORE SUNRISE.  They promised to meet again in six months, but nine years later, in 2004's BEFORE SUNSET, we learned that the meeting never happened when one was unable to show, but Jesse wrote a fictionalized account of it in a novel, and Celine showed up at one of his book signings in a Paris bookshop, after which we learned that he now had a son and a disintegrating marriage, and she was trapped in a string of bad relationships and frustrating realizations.  The last time we saw them, the couple was sitting in Celine's apartment in Paris, and Jesse had chosen to miss his flight.
If you're familiar with and have seen those films, I don't need to convince you to see BEFORE MIDNIGHT; I only need to say that it does not disappoint at all.  If you haven't seen BEFORE SUNRISE or BEFORE SUNSET, you should; they are "must-see" films if the term ever described a movie, but in fact, you do not have to have seen them to see BEFORE MIDNIGHT.  Those first two film, in relation to this third, could be considered backstory; interesting, but unnecessary to understand the plot or the characters.
But as was the way before, there really isn't much "plot" to BEFORE MIDNIGHT, but the characters are in full force, completely carrying the whole weight of the film by themselves as they pretty much converse their way through the entire film.  It picks up another nine years after BEFORE SUNSET, and Jesse has long ago left his broken marriage and is on the worst of terms with his ex-wife, but remains close (as much as possible) with his now-teenage son, who's leaving after spending the summer just as the film opens.  Jesse is now in a committed long-term relationship with Celine, with twin daughters, and the whole family is vacationing in Greece.  Celine is environmental activist, but with feelings of futility so she's now considering a government position.  Whereas the previous films had a sense of urgency driven by choices that demand making, MIDNIGHT finds Jesse and Celine having made their choices now living the consequences, for better or worse.
When they were young, they spoke of romantic ideals and intellectual thinking; there was a lot of romantic projection, but dreams have since come true, including the parts that they hadn't considered when they were young.  Both have aged into their forties, with all the insecurities that accompany that time of life, and this film's showcase piece is an explosive argument that their feature-length conversation descends into in a hotel room which was intended to be the setting for a night of romance.  Not to spoil anything, but it isn't a depressing film either, and as they did before, it closes out with warm-hearted hope, but this time even in the face of real-world adversity.

Now on the third chapter after eighteen and a half years, this criminally-underseen independent romantic saga has lost nothing; using dialogue in ways that have been lost to the rest of cinema, to express powerful and fascinating ideas and emotions in a strikingly honest, forward and consistent manner.  Richard Linklater, who directed the film, co-wrote the film with his stars, as with the previous installments; an highly ingenius innovation that allows Delpy and Hawke to have a strong input to their respective characters, making them far more consistent and honest and introspective than the average movie character, while Linklater provides a consistent vision that binds the elements together.
BEFORE MIDNIGHT is a completely no-holds-barred pulpit of human confession, feeling and open pondering; more raw and bare than almost any other film you're likely to see this year.  More cleanly tied off than its predecessors, it doesn't exactly demand for a follow-up, but by the time another nine years have passed, if the team gets back together for a 2022 release, I see no reason why a fourth installment in the romantic journeyings of Celine and Jesse wouldn't be an enormously welcome development.  As it stands for now, BEFORE MIDNIGHT is the best film of the year thus far.

Movie Dads and What We've Learned From Them

Happy Fathers' Day!  To commemorate the busiest time of the year for the necktie industry, we've gathered together a list of some notable movie dads, the best and the worst, and the greatest life lessons they've had to offer, whatever their merit:

• Giuseppe Conlon from IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (played by Pete Postlethwaite)

Father Ranking: 9/10- Maybe overly stern at times, but unwaveringly devoted and authoratative.
Defining Paternal Moment:

Mentoring his rebellious son, Gerry (Daniel Day-Lewis), within prison walls, to be a responsible adult.

Fatherly Quote:

Giuseppe:  I want you to have some respect.

Gerry:  For who?

Giuseppe:  For yourself.

 

• Atticus Finch from TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (played by Gregory Peck)

Father Ranking: 10/10- A single father in the Depression, setting a too-perfect example and sharing more proverbs than the Bible.

Great Paternal Moment:  Raising diversity-embracing children in Depression-era Alabama.

Fatherly Quote:  "There's a lot of ugly things in this world, son. I wish I could keep 'em all away from you. That's never possible."

 

• Royal Tenenbaum from THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (played by Gene Hackman)

Father Ranking: 3/10-  Hilariously self-absorbed and widely insensitive, his brood has grown up with a vast assortment of mental, emotional and social handicaps.  Still, he makes an effort, albeit dishonest, late in the game.
Great Paternal Moment:
Faking cancer to get his family to love him.
Fatherly Quote:
"Anybody interested in grabbing a couple of burgers and hittin' the cemetery?"

• Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible from THE INCREDIBLES (voiced by Craig T. Nelson)

Father Ranking: 6/10- Granted, we get to know him best during a period of mid-life crisis, so he's somewhat distracted from his responisbilities, but he tries hard and shares bad guy-killing opportunities with the offspring, so it balances out.
Great Paternal Moment:
Intervening!
Fatherly Quote:
Bob aka Mr. Incredible:  The important thing is that your mother and I are a team, united against the forces of...
Helen aka Mrs. Incredible aka Mrs. Incredible:  Pigheadedness?
Bob aka Mr. Incredible:  I was gonna say evil.

 

• Mr. Banks from MARY POPPINS (played by David Tomlinson)

Father Ranking:  7/10- Again, this is largely a story about him learning to be a better father than he has been, but even while he's often misguided, his interest is strongly devoted to his family.
Great Paternal Moment: 
"You know, begging your pardon, but the one my heart goes out to is your father. There he is in that cold, heartless bank day after day, hemmed in by mounds of cold, heartless money. I don't like to see any living thing caged up."  -Bert the Chimney Sweep
Fatherly Quote:
"My dear, never confuse efficiency with a liver complaint."

• Jim Baker from SIXTEEN CANDLES (played by Paul Dooley)

Father Ranking: 7/10-  Obviously not perfect, but utimately, Samantha's only redeemable family member.
Great Paternal Moment:  Remembering his daughter's sixteenth birthday, albiet a couple hours after the fact.
Fatherly Quote:  "Why do you think you're a dork? I don't think you're a dork. I don't think Mom thinks you're a dork."

• Marlin from FINDING NEMO (voiced by Albert Brooks)

Father Ranking: 9/10-  Neurotic, but justifiably so, he's a single dad learning to take the occasional leap of faith.
Great Paternal Moment: 
Traversing the ocean with accompaniment of a mentally-handicapped Blue Tang to rescue his gimpy son from and Australian dentist's fish tank.
Fatherly Quote:
"I have to find my son!  I have to tell him how old sea turtles are!" 

• Dill Penderghast from EASY A (played by Stanley Tucci)

Father Ranking: 9/10-  A breath of fresh air, showing sincerity and wisdom through a veil of cornball wit and theatrics.

Great Paternal Moment:

Being accepting of his daughter's homosexual boyfriend and planning the right time to tell his black son that he was adopted.

Fatherly Quote:

"I'd take a bullet for you, you know that. Right between the eyes. I would slit my throat rather than say something to someone that you didn't want me to say."

• Noah Levenstein from AMERICAN PIE (played by Eugene Levy)

Father Ranking: 7/10- An buffoon with awkward and often inappropriate teaching moments, but earnest and genuinely trying.
Great Paternal Moment: 
Buying a vast assortment of lurid periodicals for a father-son talk.
Fatherly Quote: 
"We'll just tell your mom that...we ate it all." [in regards to a particularly embarrassing pie]

• Vito Corleone from THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II (played by Marlon Brando and Robert DeNiro (respectively))

Father Ranking: 10/10- Though his business practices are obviously shady, his devotion to family is unparalleled, and as a family man, he is approachable and wise.

Great Parental Moment:  Teaching Michael when and who to kill after he becomes Godfather.
Fatherly Quote: 
"A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."-THE GODFATHER
"To you, she's beautiful. For me, there's only my wife and son." -THE GODFATHER PART II

• Mufasa from THE LION KING (voiced by James Earl Jones)

Father Ranking: 10/10-  The ultra-dad; protective, providing, textbook wise and an overall badass.
Great Paternal Moment: 
Just everything, although dying in the process of protecting his son, and later arriving as a ghost with some very timely advice are particularly of note.
Fatherly Quote:  
"Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble."
 

• Darth Vader from the STAR WARS films (played by David Prowse/voiced by James Earl Jones)

Father Ranking: 7/10-  His methods seem overly harsh and there have been some long stretches of abandonment, but goes to extreme meausres to find his kid after realizing that he didn't kill the baby when he killed his pregnant wife, plus he kills his only friend for picking on his son.
Great Paternal Moment: 
Chopping off his son's hand for disobeying his teachers' instructions, not to mention offering him a co-rulership of the freaking universe.
Fatherly Quote:
"I am your father."

Review: THIS IS THE END

THIS IS THE END  (COMEDY/HORROR)
Three and a Half out of Four Stars
Directed by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg
Starring:  Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride, Jonah Hill, Emma Watson, Michael Cera
R for crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence.
Verdict:  It's an idea so simple and hysterically funny that it's a wonder that nobody thought of it before, but also played more directly and unapologetic than what might have seemed acceptable.  Bizarre, extremely gross and achingly funny; it isn't for all tastes, but it is brilliant in the stupidest way.

THIS IS THE END is the funniest film to come along in recent memory and also one of the most disgusting.  The concept is so funny and so simple; it's a wonder that no one thought of it before, but the idea isn't what really makes it, I guess.  What really pulls this film together is Seth Rogen's and Evan Goldberg's (the writing team behind SUPERBAD) directorial debut and writing that is so unapologetic and ballsy in the midst of a story so extreme, where most filmmakers would more likely look for some way to avoid the natural, but dangerously ridiculous flow.
It is a hilarious realization of the scenario which all conservative small town congregations have been talking about for years: the destruction of vain, hedonistic Hollywood in the midst of the Rapture as described in the Book of Revelation.  With an impressive cast of big Hollywood names (with a particular slant toward comedic actors) playing exaggerated versions of their real-life selves, Jay Baruchel and Rogen take the leads, with Baruchel arriving in Los Angeles from Canada to hang out with fellow Canuck, Rogen, for the weekend.  Hoping to spend the whole weekend playing 3D video games while smoking marijuana, Baruchel's plans are upset when Rogen insists that they all go hang out with his Hollywood friends at a housewarming party for James Franco.  Baruchel is uncomfortable with the Hollywood community (Emma Watson and Craig Robinson suggest that he may be a hipster, what with not liking FORREST GUMP), but he goes along reluctantly.  During the party in Franco's enormous, fortress-like mansion, the ground begins to shake, this first being dismissed as another California earthquake, but then some people are lifted into the sky by beams of blue light and enormous, fiery sinkholes form in the ground.  After the initial catastrophe kills off (or otherwise drags to Hell) most of Franco's house guests, Franco, Rogen, Baruchel, Robinson, Jonah Hill and Danny McBride hole up in the mansion, struggling to survive the Apocalypse and each other's company.
The story is very loose; basically the apocalypse starts and celebrities struggle to survive, while a little bit goes on with Rogen's and Baruchel's strained relationship; but this is obviously for the best as it allows for the attention to focus on the gags, which a fired rapidly and with a better than average success rate.  The base concept of celebrities playing themselves is alone one of the absolute funniest elements of the film, with Franco as the weirdo artiste who keeps a collection of props in his basement, Hill as the condescendingly kind guy and comedian with the credibility of an Oscar nomination, and so on.  Emma Watson (Hermione from the Harry Potter films) and Michael Cera in particular are scene-stealers, with Cera playing as a hard-edged, cocaine-addicted sexual deviant, and Watson, who spends some brief time with the guys in the mansion before she overhears them debating over the six guys locked up with one girl issue.  McBride, not the most likable comedian, is perfectly suited to the antagonist role, the biggest douchebag in Hollywood.
Just in case you didn't notice yet though, THIS IS THE END will not appeal to everyone's tastes, although that fact has a lot to do with makes it so great for those it does agree with.  In addition to featuring a great deal of the most disgusting and ridiculous sex-related jokes ever on screen and a wide assortment of politically-incorrect elements, the Apocalypse provides opportunities for a hefty amount of extreme gory deaths.  Honestly though, while making the stomach churn, it will also make your abdominal muscles quite sore from the bounteous laugh-out-loud moments.
The way it takes on the most ridiculous elements of its Apocalyptic concept is most refreshing, making no apologies for the Biblical proportions and the third act is beautifully bold and surprising.  As far as comedies go, THIS IS THE END is everything you could want and more, and there's too many lines that deserve quoting that you can't remember them all.  A comedy with balls this size (in more ways than one) only comes along every so many years.

Review: MAN OF STEEL

MAN OF STEEL  (ACTION/SCI-FI)
Two and a Half out of Four Stars
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring:  Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
Verdict:  The attempt to create a "Batman Begins" moment for Superman results in many stellar moments and a refreshingly new approach, even as it threatens to crumble beneath its epic scope, but the cracks appear in a shaky second act before crumbling like so many city blocks in the third. 

Tragically, the first and greatest comic book superhero yet again eludes the grasp of another earnest effort by Hollywood to craft a proper screen adaptation; Richard Donner's 1978 SUPERMAN is strong but campy and plagued by an idiotic time travel plot device, while SUPERMAN RETURNS was too melancholy and didn't work as an action movie.  SUPERMAN II is maybe the strongest, around the same level as SUPERMAN RETURNS, but is, again, campy.  There's no point mentioning SUPERMAN III & IV, beyond to mention that they aren't worth mentioning.
Given the character's rich mythology and enormously iconic status, when taking him to the big screen, the goal is "the Superman movie we've all been waiting for".  That's a very high standard though, but MAN OF STEEL has the added credibility of Christopher Nolan, savior of Batman's screen presence, as producer.  But a producer rarely has as strong an influence on the finished film as the marketing department would like people to think, and in this case, it is primarily the combined vision of writer David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder. 
I'll admit, the involvement of Goyer and Snyder made me apprehensive at first.  Goyer has story credits throughout THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, and it was on the set of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES that Goyer began developing the concept of a post-DARK KNIGHT Superman reboot, but for all the excellence of those films, Nolan and his brother Jonathan were the screenwriters on those films, working from the stories they had developed with Goyer.  Movies where Goyer had a more direct influence as the screenwriter himself, as with MAN OF STEEL, include the bland cult-favorite, BLADE, and the bombastically bad GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE, as well as an assortment of lackluster works.
Snyder had fallen out of favor following some bizarre foul-ups in the form of a super-serious, talking animal, animated action film, THE LEGEND OF THE GUARDIANS: THE OWLS OF GA'HOOLE, and the sloppy and shameless fanboy wet dream that was SUCKER PUNCH.  Before that though, he was very highly regarded by fanboy circles and their internet fan forums, thanks to the extremely CGI-heavy, dark graphic novel adaptations, 300 and WATCHMEN.  Damn me if you will, but I didn't enjoy those films much either.
With the announcement of MAN OF STEEL, I was apprehensive, possibly apathetic, but then the advertising began and my skepticism melted away.  The trailers promised something new and exciting, and I was even more thrilled as audience test screening turned out highly positive buzz.  Believe me, when I entered that theater, I had largely given into the hype and was excited to see a new, serious and emotional re-visioning of America's first and most famous superhero.  I'm not a comics fan, and I know little about the comic book specifics of Superman, but I think I have a pretty strong idea of how his story works and how he works cinematically.

Superman goes "commando" in MAN OF STEEL.

The film's early scenes on Krypton, a dying world where the wise scientist Jor-El seeks to further their race through bonding with other worlds and the warlord General Zod aims to destroy "lesser" races to ensure Kryptonian survival, are spectacular.  It is a supreme improvement on the uninteresting Krypton of Donner's film, the scenes of which could just as well be taking place in a single building.  Russell Crowe makes a noble and strong Jor-El, and Michael Shannon plays Zod threateningly, but restrained, without the scenery-chewing that most actors would play into.  It is a world racing against the clock, opening with Kal-El's birth and gradually building to the destructive climax with Kal-El in a vessel bound for Earth as Krypton crumbles away.
After this fairly lengthy prologue, the film wisely takes a turn into non-linear storytelling, jumping back and forth between Kal-El's, now known as Clark Kent, life as a refugee on Earth, struggling to hide his true self while not simply standing by in the wake of disaster, and scenes of young Clark growing up on a Kansas farm with his surrogate parents, the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), who advise him to keep the supernatural side of himself a secret until the world is ready.  Much of this is shown throughout the narrative of Lois Lane, played by Amy Adams, chasing a story across the world about a mysterious "superman" who rescues strangers from disaster and then disappears, with only a few aware of his known identity.  These scenes, while generally more distant emotionally than they probably should be, are also highly interesting, and the editing is refreshing, while threatening to be too lean, cuts out much of the fat that would usually be interwoven with the major points to pad things out.  The result is a film that runs at a breakneck pace and feels very straightforward in a pleasantly interesting manner, although sometimes risks losing a sense of gravitas and some moments come off as a little hokey.

Michael Shannon as General Zod.

All in all, throughout the full first act, I'd say it's a solid "three and a half stars", but then Zod shows up at Earth seeking Kal-El, who he believes possesses the keys to rebuilding the Kryptonian race.  After a genuinely frightening extraterrestrial transmission sent out to the world (a sort-of "Surrender Superman" moment), Superman (as he later becomes known to the world) makes himself known and following a few interesting bits as this alien interacts with the U.S. military and the press, the film descends into a very prolonged series of violent action sequences with minimal variance.
MAN OF STEEL runs around two and a half hours, but I'd estimate that at least an hour of that involves Superman fighting Zod and his cohorts across Kansas fields and into Metropolis (identified only by one brief blip on a war room screen).  Zod gets in and out of his ship, following Superman around and then they throw each other through buildings and then repeat the cycle.  There are a few very spectacular moments, such as a skyscraper falling at a 90 degree angle, and many of these moments play even better in 3D, but the majority of it involves high-impact blows and destruction of buildings in repetition, plus false endings followed up by more of the same.  Some have accused Snyder of "directing video games", rather than movies, and unfortunately, MAN OF STEEL ultimately does little to prove this image wrong.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

In terms of filling the red boots, Henry Cavill does very well, playing him as a quietly charming and relaxed presence, but as with just about everything she shows up in, Amy Adams steals the show; except for JULIE & JULIA, where she was just annoying, so heaven knows what happened there.  Anyway, Adams plays Lois somewhere in between a tough-talking gumshoe and a quirky, down-to-earth modern woman with honest warmth.  Crowe is also a very strong Jor-El, sage-like and imposing, although his level of screen time sometimes feels like too much of a good thing, as if he should be so omnipresent.

Russell Crowe as Jor-El.

MAN OF STEEL is a respectable reboot of the struggling franchise, and it's worth taking into account that Superman is clearly amongst the most difficult characters to adapt to the screen successfully, so as much as they get right is admirable.  I would like to see a sequel; perhaps they'll be able to improve what they've begun, but I prefer that Goyer and Snyder handed the reins over to someone else, but they've already been contracted, so we may just have to bank on luck for now.  SUPERMAN RETURNS was arguably too much mythology at the expense of action, but MAN OF STEEL goes so far the other way that by the end, it almost seems ridiculous.

SUPERMAN RETURNED: WHAT WENT WRONG? PT 2- THE RETROSPECTIVE PROFILE REVIEW

NOTICE:  As per usual in Movies & Musings film retrospectives, all aspects of the film are prone to discussion; with that in mind, here be "spoilers"...
SUPERMAN RETURNS was probably the most hyped film of 2006, but like a couple other mega-hyped returns to long-stagnant New Hollywood franchises in the past fifteen years, i.e. STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, SUPERMAN RETURNS was initially well-enough received but with an underlying backlash that has since developed into a full-blown cult of internet derision.

Brandon Routh as Superman.

Like those other franchises, director Bryan Singer's effort to reinvigorate a formerly popular film property was not of today's standard "reboot" method.  The reboot as we know it had rocked the film industry just the year before when Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS put the restart button on both story and vision for the Batman character, and is today's standard move when a franchise breaks down, i.e. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN or this week's MAN OF STEEL.  Instead of playing a "fresh start" card, Singer fought for the bold move of creating a new chapter to the already existing series, but even more unusual, it was the fifth film in a series, but disregarded the existence of the series' more disappointing films, SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE.  Instead of aiming to reinvent the Superman story for a 21st Century audience, SUPERMAN RETURNS tried to both play off the nostalgia that came with the property, while enriching the cinematic existence of the characters.
That's the real dilemma for such films though, that the existing fanbase has their own strong opinions about the franchise, and the so-called "fanboys" are always eager to damn what they perceive as an overt deviation from the existing property (and with the loudspeakers provided in the internet age, they are often overly zealous in their condemnations), but if it really is just more of the same, then the point of reinvigorating a stagnant franchise is rendered moot.  Over the years, the film becomes a punchline as fanboy forums become more and more comfortable bashing a film that they enjoyed initially but apparently just not enough.
As aforementioned, SUPERMAN RETURNS dismisses the third and fourth films that starred Christopher Reeve and plays as a direct follow up to the oft-fan favorite, SUPERMAN II, placed five years after those events, during which time Superman (Brandon Routh) has been away from Earth, presumed by some as an abandonment.  Among those most bitter toward his absence is his old flame, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who has written a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman", and now has a son and a boyfriend (James Marsden), who happens to be a dashing pilot and the nephew of The Daily Planet's editor-in-chief.  Superman's arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey), has been released from his incarceration after Superman was unable to testify at his trial, and has since managed to dupe a wealthy widow into naming him her sole heir.  With his new resources, Luthor plans a new scheme which involves using stolen Kryptonian crystals from Superman's Fortress of Solitude to create an entire new continent that will make Luthor the most powerful man in the world and kill billions of innocent people as the oceans overflow their borders.
STARRING SUPERMAN IN THE ROLE OF JESUS
As explained early on, Superman was in the far reaches of outer space, searching for any fellow refugees amongst the remains of his destroyed planet Krypton, which some have identified as a major flaw in the film's understanding of the Superman myth, because Superman's steadfast devotion to his responsibility for Earth's safety is supposedly integral to the character.  I don't know a whole lot about that, but I think that plot device can be easily identified as what was clearly Singer's strongest point of interest in the character; Superman is a Christ symbol.

Honestly, people!  It's right there!

Many of our modern heroes of fiction have savior complexes, which works as a humanizing explanation of their inhuman sacrifices (Harry Potter, somewhat ironically, is a very notable example), but Superman, perhaps in part thanks to his long-standing iconic status in American culture, is probably the most prominent (and pure) modern allegory to the Christ story.  Superman is the only son of wise Jor-El, sent to Earth where he will be a symbol of hope for mankind to aspire to; a savior who will guide humanity to achieve their potential.  There were some heavy elements of this in Richard Donner's SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE in the scenes featuring Marlon Brando as Jor-El ("For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."), but SUPERMAN RETURNS takes the allegory head on.
Superman's absence is comparable to a modern world's feelings of agnostic doubt and abandonment by a seemingly apathetic creator, and Lois is preaching the atheistic gospel of a world that needs no savior.  In a particularly favorite moment of mine in the film, Superman visits Lois for the first time since his return to Earth, and they share this exchange while airborne above the city:

SUPERMAN:  Listen; what do you hear?

LOIS:  Nothing.

SUPERMAN:  I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one.

This short exchange of dialogue holds the keys to heart of this film.  As the film nears its climax, Superman confronts Luthor, who wields a jagged shard of Kryptonite which he stabs deep into Superman's ribs and then beats him severely before leaving him for dead.  Thanks to the well-placed aid of Lois, most of the Kryptonite is extracted from the wound, giving Superman just enough time to lift the in-process continent outside the atmosphere and throw it into space.  Questions about how deadly Kryptonite is to Superman if he can make it through having a shard of it stuck inside his flesh for a prolonged stretch of time aside, this part of the film is basically the "crucifixion".  Quite blatantly in fact, as after hurling the heap of rock into orbit, Superman falls back to Earth in a state of unconsciousness and positioned like the cross with his arms stretched outward and legs straight and close together.  At this point, Superman is presumably dead or all but so, and in the emotional climax of the film, he is hospitalized as the world hopes and prays.  At the point of desperation, Lois runs into the room where Superman is on his deathbed and finds a the hospital bed empty with sheets turned aside, staged precisely as an "empty tomb" scene.

THE CAST

Seriously folks, isn't he just super?

The most obvious point of casting consternation is Routh, replacing Christopher Reeve in the role of Superman/Clark Kent.  Poor Routh has born the brunt of the SUPERMAN RETURNS aftermath, not unlike Reeve, except at least Reeve had the benefit of maintaining a certain level of work through sequels.  Hollywood urban legend has it that Superman is "cursed", following Superman television star George Reeves' mysterious early death and Reeve's accident that resulted in paralysis, and curse or no curse, Routh's only notable role has been SUPERMAN RETURNS, and ever since, all of his few roles have been in box office bombs, even the excellent SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD, in which he played an airheaded vegan rock star.  Routh's performance was largely dismissed as bland, although a lot of Reeve's charisma (to whom he was frequently compared) was milked from the campier tone of the Richard Donner film.  The material with which Routh was presented allowed for less flexibility, requiring him to charm while floating just above stoicism, and while it's not necessarily a memorable performance, I think Routh did pretty well, and is certainly no poor performer.

Sorry, Gene; you're seriously great though!

Bosworth, in the role of Lois Lane, pales most in comparison to her predecessor, in my opinion, and while according to my personal taste, Margot Kidder was not so pretty a face, Bosworth is relatively bland.
The big improvement cast-wise is Spacey in the role of Lex Luthor, which were probably the biggest shoes to fill, following up the work of the legendary Gene Hackman.  And even still, Spacey improves on that interpretation of Luthor vastly.  Luthor's deadpan frustration with his incompetent flunkies as in earlier films is maintained, but played down in comparison, and Spacey has few rivals in the industry at perfect deadpan execution, but Luthor's seething bitterness toward Superman, and the world in general, provides some really powerful moments.
 The "big spoiler" in SUPERMAN RETURNS was the revelation that Lois' child, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu), was actually Superman's child, conceived through a romantic tryst that occurred in SUPERMAN II.  Maybe I'm ignorant to certain comic book trivia, but I don't understand exactly how Jason's biology works or why, with his usually frail, asthmatic state, but with a single explosion of super strength at one point.  I don't know; but I suppose what I most dislike is the little kid with gross, shaggy hair, intermittently huffing on an inhaler.  It's just... annoying.
Then there's James Marsden, who appeared in Singer's prior X-MEN and X2, yet again playing the poor pretty boy putz whose heart is in the right place, but the woman he loves is more interested in a bloke with a leading role.  Too bad.

ON THE WHOLE
SUPERMAN RETURNS is a good film to be certain, but primarily, it's one of those tricky movies that is ultimately more deserving of admiration than of artistic praise.  It is so ambitious; far more so than any previous screen adaptation of Superman, including the Richard Donner films which Singer so clearly adores.  While those films were still striving to move beyond the campy reputation that comic book characters had been associated with thanks to the Comics Code Authority and the Adam West-starring television series, Batman, SUPERMAN RETURNS had the benefit to come about in a new age of respectability for comic book films.  Even still, then and now, Superman has been one comic book character most particularly immune to contemporary appeal, often saddled with overly convenient abilities and a "boy scout" image.
Even so, Singer opted for a highly reverential approach, while emphasizing the Christian symbolism, which stands as the film's most interesting element, while a melancholy tone has also been applied; this being the film's weakest point.  Clearly, the need to provide Superman with an edge was in mind, but the pervasively melancholy tone was overdone.  Speaking of edge, while today's action films (many of them comic book adaptations) are prone to prolong action scenes to the absolute extreme, often with ridiculous bombast, it is positively surprising that SUPERMAN RETURNS not only lacks this problem, but that it's mistake is entirely the opposite.  There isn't enough action; there are a few action scenes, the only prominent one being a plane wreck rescue, and a couple brief crime interventions, a couple brief rescues in the midst of disaster which is more addressed in dialogue than shown, and finally, throwing a continent into outer space.  I'm not sure if Superman getting nearly beaten to death counts as an action scene though, because while it is a powerful scene, I think 'action scene' suggests a certain titillating thrill aspect, which in this case would be sadistic.  Anyway, most of these action scenes, especially the plane wreck and basic crime fighting, seem to be out of obligation, wedged into a story that was lacking in action.  That said, they do have some pretty spectacular moments, even if in the film as a whole they feel unnatural.
And for a film with so little action, SUPERMAN RETURNS came with one hell of a price tag (film industry accounting is mostly estimated, but not including marketing and distribution expenses, it is estimated at somewhere around $204 million to as much as $270 million (for comparison, $215 million is considered top tier today)), but a lot of that can be attributed to the sky-high costs of the film's heavy use of photo-realistic CGI.  The famous "bullet to the eye" shot alone was an enormously expensive rendering job, but probably the most incredible effects work is the most subtle; the late Marlon Brando, who appeared as Superman's father, Jor-El in the Richard Donner films, was brought back in the Cave of Solitude scenes, recreated with a revolutionary combination of computer-generated imagery and deleted footage from the 1978 film.  Yet, for all the astounding visual effects work in SUPERMAN RETURNS, there a several shots of a computer-rendered Superman double that are utterly unconvincing, especially when Superman swoops in to pulls a child out from the shadow of falling debris, or young Clark Kent experimenting with his superhuman abilities in a flashback.  In some cases, as with some of the effects in the 1978 film, this could be attributed to dated effects in comparison to contemporary technology, but given comparison to other effects in the same film, it's more likely the result of budget demands and/or of certain shots simply given greater attention.

IN CLOSING
Under normal circumstances, SUPERMAN RETURNS would have been considered a success with it's $391 million international gross, but the production costs were so high and such a well known property might have expected greater interest, so plans for a follow up were ultimately scrapped.  Naturally, Singer was indignant at the the suggestion that his film had underperformed, but with all costs considered, the film had apparently not clicked with the market; not at least in the way it needed to.  In opposition to the internet cult of derision though, SUPERMAN RETURNS has also developed a cult appreciation for the bold yet reverential treatment of the Superman myth, earning praise from film circles in the industry and without, regretful of its commercial shortcomings and full of admiration for its artistic method.

SUPERMAN RETURNS
Released: June 28, 2006
Directed by Bryan Singer 
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, Parker Posey, James Marsden
PG-13 for some intense action violence.
Retrospective Verdict:  Yet another reboot/sequel undeserving of the venomous backlash bestowed upon it by rabid internet fanboys, SUPERMAN RETURNS is far better than its reputation, fully invested in its sophisticated themes and abnormally occupied with its characters over the action.  However, this is not always a great thing, as the few action sequences are largely obligatory, and the tone is depressingly downbeat for a summer blockbuster.  Regardless, it is the most ambitious of the franchise yet, reverential as an homage to Richard Donner's groundbreaking work, and aiming far higher.

SUPERMAN RETURNED: WHAT WENT WRONG? PT I- THE BUILDUP

"Remember Brandon Routh from that godawful "Superman" movie? Jesus Christ. Thanks for getting our hopes up and taking a giant s%#t on us."  -Patrick Stewart as "The Narrator" in TED (2012)

PRODUCTION BACKGROUND
By the time SUPERMAN RETURNS came about, the attempt to return Superman to the big screen following financial disaster had already built up an impressively rich and complex history, many elements of which have achieved a bizarre cult status, and contributed to what SUPERMAN RETURNS finally became and even have made their way into the upcoming MAN OF STEEL.
 

Superman's grand screen debut (1978).

Superman has a complicated (and usually disappointing) history in the film industry.  The first Superman movie, quite simply titled, SUPERMAN, was a massive success, financially, critically and culturally.  Through the course of three sequels (four if you count the spun-off SUPERGIRL (1984)), the producers, Alexander and Ilya Salkind drove out Richard Donner, who directed the first and part of the second films, due to creative and budgetary disagreements, then by the time of the third film, Warner Brothers Studios pressured their own cost-cutting manipulations onto the Salkinds.  After SUPERMAN III (1983) resulted in a negative reaction, the Salkinds sold the Superman film rights to Cannon Films.  Cannon stripped the fourth film down to less than half the originally-conceived budget, and even on its paltry budget, the film was a box

Superman's ignominious franchise death (1987).

office-bomb, critically lambasted and is now used as punchline for dead-in-the-water franchises.
Cannon Films declared bankruptcy, and the Superman rights reverted back to the Salkinds.  When the Death of Superman comics storyline reinvigorated popular interest in the character, Warner Brothers purchased the film rights; what followed throughout the 1990s is the stuff of Hollywood legend.
Four high-profile attempts to develop a new Superman film were initiated and failed; most famously, especially in the Internet Age, was developed as SUPERMAN LIVES.  For SUPERMAN LIVES, Tim Burton, who had directed the enormously successful BATMAN (1989), was paid $5 million up front, just for signing on as director.  CHASING AMY-writer/director Kevin Smith, famously a comics fan, wrote the script according to the specifications of studio executives, and another famous comic book fan, Nicolas Cage, was hired to play Superman and payed up front a sum of $20 million, simply for signing on.  The film was "fast tracked" into production to release the film in Summer 1998, in time for the character's 60th anniversary, and teaser posters were shipped out.  As I mentioned, SUPERMAN LIVES has gained a strong cult interest through the internet as various designs and test shots have made their way to the web, creating retrospective speculation on how the would-be film might have done, usually pessimistically.  Take a gander:

I think this is probably my favorite.

This was probably about the time Nic Cage turned really weird.

I think this was meant to be Superman.  Not sure, though.

Yeah...there's this.

The "Eradicator Suit":  Sort of an Iron Man-esque life support combat suit for the mortally-wounded Superman.  It was filled with weird glowing lights.  Find the test videos on YouTube!

There were numerous screen re-writes as the studio struggled to contain an endlessly-inflating budget, creative talents came and went; the studio basically wanted a big-budget toy commercial on par with the Batman franchise, while art designers, special effects developers, studio executives and Burton all collided over creative differences.  Gradually, the project fell apart as the schedule was continuously delayed further and further, and Burton left to direct SLEEPY HOLLOW after "wasting a year," as he put it.  Warner sought someone who might come in and pick up the pieces, but no one was interested.  After indeterminable expenses amounting over $30 million at least, the project was more or less ended in 2000, when Nicolas Cage officially left the production.
Warner Brothers never really stopped developing a new Superman film through the 1990s and the early 2000s, but the perpetual development went along in stages.  The first had been SUPERMAN REBORN, modeled after The Death of Superman, first begun when Warner bought the rights in 1993, before Kevin Smith was hired, signaling the arrival of SUPERMAN LIVES.  After LIVES fell apart, Akiva Goldsman, writer of BATMAN & ROBIN and A BEAUTIFUL MIND(!) was hired to write BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, which would cross over the two defunct franchises and be released in 2004, but Warner opted to develop separate new franchises for the two characters.  The last would-be Superman film before SUPERMAN RETURNS stuck was SUPERMAN: FLYBY, a script written by Lost-creator and future STAR TREK (2009)-director J.J. Abrams.  After directors Brett Ratner (RUSH HOUR) and McG (CHARLIE'S ANGELS) both signed on and left in succession, Abrams lobbied for the opportunity to direct his script, but due to his inexperience as a director, Warner sought out X-MEN-director Bryan Singer instead.  Singer brought along his own story concepts and X2: X-MEN UNITED writers, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, who re-wrote the script yet again, this time as SUPERMAN RETURNS.
By the time SUPERMAN RETURNS came around, failed attempts to re-boot the Superman franchise had amounted to estimated costs of around $260 million, and added to that was the production costs of SUPERMAN RETURNS itself, originally planned at $185 million, but rose to a final tally of $209 million (after tax rebates and incentives), plus about $100 million spent on a major marketing campaign.   Although finances in the film industry are a slippery business, with some costs paying off much later with later projects and you can't always tell where expenses wind up, the journey to get SUPERMAN RETURNS to theaters wound up costing an estimated $570 million at least.  Considering that a studio gets about half of a film's total gross (the other half goes to the exhibitors) minus various expenses, SUPERMAN RETURNS would require over $600 million to profit simply as its own production, but well over $1 billion to make up for the unfulfilled productions.  The worldwide gross ended up at $391 million.
For a more economically-budgeted film, that would have been pretty good, and it was the 9th biggest film of 2006; a good, solid success, though nothing spectacular.  However, this was one of the most expensive films ever made, with or without the 1990s baggage, and Warner Brothers went back to the drawing board.

SUPERMAN'S RETURN

Yes he is, Bosworth-Lois, yes he is.

Over the past several years since the Summer 2006 release of SUPERMAN RETURNS, the film has received a negative reputation, but people didn't think it was so bad at the time.  In the United States the film performed very strongly, that is, right up until PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, a film with a similarly negative reputation, crushed the competition on SUPERMAN RETURNS' second weekend and for a total nine consecutive weeks.  On RottenTomatoes.com, a solid 76% of critics positively reviewed the film, and a decent 67% of audiences rated it positively.
After a nearly 20-year absence from film, SUPERMAN RETURNS became the highest-grossing film in the franchise by far, with an impressive $200 million domestic gross and a worldwide total of $391 million.  SUPERMAN RETURNS was never considered likely to make a profit with the extensive "development hell" expenses were taken into account, but Warner Brothers believed that the film could reignite the franchise and eventually lead to long-term profits through sequels and merchandising that never came.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Review: THE INTERNSHIP

THE INTERNSHIP  (COMEDY)
One Star out of Four 
Directed by Shawn Levy
Starring:  Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rose Byrne, Aasif Mandvi, Josh Brener, Max Minghella
PG-13 for sexuality, some crude content, partying and language.
Verdict:  The reuniting of WEDDING CRASHERS co-stars Vaughn and Wilson provides an occasionally amusing bromance, but yields few laughs, while the film as a whole relies lazily on orthodox formula and cliches of the worst sort, wrapped up in a tired crossing of extended fish-out-of-water situations and nerds learning to build confidence, stretched out over a much too long two hours.  And, unless you didn't catch it from the advertising, it sets a whole new bar for product placements in film as a $58 million commercial for Google.
You may enjoy THE INTERNSHIP if you enjoyed: DATE NIGHT, THE WATCH, WEDDING CRASHERS, DRILLBIT TAYLOR

Almost three years ago, David Fincher made THE SOCIAL NETWORK, unofficially dubbed "The Facebook Movie", and it was one of the greatest films I have ever seen.  Now Shawn Levy heads up THE INTERNSHIP; a film that could be called "The Google Movie" but would more appropriately be called "The Google Advertisement", and it is downright bad.  Of course, I'm not comparing a "Frat Pack" comedy to THE SOCIAL NETWORK, but it was a good lead in;  compared to other "Frat Pack" (in reference to the cast of OLD SCHOOL and other comedic actors who regularly appear together in raunchy, irreverent comedies, i.e. Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Luke Wilson, Ben Stiller, Paul Rudd and others) comedies though, it still fares very poorly.
The plot, thin though it is, finds accomplished salesmen Billy McMahon (Vaughn, who also co-wrote the screenplay) and Nick Campbell suddenly unemployed when they learn from a client that their business has closed, leaving them obsolete in a digital age.  Unwilling to just give up on the dream, Billy convinces Nick to join him in applying for a highly competitive intern program at the Google corporate offices which may lead to a job.  Thanks to a highly improbable pity vote, their applications are accepted and they find themselves the most misfitted of a team of misfits in the competition, including their team leader and guidance counselor at Google, super-awkward nerd Lyle (Brener), angsty cynic Stuart (Dylan O'Brien), sex-obsessed Neha (Tiya Sicar) and self-critical mama's boy Yo-Yo (Tobit Raphael).  Over the much overdrawn two hour running time, the team of misfits have all kinds of wacky escapades while they stumble through every intern test, and a rival intern (Max Minghella, who was in THE SOCIAL NETWORK) bullies them every step of the way.  Vaughn's script (co-written with Jared Stern) and Levy's direction hit every note in the done-to-death team of misfits formula, including the notes that many other inane comedies would find too contrived.
Vaughn and Wilson make a likable duo and are both very energetic in their performances, but the riffing could sometimes use a little reigning in (which Levy would never do), and very few of the jokes hit their desired mark, whether due to incompetent staging, lack of originality or just plain blandness.  I should confess that I felt that the pair's big hit, WEDDING CRASHERS, was overrated, although far funnier than this.  Will Ferrell gets a cameo as Wilson's crass brother-in-law who sells mattresses, and depending on whether you enjoy the sometimes-divisive Ferrell, that's moderately amusing (I laughed a little).
Where the film becomes wildly irritating is with Nick and Billy's teammates at Google; extreme social outcasts intended to be endearing but whose over-the-top, shrill personalities are hopelessly unlikable.  These characters are used in the mistaken belief that awkwardness and extreme oddity equals humor, when in fact, it just feels awkward.  One real headache-inducing scene involves a "Quidditch" game challenge between the intern teams, and I defy you to sit still and enjoy the embarrassment taking place onscreen without any discomforted shifting.

The first time a pair of old guys taught a group of young, dismissive misfits to enjoy life and have self-confidence.

Comedy is probably the most subjective and difficult genre there is, because peoples senses of humor depend on their personal experience, so some people think some things are funnier than others, and a lot of comedies that are just too dumb during the day become unreasonably funny at three o' clock in the morning.  Comedies have a much higher fail rate, and a comedy film has to work both in a story/character department like everything else, as well as the gag department.  As fragile as comedy is then, it's odd and perhaps a bit unfortunate that failures of comedy land so much harder than any other failure, and it's so much easier to hate a bad comedy than any other sort of "bad" movie.  On the other hand, THE INTERNSHIP doesn't seem self-aware enough to recognize itself as a crummy commercial, such as the way the product placement-heavy TALLADEGA NIGHTS: THE BALLAD OF RICKY BOBBY played the advertising as the film's biggest joke.  THE INTERNSHIP is annoyingly sincere in its praise of Google, and what's worse are the prominent references to FLASHDANCE.  I hate FLASHDANCE.
On a side note: Maybe it's been a while since I've seen a PG-13 comedy, but THE INTERNSHIP seems to be pushing the border in the sexual humor department, especially in a prolonged strip club sequence that shows an awful lot and has a not-so-brief running gag involving ejaculation.  Admittedly though, that running gag does include some funny deadpan comments from Wilson's character.