Shazam!, or How Superhero Movies Should be Fun

Shazam!

Sorry, had to get that out of the way before I got started.

Shazam! is hopefully a new direction for superhero movies, or a shift back to what the genre’s main calling card was for a long time: a childish (and perhaps naïve) imagination run wild. I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m tired of the brooding, moody superheroes. Just because Christopher Nolan did it so well with The Dark Knight doesn’t mean everyone running around in colorful tights needs to be reincarnated as a wet blanket.

Sometimes, when you go to the theater, you just want to feel like a kid again, not get lost in crappy, oversimplified monologues on the societal reasons villains become villains and superheroes whose lives are destroyed in the process of saving an ungrateful world. It’s supposed to be fun.

And Shazam! has enjoyability in spades.

The plot is simple. There is good magic and bad magic. The former is embodied in the bright red suit and giant lightning bolt of Shazam, while the latter is delivered in the shape of the Seven Deadly Sins, who latch onto a devilish Mark Strong (I foresee further bad guy roles for him in the future). The two square off for supremacy.

Throw in a downtrodden teenager, an orphan seeking his mother, connecting with his new foster siblings and we have all the watermarks of an origin story.

The movie’s charm comes from the answer to a question kids may ask from time to time: What would you do if you had superpowers?

Easy. Test them out and show them off.

There is no shortage of humor coming from Billy Batson’s (Asher Angel) initial response to getting his powers. He and his foster brother, Freddy (Jack Dylan Glazer), conduct multiple tests to figure out just how strong he is. They even engage in a little neighborhood do-gooding. Zachary Levi’s performance could not have been better. He sells the childlike whimsy perfectly.

That question returns again and again throughout the latter half of the movie. The answers are, without fail, golden.

What also helps is a very likeable cast. They all seem a natural fit for their roles. I particularly enjoyed Ian Chen’s (Evan in Fresh Off the Boat) performance as one of the foster family. He’s an avid video gamer and not averse to making a Bruce Lee reference.

Kudos to the director, David F. Sandberg, and to the writers, Henry Gayden and Darren Lemke, for embracing the nerdy and childlike atmosphere without sacrificing the heartistic elements. A job well done.

Review: Eye in the Sky - Politics and the Cost of War Collide

In context of the Middle Eastern drone strikes and the ISIS situation, Eye in the Sky is the most timely film released for some time. The One Entertainment and Raindog Films production zeroes in on of the elements that seems to get lost in war (and war films) - the value of a single life - especially where the video game feel of a drone strike is concerned. There are Shabab terrorists preparing for a suicide bombing in a Nairobi, Kenya "safe-house" and something has to be done to stop them, but there's a little girl's life at risk. This initiates the political, ethical, and humanistic debacle that drives the film forward.

A job well done.

There's a line in the historical drama Hotel Rwanda regarding terrorist attacks and distant killings: "If people see this...they'll say, 'Oh my God that's horrible,' and then go on eating their dinners." The cynical statement fits right in with the politicians' sentiments in the Eye in the Sky, albeit with a revised ending clause. They are afraid the people will vote them out, should a single drone strike kill anyone other than the intended targets.

For the military personnel involved, who only want to take action, one gets the sense that some won't be able to eat their dinner. The others capable of doing so are those who have been around and experienced firsthand "the cost of war." That cost - be it humanity, life, or reputation - is undoubtedly a central theme behind the movie.

The titular "eye in the sky" overlooking its target.

Eye in the Sky is both a war film and a political drama, and it is focused entirely on the ordering of one drone strike. The writing, carried out by Guy Hibbert, is tight and suspenseful despite the minimal physical action involved. Hibbert tells a cerebral story about decision-making and political responsibility, or lack thereof.

This film is also buoyed by an excellent directing job by Gavin Hood, whose work on Ender's Game appears to have served him sell. He infuses every situation with conflict. Nothing comes easy for the characters, and nothing should when there is a hard call to make. The consequences are large and as awful as they are noble, an ambivalence that is captured perfectly by Hood's skilled direction.

Additionally, all is well on the acting front, though the film has no real "star." Helen Mirren's performance as Col. Catherine Powell is sharp and she portrays a commander's frustration with her superior's inaction genuinely. Aaron Paul (of Breaking Bad fame) is also excellent in his role as a drone pilot and Pheobe Fox plays his new recruit co-pilot with weepy solidity. The politicians, who repeatedly pass-on responsibility to others, are portrayed in a capable fashion by the ensemble cast. The best performance, however, arguably comes from the recently deceased Alan Rickman, whose Lt. General Frank Benson has to deal directly with the political game of hot potato. It's unfortunate that there will be no further performances from the man.

Alan Rickman turns in a stellar performance.

Another area where Eye in the Sky succeeds is in its tight, cohesion. The stage is immediately set and virtually no time is wasted, unlike other films which choose to focus on the action side. There is one goal, kill the targets via drone strike, and there is one obstacle, a girl. The result is riveting and thought provoking.

Review: Batman v. Superman - Putting the Business in Show Business

Too often, of late, Hollywood has released films that show just how much business is involved in show business. The latest glitzy production off the well-worn comic book superhero movie assembly line – Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice – is another big budget spectacle designed for the express purpose of raking in the big bucks. It is supposed to be the spring season’s event film, or rather “film,” as that moniker only applies in a purely definitional sense. Zack Snyder, the man tasked with directing the DC Cinematic Universe, has accomplished exactly what he did on Man of Steel. That is: take a very promising premise and muddle it beneath a maze of overblown action and an excess of special effects.

A Promotional Poster

Unfortunately for Mr. Snyder, this places him in a class headlined by Michael Bay. The movie, which will certainly find an audience to grant them odd billion dollars they desire, is first and foremost longer than it needs to be. Like most movies with such an elongated running time (approx. 2 hours and 30 minutes), it becomes bogged down and sluggish instead of tight and powerful. The writing, perpetrated by David S. Goyer and the normally excellent Chris Terrio, goes against almost everything Hollywood writers are taught to do with the exception of being “high concept.” It is based on the Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman comic books, which have been widely adapted over the years. Some complain that it diverges from the source material too much, but such a complaint would be irrelevant if the movie was actually something that Warner Bros. could take pride in as a filmmaking achievement.

These are heavy-handed attacks on one of the most highly anticipated motion pictures of the year and such blows should not be thrown about loosely. The film, in spite of itself, has a few saving graces. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) is the main one, and is undoubtedly the driving force behind any worthwhile drama in “the greatest gladiator match of all-time.” Affleck is well-suited for the role of a caped-crusader who’s grown cynical throughout his long career of fighting criminals. He takes Master Bruce’s ambitions and runs with them as far as the story is willing to let them go.

At least they didn't botch Batman.

Mixed in, of course, is Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill), who faces his own share of struggles. He’s become a divisive figure in society. Some call him a savior, even a god, and the rest are afraid that his seemingly unlimited powers could eventually go awry. This conflict would likely be more compelling if Cavill exercised the full range of his acting chops, but he doesn’t. The man, who physically fits the bill of Krypton’s favorite son, turns in a performance not unlike Jamie Dornan in Fifty Shades of Grey – all looks and no game. To be fair, Cavill has a difficult task in turning perhaps the most un-complex character in storytelling history into one facing a range of complicated concerns that are only set-aside for a messianic figure.

Another flaw in the movie highlights one of its strengths – the involvement of Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). Not nearly enough time is spent on their character development (I get it, Wonder Woman will have her movie in about a year’s time). Gadot seems to be the perfect fit for the exotic Amazon and warrior who can hold her own with anyone in the Justice League, yet she gets pushed aside in favor of the two titular characters. Then there’s Eisenberg, who presents an interesting take on the notorious super villain Luthor, who oddly enough isn’t bald. Luther creates havoc, and loves doing it. Still, there could be more invested into this conniving and complicated perpetual thorn in Superman’s side.

The next aspect of this money-maker is the big battle scene. Without giving away any of the details, the film essentially joins the Godzilla franchise for a longer amount of time than it needed to. This is not overly surprising since Snyder turned Man of Steel into Dragonball Z for about 40 minutes. Doing so, killed the opportunity to truly flesh out the characters (and probably an inordinate sum of innocent bystanders).

Wait, Godzilla? How do you get into this review?

In conclusion, Batman v. Superman had solid potential – an interesting take on Batman and Lex Luthor – but the execution required to make use of such promise was lacking in many areas. The greatest crime of all is its inability to stand on its own as a movie. For all intents and purposes, it is a transitional piece that will be defined by the movies that follow it in the DC series. That is never a compliment for any cinematic production, regardless of how much it does wonders for Warner Bros.' business end.