Wednesday, 6 August 2025

OUT NOW: Superman (James Gunn, 2025)

After stopping a war, Superman (David Corenswet) finds himself on the wrong side of US foreign policy.

This gives Lex Luther (Nicholas Hoult) the cover he needs to martial opposition to the superhero. 

After breaking into the Fortress of Solitude, Luther discovers a new weapon to use against Superman: 

A secret that could shatter not only the world’s trust in Superman, but his own sense of self…


Well that only took… 40-something years.


This is the first Superman movie that feels like an episode in a longer series. 


Recent previous movies have felt stuck in an endless loop of origins. 


Superman Returns was a partial reboot/sequel that was too in love with Richard Donner’s iteration.


Man of Steel was a full reboot that mashed up Donner’s first two films into one narrative, with a blurry focus on grounding Superman in cynicism about selfless heroism.


On its own terms, this movie is fine. I doubt it will stick in the cultural memory.


The cast is fine. It moves. The tone is relatively lighter.


There is nothing about it that is that original. It feels like a compilation of elements from previous Superman and superhero media.


Ironically, I left the movie wanting to re-watch Man of Steel. Not because I think it would be a materially better work - but it probably feels like it’s own (flawed) beast.


I left Superman with a vague vacuousness - like I had eaten something filled with empty calories.

With Gunn’s other work, there is a desire to feel for the underdog - those society deems worthless. But that quality feels surface - the character Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio) is revealed to be more cunning than her initial appearance, but she is still presented as a caricature, something to be made fun of rather than a person.


There are more significant issues. I was disappointed in Nicholas Hoult as Luthor - he is a little one-note as scripted. I never buy his loathing - there is a gnawing lack of context and interiority to the character, and it feels like the actor is trying to force his rage.


Hilariously, in trying to both rebound from the creative choices of the Snyder era, this film feels like a studio mandate on celluloid (in its focus on the geopolitics of a fictional country and introduction of a superhero team, it also feels like a remake of Black Adam).


Once again, DC is trying to build a universe in one movie.


And the person (co)leading this effort is also the filmmaker tasked with introducing this universe. It cannot help but feel off. 


The film opens with a lot of inelegant exposition, mostly conveyed in dialogue that never feels natural to the characters or their performers. It also looks too bright, with a lot of bland compositions more redolent of television than cinema.


It looks and feels like a movie tossed off to meet a release date, a teaser for future spin-offs.


It ultimately feels a little weightless. That is why it feels like another episode in a larger series.

It is a pity because the movie teases some real dramatic and thematic meat:


Gunn’s re-working of Superman’s origins is the most interesting part of the movie, and the resolution, while well-played by the actors, feels rushed.


Getting Superman involved in geopolitics feels like a welcome deviation from the timeless myth-making of Donner and the stillborn revisionism of Snyder.


For a brief chunk of runtime, the film teases real conflict - particularly in the interview Clark has with Lois - offering an opportunity to show Superman’s ideals, and putting them to the test.


One thing I liked about the movie was that it figured out how to present Superman as a vulnerable hero - he has all these powers but he is also determined to save anyone who needs help (down to a dog and a squirrel).


This film recognises the stakes of this and foregrounds Superman trying to limit destruction and help people, while also fighting super-powered beings.


He is repeatedly beaten and trapped.

But beyond the impacts on his flesh, what about the character?


I was curious to see how the filmmaker behind Super would conceptualise Superman, an eternal boy scout.


The Gunn protagonist is a flawed person trying to make good. 


His Superman is more sure of purpose from the outset, but is still trying to live up to and work out what that purpose is. The movie never finds a way to make that arc cathartic.


It has entertaining aspects, but Superman 2025 ultimately never finds the emotional grounding it aspires to.


If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!


Thursday, 31 July 2025

BITE-SIZED: Prospect (Zeek Earl and Chris Caldwell, 2018)

 Prospector Damon (Jay Duplass) and his teenage daughter Cee (Sophie Thatcher) arrive on a planet seeking a precious resource.

When they are confronted by rivals and her father is killed, Cee is forced to form an alliance with the survivor of the attack (Pedro Pascal) in order to survive.


Can she make it off-planet?



Starring Pedro Pascal and Sophie Thatcher, Prospect is a small-scale sci fi story about people scrapping by in the future.


This is not a great movie, but in its small-scale, home-made evocation of the future, it is something to be appreciated.


The movie drops you right in the middle of the action with no exposition.


We are expected to work out the world purely from context, and not even the characters’ language helps: they throw around future lingo with no characters asking for explanation, or clarification from the characters, spouting said techno-babble.


It could be frustrating, but the story is so simple, and the stakes are established so clearly, that you do not need more specifics.


While there is a little gunplay, a lot of the movie’s action is negotiation between different groups of people bartering over limited resources.


The future seems to be a desperate place: despite being a child, Cee has spent her life being trained by her father in survival skills. It is clear early on that he is trying to prepare her for a world without him, which adds an air of fatalism to the movie from the beginning.


The film’s production design feels inspired by the used future aesthetic of seventies scifi, not in look but in inspiration. From what I have read, the filmmakers had a diverse group of designers who had never worked on a movie to build the costumes and props.


As Cee, Thatcher is terrific - this is a largely silent movie, and so much rests on her reactions, and she carries the movie on her shoulders. 


Pedro Pascal is fine as her reluctant ally - he is doing a voice which feels a touch too big for the style of the movie. One problem I have is that there is not enough tension - he frankly comes off as too inherently nice. It feels like the filmmakers wanted the character to be a little more ambiguous.


The film sags slightly in the middle, and it has some pacing issues. But overall, it is worth seeking out.


If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

 

Wednesday, 30 July 2025

OUT NOW: F1 (Joseph Kosinski, 2025)

With his star racer (Damson Idris) and his team in trouble, a flailing owner (Javier Bardem) recruits a veteran ex-racer (Brad Pitt) to give them the edge they need…



There is a part of me that wants to love F1. This feels like the kind of movie I would go watch in the nineties with my parents.


Right from the first shot, a sweeping wide descending from the heavens toward a racing track, I was in. 


The moment the title card hit, bolstered by Hans Zimmer’s title theme, I was in love.


I do not know anything about Formula One. I never cared about cars.


As sheer spectacle, this movie hooked me.


Kind of like Kosinski’s Top Gun: Maverick, this movie makes physical human endeavour and incredibly dangerous machines the site of spectacle.


While there are probably a lot of computer-generated or enhanced elements, F1 feels tactile. 


If this movie was just about showing the races, it would still be watchable. I almost wish it was just that.


It is impossible not to treat this movie as another step in Brad Pitt’s rehabilitation campaign after the domestic violence allegations against him.


There is a chill to Pitt here, a distance that both works for the character’s disenchantment, and against the story’s attempts to humanise him.


He is also just too old.


The story is familiar - a veteran racer is brought in to help a young tyro and they join forces to overcome. But for where the story goes, he is just way, way too old.


There is an old-fashioned quality to the story that I have seen a lot of people criticise.


I felt the other way.


By the end of the movie, it becomes clear that the character has already experienced that growth offscreen - once his work is done, he leaves ala the title character in Shane, to race another day.


That kind of main character, one who does not change, but instead changes those around him, is something we do not see a lot of in contemporary blockbusters - there is more of a compulsion to centre the main character’s growth.


There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not the only way of telling a story. 


That main character-as-catalyst makes the latter parts of the movie kind of interesting, but it also feels like a metaphor for the lack of new movie stars to anchor new movies - and because of Pitt's casting, it also feels like a lead weight. 


The lack of new movie stars means people like Pitt continue to take up space.


The movie has been a relative success (relative the massive $300m budget), and I am hoping it’s success will give Kosinski and the studios encouragement to pursue this kind of large-scale four-quad entertainment more often.


Sadly that success means Pitt gets to endure as a star.



If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

OUT NOW: The Count of Monte Cristo (Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, 2024)

After escaping wrongful imprisonment, Edmund Dantes (Pierre Niney) re-emerges as the mysterious Count, with a plan to destroy the men who took his life away.



When I was going through my love affair with swashbucklers last year, I was wondering if these movies would ever experience a renaissance.


Enter the Count.


Written and directed by Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, this latest version of Alexandre Dumas’ tale has been a massive success overseas, both critically and commercially.


My experience with the story is a version for kids, and the 2002 American film directed by Kevin Costner’s full-time part-time friend Kevin Reynolds.


I liked the film - I did not love it.


The actors are well-cast.


Pierre Niney as Dantes handles the transition from facile youth to hardened mastermind, while all of the characters’ foes are gloriously contemptible: 


Bastien Bouillon as deceitful friend Fernand, Patrick Mille as Dantes’ callous captain Danglars and my personal favourite Laurent Lafitte, who plays the craven prosecutor Gérard de Villefort.

 

Filled with great locations, the movie looks great. I was a little weary of the photography early on - it appeared to suffer from that drained quality that affects a lot of movies shot on digital, but that might have just been the lighting of the initial scenes.


The film is at its best in showing Dantes’ schemes come to fruition, as his foes destroy themselves, with a welcome dollop of dark humour.


The film is less powerful when it wants to highlight the ultimate hypocrisy of Dantes’ quest, and the cost on other peoples’ lives.


 That nuance is interesting, and works for the film’s epic runtime, but it means the finale is more understated and not as cathartic.


This might be an issue of the film’s length. For the most part, I did not notice the film’s pacing - until we were intro eh final stretch.


I am starting to think this might be a personal thing - I had the same problem watching The Brutalist, and that had an intermission.  


Still, it is worth a watch.


Related




If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

The James Bond Cocktail Hour: First light on Bond 26

On the latest episode of The James Bond Cocktail Hour podcast, I and my co-host Graeme discuss the latest news in the world of Bond.




Check out the episode at the link below:



























Edge of Darkness: Compassionate Leave

Edge of Darkness: Into the Shadows

Edge of Darkness: Burden of Proof

Edge of Darkness: Breakthrough

Edge of Darkness: Northmoor 

Edge of Darkness: Fusion

















If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!