Friday Top Five: Superhero Movies

Subtitled: I Love Batman!

So I have decided to start a series called Friday Top Five, which is pretty self explanatory. (Nearly) Every Friday, I will present my definitive top five list about whatever topic I want. This week, in honor of Man of Steel, I will count down my Top Five Superhero Movies. So, without further ado:

5. Sky High (Mike Mitchell, 2005)
I know, I know. Sky High is a movie I accidentally saw in theaters and genuinely loved. Sure, it's a Disney movie. But it's also really good, has a great story, a lot of heart, and cameos from the likes of Wonder Woman herself, Lynda Carter. The movie follows Micheal Angarano as Will Stronghold, the son of superheroes Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston. The problem? He doesn't have any powers. So, he struggles to fit in when he starts superhero high school (as if high school isn't hard enough!). However, he does form a bond with a few other misfits (Danielle Panabaker as the girl who can control plant life??) and eventually these misfits have to fight it out with the villains in the epic showdown. Sky High is definitely everything you want in a superhero movie and then some. In fact, just writing about it makes me want to go watch it again!

4. Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005)
It seems 2005 was quite a year for superheroes. The same year Sky High was released, Nolan re-introduced the world to Bruce Wayne. Before 2005's comeback, Batman had sort of become a joke thanks to that awful Batman and Robin movie. But Nolan brought us back to the beginning and he made Gotham and Bruce Wayne more dangerous and darker. We found out that Bruce (Christian Bale) learned everything he knew from a mysterious figure named Ducard (Liam Neeson) and after disappearing from Gotham for years, he returned to kick ass and take names. Those getting their asses kicked included Cillian Murphey's Scarecrow and, of course, Neeson. Throw in Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and you've got the beginning of a very special trilogy.

3. Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi, 2004)
When talking about sequels, there is one of two ways it can go: 1. It can suck and be awful and be bogged down by way too much - too many villains, too many sidekicks, etc. 2. Or it can rise above the original because you, the story teller, are no longer bogged down with origin stories and introductions. Spider-Man 2 falls into the latter category. The first Spider-Man was great fun, and featured that awesome kiss, but Spider-Man 2 is Raimi's crowning achievement. It features Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) ready to give it all up. He devoted his life to fighting crime and, instead, he's painted as a villain, the girl he loves (Kirsten Dunst) is engaged to someone else and he's just fed up. But then Alfred Molina shows up as a crazy scientist, and when an experiment goes wrong, as experiments often do, he is transformed into an angry villain named Doc Ock. Peter Parker may be the most sympathetic superhero. We all relate to him because before he got bit by a spider (!!), he was a regular dude, just like us.

2. Batman (Tim Burton, 1989)
One of my very first memories is going to see the original Batman in movie theaters. I will not say how old I was, but I remember going to see it with my older brother and his friend. I remember being completely enthralled by what was before me and that was probably the beginning of my life long love affair with movies, and also with Batman. To this day, I still think Michael Keaton is the best overall Bruce Wayne / Batman. George Clooney was good as Wayne and Kilmer was good as Batman. Bale is up there, but his Batman voice is still sort of infuriating. But it's Keaton who does both charming womanizer Wayne and heroic Batman so, so well. This was also my introduction to Jack Nicholson as Joker. He quickly became one of my favorite actors and his Joker is still such a vibrant part of my memory.

1. The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
Speaking of Joker... What Nicholson did in the 80s is a completely different animal than what Heath Ledger did with the same character in this film. Ledger was a feral animal, terrifying and unhinged. He was out of control, anarchy in human form, but still somehow likable. I always like to say that every superhero movie is only as good as its villain and that's perhaps why The Dark Knight is the best of the best. This is Nolan's crowning achievment as a film maker and I doubt he will ever surpass it. The Dark Knight is damn near perfect, pushing its hero to the brink, devastating him with a second act murder that we all felt at our core. Joker is a villain like we had never before seen. And guess what? If it wasn't for Heath Ledger and how amazing he was in this role, we would all talk a lot more about Aaron Eckhart's perfect portrayal of Harvey Dent and his descent from role model politician to angry, rageful Two Face. This movie genuinely has it all - great acting, quoteable lines, unforgettable imagery (just try to get that vision of Joker in the nurse's outfit, or sticking his head out the window like a dog), great action sequences and a perfect ending. I will truly be shocked if we get a better superhero movie in my lifetime.

How will Man of Steel rate? Check back Monday and find out!

The Great Gatsby

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of 3D, in general. I think it is unneccesary and sort of silly. It drives up prices even more and for what? A few cheap thrills as something flies towards your face? No thanks. Since there are exceptions to every rule, I have two exceptions for my I Hate 3D rule. They are: Martin Scorsese's Hugo and Ang Lee's Life of Pi. These two films are examples of brilliant directors (two of the aboslute best, really) who know how to make a goddamn movie and know how to use 3D to enhance their films. Hugo was brilliant and while Life of Pi was a flawed masterpiece, the 3D definitely wasn't the problem. Baz Lurhman is already a pretty visual director (that's probably the understatment of the year). Moulin Rouge already popped off the screen and that wasn't even in 3D. When I first heard that The Great Gatsby would be filmed in 3D, I thought it was a terrible idea. Then I saw Hugo and Life of Pi and thought I could have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Lurhman is a great director too, so maybe he will get the 3D thing right also. But here's the problem. I'm not sure Baz had any idea what to really do with the 3D. If anything, I think the 3D in this case was highly detrimental to the film. But more on that in a moment.

In case you haven't read The Great Gatsby since tenth grade English class (unlike me who reread it last month in anticipation), here is the summary. Narrator Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves from the MidWest to Long Island in order to become a big wig on Wall Street. Meanwhile, he becomes obsessed with his millionaire playboy neighbor Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who throws lavish, impossibly crazy parties in order to catch the attention of the girl who got away, and the girl who just so happens to live across the bay, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), who also happens to be Nick's cousin, and also happens to be married to rich brute Tom (Joel Edgerton), who is having his own affair with a trollop named Myrtle (Isla Fisher), who is married to a sweet but stupid mechanic (oh, hey there, Jason Clarke with those sexy eyes). Also, there's sexy, mysterious Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki, doing her best angsty Rooney Mara impression), who is Daisy's bestie and Nick's love interest despite the fact that he's probably gay (at least this is implied in the book. They really make no mention of the fact that he's most likely in love with Gatsby in the movie, and really, why would they? It's not like it's 2013 or anything).

The acting is mostly pretty good. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Gatsby. He's mysterious and sexy. He pretty much brings it as the pretty boy wanna be rich man. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure Maguire was the right choice for Nick. Sure, he played it well enough (and he had the hard part, what, with that excrutiating framing device), but Nick is supposed to be all wide eyed and innocent and I just didn't really get that vibe from Maguire. He seemed more confused than anything. Clarke, Debicki and Fisher are all fine but they don't really have much to do. Mulligan is fine as Daisy as well, but it's not necessarily her fault that she isn't better. The character of Daisy in the book is not written as a real person but as some sort of fantasy dream girl, so Mulligan does the best she can with a character that isn't necessarily adaptable. The problem with Mulligan's performance is just that she doesn't have any chemistry whatsoever with DiCaprio and that's sort of a problem when you are trying to make a romance movie. The highlight of the film, for me, is Edgerton who is absolutely the only subtle thing about this movie and takes Tom from being just some racist bully and turns him into this very layered, nuanced character.

And speaking of nuance, or lack there of, to say The Great Gatsby is opulent is an understatement. The party scenes are crazy and vivid, the costumes are luxorious and beautiful. But there is also the slight problem of it being all a bit much. The 3D distracts from the costumes which distracts from the music which distracts from the acting. The Great Gatsby is a feast for the eyes, but it is also just too much. The actors and the dialogue (those iconic lines written so many years ago that are still so ingrained in the minds of so many) and, even the plot!, all take a back seat to the crazy visuals.

Now, reading this, you probably assume that I hated The Great Gatsby, and it may sound that way, but it's not the case. I thought it was very flawed but by no means bad. Sometimes it's so good, it almost hurts because you realize what could have been. First things first, I loved the heavily hip hop influenced soundtrack. I guess there are a lot of people hating on the soundtrack because rap wasn't around in the 1920s. First of all, Jay-Z is timeless! Second of all, I don't remember people being all that upset about the music in Moulin Rogue - actually, quite the contrary, I'm pretty sure people loved it - and as far as I know no one was writhing around to Like a Virgin and singing songs by The Police in 1899 France. I also loved the shirt scene (which was always my favorite scene in the book) and I thought the entire sequence of Jay and Daisy reuniting at Nick's house was pretty perfect and funny. Also, you know, whenever Joel Edgerton was on screen was pretty great.

So, maybe it's just that The Great Gatsby isn't adaptable. I mean, the book is something like 150 pages long and it took 2 and a half hours for Baz to tell the tale. Maybe, people should just take 3 or 4 days and read the book again. It's widely considered the greatest American novel ever written for a reason.

Grade: C+