Lean on Me

For this month, I won’t be reviewing a series of films like I would normally do every month. I will be reviewing films that one of the greatest actors, Morgan Freeman, starred in. And what better way to start off this month then with another one of my all time favorite films, “Lean on Me,” released in 1989.

The director of this film was John G. Avildsen, a great director who gave us such classics like the first and fifth “Rocky” and “The Karate Kid” trilogy. Let me tell you, he does a great job here. He really brings the direction of a high school that turns completely into a zoo really well, and how a principal, who was previously a teacher from the 60s, comes back and cleans it up.

Now this film is based off a true story of how the principal of Eastside High School, Joe Louis Clark saves a school by improving the test scores of the students’ minimum basic skills test. This school, located in Paterson, New Jersey, is at risk of being taken over by the state government, and they have given Clark one year to turn the school around. To prepare for this role, Freeman did his homework. He spent a lot of his time with the real Joe Clark by studying his mannerisms and how he talked to the students. Let me tell you, he really did embody the role. However, in actuality, Joe Clark had more time than a year. Still, he really brings out a role in this film that he will always be remembered for.

In a meeting, Mayor Bottman, played by Alan North, is speaking with the school’s superintendent, Dr. Frank Napier, played by another great actor, Robert Guillaume. When Dr. Napier suggests that Clark become the new principal, but Mayor Bottman is hesitant because of the trouble he knew Clark caused in the past. However, after Dr. Napier speaks with Clark, he comes in and dismisses so many students how caused nothing but trouble. They did drugs, alcohol, did not pass their classes, were a part of gangs, and so forth. Realistically speaking, wouldn’t you do the same thing? If you became a principal of a school, wouldn’t the first thing you’d do is ask for a list of all the students who did nothing but cause trouble? However, later on in a board meeting, the parents are against what Clark did and say that they deserve to be in the school, only to have Clark fan the flames. One of the parents is played by the late Lynne Thigpen, who you might remember as the Chief from the Carmen Sandiego game shows from the early 90s.

The next day, Clark has a powerful scene with one of the boys that he expelled, Thomas Sams, played by Jermaine “Huggy” Hopkins. Clark gives Sams a lecture about crack before telling him to get lost, and then tells him to jump off the roof, and finally, in tears, Sams tells Clark that he doesn’t want to go home and tell his mom that he got expelled. Clark then goes back on his word and lets him back in the school, and throughout the film, he is watching Sams like a hawk. By the end, you can see that they finally bond.

Another powerful moment is when after Clark fires the coach and one of the teachers, he has a very heated argument with Dr. Napier. After the argument, Dr. Napier says to Clark, “Come on, let’s go get something to eat.” Clark responds to him when the walk out the door with, “You think you’re so bad, don’t you?” After a very heated argument, you would laugh at that line. Other heated confrontation that Clark has is his numerous encounters with the vice principal of the school, Mrs. Levias, played by Beverly Todd.

One of the students that Clark has known since she was in Elementary School is Kaneesha, played by Karen Malina White. He helps her out with her relationship with her mother, played by Regina Taylor, and even tells him that she’s pregnant.

On the side, the parents, especially Thigpen’s character, is trying to get Clark arrested since he breaks the fire code by chaining the doors so that people don’t come into the school. However, the students start to bond with Mr. Clark has a father figure, since there are students that possibly don’t have a father, or don’t have a strong relationship with their father. Especially since the passing of the practice test was only 33%, and Clark tells the teachers to help prepare the students for the real test.

Basically, this is one of the most powerful, influential films that you will ever see. It doesn’t have that sudden charm like the 1988 film, “Stand and Deliver,” had, but its own charm is different, which take a while to sink in. Chris Hicks had said in his review, “And there is really no comparison with the similarly structured "Stand and Deliver" from last year, which had depth and compassion and a sense of reality that seems to be missing in ‘Lean on Me’” (Hicks). However, if you watch this role, I promise you, you’ll be watching Morgan Freeman’s best role, and quite possibly where he’s at the top of his game. So definitely check this one out because you will love it. It's the film for you if you want to become part of the school system. Whether if it's to be a teacher, principal, or part of the superintendent's staff, or even the superintendent himself, you should watch this film.

Stay tuned for the rest of this month, we got other great Morgan Freeman films to talk about. I hope you all enjoyed this review, and will watch the film. Now sit back and enjoy the rest of “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Lethal Weapon 4

So now we get to the last film in this great series, “Lethal Weapon 4,” released in 1998. The most important people returned in their previous roles: Richard Donner as director and co-producer, Joel Silver as producer, Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, and Rene Russo all as the main cast, and lastly Michael Kamen as music composer. The film got a 100 million dollar budget, which is very high, especially for the series. Richard Donner planned this to be the final, as he and the cast had been willing to return for a fourth film. Even though doing that for a third film used to be rare, they had waited a couple of years to develop great ideas, which everyone got to add, and they shot and edited scenes before writing new ones. It was very ambitious, but Richard Donner was still a detailed actor’s director, who allowed for improvisation when fitting, and he was a detailed visual director. They got Miles Millar and Alfred Gough as co-storywriters, who would do the same for the brilliant “Spiderman 2.” One of the funniest comedians, Chris Rock, and a great martial artist, Jet Li, both were added as new cast members. Also, in spite of it now being 1998, and “Jurassic Park,” “Forest Gump,” and “Men In Black” having used CGI excessively, they still used practical special visual effects and stunts, even though the action scenes in this film are even more excessive then those in the first 3.

The film got mixed reactions, where the third got mixed to positive, but it still was liked by a lot of fans, although some dismiss it also the same way some dismiss 3, but it was the second highest grossing film, making $285 million.

So the question is: Is this is a great film and does it live up to the first 3 films? The answer is yes, and it is a great finale to the series.

Its action scenes are phenomenal with large trucks and cars exploding, kung-fu fighting added, crashing rocks, and giant shootouts are very well shot and also edited. They are numerous but they further the story with having the Chinese family be captured, and resulting in the villain’s death, and the death of the four fathers. The film again is really funny, with Riggs shooting the glass door in the Chinese restaurant when they are lying, and a guy seeming to be a killer when he actually just got scared, and Riggs paraphrasing Murtaugh saying he “ain`t too old for this $%*&.” We see that he feels as though they just have to take the bad guy out at the end, he makes Murtaugh think his future son-in-law is gay, and all these jokes are in character and further the characterization and story. They range from slapstick to witty one-liners. The special visual effects are fantastic, the explosions detailed, and all the destructed cars authentic. Its music is again exotic, dramatic and exciting. It has really detailed and vibrant cinematography, intense and also very dramatic lighting, and very fluent directing and exciting editing.

So the film succeeds technically, but does it have substance? Oh yes.

It furthers the story by this time centering on immigration smuggling, and Murtaugh becoming richer, which is because his wife, Trish (played by Darlene Love), writes romance novels which follows up on her being a supportive house wife. The film has a smart theme of immigration, showing Murtaugh is ok with supporting people who break the law by coming secretly, as his ancestors were granted the same thing. We see people often immigrate because they are desperate, and that sometimes people of their own nation try to take advantage of it. It furthers the theme of family from the first 3 films, showing Leo really likes Riggs, and that new friends are just different, after which he can finally move on and marry again. Murtaugh learns to accept that his daughter, Rianne (played by Traci Wolfe), is dating a cop, as he is a good person, and we see the Chinese family care about each other also. The film also comments on age, showing Riggs is now getting old, but that often you can decide how old you want to be. The film’s mystery is really smart and thick involving fake money; kidnapping, human trafficking, and deals with the military, and the characters are again really deep. Murtaugh is a bit prejudiced, but also supportive, caring, and he can be scared, yet courageous, and grows to accept a new son-in-law. Riggs is more sentimental, romantic and warm, yet still violent and jokey, and he completes his character arc of moving on, and Leo Getz is still whiney, yet helpful, comforting, and awkward. Lorna Cole is sweet, supportive, yet also a bit secretive about how she truly feels. Lee Butters is a smarty, yet also strong, loving, and supportive. Wah Sing Ku is menacing, sadistic, and also cruel, manipulative and subtle, yet he loves his four fathers, and is principled. Mel Gibson is intense but also more subtle and vulnerable. Danny Glover is detailed and warm, yet cranky. Chris Rock is funny and witty but can also be serious. Joe Pesci is funny yet vulnerable. Jet Li is menacing, and intense, and Rene Russo is sweet and subtle. The film also has great deep and also witty dialogue, and is dark, yet a lot of fun.

The film completes Riggs and Murtaugh’s arcs, as well as the family theme, and ties up Leo and Lorna’s character issues. It is a very complete ending to the series, and a great film. It lives up to the first 3, and is really underrated, so check it out.

Chris Rock himself said on “Inside the Actors Studio” that Lee Butters was what came in the kit where you end up in a big movie. They made a poster, tested Chris’s name with two or three other comedians, and his name tested the highest. Joel Silver brought Chris to see Mel Gibson; Mel just looked at Chris and said, “You’re kind of funny. You’re in.” Chris knows that people do not like Mel, especially after what he did in “The Passion of the Christ,” but gives credit to Mel for giving Chris his first big check. It was an unbelievable experience for Chris because he grew up watching “Lethal Weapon” so many times. This must have been surreal for Chris working with Mel, Danny, and Pesci, who Chris says was as funny as they come.

Thank you so much for joining in on “Lethal Weapon Month.” I hope you have enjoyed this month as much as reviewreviewer1 and I had fun writing these blogs for these four really great films. One more thing: “Lethal Weapon 5.” Should it really happen? I think they should. There has been talk about it for a while, but I don’t think Mel is interested. He might get interested down the road, or they might just work the film out without him, the same way Dan Aykroyd is working “Ghostbusters 3” without Bill Murray. As always, stay tuned for more of my film reviews coming at you.

Lethal Weapon 3

Alright, so now we come to “Lethal Weapon 3,” released in 1992. It is a really great film up there with the first two films, and the film was an enormous box office hit, but some of the fans and critics claimed it was a disappointment and not as good as the first two films and even bad. But why, this film is really good and consistent with the first two films.

Richard Donner again came back as director and co-producer and Joel Silver was producer again. Mel Gibson, Joe Pesci and Danny Glover all reprised their roles, Michael Kamen did the music again, and although Shane Black did not return as writer, Jeffrey Boam again did most of the writing, being storywriter and co-screenwriter, and Robert Mark Kamen, who wrote the 3 great Original “Karate Kid” films, is co-screenwriter. Richard Donner was also detailed with the actors, since he is a director who allowed improvisation when it was fitting, and was a detailed director on the camera work and special visual effects. The film this time got a 35 million dollar budget, so it was very well made.

The film, like the second film, tells a new story with them having to fight an ex cop who steals weapons and sells them to kids, and they have to find out who he is and take his army by surprise, as well as making sure he doesn`t infiltrate the police station again. So the plot is again really thick, and also it further expands on the characters, delving into Murtaugh deciding he doesn`t want to willfully retire and what Riggs means to him, and also learning to be proactive when he feels guilty and also we see his bonding with his son, Nick, played by Damon Hines, grow. Riggs isn`t sidelined, he again gets a new girlfriend that is actually strong, he grows to accept and she lives, he keeps hope for her, and he learns to be open with Murtaugh about his feelings. He is again violent and jokey, and also worried, sad, supportive, helpful, and we see more of Murtaugh’s sad, doubtful, and tired side. So not only does the film have really deep character development, but also it is very consistent with the first two films. Murtaugh has a strong conscious and it means a lot to him to help people, Riggs was slowly becoming warmer, Leo Getz is also helpful, but whiney, and scared, yet more of an advisor and more courageous. Lorna Cole is Riggs’ new love interest. She is helpful, yet stern, a tough, but also jokey, and grows to be open to a more crazier person, and she and Riggs both learn from each other, being more vulnerable, and being open and supportive. They help and love each other, their romance is great, and it is fun. This new love interest is tougher and stronger than the one in “Lethal Weapon 2.” Jack Travis is a really interesting villain. He is menacing, manipulative, and arrogant, but frustrated, extreme and there is a darker Riggs. He has the back-story: he was mistreated by the police.

The film has a consistent tone with the first two films, being darker, intense, and scary, but also action packed, romantic and having a lot of comedy. The film is really thematically deep. It really delves into how people who support gang violence corrupt the police and you shouldn`t be blamed for having to shoot even a kid. We see that we should get our kids to stay away from such an environment, we see we should be open about our feelings and be willing to be vulnerable, as this can allow true love to grow, and we see we should never give up on helping people. There is a theme showing that if we allow our harsh methods to go too far, we can become violent ourselves.

The film has well shot and edited action packed action scenes, and detailed special visual effects, which further the story. It is just as funny as the first two, Riggs convinces the hospital to keep Getz longer, and Getz thinks he is dying because he is cold on the ice. Riggs encourages a crazy black woman to hit on Murtaugh, and when Murtaugh is depressed, he kicks him off the boat and both can laugh at it. Riggs gets a guard dog on their side, and this furthers the narrative also. The direction is again vibrant, and the music exciting and emotional.

Also Danny Glover is again funny, and also serious, but shows a darker side, Gibson a happier side, and Pesci is funny, and also intense. Rene Russo is sweet, strong and dramatic, and Stuart Wilson is scary, and gets the arrogance and greediness across well.

So this film is great and underrated, it lives up to the first two films and continued a great series, check it out if you haven`t already.

Be sure to check out reviewreviewer1's YouTube channel if you haven't already, as he is responsible to helping to write these blogs. Look out next week, because I'll be wrapping up Lethal Weapon month with the fourth installment of this series.

Lethal Weapon 2

Today I am going to look at “Lethal Weapon 2,” the 1989 sequel to the highly successful and great “Lethal Weapon.” This film had been a box office hit, critically acclaimed, made even more money on home video, and became a classic. Shane Black returned, as did Richard Donner, Mel Gibson, and Danny Glover. All of them wanted to have a sequel, so Shane Black came back and wrote a story that involved the African American villains and furthered Riggs’ character. It was dark and action packed, and then Richard Donner came back as director, as well as co-producer, which he also was on the first film. Joel Silver came back as producer, and both of them were involved a lot with the writing. Although they stayed true to the idea of Black’s script, they had Jeffrey Boam as co-storywriter and screenwriter. He made really good changes to the script adding an anti-apartheid theme, and further deepening the characters. This made for an even better script but caused Black to leave the series. Jeffrey Boam is a great writer who co-screen wrote “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” as well as “The Lost Boys." Richard Donner was again a detailed director on the camera work, special visual effects, and the acting, although he again sometimes allowed for in-character improvisation, and Joe Pesci was added to the cast. Also, Michael Kamen came back as the music composer, and this time the film got a 25 million dollar budget. Now that might sound like the recipe for a great sequel, and it is.

“Lethal Weapon 2” has an original story centering on the gold trade and money involved in the drug business, as well as having to take down crime bosses with diplomatic immunity. People say the plot would be thin, but it isn’t. They have to discover where their base is, Riggs loses his love interest, they have to take down their home, Leo Getz gives them clues as to where to find the dealers, and he gets kidnapped. It is a thick and clever plot, and again we delve even deeper into the characters, seeing Riggs being happier and romantic, and finding a new loved one and losing her, but this time being proactive and constructive, and bonding further with Murtaugh. Murtaugh is shown as more supportive, humorous and relaxed, and Gibson and Glover are both great in their roles. Leo Getz is a great new character who is greedy and spoiled but not mean, and even helpful and supportive, becomes a new member of the family, and Joe Pesci adds very funny humor to him. The villain, Arjen Rudd (played by Joss Ackland) is very pompous, but also sadistic, and overconfident, as well as funny and menacing, and Pieter (played by Derrick O’Connor) is really intimidating and loyal. Rika, played by Patsy Kensit, is a great love interest. She is loyal, funny, but a bit insecure and vulnerable, but happy and playful. She is a more typical vulnerable woman, but what is actually refreshing in these films.

The film explores the theme of friendship, showing that even when we are stressed and angry, like Riggs, our friends can help us pull through, which we see when Murtaugh helps him take down the criminals, and that friends are more important than stuff. Leo finds more meaning in them, and it also shows we should always move forward with life, even when we lose our loved ones, and feel as though we cannot win. We can always move on, as we will still have some family, as Riggs finds in Murtaugh, and we can find that just being angry can help, if we don`t let it destroy us, as Riggs takes down the drug dealers. Due to dislocating his shoulder, he lives, and Riggs helps Murtaugh survive, showing true friendship goes both ways. They show that Apartheid is wrong, as often when you perceive yourself as better, you are actually evil for what you do, like selling drugs.

This film again had really deep dialogue, and also it is what the first film had as well, but I didn`t mention great humor, funny lines, scenarios, and slapstick. This can be seen in the part where Murtaugh wants to emigrate to South Africa, or where Riggs dislocates his shoulder, and these further the story and characters. The film also again had a dark tone, but combines it nicely with lighter moments. It has even better action, with more explosion and crashes, more detailed special visual effects, and emotional direction, music, and detailed exotic set-design, all which further the story, characterization, and themes. This a fantastic sequel! It really furthered the characters, like with Riggs growing further, as well as him gaining a new friend and love interest, yet it had a lot of the humor, action, as well as grittiness from the first film. It also had great continuity, with it building on Riggs and Murtaugh’s character, and including Murtaugh’s family.

So overall this is a great sequel, and gets a 10, it was an even bigger box office hit, and enlarged the Lethal Weapons fan base. It did great on home video as well, and it got great critical reviews, although not as good as the original, which is wrong as this film rocks, but I am glad as it mostly got its deserved praise, so go see it.

Also, make sure to check out reviewreviewer1's YouTube channel, as he again helped with this blog, and stay tuned for this Friday, where I look at "Lethal Weapon 3." That's right, special treat (since last week I did all the Superman films), this week I will review 2 Lethal Weapon movies.

Superman Week Part 7

We have now come to the finale of Superman week, where it is time to talk about the reboot to the Superman series, “Man of Steel,” which actually came out a month ago. FINALLY, we get a good Superman movie, which ironically enough, hasn’t been since “Superman 2.” Now the story begins with a Kryptonian named Lara, played by Ayalet Zurer, giving birth to her son, Kal-El. This is the first natural born child of Krypton in over hundreds of years, which makes her husband, Jor-El, played by New Zealand actor you might remember from such roles like “Gladiator” and “Les Miserables,” Russell Crowe, really happy. He tries to tell the government that the planet is about to explode, until General Zod, played by Michael Shannon, enters in. I will say that I didn’t like the way they killed Jor-El in this one. Zod stabs him to death after he and Lara send their son off to Earth. I always thought that the image of Jor-El and Lara holding one another before Krypton explodes was great. Then again, they do change the origin story somewhat in this film, which I’m fine with. But how come I always see Russell Crowe in a film where he dies in? Seriously, he died in “Gladiator,” “Les Miserables,” and now this film? Is it written in his contract that he needs to sign on to just play a role where he dies in? The only film that I have seen of his where he doesn’t die in is “A Beautiful Mind.”

On Earth, we cut years into Kal-El's, or Clark Kent now (or Joe as he is called a couple of times in here), played by Henry Cavill, life. Unlike the past adaptations where we see his childhood until he reaches his adult life, we see glimpses of his past in the form of flashbacks, which I think is nice for this remake. His Earth parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent, played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, try to help him until they tell him where he originally came from. No, they do not know about Krypton, so they just tell him that they found him in the spaceship. Also, Jonathan Kent died of a heart attack. In this film, there is a hurricane that comes in, and the three of them get out of the truck until Martha said that the dog is still in the truck. Why send Jonathan back to get your dog? I don’t hate dogs, but in this case, just forget the dog. Also, when Clark steps forward to save Jonathan, he stops him and dies in order to keep his secret, which I think is strong that he did that, but it's still contrived. Still, why did you send Jonathan back to save your dog Martha? He is the man that you said to have a lifetime commitment with, and you send him back to save your dog? Have you forgotten the wedding vows? Why didn’t you let Clark go back? It would have been great if you just made him go back because he can’t die or get hurt by the hurricane. There have been reports in the news of hurricane survivors, so it would have been a great story for the paper. Other than that, Costner does do a good job in this film and really does a good job with the emotional scenes, which would remind you of when Uncle Ben died in the “Spiderman” films. People complain that Costner is a bland actor and he isn't good, but I think he does a really good job in his roles.

Now Lois Lane is played by one of the hottest actresses, Amy Adams, who I have to say is really good in this film. She doesn’t play a reporter like she is top notch and can do anything; she just goes and does her own business. I like that. She, Cavill, and Shannon look good for the today’s look on Superman, Lois, and Zod. Also, I like how when Clark finds the Fortress of Solitude, Lois follows him, and they start the film off with her knowing that he is Superman. She does the report, goes around Metropolis to find clues as to who he is, before coming to Martha at the farm in Smallville. I really liked that update, and no there won’t be that weird mind erasing kiss at the end of the film, thankfully. With this version, she is the only person that knows about Clark being Superman, and she doesn’t tell anyone. Much to the dismay of her boss, Perry White, played by one of the coolest actors, Laurence Fishburne, she does stop, which ultimately leads to her four week leave in the Daily Planet.

When Superman finds the Fortress of Solitude and becomes Superman, he discovers the powers he has, and notices he can’t fly so high into space, or else he won’t breath. Thankfully, director of “300,” Zack Snyder and producer Christopher Nolan didn’t make a “Superman 4” mistake of him breathing in space. Snyder and Nolan really treated this film with care and did a fairly good job with this reboot.

However, I do have a complaint with the action scenes. Why do Zod and Superman completely trash Metropolis? Isn’t Superman supposed to protect Metropolis, not destroy it? When Zod has the tanker and throws it at Superman, he doesn’t just grab it and set it down, he instead moves out of the way, and it gets thrown into the building. Then when Zod is using his lazer eyes to kill the humans in the building and Superman is pleading with Zod not to kill him, and he doesn’t listen, he breaks Zod’s neck, killing him. I don’t get why Superman all of a sudden cared for those people Zod was going to zap with his lazer eyes when there were several people that he and Zod killed in the buildings they crashed through, and Superman didn’t give any emotion towards them. With Batman, even though he may not have saved everyone when he went out to fight crime in Gotham City, he at least had felt bad that he couldn’t save them. Why can’t Superman do that? I grew up watching "Superman: The Animated Series," and that was a pretty good cartoon. They portrayed Superman very well, but he wasn't like that in here. He doesn't show any emotions, doesn't seem to care about people, and he seems completely expressionless. I hope that in future sequels, they at least give Superman a soul. Also, fan boys would be saying, “Superman doesn’t kill his villains!” It’s a different time people. I don’t mean to say that in the future films I want to see Superman kill all of his villains, but still, it was going to happen. Zod wasn’t listening to Supeman’s pleas to not kill the people, and when he killed Zod, he screamed out in agony over what he did. That comes across as strong since Superman doesn’t like what he did. Since we live in a different day-in-age, it would not be any different than a cop shooting a criminal. Even though Superman has flight power, Zod would have resisted. However, as good of a job Michael Shannon did as Zod, it's not as memorable as Terence Stamp's Zod from Superman II. Also, the villain that "truly" stole the show was Antje Traue, who played Faora, Zod's sub-commander and a commander of the Kryptonian military. She is completely devoted and loyal to General Zod.

One more flaw I don’t like about the film is Clark gets a job at the Daily Planet at the end of the film. Wait, we didn’t see anything that built up to that. Why didn’t they show him working for his school newspaper company or anything where he gets clips before getting the job at the Daily Planet? Also, he doesn’t start wearing the glasses until the end of the film, which I was perfectly alright with. I still don’t understand how anyone can’t see past the glasses. He was exposed for a few moments in “Superman 2,” and no one noticed that Clark was Superman. But I digress, this film is still good. It’s “way” better than 3, 4, and Returns, but the first two are still better. As much as I like this movie, I do acknowledge the faults and won't defend it like it's the best Superman movie. However, it's nowhere near being as bad as some of the past Superman movies, and that's a fact. Also, like Brandon Routh, Cavill doesn’t get many lines, but that’s ok, since Cavill doesn’t sound like a Christopher Reeves rip-off. Go see the film if you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it. Just a heads up, it's darker than Batman Begins, but that doesn't mean there are still moments of humor in it. There are some funny moments, but not as much as in Batman Begins. Still check it out when you get the chance.

Thank you for joining in on my Superman week. I hope you enjoyed this week as much as I did reviewing every single film in the Superman franchise. The Wall Street Journal has said the sequel to “Man of Steel” is going to come out next year, which I feel is going to be rushed, but we’ll see, they’ll probably delay it. Stay tuned for next week where I start back up with the “Lethal Weapon” reviews.

Superman Week Part 6

After the horrible films in 3, 4, and even the spinoff, Supergirl, the Superman franchise was laid to rest for many years, much like how they did with the Batman franchise. After 19 years, Bryan Ratner left, failing several attempts at trying to bring Superman back, and so did Joseph McGinty "McG" Nichol. Finally, Bryan Singer approached the project, and he was also said to be a childhood friend of Richard Donner. Warner Bros. asked him if he could do another Superman movie, and he accepted, leaving two other films in pre-production, "X-Men: The Last Stand" (which would be directed by Ratner), and the remake of "Logan’s Run." The smart thing Singer did was that he made the 2006 film, "Superman Returns," ignore the events from 3 and 4, and instead made it an alternate sequel to "Superman 2."

The story of this film is that Superman returns to Earth after a five-year search for the survivors of his home planet, Krypton. When he returns, he finds out that Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth, now has a son, played by Tristan Lake Leabu, and is now engaged to Richard White, played by James Marsden. Singer followed the casting choice like how Donner did, and chose Brandon Routh to play Clark Kent/Superman, who sort of looked like Christopher Reeves. More high profile actors in the supporting roles were casted, like one of the greatest actors, Kevin Spacey, to play Lex Luthor and another great actor, Frank Langella, as the Daily Planet head, Perry White. Eva Marie Saint plays Martha Kent, Superman's Earth mother.

For this film, Singer brought the entire crew from "X2" to work on it. They even used digitally-enhanced archive footage of the late Marlon Brando to appear as Jor-El in this. "Superman Returns" was positively received and made $391 million worldwide.

Now the big question you’re probably asking is, “How is this film compared to the previous sequels?” In my honest opinion, I think it’s better than 3 and 4, but the first two are still better. The reason why is because for the first half of the film, it really is good. Up until the climax of the film when Superman saves that airplane and has it land safely in the baseball field, it then becomes too predictable. Examples of this include another rip off of the romantic flying sequence from the first film, and how Lex Luthor is using his power to take down Superman and take over Metropolis. If you remember near the end of the movie Lex Luthor makes an island out of Superman’s weakness, kryptonite. That’s the reason why the last half of the film is not really so well, because it borrows heavily from the first film. Also, it makes it look unremarkable.

Of course the dumbest moment of this film is the casting for Superman and Lois. Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh don’t really look old enough to play the parts. Well, they probably are, but they look like teenagers out of high school that were casted for this film. It’s like they were supposed to be in that horrible Superman sitcom, "Smallville," which I think we can all agree, it was really bad. Thankfully their careers were saved by being in this film instead. Also, their acting didn’t make them suitable for the roles, they just were very bland. Brandon Routh doesn’t really have much dialogue in this film, but he’s not anywhere as memorable as Christopher Reeves was.

Well I can’t really say much about this film because it didn’t really leave an impact on me that I could give a thorough review of it. So I’ll just end it here with this cliffhanger for the finale tomorrow: Will there be a sequel to this film? Or will the people finally realize that this franchise needs a reboot? All of that will be found out in tomorrow’s finale. Up, up and away!

Superman Week Part 5

I can’t believe that they did this to Superman! They should have stopped after how bad Superman 3 was received. But no, instead they decide to pick up a fourth one. That’s right, Cannon Films picked up the option to do the fourth Superman movie, and Christopher Reeves decided to come back because the film was about nuclear weapons, and Reeves was interested in that topic. Bad mistake Mr. Reeves. Because Cannon decided to cut the budget of the film from $35 million to $15 million, and what happened with that much of a budget cut? Poor special effects and constant re-edits which made this the worst film in the Superman film franchise.

That’s right, I am not looking forward to reviewing this 1987 god-awful film, “Superman 4: The Quest for Peace.” Well, I have to, so let’s try and see if we can survive this review. The first problem is the constant use of Superman flying towards the screen. Just because it looked good the first time doesn’t mean that you need to reuse it. Second, the special effects are, like I said before, the worst amongst the rest of the films. You might be saying, give it a break, this was 1987, but no, this is just bad! You can easily see the strings on Superman when he is fighting, the black curtains in the background can be noticed, and the Green Screen effects are just so obvious.

Now the film begins with Russians in space, and Superman saves one of the astronauts, with his cape flying like a fan is blowing on it, and he talks in space. Did these people forget their science class from kindergarten? You cannot talk in space. Just because Superman is from another planet doesn’t mean that he has the ability to talk in space! The President, played by Robert Beatty, gives a broadcast on TV about how America strives to become second to none in a nuclear arms race. That’s when one of the students in the school the broadcast was being shown in, Jeremy, played by Damien McLawhorn, writes a letter to Superman, asking him to solve this problem. After learning that the Soviet Union and the USA are going to engage in a nuclear war, he goes to his fortress of solitude to ask his elders for help on what he should do. And what does he come to for a resolution? He goes to the United Nations assembly and says that he will get rid of all nuclear weapons. And you want to know what else? They are all for it! Over the next few days, he takes all of the nuclear weapons, wraps them up in a gigantic net, and throws them into the sun. HOW DOES THAT WORK!?!?!?!?

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is back in this film with a very nuisance nephew, Lenny, played by Jon Cryer, who is, hands down, one of the most annoying characters ever put in any movie. They decide to create a villain that is just as powerful as Superman, so they steal a strand of Superman’s hair that he donated to the museum that is held on by a giant weight, AND THEY SIMPLY CUT IT WITH SCISSORS!!!! HOW DOES THAT WORK!?!?!? After that, he launches a missile into space, which Superman catches and throws into the sun, and thus the villain is born with a skin-tight outfit. How is a villain born from the sun with a skin-tight outfit? Guess what, there will be no explanation how it works. This villain is Nuclear Man, played by Mark Pillow, but voiced by Gene Hackman. Even though he needs sunlight to stay powered up, making him a solar-powered villain, THERE ARE SHOTS WITH HIM NOT IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND HE IS JUST FINE!!!! INCONSISTENCY!!!!!

And you want to know what else? The Daily Planet has been bought by a media mogul named David Warfield, played by Sam Wanamaker, WHO PLANS ON TURING IT INTO A TABLOID!!! THIS IS A NEWSPAPER COMPANY YOU RETARD!!!!!! His daughter, Lacy, played by Mariel Hemmingway, joins the company as well, and starts to get an attraction towards Clark. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!? ARE YOU STARTING ANOTHER LOVE TRIANGLE BETWEEN CLARK, LOIS, AND ANOTHER GIRL!?!? AND WHERE’S LANA!?!? IS THERE NO MENTION OF HER!?!? OF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE THIS IS A GOD-AWFUL SEQUEL!!!!!

What else can they do to make this film the worst of the series? THEY RIP OFF THE ROMANTIC FLYING SCENE FROM THE FIRST ONE, FRAME BY FRAME! THEN THEY RIP OFF THE MIND ERASING KISS FROM THE SECOND ONE! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!?!? Also, Nuclear Man starts to develop an attraction to Lacy, and threatens to wreck havoc if she is not brought to him. He even makes Superman sick for a while with a nuclear scratch. This is after Lex Luthor, somehow, manages to give Superman a supersonic message, and he fights Nuclear Man. Another plot device that they have is that Clark retrieves a crystal from the barn, just like he did in the first one, and without any explanation, he feels better!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO FILL US IN ON ANYTHING, OR ARE YOU GOING TO JUST LEAVE US OUT IN THE DUST!?!?!?!? BECAUSE YOU’RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF DOING JUST THAT!!!!

You want to know what else happens that makes this film so god-awful. When Nuclear Man and Superman fight in space with Lacy being brought there as well, she is apparently breathing just fine despite the fact that SPACE HAS A LACK OF BREATHING AND AIR PRESSURE!!!! THIS IS KINDERGARTEN SCIENCE PEOPLE, YOU CAN’T BREATHE IN SPACE!!!!! Science just doesn't even exist in this movie. When did Superman get the power to repair walls? That's what he did with the Great Wall of China. Also, how is he able to carry the Statue of Liberty all the way back to where Nuclear Man picked it up from WITHOUT BREAKING A FINGER ON IT!?!?!?! HAVE ANY OF YOU FILMMAKERS TAKEN PHYSICS!?!?!?!? And how is Superman able to move the Moon to block the Sun to get Nuclear Man killed? And how is Nuclear Man able to get killed by being dropped INTO A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!?!?!? I thought you said his name was Nuclear Man, as in that's his strength, NOT WEAKNESS!?!?!?! This movie really needed some environmental specialist to help out because obviously, no one working on this movie knew anything about Science or the environment!

Just don’t watch this film, long story short. This is right up there with Batman & Robin as one of the worst superhero films ever made. Thank goodness I'm done with this review because I just couldn't stand it any longer. Thankfully, Warner Bros. left this franchise alone after the poor receptions from both 3 and 4. How long will it be after the Superman franchise will be resurrected? Will the new one be better, or will it be good up to the half-way point, and the last half will be very predictable? All of this will be figured out tomorrow. Up, up, and away!