Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
The film's "live or die" premise is dumb, dangerous, and downright offensive. (4 more)
A totally lousy and illogical love story that lacks any heart.
The dialogue is almost as bad as Adam's 8-year-old-grade-level music lyrics.
It's far too frustrating and bland to be emotionally effective. The only pity I felt was for myself for having to sit through it for two hours.
If I Stay is unforgivable and reprehensible garbage. It should be avoided like the plague.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. If I Stay disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level.
Imagine yourself in a situation where your whole life is turned upside-down in an instant, and nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the troubling position young Mia Hall is faced with in If I Stay, after her and her family are involved in a terrible car accident. Mia wakes up from the crash, only to discover that she’s having some sort of transcendental experience, where she sees her own lifeless body being treated by paramedics. In her ghost-like form, no one is able to see or hear her, leaving her helpless as she watches her tragedy unfold. The devastating crash put her into a comatose state, and as she teeters on the verge of life and death, she’s informed by her nurse that whether or not she lives is entirely predicated on her will to survive. Based on the young adult novel by Gayle Forman, If I Stay asks us if life is still worth living even when all hope appears to be lost. Whether it’s really even worth it to endure life’s cruel hardship and heartache, and to muster the courage to face another day.
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)
Well, if you answered that question with a resounding “yes!”, then like me, you’ll probably find this movie to be pretty darn stupid. Actually, regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think it would be hard for anyone to escape the fact that this movie is pretty darn stupid. However, as much as I find the central question of the movie to be absurd and even offensive, it didn’t detract from my interest in seeing the film. So let’s not make the assumption that I disliked this movie from the get-go, because that’s really just not true. Even though I may disagree with it, I can certainly sympathize with the idea of a teenager who is experiencing a life-shattering trauma and is afraid to continue living on afterward. However, I would personally argue that she hasn’t actually experienced any of that at all. She’s living in an extra dimensional safe-zone. Her horror can’t be real unless she makes it real by returning to life to face it. To look at it another way, couldn’t we say that if she chose death instead, that she never would have experienced the tragedy at all since she was stuck in a coma, and that she would be dead without ever knowing the fate of her family? That’s what I think, though I’ll admit it’s rather complicated as it draws upon unanswerable questions. To be frank, it’s a bogus scenario for a bogus movie that isn’t even worthy of that much thought, and clearly wasn’t ever given that much thought.
Before I digress on this topic, I’d like to look into a few of its implications, because I think it’s sending a terrible and dangerous message to its viewers, particularly the teenagers it’s targeted to. Basically, I believe the film is implying that death is a perfectly okay alternative to facing an undesirable change. I find that very idea to be immoral, irresponsible, and horribly atrocious. “Sorry your dad died, Timmy. If you can’t bear to live another day and want to end it all right here, well that’s okay with us. We understand and we won’t judge!” Are you kidding me? What kind of a message are they trying to send here? “Bad day? Just give up! Things are great here in Heaven! Join us today!” Is that really what they’re trying to tell us? How is anyone possibly okay with this? The film is essentially preaching that killing yourself is a perfectly acceptable option when life gets hard, and I have a really big problem with that. Whether we want to think about it or not, suicide is always an option we have in life, but that doesn’t mean that we should encourage it or try to pretend that it’s ever a favorable opportunity. Mia doesn’t even know what life will be like if she wakes up because she hasn’t lived it yet. Her fears are fully based off of negative assumptions. Yeah, maybe things will be really hard if she comes out of her coma. Maybe she’ll wish she was dead. Or maybe she’ll go through some difficult times, but then maybe things will get better and she’ll pick up the pieces and end up living a wonderful and happy life. Had she actually endured this new life and struggled with thoughts about suicide, I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative, rather than all of this hypothetic nonsense. Either way, good or bad, life goes on. It’s up to us to adapt to it. Where there is hope, there is always possibility. With all that said, I would still contend that If I Stay’s premise is only the tip of the iceberg of its problems. This supposed tear-jerked failed to stir up any sympathy or sadness from me, and there are a few major reasons why.
First of all, it completely fails as a love story. The film is almost entirely devoid of romance, and has no believable connection between Mia and her boyfriend, Adam. Rather than being a Prince Charming type, Adam’s mostly just a jerk that she shouldn’t be wasting her time with in the first place. Yet the movie tries to make you believe that it’s love, and that this is what all normal relationships are like. It’s a complete crock. Movies like this give girls a false understanding of what love should be, and I find that to be an unforgivable offense. Adam’s the local hot shot rocker who falls for Mia, the talented young cello player who aspires to go to the renowned music school Julliard in New York. Adam manages to win her heart and the two of them start dating. Unfortunately though, their relationship can be pretty unpleasant to watch. Adam’s living the life of a local rock star and is blindly dragging Mia along for the ride, introducing the sweet, young girl to a world of parties, sex, and alcohol. Adam’s utterly oblivious to her disinterest in such a lifestyle and he rarely shows any concern for her feelings anyway. Yet she’s so foolishly committed to him that she follows this path of corruption, all for a guy who only thinks about himself. I thought this was supposed to be a love story, but it’s severely lacking in the love department. Just because Adam occasionally does something nice, we’re supposed to think he’s a good guy and forgive him for the majority of the time when he’s a lousy boyfriend and a loser? Of course, how romantic! Their whole relationship is lifeless and immensely frustrating. If living with him was my alternative to death, believe me, I’d choose death without hesitation.
Had I not seen this film with a friend, it would have been the first movie I’ve ever walked out of. I haven’t hated a movie this much all year. Even with my friend there, I still thought about leaving, then had a good laugh about the film’s title being so perfectly appropriate, as I contemplated to myself whether or not I should go. As much as I wanted to leave, I stuck it out all the way to the end. Then the entire audience ended up laughing at the ending, which goes to show I was far from the only one that thought this movie was a complete joke and waste of time. I had more than a few laughs at the film’s expense, from its dumb and derivative dialogue, to the way Chloe Grace Moretz slightly crosses her eyes whenever she’s upset. While I think I still remained open-minded about the film despite my issues with the story, I really don’t think the film itself was any good, nor does it appear to serve any purpose. Seriously, what’s the point of this movie? To give people hope that you can overcome obstacles in life? To justify suicide? I don’t know. Halfway through the movie, I was so disengaged from it that I was imagining how fun it would be to do cartwheels in the theater. That must be the lesson that I learned from all this. Well, that and to steer clear of crummy musicians, I suppose. While I’ve heard a lot of praise about the film’s soundtrack, I thought Adam’s band was quite horrendous. They do have a moment of redemption when they cover a Smashing Pumpkins song, which may have been the only good moment in this otherwise pitiful movie. I also found the lyrics of that song to be unusually appropriate to my misery when they said, “I’ll rip my eyes out, before I get out.” It’s almost funny that this might have been the only moment of the movie I could actually relate to: the thought of ripping my eyes out before being able to leave.
If I Stay is a movie that disappoints and offends on nearly every conceivable level. The saddest thing about this film is that garbage like this actually exists. Its pro-death agenda is just plain horrible and ill-conceived. It also troubles me greatly to think that teenage girls might watch this film and think that Mia and Adam’s tumultuous relationship is a desirable model of love. Lastly, I’d like to note that the If I Stay novel does have a follow-up book titled Where She Went. Wherever she goes, I sure hope it’s not back to theaters. If I have to sit through another If I Stay movie, I might just give up on life myself.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.14.)