kellym40 film review

Mortality, a strong theme in ‘Logan’

Rating 4/5

I suppose it’s true what they say. All good things must come to an end. For nearly 20 years Hugh Jackman and Sir Patrick Stewart have been portraying Logan (aka Wolverine) and Charles Xavier (aka Professor X) respectively. This is supposedly the final time we see these two actors in these roles.

It would appear that on the surface, Logan is a superhero movie. However, the film is a bit more than that. It is not the usual fanfare spectacle commonly seen Marvel superhero flicks (although this isn’t a full Marvel film since Fox still owns the rights to these characters). Logan is about mortality. We all grow old. This question is posed in Logan. What happens to superheroes when they get old?

Scott Frank and Michael Green co-wrote the script with James Mangold, who also directed. They have adapted this character, adding depth, heart, and a little humor. They have also added some profanity to these characters, which adds to the humor, and brings them down to a more human level, and it also justifies the ‘R’ rating the film received. And it was a little surprising, yet somewhat satisfying, to hear the profanity coming from the Professor’s mouth. It was still surprising with Logan, but a little more believable.

They have set the film in the not too distant future where all mutants have been eliminated and an aging Professor X, in his nineties, is afflicted with some habilitating brain disease, which has significantly reduced his powers, and causes violent psychic seizures. Additionally, Logan’s strength is deteriorating and his healing powers are slowing. He is shown with graying hair and a hard, grizzled, scarred body.

In his twilight, Logan has taken to care for the ailing Professor and drives a limo for cash. They share an abandoned factory with Caliban (Stephen Merchant), a mutant tracker. Their lives are simple. Survive. That is their life until a young girl, Laura (Dafne Keen), enters the picture. Her backstory is explained later, but they (and the audience) soon discover the girl has Logan’s powers – right down to the metal claws. I won’t give away too much more here as the rest pretty much follows most action films. Bad guys come. They fight. They chase. They fight. They chase. New bad guys are introduced. They fight, etc., etc. Richard E. Grant and Boyd Holbrook play the antagonists as the “mad-scientist” and evil henchman. But the true villain in the story is mortality (or time) itself. That’s what our heroes seem to be battling throughout the film. That “invisible killer” that no one can escape as it steals our strength and human capacity.

Jackman has given a performance here that was fun and exciting to watch. He played it fervor and a veracity that showed layers to the character not necessarily seen in his other portrayals of the character. Stewart displays the same level of humanity and layered character as Jackman did to his Logan. With time and age diminishing Charles’ power, Stewart does remarkably well to bring that struggle to the screen. Keen displays the power and energy Jackman brought to the character seventeen years ago. There was truth and honesty in her performance that could possibly develop into a spin-off series with the character if that is a direction worth pursuing by the filmmakers.

As mentioned, Logan is unlike your typical fanfare blockbuster superhero movie. It has some heart and adds some humanity to it. For these elements to truly work, the film is set in a darker tone than the other X-Men films (or Marvel films for that matter). This is something that DC, and Zack Snyder, has truly grasped in their recent film escapades. And that’s not entirely good.

 

 

kellym40 film review

More than heroics prevail in ‘Seven Samurai’

Rating 4/5

There has been much said about this film. Many consider it a great film. Obviously, it was great enough to spawn a remake, several war stories, and the idea of the group protagonists assembled together on a single mission. It can be said it has even introduced the spaghetti western. Moreover, this film, and Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, even gave inspiration to a young George Lucas to create his Star Wars saga. In that regard, it is most certainly a great film.

This film was released in 1954 and it might have been considered a great film – even a masterpiece – at the time, and I enjoyed the film for those reasons. The elements such as cinematography, sound, and music were great attributes and added to the film’s story and tone. However, the length of the film, at nearly three and a half hours (with an actual intermission), just appeared a little lengthy. It was a little tricky to navigate the long running time. During my first viewing, I had to stop about a quarter way through because of a reluctant interruption and it took a little wile to get back to continue the film. I was able to view a little more before I was interrupted again. Finally, I was able to sit down and view it in its entirety. I believe I was able to appreciate it more in that last viewing. Seven Samurai is more than a classic story of heroism and the underdog being triumphant over the forces of evil, it is a story of rich Japanese culture and tradition within the 1600’s, for which this film is set. The length here is the same reason why I thought The Magnificent Seven seemed a bit lengthy and “drag” in some places because some of those sequences of character and story development didn’t work quite as well for me in the Western remake.

The plot centers around a small farming village that is terrorized by bandits who take most of the food they have, barely leaving enough for the villagers to survive. The fearful villagers convene and there is some disagreement as to what the best course of action is. One thing is for sure that they are fed up with the way things are. It is later agreed that they hire samurai to help them fight the bandits. A small group of villagers go on a quest to find the samurai and ultimately hire seven. Of course the farmers have little to offer in the way of funds, so they repay the samurai by giving them rice and shelter until the village is free from the tyranny of the bandits. And during this time, it is not appropriate for farmers to be mixing with samurai (or vice versa). This is where social conventions come in play. This also leads to a subplot of the film where one of the local female villagers falls in love with one of the seven samurai. Eventually discovered, there is discussion about the situation and a common ground is met to appease the modern audience.

Questions arise during this heroic, social commentary. Why do the samurai take the job in the first place? What propels them to put their lives up for these farmers? The samurai are bound by honor and so to keep with societal obligations, they help stand with the farmers to fend off the bandits. The samurai begin training and preparing the locals to fight. The samurai lay out a strategic plan to battle these ruthless bandits and it is clearly seen the samurai and bandits persevere through each of the battles. However, the bandits soon realize the village is being well defended but continue their assault until the climactic showdown.

The film was beautifully crafted and has all of the elements to make a great film. The story and characters were there and it skillfully showed the life of the samurai and villagers and their place in the social caste system of the 17th Century. For some films, lengthy run times can be detrimental. But if masterfully done, it can add so much to a film as it did with Seven Samurai.

 

kellym40 film review

Revenge and action ensue in ‘John Wick’

Rating 4/5

 There are things that can be said about action films – or really with any film for that matter – When they are executed well, it can make for an entertaining film. Director Chad Stahelski has created a surprisingly engaging film. Derek Kolstad’s script blends story and action seamlessly so the viewer is drawn into the immersive world that is created for these characters to exist. And that world is the world of hit men. I suppose this would be similar to the world in which the mafia existed in the early part of the twentieth century.

The story follows a former hit man, John Wick, played by Keanu Reeves, who attempts to recover from the loss of his wife. After a brief encounter with some bad men, they return to his home, steal his car and kill his dog (a final gift from his deceased wife). Unbeknown to the attackers, they are dealing with a highly trained, determined individual (because as one character puts it, “He is the man you send to kill the boogieman”). Wick then goes on a manhunt to track them down and kill them because the dog represented the last bit of humanity and healing John had from his late wife. It was a symbol that he could move on, and when they killed the dog, they stole that from him.

The film also stars Michael Nyqvist and Alfie Allen as the antagonists who give John impossible opposition, Willem Dafoe, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, Adrianne Palicki, and Bridget Moynahan. Every performance captures the individuality of each character and adds so much to the dark world the story is set. And before going further, I feel Reeves’ performance as John Wick is one of his best. It seemed like he had a string of films where he appeared to play the same character, as he did not vary his physicality or have much change in his vocal inflection. He carried that some through this performance, but it fit this role well.

I liked the setting and tone of the film and the fight scenes, both gun and the hand-to-hand fighting, were very well choreographed and executed. The well-placed action scenes with some humor thrown in made for an enjoyable film. It was one of Reeves’ best and very commendable for first time director Stahelski. It flowed along at a decent pace and at 101 minutes was just enough for the story to develop without being slowed down or seem rushed. I can’t imagine a longer run time for the fear that it would begin to be convoluted with unnecessary sequences and any shorter, the story would not have developed as smoothly as it did. Something I enjoy in film is the use of time. Here, the film begins towards the end and then goes back a little and traces the events in which led up to that moment, then the action of the story moves forward.

Overall I really enjoyed the film and was thoroughly entertained the whole way through. Reeves has done very well with his performance in this film as the title character. The action scenes are excellent; and the sound editing and mixing are great and fit like a glove with the tone of the film.

kellym40 film review

Tarantino serves up bloody justice in ‘The Hateful Eight’

Rating 3.5/5

In viewing this latest feature from the mind of Quentin Tarantino, it might be safe to say that there is probably not another storyteller quite the same. In saying that, Tarantino is probably an acquired taste to most people. I am always engaged in his unique style and use of dialogue and camera movement. The Hateful Eight is Tarantino’s eighth feature film and holds nothing back. Although, it was a bit different than some of his other films it still delivered despite being a bit more expository through most of the film. All of the elements come together here to bring this Western whodunit mystery to life.

The action takes place in Wyoming during a blizzard where the characters are gathered together, much like an Agatha Christie mystery. Much of action takes place at Minnie’s haberdashery. Passengers from a stagecoach, on its way to Red Rock, take refuge from the brewing storm. Maj. Marquis Warren (played magnificently by Samuel L. Jackson), an ex-Union soldier of the Civil War, a rough bounty hunter John Ruth (a whiskered Kurt Russell), his handcuffed prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason-Leigh), Chris Mannix (a wonderful Walton Goggins), who claims to be Red Rock’s new sheriff, and the coach driver O. B. (James Parks) come in and meets another motley group at the haberdashery like Tim Roth, who plays Oswaldo Mobray, the new hangman of Red Rock, cowboy Joe Cage (Michael Madsen), Bob (Demián Bichir), a Mexican who claims to be keeping an eye on the place for the absent Minnie, and Sanford Smithers (Bruce Dern), a Confederate general.

As mentioned, it took a while for the story to really get going but Tarantino’s skillful use of dialogue, camera shots, and suspense building kept the story moving right down to the moment when we find the coffee poisoned, bullets start flying, blood spurts, and finally even a good old fashioned hanging. The way this story is told seemed somewhat reminiscent of Hitchcock and his way of building suspense. And when the story starts to unravel the mystery – BAM – the audience is pulled back and flashes back to the early part of that day before we meet estranged characters from the stagecoach. I was kind of waiting for this part too. In most of his films, he does not use a conventional linear line of storytelling (as this one was beginning to look like). He seems to jump and shift time to bring another sense visual storytelling.

As the flashback conveyed, it tied the story together in an intriguing way. And we finally find out why the characters have to keep nailing the front door shut every time someone enters or exits the building. We are fortunate to meet Minnie (Dana Gourrier), Six-Horse Judy (Zoe Bell), Sweet Dave (Gene Jones), and Domergue’s brother Jody (Channing Tatum) and a few others. The acting was excellent in bringing Tarantino’s words to life in his usual, in your face, entertaining way.

The Hateful Eight was a little different but still had the signs of a classic Tarantino film. That style is not seen often in many of the great visual storytellers of today. His creative mind always culminates in a style that can be pleasing and maybe a bit unnerving at the same time. He may not be for everyone, but he certainly doesn’t let that stop him from bringing his visions to the screen.

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘The Magnificent Seven’ … A classic story retold…again

Rating 2/5 

When Akira Kurosawa’s 1956 film The Seven Samurai was remade into a stirring Western (The Magnificent Seven) and released in 1960, John Sturges directed a fun, colorful, and exciting adventure and one of the great classic Westerns of all time. Although I found the 1960 film version a bit slow at times during the first act, there was enough to keep me interested and entertained. This 2016 Antoine Fuqua directed version kept the story of the original, but with some character and setting changes.

The story begins in 1879 in a small frontier town in Rose Creek. Enter the antagonist Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), who is operating a gold mining business, and he comes into town to a church during a service and offers money to the residents for their land. They can take the offer or suffer the consequences. After burning the church and killing a few citizens, a widow, Emma Cullen (Hayley Bennett), decides she isn’t going to accept Bogue’s tyranny. She searches for some men who could help her people stand up to Bogue. She soon meets an officer of the court Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington), who agrees to help her. The group in this version is much more diverse than in the 1960 original. Chisolm brings on Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), a Mexican (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), a Civil War sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) and his Asian pal, Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee). They soon find Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and a Comanche Indian Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier).

Like the original, it had some big names with a few relatively unknown actors in the roles. Washington delivers a decent performance, but it lacked energy and the personality to really care enough about the character. Pratt brought his usual charm and charisma, but the character still remained insufficient to truly feel for the character. The remaining five also failed to provide any real connection. However, Sarsgaard nearly shines as the greedy villain. He provides a performance that makes you want a satisfying character death.

There were aspects I liked about this film, and it had its highs and lows, but it seemed to lack the energy and overall pace of the original. On its own, this film is a decent Western. But viewing it as a remake, it lacks something from the original. I did like the fact that the protagonist (Chisolm) and antagonist (Bogue) had more of a background connection and the bad guy’s demise was a little more satisfying in this version than the original. Additionally, the film had a decent build up as the seven were rounded up and the tension was building until the final confrontation, it didn’t have the same impact as the original. And while the final climactic battle between Bogue and his army of men and the citizens of Rose Creek and the seven was cinematic, it seemed a little more than just the underdog beating the odds and coming out victorious. I wanted to like this film more, but overall, it just didn’t catch my interest as much.

I have yet to view the original source (The Seven Samurai), but with an acclaimed remake in 1960 that spawned three sequels, it hardly seems another remake is needed here.

kellym40 film review

Exploring one’s potential in ‘Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)’

Rating 4/5

Birdman was released in 2014 and captured four Oscars during award season the following year. And is it me, or do a majority of the films that get nominated seem to come out towards the end of the year? Anyhow, the film won for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography. Birdman also took home a Golden Globe for Best Screenplay and Best Actor.

What captivated me most about the film were the style of directing and the use of the camera. Alejandro González Iñárritu has a directing style apart from other directors. Iñárritu’s creativity shines with this production and is particularly effective in bringing the character intimacy to each character throughout the film. His use of a continuous flowing shot to move through the scenes in this film added to the frantic mood the protagonist was experiencing. Some may have been put off by this technique, but I felt it brought me closer to the characters in their moments.

Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, an actor who played a fictional superhero, Birdman, years earlier. Trying to find what is important to him and to revive his career he writes, directs, and stars in a play about to open on Broadway. His co-stars Mike (Edward Norton), Lesley (Naomi Watts), and Laura (Andrea Riseborough) examine their lives as they prepare for opening night and spend their days navigating the complicated game of life and the theatre world. Emma Stone portrays Riggan’s estranged daughter, Sam, and offers a strong performance.

Iñárritu adds another player in the film with the music throughout the scenes. Drummer Antonio Sanchez underscored scenes revealing Riggan’s thoughts and feelings through the beats and rhythm of the percussion. It brings out Riggan’s struggles as he deals with money, critics and his own personal ego to make sure this project does not come up short of the success he needs.

Maybe that’s another reason why I was drawn to this film. It is about actors and their craft. It is about the theatre world. Just about any film that deals with actors being actors and the daily circumstances leading up to opening night holds my interest because I have been in that world (mostly on the collegiate level) as an actor and a member of the production team, including sound designer. So I know how important light, sound, and music can be to a show.

Theatre is a collaborative art. Birdman is collaborative too. It is a beautifully crafted film, rich with exciting performances and originality. It is based on the story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” by Raymond Carver. From the writing by Iñárritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, and Armando Bo, to the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki, Birdman explores the inner dilemmas (particularly Riggan’s) and the struggle to become more than a mere mortal.

 

 

kellym40 film review

A murder mystery unfolds in ‘All Good Things’

Rating 3/5

The title of the movie comes from the name of a health food store that plays a small part within the film’s narrative. It seems to take actual events and puts them into this mysterious crime story written by Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling and is directed by Andrew Jarecki. It moves along at a slow pace through most of its 101-minute runtime but picks up more in the final act.

The story revolves around David Marks (Ryan Gosling) who marries free-spirited Katie (Kirsten Dunst). They live a happy life in Vermont where they open the health foods store. All is well until David’s father, Sanford (Frank Langella), who owned valuable real estate property that included strip clubs, massage parlors, and so on, wants David to join the family business. After a while, David returns to New York to join his father, while Katie lives a quiet, unhappy existence. A little time passes and David begins to change from the person Katie fell in love with and married. The marriage begins to fall apart. Katie disappears. She is never found again.

The narrative begins in the seventies and goes through Katie’s disappearance in 1982 to the early 2000’s. Gosling does well here in the role of David, which is pivotal to the story. He plays the character with a low-key performance as needed at the beginning. So as we go through the story we can see his character’s transformation unfold through the years.

Katie struggles to see who David is and his dramatic transformation. Kirsten Dunst plays her as a loving, kind woman and changes to a quiet desperation as she attempts to understand her husband’s transformation until her disappearance.

It is through two separate murder investigations of Malvern Bump (Philip Baker Hall) and Janice Rizzo (Diane Venora) that David’s life is revealed. Looking into his life, through his relationship with his wife and her vanishing to his relationships with Bump and Rizzo, David is suspected of being involved with his wife’s disappearance and with the two murders, but is never charged.

While the film had a somewhat compelling story and varying characters, the ending seemed, to some extent, a bit confusing. I was unclear to the outcome of what actually happened to Katie and it left me unsatisfied on some level. Of course, maybe that was the film’s intent. At any rate, the story and characters held me enough to be entertaining and enjoyable.

 

kellym40 film review

Deception prevails in ‘Basic’

Rating 2/5

A movie starring names like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson you think would deliver something more. I thought this would be a solid military thriller that would bring some decent action and story to the audience. While the film did have some action, a story, and varied characters, what was left was a contrived piece of film that didn’t reveal itself until the final few minutes of runtime in which I was relieved it was finally over. Deception prevails. Not just in the film’s storyline but for the audience as well.

I’m not sure what writer James Vanderbilt was trying to accomplish. I suppose it was an attempt to intrigue and entertain the audience, but this audience was not amused. It had a decent set up and got the story going into the second act but then slowly unraveled until the final, even more confusing (for lack of a better word), third act. The movie’s direction seemed instinctive, based on the material presented in the script, but director John McTiernan failed to give it any real life.

I don’t even want to attempt to give a synopsis or give away any plot, as I do not want to confuse myself or the reader. That is not to say I am easily confused, but as the story kept unfolding and revealed twist after twist, I became disengaged from the film. And then I found myself just waiting for the final act to complete so I could put away the madness. Maybe some people are entertained by that sort of thing. However, I like some plot twists and turns as much as the next eager movie-goer, but when it seems to go on and on as in this film, it just sort of takes me out. I mean it seemed like most of the second act had several surprising twists. And this went right on in through the third act.

The performances were nothing extraordinary, but catered to the needs of the film. Travolta played his character with energy and charisma as a DEA investigator. Jackson gave his usual commanding, foul-mouthed, performance as a military sergeant. Connie Nielsen, Tim Daly, Harry Connick, Jr., Giovanni Ribisi, Brian Van Holt, Taye Diggs, Dash Mihok, Cristian de la Fuente, and Roselyn Sanchez round out the main cast and played their respective roles well, but there just didn’t appear to be anything that made these characters really stand out and care for what happened to them.

I gave it my best. Basic was released in 2003. I first saw this film maybe a year or so after it was released. I recently came across it and thought I would give it another viewing. I remember it having some twists in it but not like this. If I were to view the film again and again, there might be some subtle hints to piece together the story and plot, but I don’t think I could sit through another take on it. Most likely if it didn’t really catch my interest to begin with, then it would be likely it wouldn’t catch my interest for a third or fourth time. Even with the charisma and energy from the actors, seemingly confident production team, and experienced director, the film fell into a huge mess of a storm like the hurricane depicted in the film.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Feathers are ruffled in ‘The Angry Birds Movie’

Rating 2/5

In 2009, a video game application came on the scene available for download on your Smartphone – Angry Birds. It quickly became a popular download and has crossed into other platforms such as tablets and Facebook applications and has reached into other pieces of merchandise. And seven years later in 2016, it became an animated film.

Some may call it a cartoon. But it seems the term animation has come into play within the last several years and that’s exactly what it is – animation. This medium is very prevalent in today’s storytelling movie-going experience. And it can be an effective way to tell a story. That’s one strength with the film in that the animation is well done and there is nearly the look and feel of the video game. That being said, there are flaws with the film.

I’m sure most everyone is familiar with the game and this film version stays pretty faithful to it. It’s simple. Piggies come to Bird Island and offer peace and friendship. That is until they discover the birds’ eggs. The piggies hatch a plan to steal all of the eggs for themselves. So the birds attack the pigs to get their eggs back. This is the concept for the game and plays well for the latter part of the film, but for the 97-minute runtime it makes for a long exposition.

That exposition involves a basic backstory, some music, and some sight gags that give a reason for these birds to exist. It doesn’t seem this is enough to fill the needed time with satisfactory material for an engaging, entertaining film. It does have moments and the animation is colorful and is true to the game, but it does little to add to the overall enjoyment of the film.

We are introduced to the three protagonists – Red (Jason Sudeikis), Chuck (Josh Gad), and Bomb (Danny McBride) – who lead the attack on the pigs. Other big names lend their voices to the birds and give them personalities and somewhat entertaining characters. A few of those names are Maya Rudolph, Peter Dinklage, Sean Penn, and Keegan-Michael Key. To lead the pigs is Leonard (Bill Hader), who is the most distinct pig character as the rest lack individuality. For the most part, these characters seem to be the only lively thing in the film.

Co-directors Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly do what they can with the material presented in the script by Jon Vitti. So while the premise works well for a game, it doesn’t do so well for feature length animation. I’m not sure if there would be anything else one could change or add to the script to make it more enjoyable, but it seems this was a futile attempt in trying to capitalize on the franchise.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘Super’ tells crime to shut up

Rating 3/5

I had reservations while viewing this film. Like a previous statement I made “You can’t judge a film by its trailer,” so it is with this film. It seems to be billed as a comedy, but plays out in an entirely different way. I can see where some might be turned off and find it unlikable. But if you put away any preconceived ideas and expectations you may have (like expecting something funny and upbeat) and open up to what the film is, it might just be bearable, or even enjoyable. And, despite its themes and explicit action, Super does have its merits.

With this film, writer-director James Gunn appears to ask the question, “What lengths would one go to if your wife fell under the influence of bad people?” He takes a real situation and turns it into a somewhat authentic reality. There is some humor in the film, but again, the trailer seemed misleading here. I don’t think Gunn intended this to be a straightforward comedy, or even a black comedy. And while the film turned a corner and strayed off the comedy path, the characters stayed true to themselves and played through the story’s action throughout the film.

While themes may be blurred and the film’s purpose may be unclear at times, it does have varied and somewhat interesting characters. And since the characters are more or less drawn into a seemingly real situation, one might wonder what someone else would do in a similar situation. Maybe not to the extent our main character goes to in the film, but some other similar action.

Super is a character driven film and seems to be driven by the lead character, a short-order cook, Frank (Rainn Wilson). Frank is an average guy and is married to, what he thinks is the woman of his dreams, Sarah (Liv Tyler). Sarah is a recovering addict and is then caught up in the hands of a slick drug dealer, Jacques (Kevin Bacon). When Sarah goes missing, Frank is determined Jacques had something to do with that and is determined to get her back. While watching a Christian cable channel, he gets a notion to emulate a superhero that stops evildoers with the power of God. Looking for more inspiration, Frank goes to a comic book store where he meets Libby (Ellen Page), a lively clerk who knows her comic superheroes. To get to Jacques, Frank dons the identity of a masked superhero, the Crimson Bolt, and takes the motto, “Shut up, crime!” Armed with a large wrench, he takes on evil wherever it may be by hiding behind dumpsters all day waiting for crime to happen.

What Frank becomes seems more like a mad man beating people senseless over petty things. But ultimately what drives him is stopping the ultimate evil, Jacques, and getting Sarah back. Libby finds out Frank is the Crimson Bolt and then becomes his junior sidekick, Boltie. She then helps Frank take on crime and go after Jacques.

The performances here are nothing stellar, but they do provide interesting enough dynamics in their character relationships that add enough to the story that kept me involved. As I said earlier, the film takes the audience for a ride by teasing one type of film and then exploding in a different direction. That may be off putting to most people, including me. But as a viewed the film, Frank became a character I connected with and wanted to see the outcome to the end. Super is not your ordinary superhero movie. Nor is it a laugh-a-minute riot. It may not be super, but it does have some merit.