We Bought A Zoo and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

On Christmas Eve we went as a family to see "We Bought A Zoo" at the movie theater in downtown Colorado Springs. It was wonderful to see a Cameron Crowe film as a family, considering that previous Crowe films have definitely been intended for mature audiences. While "We Bought A Zoo" deals with some pretty heavy issues, I was impressed with Crowe's ability to gently handle ideas which a lesser director would have exploited for emotional effect. The film centers around a man who has lost his wife and his two children (who lost their mother). Instead of dwelling on the past, Crowe focuses on the daily challenges of life. I think that it must have been very tempting to incorporate flashbacks into a movie like this, so that we the audience could understand how wonderful life was before the wife/mother was lost. Instead Crowe introduces us to characters who have already begun the process of life without their loved one. Of course the film still is quite sad, as each person struggles with this new life, but ultimately they are supporting each other. The run-down zoo which is attached to the family's new home works as an allegory for their life and it is also just what it seems; a zoo. This was a smart move for Crowe, I think he understands that a good film should entertain it's audience, and be substantive to boot. Even if children don't understand the deeper meaning upon their first viewing, it will be there when they return. I think that my favorite movies from childhood have turned out to be the great films which have gotten better as I am able to understand them more.

I didn't take the family to see "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", and I don't think any of them will be seeing it for quite some time. I had seen the original film version, which really was sufficient, but I really wanted to see how David Fincher would treat the same material. Honestly the first film could easily have been directed by Fincher, so he definitely had to out-do himself to leave no doubt that this was really his movie. The opening titles reminded me of the opening to "Fight Club", it really grabs your attention and sets the atmosphere for the film to follow. Throughout the film there are moments and techniques utilized which definitely made the film uniquely Fincher, but overall I was surprised with how similar it was to the original version. Of course Fincher's best films ("Fight Club" and "Seven") are best the first time you watch them, so here he was already at a disadvantage. The moments of greatest tension, or that are meant to shock were the same exact moments from the previous version. When I think of "Fight Club" I always think about the first time I saw it, the visceral experience that was burned into my mind; this movie fell far short of that. This film was billed as "the feel bad movie of the holidays", to which it totally delivers... And yet, Fincher's nihilism, which somehow worked to his benefit in some of his other films somehow feels like too much here. "Seven" is about men who confront evil for which they are unprepared. That film at least forces the audience to ask themselves what would they do if faced with the same dilemma. The closing moment of the film solidifies the main character's belief that she is and always will be utterly alone. If this review has bummed you out, I'm sorry, I didn't force anyone to read it. You should have stopped with "We Bought A Zoo".

Mission Impossible 4

What I like the most about the Mission Impossible film series is the variety. With the fourth installment we get the fourth director, the result of which is an entirely new movie. These films don't fit the standard sequel mould; rather it's a completely different experience each time. Of course this can be risky, since there isn't much continuity between the films. Personally I believe that Brian De Palma's work on the first film remains the best. The action sequences are memorable, but more importantly the twists and turns within the plot make it a very entertaining ride. John Woo brought his stylized action to the second movie, going way over the top; which was fun. J.J. Abrams directed the third film, essentially making a big budget episode of Alias with the added bonus of drones, wind turbines, and lens flares (I'm not saying any of that is a bad thing).

Here in the fourth movie, Brad Bird makes a live-action version of "The Incredibles". If that doesn't sound totally awesome to you, then I suggest that you get a check-up immediately. As with the last two movies, story and plot is of little importance, it merely serves as the thread to tie one set-piece to another. In a sense I was somewhat disappointed, considering that Brad Bird directed "Ratatouille" and "Iron Giant", he has proven his ability to bring substance to film. Yet the visuals and action in this movie are so captivating that I forgave him right away for the shallow story. There is absolutely no reason to describe the three main action sequences; yet I will comment on the third which would be right at home in any good Pixar film (minus the blood and broken bones of course). While watching this amazingly choreographed scene I became aware of something interesting; the camera is a hindrance. In "The Incredibles", "Iron Giant", and "Ratatouille" there are no limits to what Brad Bird can do. In the real world Bird is constrained by the limits of the camera, which made certain shots seem somewhat static. While I hope to never see digital animation replace live-action, it's exciting to see the marriage of the two, and watch the evolution which is taking place in filmmaking. Hopefully Hollywood will get the message that we don't want Jar Jar Binks, but we do want a hovering camera capturing Tom Cruise climbing the tallest building in the world without ropes.

Catching-Up

It's been too long since my last post, and even longer since I reviewed a new movie.
My school schedule has led to a reduction in movie-going, but not as drastically as reflected on this blog. This posting will be devoted to short (two or three sentence) reviews of the movies I saw but never took time to fully review. Next time I hope to return to the full review format.

"Captain America" had its moments. In my opinion there are film adaptations of comic books which rise above their source material (example: "Superman" and "The Dark Knight"). Other movies are basically video comic books themselves, which is the category in which "Captain America" finds itself. These can only be judged against each other, as they lack certain elements which good films must contain. Therefore, "Captain America" is better than "Thor", "Fantastic 4", "Daredevil" etc. But that's not really saying much.

"Cowboys and Aliens" contained actors who pretended that they were in a far better movie than I got to see. I had heard how excited Harrison Ford was to be in a Western, and he played his part with plenty of charisma. Daniel Craig seems to play the reluctant hero so naturally, and he was just right for this role. Unfortunately the overall movie didn't measure up... "Alien" (way back in 1979) set a pretty high standard for what a scary alien should look like. Movies like "I Am Legend" have proven that Hollywood can digitally make creatures which are imposing and effective antagonists. It appears as though the makers of "Cowboys and Aliens" have been living in a cave for the last 32 years, because their aliens are neither imposing or effective. If this movie had stuck to cowboys and forgotten about the aliens it would have been a far better movie.

"Midnight In Paris" has Owen Wilson playing a younger Woody Allen in a Woody Allen movie. There is a dreamlike quality to this film which I don't think Woody Allen has done before, which was very well done. While I really enjoy Woody Allen's dialogue and sense of humor, it was helpful to have something different going on to keep it fresh and interesting. Out of all the movies I'm discussing in this post, "Midnight In Paris" is the only one I have any desire to see again.

"The Debt" was good up until the last 5 minutes; too bad. I recommend that the writer and director of "The Debt" watch the next movie I review here, "Drive" in preparation for their next movie. If you don't know how to end a good story, just stop. A movie is better off without an ending than with one so cliche and unnecessary as we're given in "The Debt". On a side note, one thing I'd like to point out about "The Debt" is the double-back storytelling element it utilizes. While many films use this device to build tension, "The Debt" uses it for another purpose... I was happily surprised by the affect.

"Drive" is one of those movies which tests Quentin Tarantino's theory on effective violence. Graphic violence has less impact than implied violence. What makes the main character in this film so scary is how quiet and calm he is. While ultimately the hero of this film is a tragic one, it is nice to see a film take the time to explain who the hero is and why, without offending the audience. The supporting characters in this film are also well defined (as much as necessary) which made this one of the better films I've seen recently.

"Killer Elite" reminds me why I like Robert De Niro. His scenes are better just because he's in them, as is the movie as a whole. Otherwise this was basically a standard action thriller, doing the action well, not really delivering on the thriller elements. Now that I think of it, another viewing of "Heat" probably would have been a better way to pass the time. Here's the dilemma; while there's almost always a better movie than the one I just saw, does watching the sub-par movies make me appreciate the great ones even more? Or do I just become more and more jaded? It's a catch-22.

The Philosophy of Casablanca

Michael Curtiz’s 1942 film Casablanca is about a man whose philosophical outlook has become jaded. Humphrey Bogart plays Rick, a nightclub owner with a mysterious past. The backdrop is Casablanca, a city which is the debarkation point from which people from all over the world are hoping to escape the Nazi onslaught. Tension is thick at the nightclub, Rick’s Café American, as people from diverse backgrounds clash in an attempt to make sense out of the insanity of war. Amidst this confusion, the film centers on Rick, whose philosophy seems to be “I stick my neck out for no one”. As the film opens Rick is visited by a seedy character named Ugarte, who asks Rick to hide some valuable documents for him. The authorities arrive to arrest Ugarte who runs to Rick asking for help, Rick refuses. While hiding the documents had been beneficial to Rick, helping Ugarte would have only put him at risk. This is reminiscent of philosopher Immanuel Kant’s view that knowledge comes from one’s senses and understanding. Rick’s universe is centered on himself; he views outside people and events only as they affect him.
While at first glance Rick appears to be an extremely narcissistic individual, certain statements reveal that this may simply be a defensive facade. Ferrari, a wealthy businessman offers to buy Rick’s nightclub, Rick refuses. Then, referring to the piano player, Ferrari asks, “How much do you want for Sam?” Rick dismisses him by saying, "I don't buy or sell human beings". This exchange reveals a moral code which suggests that Rick, while self-centered, is not entirely without principles.
Enter the woman who broke Rick’s heart, Ilsa Lund. From a philosophical standpoint, Ilsa represents the experiences of Rick’s past, which have shaped his current character. It may be helpful to look at the relationship between Rick and Ilsa through the lens of John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In this essay Locke discusses the properties of reality, separating truth from perception. Locke claims that there are real, tangible truths, but that an effort to describe these truths from an individual perspective is futile. Rick believes that Ilsa callously broke off their relationship years earlier, but this was far from the truth. Ilsa’s husband who had been reported dead, returned, making it impossible for her to stay with Rick. Believing that Ilsa no longer loved him, Rick adopted a hard exterior and a pessimistic worldview. Obviously Rick’s reaction was based on his limited senses and understanding, which highlights the shortcoming of the previously mentioned Kantian philosophy.
Prior to learning Ilsa’s side of the story, Rick’s behavior towards her reflects only his own feelings, it is clear that he believes himself to be the victim. Her husband, Victor turns out to be an important freedom fighter who is seeking to escape with her to America. The documents which Rick acquired at the beginning of the film are essential to the success of Ilsa and Victor’s plan. Although helping Victor would save many lives and thwart evil Nazi schemes, Rick doesn’t want to help the woman who left him or the man she is now with. It is at this crucial point in the film when Ilsa is finally able to explain why she had to leave. In Rick’s mind, a significant transformation takes place, no longer is he looking at the world simply from his own perspective. As he gives Ilsa the documents, Rick says, “I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”. In the end Rick sends Ilsa off with Victor, risking his own safety in the process. Apparently Rick is willing to stick his neck out for others, which is quite uplifting, because who wants to see a movie about a guy who only cares for himself?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

In order to give justice to a good movie, and out of consideration for you, I will divide this review into two parts... which probably is as good an idea as dividing the final Harry Potter book into two parts.

*If you love Harry Potter enough that you already saw this movie, and you cried at the end, you may not want to read any further.

Part I: What Did Not Work.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows probably would have made an excellent film, instead it has been divided into two OK movies. Optimistic Peter acknowledges that this was probably done to make Harry Potter fans happy, two movies means twice the Harry Potter goodness. Realist Peter steps in and slaps Optimistic Peter upside the head and reminds him that "it's the money stupid!" Of course neither Peter is here to criticize good old fashioned Capitalism, obviously Peter bought tickets to both movies. The point is that good filmmaking is the process of eliminating all the elements which are unnecessary to telling a story, leaving behind only a great film. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is chock full of fat and fillers, and that excess is punctuated with an absence of music. That's right, the composer of this movie's score seems to have only written music for parts which he deemed "music worthy" and left long sections of silence here and there. As the closing titles rolled I noticed that a number of pieces were actually John William's compositions (he's not the composer this time), so this movie's composer actually did less writing than is represented in the soundtrack. Of course a discussion of the movie's score is meant only give an example of how this movie is lacking. There is not enough story and no character development to speak of, which makes this entry in the Harry Potter series only good as a bookend. Which is unfortunate, because at the other end of the Harry Potter library is one of the two best Potter movies. This magical series started out so promising and just didn't have enough depth or heart to make it to the finish line.

Part II: What Did Work
There are two things which this episode of Harry Potter did well, one of which it did amazingly. Firstly, it ended the story. Perhaps I was meant to be surprised, but overall I found the conclusion of this series to follow exactly the course that had been established quite a while ago. Everyone wins, loses, hooks-up, dies, lives, etc. just as anyone might have expected. Perhaps I'm a little slow, but is Professor Snape Harry's dad? Whether or not this is true, I kind of like the way they handled that story element, Potter's flashback into Snape's memory was one of the best parts of the movie. The second, and best part of this movie are the special effects. It is truly amazing to see the evolution which has taken place in this series alone. If you're going to pay to see this movie you'll get your money's worth in eye candy. The dragon, the smoke/flying evil wizards, fire, and Ralph Fienne's nose are all spectacular visual achievements.

Conclusion:
I am glad that we got to see the final chapter in the Harry Potter series, it's good to have closure. Yet it's kind of a bummer to see these movies end on a dismal note. The truth is that Harry Potter was never much of a hero, and I can't say these stories ever rose above the visual escape that they provided. My friend Rob made a good point; "compare Dumbledore to Gandalf"... end of argument.

Soul Surfer, Kung Fu Panda 2, Monte Carlo, and Transformers 3

Let's get "Transformers 3" out of the way first. I didn't go into this movie expecting character development or a good story; I wasn't disappointed. This movie contains none of the elements which are typically needed for even the most basic of movies, yet it does have Transformers, so at least that's something. I'll admit that there were a few funny moments, but why in the world did I feel like I was watching a watered-down "Hangover" rip-off? I'll tell you why, because one of the characters is from "The Hangover" playing the exact same character, ripping-off his previous performance. This may have been fun if done right, but it was so out of place, and it didn't fit into the context of the rest of the movie. Usually I'm OK with Michael Bay's mish mash style, but this movie was such a jumbled mess I don't think I could actually recount for you what or why anything happened. Transformers are awesome, but what is up with those stupid mini Transformer clown characters? Perhaps Michael Bay did some market research and found that Americans secretly loved Jar Jar Binks. Maybe I'm alone on this, but these mini Transformers are so irritating that they seriously detract from the whole movie. Ultimately, this film was a spectacle, an experience more than a movie. If you're waiting to watch this on a television you're a moron. Pay the ten bucks, see Transformers beating the crap out of each other, then never watch this movie again.

"Kung Fu Pand 2" wasn't half the movie the first one was. Too bad. Once again we have concrete evidence that story, writing, and characters are the foundation of a good film; if any one of these elements is weak, the whole movie fails. "Kung Fu Panda" gave us the characters; unfortunately, like so many sequels, the story here was so flat that the movie is really only good for napping. It's too bad that the creators of this movie thought that action, fighting animals, and explosions were all the audience wanted. Too bad.

I got to see the movie "Monte Carlo" with my daughter Ashley. This movie was really well done, sure nothing really new as a story, but then sometimes the best movies are simply re-tellings of the greatest stories. The kids and I sometimes watch Wizards of Waverly Place, which also stars Salena Gomez, and she basically plays a nicer version of that character here in "Monte Carlo". The movie probably would have been flat if it had merely followed her, impersonating a famous celebrity, taking advantage of the benefits of fame. Fortunately she has a step sister and best friend along for the ride, who really are more interesting than she is, and the movie ended up being dynamic and fun because of the other characters and their side stories. This is at its heart a Fairy Tale, and it does contain the appropriate moral lessons which are conveyed in a down to earth, heartwarming way. I can think of quite a few teenager/tween movies of late that have horrible messages and terrible role models, it's nice that "Monte Carlo" breaks that mould.

Thomas, the kids, and I saw "Soul Surfer" a little while ago (when Thomas was here of course). This is the best out the four movies I'm reviewing this time, which I am happy to report. Sure there are hints of preachiness in this film, which isn't always a bad thing, but delivery is so important. Unfortunately the filmmakers chose to cast Carrie Underwood to have the preachy role, and she was not meant to act. Other than that minor complaint, the rest of the film was very well done. The story was quite compelling, and this was coupled with a main character who really made the whole thing convincing. AnnaSophia Robb was wonderful in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and has grown up just enough to be perfect as the surfer girl who struggles with life after a shark attack. Even with a strong supporting cast (with the exception of Underwood) Robb really must carry this movie herself. She displays a wide range of emotions, and is one of the better role models in recent movie history. It's also interesting to note that this movie is rated PG; and considering that there is a limb lost to a shark the filmmakers did a great job conveying the significance of that moment without graphically exploiting the horror. This is a rare thing today, a great family film.

Super 8

"Super 8" is not a great creature film, but who wants to see that anyways. It is a wonderful film, that just so happens to have a creature moving about within its story. I don't want to give too much away, but this is basically a retelling of "E.T.", with two noteworthy exceptions. The first, and most important is that here the story is centered around a relationship between a boy and a girl, whereas "E.T." was focused on the boy and an alien. I liked the writing in this film; there are a group of kids making their own movie and each of their experiences are mirrored in the film that we are watching. For any film to be successful it must first make us sympathetic to the characters that we are watching. There are shortcuts which many filmmakers depend upon which result in very shallow movies. Some movie makers have given up entirely on character development, which is really a shame. Fortunately J.J. Abrams knows that the people are what make the film. The creature in this film represents the action, the danger looming in the background. What keeps us watching is the relationship between the boy and the girl. We want them to succeed, we want them to live happily ever after, but will they? Oh, and the second difference between "Super 8" and "E.T." is that ET never ate anybody, at least not onscreen.

On a side note; I really liked the look of this film. Abrams captured the feel of 1979 without it coming across as cheesy. When Spielberg made "E.T." it was shot to as a modern film, reflecting the look of 1982. In "Super 8" Abrams has revisited that time period, but it looks just as natural as Spielberg's film. This is how a good film transports you to another time without distracting from the story.

Catchup. "Thor", "Fast Five", "Rango", a bad sequel, and "Pirates of the Caribbean Part 4"

I'm torn because it's late and my first instinct is to write really short reviews like; "Thor" sucked.

My journalistic integrity (or whatever it might be) implores me to at the very least explain myself; "Thor" sucked because it was all window dressing, it lacked soul, or perhaps a Biblical analogy would be it was a whitewashed tomb.

Perhaps that's a little excessive, but it gets to the point and hopefully steers anyone reading this from even renting this movie in the future. If I had to rate these movies I am reviewing tonight, "Thor" would definitely be the second to last movie that I would recommend. Check that, it would be one of two movies that I would not recommend ever due to the fact that it would be next to impossible to convince me that there was any redeemable value in watching this movie. I bet most of you are thinking "what a dork, why'd he even go see such a stupid movie?" Good question, my only answer is that I did it for you, kind of like taking a bullet for someone you love.

"Fast Five" was actually fun.

Yes, that was the review.

"Rango" was a highly entertaining experience, yet I was dissapointed with the overall message of the movie. The animation and character developement here was wonderful. The filmmakers were not aiming low to reach children, rather they made a rich and interesting film that will appeal to anyone who enjoys a good movie. I especially liked the "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", "Apocalypse Now" and "Singing in the Rain" references. Johnny Depp never felt like just Rango's voice, rather this animated lizard was another great Depp performance, which speaks highly of the animators and director, Gore Verbinski. Unfortunately the movie falters in its bleak worldview. Sure the main character, Rango is a hero, yet he is operating in a world where only personal gain matters. Heroes and villans are only seperated by how much they are willing to hurt those around them in pusuit of their desires. I was thinking earlier this evening about how important a director can be to the tone and spirit of a film. Look at the last two James Bond movies for example; by all accounts Daniel Craig's second outing as Bond should have been so much more, but the change in directors between the films caused a major discrepency. I suggest that you look at Gore Verbinski's earlier films, and it will become clear why "Rango" is a great film with a very empty outlook on humanity.

Oh yeah, and that is actually one of the movies I would recommend.

It's the "bad sequel" which I won't even mention by name that I would highly suggest that any and all avoid. I'm guessing that I've already said too much and most people who wanted to see this movie already have, so they too know why I'm raving against it, and those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about have no desire to see this movie anyways, so really, what's the point?

Moving on to the final film of the night; Jess and I just got back from seeing the newest "Pirates of the Caribbean". I really enjoyed it, I found it to be a great improvement on the last two installments. I don't want to get into all the reasons I disliked parts 2 and 3 (Keira Knightley) rather I would like to focus on what made part 4 enjoyable. Captain Jack is a wonderfully created character, and this movie spends most of its time with him. I never could really get interested in all the side stories and the political wrangling that went on in the previous films. Maybe when you have too many poplular actors in a movie it becomes necassary to give them something to do. What this film got right was letting us see how Depp's Captain Jack interacts with those other characters. There is a special chemistry between Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa and Jack, which director Rob Marshall takes full advantage of. There's enough here to make the journey back to the glory days of pirates seem worthwhile, without being bogged-down by the part 2/part 3 stroyline or the overpaid/undertalented actors that were so distracting in earlier outings.

Look, I actually reviewed 2 out of 5. That's got to count for something.

Hanna

You may remember the last time I wrote about one of director Joe Wright's movies was after seeing "Atonement". To summarize that review, it sucked. I am happy to report that my impression of "Hanna" is significantly different. The best parts of the film come early, as we see Hanna at home with her father. There is a depth and affection in their relationship that is almost startling because you see that kind of love so rarely depicted in film. What is nice about the opening minutes is that the Wright allows the audience to take everything in. From the relationship between Hanna and her father to the rich cinematography which establishes where they live. Soon we are introduced to the plot, and at times we feel its pull and those are the weak momemets in the film. Yet for the most part the film is suprisingly thoughtful and never feels like its rushing from one action scene to another. Instead it is about a girl and her father and the devolopement of other relationships beyond her experience. I liked very much the sense of disorientation that the cinematographer and editor was able to convey. How often do we see a landscape and think "that looks just like Southern California" only to have a subtitle explain that we are actually in Iraq. This film lets you figure out where you are on your own, just like Hanna, and sometimes the clues aren't very helpful. I probably should mention that Rob and I had a debate over whether or not the film was promoting lesbians, and I'll admit to you that I was stretching it by suggesting that it was not. The movie also has a bunch of murder and stuff like that in it, but you probably don't mind that so much.

Searching for Bobby Fischer and Sucker Punch

"Searching for Bobby Fischer" is one of those films that is a refreshing breath of fresh air every time I come back to it. I think that most great films are allegories. Even those based on historic events such as"Schindler's List" or set in a harsh real world like "The Departed" are not meant to be viewed only for the story contained within. Written between the lines is a commentary on contemporary society and the human condition. "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is not an allegory, rather it is about people searching for meaning without the clever assistance of some benevolent screenwriter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking "Schindler's List", yet let us look at a difference between these two films. In "Schindler's List" the Ben Kingsley character is able to help his fellow Jews by compiling a list which represents those who will be saved from death. This scene is carefully crafted for maximum emotional impact, contrasting the horrific impersonal slaughter that the Nazis carried out versus the heart wrenching choices that one man made to try to save those he loved. On the other hand in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" the Ben Kingsley character, a skilled Chess master loses his patience, taking out his frustration on a little boy who himself is struggling with emotional conflict. Every scene in "Schindler's List" means something, whereas "Searching for Bobby Fischer" seems to be at a loss, what was clear minutes before suddenly is no longer applicable. Yet the latter film more accurately represents how we live our lives. Even if your world view is firmly established, there will be many challenges in your life. "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is a breath of fresh air because it challenges me to look for purpose and what is good in the life that God has given me. Winning Chess won't bring meaning, not even just playing Chess can do that.

After writing about "Searching for Bobby Fischer" I feel less inclined to go into great detail on "Sucker Punch". I will briefly summarize my opinion of the movie and make a related observation. I liked the movie, it is one of those movies that is entertaining to experience but doesn't contain much in the way of substance. Once it's over, it's over. I'm a sucker for a good music video, and this was a series of music videos loosely tied together as a feature film. I really like "A Knight's Tale" which is somewhat similar, except at least that movie had a story to hold the whole thing together. Now maybe I'm alone on this one, but any movie that has action sequences set to Björk has got to be good. The observation I mentioned before has to do with film as art. I have heard it said that movies are the only truly American artform, and I tend to agree with this idea. Where this relates to "Sucker Punch" and movies like it is in how we appreciate them. This movie had shallow characters, a contrived plot which I hesitate to even call a story, yet it was viscerally amazing. There is one scene in particular that stands out where the camera completes a 360 degree pan around the main characters. To accomplish this it must go in and then out of a mirror, or did it start in and return to the mirror? Would it have been a far better film if it's visuals had achieved a higher purpose? Maybe just the fact that I'm asking whether or not it was art is itself the answer... Go figure that one out.

The Adjustment Bureau and Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2

This and the next post are catch-up reviews, so don't think that I just saw four movies in the last couple days. I saw "The Adjustment Bureau about two weeks ago, but I still wanted to write about it today. Let me throw in the little fact that Jess and I have also watched the three "Bourne" movies and the three "Oceans" movies since I saw "The Bureau" so that will color my review as well. Matt Damon is a convincing young senator in this his most recent film. There were definitely allusions to President Obama's rise to power, which makes the film seem realistic and current. As you most likely already know from the trailers, Damon's character learns that there is a group of behind-the-scene workers, tasked with the keeping all humanity on their predetermined path. Damon's senator doesn't like that he can't be with the girl he loves, and decides to fight this control over his life. Of course the film is meant to spark questions about Free Will versus Predestination. The is an interesting question buried within this screenplay; is the daily struggle with choices that people have part of the plan? Unfortunately the movie is content to present these ideas merely as motivation for the plot and the action that takes place. There's no concern over how certain decisions may effect others, rather the Damon character seems bent on going after what he wants. His motivation borders on obsession, ultimately he is very selfish. This movie misses two important points: One, if you're really destined to do (or not do) something it is not physically possible to avoid that fate, the overseeing guardians in this movie barely have any real influence. Secondly, great men and women throughout history were those willing to sacrifice personal pleasure and comforts for a higher purpose. The people who made this movie should watch "Braveheart" and "12 Monkeys", then they might have a basic understanding on what would make a good movie...

It's been over two weeks since I began the review above, which means that my initial impression of these movies have faded and this review is bound to be affected by that fact. Yet surprisingly my memories of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2" a quite favorable. My kids all like the Wimpy Kids books and enjoy watching the first movie on DVD. I think the best way for me to judge this kind of movie is by recalling how much it made me laugh. I found it to be very funny, and as is often the case was laughing more than anyone else in the theater. I think that I have mentioned it before, but please humor me and hear my theory on movie theater etiquette once more. I think that it is wrong, I mean morally wrong to talk during a movie. I will go see a movie by myself first if I think there is any chance that the person I go with will need explanations at any point during the movie. Even then, my most common response is, "Hold on, they'll explain it in a moment" or "I can't tell you if I don't know". Secondly, if you get up and leave the moment the credits start rolling; what's wrong with you? Do you walk away from someone the moment they've fulfilled your use for them or do you politely take your leave like a civilized human being. When the sermon's over do you crumple up you bulletin, throw it on the floor and noisily exit while the remainder of the service continues? Finally, I laugh when something is funny. All those artists, the writer, the director, the actor and the editor have all worked hard to make something funny. Am I supposed to sit there straight faced like I'm being interrogated by the FBI? Know, it's more than just my right to laugh, I am compelled by my humanity to laugh when something is funny. Hey I just paid $9.50 to be entertained, if I didn't want to laugh I could have stayed home and watched television... Oh yeah, "Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2" was funny and I laughed.

The Fighter and The King's Speech

There have been some great boxing movies, but I really hate watching the sport of boxing, so I usually avoid the movies. I am glad that I made an exception for "The Fighter". As with other great boxing movies, this film is not about boxing, rather it is about family, overcoming obstacles and understanding what is really important in life. I know that sounds very cliche, and I know it's all been done before, what distinguishes this film is the how. Here is an unflattering portrayal of a family that is full of selfish, broken people. Yet instead of telling the story of escape, or rising above, the filmmakers focus on working through the differences, growth, and forgiveness. Christian Bale's character is central in accomplishing this challenge. As an actor he thoroughly convinces us that he is worthless, yet that is not how his brother sees him. There were characters and moments within the film that I really disliked, almost cringingly so. Yet as the film concluded it became clear that those elements only contributed to the underlying message. This is the best constructed film of the past year, but it's not the individual pieces that prove that, rather how those pieces fit together.

"The King's Speech" is another example of Harvey Weinstein backing a good movie, yet convincing us all that it's a great film. I must admit that even while watching the film that aura infiltrated my mind, leading me to think that I was witnessing something great. Yet in retrospect, this was a very simple, somewhat generic movie, with a great cast and rich, detailed settings. Even now as I write this I remember reading an article comparing the plot of this movie to "The Karate Kid". I am grateful that I was not thinking of this as I viewed the movie, because I the parallels are obvious. I bring this up, because out of honesty that article may be subconsciously influencing my perspective on the film. I can only hope that I would have reached the same conclusion all on my own. What keeps this film from achieving true greatness (like "The Fighter" above) is that the story is driven by the performances of the characters, and those performances are designed only to drive the story. Even if each individual piece is well crafted, the overall result seems contrived. Once again, once that curtain is lifted and I am jolted from the illusion, my appreciation of the movie is seriously degraded.