The Hobbit Part II

Would it seem like I'm avoiding writing a review about "The Hobbit Part II" if all I were to say is;

It's worth the cost of admission to see Smaug on the big screen. ?

Catching Fire

Maybe I've said this before about another movie, but it bears repeating:  A good story can be like a good piece of classical music; there are certain inevitabilities, a natural progression, yet it's still an enjoyable experience.  "Catching Fire" picks up where "The Hunger Games" left off, finding Katniss struggling to deal with the consequences of her decisions.  We know that she's not going to run away and live in the woods, we know she can't die (not yet at least), and we are positive that she'll never turn to the dark side.  Where the first film introduced us to a heroine, who was defined by her actions, this second chapter is about her realizing the weight of responsibility which has been placed upon her.  I think the filmmakers could easily have ruined these movies by focusing too heavily on the Hunger Games sequences which exist in each film.  Fortunately they understood that the Games are simply meant to highlight strengths and weaknesses of certain characters.  The film is enjoyable to watch because everyone does what they're supposed to do, right when they should. 

The Counselor and The Rainmaker

Alright, so I misled you with the title, this is really only a review of "The Rainmaker" with a peppering of commentary regarding "The Counselor".  One of these movies is inspiring and thought provoking, while the other is simply depressing without a ray of hope.  I would suggest that both films accomplish exactly what they set out to do, and that is a compliment to their respective cast and directors.  Yet after seeing "The Counselor", I had an intense desire to see a good movie with some redeeming values, so I watched "The Rainmaker" again; and I thought it would be good to share that film with you.

Francis Ford Coppola directed this adaptation of a John Grisham novel, in which a fresh out of law school lawyer takes on a huge insurance company.  Had I not included the first three words of the previous sentence, this movie would have inevitably succumbed to cheap clichés and sleep inducing courtroom scenes.  Grisham's other filmed works all have more action and intrigue than this story contains, yet Coppola understands how to captivate an audience; never do we feel that what's missing here is a scene of Tom Cruise running...  My math teacher told us the other day that "a pessimist is simply a well informed optimist".  I'm not sure how that fits into the context of this review, except to say that the young lawyer in this film (played by Matt Damon) began his pursuit of law with eyes open.  He makes statements throughout the movie acknowledging that lawyers aren't supposed to get personally invested in their clients... "but there's all kinds of lawyers" he notes.  I would ask two questions about Damon's young lawyer:  Is he successful because he cares about his client?  Is he able to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds because he is passionate?  In the cliché ridden movie directed by anyone other than Coppola the answer would instantly be "yes" to both questions.  What I like about "The Rainmaker" is that I came to the conclusion as to which characters I would despise, and which ones I would admire all on my own (or at least Coppola let me feel that way).  As "The Counselor" comes to a close, if you find yourself admiring any of the characters (living or dead), then I'm afraid you weren't paying attention.  In "The Rainmaker" you'll get at least five, and as far as Hollywood goes, that's as uplifting a film as you'll ever get.

Captain Phillips

After making his mark directing the second two Jason Bourne movies, Paul Greengrass has taken on some interesting projects.  "United 93" was about the heroes aboard the plane that ultimately went down in a Pennsylvania field on September 11th.  "Green Zone" starred Matt Damon as an agent in the Middle East looking for weapons that may or may not exist.  And now comes "Captain Phillips", a modern day pirate story in which "pirate" is simply a technical term.  Greengrass is just as interested with the men who turn to piracy, as he is with their victims.  The opening dialogue between Captain Phillips (played by Tom Hanks) and his wife foreshadows the bloody conclusion:  Phillips is worried about their children as they come into adulthood, noting the declining opportunity in his specific line of work.  The next scene takes place in an impoverished Somali fishing village, where piracy seems to exist out of necessity.  For the rest of the film Greengrass gives much screen time to the leader of a small band of pirates named Muse (played by Barkhad Abdi ), making special note of his intelligence, sense of humor, and drive.  Phillips' character is naturally more refined where these qualities are concerned, but he realizes that Muse's desperation is what ultimately trumps all else.  It is to Tom Hank's credit that there are no real surprises in his performance.  From the conscientious captain in the early scenes, to the powerful final moments in which basic human emotions overwhelm him, Hank's portrayal of Phillips feels spot-on.  What causes this film to stand out is Barkhad Abdi's role as the untraditional antagonist.  I was rooting for him in certain situations, felt compassion at other times, and in the end honestly feel that his punishment is too severe.  There aren't any cheap shortcuts taken, we don't see any starving Somalis or even know whether these men have families back home.  Greengrass allows Phillips (and in turn, the audience) to become sympathetic towards the pirates, not because he believes that they're right, but because they are men like him.

Monsters University

"Monsters University" lacks a certain element which made "Monsters Inc." great; Boo.  While Boo was not the primary focus of the first film in this series, she was the glue that held everything together.  The genius of "Monsters Inc." was in its creative approach towards the audience.  To sympathize with monsters who scare children for a living, the monsters must have a comparable fear of children.  I can imagine the original pitch for "Monster's Inc." was a difficult sell, there were so many ways that this movie could go wrong.  Yet the team at Pixar was able to successfully walk the narrow line between scaring children, and not taking them seriously.  A pivotal scene was the moment in which Sulley shows off his ability to scare, and unintentionally frightens Boo.  The look on his face, followed by his attempts to reassure her (he is persistent) was masterfully executed; the scene did not need to be disturbing to children viewers, yet they could understand why Boo was scared.  And the icing on the cake in "Monsters Inc." was the beautifully coordinated door warehouse sequence.  When something so intricate can be visually represented smoothly and clearly, that is something special.

"Monsters University" does not have a character to fill Boo's shoes.  Yet it still contains the humor and creativity which filled the first film.  I think this movie may actually have been funnier (Ashley told me afterwards that I had been laughing a lot).  I especially liked Don, a monster returning to school after years as a salesman...  I think his situation was somewhat identifiable to me.  As I look back on this review, I realize that the bulk was devoted to "Monsters Inc."  I didn't mean for that to happen; it's not my fault that it was the better movie.

The Wolverine

So they let the guy who directed "Walk the Line", "Girl Interrupted", and "Cop Land" make a comic book movie.  James Mangold has proven his worth as a storyteller, and definitely understands the importance of strong, well developed characters.  The question is whether this quality translates into a good comic book movie?  That question leads to another; why are movies still segregated into their source genres?  It seems ridiculous that audiences (and by audiences I mean me) would accept sub-par stories, acting, realism, etc. all because "it was a cool comic book".  Likewise, I have concluded that it is irrational to demand faithful adaptations when movies are inspired by comic books, or novels, or real life events, or anything*.  If you really care how Wolverine or Charles Darnay behaves as originally envisioned, read the book.  The process of filmmaking is an artform in and of itself, which depends on a different approach and execution than writing (or drawing).  I have decided to accept this principle whenever* I watch a film, critiquing the work presented, independent of its source material. 

By this rationale, I can easily say that "The Wolverine" has the elements of a great film, but is seriously burdened by its comic book roots.  At its core, this movie is about loss, with an interesting twist; sometimes those things which seem undesirable are what will be missed the most.  There is a great story, and intriguing characters spread throughout this movie, but they are so often interrupted by sequences which only a comic book fanboy could appreciate.  Perhaps there is a fanboy out there somewhere blogging about how annoying the moments of contemplation and internal struggle were…  I think that Christopher Nolan was able to translate the essence of the Batman mythology in his Dark Knight Trilogy.  Bryan Singer understood what made mutants important when he directed the first X-Men movie.  On the other side of that coin, overwhelmingly, comic book adaptations have missed the point entirely; simply being moving picture versions of books, which already contained all the motion necessary.  Mongold's Wolverine movie contains the ingredients which elevate it above the rabble, unfortunately it also tries to be everything for everybody; which will never work**.

 

*I wouldn't apply this rule to Biblical accounts, or Tom Clancy novels.

**Unless directed by James Cameron apparently.

Elysium

Neill Blomkamp's previous film "District 9" surprised me with its focus on transformation.  Humphrey Bogart perfected the hard-case to nice-guy film persona in films like "To Have and Have Not", "Key Largo" and of course "Casablanca".  Neill Blomkamp took the concept to extreme in "District 9"; his main character, played by Sharlto Copley, goes through a drastic metamorphosis, in more ways than one.  While "District 9" was an exceptional science fiction movie, with groundbreaking special effect integration, ultimately what set the film apart is its focus on character.  "Elysium" represents a step forward in the effects category, yet unfortunately centers around a weak story and one-dimensional characters.    The premise is simple; Earth of the future is overpopulated and trashed, so the rich elite have built themselves a space station (called Elysium) within view of Earth, to live luxuriously and carefree.  I think Blomkamp must have been striving for allegory with many details in this film, but the execution falls short resulting in laughable excess.  For example, building Elysium so close to Earth might make sense from an economic point of view; during construction this would have been handy.  But upon viewing the film, it seems more or less that the rich are just trying to stick-it to the rest of us by building something so shiny and wonderful just out of reach.  Rich people are so mean. 

 

While the film never rises to the level of greatness seen in "District 9", its special effects and action sequences distract us enough that we may not even notice.  This time Copley plays the villain, and it's been a while since a villain has deserved death more.  Where movies like "Iron Man" fail, is the moment the mask comes on, and the real is replaced by cartoon.  Here, man fights man (albeit supped-up bionic men), so even though special effects are everywhere, there is an ever looming sense of danger.  Ultimately, I find myself comparing this movie to the recent Tom Cruise movie "Oblivion".  While both were basically "Fern Gully" for grown-ups, "Oblivion" did a better job of hiding it.  

World War Z

In "World War Z" I found a movie that surpassed my expectations.  Much credit must be given to the bad press and weak trailers which caused me to enter the theater with little hope.  Since zombies are such uninteresting beings, it is vitally important that a zombie movie must focus on interesting alive characters, which is where Brad Pitt comes in.  He plays a convincing husband and father, and is confident in his job (whatever that might be).  He knows that the best way to protect those he loves, is to leave them in an attempt to solve the zombie situation.  So many other movies in this genre separate the main characters for basic Scooby-Doo reasons; splitting-up guarantees greater tension.  "World War Z" doesn't go for those cheap, overused plot devices, rather the characters more or less act as real people might when confronted with similar situations.  Another strength of this film is the pacing, the filmmakers wisely follow Pitt's character and keep him constantly on the move.  This keeps us the audience from asking too many questions, basically inaction equals death.  You can't worry about the plausibility of zombies when they're about to bite you...  The quick pacing is explained primarily through a detective story, in which Pitt's character must discover the origin of the zombie infection.  This investigation takes him to Korea, Israel, to Wales.

...So it's been about two weeks since I wrote the first paragraph.  Since then I have had time to think-on, and conversations about "World War Z".  What elevates this movie above the rabble is that it has the potential to stimulate conversation.  Eric was over for Independence Day, and we had a lengthy discussion about morality within the context of surviving apocalyptic scenarios.  A customer at the liquor store commented on the effectiveness of the film within the confines of a PG-13 rating.  Rob and I learned of the original final act shot for the film, and agree that while it would make for a completely different movie, it would be cool to see one day.  Good movies entertain you for the 120± minutes that you're sitting in the theater.  Great movies extend well beyond the initial experience and effect your life in unexpected ways.  Of course horrible movies can closely resemble great movies by this rationale, but I'm leaning towards categorizing "World War Z" as one of the great ones.

Now You See Me and After Earth

"Now You See Me" had a masterfully crafted trailer.  It promised a dazzling tale of four illusionists who use stagemanship and misdirection to perpetrate elaborate heists; giving the stolen money to cheering audiences.  The movie expands upon this basic premise; the main characters are motivated by a desire to join a mysterious illusionists guild.  They are given Robin Hood missions by a mysterious fifth character, who has promised them entrance to the guild if the can transfer wealth from greedy insurance companies to helpless victims of tragedy.  What motivates the mystery character is meant as a surprise twist, but it seems pretty obvious early in the story.  As promised by the trailer there is plenty of spectacle here; grand illusions, creative props, and impressive slight of hand.  While the movie was entertaining, it fell short of high marks set by other recent films.  The two films which should be used as comparison are "The Prestige" and "Ocean's Eleven".  The latter is a great heist film, which joins together an ensemble cast; each member lending different strengths necessary to pull-off the heist.  The intricacy of the plot, which is so meticulously orchestrated, is a joy to watch, and the conclusion is satisfying.  "The Prestige" is about men who are truly devoted to the craft of illusion.  When watching this film we are part of an audience, susceptible to the effects of misdirection.  Here the twists and surprises are amazingly effective, because they have been earned.  "Now You See Me" fails to impress.  The tricks are to easily explained, and the final explanation is too simple, kind of like the ending of a Murder She Wrote episode (not that there's anything wrong with that).  This was a fun movie while it lasted, but lacks the substance to make it stand out.

"After Earth" fits right in line with M. Night Shyamalan's other wonderful stories (ignoring "The Last Airbender") where character, story, and style all work in concert beautifully.   This is a relatively basic story, which could be explained in two or three sentences, yet is brought to life by great acting and skilled filmmaking.  As with other Shyamalan stories, the setting and action is simply a backdrop for a deeper, dynamic message.  Lesser directors would have made this same story into an environmental cautionary tale, which is so cliché.  Shyamalan saw through that, to the heart of the story, which is about a father and a son, ultimately focusing on a boy becoming a man.  You may wonder how I could be so harsh on "Man of Steel" while seemingly overlooking much of the same in "After Earth".  This is definitely an effects-heavy, big budget movie, yet the special effects never overshadow the people.  How many times did Superman get hit over the head by a bus, tank, helicopter, building, etc.?  I lost interest pretty quickly.  Here one of the characters is bitten by a leech, and it was truly a moment of concern.  I wanted the characters to survive, and more importantly I wanted them to grow closer together.  Shyamalan is one of the most unique storytellers working today, and I was happy to experience this story after a line of recent disappointments at the movie theater.

Star Trek: Into Darkness, Fast & Furious 6, and Man of Steel

Perhaps this is a horrible reason to see a movie; but sometimes I see a movie simply because it's there.  The 2009 J.J. Abrams Star Trek re-boot was extremely entertaining.  The Blu-Ray contains my go-to sequence for showcasing the sound system I have at home.  The time travel and Spock thread was an excellent tie-in to the original series.  I liked the music, the effects, the casting, and even the humor.  I was looking forward to its sequel "Star Trek: Into Darkness" without being overly optimistic that it could deliver the same impact.  In short, I was right.  Please allow me to indulge in an some alternate universe hypothetical reasoning for a few moments:  If I had decided not to see this movie, to avoid disappointment, most likely I would be wondering what I missed.  While I know now that the answer is "nothing much", I couldn't truly know that without experiencing it for myself.  As the great science fiction author Tennyson wrote; "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all"...  How could he have been so sure? 

There's so many movies in the "Fast and Furious" series now that it can be somewhat difficult to differentiate one from an other.  I definitely approach these movies as mindless, popcorn entertainment.  Each movie has simply been a vehicle for showcasing fast cars and the subculture who love them.  There have been character developments throughout the series, and "Fast and Furious 6", the newest installment brings closure to the most tragic of prior incidents and continues the fast cars and outrageous stunts tradition.  I was considering asking the question; 'are the stunts too over the top?'  But then I realized that once you've gone over the top, either the damage has been done, or it wasn't really the top after all.  The final action sequence takes place at an airport; a dozen or so cars and a huge transport jet careen down a runway while people fight in the jet, on top of cars, with cars, from car to car, etc.  The sequence happens approximately in real-time and takes well over ten minutes.  At about the five minute point I realized that no turns had been made, and the jet had been trying to take-off for a while.  Now take-off speed for a jet that size is probably around 150 mph, but let's make it easy and call it 120 mph, which means that everyone in this rabble is going 2 miles every minute.  The longest civilian runways are just over 3 miles long, which definitely wouldn't work.  At 120 mph, they would have needed a 20 mile long runway to reach the ten minute mark required by the action.  Oh, did I mention that as the plane finally crashes and the cars screech to a halt, we see 20 yards away, big bright red and white signs announcing "End of Runway".  Maybe there is such a thing as "too over the top".  But it was still a lot of fun while it lasted.

I had hoped to devote an individual posting to "Man of Steel", but I am sorry to say it doesn't deserve one.  Had the director Zack Snyder and writer David S. Goyer focused their attention on what makes Superman an interesting character, then this movie may have been amazing.  Instead they simply tease the audience with the movie that could have been, and subject us to mindless, incoherent, (physics-defying), computer animation; passed-off as action.  Superman has two dads, each of which are significantly more compelling characters than Superman.  The bravery and self-sacrifice demonstrated by Superman's natural father is the focus of the first sequence in "Man of Steel".  Although the setting matches that of Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman", things are noticeably different.  Immediately it becomes apparent that fighting, action, and explosions will be taking much of the spotlight.  Even so, Russell Crowe as Superman's father is a solid presence, convincing as a man desperate to save his people and his son.  Once Superman reaches Earth, he is adopted by a human played by Kevin Costner.  Costner gets the most interesting, and difficult role in the film as a father who struggles to protect his son and prepare him for an unbearable burden.  Goyer and Snyder get this, and the bits and pieces of a great film are sprinkled throughout.  Costner admonishes his son to exercise self-control, and consider the impact that his mere existence will have on mankind.  Alas, there are too many other characters, set-pieces, space ships, choreographed action sequences, etc. to keep track of, and Superman's adoptive father gets lost in the crowd.  I could continue; discussing the merits/failures of non-chronological storytelling, parallels to "The Matrix", lack of Lex Luthor, why the Smallville inclusion and aversion to using term "Superman" were distracting, but I think I've said enough already.

The Great Gatsby

As I've had about a week to reflect on my viewing of "The Great Gatsby", I have concluded that this is the least Luhrmannish of any Baz Luhrmann film to date.  The trailers were very Luhrmann, and I was pretty psyched to get the full experience.  Instead I got a really good movie which was more subtle than I had expected.  The atmosphere of the Roaring 20s is a perfect fit for Luhrmann's visual style, and I think that he did an excellent job, but this movie is about something, and the 20s is simply a backdrop.  Let me clarify that last statement; I suggest that the story and the characters represented in this film are timeless.  Luhrmann stays true to the novel and retains the period, but he could have easily updated the setting and been just as successful (as in his "Romeo and Juliet").  What he does in this film is allow the characters to take center stage, their actions and motivations are what drives the film.  Without the standard clichés, we come to see Carey Mulligan's character Daisy for the truly selfish woman that she always has been.  Tobey Maguire is perfectly cast as Nick, who is Gatsby's best friend and our guide through the story.  I say perfectly cast, because it was so easy to accept Maguire's performance as an unassuming, reliable narrator.  Leonardo DiCaprio, in the title role gets an opportunity to once again show his amazing range as an actor.  While I was reminded somewhat of his portrayal of Howard Hughes in "The Aviator", it was only briefly.  Overall he hit all the right notes, which involves a tragic detachment from reality, an inspirational attitude of determination, and one of the best fits of rage I've ever seen captured on film (which really is the best place for it). 

It was especially enjoyable to see a movie with Jess which was based on a book that she really likes.  Now I feel like I've read the book too.

Iron Man 3

There's not much to say about "Iron Man 3", but I'll say it anyways:
Most of the reason I liked "Iron Man 3" is directly related to how much I disliked "Iron Man 2".  To understand what I'm referring to, you would have to go back and read my review of that movie.  Personally I prefer not to revisit movies that disappoint me so badly, so the fact that "Iron Man 3" didn't disappoint me is probably the best thing I could say about it.  The strength of this movie is that it was reminiscent of what made the first installment fun.  In the first "Iron Man" we see Tony Stark tinkering with the suit, and learning how to fly.  Here again we get a glimpse into Stark's private life, the interesting part of his personality which is an inventor and basically just an oversized kid.  As he assembles a suit which will home-in on himself and assemble piece by piece, we are impressed by the visual spectacle, but more importantly by his creativity.  I fell asleep during the final act of the original "Iron Man" (or more accurately, it put me to sleep), so I knew what I was in for here again.  The battle sequences contain approximately 1/16th originality, and 15/16ths incomprehensible computer collisions.  I can't even say robots and suits and fiery supersoldiers fighting, because the mess is so discombobulated during the final fight sequence that any illusion created prior is completely shattered, and I became conscious only that this took a bunch of guys with nice computers a really long time to generate.   I'm not sure why these movies treat the audience like meth addicts, who not only need their fix, but need more and more each time.  Nevermind, I know the answer to that. 

Anyways, "Iron Man 3" should hold you over until "Avengers 2" comes out, so just watch it over and over again until then and you should be alright.

The Company You Keep & Pain and Gain

Yes, I get a kick out of seeing two movies that are so completely different, and then trying to write about each concisely and thoughtfully.  I must begin by noting that my friend Rob chose the first movie, while I pushed for the second; you may not even need to read the following reviews to know which one of us least affected by Hollywood's flashy marketing...

Robert Redford surprised me with some of the conclusions his characters make in "The Company You Keep".  This is a subtle thriller, which is peopled entirely by hippies, liberals, and other like-minded extremists (with the exception of one cop, who is merely a personification of how liberals view conservatives).  It's actually quite funny to see a group of whackos taking themselves so seriously, only it's tragic because the believe that they are completely normal.  Of course, isn't this how we all live?  The reason I was surprised, is that Redford allows his main character to make some really selfless and honorable decisions towards the end of this film; despite advice and expectations to the contrary.  In a culture where "principles" outweigh any sense of morality, it is quite amazing to see the hero actually do the right thing. 

Redford both stars in this film and directed it.  Redford knows how to tell a good story, and I thought the pacing (which was quite slow) was fitting.  It's too bad that Redford made a number of really poor casting choices, one of which was himself.  Unfortunately bad acting and unconvincing characters seriously degrade an otherwise good film. 

"The Company You Keep" refers to relationships which were established 50 years ago, when Redford's character was an anti-war activist.  He is forced to face consequences of past actions when a newspaper reporter begins to uncover pieces of the puzzle.  Shia LaBeouf plays the reporter, and while I don't necessarily have any complaints about his performance, it was a unneeded narrative device.  In the end, all that we are really interested in, is will Redford's character do the right thing, or will he do what "he believes in"?  Perhaps, after 50 years, it's now the same thing.


Where should I begin with "Pain and Gain"?  Why did I want to see this movie in the first place?  These are the kinds of questions which become difficult and elusive once I've actually seen the movie.  Now yes, I did know that it was directed by Michael Bay before I went in; but somehow I was thinking it would be the Michael Bay of "The Rock", "The Island", and even "Bad Boys"... I honestly wasn't thinking about the Michal Bay of "Transformers 2" and "Transformers 3".  Bay is great at what he does, which is generating energy, an energy that permeates the movie theater.  He's the jet fuel of directors, he burns the images into your brain with immense intensity; unfortunately once the movie is over there's nothing left.  Correction; once the movie is over you realize that there was nothing there in the first place.  Bay blatantly disregards the first law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing...  Here's a movie about three dumb bodybuilders who decide to kidnap rich people and steal all their possessions.  If this had been an original screenplay by a creative writer I'm convinced that the premise has possibilities.  Too bad that this is based on a true story and the events actually occurred more or less as they are portrayed.  I am reminded of the far superior film, "Fargo" that claims at the beginning to be a true story, which is the part of its genius.  The outrageousness of "Fargo" is contrasted with a genuine understanding of the human condition.  Bay simply makes an episode of "World's Stupidest Criminals", a rated-R, over-the-top, throbbing-with-steroids, so-unbelievable-it-has-to-be-true dark comedy that's barely funny.

Rob, you picked a better movie this time.  So when are we going to go see "The Hangover 3"?

Jurassic Park and Oblivion

This will be an unfair review, in that it's probably impossible for you to act upon the information contained within.  This review is only really helpful for those who had good enough sense to see "Jurassic Park" and "Oblivion" without first consulting me.  The reason for this, is that both of these films were recently shown in the IMAX format, but have most likely been bumped in your area by a little movie called "Iron Man 3" (by the way, I'm going to pretend that "The Avengers" was "Iron Man 2").

20 years ago, as school was closing for Summer, I went to see "Jurassic Park" with my dad and brother(s).  It was a ground-breaking visual achievement then, and not only does it hold-up well today, it actually puts to shame so many current movies.  The line which stands out for me, and is applicable here is, " your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should" (Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm).  Alright so maybe it's not directly applicable to what I'm about to say, but it's a decent segue...  So many movies, which depend on special effects, seem to bite-off more than they can chew.  Instead of showing restraint and utilizing effective effects, all too often we are subjected to shoddy workmanship, which jolts us out of the movie viewing experience.  It is my position that Spielberg understood this temptation, and teases the viewer in an early scene (with the Brachiosaurus eating from the tree).  At this early stage he allows us one moment where we can think "that's not real, who'd be afraid of that?".  From that point on the dinosaurs are so convincing; whether models, puppets, or digital, that we believed every moment of it.  My brother David texted that it was awesome in the theater, so I went to see it again.
He was right.

"Oblivion" is ground-breaking in a more subtle way that "Jurassic Park".  Here the effects, stunts, and performances are seamless; I challenge you to detect where the real ends and the simulated begins.  Sure the story seems like a mish-mash of all the best science fiction films of the last 30+ years, but at least they "borrowed" from the best.  Some "Matrix", a little "Blade Runner", a nod to "Wall-e", a dash of "Planet of the Apes", and even some "Fight Club" just to spice things up.  Please allow me to stray off on a tangent for just a moment:  If Heaven doesn't include the good parts of Earth; Mt Princeton, Point Reyes, the hills of Tennessee, etc.  then I think that it would be impossible not to miss them.  As Tom Cruise's character in "Oblivion" is faced with the inevitability that he must leave Earth, for a more civilized place, he is sad.  This film could be easily be construed as an argument against  war, or an environmental sermon, or perhaps an admonishment directed towards those who put blind faith in those with authority.  Ultimately, it is a surprisingly beautiful film, which have the potential to spark deep thought, without requiring it to enjoy the ride.

A Brief Hiatus

It has been well over three months since my last movie review, so I thought at the very least you deserve some sort of explanation.  While I have seen some movies over the last few months, they have been relatively few and far between, and I haven't seen any really good ones. 

The newest Die Hard movie worked hard to be worse than its predecessor, and actually exceeded that mark; becoming one of the worst movies ever made. 

Jess and I watched "Beasts of the Southern Wild" on DVD prior to the Academy Awards, and were greatly impressed with Quvenzhané Wallis' performance.  I'm not sure whether she has a promising  career ahead of her, but she was well cast and powerful in an eye-opening film.

Speaking of the Academy Awards, I was glad that "Argo" won as much as it did; while it wasn't that impressive of a film, it was the best one I saw last year, so at least the members of the Academy get it right occasionally.  Jess and I DVRd the awards show, which is the best way to go; the next night we skipped all the acceptance speeches and all the boring documentary (and the like) categories.

Jude and I saw the new GI Joe movie a little while back.  It was significantly better than the first, but that's kind of like saying "getting punched in the stomach is better than getting your fingernails pulled out"... it's all relative.

Probably the best movie I've seen in the last three months has been a certain Blu-Ray that I received for Christmas; "To Catch A Thief".  Two elements stand out which I would like to share with you; firstly, it defied my notion of what a Hitchcock film can be.  It wasn't necessarily suspenseful, there was a mystery, but instead of creating a foreboding atmosphere, Hitchcock allowed the story to develop through the dialogue of his characters.  It was amazing to listen to the sharp, witty conversations between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, only later to realize that Hitchcock was using it as misdirection.  Secondly, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography was a pleasant surprise.  Once again, I had never thought of Hitchcock as being concerned with such things; this film was so visually rich that I must conclude that it also was part of an elaborate scheme to divert my attention from a somewhat obvious conclusion.  Why can't they make movies like this anymore?

On a closing note, I thought it would be fitting to mention the passing of Roger Ebert this past week.  I had a practice of writing reviews of movies I watched, posting them online, and then heading over to Ebert's page at the Chicago Sun Times to read his review.  His ability to explain the movie-watching experience is unparalleled.  Whether I agreed with his opinion or not seldom mattered, even if I had liked a movie he rated poorly, at least I could understand his reasons.  He also had a wonderful ability to explain why he had enjoyed a movie even though he understood that it had failed to meet his standards of what a good movie should be.  That kind of honesty, not caring what other critics might say, not concerned with what is "cool", is rare in the field of film criticism.  I am really going to miss reading Ebert's take on the movies I see.

Please note that I recognize that I haven't explained why I haven't written in the last few months.  I never really intended to talk about that, it was just a catchy opening sentence.