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.

Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained

While I definitely am looking forward to meeting Peter, Paul, David, Abraham, and Moses; I must admit that will also be in line to shake Ehud’s hand.  His story is not only intriguing, but it’s one of the funniest and most disgustingly violent accounts in the Bible.  Not being a certified Theologian or anything, I can only express my personal opinion; which is that the graphic nature of Ehud’s story is meant to be a warning, is meant to shame wickedness, and is meant to be hilarious.  If you’re not familiar with Ehud, then you should immediately go read Judges, Chapter 3.  Basically Ehud shows up at evil King Eglon’s palace, gets searched by an inept guard (who doesn’t know about left-handed people apparently) approaches the king, announces that he has “a message from God”, plunges a dagger into the king’s belly (did I mention that the king is uber-fat), and escapes with plenty of time to spare because the kings guards are accustomed to the king spending a good part of the day “relieving himself”.

I believe the previous introduction is relevant when reviewing “Pulp Fiction” and “Django” because the director Quentin Tarantino has made two films that invoke responses similar to the Ehud account.   Before I continue, let me be crystal clear that I am not suggesting that Tarantino’s films are good as I would describe the Bible to be.  Any positive messages or lessons to be learned from a Tarantino film are almost certainly unintentional.  That being said, the Bible does contain accounts of evil, and it is possible to sin if we become obsessed with violence or the profane; liking Ehud, Samson or even David for the wrong reasons is wrong.  That being said, let me tell you what I think about Tarantino’s best and his newest:

“Pulp Fiction” doesn’t have any good guys which makes the two moments when characters “do the right thing” extremely effective.  Butch is a boxer who just double-crossed some gangsters and Jules is a gangster who likes to “quote scripture” before he executes his victims.  As an audience we expect these characters to behave a certain way, and it is genuinely surprising when they decide to change, helping those around them instead of acting selfishly.  Quentin Tarantino liberally applies Newton’s Third Law of Motion to “Pulp Fiction’s” structure; the more extreme a situation, the greater potential exists.  Tarantino uses this approach in unexpected ways; he begins film with two guys having a discussion about mayonnaise on French fries, which evolves into a debate about foot messages.  The audience is confused, is this a gangster movie or not?  Then Jules starts “quoting scripture” and he and his partner Vincent unload their handguns into an unarmed victim.  Had Tarantino simply followed two hitmen talking about hitmen stuff, follwed by them killing someone, the sequence would not have been nearly as effective. 

While “Pulp Fiction’s” structure is important, it’s Tarantino’s writing which distinguishes this film from all subsequent imitations.  Tarantino’s characters speak with a certain poetry and fluidity which seems perfectly natural.  Having an ear for the vernacular, Tarantino writes characters who are intentionally profane and unconsciously profound.  I would suggest that the irony of this is comparable to Mark Twain’s writing; even the most ignorant of people will stumble upon the truth from time to time.  There is a sequence towards the end of “Pulp Fiction” where Jules and Vincent are arguing about the definition of a miracle; does scale factor into determining whether or not God’s intervention can be characterized as a miracle?  Even wicked people who offend God with their daily lives can recognize God’s existence.  “Pulp Fiction” should serve as a warning; sometimes it difficult to distinguish between a gangster and a church-going, law-abiding, regular guy or gal.  Let’s make sure that the world knows us because we’re different, set apart; if there’s any confusion it should only because the gangsters are acting or sounding like us.

There is so much more I would like to say about “Pulp Fiction”, but let us flash forward eighteen years to Tarantino’s newest film, “Django”.  Briefly I should mention the films in-between, because as a body of work they are relevant to the conclusion I draw about “Django”.  “Jackie Brown” was a heist film.  “Kill Bill” (volumes 1 and 2) were revenge flicks.  “Deathproof”, while it contained elements of a horror movie with its cautionary tale was ultimately a revenge flick.  “Inglorious Basterds” was a jumbled mix of John Ford, fantasy historical fiction, and once again a revenge flick.  Is anyone else noticing a trend?  I’ll cut to the chase and reveal that “Django” too is at its core a revenge flick.  I don’t know about you, but I find our country’s history of slavery to be repugnant.  I will freely admit that the premise of “Django” which follows a freed slave administering justice upon brutal slave owners is quite satisfying at times.  There is something within us that longs for wrongs to be righted, and even though we have been commanded not to seek vengeance for ourselves, it’s impossible not to root for a slave with a gun in his hand.  Jamie Foxx plays the title character convincingly as a man who has been scarred by slavery.  As a scarred man he carries evidence both physically and emotionally of the abuse which he has suffered, yet he has an internal strength and resolve which have been tempered by his years of bondage.  A bounty hunter played by Christoph Waltz frees Django and they work together in a relationship which is financially beneficial to Waltz’s character and is necessary for Django to rescue his wife.  The best parts of “Django” are the moments between Waltz and Foxx; the subtle complexity of their relationship is the center of this film.  As Waltz’s character becomes less concerned with his own financial gain and more sympathetic to Django’s plight, I found myself liking him more and more.  Django on the other hand begins spiraling downwards, as his love for wife becomes a secondary motivation; a vengeful bloodlust is Django’s new master.  Unfortunately, “Django” isn’t a good western, it’s not a good love story, and it’s not even among the top three best Tarantino films…  So what’s left is a revenge flick, and since Tarantino has already done that at least four times (and with better results in Kill Bill vol. 2), “Django” just doesn’t have much to offer.  The Waltz character, some of the dialogue, DiCaprio as a villain and a certain soundtrack choice reminded me of Tarantino’s capacity for genius, too bad the rest of the movie couldn’t keep up.

I forgot to mention that King Eglon was so fat that Ehud couldn’t get his dagger back out.  How’s that for a legacy?

The Hobbit

"The Hobbit" is plainly and simply an encore to "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.  The entire film is set within the context of Peter Jackson’s earlier films, even though “The Hobbit” chronologically occurred first.  I am not referring exclusively to Old Bilbo being the first Bilbo that we meet in “The Hobbit”, rather the motivations, characters, cinematic cues, and even the music frame this film as though it is merely “Lord of the Rings Part IV: The Hobbit (part 1)”.  Now don’t get me wrong; ever since I saw “Return of the King” for the first time, I’ve craved more “Lord of the Rings”, and it’s finally here.  Far be it from me to get involved in any discussion concerning “what’s been changed” or “what’s missing”…  Let me instead point out three very important elements which remain intact, thereby making “The Hobbit” a great retelling of Tolkien’s classic:  Dwarves showing up for dinner.  A story about golf.  Riddles.  That pretty much sums it up.  I will close by saying that New Bilbo (or Young Bilbo depending on your point of view) was cast extremely well, which pleasantly surprised me.  I am keeping this review short; because I would much rather discuss this film with each of my readers than write about it any further.  Goodnight.

Lincoln

There were two daunting tasks facing Steven Spielberg when he undertook "Lincoln".  First; who could successfully portray the iconic president Abraham Lincoln in a manner that retains dignity yet intimately on a human level?  Second; which chapter of Lincoln's story should be told, considering that he was the single most influential individual in American history? 

Casting Daniel Day-Lewis is almost like cheating; I wonder how much Spielberg directed and how much he just sat back and watched the performance.  There is not a moment in this film wherein Day-Lewis is present, only Abraham Lincoln has come in for work today.  Compliments must be paid to the writer Tony Kushner for giving Lincoln intelligent dialogue, but ultimately Day-Lewis so fully inhabits this role that he could probably have read scenes from "The Hobbit" and still convinced me that he is Abraham Lincoln.  I am ashamed to admit that I do not know how historically accurate certain elements of the film are, but I like to think that Lincoln was as good as he is portrayed here.  It was interesting to see Lincoln with such a good sense of humor; I believe that smart people with a good grasp on reality must be funny to survive.

Spielberg decided to focus on Lincoln in the White House during the fight for the Thirteenth Amendment.  The War of Northern Aggression (I put that in for Grandfather) had been raging for years, and Lincoln had already won re-election by the start of this film.  The story of "Lincoln" is very decidedly a moral struggle between good and evil; the abolishment of slavery.  Spielberg doesn't allow for ambiguity on Lincoln's part, very early Lincoln explains why he made the Emancipation Proclamation and why it would become null and void without the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.  Much of the film examines the political wrangling which was necessary to convince Congressmen to vote for an amendment which they believed went too far, or not far enough.  Tommy Lee Jones plays Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in a dynamic role who will convince you that compromise can be a very honorable approach.  Perhaps the most surprising element of this film was Sally Field's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln.  The story arc between her and Abraham Lincoln (her husband) is a true testament to Spielberg's mastery of the medium and the potency of great acting chemistry.  Day-Lewis and Field are so convincing in their respective roles that their final carriage ride feels like the sun breaking through after a long and horrible storm.

There are two complaints I have against the film; one minor and one which is probably just my hang-up (so I'll try to convince you of its merits).  First; some of the costumes, colors, and sets made me think "re-enactment", which is not something I expected in a Spielberg film.  Abraham Lincoln never came across like that, but some of the side characters (Lee and Grant) felt more like actors dressing-up than the men they were meant to be.  Second; I couldn't leave this past election and all my political sensibilities at the door.  Knowing that Spielberg is a President Obama supporter and knowing that President Obama claims that Lincoln is his hero definitely tainted my view of this film.  I read that Spielberg recently screened "Lincoln" at the White House for President Obama, and it kinda irritates me to imagine President Obama somehow comparing himself with Lincoln in his own mind.  Secretly I hope that upon viewing the moral conviction and genuine compassion for humankind that Lincoln exudes, maybe, just maybe there was a pang of conscience felt there in the White House theater room.

Flight and Skyfall

Whip Whitaker and James Bond are drug-addicted alcoholics, who use women in an attempt to fill the emptiness in their lives.  Both men have professions which carry great responsibility, and it really would be best if they could lay off the mind altering distractions (at least while they’re on the job).  In Robert Zemeckis’ newest film “Flight”, Denzel Washington plays a commercial airline pilot who saves the lives of hundreds of passengers; drunk and under the influence of drugs.  Daniel Craig has adopted a new “debonair bum” look in the new James Bond movie “Skyfall” directed by Sam Mendes.  As usual, Bond drinks his way through a series of “romantic” escapades accented by the occasional world-saving mission; only now he has also become dependent on pain killers.   It seems to me that Sam Mendes took an extraordinary risk by humanizing James Bond; there’s no going back to the shallow, glorified Bond of old.  Both Zemeckis and Mendes have made films about the fallibility of man.  While one, or maybe both of these men are redeemable (within the context of their respective films) it will be a difficult path.  If you’ve seen any previous Mendes films, you will surely know that Bond doesn’t find redemption at the end of “Skyfall”, and that’s not a spoiler (but in retrospect I guess I just spoiled the ending of “Flight”… sorry).  A number of questions come to my mind regarding “Flight” and “Skyfall”:  Why are we drawn to movies with people who perform heroic feats, yet are such horrible role models?  Why would such a long running series as James Bond so abruptly criticize its central character?  Please don’t interpret this as anything but a positive review; I’m happy to leave the theater asking questions.  In the case of “Flight” I would suggest that Denzel played the typical “Bogart” hero; a man who spends 95% of the film frustrating the audience with his selfishness and even cowardice, followed by a satisfying display of genuine goodness.  Mendes’ examination of James Bond could only have come after 50 years of films, featuring probably the most despicable heroes of all time.  Finally we are seeing Bond for who he really is, and it’s ugly and sad.  Now some of you may have already seen “Skyfall” and you’re thinking, “Did we see the same movie?  All I remember are those sweet action sequences, and the amazing lighting and camera work during the high-rise scene.”  I would suggest that “Skyfall” was a great James Bond film, with all the necessary elements, but it also dispelled the lie which suggests that Bond is actually satisfied with his life.  There will never be a happy ending for James Bond.

Argo

In the almost two weeks that it's been since I saw "Argo" quite a few events have influenced my perspective on the film.  First off, in all fairness, I must say that it was a well crafted and well acted film.  I was genuinely surprised with how funny it was, probably because I wasn't really expecting to.  That being said, when I saw the film, the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was ever-present in my mind.  Similarities between the events in the movie and those in the news do exist, but only loosely.  Where there is little difference between the movie and real life is the political wrangling which is central to both fictional accounts.  "Argo" is a fictional account of a historic event, and it is becoming apparent that the Benghazi historical account was a fictional event.  In "Argo" a mob descends upon the American embassy in Tehran.  We clearly see that an organized element within the crowd, guiding and controlling the actions of the mob.  In Benghazi there was no mob, except in the imaginations of those who should have known (or did know) the truth.  I honestly didn't intend to stray off on this tangent, yet it seems almost impossible to avoid.  I liked Ben Affleck's acting and directing, especially his decision to avoid being graphic yet always maintaining a shroud of danger.  The plan detailed in this film; to rescue a group of citizens from hostile territory under the guise of making a fake movie was destined to be made into a film.  Hey I sorta had this idea before it was declassified.  Which was after it happened, but before anyone knew about it; but that's neither here nor there.  I really enjoyed the ending where President Carter talks about freeing all the hostages; that is classic.  One day, thirty years from now when they're making a movie about us, President Obama will get to make a similar speech about his victory in Benghazi. 

Looper

Sixteen years ago I drove from Spring Canyon (near Buena Vista) to the nearest movie theater (35 minutes away in Salida) to see perhaps the greatest time travel movie of all time; “12 Monkeys”. What made it great was its Calvinistic approach to the space-time continuum. The cardinal rule in most other time travel movies is that we are masters of our fate. Prime examples of this can be seen in “Back to the Future” or “Terminator 2”, where time travel is used to alter historical events. In essence this view of time travel allows for branching parallel possible futures; each event has the potential of altering the course of time. “12 Monkeys” broke that convention, basically stating that if time travel were possible it would be bound to the confines of a pre-ordained path. Although the characters in this film feel as though they are independent actors in a chaotic world, ultimately their action are all part of the pre-determined plan. “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is another exception to the Hollywood standard; the time travel which takes place in that film is an integral element of Potter’s destiny. While the chronology of time is skewed, the end result cannot be altered. Maybe you already figured this out, but I love time travel movies. While I liked “12 Monkeys” because I actually agreed with its perspective, really I like any time travel movie if it is able to adhere to logic. From a philosophical perspective I completely disagree with the “Back to the Future” series; yet they are thought provoking and extremely entertaining. As you will read in a moment, I feel the same way about the new film “Looper”. While this film follows the standard time travel convention, it does so wholeheartedly, with some notable twists that kept my attention, even though I found the entire premise utterly preposterous…

In “Looper”, Joseph Gordon-Levitt ages to look just like Bruce Willis. That in and of itself is kinda cool, but that’s not really what the movie is about. Usually time travel movies feature characters who are extremely self-centered. Whether the world is good or bad is judged through the eyes of the main character. “Looper” varies this theme by allowing Present Joe (played by Gordon-Levitt) and Old Joe (Willis) to interact. While this is the same person, he has a different perspective on life depending on when he is from. Obviously Present Joe has less life-experience and his decisions are primarily reactionary and somewhat principle-based. Old Joe has come to different conclusions about the meaning of life, in some ways he has outgrown the childishness of Present Joe. At the same time it becomes clear that regardless of when Joe is from, he is a selfish person. When he comes to realize this is the moment at which “Looper” rises above the standard time travel cliché. While the trailers for this movie have focused primarily on the time travel hitman element, it really is concerned with something deeper. That being said, the filmmakers definitely enjoyed playing with the action afforded to them by a dystopian future in which mobsters send their victims back in time to hitmen armed with blunderbusses. My final thought will be this; if you liked “12 Monkeys” you’ll almost certainly enjoy “Looper”. If you’re saying “what in the world is this ’12 Monkeys’ movie Peter keeps talking about?” and you really enjoyed the Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves time travel movie “The Lake House”, then I think you should take a pass on “Looper”.

The Master

There are two distinct approaches to reviewing movies:  The first being reactionary, wherein the review is primarily describing the film and its effectiveness.  The second approach is a deeper exploration, an attempt to determine why the film was (or was not) effective.  What do I mean by effective?  Even the silliest of movies is trying to do something; whether the filmmaker is preaching or just trying to make you laugh, every movie ever made has a purpose.  All too often I lose sight of this principle; I overthink movies that were never intended to provoke thought.  All this is my preamble for the review of “The Master”, which is a movie that demands further examination.  I liken the experience of watching this film to that of viewing “Collateral” (with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise).  It’s possible I suppose that some may have walked away from that movie with memories of intense action and great performances by two good actors.  For me that film was a jolt; life isn’t your plan for some point in the future, it’s what you are doing right now.  I place the message of the film into the context of my beliefs and I know that I am not to worry about tomorrow; I have a responsibility to honor God today.  If each new day is a devotion to this precept, then I am confident that God will take care of the future. 

                It is my hope that each movie I review not only entertains (or informs) you the reader, but also encourages and builds-up each and every one of you (alright, the two or three of you).  From now on there will be three separate categories of movie reviews:  Kid Friendly family movie reviews, Basic “Avenger” this movie doesn’t have much depth reviews, and Thorough reviews.  I will keep each category separate, but it is up to you to discern which one the movie falls into.  For example, “Monsters University” will be a Kid Friendly review, while “The Master” which is rated “R” is definitely going to be a Thorough review.  I typically don’t comment on why films receive their MPAA rating, since I know that Focus on the Family does a profanity count (in case you’re keeping score) and the official MPAA website gives specific reasons for the movie’s rating.  Recently I have mish-mashed reviews together in a thoughtless way, and I do apologize for inappropriately discussing certain films in a flippant manner.  Also, if you ever have any questions about something I say (or neglect) please don’t hesitate to call or email.  I love talking about movies anytime.  You’re probably wondering, “I thought this was a review of ‘The Master’!  What’s all this?”  Well, here you go…

                “The Master” delivers a message of hope.  Or maybe it is simply a character study revealing the stubbornness of one man.  While the intentions of the director Paul Thomas Anderson may be impossible to determine, I can tell you that I came away with the message of hope.  As the film opens we are introduced to Freddie Quell, a troubled man played by Joaquin Phoenix.  Freddie has seen the horrors of World War II in the pacific, and now is wandering aimlessly through life.  He is plagued by a multitude of sins, which ferment within his being, exploding in fits of violent anger.  We can tell that his soul is tormented, not only by his evil behavior, but also by the contortions of his face.  Enter Lancaster Dodd (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), a religious leader who is known by his followers as ‘Master’.  He recognizes and praises the abilities and qualities that he sees in Freddie.  He makes Freddie feel welcome and important.  He promises Freddie that he can relieve him of his burdens and deliver him a happy life.  The film excels during scenes in which Dodd is attempting to convert Freddie.  Like the light saber duel from “The Empire Strikes Back” or the chariot race in “Ben-Hur”, this film presents a sequence of extraordinary fights scenes.  The obvious distinction being that “The Master” portrays a battle of wills instead of a physical confrontation.  There is no doubt to us in the audience that Dodd is the leader of a cult, a religion devised and operated for his own gratification.  Yet as is the case with any cult, those caught-up in the fervor cannot perceive the truth.  Does Freddie become a follower?  I don’t want to ruin the movie for anyone, so I will not elaborate on the plot any further.  What I will do is make a comparison to an earlier Joaquin Phoenix film, “Walk the Line”.  The best part of that film was what happened after the movie is over; knowing what Johnny Cash became after his turbulent rise to fame is the uplifting element.  Of course, strictly speaking, what happens after a movie isn’t really part of the movie; yet I would argue that what we bring into the movie does influence what we take out.  Therefore, recognizing that Johnny Cash’s salvation later in life came even after the events portrayed in “Walk the Line” led me to believe that it was a good film.  So “The Master” doesn’t have an ending where everyone has repented of their sin, and are down on their knees begging God’s forgiveness.   It does end with a reminder that even the most persuasive of false prophets will never have a 100% success rate. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). Even so, ultimately God is in control and through his grace even those who seem most susceptible to being led astray have hope.

The Bourne Legacy and ParaNorman

In a sense, today's review is merely a formality, a chance to wipe the slate clean and prepare for (hopefully) some movies worth watching and therefore worth reviewing. I will briefly comment on two of the last movies based on the chronological order in which I viewed them.

"The Bourne Legacy" was a suitable branch-off from the thrilling Jason Bourne series. Personally I thought the first Bourne movie was an amazing breath of fresh air; a leap forward in the espionage genre. The third, "The Bourne Ultimatum" was about as good as it gets, building on everything from the first two films and injecting the series with a dynamic love story; I really liked that movie. Now with "The Bourne Legacy" everything is kind of starting from scratch. The ingredients are good, and its a proven recipe, but we've seen it before. Perhaps a follow-up could have a great story, unfortunately this movie is another back-story introduction which just isn't that interesting.

The kids and I saw "ParaNorman" and I am glad to report that I stayed awake through the whole movie. Whether it's Sony Animation or Dreamworks, I just can't stay awake through this drivel that they're marketing to kids nowadays. If I need a good nap I turn on an "Ice Age" movie (or "Iron Man", but that's another story), find a cozy blanket, and I'm out for the count. "ParaNorman" on the other hand is like old-school Tim Burton. There's a heart-warming story, quirky and genuinely funny characters, and creatively creepy visuals that spark the imagination. My kids like to ask "what was your favorite scene?" while we're walking back to the car after the movie. This is the kind of movie that has memorable scenes throughout... You'll need popcorn for this movie, not Breathe-Right strips.

The Dark Knight Rises

I can describe my impression of "The Dark Knight Rises" with one word; messy.

The film opens eight years after the events detailed in "The Dark Knight" which have driven Batman into hiding and simultaneously brought peace to Gotham by portraying Harvey Dent as a martyr. Naturally a new threat has arisen, and Batman must once again don his cape et al and fight, even if he has lost his public approval ratings. Director Christopher Nolan wisely follows this logical path, and the story arc itself is well crafted. The Batman character (or Bruce Wayne, more interchangeable here than before) is presented with a suitable adversary, one who challenges him to his physical and mental limit.

Unfortunately there are too many unnecessary side-characters, and an over-reaching scale. What I mean by scale is that previously Gotham has been depicted as a self-contained city, perhaps meant to symbolize the moral decline which has accompanied urban expansion. Yet in "The Dark Knight Rises" there are cuts to a remote command center (out of Gotham) where Air Force analysts worry about the device which threatens Gotham. Jets are scrambled from offsite and fly over Gotham. Military approaches Gotham over a bridge, meeting citizen half-way. All this shatters the illusion which defines Gotham, and I found myself thinking more of "24" episodes than Batman. Nolan also made the misstep of introducing at least six or seven new supporting characters in this film when only three of them are in any way integral to the plot. The new police chief, members of Wayne Enterprise’s board, and Catwoman all waste valuable screen time.  The choreography of the mob fight sequences is also awkward, which may have been somewhat intentional to create a chaotic atmosphere, but I found it distracting.

In the midst of a messily assembled movie I found myself really enjoying the two most important elements;   Batman/Bruce Wayne’s journey and Bane’s (the antagonist) thread.  Starting with Bane, here is a character who is a man of action.  Backstory and motivation are not as important in understanding Bane, as is observing the path of destruction he leaves.  His physical prowess makes him an imposing figure, which Nolan conveys wonderfully through editing, dialogue and the primary fight sequence between Batman and Bane.  This fight scene was one of the two most important scenes of the movie.  This was the breaking of Batman, literally and metaphorically.  Bane’s breaking of Batman is intertwined with Bruce Wayne’s struggle throughout the film to understand what he should do, and who he should be.  The second most important scene is Wayne’s climb from the inescapable (?) pit prison.  Once again this ascent is meant to be taken at face value and for its symbolic parallels to Wayne’s internal struggle.  Christian Bale is the perfect actor to play Batman, because the audience can sincerely root for him as Gotham’s salvation and despise him for the wretch he is, both at the same time.  At the center of Nolan’s failed attempt to make an epic finale to his Batman trilogy, is a much humbler but truly powerful cautionary tale.

While there is so much more I could discuss, it’s best that I close by briefly commenting on the ending of “The Dark Knight Rises”.  So often I criticize great films for their unsatisfactory endings; with this film I find that observation turned on its head.  The last five minutes of this film almost made me forgive Nolan for the previous 2 ½ hours.  While the ending may not have been fitting for the movie itself, it was a stand-alone good ending, one which will bring smiles to faces of Batman fans everywhere.  I had a smile on my face as the credits started rolling.

Moonrise Kingdom and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

My brother Nate has an interesting perspective on Wes Anderson movies, and the people who love them.  In a condensed form, Wes Anderson is a one trick pony who has snowed his fans into thinking that he is a genius.  Basically Wes Anderson makes the same movie over and over again, yet he is acclaimed as being 'truly original'...  Nate "I'm sorry if I completely mischaracterized your view (or omitted important elements) but please keep reading.  Up 'til now I would have argued passionately that this wasn't the case, I have always thoroughly enjoyed Wes Anderson movies.  I chalked up my dislike for "The Darjeeling Limited" to being a close call; it was funny but somehow just barely missed the mark.  Now with "Moonrise Kingdom" the veil has been completely lifted.  I should have stopped watching Wes Anderson four movies ago (making an exception for "The Fantastic Mr. Fox of course).  Of course if you've never seen a Wes Anderson movie before, and you're someone who would like a Wes Anderson movie, you'd probably love "Moonrise Kingdom".  The reason for this being that it's the same as any other Wes Anderson movie (maybe even more so).  I think what I've come to realize is that I've seen too many Wes Anderson movies.  Perhaps they're all perfectly decent films, unfortunately they don't work in the 'canon' form.  The question now arises; will I still be able to enjoy my favorite Wes Anderson movies now that I've come to  agree with Nate?

I know that the following conclusion seems inconsistent with so many other movies I've reviewed over the years, but I really liked "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".  The very title of this film asks the audience to suspend reality, and if you are able to do this for just about two hours, then you too could enjoy Abraham Lincoln hunting, killing, and trash-talking vampires.  In Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" we got the satisfaction of seeing American soldiers fill Hitler full of lead; it seems only natural that Abraham Lincoln, had any vampires been around, would have personally taken it upon himself to decapitate as many as possible.  Couple that factoid with the idea of vampires being Southerners, and moreover slave owning Southerners, and it becomes obvious that Lincoln would have gone berserk.  If I'm going to suspend reality when I enter a movie theater, I might as well follow it to it's over-the-top, yet logical conclusion.  As I write this the movie "The Road" comes to mind.  While that movie probably was meant to be a allegory of sorts, it was presented as a realistic depiction of the world's end.  Unfortunately too many holes appeared and the sceenplay fell short.  Ironically, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" maintains its credibility without skipping a beat.

Brave

"Brave" is a decent movie.
Let me suggest that the greatest films Pixar  has produced would have been impossible to create without computer animation.  "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille" feature non-human characters that could not be convincing with live-action and would be far too limited using traditional animation.  That being said, I feel as though "Brave" was an unnecessary undertaking for Pixar.  While there is some magical shape-shifting which demonstrates the talent of Pixar's artists, this could easily have been as a special effect in a live-action film.  I would argue that computer animation shouldn't be used to replace human actors, rather as a supplement (to enhance human performances).  If the lead role in "Brave" had been played by a real little girl I would have felt a much stronger connection to what was happening in her life onscreen.  While quite a different film, "Hanna" also centered on a brave young girl; even in the most outrageous situations I found that film to be much more compelling than "Brave".  None of this is meant to detract from the qualities which definitely exist in Pixar's newest addition.  The animation is excellent, the scenery is lush, and "Brave" contains the richest musical score of any Pixar film to date.  I liked the characters, I especially enjoyed watching the girl's mother (in both forms) as her character went through an interesting transformation (on multiple levels). 
It seems to me that "Brave" was a pretty safe choice for Pixar; it has a traditional story and characters who are easy to relate to.  Personally I prefer the riskier Pixar undertakings; a rat who loves great food is exceedingly more interesting to me.

Lawrence of Arabia

Sometimes I think that my movie reviews should be just that, and personal interjections or deviating tangents are best avoided.  On the flip side of that coin; perhaps it's the tangents which make these reviews uniquely my own.  Also considering that my path in life seems more focused on Calculus right now than filmmaking, perhaps it is fitting that tangents take a more prominent position in my writing...

I'm a bit of a movie nerd if you didn't already know.  As I posted a review a few weeks ago I noticed that I'm coming up on 200 postings (well over 200 movies since often I review multiple movies in each post).  I also remembered that my 100th posting a few years back was for "The Dark Knight", which got me excited thinking that "The Dark Knight Rises" was on track to be my 200th posting.  Well, here I am at the 199th posting, about to write about a classic.  This poses somewhat of a dilemma, considering that there are a few movies I'd like to see before "The Dark Knight Rises" is released in just over a month.  I couldn't possibly see "Brave" and not write about it sometime in the next few weeks, and there's a few other movies I'd still like to see including showings of "Cool Hand Luke" and "The Searchers" at our local theater.  Perhaps this doesn't make sense to anyone else, but it just seemed like a really cool milestone to have both Batman movies mark notable points in my blogwriting endeavor.   Of course this could be all moot; the world could easily come to an end in the next 32 days and I may never see "The Dark Knight Rises", or worse it could be a horrible film and I won't even want to write about it.  Now let's get to "Lawrence of Arabia"...

After seeing the clip of "Lawrence of Arabia" in "Prometheus" I placed the former on hold at my library since it has been many years since my last viewing.  I had only seen it once before, probably around the age of 12-14, so my impression of the film was quite obscure.  I remember it being long, I think many actually may have heard me say that it would have been better had it ended half-way through.  I no longer hold that opinion.  The task of reviewing this film is daunting to me, so I will break it down into three categories; the cinematography, the story and performances, and the philosophy.

Apparently there is a high definition film transfer which has recently occurred, which means a theatrical re-release is coming soon and Blu Ray.  I am looking forward to both.  Even on DVD it is clear that this film is a visual masterpiece.  Certain sequences, such as Lawrence walking across the train cars burn impressions of his character into your memory.  Other shots, such as Lawrence's arrival at the Suez Canal must be seen, mere descriptions would do it little justice.  Considering that the desert is itself a central character in this film, shooting on location contributes so much to the look and feel of "Lawrence of Arabia".  I watched a short interview with Steven Spielberg (included on the DVD) in which he mentions that audiences can tell the difference between real scenery and sound stages or special effects.  Going back and looking at "Lawrence" and other epic films of the time, it boggles my mind that any self-respecting director would work exclusively with green screens or on a set if a possible real location would work instead.  "Prometheus" helps prove my point, the best looking parts of that film were definitely the real landscapes.  Movies like "Jurassic Park" work precisely because the craftsmen work so relentlessly to make the essential sets look so like the actual locations, which are utilized as much as possible.  "Lawrence of Arabia" has a train wreck which is far more convincing than the recent "Super 8", I wonder why that is?

You may have wondered at my division of categories, let me take a moment to give a brief explanation:  Cinematography is the way the film is framed, everything onscreen has a visual impact on the audience.  The story and performances go together, these are the basics of cause and affect, motivation, reactions, and consequences.  Philosophy is the reason any of this is interesting or important.  So as I discuss the story and performances it is best not to analyze the morality (or lack thereof) contained within this film, I will simply try to criticize the presentation.  Substance will be considered in the next section...  Peter O'Toole plays Lawrence perfectly.  Quite often during the almost four hour movie, one of my kids would ask "why did he say that" or "why is he smiling?"  They were picking up on the contradictions between what Lawrence had said a moment before and the way he was currently acting.  The screenplay, and O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence definitely keep the audience on their toes.  The early scenes of Lawrence in Cairo (excerpted in "Prometheus") are wonderful at establishing his character.  He is a restless misfit, who can sense a world of opportunity just over the horizon.  Two great movies come to mind that I would like to compare with "Lawrence of Arabia"; "Patton" starring George C. Scott and "The Aviator" featuring Leonardo DiCaprio.  "Patton" examines the life of a singularly-minded warrior.  His delusional personality makes him a fascinating character, yet there isn't much depth.  "The Aviator" follows Howard Hughes' transformation  from a visionary genius to obsessive-compulsive recluse.  While the story is sadly captivating, it is overall a simplistic representation.  In contrast, O'Toole's Lawrence is a dynamic man, who cannot be easily defined.  In a single scene Lawrence seems disconnected from reality, wandering in a daze and the very next moment is perfectly lucid.  He weeps over the death of a man he hardly knew and later slaughters unarmed men without hint of remorse.  Having the audience question Lawrence's inconsistencies (as my kids were doing) is no accident; he is going mad.  One of my least favorite movies is also about madness; "Black Hawk Down".  The director of that film (ironically) Ridley Scott wasn't content with conveying the madness of a horrible situation, rather he attempted to drive the audience mad too.  If frustrating and infuriating the audience was his goal, then I guess he deserves due praise, but watching that movie is such a horrible experience in and of itself.  "Lawrence of Arabia" paints a coherent, even beautiful picture of one man's ascent to greatness and descent into madness, which amazingly both were occurring at the same time.

Watching "Lawrence of Arabia" with my kids made me pay special attention to the philosophical aspect of the film.  I actually paused the DVD a few times to explain certain scenes or answer specific questions.  One such moment came during a scene where various tribesmen were invoking God's name as a blessing upon Lawrence and his quest.  "God be with you" is a wonderful thing to say.  "If God wills it" might be even better.  How come Christians don't talk to each other like this?    I explained to my kids that some people have false beliefs, not recognizing Christ as God's son, the one and only saviour.  Unfortunately while 99.9% of the people in this movie are claiming to serve God, they are in actuality seriously misguided.  The other .1% is Lawrence himself, he believes only in himself.  What makes him dangerous is his knowledge, he has an extensive understanding of history; he knows the truth but does not accept it.  The apparent contradiction that Lawrence can both hate death and take pleasure from murder is really not a contradiction at all.  The struggle with sin that exists for those who seek to honor God does not look the same for those who are at the center of their own lives.  Lawrence was a tortured man, but he could see no rhyme or reason for his misery.  He found himself in a paradox; how could he define purpose in life if he truly didn't care about the people he claimed to be fighting for?  At best Lawrence is a tragic hero, someone who accomplished great victories which supported a higher purpose, while at the same time losing his own soul.  "Lawrence of Arabia" could be seen as a tribute to an incredible man, I see it as a stern warning.  The best warnings are the ones that really get you attention.

Prometheus

Let me tell you why I liked "Prometheus".  From the opening shot to the film's closing "Prometheus" follows the two most important rules of great science fiction:  First it is visually amazing; even the shots of Earth are wondrous and effective in establishing context for the story we are about to experience.  Secondly, and most importantly, questions are posed which force us as the audience to become involved with the decisions and consequences that occur onscreen.  These questions can be simple as; would take your helmet off on an alien planet?  Or deep; how would a scientific discovery affect your faith?  I went to see "Prometheus" with Rob, and I think that the initial premise of the story was too much for him to overcome; that humans were created by an alien race.  I can imagine that for many reading this review this would be a major hang-up and would distract from their enjoyment of the film.  Let me suggest that the movie isn't trying to preach one origin theory or another, rather the aliens, the space travel, the technology, and the scary monsters are all merely for entertainment value, while the substance of this film is in the questions.  In true science fiction form, there will always be far more questions than there are answers; answers are so disappointing and anti-climactic.  The main characters here are a scientist named Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace) and an android named David (played by Michael Fassbender).  Shaw is portrayed as a woman strongly clinging to her faith, regardless of events which might cause others to fall away.  This is a stroke of genius, because typically scientists are portrayed merely as cerebral, whereas a reasonable person must conclude that any belief system is ultimately based on faith.  Ridley Scott (the director) masterfully establishes Shaw as the center of this film; I was truly sympathetic to her plight and was rooting for her.  Typically movies treat the audience with a childlike disdain; either root for Tom Cruise or the other guy, who by the way is trying to initiate a Nuclear holocaust.  In "Prometheus" Scott allows us to choose who the "good guy" is by introducing us to the characters and asking the question, who's side would you be on?  As was true in her "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" role, Rapace is able to subtly play Shaw as both extremely brave and strong while being realistically fragile.  Her actions never seem like they are plot devices, rather she is a living, reasoning person in an extraordinary situation.  This is well contrasted against the David character, who builds upon Scott's fascination with androids and their unavoidable influence on humanity (and visa versa).  Scott's original "Alien" and of course "Blade Runner" ask moral questions about man creating beings in our own likeness.  "Prometheus" goes further, delving into the irony of men who are searching for answers about their creators, while so callously mistreating their own creations.  David could easily have been presented as an antagonist, yet Scott understands that a intricate android character is far more stimulating than an evil robot.  Early scenes where David is watching "Lawrence of Arabia" clue us in that this movie is aspiring to be far greater than some shallow sci-fi horror flick.  That being said, what would an Alien movie be without some scary aliens?  Here too Scott doesn't disappoint.  The alien creatures are imaginative and set the right tone for the part they play in this story.  The primary alien race which is focused on are familiar yet intimidating, making it possible to conclude that while they should be respected they might be friendly too.  Then there's the more mysterious creatures, the kind that are obviously up to no good.  Scott and his team of effects wizards once again prove that aliens don't have to be big and scary looking to be be deadly.  Personally I'm not a fan of the horror/creature genre, yet Scott uses techniques from that industry to create motivation and tension.  What better way to examine what a person's true character is than to put them in room with a maneating alien parasite?  The other effects were equally amazing; this film was shot in the newest high definition 3D digital format, and seeing it in IMAX is impressive.  The panoramic views and majestic interior shots benefit most from the 3D, and fortunately it never felt like a gimmick. Scott clearly knows how to utilize technology to compliment the story he is trying to tell; I think that all the great directors push the limits of filmmaking but never loose sight of what they are seeking to accomplish. The worst thing that can happen in a movie is breaking the illusion (with the one exception being "Ferris Bueller's Day Off").  I would hate to spoil anything for someone who has not yet seen the movie, so consider yourself warned.  The last ten minutes of the movie contain my only complaints, albeit rather minor ones:  Firstly there is the unnecessary double ending...  I would have preferred the first ending of the ship flying into the proverbial sunset, fade to black, the end.  I know that the second ending was meant for the fans (of which I am one), but it wasn't beneficial to the movie itself and somehow seemed out of place.  Secondly there is the possibility of a glaring continuity issue, if in fact this is the definitive prequel to "Alien".  A very central character isn't where he should be at the end of this movie considering where he is discovered in "Alien".  Because the movie never claims to be leading up to the beginning of "Alien" perhaps there is an explanation for this apparent oversight, so I can't complain too much.  I was reminded of the scene from "Empire" when Obi-Wan tells Luke that he was trained by Yoda, then in the prequels inexplicably Qui-Gon is Obi-Wan's master.  There is a hint of that feeling here at the end of "Prometheus", but I talked myself through it, and it's not that bad.  Overall the ending is satisfactory, and the film as a whole is one of the best I've seen in a long time.  Take that "Cowboys and Aliens"!

The Dictator, Dark Shadows, The Three Stooges, and Snow White and the Huntsman

I tend to take longer to post my impressions of movies depending on how inspired I was by the viewing experience.

I saw "The Dictator" a few weeks back, and while it was somewhat funny, it was mostly flat. My hope for this movie stemmed from the previous experience of seeing "Borat", which surprised me as being hilarious throughout. Unfortunately "the Dictator" was too concerned with its heartwarming and ironic message that it ceased to be a comedy. As is too often the case, once again the trailer really did give away most of the funny parts, with one notable exception involving Daffy Duck cartoons (now I've officially given away all the funny parts making it pointless for you to see this movie).

Johnny Depp and Tim Burton made my favorite Halloween movie, "Sleepy Hollow". They have worked together many times, often with wonderful results. As with the movie I reviewed above, here in "Dark Shadows" it would seem that everyone involved in this movie forgot that they were supposed to be making a comedy. Parts that could have been funny were interrupted by disturbing moments, and the overall tone of the movie was too campy for the disturbing parts to rise to the level of dark comedy. I heard someone else accuse Johnny Depp of being on cruise control in this role, and I would have to agree. Usually his performances are unique and fun to watch, but here it was just blah. This coming Halloween I'll be watching my copy of "Sleepy Hollow" again, and hopefully the "Dark Shadows" experience will quickly escape my memory.

The kids and I saw "The Three Stooges" at the local dollar theater this past week. Personally I've never been that much of a Stooges fan, but being a guy I have a certain amount of appreciation for them and their cultural impact. I do like previous Farrelly brothers movies, and knowing that they're big Stooges fanatics got me interested in what their updated version would be like. Overall I really enjoyed the movie; the Stooges were well cast (Curly being the best), and the story was strong enough to hold together the slapstick scenes and typical Stooge dialogue. Perhaps the best question that could be asked concerning the Three Stooges movie would be, is it really necessary? Of course not, but then isn't that true about so many movies. This was entertaining, and true to its source material, what more could we ask for?

Rob and I saw "Snow White and the Huntsman" the other night. There are certain movies that are really good for the first 3/4 or so, then fizzle out at the end. When it's all over I actually wish that I could have just seen the good part and left before everything went down hill. What would be worse, not knowing the ending to a good movie, or sticking around long enough to know that it wasn't that good after all? Alas, this is one of those catch-22s; one that is impossible to avoid. Even if you swear-off movies altogether which helps you cut out the bad endings, you'll completely miss out on the good movies which are out there. "The Last Samurai" is an excellent example of this unfortunate phenomena, everything in the Japanese village was wonderful, but the final battle sequence and subsequent closing pretty much ruined the movie. Here in "Snow White" there is so much to like; lush fairy tale atmosphere, Charlize Theron as the evil queen, amazing effects, and even good performances from an actor and actress who haven't impressed me with their earlier work. Yet, as is too often the case, the conclusion of this movie doesn't live up to its set-up. Perhaps you could be spared the disappointment of this movie and walk out when the ravens begin swarming around the evil queen at approximately the 100 minute mark. Can you handle not knowing the ending while being comforted with the fact that you were spared a bad experience?

... Neither could I.

The Avengers

For the reader's convenience I have linked to my previous reviews of the following movies:  Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America.  I don't think I ever wrote a review of the Edward Norton "Hulk" movie (I only saw it on video), which was far and away the best of the Avenger-team-member movies; a moot point considering that Norton got replaced by Mark Ruffalo for the ensemble movie just released.  I mention the previous movie reviews merely to point out how exceedingly low my expectations for "The Avengers" was, just less than 24 hours ago.  Some may laugh at this, but I consider myself a undying optimist when it comes to movies; no matter how critical I may be I'm always hoping for the best.

Jess and I have watched the "Firefly" show a couple times (it was only one season long). Joss Whedon created "Firefly" and wrote and directed many of the episode too.  What Whedon brings as a writer and director to "The Avengers" is an understanding that good, funny characters are far more interesting than mindless action.  He has taken three bland and one funny (but not two hours funny) superheroes, given them good lines, just the right amount of tension and created a movie which is actually entertaining all the way through.  I noted in my review of the original "Iron Man" that I enjoyed the final fight sequence because I got a little nap in...  This is the negative side effect of computer animation; "spectacular" has become boring.  Whedon came close to putting me to sleep a few times; I actually dread the finales in movies like this, but he was smart enough to cut between the different heroes focusing more on the humorous interactions, and not putting too much emphasis on the action.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that "The Avengers" atones for the sins of its predecessors; it does have personality, and personality goes a long way.