Hidden Figures

Hidden Figures uses a well established formula to tell a compelling, and sometimes surprising story.  This is a rare combination; typically filmmakers try to surprise us with their storytelling style, here it's the story itself that's surprising.  Hidden Figures, directed by Theodore Melfi, shines the spotlight on historical figures that usually don't get any recognition.  Melfi does a good job keeping this film focused, understanding that an intimate examination of a few people is most effective.  I liked that the characters were allowed to develop, and while much of this was predictable, it still was a pleasure to watch.  One of my favorite scenes happened towards the end of the film, when a supporting character surprises one of the main characters with a demonstration of extreme generosity and humbleness.  This stood out to me because Melfi had taken the time to set up this scene in such a way that it enriched the entire story with a moment of true joy.

I hesitate to say anything bad about a good movie, so I won't.

Fences

Fences is quite simply a film about a family in Pittsburgh, spanning from the late 1950's through the 60's.  Race, economic status, religion, work ethic, etc. are all topics addressed in the film, but ultimately I believe that family is the subject.  Denzel Washington directed and stars, playing the charismatic, and domineering father.  Children from three different mothers are being raised by the current wife, which complicates the definition of family.  The worldview presented in this film is a messy one, wherein Denzel's character is definitely the central character, but is not the hero of the story.  Actually, it would be difficult to argue that any of the characters qualify for this title, everyone here is flawed, and there isn't much hope for redemption.  The film suggests that each of the family members contribute to their own suffering.  The wife enables the father, the sons become their father, and the best friend does nothing substantive to make a difference.  Ultimately all the characters are trapped in a hopeless cycle of despair... that may have been a better title.

The film is unique in it's portrayal of a family, where not much happens, and there isn't a plot to speak of.  Unfortunately this film suffers because it feels so much like the play on which it is based.  The actors often sound as though they are reading their lines; they're well written lines, but still it's distracting.  With the exception of David Mamet and Quentin Tarantino, I'd prefer not to hear the writer when the actors are speaking.

Lion

Lion is a story told in two very distinct parts.  The first half is almost a documentary in the way that it follows the main character, Saroo as he wanders through the streets of Calcutta.  The second half of the film feels 'movie-ish' in comparison, with recognizable actors who find themselves in situation that feel somewhat contrived.  I will leave my review of the second half of the film at that, and focus instead on the opening act.

The performance by Sunny Pawar in Lion is reminiscent of Quvenzhané Wallis' performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild back in 2012.  It is extremely effective when such a young actor is able to be so convincing in a role.  Of course I realize that anytime you place a child in such horrific conditions it is only natural to have an emotional response, so much credit must be given to the production designers and editor.  That being said, Pawar played his part so well, showing a wide range in his reactions to various situations.

I believe that this film has a good message, which so often is lacking in movies today.  Even though the second half doesn't rise to the level of the first, it's still part of the film, and seeks to deliver an uplifting conclusion.  For these reasons I liked the movie, and would definitely recommend it to anyone.

Star Wars: Rogue One

That I saw Rogue One on opening day, yet I am just now getting around to writing a review should tell you something.  This movie is well crafted, entertaining, and cleverly fleshes-out the a backstory which was briefly mentioned in A New Hope.  It's actually the last three or four minutes of the movie, where everything ties together, that Rogue One is at its best.  That's good news for the moviegoer, because a good ending can redeem an otherwise blasé offering.  The bad news is that a good ending can punctuate just how blasé the rest of the movie was...  It wasn't until days after seeing the movie that it struck me how all the main characters had {spoiler alert} died, but I didn't really care because I had seen Darth Vader go medieval on some Rebels and Princess Leia circa 1977.

More than anything else this probably proves that attachments formed in youth are strong, while attempts to recreate experiences from youth are impossible... because we are no longer that person.

Arrival

Arrival is a deliberately paced science fiction film that effectively uses chronological disorientation to enrich its story.  The real danger in making a movie that deals with aliens is that almost assuredly the aliens will disappoint.  If we’re honest with ourselves, the only aliens we really like are the ones who look exactly like us, i.e. Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, and Chewbacca.  We find all other aliens either scary or irritating.  Therefore every great film that contains aliens (excluding Star Wars) must be about something other than aliens.

It doesn’t take long to realize that the aliens in Arrival are not its focus; rather the film is centered on a linguist played by Amy Adams.  The storyline involving a race to interpret the alien’s true intentions before the rest of the world starts World War III is the films weakest point, allowing clichés from the genre too much time.  Yet interwoven into the standard plot is a more interesting thread of self-sacrifice.  The question is asked, if you knew how painful the consequences would be, would make the same decision?   The choice that Adam’s character is faced with is unambiguous; either she can pursue happiness, or she can save the world.  Let me suggest that another layer is alluded to; not only does Adam’s character have to make this terrible choice, but she’ll also be eternally subject to experience the effects of her decision.  This concept was explored in a lesser movie earlier last year; Doctor Strange had a really long battle in which the title character locked the antagonist into a seemingly never-ending loop.  Because nobody wants to leave a superhero movie without a conclusion, Doctor Strange devised a clever technicality to end the never-ending loop.  Arrival doesn’t give it’s protagonist a loophole; the difficult decision she must make is final.

Arrival also deals with the concept that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but I’m out of time for today’s review.

Hacksaw Ridge

I imagine that people who don't like movies are unable (or unwilling) to detach themselves from reality long enough to appreciate a movie for what it is.  Even the most realistic movie is still just a movie, even a documentary isn't actually happening (it already happened).  I think that I have levels of detachment, depending on the movie there is a sliding scale of what I'm willing to accept in the pursuit of entertainment or enlightenment.  La La Land gets a wide berth, while Manchester by the Sea receives greater scrutiny.  On that note, it is difficult for me to give Hacksaw Ridge a favorable review; while it contained a great story and challenged my preconceptions, its set-up kept jerking me back into reality.
 
The first half of the movie felt more like Captain America than a dramatic WWII film.  Instead of fleshed-out characters, the central cast were simply caricatures, with Vince Vaughn and Hugo Weaving setting entirely the wrong tone.  Both of these actors are great given the right roles, unfortunately this movie was seriously miscast, and the first half poorly directed.  I have struggled with being overly critical of this movie (as you'll see in the next paragraph), but it almost feels like the first half of this movie was made simply as an afterthought.  Backstories in comic book movies can be entertaining.  The first half of a war film shouldn't feel this cliché.

The second half of the movie was effective and thought-provoking.  Director Mel Gibson has often used violence gratuitously, sometimes with great impact.  The violence and gore in Hacksaw Ridge is shown in stark contrast to the self-sacrificing determination of the movie's hero.  The one person who is unwilling to shed any blood is covered with the most.  The person ridiculed and misunderstood is most willing to give everything he has for others.  Even if you find yourself disagreeing with him on principle, you would be calloused indeed if you don't appreciate his commitment.  Therein is the greatest strength of this film, it presents a seemingly enigmatic contradiction, and solves it.  This may have been one of the most interesting war films ever made, if it only it had a better first half.

Manchester by the Sea

Manchester by the Sea is a deeper, and more honest observational study than its spiritual prequel, Good Will Hunting.  Both films center around a man who has concluded that he has potential, he has the capability to achieve a good life, but knows that he doesn't deserve it.  Casey Affleck gives a depressingly tragic performance, portraying a man who feels obligated to punish himself.  His friends and family plead with him to stop, attempting to relay how his behavior is harming those closest to him.  Yet his conviction is so deep, and his commitment to complete, that rational arguments hold no sway.  Will Hunting had a gift that was recognized by the right people at the right time.  Will is encouraged and challenged in ways that turn him from his path of self-destruction.  Affleck's character in Manchester by the Sea isn't rescued from his downward spiral.  I would suggest that the difference here, is that his heart has been hardened.  There is a moment in Good Will Hunting, between the title character and his counselor (played by Robin Williams) where Will Hunting's heart is softened.  Manchester by the Sea doesn't contain such a scene, and with that the chance of hope and joy vanishes.

Nocturnal Animals

Have you ever been sitting there in the theater, the screen fades to black, and you think to yourself "this would be the perfect place to end the movie"?  If the first closing title appears, you've just seen a great film.  I'm not referring to your run-of-the-mill Hollywood fare with a predictable ending; I'm talking about those rare films that could go on to tie-up loose ends or explain every last detail, but instead choose not to insult the viewer's intelligence.  Nocturnal Animals has a perfect ending.

I'm going to break from my typical approach, which shies away from revealing too much about plot; so consider yourself warned.  Nocturnal Animals slowly reveals itself to be an allegory told in parallel with real-life events.  The main character doesn't recognize her role until the very last moment of the film.  There were times at which the chronology of the film was difficult to follow, the lines between time and reality were blurred.  The director, Tom Ford uses this storytelling technique to explain the motivations of his characters, interweaving the connection between allegory and real-life.  There's a lesson to be learned here:  Quite often we aren't the characters in the story that we want to be.

Now if the movie picks up again after it fades to black, and continues for another 45 minutes, you're watching Return of the King.

The Jungle Book

Back in August of 2016 I wrote the following:
"The Jungle Book is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.  Director Jon Favreau has successfully created a modern retelling of this classic story."
I'm not sure where I was going with this.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

Split

I guess it was inevitable that eventually M. Night Shyamalan would choose to utilize absolutely-no-twist-at-all as a twist in one of his films, and believe me, I was surprised.  Split is the greatest argument so far for not watching trailers; if you've seen one, you've seen the other.  The crafting of this film was excellent, Shyamalan's storytelling, the editing, and James McAvoy's acting were all top-notch.  Unfortunately, that was all evident in the trailer, along with the entire storyline, cast of characters, and for any experienced moviegoer, the obvious ending was clear.  That's how I knew that the ending would be significantly different; but I was wrong.

Perhaps this is Shyamalan's commentary on pop culture, and fanboys with too much time on our hands.  He gave us exactly what the trailer promised, and nothing more.  Maybe I'll learn my lesson and never watch a trailer again.

Once good thing has already come out of watching Split; it prompted me to revisit one of Shyamalan's other films, one that I had only seen once 17 years ago.  It's better than I remembered.

La La Land

After a 5-month hiatus, La La Land is bringing me back.

I'm going to start with a minor complaint, then I promise to tell you all the things I really liked about this movie.  The people who love movies the most have inadvertently ruined the them.  Star Wars is no longer a space fantasy, it has become Saving Private Ryan in space.  Batman has more in common with The Godfather than his comic book origins.  And La La Land feels more like a tragic Woody Allen film, than the musical that it could have been.  It's not that the filmmakers are more cynical than a generation ago, rather the critics and film snobs have become harsher.  La La Land could have been our Singin' In The Rain; unfortunately it's too cool for that.  I understand the irony here, if the characters spontaneously burst into song too often, or dream sequences had a few too many neon lights, I'd probably be making fun of the movie right now.  La La Land hit all the right notes; it's just a shame that so many people are just as jaded as me.

I liked the scenery.  I liked the costumes.  I liked the character development; while it was quite cliché, the characters were so likable that it worked.  I like the music; while not to the level of Singin' In The Rain, is that really a fair comparison?  I liked the ending; it works for the romantic and the cynic, not an easy task.  I like that this movie is getting so much buzz; after so many difficult-to-watch movies, I like being reminded of why I love movies.

Jason Bourne

Jason Bourne follows the same pattern and delivers the same action/espionage thrills that we have come to expect from Matt Damon Bourne movies.  I contend that the first two Bourne films had convincing plots, while the third film and this (the fourth starring Damon as Bourne) have plots that seem to primarily exist to give Bourne another movie.  That's a minor complaint though, since Bourne is an intriguing character, Damon plays him so well, and the director Paul Greengrass certainly knows his craft.  From a technical standpoint this film is extremely impressive, the choreography of the mob scene and the editing is spot-on.  Sometimes Greengrass' proclivity for using handheld cameras is distracting, but when the action gets intense he makes us feel that we're right there in the middle of it all.  I think that casting Vincent Cassel as the antagonist is always a good idea, although seeing him in another movie up against Damon where he will not be allowed to succeed (as in the Ocean's movies) is somewhat frustrating.  I wonder if Matt Damon would consider playing a similar character to Cassel's in French movies.
  
My wife Jess commented that the ending of this film seems to be setting up another movie, and I tend to agree with her.  I hope that the producers of this series can find a way to give Bourne some peace, because up to this point his life has been extremely tragic.

Suicide Squad

So I’m going to work my way backwards from my most recently viewed yet unreviewed movie.

Suicide Squad is a mess, but did anyone really doubt that it would be.   When people attack comic books as juvenile, they could easily point to the plot (and I use that term hesitantly) of Suicide Squad and unequivocally win their argument.  Each and every character is motivated by a strong commitment to cliché.  Suicide Squad follows the current trend of comic book movies by inexplicably using CGI to detach the audience from the antagonist.  Perhaps the makers of these movies are concerned that they might hurt the main characters, so they give them ridiculous cartoons instead of formidable foes.  Or maybe the Animation Union hired the Russian mafia to strong-arm their way into all comic book movies.  Or perhaps it’s just another indication of our country’s cultural decline.

You may be surprised to find that overall I enjoyed the movie.  I’ve become so accustomed disappointment in non-Nolan comic book movies that even the briefest well-made scenes make me happy.  Suicide Squad has quite a few well-made scenes interspersed throughout, just enough to make the whole movie seem alright.  Will Smith as Deadshot was quite funny, Killer Croc had some pretty cool makeup, Batman underwater, and colorful clothing dissolving in acid.  I will close by saying that Joker is the Joker we deserve right now.  Somehow he seems to fit in with today’s political climate.  I am a little concerned with what it will take to entertain us with the next iteration of Joker – perhaps it’ll come full circle and we’ll get Cesar Romero again.

Biting the Bullet

I will soon write about The Good Dinosaur, The B.F.G, Tarzan, The Jungle Book, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad, but please allow me a brief detour into politics:

A few years ago I was extremely critical of a couple I know who voted for the Constitution Party presidential candidate.  During that election there were two, and only two candidates who could realistically win the general election.  If given the choice of only two candidates you choose neither, you have at best wasted your vote – more likely you have made the path easier for the candidate whom you should have opposed.  I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that two votes for the Constitution Party candidate in 2008 were essentially two votes for Barack Obama.

This year the conundrum is worse, both candidates are so repugnant that it seems unthinkable to vote for either.  At the risk of coming across as flippant, “rending unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” back when there was a Caesar seems a whole lot easier than performing one’s civic duty of voting in America today.  If you are planning on voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump this November, you are only doing so to appease yourself.  Your vote will be meaningless.   Let me suggest that those who refuse to choose when confronted with the lesser of two evils are actually responsible when the greater evil wins.

Neither candidate believes in the sanctity of human life.

Neither candidate believes that our country’s greatness is irrevocably tied to God’s grace.

Neither candidate respects our country’s Constitution.

Neither candidate is wise, humble, brave, respectful, or has a heart of service.

So don’t try spreading any lies about why you’re voting for one or the other – neither of these people deserve to be the President, and either one will be detrimental to this country.

 

And don’t lie to yourself and vote for the Constitution Party candidate – you might as well write-in “Kanye”.

I for one will begrudgingly vote for Trump, he represents the lesser of two evils.

This country is in God’s hands.  His will isn’t constrained whether Clinton or Trump is the President.  I for one will be on my knees asking that the plans of the wicked are thwarted.  I do believe that God can change hearts; Clinton and Trump are just as savable as I.  I also believe that God could miraculously influence the election; He has blessed us for the last 240 years, why stop now?  That being said, I fully anticipate Election Day to be a somber experience, and I pray that God has mercy on us. 

Batman V Superman

Zack Snyder pissed me off with his outrageous fight scene between Superman and General Zod in Man of Steel.  In that movie, Superman allows General Zod to wreak havoc on Metropolis; thousands die because of Superman’s self-imposed do not kill rule.  I’m usually a big fan of these kind of rules in fiction, whether it be D'Artagnan’s honor, MacGyver’s no gun code, or Dennis Hopper’s 50 mph policy… these all present challenges which make the stories more interesting.  But in Superman’s case, his unwillingness to kill General Zod makes him a hypocrite at best, and quite possibly an accessory to mass genocide.

Bruce Wayne is pissed too.  Therein lies the motivation behind Batman V Superman, it doesn’t matter who you are; you don’t want to piss of Bruce Wayne or (spoiler alert!) you’ll have Batman to contend with.  The opening scenes of Batman V Superman show Bruce Wayne helplessly witnessing the destruction that is being rained down on Metropolis by Superman and General Zod, from that point on it becomes his mission to eliminate Superman.  On the other hand, as we spend time with Superman it becomes clear that he is offended by Batman’s vigilante brand of justice.  Superman’s holier-than-thou attitude is our first indication that Zack Snyder has chosen sides.  This is an interesting premise; two men with contradicting philosophies cannot be good neighbors, there’s only room for one hero in the Twin Cities of Metropolis and Gotham.

Had Zack Snyder tightened his focus, this could have been a great movie; but for better or worse Lex Luthor is added to the mix – he’s either the catalyst or the third wheel, depending on your point of view.  I personally found Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Luthor to be distracting and unnecessary.  While his character fit into the plot as an instigator, someone who was stirring up the feud between Batman and Superman, his motivation for doing this was never satisfactorily explained.  Additionally, Eisenberg’s performance was heavily reminiscent of Heath Ledger as the Joker; his psychotic behavior seemed out of place.  I realize that all of these characters and plot lines are being pulled from a variety of source material.  If you try to make everyone happy, you’re bound to fail.  But I would contend that making a great film, telling a good story, and presenting convincing characters will always trump trying to make fan-boys happy.  I wish someone would tell that to Zack Snyder.

Overall I found this to be a much better movie that Man of Steel, and I can sum it up with two sentences:

Batman hated the end of Man of Steel just as much as I did.

Man of Steel lowered my expectations so low that Snyder’s next film had to be better.

Bridge of Spies

Bridge of Spies is the best film from the past year.  I would like to personally apologize to Steven Spielberg for not going to see this film in the theater, I finally saw it streaming a few weeks back.  Spielberg tells a good story, a story that is relevant today.  Tom Hanks plays a man who defies our preconceived notions of lawyers, principled, thoughtful and patriotic.  The standout performance is by Mark Rylance as a captured Russian spy; his subtlety and the relationship developed onscreen between him and the Hanks character was excellent.

*Full disclosure:  I just saw Mark Rylance win (deservedly so) for Best Supporting Actor.

Room and Spotlight

I’m in a little bit of a rush, because the Academy Awards have already started, and I want to have reviews in on all the Best Picture nominees before the winner is announced.  So I am going to tell you why I liked each of these two films:

The makers of Room believe that hope and healing are possible after even the most traumatic of conditions and experiences.  It also has a policewoman who does some excellent police work, a boy who is extremely brave, and a young woman who definitely deserves a Mother’s Day card this year (and next).

The makers of Spotlight believe in the pursuit of truth.  I think that truth and the pursuit of truth can be two completely different things.  This movie focuses and glorifies the pursuit of truth; journalists are portrayed as society’s heroes.  While the filmmakers could easily have gone too far and ventured into preachy cliché territory; I was pleasantly surprised that the film stayed grounded.  

Brooklyn The Big Short

Halfway through Brooklyn Jess asked me why it had been nominated for Best Picture.  We had gone to see The Big Short the night before, and the same question could be asked of that film.  Both films are entertaining, and both have been expertly made, but neither of them are The Godfather Part II or Braveheart.  That being said, I would suggest that films that achieve the level of greatness are few and far between.  I’ll review Brooklyn and The Big Short for what they are, not what they aren’t.

I lied.  Brooklyn is exactly like The Godfather Part II except that it doesn’t have any gangsters.

The Big Short is essentially a remake of Braveheart except that the main characters don’t wear kilts.

I hope that you realize that I am exaggerating; yet please bear with me while I expand upon my comparisons…  Brooklyn is about the immigrant experience, specifically about a young Irish girl’s experience in Brooklyn, New York circa 1952.  The Godfather Part II is also about a young immigrant who is both a product of and a manipulator of this land of opportunity.   While Brooklyn is exactly one horse head short of being The Godfather Part II, it’s still a pretty decent film.

The Big Short is about underdogs who take on the Big Bad Banks, and as everyone knows underdogs are always good, and banks of any kind (except the Bailey Savings and Loan) are unabashedly evil.  I have exactly two problems with this movie; the first being that it has no purpose for existing.  Nothing new is revealed, nothing is very interesting.  We all know that the banks totally screwed us over, then we bailed them out, and now they’re doing t again.  Sure it’s more complicated than that, but my summary is pretty much all you need to know.  The second problem I have is the intention cutting-short editing; cutting a scene short should have a purpose, not be a style.  So I guess The Big Short has little to do with Braveheart, but maybe I kept you reading.

Jeremiah Johnson and The Revenant

There is nothing that appeals to me about being cold, wet, and sleeping on the ground.  If rugged individualism requires this kind of misery, count me out.  While I admire the skill and determination that is necessary to survive in harsh wilderness conditions, I am confounded as to why anyone would choose this life.  Therein lies my problem with the premises of both Jeremiah Johnson (1972) and The Revenant (2015)… what are these guys doing out there in the first place?  Jeremiah Johnson is a disfranchised veteran looking for a clean start, while Hugh Glass (central character in The Revenant) is a scout for a trapping expedition… both of these guys would have avoided much heartbreak and grief if only they would have invested in a good pair of long-johns and some bear repellent.

My inability to identify with the protagonists robs the films of any emotional effectiveness.  There are elements about both films that I genuinely appreciated, but I was constantly aware that “it’s just a movie” and my appreciation became purely technical.  Both films feature excellent cinematography, and the costumes and makeup contribute to the illusion that the characters are actually when and where the filmmakers purport them to be.  Since I just saw The Revenant last night, I will focus on its technical attributes:  The camerawork and choreography is distractingly amazing; the one-shot technique that was employed in last year’s Birdman (by the same director, Alejandro González Iñárritu) is used here with such virtuosity.  There are no constraints on Iñárritu’s camera.  Of course DiCaprio’s performance is exceptional, but its impact is negligible partly because we have come to expect greatness from him, and partly because the story is shallow.  Tom Hardy occupies the juiciest role; let me suggest that an antagonist in such miserable conditions doesn’t seem quite as evil as he would in civilization.

So if you’re looking for a fun time this weekend, go see The Force Awakens again.

Creed

I really don’t like boxing movies – except for Rocky, Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa, Raging Bull, The Fighter, Cinderella Man, Million Dollar Baby, The Hurricane, and now Creed.  I must admit that I haven’t seen Ali or Daniel Day Lewis’ The Boxer, so they might be on the list too.  Maybe I do like boxing movies after all.

Creed focuses on the same thing other boxing movies do, pretty much everything except boxing.  Sylvester Stallone understands this better than anyone, which is probably why he’s been so successful with the Rocky franchise, and explains how he can be at the center of a boxing film without lifting a finger.  I mean this with all sincerity – my least favorite part of a boxing movie is the climax, when the coach has to re-open the hero’s eyes so that he/she can keep on fighting.  I prefer the part when Rocky gets to use unconventional training techniques to convey a meaningful life lesson.  I know that you’re probably having a difficult time taking me seriously right now, but it’s the truth.

I don’t have anything to say about Creed that would be much different from any other of the boxing movies on my list.  I should equate boxing movies with comfort food – well comfort food that has a black eye, a split lip, and eats raw eggs.  Let me ask you this though; could a movie where Sylvester Stallone gets to say “Yo Adrian” possibly be bad?

The Hateful Eight

Rob and I went up to Denver to watch The Hateful Eight this past weekend.  It would be convenient to say that I must be outgrowing Quentin Tarantino, but that’s not the truth.  I recently re-watched Pulp Fiction  and found its editing, cinematography, and writing to be just as impressive today as they were twenty years ago. 

I suggest that Tarantino hasn’t improved as he’s gotten older; “If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don't”.  Instead of maturing as a writer/director, Tarantino has become increasingly obsessed with graphic (albeit cartoonish) violence.  I really don’t understand why, perhaps it is his response to accusations of being a maker of violent films.  As the great film critic Roger Ebert so astutely pointed out, Pulp Fiction is an effective movie thanks to dialogue which is so disarming that the moments of violence have greater impact.

The Hateful Eight starts out with about one hour of a Quentin Tarantino movie that I want to watch, then quickly and completely deteriorated into a bloodbath – and I’m not using literary flourishes.  The first hour of the film centers around two post-Civil War bounty hunters played by Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell travelling together in a stagecoach along with a prisoner played by Jennifer Jason Leigh.  Russell brings an amalgamation of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday to his character, while Jackson reprises his role as Jules from Pulp Fiction.  So far, so good; we get to hear bounty hunters talking about everyday things – all very Tarantinoesque.  As a blizzard overtakes the travelers they must take shelter at a lodge, where the remaining characters are introduced.  For a time this change of scenery seems promising; unfortunately people start poisoning, stabbing, shooting, and hanging each other; clever dialogue and interesting characters are replaced by violence and blood.

If it weren’t for the existence of Django, I might have understood this drastic departure for Tarantino; this time it just seems like pointless excess.  I can forgive Tarantino for recycling some of his own ideas and themes, but his new-found obsession with blood splatter is annoying at best.  As I’ve contemplated the film, I remain impressed by the cinematography and setting (it was filmed here in Colorado), I really enjoyed the first hour, but overall I was disappointed…  Quentin Tarantino can do so much better than this.

Quentin Tarantino achieved a level of greatness when he allowed his characters to be redeemable; Butch and Jules perform selfless acts in Pulp Fiction… I just ran out of examples.  On the other hand is The Hateful Eight; no one deserves to walk out of that lodge alive, and maybe I shouldn’t have expected to enjoy the experience either.

Star Wars Episode Seven: The Force Awakens - Full Review (spoilers included)

It is a great accomplishment that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan have introduced three new characters that outshine their Original Trilogy counterparts.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens is about the next generation of heroes to occupy the Star Wars universe.  I must admit that for me this was unexpected; I had so much anticipation for Luke, Leia, and Han Solo that I wasn't expecting much from their kids...

I have been affected by the death of Han Solo in a strange way.  As I write that, I recognize that Han Solo is a fictional character, yet unlike so many historical figures of supposed importance, I actually grew up watching and admiring Han Solo.  I may always have consciously grasped that he was merely an actor playing a part, but the impression on a young mind is made with permanency.  The death of Han Solo took place in The Force Awakens for two two reasons:  First, the obvious one, is that Ben Solo's path towards the Dark Side is solidified by the act of murdering his own father.  The second purpose is that the void left in Han Solo's death is filled by Rey; somehow Abrams and Kasdan have created the ultimate Star Wars character - the spirit of Han Solo and the Jedi daughter of Luke Skywalker.

While ultimately it was Abrams and Kasdan who envisioned a bold transition from one generation to the next, much credit must be given to the actors and craftsmen who made the three new main characters come to life.  Daisy Riley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn, and the people over at Industrial Light and Magic who brought BB-8 to life made The Force Awakens an incredibly entertaining movie.

If you don't like Star Wars, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you, because the amount of imagination, ingenuity, and sense of wonder on display is simply extraordinary.

P.S.  I like how Abrams snuck some light saber specific lens flares into the main duel... nice.

Miller's Crossing

In a world that can seem quite overwhelming at times, it’s nice to discover a film that brings me back to what I love about movies.  Life is filled with concerns; finding a job, raising children, money, abortion clinics, ISIS, The Twilight Zone episode in which Donald Trump is leading in the polls…  Then you top it all off by watching the second season of True Detective, and the foundations of society are shaken, how can so much talent and potential be wasted?  Thankfully the Coen brothers made a little movie called Miller’s Crossing.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to suggest that one film can solve all the problems listed above, but it sure does make me feel better.  Somehow, Miller’s Crossing had eluded me for the past 25 years.  It’s understandable that I didn’t see it back in 1990 since I was only 12 at the time.  I saw The Hudsucker Proxy back in high school, and have been a Coen brothers fan ever since.  The Big Lebowski, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and Raising Arizona show a diversity and range in filmmaking that epitomize what is great about American movies.  Then to top it all off, the brothers made a great film, No Country for Old Men, a film of depth and purpose that achieves what few other films have: a perfect ending. 

So I watched Miller’s Crossing yesterday and it reminded me that America is a great place.  It is a land of opportunity, a place that rewards hard work and recognizes true talent.  Sure, it’s also a place where chauvinistic slime balls can run for president, but that’s beside the point.  Miller’s Crossing is unlike any gangster movie that came before, and I can’t imagine another like it.  Here is a film that is rich with characters, filled with sharp dialogue, and unblinking in its depiction of gangster violence.  For those reasons it should be compared to White Heat, The Untouchables, and The Godfather.  Yet, it stands apart because at its heart Miller’s Crossing is simply about the internal struggles of a single man.  It is encouraging to see a man who traverses life with unwavering conviction; he faces challenges and partakes of pleasure with equal measure.  Now sure he’s a gangster, so his “moral code” is self-defined; what I admire is the fullness of his commitment.  As I examine the concerns in my life, I wish that I had such commitment to my beliefs.  Or maybe I just wish that I could be a gangster.  Come to think of it, I believe that my brother Jon already said these same things about The Godfather.  And going back even further, I think Mark Twain may have touched upon these ideas…  What do they say about great minds?  

Inside Out

Inside Out is an expertly crafted movie, one that really tugs at your heartstrings; but I didn’t really like it.  The director Pete Docter also directed Monsters, Inc which is one of my favorite Pixar films.  Many comparisons could be made between these two movies, but Inside Out lacks one key element that made Monster, Inc so wonderful; joy.  Now sure, Inside Out features a character named Joy who is supposed to represent joy, but ultimately she’s conceited and irritating.  Likewise, Sadness comes across as indifferent and slothful more than sad. 

That being said, Docter and his team of animators did an excellent job conveying the intricacies of young girl’s psyche.  Visual representation of the mind and scenes in the outside world are cleverly edited together very effectively.   Technically and artistically the film may be perfect, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an enjoyable experience.  Monsters, Inc also exemplified creativity and skill, but most importantly it was entertaining.  The characters were funny, likable, and sympathetic.  I am fully aware that this review reveals a double standard that I exercise; I would never have criticized Schindler’s List for not being entertaining.  Perhaps I am being critical because I believe that this film has been misrepresented; it lacks the joy which each proceeding Pixar film has contained.

Jurassic World

Jurassic World comes up short in so many ways, but wins us over with real dinosaurs.  To a jaded 37 year old who first saw real dinosaurs 22 years ago it is nearly impossible to recreate the experience of Jurassic Park, but the new movie is represents a worthy effort.  Let’s start with Jurassic World’s shortcomings, then I will focus on what it got right. 

I wrote the previous paragraph a few weeks ago, obviously I was in a relatively upbeat mood.  The truth is this; Jurassic World is a microcosm of the world in which we all live.  This film is a cynical commentary on the gratuitous idiocy that pervades our country today.  Is there anyone who would really go to a place called Jurassic World after having seen the events of Jurassic Park?  Let me suggest that millions of people would line-up to buy tickets, it would be bigger than Disneyland, the Olympics, and an Ariana Grande concert put together.  The people in Jurassic World sure are dumb enough to go there, whether for work or vacation, does it really matter? 

Here’s how the movie is a microcosm of the world today: everyone is an idiot, and the ones who aren’t idiots have made idiotic choices and are surrounded by idiots.  The guy who by all rights should be the smartest person in the movie crashes his helicopter into an aviary filled with pterodactyls.  The next smartest person in the movie creates a super-predator using an amalgamation of the deadliest animals ever, all based on a memo (from the guy who kamikazed the pterodactyl enclosure).   Would I go too far by comparing our country’s leaders to those of Jurassic World?  Might you start to see the same lemming qualities exist in the general population as were on display in the movie? 

Let’s overlook 50+ years of human rights violations because their cigars are nice.  Let’s just bomb them to hell via remote control, because human life is cheap as long as it doesn’t affect polling numbers.  As I think of more examples, Coptic Christians, unborn children, race relations… I start to realize that the comparison starts to fall apart.  Our leader isn’t some arrogant idiot who wants to fly his own helicopter, rather he is unabashedly evil.  What does that say about us?  How accountable are we for the actions of the “smarter” men? 

We are the people of Jurassic World; happy-go-lucky, excited about “coupon day”, checking our cell phones while T-Rex chomps on the goat.  Bad stuff is going on all around us, some of it caused directly by our action/inaction.  But there’s enough good stuff to keep us happy, the TSA is keeping the bad guys out, so why worry?  Ever since they stopped my grandparents from carrying nail clippers on commercial flights the world has been a wonderful place.

This review wasn’t meant to solve any of the world’s problems and I realize that it hasn’t.  Jurassic World isn’t a huge success because it’s a scathing criticism of our country; it’s a huge success because it’s good clean fun.

Chappie, Furious 7, Avengers 2, and Mad Max

The four films I am reviewing today each rely heavily on special effects; two of them tell stories that require specific effects, one is a strange heartfelt tribute surrounded by illogical excess, and the last is simply a jumbled mess of ones and zeros colliding onscreen.

Let’s start with The Avengers 2, a movie that does little to establish its purpose for existence.  It tries to include a moral lesson; ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’, but no one seems to learn the lesson.  Towards the end of the movie Captain America gives Tony Stark a stern lecture about his failed attempt to single-handedly try to protect the world… Moments later the Captain is right back at Iron Man’s side, apparently doing it Tony Stark’s way is the ‘lesser of two evils’.  A better film would focus on the contradictions, acknowledging the impossibility of a flawed man’s ability to balance power with goodness.  Unfortunately The Avengers 2 was not this film, rather it was a mess of special effect – beautiful special effects, but a mess nonetheless.  I know that I’ve used this Jurassic Park reference before, but the special effects wizards on The Avengers 2 were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. 

Furious 7 was an interesting tribute to Paul Walker.  This movie was just as convoluted and unnecessary as parts 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the series have been, but then some of my favorite films of all time are convoluted and unnecessary (see Star Wars, Casino Royale, and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off).  I wish that sequels could all follow in The Godfather Part II’s footsteps – logical continuations of captivating stories.  Alas, that is not the world we live in.  Furious 7 is just what would be expected for a seventh installment of a franchise, with a heartwarming farewell to a character that we liked a long time ago, but had gotten lost in the crowd .

Chappie is the third Neill Blomkamp film that I’ve seen, and it suggests that his best is yet to come.  I say this because I really liked his approach to District 9, but thought that he took somewhat of a step back in Elysium.  With Chappie he corrected the errors of Elysium, and refocused his attention on story and character.  Special effects are extremely important in the stories that Blomkamp is telling, yet he seems to understand which should be the focus and which should be in the supporting role.  I also liked that Blomkamp focused on characters that are so unique; it seems to be a greater challenge to convince an audience to care for such odd people, but it’s so much more interesting.  Hopefully Blomkamp is able to keep his priorities in order and retain his style as he delves into the Alien universe.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a wonderful spectacle of cinematography.  The art design, stunt work, and the linear storytelling all combine to deliver an entertaining experience.  Hopefully, this simple, to-the-point review is the best way to convey how I felt about this film.

Whiplash

While Whiplash isn't the most recent of this year's Best Picture nominees to be seen by me, I decided to save it for my final review of the eight films being considered.  Rarely does a film deliver so completely on the promise it makes.  What I mean is this; the first two acts of a film deserve a final act that brings the purpose of the film home.  That doesn't necessarily mean a happy ending, or tying-up all loose ends; rather it means that there is a perfect ending to every film.  I would suggest that only one in a thousand films ever get close, and Whiplash has definitely accomplished this better than any other film this past year.  There were a few times throughout the film when I wondered "where is this going?"  Even ten minutes before the movie ended I could see that there were many possible outcomes, but never would have envisioned the one that played out.  Yet I don't want to leave the impression that a great ending makes up for a bad movie; it will never be so.  No Country for Old Men, The Godfather, and The Village; these are all great films that captivate you from start to finish, they pull you in and then end precisely where they should.  Whiplash is about a young man obsessed with being a great drummer.  Not only does he dream of this, he has talent and the work ethic to pursue his dream.  There is one man who may be the catalyst to his dream or may be the insurmountable obstacle.  The man is played by J.K. Simmons as a jazz band conductor who verbally and emotionally abuses his students.  Other reviewers have described his character as a monster, and I tend to agree.  That confronting a monster could be necessary to achieving one's dreams is an interesting subtext to this film. 

The two films that I would ever want to see again that were nominated for best picture this year are The Grand Budapest Hotel and Whiplash, with Whiplash being the best film of the bunch.  The worst film was far and away American Sniper, which is too bad because it really could have been a powerful film, and with its popularity Clint Eastwood really missed an opportunity.  Alright, well back to homework, hopefully I'll get to review movies more regularly in the coming year.

Birdman

Rob and I took a gamble yesterday afternoon, braving the wintry conditions to see Birdman, hoping to beat the blizzard.  Rob remembers the storm of '97 when he got stuck at work for days in a row (he wasn't happy).  I tried to console him, pointing out that getting stuck at a movie theater would be awesome; they'd have to feed us, let us see all the movies, and probably give us cool stuff too – I was almost hoping to get snowed-in.  To make a long story short, we saw Birdman, and made it home safely, just ahead of the snow… too bad.

Michael Keaton was excellent in Birdman, as was everyone else; Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton et al.  Going into the film I was not aware that it would flow together as one extended shot; obviously an elaborate trick in the editing room, yet still quite impressive.  That aside, it was a remarkable, singular experience that was entertaining in the moment, but fails to leave any reason to recommend it.  Keaton plays a washed-up version of himself, whose main claim to fame was a role as Birdman, an obvious allusion to Keaton's role as Batman.  Keaton's character has financed, adapted, is directing and is starring in a Broadway play, in the hopes of validating a life which otherwise is defined by the shallowest commercialism of Hollywood.  The film should be a satire, pointing out the emptiness of acting regardless of stage of silver screen.  While elements of that film exist, it never quite goes far enough, being content in the story it tells instead of acknowledging the lessons that could be learned.  I hope that the filmmakers understand the irony that they have made a shallow movie about a man who is looking to escape the shallowness of movies.

Selma

I must admit that certain things I had heard kept Selma off my list of desired viewing.  That I liked the film should remind me that other people quite often have poor taste, and low expectations are more easily exceeded (I think that's a paraphrase of Homer Simpson).  There are three elements to Selma which I believe contribute to it being a successful film; scope, casting, and heart.  By focusing on one chapter in Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, the events in Selma Alabama, the film captures King's contribution to mankind without trying to be a biography.  David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King Jr. was spot-on, delivering speeches with measured charisma and portraying King as a man who struggled with his burden in the private moments with his wife and close friends.  Never did King seem to give into his struggles; rather he was encouraged by those who God placed in positions of advisors.  I liked that he was bold and a strong leader, yet humble enough to submit when wisdom came from various sources.  The heart of the film is a genuine honoring of King's commitment to stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves.  Even though there were plenty of opportunities for King to derail, he stayed true to his beliefs, and I think that the film followed his example.

The Imitation Game

I usually try to avoid movie trailers because they too often negate the necessity of actually watching the movie (and I like watching movies).  Sometimes the trailer is actually superior to the film, as with American Sniper and any of the Iron Man movies.  I mention this because I had seen the trailer for The Imitation Game, which essentially is a summary of the entire film.  Sure the trailer doesn't emphasize how being different, specifically being a homosexual, gave the main character an advantage; the ability to solve a problem that saved many lives and helped the Allies win World War II.  The performances are sound, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Alan Turing (the father of computers) as a socially awkward genius, quite similar to his Sherlock Holmes role, but with a bit more humanity.  The supporting characters aren't really very interesting, but contribute what is necessary to the film.  The stand-out element of the film comes in the form of flashbacks, as we see a young man who befriended Turing in his boarding school days.  The kindness and encouragement that Turing received from this older student had an important impact on the man he becomes.  Unfortunately the depth and thoughtfulness that is depicted in these flashbacks doesn't carry over into the rest of the movie.  If you've seen the trailer, there is no need to go an further.

The Theory of Everything

Jess, Ashley, Jude and I watched The Theory of Everything this past week.  It's nice to be able to sit down with family and watch a good movie, one that inspires interest in characters and questions about the specific events portrayed within.  I had preconceived notions about this film, knowing something of the story already and assuming that it would be very favorable towards its main character.  The film is about Stephen Hawking, the gifted physicist who has long suffered from motor neurone disease.  Hawking has been a leader in modern Cosmology, hypothesizing "that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science" (hawking.org.uk). The Theory of Everything is about three different struggles that go on simultaneously in Hawking's life; his illness, his scientific research, and his relationship with his wife.  It is tragic that he can never triumph in any of these struggles without it negatively affecting the others.  When he finally finds someone who can help him overcome his physical limitations, he abandons his wife for her.  I am simplifying the film of course; it is quite thoughtful in its portrayal of Hawking, and the people in his life who care for him.  I was surprised by his wife's commitment to her belief in God, even when her husband seemed intent on disproving God's existence, she didn't seem concerned.  What is interesting is that work done by Hawking and his counterparts in the scientific community is quite often amazing; only their preconceptions keep them from the truth.  Towards the end of the film Hawking is giving a lecture, and encourages the audience by telling them that even though they are insignificant little specs in an immense universe, there's something very special about each person.  In one of the next movies I review, Selma, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s friends reminds him that if God cares about the birds "Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26).  Isn't it interesting that Stephen Hawking intellectually came to the same conclusion, unfortunately he just doesn't believe it.

Boyhood

Jess and I watched Boyhood about a week ago, and while it wasn't a great film, it definitely is a memorable one.  As you probably know, Richard Linklater filmed Boyhood over a twelve year span, which means that the same actors actually age twelve years over the course of this 2 ½ hour film.  This alone makes the film memorable; even with the best special effects artists it is impossible for makeup to portray the passage of time as convincingly as the actual passage of time.  This twelve year experiment is not entirely successful; partly because it is distracting, and partly because it lacks continuity.  The exception to this analysis is Ethan Hawke's performance; he plays the father to Mason (the boy referenced in the title).  Instead of being distracted by physical aging, we see the consistency that exists in his relationship to Mason over the twelve years.    Perhaps what this film most clearly demonstrates is that experiments and gimmicks are unnecessary in filmmaking – a good story, good dialogue, and a great actor is all you need.  

The Grand Budapest Hotel

This will be the first of seven brief reviews that I will post today; with these seven reviews I will have covered each of the films nominated for best picture from the past year.  In my final review I will reveal which film is my choice to win tonight.

I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel almost a year ago, and I must have been too busy to write a review at the time.  It's somewhat surprising to me that this film is nominated for best picture, but as you will discover in my other reviews of the nominees The Grand Budapest Hotel deserves this recognition more than a few others.  I've enjoyed each of Wes Anderson's films, I think that he made one great Oscar-worthy film, but this isn't it.  But maybe that is the wrong way to look at it…  This film shouldn't be compared against prior work, but on to other films also nominated this year.  Here is a film that is funny, has a vivid color palette (which matches the film's atmosphere), entertaining, and quirky.  That it doesn't have substance keeps it from being one of Anderson's best, but maybe just being entertaining will be enough to give Anderson the win this year.  Anderson does an excellent job of presenting characters that are interesting and unique.  While the backdrop changes between each of his films, he always zeros-in on the most fascinating people.  The Grand Budapest Hotel has a pulse, it is alive.  This is one of two movies nominated this year that I'd ever want to watch again, and that definitely is more important to me than who wins the title of Best Picture.

American Sniper

Clint Eastwood's American Sniper is an odd blend of themes and genres that have been covered before, but this specific combination left me feeling unsettled.  There are elements of an action movie here which draw a stark contrast to the thoughtful character study.  In his earlier film Gran Torino, Eastwood found the right balance, keeping a tight focus on the protagonist's perspective.  With the current film, we the audience are outside observers, never quite understanding what is motivating the characters onscreen.  Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, a Navy sniper who is credited as being the most deadly sniper in American history.  The film follows Kyle as he struggled through an aimless early adulthood, a period which was abruptly interrupted when an attack against America prompted him to join the military.  By the time September 11^th arrives and American troops are called upon to take the fight abroad, Kyle has become an expert Seal sniper.  These introductory chapters are rather simplistic in explaining Kyle's motivation.  A sense of patriotism is paired with the philosophy that there are three kinds of people; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. 

Kyle's fellow Seals and Marines are portrayed without much depth, their behavior and dialogue is reminiscent of action movies – without the humorous banter of a 90s Schwarzenegger movie.  Kyle is portrayed by Cooper as focused and brooding; I specifically used the word brooding even though I believe that the intent was to convey introspection.  He snaps back at those who celebrate kills on the battlefield, and is uncomfortable with gratitude he receives for his service.  While the Kyle character claims that his motivation is saving American lives and fighting evil, it is never adequately explained how it was possible for him to take so many lives and keep his sanity.  Perhaps it was just me, but there seemed to be an elephant in the room with every return trip to Iraq; was Kyle's sense of duty the only reason he kept killing?  I am reminded of a film that was not hesitant to address this question; Patton acknowledged that war defined the man, not only would Patton have not fulfilled his purpose without war, he also loved it.  I left American Sniper unsettled because I didn't know the answer to that one question.  Perhaps Eastwood intended for me to feel this way, knowing that a successful film should be thought-provoking.

Beyond the unanswered question, Eastwood's direction, focus, and editing choices seemed to be lacking.  Scenes that should have been gut-wrenchingly powerful, specifically ones that included violence directed at women and children were poorly executed.  At a moment that should have established Kyle's righteous anger towards a brutal Iraqi leader, the focus instead is on his rivalry with an enemy sniper.  Other films such as the 2008 Rambo, and Tears of the Sun exposed audiences to horrific atrocities, scenes that were difficult to watch.  Those moments were meant to both provide motivation for characters in the respective films, but more importantly remind us of the evil in the real world that must be fought.  Clint Eastwood is unsuccessful at portraying violence in this film with that deeper purpose, even though that seems to be his intent.  This film is far from perfect in its execution, yet the discussions it will prompt and the depiction of a true American hero (flaws and all) make this an important film.

Life Itself

Life Itself was a disappointment for two reasons; it didn't focus on the best attributes of its subject, and it revealed a hopeless emptiness which was quite depressing.  This film is a documentary based on Roger Ebert's autobiography, filmed primarily in Ebert's hospital room as he neared death.  Having not read the autobiography, I can only assume that it is more insightful and optimistic than this film.  The shroud of death and Ebert's painful struggle with cancer overshadow other aspects of his life; instead of focusing on what made Ebert great, this film documents his final days.  That would be alright if the final chapter in Ebert's time on earth was inspirational or poignant.  As Ebert struggled to communicate verbally, and eventually lost his ability to speak, he poured all his energy into blogging.  Ebert kept on reviewing an extraordinary number of films up to the end of his life, viewing the films at home and posting reviews online.  His website, RogerEbert.com was updated during this time to contain all the reviews he had ever written (he began officially on 1967).  While his film reviews will be his lasting legacy, little attention was given to explaining what makes them so important.  Steve James, the director operates under premise that Ebert was a great film reviewer and focuses primarily on his daily routines and the impressions of his friends and associates.  Instead of being a documentary, Life Itself works more as an obituary.  In the end the emptiness of Ebert's life is clearly apparent; James tries his best to spin the final scenes as peaceful and beautiful, yet they deliver tragic hopelessness.  A summary of this film would simply be; well-known Chicago film critic dies after long struggle with cancer.

As someone who loves reading Roger Ebert's film criticism and grew up enjoying Siskel and Ebert's "At the Movies" television program, Life Itself was a letdown.  Unfortunately I realize that the man behind the curtain is bound to be a disappointment.  Perhaps I should praise Life Itself for being an honest representation of the man Roger Ebert.  Still it makes me sad.

Hoop Dreams

I've wanted to watch Hoop Dreams for about twenty years, and yesterday I finally did.  In those twenty years I have seen quite a few movies, including Speed 2 and a live-action version of Alvin and the Chipmunks.  Why do I waste my time with such garbage when films like Hoop Dreams remain unwatched?  There's no good answer to that question, so let me simply discuss a great film and pretend that those other ones never existed.

Film can be a powerful medium, whether the images have been manipulated to illicit a specific reaction, or as in the case of Hoop Dreams is used as a window into an otherwise unseen world.  High school basketball is the backdrop of this film, but it is really about choices, attitudes, family, and consequences… life.  There was a point early in the film that prompted my suspicion; "are the filmmakers only showing one side of the story?"   As the film unfolds naturally, chronologically, my doubts were dispelled.  The film doesn't show contrasting points of view as one might expect in a political debate, instead it becomes clear that life isn't always that clear cut.  The film follows two boys from Chicago, William and Arthur, each playing on a competing high school basketball teams.  William's coach seems more interested in winning basketball games than in building the character of his players.  I got this impression from the things William said about him and from his own words during onscreen interviews.  Yet he is a basketball coach, tasked with generating revenue for the school.  Also, he does instill strong values and has high expectations of his players.  While I ended up not liking him, I believe that I came to that conclusion myself.  A great documentary has something you need to see – it shouldn't tell you what to think, if it shows you something true then it doesn't have to.

I finally got around to watching Hoop Dreams because it was considered to be "the great American documentary" by Roger Ebert.  Another film I have been looking forward to is Life Itself, a documentary about Ebert by the filmmaker of Hoop Dreams.  It just seemed natural to watch the one before the other.  I will let you know what I think about the more recent film soon (hopefully it'll take less than twenty years).

The Hobbit Part 3

My experience watching The Hobbit Part 3 was reminiscent of cross country races I formerly participated in.  Having been to one, I knew what to expect – an arduous journey that is only truly satisfying when it is finally over.  Cross country was character building and established friendships during an important chapter in my life.  The Hobbit trilogy has given my family a shared annual event, something to look forward to and enjoy together.  Yet neither the cross country or the Hobbit movies provide anything but agony and despair – merely they were the conduits which linked me to something good.

Alright, I recognize that "agony and despair" is a slight overstatement.  I remember good things about cross county; running through the woods, passing a few people, (those are the only two I can think of right now).  Similarly, the Hobbit trilogy provided a few bright moments; Bilbo and Gollum in the cave was pretty cool, Bilbo and Smaug in the cave was pretty cool, and hearing a familiar exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf from a different point of view in the third film was also pretty cool.  But really, 8 ½ + hours of video for 10 minutes of enjoyment, that seems unreasonable to me.

It's not Peter Jackson's fault that the Hobbit trilogy is so bad, it's our fault.  The Lord of the Rings was written, filmed, and edited with a sense of desperation that had previously made Star Wars great.  With a limited budget, limited resources, writers and actors who are passionate about the material, and one's own money and reputation on the line, films like The Fellowship of the Ring and A New Hope are possible.  Unfortunately, in both George Lucas' and Peter Jackson's cases, without the previously mentioned limitations, when left to their own devices, the results are disastrous.  Our consumption of the Lord of the Rings trilogy emboldened Jackson to morph into someone who would feel comfortable releasing the Hobbit movies.  Had we only known what we know now, perhaps things would be different.  Think of the artists who toil an entire lifetime, never achieving fame or fortune, yet their works are "discovered" years later to much acclaim.  Wouldn't it have been better to pretend that we didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, forcing Jackson to struggle against all odds to get The Hobbit made?  Then perhaps, just maybe, it would be a much better film.

Before I close, I realize that this may be one of the worst movie reviews ever written; I haven't even discussed the movie itself.  The movie begins at a moment that assumes a recent viewing of the previous Hobbit entry.  In a better series that assumption might be appropriate (i.e. The Two Towers), but here it's simply confusing.  The characters in this film are so bland and indistinguishable (other than Bilbo) that they could be compared to extras in Schwarzenegger films from the 80s…  The AK-47 wielding enemies in Commando were never meant to evoke our sympathy; they existed only as M60-fodder.  Unfortunately everyone in the Hobbit movies feels like that.  Even the central characters Gandalf and Bilbo, who are protected by chronology, all too often get lost in the mess.  And the movie is a mess, not as bad as the last one, but that isn't saying much.  Battles within battles, so much fighting and enemies coming from every direction, without any substantive narrative.  Maybe it's just me, but good guys fighting bad guys does not make for a good storyline.  At least in Commando Schwarzenegger is on a mission to rescue his daughter.  The Hobbit movies offer no such motivation.  Unless I am mistaken, everyone is fighting over a really big pile of gold -- is no one concerned about inflation in Middle Earth?  That much coin injected into their economy will devalue everything.

Like a grueling cross country race, I am glad that the Hobbit trilogy is over. 

Interstellar

One of the most entertaining lectures I've been to involved a Physicist attempting to explain Einstein's theory of relativity.  It was entertaining for two reasons; the first being that few people can wrap their minds around the same things Einstein wrestled with, and the lecturer wasn't one of those people.  The other point of entertainment can best be summed up with the following quote:  "Neither of the two great pillars of modern physics — general relativity, which describes gravity as a curvature of space and time, and quantum mechanics, which governs the atomic realm — gives any account for the existence of space and time" (Merali).  Scientists painstakingly search for answers to fundamental questions, ignoring the explanation of Creation.

Let me be clear, science is extremely useful for understanding the intricacies of our universe.  Considering the relationship between space and time to be a fourth dimension is intuitive.  I believe that God is not constrained by it or any of the other three dimensions.  By that rationale I must conclude that there is a fifth dimension.  With his newest film Interstellar, Christopher Nolan takes us into this fifth dimension.  I guess ultimately I don't necessarily have a problem with there being a fifth dimension, only with how Nolan gets us there.

I wanted to seriously address the science behind this film, because I get the feeling that Interstellar will be held up as a "realistic" example in discussions about relativity and spacetime phenomena.  Nolan previously explored the complexity of human memory in one of my favorite films Memento.  In that film we saw the world in brief, disoriented segments, simulating the short term memory loss which plagued the protagonist.  Nolan is equally successful in portraying the complexity of spacetime theory through the eyes of a heroic farmer.  That's saying quite a bit, because the challenge undertaken in Interstellar is far greater than that of Memento.

It is unnecessary to comment on the film's technical merits, because they are flawless.  Upon first glance, certain sequences, such as the spinning earth or box robots may seem odd – but it's all amazingly spot-on.  The effects have been carefully designed to match the theory discussed by the characters; this is the film's strength and its weakness.  As with any work of fiction, it is important that the visuals support the dialogue to effectively tell a story.  On the other hand, if your premise is lacking, if the science is full of holes, then the matching visuals will come across as hokey.  Nolan's film doesn't become absurd due to poor filmmaking; on the contrary, it's excellent filmmaking that follows an absurd idea to its logical conclusion.

What I don't like about Nolan taking us into the fifth dimension, is the suggestion that man can achieve the position of God, without even acknowledging the existence of God.  I would suggest that certain parts of the Bible offer a view free from the constraints of time and space.  The idea that God existed before creation informs me that both time and space are elements which have origin… and I don't pretend to understand what "before time" looked like.  Nolan's exploration of these concepts without the inclusion of God may look pretty amazing, but ultimately it is an exercise in futility. 

Merali, Zeeya  Theoretical Physics: The Origins of Space and Time  Nature.com

Gone Girl (and other movies too)

I realize that it has been five months since I wrote a review about a new movie.  In that "missing time" I have seen four movies in the theater; Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Sin City 2, and Gone Girl.  I took two classes over the summer which might partly explain the decrease in movie watching, but honestly there haven't been many movies that I've wanted to see. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes struck me as an extraordinary technical achievement in filmmaking.  The techniques which were used to bring Gollum to life in The Lord of the Rings have been improved significantly.  This movie represents a milestone; human characters and their effect-generated counterparts will become indistinguishable. 

Guardians of the Galaxy fulfilled its promise of being entertaining; which is saying quite a bit these days.  In an environment oversaturated by comic book movies/television shows, this was overall a refreshing deviation from the norm.  Sure it followed well traveled clichés, but the characters and the landscape set it apart.  I will still contend that it would be difficult to make a movie starring a raccoon named Rocket that isn't entertaining.

Sin City 2 followed the amazingly crafted visual experience of Sin City with a blasé, messy, pointless jumble of a movie.  Seriously the only thing this movie does well is reaffirm the notion that sequels are unnecessary.

I went to see Gone Girl last night.  I had seen the poster, but I have avoided any other contact with promotional material.  When David Fincher makes a movie I prefer to see it uncontaminated by spoilers.  Gone Girl will be studied for years to come as an example of mastery in film editing.  Fincher weaves an elaborate mystery, revealing each new piece of information exactly when it best contributes to the overall effect.  The opening dialogue is unsettling, but doesn't quite sink-in until halfway through the film.  Or at least it seems to make sense at the halfway point, when in fact the whole movie is necessary to truly understand.  Rarely have I been so manipulated by storytelling techniques as I was last night, and it wasn't until later that I understood the extent.  As long as you don't realize that you're being manipulated in the moment, it can be a good thing (in filmmaking).  Thanks to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' contribution to this film, I also experienced one of the tensest sequences ever filmed.  The sequence I'm referring to was simply a revelation by one of the main characters, but the dialogue, the film editing and the sound design all contributed to enhance the tension.  I feel compelled to include the following statement:  As I said before, this is a David Fincher film, so no matter what qualities I mentioned previously, it's still a Fincher film.

P.S.  I saw the trailer for Clint Eastwood's newest film American Sniper.  I can only assume that Eastwood must have overseen the editing of the trailer, because it is probably the most powerful trailer that I've ever seen.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock*

Well over a year ago the kids and I began watching MacGyver, episode by episode.  Early this summer we finally finished watching the entire series including two made-for-TV movies.  We decided to begin a new series together and have begun watching Star Trek Enterprise, which to those unfamiliar with the premise, takes place chronologically before the events of the 1960's television program.  Last week we watched the newest Star Trek film Into Darkness, which led to some questions about conflicting timelines and character roles brought about by the reboot.  Since we had watched The Wrath of Khan quite a while ago, I thought that revisiting the original series, picking-up with The Search for Spock would be interesting, and answer some questions.  As the end titles rolled, and the "MCMLXXXIV" copyright appeared I began to wonder about my own Star Trek experience.  I definitely remember seeing Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in the theater with my dad; I would have been about nine years old when it was released.  I know that I saw The Wrath of Khan (which was Star Trek II) at a relatively early age, because the Earwigs still stir-up memories of fear.  But I didn't see it in the theater during its original theatrical release because I would have only been five years old, therefore I must have seen it on VHS or during some re-release.  I honestly don't know which I saw first, and I'm not sure which of the other original cast films I have ever seen.  Add to that a very spotty viewing record of the original television series; I know that I haven't seen more than half the episodes, and surely they have been out of order.  My grasp of the Star Trek canon is extremely limited, now that I stop and think about it.  That being said, I am perfectly content with my knowledge of the subject, and I enjoy exploring new episodes and films with my children.  I am intrigued by the concept that their experience is similarly jumbled as mine, yet significantly different as well.  I hope that years from now they can share Star Trek with their children too --  that is if the can overcome the "nerd" stereotype as I have.

*My review of Star Trek III:  The Search for Spock is simply this:  Couldn't they have named it something else, allowing for some element of surprise when Spock is discovered?...  oh I'm sorry, I should have said "Spoiler Alert!"

Captain America 2 and Agents of Shield

     The kids and I have been watching Agents of Shield each Wednesday night (we DVR it while I'm at work on Tuesday).  When I first heard of an Avengers television show which featured absolutely no super-heroes, I had my doubts.  To my surprise, the series has much in common with the best Marvel movies, specifically dynamic characters.  Agents of Shield reminds me of the television I watched when I was a kid, when writers weren't above including positive messages and inspirational characters on the little screen.  I appreciate shows like Sherlock and Breaking Bad that have broken the barriers between television and film.  Typically I prefer television that reflects effort on the part of its creators instead of the in-between-commercials-filler which makes up 98% of TV today. While Agents of Shield is definitely a marketing ploy, it is also refreshingly fun.  Shows from the 80s like G.I. Joe and Knight Rider had to be entertaining first and foremost, but because they were so intrinsically goofy, the writers attempted to redeem themselves by incorporating virtuous characters and uplifting storylines.  Perhaps I'm being naïve; it is very likely that the positive elements were included to evade FCC regulation of shows which were basically toy commercials for kids.  Regardless, I have fond memories of those shows, and Agents of Shield stirs up those good feelings.

Captain America 2 follows the same playbook that inspires its small screen cousin Agents of Shield.  The cynical worldview which enshrouds The Dark Knight series has no place in Captain America's universe.  Sure there's evil, and corruption, but Captain America's commitment to justice is not swayed by such annoyances.  I like how Cap's boy scout attitude is revered; the filmmakers don't shy away from portraying him as a true American hero.  It is a fine line to establish that allows supporting characters to point-out, and sometimes mock Cap's values, yet through his composure and integrity he retains the audience's admiration.  Fittingly those who derided Captain America either came full circle and were inspired by him, or they were revealed as villains.  Throw into the mix a healthy dose of criticism against the current President's reliance on drones and sweeping surveillance, and Captain America 2 is a thoroughly entertaining film.  Were there super heroes and special effects and explosions?  I think so, but I like Captain America because he was a hero before he got any super powers.

I thought it fitting to review Agents of Shield along with Captain America 2 because their plots intertwine.  Developments in the film directly impacted the very next episode of the television show (which was mid-season).  I don't think there's been such a tie-in before, and it's been fascinating to watch.

*Fascinating may have been too strong a word -- but it's more catchy than the word interesting.