Hey kids, let's make a new King Kong movie.
It's been a long 12 years since the last King Kong remake. Is this the remake you were waiting for?
I'll give nothing away by saying that the movie is about a giant ape fighting helicopters and giant lizards. And that's pretty much it.
There's a racially diverse cast of people to watch get killed in unpleasant ways.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson in on hand mainly because there has to be a woman in a King Kong movie and she can fill out a tee shirt pretty well.
Tom Hiddleson plays a mercenary guide hired apparently for his jungle tracking skills. Which would surly be needed on what was supposed to be a mapping survey of an unknown island.
Samuel L. Jackson is there because they needed a barely in control crazy guy to lead the obviously hopeless fight against Kong.
The movie was OK for what it was. The special effects were great. Kong was very life-like. The monster fights were, for the most part, whirlwinds of hard to follow activity.
Large stretches of the movie made little sense. The expedition arrives at Skull Island on board a ship with three helicopters parked on it. The ship can't get near shore because there is a permanent storm raging all around the island. So they plan to fly through the storm on the helicopters, which are Vietnam War era gun ships (the story takes place in 1973). The three helicopters take off and some how turn into a fleet of 13. Question: can the doors on helicopter gunships be closed? They fly into the storm with all the doors open, and somehow, everyone isn't soaking wet when they land.
Remember the 2014 movie "Godzilla"? Neither do I, but "Kong Skull Island", while not a sequel, is the second film in the "Monsterverse". The next film, due in 2020 will be called, wait for it, "Godzilla vs. King Kong".
The music is all "Apocalypse Now" with the Doors and Credence Clearwater Revival blaring loudly.
If you're the kind of person who likes to sit through the credits, you'll be rewarded, but you'll have to to have patience. I estimate that nearly 100,000 people were involved in the making of this movie and every single one of them is named in the credits.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Movie Review - The Accountant
Autistic accountant in shootout. Kills everybody, balances the books.
I chose to use this poster for the movie, rather than one featuring Affleck with a rifle that shoots air craft shells for a reason considering the dual nature of the film. The scene in the poster has been featured in the trailers in a 'meet cute' scene between Affleck and Kendrick and a pocket protector and is part of the better half of the movie.
The movie has two sides. One is about Christopher Wolff, autistic accountant to the world's global bad guys, like international drug dealers, arms merchants and insurgents, and US Treasury agent Ray King's (J. K. Simmons) attempt to find him. It's a taut drama, partially told in flashback, which helps explain Affleck's character. Thrown into the mix is actress Anna Kendrick, who as Dana Cummings, an accountant at a bioscience company, finds some accounting irregularity. Wolff, who occasionally takes a legit client as camouflage, is hired by the president and founder of the company to confirm what Cummings finds. Accounting may seem like a dull subject for a movie, but Affleck plays Wolff with such drive that even watching him mumble is exciting. This is all played well with enough twists, in both the investigation of the company and the chase by Treasury, that the story stays interesting.
Unfortunately, the makers of this movie, apparently didn't think this story was interesting enough. So the other side of the movie is basically a first person shooter, with the dead-eyed Wolff carrying an enormous rifle capable of shooting a melon at a mile away. And putting large holes in anything much closer.
As I get older I find gratuitous movie violence more distasteful. It was my main complaint about "The Magnificent Seven" which we saw last week. This gripe mainly only refers to movies set in realistic locales without men and women in tights flying about shooting lightening bolts from their finger tips.
Considering Wollf's clientele, some violence was probably necessary, but I think they could have lost a few hundred rounds of ammunition and focused some more on the uncomfortable budding relationship between Cummings and Wolff. I'm not a big fan of Anna Kendrick but the movie set up an interesting character for her and then gave her nothing much to do except make wise cracks ("What kind of accountant are you?!") and look cute.
The reviews for the movie seem split about 50/50 between those who thought the movie was smart and those who thought it was dumb. We liked the movie and thought Affleck was pretty good. I don't know much about autism so I can't speak anything about his portrayal as one. It's too bad that the movie was only half-smart.
I chose to use this poster for the movie, rather than one featuring Affleck with a rifle that shoots air craft shells for a reason considering the dual nature of the film. The scene in the poster has been featured in the trailers in a 'meet cute' scene between Affleck and Kendrick and a pocket protector and is part of the better half of the movie.
The movie has two sides. One is about Christopher Wolff, autistic accountant to the world's global bad guys, like international drug dealers, arms merchants and insurgents, and US Treasury agent Ray King's (J. K. Simmons) attempt to find him. It's a taut drama, partially told in flashback, which helps explain Affleck's character. Thrown into the mix is actress Anna Kendrick, who as Dana Cummings, an accountant at a bioscience company, finds some accounting irregularity. Wolff, who occasionally takes a legit client as camouflage, is hired by the president and founder of the company to confirm what Cummings finds. Accounting may seem like a dull subject for a movie, but Affleck plays Wolff with such drive that even watching him mumble is exciting. This is all played well with enough twists, in both the investigation of the company and the chase by Treasury, that the story stays interesting.
Unfortunately, the makers of this movie, apparently didn't think this story was interesting enough. So the other side of the movie is basically a first person shooter, with the dead-eyed Wolff carrying an enormous rifle capable of shooting a melon at a mile away. And putting large holes in anything much closer.
As I get older I find gratuitous movie violence more distasteful. It was my main complaint about "The Magnificent Seven" which we saw last week. This gripe mainly only refers to movies set in realistic locales without men and women in tights flying about shooting lightening bolts from their finger tips.
Considering Wollf's clientele, some violence was probably necessary, but I think they could have lost a few hundred rounds of ammunition and focused some more on the uncomfortable budding relationship between Cummings and Wolff. I'm not a big fan of Anna Kendrick but the movie set up an interesting character for her and then gave her nothing much to do except make wise cracks ("What kind of accountant are you?!") and look cute.
The reviews for the movie seem split about 50/50 between those who thought the movie was smart and those who thought it was dumb. We liked the movie and thought Affleck was pretty good. I don't know much about autism so I can't speak anything about his portrayal as one. It's too bad that the movie was only half-smart.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Movie Review - Suicide Squad
I was warned but I went to see "Suicide Squad" anyway.
This is one of those movies that the critics hate and the fans love. The critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 26% while the fan rating is 71%.
I'm well aware that the world doesn't need yet another bad review of "Suicide Squad". So I'll just keep this short. The first 2/3rds were kinda boring. The last 1/3rd was all bullets flying, shit blowing up, lightening bolts, and the film makers heavy handed attempts to rouse some sympathy for the psychopathic main characters.
This is one of those movies that the critics hate and the fans love. The critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 26% while the fan rating is 71%.
I'm well aware that the world doesn't need yet another bad review of "Suicide Squad". So I'll just keep this short. The first 2/3rds were kinda boring. The last 1/3rd was all bullets flying, shit blowing up, lightening bolts, and the film makers heavy handed attempts to rouse some sympathy for the psychopathic main characters.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Movie Review - Star Trek Beyond
"I'm not a Trekkie, I'm just married to one" - my wife.
If you read my blog (and thanks, if you do!) then you know that I am a Star Trek fan. I've been a fan since 1966. I don't have rubber pointed ears, nor am I a master of deep Star Trek trivia, but I'm a big fan just the same.
I liked the first two movies of the new series. I thought that they did a good job, with a clever premise to resurrect the series with a younger cast. I wrote in my review of Star Trek Into Darkness that the reviewers didn't seem to really get the movie. I find that to be a problem in general with reviews of science fiction films.
I read 5-6 reviews of "Beyond" before we saw it today. I mostly agree with them and for the same reasons. There is a lot of action in this film, the Enterprise gets cut to ribbons, (not a spoiler if you've seen any of the trailers), and perhaps the rescue mission and getting a derelict starship to fly again were a little beyond (get it) belief, but the director and the writers got a lot right.
What they got right were the characters, and this was mostly what the reviewers liked. The emotional heart and soul of the original show was always the characters, not the techo-babble, not the aliens, not even the Enterprise. Gene Roddenberry knew that right from the start. The producers of this series know that as well, and they do an exceptional job with the characters here.
A lot of Roddenberry's vision of a peaceful future shows through here as well. The central bad guy, Krall (played by Idris Elba with 20 pounds of rubber on his face) hates the Federation. He says "Your Union is what makes you weak". But Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise use their union as a crew to defeat him.
I also thought that the main story was resolved very well. Why does Krall hate the Federation so? It's not at all revealed in the trailers but it's a good, and believable, story. Also several character stories get resolved. Kirk, wondering what he's doing out in space; Spock, having to choose between his Vulcan heritage or staying with the Enterprise; the Spock-Uhura affair. Good, good, and good.
Some of the trailers show some fantastic architecture. These shots take place on Yorktown, a Federation built city in space, built into a sphere. You only get a glimpse in the trailers but the scenes of it in the movie are almost breathtaking.
Here's just one example of where the reviewers just don't get it. This is a minor spoiler if you haven't read any reviews. How did the the Enterprise crew use the Beastie Boys to destroy the alien drones? The reviewers were mystified. It was explained, with a lot of techo-babble to be sure, but it was explained. And the bit was set up much earlier in the movie. Dr. McCoy "Is that clasical music?" Spock, after a pause "I believe it is, Doctor".
If you read my blog (and thanks, if you do!) then you know that I am a Star Trek fan. I've been a fan since 1966. I don't have rubber pointed ears, nor am I a master of deep Star Trek trivia, but I'm a big fan just the same.
I liked the first two movies of the new series. I thought that they did a good job, with a clever premise to resurrect the series with a younger cast. I wrote in my review of Star Trek Into Darkness that the reviewers didn't seem to really get the movie. I find that to be a problem in general with reviews of science fiction films.
I read 5-6 reviews of "Beyond" before we saw it today. I mostly agree with them and for the same reasons. There is a lot of action in this film, the Enterprise gets cut to ribbons, (not a spoiler if you've seen any of the trailers), and perhaps the rescue mission and getting a derelict starship to fly again were a little beyond (get it) belief, but the director and the writers got a lot right.
What they got right were the characters, and this was mostly what the reviewers liked. The emotional heart and soul of the original show was always the characters, not the techo-babble, not the aliens, not even the Enterprise. Gene Roddenberry knew that right from the start. The producers of this series know that as well, and they do an exceptional job with the characters here.
A lot of Roddenberry's vision of a peaceful future shows through here as well. The central bad guy, Krall (played by Idris Elba with 20 pounds of rubber on his face) hates the Federation. He says "Your Union is what makes you weak". But Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise use their union as a crew to defeat him.
I also thought that the main story was resolved very well. Why does Krall hate the Federation so? It's not at all revealed in the trailers but it's a good, and believable, story. Also several character stories get resolved. Kirk, wondering what he's doing out in space; Spock, having to choose between his Vulcan heritage or staying with the Enterprise; the Spock-Uhura affair. Good, good, and good.
Some of the trailers show some fantastic architecture. These shots take place on Yorktown, a Federation built city in space, built into a sphere. You only get a glimpse in the trailers but the scenes of it in the movie are almost breathtaking.
Here's just one example of where the reviewers just don't get it. This is a minor spoiler if you haven't read any reviews. How did the the Enterprise crew use the Beastie Boys to destroy the alien drones? The reviewers were mystified. It was explained, with a lot of techo-babble to be sure, but it was explained. And the bit was set up much earlier in the movie. Dr. McCoy "Is that clasical music?" Spock, after a pause "I believe it is, Doctor".
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Movie Review: Batman V. Superman
Although I enjoy the Marvel Universe movies, I was a DC kid growing up, and Superman was always my favorite super hero. That's why I had to see "Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice".
I'm very much of a different opinion than many of the movie critics. We went into this expecting to not like the movie but my wife and I loved it. After seeing the film, I'm convinced that some of the reviews were based on the trailers rather than the actual movie.
In the comics, Batman and Superman were the greatest of friends, but they also fought a lot, so the theme here isn't unfamiliar. This movie is a direct sequel to 2013's "Man of Steel". In fact, the movie starts with Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) down on the streets of Metropolis while Superman is fighting General Zod above the streets. He's driving through the streets dodging cars and debris trying to get to the Wayne Industries building. He gets there just in time to watch the building crumble and to rescue an employee whose legs are crushed under a beam. This guy shows up later in the story and becomes an important plot point.
This is the set up for why Batman, a long established and feared, vigilante in Gotham, believes that Superman, the new superhero on the block, is such a menace. Superman is having his own troubles. Although mostly well-loved in Metropolis (the area destroyed in the fight with General Zod has been turned into a park with a giant Superman statue and the remains of Zod's ship) there are some who share Batman's suspicions. In particular, Senator Finch (Holly Hunter) is holding hearings on Superman.
The third main character in this battle is the evil mastermind Lex Luthor (a manic Jesse Eisenberg), who is manipulating Batman, Superman and Senator Finch to bring about the conflict of the title.
Finally you have the final two characters in the battle, Wonder Woman and Doomsday. Wonder Woman had been seen several times earlier in the film in her civilian clothes (a series of designer fashions) as she steals the device Bruce Wayne was using to steal data from Luthor. She later returns it to Bruce and from it he (and we) learn of other metahumans (like Aquaman and The Flash). While reviewing the data, Bruce has what seems like a vision, or dream of a future post-apocalyptic future where Batman is fighting soldiers with Superman logos on their shoulders while man-sized winged creatures are carrying people off. This was perhaps the most confusing scene in the trailers. Here, it's a warning from the future (or an alternative universe) from the Flash. You've got to be pretty geekily into the DC universe to realize this, which I'm not. That piece of information came from io9.com.
Too many spoilers will be involved in explaining where Doomsday came from. I've perhaps already given away a major plot point by revealing that the creature shooting flame from his mouth is Doomsday.
There are a lot of questions raised by the premise of the movie and the trailers. Why is Batman so angry at Superman? How does he think he even has a chance in such an encounter? Superman is clearly pulling his punches in the trailer (he even says "If I wanted it you'd be dead already") but why is he pulling his punches? Why does Batman seem to so easily throw away his difficulties with Superman? In the trailers it seems they unite to fight Doomsday, but it's more than that in the movie. Where has Wonder Woman been all this time? What does "Dawn of Justice" even mean?
I thought that the movie had a credible plot and credibly answers all these questions. And it did a great job of setting up the future Justice League (DC's answer to Marvels The Avengers) movies.
I thought Ben Affleck was pretty good as Batman. He plays a much darker Batman then even the Christopher Nolen movies. Here Batman seems to mostly be going after child molesters and pimps. When he catches someone he brands a bat into their chests. Jeremy Irons, as Alfred is pretty good. The two of them seem to have been in the crime-fighting thing for a long time and both seem quite tired of it. I didn't care much for Henry Cavill as Superman in "Man of Steel" but he's better here. I still don't much care for Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Laurence Fishburne does another good turn as the scene chewing Perry White. Eisenburg plays Lex Luthor like he secretly wants to be The Joker but he's an important figure in the movie.
So if you haven't seen it, I recommend that you do. 70% of the critics didn't like it but 70% of the viewers did.
I'm very much of a different opinion than many of the movie critics. We went into this expecting to not like the movie but my wife and I loved it. After seeing the film, I'm convinced that some of the reviews were based on the trailers rather than the actual movie.
In the comics, Batman and Superman were the greatest of friends, but they also fought a lot, so the theme here isn't unfamiliar. This movie is a direct sequel to 2013's "Man of Steel". In fact, the movie starts with Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) down on the streets of Metropolis while Superman is fighting General Zod above the streets. He's driving through the streets dodging cars and debris trying to get to the Wayne Industries building. He gets there just in time to watch the building crumble and to rescue an employee whose legs are crushed under a beam. This guy shows up later in the story and becomes an important plot point.
This is the set up for why Batman, a long established and feared, vigilante in Gotham, believes that Superman, the new superhero on the block, is such a menace. Superman is having his own troubles. Although mostly well-loved in Metropolis (the area destroyed in the fight with General Zod has been turned into a park with a giant Superman statue and the remains of Zod's ship) there are some who share Batman's suspicions. In particular, Senator Finch (Holly Hunter) is holding hearings on Superman.
The third main character in this battle is the evil mastermind Lex Luthor (a manic Jesse Eisenberg), who is manipulating Batman, Superman and Senator Finch to bring about the conflict of the title.
Finally you have the final two characters in the battle, Wonder Woman and Doomsday. Wonder Woman had been seen several times earlier in the film in her civilian clothes (a series of designer fashions) as she steals the device Bruce Wayne was using to steal data from Luthor. She later returns it to Bruce and from it he (and we) learn of other metahumans (like Aquaman and The Flash). While reviewing the data, Bruce has what seems like a vision, or dream of a future post-apocalyptic future where Batman is fighting soldiers with Superman logos on their shoulders while man-sized winged creatures are carrying people off. This was perhaps the most confusing scene in the trailers. Here, it's a warning from the future (or an alternative universe) from the Flash. You've got to be pretty geekily into the DC universe to realize this, which I'm not. That piece of information came from io9.com.
Too many spoilers will be involved in explaining where Doomsday came from. I've perhaps already given away a major plot point by revealing that the creature shooting flame from his mouth is Doomsday.
There are a lot of questions raised by the premise of the movie and the trailers. Why is Batman so angry at Superman? How does he think he even has a chance in such an encounter? Superman is clearly pulling his punches in the trailer (he even says "If I wanted it you'd be dead already") but why is he pulling his punches? Why does Batman seem to so easily throw away his difficulties with Superman? In the trailers it seems they unite to fight Doomsday, but it's more than that in the movie. Where has Wonder Woman been all this time? What does "Dawn of Justice" even mean?
I thought that the movie had a credible plot and credibly answers all these questions. And it did a great job of setting up the future Justice League (DC's answer to Marvels The Avengers) movies.
I thought Ben Affleck was pretty good as Batman. He plays a much darker Batman then even the Christopher Nolen movies. Here Batman seems to mostly be going after child molesters and pimps. When he catches someone he brands a bat into their chests. Jeremy Irons, as Alfred is pretty good. The two of them seem to have been in the crime-fighting thing for a long time and both seem quite tired of it. I didn't care much for Henry Cavill as Superman in "Man of Steel" but he's better here. I still don't much care for Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Laurence Fishburne does another good turn as the scene chewing Perry White. Eisenburg plays Lex Luthor like he secretly wants to be The Joker but he's an important figure in the movie.
So if you haven't seen it, I recommend that you do. 70% of the critics didn't like it but 70% of the viewers did.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Movie Review - Hail, Caesar!
If you like the Coen Brothers, you'll love this.
We went to see this last Sunday. The theater was crowded with people seeing "Deadpool", I guess. There were not a lot of customers for "Hail, Caesar!" It looks like it will be a successful movie however. Since it's opening on 2/5/16, it seems to have already made back its budget.
George Clooney plays actor (I know a big stretch) Baird Whitlock, the star of a new feature coming from Capitol Pictures, "Hail, Caesar!". Clooney plays Whitlock with a goofball charm. Whitlock the actor isn't very good (as evidenced by the lines he delivers in the movie) and it appears that he's not quite sure of what's going on around him when he's not on set. Clooney spends the entire movie (2 days of film time) in a Roman centurion outfit.
There are a number of movies-within-a-movie going on here as most of the action takes place on an enormous studio lot in the early 1950s. Scarlett Johansson plays DeeAnn Moran, an Esther Williams type, whose getting tired of all the "swimming pool" movies she gets cast in. Especially since she's pregnant and is having trouble fitting into her mermaid costume. Ralph Fiennes is director Laurence Laurentz making a serious "drawing room play" and has to contend with the only studio actor available for the lead male role, Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) who has only played the lead roles in singing cowboy movies. Ehrenreich has a very funny scene where he is using a piece of cooked spaghetti to do rope tricks. Channing Tatum plays Burt Gurney, song-and-dance man staring in a movie about sailors getting ready for sea.
The whole movie is held together by Josh Brolin as Eddie Mannix, the studio "fixer", who spends his days and nights, getting the studio out of trouble. Trouble like pregnant un-wed actresses, actors going on benders, actors getting kidnapped (notice abduction on the poster), and bit actresses making "French postcards" on the side. Brolin is great in this and is in maybe 80% of the scenes.
It's what I call an adult comedy in that the humor mostly derives from the situations and not so much from fart jokes and the like. It plays like a enormous movie studio "in-joke" but if you're a movie fan you'll get the jokes.
We saw trailers for "Now You See Me II" and "Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising". These two comedies, from the slapstick and fart joke school, had noting funny in the trailers and looked to be as enjoyable as fingernails on a blackboard.
We went to see this last Sunday. The theater was crowded with people seeing "Deadpool", I guess. There were not a lot of customers for "Hail, Caesar!" It looks like it will be a successful movie however. Since it's opening on 2/5/16, it seems to have already made back its budget.
George Clooney plays actor (I know a big stretch) Baird Whitlock, the star of a new feature coming from Capitol Pictures, "Hail, Caesar!". Clooney plays Whitlock with a goofball charm. Whitlock the actor isn't very good (as evidenced by the lines he delivers in the movie) and it appears that he's not quite sure of what's going on around him when he's not on set. Clooney spends the entire movie (2 days of film time) in a Roman centurion outfit.
There are a number of movies-within-a-movie going on here as most of the action takes place on an enormous studio lot in the early 1950s. Scarlett Johansson plays DeeAnn Moran, an Esther Williams type, whose getting tired of all the "swimming pool" movies she gets cast in. Especially since she's pregnant and is having trouble fitting into her mermaid costume. Ralph Fiennes is director Laurence Laurentz making a serious "drawing room play" and has to contend with the only studio actor available for the lead male role, Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) who has only played the lead roles in singing cowboy movies. Ehrenreich has a very funny scene where he is using a piece of cooked spaghetti to do rope tricks. Channing Tatum plays Burt Gurney, song-and-dance man staring in a movie about sailors getting ready for sea.
The whole movie is held together by Josh Brolin as Eddie Mannix, the studio "fixer", who spends his days and nights, getting the studio out of trouble. Trouble like pregnant un-wed actresses, actors going on benders, actors getting kidnapped (notice abduction on the poster), and bit actresses making "French postcards" on the side. Brolin is great in this and is in maybe 80% of the scenes.
It's what I call an adult comedy in that the humor mostly derives from the situations and not so much from fart jokes and the like. It plays like a enormous movie studio "in-joke" but if you're a movie fan you'll get the jokes.
We saw trailers for "Now You See Me II" and "Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising". These two comedies, from the slapstick and fart joke school, had noting funny in the trailers and looked to be as enjoyable as fingernails on a blackboard.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Movie Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
I considered reviewing one of the 3 terrible 2015 sci fi movies I watched on Netflix recently as my first review of the new year, but decided on Star Wars instead.
Just for the record the three movies were "Parallels", "Time Lapse" and "Icetastrophe". "Parallels" was planned as a TV pilot and as such is all set up with no resolution. "Time Lapse" was actually not terrible. It's about 3 broke roommates who find a camera that can take photos 24 hours in the future. It does not have a happy ending. "Icetastrophe" was good for a couple of laughs, totally unintended by the film maker.
Any, back to "Star Wars: The Force Awakens".
You may correctly deduce that since I waited until January 3rd to see the movie that I'm not a fanatic about Star Wars. Star Trek was always more my bag.
There will be some spoilers in the following. I figure if you haven't seen the movie by now you probably don't really care.
We enjoyed the movie quite a lot. J. J. Abrams did a great job. The new characters, Ray and Fin, very much carry the story and I'm looking forward to seeing more of them. Daisy Ridley does a fine job as Rey (the representation of her at the top of the poster does not look much like her). She is a scavenger on a desert planet which seems to be packed with debris (including crashed star cruisers) from some old battle). She's resourceful and a loner who was apparently abandoned there by her parents when she was a child. I presume we'll learn more about her past in future movies. I'mm guessing that she will turn out to be Luke's daughter. To quote Darth Vader "The Force is strong with this one".
John Boyega plays Fin, a Storm Trooper who's gone AWOL. His name comes from his designation number which starts as FN. His first mission included wiping out a settlement of vagabonds. He finds he can't fire a shot. Apparently the storm troopers aren't clones anymore but this is not really explained in the movie. He starts out as a tentative member of the resistance (more for convenience than anything else) but is firmly committed to the cause by the end.
There are two other brand new characters. Oscar Isaac as dashing X-Wing pilot Poe Dameron. He didn't make much of an impression on me. And then there is Adam Driver as Kylo Ren, the new Darth Vader like character. It's hard to make much of an actor who plays most of the movie in a mask, but he plays Ren as a weaker Darth, less in control. And we get to see his face a couple of time. But he's also a right bastard.
The basic plot concerns the search for Luke Skywalker. The rebels want him because he is apparently the last Jedi and the rebels are losing. The 1st Order (the new bad guys, apparently risen from the ashes of the Empire) want him, pretty much for the same reasons. The bearded guy in the robe in the poster, who looks like Jeff Bridges, is actually Luke. He doesn't make an appearance until almost the final credits. The path forward to the next movie is clear.
Many of your old favorites are there and do a credible job. Carrie Fisher, now a battle hardened General Leia, plays her character as tough and bitter but with some of the old sarcasm showing through. Harrison Ford is an older and more grizzled version of Hans Solo. He didn't have much to do as the character beyond saying things like "Let's go kid". C3PO shows up about halfway in and except that he has one red arm, wasn't much different as a character. R2D2 shows up at the same time but seems to be in a coma. Even General Akbar was there.
The special effects, of course, are as good as you would want. There are a few X-Wing and TIE fighter battles, and the Millennium Falcon can still probably make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.
Just for the record the three movies were "Parallels", "Time Lapse" and "Icetastrophe". "Parallels" was planned as a TV pilot and as such is all set up with no resolution. "Time Lapse" was actually not terrible. It's about 3 broke roommates who find a camera that can take photos 24 hours in the future. It does not have a happy ending. "Icetastrophe" was good for a couple of laughs, totally unintended by the film maker.
Any, back to "Star Wars: The Force Awakens".
You may correctly deduce that since I waited until January 3rd to see the movie that I'm not a fanatic about Star Wars. Star Trek was always more my bag.
There will be some spoilers in the following. I figure if you haven't seen the movie by now you probably don't really care.
We enjoyed the movie quite a lot. J. J. Abrams did a great job. The new characters, Ray and Fin, very much carry the story and I'm looking forward to seeing more of them. Daisy Ridley does a fine job as Rey (the representation of her at the top of the poster does not look much like her). She is a scavenger on a desert planet which seems to be packed with debris (including crashed star cruisers) from some old battle). She's resourceful and a loner who was apparently abandoned there by her parents when she was a child. I presume we'll learn more about her past in future movies. I'mm guessing that she will turn out to be Luke's daughter. To quote Darth Vader "The Force is strong with this one".
John Boyega plays Fin, a Storm Trooper who's gone AWOL. His name comes from his designation number which starts as FN. His first mission included wiping out a settlement of vagabonds. He finds he can't fire a shot. Apparently the storm troopers aren't clones anymore but this is not really explained in the movie. He starts out as a tentative member of the resistance (more for convenience than anything else) but is firmly committed to the cause by the end.
There are two other brand new characters. Oscar Isaac as dashing X-Wing pilot Poe Dameron. He didn't make much of an impression on me. And then there is Adam Driver as Kylo Ren, the new Darth Vader like character. It's hard to make much of an actor who plays most of the movie in a mask, but he plays Ren as a weaker Darth, less in control. And we get to see his face a couple of time. But he's also a right bastard.
The basic plot concerns the search for Luke Skywalker. The rebels want him because he is apparently the last Jedi and the rebels are losing. The 1st Order (the new bad guys, apparently risen from the ashes of the Empire) want him, pretty much for the same reasons. The bearded guy in the robe in the poster, who looks like Jeff Bridges, is actually Luke. He doesn't make an appearance until almost the final credits. The path forward to the next movie is clear.
Many of your old favorites are there and do a credible job. Carrie Fisher, now a battle hardened General Leia, plays her character as tough and bitter but with some of the old sarcasm showing through. Harrison Ford is an older and more grizzled version of Hans Solo. He didn't have much to do as the character beyond saying things like "Let's go kid". C3PO shows up about halfway in and except that he has one red arm, wasn't much different as a character. R2D2 shows up at the same time but seems to be in a coma. Even General Akbar was there.
The special effects, of course, are as good as you would want. There are a few X-Wing and TIE fighter battles, and the Millennium Falcon can still probably make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Movie Review - Spectre
James Bond is back!
"Spectre" seems to complete a trilogy that began with "Quantum of Solice", continued in "Skyfall" and now, maybe, finishes with "Spectre". If you're planning to see it you might want to go and read a synopsis of the two earlier movies. I think it will help make the first part of "Spectre" more comprehensible.
For those long time Bond fans (I mean people who have been watching the movies since the 1960s) you'll remember SPECTRE as the name of a worldwide, multi-national crime organization which made its first appearance in "Dr. No" in 1962. This new Spectre (it's not clear if it's supposed to be an anagram anymore) seems to be an offshoot or something of the Quantum organization.
It has all the stuff you want in a Bond movie: car chases, helicopter stunts, gadgets, fist fights, guns, guns, and more guns, beautiful women (Bond only gets to seduce 2 of them), beautiful scenery (the movie is filmed in London, Morocco, the Alps, Rome, and Mexico City), and explosions. The movie is reportedly one of the most expensive movies ever made with a budget of $250 million. Every dollar of that is on film. As of 11/10 the movie has made $305 million so after only a week or so it's already making money.
I was disappointed by the last Bond movie, "Skyfall". Sure it did all the Bond stuff pretty good, and while I don't expect a complicated plot, I do expect some plot. Also, that Skyfall only turned out to be Bond's childhood home was quite a comedown.
"Spectre" is much better in regards to plot and the movie making, at least, some internal sense. The trailers have been careful not to give the story away, so I won't either. Some consequential things happen in this movie, consequential for the Bond universe. The next movie (at the end of the closing credits it said "James Bond will return") will have to be strongly influenced by the happenings here.
My only real complaint with the movie is Daniel Craig. His Bond is more and more a character that seems completely detached. His lines are delivered in a deadpan way, even the slightly humorous lines are too droll. There is some spark of life in Bond's eyes in the closing scene, but it was a long time coming.
As in all movies of this type, the villain is ofter more concerned with glorying in his bad-assness then he should be, allowing the hero time to figure out a way to escape.
"Spectre" seems to complete a trilogy that began with "Quantum of Solice", continued in "Skyfall" and now, maybe, finishes with "Spectre". If you're planning to see it you might want to go and read a synopsis of the two earlier movies. I think it will help make the first part of "Spectre" more comprehensible.
For those long time Bond fans (I mean people who have been watching the movies since the 1960s) you'll remember SPECTRE as the name of a worldwide, multi-national crime organization which made its first appearance in "Dr. No" in 1962. This new Spectre (it's not clear if it's supposed to be an anagram anymore) seems to be an offshoot or something of the Quantum organization.
It has all the stuff you want in a Bond movie: car chases, helicopter stunts, gadgets, fist fights, guns, guns, and more guns, beautiful women (Bond only gets to seduce 2 of them), beautiful scenery (the movie is filmed in London, Morocco, the Alps, Rome, and Mexico City), and explosions. The movie is reportedly one of the most expensive movies ever made with a budget of $250 million. Every dollar of that is on film. As of 11/10 the movie has made $305 million so after only a week or so it's already making money.
I was disappointed by the last Bond movie, "Skyfall". Sure it did all the Bond stuff pretty good, and while I don't expect a complicated plot, I do expect some plot. Also, that Skyfall only turned out to be Bond's childhood home was quite a comedown.
"Spectre" is much better in regards to plot and the movie making, at least, some internal sense. The trailers have been careful not to give the story away, so I won't either. Some consequential things happen in this movie, consequential for the Bond universe. The next movie (at the end of the closing credits it said "James Bond will return") will have to be strongly influenced by the happenings here.
My only real complaint with the movie is Daniel Craig. His Bond is more and more a character that seems completely detached. His lines are delivered in a deadpan way, even the slightly humorous lines are too droll. There is some spark of life in Bond's eyes in the closing scene, but it was a long time coming.
As in all movies of this type, the villain is ofter more concerned with glorying in his bad-assness then he should be, allowing the hero time to figure out a way to escape.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Movie Review - The Intern
Most of the movie reviews I do here seem to be about superhero, science fiction or action movies. That's because it's hard to find a movie that isn't about one of these themes that I want to see. After seeing both Robert DiNero and Anne Hathaway on the talk shows last week, we decided to give "The Intern" a try.
Robert DiNero plays 70-year-old widower Ben Whittaker. He's been retired for a few years, and although he manages to keep busy, he feels there is "a hole in his life". He sees a flyer for a "senior intern program" at a local (Brooklyn) startup and decides to go for it.
Anne Hathaway plays Jules Ostin, the founder and creative genius behind that local internet startup, called "About the Fit", an e-commerce fashion company. She reluctantly agrees to take on Ben as her intern even though she, who is clearly busier than a one-armed paper hanger (to turn a phrase), doesn't think she can find anything for him to do.
It's mainly a fish-out-of-water story. Ben, who was formerly a VP of a telephone book company, is a can-do guy, who just so happy to be out of the house, so he'll do anything that looks like it needs to be done. You've seen this story and you know how it ends. Ben becomes everyone's friend and even cold, hard Jules is eventually won over.
What sets this apart for the run-of-the-mill story is the writing, and Robert DiNero. DiNero has certainly shown is comic chops before, in fact he got offered this part after Nancy Meyers saw him in "Silver Linings Playbook". Anne Hathaway is no slouch either, having appeared in a variety of roles in her career. There are very nicely paced sections of dialog between Ben and Jules that just carry the story along and establish them as real people.
DiNero is great a Ben. Ben is "old-school" but not a dinosaur. He may be a bit behind the technology curve, but he's eager to learn. He gets submerged into a chaotic office full of people younger than his children but always keeps his head up. The reaction shots of DiNero to his coworkers and their troubles is great. There is a scene during one of the interviews where he is asked about college. "What was your major? Do you remember?" DiNero's look is perfect.
There is one scene where the movie almost gets out of hand. Jules accidentally sends an unflattering email to her mother. She wants her IT people to retrieve it but is told it's impossible. Ben, in what sounds like a joke, suggest that he take a couple of guys over to the mother's house, break in and delete the email before her mother gets home from work. Then they do it. About 5 minutes of slap stick comedy follows, but director Meyers (who also wrote the story) manages to not let the scene take over the entire movie.
The only weak link in the film is Jules' husband, Matt, played by Anders Holm. It's not that Holm plays the part badly it's just a little hard to believe that Jules would have married this guy.
Jules and Matt have a young daughter (6 maybe?) played by JoJo Kushner. Young Kushner steals every scene she is in, basically playing a grade school edition of Jules.
The movie brings up a lot of important themes about women in the work place, older people in the workforce, mother-daughter relationships, and the expense of apartments in New York City. It doesn't do much with any of these bit it's not trying to be an issues movie. It's trying to be a story about how people cope with a lot of these issues and it does a good job at that.
I'm a retired guy, not quite as old as DiNero portrays here, but I'm pretty satisfied with retirement. If Anne Hathaway offered me a job, however, I'd seriously consider going back to work.
Robert DiNero plays 70-year-old widower Ben Whittaker. He's been retired for a few years, and although he manages to keep busy, he feels there is "a hole in his life". He sees a flyer for a "senior intern program" at a local (Brooklyn) startup and decides to go for it.
Anne Hathaway plays Jules Ostin, the founder and creative genius behind that local internet startup, called "About the Fit", an e-commerce fashion company. She reluctantly agrees to take on Ben as her intern even though she, who is clearly busier than a one-armed paper hanger (to turn a phrase), doesn't think she can find anything for him to do.
It's mainly a fish-out-of-water story. Ben, who was formerly a VP of a telephone book company, is a can-do guy, who just so happy to be out of the house, so he'll do anything that looks like it needs to be done. You've seen this story and you know how it ends. Ben becomes everyone's friend and even cold, hard Jules is eventually won over.
What sets this apart for the run-of-the-mill story is the writing, and Robert DiNero. DiNero has certainly shown is comic chops before, in fact he got offered this part after Nancy Meyers saw him in "Silver Linings Playbook". Anne Hathaway is no slouch either, having appeared in a variety of roles in her career. There are very nicely paced sections of dialog between Ben and Jules that just carry the story along and establish them as real people.
DiNero is great a Ben. Ben is "old-school" but not a dinosaur. He may be a bit behind the technology curve, but he's eager to learn. He gets submerged into a chaotic office full of people younger than his children but always keeps his head up. The reaction shots of DiNero to his coworkers and their troubles is great. There is a scene during one of the interviews where he is asked about college. "What was your major? Do you remember?" DiNero's look is perfect.
There is one scene where the movie almost gets out of hand. Jules accidentally sends an unflattering email to her mother. She wants her IT people to retrieve it but is told it's impossible. Ben, in what sounds like a joke, suggest that he take a couple of guys over to the mother's house, break in and delete the email before her mother gets home from work. Then they do it. About 5 minutes of slap stick comedy follows, but director Meyers (who also wrote the story) manages to not let the scene take over the entire movie.
The only weak link in the film is Jules' husband, Matt, played by Anders Holm. It's not that Holm plays the part badly it's just a little hard to believe that Jules would have married this guy.
Jules and Matt have a young daughter (6 maybe?) played by JoJo Kushner. Young Kushner steals every scene she is in, basically playing a grade school edition of Jules.
The movie brings up a lot of important themes about women in the work place, older people in the workforce, mother-daughter relationships, and the expense of apartments in New York City. It doesn't do much with any of these bit it's not trying to be an issues movie. It's trying to be a story about how people cope with a lot of these issues and it does a good job at that.
I'm a retired guy, not quite as old as DiNero portrays here, but I'm pretty satisfied with retirement. If Anne Hathaway offered me a job, however, I'd seriously consider going back to work.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Movie Review - The Man From U.N.C.L.E
The success of the early James Bond movies in the early 1960's spawned a host of spy movies and television shows. One of the best (at least in the early years) was "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." which ran from 1964 to 1968. Now of course I was only 13 years old when this show premiered so I might not know what I'm talking about.
Now we have a new "The Man From U.N.C.L.E" movie.
The movie is sort of an origin story. In the TV show, the U.N.C.L.E organization already existed and Solo and Kuryakin were already partners and had apparently worked out any animosities between them.
In the movie, Napoleon Solo works for the CIA and Illya Kuryakin works for the KGB. Solo, as played by Harry Cavill, is a suave, urbane, well-dressed lady-killer, pretty much as played by Robert Vaughn in the TV show. Kuryakin is played by Armie Hammer. He's a big, quiet-seeming Russian who's apt to fly off the handle at any moment. Not quite the David McCallum Kuryakin I remember.
The two are ordered by their respective masters to work together on a threat that endangers both countries. If you've seen the trailers, you know that some former Nazi scientist (it's 1963 so we can still have Nazis) has perfected a way to produce weapon grade uranium much easier that it can even be done today. The big enemy in the TV show was T.H.R.U.S.H. Maybe they will show up in the second movie. Do you know that T.H.R.U.S.H was supposed to mean? For that matter, to you know what U.N.C.L.E means?
The movie was pretty good. The only real problem with it is that it's set in 1963 so we pretty much know that the world wasn't destroyed by some Nazis with atomic weapons. The movie has to create a plausible (and entertaining) way to get to the ending we fully expect. It was no less plausible than you might expect and it was pretty entertaining. It is played pretty straight, it's not meant to be a spoof on 1960s spy shows. At least I don't think it is. If it is, they missed by a wide margin.
For the most part, the movie succeeds. In the early part of the movie there is a little too much animosity between Solo and Kuryakin. Solo treats Kuryakin with open contempt and Kuryakin can hardly stop himself from punching Solo in the nose for it. Solo calls him "The Red Peril", or Peril for short, Kuryakin calls Solo, Cowboy (what else?).
Nothing builds team work like getting shot at, almost drowned, tortured, and betrayed together and saving each other's lives several times. You know where this relationship is going and they did a good job of it. Solo gets lot of female bed time, while Kuryakin never even gets a kiss.
U.N.C.L.E is not even mentioned until the very end of the movie when Mr. Waverly (played by Hugh Grant). tells them that they are now on his team and they're leaving tonight on another mission.
Harry Cavill is already in one movie franchise, Superman. The Man From U.N.C.L.E looks like it has a good shot at becoming a franchise. Armie Hammer was last seen as The Lone Ranger, which badly wanted to be a franchise but was so terrible I don't expect to see a sequel.
Oh, and by the way, the soundtrack is fabulous.
Now we have a new "The Man From U.N.C.L.E" movie.
The movie is sort of an origin story. In the TV show, the U.N.C.L.E organization already existed and Solo and Kuryakin were already partners and had apparently worked out any animosities between them.
In the movie, Napoleon Solo works for the CIA and Illya Kuryakin works for the KGB. Solo, as played by Harry Cavill, is a suave, urbane, well-dressed lady-killer, pretty much as played by Robert Vaughn in the TV show. Kuryakin is played by Armie Hammer. He's a big, quiet-seeming Russian who's apt to fly off the handle at any moment. Not quite the David McCallum Kuryakin I remember.
The two are ordered by their respective masters to work together on a threat that endangers both countries. If you've seen the trailers, you know that some former Nazi scientist (it's 1963 so we can still have Nazis) has perfected a way to produce weapon grade uranium much easier that it can even be done today. The big enemy in the TV show was T.H.R.U.S.H. Maybe they will show up in the second movie. Do you know that T.H.R.U.S.H was supposed to mean? For that matter, to you know what U.N.C.L.E means?
The movie was pretty good. The only real problem with it is that it's set in 1963 so we pretty much know that the world wasn't destroyed by some Nazis with atomic weapons. The movie has to create a plausible (and entertaining) way to get to the ending we fully expect. It was no less plausible than you might expect and it was pretty entertaining. It is played pretty straight, it's not meant to be a spoof on 1960s spy shows. At least I don't think it is. If it is, they missed by a wide margin.
For the most part, the movie succeeds. In the early part of the movie there is a little too much animosity between Solo and Kuryakin. Solo treats Kuryakin with open contempt and Kuryakin can hardly stop himself from punching Solo in the nose for it. Solo calls him "The Red Peril", or Peril for short, Kuryakin calls Solo, Cowboy (what else?).
Nothing builds team work like getting shot at, almost drowned, tortured, and betrayed together and saving each other's lives several times. You know where this relationship is going and they did a good job of it. Solo gets lot of female bed time, while Kuryakin never even gets a kiss.
U.N.C.L.E is not even mentioned until the very end of the movie when Mr. Waverly (played by Hugh Grant). tells them that they are now on his team and they're leaving tonight on another mission.
Harry Cavill is already in one movie franchise, Superman. The Man From U.N.C.L.E looks like it has a good shot at becoming a franchise. Armie Hammer was last seen as The Lone Ranger, which badly wanted to be a franchise but was so terrible I don't expect to see a sequel.
Oh, and by the way, the soundtrack is fabulous.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Movie Review: Ant-Man
From the makers of Raid!
io9.com opened it's review of "Ant-Man" by saying that the movie is a perfectly competent superhero movie as though that was some king of insult. If you've seen the trailers then you know something about the story but, I'm happy to say, the trailers didn't give the whole movie away like they did for "Terminator Genisys".
The trailers mostly seemed to focus on the the comedy of the movie which was good because there is are some good comedy bits in the film. Paul Rudd (who plays Scott Lang, the Ant-Man when he's in civvies) is primarily a comedian. The plot mostly holds together. It's an origin story cast as a heist movie. If you're a fan of the Marvel movie universe you've already packed your disbelief in permanent suspension so that won't be a problem.
My wife, daughter (the Marvel Universe expert in our family) and I saw it over the weekend. The theater was pretty crowded and it sounded like everyone was having a great time. And so did we. My daughter's only real problem with the movie is that it wasn't "Avengers: Civil War".
Speaking of the Avengers, stick through to the very end. There are two Easter eggs in the final mile-long credits. The one at the very end is from "Civil War". By the way "Ant-Man will return".
Paul Rudd was very engaging as Scott and as Ant-Man when he opens his helmet. Mike Douglas (as Hank Pym) does a good turn as the frustrated super genius. There is a great scene early in the movie which takes place in 1989 between Pym and some shadowy group composed of Tony Stark's father and Peggy Carter (just the first of many Avengers tie-ins) and another guy that Pym punches in the nose. Douglas either has the greatest makeup in the history of movie making or his 1989 face is entirely CG. I'm voting on CG. As an aside, Paul Rudd told an absolutely funny story about working with Mike Douglas on the Tonight Show, which, as this is a family blog, I can't repeat. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube.
There are some not entirely successful attempts to put some humanity into the picture. Scott has just gotten out of jail for playing Robin Hood against a powerful corporation and goes to his daughter's birthday party without clearing it with either his ex or her finance. The scenes between Scott and little Cassie are cute but I don't see how he could have had much of a relationship with her considering he's been in prison for awhile and she's like 5 years old. Scott gives Cassie a "Hideous Rabbit" which talks. Way at the end of the credits we learn that Hideous Rabbit was voiced by Tom Kerry who has a ton of credits in TV cartoons, including SpongeBob SquarePants.
The other father-daughter relationship is between Pym and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly). Early hints of discord (she is working for the man who stole Pym Industries away from her father) resolve into her grudgingly helping him. We learn about some Ant-Man back-story eventually which looks like an eventual spin-off. Lilly is pretty good, and she gets a chance to smack Rudd around a bit.
Corey Stoll (who comes from the TV show Homeland, which I've never seen) plays genius company-stealing and former Pym assistant Darren Cross with enough bug-eyed intensity to convince us he's a bad guy even before we get shown he is.
"Guardians of the Galaxy" came out of nowhere and turned out to be pretty good. The same happens here.
io9.com opened it's review of "Ant-Man" by saying that the movie is a perfectly competent superhero movie as though that was some king of insult. If you've seen the trailers then you know something about the story but, I'm happy to say, the trailers didn't give the whole movie away like they did for "Terminator Genisys".
The trailers mostly seemed to focus on the the comedy of the movie which was good because there is are some good comedy bits in the film. Paul Rudd (who plays Scott Lang, the Ant-Man when he's in civvies) is primarily a comedian. The plot mostly holds together. It's an origin story cast as a heist movie. If you're a fan of the Marvel movie universe you've already packed your disbelief in permanent suspension so that won't be a problem.
My wife, daughter (the Marvel Universe expert in our family) and I saw it over the weekend. The theater was pretty crowded and it sounded like everyone was having a great time. And so did we. My daughter's only real problem with the movie is that it wasn't "Avengers: Civil War".
Speaking of the Avengers, stick through to the very end. There are two Easter eggs in the final mile-long credits. The one at the very end is from "Civil War". By the way "Ant-Man will return".
Paul Rudd was very engaging as Scott and as Ant-Man when he opens his helmet. Mike Douglas (as Hank Pym) does a good turn as the frustrated super genius. There is a great scene early in the movie which takes place in 1989 between Pym and some shadowy group composed of Tony Stark's father and Peggy Carter (just the first of many Avengers tie-ins) and another guy that Pym punches in the nose. Douglas either has the greatest makeup in the history of movie making or his 1989 face is entirely CG. I'm voting on CG. As an aside, Paul Rudd told an absolutely funny story about working with Mike Douglas on the Tonight Show, which, as this is a family blog, I can't repeat. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube.
There are some not entirely successful attempts to put some humanity into the picture. Scott has just gotten out of jail for playing Robin Hood against a powerful corporation and goes to his daughter's birthday party without clearing it with either his ex or her finance. The scenes between Scott and little Cassie are cute but I don't see how he could have had much of a relationship with her considering he's been in prison for awhile and she's like 5 years old. Scott gives Cassie a "Hideous Rabbit" which talks. Way at the end of the credits we learn that Hideous Rabbit was voiced by Tom Kerry who has a ton of credits in TV cartoons, including SpongeBob SquarePants.
The other father-daughter relationship is between Pym and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly). Early hints of discord (she is working for the man who stole Pym Industries away from her father) resolve into her grudgingly helping him. We learn about some Ant-Man back-story eventually which looks like an eventual spin-off. Lilly is pretty good, and she gets a chance to smack Rudd around a bit.
Corey Stoll (who comes from the TV show Homeland, which I've never seen) plays genius company-stealing and former Pym assistant Darren Cross with enough bug-eyed intensity to convince us he's a bad guy even before we get shown he is.
"Guardians of the Galaxy" came out of nowhere and turned out to be pretty good. The same happens here.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Movie Review: Terminator Genisys
Arnold's back!
As you may have heard, this is basically, a total reboot of the Terminator franchise. The do this pretty much the same way they did it in the 2009 "Star Trek" movie, by messing with the timeline. Time travel was well established in the Terminator series, it was the entire basis of the first 2 movies, so it's not a stretch here.
If you've seen the trailers, where key plot lines were revealed, you already know that in this movie, when Kyle Reese is sent back to protect Sarah Conner, she already knows he's coming and already has her own friendly terminator, played by, who else, Arnold. He saved her when she was 9-years-old.
This movie kind of mashes up events in the first two movies and the TV show, pretty effectively, I'd say. You've got your original Terminator played by a buff CG Arnold, who doesn't stand a chance against old-Arnold ("I'm old but not obsolete"). You've got you T-1000, made to look a lot like Robert Patrick from T-2, for whom they've set an elaborate trap.
There are some problems with the time travel concept. Old-Arnold seems to know too much about what future Skynet plans to do. Reese, while in transit to the past, somehow picks up memories of his childhood self born into the alternative timeline created by the attack on 9-year-old Sarah. This is a very key plot point without which the second half of the movie couldn't exist. But, hey, it's time travel, it's complicated. Just remember this quote from Old Joe from the "Looper" movie:
"I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws."
There are some wonderful action set pieces, some of them which will remind you of scenes from the first two movies. There are a few set pieces which make no sense, like the one where the school bus that Sarah Conner is madly driving across the Golden Gate Bridge flips high into the air, does a double somersault, lands on it's roof, slides through a number of cars, and over the edge where it hangs. All without Conner and Reese getting a scratch.
My wife and I enjoyed it but my daughter was somewhat dissatisfied. She's not very familiar with the first 2 movies which I think hurt her fuller enjoyment of the movie.
As you may have heard, this is basically, a total reboot of the Terminator franchise. The do this pretty much the same way they did it in the 2009 "Star Trek" movie, by messing with the timeline. Time travel was well established in the Terminator series, it was the entire basis of the first 2 movies, so it's not a stretch here.
If you've seen the trailers, where key plot lines were revealed, you already know that in this movie, when Kyle Reese is sent back to protect Sarah Conner, she already knows he's coming and already has her own friendly terminator, played by, who else, Arnold. He saved her when she was 9-years-old.
This movie kind of mashes up events in the first two movies and the TV show, pretty effectively, I'd say. You've got your original Terminator played by a buff CG Arnold, who doesn't stand a chance against old-Arnold ("I'm old but not obsolete"). You've got you T-1000, made to look a lot like Robert Patrick from T-2, for whom they've set an elaborate trap.
There are some problems with the time travel concept. Old-Arnold seems to know too much about what future Skynet plans to do. Reese, while in transit to the past, somehow picks up memories of his childhood self born into the alternative timeline created by the attack on 9-year-old Sarah. This is a very key plot point without which the second half of the movie couldn't exist. But, hey, it's time travel, it's complicated. Just remember this quote from Old Joe from the "Looper" movie:
"I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws."
There are some wonderful action set pieces, some of them which will remind you of scenes from the first two movies. There are a few set pieces which make no sense, like the one where the school bus that Sarah Conner is madly driving across the Golden Gate Bridge flips high into the air, does a double somersault, lands on it's roof, slides through a number of cars, and over the edge where it hangs. All without Conner and Reese getting a scratch.
My wife and I enjoyed it but my daughter was somewhat dissatisfied. She's not very familiar with the first 2 movies which I think hurt her fuller enjoyment of the movie.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Movie Review - Just Imagine (1930)
It's 1980, as envisioned by the 1930 movie "Just Imagine". I watched this on the science fiction website io9.com, but you can watch it here.
It's an hour and 48 minutes long but it you skip the horrible musical numbers, it's a bearable length. Honestly, except for the music, I had a good time watching it.
Here's what 1980 looks like from 1930.
Then the movie veers into total insanity as J-21, who is an accomplished airline pilot, is given the opportunity to pilot a spaceship to Mars built by the famous inventor X-4. His best friend, RT-42 goes along for the ride. The guy who was dead for 50 years, whom J-21 and RT-42 had befriended, stows away on the rocket ship.
Mars is populated mainly by scantily clad women, each of which has an evil twin (J-21 figures this out in an intuitive leap almost as long as the trip to Mars). They are welcomed by Queen Loo-Loo but then captured by her evil twin Queen Boo-Boo (I am not making this up).
Suffice it to say, they get away and arrive back on earth just in time for J-21 to get to the hearing for his appeal, which he, of course, wins.
Perhaps my favorite scene is when J-21 and LN-18 fly by each other over New York City. The planes have props in the front and wing mounted props so they can hover. They both pull over and hover together. Based on the apparent depth, I'd guess they are several hundred feet up. J-21 climbs out of his plane, walks across his wing, jumps over the LN-18's wing and they have a little chap. Eventually, a policeman, in what appears to be a flying cup, blows his whistle and yells that they're only allowed to park for 3 minutes.
By the way, Maureen O'Sullivan is as cute as a bug in this.
Maureen O'Sullivan is not Maureen O'Hara, which is who I was thinking of while I was watching the movie. She is probably most known for playing Jane in 6 Tarzan movies. She's also Mia Farrow's mother.
It's an hour and 48 minutes long but it you skip the horrible musical numbers, it's a bearable length. Honestly, except for the music, I had a good time watching it.
Here's what 1980 looks like from 1930.
- People don't have names, they have numbers.
- If two guys want to marry the same girl, they have to settle it in court. The girl doesn't seem to have much say in the matter.
- Nobody drives cars, instead they fly little one-seater airplanes.
- They have video-screen, wall-mounted telephones.
- Women can, by tugging at a few zippers, convert their daytime dress to evening wear
- Scientists can bring a man who was dead for 50 years back to life
- Food comes in little pills
- Alcohol also comes in little pills and Prohibition is expected to be repealed any year now
Then the movie veers into total insanity as J-21, who is an accomplished airline pilot, is given the opportunity to pilot a spaceship to Mars built by the famous inventor X-4. His best friend, RT-42 goes along for the ride. The guy who was dead for 50 years, whom J-21 and RT-42 had befriended, stows away on the rocket ship.
Mars is populated mainly by scantily clad women, each of which has an evil twin (J-21 figures this out in an intuitive leap almost as long as the trip to Mars). They are welcomed by Queen Loo-Loo but then captured by her evil twin Queen Boo-Boo (I am not making this up).
Suffice it to say, they get away and arrive back on earth just in time for J-21 to get to the hearing for his appeal, which he, of course, wins.
Perhaps my favorite scene is when J-21 and LN-18 fly by each other over New York City. The planes have props in the front and wing mounted props so they can hover. They both pull over and hover together. Based on the apparent depth, I'd guess they are several hundred feet up. J-21 climbs out of his plane, walks across his wing, jumps over the LN-18's wing and they have a little chap. Eventually, a policeman, in what appears to be a flying cup, blows his whistle and yells that they're only allowed to park for 3 minutes.
By the way, Maureen O'Sullivan is as cute as a bug in this.
Maureen O'Sullivan is not Maureen O'Hara, which is who I was thinking of while I was watching the movie. She is probably most known for playing Jane in 6 Tarzan movies. She's also Mia Farrow's mother.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Movie Review - Non-Stop
This movie came out last year around this time. Most of Liam Neeson movies now seem to be gratuitous bloodbaths so we decided to take a pass while it was in the theaters. I watched it on Netflix this week, figuring if the body count got too high, I could turn it off.
Surprising to me, the movie was actually pretty good with a lot of suspense and a fairly low body count. Neeson's character, Bill actually only kills one guy and he sort of deserved it. There are only two leads in the movie. Liam Neeson plays Bill Marks with his usual wild-eyed, unkempt manner. Juilanne Moore plays Jen Summers, a frequent traveler who insists on the window seat. Everyone else on board is a stereotype (the tough NYC cop, the shifty-eyed Muslim, the black hip-hop guy, the frightened little girl traveling alone, the indignant old lady, etc).
Bill is an alcoholic air marshal who's afraid of flying. Actually it's only the take off that scares him. He's on a transatlantic flight clutching the air rests during take off. He gets talking to Jen, his row mate, who helps him calm down. Soon after take off Bill starts getting text messages on his special air marshal phone. The messages are simple. Deposit $150 million in an off-shore account or someone on the plane will die every 20 minutes.
Spoilers ahead.
After stalking around the plane for awhile, he talks to a fellow air marshal, apparently just traveling for pleasure, and tells the guy to meet him in the bathroom. Bill suspects this guy because he's the only other person on the plane who should be able to access the air marshal network. Bill accuses him of sending the texts, they get in a fight, the other guy pulls his gun, Bill kills him. He finds a large package of cocaine in the dead guy's briefcase. It's almost exactly 20 minutes since the first threat and someone is dead. And the texts continue.
His supervisor on the ground tells Bill that the bank account is in Bill's name, which makes the supervisor very suspicious.
Things go from bad to worse. The next to die is the pilot, foaming at the mouth. The only doctor on the plane is an apparent Muslim (by his clothing and accent). He confirms the poisoning. One of the passenger acts suspiciously and Bill ends up tying his hands up with duck tape.
The passengers start to get scared when Bill yells at them to put their hands on the back of the seat in front of them so he can search them. A helpful guy on the plane, who is some sort of programmer, says he can send a text message to the phone where the texts are coming from, and even if the phone is turned off, the message will make the phone chirp. This works and Bill hauls the guy who had the phone to the front of the plane. Protesting that he never saw that phone before, he starts foaming at the mouth and dies. Then Bill discovers that there is a bomb hidden in the bag of cocaine with a convenient timer attached to it.
The rest of the passengers have now had enough and when Bill comes out of the bathroom, several stereotypes attack him. Bill manages to survive getting hit in the head twice by a fire extinguisher before suspicious guy gets Bill's gun and gets everybody to listen to Bill's story about the bomb. Nothing like big red numbers counting down to indicate danger. They've got about 18 minutes.
Bill learns from his supervisor that there is a video of him posted by a passenger that has convinced everybody on the ground that he's hijacked the plane. Bill looks at the video and can see, somehow, that suspicious guy and planted the phone on dead foaming at the mouth guy. Then suspicious guy clobbers Bill and takes his gun. And, son of a bitch, helpful guy is in on it too. They are ex-soldiers who have some inarticulate complaint that the country has gone to hell and that by blowing up the plane while making Bill look responsible things will get better. Helpful guy has pulled out their parachutes. Bill carefully explains that you can't parachute from a plane at 18,000 feet without special gear. Suspicious guy says he hadn't planed on getting off the plane. Helpful guy is like, WTF?
Bill has told the co-pilot that he has to take the plane down to 8,000 feet. By the way, they are now on their way to Iceland. The US fighter jets escorting the plane tell the co-pilot to do no such thing. Bill has placed the bomb on the rear door of the plane and the passengers have piled all the luggage on the bomb. The theory is that when the bomb goes off, the luggage will direct the blast outward. If the plane is lower than 8,000 feet, the outside pressure will be high enough so all the passengers won't be killed by decompression. My favorite exchange happens at this point. One of the passengers says "Has this ever worked". Bill says "it's never been tried". Another passenger says "As far as you know". Muslim doctor says "We're all going to die".
Amazingly enough, this works as the co-pilot dives down to 8,000 feet and manages to land the plane with a big hole near the tail, despite the fact that one of the engines blows up for no reason, and most of the business class cabin wall disintegrates. While all this was exciting, I have to say that the special effects were pretty terrible. It looked exactly like a fake explosion on a CGI airplane.
Bill and Jen make plans to hook up while standing on the tarmac with confusion reigning around them.
Surprising to me, the movie was actually pretty good with a lot of suspense and a fairly low body count. Neeson's character, Bill actually only kills one guy and he sort of deserved it. There are only two leads in the movie. Liam Neeson plays Bill Marks with his usual wild-eyed, unkempt manner. Juilanne Moore plays Jen Summers, a frequent traveler who insists on the window seat. Everyone else on board is a stereotype (the tough NYC cop, the shifty-eyed Muslim, the black hip-hop guy, the frightened little girl traveling alone, the indignant old lady, etc).
Bill is an alcoholic air marshal who's afraid of flying. Actually it's only the take off that scares him. He's on a transatlantic flight clutching the air rests during take off. He gets talking to Jen, his row mate, who helps him calm down. Soon after take off Bill starts getting text messages on his special air marshal phone. The messages are simple. Deposit $150 million in an off-shore account or someone on the plane will die every 20 minutes.
Spoilers ahead.
After stalking around the plane for awhile, he talks to a fellow air marshal, apparently just traveling for pleasure, and tells the guy to meet him in the bathroom. Bill suspects this guy because he's the only other person on the plane who should be able to access the air marshal network. Bill accuses him of sending the texts, they get in a fight, the other guy pulls his gun, Bill kills him. He finds a large package of cocaine in the dead guy's briefcase. It's almost exactly 20 minutes since the first threat and someone is dead. And the texts continue.
His supervisor on the ground tells Bill that the bank account is in Bill's name, which makes the supervisor very suspicious.
Things go from bad to worse. The next to die is the pilot, foaming at the mouth. The only doctor on the plane is an apparent Muslim (by his clothing and accent). He confirms the poisoning. One of the passenger acts suspiciously and Bill ends up tying his hands up with duck tape.
The passengers start to get scared when Bill yells at them to put their hands on the back of the seat in front of them so he can search them. A helpful guy on the plane, who is some sort of programmer, says he can send a text message to the phone where the texts are coming from, and even if the phone is turned off, the message will make the phone chirp. This works and Bill hauls the guy who had the phone to the front of the plane. Protesting that he never saw that phone before, he starts foaming at the mouth and dies. Then Bill discovers that there is a bomb hidden in the bag of cocaine with a convenient timer attached to it.
The rest of the passengers have now had enough and when Bill comes out of the bathroom, several stereotypes attack him. Bill manages to survive getting hit in the head twice by a fire extinguisher before suspicious guy gets Bill's gun and gets everybody to listen to Bill's story about the bomb. Nothing like big red numbers counting down to indicate danger. They've got about 18 minutes.
Bill learns from his supervisor that there is a video of him posted by a passenger that has convinced everybody on the ground that he's hijacked the plane. Bill looks at the video and can see, somehow, that suspicious guy and planted the phone on dead foaming at the mouth guy. Then suspicious guy clobbers Bill and takes his gun. And, son of a bitch, helpful guy is in on it too. They are ex-soldiers who have some inarticulate complaint that the country has gone to hell and that by blowing up the plane while making Bill look responsible things will get better. Helpful guy has pulled out their parachutes. Bill carefully explains that you can't parachute from a plane at 18,000 feet without special gear. Suspicious guy says he hadn't planed on getting off the plane. Helpful guy is like, WTF?
Bill has told the co-pilot that he has to take the plane down to 8,000 feet. By the way, they are now on their way to Iceland. The US fighter jets escorting the plane tell the co-pilot to do no such thing. Bill has placed the bomb on the rear door of the plane and the passengers have piled all the luggage on the bomb. The theory is that when the bomb goes off, the luggage will direct the blast outward. If the plane is lower than 8,000 feet, the outside pressure will be high enough so all the passengers won't be killed by decompression. My favorite exchange happens at this point. One of the passengers says "Has this ever worked". Bill says "it's never been tried". Another passenger says "As far as you know". Muslim doctor says "We're all going to die".
Amazingly enough, this works as the co-pilot dives down to 8,000 feet and manages to land the plane with a big hole near the tail, despite the fact that one of the engines blows up for no reason, and most of the business class cabin wall disintegrates. While all this was exciting, I have to say that the special effects were pretty terrible. It looked exactly like a fake explosion on a CGI airplane.
Bill and Jen make plans to hook up while standing on the tarmac with confusion reigning around them.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Movie Review - Gone Girl
I haven't done a movie review in awhile.
We saw the trailers for this movie and I wanted to see it but neither my wife nor my daughter were interested. Finally, I said to myself, "Remember you're a retired guy now, you can go to the movies whenever you want". "That's right!" I replied. So last Tuesday at 11:25 AM I was at the local Cinemark showing of "Gone Girl". Two advantages of going to the movies at 11:25 in the morning is that the price is lower, $5.25 for a ticket, and the theater isn't crowded.
I'm a bit late with this review. "Gone Girl" has been out for a few weeks so you've probably already seen it. But in case you haven't, there is a massive spoiler near the end of my review.
The central plot is easy to state. Man finds his wife missing from their home. There appears to have been a destructive struggle in the house. Man calls police. Police detective immediately starts noticing little clues in the house. What looks like trace blood splatter in the kitchen. Signs of a struggle that look staged. An envelope in the husband's office, labeled "Clue One".
Eventually, Detective Boney (Kim Dickens) begins to suspect murder with husband Nick (Ben Afflect) as the prime suspect. As the story moves forward, punctuated with on-screen lettering laying out the time line (Gone 1 Day), we get flashbacks of early days of their courtship and married life, using the technique of showing wife Amy (Rosemund Pike) writing in her journal.
Since Amy was a beautiful woman (in fact, a beautiful blond white woman), a media craze starts almost immediately. News trucks and reporters are staked out in front of Nick's house at all hours. The case soon attracts the attention of a Nancy Grace-like television show, where Nick is castigated every day. Nick turns to hot-shot attorney Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) for help. Blot has the reputation of successfully defending white wife killers. Things start to spiral out of Nick's control.
On one level, this seems like a simple murder mystery. On the other hand, too many things don't add up for Detective Boney. Which is why, even though urged by her partner, she puts off arresting Nick. Nick starts looking at some past boyfriends of Amy's and finds a disturbing pattern of Amy ending these past relationships because of some violent event. She accused one guy of rape and the only way he avoided prison was to plead to a lesser charge of sexual assault.
I liked all the actors in this. Ben Afflect, at first appearing to just be a regular guy who is worried about his missing wife, is slowly revealed to have is own hidden misdeeds, like a much younger than himself mistress he's kept secret for over a year. I'm not too familiar with Rosemund Pike, in fact the only movie I've ever seen her in is the wretched "Wrath of the Titans" in which she played Andromeda, a performance I don't remember at all. In the revelations from Amy's diary we see her as a sweet lovely woman, doing all she can to make her husband happy.
It's time for the MASSIVE SPOILER.
As Amy's diary gets closer to current time, we learn that, not only isn't she dead, she'd spent about a year preparing to frame Nick for her murder. We see her making 7 years worth of diary entries, showing how wonderful the early years were with Nick but gradually changing to show Nick as a alcoholic abuser. Reading mystery books and taking notes. Befriending a woman down the street, a woman who eventually describes herself as Amy's best friend to the police. A woman who Nick only knew as some woman down the street. When Amy is on the run she appears to be more and more psychotic, at one point, hitting herself in the face with a hammer to support her claim to people that she met that her husband abused her. Pike was quite effective, and a bit scary, as the mild-mannered sweet woman from her diary and the crazy woman who wants her husband put away for a murder that didn't even occur. In the end she becomes a stone-cold killer who can still project a sweet exterior to others.
I don't have any idea of how the movie compares to the book but I intend to read the book.
We saw the trailers for this movie and I wanted to see it but neither my wife nor my daughter were interested. Finally, I said to myself, "Remember you're a retired guy now, you can go to the movies whenever you want". "That's right!" I replied. So last Tuesday at 11:25 AM I was at the local Cinemark showing of "Gone Girl". Two advantages of going to the movies at 11:25 in the morning is that the price is lower, $5.25 for a ticket, and the theater isn't crowded.
I'm a bit late with this review. "Gone Girl" has been out for a few weeks so you've probably already seen it. But in case you haven't, there is a massive spoiler near the end of my review.
The central plot is easy to state. Man finds his wife missing from their home. There appears to have been a destructive struggle in the house. Man calls police. Police detective immediately starts noticing little clues in the house. What looks like trace blood splatter in the kitchen. Signs of a struggle that look staged. An envelope in the husband's office, labeled "Clue One".
Eventually, Detective Boney (Kim Dickens) begins to suspect murder with husband Nick (Ben Afflect) as the prime suspect. As the story moves forward, punctuated with on-screen lettering laying out the time line (Gone 1 Day), we get flashbacks of early days of their courtship and married life, using the technique of showing wife Amy (Rosemund Pike) writing in her journal.
Since Amy was a beautiful woman (in fact, a beautiful blond white woman), a media craze starts almost immediately. News trucks and reporters are staked out in front of Nick's house at all hours. The case soon attracts the attention of a Nancy Grace-like television show, where Nick is castigated every day. Nick turns to hot-shot attorney Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) for help. Blot has the reputation of successfully defending white wife killers. Things start to spiral out of Nick's control.
On one level, this seems like a simple murder mystery. On the other hand, too many things don't add up for Detective Boney. Which is why, even though urged by her partner, she puts off arresting Nick. Nick starts looking at some past boyfriends of Amy's and finds a disturbing pattern of Amy ending these past relationships because of some violent event. She accused one guy of rape and the only way he avoided prison was to plead to a lesser charge of sexual assault.
I liked all the actors in this. Ben Afflect, at first appearing to just be a regular guy who is worried about his missing wife, is slowly revealed to have is own hidden misdeeds, like a much younger than himself mistress he's kept secret for over a year. I'm not too familiar with Rosemund Pike, in fact the only movie I've ever seen her in is the wretched "Wrath of the Titans" in which she played Andromeda, a performance I don't remember at all. In the revelations from Amy's diary we see her as a sweet lovely woman, doing all she can to make her husband happy.
It's time for the MASSIVE SPOILER.
As Amy's diary gets closer to current time, we learn that, not only isn't she dead, she'd spent about a year preparing to frame Nick for her murder. We see her making 7 years worth of diary entries, showing how wonderful the early years were with Nick but gradually changing to show Nick as a alcoholic abuser. Reading mystery books and taking notes. Befriending a woman down the street, a woman who eventually describes herself as Amy's best friend to the police. A woman who Nick only knew as some woman down the street. When Amy is on the run she appears to be more and more psychotic, at one point, hitting herself in the face with a hammer to support her claim to people that she met that her husband abused her. Pike was quite effective, and a bit scary, as the mild-mannered sweet woman from her diary and the crazy woman who wants her husband put away for a murder that didn't even occur. In the end she becomes a stone-cold killer who can still project a sweet exterior to others.
I don't have any idea of how the movie compares to the book but I intend to read the book.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Movie Review - World War Z
Okay, I know I'm a bit late with this since the movie came out in June, 2013. But I just watched it this past weekend.
When this movie was released my wife and daughter, who are not fond of zombie movies, did not want to see it. I really didn't either since it didn't get great reviews and I'd read the book it was supposedly based on and the trailers didn't look like anything from the book. But there it was, on Netflix, so I said what the heck.
First off, the movie has little in common with the book except the title and zombies. And not even the same kind of zombies (the old debate about fast zombies vs. slow zombies). The full title of the book is "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War". It concerns the author's journey 10-years after the zombie war to interview survivors across the US and around the world. The author is Max Brooks, son of Mel Brooks. The book was a series of personal survival stories, very harrowing and believable.
The movie is about Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) surviving one close encounter after another with wild speeding zombies. I was somewhat amused to see that the open scene was in Philadelphia, my home town. Why Philadelphia? Why Not?
Anyway, Lane was a troubleshooter for the UN, going into tough situations and doing something, it was never clear what. But he's burned out and just wants to just spend some quality time with the family. His bad luck that zombies happened.
If you like zombie movies, the film was OK. If you like zombie movies then you're already acquired most of the suspension of disbelief that you need.
Lane sets out looking for Patient 0 with a young genius virologist, Andrew Fassbach, played by Elyes Gabel, who can currently be seen in the goofy TV show "Scorpion". Fassbach is described as the one man who can save us. Lane and Fassbach fly to South Korea where it is rumored, Patient 0 could be found. For this most important mission, by which the fate of all human kind could depend, they send a giant airplane with four guards. Fassbach and the 4 guards are killed almost as soon as the plane lands. The soldiers at the US base they land at manage to get the plane refueled so that Lane and the pilot can leave. Do any of the soldiers decide to go with them, either as protection for this important mission, or at least to maybe go somewhere safer? No.
I contend that you can suspend your disbelief about zombies in a movie like this but the behavior described in the last paragraph can not be believed.
When this movie was released my wife and daughter, who are not fond of zombie movies, did not want to see it. I really didn't either since it didn't get great reviews and I'd read the book it was supposedly based on and the trailers didn't look like anything from the book. But there it was, on Netflix, so I said what the heck.
First off, the movie has little in common with the book except the title and zombies. And not even the same kind of zombies (the old debate about fast zombies vs. slow zombies). The full title of the book is "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War". It concerns the author's journey 10-years after the zombie war to interview survivors across the US and around the world. The author is Max Brooks, son of Mel Brooks. The book was a series of personal survival stories, very harrowing and believable.
The movie is about Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) surviving one close encounter after another with wild speeding zombies. I was somewhat amused to see that the open scene was in Philadelphia, my home town. Why Philadelphia? Why Not?
Anyway, Lane was a troubleshooter for the UN, going into tough situations and doing something, it was never clear what. But he's burned out and just wants to just spend some quality time with the family. His bad luck that zombies happened.
If you like zombie movies, the film was OK. If you like zombie movies then you're already acquired most of the suspension of disbelief that you need.
Lane sets out looking for Patient 0 with a young genius virologist, Andrew Fassbach, played by Elyes Gabel, who can currently be seen in the goofy TV show "Scorpion". Fassbach is described as the one man who can save us. Lane and Fassbach fly to South Korea where it is rumored, Patient 0 could be found. For this most important mission, by which the fate of all human kind could depend, they send a giant airplane with four guards. Fassbach and the 4 guards are killed almost as soon as the plane lands. The soldiers at the US base they land at manage to get the plane refueled so that Lane and the pilot can leave. Do any of the soldiers decide to go with them, either as protection for this important mission, or at least to maybe go somewhere safer? No.
I contend that you can suspend your disbelief about zombies in a movie like this but the behavior described in the last paragraph can not be believed.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Movie Review - Marty
Here's a pretty good movie from long ago, 1955's "Marty" staring Ernest Borgnine. We watched it last week on the Turner Classic Movie channel.
Marty is a 34-year-old bachelor, still living with his mother, who works at a butcher shop. His mother and pretty much every old Italian lady that comes into the shop are always on Marty to get married. But Marty knows he isn't much of a catch and is pretty much resigned to being what he is, a butcher. He has some hope of buying the shop from the owner and setting up in business for himself.
On Friday nights he sits around with his buddies at the local taproom, wondering what to do and how they are going to meet girls. One night, Marty and his best pal, Angie (Joe Mantell) go to the neighbor dance hall, hoping to get lucky. A complete stranger walks up to Marty and offers him $5 if he'll dance with the blind date he's trying to ditch. Marty refuses but watches as the guy convinces another guy to do it. But when the other guy meets the girl, he refuses to dance with her and pockets the $5 too. Marty sees that the girl is upset and goes over to her and asks her to dance,
Clara (Betty Blair) isn't the best looking girl in the place but she and Marty hit it off. They leave the hall, walk around, stop for coffee, and just talk and talk. Marty takes him back to his mother's house to get some cigarets and finds his mother out. They talk some more and Clara says she should be getting home. Marty tries to kiss her but she refuses. He's upset but she tells him she'd like to see him again and he takes her home.
That's pretty much the plot. Borgnine and Blair are great. He talks and talks and just can't believe he's met a girl that will listen to him. Blair, mostly listens, but listens actively, smiling and asking him questions about himself. They have some real chemistry. There's some drama the next day, when Marty, under the influence of his Mother, his brother-in-law and his friends doesn't call her like he said he would. But he finally comes to his senses and calls.
The movie won a bunch of awards, including Oscars for Best picture, Best Actor (Borgnine), Best Director (Delbert Mann) and Best Screenplay (Paddy Chayefsky).
Nobody would make a movie like this today. It's a quite character study with good acting and really no action. No fist fly, no car chases, really no excitement except what is generated by Marty and Clara's relationship.
It was also interesting to watch from the perspective of nearly 60 years away. The movie was shot in black and white. It takes place in a world that sort of looks modern but the plot relies on the time it was made. How much different the story would have had to be if there were smartphones, FaceBook, and no dance halls to meet in.
Marty is a 34-year-old bachelor, still living with his mother, who works at a butcher shop. His mother and pretty much every old Italian lady that comes into the shop are always on Marty to get married. But Marty knows he isn't much of a catch and is pretty much resigned to being what he is, a butcher. He has some hope of buying the shop from the owner and setting up in business for himself.
On Friday nights he sits around with his buddies at the local taproom, wondering what to do and how they are going to meet girls. One night, Marty and his best pal, Angie (Joe Mantell) go to the neighbor dance hall, hoping to get lucky. A complete stranger walks up to Marty and offers him $5 if he'll dance with the blind date he's trying to ditch. Marty refuses but watches as the guy convinces another guy to do it. But when the other guy meets the girl, he refuses to dance with her and pockets the $5 too. Marty sees that the girl is upset and goes over to her and asks her to dance,
Clara (Betty Blair) isn't the best looking girl in the place but she and Marty hit it off. They leave the hall, walk around, stop for coffee, and just talk and talk. Marty takes him back to his mother's house to get some cigarets and finds his mother out. They talk some more and Clara says she should be getting home. Marty tries to kiss her but she refuses. He's upset but she tells him she'd like to see him again and he takes her home.
That's pretty much the plot. Borgnine and Blair are great. He talks and talks and just can't believe he's met a girl that will listen to him. Blair, mostly listens, but listens actively, smiling and asking him questions about himself. They have some real chemistry. There's some drama the next day, when Marty, under the influence of his Mother, his brother-in-law and his friends doesn't call her like he said he would. But he finally comes to his senses and calls.
The movie won a bunch of awards, including Oscars for Best picture, Best Actor (Borgnine), Best Director (Delbert Mann) and Best Screenplay (Paddy Chayefsky).
Nobody would make a movie like this today. It's a quite character study with good acting and really no action. No fist fly, no car chases, really no excitement except what is generated by Marty and Clara's relationship.
It was also interesting to watch from the perspective of nearly 60 years away. The movie was shot in black and white. It takes place in a world that sort of looks modern but the plot relies on the time it was made. How much different the story would have had to be if there were smartphones, FaceBook, and no dance halls to meet in.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Movie Review - A Most Wanted Man
My daughter and I saw this last week and we both quite liked it. Highly recommended.
As I'm sure you know, Philip Seymour Hoffman died earlier this year. I had not given much though about him as an actor as I had not seen much of his work. In this, his last picture, he gives a pretty good performance as German spy Günter Bachmann. Bachmann is in charge of a small German spy unit of questionable legality, who operates in Hamburg, Germany. The unit's purpose, in this post-911 world we live in, is to develop contacts in the Muslim community in Hamburg.
Their main target has been the organization of Dr. Faisal Abdullah, who appears to be a respected Muslim academic and philanthropist, but whom Bachmann believes is funneling some of that philanthropy to radical organizations in the Middle East. One day, Issa Karpov, wanted for various terrorist actions in his native Chechnya, turns up in Hamburg. Karpov makes contact with Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams), a young human rights lawyer. Karpov claims to have the right to his father's (a Russian army officer) inhertance, which is being held by a German bank run by Tommy Brue (William Dafoe). But Karpov claims he doesn't want the money, in fact, he hates his father and wants nothing to do with him.
Bachmann cooks up a scheme to use the money to trap Abdullah. Of course he has to get the approval of more legitimate organizations. He makes his case to the Hamburg head of intelligence, some other shadowy Germans and Martha Sullivan, local CIA agent. They agree with his plan. I don't want to give much more plot than this or I'll ruin the story.
This is a very adult film. I mean adult in the way that comic book super hero movies are generally not adult. The movie is all about Bachmann developing his plan and his team working it out. It's about gaining the trust of people who inherently aren't inclined to trust you. Bachmann has to gain the trust of Tommy Brue who has his banker father's history as a money launderer to hide, and the trust of Richter who is trying to protect Karpov. She must gain the trust of Karpov.
In the end, all that trust ends in massive betrayal, which neither my daughter nor I saw coming but was the perfect end of the movie.
Although this is a spy movie, it is not like a James Bond spy movie. No gadgets, barely any guns, no shooting, no high speed chases. Only one real punch thrown. I haven't read the book by John Le Carre but based on the summary of the book in Wikipedia, the movie is very faithful to the book. 82-year-old Le Carre, wrote the book in 2008 and is listed as an executive producer of the film. I guess he was able to maintain some creative control.
As I'm sure you know, Philip Seymour Hoffman died earlier this year. I had not given much though about him as an actor as I had not seen much of his work. In this, his last picture, he gives a pretty good performance as German spy Günter Bachmann. Bachmann is in charge of a small German spy unit of questionable legality, who operates in Hamburg, Germany. The unit's purpose, in this post-911 world we live in, is to develop contacts in the Muslim community in Hamburg.
Their main target has been the organization of Dr. Faisal Abdullah, who appears to be a respected Muslim academic and philanthropist, but whom Bachmann believes is funneling some of that philanthropy to radical organizations in the Middle East. One day, Issa Karpov, wanted for various terrorist actions in his native Chechnya, turns up in Hamburg. Karpov makes contact with Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams), a young human rights lawyer. Karpov claims to have the right to his father's (a Russian army officer) inhertance, which is being held by a German bank run by Tommy Brue (William Dafoe). But Karpov claims he doesn't want the money, in fact, he hates his father and wants nothing to do with him.
Bachmann cooks up a scheme to use the money to trap Abdullah. Of course he has to get the approval of more legitimate organizations. He makes his case to the Hamburg head of intelligence, some other shadowy Germans and Martha Sullivan, local CIA agent. They agree with his plan. I don't want to give much more plot than this or I'll ruin the story.
This is a very adult film. I mean adult in the way that comic book super hero movies are generally not adult. The movie is all about Bachmann developing his plan and his team working it out. It's about gaining the trust of people who inherently aren't inclined to trust you. Bachmann has to gain the trust of Tommy Brue who has his banker father's history as a money launderer to hide, and the trust of Richter who is trying to protect Karpov. She must gain the trust of Karpov.
In the end, all that trust ends in massive betrayal, which neither my daughter nor I saw coming but was the perfect end of the movie.
Although this is a spy movie, it is not like a James Bond spy movie. No gadgets, barely any guns, no shooting, no high speed chases. Only one real punch thrown. I haven't read the book by John Le Carre but based on the summary of the book in Wikipedia, the movie is very faithful to the book. 82-year-old Le Carre, wrote the book in 2008 and is listed as an executive producer of the film. I guess he was able to maintain some creative control.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Movie Review - "Jersey Boys"
We took a break from action and superhero movies to see the musical "Jersey Boys".
As I'm sure you know the movie, based on a 10-year-old stage show, is about Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. I'm old enough to remember when most of their big hits were new, back in the early 1960's. Along with the Beatles and the Beach Boys, they were one of the biggest bands of the time.
The movie has, broadly, two themes, the music and the price they pay for their success. For the most part, the music is great. The guys playing the band were the original cast of the play. In the beginning they all look a little old for the part but not disturbingly so. We first meet Frankie as a 16-year-old in 1951. I'd have guessed he was 30. We hear the music in a variety of ways: rehearsing, recording, playing before a live audience, or playing on television. Pretty much all the big hits I remember are there. I understand there was much more music in the stage show, but director Eastwood, decided to focus more on the backstage aspects of their story.
It's hard to know how much of the back story is true (Wikipedia wasn't much help). According to the film, the boys in their early days were basically mobsters and beholden to mob interests for many years. One of the band members racked up an enormous debt to the mob which Frankie eventually paid down. Frankie's wife was an alcoholic and the marriage broke up with three daughters. His oldest daughter, on the verge of making some demo records, died, apparently of a drug overdose. All this was a dark counterpoint to the music, which, somehow, continued on.
The story is moved along by narratives by different band members, directly to the audience. This sometimes worked pretty well, like in the opening, band member Tommy, while walking down the street, starts talking to the camera over his shoulder. Other times, like when a band member, during a performance, steps out of character to address the camera, didn't work as well.
It was hard to get a sense of time passing in the movie. In the opening we're told it's 1951 by a screen caption. A little later, one band member, in an aside to the camera says it's 1961. The next time we hear a date is when the band is getting inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in 1990. According to Wikipedia, the band's (and/or Valli's as a solo act) popularity as a recoding act dropped pretty quickly in the late 1960's. As a performing act, the band or Valli as a solo remain popular to this day. My wife and I saw them perform around 1990 to an enthusiastic crowd in Atlantic City, some 15 years after their last real hit. The movie doesn't really put into context how big they were or how far they fell.
We liked the movie, although I think I'd have preferred it to be a bit more upbeat. Be warned that the movie has a well deserved R rating for language, it you're thinking of taking your 10-year-old. There are more f**ks in this movie than anything we've seen in years.
As I'm sure you know the movie, based on a 10-year-old stage show, is about Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. I'm old enough to remember when most of their big hits were new, back in the early 1960's. Along with the Beatles and the Beach Boys, they were one of the biggest bands of the time.
The movie has, broadly, two themes, the music and the price they pay for their success. For the most part, the music is great. The guys playing the band were the original cast of the play. In the beginning they all look a little old for the part but not disturbingly so. We first meet Frankie as a 16-year-old in 1951. I'd have guessed he was 30. We hear the music in a variety of ways: rehearsing, recording, playing before a live audience, or playing on television. Pretty much all the big hits I remember are there. I understand there was much more music in the stage show, but director Eastwood, decided to focus more on the backstage aspects of their story.
It's hard to know how much of the back story is true (Wikipedia wasn't much help). According to the film, the boys in their early days were basically mobsters and beholden to mob interests for many years. One of the band members racked up an enormous debt to the mob which Frankie eventually paid down. Frankie's wife was an alcoholic and the marriage broke up with three daughters. His oldest daughter, on the verge of making some demo records, died, apparently of a drug overdose. All this was a dark counterpoint to the music, which, somehow, continued on.
The story is moved along by narratives by different band members, directly to the audience. This sometimes worked pretty well, like in the opening, band member Tommy, while walking down the street, starts talking to the camera over his shoulder. Other times, like when a band member, during a performance, steps out of character to address the camera, didn't work as well.
It was hard to get a sense of time passing in the movie. In the opening we're told it's 1951 by a screen caption. A little later, one band member, in an aside to the camera says it's 1961. The next time we hear a date is when the band is getting inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in 1990. According to Wikipedia, the band's (and/or Valli's as a solo act) popularity as a recoding act dropped pretty quickly in the late 1960's. As a performing act, the band or Valli as a solo remain popular to this day. My wife and I saw them perform around 1990 to an enthusiastic crowd in Atlantic City, some 15 years after their last real hit. The movie doesn't really put into context how big they were or how far they fell.
We liked the movie, although I think I'd have preferred it to be a bit more upbeat. Be warned that the movie has a well deserved R rating for language, it you're thinking of taking your 10-year-old. There are more f**ks in this movie than anything we've seen in years.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Movie Review - Edge of Tomorrow
If you've heard that "Edge of Tomorrow" is "Groundhog Day" with aliens, you pretty much heard right. In "Groundhog Day" Phil (Bill Murray) finds himself senselessly reliving the same day over and over. He gradually finds a purpose, to win the heart of his producer, Rita (Andie MacDowell). eventually he breaks out of the loop, wins the girl and saves his soul.
In "Edge of Tomorrow", Major Cage (Tom Cruise) cowardly army publicist, finds himself reliving the same day over and over. But, instead of finding himself in a pleasant little Pennsylvania town on Groundhog Day, he finds himself in the middle of the biggest battle of all time as humankind tries to stop the advance of implacable aliens. He never gets to fall asleep at the end of the day, he gets killed within minutes and resets back to the beginning of the day.
But like Phil, Cage gradually finds a purpose, meets up with Rita (Emily Blunt), who once had the same power that Cage now has, to reset time upon his death. Together they figure out how to defeat the aliens, if only Cage can stay alive long enough.
Just like in "Groundhog Day" there are a lot of repetitious scenes, but each is filmed a bit differently and as he lives longer and longer, the earlier parts of the day get skipped. All this is filmed very well, and the movie never drags. In each reset we, and Rita and Cage, learn something new.
Cruise is pretty good as the cowardly and completely at a loss Major Cage, thrust into a horrifying battle with no preparation. He doesn't even know how to turn off the safety on his battle suit. But slowly, and believably, he turns into a confident and deadly soldier with a world-saving mission.
Emily Blunt is also good as the tough-as-nails Master Sargent Rita Vrataski. She'd been killed over 300 times in a previous battle before she lost the reset power. The movie is a bit murky on how she eventually survived that battle and how she knows she's lost the power. She meets Cage on the big battlefield, when Cage, with several lives worth of experience, rescues her and leads her to safety. She immediately recognizes what he is. You've seen the trailers "Come find me when you wake up!"
The opening box office was not good. It only made $28MM the first weekend. It cost $178MM to make so it's got a long way to go. But I think this is a movie with legs and that word of mouth will save it. So if the comparisons to "Groundhog Day" have made you think you don't need to see this movie, go see it anyway.
In "Edge of Tomorrow", Major Cage (Tom Cruise) cowardly army publicist, finds himself reliving the same day over and over. But, instead of finding himself in a pleasant little Pennsylvania town on Groundhog Day, he finds himself in the middle of the biggest battle of all time as humankind tries to stop the advance of implacable aliens. He never gets to fall asleep at the end of the day, he gets killed within minutes and resets back to the beginning of the day.
But like Phil, Cage gradually finds a purpose, meets up with Rita (Emily Blunt), who once had the same power that Cage now has, to reset time upon his death. Together they figure out how to defeat the aliens, if only Cage can stay alive long enough.
Just like in "Groundhog Day" there are a lot of repetitious scenes, but each is filmed a bit differently and as he lives longer and longer, the earlier parts of the day get skipped. All this is filmed very well, and the movie never drags. In each reset we, and Rita and Cage, learn something new.
Cruise is pretty good as the cowardly and completely at a loss Major Cage, thrust into a horrifying battle with no preparation. He doesn't even know how to turn off the safety on his battle suit. But slowly, and believably, he turns into a confident and deadly soldier with a world-saving mission.
Emily Blunt is also good as the tough-as-nails Master Sargent Rita Vrataski. She'd been killed over 300 times in a previous battle before she lost the reset power. The movie is a bit murky on how she eventually survived that battle and how she knows she's lost the power. She meets Cage on the big battlefield, when Cage, with several lives worth of experience, rescues her and leads her to safety. She immediately recognizes what he is. You've seen the trailers "Come find me when you wake up!"
The opening box office was not good. It only made $28MM the first weekend. It cost $178MM to make so it's got a long way to go. But I think this is a movie with legs and that word of mouth will save it. So if the comparisons to "Groundhog Day" have made you think you don't need to see this movie, go see it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















