Gravity Review

I'm glad they finally turned Space Oddity into a movie.

Seriously, though.  It's a good thing this movie is only 90 minutes long.  Otherwise I may have blacked out from not breathing.  It is absolutely riveting from the opening shot right until the end credits.  In a way, it reminded me of Buried.  You know, the movie where all it is is Ryan Reynolds in a coffin talking on a phone?  It's like that in the fact that, through the use of excellent acting and a great score, they make you feel like you're there with the characters.  Add in that they could do so much more with camera work and the 3D, and you feel what I can only imagine is close to the same helplessness in the void that Ryan Stone does.  I think it's the 3D that really puts it over the top though.  The movie obviously had to have a lot of CGI in it and it still felt so real.  I guess you can spend a lot on that when you only have two or three on screen actors in the whole thing.

The only beef I have with the film (and it's very minor) is that it beats you over the head with its metaphors and allegory.  It's an obvious tale of persistence and moving on through adversity shown in an extreme case.  There are moments where they move past subtlety and almost say to the audience, "get it?"  But by then, you're so engrossed in the visuals that you don't care.  There are also instances where I'm pretty sure they bent the laws of physics and ignored actual space travel protocols but I can live with that.  I'm no physicist or rocket scientist so I'll defer to their judgement on how far you can take artistic license.

Acting wise, it's very strong.  While it isn't either of their best performance, both Clooney and Bullock are above average.

Definitely see it.  If you suffer from motion sickness, maybe take some Gravol with you.  But don't let it stop you.

The World's End Review

The third instalment of the "Cornetto Trilogy."  But it isn't really a trilogy because the three movies (this, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz) really have nothing to do with each other.  The stories are completely different and so are the characters.  In each of the three, you don't even have the actors playing similar roles to the others.  But they are a trilogy in styles.  There are similar jokes, shots and gags that run through all three.  But, most of all, they all place significance on seemingly insignificant things like colours, names, etc.  Because of that, these are more than just action comedies.  You really have to watch and pay attention to get the whole effect.

The World's End had a bit of a different feel than the others.  While there were some of the same gags, it felt more formulaic than the other two.  This is probably because the basis is a set out pub crawl that the characters have to wind their way through.  It made the flow seem a bit choppy and episodic.

But that is overshadowed by some very clever dialogue writing and superb acting.  The film is excellently cast with each of the five guys in the group playing the role that is perfect for them.  It was good to see Pegg as the clueless one and Frost as the level headed one in a bit of a switch.  Add in Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan and there is a terrific chemistry in virtually every interaction.  They keep it moving very fast with some superb comic timing.  They also do a terrific job of showing all of the characters' progression into a continuing state of drunkenness.

While it does feel different from the other two and has what seems to be a tacked on ending, it still entertains all the way through.  I laughed out loud a lot and it never felt forced.  It's another home run from what is, for my money, the funniest group the film industry has to offer right now.  See it.

Pacific Rim Review

When I first heard of this movie I thought it would provide a fresh look at dealing with an alien invasion.  It actually looked like something that was mostly new and quite exciting.  After all, it has 250 foot robots fighting giant monsters from another world.  Then, I watched it and realized that it is actually nothing really new.  Almost everything in this movie is derived from another sci-fi/action source (right down to referring to a rift in time/space as a "breach." Guillermo del Toro took a lot of things that we found cool or interesting in other movies and TV shows and mashed them together into Pacific Rim.  This isn't overly surprising given that Hollywood has been suffering from a lack of creativity lately.

Pacific Rim does have decent story progression.  It gets to the point (let's see giant things smash little things while beating the crap out of each other) very quickly without a lot of origin exposition and discovering how to deal with Earth's sudden dramatic paradigm shift.  It gives you what you need to know and then moves on to the smashy smashy.  The problem is that the actual delivery of that story is quite bad.  The writing (especially dialogue) is done very poorly and it is delivered atrociously by the actors (especially Charlie Hunnam).  There is too much emphasis on getting the dramatic camera angle and not enough on telling the story.  Then they went a little overboard in making the characters seem to be straight off the pages of a comic book (the Russians, Mako Mori, Hannibal Chau, etc.) making them unrelateable (this would be forgiven somewhat if it was based on a graphic novel).  It's made worse by the large number of plot holes and logical flaws that can be seen throughout; in particular, how the Jaegers are used.

The good in this movie is in the effects, makeup and action.  The monsters and robots are fantastically created and I liked how they were all different.  Everything looks very realistic with minimal flaws.  They also stayed away from the overly shaky camera work that film makers love now for some stupid reason.  This lets the viewer see and take in the maximum amount of action and those parts are a joy to watch.

Visually, it is good.  But del Toro's efforts to make it more light-hearted than other recent summer action blockbusters wind up actually making it more of an eye-roller and forehead-slapper.  So it narrowly misses a See recommendation and gets pushed into Don't See.

Man of Steel Review

The popularity of comic book movies combined with reboots and remakes made this a foregone conclusion.  Superman is the iconic go to superhero in most people's minds.  So, the question is: did they do a good job of modernizing Superman for today's movie going audience while still maintaining his everyman superhero status?  I think they did.

You can't do much to alter the origin story of Superman or most other superheroes.  The hard line fans will kill you if you do.  So, you know that you're going to have to sit through a long, drawn out story of Krypton's destruction and Clark kent growing up in Kansas while learning to come to grips with his powers.  They alleviated this somewhat in two ways.  First, they made all of the stuff on Krypton very nice to look at.  While we can turn our minds off while they tell us a story that we all know, we can just sit back and enjoy the view.  And they are visuals that are superb all the way through.  Second, they wove the coming of ages stuff within the movie with flashbacks.  This allows the story to move forward with a decent pace while still showing the viewer the entire struggle that Kal-El faces on earth.  It made a 2.5 hour movie move fairly quickly.

The action sequences are a little sparsely placed.  But when they do show up, they are done very well with minimal shaky camera work.  There are a lot of exposition and slower "brooding" scenes which could have slowed the movie down.  But this version of Superman is very well cast and the actors really do step up to the plate.  I had never heard of Henry Cavill but making him Superman was absolutely brilliant.  He has the perfect physique and look to play the All-American hero.  Amy Adams isn't the stereotypical Lois Lane but Lane takes a different direction in this version.  I love that they didn't make her an idiot who can't tell the difference between glasses and no glasses.  Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe are both solid as Kal-El's fathers.  Finally, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White was a very good choice.  He has a air of authority and father figure that plays very well as editor of the Daily Planet.

Lastly, I want to give a nod to their portrayal of Metropolis.  There are numerous famous buildings from around the world in the shots of the city and this gives it a real "every city" feel.  Their use of the International House of Pancakes works in the same way for Smallville.  And having Clark go to Canada to work on the fishing boats was a nice touch when they could have easily just sent him to Maine.  While they do Americanize the whole story a bit, these elements do allow for Superman to be a hero for the whole world.  It's something this Canadian reviewer appreciates.

See it.

World War Z Review

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the quality of this movie.  After all, zombie films are never that good overall.  It used to be because the monster is horribly flawed by an inability to move quickly.  Now, they've gotten rid of that and have them move at almost lightning speeds.  Still, in spite of the tremendous popularity of the genre, there is still a huge struggle to go from cult following to great action movies when it comes to the undead.

Most of the problems with this film stem from the lousy choices made with the camera.  When will Hollywood learn that the shaky camera does way more harm than good.  It never makes you feel like you're in the action because your brain and eyes aren't working together with the film makers to compensate for abrupt movement.  It is just difficult to watch.  It is used to hide the flaws in the tremendous amount of CGI that is used for the zombie effects.

And speaking of which, those effects aren't that spectacular to begin with.  While the makeup is decent, the actions of the zombies in their docile state are like ADHD stricken children trying to pay attention during their T-ball game.  Their jerky movements and chattering teeth were way too comical for a movie that was trying so hard to be serious and break away from the stereotypical zombie films.

Thirdly, there are numerous plot holes throughout the entire film.  These are exacerbated by many very poor decisions that the characters make.  And it isn't just one character.  The whole of humanity seems to completely lose their common sense.  Granted, there is worldwide panic.  But if the UN has enough on the ball to have a flotilla ready for this contingency, you'd think there would be some other proper protocols in place as well.

There are a few good things about the film though.  It moves very quickly with very little down time.  Even the expository scenes have a good pace.  It gets to the crisis right from the start without that boring buildup that apocalyptic event movies seem to want to force on us.  It gets right to the point of why went to see it: zombies and destruction.

Still, the pace is not enough given all of the flaws.  Don't see it.

Back to the Future Part III Review

I like the way they handled these movies.  Originally, it was supposed to be a stand alone movie with no sequel.  But then when there was a demand for a sequel, they planned two right away and filmed them back to back.  Finishing the story over twp more movies allowed them to give the franchise a decent sense of continuity and closure that can be lacking in time travel movies.

While the second one took another stab at the events of 1955, they were smart not to go to that well again.  Instead, they continued the story by going even farther back to the wild west.  They were able to do all the same gags and elements that we all wanted to see but in a brand new context that didn't make them feel stale.  So in spite of it all being basically the same, the third movie is still entertaining.  And even though you start to get the feeling that the McFly family has been inbreeding for a very long time, you're willing to look past the fact that Marty's paternal great grandmother looks suspiciously like his mother.

Ultimately what makes these movies good is that they keep the fun factor high.  They never take themselves seriously and try to make it some sort of grand morality play.  I recently heard about a fourth installment and I'm torn as to my opinion of it.  On the one hand, I would like to see what they will do with an older Marty and the leaps that CGI has taken.  On the other hand, by the time the third one rolled around, I was starting to get tired of hearing "great Scott!" over an over.  So a fourth right away would have been a mistake.  But maybe they've waited long enough.

But, back to the review of this one.  Even though it is still fast paced and fun, you can tell that it is starting to go a bit downhill.  Still, I say you should see it.

Back to the Future Part II Review

It's almost impossible to watch the first one without watching the second one as soon as you can after.  When the first finished the other night, Steph hit the record button for the other two on Space on the DVR.  So, we watched the second one the next night.

Often in a trilogy, the second installment is the boring one.  That isn't the case with these movies.  The second one has a very high level of entertainment value.  Granted, part of that entertainment is laughing at just how off their vision of the future really was.  But I'm pretty sure that they never really thought that hover boards and flying cars would actually emerge.  Or that CCDC sunglasses would make a comeback.  The exaggerated predictions were basically a vehicle to amp up the fish out of water theme for the rest of the movie.  In fact, everything in this one is basically the first one but just more exaggerated.  The characters are all the same but more melodramatic and the situations are even more bizarre.  It worked in the first so they did it in the second.

They did go a little too far though.  Doc Brown and Biff go overboard with their antics and it actually draws away from the story.  Had they kept them on the same level as the first film, this one would have been even better.  I believe they reshot most of the scenes that took place in the first film so keeping the characters on a more even keel would have provided for a more seamless sequel.  But that isn't really enough to take away from the fact that it is entertaining.

The one thing that does irritate me a bit about the movie is that Doc, a guy who is so adamant about paradoxes and catastrophic consequences of interfering with events in time travel brings Marty to the future specifically to interfere with events.

Still, see it.

Back to the Future Review

Because of the whole notion of paradoxes and catastrophic consequences, time travel movies tend to be very bleak.  That's why Back to the Future will always stand out from the crowd.  The bleakest part of this movie is close to the beginning when Doc is confronted by the terrorists.  It's a light and humourous film that never takes itself too seriously even though it had the potential to do so.

You need to know going in that this movie (and its sequels) is wrought with contradictions, plot holes, and time travel paradoxes that are almost enough to make your head spin.  But most time travel moves are simply because it is scientifically impossible so there's no way to properly reconcile all of the questions.  When you realize that and decide to just focus on the characters (especially Marty McFly) and less on the ridiculous situation,  this becomes one of the most entertaining movies of its generation.

I think it's Michael J Fox's crowning achievement and he's had a lot of good performances.  But to people my age, he will always be Marty McFly (and to a lesser extent, Alex P Keaton).  In Back to the Future, he is able to convey just about every emotion from humour (playing Johnny B Goode) to awkward (his mom has the hots for him) to fear and sadness (his future and existence is in doubt).  From when he goes back in time right up to the end, he brings a sense of panic and urgency that makes the movie fly and keep the viewer interested.  All of the other characters are pretty much over the top cartoony simply to be able to give focus to the absurd situation that McFly has gotten into.

See it.  Chances are, you already have and, if that's the case, see it again.  In fact, make it a great Saturday night and sit down with all three.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure Review

Sometimes, you just have to turn your brain off.  I saw this movie way back in the day and remember laughing my arse off but also recognizing that it wasn't a very good movie.  It was just funny and I was about 14 years old.  A recent turn in Draw Something where I drew Keanu Reeves saying, "be excellent to each other" caused me to want to give it another go to see if it would still be funny.  (Note: I subsequently found out that Bill said the line, not Ted.  So my drawing was inaccurate.)

While watching it the second time around, I was struck by just how much of this film was stolen to make Dude, Where's My Car?.  It would be easy to see it as a ripoff of that but Bill & Ted did it first.  And while the cinematic quality isn't there from an acting, story, effects, etc. point of view, let's face it.  This is one of those movies where they couldn't give a rip about making a great film.  The entire intent was to make a goofball, stoner comedy that makes you laugh because it is so ridiculous.  They succeeded in doing just that.

Sadly, the movie isn't aging as well as it could.  It was made at that awkward time when CGI was just starting to be used a lot and everything winds up looking too fake.  The acting is also atrocious throughout.  It is possible to do these stoner movies with some halfway decent acting quality (Dude... and Pineapple Express come to mind) but what they did in Bill & Ted was sufficient for the late 80s.  It wouldn't cut it now if they tried to do this the same way.

So, would I recommend the movie?  For nostalgia and some mindless laughs, yes.  But if you're looking for just a goofball comedy without the trip down memory lane, there are better options (see above).

Star Trek: Into Darkness Review

I had been looking forward to this one as soon as the credits started rolling on the last one.  JJ Abrams' reboot of a very popular franchise is the perfect example of how to appease the hardcore fans while still making something fresh for a new generation of casual movie fans and action fans.  So, after doing it right on the first one, it would be interesting to see if he would be able to ride the momentum with a quality follow up.  He did not disappoint.

Right from the start of this film, the action and tension never let go.  Even in the slowed down, expository scenes there is a chemistry between the actors that keeps the viewer engaged.  They struck gold with the ensemble a couple of years ago and were able to keep them together for another go round.  This is amped up with the addition of Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain.  If you haven't seen him in the BBC's Sherlock, I highly recommend you do.  He is terrific as a loner-type that is cold and calculating.  While Holmes is a hero, Khan is far from it.  Cumberbatch is able to adjust and create a villain that anyone would be scared of (I've never seen The Wrath of Khan so I cannot compare it).  He does over-enunciate his lines a bit but I felt it kind of added to the character's intensity and motivation.

Visually, this movie is near perfect.  In an action and sci-fi movie, we demand superior effects and Into Darkness delivers on that.  Everything looks very real and plausible.  The only drawback would be Abrams overdoing the lens flares a bit but that is his signature.  At least he doesn't slow everything down like John Woo.

See it.  Even if you aren't a Sci-Fi or Star Trek fan, these movies are just flat out, great, funny action.

Oblivion Review

Another movie that had a tremendous amount of potential.  It has some very good actors in Tom Cruise, Melissa Leo and Morgan Freeman.  It also has a story that could be quite intriguing.  The problem is that the story is written with a lot of holes that it leaves the viewer wondering "what the hell?"  This can sometimes be overcome with some great action (see Transformers).  But they decided to try and make this a philosophical play rather than a sci-fi action movie.  The problem is that, in order for a philosophical movie to be good, it has to make sense and not contradict itself over and over.  Oblivion fails miserably in this.

It was marketed as an action film and inferred that Morgan Freeman would be a central actor in it.  Freeman doesn't show up until almost an hour through (I checked my watch) and the action is almost non-existent except for very close to the end.  By then, you just want it to end quickly.  It's almost as if the executives knew they had a horrible movie on their hands and the only way to get anyone to see it was to completely deceive the viewing public.

Right from the start, there is nothing to keep the audience motivated.  The characters of Jack and Julia are so boring that you really don't care if they live or die at all.  Then, Jack puts on a Yankees hat and, in a world where if you're a baseball fan, you either love or despise the Yankees, all they do is make a large portion of the audience hate him even more.  So, you start thinking about the story.  Maybe that will be good.  But, as I said, it is so full of holes that you just roll your eyes for most of it.  Here's an example that won't spoil the movie because it happens very early.  Jack has had his memory wiped.  The only thing that keeps coming back is a vague dream with some bits and pieces.  He's completely cut off from the memories of history.  Yet, he is able to describe, in great detail, the final play of the last Super Bowl ever played which he acknowledges, happened before the war.  Granted, he tells Julia that this memory comes from reading about it.  But she's not supposed to know about his little "man cave" haven that he goes to.  So, either she's too stupid to ask him where he got access to this book or his mind isn't wiped.  And it just gets more ridiculous from there...

Don't see it.  I paid $3.50 to see it and even that was too much.  The Sci-Fi genre is so rich with better movies that this will never be worth your time.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Review

The only problem I have with this movie is that, through the whole thing, I had the score of the Simpsons' stage production of the Planet of the Apes running through my head.  But that's hardly the fault of the film makers so I can't count it against the movie.  But, let's face it.  Wouldn't that actually be a benefit to the movie?  (I actually have one other problem.  I've been to Muir Woods twice and there's no way it would be deserted at any time.  Just try finding a parking spot if you ever go.  But they had to clear it out for the cinematic effect.)

Overall, this movie is actually very good.  I was expecting much less.  But it's got a very solid and tightly wrapped story to it.  As a prequel to an entire franchise, it does have a completely expository tone to it.  The entire thing is an introduction.  I know I've complained about those types of movies in the past so I'll just say that if you're going to do a prequel, this is the way to do it.  Answer the questions about how things got to the way they were in the later movies but don't ask a bunch of new questions that will just lead to the two stories not lining up properly.  in other words, you need to stay true to any canon you created with a later movie.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes does it quite well.

The other thing that makes this good is the absolutely breathtaking special effects.  Caesar actually looks like an enlightened chimpanzee.  This is probably due to the fact that they used a human and made him a chimp rather than animating a chimp.  It brought a sense of realism that should have beaten Hugo for a visual effects Oscar.  Further to this, all of the green screening effects that they had to use were flawless.  Add in very good acting (and only one cheesy - but albeit obligatory - "damn dirty ape" line) all around and it makes for a very strong action/sci-fi movie.

See it.

Robocop Commentary

I didn't start really watching movies until 1992 so I had never seen Robocop. I was expecting it to be one of those 80s action movies that is way past its expiration date.  It starts out kind of like that.  There are some pretty cheesy melodramatic lines and some acting that was obviously not assisted by a police consultant.  But the film takes a huge turn in quality when Murphy goes down.  From the first person point of view during his construction onward, this is a very entertaining and well made action movie.

I have to remind myself that it was made 25 years ago.  Some of the effects do show the age of the movie.  But, if you can keep that context in mind, it doesn't draw away from the value.  The makeup and blood effects for the time were top notch and would still be considered good.  And the Robocop suit/body is still badass today.  Also, they did a very good job with their assumptions in future technology and keeping it realistic (the DVD comes to mind) which is difficult to do in any movie.  I can see why they want to do a remake because with today's technology, they can do a lot more with the effects. But you just know they're going to go too far.  A remake is a mistake because the original still entertains at a high level.

Another aspect I liked was the moral ambiguity in OCP for the most part.  Yes, the big villain there is definitely a bad guy.  But there's no big corporate conspiracy (like in, say, Resident Evil) that Robocop has to fight.  For the most part, the executives are very realistic.  They have corporate goals and may not be great people. But they aren't evil either.

If you're one of the few who has not seen it, see it.  Otherwise, see it again.

Super 8 Commentary

So this is what would happen if M Night Syamalan were to make Stand By Me.  It's a coming of age story that takes place around an alien backdrop and tries to bring in a human element with Kyle Chandler, Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning and Ron Eldard.  I really liked the idea of the coming of age with the five friends trying to make a movie and accidentally discovering a military alien cover up.  What I didn't like was that they start out with that and try to make it a thriller.  Then they go off on these emotional tangents because they think that a thriller isn't enough.  And that is even reflected in the movie that the kids are making.

From a technical standpoint, this movie is very well written and well shot.  But when Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams are involved you know there's going to be a certain threshold of quality in that.  I also like that they don't try to keep the alien a mystery to us.  They reveal enough of it physically at the right points to keep you interested in that.  The acting is where this movie falls apart.  You get pretty much what you would expect from kids.  They haven't developed their craft a lot yet.  But the adults are just on the wrong side of average in this film.

Overall, this film is really a wash.  On the one hand, it's well filmed and written.  On the other, it gets bogged down in the wrong themes.  But it isn't a total waste of time so See it.

Total Recall (2012) Commentary

The one thing this movie needed was for Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel to tussle.  They did so See it.  But here's a commentary too:

There's really not much to say.  It's a pretty basic remake of what was already a good movie.  As with any remake, the basis of the movie is not going to be original at all.  So they rely on some story tweaking, updated effects, use of newer technology, and elaborate sets and locations.  In that, they did a pretty goods job with Total Recall.  If you haven't seen the first one, this will be entertaining.  Even if you have seen the first one, this should be entertaining.  There's enough story tweaking to make it different.  Also, the choice of lead characters was enough to make them very different in tone.  It's sort of like the difference in James Bond from Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is a lot of flash (and at his best when he plays a soulless robot) whereas Colin Farrel often plays more real and gritty characters (notice I said often.  Not always.).  Whether or not you like either or both actors is irrelevant.  The way they play this character is different enough to give the movies very different feels.

There's very little in the way of comic relief in this film.  There's a couple of references to the first film's more memorable moments that made me chuckle but that's it.  As a result, the film is very dark, tense and kind of depressing in many spots.  There's also a lot of symbolism with oppression and such but it didn't really take away from the film.  Finally, it was lacking a bit in action.  It took a while to get going and, when it did, I thought the choreography and action effects were a bit blah (I mean, come on.  Did he really think punching a robot in the face was going to have any effect?)

They did do a good job with making it not confusing.  A movie where you're not supposed to know what is real and what is in the mind can be very confusing and, without using obvious visual clues like in Inception or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Total Recall was able to stay away from falling into a state of confusion for the viewers.  So that is a real plus.

The bottom line is that this film isn't great but it isn't bad either.  After watching it, I'm not sorry to have seen it.  I didn't roll my eyes at anything cheesy.  But I also didn't come out with any "wow" in me either.  Girls tussling aside, I still say see it for the effects and sets but it won't blow you away.

The Watch Commentary

When Karl told me that Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and the hilarious Richard Ayoade were going to be a bunch of suburban losers in a neighborhood watch I thought this would be a can't miss movie.  Then I saw ads and previews and thought, "oh.  They're going to ruin a terrific premise with tremendous potential with a weak and tired alien story."  I was right.

The film stars four of the finest comedic actors that are available (throw in the surprise appearance by Will Forte and it should be comedy gold).  (If you don't know Ayoade, watch all four series of the IT Crowd and you'll see what I mean.)  The film makers waste all of that talent by putting together a movie that has no real story and writing that does not play fully to the actors' strengths.  For example, Vaughn is always at his best when he can be a cool guy that talks a mile a minute.  He talks a mile a minute in the Watch but his character is kind of an awkward loser that would have been better played by a guy like Hill or a Kevin James type.  Instead of building a strong story, there is too much reliance on the four main characters being involved in escalatingly funny dialogue (you know.  The kind of obvious observations delivered in a comedic manner that everyone likes to do now).  But without a good story, it just becomes little sketches that aren't really funny to begin with.

In addition to the lack of story, the characters are very inconsistent.  Evan (Stiller) is supposed to be a straight laced, no nonsense guy but goes along with the crowd way too easily in places.  Bob (Vaughn) is sometimes cool and sometimes a huge wiener (the Russian Nesting Doll incident springs to mind).  The only one that really pulls it off is the Franklin character.  Hill does a fantastic job as a paramilitary police force reject who is really such a huge poser and pushover.

I was on the fence a lot for most of the film.  I think the stars really made me want to like it but the poor film making all around brought me back down to earth on it.  The final kicker though was the absolutely ridiculous and downright stupid solution to the whole problem.  I won't give it away but I just couldn't forgive it.  It is that weak and uninspired.

Don't see it.

Prometheus Commentary

For a movie that beats you over the head with exposition, it sure leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  Prometheus has a confusing opening sequence that is never really explained and takes a long time to really explain anything else.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing if questions are answered along the way.  However, the only questions that are addressed are the ones where the answer is blatantly obvious to the viewer.  Anything else is left hanging and I can only hope that much of that will get addressed in a sequel.  Overall, however, this made the movie disappointing.  We all knew going in that it was basically an Alien prequel (no matter how much the lead up tried to convince you that it wasn’t, it is.) and I’m fine with that.  But there were very few questions about origins in the Alien movies and subsequent sequels have really made a prequel irrelevant.  Now, if you take the Prometheus story and, given the ending which I won’t divulge, take it in its own direction, you could branch off into a stand alone franchise.  The problem is that I don’t think anyone would really care.

The problem with Prometheus is that they did an absolutely terrible job of making me care about what happened to any of the characters.  The only motivation that was clearly established was that of the two scientists, Holloway and Shaw.  But the attempt at a human interest story between the two was half assed and unnecessary given the potential of the overall plot.  All of the other characters were just sort of there without any real relationship established with the audience.  The character of David was done particularly poorly.  A lot of the hype surrounded him as this amalgamation of other AI characters from movies that was basically going to change how we looked at cinematic androids.  Instead, they made him very inconsistent.  He’s supposed to not understand emotion but is clearly happy and angry at points in the film.  (Oddly enough, it’s the most emotion I’ve seen from Michael Fassbender. … Not a fan of his work at all.)  If I missed the mark on that it’s because the film makers didn’t explain that while they were beating me over the head with the obvious stuff.  Rather than stick to the basics of humans and aliens, they decided to give it an existential angle regarding the origins of man and religious beliefs and … zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  I could go on with things like Charlize Theron’s phoned in performance but I think you get the idea.  The only character I ever cared about was Idris Elba’s Janek.  It could be that I just like Elba’s work overall.  But that seemed to be a character that I could relate to.

The good in this movie is the effects.  I have absolutely no complaints about any of them.  The animatronics and CGI were some of the best I have ever seen (especially David later in the film).  The sound is fantastic, hair-raising and builds tension well.  There was some music used that I thought was derivative of Star Trek but it did suit the current mood so I’m willing to let that slide.  The use of 3D was very judicious in that it didn’t throw too much at you and actually enhanced the experience; worth the $3.  Visually and auditorily (I don’t think that’s a word but anyways), Prometheus is a treat.  The only drawback was Guy Pearce’s makeup as an old man.  They never seem to get old-people makeup right in movies.  I think it has something to do with the fact that we know what old people look like so we are less likely to accept an artist rendering like this.  But this was particularly bad.  It was almost as if they were trying to turn him into some sort of albino reptile.

I’m not upset that I watched it.  But I am disappointed.  This is one of those movies where part of me wants to say see it for the effects and sound experience.  But part of me wants to stop you from going through the character and plot frustrations that I experienced.  On toss ups like this, I usually say see it so you can judge for yourself.  So see it.

Men in Black 3 Commentary

Ah, the third movie in a series.  If it isn’t a planned trilogy, this is usually a big disappointment (X-Men III, Rocky III, Godfather III etc.  Although I liked two of those movies – Godfather III is horrible - they are considered disappointing).  I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by this one.  I think the main reason Men in Black 3 is as good as it is is due to them waiting ten years to make it.  That gives the film makers time to develop a more creative and unique story rather than just relying on the same old recycled material that led to their success in the first place.  It also allows the viewers to sort of forget what happened in the others and makes it newer to us.  Finally, it allows for a new crop of viewers to emerge who may not have seen the older ones.  In any case, for the most part, MIB3 seemed pretty fresh.  There were some hold over jokes and gags from the previous films but that is expected and unavoidable because it is a sequel after all.  I did think there was a little too much of “things you see every day are actually alien” but that’s the franchise for you.

Another reason that MIB3 is decent is due to the acting.  Josh Brolin is absolutely fantastic as the young K.  He nails the mannerisms of Tommy Lee Jones’ older K perfectly and mimics Jones’ voice to the point that you would swear it is dubbed.  (I watched an interview with Brolin regarding this and they swear it isn’t.  When you hear Brolin’s normal voice you can see how he can mimic Jones without too much of a stretch.)  Second, Will Smith is very decent in this role.  He starts out like he’s going to do nothing but the tired “aw, hell naw!” acting that he has made famous.  But he combines some of that with the emotion that we saw in The Pursuit of Happyness and I, Legend to make a very balanced character out of J.  (As an aside, Fresh Prince of Bel Air fans will almost instinctively want to say “mind your business, that’s all.  Just mind your business” when they hear him say, “Back up!  Back up!” at one point.  I know I did.)  Finally, Michael Stuhlbarg was fantastic as Griffin.  You almost believed that he could see every possible future and contingency.  It was a surreal experience every time he was on screen.  There was one performance that stuck out as particularly bad though.  Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal was absolutely painful to watch.  It was wooden and inconsistent and I was very disappointed in an otherwise decent actor.

You cannot review an MIB movie without talking about effects and makeup.  Overall, they were just average.  Brolin’s makeup was very well done to make him look like a young Jones.  However, Jones’ makeup (in what I assume was an effort to make him look like an older Brolin) was very pancakey and made him look like a cartoon character and it was distracting.  But they had to do something.  Have you seen Jones lately?  The alien effects were odd.  They seemed both real and cartoony at the same time.  While there was no obvious green screening, etc. they did look a little out of place.  But overall, I’d say they were good enough for the theme and tone of the movie.

Overall, see it.  It starts slow and like it’s going to be just a rehash of old jokes but it becomes better than that.  There’s just one nagging problem with the movie regarding the time travel that I found annoying.  If you don’t want any spoilers (although it’s minor), stop reading.  But I need to mention it for my own sanity.

At one point, they look like they’re going to address why J remembers K but nobody else does after Boris goes back in time to kill K.  Then, they just drop it completely and give none.  Then they come back briefly and drop it again.  It’s almost as if they wanted to address it but couldn’t think of a resolution for it.  This is pretty major in a time travel story and has to be addressed.  Otherwise it’s just annoying.  If it was addressed and I missed it, it was too confusing or subtle to be effective because I was looking for it the whole time after J feels “the disturbance” in his apartment.

The Empire Strikes Back Commentary

I told a guy at work that I had only seen this movie twice.  He said he was very disappointed in me and said I should watch it because it's the best in the series.  So, because of my insane need to be liked by everyone, I did and he is right.  It is the best in the series. But I still have a hard time understanding why there is such a following surrounding the original three Star Wars movies.  The acting is bad, the story is really nothing that special and every time you turn around, people are actually making fun of them.  Everyone continues to get angry with George Lucas for modifying them and he still makes money on the re-releases because the world cannot get enough of the series.  You can get as philosophical as you want about the importance of these movies.  They're still just sci-fi retellings of the ancient good vs evil story.  That's not to say that they aren't enjoyable.  I, for one, enjoy all six of them (even Phantom menace).  The things that make them subpar are also the things that make me take them not too seriously and I don't get bogged down in any message.

But, this is a commentary on one of them so here we go.  Empire is one of those rare sequels that is better than the first.  They take what made the first one good and built on it.  This is no small feat because, as the the second in a trilogy, it could have easily been simply a boring bridge piece like The Two Towers.  Instead, they took the bridging story of escaping from the Empire and made it into a two hour chase that has a lot of tension and suspense.  The plot line of Luke learning to be a Jedi was likely supposed to be the focus but it actually gets pushed into the background.  And that's a good thing because it really grinds the action to a halt.

Character wise, they made the right adjustments.  Luke is less whiny, Han is still cool and Leia is less prissy.  But where they really shine is with Darth Vader.  In A New Hope, Vader was introduced as being a bad guy but in Empire, he is brought out as a purely evil villain that is completely obsessed with his goals.  Take that and combine the completely badass costume, voice of James Earl Jones and the fantastic music from John Williams, and you get the most likeable yet most evil villain the movies have ever seen.  Overall, the character development woven into the overall story is very well done and the timing of revealing Vader's relationship to Luke was perfect (hint: it rhymes with "bother").

Even though I don't understand the high status these movies have in our culture, I still say that Empire is a must See movie.  For its time, the effects are great and the story moves along with a good pace (except on Dagoba).  And I can't believe I'm even mentioning this but, you do have to see them all to get the full picture and effect.  But if you just want a stand alone Star Wars movie, it's still the best.

The Fifth Element Commentary

I cannot even begin to guess how many times I’ve seen this movie.  It is fantastic entertainment from beginning to end.  I even have a few friends who I can tell to turn on the light by simply yelling, “AZIZ!” at them.  But I cannot really explain why I like this movie so much.  Normally, a movie like this would irritate the hell out of me.  After all, the over the top costumes in a futuristic society was one of the things I didn’t like about the Hunger Games.  So why do I like it in the Fifth Element?  I think it comes down to the movie making itself.

Luc Besson does a fantastic job of bringing a comic book story and vision to life without the comic book to base it on.  While it is way out there and impossible to ever happen, there is just enough of the story grounded into reality that makes you care about the outcome.  This is made possible through some very good casting.  Bruce Willis in the 90s almost always played characters that we would root for no matter what they did.  He has slacked off some lately but he was really the epitome of cool for me back then.  Gary Oldman is always great as a sociopath, Milla Jovovich makes a very good her/victim and I can only assume Chris Tucker just took a little ecstasy and did whatever came naturally.  For what it is, the acting is very solid.  I’m a little confused as to why you would cast Tiny Lister as the president given that he’s terrible at his craft but, when you spend a lot on effects and other casting, you have to take what you can get I guess.

The movie is 15 years old so you know the effects are going to be dated.  But it ages OK.  The cgi effects are still pretty good but animatronics have come a long way since 1997.  So those are a bit painful to watch.  Set designs are very comic book like and actually quite a treat to look at.  Visually, this is a very solid movie especially for when it was made.  As far as the story goes, there are some holes and some pretty convenient plot developments but it is a science fiction movie and therefore it has to be placed in its own little universe.  What makes it good is that it sticks to the rules that were written for it.  There are no twists of convenience due to it being poorly thought out.  It appears to have been thought out start to finish and then turned into a movie.

The bottom line is that the Fifth Element is pure entertainment.  There is a small attempt at a moral pushed on you close to the end but it doesn’t envelop the movie like it could have.  The film starts out fast and never really lets up.  There are countless one liners and goofy facial expressions that keep it from delving into anything too dark, boring or preachy.  It is exactly what it sets out to be: a 2 hour fantasy that makes you smile and say, “that was pretty cool” a lot.

I highly recommend you See It.