X-Men: First Class

Wait, did he just push a coin through that guy's skull?

I've been thinking for years that X-Men is violent, and the recent trilogy, while avoiding showing violence for mass marketing reasons, missed out on the realistic-ness.

(Here's where my well-intentioned friends say, "They have super powers, and you're talking about how unrealistic the movie is?" For the record, I am willing to believe the baseline of what a movie explains to me. If you have a guy whose bones are covered in metal and who heals super fast, how does a normal bullet penetrate his skull? And render him unconscious? If you have a guy with metal claws stabbing people, how do they do bleed? If a toad gets struck by lightning, why does he fly off (from the force of the impact) instead of frying on the spot? The list goes on and on. These are the questions I ask myself. I know a movie knows it's stuff when I ask a question out loud and my question is immediately repeated by a character on screen. If a movie doesn't address it's own conundrums, that's just laziness. Rant over.)

X-Men: First Class gave me the violence I crave in the superhero genre. I'm not a violence craving lunatic; I merely wish to see characters act in natural ways, if they were given super powers. Azazel teleporting good guys into the air and dropping them. Yeah, I thought of that a long time ago when I first saw Nightcrawler. It's diabolical, but fitting if you were an evil villain with that ability.

Watching protagonists and antagonists battle both physically and philosophically, knowing that the writers were not afraid to show terrible deeds, made the entire experience bloom. Heroes were more heroic because the danger was palpable to me. Villains were more villainous. Viewers know how they feel. They relish this danger. First Class did it much better than the recent trilogy, from the moment Magneto's mother was shot in front of him. Watching his quest for vengeance and his struggle. The empathy generated for his struggle was magnificent. Viewers didn't just watch him make tough and compromising decisions; viewers realized they would make the same choices. But there was a balance. Xavier, with different experiences, became a different man. But he knew, he felt, he understood Magneto so intimately. He fought valiantly to save Magneto. Sort of like Luke Skywalker, but if he failed to save Darth Vader and became a paraplegic for his efforts.

Heading into the climax of the movie, watching Magneto strike down Shaw. Seeing the final decision made, not with words but with a look in the eyes. Seeing justice dealt but knowing the choices being made would threaten all of humanity. Seeing the moral guy pay a significant price for his good deeds. These moments will stay with me. They happen. That's reality.

This movie is an epic tale. I hope they make more like this. Superhero movies tend to be too neat (even Two-face was not grotesque). Wounds tend to be superficial. Heroes get the girl and defeat the bad guys. They suffer minimal consequences. In the end the loser is the audience, when people are not challenged with reality in their superhero fantasy. Thank you, Hollywood, for breaking that trend with First Class. (I'm not overlooking you, Dark Knight. Still friends?)

Peter Pan

This movie was about as magical as any I've seen. Fairly true to the original story. Excellently acted. Excellently executed.

I actually felt what it meant to be a boy again, which I think was the point of the book.

Enough said. Thanks, Hollywood.

Monsters

This movie sounded lofty. So, naturally, I was interested.

The tag line is "Now, it's our turn to adapt."

The IMDb description says, "Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border."

The Netflix description says, "Six years after aliens invaded Earth, a security force maintains tenuous control in the Infected Zone straddling the U.S. Mexican border."

The plot had a diabolical pattern. Suspense would build to a climax, and then nothing would happen. In fact, nothing continued to happen throughout the movie. There were some romantic gestures in which nothing happened. There were giant aliens that did nothing. There was even an insane old woman pushing a stroller. Then she quacked and woofed and then nothing happened. See the pattern?

If you wish to see great camera work and direction, then you should see this movie. Otherwise, choose a movie in which something actually happens. Tsk, tsk, Hollywood.

Green Lantern

Green Lantern introduced me to this hero for the first time. My knowledge was limited, so I had no idea what to expect. The risk in putting incredibly powerful superheroes on screen is that the battle they must fight would have to be tremendous and still believable while avoiding taking viewers out of their realm of understanding. I would venture to say that most viewers had about my level of Green Lantern knowledge.

So, let's check how they grounded the GL character. Ryan Renolds, check. Few actors bring grounding to a performance like he does and still be so likeable and interesting. His ability to show a wide range of human emotions really helped. He just appears genuine, all the time. It works in every movie I've seen him in.

Cool girlfriend. Cool best friend. Check. Both dynamics worked well and created an empathy wedge for a vast portion of the audience to connect. The writers seemed to know it would be difficult. Aliens. Will. Fear. Thought magic. So many of these factors dehumanize the movie. My wife said it best 2/3 into the movie when she declared, "That was all plot setup." They took their time, and by the end, I cared about all of it, even the weird alien lantern cult.

The villain was a creature of fear who seemed to use others' fears to consume their souls. He grew in size every time and became large enough to engulf entire cities like a giant space octopus. I had flashbacks to Fantastic 4 and Galactus, where I didn't really care about the planet eating space cloud coming to Earth. However, when Parallax was growing, and I knew his condition and his power (because the movie explained it to me) the threat felt real and my suspension of disbelief was supported. Then when I realized he was going to go building by building over the entire Earth and eat everybody, then the movie really had it's hooks in me.

And when Hal said, "At least let me try to defend Earth," I became a fan. He wasn't going to thwart their plans. He was asking to have a chance to save Earth or die trying. Then they could put their plan into motion. No buffing the system that was obviously bigger than him. No going against their wishes. Just a plea for a chance. Thank you for that, Hollywood.

This type of writing made me like the movie.





PS. The following thought didn't flow in my rant, so I'll drop it at the end here. Superhero movies have a problem that's becoming more and more obvious. In order to tell the story properly, they need to show violence. Yet the PG-13 line comes quickly. Crossing that line means a smaller viewer demographic. Yet not showing the violence tames the movie in a boring way. I cannot find what GL was rated upon release.

I enjoyed some of the violence they showed in GL, for the mere fact that if I were a sniveling villain who just acquired ultimate power, that's exactly how I'd behave. Showing the violence brings much greater risk to the heroes in viewer minds, if we are made to believe the movie doesn't care about such lines, then the risk is more palpable to us.

Let me illustrate with a stream of consciousness reenactment: That man just killed that woman and his own father in a terrible manner. I didn't even really care about those people. When the climax of the movie comes, in order to outdo itself, the movie is going to throw something even more horrible my way.

I wasn't disappointed when it didn't happen, because the feeling was there all the way to the end. That emotional ride is what I enjoy the most in a movie (besides tight plot points, a sweeping plot concept, and witty dialogue). It wasn't the greatest movie and it wasn't supposed to be, but it did well for me. They creatively handled what I thought were insurmountable plot obstacles by crossing a few lines to make it feel more dangerous.

Thor

Ten minutes after this movie ended, I forgot I'd watched it. Literally.

A month later when I realized I'd forgotten, I saved this blog post as a draft with just the title Thor, so I'd not forget again. My forgetfulness means two things. First of all, Thor was not a great movie. Secondly, Thor was not a bad movie. I'd place it solidly in the Meh category and would not say more about it, except that a couple thoughts niggle the back of my brain.

Why did Thor fall in love with with the girl Jane Foster? Love comes about when one person takes a measurement of many factors regarding another person. This usually takes time and experiences together. Sometimes it occurs quickly, but what did she ever do for him? What drew him to her? After he returned her research, then he's done with her (except as a dalliance), right? She's small fry even in our world and he's top dog in his. Anyway, the story wasn't even romance, so let's move on.

Why should I care about Thor's world? Actually, the question is a little misleading. I cared about his world. I cared that Loki set up an ultimate trap to destroy the ice bad guys. I applauded his stepping in to make big choices to destroy an enemy who would attempt to destroy them.

(Let me step aside for a second and address this further. Hollywood writers, please bear this in mind: when something threatens your world, take them out. Captain America and Green Lantern killed villains with ease, don't forget. In watching some of your movies, I'm learning that some superheroes are just dumb (I'm looking at you Batman and Superman). Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a dumb, powerful hero with powerful noble ideals that just don't work out for the innocent bystanders. The problem is when you writers equate being dumb with being noble. You must give me a reason why the hero shouldn't kill the villain. (Vader is Luke's father, Green Goblin is Spiderman's mentor and a friend's father, Spock and Kirk are friends in an alternate time stream, etc., I mean come on, anything would be good here.) Just don't try to tell me that killing bad guys who would kill indiscriminately is bad, which conversely means not killing these bad guys is good/noble. The bad guys will continue to kill innocent people until they are stopped dead, literally. Please don't argue that the good guy would become bad by killing. There is a line in the mind between justice and preemptive defense versus vigilante, retribution, "making them pay," and revenge. If a hero cannot see the difference, then the hero is already too close being a psychopath and should not be out on the street.)

Back to the question: Why should I care about Thor's world? As the plot builds, I actually do come to care for Thor's world, with Thor not in it. His poor brother got gypped when Thor returns, and I feel sorry for him. I kind of liked the idea of Thor being banished. That idea, fleshed out, would have made the movie great for me. Instead Thor breaks a road that I don't understand and don't care about. Loki is mad for good reason. Remember that Loki only acted in his planet's best interest. His methods might be uncouth, but they were effective. Now if he'd have turned his gun against Earth, which was not a threat, then Loki would have been a bad guy. Do you see the difference?

The movie was good enough to watch, but other than major themes that Hollywood often bends out of shape, the movie was forgettable. It was worth the Redbox rental.

Captain America

Captain America surprised me. The writers introduced me to this noble, weakling guy. They make him powerful. Then they put him where he was most effective: on a poster. Propaganda was powerful during WW2 and seeing them put a superhero in action only as a figurehead fit the time, scenario, and kept me believing in the movie as a whole

The best part about the situation. The best part of the situation: they were right and Captain America understood and went along with it. He was a smart guy all the way through the movie. Then when the prisoners needed rescuing and nobody would be able to do it, that's the moment he began to shine as a hero.

I don't have much to say about the rest of the movie. Everything felt smart and tight. The mix of future tech with old tech in the battles was wonderful. The snappy dialogue had me glued. Tommy Lee Jones...enough said. Actually, no, not enough. This cast was awesome all the way through. I couldn't believe that I kept recognizing actors, even minor characters.

Good stuff, Hollywood. More please!

Transformers 3

A deeply philosophical movie with a surprise ending!

Oh, wait, this is a Micheal Bay film, what was I thinking? I'd like to go on a rant about how disappointed I was with Transformers 3, but I'm so used to Michael Bay movies that I went into the movie ready to enjoy how terrible it would inevitably be.

First of all, the tone of the movie was disjointed. Coming of age comedy movie? Action adventure movie? R-rated murderous robot movie? Budding romance during Armageddon movie? Movies can have multiple themes, but they must be handled deftly to work. Bay is anything but deft.

Secondly, the physics of the movie were all screwed up. With fantasy and sci-fi movies, in order to aid the audience's suspension of disbelief, the movie must be grounded in reality on all points that are not fantasy or sci-fi. For instance, and this is sad, but we all have images in our head of what happens when a skyscraper is toppled. Until 9/11, we never knew exactly, but now we do. So the protagonists survive a building that should have disintegrated. But even if the building fell as it did and didn't fall apart, the heroes inside survived a fall that was like 40 stories high. It's doesn't matter if you are in the same room at the bottom of the fall. You're squished.

Honestly, as the movie went along in the first half and the plot was building, I was kind of getting into it. Then when the action hit, the movie got stupid. By 3/4 of the way I was continuously exclaiming, "Oh, come on!!!!!!!!" Luckily for me, my wife agreed with me, and thusly my life was spared (she didn't kill me for talking during the movie).

Michael Bay, why do I continue to watch your movies? Oh, yeah, it makes for a good rant. See you next time when it's free.

Dorian Gray

Trying out a slightly different format for this. No point scale, FTW!

I've always found the story of Dorian Gray to be interesting. A guy gets a painting that is so perfect that it actually takes all of his wounds or deformities or diseases upon itself, keeping him young and perfect. The story is a deeper look into a man's soul, when that man has no fear of consequences.

Despite it's two-star rating, I decided to give it a whirl. Netflix fan ratings are surprisingly close to my own ratings, to such an extent that I said to my wife, "Let's see why this is two-stars." I knew it was going to be disappointing.

But sometimes the point system is wrong. And for a brief time, the movie opened slowly, like a giant clam with a fistful of meat as a reward for patience. The setup was slow but building. The movie took time to introduce its characters and have them illustrate their philosophies of life.

Then the philosophical portion of the movie ended. The end of the movie became separated from the roots planted at the beginning. Dorian Gray started living his life of debauchery, and the movie strove to show us every painstaking moment (and bare breast) of his decline. After awhile, it was easy to understand the two-star ranking. Yes, Hollywood, we get it, now stop glamorizing his soulless lifestyle. Unfortunately, the story built around philosophical poniards had its plot wander away into gratuitous booby display. Then it went a tiny bit homosexual for a few seconds.

Then the end sort of came, but with no plot. The teacher of the bad philosophy that Dorian lived by has a daughter who becomes Dorian's target, the final conquest of this evil man. Okay, sounds good, but the war of philosophy was lacking. The secret of the painting was revealed too late in the movie to do the philosophical conflict any good. Then for some inexplicable reason, the soulless Gray has a change of heart and has to stab his painting that is on fire. Perhaps he despaired of life. We were never told why.

Then the movie ended. Creepily.

Sigh.

Hollywood, please do better. In your quest to make money, please try following deep philosophical arguments through to the end. You'll be surprised at the result, especially if the characters receive logical consequences for their actions. We're watching you, Hollywood. We know when you indulge in the visual debauchery without advancing the character-erosion plotline. Please try not to limit your audience by showing so much filth. We understand enough. The war of philosophies needed more illustration on both sides, and you did not succeed in showing that part.

Edit: Curious, I reread the story. I guess he really does stab the painting and die in the process, and the painting reverts back to the original, untarnished image. The movie doesn't go into the reasons why. Is it a heroic act to save his friends? Is it a selfish act to end his life?

Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Whew: that's a long movie title.

I'm not a huge Jim Carrey fan, so when this movie came out in 2004, I skipped it. Recently a friend recommended it to me, so I decided to stream it on Netflix. Here we go.

Gains: +5

Cinematography drives this story. When dealing with getting memories erased, the fading backgrounds and blurred images and other little tricks are wonderful for showing what is happening. When events are shown so expertly, the audience can more easily follow a complicated storyline.

The timeline was confusing to follow. However, Kate Winslet's hair color changes for each different time period, so if you were paying attention, then you could keep up with the timeline shifts. I enjoyed following the hair changes.

The story was simple, yet told with complexity. The characters were more like normal people than in most movies. In fact, given the level of mild-mannered boringness or, conversely, neurotic behavior portrayed by each main character, I came to really enjoy the acting by Jim and Kate. Funny thing is, Jim played the more boring character of the two.

Losses: -4

Did we really have to see Ruffalo's butt? Ick.

This movie has quite a lot of cursing. Lots of effs and J.C.s.

In the end I didn't care for either main character. It was cool that they found each other in the end, but both were so pathetic that it became excruciating at times. I believe it is impossible for people to understand the brain workings of any person with an IQ that is 10 points different. These characters were more like 80s or 90s, and it showed in my ability to empathize with them.

Final Judgment: +2

The technical portion of the movie was fantastic, as was the acting and basic story idea. Some of the scene choices and execution of the ideas should have been left out.

Movie Review: Tangled

So many friends told me that I need to see this movie. I responded with an incredulous, "But I already saw the preview...no thanks on the whole thing." The number of fans grew and finally I began to think maybe my initial take from the preview was totally wrong. So I Netflix'd it. I'm so glad I didn't drop money on this one.

Gains: +4
The horse was hilarious. Humanizing it was a good choice. The animation quality captured my attention. It was a beautiful movie. Rapunzel's character's innocence and genuine-ness and how these characteristics carried her through the world made this a good kids movie when viewed from her perspective. The wicked mother really stood out from the normal Disney sort of bad guy. She easily could be any audience member. The mental justification she used, while slightly twisted, made sense. She wasn't just plain evil, she was just greedy. I enjoyed that.

Losses: -3
Did you hear the music? Me neither. I've blocked it from my memory. Good grief. This from the company that produced fun musical masterpieces, movie after movie. Seems they took a step back.

The hair looked great. Unfortunately, the length changed from scene to scene. I know it was a CGI movie, but hair that long would be so unwieldy, snarly, and (well) tangled that Miss Rap would not have been able to leave her house. Also, her scalp had to be made of steel to not only hold the hair but to do all of the things she did with her hair. I know it was essentially a fantasy movie, but this element bothered me.

In a world where we have a heroine princess, a king and queen, fantasy elements, a magical flower, a humanized horse, and so on, I guess it's possible to have a totally worthless male lead end up marrying into royalty. I guess. What was his point? What was attractive about him? What made him heroic enough to marry her? I know he's supposed to be rogue-ish like Han Solo. But Han took 3 movies and went through terrible times to prove his loyalty and love for Leia. He did heroic things. Plus her parents were dead and her world was obliterated. So Hollywood, please feel free to have a rogue metrosexual character, but unless he does something heroic, please do not reward him in front of my children.

Final Judgment: +1

All in all, I was right. It looked like Disney on the preview and was Disney in execution. In my opinion, the Disney brand has diminished. They are, at best, the third best CGI movie studio.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3 brings a sort of finale to the TS saga. Pixar is at it again, and I have to say that they did very well.

Gains: +4
Interestingly enough, I was surprised to hear all the exact voices I was used to. For some reason, I felt Tom or Tim would have abandoned the series by this time. With so many characters dividing up the total line total per superstar, I just figured they'd bail. It made me very happy to hear them and all the others.

The story of Toy Story 3 was tight. The writers kept the soul of the series intact while keeping it fresh as well. The story went for quite awhile without a bad guy. I kept waiting for it, but it never happened. I got creepy feelings from the bear initially, but then after awhile he seemed nice. I was actually surprised then, when he did turn out to be bad. The story was wholesome and fun and emotional, as the entire series has been so far. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy yet another Pixar and yet another Toy Story title.

Losses: 0
There was nothing bad about this movie. That fact, by itself is a gain.

Final Judgment: +4

Keep up the great work, Pixar!