Category: review

In an effort to express my “anticipation level” for this movie, let me first point out that I read the book, “The Hobbit,” for the first time this Fall, and I re-watched the “extended edition” versions of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy over Christmas Break (about 11 hours of content, give or take).  It’s about as “prepared” as I could get.  Having just read the book, I was at a loss to explain how exactly they were going to turn a relatively short book into another three movies.

Surprisingly, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” didn’t really feel all that long to me.  Yes, it’s longer than it needs to be (running time is 169 min), but I’m honestly surprised that it gets you about a third of the way into the book, while also “filling in some gaps” that are left out, in tying it more closely with “The Lord of the Rings” (henceforth referred to as “LotR”…).

Perhaps I should back up a step.   “LotR” covers the adventures of a hobbit, Frodo Baggins, and his crew as they attempt to destroy the Ring of Power so it cannot be used by the evil Lord Sauron to take over Middle Earth.  Frodo obtains this ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins, but we aren’t really told how he got it, except that another character, Gollum, had it before Bilbo and desperately wants it back.  The book, “The Hobbit,” was actually published almost 20 years before “LotR,” and it contains the back story for how Bilbo got the Ring.  In movie form, it’s being presented as a prequel, even though  the book was actually published long before.

To be honest, going through the story here isn’t going to be all that interesting.  It follows the book, but also includes a few additional scenes with actors from “LotR,” including Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, and others from the movies.  Unfortunately, in this case, they’re looking quite a bit older than they did in “LotR” (perhaps I did a disservice by re-watching them a few weeks ago…), even though in this film, they’re shown prior to the events of “LotR.”  Ian McKellen also looks remarkably older, despite the presence of a huge beard, though it’s worse in some scenes and barely noticeable in others.

Generally speaking, the acting was great, the pacing was slow at times, but was far better than I expected, and the effects were spectacular.  Seriously, they were good 10 years ago, but it’s noticeable how far the technology has come to the point where CGI and “real life” blend together better than before.  Again, there really isn’t anything special to mention here as, if you saw the previous movies, you should know what to expect.  Though, I should note that the CGI work on Gollum is pretty spectacular, and has really come a long way in 10 years.  I’ve read some complaints (in relation to the “48 fps” debate…) about the quality of the makeup and the props though, personally, I didn’t think the effects in that regard were that bad.  Maybe here and there, but certainly not offensive.

We saw the movie in 48 fps IMAX 3D, which is something of an “experiment” in modern filmmaking.  Briefly, most movies are filmed/shown in 24 fps (“frames per second”), so this movie was filmed in twice that.  This change has the effect of displaying more images to your eyes in the same amount of time, making all the motion look smoother and more vibrant, but also having the side-effect of losing “motion blur” that is sometimes helpful in disguising “plastic-y” looking props.  Needless to say, film critics either love or hate this, depending on who you ask.  If you ask me, I didn’t notice anything bad about it, yet then again, I was watching the movie “as the director intended.”  It was good 3D, it didn’t hurt my eyes or give me a headache, and I thought the 3D effects were added in sparingly, yet effectively.  If anything, 3D should be easier on your eyes at this frame rate.  You don’t need to see the movie in 3D to enjoy it, but for my part, I just wanted to see it at 48 fps and see what the fuss is all about.

If there’s any problem I’ve got with “The Hobbit,” it’s that the story didn’t really “grab” me.  I could say the same thing about “Fellowship of the Ring,” the first movie of the previous trilogy, but I think part of the reason is that, during that first viewing, you’re trying to keep track of a lot of characters at one time.  At least in “Fellowship,” they were pretty distinct and easy to remember (e.g. the elf, the dwarf, the ranger, the wizard, etc.).  In this movie, they’re almost all dwarves, and I couldn’t tell you what any of their names are.  Granted, there are only a few people you’re “supposed” to care about at this point, but some of those dwarves get a bit more focus later on in the book.  We’ll have to see how it plays out, and I can’t see how they could avoid this problem, but it deserves mention.

In the end, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad I saw it in 48 fps 3D.  Is it better than the movies from the previous trilogy?  Hard to say, without the next two movies available to get the full comparison.  The first movie of the previous trilogy was the weakest of the three, in my opinion, and it could very well hold true for this one as well.

But if it says anything, I’m still looking forward to the next one.

Seven years ago, Batman Begins shook up the “comic book movie” industry by reinventing the character of Batman, based largely on Frank Miller‘s interpretation from Batman: Year One.  The movie marked a dramatic shift between the mostly despised Batman and Robin (that’s the George Clooney one…), and a much darker, grittier, “realistic” version of Batman (one that doesn’t include the “Batcard“).  2008 marked the release of The Dark Knight, what many critics considered “not just a good super hero movie, but also a really good crime movie.”  This movie continued in its comic inspiration, following the story line that continued from Year One with Batman: The Long Halloween.

As you might imagine, I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  They both were far closer to the Tim Burton vision of Batman of my youth, one that wasn’t as colorful and campy as the movies had become.  These movies looked at Bruce Wayne and the Batman hero has a flawed hero, one that didn’t have super powers, yet still used knowledge and cunning to protect Gotham City.

Thankfully, unlike the earlier movies in the Batman franchise, Christopher Nolan was kept on as director for all three movies, allowing him to build a trilogy with (mostly) the same actors, the same “feel,” and increasing budget to really bring things together at the end.  And, for the most part, I think he succeeded: The Dark Knight Rises is an excellent movie.  Watching the film, you can tell that certain beats were crafted from the beginning, tying characters and scenes from the first movie back to the third one, and so on.  It shows that the same team has been making all three movies, making this franchise feel more like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy than the Star Wars or Indiana Jones trilogies (anything after those first three movies never really happened, so far as I’m concerned…).  LotR was filmed at the same time, giving it the benefit of saving money, but the added benefit of continuity throughout the three movies.  The same feel as you sit and watch.  Star Wars had different teams involved in the three movies, making each movie feel pretty different.

The Dark Knight Rises is comprised mostly of two key books from the comics: Batman: Knightfall, and The Dark Knight Returns (also by Frank Miller).  The movie opens 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, with Bruce Wayne now a recluse, Wayne Enterprises hemorrhaging money, and cops taking charge of crime in the city, without the help of Batman.  You can tell that Bruce has had a difficult time of “letting go” of his love, Rachel Dawes, but also of being Batman: a persona he had to give up in order for the (manufactured) legacy of Harvey Dent to survive.  However, when Bane, a mercenary trained by Ra’s al Ghul (from Batman Begins) as a member of the League of Shadows, appears in Gotham City, Bruce knows he’s the only person able to defeat him.  The story navigates a roller coaster, of sorts, with Batman returning to Gotham, his exit from Gotham after Bane “breaks him” (a key moment from Knightfall), and then his “rise” again at the end.  All throughout, we see how the people of Gotham, and the police force specifically, have learned to live without Batman, while still needing his return.

Generally speaking, all the usual suspects were in the movie, and they all did well.  Christian Bale has proven he can do both Bruce Wayne and Batman (no easy task), and Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine continue to serve in their respective roles masterfully.  This time, Freeman and Caine seem to take something of a “back seat” in the movie, while Oldman steps up, being given quite a bit more to do as Commissioner Gordon.

The rest of the supporting cast, I’ve got a few gripes with, but was mostly pleased.  Firstly, Anne Hathaway did a remarkable job as Catwoman.  She evoked the same sultry “cat like” character from the 60s TV show, as portrayed by Julie Newmar, while also putting her own spin on the character.  That and she was very convincing during the action scenes.  Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt also do a good job, but I questioned their overall purpose in the film up until the end of the movie.  With them, we’re also starting to add quite a few new characters onto an already large movie.  Matthew Modine‘s character was mostly superfluous, in my opinion.  He served a purpose, but in some ways, it seems like he was in the movie more than Alfred was (which should be a crime…).

Which brings us to Tom Hardy, who plays Bane.  Personally, I think he did a good job in the role, and definitely made it seem like he was a big, big guy.  Very intimidating, very dangerous.  However, we never see his face: it’s always behind the mask.  It’s very difficult to portray emotion when you’re in a situation like that, as you really only have your eyes and arms to try and evoke feeling from the audience.  It’s made even more difficult by the fact that his voice is distorted by the mask (and other effects), which makes it pretty difficult to understand him.  Brooke and I saw the movie at the Moolah, which doesn’t have the greatest sound in all of cinema, but I’m not sure how much of a difference it’ll be in other theaters.  I just think it was a poor choice to distort his voice to that degree, though I understand why they went that route.

As this is long enough, I’ll cut to the chase: the ending was good.  It was appropriate, it was what I wanted without knowing that’s what I wanted.  Everything got tied together in a satisfactory way while leaving enough threads open to give hope to fans that the franchise continues in some manner.

But it’s a clear end to an excellent trilogy.  There are few trilogies that come out like this, where you can safely say that all three movies are good ones, and this is definitely one of them.  I think The Dark Knight is still the best movie of the three, but this one’s still really good.

I came to the “Alien” franchise somewhat late.  It was certainly popular when I was in my pre-teen years, and other kids I knew had seen them, but I don’t think I even saw the first movie until college.  I certainly remember the toy blitz when they released “Alien 3,” thinking they were pretty cool, though in retrospect, “Alien 3” was likely the worst movie in the franchise.  Fox even tried rebooting the series, to some degree, by mixing the Alien and Predator franchises together, something that began as a comic and eventually turned into a few not-so-good movies.

Thus, I think it’s safe to say that the best movies in the franchise are 1979’s “Alien,” directed by Ridley Scott, and 1986’s “Aliens,” directed by James Cameron.  It could be argued that the reason these two movies worked so well is that they’re very different takes on the same idea: a far-future where humans in dirty old space ships come across an alien species with human and insect qualities that wants to kill them…and that, for the most part, androids aren’t to be trusted.  Scott portrayed a single alien on a ship inhabited by various folks, including one young Sigourney Weaver, but set it up in the same vein as a “slasher” movie.  “Alien” was more of a horror movie.  “Aliens,” on the other hand, under the direction of Cameron, saw Weaver and a group of future marines do battle with a whole group of aliens in a human colony.  “Aliens” was more of an action movie.

Which brings us to “Prometheus,” a film connected to the “Alien” franchise, but very, very distinct.  Ridley Scott hasn’t directed a science fiction movie since “Blade Runner” in 1982, so everyone was intrigued to see what he would do with 30 years worth of new tools.  He didn’t disappoint.  The tech portrayed, from the virtual displays to the ship, to the alien creatures, etc. all seem to fit seamlessly into the environment.  We saw it in IMAX 3D and, while the effects were very apparent, they were very complimentary to the overall experience, rather than distracting.  You can tell Scott utilized these new tools to great effect.

The story, however, is kinda confusing.  To be honest, I don’t know what to make of it.  There’s something to be said for leaving a movie with additional questions (something the writers have said were purposeful, in the event they’d get a sequel), but some of the plot holes are so large, it seems like there isn’t much of a way to dig out of them.

As I said earlier, “Prometheus” is very different from the “Alien” franchise.  It takes place in the same universe, involves some of the same players (namely the Weyland Corporation), and generally feels like they’re related.  At the same time, though, “Prometheus” is more concerned with an existential search for our creator, the alien species (referred to as “The Engineers”) that seeded Earth with DNA that would eventually evolve into modern humans (and don’t get me started on the scientific missteps this brings up…).  “Prometheus” takes a look at that search, the powers that seek to control that knowledge, and our overall sense of humanity – arguably, things the “Alien” franchise hasn’t done before.

Generally speaking, I liked it.  I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to see it in 3D, but if you want to, you won’t be disappointed.  There are definite, and obvious, callbacks to the “Alien” franchise, so fans of the series should be pleased.  It is definitely more along the horror line of things, rather than action, so be sure you can handle a few cringe-worthy scenes.

But that plot.  I just don’t know what to make of it.  I think I want a sequel, just so I can see where they’re going with it.  Then again, maybe I don’t want a sequel, so these questions are left up in the air for fans to ponder for another 30 years.

Let’s be honest: Was there really a chance this movie wouldn’t be good?  When it was written and directed by Joss Whedon and contained just about every star imaginable from recent Marvel-based movies?  When it’s rocking 93% on Rotten Tomatoes?  When it made $1 billion in the span of less than 2 weeks?

Yeah.  It was good.  And it’s not very surprising.

There are a variety of reasons why the movie is very, very strong, from the quality of writing, to the effects, to the “star power,” to the “let’s throw money at it and surely something awesome will come out” mentality to its production.  However, I’ll focus on two things in particular.

First, Joss Whedon had his work cut out for him because much of the “origin story” was already told in other movies, including Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk.  Almost every character that showed up in this movie was already introduced in a previous one, which allowed Whedon the freedom to spend his 2.5 hrs of screen time on the story at hand: not the description of each character and why we should care.  I’ve talked with a few people that have seen the movie and now want to go back and see the “origin stories” of the characters they missed.  It didn’t detract from their enjoyment of this movie, but it certainly inspired them to seek out additional material to help enhance the experience of this film.

Second, while I expected the dialog to be witty and amusing, I didn’t expect genuine laugh-out-loud moments.  By no means is The Avengers a “comedy,” though it has its share of hilarious parts that don’t feel forced in the least.  The theater cracked up on multiple occasions, typically centering on the Hulk, who ends up stealing the show during the latter 30 min of the movie.  So even if you aren’t necessarily a “comic book movie” fan, I think you’ll appreciate the humor that comes of it.

Aside from these things, generally speaking, the movie is so well-paced that you forget how long you’ve been sitting in the seat.  Each character is introduced so as to “ease you” in, rather than having the entire team show up together, leading to a longer slog through the film (Fantastic Four comes to mind). Heck, you don’t even see the Hulk until relatively late in the movie!  But when you do, you’re ready for it.  I guess I’m saying that no one over-stays their welcome and the characters all fit together in a very cohesive manner, which is very difficult to do when you’re dealing with a movie consisting of 8+ main characters.  It’s obviously an ensemble cast.

I also paid the exorbitant fee required of seeing it in IMAX 3D.  Let’s just say that this was another case where the money was worth it.  The 3D wasn’t over-done and, overall, enhanced the viewing experience without too much “look at me, I’m in 3D!!” shenanigans.  I’ll be satisfied with my Bluray release in a few months (when I definitely buy it…), but I’m glad my first exposure to the movie was in IMAX 3D.

To summarize, it’s a spectacular movie.  In some ways, it’s a good thing that most of these characters have their own franchises, so we’ll have a few years of their own sequels before we get the inevitable “Avengers 2.”

The Mission: Impossible series isn’t really one of my favorites, to be honest, and I’m not really sure why.  They’ve always had pretty great directors, a star-studded cast (and Tom Cruise…), and usually feature great effects and acting.  There’s just something about it that doesn’t hold up compared with the Bourne series, let alone Bond.  I actually enjoyed Mission: Impossible III quite a bit, and even reviewed it (back when I didn’t write nearly as much…oh, to be him again…).  The third installment was directed by J.J. Abrams, and his production company was still involved on the fourth and most recent one, which I think serves the movie well.  This time out, however, it’s directed by Brad Bird.

What else has he directed?

Four movies.  The other three, besides this one, are Ratatouille, The Iron Giant and The Incredibles.

Seriously.

So, for a director’s first time out with live-action, he did an unbelievable job.  What Bird brought to this film, above all else, was a sense of fun.  I can safely say I haven’t had this much fun at a movie in quite a long time.  It was paced well, it was witty and genuinely funny at parts, the action consisted of some ridiculous set-pieces spread across Eastern Europe, India and Dubai, and the actors were at their best.

The story itself was somewhat simple, having the IMF framed by a villain set on remaking the world after nuclear war.  He steals a set of Russian nuclear launch codes, in hopes of getting the world’s countries to annihilate each other, leaving the Earth “wiped clean” so that humanity can re-build.  Thus, due to the framing, “Ghost Protocol” is enacted where the IMF is “disavowed,” leaving them to their own devices apart from the support of the United States government.

The team this time out consists of Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, and their leader, Tom Cruise (the only one that’s made it through all four outings now).  Renner and Pegg serve their purposes well, with Renner as something of a “straight man” and Pegg as the comedic odd-ball.  I’d never seen Patton before, but she performed admirably.  Cruise, of course, is Cruise.  He’s always done well in this role, though the last two outings of the franchise, you can see an “aging” in the character, where Ethan Hunt is gradually more experienced, more grounded, and less “action star”-y (like he was in Mission: Impossible 2…then again, that was a John Woo film…).

The set-pieces in this film were phenomenal as well.  There’s been quite a bit of news on the Dubai scenes where Cruise is climbing on the outside of the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa, and believe you me, those scenes were ridiculous.  Due to movie timing, we ended up seeing the movie in IMAX and that scene alone made the price of admission worth it.  There were other chase scenes, a desert sand storm, and your typical gadgetry that made for excellent special effects and a wonderful spectacle, but the scenes in Dubai were glorious.  There’s another scene toward the end of the movie where Tom Cruise and the villain, code-named “Cobalt,” are fighting in an Indian parking garage: one of those that is automated to elevate your car through the middle of a tall, concrete structure (kinda like one of these), and then drop it off for you.  The choreography to get each actor in the right place as the “arms” carrying cars were moved in and out was very impressive.

My one knock on the movie was with the villain, “Cobalt.”  It’s not that he was played poorly, or that the world-ending dilemma wasn’t dire enough.  I just didn’t feel connected to the villain to any great degree.  He was there, he was sinister…but I just didn’t care too much.  Maybe it’s because I know how these movies tend to be resolved.  I just wasn’t very engaged by him.  The sense of urgency was the threat of a nuclear launch: not the villain himself.  It’s something I can overlook, but more could have been done in that area.

In the end, it was pretty awesome.  I’m certainly interested to see what Brad Bird does next, as he brought all the fun from his cartoon work to a live action film.  It’s as if he said “what’s something we thought we could only do in a cartoon…’cause I want to do that with Tom Cruise.”

My history with the Muppets doesn’t really involve The Muppet Show, per se.  While it’s a show I’ve seen countless clips of over the years, it’s just nothing I’ve ever been a huge fan of.  My memories are of The Muppets Take Manhattan, Muppet Babies and A Muppet Family Christmas (which we had taped one year and watched religiously each holiday season).  So my interest in the new film, The Muppets, stemmed more from the way it was made rather than the subject matter itself.

Jason Segal (of “How I Met Your Mother” fame) stars in The Muppets, but he also co-wrote the screenplay.  He discussed it on NPR last week, which piqued Brooke’s interest and further solidified the fact that I/we needed to see the movie.  The article discussed a range of things, but the points that were of greatest interest to me personally was that they wanted to make the movie with as little CGI as possible, and they wanted to produce a comedy that relied on “old fashioned ideals,” rather than most of the other comedies out in theaters today (e.g. anything by Judd Apatow…not that it’s a bad thing, but it’s nice to see an intelligent “family comedy” from time to time).

The movie itself centers on Segal’s character (Gary) and his brother, Walter, who is a Muppet (Note: it is not explained how, exactly, this happened.  Brooke and I wonder whether Walter was adopted, or whether Gary was, as we never see the parents.  I’m hoping I never have to explain this kind of genetic splicing to Meg someday).  Walter goes with Gary and his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams), to Hollywood to see the old Muppet Theater, something that Walter had dreamed about since he was a child.  Once they get there, they find out that an evil businessman (Chris Cooper) wants to buy the theater and tear it down to drill for oil, leading Walter and the gang to round up the other Muppets to organize a telethon to raise the money to buy it back.

It was great seeing all the memorabilia around the theater, including old photos and clips from the old Muppet Show.  As I mentioned before, it’s not like I watched the original show all that much, but it was still neat seeing that history displayed with such reverence on the big screen again.  The movie seemed to be reaching back into television history to a time when a show like that could make it on television, where in today’s world, the only way you’ll see Kermit The Frog on prime time is if he’s on an island or is living in a house with strangers.  Many of the themes in the film could be considered “traditional,” but in this presentation, it seems more like “timeless” than anything.

The movie was also pretty funny.  Not really “laugh out loud” funny or anything, but definitely chuckle-worthy and amusing.  The self-referential humor was the most entertaining to me: stuff that may fly by a kid, but would still be funny to an adult.  Chris Cooper would say “maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…” rather than actually laughing in that evil way, for example.  Or that they would “travel by map” to get from one location to another quickly in the story (like taking a car from the U.S. to Paris).

I was a little disappointed that they didn’t give the actors more to do, however.  Amy Adams was in it from the beginning, but didn’t really do much until the last half of the movie.  During the telethon, there were almost countless cameo appearances, but while you saw folks like Judd Hirsch and Neil Patrick Harris answering the phones, they didn’t have any actual lines of dialog (while others like Zach Galifianakis and Jim Parsons were a bit more prominent).  It was obvious that the writers brought people in from multiple generations, so there would be cameos from people practically anyone would recognize (who the heck is Selena Gomez, anyway?).

But, this was a movie about the Muppets: not about the humans.  And in the end, you’re left with a “feel good,” entertaining movie that brings a lot of familiar faces back together, and together for the first time.  They did a great job with this movie, and they did it without 3D and with barely any CGI, proving that you can still tell a great story and make a great movie for kids and adults that only involves puppets and a few supporting people.

In today’s world (and if the previews before the movie are any indication, where almost all the previews were for upcoming CGI or 3D movies…) that’s certainly an accomplishment.

First of all, I haven’t seen a movie in theaters since May, which is crazy considering how many I’ve seen in past years.  Amazing what having a baby and moving does to your movie schedule.  Secondly, Meg was staying with her grandparents this weekend, giving us extra time to go see something.  There aren’t many movies out this time of year that interest both Brooke and I, but thankfully, “True Grit” was one such movie.

The Coen Brothers have made quite a few movies over the years, and in general, I don’t tend to like them.  “Fargo” and “Burn After Reading” are, perhaps, the only two of theirs that I’ve seen that I enjoyed (“O Brother Where Are Thou” was alright too, I guess).  In general, I think their movies involve useless, unfunny dialog and their plots don’t involve much of an ending or resolution.  With that all in mind, I tell you that “True Grit” was a truly excellent movie, with a great script, great acting, and a wonderful story.  It’s amazing that the Coen Brothers could pull something like this off, but it’s probably only because they stayed close to the source material and didn’t have to do much writing of their own.

“True Grit,” starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Hailee Steinfeld, centers upon Steinfeld’s character, Mattie, whose father was murdered by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin).  She seeks revenge, and contracts with Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (Bridges), a U.S. Marshall that drinks too much and is known for killing criminals in self-defense (i.e. he chases after them, catches them, and they don’t ever end up in front of a judge).  Matt Damon plays LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger that is also chasing after Chaney for killing a Senator.  The movie deals with these three interacting out on the open range of Arkansas, frequently causing strains between each individual.

The story is very much a western, involving many of the typical trappings including a hanging, duels, chasing the enemy into “Indian country,” and so on.  The imagery of the American West is breathtaking, and makes me want to go backpacking as soon as I can.  Brooke took a class in college titled “The Western Film,” so she watched quite a few classic westerns and she thought this iteration of “True Grit” held true to the ideals put forward in previous movies. “True Grit” will probably go down as one of the best westerns of the early-21st century (which isn’t saying much, ’cause there aren’t that many being made, which is a shame).

It should also be said that Hailee Steinfeld was unbelievable in this movie.  She’s a 14-year-old, playing a 14-year-old, and she’s a better actress than most people two or three times her age.  A truly remarkable performance from a girl whose career is surely only taking off.  Don’t get me wrong, Matt Damon was barely recognizable with his facial hair and George W. Bush-style accent (and that’s a good thing…he really stepped outside his typical roles with this one), and Jeff Bridges was speaking with a drunken slur such that I believed this is how he talks in real life.  But Steinfeld stole the show from both these old-timers.

I have never seen the original “True Grit,” starring John Wayne.  It is my understanding that this current iteration is a more accurate representation of the novel, but we’ll see what the differences are when it comes through Netflix…eventually…  Regardless, this is an excellent movie and I highly recommend it.  By far the best thing the Coen Brothers have ever done.