Avengers Infinity War

There have been eighteen Marvel Universe movies since 2008.  These have introduced a large number of characters, i.e. heroes, most of which come together in this movie to fight a single enemy named Thanos.  Previous movies hinted at infinity stones being powerful and dangerous, and the need to keep them from evil.  It turns out Thanos is getting his hands on these stones and has an agenda that involves wiping out half the life in the galaxy.  Why?  His world collapsed due to overpopulation, so he takes it upon himself to solve this problem for everybody else.  If he gets all six stones he could kill every other person in the galaxy with just a snap of his fingers.

There have been a number of good Marvel movies in the last decade and many of the stories from the films pick up in Avengers Infinity War from where they left off.   The action gets started early and almost never lets up.  One might think that this would be bad, but the action is done so well and the characters are so good that the movie feels like something truly special on a grand scale.  Never have we seen so many different stories and characters woven together so seamlessly.  This isn't just a movie, but an event a decade in the making.  

We see more of Thanos than we do any individual hero, making him in effect the main character.  This is as much his story as it is anybody else's, and he is played wonderfully by Josh Brolin.

With so many actors and effects, it is not surprising that the movie cost $360 million to make.  They got their money's worth.  Some have compared the film to Star Wars in terms of entertainment value, which is not a bad comparison.

Rating:  A+

1917

The movie 1917 is likely to be one of the best movies I will see this year.  It follows a pair of World War I soldiers on a time-critical mission to get a message to another unit so as to avoid an attack that will end in disaster.  This is based on a real story told to writer and director Sam Mendes by his grandfather.

The movie is filmed in such a way that it appears to be one continuous shot, except for a couple of obvious breaks.  There are continuous shots that last at least 40 minutes.  The camera follows the soldiers through long trenches, across fields, into farmhouses, rivers, underground bunkers, and troop transports.  This is like another character because I spent the whole movie wondering how on earth did they film this?  It is technically very difficult to have everything properly lit while the camera follows the actors through miles of territory. 

The movie creates a suspense that is perfect.  There is not much direct combat, but the horrible aftermath of combat is everywhere in this movie.  On the journey, the soldiers are constantly passing dead bodies and destruction.  The way the movie is filmed gives it an extra sense of realism.

The movie is rated R for war violence and a few swear words.

Rating: A+.

Why 1917 had to be one shot?

1917 has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Contagion

I rewatched "Contagion" after seeing it in the theater when it came out in 2011.

I have never seen a more prophetic movie in my entire life.  At least 80% of the film seems applicable to the current COVID-19 pandemic.  The biggest difference is the deadliness of the disease, which instead of being about 2% for known cases is around 25%.  But detail after detail comes up that I only recently learned about during the COVID crisis.

The movie has an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, although not all the critics were equally enthusiastic.  The audience score is only 63%, so I suspect that the subject matter might have turned off some people.  Rotten Tomatoes describes it as, "Tense, tightly plotted, and bolstered by a stellar cast.  Contagion is an exceptionally smart -- and scary -- disaster movie."   I agree.  It tells a fantastic story.  My favorite movie critic, Richard Roeper, gives it 5 out of 5 stating, "Contagion" is a brilliantly executed disease outbreak movie."

The film puts much emphasis on how easily disease can spread and this adds to the tension.

The ending is great, giving a nice emotional catharsis followed by a revelation about how the pandemic started.

Rating: A+.

Eye in the Sky

Eye in the Sky is a 2015 war thriller starring Helen Miran, Alan Rickman, and Aaron Paul.  This was Alan Rickman's last movie before succumbing to pancreatic cancer.

 A military operation uses a Predator UAV to track a group of highly wanted terrorists to a house in Kenya where a couple of suicide bombings are being prepared.  Since the Predator is equipped with a couple of Hellfire missiles, and there is an imminent threat, the logical thing to do is to blow up the house from the air.  

However, there is a problem.  A little girl from the same neighborhood starts selling loaves of bread baked by her mother just outside the house with the terrorists inside.  The conflict of the film is what to do about the little girl?   This is a decision that goes up and down the command chain and gets debated hotly as a moral conundrum.

The movie also uses a couple of micro-drones disguised as animals that may not really exist.  We don't know for sure what secret technology the military may have.

Is this an anti-war film?  Maybe.  But it also debates the morality of fighting a war with drones from thousands of miles away where the participants are safe from the consequences.

The tension in this movie is fantastic.  It also shows how competing political interests might fight over life and death decisions.  Although this is a work of fiction, it is easy to imagine that scenarios like this have played out for real.

Rating:  A.

The Wild Robot

If you have seen the trailer for The Wild Robot, you might ask yourself, "Haven't I seen this movie before?"  The Iron Giant gave us a robot that fell from the sky but didn't know its origin or purpose and eventually rebelled against its creators. Over the Hedge gave us animals that talk and must cooperate to survive, along with a bear that is a bad guy.  Zootopia gave us an unscrupulous fox who helps the main character.  Logan's Run gave us humans living in a dome.  Silent Running gave us plants being grown in a dome.  Wall-E gave us robots with compassion while on a voyage of self-discovery, along with an evil robot trying to do them harm.  Bicentennial Man gave us a robot that rewrote his own programming to become more than he originally was, and so therefore the robot is wanted by his creators to find out what those changes are.  

Many of the elements we have seen before, but the movie is so well-written and well-executed that it is one of the best films I have seen in a while.  I was impressed.

Rating:  A-.

The following section contains spoilers:

I have one big complaint about a plot point that doesn't make sense and is likely there to push an agenda.  The robot is on an island with animals that normally compete with and kill each other.  While the animals are hibernating for the winter, a massive snowstorm threatens life on the island.  The robot takes it upon itself to bring some of the hibernating animals to a large shelter that it has built.  While in the shelter the animals agree to overcome their natural instincts and cooperate for their mutual survival.  

Logically this makes no sense.  If the animals are adapted to hibernate on the island, then they have already found shelter to survive the weather.  The robot, which has overcome its own programming, gets the animals to do the same and make a permanent truce.  So if the animals aren't going to hunt each other, how do they survive going forward?  The message is that competition is bad, and cooperation is good, which reminds me of Our Daily Bread, a Great Depression-era movie with a socialist message.  Both movies have a climactic scene about diverting water.

The Right Stuff

When The Right Stuff was released in 1983 it was not a commercial success despite high praise from critics.  There was maybe a sense by audiences that it was too overtly political or patriotic, which overtly it isn't.  However, the movie found some success in VHS and DVD sales.

This is essentially three stories:  The story of Chuck Yeager, the story of the Mercury "7" astronauts, and the story of the media and political circus over the early space program.  

The film doesn't pull any punches.  It likes to make fun of just about everything.  The movie spends much more time satirizing Lyndon Johnson or showing the indignities the astronauts had to go through than it does any form for space exploration.  This is not a film that is particularly interested in science;  it is much more interested in the human drama of its characters.  This combination of humor with patriotic heroism ends up being the perfect mixture.  In fact, the three-hour film feels like a perfect movie and 32 years later it is just as watchable. 

This movie loves trivial details which give the film an authentic feel.  It could have been 30 minutes shorter, but then it would have lost some of the atmosphere it gained from focussing on minutia. 

The musical score is wonderful.

I regret waiting at least 20 years to watch it again.  This is the kind of movie that would be fun to watch again roughly every 10 years.

Had I made the movie I would have put more emphasis on science, but that might have been boring to most people.  Maybe future generations will wonder why there isn't more science in the film?

Rating:  A

Andor

The Disney+ Star Wars series Andor is shockingly good. Just how good is it? It is on par with an average Star Wars movie. I liked "The Mandalorian" series even better, and I regard it higher than any of the Disney sequel trilogy movies.

With Disney+ you can watch all 11 Star Wars movies, Andor, The Mandalorian, and the really excellent animated series such as The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, The Bad Batch, and Star Star Wars Visions. In addition, you could watch 37 different Marvel movies starting with Iron Man, and some fairly good series such as Wandavision, Loki, and "The Falcon and The Winter Soldier"

Plus you get all the Disney and Pixar content.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace * * * *

Oh, how time flies.  12 years ago I stood in line for hours to get tickets to Star Wars:  The Phantom Menace, which was the first Star Wars film after a 16 year hiatus since Return Of The Jedi.  By now, half the planet has seen this movie, and almost everybody knows what it is about:  Young Anakin Skywalker will some day grow up to be the evil Darth Vader, but in this prequel he is all sweet and possessed with magical abilities that ultimately save the day.  (I like what Dr. Laura said on her radio program:  "See what happens when a boy has no father and you take him away from the mother?  He turns into Darth Vader!")

Months before the movie came out, they released an amazingly cool teaser trailer that didn't give away too much.  This is why people stood in lines for hours.  When I actually did get to see the movie in the theater, the audience went nuts over the opening scenes.  They waited 16 years plus a few hours in line to see another Star Wars Movie, and they were going to be one of the first ones to see it.

The first five minutes of the movie did not instill confidence.  The first shot is of a slightly goofy looking spaceship followed shortly by some goofy looking aliens.   Moments later the Jedi Knights display their remarkable powers.  I had some concerns that this "Episode I" of the series would confuse people about "Jedi Knights" and "The Force" if they weren't already familiar with the other Star Wars movies.  George Lucas thinks that people should watch the Star Wars movies in episode order, as opposed to the order in which they were actually made, but it is really "Episode IV", the first movie made, that introduced us to the ideas of the "The Force" and "Jedi Knights."

Despite my concerns, I think that the movie is a masterpiece.  The story is simply too good.  But it is a masterpiece with a nearly fatal flaw.   There are a number of "aliens" in this movie whose style of speaking is hard to understand.  Now I understood almost everything that was said in this movie, but it requires a good ear and careful attention to follow the dialog.  But I know a number of people who think that this movie is full of gibberish.  So, by all means, turn on the SUBTITLES if you are going to watch the movie at home.

The other nearly fatal flaw is the character of Jar Jar Binx.  I don't think that this is a flaw at all, because I like the character, but a great many people don't.  The reasons why people don't like Jar Jar is that he is a bumbling fool mainly in the movie for comic relief, and he is also the character who most frequently sounds like gibberish.  Despite this, I think that it is good to have a comic relief character in an otherwise serious movie.  But the negative reaction to Jar Jar Binx caused this character to be less utilized in the next two movies.

All these concerns are minor.  This is a really good story that is rich in detail and stunning to look at.  I am almost sorry that I waited ten years to watch it again.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones * * * *

Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones is the story about how the war began between the Galactic Republic and the separatists. Starting with the attempted assassination of Senator Padmé Amidala, which parallels the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand that helped start World War I, a series of discoveries are made that cumulate in a massive battle. It is also the story of Anakin Skywalker's budding relationship with Padmé, and his gradual (or maybe sudden) descent into the dark side.

I am very impressed with how Hayden Christensen consistently portrays Anakin as a tormented character.  This is a tough trick to pull off, since we already know that the sweet boy from Episode 1 turns evil. The question is how did he get there?  Here Hayden Christensen makes the transition very believable.

It gets confusing talking about episode order versus production order.  This is the fifth Star Wars film, but it is called Episode II.  George Lucas suggests that people watch the movies in episode order, but I disagree. There are people and places in this movie that take on much less significance if you have not seen the first two movies made, called episodes IV and V.  It is better to see the original trilogy first.

Star Wars movies are difficult to evaluate because there have been enough of them that different people have different ideas about what a Star Wars movie should be.  Every time George Lucas takes the series in a different direction, which he has done with almost every Star Wars film, a certain number of people rebel against the change.

In 2002, I was blown away by this movie, but now just a little less so. In terms of action and special effects, this is the most intense Star Wars film. Technically and visually it is an amazing achievement, but it borders on turning into a video game;  There is almost too much detail.  The story is good, but a little less compelling than the best Star Wars movies. The relationship between Anakin and Padmé is simplistic making it less believable.

Since this is the second movie in the second trilogy, it is tempting to compare it with The Empire Strikes Back, which is widely regarded as the best of the Star Wars movies, and by me as the best movie ever made.  However the two movies and the two trilogies are very different.  The first trilogy was about good people rebelling against evil and caring for one another.  The second trilogy is about the rise of evil.  The emotion in this film comes not from a close group of people who care about each other, but from the struggle and suffering of the main characters.  Personal relationships take a back seat to intense action and violence.

Middle movies in trilogies are transitional films because they have no clear beginning or end.   The second movie in this trilogy seems overly intent on explaining events leading up to the first Star Wars movie.

Roger Ebert criticized the movie for not looking good (and for simplistic dialog). On the first release of the film, I noticed some brief technical glitches in the special effects that seemed to be gone 3 weeks later. This means that the movie was rushed to meet it's release date, but then the film was remastered and sent out to theaters again. The DVD version looks gorgeous and has no such problems.

Like The Phantom Menace, whatever flaws this film may have, it still feels like a masterpiece to me.  The story is simply too good and the movie is a feast for the senses.

I happen to like the teaser trailer.  The full trailer is here.

Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith * * * 1/2

Star Wars Episode III:  The Revenge of the Sith is the final Star Wars movie made, and the third out of six in episode order.  It is about the fall of the Galactic Republic, the rise of the Galactic Empire, and the fall of Anakin Skywalker to the dark side of the force.  The rise of the Empire somewhat parallels the fall of the Roman Republic.

The first 33 minutes is a series of action sequences that serve as the intro to the movie.  I could not help but think that this is overkill since it is the longest intro sequence I have ever seen, and the movie seems to be trying to impress us with its special effects, which are indeed impressive.  33 minutes into the movie we get to meat of the story, which is a series of events that lead to the downfall of Anakin.  When he finally does succumb to the dark side at the hands of Chancellor Palpatine, he goes on a killing spree against the Jedi order.  

Some people might find the story to be a bit of a downer, but this was the intent all along.  This is about a man's descent into hell and the triumph of evil.  The movie is technically and visually amazing, but maybe there was a little too much emphasis on special effects making the story a little less compelling than its predecessors. 

The last movie ends where the first movie started:  On Tatooine.  I found the final shots of an infant Luke Skywalker and the setting Tatooine suns to be very emotionally stirring and reminiscent of the first movie.

The audio commentary available on the DVD is worth listening to.  It gave me new insights into the film.

Star Wars Episode IV: The New Hope * * * *

In 1977 this movie was released just as "Star Wars."    The film borrows ideas from Samurai movies, westerns, old war movies, 1930's serials,  Laurel and Hardy, and even The Wizard of Oz.  It is also inspired by The Hero with a Thousand Faces and the cold war.  Despite enormous production problems, and a cast and crew who refused to take the movie seriously because they thought that it was just a "kiddie film", George Lucas stuck to his mythical vision as best as he could, and the final result was a near perfect film for its time.  One of the Fox executives broke down and cried when he saw the screening, saying that it was the greatest movie he had ever seen.

Presumably George Lucas went to Hawaii to hide because he thought that the movie would be a flop.  Instead it was the highest grossing film for a few years.  It also started the greatest film franchise to date, and made famous the cast, the most successful of which is Harrison Ford.

But George Lucas could not resist tinkering with the film later.  The 1997 Special Edition added improved special effects, extra scenes and minor changes.  The most controversial of these changes is where Greedo shoots at Han Solo first.  This is almost universally met with disapproval because it takes away from the rogue image of Han Solo.  Other minor changes were made in the DVD version, and more changes are planned for upcoming Blu-Ray and 3D releases.  It is unlikely at this point that you could see the original Star Wars as it appeared in theaters, unless you have an old video tape copy, but I am happy with the DVD version, which is the current standard for the film  The upcoming Blu-Ray release may become the next new standard version of Star Wars.

I have seen the movie somewhere between 10 and 12 times.  I have lost count.  I found myself wondering if I would be bored seeing it one more time?  Apparently not.  I found myself quite caught up with the film.  My only criticisms are that:  1.)  It takes a while for the story to get going.  We don't meet Luke Skywalker until exactly 15 minutes into the film, and Luke doesn't decide to leave his home until 30 minutes into the movie.  2.)  The last third to half of the movie is almost all action, and as good as that is, it leave less room for character development, which is done better by the next movie.

The original movie trailer is actually pretty dreadful and does not do justice to the film.

Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSm9DDxQv8E
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0uPzrx0n90&NR=1
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAJgnUix2kI&feature=relmfu
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztK3s63_OM&feature=relmfu

Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi * * *

The Return of the Jedi is the least impressive of the Star Wars movies and was somewhat controversial when it was released because it was more geared toward children than the previous films.  The introduction of the teddy bear like Ewoks put off some people, and with the final scene featuring singing Eworks, I felt like George Lucas had damaged Star Wars forever.  Fortunately, in later editions of the film, the Ewok singing was taken out.

Nevertheless, it is a satisfying conclusion to the 6 movie series.   The events that happen here are interesting and necessary to conclude the story.  The best scenes are the rescue of Han Solo, a high speed chase through a forest, the Death Star battle, and the final confrontation between Luke Skywalker, Emperor Palpatine, and Darth Vader.

Mark Hamill does a really impressive job portraying Luke Skywalker in this film.

Good Night and Good Luck * * * *

If we measure a movie by it's ability to take us to another time and place, then "Good Night and Good Luck" is the best example that I can think of.  The movie is relies more on atmosphere than plot, but that atmosphere feels like we are ease dropping on the real events as they are happening.  It is interesting how the camera will follow people around.  It creates a slight sense of confusion, but adds to the "we are there" feeling of the movie.  By cleverly showing us archival footage on television screens, we feel like the events are happening right now.  The movie never bothers to explain anything at all; it assumes that we are smart enough to keep up.  Since the film is mostly people having conversation, it adds to the feeling that we watching real events, but a few of those conversations might try people's patience.  Which is why on Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of the critics liked the movie, but only 73% of the audience liked it. 

I was worried that the movie would hit us over the head with a political message about McCarthyism, as other films have, especially since it was written by the left leaning George Clooney who also gave us politically slanted duds like Syriana and Michael Clayton.  (The latter is not terrible but stretches believability.)  But if there is political bias in this movie, it is subdued and overshadowed by a very intelligent script that is just trying to present events as they were.  At one point the movie is smart enough to ask "What if we are on the wrong side?", which is an interesting question since some people today still defend McCarthy in his hunt for communists.  But I find myself not caring if the movie has a political message, because it entertains so well.

My one nitpick is that too much attention is spent on a Jazz singer who is completely unrelated to the plot.   Her singing is there just to set the mood.

Almost all the actors in the movie are television actors, many of which I have seen in some of my favorite programs.  Even George Clooney is a former television actor, so I thought that maybe the movie is trying to make some subtle point about television, but it might have just been a matter of budget.  This movie was made on a shoestring budget, but it gets its money's worth.  It is very well acted.  David Strathain blew me away with his portrayal of Edward R Murrow.   

Hereafter * * * *

There are some movies that have so much stuff in them that I can watch them five times and enjoy them all five times.  Riverworld (2010), Monsters versus Aliens, Tangled and all the Star Wars movies are films that I enjoyed over and over.  (It is probably no coincidence that those are all sci-fi or fantasy films.)   Hereafter is a movie that seems to subscribe to the theory that "less is more".  The movie effectively uses emotion and relationships more than plot to advance the story.  It is not the kind of film that I would watch repeatedly, but it pulled at the heart strings so well that it felt like a deep emotional experience.  At its core are the fundamental human questions about life and what might come after.  It is the sort of gentle and subtle treatment that you would expect from director Clint Eastwood.  It might be one of his better movies.

Hereafter is the story of a man who believes that he can communicate with the dead, along with the stories of two other people who all come together at the end.

Much of the emotion of the film comes from human response to tragedy.  There is ample tragedy in this movie.  At one point there is a terrorist bombing that I found jarring  even though it was shown at a distance.  The opening sequence involves people caught up in a tsunami, and it is an amazing spectacle to behold.  We are used to seeing special effects in movies, but nevertheless I find myself wondering how they pulled off this sequence.  The opening sequence alone is worth the price of admission.

One might think that the movie is exploitative because it takes advantage of our fears of current events by showing a terrorist bombing and a tsunami.  Maybe it is exploiting our fears, but it does so in a gentle and reassuring way.  I can't imagine any other movie having such a soft touch and pulling it off.

Star Trek * * * *

I just watched Star Trek for the fourth time.  The first two times were in the theater.  I enjoyed the movie better on video only because some later action scenes were too loud in the theater.

In case you are not aware, Star Trek is the "reboot" of the old TV series and movies into a new series of movies.  It follows the adventures of the old Star Trek characters when they were younger.  In this particular series, the "reboot" happens when Romulins travel back in time and change the course of history resulting in the death of Captain Kirk's father.  In this timeline, Kirk grows up without a father and is more of a miscreant.  A series of events propel him into Starfleet and ultimately toward leadership.  Along the way he has encounters and run-ins with other Star Trek characters, most noticeably a young Spock which the young Kirk doesn't like very much.

This is nearly a perfect movie.  The execution from start to finish is brilliant.  Every scene and every piece of dialog serves to propel the story along at a light speed.  The opening shot is a slightly surrealistic fly-by of a Star Fleet ship cleverly letting us know that reality has changed; This is not your Daddy's Star Trek.  It is cooler looking and more action packed, and more fun.  The movie takes liberties with the Star Trek characters, but these liberties make sense and fit well in the context of the story.

Children of Men. Rating: A

In a bleak chaotic future in which humans can no longer procreate, a government civil servant, Theo, agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to sanctuary.  Initially she is traveling with a violent rebel group that wants to use the baby to promote their cause.  This group has no qualms about killing anyone who might get in their way, and eventually the group starts an armed rebellion against the British government.

Initially the film presents us with a dystopian future which is depressing to look at.  This might serve as a warning of things to come.  We can only hope that the future is better than what is depicted in this movie.  However, when the bullets start to fly and the main characters try to escape a war zone, the movie turns intensely violent in a brilliantly executed extended action sequence.


Michael Caine has a strong supporting role as an old hippie, which is counter to his usual roles, but completely believable.


The movie does a great job of exploring post 9-11 themes, as well as religious themes.  The pregnant woman is essentially the mother of the entire future human race.


I had to turn on closed captioning to understand some of the British accents.  The movie never slows down to explain anything, but assumes that you are smart enough to follow along.  I paused the film in places to read some of the billboards, many of which give interesting insights into this future world.


The movie is rated R for violence, language, and brief nudity.

Attack the Block (Rating: A)

I would rather not give away what "Attack the Block" is about, except that it is aptly described by the movie poster as "INNER CITY VS OUTER SPACE".  What that doesn't tell you is what a great action picture this is, and how great the characters are.  At times it is scary, occasionally funny, but overall it is exciting with some good social commentary thrown in.

If you don't mind spoilers, check out the trailer.  I rented the movie from Netfix.

Cloud Atlas * * * *

It is rare that I applaud at the end of a movie, but when I do it is because I have just experienced something special.  I knew that my 3 hours was not wasted.  I felt that I had just lived through something and not just watched a story.    I noticed that only a couple of other people in the crowded dollar theater also applauded, but to be honest, this a highly complex movie that might go over many people's heads.

Cloud Atlas follows 6 very different stories, each taking place in a different time period, but with the same actors playing different roles, races and even genders in each time period.  Most of the stories are in the past, but a couple are in the distant future.  Watching this film is like watching 3 different episodes of LOST all at the same time.  The movie switches between stories somewhat seamlessly with the idea that they are all connected, as are the characters who seem to have reincarnated from one time period to the next.

The movie's philosophical bent seems to be one of reincarnation and karma.

The themes of this movie include karma, love, oppression/slavery, violence/murder, rebellion and hope.  The central idea is that we are all connected and events that happened long before we were born affect our lives and our lives will affect others long after we are gone.

The stories of Cloud Atlas are as follows:

Year 1849:  Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is a lawyer crossing the Pacific in a ship who is involved a a business deal involving slavery.  He befriends an escaped slave (Keith David) while a greedy doctor (Tom Hanks) tries to poison him.  He is saved by the escaped slave and is able to return to his wife (Bae Doona) and confront his father in law (Hugo Weaving) over the issue of slavery.

Year 1936:  Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) is a bisexual musician who goes to work for a famous but aging composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent) and then develops an affair with the man's younger wife (Halle Berry).  Vyvyan tries to blackmail Robert, so Robert shoots him and then is on the run from the law.  He hides in a hotel where he is then blackmailed by the owner (Tom Hanks).   After barely finishing his musical masterpiece, Cloud Atlas, Robert kills himself.

Year 1973:  Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) is a journalist investigating an unsafe nuclear power plant run by a corrupt oil company.  (No agenda there.)  She is befriended by an engineer (Tom Hanks) and a security guard (Keith David).  She is then pursued by a hit man named Bill Smoke (Hugo Weaving)  hired by an oil executive (Hugh Grant).  Along the way she hears the music Cloud Atlas for the first time but somehow recognizes it.

Year 2012:  Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) is a publisher who has a windfall when his gangster author (Tom Hanks) commits murder at a party.  Other gangsters come after him so he flees to his antagonistic brother (Hugh Grant) who tricks him into permanently checking into a retirement home where he is abused by a sadistic female nurse (Hugo Weaving).  From there he plots his escape with other retirees.  This is the only humorous sequence in the film.

Year 2144: In a dystopian future, Sonmi-451 (Bae Doona), is an artificially created slave clone who simply waits tables when one of her fellow clones fights against being abused, but as a consequence is executed.  She is then recruited by a rebellion officer (Jim Sturgess), who she falls in love with, and a rebellion general (Keith David) who want to use her to broadcast a message of truth to the whole world.  Once the rebellion is crushed, she is interrogated by a not so friendly Asian inquisitor (Hugo Weaving).

Year 2321:  106 years after the fall of Earth, Zachry (Tom Hanks) is a primitive tribesman living on the Hawaiian islands.  His tribe is often attacked by cannibals, and Zachry often has visions of the Devil (Hugo Weaving) taunting him.  His people believe that the Devil lives on top of a mountain.  These people also have a myth about Sonmi-451 being a goddess.  The island is visited by Meronym (Halle Berry) who belongs to a small group of people who still have technology.  She tells Zachary that the Earth is dying and that they must travel to the top of the mountain, where there is a giant transmitter, so that they can send a request for help to humans on another world.

This last sequence uses a degraded form of English that is full of odd expressions like "true true."  It  makes the speech harder to follow but I was able to keep up.  When the movie comes out on DVD on 2013-02-05, I suggest turning on subtitles so as to better follow the dialogue.

The end credits show pictures of all the different roles that each actor plays, many of which come as surprise.  Sometimes the makeup is so heavy that you cannot easily recognize the actors.    This would be a fun movie to watch repeatedly so as to pick up on the different actors.

I highly recommend watching the eye popping trailer.  This is a film where the ideas are slightly better than the execution of the story.  I give this movie a great deal of credit for being different, daring and innovative.  In terms of acting and cinematography, the movie is a triumph.  The fact that a movie of this scale was independently made is astonishing.  This movie only has a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but I think that the complexity of the movie lost some people.  I wager that over time the movie will gain more acceptance and be considered a great film.

Roger Ebert said that this is one of the most ambitious films ever made

The movie is rated R for many brief moments of intense violence, along with some nudity, sexual situations and language.

Pacific Rim * * * *

To battle giant alien monsters from another dimension, the human race builds skyscraper tall robots that are human piloted.

There is a certain silliness to the premise of Pacific Rim that giant robots would be needed to fight giant creatures from another world.  A single missile would probably kill any one of these monsters, and if that didn’t do the trick, the second or third missile would finish the creature off.   A single Apache helicopter or fighter aircraft would have more than enough firepower to destroy one of these creatures.

Pacific Rim also has a certain amount of corniness that reminds me of “An Officer and a Gentleman.”  Even the “bad soldier” becomes a hero in the end.   The movie is also reminiscent of “Real Steal” and possibly other movies like “Top Gun.”

However, the movie is so well executed and so effectively draws into its world, that I quickly forgot any logical objections that I had to the film.  The movie is dominated by special effects and battle scenes, but these are done so well and are so engaging that it kept my on the edge of my seat.   The characters are slightly corny, but the movie somehow gets us to completely empathize with them.  Throughout the film there is a sense of wonderment that all good science fiction stories have.

Even a slightly silly movie like this one can be done so well that it feels like a perfect movie.   I am sure that I will watch it a couple of more times.

The Impossible * * * *

The Impossible is an inspirational movie about the courage of a family struggling to survive the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand.  What I liked about the film is that the family members faced a terrible ordeal with courage, and when possible, helped others.

Ender's Game * * * *

Ender's Game is a military science fiction movie based upon a wonderful novella of the same name.  Sometime in the future, the human race is attacked by an alien race called the Formics and the humans barely repel the attack.  In a desperate attempt to prevent another attack, the humans plan to take the battle to the Formic home world.   In the hope of developing new, brilliant leadership, the military begins training a few talented children chosen for space combat.  They go through a series of training simulations, i.e. "games" to prepare them for war.  Ender Wiggin is a particularly brilliant cadet who is taken under the wing of the fanatical Colonel Highland Graf, played by Harrison Ford.  I like Harrison Ford's portrayal of Graf as a man who has only one purpose in life:  Destroy the enemy.

Watching Ender's Game is a deeply visceral experience.  I had my doubts about whether this novella could be adapted to the big screen, but the movie felt intense to me.  I am wondering if the movie will have the same effect on a smaller screen, i.e. Home video?  Maybe one of the reasons the movie felt so intense to me is that I knew what the surprise ending was from having read the book.  The movie and the book raise a few moral questions about the possible genocide of an alien race. 

I highly enjoyed Ender's Game and felt that it was loyal to the book, which, by the way, is one of the best books I ever read.  The book has spawned many sequels, so maybe we will see more of Ender Wiggin on the big screen.

Some of the events in the book are abbreviated or omitted in the movie, including not telling us that Ender unintentionally kills one of the other cadets.

It took me at least an hour after I saw the movie to realize that Ender's sister is played by Abigail Breslin.  It bugs me that I missed this at first.  The pretty little girl from  The Ultimate Gift, Zombie Land, and Little Miss Sunshine has grown into a pretty teenager.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the worthy sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Both are surprisingly great dramas, but the second film is also a really good action film.

After the fall of humanity due to a man-made virus designed to cure Alzheimer's Disease, the apes made intelligent by the virus have settled into the forest area north of San Francisco.  The apes believe that the humans have died out, but a few surviving humans have a small community in San Francisco.  When a couple of humans accidentally encounter the apes, they become frightened and shoot one of the apes, which leads to escalating tensions.  Hotheads on both sides push the two groups toward war.  A few individuals on both sides want to broker a peace, but the hotheads prevail.

The computer generated apes are amazing to look at.  My only complaint is that the apes facial expressions seem a little too human.

It seems obvious that the movie is an analogy for any human conflict.  The conflict started because the humans wanted to restart a hydroelectric dam, i.e. the war starts over energy, or more generally, over resources.  The movie shows how conflict develops from fear of  "the other" or "outsiders".  The fact that the two groups are so different is what helps drive them to war.  This gives the movie a certain noble message that stays with you for a long time.  It feels like an anti-war film that delivers its message better and more subtly than any human versus human conflict could.

This is filmmaking, science fiction and special effects at its best.  Rating:  * * * *

The Salt Lake City, the movie is playing at the dollar theater in Sugar House.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Richard Roeper gives the movie an "A".

Interstellar

If you were to combine the movies 2001: A Space Odyssey, Gravity, and Frequency, you would end up with something a lot like Interstellar.  I think that the film tries to be an epic that is a worthy successor to 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they are very different movies.  "2001" is not strong on plot, pacing, characters or drama, but the film is still a major artistic achievement because of its beautiful and grand optimistic vision of the future.  The film is more of a spectacle in the same way a fireworks show is a spectacle;  It is meant to be enjoyed for artistic pleasure, and everything else is secondary. 

On the other hand, Interstellar is strong on plot, pacing, characters and drama.  It makes for a great story about human struggle against adversity, bravery, and love.  It doesn't have the same level of artistic vision that "2001" has, but the story is well worth watching.

Interstellar is not an optimistic movie about the future because it portrays a future Earth in the process of environmental collapse.  It takes a force external to the human race to save us.  What the movie does well is put human faces on this tragedy.  Even the supporting characters are people we care about.

Matt Damon makes a short but very meaningful appearance in the middle of the movie.

There is a YouTube video about everything Interstellar got wrong which I don't want to watch.   I knew as I watched this film that some things aren't scientifically accurate, just like the movie Gravity isn't scientifically accurate either.   It doesn't matter since the movie is enjoyable as it is.

Rating:  * * * 1/2

Maggie

Once the Necroambulist virus infects someone, their body slowly deteriorates.  After maybe a dozen weeks they lose any sense of self and want to bite other people.  Thus the virus spreads and by spreading has nearly destroyed civilization.  The government tries to contain the spread by forcing infected people into quarantine.  Quarantine is essentially a death camp for infected people who are going to die anyway.  There is no cure and no hope.

This is the impossible choice faced by Wade Vogel when his daughter Maggie becomes infected.  He is told that after 8 weeks he will have to turn his daughter over to quarantine.  He promised his deceased wife that he would protect Maggie, so he doesn't want to let the government take her.  He also knows that he is running out of time.  He tries to enjoy what little time he has remaining with his daughter, but hanging over his head is the rapidly approaching moment when he will not be able to do that anymore.  He will have to make a choice, but he doesn't know what choice to make.

Thus the film creates a subdued suspense that makes the movie a gem.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is wonderful here, and Abigail Breslin has been fantastic in everything she has ever played in.  The film is also full of good performances by the supporting actors.  Every character is desperately trying to cope in nearly impossible circumstances.

The situation faced by the characters is not much different than having to deal with alzheimer's or terminal cancer.

It is easy to believe in a worldwide epidemic when you  consider that the Spanish Flu killed 50 million people.

Some people might find the movie too slow, but I thought it was perfect.  The 54% rating on Rotten Tomatoes tells me that the film is underappreciated. 

Rating:  * * * .5

American Sniper

The world as we know it today is an unstable place.  There are people whose interests are completely contrarian to our own:  Their beliefs are irreconcilable with ours.  The events of 9-11 showed beyond any doubt that there are people who want to hurt us.  As long as this situation continues, there will be war of one sort or another.  International politics and the war on terror are complex with no easy solutions.  Our role in combating terror has been controversial, as some people have wondered if we really needed to go to Iraq?  Regardless, we went there and put our soldiers in harm's way to fight a fight that we thought was worth fighting. 

Our soldiers are from an all-volunteer military.  These people chose to be soldiers.  Some of these people didn't come back.  Some came back damaged, physically or mentally.  There is another word for people like this:  Heroes.  So it seems extremely appropriate that a movie should be made about one of these heroes, Chris Kyle, who was the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history.  The movie is based upon his book, American Sniper, and is directed by the 84-year-old Clint Eastwood.

This movie is much more than just an intense well acted dramatic biography of Chris Kyle.  It is the story of all who fought.  It is also, in part, our story.  We as a nation have suffered from the terrible attacks of 9-11.  We as a nation chose to fight and endure the consequences of the wars that followed.  Chris Kyle was a perfect reflection of the values of the America that he came from.  He was also a man of deep conviction.  Heroes always are.

Rating:  A

The Fault in Our Stars



Hazel Lancaster, a 16-year-old teenager with thyroid cancer that has spread to her lungs, meets a 17-year-old teenage boy, Augustus Waters, who has osteosarcoma that caused him to lose his leg.  They bond immediately and agree to read each other's favorite novel.  After reading the novel An Imperial Affliction, a book about cancer written by Peter Van Houten, they arrange to travel to Amsterdam to meet the author.   Although their meeting with Van Houten does not go well, the trip is memorable and allows them to bond further.  Shortly after that, health issues start to catch up with them.

The emotion in this movie hit me like a freight train.  This is a film that knows how to grab your heart and never let go.  It is the kind of film that is willing to be honest and intelligent about cancer, but wraps all that in a sweet romance.  In the beginning, the movie claims that it is not going to be artificial or upbeat, but the film tries to be as upbeat that its sad little story will allow it to be.

It is one of the best movies of the year.

Rating:  A

Journey's End

For those who have not seen it, Journey's End (2017) is a very effective war movie. I would compare it to Dunkirk, although the pace is a little less exciting. It is more of a personal drama about war.

The movie is based on a 1928 play about World War 1. Almost the entire movie takes places in the trenches, just prior to the German "Spring Offensive" in 1918.

There have also been three other movies based upon this play, first in 1930, and a German version in 1931, and the 1978 "Aces High" where the story was changed to be about fighter pilots.

Rating:  A-

Wonder Woman

Production for a Wonder Woman movie started in 1995, and it went through several rewrites, and several potential directors, including The Avengers Josh Whedon, who left the project because of creative differences.  After 22 years, the final product is very good, and probably about as good as they could make it, although it seems to me that the source material detracts from the overall effect.

Diana is one of many Amazon women living on the island of Themyscira, who were created by the gods to protect the world from Ares, the god of war.  When Steve Trevor crashes his plane near the island, Diana rescues him from drowning.  He tells her that the entire world is engaged in a war.  She thinks that Ares must be responsible for this conflagration, so she leaves the island with Trevor to look for Ares with the intention of killing him.

Once off the island, Diana is at first a fish out of water, until she gets a chance to fight alongside the Allies during World War I, where in a key scene she suddenly takes charge.  Much of this doesn't seem very believable, but it is a superhero movie, so we make allowances.

Although this is part of the Wonder Woman story, the original comic book takes place during World War II.  Why change the story?  I think because Trevor is looking to destroy a German weapon of mass destruction, which is a new type of poison gas.  Therefore, it would be hard to have any kind of moral clarity when talking about weapons of mass destruction during World War II, because the country that actually developed a weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb, was the United States.

Diana kills many enemy soldiers, mostly in the defense of herself or others.  However, I have a problem with all this killing, because I figure that superheroes are normally above this kind of thing.  This makes the movie feel like just a war film at first, until the end where we get a battle between gods.

Prior to the release of the movie, there were some special screenings just for women, as if the film makes some sort of feminist statement because Diana is a very strong feminine character.  However, I don't think that the outfits worn by the Amazon women, which I am sure are designed to attract a male audience, are particularly empowering to women.

At one point Diana makes an observation that Trevor treats his secretary like a slave.  My initial thought that this was a criticism of employment in general, and then I realized that this is a feminist statement about women being subservient to men.  This comment is treated in a light hearted fashion, showing Dianna's naiveté, because Trevor's secretary seems to be very happy with her employment.  So the film sends a confusing message.

Gal Godat and Chris Pine are both fantastic as the two leads.  I think that Chris Pine, who plays a young James T. Kirk in the Star Trek reboot films, looks here more like a young Captain Kirk than he ever has

Rating:  A-

Out of the Furnace

Out of the Furnace proceeds at a leisurely pace.  It opens with a scene that I could have done without, where a hillbilly gangster scumbag named Harlan Degroat beats up his date and someone else at a drive in theater.  The movie establishes that Harlan, played wonderfully by Woody Harrelson, is about as evil as one can get.  Switch to Russell Baze, played pensively by Christian Bale, who is trying to keep his life together working at a steel mill and dealing with his aimless battle scarred military brother, played admirably by Casey Affleck.  His brother keeps getting into debt with bookies and Russel keeps bailing him out.  Things do not go well for Russell when he is sent to prison for a fatal auto accident that was not his fault, but he had had a couple of drinks which did not look good.  After getting out of prison, he goes back to work at the steel mill, but his problems with his brother escalate, which slowly builds up to a confrontation with Harlan Degroat.

All the performances in this film are wonderful, including Zoe Saldana as Russel's ex girlfriend, and Forrest Whitaker, who is always great, as Sheriff Barnes, and William Dafoe as a low life bookie.  This movie is driven by great performances, because the plot takes it time building up to any kind of action.  However, the film doesn't meander.  Every scene moves the story to the next plot point and the next great performance by the actors.  The tone of the movie reminded me of What's Eating Gilbert Grape, although it is considerably more interesting.

The film steals one scene from The Dear Hunter, where Russell, who is so damaged by life, decides to not shoot a deer on a hunting trip.  

I have to take issue with Roger Ebert's review of the movie, who said that for long stretches it doesn't know what it wants to be.  I think that the film knows exactly what it wants to be.  The point is exactly the same as the point of Hell or High Water, where poverty is the overwhelming force that drives people who could have potentially been good to do bad things.  Like that movie, people are trapped in the world they grew up in.  Believable performances lead to an inevitable "Taxi Driver" type of conclusion.  The journey to get there is one that I found very compelling.  

Rating:  B+

Out of the Furnace has just a 53% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  I think that it is an underappreciated gem.  The great performances make it well worth watching.

I have come to believe that many movies have a barely hidden political agenda.  Out of the Furnace and Hell or High Water don't advocate any kind of policy to deal with poverty, but instead show us the us the terrible consequences that poverty has on people's lives.