With all due respect, I like that Leia could use the force to save herself.
I happen to like Kevin Smith. My love of Star Wars is only second to his. I love watching his enthusiasm.
Solo didn't impress me. It was okay, but it doesn't add anything to the Star Wars story unless we get a sequel, which I would welcome. Solo felt average and like a recycled western. I also thought that the ending was overly convoluted and not consistent with the Solo character. It blows my mind that he can walk up to a bar and order a "brandy", as if an earth drink would exist a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
I don't buy this notion that there was no overall plan. Sure, Rian Johnson had too much creative control to do his own thing, but I'm certain that Lucasfilm had expectations on what they wanted each movie to accomplish.
I will swear to my dying breath that The Last Jedi is entertaining, because guess what? I found it entertaining. Four times. It was not what I expected, nor exactly what I would have preferred, but that is the problem with the fan reaction; they are going to reject an otherwise entertaining movie because it does not match their preconceived notion of what it should be. They complain that the character of Luke was disrespected, but it is not our story to tell. Lucasfilm chose to give us a story that was different than what we expected, likely in order to take the series in a new direction.
The 1994 hand-drawn animated version of The Lion King is nearly perfect. The animation is beautiful, with most of it having a 3D look. The characters are great and the voice acting by Matthew Broadrick, James Earl Jones, Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, Ernie Sabella, Whoopi Goldberg, and Cheech Marin all give those characters a very distinctive sound. The music, which effectively pulls at our emotions, is so wonderful that it is like another character in the movie.
The only part of the original film that I did not like as much is the musical number "I just can't wait to become King." This sequence is drawn in a 2D style like a classic Saturday morning cartoon. Although it isn't a particularly bad sequence, its target audience seems to be just for kids.
The 2019 remake has many of the qualities that made the original good, but it also is lacking in many areas. The insistence that everything be photorealistic means that the movie is absolutely gorgeous to look at, but it also means that the characters are far less expressive than their hand-drawn counterparts. For example, the character of Scar had charisma in the original, but in the remake he just comes across as mean. I don't think that the voices are as stylish either, although Seth Rogan does a good job as Pumbaa. Why they didn't use the original cast? Only Jame Earl Jones reprises his role.
The music had a powerful impact on the original. It is strangely more subdued in the remake. The star of the new movie, and by far the best reason to see it, is the computer animation. It is a sight to behold.
Hand-drawn animation is expensive, so the original at 88 minutes feels slightly too short. It is a very compact movie with scenes and dialog taking no more time than they need to in order to convey the story. The remake is 30 minutes longer, with extra and more mature dialog everywhere. Many of the scenes are longer. Some of this is nice, but parts of it also feel unnecessary. The final confrontation with Scar is too long and gives the impression of being more violent.
There are little things done in the original that weren't done in the remake, like Pumba picking up Simba with his horns, or Pumba getting stuck under a tree root while being chased by Nala. I found myself wondering if this was just a technological limitation of the computer animation?
Should you see the 2019 remake of the Lion King? Absolutely. It is a wonderful movie to look at. At times I felt like I was watching a beautiful nature show that just happens to be The Lion King. However, the original is a better overall experience.
The Lion King (1994): A.
The Lion King (2019): B+.
Spider-Man Far from Home starts out like another teen friendly movie, like Alita Battle Angel, so I'm thinking to myself that I'm sick of this crap. I'm thinking that if this continues I'm going to walk out. But about 1/4 of the way in, the action gets intense. The movie feels like it comes to a conclusion half way through, but then we find out that we have been deceived and the real story starts in the middle of the movie. By the the end the film delivers in a really big way. The two post credit scenes shake things up even further. Overall it is a pretty wild ride.
Toy Story 4 is more than sufficiently entertaining, but it doesn't cover much ground that we haven't seen before. What is different is the introduction of the character "Forky", which is a toy made from recycled trash. Forky suddenly comes alive and is not very comfortable with his new existence as a toy. He thinks that he is trash, which technically he is. This raises uncomfortable questions about how life works in the Toy Story universe, such as why are the toys alive at all? Strangely enough, the movie even asks that question, without giving us an answer. Is the film trying to get us to think about something? We could raise this line of thinking to a much higher existential level and wonder why we exist at all?
In the first film, we accepted that the toys are alive as part of the magic. The Toy Story movie was a new technology that felt magical. Toy Story 4 is darker, similar to the third film, so somehow the magic isn't quite the same anymore.
Part of the problem is that the story is just not as strong. The first film gave us great character development that came out of a conflict that really seemed to matter and was resolved in a very satisfying way. Here, not so much. The movie is mostly an action film with a touch of character development on the side. Fortunately, the movie also knows how to touch our hearts, but again, this not that different from what we have seen before.
It feels like the movies have run their course because they have already done everything that they can do. Despite this, the ending leaves open some questions about what is going to happen to these characters that may require yet another movie to resolve.
Rocketman is probably the best movie that I will see this year. It starts with Elton John checking himself into rehab around 1990, whereupon the film shortly breaks into song. This is surprising, but it seems appropriate, if not downright brilliant, that a biopic about a musician should be a musical. The movie has a habit of breaking into elaborate musical numbers when you least expect it, like when Elton John tries to kill himself. However, for a musician as flashy as Elton John, this is the perfect way to tell the story. I just kept thinking about how brilliant this all was.
In rehab, Elton John tells everyone just how very screwed up he is, and then he recounts the story of his life telling how he got that way. This is where the movie shines, showing his boyhood living in public housing and his troubled relationship with an uncaring father and somewhat distant mother. The young Reginald Dwight (his real name) quickly learns that he has a talent for the piano and is showing great musical prowess by his teens. In the 1960's he struggled to make a living as a musician, but things begin to improve when he meets and teams up with Bernie Taupin, who was his lifelong collaborator and wrote most of the lyrics to Elton John's songs. However, in 1970 he makes an appearance at the famous West Hollywood nightclub, the Troubadour, which he was almost too nervous to do. There Elton becomes a huge hit and his career immediately takes off.
All this success doesn't make Elton John any less screwed up. His drug and alcohol problems get worse until finally, his close friends are urging him to get help.
The movie doesn't shy away from Elton John's homosexuality, depicting his relationship with his lover and manager John Reid.
My one complaint is that the end of the movie shows Elton John doing a music video post-rehab. The movie plays loose with the facts, because the music video, "I'm still standing", is actually from 1983. The only problem here is that the music video looks fuzzy like we are watching it on a television set. This takes us out of the moment.
The film fails to tell us very much about Elton John post-rehab. It is like the rest of his life is encapsulated into a minute of text and pictures at the end of the movie. This misses out on possible dramatic moments showing how much better his life was after recovery.
Prior to the fuzzy music video, I was going to give the movie an "A+", because it is that brilliant. In addition, the film could have given us more, if not a great deal more, about Elton John's life. It is not like his life ended when he got out of rehab.
I don't like the Carie-Poppins comparisons. People complained so much that I watched the scene in Marry Poppins and they look nothing alike. I like that Leia can use the Force to save herself, showing that she has Force powers. What bothered me is the apparent lack of airlock or force field, which I'm sure was there, but the movie doesn't make that obvious.
Follow me on this: The Last Jedi has a number of scenes that take us out of the moment because those scenes were different, or overdid the humor. There are consistency problems, where the movie tries to redefine Star Wars for a new generation. There are also a handful of plot holes and a couple of scenes of bad dialog. However, between these moments, which are all brief, is a very entertaining story that I like very much. I have seen the movie four times and I really enjoy it. I also don't mind the humor, because I was laughing out loud the first time I saw the movie. On repeat viewings, the humor lacks most of the surprise effect, but these scenes go by quickly.
I know that people didn't like the way Luke was handled, but I have a completely different take on this. I don't think that you can disrespect a fictional character. What you can do is give the audience something different than what they wanted or expected. It is not the story I would have preferred, but if they gave me exactly what I was expecting then it would risk being boring. The story of Luke as given is entertaining. I feel that this is not our story to tell; we aren't the writers. We don't get to decide what the story of Luke should be.
It is not my favorite Star Wars movie. It is close to the bottom. I actually like Solo less. Solo is not a bad movie, but there is a shortage of likable characters and the movie feels very ordinary, like a recycled western. The ending is overly convoluted and the Han Solo character is too altruistic.
The trailer for Pokemon Detective Pikachu makes the movie look like a funny videogame adaptation fantasy. However, the film doesn't come close to living up to the trailer. If you have seen the trailer then you have seen the best parts. The actual film is a mess. A big mess.
Nothing is developed properly. There are many cliches recycled from other movies that we are just supposed to accept because the language of film tells us what they are. The barely coherent story feels like it was written for 12-year-olds by a 12-year-old. The slightly less coherent action sequences feel designed for 10-year-old Japanese boys. The simplicity of the dialog bugged the hell out of me.
At times I felt like I was being subjected to something instead of being entertained. For a brief moment, it reminded me of watching Howard The Duck in 1986, which is really saying something.
This is extremely lazy filmmaking. Even though the movie is an hour and 40 minutes long, it is too short because the film doesn't come close to realizing its full potential. There is so much more that should have been explained and explored.
Despite all these problems, the story and character development are almost good enough to make the movie worth watching. The premise is interesting. Some of the special effects are fantastic, even though the story behind them is barely passable.
Suppose you wanted to catch up on the Marvel movies but didn't necessarily want to watch all 22 of them so as to see the great Avengers Infinity War and its pretty good sequel Avengers Endgame? Not all the movies were of equal quality so you could skip a few.
The bare minimum that I think you could watch are:
1. Iron Man.
3. Captain America.
4. Avengers. (The 2nd one was better, but it is optional.)
5. Guardians of the Galaxy. (The 2nd one was also better, but optional.)
6. Dr. Strange.
7. Black Panther.
And then finally...
8. Avengers Infinity War
9. Captain Marvel.
10. Avengers Endgame.
I didn't like either Ant-Man movie, nor did I think much of the Spiderman movie.
Thursday night I left chess club early to go see Avengers Endgame. This was a strange experience because there was no parking available in the huge theater parking lot. Every spot was taken and multiple cars were driving up and down the lanes looking for a place to park.
This was a problem because I had allowed myself barely enough time to catch the beginning of the movie after the previews had rolled.
I parked a block away in the middle of the Walmart parking lot, and I could see a bunch of other people doing the same. I then had to hurry in the rain to get to the theater. As I entered the theater I pulled out my ticket that I had already purchased, but nobody inside was checking tickets. It was fairly crowded and the movie was playing on five screens. I found my theater just as they were playing the spot that says, "And now enjoy the show!"
The only comparable experience was on December 17nth, 2015, when the first Star Wars movie in 10.5 years, The Force Awakens, premiered on a Thursday night. I had also left the chess club early, and I literally got the last parking spot after much searching.
I was worried that I might get a ticket or something, but there were no consequences for parking at Walmart. I was also worried about walking back in the dark at 11:10 at night, but I wasn't the only one.
Avengers Endgame is 3 hours well spent. It is the worthy sequel Avengers Infinity War. Both movies are the conclusion to 11 years of Marvel movies leading up to this one event. Infinity War was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Endgame is not quite as good, but it is close enough.
Disney is getting a monopoly on entertainment, having bought ABC, Marvel, FOX, DC comics, the Muppets, and Lucasfilm. Given that they are spending 10 million per episode for a new Star Wars series called The Mandalorian, with another TV series presumably in the works, and that they have a huge library of movies, they might very well get a monopoly on streaming services. They could outcompete Netflix, and if I were Netflix I would be in merger talks.
Many youtube reactions to Shazam are that the movie is darn near perfect, and exceptionally well executed. It is fairly executed, but I would not call it perfect. I really wanted to love this film, but it is very kid friendly, especially in the humor, some of which I thought was cringeworthy. Therefore, I don't love the movie, but I don't hate it either. I got about the same amount of enjoyment that I got from Captain Underpants, which is not a bad movie, but the difference is that Captain Underpants has no pretense of being anything other than a silly kids movie. I am reminded of watching The Goonies in 1985. Both movies have solid stories, semi-interesting characters, and at least one really good villain. Both movies also have silly moments that make you wonder why an adult like you is bothering to watch a kids film?
There are many places in the movie where I thought that the characters would logically react in a more mature way than they did.
However, there are three things that distinguish Shazam. First, the main character Billy Batson has a good story arc where he is forced to evolve and mature. Second, there is an interesting parallel between Billy Baston and the villain. Both characters have family issues that motivate them, but each takes a different path leading to a very different result. Third, at times the movie is really dark. Too dark. The tone throughout the film is inconsistent and that bothered me a little.
A perfect movie is one that enriches the viewer. Some movies made me feel better about myself or the world. Other movies are motivational or educational. Instead, Shazam is a morality tale about greed and envy corrupting the soul. As such it is interesting, but I didn't otherwise get much out of it.
Superheroes have it too easy. They are given tremendous power without really having to earn it. It is a far better experience to watch movies about real heroes. The fact of the matter is that all humans have a superpower, but few realize that they have it. That power is the ability to change ourselves for the better. Humans can accomplish great things provided that they have the will to do it.
Alita is a battle cyborg left over from a long-ago war. In this world, cyborgs have a human head with a mechanical support structure that can be fitted onto a mechanical body. Alita is found unconscious in a junkyard by a human scientist, a doctor, who revives her. He provides her a custom body that was intended for his dead daughter. She has no memory of her previous life, so the doctor becomes her father figure. The pair bond, but Alita has a rebellious teenage spirit that wants to know more about the world. That world is ugly, with a corrupt power structure that takes advantage of the weak. She becomes friends with a teenage boy who has his own dark secrets. When she tries to stand up for what is right, she quickly makes many enemies who want to kill her.
Like the movie Elysium, the rich and powerful live in a city in the sky. Nobody gets to see them, but many people on the ground are trying to earn enough money to book passage to the sky city. However, it is not clear that anyone actually gets to go there.
Alita's role is similar to a few other teen-friendly movies, such as The Giver or The Fifth Wave, where teenage characters are trying to figure out their place in the world. It doesn't help that Alita is very powerful, which causes her to be overconfident and go off half-cocked on some adventures that almost get her killed.
Watching this movie is an assault on the senses. It is like a videogame with plot and drama. The over the top action sequences would feel right at home in a Transformer's movie.
Alita, Battle Angel seems to have been written for the millennial generation. It is a mixture of many things that come together to make a complex, imperfect and sometimes confusing movie. Although it seems to know what it wants to be, the result is too teenager friendly, and less than a complete experience for adults. I don't feel that the story reached a satisfying conclusion, but instead prepares us for a sequel.
There is much buzz on the internet comparing this movie to Captain Marvel. Both movies feature a powerful female protagonist. Neither character feels like they have earned the right to be so powerful. The character of Alita displays more growth, which is why so many people on the internet have favored this movie over Captain Marvel. However, Captain Marvel is a slightly more satisfying experience.
Captain Marvel is many things, some of which work better than others. As an action, superhero, and science fiction movie, it works really well. As a personal drama showing the evolution of a character, it is not the best because the character doesn't really change that much, but it is good enough. As a period piece about the 1990s, it is nothing special. As a political statement pushing female empowerment, the movie tries too hard, making a handful of scenes feel contrived and slightly awkward.
There are a number of times I wondered about the logic of the film. A few things don't make sense, but the pace of the movie is so fast that I didn't have much time to think about them. My biggest concern is that there is a huge plot twist about three-quarters of the way into the movie where I had a hard time accepting this twist given all the things we had just seen. However, the characters accept this twist without question. In addition, much of the resolution of the film happens way too easily.
The Captain Marvel character starts snarky, serious and powerful. The character ends snarky, serious, and way more powerful. As played by Brie Larson, this character doesn't have much emotional depth, nor does the character evolve on an emotional level. However, her emotional range is just enough to sustain the movie.
There is a scene late in the film that is a compilation of quick flashbacks, which reminded me very strongly of a very similar scene in the final episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Both scenes are about female empowerment, and it appears to me like the movie copied the TV show.
There is a ton of eye candy in this film. There is so much going on that it is hard not to be entertained. Despite a few flaws, the movie is really enjoyable.
First Man underperformed at the box office, and I think that this is largely because the lousy title tells us nothing about the movie. Maybe the publicity was also bad because nobody I know has heard of the film. The title comes from the book that the movie is based upon, First Man: The Life of Neil Armstrong, but when I hear "First Man" I think of a different movie ...
So it would have been better to call this movie "Neil Armstrong" or just "Neil" for clarity. It is about Neil Armstrong's role in the space program, and how this affected his life and his relationship with his family.
The film has been called a worthy successor to the movie The Right Stuff, which is only partially true. I don't think that the two movies are in the same league. The Right Stuff is a great movie and an ensemble piece about many people. What First Man does well is tell us the events that led up to Neil Armstrong being the first man to step onto the moon. It has more of a gritty realism to it. Never has spaceflight seemed so claustrophobic nor so dangerous.
Family is at the emotional center of the film. One of my favorite scenes is where Armstrong explains to his two boys that there is a slight chance that he might not be coming back from his mission to the moon. I thought that maybe this scene was fictional, but it turns out that it actually happened. His younger son is maybe too young to understand, but the older boy accepts that it is necessary for heroes to take risk.
Neil Armstrong rightfully earned a reputation for having nerves of steel. He escaped a couple of life-threatening situations by doing the right thing just in the nick of time. He was the strong silent type. He was always professional and smart. But you can see from interviews that Armstrong could also be friendly and pleasant. The trouble with Ryan Gosling is that in all his movies he appears to have one mood, which is brooding. Gosling is the silent and brooding type. I don't feel like he completely captures Neil Armstrong, nor do I think that he was the best actor for the part. I think that Josh Brolin could have done a better job.
The movie lacks detail but instead chooses to make big jumps between key emotional and historic moments. It tries to show us, and not tell us what happened, but a little more explanation would have clarified what was going on.
Still, the pacing of the film is very good. It keeps us interested from start to finish.
Jackson Maine, a famous country music singer, develops a relationship with Ally, a waitress and a singer-songwriter. She is full of talent, but somewhat stage shy. He encourages her to sing onstage with him, and this leads to her getting a contract and her own successful singing career in pop music, although this creates some tension between her and Jack.
Jack has a dark side, which is that he is both an alcoholic and a drug addict. This creates more conflict in his relationship with Ally, and with his brother/manager Bobby. He pretty much destroys his life, but then goes into rehab.
On a technical level, the movie is fantastic. The chemistry between the two main characters, played to perfection by Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, is just wonderful. The singing is top notch. Both characters are portrayed as the nicest people in the world, except for the few times when Jack is taking a nosedive into self-destruction. The supporting cast is also very memorable.
However, this is where I had a problem with the movie. None of this feels realistic. Ally is supposed to be this uber-talented singer-songwriter who lacks confidence and is too meek to appear onstage, despite giving a knockout performance at a nightclub at the beginning of the movie that doesn't seem shy at all. These personal attributes don't go together, because people who are super talented know it and live for the moments when they can best use their talents. On the other hand, Jack is way too nice of a guy to be an alcoholic drug addict. In the real world, this would be pretty ugly.
The movie gives us a tragic ending, but the emotion feels all wrong like the film glosses over the devastating emotional impact that this would have. I am also bothered by the frequent foul language. Normally that would not be much of a problem, but here it is gratuitous as if it is in the wrong movie.
There is so much to like about this film, but taken as a whole its many elements don't mesh together as well as they should. It could have been perfect, but instead it feels flawed.
Science fiction done well is expensive, and therefore relatively rare. However, there are a ton of lower budget science fiction movies that attempt to entertain us, but few of them are great. There are certain methods these films use to make up for the lack of budget, because they have to fill up two hours, so certain plot elements and story are stretched out leaving the audience hanging on waiting for something interesting to happen. Whereas great movies might have a large number of interesting plot elements, the lower budget films might have just one or two.
You can see the similarity of many movies like this. They create a mystery to be solved, or a journey to be taken, or a horror to be fought. Somewhere along the way, there will be some eye candy to please the audience, possibly some gross-out special effects, and the ending might feel premature, leaving you hanging wanting to know more. All these things describe the movie Annihilation, and I'm not sure that you need to know more than that. This combination of elements, along with the all-female main cast, almost works, but it leaves me expecting something better. The film tries to be original, but I spot a dozen ideas that I have seen elsewhere.
Around 25 years ago I read a short story about an alien blight that lands on Earth and slowly begins to take over more land. Within the infected area, earthly creatures mutate and become new versions of plants and animals. This is essentially the story of Annihilation. The infected area is covered by a "shimmer" and everyone who has ventured into the shimmer has failed to return. As a result, a group of women volunteers, mostly military, agree to enter to see what they can find out. It turns out that most of these women are broken in one way or another, so they all have their own motivation for taking the trip. One has cancer and sees this as a suicide mission. One lost her husband in the shimmer and wants to find out what happened.
There is nothing wrong with Natalie Portman's performance, but she once had a unique look that is not very apparent in this movie. She looks more ordinary, and age might be a factor. Oscar Isaac is a good actor, but his part here is relatively small and his dialogue intentionally bland, so it doesn't give him much to work with.
The movie is entertaining, but barely so. Movies like this keep you in suspense wanting to know how they turn out, but once you watch them there is no reason to repeat the experience.
Rating: B-. My favorite movie critic, Richard Roeper, gives Annihilation four stars, describing the movie as innovative, but I think that the film reeks of a low budget.
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.
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.
Tank veteran Bill Batts thinks that the movie Fury is very authentic, but can't show the full horror of war. Really? Fury is about the most horrific war movie I have ever seen. The war violence is intense. The last quarter of the film is one very long battle. Watching the film is a deeply visceral experience. Maybe this is why many critics didn't praise the film; some have criticized it for glorifying war and violence.
Fury follows a five-man tank crew as the Allies made the final push into Germany. The tank is commanded by a battled hardened staff sergeant, Don "Wardaddy" Collier, played brilliantly by Brad Pitt. Much of the movie centers around the relationship between Wardaddy and a very green new recruit, Norman, who isn't quite ready yet to face the horrors of war.
It seems to me that the movie has a political agenda where it portrays American soldiers in an unfavorable light. Few in this film have any regard for morality, even as they quote scripture and talk about salvation. In two scenes, soldiers execute an unarmed prisoner. Maybe one of the prisoners had it coming. The other soldiers regard these murders as amusing. They also take sadistic delight in seeing the enemy burn alive. In another scene, Wardaddy and Norman break into an apartment where two young German ladies are living. Wardaddy gives the girls some food and they share a meal together, but there is an obvious tension in the room: There is the implied expectation that one of the girls will have to have sex, willing or not. The younger of the two ladies falls for Norman and they walk off to the bedroom together. Everything is casual and amicable until the rest of the tank crew barge in. The remaining crew are boorish, frighten the ladies and ruin the most peaceful moment of the movie. Some critics called this the best part of the movie, perhaps because they also have a negative impression of American soldiers, but this particular moment in the film I found grating.
This negative portrayal of American soldiers I don't think is realistic. There may be a few bad apples, but American soldiers are well disciplined and professional. Most have a strong sense of morality, if not compassion.
On my second viewing of Fury, everything made sense. The bad behavior seems insignificant against the backdrop of mass human slaughter that the movie presents to us. I felt like I was watching history, accurate or not. At the very least the movie is an interesting history lesson about tank warfare.
Brad Pitt's performance as Wardaddy, as I said, is brilliant, but also very macho. I think that this is why some people weren't happy with the film.
In the 1940's war movie Sahara, a tank crew decides to make a stand against impossible odds. The same thing happens in Fury. I don't think that the crew would have made this decision knowing that they certainly would be killed. As Tank veteran Bill Batts points out, it is unrealistic to think that they could hold out against a Battalion of Waffen SS troops. However, it made for a great final act.
In the final shot of Cool Hand Luke, an aerial view of a cross-shaped intersection is shown as a way of letting the audience know that someone died. The final shot of Fury copies this technique.
Did I mention that watching the movie is a deeply visceral experience? The young green recruit, Norman, is so affected by the horrors of war that he becomes a very different person in just a couple of days. The audience feels this change and identifies with it.
This is an amazing biopic, but at first I couldn't figure out why I like the movie so much. The film is about 98% conversation, almost all of which is people arguing with each other. What makes the film interesting is that everything proceeds at a rapid pace, which means the audience is forced to pay attention to keep up. When the film was done, I felt like I had just seen something wonderful, but I wasn't sure why.
I doubt that any of the conversations in this film took place exactly as depicted in the movie, but the conversations serve a purpose to convey a great deal of information about people and historical events.
The movie throws technical terms around that would go over the heads of most people, but for a computer hacker like me, this was gravy. There is a certain joy in being able to understand all of this.
Really the movie is about relationships, specifically how Steve Jobs related to everyone else. The way Steve Jobs related to everyone is to be a jerk, mostly by lashing out at people, but at the same time, he seemed to draw everyone toward him with the power of his personality and his vision. Steve Jobs seemed like a man who thought that he was so far above everybody else that he didn't need to take time to be nice to people, so the key is to realize that the only thing he only cared about was is make his vision a reality. Had Steve Jobs been any different, would the world be a lesser place today?
Steve Jobs vision was always ahead of the technology of the day. All the early computers his companies created were underpowered, lacking in memory, not very useful for anything productive, and way overpriced. This is why the Macintosh and the NeXT computers were commercial failures. It wasn't until Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 that the cost of technology had come down enough to make Jobs' vision a runaway commercial success.
This is one of the best movies of the year and nobody is watching it. However, this is an amazing movie. I want to see it again.
Charlie: "When I was a little girl, my mother would remind me each night before bed, to open up my heart to God, for He was kind, merciful, and just. Things changed when my father left a few years later, leaving her to raise me and my brothers in a place on the edge of the Mojave Desert. She never talked of a kind and merciful God again. Instead, she spoke of a prophecy. Of a time when all the world would be covered in darkness and the fate of mankind would be decided. One night, I finally got the courage to ask my mother why God had changed, why He was so mad at His children. 'I don't know,' she said, tucking the covers around me, 'I guess He just got tired of all the bullshit.'"
Legion is not your typical horror movie. God sends an army of angels to wipe out mankind. One archangel, Michael, rebels and tries to save mankind. The story goes that if one special child, a savior figure, can be saved, then so can humanity. The showdown to save or destroy mankind takes place at a run down "gas and eat" on the edge of the Mojave desert.
Percy Walker: "When I was a kid, my father would sit by my bed every night before I went to sleep. And he says to me, 'Percy, if you don't wake up tomorrow, if it turns out that today is your last day on earth. Will you be proud of what you've done in this life? Because if you ain't, you better start getting square.'"
Bob Hanson: "You know this is crazy, right? I mean... I don't even believe in God." Michael (The Archangel): "Well, that's just fine, Bob. He doesn't believe in you either."
Michael (The Archangel): "When God chose your kind as the object of His love, I was the first in all of heaven to bow down before you. My love, my hope for mankind was no less than His. But I have watched you trample that gift. I have watched you kill each other over race and greed... waging war over dust and rubble and the words in old books. And yet, in the midst of all this darkness, I see some people who will not be bowed. I see some people who will not give up, even when they know all hope is lost. Some people, who realize being lost is so close to being found. I see you, Jeep. Fifteen years old, your mother leaves. Your father withdraws from the world and you spend the next five years of your young life helping him find his way home. You love a woman who bears the child of another and you love her with no thought of yourself, even though you know she may never love you the way you love her. You, Jeep... you are the reason I still have faith."
When I compare Legion to another apocalyptic horror film, The Mist, I think that Legion is a hundred times better. Both movies belong to a genre of movies called Siege Films, where a group of people is inside a house or a building trying to defend themselves from something evil outside. This may have started with westerns, but one of the most famous examples is Night of the Living Dead. Another famous example is Assault on Precinct 13.
The Beach Boys were founded in 1961 by the brothers Brian, Dennis, and Carl Wilson, their cousin Mike Love and their friend Al Jardine. They had their greatest success from their inception up to 1966 with their Pet Sounds album, which was an artistic achievement but commercial failure, but also with the song Good Vibrations in 1966 which was their greatest selling single. From this point on the band was plagued with nothing but problems. Brian Wilson, who was the songwriting genius of the group, mentally broke down due to schizophrenia and drug abuse, and for the remaining decades would only occasionally have anything to do with the band. The Beach Boys failed to keep up with changing music styles, failed to have any new successful songs until the 1988 Kokomo, and only found commercial and touring success with their old material. The last 40 years have seen the original and new members come in and out of the group, and multiple lawsuits between various members over song rights, royalties, and the legal use of the name "The Beach Boys." Dennis Wilson died as an indirect result of drug abuse and Carl Wilson died from lung cancer due to his heavy smoking. Today, of the surviving original band members, all of which are in their 70's, only Mike Love is keeping the band going along with some of the children of the original band members. Since about 2000, Brian Wilson has had a semi-successful solo career and very little interest in rejoining the group.
Love and Mercy focusses on two parts of Brian Wilson's life: His creative genius and eventual breakdown in the 1960s, and a difficult period of his life in the 1980s when he was under the care of psychotherapist Eugene Landy. The movie portrays Landy as being abusive and totally controlling of Wilson. Landy eventually lost his psychotherapy license in the state of California due to ethical violations in his treatment of Wilson. Despite these problems, Brian Wilson thinks that Eugene Landy helped him.
The movie portrays Brian Wilson's early romantic relationship with Melinda Ledbetter, who helped him break away from Landy, and later became his wife and manager. The couple adopted five children.
This is a very good biopic, and mostly accurate according to Wilson. The movie provides insight into The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson, and the creative process. The film makes you want to download The Beach Boys songs.
I wanted to see Love and Mercy when it came out in the theater, but I got busy and it didn't stay in my local theater very long. Afterward, I didn't want to drive 50 miles to see the movie, so instead, I watched it the first day it came out on DVD.
I have an idea; let's write a science fiction movie. First, we will make a list of as many cool things as possible to put in the movie. We want several scenes reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Check. Let's make the main character a farmer, but he is really an astronaut. Check. Let's put the world in an environmental crisis. Check. Give the farmer a cute ten-year-old daughter who doesn't understand why her father has to abandon her in order to go save the world. Check. Add in a kind grandfather. Check. Let's have a black hole and a wormhole. Double check. Describe love as a natural physical force. Check. We can surprise the audience by having an uncredited major Hollywood star show up in the middle of the movie playing a highly respected scientist who really turns out to be evil. Check. Throw in a really cool robot, unlike anything anyone has seen before but is also reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Check. While we are at it, create some scenes that couldn't possibly happen, some time travel paradoxes and a couple of plot twists that don't quite make sense just to confuse the audience. Check and mate.
Interstellar feels like it was created from a long list of things designed to impress the audience. Consequently, the story feels a little bit forced like they are trying too hard, but only a little bit forced.
I no longer care. Whatever the movie is attempting to do, it does it superbly. This is one well executable movie. Despite any problems the film has, it is an amazing ride for the audience.
Racism is an ugly topic, so it should not surprise me that BlacKkKlansman is in some ways a movie about ugly people. Based upon the advance publicity, I expected it to be a little more whimsical, similar to the wonderful Logan Lucky, but the film's tone is somewhere between American Made and Edge of Darkness, but with less humor. Although the movie is described as a "comedy-drama", I fail to see how it is in any way funny. Perhaps the film is being misrepresented to promote ticket sales.
The movie is based upon the true story about how black police officer Ron Stallworth 40 years ago pretended to be a white racist on the phone while talking to KKK members so as to gain information about their activities. When he was required to make a personal appearance at KKK meetings, he sent a white undercover narcotics officer to represent him.
In the real story, no arrests were made and the investigation was shut down after nine months. The movie adds a bunch of fictional elements to make it more interesting, including a love interest, a terrorist bombing plot, and the notion that the white undercover officer was Jewish.
As a fictionalized version of real events, the movie is plenty entertaining. However, it gets into murky territory when it implies that Donald Trump is the equivalent of David Duke, and the ending uses the protests and riots at Charlottesville to attack Trump and imply that racism is alive and well. At one point Klansmen are shouting "America First", adding another connection with Trump. To those who are the anti-Trump faithful, this may seem all well and good, but it disrupts the narrative of the movie to make a blatantly obvious political statement and one that at least some of us disagree with.
In fact, the movie tries to draw parallels wherever it can to the events of 40 or 50 years ago and the present day. It frequently talks about police officers shooting and abusing black men. However, racism is not near as extensive as it was 40 to 50 years ago. The membership of white supremacist groups is down to a few thousand. The actual facts about modern police shootings do not show a pattern of racial discrimination. We live in one of the most racially harmonious periods of our history, where we elected a black president, but the movie feels like it wants to agitate people about racial politics.
Regardless, the film tells a good, although a mostly fictional story, and is thought-provoking.
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.
Ralph Breaks the Internet, the worthy sequel to the 2012 Wreck-It Ralph, is like one of those giant Cinnabons that they used to sell in malls. It is big, sweet, slick as all get out, and it feels like it is only made from three ingredients. In the case of the movie, the three ingredients are friendship, technology, and the dangers of technology. The film intelligently hits themes that are current as ever regarding the internet and the dangers that lie within, while deliberately not being too deep nor scary because of the movie's target audience. Although at times I felt like it could have been a little smarter, Ralph Breaks the Internet achieves a balance that both children and adults can enjoy.
Whereas the first movie relies heavily on nostalgia for the golden age of 1980's arcade video games, the sequel gets all modern for the age of the internet and 3D gaming. If another sequel gets made six years from now, maybe it will be about virtual reality, which is where gaming is now headed.
Both Wreck-It Ralph and Ralph Breaks the Internet live in a universe where arcade video game characters have lives of their own, and the characters from different games can interact with each other through the power circuitry that connects all the games. This notion of electrical power as a computer network is a bit odd, but it works because this is just a movie. If you have seen the trailer, then you know that a crisis develops when Vanellope von Schweetz's game, Sugar Rush, gets its steering wheel broken and the owner of the video game arcade plans to sell the machine off for parts. Ralph develops a plan for the two video game characters to journey to the Internet to find a replacement part and save the arcade game. What could possibly go wrong? Just about everything, including a venture into the "dark web" that has some serious consequences. There are lessons to be learned here, which will likely go over the heads of the younger audience members.
The computer animation is top notch. The story is better than I expected, and the jokes are just good enough to make you laugh a few times.
P.S. Compare this scene:
To this one:
I had a sense of déjà vu, and this could be a deliberate homage to the previous film.
Home is a 2015 Dreamworks Animation film about highly technologically advanced aliens, called Boov, who invade and take over the Earth. They aren't particularly bad aliens, and in fact they are kind of benign, but they need a place to hide from the Gorg who destroyed their homeworld. Since the Boov are technologically advanced, and not particularly menacing, they relocate the entire human race to a very large reservation in Australia. A girl named Tip manages to evade the forced relocation and meets a Boov named Oh, who through a series of unfortunate accidents has become a fugitive to his species.
From start to finish there is a running joke about how the Boov change color based on their mood.
The movie is intentionally silly, but it has something I like, which is charm. I found it charming. And witty. At times the film is cheesy, but it is also intelligent and thought-provoking. These qualities make for an uneven movie that is not perfect, but I found myself liking the characters and charmed by the whole concept.
It makes for a pretty good kid's film about understanding outsiders and other people. I think that most adults will like it if they give it a chance. Even though it is a kid's film, there are many interesting science fiction concepts in the movie that are surprisingly good.
Unfortunately, Dreamworks can't hold a candle to Pixar. Most of the movies produced by Dreamworks pale in comparison to Pixar, but this has to be one of my favorite Dreamworks films. After seeing it a second time, I have gained a new appreciation for it.
The story starts out 65 million years ago and what transpires is that the big asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs somehow barely misses the Earth. Go forward about 64 million years, and the dinosaurs are still around and they have evolved up the evolutionary scale a bit; enough to talk to each other and have farms and even herd animals. (This is a great science fiction concept, but it has been done before in other science fiction stories.)
Arlo, an Apatosaurus, is the runt of his family, and his is always afraid of everything. His father gives him the task of guarding their silo of food from a pest. It turns out the pest is a human child, who happens to behave more like a dog than a modern human. Arlo is suppose to kill the human, but fails at his task. Through a series of unfortunate events, Arlo gets separated from his family and ends up forming a bond with the human child, whom he calls "Spot". Together they go on a long journey to return home, but it is a journey full of great danger from predators and violent storms.
Visually this is probably the most stunning film Pixar has ever done. Everything in the film is beautifully photorealistic, except for the dinosaurs and humans which look a little more cartoonish. I found it hard to believe how great this movie looks. The computer animation is on a new technical level that we have not seen before.
Some might regard the story as too simple, but I found that it touched my heart. There are themes of love, compassion and devotion that are apparently universal regardless of your species. The movie is violent, but this is how I would expect the world would be if it were ruled by dinosaurs.
Imagine enlisting in the Marines, going through one hell after another, to finally get deployed in Operation Desert Shield. Once deployed, you fight boredom for months, until finally Operation Desert Storm begins. Imagine you get shot at with no opportunity to shoot back. Imagine going through hell again, until finally, after a long period of difficulty, you are finally looking at the enemy through the sight of a gun. All the misery you have gone through comes down to what you do at that one critical moment. That's what Jarhead is about. What happens at that moment I can't reveal, but it is not what I expected.
The movie captures the difficulty, boredom and insanity of being at war. It wouldn't make a good recruitment film, because none of this looks pleasant.