Avengers Infinity War (2018)

There have been eighteen prior 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 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.  It is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Rating:  A+

Avengers Endgame (2019)

Avengers Endgame is 3 hours well spent. It is the worthy sequel to Avengers Infinity War. Both movies are the conclusion to 11 years of Marvel movies leading up to this one story. Infinity War was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Endgame is not quite as good, but it is close enough.

Rating: A-

1917 (2020)

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+.

This might be the movie of the decade, but since it had a limited release in late 2019, I'm not sure which decade. 😀

1917 has a 88% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

1917 Extended Featurette - The Making of 1917 (2020)

George MacKay Reveals His Most Dramatic Scene in 1917 Was a Mistake

Contagion (2011)

I rewatched "Contagion" a decade 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 1% 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+.

The Fault in Our Stars (2014)



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

Cloud Atlas (2012)

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.

Rating: A

Netflix Nabs One Of The Decade's Most Underrated Sci-Fi Movies

Cloud Atlas is a long movie.  It is almost 3 hours.  The first 38 minutes proceeds at a leisurely pace.  Emotionally the movie doesn't really connect with the audience until about 38 minutes into it.  From there the rest of the movie is a wild ride.

I have to give great praise to the editing that seamlessly switches between 6 different stories.  Had the movie been told in chronological order, it wouldn't have been as interesting and it wouldn't have conveyed the sense that all these different time periods are connected.  Individually, the 6 stories aren't enough to carry the movie, but switching between the stories makes the film more interesting.

Cloud Atlas has its own philosophy that is some sort of new age mysticism.  Some people are likely to think that this is pretty hokey, but with any movie you have to have a certain amount of suspension of disbelief just long enough to appreciate the movie for what it is.  It doesn't mean that you have to buy into its ideas.  Also, the length and complexity of the movie might turn off some viewers.  With a 66% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, this is another film that I think is greatly underappreciated.

After a second and third viewing, I am astonished at the film.  This is perhaps the best movie I have seen in the last decade, but I am thinking that not everyone will like it as much as I did.  It is a long, complex and somewhat hard to follow movie with a weird philosophy, but it is probably the most unique and ambitious film in years.

When you watch the movie, be sure to watch for a minute into the end credits where there is a little bonus that shows all the different characters each actor played.

Rating: A

The Right Stuff (1983)

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 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

The Wild Robot (2024)

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.

However, the film is slightly too long.

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 Wild Robot - Movie Review

The Wild Robot - The Voices Behind the Animals

Why The Wild Robot is DreamWorks' Best Movie in Years

The Lion King (1994 and 2019)

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.

Rating:

The Lion King (1994):  A.
The Lion King (2019):  B.

The Lion King (2019) has just a 55% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  My favorite movie critic, Richard Roeper, gives the movie 3.5 out of 4 stars.

Gravity (2013)

Gravity is a critically acclaimed science-fiction thriller directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Since the story could take place in the present, it may not feel like traditional science fiction, but rather a well-crafted fictional space drama.

Astronauts repairing a space telescope are suddenly interrupted when the Russians destroy a defunct spy satellite. This triggers a deadly cascade of debris through Low Earth Orbit, annihilating everything in its path. The destruction escalates exponentially as more satellites are destroyed—a phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome. The film centers on Dr. Ryan Stone, played by Sandra Bullock, as she struggles to reach safety.

The production of Gravity is unique in that the CGI effects—comprising nearly the entire film—were created before the actors were cast. In many scenes, the actors’ faces were digitally added to spacesuits during post-production. However, Bullock also appears in several scenes floating inside spacecraft in stylized underwear. One striking moment shows her curled in a fetal position, symbolizing rebirth. Many scenes were filmed inside a specially designed light box that matched the lighting of the CGI environment.

The final scene reinforces themes of evolution, as Dr. Stone crawls out of the ocean onto land and ultimately stands upright.

The pacing is fast, making the film consistently captivating. While some scenes may not be scientifically accurate, it hardly matters. Gravity is an exceptional film.

Rating: A

Good Night and Good Luck (2005)

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 eavesdropping 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 Strathairn blew me away with his portrayal of Edward R Murrow.   

Rating: A

Eye in the Sky (2015)

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

Alien (1979)

The original Alien film from 1979 is a terrific sci-fi horror movie.  The pace is slow, but it builds suspense and has some genuinely scary moments.  

Rating: A

I like the sequel, Aliens, even better for its faster pace.

The scene is iconic and important to the movie. It also goes by quickly. The film quickly switches from relaxed and sexual to sheer terror as Ripley is surprised by the alien monster. Ripley in her underwear feels more vulnerable, but she finds a way to fight back demonstrating that she is a strong character.

Children of Men (2006)

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.

Rating:  A

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

Star Trek (2008)

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.

Rating: A