Top Ten in 2015

A lot of pundits are putting out their Top Ten Favorite Films of 2015 list, so I thought I would do the same.  Not that I view myself as a pundit.  I didn't even really see a lot of the films in contention for many of the major awards races, but I saw quite a few movies this year and some of them were really great.  Here are the ones I enjoyed the most:

1. STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS
Probably the least surprising movie on the list.  It's a juggernaut of a film that has already broken a dozen or so box office records. This is not surprising.  What is surprising is that it turns out the movie is pretty great.  I've seen it twice in theaters (something I haven't done in a long time) and I enjoyed it more the second time and I will likely see the movie again before buying it on Blu-Ray.  There are things I didn't like about the movie, but really my biggest gripe with this film is that the score is underwhelming.  No new themes, no rousing marches.  It's fine, just kind of bland.  I mean even The Phantom Menace had Duel of the Fates. Despite that, there was much to love in this new entry - the nostalgia factor balanced with a cast of fresh faces that are really wonderful; amazing practical effects; Han Solo.  Above all I loved Rey as the new protagonist of the series and Kylo Ren as the villain.  Rey is strong, vulnerable, funny, smart and energetic.  Kylo Ren is dark, dangerous and subtly layered.  It was great to see nuanced characters in a 40 year old space soap opera.  JJ Abrams did a great job of establishing a universe that feels both familiar and new.  I can't wait for Rian Johnson's Episode VIII.


2. CREED
Oh man, how I love a good Rocky movie, or even an okay Rocky movie.   Well, honestly I love all the Rocky movies (except IV - sorry Drago).  So I have been excited for this movie since I first heard about it.  And Ryan Coogler (who co-wrote and directed the film) knocked it out (of the park).  It's hard to make a movie that balances nostalgia while bringing something new to the table (see above), but the Creed team struck that balance amazingly well.  And speaking of scores, this one delivers.  New themes blended with old ones - like this.  Michael B. Jordan is a great actor and he is great in this role, but the real standout here is good ol' Sylvester Stallone in his 7th (yes 7th) outing as the Champ Rocky Balboa.  Give this man the Oscar right now.


3. INSIDE OUT
Pixar is king as far as I'm concerned.  Of the 16 films they've released since 1995, there's only one I don't really like (Cars 2 in case you're wondering).  The rest of them range from pretty darn good to amazing.  Inside Out has to be in my top five favorites, maybe top three.  Such an emotional (pun intended) movie that balances humor, heart, adventure and the bizarre to create a transcendent movie-going experience.  It's  a movie about understanding the purpose of the bad feelings as well as the good.  It reminds me of this.  Seeing this with my wife on a date night was one of my favorite movie going experiences this year.  It also helps watching this movie as a father of daughters.


4. THE MARTIAN
One of the few cases where the book wasn't better than the movie.  I wouldn't say it was worse either.  It's kind of like Castaway, but on Mars and with real science The Martian is a feel-great movie.  It's about the power of cooperation, the unconquerable nature of the human spirit and all those other lovely clichés.  Matt Damon has to carry a lot of the movie and he does so with aplomb, but the supporting cast is game and no one lets the ball drop.  My personal favorite is Danny Glover in a small, but important and memorable role.  Schools should show this movie and read this book to inspire kids to work in math and science.



5. MR. HOLMES
A small, quiet, deliberately paced film about an aging Sherlock Holmes?  Well, it has the benefit of being one of Ian McKellan's finest performances and a tightly written script that weaves three seemingly unconnected stories into a satisfying conclusion where all loose ends are tied and you're left feeling better about the world as a result.  The premise is that Sherlock Holmes is now reaching the end of his life, his memory is fading and he is trying to remember the answer to a mystery he already solved, but Watson had recorded incorrectly.  It's a great story with twists and turns, but smaller from other Sherlock adaptations of late.  Also keep your eye on Milo Parker.



6. BRIDGE OF SPIES
Pairing Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg was bound to create some compelling drama, but I wasn't expecting to like this film as much as I did.  It felt like To Kill a Mockingbird meets Thirteen Days (or even Spielberg's Lincoln).  It's a courtroom drama without much courtroom and a Cold War movie without much fighting.  It's about backroom deals and tricky politics.  I was proud to be an American when I watched it, but I felt empathy for the "other" as well.  Until I saw Creed I was sure the Best Supporting Actor category was going to be owned by Mark Rylance, he gives the most understated performance of the year and he sells you wholesale on his character despite being a Soviet spy.  One of Spielberg's least flashy films, but a fine addition to his already stunning canon.


7. BROOKLYN
One of the few real Oscar contenders that I've had the chance of seeing so far.  I was amazed at how much I liked this film.  Like numbers 5 & 6, this is a small picture.  Small in scope and stakes.  Saorise Ronan carries the film in another small but masterful performance from this year.  Emory Cohen was also a standout as Eilis' (Ronan) love interest, Tony and Julia Waters (best known as Mrs. Weasley from the Harry Potter films) gives the film a much-needed dose of humor playing a strict boarding-home mother in the Big Apple.  The production design and cinematography are sharp and both help make this film rise above its trappings as a rote coming-of-age story.



8. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - ROGUE NATION
I've tried to sprinkle some class into this list, but sometimes there's a popcorn flick that just grabs you by the shirt collar and pulls you along for a couple of hours.  By the end of the fifth Mission: Impossible film you have a bit of whiplash, but you're smiling too.  The plot is nothing special - some secret organization is hellbent on sending the world into chaos to prove..."I think it's something to do with free will" (to borrow a phrase from another movie) or not.  It doesn't really matter what matters is that there is only one man who can stop them and his name is Tom Cruise...er, I mean Ethan Hunt.  But finally Hunt has a worthy female counterpart in Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson).  I can hardly remember any of the other women in the MI movies, but Ilsa is more than capable without Ethan and is saving him much more often than he is saving her.  Strong female protagonists abound in 2015 and Ms. Faust is at the top of that list.


9. PADDINGTON
I was not at all familiar with the Paddington books when I first saw the trailer and so I was completely uninterested in seeing this movie.  It didn't help that the first trailer was a scene from the movie set in a bathroom that had mostly gross out gags about earwax and look at the movie poster, not the best.  Then I saw the first reviews come in and then more.  Pretty soon I was convinced that I would at least have to take a look at it.  I am so glad I did.  It's a charming, heartwarming, hilarious gem of a movie with some great performances, particularly Hugh Bonneville as the wonderfully dry Mr. Brown.  It's a modernized look at an older tale, but it retains the charm and humanity that made this bear so famous to begin with.


10. ANT-MAN
A lot of people are tired of comic book movies, but I find it so fascinating that this is what most Summer movies have become.  It doesn't surprise me either.  When you look at film history things always happen in waves.  Eventually this fad will pass and something else will take its place.  I'm fine with it sticking around for a little while longer if we keep getting movies like Ant-Man.  The 65th (or so it feels) entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is fresh and breezy thanks to a light-hearted performance by Paul Rudd and a low-stakes heist movie plot.  It's an origin story, a caper, an action film and it's quite funny.  Michael Peña really shines as Scott Lang's ever-positive partner in crime, Luis.  And how can you not love a movie who's climactic final battle happens inside a train set in a little girl's room?  Bonus points too for introducing us to the first headlining female superhero in the MCU - watch out for Ant-Man and the Wasp in 2018.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

THE GOOD DINOSAUR
This one falls under really good Pixar stuff.  I include it here for two reasons: first, I was surprised at how much I liked this movie.  The story wasn't anything terribly new, but it was fun and it was told in a really surprising way - as a Western.  I wasn't expecting that and being pleasantly surprised at the movies these days is rare for me.  And second, the landscape animation in this movie is AMAZING.  The cartoonish character designs were always a little off-putting for me, but the landscapes are so photo realistic it is scary.  Go see the movie for that reason alone.  Really Pixar is genius for releasing this movie in the same year as Inside Out - get them in with a heavy hitter that gross hundreds of millions of dollars and you may just earn enough good will to bring in audiences for this sub-par, but still pretty good film.

SAN ANDREAS
Now let's just hold up here for a few minutes.  I need to make this very clear: THIS IS NOT A GOOD MOVIE.  The dialog is terrible, the plot is utterly ridiculous and the acting is...passable.  And yet - this is a GREAT movie.  I say that because it is everything it's meant to B.  I knew from the moment Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson ripped a car door off with his bare hands while dangling precariously from a rescue helicopter that this film would be amazing.  Not good, mind you, but amazing.  It's one of those movies where the action drives the plot.  Earthquake comes?  Luckily I got this helicopter to go save my ex-wife.  Helicopter crashes?  Luckily there's a truck here with the keys in it.  Now there's a giant crater where the road used to be?  Well we better go to that old barn and find a plane.  And so on.  It has everything I want in a disaster film: a series of events no one can avoid, a broken family that will be brought back together during the disaster and Paul Giamatti.


So those are my favorites from this year.  What were yours?

How to Leave Someone

I've been thinking about this post for quite some time, but have been putting it off (along with all other blog posts) for too long.  So here it is - my thoughts on some of the best endings in movie history.  I've heard that the new Star Wars movie has "the best parting shot of the whole series".  And I guess that reignited my thoughts on the subject.  I find it interesting that this would be something that people (plural, more than one) would be talking about.  Not about effects, story, character, etc. To be fair most people are being vague to avoid spoilers, but even still why is an ending so important?  I think if you want to be the kind of movie that is memorable you need scenes that linger.  They need to evoke some sort of feeling - excitement, horror, despair, hope, or nostalgia.  Something that will bring back an emotional memory every time.  I believe, if you can end your film on one of these highs (or lows) the parting scene can evoke a feeling that will spark a memory of the whole film.  Let me explain by showing a bad, but still applicable example (WARNING: Some endings contain spoilers - duh!).

Remember this movie?  Box office would suggest not because nobody saw it.  But as a kid I did, several times.  I loved it. It's a terrible movie, but for some reason I have vivid memories of this movie and particularly this scene.  It was the first time I remember a sequel being so blatantly set up and I took the bait - hook, line and sinker. I was so excited there would be more (bleak, dystopian, weird) adventures for Mario Mario and Luigi Mario.  Sadly, no sequel was ever made, but at a young impressionable age I learned the importance of ending a movie well.

Not all endings need to be red herring sequel baiting (although see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvDenYGICM for another 90s example [the music!!]).

So take a look at some very good endings and what makes them great.  And not just endings, but final scenes.  The moments immediately before the credits roll.

Let's talk about hope.  I love hope.  It gives me such...optimistic feelings.  How do you inspire hope in the final moments of a film? One way is to pare it with tragedy or heartbreak.  Like in this example from LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (sorry for the terrible quality):

Two people at a funeral.  Grieving.  Our girl has feelings for the hero, but couldn't share them with him.  A small token of affection and then - her response!  And their smiles!  So great.  This whole movie is amazing, but the ending is sublime especially for a movie with such a strange premise.

These kinds of endings are great for romantic movies and comedies where the leading pair are just so perfect for each other, but never really get together during the film (see also What's Up Doc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsjyehWzFGo; and You've Got Mail - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjvwTzhG8g; and the similarly themed Sleepless in Seattle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeY1mkXqKgk and while I prefer the movie ending take this alternate ending to Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, I mean a sunrise? Come on! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6tMd5MtvUc).  Hope comes when the victory is not yet won, but lies just over the next hill.

DREAD.  The opposite of hope.  It leaves you wondering if it's all worth it.  Take for instance this Horror film.  The premise: You watch a video tape, it has strange haunting images, then you get a phone call that just says "Seven days."  A week later you're dead.  There has to be a way to stop it, right?  Well there is.  Make a copy of the tape and show it to someone else.  Behold the last scene of THE RING (Warning: scary images abound - PG-13 ones, but still):

GAAAAH!  But you just showed ME the video and that's it?!?!?!  I may never want to see that movie ever again, but I'm never going to forget that ending.

Remember nostalgia?  Of course you do.  There's movies that thrive on giving us that good ol' feeling.  Some endings are meant to remind us of better days, but often have us simply remembering better movies.  The nostalgia I'm thinking of isn't a reminder of older films, but of another time.  They make us think about our childhoods, our parents, siblings, friends we've lost touch with.  No one does this better than Spielberg.  Take E.T.  In just a couple minutes Stevie manages to pull all our heartstrings and play us like the John Williams' swelling orchestra.  Watch.  Remember.  Cry a bit.

Sniffles.

Time to get on your feet.  To cheer.  To rouse rabbles, or something.  What better way to sink deep into the psyche of your audience than to bring them to their feet cheering?  Movies can fake this emotion easier than most because it's easier to earn a RAH-RAH-RAH moment, so often these endings can seem forced, but not always.  They can be gloriously earned.  None more effectively than this one...

I mean...the score ramping up into an even more epic score, the roguish looks from Han to Leia, the pomp, the circumstance!  One of the most memorable endings to any movie (see Nostalgia), and despite a little Wookie racism (#medal4chewie) it really seals the deal for an already impressive film.   And a lot of other films earn these moments (Speed Racer, a controversial choice, perhaps, but I love it - can't find a link, watch the movie!  Rocky, another icon finale - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40ji3nWHi0; and you could put most sports movies, but why not just go for the best - HOOSIERS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fttt3fFTxk)

There are a lot of endings that can work that I don't have time (or reader attention span) to elaborate on.  Endings like twist endings (see: Planet of the Apes [1968] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuM3DjvYf0); ambiguous (see: Inception [some might say this is a bit of cheat though] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khYx7P2t59I); tragic (see: United 93 [Warning: might be disturbing for some] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3X_KyqGf3w); and absurd (see: Time Bandits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKGbguoildA).

To end this entry on endings I give you what is quite possibly my favorite film ending ever.  It falls under the category open-ended.  The audience isn't force-fed a happy little conclusion tied up with a bow.  In this case a Texas Sheriff named Ed Tom has been tracking a sadistic serial killer who was sent to track down $2M in stolen drug money.  Over several days Ed Tom sees murder and chaos like never before, but in the end the villian gets...away? And our hero...retires?  Now watch the scene the directors (the magnificent Bros. Cohen) chose to end with:

That's it.  He woke up.  It's not a speech about the consequences of evil or the fruits of doing good (although I could write a thesis paper about how much symbolism and righteousness is packed into these two minutes).  I love this endings and others like it.  Again, films try to cheat with endings like this all the time and rarely succeed and even more rarely do they succeed on this level.

I have no more endings.  What are some of your favorites?

Saving Mr. Banks (or How Mrs. Travers Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mouse)

Walt Disney Pictures is no stranger to schmaltz and sugar-coated narratives, and Saving Mr. Banks is no exception.  The new film starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, tells the story of how Walt and Co. convince the uptight author P.L. Travers to sell the rights to her beloved Mary Poppins.  The film walks a delicate line between genuineness and schmaltz and, for the most part, it succeeds.

Fearing (rightly so) that Disney will turn her characters into cartoonish, singing and dancing fools, Mrs. Travers embarks to Los Angeles to make sure her Nanny and more importantly, the Banks family, remain true to her vision.  After two decades of hounding the poor author for the rights to her book, Walt finally succeeds in getting the stiff-upper-lipped Travers to LA to show her what they have in store.  It's clear she comes begrudgingly and out of necessity (her funds, as well as her creative juices, have dried up) and she is not going to give in easily.  She demands no animation, no singing and no dancing.  In short, everything Disney stands for is unfit for her story.  She claims her characters are family and the staff, including ol'Walt himself, don't quite get what that means. 

The audience slowly gets clued-in, though, as the film flashes back to P.L.'s childhood in Australia and her relationship with her father Travers Goff (Colin Farrell).  Goff is a drunk and a bit of a mess, bouncing from job to job, trying to provide for his family.  Still the young Travers (born Helen Goff, Ginty to her dad) adores her father.  Being old enough to understand some of what is going on Ginty is torn between wanting to help her father get better and being his enabler with alcohol and with shirking his work responsibilities.  These moments are really heartbreaking and help us understand why it is that the adult Ginty is so unwavering with her characters.

And while there are dark moments, much of the film is light and fun and even quite funny.  It's fitting that the happy moments take place at Disney's studios in the rehearsal room as the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman and a delightfully gruff B.J. Novak) treat Travers to the now iconic songs.  It's fun to see how the famous duo crafted the lyrics and music we all know and love.  And while the same beats are hit again and again, it is fun to see Travers battle it out with the Brothers and Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford), the script writer.

The strength of this film lies in its cast.  Emma Thompson is a formidable P.L. Travers and she commands every scene she is in.  She is one of those actors who is able to be both strong and vulnerable at the same time.  The film succeeds or fails on the central performance and Ms. Thompson is more than up to the challenge.  Making Tom Hanks Walt Disney was a stroke of genius as well.  While the physical similarities between the two are slight, Hanks embodies the everyman Disney was, or at least appeared to be.  He is probably the closest thing we have to a Walt Disney today, in temperament and demeanor at least.  And while the two leads do a splendid job, the real stand out is Colin Farrell as Travers father...Travers.  We've seen Farrell do mean, angry, funny, and crazy, but never have we seen the kind, compassionate, loving Colin Farrell as we do in Saving Mr. Banks.  His portrayal of a father ill-equipped to take care of a family is absolutely heartbreaking.  He's a loser and he knows it, but for the sake of his beloved Ginty he puts on a good face, but the audience can see it's an act; an act that will not end well.

Saving Mr. Banks is good family fun.  And while it succumbs to some of the weaknesses Mrs. Travers saw in Disney's work, it rises about the sentimental trappings and earns its genuine emotional beats.  The direction is a bit heavy handed (John Lee Hancock of The Blind Side fame is not one for much subtlety) and the film ends much happier than what really happened (P.L. Travers disliked the film so much that in her will she made it so no other adaptations could be made of her books), but these are minor quibbles in a film that is just so likeable.  The design, music and cinematography are all top notch and the supporting roles by Schwartzman, Novak, Whitford and Paul Giamatti as an always cheerful chauffeur are spot on.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom - I Mean, We're Talking Loooong Walk

This may be the most appropriately titled movie of the year.  Perhaps ever.  There were such high expectations for this film.  On paper it's a knockout - a Nelson Mandela biopic with Idris Elba in the lead?  Come on, that's a no-brainer.  To be fair, Idris Elba hits it out of the park with his portrayal of the South African anti-Apartheid leader.  You just end up wishing he had been given a better film to work with.

The film spans most of Mandela's adult life, from his beginnings as a lawyer in segregated South Africa to his years as a revolutionary and then his subsequent arrest and imprisonment for 28 years and finally his activism after being released, ending with his election as the first Black President of South Africa.  The scope of the film ends up being its biggest problem.  Rather than focusing on some pivotal moment in Mandela's life, this perfunctory and cursory overview of his whole story feels shallow and moments that should make heart race or your blood boil felt hurried and trite.

Being someone who doesn't know much about Nelson Mandela, particularly his early role in South African politics, I found myself wanting the film to stay put on one time in Mandela's life and really flesh-out what impact it had on the man he would become.  I didn't know that Mandela was a radical during the 60s.  I didn't know he was arrested because he was involved in bombings of government buildings.  I found those scenes really compelling, but that whole era of his life is covered in about 20 minutes of a two-and-a-half hour film.  I'm also a sucker for courtroom dramas and I found myself thinking, "I would love to see a whole movie with just the court battle."  But again, the movie brushes past that part.  In fact it took awhile for the movie to settle on what the majority of the film would be about.  It ended up spending the most time on Nelson's 28 years in various prisons.  Now granted, this is a pivotal and important part in Mandela's life and the shaping of his worldview, but it doesn't make for gripping cinema.  The end of the film picks up a little as he negotiates his way out of prison and eventual gets elected President, but again, we've spent so much time on other things that this part of his life feels rushed.

Now not everything in the film was awful.  As mentioned before Idris Elba gives a towering (quite literally, Mr. Elba is a broad-shouldered 6' 3") performance as Nelson Mandela.  He commands each scene and often makes the character rise above the uneven script.  He is joined by Naomie Harris (Skyfall) as Winnie Mandela in a touching and often heartbreaking performance of her own.  In fact their relationship and Winnie herself are very interesting parts of the film that could have a film all their own.

After Nelson is freed from prison, he finds his relationship with Winnie strained.  This shouldn't be surprising as they have been married for decades, the overwhelming majority of which they have lived apart; both spending time in prison.  Also, Winnie becomes much more militant after her time and torture in prison while Nelson's views have softened towards pacifism.  These added strains cause the couple to eventually separate (and ultimately divorce, though not shown in the film).  It's an interesting pairing that was founded on love, but seemed to have been sustained through political necessity.  If only there was more time to explore these ideas.


So, while not without its charms, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, suffers from narrative overload and doesn't offer anything new to the biopic genre or to life and story of Nelson Mandela himself.  Even with the wonderful performances this film can't escape falling victim to one of the most important rules in storytelling: Whatever you do, don't be boring!

Thor: The Dark World - He Will Rock You!

Chris Hemsworth is back as the titular demigod of Thunder, Lightning and Hitting Things with a Big Hammer in the latest from Marvel's Avenger universe, and for the most part, he's back in big, impressive way.  The original Thor (2011) was one of my personal favorites in the Marvel canon.  The idea that a super hero (a god even) would have to come down to earth and learn to be human in order to inherit his rightful place as a king, resonates with me and the film was also funny, it had some heart and some great action.  Now Thor has moved beyond his boyish whining and headstrong arrogance, and with that you lose some of what made him such an intriguing character at first, but in the end this film is none the worse for it.

This time out Thor is back on his home planet of Asgard (after the events of the Avengers) bringing peace to the Nine Realms (other planets under the protection of Asgard).  Since the events of the first Thor the Bifrost (a magical Rainbow Road that transports people between the Nine Realms) has been fixed and Thor and his posse can travel instantaneously between the worlds to fight off any and all badies.  And they do it with aplomb.  After securing the freedom of all the people, however, Thor isn't in the mood to celebrate.  His father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), has made it clear that it is time for Thor to take his rightful place as King of Asgard, and as such should look for a Queen.  Odin hints that Sif (Jaimie Alexander), the lone girl warrior and resident Thor-ogler, would be the perfect match, however, Thor's thoughts are more earthly-bound.  He can't wash the mortal Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) from his perfectly coiffed golden locks.  He worries about her and goes to the Guardian of the Bifrost, Heimdall (Idris Elba) to see how she is doing, but Heimdall who can see everyone in the Nine Realms, can't find her.

Turns out Jane stumbled across a portal between realms where millenia ago Odin's father hid the Aether, a really bad liquidy thing, that the Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) tried to use to destroy the universe.  And wouldn't you know it?  They're back and ready to take the Aether (which has now possessed Jane) and get back to their original task.  See these Elves believe that the Universe as it is now was never meant to be.  Before the Nine Realms, we're told in a prologue, there was darkness and the Elves want the darkness back.  Why?  Well because they're Dark Elves and that's what they like.  Pretty one dimensional, but they look great and Christopher Eccleston (the first Doctor of this generation's Dr. Who) does a great job of being menacing.

However, despite the Elves being designed so well, their goal is so impersonal and their actions so apocayptic that it's hard to get too invested.  Luckily the story makes a few small personal choices that bring the story down to relatable levels.  But I've spoken before about my aversion to the new trend of destruction-based superhero movies and the effect I think it has on us.  Luckily the stakes are kept mostly personal and the finale isn't so loud and destructive as to dull you into a noise coma.

To protect his earthly love Thor brings Dr. Foster to Asgard so his physicians can take a look at her.  Odin isn't happy with Thor's actions, but is shocked to find Jane infected with the Aether.  Here we get one of many gobbledy-gook explanations about the evil and the darkness of the Aether and how it can't be destroyed.  Thor is concerned for Jane's life, Odin is concerned for the fate of the universe.  Both of their concerns come to fruitition when Malekith and his badies come crashing into Asgard looking for the Aether.  And Thor and his warriors are able to fight off the Elves, but not before Malekith is able to strike a huge blow to Asgard.  Now Thor is determined to hunt down the Elves so they can extract the Aether from Jane and he can destroy.  But Odin has ordered the Bifrost closed and there is only one secret way off of Asgard, known only to one prisoner.

Enter Loki (Tom Hiddleston), likely the reason for a lot of fans returning to the film.  Loki has been imprisoned for his actions during the Avengers and Thor comes to him for help only because he is most depserate and Loki similarly has cause for revenge against the Elves.  This is where the movie really takes off.  A daring and treasonous escape from Asgard, a brutal battle with tricks and double crosses on the Dark World and a great finale.  Loki and Thor have a great back-and-forth and it's nice to see the film take a less serious tone in the latter two-thirds.

The funniest stuff of the film, though, goes to Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard).  After having, in his words, "a god in [his] head" for most of the events preceding and during the Avengers, Erik is a little off his rocker, but he has figured out how to stop the Elves from using the Aether to destroy the NIne Realms.  It's one of those easy fixes that you don't have to explain because the science doesn't actually exist, but it has to do with placing poles that create a gravitational field around the source of the Convergence (the aligning of all the realms that the Dark Elves plan to use as a portal to unleash the Aether) so you can manipulate and close the portals.  It's convoluted, and convenient, but it makes for a pretty cool space jumping finale.

Overall, Thor: The Dark World is a fun ride.  The plot is a little convenient at times and the villain isn't as fun or compelling as Loki himself, but it doesn't much matter when a film looks this good, is this strongly directed and has this much heart and humor.  It's pretty spectacular that Marvel has had this much success and kept up the quality of films this well for a series of interconnected super hero movies for this long.  Thor is one of my personal favorites in the series and The Dark World proves there are stories left to tell from Asgard.

Despicable Me 2: Papoy!

Everyone really goes to see Despicable Me for the Minions, right?  And in the sequel the Minions have a larger role, both in on-screen time and in story.  As with any film that seeks to make a peripheral character the focus of a sequel, there are many dangers (see Cars 2), but Despicable Me 2 does a fine job of walking a fine line.  The genius of the move is to make them crucial to the plot, thereby justifying the added on-screen presence, but the danger is you might overdo the fart and butt jokes, and this movie gets awfully close to just that.  I don't know, though, maybe it's just my inner 14 year-old or the fact that those jokes are often played a little tongue-in-cheek, I still laughed.

Minions aside, the story focuses on the ever lovable baddie, Gru, who after adopting three little girls has given up a life of badness to be a good stay at home dad while trying to start his own line of jams and jellies which he doesn't seem to have a knack for. Gru is satisfied being the world's best single dad, but it becomes obvious very quickly, at least to his girls and the neighborhood moms, that he is missing something, namely the love of a good woman.  As if his life were scripted (hey!) Gru meets Lucy an ever-perky secret agent that works for an Anti-Villain agency tasked with bringing Gru in to help them track down a super villain who is planning a really bad thing (which escapes me at this moment, something about turning the minions evil and ruling the world probably).  At first Gru is reluctant, both to the job and to the advances of the lovely Lucy, but he eventually comes around to both proposals.

A lot of the humor and heart in this well crafted sequel comes from relationships.  Gru and Lucy have a wonderfully awkward repartee for sure, but the real humor comes from Gru's paternal instincts kicking in once his oldest daughter, Margot, starts liking boys, one flirtatious latin boy specifically.  Grounding the ridiculous plot in real emotion and relationships like this that make Despicable Me 2 really fun and engaging.

Steve Carell is in characteristically strong form as the voice behind our villain hero and Kristen Wiig brings a delightful foil to Gru's grumpy personae with Lucy's endlessly optimistic, brightly colored Secret Agent.  The Minions continue their almost intelligible babbling to great comedic effect, particularly a great send up of Backstreet Boy's "I Swear" and the Village People's "Y.M.C.A." at the end of the film.

It's not a perfect movie by any means.  The story was a bit predictable and there weren't any great surprises like I hoped there would be.  Gru also felt like a secondary character with so much going on and I don't think he had as central (or humorous) a role as he did in the first film, this is partly due to the increased role of the minions and various subplots.  Also, how are these three girls, none of them older than 13, alone so often?  I guess the bumbling Minions double as babysitters?  All that said, it's a thoroughly enjoyable family film with a lot of heart and plenty of laugh-out-loud moments.  Most of my criticism comes from the fact that the first film was so surprising and I love it so much that it's hard not find fault with a film that is "merely very good."  But nostalgia can be a very dangerous drug when judging sequels.

Monsters University: We're OK! We're OK!

Monsters University is a cotton candy-colored return to form for Pixar after the poor Cars 2 and the fine, but overly childish Brave.  MU takes place an unspecified number of years before the 2001 Monsters Inc. at the titular school where Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan meet as competitors for the Scare Program.  The story is simple, Mike has book smarts while Sully has a natural ability for scaring.  The two become natural enemies as they prepare for their scare final which will determine whether or not they get to continue in the program.  After an unfortunate accident, however, the two are forced to become allies when they are banned from becoming Scarers.  Now they, along with their ragtag teammates from the nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa, have to compete in the annual Scare Games against the school's finest sororities and fraternities in order to win back their place in the Scare Program.  Familiar, for sure, but lots of fun.

Much of what happens is standard college movie fare.  The rivalries, the miracle victories, the cheating, the pranks, etc.  But it's all done with such panache and humor that it's easy to enjoy.  Really the biggest issue I had was that there wasn't a strong enough antagonist.  Like many college films, the bad guy here is the Dean.  Devilishly voiced by Dame Helen Mirren, Dean Hardscrabble is a formidable foe; frightening even to her fellow monsters, she's certainly menacing, but there lacked an ever-present villain.  Some of the other fraternities have typical jock-types (awesome voice work by the always charming Nathan Fillion and the geeky Bobby Moynihan), but none of them felt threatening enough.  They could have used Randall (Steve Buscemi) from the first film, there was a great set up with Mike and Randall being friends and roommates at the beginning, but the filmmakers made the smart choice of not referring too much to the original.  Just enough nods and winks without over doing it (watch for a subtle wink to the original with a throwaway gag involving the accident prone George Sanderson).

As with all Pixar films, the visuals are state-of-the-art.  The colors in MU jump off the screen (even in 2D) and the action set pieces are thrilling.  The new characters are great as well, particularly the hapless brothers of Oozma Kappa (perfectly abbreviated to OK).  Don, Squishy, Terry, Terri and Art are all unique and memorable, which can't be said of all the other characters in the film.  Each member of OK has their time to shine and is able to use their unique abilities to help the team in the Scare Games.  My personal favorite is the flighty Art, a New Age Philosophy major who can't wait to laugh with his brothers...and cry with them.  Squishy also has some wonderful moments as he constantly scares Mike by sneaking up on him, blank faced.  This leads to a great moment in the final act as the members of OK test their scaring abilities.

The sight gags and throwaway lines made this film a delight to watch and it's fun, as always, to play "Guess the Voice" as you spot John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza and the other top-notch performers.  This film has great rewatchability, because so many of the jokes are quick one liners or visual jokes you miss on first viewing.  Like the joke from the improv club president.  I know I missed some great joke about never saying No in improv, but I was too busy soaking up the campus along with Mike on his first day.  The story is well structured and it moves along nicely, I never once checked my watch.  And while there is a lot that is familiar, there are still plenty of surprises to keep you engaged.  The third act, especially takes some nice turns.

So while many people will be bemoaning the fact that this isn't one of Pixar's "best" (although I might disagree) the film is solid.  It's fun, it's heartfelt and it's enjoyable.  In fact the story seems to be a metaphor for the movie itself and its place as part of the Pixar canon.  Sometimes it's good, maybe even noble, to be OK.  The brothers of Oozma Kappa learn that teamwork and supporting each other are more important than book smarts or natural ability alone and while it takes Mike and Sully a bit longer to realize this, they embrace their weakness and use it to become a strength. I also can't praise enough the epilogue that teaches a brilliant lesson: sometimes you can still fulfill your dreams with little time and a lot of hard work.  Maybe with some work and in enough time Monsters University will reach its rightful place among the best of Pixar.

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...Loud.

The worst thing you can do with a franchise as marketable and branded as Superman is make it generic.  When the story and characters feel like they've been pieced together from stronger sources, it's time to rethink your strategy.  This was exactly the problem with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel; the climax is loud, and unstatisfying, and a lot of the story feels like a retread, nobly intentioned for sure, but rote.  Visually it's a feast.  Henry Cavill is superbly suited for the role of Kal-El and the rest of the cast is top notch as well.  You just have to wish they were given better material.

My problems are these: Superman is so well defined and known in the American (and now Worldwide) mythology, so why waste such an impressive budget on an origin story?  We live a narrative saturated world, I was once told, and writers don't have the luxury of exposition anymore.  If something is known, you don't have to state it.  So much time in Man of Steel is dedicated to telling us things we already know.

Also, there's only so much you can blow up or knock over before you lose the humanity of your characters.  But Superman isn't human, you say?  Well this movie does a fine job showing us that he really is as much human as he is Kryptonian.  The reason Superman is a compelling character, as I see it, for two reasons: 1.  He's an alien trying to live as human being and 2. He's an immortal being while all the people he loves are mortal.  These two paradoxes create symapthy for a character that is basically invincible and make him someone we can root for.  There is a lot in this film that gives us cause to cheer and weep with him.  The moment when Pa Kent (wonderfully played by Kevin Costner) reassures a young Clark that he is in fact his son, is touching.  Jor-El (another strong performance in Russell Crowe) telling Kal he can be the best of both these worlds is inspiring.  So why then do you waste these beautiful moments of mythology with a bombastic ending that could have come out of Transformers?  Two alien "robots" duke it out amongst the ruin of a city that is suddenly devoid of human life.

Which gets me to my third and biggest gripe with Man of Steel, how can you justify that much destruction in a movie about a being who represents a Savior?  There was no real world cost to Supe's and Zod's slugfest.  I told a friend, if, in the sequel, they don't address the fact that over half of Metropolis is destroyed it will be criminal.  That statement is partially a moral one and partially a narrative one.  There has to be a cost for this "victory."  If they do account for it in the next one (and yes, there will be a next one) it could be a huge opportunity for Mr. Kent to reflect on what his choices (huge theme in this film, more on that later) mean for those he loves and those he has sworn to protect.  Until then, I stand by the fact that the third act (the final showdown) is just too much.  Too much blowing up, too much punching, too many buildings collapsing, too much noise.  Maybe I'm just an old fart now, but I left the theater with a slight headache.

I also had problems with the story, but I also enjoyed great parts of it.  The overall story is a bit convoluted.  Something about Zod creating a new Krypton and something called a Codex (there's an awful lot of technobabble).  That's ok, I could follow it for the most part.  One thing I found myself really taking note of was the dialogue, and lack thereof.  I feel like a lot of the filmmakers working today are of the film school variety where you're told, "Don't say it.  Show it." And because of this we have a generation of people who think characters scowling into the sunset has meaning.  This happens a lot in Man of Steel.   For the most part this is ok, but I like dialogue.  I LOVE dialogue.  Good dialogue sends shivers up my spine.  So wasting all your dialogue on exposition shouted by military men of various intergalactic races only to have your lead character hardly say a word seems like a waste.  I understand that this was supposed to be an introspective film for Clark, Kal-El and Superman (all the same person, in case you didn't know), but give the guy some stuff to work with I think Henry has it in him and when you've got David Goyer as the writer you can do great things.  I mean, this is one of the guys responsible for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Now I need to be fair, I've only discussed the films weaknesses (as I see them), but there is also a lot to like about this film.  And I did like it.  I may have even loved it.  Repeat viewings might be needed to fully come to terms with it, but only after my headache goes away.

First of all, I really like what they did with Lois Lane.  Her trying to track down Clark is great.  I like that he's become a vagabond while he has been finding himself.  I wish that were more of the movie.  The "relationship" between the two happens a bit quick, but I like that they cut that corner and didn't waste time on a love story we all know already exists.  If they followed this example with the rest of his origin, it may have helped.  I think that Lois Lane is also one of the great things in the mythology of Superman that humanizes him.  And it's the human moments, like Perry White and his staff as they look death in the face, or Clark finally understanding why his father hid him from the world, that make the movie really soar.

I also love the themes in the film.  The biggest one that stood out to me was that of choice versus destiny.  David Goyer does a great job of creating a conflict inherent in Superman of what his choices are and what his destiny can be.  Without giving anything away, the conflict between Zod and Superman is the conflict between what is expected of us by our society and our ability to choose whether or not to live up to those expectations.  Again, if the sequel is done right, Superman's choices will haunt him and cause him to question his destiny.  I was worried that this movie would become a Nolanification of a superhero that represents hope and optimism, but I think a lot of hope is given while not overlooking the difficulty and Catch-22 nature of being Superman.

And above all the film looks great!  The design and the cinematography and the effects are all top notch.  Some of the fight scenes were a little concussive and I wish Mr. Snyder would have brightened some of the hues, but overall the film is spectacular to watch.  Not just the design and look of the film, either, but the actors.  I think this is one of the best cast superhero films ever.  Each part was played well and everyone looked great doing it.  Oh and the ending!  Sublime.  Even though I still wonder, do the glasses really fool anyone?

So while the film had a lot of issues, I think the good stuff won out for me.  Like Superman himself, this movie struggles to understand what it wants to be.  As I reflect, I see that its aspirations may exceed its grasp, but that doesn't make the aspirations any less noble.  Just as the Man of Steel is trying to find his place on Earth, Man of Steel tries to find its identity in an overwhleming sea of superhero movies and, hopefully, the next film will show us that this rocky step was worth it.

A Case for Les Misérables

I am an unabshed fan of this musical.  That needs to be stated upfront.  I saw it for the first (and really only) time when I was 8 years old.  The Monday night before my family went to see it, we sat around our old CD player as my father told the story and we listened to all the most important songs; though we skipped Lovely Ladies (and the thus the subsequent explanation of what that song is about) and Master of the House.  I don't really remember actually watching the play at Raleigh Memorial Auditorium.  I'm pretty sure I fell asleep.  It doesn't matter though.  Since that night I have listened to the original Broadway cast soundtrack over and over and over.  I've memorized every song and on the right tracks I belt it out along with Colm and Terrance.   So when I heard they were making a movie I was excited (read: extremely upset someone beat me to it) and after seeing the film the for the first time in theaters, I, like many people, was disappointed to a certain degree.  I felt like there were moments that were good and some that were great, but I had problems with the directing (so many close-ups!) and the performances (Wolervine stop being so nasally!).  I still felt, however, that the central messages were there and as a religious person it is refreshing to see those make it ever-so-rarely into big studio films.  I told people, "I liked it, didn't love it."
   But see, I have a problem.  I buy movies.  Too much.  And so when this one was coming out I thought, why not?  And I bought it.  My lovely wife had not seen the movie yet, so on another Monday evening some 19 years after my parents sat me and my siblings down, my wife and I sat with our daughter and watched.  And you know what?  I love this movie.  I love the music.  I love the messages and I love the performances.  It was great.  Wonderful.  Beautiful and moving.  I found myself forgetting (maybe just forgiving) some of its flaws.  Problems I had melted away.  I will get to my theory on why a little later, but first here are the things I love about the movie (and musical) in no particular order (there may be some spoilers):

THE MESSAGE
Hollywood loves a good revenge story and, truth be told, I do too.  The day I proposed to my wife I saw Taken in theaters and it was a revelation.  There is somthing cathartic about seeing people who deserve to go down get their due.  But Les Miserables is a story about forgiveness.  A much harder act both to perform and to portray in a film.  The character of Javert is the antagonist, but he's not a bad guy.  He's trying to do what he feels is right.  He believes in law and justice.  Of course it's ridiculous that he's hunting down a man who broke parole over stealing a loaf of bread, but that's the point.  Javert is the Old Testament law coming into conflict with Jean Valjean, an embodiment of New Testament compassion.  He represents what Javert cannot fathom - reformation and change.  It's heartbreaking, then, when Javert does the only thing he can think to do to make amends for a lifetime of misguided justice.  The ending of this film is sublime to me.  It's didactic for sure, but a message like this often is.  Faulting a film like this one for being didactic though is a bit like going to Church and complaining that it's too preachy.

DREAMING DREAMS
I just want to say that even from the first trailer I've defended Anne Hathaway's performance.  Singing live during the filming was a risk and I think it paid off more often than not.  When Fantine begins to sing "I Dreamed a Dream" you see the physical toll her choices and situation have brought down upon her.  My heart breaks every time I hear her choke out the words, "I dreamed that God would be forgiving."  I've heard plenty of criticism of Ms. Hathaway's perfomance and subsequent Oscar win, but that scene alone was worth the price of admission for me.  I never loved the song "Lovely Ladies," because I thought it took a serious situation and made a joke out of it.  This rendition, tied to the subsequent aria, made the song have relevance and context.  It was no longer a joke, but a sad story of a fallen woman.

VIVE LA CROWE!
This will probably get me into trouble, but I loved Russell Crowe as Javert.  His voice is gravelly and he doesn't have the gravitas of many of the stage performers who have played the role, but I think he was great.  People have told me they felt like he seemed too nice in the film and when he was supposed to be menacing, he just came across like a teddy bear.  Maybe I've watched Gladiator enough times to see he can mean business, or maybe I just like the fact that he played the role with some compassion to it.  Javert has always been my favorite character because he sticks so doggedly to his beliefs, but ultimately does the right thing.  A tear comes to my eye every time he pins his medal to the body of little Gavroche.  My wife turned to me at this point and said, "Best scene of the movie."  It was a little touch that helps round out a character that easily could have been very flat.  For those who think Russell Crowe was a bad choice because he can't sing, go back and watch the film.  His pitch is pretty good, even if he still lacks some of the showmanship of a professional singer.  It helps that I love the character so much, but I'll defend Russell anytime.

HOME VIEWING
My last thought is one that might be a bit of a stretch, but...well here it goes.  After finishing watching the film from the comfort of my couch, with a few interruption for ice cream and putting babies to sleep, I thought, "Wow.  That was so good."  For some reason the extreme amount of extreme close-ups didn't bother me.  The performances felt stronger.  Hugh Jackman's high notes...well those still bothered me, but not nearly as much.  And then as I got ready for bed I came up with a theory, and hear me out on this one.  I think home video is closer to theatre than going to the movies at the cineplex.  Think about it.  Theatre is live, it's organic and it's intimate.  Broadway theatres are smaller than you would think and you really feel like you're part of the show.  Sitting on my couch, with my wife close by, felt more like going to a play than watching a movie and I think that improved the experience and also the film as a whole for me.

Now this film, like any, is not without its flaws, but for me it's pretty great.  I would say that if you've seen the film and didn't like or it, or liked it but didn't love it, give it another try on DVD or Blu-Ray.  Maybe you'll find more to like.  Maybe you won't.  I'm not making any promises.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: The Simians Strike Back

Movies in general, and Summer movies in particular, seem to be less and less surprising to me. Stories often feel recycled and their execution is tired. At the very least I feel like I already know what to expect when I get to the theater. That last issue is my own fault. Too often I get excited about films and I spend hours researching them and reading reviews. Before I ever get to the theater I already know what's going to be good and what will disappoint. This summer was no exception. Super 8 was fun, if a little derivative. Harry Potter was climactic and exciting (but a little too quick). Cars 2 was a bust. I knew this going in and in a way it lessened my appreciation or excitement for these films. Then at the end of the summer, along comes Rise of the Planet of the Apes. A film that should've been dismissed simply for its title, but surprisingly wasn't. Critics and moviegoers began to take notice and respond well. Like other movies of the summer I followed the reviews and the box office for ROTPOTA and was shocked as anyone else that it was doing so well; until I saw the film.

Even after high expectations and review overload I went to see Apes and went bananas for it! It was thrilling, emotionally involving (weird right?) and it left me wanting more in the best way possible. The story is simple enough. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist trying to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but loses his funding after one of the apes he was testing the drug on goes berserk. Turns out the ape's reaction wasn't to the drug, she was simply trying to protect her baby. The baby, Caesar (played amazingly well by Lord of the Rings' Andy Serkis) becomes Will's new test subject when he discovers Caesar inherited the effects of the drug . Will secretly begins to study Caesar at his own home. Why does Will have such a desire to cure Alzheimer's? Turns out his father suffers from the disease.

Caesar begins to develop faster than other chimps. He has an increased vocabulary (in sign language) beyond any other ape. He soon becomes a part of Will and his father's family. But after Caesar attacks a neighbor while defending Will's dad, he's sent to a facility for apes (think ape prison or an ape pound.) It doesn't take long for Caesar to realize not all humans are as friendly as Will and his dad. He also discovers that not all apes are as smart as he is. Using his advanced intellect, Caesar frees himself and his counterparts at the pound. He also exposes the apes to the same serum that made him hyper-intelligent. Now Caesar has become the leader of the revolution of evolution. The apes are free to take revenge on their human captors.

The premise is a bit silly, but it's fun and extremely well executed and it ties in nicely to the original film. The genius, however, lies in the amazing special effects and above all the brilliant performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar. I was a little upset after Lord of the Rings that Serkis got no Academy recognition for his role as Gollum. Sure it was a CGI character, but Serkis was on set same as all the other actors and his movement and facial features are what we saw on screen. Sadly, I feel Serkis won't get any recognition for POTA either, but he definitely deserves it. It's exciting to watch him perform.

Sure the movie has its weaknesses as well. The human characters are much less interesting than the apes, but the actors do a great job of playing their types (particularly John Lithgow as Will's dad). I feel bad for Freida Pinto, the lovely actress from Slumdog Millionaire, who plays Will's girlfriend. She really has no point except to remind Will that Caesar needs to have a normal life. Pinto is much more talented than the material allowed her to be. The film also can go over-the-top with some of the action scenes, but I forgive that offense, because it's so cool to watch apes terrorize San Francisco.

I can't wait for the sequel to this movie, provided it is as engaging as this film. I think the idea of showing the war between humans and apes could be very fun, but it needs to be handled delicately. We all remember how bad a Planet of the Apes movie can be, right? However this movie is my vote for best of the summer 2011! Bring on the War for the Planet of the Apes! (I call dibs on that movie title!)

4/5

X-Men: First Class - A Mutant's Revisionist History

I didn't know what to expect going to see First Class. The two most recent X-men films, Last Stand and Wolverine, left some to be desired, the last one in particular. The trailers for this film looked decent, but I was still wary. I also don't really like the idea of restarting established series so soon after the last entry (*cough*Spider-man*cough*), but the reviews I had read seemed to speak highly of it so I took the chance. And I wasn't disappointed, at least not fully.

The film starts off exactly (I mean, shot for shot) as the first X-men movie did. We see young Erik Lehnsherr, being dragged from his parents in a concentration camp. The scene was, I believe, recreated using a new actor and not actually the exact same footage. The opening goes one step more, though and introduces us to our villain Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon). Shaw forces Erik to us his power to save his mother's life, when he is unable to do so, Erik taps into his true potential, much to the pleasure of Shaw. Thus begins a life-long hatred of Erik for Shaw. The prologue also introduces us to young Xavier and Raven (Mystique), but it's not that interesting.

The story follows Xavier and Erik (later known as Magneto) teaming up as friends with the CIA to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is being masterminded by none other than Erik's nemesis, Sebastian Shaw. Shaw has an army of minions (Emma Frost, a mindreading vixen who can turn into...diamonds?, Azazel, a devil look-a-like transporter and some guy that makes tornadoes with his mind, IMDb tells me his name is Riptide) which he enlists to help him start WWIII against all humankind. He believes that mutants are the future and therefore superior to weak humans. Xavier, however, believes it is possible to coexist peacefully with humans, once they get to know each other. So he joins the human CIA people to battle Shaw. Erik is just in it to kill Shaw. But, the good guys have to enlist help, so they find a group of young kids with special abilities (sonic voice, ape feet, some laser firing power, flight, etc) to help them.

The film is set in the sixties and that is one of the best parts of the movie. The cool clothes and sets give the movie a throwback feel that suits it well. I was impressed with how real the setting felt and how the filmmakers were able to make technology and fashion that was so dated, still look cool.

While the setting helped the film a great deal, the greatest asset this film has is the chemistry between the two leads. Erik and Xavier's battle over how to deal with humanity is interesting and Fassbender and McAvoy (the actors) do a brilliant job making it feel real. I've always thought the idea of X-men is intriguing, especially the idea that two nemeses could have been great friends. This film seems to imply better than the others, in fact, that these two care for each other even after they go their separate ways. It begs the question, how can you fight your best friend. They both understand each other perfectly, they just have different approaches to their collective problem.

The strength of First Class also is its undoing. Since the leads are so strong, the peripheral characters don't get a fair treatment. Sure, there's a little pathos with Henry McCoy (Beast) struggling with his identity, but it isn't enough. Most of the gang just seems to be there to fill a very specific roll in the climax that Erik and Xavier couldn't have predicted would have been necessary (even for those who can read minds). But the biggest weakness by far is the writing. The story is okay, straightforward, often predictable (how can it not be when you know the outcome of the Missile Crisis), and the dialog suffers. Only the scenes between Xavier and Erik have any real heart. Some of the lines are just laughable, especially Mystique's lines. I wished they made her more of a character instead of a caricature. Also, I was miffed with the ending. Seemed too all-of-a-sudden.

Despite weaknesses, though, this film is exciting and enjoyable summer fun.

3/5

Super 8: A Blast from the Past

I had high hopes for this movie. I mean a collaboration between Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams? I'm in no matter what they're selling. I was also wary that my personal hype would cloud my judgement. But I'm happy to say that I was not disappointed. This film felt like Goonies, ET, and Cloverfield all wrapped together in a perfect package. It was suspenseful, heartwarming, nostalgic (in the best way), and hilarious. Being Abrams first film that was not a franchise (see: MI:3 & Star Trek) studios took a big risk with this film, but it definitely paid of both critically and commercially. (Most films these days really make their money overseas, but Super 8 made over double its budget back with little help from foreign sales.)

The story follows Joe Lamb and his friends as they attempt to make a zombie movie for a small film festival. One night while filming near some train tracks (for "production value") the kids witness a massive train wreck which they miraculously survive (They have to right? Otherwise there's no movie!). The train wreck seems like an accident, except to Joe who saw a truck drive head-on into the train. Soon Joe's small town is swarming with military and government officials who don't waste time in covering up the train crash. Something is missing from the train and it doesn't appear to be friendly.

Abrams is a huge fan of mystery and, for the most part, that mystery serves him well in this film. Like Jaws, the threat of the creature is scarier than the creature itself. But, the thing that gives the film its most suspenseful moments, also robs the film of its deserved emotional climax. At the end of the film we're supposed feel empathy for the creature, but we've spent so little time with it that we don't really feel anything. At the end of E.T. when he tells Elliot, "I'll be right here!" we're on the verge of tears. Joe's moment with the creature at the end of Super 8 feels contrived and simplistic. But it can be forgiven since the rest of the film is so well done.

The acting, for me, is what really makes the movie special. Anytime you work with younger actors you run the risk of, very quickly, wearing out your welcome. Making kids the stars of your movie only ups the stakes. Abrams did a brilliant job of casting mostly unknown kid actors. Instead of being irritating and juvenile, the kids are endearing and funny. Abrams walks a thin line and succeeds. My only qualm (expressed clearly by a friend of mine) was the amount of foul language used by the kids. I don't like swears as a general rule and younger kids using them doesn't help anything. I think it's difficult, but better, to find other ways of expressing frustration.

Overall, I loved this movie. It's the perfect film for anyone who grew up watching Spielberg's Amblin-esque films or who was an amateur filmmaker themselves.

4/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part the First

In an act of willful defiance of bedtime Jo and I decided to catch a midnight showing of the penultimate Harry Potter film. Having been a fan of the books and movies for over ten years now I was looking forward with great anticipation for this movie. However, after sitting in front of what may have been the nerdiest group of Potterites in Utah County (they played Would You Rather - HP style. "Would rather ride a hippogriff or a thestral, etc?") I realized I was barely excited for the movie compared to the groupies behind me. Perhaps one day I will repent, but for now I must be content with being a mere initiate in the world of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Despite the unfortunate realization of my incompetence as a Harry Potter fan, I still enjoyed the film quite a bit. Despite slow parts and missteps the seventh movie lives up to the glory of the precursors and sets us up incredibly well for an amazing finale.

Anyone familiar with the book knows that this film was going to be the slower of the two finales. And just as you would expect the film has it's slow bits. I mean most of the film is Harry, Ron and Hermione walking around being grumpy with each other, but the director, David Yates, does a fair job at keeping the pacing quick enough to hold your attention.

Different from the previous six films, Deathly Hallows takes place entirely outside of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. With Voldemort back in power and Dumbledore dead, nowhere, especially his beloved school, is safe for Harry Potter. After a few attempts on his life that endanger his friends Harry decides (along with Ron and Hermione) to go on the lam to keep those he loves safe and simultaneously continue his search for Voldemort's Horcruxes (cursed items in which the Dark Lord has hidden bits of soul in an attempt to be immortal). During this search there are many moments of looking out across the vast wilderness longingly and hissy fits among the trio due to the evil effects of one of the Horcruxes.

The search isn't all bad, though. There are some beautiful moments quiet (Harry and Hermione's dance) and otherwise (a creepy run-in with a Bathilda Bagshot impersonator). The film is beautifully shot and very well put together. I wouldn't be surprised to see this on the Oscar list for Cinematography just like other films in the series. The script has it's weak points, but I believe most of that comes from omissions in previous films. Now the writers have to introduce characters that haven't been in previous movies (even though they're in the books) so that important plot points can come out. This isn't to say that the script is bad, for the most part it's very strong, but whenever a movie goes into, "The reason why this is..." mode I tend to do a mental eye-roll.

So while this movie may be slow, it was expected and to be honest I really enjoyed some of the slower moments. Maybe there was a bit too much pining, but even some of those could be poignant. The film's final act picks up and leaves you hanging in excruciating agony. Of course they would end it where they did. Not leaving you sad, happy or angry, just extremely anxious for the final film. We know the direction things are going and it was nice to have this methodic, deliberate film before the director puts the pedal to the metal in the final film. Bring on July!

A-Team: I Love It When A Plan (Unexpectedly) Comes Together!

What is more fun than being surprised at the movie theater? In our age of internet, Rotten Tomatoes and discotheques I am rarely pleasantly surprised with movies. Now I almost always enjoy movies I see, but that's because I know what to expect going in. Toy Story 3 was great and I knew this before going to see it. Inception was mind blowing and I had read this probably 20 before stepping foot in the theater. So whenever I can go into a movie not expecting much and be fairly well blown away, I love it. Such was the case with this year's underappreciated movie: The A-Team.

I was not a fanboy of the original series. I may have been if I was in the proper age group, but I was about five or so years too late to really be a part of the fanbase. None of that matters, though, because I know enough about the show to enjoy this movie. And besides, the movie is an origin story anyway so you can come to it knowing nothing and enjoy the ride. I'm sure there are references I miss, but I'm fine with that.

The movie is an action/comedy that actually has great action and superb comedy. The story follows Liam Neeson as Col. Hanniball Smith an Army Ranger who leads a team of crack soldiers on ridiculous missions. The team consists of Lt. "Face" Peck (Bradley Cooper), Cpl. B.A. Baracus (Quincy "Rampage" Jackson) and Cpt. H.M. Murdock (Sharlto Copley). Each member has their speciality. B.A. is the driver, Face is the point man and Murdock is the pilot/resident insane person. The story starts with the explanation of how the team got together in a chance meeting in Mexico and goes on to show how, eight years later, they were framed "for a crime they didn't commit." After breaking out of four individual high security prisons they go on a mission to clear their names. The crime they were imprisoned for is something about plates used to print money stolen by some other army like guys. Ultimately it doesn't matter it is a revenge story.

The story is convaluted. I don't know that I can fully explain it, but it doesn't matter. Like the original show (I'm told) the movie and the characters in the movie specialize in the ridiculous. Never for a second are we supposed to say, "That is so unrealistic." Of course it is! And that's the beauty of it all. We don't care that you can't actually fly a tank by shooting the turret to direct it while it falls. Sure helicopters probably can't doo barrel rolls and pull out of a free fall. Who cares! They say funny stuff while it happens.

By far the stand-out performance comes from Copley as the pilot, Murdock. We meet him masquerading as a doctor and stitching up B.A.'s arm in the shape of a lightning bolt. We're told several times that he is certified insane, but also the best pilot around. We also get plenty of opportunities to see both claims during the course of the movie. Copley plays the part so well I have a hard time believing he's not like that in real life.

While Murdock is the source of most of the humor during the film, the other characters hold their own. Each character has their moments. Face is the ladies man and has some great moments with that, B.A. is hard core, but can be very funny when you get him talking about his fear of flying, and Hanniball demands your attention as the leader of the group. All do well with the material they have. Jackson (as B.A.) is probably the weakest link, but he's a UFC fighter and reprising the role made famous by Mr. T so you can't fault him too much.

The greatest weaknesses come from the action scenes. While they are fun and fast paced they follow the same idea as a lot of action movies do now. The idea is that action scenes aren't shot so much as edited. Most of the time I knew someone had a gun and then shot that gun (because I heard it go off) and then some got hit, maybe? Sure it may be more realistic but in a movie sometimes I just want to see the action that's going on. Also you don't have to say, "I love it when a plan comes together!" everytime a plan comes together. Even if they said it in the original show.

This movie was such a surprise to me because it knew so well what it was. It never takes itself too seriously while simultaneously making the action scenes compelling and fun. The humor is derived in large part from the dialogue, so it doesn't feel worn or forced. The actors work well together and in the end you realize that you just watched something people had fun making. I would love to see a sequel, but alas poor reviews and a niche target audience may have made that impossible. Here's to hoping my unknown blog can make that a reality.

Rating: 56 Barrel rolls in a helicopter

Toy Story 3: Don't Cry They're Only Toys

When will Pixar fail? Not this year, that's for sure. Lately it seems that anytime someone announces the third movie in a franchise we roll our eyes and say, "Omygoshnotanotherone." We've just been jaded too many times in the past (I give you Spider-man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End, etc.) and while I have no particular problem with trilogies Hollywood tends to forget what made the first two movies great when making the third. Even with a company as great as Pixar I was worried about this movie. The trailers looked good, but not great, yet I kept an open mind. After all How to Train Your Dragon looked awful and turned out to be fantastic. So I went to see Toy Story. I even sprung for the 3D show. And I have to say, it's fantastic. It was touching, funny, and action packed. I was not expecting it to be any good. Part of Pixar success must be in playing down expectations. For the last several movies (Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3) I have seen the preview and said, "Meh. Doesn't look that great." Each time I have been surprised at how fantastic the movies are. Maybe Pixar is the one studio that honestly doesn't know how good they are. If that's the case I hope they stay aloof for much longer.

This latest (and perhaps final) entry in the Toy Story saga takes place as Andy is preparing to go to college. His toys (Woody, Buzz and the gang) are all there waiting for Andy to play with them. Children's toys they may be, but naive they certainly are not. They know their time is running out and they begin to contemplate their various fates. In the toy world it seems you have three options: Trash, donation, or attic. None of them is ideal, but the consensus around the toy box is attic is preferred. At least there they can watch TV and hang out with the Christmas decorations. However after a mix-up Andy's Mom throws out the toys Andy was going to put in the attic. Once they figure out where they are they decide going to a day care may not be such a bad idea, so they escape and stow away in the Sunnyside Day Care donation box.

Upon arriving at Sunnyside the Toys decide they are in heaven. Toys get played with everyday and when the kids get too old they leave and new ones show up. It doesn't take too long, though, before the dark side of Sunnyside is revealed. It seems that the long time toys get special treatment while new recruits have to prove their worth by spending time with the destructive toddlers of the Caterpillar Room. Quickly the movie turns into a prison escape film that borrows heavily from classic and modern escape movies.

The story is great, the humor is strong (especially Buzz Lightyear as "Spanish Buzz" and anytime Ken is on the screen) and the heart is felt. I dare you not to get choked up as the gang faces their own mortality in a Dante-esque moment (Okay, I've never actually read Dante, but I have to imagine "Inferno" has some similar imagery). The movie is ultimately the purpose of toys, which is to be played with. It'll make you want grab your favorite toys from days gone by and be a kid again for a few minutes. Check it out, but don't waste the money on 3D. Not necessary, the story is good enough.

Rating: A Whole Ken's Dream House