Tag Archives: movies

Tony Stark, James T. Kirk & Mr. Spock

Posted on by
Reply

Over Memorial Day weekend, we took advantage of the downtime to see two movies, “Iron Man 3” and “Star Trek:  Into Darkness.”

All of us have enjoyed the Iron Man franchise, which we came to late, after seeing “The Avengers.”  Sarcasm plays a prominent role in our lives, and we appreciate seeing it well done on screen.  In many ways, “Iron Man 3” was the best of the trilogy of Iron Man movies.  There was the requisite amount of explosions and fighting, but the narrative arc was surprisingly original and the character development was unusually deep for an action movie.  You see Tony Stark, the man, without his suit and at his most vulnerable.  Robert Downey, Jr is a superb actor, and he manages to convey vulnerability without sentimentality.  And his sarcasm stays intact throughout the movie.  It’s an excellent movie and a fitting end to the Iron Man franchise.  At least, I hope it’s the end to the franchise.  I am sorry to see it end, but there is nowhere else to go with the story line without ruining the narrative arc.  Marvel/Disney would probably love to see it continue, given the revenue that the movie raked in, but I hope that Robert Downey, Jr can withstand the temptation and let the franchise end as it deserves–with a logical and heartfelt resolution.

(P.S.  Make sure you stay through the end of the credits to watch the very end scene.)

“Star Trek Into Darkness” was a fabulous movie.  So, I say without hesitation that I am a huge fan of:  Star Trek, the Original Series; Star Trek, the Next Generation (other than Seasons 1 and 2); and Star Trek, Deep Space Nine (I love Avery Brooks).  I like Enterprise, and I tolerated Star Trek:  Voyager.

I also was pleasantly surprised by J.J. Abrams’s first Star Trek movie.  Even though our family mantra is “Never mess with the timeline,” which is exactly what J.J. Abrams did, the movie had a frenetic pacing and original storyline that paid respect to the original series while breaking new ground.  It was excellently done.

I’m even more impressed with his latest Star Trek movie, which I think is the best yet.  The frenetic pacing is still there, of course.  (It wouldn’t be a J.J. Abrams movie without it.)  So are the special effects and the violence.  The main characters all come into their own a little bit more.  Again, there are wisecracks that poke fun at the original series while at the same time, paying tribute to it.  It’s a fine balancing act that is done well–with respect but not adoration.  I like that.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays one of the most memorable villains that have appeared in Star Trek lore in quite some time.  Of course, the plummy British accent and the intensity he projects doesn’t hurt.   (If you haven’t seen him in the BBC version of “Sherlock,” I highly recommend it.  He is amazing in it.)  And since the timeline has already been messed with, the plotline is original and creative and excellently done.  The movie is a worthy addition to the franchise, and I highly, highly recommend it.

Abraham & Alfred

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not sure that movies watched on an airplane should actually ever count as movies watched but having had the opportunity to watch both “Lincoln” and “Hitchcock” on a recent flight, I did want to take the opportunity to express opinions about both of them.

I actually don’t have that much to say about “Lincoln” that hasn’t already been said.  The movie deals only with the period of time where Lincoln is trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment and the resulting political shenanigans.  (It actually gives me some comfort to watch those shenanigans as it makes our own dysfunctional political gridlock look tranquil in comparison.)  The acting is first-rate, both by Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln and by all the supporting actors.  (Although I wonder at the casting of Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln—isn’t she much older than Daniel Day-Lewis?  It’s an interesting casting decision, to say the least.)  Tommy Lee Jones and David Strathairn are both excellent in their roles as Thaddeus Stevens and William Steward, respectively.  Our fourteen year old thought the movie was too “educational,” but I thought it was well-done, with a tone of respect but not worship.

The other interesting note about “Lincoln” is that it is very dialogue-intensive.  There aren’t many action scenes, and yet the movie rarely drags and is compelling in virtually every scene.

“Hitchcock” is a movie about Alfred Hitchcock (obviously), but it really is more about the making of the movie “Psycho” and the instrumental role Hitchcock’s wife, Alma Reville, plays in both the making of the movie and in his life.  Anthony Hopkins plays Alfred Hitchcock and does a lovely job making you believe he’s Hitchcock without ever descending into self-parody.  (Given Hitchcock’s well-known mannerisms, this is no mean acting feat.)  Helen Mirren is equally excellent as Alma, a woman who gave up her career for her husband but manages to tolerate Hitchcock’s high-maintenance personality while keeping him grounded.  The movie depicts a marriage of equals between two strong and idiosyncratic personalities, who have learned to live and thrive with the constant balancing act their marriage requires.  The movie also reveals that “Psycho” would not be the movie that it is without Alma’s assistance and input.  The scenes revolving around Hitchcock and Alma’s marriage were the scenes that resonated most with me, but the obstacles they surmounted in getting “Psycho” made also makes for compelling drama.  It’s an excellent movie, and I highly recommend it.

It would very much help to have seen “Psycho” before seeing this movie, or many of the references in the movie won’t make much sense.  Everyone should see “Psycho” anyway, even if you don’t like horror movies.  It is a classic that rises above the genre.  Just make sure you’ve showered beforehand.  🙂

Zero Dark Thirty

Posted on by
Reply

Jim and I played hookey Tuesday morning and went to see Zero Dark Thirty, partially because we had heard good things about the movie and partially because we wanted to see what all the fuss was about.  (Slight digression:  Dear Senators who don’t believe in the First Amendment:  please understand that the more fuss you make about a movie you don’t like, the more people will want to see it.)

Anyway, I haven’t seen any of Kathryn Bigelow’s other movies (although The Hurt Locker is on my list), so I can’t compare this movie to her other ones.  What I can say about Zero Dark Thirty is that the movie is surprisingly tension-filled despite the fact that the audience knows how the movie ends.  In addition, for all the deafening silence that Hollywood has expressed despite threats by governmental officials regarding the movie, the movie does not hide how inhumane and inhuman torture is, as it shows the effects of torture on both the interrogators and their victims.  The movie also does show that torture can be effective in extracting information but that it comes with a price–the loss of the moral high ground and the violation of the principles under which the United States was founded.

Zero Dark Thirty is not an action thriller movie, despite the impression the movie trailers give.  It is about the painstaking hunt for Usama Bin Laden, which involves tracking down every lead, no matter how trivial, and does not involve thrilling action scenes.  The most exciting action scenes are all in the last fifteen minutes of the movie, as the Navy SEALS attack Bin Laden’s compound.  Despite, or maybe because of, all the caveats, we found the movie excellent and compelling.  I think, perhaps, that Argo was a better movie at building suspense despite the known outcome (see my review here), but Zero Dark Thirty was a well-paced movie, demonstrating the difference one person’s persistence against all odds can make.

William, Victor (sort of), Charles and Peter

Posted on by
1

This past holiday break has allowed us to do some things that we don’t normally have time to do (like seeing 3-hour movies, but I digress).  There were several productions that we saw that we very much liked.

The first is the Shakespeare Theatre’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  The Harman Hall stage resulted in a very clever staging of this light-hearted comedy.  There were times, however, when I thought the staging was cleverer than the acting, but, overall, it was a pleasant and well-done version of the play.  The brawl between the two lead female characters was particularly well done.  Our two children both enjoyed the production as did we.

We also saw the National Theatre’s production of Les Miz (the movie is on our list of things to see).  Jean Valjean is the linchpin of any production of Les Miz, of course, and we thought this particular production had a strong actor in that role.  Javert was also excellent.  (Our daughter wasn’t a fan of Javert because the actor reminded her of a substitute teacher that she particularly disliked.  It lent an air of authenticity to the production for her.)  Fantine’s voice was beautiful as well.  It is one of our favorite musicals, and this particular production did not disappoint.

One of our annual holiday traditions is taking the entire family to see Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol at Ford’s Theatre.  It gives us goosebumps every year to look up and actually see the box that Abraham Lincoln was sitting in when he was assassinated.  As with Les Miz, the casting of the main character, Ebeneezer Scrooge, is the key to a successful production.  This year’s actor was the same as last year’s actor, but he played the character a little differently than last year.  Less curmudgeonly but more Grinch-like, if that makes any sense.  We do require a satisfying redemption scene at the end of the play in order to feel complete, and this production fulfilled our expectations in that regard.  Christmas doesn’t feel like Christmas if we don’t see A Christmas Carol.

Finally, the behemoth Peter Jackson film otherwise known as The Hobbit.  We had originally seen it in the Udvar-Hazy theatre (the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum near Dulles Airport) with its six story IMAX theatre.  Fifteen minutes before the end of the movie (when all the dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo are treed, for those who have seen it), the entire museum lost power.  Oops.  I then went and saw it again (at a lesser theatre) so that I could see what happened in the last fifteen minutes.  I understand the criticism leveled at the movie—it very much is not in the tone of the book but, rather, is more epic and in the same vein as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The movie also moves slowly in parts.  On the other hand, it is beautifully filmed and much of the background plot (derived from The Silmarillion and some of Tolkien’s other works) is meant as a richer prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy than most prequels are.  It clearly works for Tolkien geeks.  I’m not sure how well it works for the normal human population.  All I know is it works for me.  The movie is rated PG-13, and I think it’s a fair rating.  There is a lot of violence in the movie, mostly directed at orcs and goblins.  The themes are also fairly mature.  That being said, our eleven year old son loved it and happily sat through the almost 3 hour movie with no complaints.  Our fourteen year old daughter was thoroughly bored, but she is not a Tolkien fan.  I am seriously thinking of disowning her for her heresy.

Movie Trifecta

Posted on by
3

We don’t usually manage to get to movies much, as they require we be at a specific place at a specific time for two plus hours, and that is usually too much for our schedule to accommodate.  Even when we get to the movie theatre, we rarely see anything that is not PG-13 or below.  However, yesterday was certainly a bonanza of movie riches.

We took our teenage daughter to see the new James Bond movie, Skyfall.  I am generally a big fan of James Bond movies, and Skyfall was certainly the best Bond movie I’ve seen in several years.  Typically the formula is:  unbelievable action scenes + cool gadgets + beautiful women in various states of undress = successful Bond movie.  Skyfall, however, was a much deeper and more nuanced movie than the typical Bond movie.  It delves into Bond’s past and is a rich (if understated in a typical British way) exploration of the relationship between M and Bond.  Javier Bardem is indescribably creepy as the villain.  The action scenes were excellent, but there is surprisingly little sex (for a Bond movie).  The movie also contains a nice commentary of old-fashioned action versus new-fangled technology.  All in all, it is a more mature and cerebral Bond movie than most.  And while Sean Connery remains my favorite James Bond, Daniel Craig is a worthy successor.  It’s rated PG-13, which is a fair rating.

The kids also saw Wreck-it Ralph, although publicly, we have to say that our daughter didn’t want to see it but agreed to babysit our son through the film.  They both liked it well enough, although our son was much more enthusiastic about it.  I suspect the movie’s target audience is tweens and younger.  Jim and I do want to see it ourselves, but it may have to wait until it comes out on DVD.  The movie is rated PG.

The final movie Jim and I saw was Argo.  The movie is rated R (mostly for use of the “F” word, although, similar to The King’s Speech, the language used is purposeful and not gratuitous).  We plan to take our daughter to see it despite the rating.  It is an excellent movie.  Even though you know how the movie will end, the tension and suspense is overwhelming.  The scenes when they are trying to leave Iran are extremely intense and well-done.  There is some violence (e.g. a man getting shot; mock executions), but most of the violence and threat of violence are implied.  Interestingly enough, it is a surprisingly apolitical movie for a movie that has strong political origins.  I highly recommend seeing it!

Frankenweenie (the movie)

Posted on by
Reply

Okay, I realize this isn’t an earth-shattering observation, but that Tim Burton guy is one creepy dude.  We liked his “The Nightmare Before Christmas” for its offbeat humor, but there were some really disturbing parts to the movie as well.  His newest movie, “Frankenweenie,” is both more and less disturbing but, on the whole, is as normal a movie as I’ve seen from him (mind you, this is not a high bar).

“Frankenweenie” pays homage to the original story  “Frankenstein” by Mary Godwin Shelley, to the Boris Karloff version of the movie, to Godzilla and its Japanese movie-makers, to the original “Mummy” movies and probably to many other horror movies that I didn’t recognize.

Victor Frankenstein is a young boy whose only friend is his dog, Sparky.  Sparky is accidentally killed by a car (this is quite traumatic if you are a dog lover, especially if you are a dog lover who is a child).  Inspired by a new science teacher, voiced by Martin Landau who is excellent, Victor brings Sparky back to life.  Chaos of varying types then ensues.

On the face of it, the plot unfolds in a very predictable way but because this is Tim Burton, you are never quite sure whether the predictable path is the actual path (and since it is a Tim Burton movie, the answer is it is not).  There are some excellent one-liners, but the quality of the movie depends on the whole and not any particular scene.  “Frankenweenie” is creepy and dark in many parts, but the grief Victor suffers when Sparky dies is well done.  The movie may be primarily a tribute to the horror movie genre, but it is also a movie about a boy and his dog, and the relationship between the two is the emotional crux for the entire movie.  It’s very well done.

The movie is rated PG, and Common Sense Media recommends it for kids 9 and over.  If you have a child who is visually sensitive or easily scared in the 9-11 year old range, I would wait until it comes out on DVD.  (The movie theatre screen makes the dark atmosphere more overwhelming.)

The movie is well worth seeing, especially if you have tweens or young teens.  Our entire family really liked the movie, despite (or maybe because of) the creepy dude.

The Bourne Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

I am a huge fan of the Bourne movies, and Jeremy Renner is my latest candidate for hunk-of-the-year, and so while I was disappointed that Matt Damon didn’t return to the franchise, I was predisposed to like this movie.

I did really enjoy the movie, but there are some major differences compared to the Matt Damon movies.  Moviegoers should not expect to go into this movie and expect to see the exact same movie, only with Jeremy Renner instead of Matt Damon.  And that’s a good thing because the two actors project different strengths and weaknesses.

First, the movie does a really excellent job integrating the Jason Bourne storyline into the plot.  The best way to think of The Bourne Legacy is that it’s a spinoff of the Bourne franchise, not a sequel.  And Jason Bourne’s character is mentioned often in the context of the movie’s plot, which is an excellent way to tie the movies together.

Second, Jeremy Renner is a more nuanced actor in his role as Aaron Cross than Matt Damon was as Jason Bourne.  Reasonable minds can disagree on this point, of course.  But the movie fleshes out the Aaron Cross character more than the previous movies did of Jason Bourne (other than as an unparalleled killing machine).  The ramification of this character development is that the movie has a more deliberate pacing than the previous Bourne movies.  In the previous Bourne movies, once the action started, you were treated to a rollercoaster of non-stop action scenes—explosions, killings, etc.—until the ending.  That is not the case in this movie (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  The action scenes are well done and, in many instances, more realistic than the Matt Damon action scenes (as in, yes, I can see how a mere mortal could have survived that scene).  But interspersed with the action scenes are scenes where the plot of the movie actually advances.  If you like the Bourne movies solely for the action scenes, The Bourne Legacy may seem a little slow to you, but I thought the movie did a very good job combining plot and action into a seamless whole.

Edward Norton, who I think is one of the best actors around, does his usual superb job at making ruthlessly cold-blooded decisions look rational and inevitable.  Joan Allen has a nice cameo role as does David Strathairn.  There was also a nice understated chemistry between Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz (who wasn’t nearly as unbelievable as a PhD virologist as, say, Denise Richards was as a nuclear physicist in one of the James Bond movies).

The movie has a PG-13 rating, and Common Sense Media recommends it for children 14 and above.  I would disagree with both those ratings.  There is no doubt that The Bourne Legacy is less explicitly violent than its predecessors.  However, it certainly doesn’t lack for broken necks, pools of blood, and dead bodies—there is just a lower body count and the deaths are generally less messy than in the other movies.   I still would be highly cautious about taking any child under 15 to this movie.

I really, really liked The Bourne Legacy.  The acting was consistently excellent throughout the movie, and Jeremy Renner carried the movie effortlessly as a vulnerable but skilled assassin.  The plot was very good (not always a given in an action movie), and I look forward to more in the series.  And, if they could somehow convince Matt Damon to come back and team up with Jeremy Renner in a Bourne movie, that would be ideal!

Brave (the movie not the adjective)

Posted on by
Reply

We saw Brave, the latest Disney/Pixar movie yesterday.  In general, we are predisposed to like Disney/Pixar movies, and Brave was no exception.  To begin with, the animation was visually stunning.  From the panoramas of the Scottish highlands to each individual strand of Merida’s (the heroine’s) hair, everything was beautifully rendered and surprisingly realistic.  It was easily the best animation we’ve ever seen.

The story was also excellent.  Our 13 year old found the story predictable, and the plot did follow a traditional story arc.  But Jim and I thought the storyline of the evolution of a mother-daughter relationship extremely touching.  Perhaps it’s because we have a teenage daughter, and we can see the beginning of the appearance of adolescent angst.  I also found it interesting that the critics who were mildly critical of the movie (which seems to be as negative as the reviews got) were all men.  The universal theme of the continually evolving relationship between parents and children appeals to all, but the story definitely centers on the mother-daughter relationship.  We were also amused by the strong resemblance between Merida’s “wee devils” of brothers and our 10 year old (much to his displeasure).

We also liked the fact that the heroine stood alone (with no prince hovering in the background) to find her own path and a solution to her problems and eventually took responsibility for her actions.  And I stand by my theory that there is a conspiracy by bow-and-arrow manufacturers as you can add another movie where the hero/heroine shows off their skill in archery.  (See Hunger Games and Avengers.)

After the movie,  I was asked by Jim whether I had eaten any dessert prepared by our daughter lately (you’ll have to see the movie to understand the joke).  It all makes sense when you realize that the common warning given in our family when I’m in a cranky mood is “Don’t poke the bear!”

The Avengers (the movie)

Posted on by
Reply

We saw The Avengers over the Memorial Day weekend.  Before I say anything more about it, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that we are a family who likes cartoonishly violent movies (with the possible exception of Jim, who, at least, tolerates cartoonishly violent movies).

That being said, we enjoyed The Avengers very much.  There were lots of explosions, lots of aliens killed in a variety of ways (smashed by Hulk, pierced by arrows from Hawkeye, shot or knifed by Black Widow, laser gunned by Ironman, etc.) and all of it done with such cartoonish verve that it was impossible to take it too seriously.  There is no doubt that Robert Downey, Jr. as Ironman carried the movie (smart alecky dialogue is his specialty, after all).  Samuel Jackson was excellent as he always is, and my new favorite hunky actor is Jeremy Renner, who plays Hawkeye.  (In a slight digression, it’s interesting that archery has found a new place out of geekdom in light of The Hunger Games, The Avengers and the upcoming Pixar movie, Brave.  A conspiracy by bow-and-arrow manufacturers perhaps?)

The film is rated PG-13, but our 10 year old son (visually resilient with an affinity for destruction on a large scale) had no issues, and neither did our 13 year old daughter (visually sensitive but with an equal affinity for destroying bad guys (or bad aliens) in creative ways).

Jim, our resident peacenik, thought the movie was an enjoyable way to spend 2 1/2 hours, but it is not his particular kind of movie.  I, on the other hand, really enjoy cartoonishly violent movies (I find them very relaxing) and thought The Avengers was an excellent example of the genre.

 

Hunger Games (book & movie)

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, we gave into our children’s pleadings (whinings?) and took them to see the movie, Hunger Games, since everyone in their grades had seen it already.  After getting home from the movie, I then promptly read the book to see how true to the book the movie was.

Book first (priorities are priorities).  Hunger Games is classified as a Young Adults book and is a quick read for adults.  That being said, the book is well-written, well-paced and with an original, if dark, plot.  The characters are complex, neither entirely good nor evil and are well-rounded.  The heroine, Katniss, is both likeable and unlikeable.  It is a surprisingly sophisticated novel.  I enjoyed it, although the premise is extremely dark.

Now, the movie.  The movie is very true to the book (not surprising, since the author, Suzanne Collins, co-wrote the screenplay).  It is, however, much more graphic and violent.  The book, while it contains violent scenes, does not go into overly detailed descriptions of the violence.  And the movie does as much violence offscreen as it can.  (The movie is rated PG-13.)  However, the plot is by definition violent, and the movie can’t hide that fact.  It is beautifully filmed, with the director doing a lovely job showing things from a particular character’s perspective, and the actors and actresses all do a good job (with a particular shout out to Stanley Tucci).

All that being said, the plot is disturbing, especially since it deals with children and violence.  I like violent movies and even darkly comic violent movies, but this is neither.  It’s difficult to have any light moments when you’re reading or watching about a group of children who have to kill each other until a single victor emerges.

If you can get past the plot, the book is well written and enjoyable (I gave it 3 out of 5 stars on Goodreads) and the movie is an excellent adaptation of the book.  You just have to get past the plot.

I am told (by the aforementioned pleading kids) that the second and third books of the trilogy (Catching Fire and Mockingjay) deal more with the possibility of impending rebellions against the totalitarian government.  Now, that is a plot I can get into!