Atlantis The Lost Empire

Atlantis: The Lost Empire by Disney. 

I know this movie came out a long time ago but I'd never seen it so I got it from the good old library for a family movie night and my kids loved it. I've also got to admit I'm a sucker for these adventure, finding a lost civilization type of archeology story lines, though they're rarely done right, but the most I look forward in them is the fun and adventure they can bring. 

For the most part this little movie does this, my son had a great time watching it. I really like the fact that Disney made a bold move with this movie and did some really different design work on the characters and architecture much like Hercules. Not much else to say about this movie but that I had a good time watching it.  I just wish the cliched parts in the third act had been done differently then I think it could have been a much better movie.

Cold Days

Cold Days by Jim Butcher. 

No movies this weekend, got the new installment for the Dresden Files on Tuesday and had been reading it ever since.  I finished it sometime in the wee hours of the morning. 

Man what a good series, it only gets better with each new book. Don't worry about any spoilers I'm not going to give away any important information that happens in this book. I've been reading this series for the last three years, mostly to get caught up to the new books that come out.  I've noticed a few thing about this series of books (book 14 and counting so far) since my dad introduced them to me and have kept me reading since I started. I don't normally like book series because as they go on they normally take on a very formulaic, cliche ridden structure where the reader is left with little surprises. I'm not saying the Dresden series hasn't got formulaic things or cliched structure because it does and it has to (and I'll explain why this is true later) but it also has a few more things that keep me reading. 

The main reason it has to have these formulaic things and cliched structure is because we're dealing with a blue collar type of character in Harry Dresden and what blue collar worker who goes to work from 9-5 doesn't have formulaic things and cliched structure in their life? Every honest to God 9-5 worker has a formulaic and cliche ridden lifestyle: there are things they do at certain times of every day, the alarm goes off - early in the morning - they get up make coffee and get ready for work--Harry Dresden is just like this and Butcher writes him just like that. He really feels like he has a 9-5 job  and deals with things with that kind of mentality. I think this is one of the things that makes Harry Dresden so relate able, despite all the supernatural/mystic things that happen to him or the many monsters he encounters on a daily basis. It's this grinding, blue collar, formulaic, cliched, working life that makes him so real. 

Then there are the little things Butcher has done that keep me reading. 

First thing, this series feels like I'm watching a television show with each new installment being a new episode that continues the over arching story line.  Don't for one second think Butcher doesn't know where this story is going because for every book that's released he just adds new things to a story that just keeps getting bigger, more exciting and more detailed. 

Which brings up point two: continuity. Butcher's ability to let each book affect the next book is amazing, in that everything that happens in one book effects the book(s) that follow which makes the ending of one book so damn frustrating because now I have to wait for at least a year to find out the consequences of the book I just read-that is some good storytelling. A good example of this is how as the early books kept rolling along with each episode - for lack of a better word - Dresden's body was getting older.  This was making him not able to do the whole save the world in 24 hours sort of thing any more because was getting physically beat down, where as in the first few books he was younger and able to do it. 

Thirdly he builds some good mythology into story and just keeps building on that created mythology, from a nerds point of view (mine) that's just another thing that fuels my fire to keep reading this series.  His world building is one of the best out there and is just fascinating to watch his world expand and grow with each book.

Lastly its the characters that truly make a story and these characters that Butcher has created, keep bringing me back with a smile on my face each time I encounter them in the book. His characters seem so real with the conversations taking on a familiar, friendly atmosphere. This is one book I found myself laughing out loud the most with as his characters said or did things with in their nature that were just so funny. With Cold Days Butcher has started to weave every book before into this book so this is not a book for starters.

It's a Wonderful Life

It's a Wonderful Life directed by Frank Capra staring Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. 

Jess and I watched this on Christmas Eve and it had been a couple of years since I've seen this movie but I've got to say this is still one of the best movies ever made. I like the way it's subtly put together, each piece of the story line unfolds on the screen in a slow but necessary manner and then when they are all put together near the end does the viewer really understand what has happened. 

There's too many screenplays now-a-days that use the sledgehammer approach to subtlety, so it was nice to watch a movie that new about pacing where every scene in this movie has to be there.  There is not one wasted scene in this movie (how many movies have anywhere near that today?.  Character development, by the end of this movie if you don't know George Baily and Mary's character, thought process, desires, and human nature there is something serious wrong with you because it's all presented right there before you as you watch the movie (how many movies now-a-days even have one character like that in it let alone two?).  And this movie heralds back to the old school of direction: letting actors on screen actually act and not ruining it with over editing or exposition camouflaged as nothing but dialogue. 

One of my favorite scenes is where George finally falls in love with Mary when she's talking with their old friend on the phone. The acting in this scene is truly amazing from Stewart and Reed's facial expressions mixed in with their acting and when they're on the phone together the sexual tension is almost exploding on the screen as he truly falls for her right before our eyes. 

Another thing I really like about this movie is how I fully empathize with George's character as he is constantly hindered from doing what he wants with his life by doing the right thing and sometimes it's like that in real life, doing the right thing is hard to do even when it has to be done.  George realizes this but still does the right thing. Watching him do the right thing and not get what he desires is heartbreaking to see.  I really felt for him as the movie progressed as I constantly saw his desires being drowned around him from doing the right thing. But as in life itself what you think you desire ends up being nothing compared to what is really around you and this is what George Bailey realizes at the end of the movie: everything he has ever wanted or desired has been right in front of him the whole time. 

I don't normally like these kinds of happy endings for movies but this is one movie where the happy ending is truly earned because of all the turmoil and heart ache I've seen George go through and I've also seen the what Bedford Falls would have been like if he had never been born. This is a good movie to show anyone that true story telling involves showing and not telling the viewer what is happening and letting them figure out what is going on.  But this is also the perfect movie that blends showing with actually having a story to tell, too many movies get arty and just show things and images without having any sort of story to tell or actual characters to connect with the audience. 

I can see why this movie wasn't received as well it first came out because it doesn't treat the audience as stupid and requires the audience to think as they watch.  And it does take multiple viewings for the beauty of what the director and writer have done with the story to fully sink in; there is just too much to take in on one viewing. This is truly a movie that will stand (and I guess has stood) the test of time and only gets better with age because there are things I noticed this time around that having kids, being a parent, being married, and dealing with family that I never would have gotten years ago when I watched it when I was young but now that I'm older it really connected with me in a way it never did before.

American Me

American Me directed by Edward James Olmos, starring Edward James Olmos and William Forsythe.

This is by no means a perfect movie but I still found it very entertaining as it explored a culture I don't know much about, namely the Mexican gang culture.  One of the best strengths of this movie is that it focuses on the main character,  Montoya Santana, and makes as much of a character as they can out of him, considering he spent his whole life in prison.  The movie really reaches it's best moments when Santana is released from prison and we get to see how his prison life matches up with the real life outside of those cement walls.  A lot of things are explored here in some fascinating ways.  There are also a lot of moments that pay homage to The Godfather, which in my books is never a bad thing, and I say pay homage because, unlike Tarantino who continually steals visuals - and then get credit for them - this movie doesn't steal but pays full homage to what has come before.

It's really fascinating watching Santana readjust to life outside of prison, considering he spent the good majority of his life behind those walls.  Olmos spends a lot time letting scenes actually play out between Santana's character and other characters in the movie.  This is a wise and experienced move as he doesn't get bogged down with the violence of the culture behind explored, inside he let's the actors actually act as they help to flesh out how Santana becomes changed from living in the inside compared to living in the outside.  Younger directors would become too fascinated with the violence and the gang culture around them to worry about the actually characters in the movie.  Even saying this, I still felt there needed to be more exploring of Santana's character.  An extra half hour I think would have really helped to show transformation that morphs him from the hard prison gang leader into the man who ultimately rejects everything that made up his life.  I don't normally want more time in movies but this is one time I think it would have hugely benefited the story.

The Dead

The Dead by Mark Rogers. 

First off yes this is a Christian themed book with zombies in it.  I know, I was amazed with the blending of two genres as I read the book and they blend seamlessly together. 

Mark Rogers is a devote Catholic so there is a lot more spirituality and discussions on faith than you're going to find in other books along with enough swearing to give this book a firm grounding in reality. One of good thing Rogers is very good at is presenting both sides of an argument, so when two people are debating or arguing you never feel one side is truly winning. It might seem that way at first but later on you're going to get the other sides version of things to balance everything out. 

Another thing Rogers does is write really well. I wouldn't say he's a great writer but man can he tell a story. His writing is on par with Stephen King, only Rogers editing of useless material is much better. King over writes to many of his books now by a hundred pages or so.  There is none of that in Rogers books. His characters are true blue collar workers or at least feel that way, which helps to give them a firm a grounding in reality and easy to relate to. The pacing moves along with a decent speed but nothing too fast and violence is well very violent as one would expect from a zombie themed story. It was a good read and doesn't take too long to finish if you're in the mood for a little light, fun reading, this is the book for you.

A Good Day to Die Hard

A Good Day to Die Hard directed by John Moore, starring Bruce Willis and Jai Courtney.

So this is how I think this movie came about.  Somewhere in Hollywood there was a script lying around about a father who goes to Russia to see his son who got locked up for killing a  person and then the high jink action that ensues from everything.  Then everything that happens after just boils down into the standard action movie from here on out.  Anyway there was this producer who didn't really think much of this script but he got this bright idea that if they change the name of the main character to John McClane they would have another Die Hard movie on their hands.  With those words, Die Hard floating around in head, he went and pitched the idea to other producers around him, to lots of praise and adulation, I can only imagine.  I'm guessing this event only sparked the other producers to rush and find old action scripts lying around to see if they could do the same thing.  Never has the phrase Die Hard on a plane, Die Hard on a boat, Die Hard in a city, Die Hard in a rest home become more literal than this...Die Hard in Russia. 

This movie has no connection with the original Die Hard movie nor any even any connections with the original trilogy of Die Hard movies nor do I think it even cares.  The fourth Die Hard movie is excluded because I think the same thing happened with that screenplay that happened with this one.

The action that takes place here is so over-the-top and insane that I just found myself laughing at the total hilarity of it all as it pays more homage to Tom and Jerry and the Road Runner and Wiley Coyote cartoons than the Die Hard movies. I'm completely serious about that it plays out like an action porn movie than.  Let's see a little bit of story line and acting scene before we suddenly break out into some action that seems purposely put there just because they needed an action scene.  Much like porn movies have sex scenes randomly inserted into their "movies" of plot lines and dialogue.  They serve no purpose to storyline or character but to full fill some inner desire of self gratification.

This movie is so bad it becomes an unintentional comedy.  I also love it when the bad guys are so crazy about killing people, or anything, that they just randomly shoot anyone who gets in their way.  But when they have McClane and his son with their hands tied behind their backs suddenly they decide not just pull out a gun and shoot them.  Instead they do what?  Talk and act completely the opposite of how they were acting just moments before.  It makes absolutely no sense.  Somehow I found myself wondering back to the first Die Hard movie and thinking there is no way Hans Gruber would just sit around talking to McClane if he had a chance to kill him.  And do you know why?  Because Hans Gruber was a killer.  These guys in this movies are just two bit punks and nothing more.

A good friend of mine told me something about action movies: the hero is always defined by his villain.  Which means a hero needs a good villain.  I was thinking this over.  Die Hard: McClane had Hans Gruber.  Robocop: Robocop had Dick Jones and Clarence Boddicker.  Total Recall (the original violent 1990 version not the watered down remake): Quaid had Richter, Helm, and Vilos Cohaagen.  Predator: Dutch had the silent but extremely deadly Predator whose presence was imposing.  Aliens: Ellen Ripley had the silent but deadly aliens and Carter Burke.  This movie has no memorable villains at all and is merely worth seeing just so you can see how badly and desperate the Die Hard series has ended up.  This movie is merely a passing shadow of its former glory.

Stoker

Stoker directed by Chan-wook Park, starring Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode, and Dermot Mulroney.

I've been trying to think all day about what to talk about this movie.

Visual, I think that's the best place to start.  This is visually one of the best films I've seen in a long time.  And by visually I don't mean burdened down with special effects shots, on the contrary it was the director who made this movie a visual feast for the eyes, as he proved time and time again that a director doesn't need special effects to give a movie a memorizing and stunningly visual flare.  His camera movement, camera placement, and his ability to set up scenes, all contributed to how this movie came together for a visual buffet.  It is, visually, one of the best films I've seen in a long time.  And for a director, who actually directed a movie and let his visual style weave throughout they story and strengthen everything in the story without getting in the way of the story line.

What an intriguing story line.  I won't go into the details of the story line but will just say, it's a very interesting story with some genuinely interesting characters.  Everything about the storyline and characters is explored in a natural, organic way where it all flows and is paced at pitch perfect speed without a speed bump or slow down sign available.  I was enchanted from the "prologue" type of opening until the end of the movie where it tied back into the prologue.

I'm not normally a Nicole Kidman fan but she did a good job of portraying a wife who lost her husband and who was doing her best to stay focused on life.  But the real stars of this movie - besides the outstanding visual flare brought from the director - are Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode.  Who infuse every scene they're in with such a fire and charisma not found too often in movies.  When they are on scene the camera is fully glued to them, waiting and wanting them to act before it's lens, and that is no joke.  They bring that much energy and passion to the story and characters as they weave into director Chan-wook Park's visual style with ease and precision. 

This movie is basically a big screen adaptation of the TV show Dexter.  And I won't go into any more detail than that, but I will say it is about serial killers and told in an extraordinarily different way.  And I will end this review by saying go out and watch this movie.  It needs to be seen.

Ice Age Continental Drift

Ice Age Continental Drift. 

Originally posted around Christmas time of 2012.

Family night in the Williams sick household last night. The kids waited since Christmas day to watch this movie last night, and the patience was rewarded. 

I've got to admit I've got a soft spot for these series of films and I would have never thought these series of films would have spawned from the first Ice Age. I like seeing this story line progress with each new movie and how each film never repeats itself in the story line department but keeps the main theme of family at the forefront of the movie.  Everything about this series emphasizes and actually supports the family structure, when everything in our country seems to be wanting to destroy that family structure.   That is one of the best things I like about series, is it's continued focus on the theme of family.

This movie wasn't as good as the last one but then again Simon Pegg's character Buck stole that movie and was one of the best comedic performances I've seen in a long time, but this movie does have some very funny bits that had my son laughing out loud. It was just refreshing to see this family structure develop in completely different ways than in the movies before. Watching Dennis Leary's character Diego discuss his reasons for leaving the pack and staying with the herd was fun to watch as he continued to have this same mentality with Manny and Sid never once breaking his character.  Unlike how McQueen completely broke character in Cars 2 towards his treatment of Mater which made no sense what so ever when it was happening, and that was from a Pixar movie, where they normally are in complete control of the story line department. This doesn't doesn't happen to Diego in here and in fact only happens to Peaches who is young and still learning about relationships unlike her adult parents. This sticking to a characters true character was fun to watch because the opposite happens so frequently in movies and is so annoying when it does. It saddens me when many cartoons now-a-days have better story lines, better character development, and, a lot of time, better direction than many live action movies. I know I've harped on this before but it's true and is a sad fact of the state of movie today.

Blue Valentine

Blue Valentine directed by Derek Cianfrance, staring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. 

This is a movie that wears it's independent film making with pride and shouts it loudly from the roof tops, but honestly it's one of the few independent movies I've seen where that style of independent film making helps this movie and in no way hinders it. But that doesn't make this movie any easier to watch. Don't go watching this movie and expect a happy, uplifting ending - this movie doesn't have one. I won't say the ending is as brutal as the end of Chinatown or Seven.  It's not, Blue Valentine's ending is realistic and faithful to it's story line, but no where near as brutal as some other movies ending have been. 

This is a movie about the falling in love and eventual falling out of love of a couple and the camera adds such an intimacy to the movie that it's brutal and hard to watch them fall out of love.  But at the same time it's enjoyable and beautiful to watch them fall in love.  The contrast is quite staggering. The style of film making makes this movie seem more like a documentary (and I'm not kidding about that either) which adds such an intimacy to the movie that at times you feel like you're intruding into their lives. But Gosling and Williams play these scenes with such honesty that they completely sell that documentary feel. 

Most of their conversations in this movie don't feel scripted but seem so organic that's it uncomfortable to watch but yet I had to keep watching, much like a person who comes across an accident: the curiosity compelled me to see what happens. I haven't seen any movie that has captured the true art of conversation in all of its awkwardness, confusion, stalling, and fumbling to find the right words as this movie has. I also like the fact there was no easy answers in this film, much like life easy answers are hard to find. This movie understands that, which is why the ending was so right for the story and the characters in the movie, but still hard to watch when it finally came. 

I will say that watching them fall in love was a very enjoyable experience as the director gives the viewer enough psychological insight into Williams character that I understood where she was coming from as she fell in love and out of love with Gosling's character. When she totally fell for him I understood why and was happy for her that she had found love even though I knew through the flashback scenes what this love was going to cost her and him. I was happy for her that she had found someone so opposite of her father.  Because her father issues were the real problem in her life.  Where as Gosling's problems just all stemmed from his own lack of doing anything or being someone and his ability to just settle instead of striving for something, which was what Williams' character had been doing her whole life. 

Finally, it's a good movie to watch but at the same time it's hard to watch.  Because most of the scenes, like I said before, have a documentary feel to them, which gives this movie such an intimate feel that you will feel like your spying into this couple's life as you continue to watch their relationship unfold before you. And saying that, the director has to be given some extreme credit for crafting this movie like he did. One of the best independent movies I've seen in a long time and worth all of the praise I've read about it.

Beautiful Creatures

Beautiful Creatures directed by Richard LaGravenese, starring Alan Ehrenreich, Alice Englert, Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, and Emmy Rossum.

Well the first thing I should say about this movie was that my expectations for it were set really low.  For one thing, it was sold as a teenage romance movie with a supernatural twist, which immediately brings up all kinds of groans and warning signs from me.  This movie seemed like it was destined to ride the waves the gluttonous teenage, supernatural stories being force fed on the population.  Thus the reason for my very low expectations of this movie.  Maybe it was because my expectations were set so low, I don't really know, but I think that did play a part in my actually enjoying this movie, despite all the ammunition clearly stacked against it.

I will write about the one blaring bad thing about this movie before I start talking about what I liked about this film.  The two main characters of this movie are miscast age wise and it does, initially, hurt the story line.  These teenagers are supposed to be in the middle of their high school years and their age doesn't do them any favors in supporting this, at all.  I don't care if they were this age in the book, the film makers should have just made them seniors in the movie and think it would have worked better, instead of being the blaring distraction their age turns out to be.  I mean they just don't act or look like their age is supposed to be, if they had been seniors in high school, everything would have worked better.  I just don't know how the movies creators didn't understand this?

What does work with this movie?

There's a lot of things that work with this movie to make it much better than the deluge of teenage, romantic, supernatural movies that have plagued the population since Hollywood found out they could milk this genre for all it's worth.  The setting isn't your typical setting for a teenage movie.  Having it set way down south in the American bayou is a thing of daring beauty, as the setting becomes not just another back drop for a movie, but becomes an actual character in the movie and not just a gimmick setting as these types of settings normally become.  The setting goes into forming the culture where the movie is set, as well as playing a crucial role in shaping the main character.  The Southern droll of his voice adds so much to him as a person and plays around with our own expectation of him.  At first his Southern accent immediately presents him as some dumb hick, kid but as the movie progresses we get to see him as much more than own preconceived expectations.  That is a good thing because he is more than your standard teenager with raging hormones.  He loves books.  And this isn't just some gimmick writer thing, where the writer gets to showcase his own intelligence with various dabbles into book commentaries that normally go no further than a scene or two.  No, books helped to form his life.  He talks about them, references them a lot, as any good book lover would, because they are an interracial part of who he is.  They helped to form his life, his personality, and change him and make him the person he becomes.  The movie uses them in that way throughout the movie.

This is one of the things I really liked about this movie.  The two main characters acted like real people.  Their conversations were believable as we see them really fall for each other, unlike the totally unbelievable love scenes Lucas presented in Attack of the Clones that were forced, unbelievable, and more awkward than anything else.  I liked how people in this movie seemed to act like normal, real people would act when presented with logical situations or the truth.  They didn't hide a blind eye when things were revealed to them, instead they reacted to situations in an honest way that didn't reek of dramatic pretensions that make no sense.  That's one thing that really separates this movie from the other teen movies it will thrown together with: characters.  Characters are the focal point of this movie with the supernatural taking a second place and it's all the better for it.  The supernatural is there.  It's some crazy supernatural powered scenes that are wild, energetic, and effects heavy but they never feel like set pieces set upon set pieces.  The characters are always at the forefront of every scene, so the supernatural aspects of this movie always take a back seat to what is going on in the movie.  Now-a-days it's really hard to find movies like this where characters and story are pushed to the front of the movie over the special effects and over the top set pieces that seem to dominate every movie.

This movie even had a faithful ending that wasn't filled with mushy, gushy, love infested teenage hormones but instead was extremely believable and honestly had me wanting more.  I would look forward to a sequel if it was as fresh and good as this movie.   

Evil Dead (2013)

Evil Dead directed by Fade Alvarez, starring a cast of characters that will soon be meeting their fate as the movie moves along, Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, and Elizabeth Blackmore.

This is one of the most pointless remakes I've seen in a long and every single frame of this movie made me long for the awesome low budgetness of the original.  I think the first five or ten minutes of this movie had the combined budget of the original Evil Dead 1 and 2.  But no  matter much slicker, glossier, or even better acted this movie is, it doesn't in anyway hide the fact that the one that came before was that much better.  Which just goes to show that no amount of money can hide misplaced passion and the pursuit of more money at any cost.  This movie also proves once again that creativity is in very short supply in Hollywood and this movie cements the fact that this creative wasteland isn't going away anytime soon.

Where the original Evil Dead had the passion of the film making process clearly on display in every frame and every minute of the film.  This film's one and only passion is to cash in on the horror genre and to get as gory as it can get away with.  Make no mistake, this is one gory, violent, and bloody movie when the possession hits the fan.  It gets so violent, bloody, and gory that I started laughing as they tried to keep out doing themselves with the gore, violence, and blood with each set piece that followed each other.  Funny thing, they actually tried to create a story line and characters to base these scenes of violence around and get the audience to actual care for what was going to happen.  They didn't succeed at all, at this, but I will give them an "A" for effort but that's the only "A" I'm going to give this movie.

The only other positive thing to say about this movie is that it's not too long.  It's just the right amount of time to be dissatisfied with seeing a remake that is nowhere near as perfect as the original but not long enough to feel like you wasted time.  Even the gory, bloody set pieces aren't all that bad if you're into special effects and make-up they are worth seeing the movie for.  I am so I didn't have that bad a time watching this movie.  I just wish they come up with their own original story line instead of hanging this film on the bones of Sam Raimi's way better film.  There's just some low budget films that are priceless in their low budget and no amount of money will ever change that.  If fact remaking them only shows how much more superior they are despite the limitations placed on them.  But don't get me wrong a lot of money in the right hands can an extremely watchable movie, just not this time around. 

Hugo

Hugo directed by Martin Scorsese. 

If you haven't see this movie go out and watch it with your kids, it's that good. This is one of the best kids movies I've seen in a long time. I watched Hugo over the summer by myself just to see how much of a kids movie it was and then today I watched it with my kids: my girl liked it better than my son but my son still watched it, just not as intently as my girl did for some reason. 

As far as directing goes this is one of Scorsese's best directed movies in a long time.  I would put it in his top 5 of movies directed, and it's a kids movie at that.  Who would have thought the tough guy, foul mouthed, gangster, with blood through his veins could direct a kids movie like this?  Not me that's for sure.  I think that's one of the reasons this movie took me by surprise as much as it did.  

The visuals alone are worth watching and it will be the visuals that will have your kids sitting watching intently to what is going on for minutes on end. We've been watching movies together for a long time but I've never seen them as focused watching a movie without dialog and solely relying on the visuals to tell the story.  As a movie buff and fan it was joy to watch them become fully engaged with the visual storytelling of the movie. It was also a pleasure to see that Martin Scorsese hasn't lost his directorial touch, though I never thought he did but he's just chosen some terrible screenplays to work with. 

This time I watched the movie to see what I missed the first time I saw it. I didn't realize the opening scene lasted 12 minutes before the title of the movie flashed across the screen and in that 12 minutes the entire story line and characters are set up in some very beautiful continuous shots that not only set up characters and storyline but also immerse the viewer into the world of Hugo. I just loved the over all all theme of the movie: machines, gears, mechanics, broken machines and mechanics fixing those machines. 

This movie has at the basis of it a very blue collar mentality, you know getting in there and getting your hands dirty. One of the lines of dialog I remember sets up the theme perfectly, "If you have no purpose, you are broken." There are so many broken things in this movie: Hugo (with the death of his dad), Georges Melies and his wife (the death of his dream and the inner death of her husband), the automaton that is truly broken, and the station agent (the death of trust and intimacy because of the war). Then the reliance to machines is an interesting aspect of these people lives also: George Melies (the film projector and mechanical toys), Hugo (the automaton and clocks) and the station agent (his mechanical leg). Hugo connects them all together and tries to find his purpose in life after the death of his father and how all of these stories interweave is a joy to watch. 

I also like how the story weaves in a historical lesson on how movies started, which depending on how you look at it is also just one big machine but ultimately the machines in this movie that need fixed are the humans living their lives.  Some realizing their broken and other unaware of their brokenness. I know most kids won't pick up on these heavy themes, I think there put there more for the adults, but the kids will sympathize with a kid - Hugo - who lost his father and finds a friend in another kid - Isabelle- and the relationship that blossoms between is a delight to watch unfold before my eyes.

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises directed Christopher Nolan staring Christian Bale, Michale Caine, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, and Marion Cotillard.  Once again this cast list reads like it's going to be a serious type of dramatic movie not a superhero movie.  It's amazing to me the people Nolan can get to star in his movies. 

I watched this last weekend but seeing as how it's Christmas I've been too busy to write about it, until now. I finished up watching this trilogy in three days and I've got to say it's the best trilogy that's ever been done hands down. I will put the Toy Story movies in second place but what Nolan has done with the Batman story is simply amazing and blows my mind when I think about it. 

Each movie is it's own entity, with it's own story line, not rehashing things from the other movies, but telling a completely different story.  They also expand the mythology established in the previous movies not just simply settling for what had been established. I think one of the joys of watching these movies has been seeing Nolan grow as a director because with each movie since Batman Begins his command of story telling, pacing, camera movement, camera placement, and editing has grown.  But I think the one stable foundation in his talents has been his consistent eye for casting and finding the right person for the right part. Again in this movie every person is perfectly cast down to the first guy we see as the movie opens.  The man leading the professor onto the airplane, who just has that one part but I wouldn't have cast anyone else in that scene and Bane's silent, second in command who doesn't say much but his appearance and facial expressions made him a person perfectly cast. I've noticed in all Nolan's movies since his first movie The Following, casting has been his one stable foundation that has followed him through his movie career and I would say he's the best at it in Hollywood by far.

I like how this movie deals with the consequences of the second movie namely Rachel and Harvey Dent's death. Rachel's death has deeply affected Bruce Wayne and Dent's death has truly changed Gotham in a way no one would have known.  So much so that Bruce Wayne has pretty much retired as Batman. And that is where the movie begins with a retired Bruce Wayne dealing with the after effects and emotions of Rachel and Harvey's death. What a way to begin a movie dealing with the after effects of the first one! 

Well at least starting it off on familiar grounds because the opening part of the movie is one the greatest action sets pieces I've ever seen done on film in a long time.  And was simply amazing to see in the theaters. This is another thing I like about Nolan, he doesn't get caught up in the fades of Hollywood namely 3D which is just a gimmick nothing more. I will tell you I saw Avatar in 3D and Transformers 3 in 3D at the IMAX, which were cool and a good movie experience but lost a lot of the wonder when I watched them at home because they were gimmick movies. But when I saw that opening scene of The Dark Knight Rises in glorious 70mm IMAX I was blown away like I'd never been before even the effect of it translates well to the smaller screen. It also says something if the director actually has a descent story to tell and doesn't solely rely on set pieces but instead, you know, relies on acting, story lines, dialogue, and pacing.  It helps to make the movie experience better when you actually care about the characters and know them. I hope Nolan stays away from 3D because from what I've seen from him his connection with IMAX blows away all 3D movies I've seen.  And this movie was one of the best movie experiences I've had in the theater, right next seeing Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut in the theaters. 

There's just something about seeing a good director at work in a theater that no amount of gimmicks, flashy special effects or glittering technology can compare with. That and also seeing Anne Hathaway in a black, sexy suite as Catwoman - whose never actually named Catwoman in the movie - but I found she was as sexy when just wearing the simple, plain clothes in this film, which just goes to show that a woman doesn't have to wear revealing outfits to be sexy...hint...hint, that terrible acting job by that girl in Transformers 3 whose every scene seemed destined to enhance her sexiness but instead did nothing for her character.  Where as Hathaway was given a character and made her appealing and sexy without the use of revealing clothing, but I've got to hand it to the wardrobe department they did a good job dressing her. 

I also like how Nolan boldly cast new characters in this movie and gave them something do and made them interesting.  Hathaway being one example and Joseph Gordon-Levitt being the other who was given a good part and made his character very interesting as the movie went along. These are two examples of building on the mythology created in the first two films but not copying the previous films. Lucas could learn a thing or two from this as New Hope, Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace all have the same type of ending: a ship going to blow up a larger ship but the sequels also fail in the one aspect of adding new characters but not making them interesting, therefore I don't care about the characters despite all the flashy effects surrounding them. Nolan understands you must care about the characters to be truly involved in the film, which is why I've liked every Nolan film I've seen since I first saw Memento on DVD with Jess and his crime thriller Insomnia with my brother in the theater: characters dominate his movies.  Characters I care about.  Characters I'm interested in seeing how their story plays out. Because of that I'm eagerly looking forward to his next movie.

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight directed by Christopher Nolan staring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, again just from the cast list alone this doesn't seem like a comic book superhero movie. 

How do you do a sequel to a good movie? 

There have only been a handful of movies that have improved or expanded on the original movie and in some cases were even better than the first one: Godfather 2, Toy Story 2, Aliens, and Empire Strikes Back (feel free to throw in some more).  Because other than these movies, sequels suck despite the fact that as a nerd I keep hoping when a sequel happens that it will be good. I know I'm stating the obvious now since The Dark Knight was released in 2008, but I'll say it again: this is one of the best sequels of all time. Nolan does everything a sequel is supposed to do with this movie: he improves upon the story, expands the mythology and doesn't for one second repeat any part of the previous movie. 

I also have to admit that I was very apprehensive when Nolan cast Heath Ledger as the Joker.  I just didn't think Ledger had it in him to be the kind of Joker that would fit into the world Nolan had created. But once again Nolan proves he knows his story and the world he created. Heath Ledger was an inspired piece of casting as he inhabited the role of the Joker with such a conviction and abandon that I just sat in amazement when I saw him on screen. He is the personification of evil for the sake of being evil, chaos for the sake of chaos - do those few lines of description sound familiar? Nolan thought so as the Joker clearly mimics the terrorists who inhabit our world today. 

One thing Nolan firmly established in Batman Begins was that he wanted to explore the Batman in as realistic a way as possible and how a world would respond to him as realistically as possible. I don't know if Nolan has read The Watchmen or not but irregardless he takes those same questions of superheroes and realism - as brought up by Allan Moore and Gibbons - and explores them in every possible way he can with the answers clearly aimed at making us think about our own world. 

All of this from a comic book movie. 

One of the first things I noticed about The Dark Knight was how improved Nolan's direction had become since Batman Begins. There is such a fluidity and seamlessness to his direction this time around. Every shot, scene, and edit has an assured flow to it, not that Batman Begins didn't have it but The Dark Knight just seems to overflow with it even more than Batman Begins. I really think the use of the IMax cameras helped Nolan to control things more, because those IMax shots are truly a thing of beauty and really enhance the action and story to a degree I would've never thought possible. 

Another thing I like was how Nolan pushed Batman/Bruce Wayne to the limits - or at least we thought they were the limits here, until The Dark Knight Rises which I'll talk about in another post.  Here those limits are pushed by having Rachel killed, played really well by Maggie Gyllenhaal, I wish she had been in the first movie. The effect of her death is clearly seen in Bruce Wayne as he sees the price he's going to have to pay to be Batman and to fight the Joker. 

Casting is one of the big things with Nolan, I've said it before and I'll say it again, he's the master of finding the right person for the right part. Aarron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was amazing casting as he was fully able to hold his own with Oldman, Bale, Ledger, Caine and Gyllenhaal. Even the role played by the bank executive at the beginning, the guy in the passenger seat in the SWAT van carrying Dent, the small accountant who tries to blackmail Wayne, the TV talk show reporter, even the Ballerina Bruce Wayne brings to the dinner with Dent and Rachel, and the guy who plays the Mayor: all of these people helped a lot in making this movie feel real and more than the sum of its parts. There's not many movies around where little bits parts like these are cast right but Nolan seems to understand the importance of every part as it pertains to the story line and he seems to have actors lining up play in his movies as his films after this one has shown. 

Another thing I noticed and even Nolan mentioned this, this movie owes a great debt to the Michael Mann movie Heat from the frame work of the story - cat a mouse of the cop and robber - and the visual pallet of the movie: chromes, blues, darkness, and shadows making it a visually different experience from Batman Begins. I could talk about this movie for much longer but right now all I have to say is bring on The Dark Knight Rises.

Batman Begins

Batman Begins directed by Christopher Nolan staring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Rutger Hauer, Tom Wilkinson, Katie Holmes, and Ken Watanabe.  What a cast.  It doesn't even seem like a comic book/superhero movie. 

To celebrate the release of The Dark Knight Rises on Blue-ray I started watching the trilogy from the beginning a couple of days ago. I would say Christopher Nolan, as of right now, is the best director in Hollywood.  Even from watching Batman Begins I can see the genesis of his talent starting to grow. 

One of the best things Nolan does with this "reboot" of the Batman franchise is to establish Batman as a flesh and blood character basically ignoring the superhero part of him for the first hour of the movie. I mean Batman doesn't even show up fully in costume until over an hour into the movie, doing that takes great faith in the storyline and a huge set of balls. What a great hour it is of establishing Bruce Wayne as a character. 

Who would have thought the origin of Bruce Wayne transforming into Batman would have been this interesting? Even though it's basically not really more than an extended training sequence still Nolan uses this as a means to explore the origin of Wayne's character: what drives him, what he fears, how he learned how to fight. Through all of this we come to know the person of Wayne like we've never known him before. Being a true comic nerd who has read many Batman stories this was a thing of beauty to behold as I got to know Bruce Wayne minus the Batman cowl for the first time in my life. 

I also like how Nolan establishes Bruce's dad as not just an image in Bruce's life but infuses Bruce's dad with enough character and life that the audience has a really good sense of him as a person. This is established not just in scenes with young Bruce and his dad but also with other characters and how they talk about him. By doing all of this Nolan gives the audience a solid foundation for who Bruce's father is.  So we feel the effects of his death and fully understand why Bruce leaves his wealth and Gotham behind to try and figure out what kind of person he is without his father to guide him. We also get to see how his father death's affects Gotham.  When he's alive visually Gotham city is bright and clean.  The dialogue supports this as his dad is striving and trying to make Gotham a better city with his wealth and when he dies visually Gotham goes dark, dirty and the criminals come out to play. Then Nolan goes Godfather on the audience, by this I mean that when Brando's Corleone dies his presence is still felt throughout the movie(s) the same effect happens here with Bruce's dad.  Even though he physically dies, his presence is still felt in every frame as Bruce struggles to come to terms with who he is and who he has become because of his father's death. I also have to give credit to the actor who played his dad, Linus Roache, who does a magnificent job of acting with the small amount of screen time given to him. 

This choice of casting Roache as Mr. Wayne brings up another aspect of Nolan's film making: casting. He is the best casting director I've ever seen and always seems to choose the right person for the right part no matter how small the part. He has done this time and time again in every movie I've seen from him and even down to such parts as a person just standing there. I see these actors there and I think to myself I wouldn't have gotten anyone else to play that part. I also like how Nolan has faith in character actors versus the big bright money sucking stars.  I've always thought character actors were much better at acting than the major Hollywood stars.  They bring a real workman type approach to a part versus the bright lights, starry eyes of huge movies stars. Batman Begins proves this statement absolutely true. Gary Oldman totally immerses himself into the role of Gordon.  I mean he even looks like Gordon from the comic book. Morgan Freeman is amazing as Lucius Fox more or less the Q for Bruce Wayne. Michael Caine is truly amazing as Alfred. I think the one thing Nolan has done by using these character actors is that every scene has an authenticity to the acting that wouldn't have been there if "these" actors hadn't been the ones acting. It's truly a pleasure to watch them on screen acting. 

Another thing Nolan is great at is pacing. There is never a wasted scene in the movie, even if the scene is of a skyline of a city, I never feel that scene is wasted.  Because he's using those skyline scenes to establish the city as big and real, something the previous Batman movies didn't do as the city felt more like a set or a caricature of a city. Nolan's Gotham feels real and becomes a character in the movie. I remember looking at the time as this movie was playing. There was over an hour left and I was like wow that's a lot time but then when I looked up later there was like 15 minutes left in the movie and I was like wow the time just flew by. 

The last thing I want to talk about is how Nolan turned multimillionaire Bruce Wayne into a blue collar, journeyman superhero and make me believe him to be this blue collar grinding hero despite the fact he has enough money to just buy a hotel after walking into it. Nolan uses some visual scenes to show this: Bruce Wayne grinding out his Batman darts on the grinder; Bruce Wayne spray painting his Batman uniform black; Bruce Wayne first starting out using a black ski mask as a cowl; visually seeing the large, purple bruises/cuts on his body shows the pain and torment is body is going through.  Even his Batmobile is not a finesse sports car but is one large grinding vehicle called the Tumbler - even the name has its roots in blue collar mentality. 

Truly not just one of the best superhero movies made but one of the best movies made.

Presumed Innocent

Presumed Innocent directed Alan J. Pakula starring Harrison Ford, Brian Dennehy, Raul Julia, Paul Winfield, Bonnie Bedelia, and Greta Scacchi. 

What a cast list.  Most of them are character actors, but some of the best character actors there are.  Then you have Pakula directing them. How can this movie go wrong? It can't when you toss in a solid screenplay that I believe John Grisham has been trying to write for the last 20 years or so.

I don't know what I was fully expecting from this movie but I had a great time watching it and watching these solid actors chew on the dialogue given to them. There were so many scenes in this movie where the acting - backed up by a director who let his actors act without editing the scenes to death - was just so great I was glad to be watching this movie. 

I've got to admit there are a few genres I really like, sci-fi being the top of my list and a really good "who done it?" being a close second - this could stem from a deep childhood affection that has continued to grow over the years for Sherlock Holmes from reading the stories, watching the movies and TV shows. This movie is a solid "who done it?" that leaves no loose ends dangling when the movie ends and frankly the story was built so well it kept doing about faces as it progressed and heading in a completely different directions than I thought it was originally going, normally most movies don't do that to me. 

Some of the best scenes in this movie involve the family and the domestic life and how it's affected by the murder trial, these scenes of family life I felt really gave Ford's character some emotion and depth and pulled covers back on what a bastard he could be that's a brave screenplay to do that to the main character. Most of the emotion in this movie didn't feel forced but I felt it was clearly drawn from the screenplay, scenes, situations and characters so much so that it wasn't a normal cliched Hollywood screen play or charactrers, something every John Grisham books suffers from. 

And a lot of the courtroom scenes didn't seem like they were drowned in the courtroom cliches of surprise witnesses or surprise evidence. There were plenty of scenes where Ford had to check his ego and just stand there silent while the other actors acted around him, but it was believable when this happened because if his character had talked he risked damning himself, so silence was his only option.

Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton written and directed by Tony Gilroy, staring George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Sydney Pollack, and Tilda Swinton.

I'd heard about how good this movie was and how good Mr. Clooney was in it so I figured I'd give it a go.  I mean why not it's free from the library - one of the best places in all the world, where I can full fill many of my indulgences: books, movies, musics and comic books and they're all free. 

First off George Clooney doesn't do anything remarkable in this movie that he hasn't done in previous films. He basically plays Danny Ocean if Danny Ocean had become a lawyer, which isn't a bad thing because I liked his Danny Ocean character, but would the media people would please stop butt kissing him like he tried something new to challenge himself with his movie.  Because he didn't.

This is a good typical corporate/lawyer thriller only made bad because of some directional and screenplay choices. Why do movies think they have to have flash backs all the time?  I seriously blame Tarantino for this and even he had no idea how use a fractured narration for the story. This movie does it very early in the film when a car driven by Clooney's character, Michael Clayton, blows up and the words "Four days earlier" pop up on the screen. 

Immediately I groaned. 

Then as the movie started to roll on I'm already trying to figure things out because of the car blowing up - pacing wise this destroys everything that makes a thriller good because I know any "dangerous" situation or threats made to Clayton are devoid of any tension as I know he was still alive when the car exploded. The director even tries to milk the car bomb explosion for tension as the guys trying to kill him keep following him around trying to get the bomb to explode and the music is the typical tension type of inducing music. I kept yelling at the TV because there's no tension there.  Just get to the exploded car because I already know it explodes without Clooney in it.  So, I know he doesn't die, you've already shown this scene before.  

I just wish they had started this movie in chronological order I think it would have been much better because the character Clayton is an interesting character as the movie shows, but they just needed to have faith in their character and story. He's just not giving that chance because that car exploding mixed with the narrative time shift ruined all form of momentum and took me completely out of the narration. Time fractured movies that worked well: Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Out of Sight (I say this now but I haven't seen this movie in a long time, I remember it working at the time but I should probably watch it again), and The Usual Suspects. These are just a few I can think of but for the most part as I'm thinking about it straight up normal narration works the best. I just don't understand how people don't know this.

In Her Shoes

In Her Shoes directed by Curtis Martin staring Shirley MacLaine, Toni Collette and Cameron Diaz. 

This is a movie about two sisters who discover they have a grandmother they didn't know they had and the relationships that build, get destroyed and get rebuilt again. There needs to be more movies out there like this with strong female characters and good story lines that treat them like people and not some over sexed, hyper glamorized, bean pole that Hollywood keeps saying is how women are. 

This movie was great, a lot better than I thought it was going to be and everything that goes into making a good movie was here in spades: direction, casting, acting, screenplay, set design (yes set design) and wardrobe (yes wardrobe). 

 First off, yes this is a typical drama with hardly any surprises in the screenplay but the screenplay plays to the strengths of the characters letting their actions and choices determine where the storyline is going, where as most Hollywood movies seem to want over-the-top occurrences (that border on the implausible) to determine where the story line goes. Here the characters are allowed to be characters and the movie is all the better for it. 

I'm not a huge Cameron Diaz fan but this is probably one of her best acted movies that gives her more range than I've seen from her in a long time. I just wonder if she has somewhere in her contract that she has to appear in at least one seen in bra and panties and another scene showing off her legs? This is just something I wonder-not that I was complaining mind you. Toni Collette has always been a solid actress- I've liked her in everything I've seen her in - and she gives another solid performance here that proves what a good actress she is as she more than holds her own with the great Shirley MacLaine. Shirley MacLaine is well Shirley MacLaine of the best actresses of her generation and even the new generation that has risen up.  She was one of the reasons I wanted to see this movie and did not disappoint at all . There is one scene near the end of the film that has MacLaine, Collette, and Diaz in it where some revelations are discovered.  It is easily one of the best scenes in the movie and one of the best scenes in movies I've seen in a long time: well written and acted with the characters personality really driving home the scene with certain parts that didn't require dialogue but just had the actresses facial features doing all the acting.

Hanson - being a very good director - let his actresses act and didn't ruin this scene with over editing and chose some good camera angles to enhance the acting and the writing. The set design also helped to make this movie better than I thought.  Hanson is really good at this see - The Right Stuff, The Unbearable Lightness of Being and LA Confidential for proof.  The Philadelphia scenes were colored in chrome, blues, shadows, and dark colors while the architecture was very confined with sharp angles.  The Miami scenes, by contrast, were colored with bright colors, lots of green grass, pastels, summer and warm colors while the architecture was more curved and open, no where near as confining as the Philadelphia scenes. The wardrobe department did a great job letting the clothes the sisters and their grandmother wore really help to enhance the characteristics of these characters. All in all a good movie and well the time of watching.

Black Rain

Black Rain directed by Ridley Scott staring Michael Douglas. 

This movie should have been tag lined, "One man against a Billion." I found this movie on Netflix and decided to watch it solely on the fact it was directed by Ridley Scott and stared Michael Douglas. I've got to admit I think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood with about 90% of his films fading out of my mind after I get done watching them.  The two major exceptions are Alien and Blade Runner but even those movies have lost a lot their muster over the years for me. I think the only thing Scott really has going for him is his visual style which only translates to about 50% of his films, even that number might be generous. 

This is a typical cop solving a case in a foreign land storyline where the American cop has all the know how and gumption to catch the criminal and the local foreign cops are clueless about solving anything. The action scenes in this movie are laughable and devoid of all tension as at least 2 of them involve the use of motorcycles to heighten the tension. It must have been some kind of fade at the time it was made but now it only serves to seriously date this movie.  I mean even John Woo couldn't do much with them in Mission Impossible 2 or Hard Boiled. But I will say this Michael Douglas proves what a good actor he is at about anything he touches and is believable as an action hero, I just wish he a better storyline to work with. And he's a much better action hero than these girly, man-children we have as action heroes today.

Brave

Brave by Pixar. 

Another movie night with the kids and it's definitely a winner by a long shot. My brother and I have said over the years that every story has been already been told countless times, it's in how you tell the story, that's what matters. Pixar has been re-telling countless stories since they started making movies, but it's in the telling of the story that Pixar has hit on all cylinders (except for the atrocious political/environmental/agenda pushing Cars 2, you figured everyone would have learned from Pocahontas that agenda pushing doesn't sell tickets, just tell a story and let the message explain itself).  Thankfully Brave doesn't fall into this pushing an agenda type of storyline, but instead just tells a story and it's all the better for it.

Brave's gorgeous photography, fluent camera movement/placement/angles, great editing, inspired cutting between scenes and the simple elegant story telling is a thing of beauty and a wonder to behold. One thing I've noticed over the years from watching a Pixar movie is that they have a more grounded and better language of film than about 90% of the people directing movies now-a-days. How they manipulate the camera to get their shots, how they edit, how they cut scenes, how they use music, how they use color, and well even how they write stories is so far better than just about every live action movie out there a few directors not with standing (Michael Mann, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan, and James Cameron) that I think Hollywood should hold their head in shame at being upstaged by cartoons. And not just upstaged in a small way, but upstaged in an extremely large way. I also find it interesting that Disney's last two movies to have a female lead also had the hair as a minor character: Tangled and the incredibly long blond hair; Brave and the stringy, wild red hair. 

This is also one of the first cartoons I've seen in a while where the main character has both parents where as most cartoons the main character either has one parent or no parents at all, that alone makes the story line already a different way of telling a story. There was a lot to laugh at in this movie at least for me, Jess kept wondering what I was laughing at the whole time and I had to tell her, I just thought that what was happening was funny, and there was a lot going on that made me laugh. All in all it's a good family movie from Pixar one not just to see but to own as anyone whose a movie buff should own every Pixar film (except Cars 2).

Near Dark

Near Dark directed directed by Kathryn Bigelow starring Bill Paxton, Lance Henriksen, Adrian Pasdar and Jenny Wright. 

This is truly the most different and oddest vampire movie I've seen in a long time. In no way is this a perfect movie.  There's just too much that happens in the movie where I was going, "That makes no sense narrative-wise," and character motivation is non existence at times when it should be.  I also hate those movies where bad ass villains suddenly become non-bad ass villains when the story line deems it necessary.  But the way everything happens throughout the movie and the fact it's not a typical vampire movie makes it an interesting watch. 

These vampires are dirty, grungy and for the most part homeless, which is in stark contrast to the over glossy, always rich, teenage hormonal models of today's vampires. There is one scene set in a bar that is the best scene in the movie.  It's very bloody, very gory and filled with all kinds of tension. Bill Paxton steals every scene he's in and is the best reason to watch this movie. It's also the first movie I've seen that mixes the genre of cowboy and vampires with surprisingly good effects and for that alone it's worth watching.

Have fun with the look of this poster also because this movie is 180 degree different from the typical Twilight look of this poster. I can just imagine the Twilight fans watching this movie and the utter shock that would burst through their system as the movie progresses, that alone fills me with joy.

The Adventures of Tintin

The Adventures of Tintin directed by Steven Spielberg. 

With the name Spielberg attached as director I would have thought this movie to be more adventurous and the action more quick and daring, but alas this movie lacked the magic that made Spielberg's name synonymous with that type of movie. 

This is a good movie and my son Alex really enjoyed watching it (which for me in the long run made it worth it, he responded really well to it) but for me, at least, it was missing that Spielberg magic that I had grown up with. And if there was ever a movie that seemed more apt to showcase the Spielberg magic this movie was it, but for whatever reasons that magic was lost somewhere. 

The animation for Tintin was crisp and sparkling with vivid color and was (for me) surprisingly good considering I don't normally like these kind of animated movies. Even the acting done by the voice cast was good and blended well with what the animators did. I was very impressed. I really liked how Spielberg used his camera moves throughout the movie to make the action, sets and production come alive.  He really added a little something that would have missing without him.  The only thing that was really missing was his special magic that he normally brings to these kinds of movies.  I can't even say what his special magic was that was missing, but you can definitely tell it was missing.  By all accounts it shouldn't have been lost because this is a story that fits in with everything that's made Spielberg's name synonymous with hi-octane action.  The story is one full of adventure, with its roots firmly planted in the past as the adventure grows from there into the present time of the movie.  There's plenty of intrigue that weaves into the story with ease, without any trace of gimmicky or falseness.  But, as I've been saying all along, there's just a large empty hole in the movie at times.  This miss placed part would make the movie better than it is and should have been. 

Untraceable

Untraceable staring Diane Lane. 

A much better movie than I expected to see. 

 It's a typical cops versus robbers story and has the standard cliches that accompany those types of story lines, but what it doesn't have here is the standard cliches that the Hollywood system seem determined to bestow on these types of movies. For that I was thankful. I kept waiting for the "love" angle to show itself sometime in this movie, but the director and writer never let the story line go that way, which was a good thing, because it would have betrayed the main character and took the story in a direction it didn't need to go. Instead they let the "love" angle deepen the main character's past and character. 

It was also refreshing to see a movie that had a strong main character, female role, without it being demeaned by feminist or political ideologies. They just let the female character be herself and be a real person and Diane Lane did a good job of portraying the character's psychology and inner self. Another thing I liked about this movie was that it proved a movie doesn't have to have a huge star to be good and that if a movie can get a bunch of good character actors to be in it the result can make any poor story better and a good story close to great just by the caliber of actors involved. The guy who played the lead cop and Colin Hanks did a great job of selling this movie and making it enjoyable. 

The end result was a good movie if your looking for a good cops and robbers thriller to pass the night. I would also say this movie is a Silence of the Lambs done lite.  It has nowhere near the depth or seriousness of psychological analysis as Lambs, nor is the direction and storyline as tightly focused as Lambs.  But then this movie isn't trying to be that movie.  It's just a good movie to pass the time.

Hotel Transylvana

Hotel Transylvania directed by Genndy Tartakovsky. 

I have no idea how to say this guy's name, but all I know is that everything he touches is laced with quality: Dexter's Laboratory (a simple cartoon of such genius), Samurai Jack (again a simple idea but made so great by shots of the cartoon were of a cinematic effect and the movie like cut scenes that linger long in the mind when each episode is over) and finally Star Wars: Clone Wars (made to bridge the gap between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, this single-handedly renewed my faith in Star Wars, which was something even the mighty Lucas couldn't do, and Genndy also helped to make Jedi's cool, again something Lucas failed to with 2 [count them 2] Star Wars films). 

This movie is no different. I don't know why I didn't have that much faith, but I will admit I got caught up in the negative reviews of this movie of which I'm happy to say are completely wrong.  This is a gem of movie with good family values, some genuine laugh out loud moments, and some very good set and monsters designs that make this movie great from the second it started. Oh, and by the way it's also a good family and kids movie, did I forget to mention the kids will enjoy it? There's a lot of love and care in this movie. It just shows from the second it starts and moment the credits start to roll. There is so much to enjoy here.  Go see this movie with your kids or just go see it for yourself.