Under the Skin

Under the Skin written and directed by Jonathan Glazer, starring Scarlett Johansson and that's pretty much the only "star" in this movie.

This is one pretentious, bore of a movie.  And is basically an art house version of the movie Species.  

It will only be remember in movie history as the one film where Scarlett Johansson is naked for a few scenes in the movie.  Other than that this is a art film will little dialogue, little story line, and hardly any information about anything that is going on.  Whatever is happening in the story much be inferred from the various images, scenes, or sparse dialogue that does take place.  Interpretation is only key to this movie, nothing is concrete and communication is non-existent.  

And let me tell you those scenes can go on for ever with nothing happening.  Someone starring into a mirror for about a minute - check.  Someone driving around for what feels like hours and hours and since we will be arty so lets show the viewer the main character driving around for hours and hours - check, check, check, and check.  Showing  a person dragging a body across a rocky beach for yards and yards and yards - another check, check, check - because for the first few yards I wasn't quite sure what the character was doing, you know dragging the person across the rocky beach.  Hardly ever move the camera, let's just sit the camera down and never move it because you know it's the arty thing to do - check.  Let people just stare at each other with for minutes or have a character stare out into nothing for minutes upon minutes - check.  Watch paint dry, watch grass grow, watch a flower bloom - all in real time of course - I'm just kidding this doesn't happen in this movie but there are times it sure feels like it does.

This movie is the wet dream of the Hollywood it writer Damon Lindelof - the writer of such classic pieces of writing where questions pour down like rain but never give any answers - Lost and Promethus being his two big writing gigs where explanations and an actually story arc are the Lost Arc to him.  This movie seemed catered especially for him.

I will give this movie one thing, the director did know how to create some very interesting and lasting images it was just to bad I never cared once for anything going on in the movie.  So the images fell away like words in the words.  That is a shame because those images deserved to have a stable story line attached to them to actually give them a life, instead what they were force fed into a world of art house imagery where nothing is ever explained, everything is implied, and boredom is the pallet of choice.

 I HATE ART HOUSE FILMS!

The Monuments Men

The Monuments Men directed by George Clooney, starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, John Goodman, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, Bob Blaban, and Jean Dujardin.

I didn't really know what to expect with movie but I've got to admit I ended up enjoying this movie a lot more than I had originally thought I would.  One of the reasons is that the screenplay was written with the characters in mind as well the historical setting, both of which played huge part in the movie being as good as it turned out.

George Clooney isn't the best director out there but he's a lot more competent than most of the flashy, fly by the seat of your pants directors.  He is definitely assured in his direction never letting the story or material get away from him and he sets up shots well, communicating with the audience with as less confusion as possible.  It does take a good director to do this.  This movie is no different as Clooney fully fleshes out the historical setting as it becomes as much a character in the movie as the main Monument Men themselves.  

An interesting part of the movie I found compelling was how it played with my emotions because when it started I didn't fully buy into what these guys were doing.  Wanting to risk their lives and lives of other soldiers for artwork.  I admit I questioned what they were doing and the answers I initially got made me not believe in their mission.  As the movie progressed further into them finding and recusing artwork, some of them dieing for the artwork I become won over in their mission and the insanity of what Hitler was doing.  They sold me on their commitment and showed me without preaching to me that what they were doing was worth doing.  I became, by the end of the movie, wholeheartedly invested with the mission and the movie.

Darth Vader and Son

Darth Vader and Son by Jeffery Brown.

I found this gem of a book in the adult comic section of the library and had to check it out.  For any Star Wars fan this is a must read book and must have for a Star Wars collection or a book collection in general.  A funny read with many references from Star Wars throughout out.  My son even read it three or four time by himself after I read it to him. 

You can't go wrong with this book.  Now I've got to find the other books especially Vader's Little Princess, an aptly titled book.

Superbad

Superbad directed by Greg Mottola, starring Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Emma Stone, Bill Hader, Seth Rogen, and Martha Mac Isaac.

I'm honestly surprised it took me this long to see this movie.  I've heard so much about it but never sat down to watch it.  Now that I have and I've got to say it was good movie about relationships - which it never lost sight of.  Relationships was the main focus of the story and this movie was almost like a modern version of American Graffiti as it dealt with some of the same themes: last night in town before going on to college, boy and girl relationships, friendship, and the challenges that all go along with those themes.  It kept those themes at the forefront of every incident or scene happening on screen.

This movie had a lot of heart.  Everyone involved in the movie completely invested into it as they helped to sell the story and give it a real feeling that helped to me to connect with everything going on.  I also liked how the characters in the movie didn't ever go against their personality types.  They remained true to who they were when introduced as in the beginning of the movie or throughout the movie.  Even by the movies end some growth had taken place in a few of them - much like American Graffiti.

This is a comedy through and through but relationships is what dominates the heart of this comedy as personality types clash and but heads throughout the movie.   Cera and Hill really sell themsevles as friends as they both seem to play variations on other characters they have either played before or after this movie - so it didn't seem a great stretch for them to play these types of characters.  But I will say they played them well and were convincing as friends both dealing some weighty issues that become revealed by the movies end.  The break out star of this movie, stealing every scene he's in, is  Christopher Mintz-Plasse playing McLoving, Cera and Hill third wheel in the friendship cycle.  His scenes are convincingly good, a little over the top at times but I didn't seem to mind.

Lone Survivor

Lone Survivor directed by Peter Berg, starring Mark Walhberg, Ben Foster, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Eric Bana.

Based on a true story.  And about one of the greatest elite fighting forces on the planet earth, the Navy Seals.  I can already tell you I was going to like this film.  I did, but I will still throw my critical eye upon this movie as I normally do.  I will still refuse to be blinded by bias or emotions unless I state so before I do a review but in any case even if those biases show up I still won't let them influence by review of the movie.  

I'm not a huge fan of Peter Berg from the films he's directed but I will say this, this is best directed movie by far as he showed some serious restrain by not going all shaky camera throughout this film.  Most directors would have used the rough, wooden, forest terrain as an excuse to run around blindly with a hand held camera - so the audience could be "there" in the action.  Berg does the opposite, instead he actually directed this movie and this movie was all the better for it, as his direction brought some serious tension to the action scenes because I could actually see what was going on.  I didn't feel lost when the action scenes rolled around.  He actually was in control of the story and action scenes which made his communication with the audience almost flawless.  While the actions scenes sparkled with life and the fact he actually directed the movie helped all the more to suck me into this mission gone horribly wrong for these four Navy Seals.  These Seals acted like the bad asses they are even the actors portraying them really helped to inject them with some life and authenticity.  I just wish they would have been given a little to handle with the characters. 

However the Seals needed more characteristics and personality, even some of those things being cliched would have helped.  A little more time at the base in the beginning wouldn't have hurt to gel them together a full functioning unit they are and help the audience to empathize with them more and see them not just as Seals but as people.  All in all I thought Act of Valor was a better movie as the story line and Seals in there seemed more like people and characters - whereas in Lone Survivor they were a little better than blank slats but more characteristics would have made this movie sparkle even more.  That is only really fault I found with the movie.

I was honored to see the dedication and intellect Seals have instead of just being portrayed as war torn, war hungry soldiers.  These are an elite fighting force where they are trained in war, tactical intellect, and killing.  It is there job and they do it very well.  This movie did a great job of showing what they do as a job, much like Act of Valor did as well. 

300 (graphic novel)

300 written and illustrated by Frank Miller.

Good read with good art, surprised it took me this long to read it.

If you do read this graphic novel  make sure it's in the large format because that enhances the wide screen aspect Miller was going for in ways most comics don't.  The splash pages came alive when I turned the pages as Miller used small and medium panels throughout the story only to have those large encompassing pages seem to jump out of the page when I came across them.  It worked in incredible ways.

If you liked the movie 300, you will like reading this and it shouldn't take long an hour or so, if that.  It was really cool to how movie virtually transferred this comic from page to screen.  Miller's comic is an actual storyboard for the movie as many panels you will recognize from the movie. 

Miller's art once again compliments his writing style.  I've never thought he's one of the best writers in the medium, even here is writing is good not great but it works hand in hand with everything going on.  I've always liked his art.  He has really grown as an artist over the years bringing a distinct style that is wholly his own, many times copied but none like Miller.  His art is really the showcase in this story and fits into the world of Spartans, Greeks, armor, spears, shields, helmets, and blood, lots of blood along with the spatter blood can make when skin is broken.

The Bronx Kill

The Bronx Kill written by Peter Milligan and illustrated by James Romberger.

A good little crime noir fictional story I found at the library.  Set in modern day but like all noir stories it has plenty of dealing in the past as history comes to rear its ugly head in revealing ways.  Milligan weaves through the story with ease and keeps the pacing marching along so that it really reads adds a pager turner.  I found myself wanting to keep reading to find out the big reveal, the mystery at the heart of the story filled me with the desire to go on.  I don't know if this was written before or after Gone Baby, Gone but there is some similarities to it at least from the wife disappearing.  I haven't read Baby so I don't know if the connections that go beyond the missing wife hold up or not but I wager to say they end right there as this story by it's end really felt wholly its own. 

All in all it was a good read for a few hours on the weekend if you are into the noir crime stories.  If you are find it and read it.

Scalped

Scalped written by Jason Arron and illustrated by R. M. Guera.

A story about an Indian reservation and the opening of a casino on it.  Sounds like riveting reading right?  I thought for the longest of times it was going to be completely boring despite what I'd read and heard about comic series.  Oh, how wrong I was, how very wrong I was.  I'm willing to eat crow when I'm wrong and admit when I was wrong.

This is one of the best written series I've ever read and I didn't even get to finish it because my library didn't have the last two volumes.  But I'm not complaining about it because they at least had the first eight volumes of which if they didn't have, I wouldn't have go to read any of it anyhow.  Before I get to Scalped, I've got to say I've read some really good comics over the last two years and not just comics but actual stories that I would put next to any literary book out there for story line, writing, and character development.  The cool thing with these comics I've read, the majority of them have been written by Americans.  This is a good thing because British writers have dominated the comic scene for a long time, with Americans just churning out the typical Marvel and DC stories that have tended to more Soap Opera oriented than actual story.  I'm really glad Americans have finally dominated comics in this massive deluge of a storm. 

This story has a little bit of Breaking Bad and the Sopranos mixed in with the American Indian culture to create a thoroughly engrossing read.  Jason Arron does some detailed world building and creates his characters, themes, and world from the first issue, usually this takes a lot of time for most writers to get into the groove of the world their creating.  Not Arron, his writing is assured as he convincingly has a handle on the world he's writing about mixing in American Indians, FBI, gangsters, and the mob without the least bit of muddiness to the waters.  His characters grow and develop with each passing issues to the point where I started to wonder who the villains and heroes were of this story.  He really digs into the past of these characters, showing me what makes them tick as a person.  I'm really looking forward to seeing how this story will end but have enough faith in what Arron has done so far that I'm sure I won't be disappointed by how this ends.

A good read.  If you can find it read it and enjoy.

Divergent (movie)

Divergent directed by Neil Burger, starring Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney, Kate Winslet, Maggie Q, and Zoe Kravitz.

I didn't like the book and the problems I had with the book were even more amplified in the movie, thus making my enjoyment of the movie not that great.  And after reading the book and seeing the movie I don't understand how either one has taken off and become as successful as they've become.  Are people just that starved for this kind of story that they will buy into anything - even anything told on a completely mediocre level?  I guess they will apparently but then what do I know?  I guess not that much but I do know I didn't enjoy either the book or the movie.  I didn't like the book so much I was completely uninterested in reading the sequels and I had the same feeling after the credits rolled on the movie.  But the one thing the movie did have going for it ,that the book failed to capitalize on, is that in the movie I got a greater feel for the world outside of the city where as in the book I never got that feeling.

I never fully bought into the main character's transformation of a shy, quiet person into a total bad ass, it just doesn't ring true in the movie and has a falseness to it that is more distracting than accepting.  I still can't help shaking this feeling that I've seen this story line done better in other movies: Hunger Games being the prime example of which this story has to be modeled after.

My biggest gripe with this story is how the bad guys during the end of the movie quit being bad guys and turn into cliched villains.  Which isn't a bad thing but they have start out as cliched if they are going to be cliched throughout, otherwise the transformation from bad guys into cliched bad guys seems fake and is lazy.  Here's what I'm talking about.  At the end of the movie the bad guys are finding Diverts and killing them when they find them, right on the spot no questions asked.  But when they discover the two main characters as Divergent, what do they do?  They don't shoot them on the spot like they've done to every other Divergent they've found.  No, instead they bring them to main bad guy, who has also been disposing of Divergents left and right throughout the movie as we've been told, suddenly doesn't want to kill them right there but instead wants to re-brainwash one Divergent and kill the other Divergent in an undisclosed location, instead of you know just killing them right there.  Plot wise and character wise this makes no sense and completely looses me from the whole film, even though by time I was lost from the whole film anyhow.  I also hate how with basically just flick of the switch everything in the world can suddenly become back to normal - that also reeks of mediocrity and laziness.

I'm just not buying what I've was being sold.  Watch the Hunger Games instead because the horrible direction of the first film still couldn't hurt the story line of it.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy directed by James Gunn, starring Christ Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillian, Djimon Hounsou, Glen Close, John C. Reilly, and Benicio Del Toro.

Well the hype is over and the new Marvel movie has finally arrived.  I'll just get this out of the way first: I liked this movie and it's easily one of the best Marvel movies to come in a while.  It adds to the world building they are doing and fully extends their universe, to well, the universe and it one of the better sci-fi action movies to come out in a long time.  Marvel movies are now a serious force to be reckoned with if this movie, based on some seriously lesser known characters, can be this good, pull in this much money, and be entertaining to boot.

I'm still fully digesting what kind of movie I actually saw.  I'm not saying this movie doesn't have flaws, it does, but the sheer joy and humor on display totally washed them out, as it does with most of the Marvel movies.  One thing Marvel movies have focused on the most has been creating characters.  This has been the driving force through all of their movies (the Edward Norton starring as Hulk being the only dud so far) and has carried every film.  No matter how crazy or insane the plot got, there was always the characters to mover everything forward.  Guardians of the Galaxy is no different as Marvel created a rag tag group of characters to root for and this movie is all the better for it.  It plays like a sci-fi version of the A-Team.  And since I've seen it I also found it quite resembles my favorite TV show of all time Farscape (a lot by the way) - in the humor, the wildly bizarre characters, the settings, and crazy sci-fi worlds and aliens.  There is also a mixture of Joss Whedon's Firefly, that can't be over looked.  All of these ingredients gets mixed into creating a movie quite unlike - but also alike - anything else out there.  The uniqueness of it was a sheer joy to see in a summer normally designated with sequels, prequels, and remakes.  I think this is one of the reasons Guardians was received so well - it was new and fresh.

Here's a couple of things I noticed that helped to make this movie as good as it turned out.

Directing.  James Gunn hit it out of the park with this movie as he proved not to be over his head (despite how crazy weird his hair is - proof not to judge a person by their hair style) with a large budget as his previous films total budget might have covered a scene or two of this movie.  I'm not kidding about that either.  His influence on the screenplay, dialogue, and humor can't be overlooked.  His handling of the various action sequences was superb, as there wasn't any confusion as to what was going on - ever - even if it was a hand-to-hand, aerial/space battle, or a jail break.  All of these sequences were controlled with some great camera work and placement as he wasn't afraid to actually show things and not ruin them with the lazy shaky camera.  His handling of the pacing made the movie just roll by in a breeze as there wasn't a lot of down time or moments that dragged the film to a halt.  It did feel like the old Star Wars movies of old days not the slogged down, snail paced, anvil heavy feel of the prequels. 

Humor.  Part of the reason this film works also is the humor.  By injecting the movie with humor, Gunn helped the characters to feel real and helped the audience to identify with them.  Sci-fi movies have a tendency to take themselves super serious, so serious that they feel stiff and very aged, but by putting humor into the movie Gunn created a world that felt real, despite being set in a universe far, far away.  This was one of things that helped the original Star Wars trilogy work.  Han Solo was the one characters that helped the movie feel real and not as serious as sci-fi could be.  Guardians doesn't have just one character with humor, it has multiple characters that give the seriousness of everything a perspective.  This perspective really walks hand in hand with the audience in this world being as real as it feels.

Production.  The production design was astounding in this movie as everything seemed to flow from world building, costume design, character design.  It felt like many worlds existed beyond our planet Earth.  I like how their designs weren't over the top or at least didn't feel over the top, as they seemed to do with the new trilogy Lucas created, where everything there seemed rather forced, or felt forced to me.  With Guardians it all flowed with a perfection I'm not used to seeing in sci-fi movies of this kind of scale.

Acting.  This can't be said enough, the acting in this movie sold the sci-fi concepts, the alien worlds, the aliens, and just the craziness that was on display.  The actors bought into what was going on and ran with it in a playfulness that never diverged into comical or cheesiness.  They helped these characters to feel real.  I think the only stiff character in the movie was Rhonan, which Marvel still hasn't found a villain to even compete with Loki yet.  I think they need to stop worrying about that kind of villain and just let the characters in the movie run with a story and carry the film, which they have been doing for most of the Marvel films.  I will put this under the acting part because it kind of is, I like how the movie doesn't explain how things work or explain most things in this sci-fi world.  They just work because that's how they work.  That's it there's nothing more to it and that's how most things in this kind of crazy world need to be taken a story.     

Our Idiot Brother

Our Idiot Brother directed by Jesse Perez, starring Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer, Adam Scott, Rashida Jones, and Steve Coogan.

This is not a great movie but I had a good time watching it, so I guess in the end that makes it an entertaining watch and that it was.  This movie kind of reminded me of Forest Gump - only much better as this movie seemed to know what it was where as Forest Gump I've always felt seemed really confused about itself.

The main reason I saw this movie is because Paul Rudd is in it.  I've always liked him as an actor and he does a great job here playing a simple man who doesn't want to get bogged down with the complexities of life. Along the way we meet his three sisters and get to see their vastly different personalities and lifestyles as they compare to their brother. 

Ultimately it's the interconnecting of these relationships that dominates this movie and what makes it an enjoyable watch.  Paul Rudd commands as the "Idiot Brother" but it was a good idea of the producers of this movie to tag-team him up with three really good actresses who compliment Rudd's performance in spades.  It's their chemistry on screen is the guiding force of this movie and they all step up to the challenge.  Even the side characters are played by some really good actors - not great actors but really good supporting actors the completely help to move the story along as well as adding to the already seasoned chemistry of everyone else in the movie. 

All in all it was a good watch.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Kevin O' Neill.

Finally a sequel to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that lived up to the first two books and wasn't as jumbled a mess as the many other League books being written. 

I'm not saying this book is perfect but it does live up to what Moore wanted to do with the League.  It also doesn't feel as rushed as some of the later League books felt.  Moore seemed more in control of what he was doing here as this story is longer and he gives time to develop characters, which is something that was seriously lacking from later books.  This time he lets scenes play out for pages and not just a page or two - like in most Marvel and DC comics - a good writer knows that pages help to develop characters and story, with the lack of that being something that feels rushed and half full. 

The Black Dossier is anything but half full, as this is a concept comic, which of that they are few and far between in the comic world.  Being a concept comic it largely succeeds on that level and the level of exploring of the world Moore created with the first League book.  Moore has the characters in the book read the titled Black Dossier at very points in the story of which there is a play, a short story, some fliers, a pictorial history of a character Orlando and even a portion of the book in 3-D (glasses are included with the book). 

He really does open up the mythology of the League as he builds upon what he did before, which is something most of the later books failed to do.  The one thing this book does though is starts the weaknesses that has dominated Moore's writing of late, namely that is his obsession with sex and nudity for no reason than he can do it with the comic label he's writing for.  They don't add anything to the story or mythology of the world he's creating  and that has been a failing I've noticed with his books.  This is a shame because I think it really hurts his story as it breaks the flow of what he's doing and turns his story into a typical movie or book that has to have a sex/nudity scene just for the sake of selling more seats or appeasing the audience.  This basically reduces Moore to a typical writer, of which he is not but by doing this he becomes just another writer in the crowd and his work of late has been showcasing this.





  

The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet directed by Michael Gondry, starring, Seth Rogen, Cameron Diaz, Christoph Waltz, and Jay Chou.

I don't even know what they were thinking when they made this movie.  It's so off kilter.  The main character is completely miss cast. The overall concept doesn't really make any sense.  The main character is a dick and completely unlikeable. 

I honestly don't even know what this movie is trying to do.  I think the movie doesn't even know what it's trying to do.  The movie feels really lost to me and this confusion transfers to screen really well.

I had heard how bad this movie was but I thought I'd give it a watch just to see if it was going to be one of those movies that ends up being so bad it's good or that it might earn a spot on my guilty pleasure list.  This movie is so bad it's not even one of those it's so bad it's good movies.  I guess I can see how this might earn a spot on someone's guilty pleasure list - because technically any bad movie can be on that list, the only criteria is that the person has to know the movie is bad - but it didn't end up my guilty pleasure list, not by a long shot.

I don't even know what more to say about this movie?  If you want to see a really bad movie from the screenplay, the concept, the dialogue, and the directing - which really isn't that bad but even it can't lift the terribleness of this movie from the gutter of which it came. 

The only props I will give this film is that Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, and Christoph Waltz actually did a good job acting.  And this is Cameron Diaz's sexist roll she's done in a long and yes there is one scene in which she is there in her underwear showing off her long legs.  Like I've said before I think it's in her contract she has to have at least one scene like that. 

3 Days to Kill

3 Days to Kill directed by McG, starring Kevin Costner, Hailee Steinfeld, Connie Nielson, and Amber Heard.

I do not like McG as a director.

In my opinion he hasn't directed a movie yet that justifies all of the media attention and articles I've read about him being the next generation of directors to take over Hollywood.  If he's of that generation - the future of movies does not bode well.  He's definitely a better producer than he is a director and even by saying this this is his best directed movie, I don't know what that means because this is by no means a good movie.  The only thing it does have going for it is that it's his most entertaining movie to date and doesn't feel like a TV show (his Charlie Angel's movie all felt like they were made on a TV stage versus a movie studio) nor it is as lifeless as his Terminate: Salvation turned out.  This movie has more in common with McG's This Means War: it's more polished, slick, well paced, but still doesn't add up when the credits roll. 

There's a weird mixture of comedy and action that doesn't quite connect the same way I think it did when the movie was being made.  This mixture bubbles over onto the movie from too much stirring instead of being blended together with care - it all feels very haphazardly poured together.  The action scenes are staged, directed, and choreographed rather well, as it seems McG has learned something over the years he's tightened the blindfold on Hollywood's eyes.  Took him long enough though.  Even the drama scenes don't burden down the movie.  It's just the internal logic and comedy of the screenplay that completely undermines the story and the pacing.
                                     

Noah

Noah directed by Darren Aronofsky, starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, and Logan Lerman.

This movie was bad, very boring, and seemed to be a lot longer than its run time, which is never a good thing.  I won't even go into how the movie's story line could diverge as much as it did from the Bible.  I'll just leave it at that and focus on why it failed as movie in general.

This movie fails because it has no real set story line and decides to be a political driven agenda movie instead of being a movie with good characters.  It pushes the Eco, be green, global warming, and man is destroying the environment down my throat, leaving this movie as subtle as a sledge hammer.  This Eco message becomes the story line and driving point of the whole movie, characters and story line be damned.  Then lets throw in as many cliched conflicts points and scenes as can be there for no other reason than they just have to be there as long as the Eco message is being driven home.  This lack of real characters is very sore spot in the movie.  No clear cut characters populate this movie only cliche ridden cardboard stamped people that serve no more purpose to rise up at certain points in the movie to provide some conflict.  The characters aren't people and I never once cared about anyone in this film.  Most of them are unlikable to a fault - especially Noah.

The other thing I couldn't figure out was why Aronofsky decided to go all independent with some of the shots and scenes in this movie.  There were a lot scenes where the shots felt dated, gimmicky, and low budget, which for me totally brought me out the movie and the story being told.  Scenes should never do this as these scenes completely broke the pacing and flow of the movie.  I couldn't seen any justification for him to do the scenes like he chose to do them.  It made no sense to me and left me more confused than anything else.

Overall this movie was just confusing mess.

The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, with the voices of Christ Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Jonah Hill, Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell, Will Forte, Liam Nesson, and a bunch of other people associated with Legos or any other type of sci-fi or super hero movies.

I thought this was a really good movie.  Not just as a kids movie but just as a movie in general.  It was funny, well paced, not to long, and well it's based on a kids toy I still play with today.  I really like Legos and I've got to admit I didn't think there would be much a story line to use or create to get this movie to work.  But the writers found a good way to make this movie a sort of meta experience without getting to carried away with the metaphysical aspects of the movie.  It was the meta aspect of this movie that truly made it more than just a kids movie and helped to lift the movie beyond just being a movie about toys.

The naysayers will say this is just a long commercial for Legos.  My response to that statement is, isn't any superhero movie just a long commercial for superheroes or for that matter about 90% of movies released in the summer are just a long commercial for something.  So yes, this movie is a commercial but I think it's that aspect of the movie - the Legos - that really help to connect with the viewer because everyone has played with Legos as some point in their life and the story line uses this not just a gimmick but as part of the story.  That is a brilliant part as the metaphysical helps to ground the movie in reality in a gimmicky but real way without feeling forced.  It all flows together so well I was amazed. 

Did I mention this is a kids movie?

It is and despite all of the meta, wild things I've been talking about, this movie never loses focus of the fact it is a kids movie.  The humor is funny, the story line is good, and the characters alone are worth seeing this movie as the voice actors really bring them to life.  I'm not kidding about that either, they really brought their A game into the voicing these characters.

NOS4A2

NOS4A2 written by Joe Hill.

Well first thing is first and Joe Hill will never be able to get away from this fact - EVER.  Yes, Joe Hill is the son of the writer Stephen King.  This in no way validates or excuses any writing from Joe Hill and from what I've read about Joe Hill he didn't ride the coat tails of his dad to get his writing career started.  But when the information about his relationship with King was revealed, well there's just not a lot that can be done to hide that fact now considering Stephen King is one of the most famous and prolific writers ever to start writing.  Not that Joe Hill is hiding because he's not.  He's a good writer on his own.  I've read a lot of King books and I've enough of Joe Hill to know that he knows how to write.  I think it's interesting that he draws a lot of how King sees the middle class and working class people into his writing - those similarities can't be ignored.  And in my opinion Hill has just taken one of the writing styles his father is known for and just ran with it.  NOS4A2 has this presence of the middle class and working man clearly woven throughout the book and I will admit that has always been one of the most endearing things I've liked about King and his writing - his admiration and fondness for the middle class and blue collar worker.  He's never belittled them, made fun of the, or used them as punching bag.  They've always been heroes and been ones to step up to the plate when the going gets tough.  Joe Hill has taken this same view point - with that viewpoint comes an easy way to connect with characters in his book.


Personally, though I think Joe Hill's comic series Locke and Key is much better not just as comic series but as an overall story than NOS4A2.  I had a hard time figuring out if this book is supposed to be horror or some kind of modern fantasy.  It didn't really feel like horror.  Don't get me wrong it had horror aspects but the horrific, bone chilling, scare the pants off you aspect was not there and at times it seemed like it wanted to jump into the horror element but it never fully committed to that.  It had a more fantastical fairy tale kind of feel to it and that feel it truly committed to.  I just wish Hill had explored that fantastical element more because that world, when it was talked about in the book really brought the story to life and by the books end I didn't feel completely satisfied with what I had read.  There still seemed like a lot more he could have done with the story than what the over all book ended up being. 

I never full connected with any of the main characters. I connected with them enough that I was able to get into the story and finish it but I never became fully engaged with them.  I don't know why this is, even when I think about it I can't quite pin down what was missing but something was missing.  There just seemed to be something that was keeping me detached from them.  Some puzzle piece that was missing from the box.  I did like some of the secondary characters more than the main characters.  I felt they had more depth and personality that was not present in the main characters. 

It was a good read and I don't regret the time I spent reading this book but I just wish he had explored the fantastical elements of the story more.  I believe this would have made the books length feel more justified and satisfied by the last page.