So, I'm sure loyal readers were wondering if I were ill or at the International Space Station given the fact that I had yet to review Ant-Man, the latest edition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Actually, my middle guy has been at back-to-back camps for 4 weeks, so we literally went to the first showing after he returned on Saturday morning. It was worth the wait.
First, the answers to the obvious questions. Yes, Ant-Man will be an Avenger (in the second tier with Falcon and Quiksilver). Yes, one of the Avengers is in Ant-Man (Falcon). No, Agent Coulson does not show up in the movie, and the current state and future of S.H.I.E.L.D. is not discussed. No, in the movie Hank Pym is not linked to Ultron, a clear break from the "historical record" of the comic books. Yes, Hydra is still out there. Yes, there are special effects ants, and scientist agree that the ants are realistic, except that they would all be female.
Scott Lang (the very likeable Paul Rudd) has served three years in prison for a very likeable crime. An electrical engineer at VistaCorp, he discovers that his employer has been bilking clients and hacks into the network to return the funds to their rightful owners. He also releases secrets. (I've only seen the movie once, and his actual crime is alluded to only once.) He's a combination of a hacker and a self-proclaimed cat burgler. And, he seems to be a small folk hero. Anyway, he's determined to go straight, but after finding it difficult to obtain employment with his record and thus be able to have visitation with his daughter, he decides to do one burglary offered up by his former cellmate and friends. (This hilarious trio of good-hearted thieves makes the movie.) The whole thing is a set up by Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, scientist and Ant-Man. Pym uses the job to confirm his belief that Scott should be the next Ant-Man.
Why does the world need a new Ant-Man? Because, Pym's former mentee Darren Cross has developed the mothballed Pym Particle (a formula to reduce the space between atoms -- in other words shrink living beings) and wants to sell it as a weapon. Just as Captain America had to defeat Red Skull and Winter Soldier, Iron Man had to defeat Obadiah Stane and Anton Vanko, and Hulk had to defeat Abomination, our superheroes always seem to be coming up against frenemies who "steal their tech." All the scientific breakthroughs in the Marvel Universe seem to be double-edged swords and the tension always between saving mankind and weaponization. Anyway, Scott needs to don Pym's Ant-Man suit to steal back/destroy Cross' research and his new Yellowjacket suit. There will be a brief training montage with Hank's daughter Hope Pym, and then Scott will need to enlist the good-hearted thieves to help.
Rudd's Ant-Man is very self-aware and doesn't take himself or the movie very seriously. he's much like Guardians of the Galaxy's Peter Quill, cracking jokes while saving the world. His niche in the superhero ensemble is that he is smart in a practical way and humbly selfless, an altruistic engineer to Tony Stark's narcissistic genius. Though in the end all the Avengers throw themselves on the grenade, Scott seems to come to the job with a clear knowledge that he is, in his own words, expendable.
Hope (Evangeline Lilly) is, at least in this movie, fairly underused and underdeveloped. In fact, there is a moment when it is clear to cast and audience alike that Hope would make a much, much better Ant-Man than Scott. Hank's reasons for recruiting Scott seem quite sexist at first, but are revealed to be more admirable than that. After the credits, the audience is treated to a hint that we will see much more of Hope (the new Wasp) in the future.
So, the plot isn't all that new, but at least it isn't as hard to follow as Avengers 2. The ending turns very Big Hero Six, but it works. The movie is here to introduce us to the new characters and does that well. The dialogue is witty, the characters are likeable, and the appetite for Ant-Man is sufficiently whetted for future appearances.
Years ago at the dawn of my career, someone advised me that there is no reason to write a negative book review. If that advice holds for movies, I should stop here.
Minions is not a good movie. For those who read my posts regularly, you'll know that I have a low bar for family films; I can find the good in almost any children's movie. Not this one. As my FB friends read today, my status was "Wednesday we got Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 from Redbox and thought it was the worst movie ever, until we saw Minions."
OK, what is good about the movie? The new characters. We all know the Despicable Me minions, though I wasn't quite sure about their names. The three main minions here are Bob, Stuart and Kevin. But the new characters are great: Scarlet Overkill (Sondra Bullock) and her husband, Herb (Jon Hamm). How can you go wrong there? Also, our minions hitch a ride with a bad-guy family, the Nelsons, voiced by Michael Keaton and Allison Janney. OK, surely those four are a good "soup starter" for an excellent film, right? No. The producers seemed to spend all their money on voice talent and a good soundtrack (Beatles, the musical Hair, Mellow Yellow, etc.) and forgot to buy a script.
The movie starts out fine as an original story of how the minions came to be and how they got to modern times with Gru. All of their evil bosses die, starting with T-Rex, and so they are continually looking for new villains. (I didn't know that the minions were immortal, a fact that would seem important to keep consistent.) In 1968, our brave trio leaves the minions in the cave where they are hiding out, in search of a new boss. Their travels take them to 1968 New York City, where there are great visual gags, if you were alive and remember 1968. Judging from the lack of laughs in our theater, I would say the number was 1. Still, the movie seems ok. The minions stumble upon an ad for "Villain-Con," and hitchhike there with the Nelsons. A joke is set up about how wonderful Orlando is, but it is a pre-Disney swamp. Again, lost on everyone in the audience. The scenes with Villain-Con are great, and could have taken up more of the movie. The minions win the temporary favor of the greatest villain of the time, Scarlet Overkill, and go home with her. Again, the scenes with Scarlet in her house were great and could have taken up more of the movie. Instead, the movie got so stupid it's hard to write about here.
Scarlet sends the three out on a quest for Queen Elizabeth II's crown. If they fail, they will be "blown off the face of the earth." (Again, if they have lived for tens of thousands of years, this is hard to get interested in.) From here, things could have gone a right way or a wrong way, and the writers chose the superwrong way. Let's just say that there's a moment where one of the minions (Stuart, maybe) hypnotizes the Tower of London guards into taking off their clothes and dancing to a minion version of the title song in Hair, the musical. No one else in the theater knew what song that was or why they were taking their clothes off. I guarantee you no seven year-old did.
I hate to say it, but the minions are the most boring part of the movie. They are great for comic relief, but like the Ice Age squirrel or the Madagascar penguins, they don't need a whole movie. If the movie had centered more on Scarlet or the Nelsons, with the minions alongside, then it would have been better. And, funny bits that children could understand that don't assume a knowledge of the summer of 1968 would have been better. My seven year-old, after the movie was over said, "We are never seeing that again." This from the guy who wanted to keep Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 an extra day.
I'm rarely in on anything cool, but two weeks ago, my seven year-old and I stumbled upon a "sneak preview" of Disney/Pixar's Inside Out, with commentary. We even got lanyards. My former colleague and movie friend Kenworthey Bilz joined us, so we had an actual psychologist with us. We all loved it.
I had seen the trailer, and quite frankly, I didn't really understand what the movie was about. Now, I think I have it. Riley, an eleven year-old girl, moves with her parents from Minnesota to San Francisco. Riley's emotions, personality, thoughts, and behaviors are guided by five main characters in her brain: Joy, Disgust, Anger, Fear and Sadness. As one would hope, Joy is in control. After the move, however, Sadness keeps winding up front and center, turning once happy memories into sad ones. (It took me a long time to see this as reflecting inevitable reality: happy memories with loved ones become tinged with sadness once those loved ones are gone or those times have passed.) Joy tries everything she can to keep Sadness out of the picture, but that makes things worse. Ultimately, Joy and Sadness will have to leave "headquarters" to retrieve Riley's "core memories" that become lost in the shuffle. These core memories help support Riley's "islands of personality": family, friendship, goofiness, hockey and honesty. One by one, as Joy and Sadness get sidetracked on their adventure into "long-term memory" and Fear, Anger and Disgust are left at the controls, these islands begin to crumble. As our tween begins to shut out friends and family because of feelings about the move, she makes poor decisions. In the end, Anger convinces the other two emotions and implant an idea into Riley's consciousness that will prove disastrous unless Joy can regain the controls.
The beginning of the movie feels like any other animated feature, but halfway through you realize that this is no silly kids' movie. This is Pixar. And Pixar can make grown-ups cry like no other film company. Toy Story 3? Up? Yep, you're in for it again. Unless you were asleep during Toy Story 2 and 3, you've realized by now that the grown-ups at Pixar are parents, and they understand the pain of parenthood better than anyone. When Riley's islands of personality start slipping away, I almost lost it. If you've ever watched an eleven year-old girl (or 12, or 13, or 14) disappear, then you know what I'm talking about. Goofiness island doesn't come back. But, other islands take its place, and Riley and her parents make more core memories. Family island is rebuilt, even bigger and better. But goofiness island doesn't come back.
Joy is also the quintessential helicopter parent. She is running around, doing somersaults, bending over backwards trying to make sure that Riley feels nothing but Joy/joy. What we learn from the movie is that Sadness is also very important. Sadness also keeps us from making poor decisions.
Like Up, this is a movie that we probably won't see over and over again but really do appreciate for its thoughtfulness and intelligence. But I do want to see it with my daughter.
I have a lot of reviewing-catching up to do. Two weeks ago, I took eight children (only two were mine) to see Jurassic World. I am still reeling with its awesomeness!
So, you may have seen some reviews that say that the movie (i) has no plot or no good plot; (ii) is merely a special effects vehicle; and (iii) is merely a product placement vehicle. I will address these claims in order.
First, the movie has a plot, though it is not well-developed. Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) works at the Jurassic World theme park, which is built on the site (island) of the original Jurassic Park. Claire is some sort of executive who is concerned with "the investors" and the return on "assets." (The "assets" are the dinosaurs, and I suppose "the investors" are shareholders, presumably private shareholders.) Now, having seen Jurassic Park (but not the other two sequels), I can only imagine that someone had their bad idea jeans on when they thought opening Jurassic World theme park was a great idea, and the folks in charge don't seem to have done much "worst case scenario" planning. I.e., the park's scientists have created a hybrid dinosaur (Indominus Rex) that seems to be indestructible as well as super-crafty. But, they put the dinosaur in a pen with 40-feet walls, so everything should be ok. Owen (Chris Pratt) is some sort of velociraptor-whisperer who trains raptors at the park. He seems to be sort of a hired-gun boy wonder that one of the investors/directors brought in to bring credibility to the "assets." Vincent D'Onofrio is Hoskins, and I have no idea what he is doing in the park. He seems to head up some sort of paramilitary group, though Wikipedia says he is head of security. Anyway, he wants to weaponize the raptors for combat, which of course our hero Owen knows is hubris heading toward a fall. When everything falls apart at Jurassic World, Hoskins' group takes control of the park by orders of the board of directors. As you may guess, Hoskins will try to bring down Indominus Rex with the raptors, but he'll need Owen's help to do it. The overarching theme, of course, is that human hubris and commercialization are about to meet their match against mother nature.
The two subplots involve Claire and Owen. Claire's sister is having marital problems, so she sends her two tween/teenage boys to the park for a fun weekend away. Claire is supposed to be spending family time with them, but she's not much on "family" or "time." But, when Indominus escapes its pen, she and Owen must go search for the boys and protect them. How did Owen get involved? Because of the second subplot: Owen and Claire are star-crossed lovers, having had one disastrous first date. But, Owen is the only person Claire can turn to, etc. For artistic reasons that seem fairly stupid, Claire does a lot of heroic things in heels and a white dress. Laura Dern got hiking boots and khaki shorts (and weird mom jeans), but Claire gets a wardrobe barely suitable for work, let alone running from dinosaurs. Owen, of course, gets Indiana Jones clothes, but Claire gets Marion Ravenwood-style white dresses. So, there's the plot, which seems completely sufficient. The winningness of these subplots is that Chris Pratt is the most likeable actor since Harrison Ford. You would have to have a heart three sizes too small not to love him and Owen.
Second, the special effects are awesome. Do the effects substitute for plot? Not for me. The effects make the plot worthwhile. I can't tell you how many times I gasped, screamed, yelled, etc. The movie is like a roller coaster ride, and after the ride you say "Let's do that again!"
Third, the product placements are there, but in a way they reflect the plot. In the movie, Jurassic World is an over-the-top theme park, complete with high-end shopping and brand-name corporate sponsors. To tell that story, the set would need some high-end trademarks to give the park that corporate feel. The irony, of course, is that the stores and brands get trampled on and ruined by mother nature. But, you still saw the brand names before they were destroyed! Because of the theme park plot, the movie also gets to have product placements for itself! So, one employee is chastised for a considerable amount of time for wearing a "Jurassic Park" t-shirt. I bet they are selling those like hotcakes!
The homages to the original movie do not stop with the t-shirt and are nice Easter eggs for those JP aficionados. The t-shirt wearing employee has a workstation reminiscent of the cluttered and clumsy traitor in the first movie. The lost boys find a shed with all sorts of museum pieces from original park. I would list more, but I don't want to give away the end!
The bottom line is that we thought Jurassic World was a great summer blockbuster and can't wait to see it again!
We are on the road this June, but the littlest one and I have gotten to the movies (finally). We recently caught up with Tomorrowland, a movie that caught our eye(s) in the previews.
So, you may or may not like Tomorrowland depending on whether you take your cynical hat off before you enter. If you are a cynic and hate George Clooney because you think he is a Hollywood ignoramous trying to shove his liberal agenda down consumers' throats, then don't go. If you are a cynic and hate Walt Disney because you think everything is a marketing ploy and a plot to shove licensed consumer goods down consumers' throats, then don't go. However, if you accept that grown-ups, politicians and corporations choose short-termism over the long view every time and that sometimes we need to listen to children and geniuses (and child geniuses), then go to the movies!
The framework of the movie is not completely clear until the end (and then not completely), but the basic plot is thus: At some point, geniuses like Verne, Edison, Tesla and Eiffel created a city in a different dimension. Brilliant folks would be recruited to this dimension to invent, problem-solve, create, etc. without intervention from pessimists and bureaucrats. There are some clues that this secret city-lab was to be revealed to the public during the 1964 World's Fair, but that plot strand is sort of left hanging somewhere. Anyway, one child genius is recruited in 1964: Frank (Clooney). Though I'm still fuzzy on this point, he seems to be exiled in the 1980s for creating an algorithm that calculates the end of Earth. This "bad" machine seems to destroy Tomorrowland in some way, and recruiting stops. However, one recruiter, Athena, continues to look for brilliant geniuses on Earth who may still be optimistic about the fate of our planet in a world turned ultra-Malthusian. (The end of the NASA space program is used here as a symbol of at least the United States giving up on new frontiers and new solutions.)
Athena's last hope is the daughter of a NASA engineer, Casey. She is the 2015 version of Frank, and Athena believes that her optimism can change the course of destiny, which the bad machine has calculated as 100% probable that the world will end in 58 days. Much is made of the concept that accepting that destiny makes it happen, but one does not have to merely accept it. The future can be changed by believing in a different outcome. Casey is the kind of person who does not accept the current course of future events. Of course, for Athena and Casey to get back to Tomorrowland, they need Frank's help, but Frank has become a Lorax-style hermit. The other twist is that Athena broke Frank's heart years ago. The scenes between the still-hurting Frank and Athena work remarkably well, given that Frank is a 62 year-old man and Athena is a 12 year-old android. (How's that -- a Hollywood movie that has a leading man playing someone a little older than himself!)
My seven year-old and I enjoyed the movie, though it probably won't go into the Disney Hall of Fame. The movie is a little wacky like older Disney films Bedknobs and Broomsticks with a little Meet the Robinsons thrown in for good measure. Enjoy!
So, the Pitch Perfect series is not fun for the entire family (I learned this the hard way when my 7 year-old asked me what a b----- was), but it is a fun series for most of the family! I reluctantly saw the first one, but was pleasantly surprised. But, I'll have to say that our family loves a cappella music. Loves it. Goes to see university performances. Buys CDs and downloads. So, your mileage may vary, as they say.
So, an assortment of us made our way to see Pitch Perfect 2. I will admit that I liked it better than the first and actually better than the other sequel our family was waiting anxiously for this summer (Avengers 2). The challenge for the sequel is how to have a movie with a lot of performances, but not just copy the format of the first movie -- the Barden Bellas face off against their nemesis group, the Treble Makers, in the national championships. In the sequel, the Bellas have won the championships 3 years in a row, but take a startling plunge due to a wardrobe malfunction scandal. Suffering under a suspension, their only hope is to win the international championship to be reinstated, a feat no U.S. group has ever accomplished. Now that the Bellas have made nice with the Treble Makers, we need a new antagonist in the form of a German group "Das Sound Machine." The face-off is slightly reminiscent of Rocky Balboa v. Drago (albeit Russian). The Bellas have to regroup, get back to basics, and "find their sound" in order to stand a fighting chance.
Other subplots include Beca (Anna Kendrick) trying to break into music producing by taking an internship at a recording studio. The scenes with her boss are particularly fun. Unfortunately, her cute romance with Jesse is sort of a non-event in this movie, with the boyfriend basically providing occasional support but no interesting scenes. In addition, a new Bella arrives in the form of a "legacy" student who has dreamed of being a Bella only to find the group in shame and disarray. The funniest Bella, of course, is "Fat Amy" (Rebel Wilson) who steals the movie again, this time with her romance with Bumper, Treble Maker alum.
Stay in your seat until after the credits for a great "bonus," which again is better than the one after Avengers 2, even though the Marvel Cinematic Universe historically has made great use of the post-credits "button."
I can't decide if I have post-Ultron depression or if this sequel just isn't that great. My kids and I have "literally" been waiting for this movie since the credits (really) ended after The Avengers. We have watched every movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe multiple times. We have watched every episode of Agent Carter and Agents of Shield. We've known that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were going to be in the movie since the end of Captain America: Winter Soldier. We bought our tickets ahead of time. In 3D. But walking out, I kept asking everyone, "Did you like it? Was it better than The Avengers?" because I was not sure.
There are many spoilers, so the rest is below the fold.
My children (not really persuasively) tried to tell me the sequel is at least as good as The Avengers, but here are my points of contention.
1. Why does the movie not answer any questions from the other movie? Or even ask them? No one bothers to mention that at the end of Iron Man 3 Tony blew up all his suits and had the arc reactor removed from his chest. Though that movie ended with Tony looking like he was giving up being Iron Man, this movie opens with hints that the Avengers have been blowing up Hydra facilities since the end of Winter Soldier. Huh? And no one talks about how Steve Rogers and Falcon are supposedly out there looking for Bucky. Nope. I understand that every movie should stand alone, but they could have tiny wisps of commonality to tie them together. The only allusion to the other movies since The Avengers was Steve mentioning that he had seen Natasha flirt "up close."
2. Where is Pepper? Or Jane? I understand that the movie was already expensive and paying for Gwyneth Paltrow and Natalie Portman to show up might have been too much, and their schedules may not have allowed for it. However, it seemed really dumb for the cast to ask where they are and receive such dumb answers (Pepper's running Stark Industries and Jane is up for a Nobel prize). Even Peggy Carter could show up for 2 minutes. I was reminded of the season Brenda left 90210 to "go to college."
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, where is Agents of Shield? Where is S.H.I.E.L.D.? Loyal watchers of AOS should have been rewarded somehow. Last week's episode ended with a brief reference to "the twins" being held in Sokovia and Agent Phil Coulson telling Agent Maria Hill to "call the Avengers." Age of Ultron opens with the Avengers raiding that Hydra base in Sokovia. And. . . . that's it. No Phil. At one point, Nick Fury saves the day in the helicarrier and someone asks, "Is that S.H.I.E.L.D.?" and the answer is "that's what S.H.I.E.L.D. is supposed to be." (This is a paraphrase -- actual quotes not online). And that's one of the few references to the backbone of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even though S.H.I.E.L.D. was detonated and scattered in Winter Soldier, no one asks whether it still exists. From what you can tell, the Avengers are Stark-financed and presumably given orders by Maria Hill, who gets her orders from . . . .? According to the Internet, the 2-hour finale of AOS Tuesday will fill in where Fury gets the helicarrier from and who helps him get it. But I really wanted to see Phil Coulson.
4. Ultron is not nearly as interesting as he could be. So, let's see. Ultron has amazing AI and knows everything and lives in the Internet. Yet, he's going to bring down humanity by dropping something heavy on them? Um, why not bring down every global system for delivery of finance, food, water, health, etc.? There is some fake hand-waving over nuclear launch codes, but that's so 1980s that no one cares. If Ultron lives in the internet, he could do some pretty interesting things to bring the world to its knees. Even the Mandarin could take over the airwaves. Presumably, Ultron is so bored with the human species that it does not wish to torment, torture, or destroy it slowly. But more could be made of this. With James Spader's voice and Tony Stark's brain, Ultron should have a more interesting personality.
5. The action scenes have already been done. Remember the Battle of New York, where Tony was supposed to take care of the real threat in the air, and the rest would deal with crowd control, killing metal clones and guarding human life. That is also the Battle of Sokovia. The opening battles was so stylized and hectic, I thought it was a video game. I really thought that after four minutes, the movie would open (a la Toy Story 2) with the characters playing an Avengers video game on the Wii U. Bottom line, there is nothing new in the action sequences, which could have been less about brute force than ingenuity given an AI villain.
6. Quicksilver looked just like he did when he was Count Vronsky in Anna Karenina. I couldn't get it out of my mind.
7. Tony ends the really funny running joke about profanity by asking Steve if he kissed his mother with that mouth. Steve's mom died in the 1930s. So, not quite as funny.
8. The movie seems to be passing the baton to "new Avengers" (Scarlet Witch, Falcon, Vision, War Machine). Tony says he's "tapping out" (again). I like the Avengers, not the new Avengers.
I guess in the end some of my points are small and insignificant, but there isn't much big and awesome to like in Age of Ultron. There is still great humor, which makes it better than most action movies. But the action was old and the ties to the Marvel Cinematic Universe weak. The link now are the infinity stones, but very little is explained about them. Oh, well. The fair has left town. Time to look forward to next summer!
I'm behind on a few movies, so here's a twofer. I'll start with the bad news.
Spongebob. However bad you thought it would be, it's worse. The kids and I went on a cold day during Spring Break when it was at the dollar movie. We overpaid. The youngest, age 7, swears it was good, but he's just doing that to save face.
I'm not a Spongebob hater. Back in the early 2000s, when I had toddlers and a stream of Blue's Clues, Dora the Explorer and Caillou, Spongebob was a welcome respite from cloying sweetness. Spongebob was laugh-out-loud funny but still had a sweet spirit. I can still tell you episodes I enjoyed: the claw episode, the driving test episode, the marching band episode, anything with Sandy. But then Spongebob became annoying to me. I have not spent enough time or analysis to know whether the show got worse, or it just wasn't new any more, or Phineas and Ferb filled that smart-but-sweet family cartoon void better. Anyway, I have outlawed Spongebob in the same way that others outlawed Barney. Too much is too much. But here we are watching (the second) Spongebob movie in the theater.
The basic plot is familiar -- Plankton wants to steal the formula. The actual plot is beyond my understanding: something about Antonio Banderas as a pirate reading a magical book about Plankton trying to steal the formula, then the pirate ending up with the formula and Bikini Bottom looking worse than Pottersville after Uncle Billy loses the money. There's a time machine and a magical space dolphin. Then the Bikini Bottom characters go to the surface to get the formula back from the pirate. (the trailer is almost all about the "out of water" portion of the movie, but 90% of the movie is not "out of the water.' It's almost as if the writers were on some sort of psychedelic imagination-enhancers and everyone got to put in an idea. Don't go. Don't Redbox. Just don't. Surely there's a rerun of Phineas and Ferb on.
Home. This movie may not be the good news, but it's better than Spongebob. We were very excited to see this movie based on the trailer and it was a Friday night destination. It was ok. The marketing is really interesting. To "seed" the idea of a new movie with new characters based on a little-knownchildren's book "The True Meaning of Smekday," the producers created a short film called "Almost Home," which played in theaters before other Dreamworks movies. That short film, featuring Steve Martin as the incompetent leader of the alien Boov, was really funny. The longer movie is not quite as funny.
As seen in the short, the Boov are on the run from another alien race, the Gorgs, and are having a hard time finding a hospitable planet. They finally find Earth. Of course, Earth has inhabitants, so Captain Smek tells the Boov that humans are stupid and in need of the Boov to take over, which they do. The Boov relocate the humans to Australia. (The Boov are all on one spaceship, so it's hard to imagine that they fill up the entire non-Australian planet, but they seem to fill up at least New York and London.) Our heroine, Tip (full name Gratuity, unexplained), is separated from her mom and hiding out in New York from the Boov. Our almost hero, Oh, is a Boov on the run after he is blamed for attracting the attention of the Gorgs to the Boov's new planet. Soon, Oh and Tip are driving a car (made to hover by Oh, who is something of a technician) to Australia. Apparently the car moves at the speed of the Concorde, though it looks to just be ambling in the sky. Like other road movies with two opposite characters, the scenes between Oh and Tip are pretty funny. The best scenes are in the trailer if you don't want to spend any money.
I haven't read the book, but the movie requires you to suspend a lot of disbelief. If Tip is 14, how does she know how to drive a car? In New York? Why is she named Gratuity? How do 7 billion people fit in Australia? Where did all of those row houses for the humans get built in one day? How did any of this happen in one day? The best part of the movie is of course Oh, who is voiced by Jim Parsons from The Big Bang Theory. His character is very similar to Sheldon's character. He is very literal, selfish, and lovable.
So, those who saw my FB rants know that I was stuck in airports two days this week. I tried to get some work done, but I'm also not that serious, so I downloaded a movie. I chose a movie that I wanted to see, but wasn't particularly fun for the whole family: Boyhood. Running time was 2:46, which helped to pass the time.
As almost everyone knows now, Boyhood was shot over twelve years, so you see the characters age in front of the camera. The film is really a series of scenes from twelve different years of a family's life, focusing on Mason (Ellar Coltrane), who ends the movie graduating from high school and going to college. Physically and emotionally, he ages the most of anyone on-screen. He and his extraordinarily self-centered and bossy sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), live with their single mother, Olivia (Patricia Arquette). In the second year of the movie, their dad Mason, Sr. (Ethan Hawke) shows up and become reintroduced into their lives. By the end of the movie, Mason has moved from a stoner would-be musician less-than-part-time dad to an actuary dad who drives a minivan with his new wife and baby and is a more-than-part-time dad. But, he is still less than perfectly reliable. Samantha is still self-centered and bossy, and Olivia is still utterly unappreciated by her children, though those around her often comment on the impact she has had on others and how well she has raised her children.
The scenes are fourteen mini-movies of Mason's childhood, and they aren't wholly connected. We meet characters in one year that are gone the next and never spoken of again, including stepfathers, stepsiblings, and friends. The movie opens in an unnamed Texas city, but Olivia's family moves first to Houston and then to San Marcos. If you are from Texas, the movie is quite a treat, with hints to tell those in the know where scenes are filmed and places characters go. In Houston, the family gets a mean, drunk stepfather and in San Marcos the family gets a sullen, drunk stepfather. The children also get a loving stepmother and step-grandparents, who come with a birthday gun and a birthday bible. Mason has friends, bullies, and girlfriends that pop up in one year and disappear. Surprisingly given the drunk stepfathers, Mason and his sister also spend their early (and later) years drinking and smoking pot with permission from their parents. But, Mason pulls it together in the last two years and goes off to college (Sul Ross in Alpine).
If you enjoyed Slacker and Dazed and Confused, then you'll love Boyhood. I tried to think of it as a sequel to Dazed: if the characters there had skipped a decade or so and had kids, they could have been Olivia and Mason, Sr. What would there kids be like? I think Mason and Samantha. Mason is very much like the main character in Dazed. All the grown-ups are nagging him to have a work ethic, but he doesn't see what a work ethic has done for his mom. He is somehow on a superior philosophical plane that separates him from others, whether they are schoolmates, teachers or bosses. He listens to his dad, but that's about it. He reaches his pinnacle and finds his people on move-in day at college. They go on a vision hike ('shrooms and all) to Big Bend and talk about how you don't seize the day, the day seizes you.
So, I'll be a weirdo. I know everyone loves this movie, and it is definitely a great moviemaker's movie. A lot of references to current events remind us of the passage of time, as well as the aging of the actors. The novelty of having your actors age alone is worth watching the movie. I've been thinking of certain scenes since I saw it, and definitely the scenes feel very real. But I am not and have never been an ambivalent, wishy-washy man-boy. I'm not a fan of Hamlet, or Holden Caulfield or Mason. I don't have a romantic notion of him and his place in life. I love boys -- I have two of them. But in my movie, Mason would come to appreciate his mother (and his stepmother) and not plan to cruise through college (on his not-so-rich parents' dime) going to class when he feels like it.
McFarland, USA with Kevin Costner is the latest in a run of PG Disney movies that are live-action, family films. In a film industry made up of animated movies on one side and PG-13 action movies and R-rated drama, these movies are big hits with our family of spread-out children's ages. We also enjoyed Million Dollar Arm with Jon Hamm.
To be honest, our oldest daughter didn't want to go because she thought it sounded so similar to Million Dollar Arm. The premise of that movie was that an aging (almost washed up) talent agent went to India to find great cricket players to be MLB pitchers; hilarity ensues as cultures clash, leading to the inevitable heartwarming "becoming a big family" moment between the young Indian athletes and the agent. The agent has an opportunity to return to his former glamorous life but doesn't. The premise of McFarland is that an aging (almost washed up) football coach moves to a small town near Bakersfield, California, which is populated with migratory farm workers with Mexican roots. The very white Coach (last name White, new nickname Blanco) sees potential in a small group of bad football players and attempts to turn them into cross-country runners. Hilarity ensues as cultures clash, leading to the inevitable heartwarming "becoming a big family" moment between the White family and the families in town. Coach White gets the opportunity to move on to a glamorous life as the Palo Alto track coach, and you can guess what happens.
Though the premises are very similar, the movie was really enjoyable. Particulary if, like us, you are from the "Texican" part of the world. The story is sweet and gritty enough to be real. And, the story is true. At the end, we get to meet the real characters of the story, set 25-ish years ago. The movie has a challenge: cross-country is not exciting to watch. Other sports movies have pitching contests, stealing bases, football touchdowns, etc. Cross-country was not designed to be a spectator sport. But, the movie does a good job of building tension in races anyway. The movie runs long (over two hours) and probably could have been cut down somewhat, but the scenes move the story. As evidence, our seven-year-old never got squirmy.
My friend and I had one quibble: The movie is set in 1987, a year I know very well. None of the ladies in the movie have 1987 hair. They have 2014 hair. There should have been more bangs, perms and hair spray.
Just before DVDs come out, here are two reviews of holiday movies the kids and I finally caught at the "dollar movie" ($4). We were excited about both of these back in December, but then the reviews came out and we dragged our feet. In the end, we weren't (too) disappointed.
Into the Woods. If you were wondering what Anna Kendrick was doing with Neil Patrick Harris last night during the Oscars opening number, this is it. Kendrick seemed to be wearing her exact dress (but not shoes -- remember the cow ate one) from her role as Cinderella in this musical movie. Unlike my kids, I had not seen even a high school production of Into the Woods, so I was struck for the first time at how clever the plot is. Many (many) fairy tales are woven into one story of an old, ugly witch who gives the barren baker couple next door a chance to have a child if they will go "into the woods" and fetch her four objects by midnight in three days -- a red cape, a milk white cow, a gold slipper and hair the color of corn. The woods here are a metaphor for [life/the world/fears/hopes/whatever]. People are changed when they go into the woods and emerge wiser and less innocent. The Broadway version (not the high school musical version) is grittier, so some of the songs don't seem quite right with the Disney-fied version, but that's ok.
So, is the singing good? Yes, by most measures. Meryl Streep is much better than she was in Mamma Mia, I suppose because the genre is a better fit? Or the range? The autotune? Anna Kendrick is also great, as is Jack (of beanstalk fame), played by Daniel Huttlestone, sounding (and looking) exactly as he did as Gavroche in Les Miserable. I found this actually distracting, but that may just be me. The funniest song is "Agony," sung tongue-in-cheek by Prince Charming (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel's hero (Billy Magnussen). It goes on a bit long, but so does everything in the movie. At one point, my son got up to go to the restroom, and I warned him that the movie was almost over. He gave me a knowing look and said, "No it's not, Mom." And it wasn't. So, if you think the play goes on a bit long, so does the movie. All in all, I'm glad we went and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Annie. We were shocked that this movie did not get good ratings, particularly because the trailer seemed so promising. Now, we aren't as shocked. I think the reviews for this movie are low for two reasons: substance and score (I guess that's everything, though).
When the movie came out, I noticed a lot of chatter on FB about how parents with adopted children should stay clear of the movie. And here's the problem. Little Orphan Annie was a depression-era cartoon, and the play and Carol Burnett movie version keep the action in our romantic past. The long-distance lens lets us pretend that orphans in orphanages are blissfully ignorant of their basket-on-doorstep pasts, perfectly well-adjusted and healthy, one day away from a happily ever after with a new family, and temporarily cared for by a matron who is too campy and funny to be too evil. But Annie tries to revamp the musical by putting the events in modern day, where we know a little too much about the foster care system, attachment disorders, and reunification to find the fairy tale in five foster care children daydreaming about their real families. The foster mom, played to the hilt by Cameron Diaz, is more sharp than funny as a bitter alcoholic. Of course, if the movie were too realistic it wouldn't be the same musical, so our five foster care children feel sorry for their foster mom and laugh her off. The right balance may have been impossible, but it's definitely not there.
So, our 2014 Annie is still waiting for her parents, who left her (somewhere) when she was 4, leaving a note saying they would come back and get her and a locket. She seems to have no memories prior to being left, and no hard feelings. But early on, she (literally) runs into Mr. Stacks (Not Warbucks, but close), who is the richest man in America and is running for mayor of New York. He is elitist and out-of-touch, and befriending a "foster kid" improves his polling. Annie is worldy-wise and agrees to play along, all the while continuing her search for her real parents. Of course, the two opposites grow fond of each other, but the evil scheme of Stacks' political consultant and the foster mom to "find" the real parents intervenes.
Here, again, reality intervenes. In a realistic movie, the thought of paying a couple to pretend to be the real parents of a little girl, take her somewhere and "dump her back in the system" seems like the worst atrocity, not a temporary plot tension. This twist does not play well in a light-hearted musical.
Which brings us back to the musical. The credits list as producers not only Will Smith & Jada Pinkett Smith, but also Jay-Z. These extremely talented people know a lot about music. But funnily enough, the "new" songs are completely unmemorable. They are not toe-tapping, and in fact they can't even get the actors in the movie into any sort of dancing most of the time. The musical restraint here is very boring. In Enchanted, show-stopping song and dance numbers were woven into the script, even though they seemed out of place and out of time. The script used that juxtaposition, and it worked. Here, the subtle songs just don't work.
there are also some plot holes -- Where is Stacks' mother and the rest of the family? He acts like an orphan, but his family is just in Queens. Where is Annie's parents? If Annie becomes an overnight social media sensation, why don't they come forward? Especially when the fake reunion is plastered everywhere? In the 1920s, it is realistic to think that families would become separated and unable to find each other. Now? Not so much.
Apparently, people love Paddington, especially critics. Paddington currently has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. What else has a 98% rating? Not much, really. Here are the top Rotten Tomatoes movies for 2014, and movies with that high a rating are artsy movies you and I will never see because they won't be in a movie theater near us. Boyhood is 98% -- a movie that took 12 years to make by Richard Linklater is vying with Paddington for top honors.
Why am I so persnickity? (British movies make me start speaking like Mary Poppins, especially since Ancestry DNA tells me I'm 69% British, more British than the average British citizen.) I'm not. It's a cute movie. One might even say "twee." But why it is a critical darling is a little beyond me. Here is one review on Rogerebert.com -- the movie deftly walks the line between old-fashioned and technical wizardry, with some political pro-immigration overlay. People love this bear.
I do not dislike bears. One of my favorite movies (and very few people can say this) is The Country Bears, which has a 30% Rotten Tomatoes score, even with a great soundtrack. Perhaps I don't get the Paddingtonmania because I never read the original books by Michael Bond. Either way, I will solidly report that the movie was perfectly enjoyable, but not anywhere near recent children's movies hits, such as Big Hero 6.
The movie begins with some magical realism -- a British explorer travels to Darkest Peru (treated as a separate country here) forty years ago, befriending two "civilized" bears, who learned to speak English and conduct themselves as Englishmen using the explorer's books and other paraphrenalia he left with them. They eventually came to look after their nephew, until an earthquake destroyed their tree-home. The aunt put Paddington on a steamship as a stowaway to London to find the explorer and then went to the retirement home for bears outside of Lima. Paddington sails along and gets to Paddington station (for which he is eventually named), living off jars of marmalade he has brought with him.
Paddington is taken home by the Brown family, fairly reluctantly. Though his aunt told him that the English will of course welcome orphans with notes around their neck, just as English child evacuees were welcomed in the countryside during WWII. This, predictably, did not happen when our bear landed at Paddington station. So, our little bear is fairly sad to hear that the Browns will only host him for one night until suitable arrangements with an orphanage can be made. And no, the Browns do not seem overly surprised to see a bear in the train station, nor do any other humans seem startled by a talking bear. "Bear" does seem to be a substitute hear for a type of immigrant: neighbors complain that a bear has moved in but at least it is just one; there is a complaint that a bear might play "jungle music" into the wee hours; the villain plays on this feeling by hinting "it's never just one bear."
Of course, this is a happy family movie, so fairly soon the Browns plus Paddington are a happy family. As the housekeeper notes, the family needed Paddington more than Paddington needed them, evoking every type of stray animal movie one could think of. The movie could end once this small tension was resolved, but there is a larger plot at work: an evil villain (Nicole Kidman) wants to literally stuff Paddington and make him part of a collection at a natural history museum. So, the family must join together with Paddington to save the day. ( I will say that under scrutiny, the larger plot device makes no sense to me. The villain's origin story dates back to the explorer's return to London, when no one believed that he met two bears who were civilized and stripped him of respectability. Yet, in present-day London everyone takes for granted that talking bears would be walking around, clothed and articulate, having tea and marmalade-covered toast.)
Of course, Mr. Brown is the most reluctant to accept Paddington (dragging his heels by 10 or 15 minutes more than the rest). Mr. Brown is also Lord Grantham from Downton Abbey, or Hugh Bonneville as real people call him. He has a particularly amusing scene in which he must dress as a cleaning woman. All in all, we spent an enjoyable holiday Monday at the theater with Paddington.
So, Oscar nominations came out this morning, on the heel's of Monday night's Golden Globes. I'll have to admit, I didn't rush out and see a lot of the holiday season movies because the reviews were not very good on any of them (i,.e., Unbroken) and FB friends were also critical (Annie, Into the Woods). But I have recently seen some movies that got some Oscar and/or Golden Globes love.
The Imitation Game. I took my 15 year-old girl to see this, mostly because she's in love with Benedict Cumberbatch. We were not constrained by knowing anything about Alan Turing. We sort of knew that he was vaguely good at computers before they existed. That's all. Many reviews have criticized the story's departure from historical truth, both about specific facts and in the portrayal of Turing's personality. In the movie, Turing is portrayed as someone possibly on the autism spectrum: his vegetables can't touch, he can't understand simple social situations (he doesn't understand "Hey, we're all going to lunch" as an invitation from co-workers), he doesn't get simple jokes, he is very rude and literal to those around him, etc. This style creates a fun character just a notch more intelligent/arrogant/unapologetic than Sherlock Holmes and Sheldon form Big Bank Theory. But, of course that character doesn't hang together -- if you can't get jokes and puns, you can't do crosswords. But critics say that character doesn't match Turing's personality, who was vibrant, well-traveled, and quite active in gay society.
None of this matters much to me. My daughter and I thought the movie was perfectly wonderful, if a little slow at times. I think the story that is told brings you to one point to ponder, which is important. If Turing had not prematurely died (the movie says he committed suicide, which may not be conclusive), how else would he have saved our world? And, if Turing died because of his persecution (and prosecution) for being gay, then our bigotry cost us a great mind and untold human advances. I think this is an important message, and I'm perfectly fine with narrative choices to get us there. I also enjoyed A Beautiful Mind, even though it did not tell the entirety of Nash's story and took artistic license with parts of it. As I heard a biographer say once, "biography is not memoir."
My only quibble with the movie is that the "story within a story" (Turing is supposedly relating the story to a police detective in one sittnig) doesn't quite work with the flashbacks to boarding school. Is he thinking the flashbacks while he's tellng the story? While he was living the story? Is he telling the detective the flashbacks? Why would he talk to the detective in a non-chronological way, with flashbacks every 15 minutes?
Big Eyes. This movie was ignored by the Oscars, but Amy Adams (my favorite) won a Golden Globe for best female actor in a Comedy. Big Eyes isn't a comedy, just in case you didn't know that. The movie is another biopic, this time about Margaret Keane, a painter and single mom who marries a would-be painter and real estate agent, Walter Keane. Walter is supposed to be selling "his" paintings (we find out later they are purchased from the real artist) and Margarets, but ends up taking credit for painting hers, which are more popular. Margaret's "big eye" depictions of waifs in various settings become a national craze, and the pair can't risk their fans' wrath by revealing the truth. Margaret eventually is no more than an indentured servant of Walter's, painting all day in a studio so that Walter can sell the paintings to the wealthy and facsimiles of the paintings to the masses. Even when she finally leaves him, she bargains for her freedom by agreeing to keep painting under his name. Margaret's plight is made even worse by the fact that the lie prevents her from spending time with her daughter (i.e., she can't paint in front of her daughter), having friends over, or even having conversations with others. A great chunk of her day is secret.
Like The Imitation Game, there are websites where you can fact-check Big Eyes. Much of it is true, including the showdown scene at the end. For this movie, I went with my 13 year-old son, who asked to go, and he really enjoyed it. The movie is directed by Tim Burton, so there are some cartoon-ish camera angles and scenes, but it doesn't get in the way of the movie. The actor who plays the fiendish yet charismatic Walter is Christoph Waltz, who himself looks like a Rankin-Bass character (think Snow-Miser meets the magician from Frosty the Snowman). He is eerily believable as the pathological liar, Walter. I'm sorry that it didn't get a lot of Oscar love, but I would definitely recommend it.
We traveled a lot over the holidays, so we are behind on the December 25 releases; however, we did see two of the pre-Christmas releases: Penguins of Madagascar and Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (otherwise known as Night at the Museum 3).
Penguins of Madagascar
I will admit that I did not want to see this movie. I see the penguin quarter from the Madagascar movies as similar to the weird squirrel in Ice Age: pretty funny the first time you met up with them, but pretty annoying as time and sequels drag on. I could not imagine that a spin-off movie would be that interesting, particularly because I had watched at least one episode of the penguins' TV show against my will. But, I lost the vote and off we went. (The third week of December, the Rotten Tomatoes meter on the movie was very high -- in the 90s; the rating has since plummeted, which is interesting in itself.) Perhaps because my expectations were set so low, I found it pleasantly amusing.
First, the penguins get a backstory, which is actually interesting and let me actually distinguish the four penguins for the first time. The plot of the movie is fairly thin: first, you have to assume that everyone loves penguins, thinks they are cute, avoids other animals at the zoo to see the penguins, etc. In my experience, penguins are not my favorite exhibit at the zoo, but maybe I'm an outlier. In this world where penguins are prized stars of movies and documentaries, an evil non-penguin nemesis hatches a plan to collect all the zoo penguins and do something diabolical. Our 4 penguins are rescued by "North Wind," a sort of S.H.I.E.L.D. made up of animals to protect the animal world. Benedict Cumberbatch voices a wolf (whose name is classifed) who heads North Wind. The diabolical villain is voiced by John Malkovich, so all is well on those fronts. All in all, the movie makes for a pretty good afternoon, though I think it's more of a Redbox purchase than a big cinema splurge.
Night at the Museum: Secrets of the Tomb
OK, so I love all the Night at the Museum movies. But, I love both the American Museum of National History and the Smithsonian, where the first two were set. The third is in (wait for it) the British Museum. If you remember from the other movies, an Egyptian prince, Ahkmenrah, lives at the New York museum with his magical tablet, which allows the other exhibits to come to life at night. In the third installation, the tablet is growing green corrosion on it, and the powers are weakening. Larry (Ben Stiller), must go to the British Museum to see Ahkmenrah's father, the Pharoah, who will explain to him the mysteries of the tablet, in order to save his exhibit friends. This "crisis" gives the cast the chance to go to the British Museum and meet a lot of new characters and have new adventures. However, you see that this makes the action much like the second sequel, set at the Smithsonian: Larry and exhibits go to new museum, have adventures, make new friends, come back to New York with crisis solved. In fact, many of the interactions are very similar. In the second movie, Larry met the Smithsonian night guard Brunden (Jonah Hill), and funny banter ensued. In the third movie, Larry meets the British Museum night guard Tilly (Rebel Wilson), and funny banter ensues. In the second movie, Larry meets Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), who doesn't quite understand she is a wax figure until the end. In the third movie, Larry meets Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens), who doesn't quite understand he is a wax figure until the end. I guess a normal movie-goer might get bored at this point, but not me because I was just so excited that Matthew from Downton Abbey was in the movie!
If I had to point out a disappointing part of the movie (besides not having Amerlia Earhart meet Sir Lancelot and go on a quest together), it was that the "mysteries of the tablet" are stupid. And I don't mean ridiculous, I mean lame. And simple. I won't tell you what the mystery is, but I wouldn't have been as disappointed if the Pharoah had said to dip it in Tarn-X. But, the Pharoah also was part of an really funny conversation where Larry got to tell him that his Jewish slaves escaped from Egypt and that now every year people get together to have dinner and talk about it. Pretty funny.
So, readers here know that I go to the movies a lot. A lot. I really like movies, and movies are expensive. Particularly the way we go to the movies (like they are going to stop making popcorn any second). One of the great things about Utah County is that there is a $1 theater and a $3.50 theater (with $1 popcorn) that show movies the week they leave the other theaters, and sometimes before. But now, AMC and MoviePass are offering a monthly subscription service in Boston and Denver that allow moviegoers to see up to one movie a day for a flat fee ($35 standard format/$45 any format). If the average AMC ticket price is $9, then you would need to see about one movie a month to break even.
A few thoughts. First, there are times of the year (February comes to mind) where there aren't any movies to go see at all. We see mostly family movies, and there really aren't enough of those to eke out a weekly outing all year. So, if I was paying $35 in February to see one animated sequal, I'd be a little disappointed. I might make up for it during the summer and the pre-Oscar season, but it would be close. Second, I would only do it if I were in a city where AMC had enough screens to show a lot of movies: indies, documentaries, etc. There really aren't enough mainstream movies that I would want to see 60 new releases a year. (Alas, there isn't an AMC here.)
But, if I did have such a card to a local theater, then I'm sure I would buy a lot of concessions (as if I didn't already). Even though it is irrational, I would feel like my admission was "free," and I could use more cash for extras. (Would you like some raisinets with that popcorn?)