How to Train Your Dragon (Review)

     Slim picking at the theater this weekend.  I almost didn't go to see anything, but then I started to read things about DreamWorks' new offering.  Things like, it's darker than you'd think and you shouldn't take small children.  With nothing else playing locally and boredom setting in, that was enough to get me into a theater, and it was an enjoyable enough afternoon.  

     Based on children's books by Cressida Cowell, "How to Train Your Dragon" is about Hiccup, (yes, Hiccup, it is a kids story,) a young Viking who isn't exactly like his Viking brethren.  He's not strong, he's smart, and he lacks a lust for battle and death, though he does try to fit in.  He also lives on an island frequented by swarms of dragons.  Our young hero, through brains and determination, manages to down and cripple a dragon, but he does not have the heart to kill the beast.  Rather, he builds a prosthetic tail fin for the dragon, which allows the dragon to fly again, so long as Hiccup is riding and working the tail fin.  In the end, the village is saved, the dragons become welcome, and everyone learns a lesson about not killing stuff.  Oh, and there is some rather dark symmetry between Hiccup and his dragon. 

     Yes, this is, at heart, a kids movie, but it is not one that panders to children and throws in the occasional double entendre to keep parents awake.  The dragons aren't anthropomorphic and they don't talk.  They are animals.  Some are more intelligent than others, but they act like animals should.  The same goes for the people.  Adults act as adults should and so do the younger characters.  The story is, generally, predictable, but there are some surprising, and sometimes shocking, moments you won't see coming.  There are a few, intense battle sequences, but despite talk of people and dragons dying, you don't actual see any dead dragons or people, though some older Vikings do bear the marks of past battles, including missing limbs.  That is where the movie might not really be appropriate for younger children.  (That, and the ending!)  The 3-D isn't bad or distracting, but it is also useless.  It's noticeable in some of the flying scenes, but that's about it. 

     I don't normally go for this type of movie, children's films or anything about dragons, but "How to Train Your Dragon" has a real human side to it.  The story was predictable, but it wasn't boring and was just different enough to keep me interested through to the final, climactic, battle scene and it's dark, yet feel good epilogue.  There's no reason to rush out and see it in theaters, but, with what's in theaters now, you could do worse. 

Shutter Island (Review)

     I couldn't wait for "Shutter Island."  Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a creepy, psychological thriller; what could possibly go wrong?  Well, not much, but the end was a bit of a let down.

     "Shutter Island," as I said before, is a creepy, psychological thriller directed by film legend Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as federal marshal Teddy Daniels, who's investigating the apparent disappearance of a 'patient' from the asylum for the criminally insane on Shutter island, where nothing is as it seems and everyone's motives are in question.

     Just about everything in "Shutter Island" is dead on.  Martin Scorsese knows how to make a movie.  The actors give great performances, the cinematography is breathtaking, frightening, shocking, or whatever else Scorsese wants it to be, the story is suspenseful yet reveals its self at a good pace, and the pace keeps your attention through all two hours and eighteen minutes of film.  For me, though, the twist ending was a bit of a disappointment.  (This is where you stop reading if you don't want to know too much!) 

Extraordinary Measures (Review)

     I almost didn't see "Extraordinary Measures."  I almost allowed a lot of poor critical reviews stop me from going to see a well done story of courage, hope, human drama, and just the right amount of some very heartwarming humor.  I'm glad I don't always listen to the critics.

     "Extraordinary Measures," based on a book and actual events, is the story of a father, John Crowley, played by Brendan Fraser, who is desperate to find a cure for two of his children who are dying of Pompe disease.  He finds Dr. Robert Stonehill, played by Harrison Ford, an eccentric researcher whose work is radically different and advanced.  Crowley begins to raise money for Stonehill's research and eventually gets the good doctor in a position where he can make real progress on an actual treatment before Crowley's children die.

     I've heard that the book "Extraordinary Measures" is based on, as well as the movie its self, doesn't quite stick to the facts and gives too much credit to John Crowley and not enough to Dr. William Canfield, the real life researcher that Ford's character is based on.  I don't know how true this is or exactly how accurate or skewed the facts are, but that doesn't really matter.  "Extraordinary Measures" is a story based on true events, not a historical bio pic.  Even though the character of John Crowley is supposed to be the hero, and he is in some very important ways, when he is not being a loving, dedicated father who will do anything to save his children, he's still a corporate executive, a stuffed suit, and not all that likable, and despite the fact that the character of Dr. Stonehill seems to have to be pushed to overcome himself in order to do the right thing, his character seems far more human than Crowley and, ultimately, is the real hero.  It likely doesn't help each of these characters much that Brendan Fraser, who is a fine actor,  pales next to the incredible acting talent of seasoned veteran Harrison Ford.  I do sympathize with a father trying to save the lives of his children, but that doesn't make him, or his character a likable person.  Perhaps these actors do a better job in their respective roles than they are given credit for.  In any case, the story is supposed to be about how a father's determination saved his children, but what comes through is that large pharmaceutical companies are heartless and driven solely by profit, a father will be as much of a jerk as he has to be in order to save his children, and  a brilliant and kind-hearted, yet odd, doctor did everything he could to save one man's children, and many others, from death at the hands of a terrible disease.  (That and Meredith Droeger is absolutely adorable as a sick little girl who won't give up.) 

     "Extraordinary Measures" may not exactly be the truth, but is makes for a good story and a bittersweet, good time.  Besides, I'm sure The History Channel will come out with a more accurate account, and we can all watch that and be informed.  Until then, just feel good that there's one less disease killing children.

Legion (Review)

     I didn't really know what to think about "Legion" going into it.  The previews had a lot of fast action and and one, mean grandma.  I was hoping that the action was all in the trailer and there was a lot more of grandma or her ilk.  I wasn't too disappointed. 

     "Legion" is an action/thriller about a coming apocalypse and a renegade angel who it trying to save humanity from it.  Paul Bettany plays the fallen Archangel Michael, who has come to protect Adrianne Palicki's character, Charlie, and her soon to be born (on Christmas!) baby from the Archangel Gabriel, played by Kevin Durand, who is now leading heaven's armies aganist humanity, Michael, Charlie, and her soon to be born, savior child.  Dennis Quaid, Charles S. Dutton, and a few others round out the cast as well written, pretty well acted supporting characters and cannon fodder. 

     "Legion" does a good job at building suspense, developing its characters, and moving the story along while still giving you plenty of action, explosions, and angel fights.  Much of the movie has a nice, trapped in a house/zombie movie feel to it as the main characters barricade themselves in a diner and fend off waves of angel possessed humans.  Bettany and Durandis both do well as frighteningly dedicated angels, both hellbent on carrying out their respective missions, but it really is Quaid, Dutton, and some of the other supporting characters who make this film as good and enjoyable as it is.  This shows in the ending, which is satisfying enough and appropiate for a movie like this, but is also a little dry with the majority of the supporting characters gone and is a bit too action oriented. 

     "Legion" isn't going to be a classic or win any Oscars, but it is an enjoyable time in the theater and is worth, at least, a matinee ticket price. 

     P.S.  "The Prophecy" is still the reigning champ for creepy angel movies.  You just can't beat Christopher Walken and Viggo Mortensen. 

And Now for Something Completely Different (Review)

     This is sort of a movie so I guess this is sort of a review.  "And Now for Something Completely Different" isn't really a movie as much as it is a collection of skits from the first two seasons of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" redone for the movie screen.  It was shown in theaters around the US in the early 70's, so technically, I suppose, it qualifies as a movie.  It was originally intended to introduce American audiences to Monty Python (no YouTube or Hulu back then) and is the first of the Python's films.

     Just in case you don't know what "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was, they were a comedy troupe out of Great Brittan in the early 1970's.  Their comedy was so unique that dictionaries had to invent the word Pythonesque just to describe it.  Their skits are often ridiculous in premise, go in completely unexpected directions, and have no ending or punchline, but rather, they just bleed into the next skit or end suddenly or they get interrupted by another skit or a bit of some of the oddest animation anyone had seen at the time, and that's exactly what you can expect from "And Now for Something Completely Different;" oddities like a pet shop owner who can't be convinced that a parrot he sold is actually dead, a mountaineer with double vision who wants to go up the twin peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro, (there's only one!) and, my personal favorite, an instructional video on how not to be seen.  (Don't stand up!)

     Of all the Python's movie's, "And Now for Something Completely Different" is the least movie like and, really, exactly like watching an hour and a half of their TV show.  If you like Monty Python, then you'll like this, if you don't, you won't, and if you've never seen them, well, this will give you a really good idea of what you're missing.  You'll also learn how to defend yourself when your attacker is armed with fresh fruit.  (Eat the banana, thus disarming your attacker.) 

Daybreakers (Review)

     When you push to far to one extreme, there is always a backlash; disco brought on punk, Bush brought on Obama, and now, thankfully, romanticized, teen angst laden vampires bring on "Daybreakers."  The previews made it look like a typical, fast action, slick, special effects laden bowl of Hollywood tripe.  Little did I know that nothing could have been farther from the truth. 

     "Daybreakers" is not your typical vampire movie.  Here, a virus, spread by a bat, began infecting people and turning them into vampires.  It seems that most of the classic vampire lore applies; sunlight kills, as does a stake through the heart and decapitation, and you become a vampire when one feeds on you.  With people becoming vampires at a rapid pace, ordinary human beings soon become a minority and the world is now run by vampires.  These vampires need human blood or they devolve into a nasty, more bat like, mindless, vampire creature, so, human beings are now captured and farmed for blood, however, ten years into Vampireland, there are not enough humans left to sustain the vampire population and blood supplies are beginning to run short.  Enter our hero, Edward Dalton, played by Ethan Hawke, who is a vampire doing research on a blood substitute.  He meets up with former vampire Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac, played Willem Dafoe, and a small group of human resisters.  They have a cure, of sorts, that DaFoe's character accidentally discovered, and they need Hawke's character to develop it.

     "Daybreakers" is a bit of an action movie and a bit of a gruesome monster movie with some well thought out social analysis as a backdrop.  The action sequences are well done and appropriate, lacking the current Hollywood penchant for slow motion CGI closeups.  They are fast, shocking, and often gruesome, but not overly so, and appropriate for an adult oriented monster movie.  The visual effects are quite good and are used when necessary rather than the overkill we are used to.  There is even quite a bit of development of what a vampire lead society would be like, complete with social divisions, an underclass, (quite literally under the city) a human hunting vampire army, and coffee.  (Now with 20% blood!)  There could be more development of the culture, but not without sacrificing the action/monster movie core.  The rest is good execution of story and character.  "Daybreakers" isn't a character based drama by any stretch of the imagination, but it does pay enough attention to both character and story to keep both interesting and believable while advancing the plot of a action/monster movie, making it a far better than your typical, shallow, action or monster movie.  The ending is satisfying enough, though we are left in sequel or franchise territory, which I think wouldn't be such a bad idea as long as newcomer writer/directors Michael and Peter Spierig can remain in Australia and away from the influence of major motion picture studios. 

     I was pleasantly surprised at "Daybreakers," and if you are sick and tired of wimpy, teen aged vampires bemoaning their feelings, I think you will be too.

Up in the Air (Review)

     I hate watching modern romance films.  They are all the same.  People who shouldn't be together and will make each other miserable if they try to spend the rest of their lives together spend the entire movie realizing that fact, until, in the end, there is a romantic moment, which somehow makes up for everything else that has transpired, and the couple that shouldn't be has a long, romantic kiss, and the movie ends.  The really sad fact is that some of these movies are actually pretty good, up until the third act, where it all falls apart because the doomed couple has to get together in the end.  "Up in the Air" looked like it might be different, and it was, but not enough.

     "Up in the Air" stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a man who works for a company that sends him around the country to fire people during large lay offs or whatever and help counsel them with their severance packages, finding a new job, ect...  He has spent his life doing this, he is very good at it, he spends more than three hundred days a year on the road, has little connection to friend or family, and is quite happy and successful.  In his off time, he does speaking engagements, most of the time to promote his book on how movement is life and relationships only weigh you down.  Clooney's character meets Alex Goran, played by Vera Farmiga, a business woman who also spends a lot of time on the road and they begin a physical relationship which they consummate whenever their busy itineraries happen to bring them near one another.  Then we get the younger woman, Natalie Keener, played by Anna Kendrick.  Kendrick's character is a recent college graduate who is there to innovate the way Clooney's character does his job.  She proposes ending the traveling and wants to start firing people via video phone.  Before this plan is implemented, she spends some time traveling with Clooney's character to see what it is he actually does.

     The first two acts of "Up in the Air" are very good.  You've got some really good writing and some great actors.  It was very enjoyable and gave me hope that this movie might not be your typical romance film, and it wasn't.  It was far worse.  (Sorry, but I'm going to give away the end here.)

Avatar (Review)

     I had been seeing the previews for months, as I'm sure a lot of you have, and I was worried.  James Cameron knows how to make a movie, and I'm willing to give (almost) anything he makes a chance, but "Avatar" seemed unnecessarily over the top.  The more I heard about the truly amazing, new techniques and technologies being used, the more I worried about more basic story elements being overlooked.  The more hyped the movie was, the more I worried that anything less than an absolute masterpiece was going to be a complete letdown.  In many ways, my fears were realized.

      "Avatar" is about a planet of primitive, alien natives who just happen to be living directly on top of their planet's largest concentration of valuable ore. (Upsidasium)  A corporate mining operation wants the natives to relocate and the space marines protecting the mining operation are all too happy to blow the indigenous population up if they resist.  At the same time you've got xeno-anthropologists, led by Sigourney Weaver, studying the aliens, trying to teach them English, (and the American way) and, supposedly, trying to convince them to leave their scared tree and move so the Marines won't blow them up.  Enter our hero, played by Sam Worthington, a former Marine who is now confined to a wheelchair. (Yes, we have intergalactic space ships but are still using wheelchairs!)  His job is to use a genetically engineered alien body, that he controls with his mind, to help the xeno-anthropologists study the natives and secretly gather intelligence for the military so they can either convince the natives to leave or have an easier time blowing them up.  Of course, after spending three months living as an alien, he forms attachments, loyalties are called into question, and inner conflict arises.

     The story is an old one, even if it is significantly modernized.  Do you remain loyal when loyalty means injustice, or do you betray everything you know to defend the helpless?  (Or, at least, the seriously outgunned?)  With that kind of a story, you pretty much know exactly what's going to happen, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you develop the story and characters well, move the plot along, and keep the audience emotionally invested; in short, you tell a good story.  Cameron does this, somewhat, but but he also sacrifices these basic story elements to showcase his new special effects techniques.  To be fair, the special effects are, for the most part, amazing.  The 3-D, however, was, at best, unnecessary and at worst, distracting.  During the CGI sequences, the 3-D is, of course, faked by computers, so it isn't all that amazing, during the parts that are shot on set, the 3-D is real, but useless as the sets are not that large, and anytime they mixed CGI with actual sets, the 3-D actually makes the computer graphics stand out and look less real.  The plot plods along at a terrible pace and is broken up by far too many extended CGI action sequences that do little or nothing to advance the story or develop the characters.  At two hours and forty-two minutes, you can afford to cut out a lot of the action sequences and add some character development.  The love story between Worthington's character and the alien 'princess' seems to simply pop into being rather than being developed over the course of the movie in a believable fashion.  Similarly, so does his character's detachment from reality and his native culture.  Both are spilled out quickly in awkward exposition.  We are never really given the opportunity to empathize or develop any real feelings for any of the characters.  Additionally, the CGI character's lack of facial expressions makes them seem emotionless and almost cartoon like.  Despite Cameron's new CGI techniques, which were meant to capture actor's facial expressions and transfer them to their computer generated characters, the CGI aliens still seem rather flat in most of their expressions.  We spend quite a bit of time with these aliens and not having the subtlety of realistic facial expressions makes it quite difficult to get a sense of their feelings or to form any real emotional bond with them.  

     "Avatar" isn't a bad movie, but it is far too long for an action movie and it doesn't have nearly enough character or story development for a sci/fi morality tale.  It feels more like an extended ride at a studio theme park; lots of eye candy but not a lot of substance.  I think Cameron shot way too high on this one and missed.

Brothers (Review)

     The previews do not do this film justice.  I did not expect such depth or power from what seemed like a fairly simple tale of war and family.  Unfortunately, I did expect better character development and more closure from this, or any, film, and I was disappointed there.

     The storyline for "Brothers," even without giving away too much, is difficult to sum up in one or two sentences.  Tobey Maguire, who gets to really show his range as an actor, plays a marine who is shot down and captured in Afghanistan.  He spends months as a captive before American forces find him.  Meanwhile, back home, his wife, played by Natalie Portman, his two young daughters, his ex con brother, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, and his parents, all believe that he died in the crash and life goes on, as much as it can.  Portman grieves, the girls get to know their 'uncle Tommy,' Gyllenhaal's character, better, and Gyllenhaal (seems to) grow and mature as he and his father reconcile somewhat.  Maguire's character eventually returns home and can not come to terms with what happened while he was being help captive.  This, of course, effects his relationship with his wife, daughters, parents, and his brother and life slowly begins to break down.  

     This all seems rather standard and predictable, I know, however, the characters, who are not what you would expect from this kind of story, make "Brothers" compelling and engaging, right up until the end, which happens far too suddenly and lacks the closure necessary for a story with this much emotional investment.  Gyllenhaal's character self destructs just before the end and foreshadows the less than satisfying ending to come.  'Uncle Tommy' seemed to be developing quite well for most of the movie, then, just before the end, we discover that his character hasn't really grown or learned anything at all, and all the emotional investment we had in him is wasted.  Shortly after that, the film builds to a climax, and then fails to deliver and we are left wondering, 'So, what's next?'  There was a moment very near the end where I though we were going to get the point of the film, which was something about brotherhood, but it's a fleeting moment and far too much of the movie is concerned with Maguire's character's dark secret for this to simply be about the bond between brothers.


     "Brothers" had a lot of potential and came very close to being a powerful and poignant film, but falls apart in the end leaving far too many loose ends and abandoning it's characters to an almost obsessive quest for an answer to the question, 'What happened in Afghanistan?'  The revelation of which is not a surprise to the audience and fails to resolve anything.  It actually makes you feel that an ending is coming, but the only thing after that is darkness and credits. 

P.S.  I'd also like to say that I don't know what a good ending for "Brothers" might have been.  Everything I can think of is either cliche or undeserving of the rest of the film, and maybe that's why it seems to fall apart.

Everybody's Fine (Review)

     Despite a weeks worth of less than stellar reviews, I still wanted to see "Everybody's Fine."  I'm glad I did.

     "Everybody's Fine" is a family drama starring Robert De Niro as a recent widower who's looking forward to all four of his adult children coming home to visit.  When they all cancel on him, he, being retired and having nothing better to do, decides to go see them.  From there, we see three out of his four children and their perfect, or less than perfect, lives, and De Niro's character begins to piece together that everybody is not fine, despite his children's best efforts to hide the truth from him.  Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale, and Sam Rockwell all deliver good performances as the family hiding something from dad and De Niro delivers his usual best.  (De Niro is a legend for a reason and shines in just about anything.)

     One might expect a lot of teary eyed melodrama or each member of the family to be picture perfect on the outside but hide dark and terrible secrets in a drama like this, and I am pleased to say that this is not the case.  Sure, the kids are not telling dad everything, but this is part of the tension.  They've spent their lives trying to make dad proud and confiding in mom, and that's gone now, but that's the story; a much more true to life drama about a family finding a new dynamic to exist in when the old one is gone. De Niro's character isn't fine either, nobody's fine, but, by the end, we discover that, while nobody's perfect, everybody actually is, fine.  (More or less.)

     I enjoyed "Everybody's Fine" for the same reason I enjoyed "The Big Chill;" it's a slice of life, something that is rooted in reality and is not over dramatized.  I can see this happening.  It happens everyday.  Life goes on, you can't achieve perfection, but you can be happy, and that's, ultimately, what's important.

The Blind Side (Review)

     Once the crowds cleared a bit and I didn't have to stand in line just to see a story I already knew, I went to go see "The Blind Side," and I must say, I was pleasantly surprised.

Please note that because this is a true story, I may give away more of the story than I normally would.  I feel that it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Amelia doesn't quite make it all the way around or that the boat hit an iceberg and sinks in the end, so I tend to take a few more liberties with the review than I normally would. 

     "The Blind Side" is the true story of NFL left tackle Michael Oher, and how a kind family was willing to take him in when he had almost nothing, provided him a home, and allowed him to become a member of their family.  Oher is played by relative newcomer Quinton Aaron, whose subtle and withdrawn manner capture perfectly the slowly unfolding layers of Oher as he starts to become less of a stranger and more a part of a family.  Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw play Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, the eventual parents to Oher.  Sandra Bullock has a bit of trouble pulling off a convincing, southern accent, but still does a great job as a powerful and headstrong mother to her family, Oher included.  She reminds me a bit of Julia Roberts in "Charlie Wilson's War," but not nearly as bad.  (Sorry Julia, but that was a poor rendition of an aging, Texas debutant.)  McGraw plays a much more convincing, let's say, resident of Mississippi, (redneck!) but he is playing to his strengths.(I should talk)  All kidding aside, McGraw does deliver a strong performance, but the show is stolen by Jae Head, who plays the Touhy's youngest son, S.J.  Head lends a much needed comic relief to what could have been a far too intense movie. 

     There isn't a lot more to say about "The Blind Side."  It's an incredible true story and a feel good movie, so you'll pretty much know what to expect going into it even if you don't know Michael Oher.  What surprised me about the movie was the way it didn't stoop to a lot of sappy, saccharine moments or try to pound you with a message or a moral.  It simply tells the true story of a good person, who needed help, and some other good people who were willing to help.  From that, a young man, practically homeless, became one of the NFL's most promising left tackles.  The cynic in me didn't want to see this film, for fear of it being a boring, pandering, morality tale.  It wasn't and I'm glad I saw it.  You'll be glad you saw it too.

Planet 51 (Review)

     I don't usually go to see CGI kids movies unless I think there is going to be something special about it.  I didn't know what to expect with "Planet 51."  It's the first offering from Madrid based Ilion Animation Studios.  I'm disappointed that it isn't anything too special, but I'm also pleased that it deviates from the typical  route taken by a lot of Hollywood's CGI 'extravaganzas.'  (Also pleased that it isn't unnecessarily 3-D!) 

     The story here is extremely stereotypical and well worn.  An alien lands in the 1950's.  Everyone is scared.  The military is mobilized.  Local kids help the alien, who is actually peaceful and just wants to get back home.  In the end, everyone learns a lesson about prejudice and the alien is allowed to leave.  The twist, which is no secret, is that the alien is a human astronaut landing on an alien planet.  That, and a pretty good time, is what kids can expect to get out of "Planet 51."  Adults, well, luckily, this film doesn't feature the usual, occasional off color joke to keep the parents paying attention.  It does, however, feature a lot of spoofs, parody, and in jokes, which I found to be a lot more entertaining than the usual schlock.  The entire movie is, basically, a parody of 1950's alien/horror movies, right down to the extremely 1950's look and feel of the town and aliens.  There's other humor as well, like a rover probe, sent in first by NASA, that is so obsessed with gathering rock samples that it completely misses an entire alien civilization and an alien dog, that looks like the aliens from the movie "Alien", named, Ripley.  Unfortunately, much of this is forced to take a back seat to the plot in the third act.  Happily, there is a story, plot, and character development.  Oh sure, I saw it all coming, but it managed to keep me interested. Voice talents include Dwayne Johnson, Jessica Biel, John Cleese, and Justin Long as the alien Lem.  (LEM, pronounced exactly the same way as they do in the movie, is also what NASA called the Lunar Excursion Module used during the moon landings.  I love nerd humor!)  Thankfully, Long acts, rather than attempting to inject his SNL persona into the film, like too many comedians tend to do in these types of movies.  Although, I wouldn't have minded if Cleese had injected a bit of Cleese into his part, but I can't blame the director for wanting to make a movie and not a vehicle for comedians. 

     "Planet 51" definitely isn't the next "Shrek," but I laughed a lot more than the kids in the audience did.

Amelia (Review)

     The main problem with true stories or biographical films is that you are limited to what actually happened.  Embellish too much and your story can be unbelievable or cliche.  Stick to the facts and you risk being dry and sounding like a textbook.  "Amelia" leans slightly toward the dry side yet manages to be a not unenjoyably portrait of a unique woman and how she lived a unique life.

     "Amelia" is, of course, the story of legendary pilot Amelia Earhart.  Hilary Swank plays Earhart and Richard Gere plays here husband and publicist George Putnam.  The movie begins, more or less, with their meeting and is, really, more the story of their life together, mainly from Earhart's point of view, making this less a full fledged biography and more a tragic love story. 

     Swank and Gere's performances are believable enough, but there really isn't anything special about either.  The story is, as far as I know, historically accurate, but there really isn't any tension and not nearly enough emotion.  This is the life of an American hero, a truly unique and special woman who inspired generations of women to pursue their dreams and believe in themselves, a woman who refused to live by the rules of a society that told her she couldn't, or shouldn't even try, to be whatever she wanted to be, and it has all the feeling of a made for T.V. movie.

     "Amelia" isn't not worth seeing, but it also isn't likely to inspire any future generations.

P.S.

     While standing in line to see "Titanic," which I was tricked into seeing, I upset a few of people by repeatedly saying, 'In the end, the boat sinks.'  (Sad, really.)  So, on that note, she doesn't quite make it all the way around.  Sorry if I spoiled it for you.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (Review)

     I've wanted to see "The Men Who Stare at Goats" ever since I saw Jon Ronson's interview on "The Colbert Report," although I could have sworn it was "The Daily Show."  (I LOVE YOU SARAH VOWELL!!!)

     "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is an odd, little dark comedy, about a secret Army program in the 1980's called project Jedi that tried to create psychic warrior monks who could prevent wars with the power of their minds.  Did I mention that this is supposed to based, at least in part, on real events?

     Ewan McGregor plays Bob Wilton, a recently jilted reporter who goes to Iraq to prove himself.  There he meets George Clooney, who plays Lyn Cassady, retired Jedi warrior.  Together, the two embark on a journey of self discovery and redemption that, in many ways, mirrors the Star Wars movies.  (And they borrowed heavily from Shakespeare, like everything else does.)

     There is a lot of subtle humor along the way, and some not so subtle, along with just enough drama to develop the characters and move the story along.  "The Men Who Stare at Goats" isn't going to win a Best Comedy Oscar (and not just because there isn't one), but it is an amusing film that fans of dark, subtle humor will enjoy.

Paranormal Activity (Review)

      I (finally) got to see "Paranormal Activity" this Friday, at a midnight showing, at the Alamo Drafthouse.  In doing so, I gave this movie the best chance I could of actually scarring me.  At the Drafthouse, I am virtually guaranteed there won't be anyone breaking the tension by talking or yelling something during a tense moment, or other such sophomoric activities that you are likely to get at a regular theater.  Unfortunately, the movie did that its self.

     "Paranormal Activity" has been advertised as some kind of underground phenomenon.  During its first weeks of showings, it played only to midnight audiences.  Much of the hype around it was word of mouth.  It is being advertised as "one of the scariest movies of all time.*"(*note the poster on your right)  Perhaps it works a little bit better at midnight showings, where you don't know what to expect, and you haven't seen commercials or trailers, but now that the secret is out, and the trailers I've seen contain most of the movie's creepier moments, the experience falls a bit flatter than it should.  Maybe it will work better on DVD, just you and a loved one you want to scare, or a small group of friends who have never heard about it, but large groups of people in theaters who know what they are in for disarm some of the scare of "Paranormal Activity,"

     Over-hype isn't the only problem with this film, however.  The concept its self seems very strong.  The way that the creepy moments are shown in digital camera 'reality vision', so to speak, make them seem real and visceral, however, there was no need to shoot the rest of the movie in the same, shaky, reality style.  That tends to be the failing of every one of these Blair Witch clones.  There is no real reason for someone to STILL be filming EVERYTHING that is happening.  ("Cloverfield" is a prime example.  Put down the camera and RUN!!!)  The attempted explanation of the continual filming also tends to ring hollow.  I think the film would have really worked if the scary moments were all on digital camera, making them seem very real, and the rest of the movie were just that, a movie. 

     The main failing of "Paranormal Activity", however, is the idiot boyfriend, who, in the end, deserves what comes to him.  I'll elaborate.  "Paranormal Activity" is a kind of found footage movie.  There are a couple of lines of text at the beginning, no logo or credits, the movie just starts.  The movie is made up of footage from one digital camera that a couple, Katie and Micah, played by on one you're likely to know, has purchased to document odd occurrences that happen to Katie as she sleeps.  Now, if both people were sane, rational individuals, this movie could have been very frightening, because you could empathize with them.  You might internalize what is happening and imagine that it could happen to you.  For a moment, you could get lost in their reality, suspend disbelief, and feel what they feel.  Sadly, you can't do this, because Micah, is an idiot.  He thinks everything that's happening is cool.  He is excited to get it all on camera and actively tries to provoke more occurrences.  To a point, I was still with the movie.  I could see that happening.  However, when the occurrences did begin to accelerate and intensify and when Katie, who has been dealing with these types of things ever since she was eight years old, begins to mentally break down, he should have stopped.  They should have consulted the expert recommended by the first paranormal investigator who predicted everything that happened up to that point.  Instead, Micah continues ahead, fueled by an inability to see the obvious and an overblown male bravado, and the film degrades into one of those horror movies that beg you to yell at the screen just to relieve your own frustration at the apparent stupidity of the characters.  In the end, I didn't feel scared.  I felt sorry for Katie and I felt like Micah deserved his fate. 

     I understand the premise behind "Paranormal Activity."  The fact that it's all supposed to look so very real, like a tape you found out in the woods or cans of old film in the attic, but its been done, so the shock value is gone, and you are not actually filming reality, so you still need to pay attention to your characters and their development.  Personally, I recommend waiting a year or so, finding a copy on DVD, and trying to scare a few close friends with it, but I wouldn't bother seeing it in theaters now.  The moment has passed.

Zombieland (Review)

     I must preface this with a bit of a confession.  I LOVE zombie movies!  I will attempt to be as objective as possible in this review, but it will be difficult to find the line between the merits of "Zombieland" and my own, personal bias. 

    Amazingly, this is my third zombie comedy.  I know, those words just don't sound like they go together, but, just like anything else, if you have all the right elements, the setting or subject matter shouldn't effect you that much.  Ok, sure, an undead apocalypse full of bloody, disgusting, zombies killing people and eating human flesh might effect that delicate balance of all the right elements more than other subject matter, but you can adjust.  "Zombieland" does this well.

     Much like "Shaun of the Dead", which almost killed the genre of zombie comedies that it, its self created, by doing it almost too well, "Zombieland" uses a mix of light comedy, very dark comedy, and just enough human drama.  This mix seems to allow you to have comedy in what would, seemingly, be very unfunny situations, by allowing the characters to use those humorous moments as a crutch for dealing with the end of their world.  Just don't stray too far in the other direction, letting the weight of the end of the world fall on the character's shoulders, and it remains a comedy.  Sort of the difference between M*A*S*H in the early years and the later ones where Alan Alda was writing and directing.  "Zombieland" does this, without a lot of obvious, over the top, gross out comedy, and also manages to allow its characters to grow some, which makes for a story that holds your attention while enabling you to find humor in some really dark moments.  (There, actually, is not a lot of gore in "Zombieland".  Oh, there's some, obviously, but not nearly as much as there could have been.)  Woody Harrelson does an excellent job as loner, zombie killer, Tallahassee.  Jesse Eisenberg also does a great job as the almost neurotic loner, Columbus.  Rounding out our cast are Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock, respectively.  (If you think you've noticed a theme in our characters names, you are right.  Names lead to emotional attachments that they just can't afford, so they stick to destinations.)  Stone doesn't really get a chance to flex her acting muscles much, but, then again, her character, hot, last woman on earth, isn't exactly a challenging role or a challenge for her.  Breslin, doesn't exactly have a part that she can shine in either, but she does well and has a lot of talent that, sadly, "Zombieland" just doesn't give her the chance to show off.  Oh, and let's not forget Bill Murry as, Bill Murry.  He only has a small part in the film, but manages to bring his best Bill Murry.  Although, I think his 'final' scene may have crossed that very thin line between dark comedy and morbid humor.  Or maybe they were just trying to get a bit of suspense out of the moment, and failed.

     Now, as much as i love zombie movies and love to see them spoofed well, "Zombieland" has its faults.  The plot, characters, and their stories aren't exactly original.  Of course, part of that comes from the fact that "Zombieland" is spoofing zombie movies and characters found therein.  The comedy is good, but not constant, laugh out loud funny.  I was amused throughout the movie, but I wasn't exactly in stitches.  Also, the penchant to point out the rules along the way with on screen text might throw some, more, let's say, 'more traditional,' movie viewers, but is forgivable, because it is a comedy, and it goes along with the almost constant narrative provided by Eisenberg's character.

     All that having been said, "Zombieland" may not be the best comedy out this year, or even the best zombie comedy ever, but it is funny, well done, and worth seeing, unless, of course, you just can't take undead corpses feasting on the flesh of the living.  To each his own, I suppose.

P.S. 

     As a side note, the third zombie comedy I've seen, and easily the worst of the three, was Black Sheep.   No, not the Chris Farley movie.  I'm talking about a New Zealand based, zombie sheep movie (yes, I said zombie sheep) that's so bad, it's funny, if you're into that kind of thing.  

Surrogates (Review)

     Online, you can hide behind an avatar and a lie of a profile and have complete anonymity.  Expand that to real life, with a realistic looking robotic body, made in your own image, or not, and you have the world of "Surrogates."  Most crime being a thing of the past, no more spreading diseases, racism and sexism gone (if you don't know, how can you hate?), and few, if any , consequences for your actions, (destroying a surrogate seems to be considered vandalism) all seem to take our own self centered, hedonistic, world of instant gratification to a whole new level.  Throw in those who don't choose to keep them selves 'safe' by using robotic bodies living on reservations, seemingly shunning technology and being the subject of new racism, and you might think that you have a great vehicle for a truly meaningful and poignant tale about where our ever increasingly virtual world is going.  Sadly, "Surrogates" just doesn't go there.  Perhaps the graphic novel origins of this story needed a bit more fleshing out (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) before it was ready for the big screen.  That's not to say that "Surrogates" wasn't a good movie, just not that good of a movie and a disappointment considering the subject matter.

     Bruce Willis brings his usual performance, that is to say, excellent.  If some of the acting seems a little plastic in the first act, that's because it is supposed to be.  Surrogates, the robotic bodies, are very advanced, but really don't quite pull off the full range of human emotions, especially the negative ones.  This vehicle is used for some of the movie's most poignant scenes, showing surrogates fail to register anything when emotions should be tragic, and having the operator, the person behind the machine, actually disconnect and feel those very painful emotions in real life, like they were meant to be felt.  It also shows the ability of people to lose themselves in lives devoid of any negative emotions and, in the process, they fail to feel anything.  Sadly, again, this is shown and explored very minimally.

     Thankfully, "Surrogates" also fails to explore the potential for CGI enhanced, adrenaline pumping, completely incoherent action sequences that would actually be possible with robotic bodies driven by humans who can't feel the pain or need to fear consequences like death or dismemberment.  There is one chase scene where this comes into play, but it is done realistically and is not unnecessarily fast or over the top.  Michael Bay would be disappointed.

     In the end, what you get is a mildly entertaining action film that doesn't assault your senses, but also doesn't really challenge your brain either.