Argo - movie review

From October 21, 2012

SCORE: A+
The third movie directed by Ben Affleck is another winner. Great acting and story. I really appreciated the use of the very old Warner Bros. logo at the beginning. Even Affleck's production company had a 70s style logo. Cool. 
The film sometimes used shaky-cam and anyone who knows me, knows how much I hate shaky-cam. However, unlike the 'Hunger Games' movie, 'Argo' only used shaky-cam when it was portraying a chaotic scene, like Iranians rioting outside the U.S. embassy.
Affleck also did a good job acting in this flick, as did John Goodman (is he ever bad?) and Alan Arkan (I've never disliked a movie he was in), and of course "Malcolm in the Middle"'s Bryan Cranston. 
Get ready for an intensely interesting and suspenseful film that is a really good period piece. All the hair and clothes screamed 1979. I really enjoyed the opening of the film, which was done as animated storyboards. 
Stick around for the credits to see pictures of the cast compared to the actual photos of the people they portrayed. The film crew did an uncanny job of making the actors look like the real people. Crazy. (Also, seeing the old Star Wars toys was fun)
I might add more to this as I let it sink in, but all I can say about it right now is how good it is. You'll really be doing yourself a favor by going to see 'Argo'... although you'll probably be the only one in the theatre under 55 years old, like my fiancee and I were.

The Dark Knight Rises - movie review

From July 24, 2012

Score: A
First off, is 'The Dark Knight Rises' better than 'Batman Begins'? Yes.
Is it better than 'The Dark Knight'? No, but then again I think few movies are.
The direction: great. The acting: great. The music: great. No surprise there. 
Bane's theme is the booming drums (which sound like Japanese taiko drums). While I like it a lot, I still miss the quiet, weird atonal note that heralded the Joker's presence. But the heart-pumping drums let you know that Bane is on the scene.
Also, Selina Kyle's theme song is a nice little piano flourish. And thank you, Nolan, thank you for NOT ever calling Selina Kyle "Catwoman" in the film! Calling her that wouldn't have fit with Nolan's more realistic Batman movies.
I'm so glad to see the Tumbler back! And not only the one Tumbler. There's about 6-10 of them running around Gotham, still with their army fatigue paint job. Cool! Also, the Batwing -- called simply "The Bat" -- is very neat, too.
Bane's voice IS hard to understand some of the time. The filmmakers got a lot of flak once people heard it because everyone said it was hard to understand. Nolan chimed back with something about it not being entirely important to understand Bane all of the time. I would disagree. Bane has some great lines, it might just take you a few viewings to understand him fully. 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is a big movie. Maybe a little too big. In some respects it seems a little out of step with the other two Christopher Nolan films. 'Batman Begins' was Batman vs. the head mobster of Gotham and the cops and judges who were in his pocket. 
'The Dark Knight' was Batman vs. the Joker (an insane mobster) as well as the other mobsters in the city (with a twisted Harvey Dent near the end). 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is all of a sudden Batman vs. the terrorist revolutionary Bane and... [drum roll]... a nuke! 
That's about as big and balls-to-the-wall as you can go. The director and writers make it work, though. Like I said, it just may be a little TOO big. 
However, 'The Dark Knight Rises' actually feels more in-step with 'Batman Begins' than 'The Dark Knight' did because it's more of a direct sequel to 'Batman Begins'. It again follows the League of Shadows' interest in razing Gotham, which was started in 'Batman Begins'. 
It helps to remember the first two Nolan movies, because 'The Dark Knight Rises' quotes them a lot, visually speaking. There's quick shots spliced in from 'The Dark Knight' and 'Batman Begins'. And the prison in the film recalls the tunnel young Bruce Wayne falls down in 'Batman Begins'.
I think simply because it deals with a shadow society bent on Gotham's destruction again, 'The Dark Knight Rises' also feels more like a comic book movie again, as opposed to 'The Dark Knight', which felt like a cop/mobster movie that just happened to have Batman running around in it. 'The Dark Knight' felt more real because of that. 'The Dark Knight Rises' feels like a comic book movie once more. And that's not a bad thing. I'm just noting it.
Also, it's hard to put into words, but something about 'The Dark Knight Rises' just isn't as personal as 'The Dark Knight' was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is.
I think in its attempts to be bigger than its predecessor, 'The Dark Knight Rises' loses that human element. 'The Dark Knight' was more about the people of the city (Batman/Bruce Wayne's love triangle with Rachael and Harvey Dent, the Joker killing people up close and personal with a knife, etc.). 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is more about Gotham the city, than it is about the people of Gotham. 
The film does suffer a bit from what most critics and commentators have noted: it's deadly serious, with little-to-no moments of levity, unlike the previous two Nolan films. 
I would disagree a little bit with that because Selina Kyle offers a lot of the humor in the film. The two guys who did most of the wisecracking in the first two films -- Alfred and Lucius Fox -- are not funny in this one, for good reasons. They're worlds have gone to shit. What the hell are they supposed to joke about, movie critics?
Some people claim that the movie is overly violent. Oh, please! Spare me your crocodile tears, people. The movie is rated PG-13. There is no blood or gore in the entire movie (unless you include a scene where someone's blood is drawn through a tube at the beginning of the movie). 
There is a bit of railing against appeasement in the movie, which goes back to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany before WWII. 
While I agree with the sentiment that appeasement doesn't work, it sounds a little too Bushian these days. I remember people bitching a lot about appeasement pre-2008. It seemed unnecessary in the film.
Also, 'The Dark Knight Rises' has been criticized for taking a stance against the Occupy movement. While this is sort of true, the Occupy movement is more about bringing certain issue to the fore than it is about an actual revolution like what is portrayed in the film.
SPOILER ALERT
Now, I'm going to talk about Roger Ebert's review of the film a little, which sort of has some SPOILERS, so BEWARE:
Ebert, in his review here (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120717%2FREVIEWS%2F120719981) said that Bane "is a mystery because it's hard to say what motivates him". Um, the film blatantly states that he's part of the League of Shadows, who are bent on Gotham's destruction. Ebert then says Bane "releases thousands of Gotham's criminals in a scenario resembling the storming of the Bastille. As they face off against most of the city police force in street warfare, Bane's goal seems to be the overthrow of the ruling class. But this would prove little if his other plan (the nuclear annihilation of the city) succeeds". 
Did Ebert even watch the movie? Bane's ultimate goal is the nuclear annihilation of the city. 
He pits the ruling class against the middle class and poor because at that point in the movie he is trying to torture Bruce Wayne by making him watch his city rip itself apart. 
Duh. Jeez, Ebert. I should have your job.
Roger Ebert also says, "No attempt is made to account for Bane's funding and resources" (although he never asked the same questions about the Joker in his review of 'The Dark Knight' four years ago).
Anywho, there are two sources of Bane's funding that are explicitly explained in the movie. 1) The billionaire Dagget, and 2) Bane is part of the League of Shadows (from 'Batman Begins'). Now, where do the League of Shadows get their money? That's explained, too, at the end, but I don't want to give away who funds them in this review.
A BIT MORE ON THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THINGS:
There has also been a lot of political commentary surrounding the movie, even after you disregard the Colorado theater shooting. I'm going to quote from Wikipedia now: "Writing in Salon, David Sirota, a progressive political commentator compared The Dark Knight Rises and the game Call of Duty to 1980s popular culture reflecting the political period of the time, accusing them of perpetuating a conservative agenda: 'Just as so many 1980s pop culture products reflected the spirit of the Reagan Revolution’s conservative backlash, we are now seeing two blockbuster, genre-shaping products not-so-subtly reflect the Tea Party's rhetorical backlash to the powerful Occupy Wall Street zeitgeist.' An article in Variety reported Chuck Dixon, the co-creator of the Bane character, as saying that Bane is 'far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you're looking to cast him politically.' Catherine Shoard of the center-left British publication The Guardian claimed the film 'is a quite audaciously capitalist vision, radically conservative, radically vigilante, that advances a serious, stirring proposal that the wish-fulfillment of the wealthy is to be championed if they say they want to do good.'"
Does the film do all of that? I certainly didn't think so, and I consider myself pretty far left politically. If you re-watch 'The Dark Knight' there seems to be a lot that is anti-vigilante, anti-Bushian (with Lucius Fox calling Batman's cell phone surveillance system "unethical... dangerous. ... This is wrong."). If there's any real anti-left stuff in 'The Dark Knight Rises', maybe it's the filmmakers' way of balancing things out? Who knows?
On the other hand, to quote from Wikipedia again: "Nolan has denied the film criticizes the Occupy movement and insists that none of his Batman films are intended to be political: 'I've had as many conversations with people who have seen the film the other way round. We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story. What we're really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that somebody would try to wedge open. We're going to get wildly different interpretations of what the film is supporting and not supporting, but it's not doing any of those things. It's just telling a story. If you're saying, 'Have you made a film that's supposed to be criticizing the Occupy Wall Street movement?' – well, obviously, that's not true.'"
Quoting Wikipedia again: "On the other side of the political spectrum, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh alleged that the film was biased against Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head. In response, Nolan said that the comments were 'bizarre', while Dixon and Freeman said that the comments were 'ridiculous'."

Oswald the Lucky Rabbit - DVD set review

From July 7, 2012

Score: A+
This set was released in 2007, after the Disney Studios gained the rights to the Oswald character that Walt Disney himself had been swindled out of back in 1928. You can still get this set new for around $25 (most of the WD Treasures are insanely expensive, like around $150 USED and more than $200 new). If you're super-frugal, you can find all 13 surviving Oswald shorts on 
www.youtube.com. 
So who the hell is Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? He was the first character that Walt Disney made. His pictures were distributed by Universal. At that time, the distributor owned anything they distributed, as such, Disney never had the rights to his own character. So he later made Mickey Mouse, who is essentially Oswald with round ears. Although, in reality, Disney made Mickey up, but didn't design what he looked like. That task fell to a man named Ub Iwerks (I'll deal more with him in a few paragraphs). 
It's really interesting to see these old cartoons. Only 13 of the original 26 survive because Universal didn't keep track of their prints or take care for the ones they had. Many of the shorts were 35mm copies of 16mm originals in either private collections or museums from around the world, we are told in the audio commentaries. 
When you think of a silent film, you think of no voices, only a music track. Well, back in the 1920s, animated films were truly silent, they didn't even have music. Animated films would often be shown with a pianist playing music live. As such, the Disney Studios hired a guy who wrote olde-time music for the Oswald shorts on these DVDs.
Oswald has some great characterization in many of these short films. He can also remove parts of his body, no problem. He can pull off his own foot and kiss it for good luck. Someone can punch him in the face and his head goes flying off, and Oswald just pops it back on. When he sees his girlfriend--sometimes a cat, sometimes a rabbit herself--Oswald doffs his scalp and ears . When Oswald is shot by a canon he breaks into pieces, only to be shaken up in a martini shaker by a war nurse and remolded into his former self. She shouts: "Oswald!" and he awakens. Great stuff. Oswald's shadow can even swordfight for him. Cool.
I think the best thing in the set--and what the rest of my review is about--is a great documentary film called 'The Hand Behind the Mouse - The Ub Iwerks Story' by Ub Iwerks' own granddaughter Leslie Iwerks. 
NOTE: You can view this film for free here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnpkgt_the-hand-behind-the-mouse-the-ub-iwerks-story-part-1_shortfilms
Notable Quotes from the film:
• Roy E. Disney: "[Ub Iwerks] animated Mickey. He is the guy, really, and even Walt started admitting that towards the end, that without Ub there wouldn't have been a Mickey."
• John Lasseter: "He's the guy who first drew Mickey Mouse"
• Chuck Jones: "For me the most important thing about Ub Iwerks was that he got me interested in animation"
• Animation historian: "We know his work, but we don't necessarily know the man."
• Leonard Maltin on the partnership of Disney and Iwerks: "I think they had a great working relationship... without Ub, Walt probably couldn't have done some of the things he did. Without Walt, Ub's inventions wouldn't have been put to such good use. So, that's a perfect match up." 
So who the hell is Ub Iwerks? And what kind of a name is that anyway? Well, he was born to Dutch and German parents at the turn of the century. Ub's father had a name that was just as odd: Eert Ubbe Iwwerks (sic). (Btw: Iwerks' mother was 26 when he was born... his father was 57). Iwerks' father later left the family when Ub was only 14. 
Iwerks met Walt Disney at a company in Kansas City when they were both 18 years old and (with the exception of a 10-year period from 1930-1940) the two worked together until Disney died in 1966. Their first company was called Iwwerks-Disney Commercial Artists and only lasted a month. 
After working for the Kansas City Slide Company (where they learned all about the film process as well as the animation process), they started another company: Laugh-O-Grams. Here Disney and Iwerks made the so called Alice Comedies, wherein a live action girl played around in an animated world (in a reversal of Koko the Clown cartoons of the 20s where an animated clown ran around in the real world). Iwerks developed the process used in those films. Laugh-O-Grams eventually ran out of money and Disney moved from Kansas City to California to start a company with his brother Roy: The Disney Bros. Studios in 1923. They soon called in Ub Iwerks and it was at this point that Walt Disney stopped animating. 
That's right, before Mickey Mouse, before Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, Disney stopped animating. He never drew either Oswald OR Mickey. I never realized that until recently, and I think that most people don't realize that either. Disney may have come up with the idea of Mickey Mouse, but it was Ub Iwerks who designed and animated him.
Soon, Universal Studios contacted Disney and Iwerks to develop a character for them to star in a series of shorts: Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. They made 26 episodes; only 13 still remain today, the others have been lost to time. 
In 1928, Disney travelled by train from CA to New York to ask for more money from their distributor. Disney was soon told that Oswald belonged to the distributor and that Disney would be taking a 20% cut in pay. Disney and Iwerks bolted and began developing Mickey Mouse for their new company 'The Walt Disney Studios'. While developing Mickey's first cartoon--'Steamboat Willie'--Ub Iwerks supposedly worked as fast as possible, cranking out 700 drawings a day! (As an artist, I know what a crazy amount of drawings that is.)
At some point, Disney started futzing with Iwerks' animation and timing a little too much for Iwerks to stand and in 1930 he left the Disney Studios. He started a new company and developed new characters: Flip the Frog and Willie Whopper. The new cartoons made a lot of money in the beginning and started the careers of animators such as Chuck Jones (of Looney Toons and Tom & Jerry fame). 
After a few years, Iwerks' cartoons started losing money, mostly--according to the film--because Iwerks' films focused on solid animation and new animation techniques whereas Disney's cartoons focused on character development and personality. Also, Iwerks' cartoons were satirical of everyday life such as the politics of the time and the Depression and so forth and that just didn't ring true with audiences of the time.
After 10 years, Disney asked Iwerks to come back to the studio and he did, at the time that the US government had taken over the studio in the early 1940s to produce war and propaganda films ('Victory Through Air Power', one of my favorite films by Disney, was done at this time).
SOME INTERESTING THINGS LEARNED FROM THE FILM: 
• Iwerks apparently developed the following technology: 
• The forerunner to Disney's much-touted Multi-Plane camera
• The process of photocopying animators' pencil artwork directly to cels, beginning with '101 Dalmatians'. 
• The Sodium Traveling Matte Process used in 'Mary Poppins' and Hitchcock's 'The Birds' for which Iwerks won an Academy Award
• The anamorphic lens for widescreen films
• A perspective camera used for effects in 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'
• The split screen technique used in the original "Parent Trap'
• One of the first three-camera electronic editing systems
• The wet-gate printer that eliminated scratches on films
• The 360 degree motion picture screen used originally at Disneyland (and still in use at EPCOT
• A photo-electric control system used in the Disneyland audio animatronics
• Three dimensional projection processes such as those used in the Haunted House ride

Cars 2 - DVD movie review

From June 29, 2012

Score: C+
I have to report that 'Cars 2' is Pixar's first real stinker. (It's still a lot better than most animated movies by other companies, though.) 
The first time I saw 'Cars 2' was back in April and I almost fell asleep during it. I didn't like it but I thought I'd give it another shot and watched it again today--having been to Cars Land in DCA last week and having seen Pixar's 'Brave' a few days ago. I liked it slightly better the second time, but not much.
The first 'Cars' was made because of John Lasseter's love of cars, his interest in Route 66, and a real-life road trip that he and his family took after making 'Toy Story', 'A Bug's Life', and 'Toy Story 2'. The original 'Cars' was funny and new, made with real heart and soul. It was about something: learning to slow down and smell the roses, learning to find happiness in the little things, learning to be a better person, etc. 
I don't know what 'Cars 2' is about. The only reason I can see that it was made was to gin up interest in the upcoming Cars Land at Disney California Adventure... and it certainly has done that. I guess you could argue that 'Cars 2' is an homage to James Bond films, but I don't see that as reason enough to have made it. You could also say that it's about car racing, what with the whole World Grand Prix thing.
There's not really much of Lightning McQueen in this movie. It's based a lot on Larry the Cable Guy, who I've never thought of as funny. His shtick worked in 'Cars', but it's too much in 'Cars 2'. He's funny in small doses, but can't hold up a whole film.
There's a fairly confusing plot thread involving an alternative fuel called Allinol.
The original 'Cars' seemed to come from a very genuine place. In 'Cars 2' it just seems that everyone involved was going through the motions. I don't know what it is. Apparently others thought the same thing, though, as 'Cars 2' is the first Pixar movie to receive a "rotten" score on www.RottenTomatoes.com. But this movie did do financially well, and it is spinning off a straight-to-DVD movie 'Planes' by DisneyToon Studios, so I guess Lasseter and the Disney folks are going to get their money's worth. In the short film 'Air Mater' they even say that someone should make a whole movie based on the planes. Oy...
That all said, I did like the music in 'Cars 2' by Michael Giacchino (I guess they don't use Randy Newman anymore). There is also an interesting surrealistic scene wherein Mater realizes that he's an idiot and everyone laughs at him, not with him.

Brave - movie review

From June 25, 2012

Score: A
'Brave' is another winner from my favorite movie studio: Pixar. 
Yes, 'Brave' is Pixar's first film with a female lead. It's also their very first fairy tale (and has some dark elements as all fairy tales should) and they did a great job. 
The film is a bit scary for the little kids that it's being marketed towards (I wonder if Pixar will get any blowback from that), but it IS rated PG. I thought it was their first PG film, but 'The Incredibles' and 'Up' were also PG.
In seeing the trailer, I knew that I wanted to see it, but in all honesty I wasn't too hot on the story... as far as the trailer let on. In the trailer it appears that the whole movie is about a rebellious girl. Snore.
I'm so glad to report that the movie isn't only about that (only about the first 20 minutes is). The majority of the movie revolves more around plot elements that Pixar has apparently been tight-lipped about. And I'm not going to give too much away here. 
But I will say that the original title of the movie was 'The Bear and the Bow', which I think is a far better title than the one they ended up going with (Some people think 'Brave' is in part based on Mel Gibson's 1995 film 'Braveheart'. Pixar should have seen that comparison a mile off.) I guess they changed it because in the end might have felt that the title 'The Bear and the Bow' gave too much away. I don't know.
The animation of the bear is fantastic! Also, the music is phenomenal.
Some bad things: I do think that the acting/gesticulating of the characters is getting pretty outlandish nowadays. Rein it in a bit, guys. I also thought that Merida's three brothers were under used.
Some interesting things:
• The witch in the movie looked to me to be based on the witch in 'The Cobbler and the Thief'. That film is well-respected in animation circles, so maybe it was an homage.
• The original director--Brenda Chapman--was booted off the project in October 2010 for nebulous reasons. With a little digging, Chapman has said that it was over "creative differences." (Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/25/entertainment/la-et-women-animation-sidebar-20110525) 
• John Ratzenberger IS in the film, although I didn't notice him. He supposedly plays a guard named Gordon. I'll look for him the next time I see the film.
• One of the songs is performed by Mumford & Sons.
• Roger Ebert has said that the film had an uplifting message about improving communication between mothers and daughters. And in that way, some other reviewers I've read have equated it to 'Finding Nemo', which was a father/son tale

Madagascar 3 - movie review

From June 9, 2013

Score: C
I'd heard that the third 'Madagascar' movie was the best of the three films. I'm here to say: No, it's not. I think it's better than the first movie, but not nearly as good as 'Madagascar 2'. I really liked that one. 
'Madagascar 3' takes a LONG time to get going. It's pretty boring for about the first half hour and has few-to-no laughs during that time. Once the four main characters join the circus things pick up and the movie becomes enjoyable to watch. 
When they put on their Cirque du Soleil circus show, it's pretty cool. That scene is a surreal one involving all of the characters flying around as well as the song "Firework" by Katy Perry. I also liked the two shots when the monkey is shooting at Capt. DuBois. They're slow-mo shots from artsy angles.
I really liked the character of Stefano, the seal with the Italian accent. His design looks good and he's sweet and funny. I sort of like the character less once I found that it was Martin Short that voiced him, but that's ok in the end. I also liked Frances McDormand as the character Capt. DuBois, the animal control officer, but I feel like I've seen her like before.
Then there's the bad: Is it just me or is all kids' entertainment nowadays extremely assaulting? The cuts are too quick. Things are too loud. The characters talk too fast. God, I must be getting too old for this shit. I also felt that the animation--like most animation from Dreamworks--is too springy and feels too weightless, like they're all digital creations with no mass... er, wait a minute. That's what they are. It's the animators' job to animate them in such a way that we, the audience, forget that they're digital creations. I mean, Dreamworks finally got things right with 'Kung Fu Panda'. Why can't all their endevors be that good? Oh, well. Pixar will come out with 'Brave' in a few weeks and we can go see some good animation. (Although, to pick on Pixar for a second: I feel that their recent movies have way too much overacting, but that's a whole other issue)

Prometheus - movie review

From June 9, 2012

Score: A
In one of the biggest events in sci-fi movie history of late, Ridley Scott has returned to the 'Alien' franchise for the prequel 'Prometheus' and it's really good.
First off, is 'Prometheus' a prequel to the 1979 'Alien'? Yes, it is. 
Are there aliens in 'Prometheus'? Yes, there are, though not the kind you'd expect.
Is it scary? Sure, although I'd say more thrilling than scary.
Does 'Prometheus' fit into the 'Alien' mythology? Yes, very well.
The film has incredible photography of sweeping landscapes of ancient earth as well as LV-223. This is a Ridley Scott picture, so you can rest assured that you'll get something gorgeous to look at.
I really liked the music of the film, which I honestly wasn't counting on. I had never heard of the composer, Marc Streitenfeld, but I've later read that he is a frequent collaborator with Scott. The main theme in 'Prometheus' is very good. I found myself humming it the next day.
The acting is beyond top-notch, especially Michael Fassbender. 'Prometheus' is getting positive reviews, but the thing most reviewers are raving about it Michael Fassbender's performance as the robot David. He roams the ship alone for over 2 years while the humans sleep in cryostasis. He plays basketball so frequently that he can do it while riding a bicycle. He learns many languages by utilizing an interactive program that can hear if he pronounces things correctly. 
And the most interesting that David does--I think--is that while the humans are in cryostasis, David can bring up a GUI on their cryotube that allows him to watch their dreams using a virtual reality headset. I think that's an incredible idea (and I know that we're not far from being able to do that). David is also responsible for some shenanigans aboard the ship, but I won't get too into that.
The movie is all about people finding some unnatural structures on a faraway planet in the year 2093, which, I've heard is 30 years before the events of the original 'Alien' (although I've never seen any date in that film). Anywho, the humans travel to LV-223... and not to LV-426, which was the supposed planet in 'Alien' and 'Aliens'. Why is the name of the planet different? I don't know. Perhaps Scott is disavowing the legitimacy of 'Aliens', which was the film that specifically labeled the planet LV-426. I think it's more that the humans in 'Prometheus' are just traveling to a different moon as there are many ships and maybe there's another one on LV-426. Not really important, I suppose, but I'm the type of person who likes continuity. Call me crazy.
Being an 'Alien' picture, there are also many spills and chills, as well as a heaping helping of moody atmosphere. Yes, 'Prometheus' is better than 'Alien3' and 'Alien: Resurrection', but is it better than 'Alien' and 'Aliens'? Most people reviewing the film have said "No", but I think that they're wrong. I love both 'Alien' and 'Aliens' for different reasons, but in terms of actual plot both films aren't that good. 
Ridley Scott has said in old interviews that the original 'Alien' is a B-film dressed up as an A-picture. He has said that it's an art house version of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre... in space. Which is all true. The original 'Alien' has good acting, great production and design, tons of moody atmosphere... but at the end of the day there's little actual plot. It's a "the monster eats the people" flick. Plain and simple. 
And James Cameron's 1986 'Aliens'--while being one of my favorite movies--is nothing more than a shoot 'em up action flick. It also has good acting, great production and design, with less moody atmosphere... but the whole plot is: Marines go shoot aliens. 
'Prometheus' has much more to offer. Sure, at its heart it's still a "the monster eats the people" flick, but that's sandwiched by some big themes of, Where did we come from? Who made us and why? Where did the Aliens come from? Who was the petrified giant sitting in the chair in the original 'Alien'? You specifically get to find out that last question, and it's pretty interesting the way they spun it. I won't give that away.
'Prometheus' deals with some weighty themes like creation, patricide, sacrifice, and panspermia. (Panspermia is the idea of life being spread between planets.) You don't see any of those themes talked about in any of the other 'Alien' films. You also get some really great scenes that stir emotions other than fear, emotions like wonder, as in the scene where David sees the holographic map room. You don't get scenes like that in the other 'Alien' films (except for the scene in 'Alien3' when Dillon gives a sermon as bodies are cremated).
What's also interesting is how the Aliens come about. I'll just say that the way the Aliens begin life is a bit like the X-Files and leave it at that. 
In a counterpart to the original 'Alien' dinner scene, there's a scene in 'Prometheus' that won't shock you as much, but it did make me squirm in my chair, fold my arms over my stomach, and leave them there the rest of the movie. You'll see why...

Men in Black III - movie review

From May 29, 2012

Score: B
I saw Men in Black 3 on 5-28-12.
I won't describe the plot here. If you've seen the first two, you'll know the kind of craziness that you're in for.
MIB3 is pretty good. Not as cool and fresh as the original (which came out 15 years ago now, if you can believe that), but it's a lot better than the lackluster MIB2. The second one sort of seemed like they were going through the motions a bit too much. MIB3 seems like the filmmakers/cast are having fun again.
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are great as always. Josh Brolin does a great job playing the younger Agent K. Emma Thompson is sort of stuck in the film for no reason and her character goes nowhere. Jemaine Clement (I had no idea who that was before seeing the film) is unrecognizable as the main villain Boris the Animal. He's a really crazy baddy with some strange, awkward moments interacting with others (and his past self). Some cool cameos of Will Arnet as an annoying agent in the 60s and Bill Hader as Andy Warhol. I really liked the character of Griffin (played by Michael Stuhlbarg), an alien that can see all possible futures at the same instant, and is never really quite sure which one will come to be. Titus later said that initially he thought the character was played by Elijah Wood, which I could totally see and thought was completely hilarious.

Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels - DVD movie review

From May 29, 2012

Score: B
I showed the first part of this film to my class last Friday (5-25-12) and finished watching it today (5-29-12). I like pretty much anything with Kevin Smith. I just find him to be an incredibly interesting person to watch (even though he wasn't his normal salty self in this documentary/interview). And Stan Lee has one the coolest voices in all of popular culture (they even talk about it during the interviews).
The DVD itself is a compilation of two different interviews of Stan Lee, one all about Spiderman (because at the time it was made Spiderman 2 was about to come out, and hey, there's yet ANOTHER Spiderman flick due summer 2012) and the second mostly about the characters that make up the Avengers (so it was still topical to show my students).
A lot of cool insights into everything that went into making Marvel Comics what it is today (sans the bankruptcy). The only part that I didn't like was when Stan Lee said that someone at Marvel made up the name of Thor's hammer--Mjolnir--which is not true. The name comes from Norse mythology and means "crusher" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir).
Overall, very fun and interesting for me to watch, although some of my students seemed bored. Oh, well. It doesn't have giant CGI robots flying at the screen every five seconds (a la Transformers 2), so I can understand why those youngins were bored.

Exit Through the Gift Shop - DVD movie review

From May 26, 2012

Grade: A-
Wednesday and Friday I showed my classes “Exit Through The Gift Shop”. I’d heard about it before from Andy Williams, who had shown it to his classes last year. My colleague at WHS also showed it to her classes.
While the film is “directed by Banksy”, the footage is by a guy named Thierry Guetta, who followed his cousin “Invader” (an LA street artist) around with a video camera, documenting everything he did. Later, Thierry met Shepard Fairey (of OBEY and the Obama HOPE poster fame) and Banksy (famous British street artist). The film follows the hijinks of all these street artists, even to Disneyland in Sept 2006 where Banksy pulled a stunt.
The film continues to the point where Banksy tells his good friend Thierry to cut all his film (at least 10 years worth it looked like) into a film about street art. Thierry comes back to Banksy 6 months later with a crazy mishmash of a film that Banksy describes as “shit” saying that he realized then that his friend Thierry was not a filmmaker, but was perhaps just a crazy person with a video camera. Banksy tells Thierry to go back to LA, make some of his own art, and hold a little show.
So Thierry goes back to America, basically copies Banksy and other’s style and opens his own art show. With the help of testimonials from both Fairey and Banksy, Thierry’s art show gets LA Weekly fame. “Thousands” of people go to Thierry’s show, although they know him by his new moniker: Mr. Brainwash. Thierry ends up supposedly selling over $1 million worth of paintings, much to the chagrin of Fairey and Banksy.
Overall, I think the film was very well-done, although I truly question the validity of it all. I have a hunch that while Banksy’s voice is changed to hide “his” identity, the narrator sounds suspiciously like Banksy. I have a personal theory that Banksy is a team of people, as opposed to just one person/man. As such, the guy interviewed as Banksy in the film is probably not the real deal. Is Thierry actually Banksy? Thierry’s work is either identical to Banksy’s because it IS his, or it’s a complete knock-off… or this was all done just to sell a film by Team Banksy. Who knows? I don’t. Regardless, it’s a very interesting and entertaining film. I recommend it, although whatever information you glean from it about Banksy or Thierry I’d take with a grain of salt.

Red Tails - DVD movie review

From May 26, 2012

Grade: B-
I finally saw George Lucas’ movie about the Tuskegee Airmen of WWII.
Apparently filmed back in 2009, the film wasn’t released until January 20, 2012. I haven’t found out the reason for the delayed release (I guess Post-Production took a while?). [UPDATE: Turns out that Lucas couldn't get any Hollywood studios to agree to front the money to distribute the film because, even though it's 2012, no studio would agree to front the money for a film with an all black cast. Lucas revealed this on the Daily Show in early 2012. That's sad social commentary.]
As Wikipedia says, Red Tails is the first Lucasfilm production since the 1994 film Radioland Murders that is not associated with the Indiana Jones or Star Wars franchises. It’s nice to see Lucas do something new and I know that he’s been working on the idea for this film for a long time.
Overall, the film was ok. The dialogue (as with any Lucas picture) is not so great. Blah blah cliché blah blah. Ok. 
But the movie is fun to watch. And the aerial dogfights are really very well-done (which is pretty much the whole reason Lucas made this to begin with. Hell, it’s the reason he made the original Star Wars in 1977, because he loved both the real WWII dogfight reels from the War and films made by Hollywood about said dogfights.) So it’s really great to see Lucas be able to go hog-wild on the dogfights. They’re really interesting to watch and look VERY realistic. 
The end battle is very cool and it’s the only time that the acting gets really good. Yes, the acting in the last 15 minutes of the movie is worth sitting through the ham-fisted acting in the previous hour and 45 min.
While not as good as the recent Captain America or The Rocketeer from the ‘90s, I recommend watching Red Tails because it’s fun (and because I basically love anything having to do with WWII).
Some points:
• I think Cuba Gooding Jr. did a good job in this film.
• I think Terrance Howard did ok, but I actually wish that he had played Gooding Jr.’s character and vice versa. I think Gooding Jr. would have been better as the Col. Howard doesn’t have the gravitas for the role.
• Some shots in the film appear to be directly copied from some of the Star Wars movies and the Young Indiana Jones series. I think that was intentional.
• There is some really obvious/weird ADR going on in this film.
• I liked that the tavern in Italy where everyone goes looks vaguely like Jabba’s palace in ROTJ.
• I noticed that anytime the characters are outside (and sometimes when they’re not) you can hear birds chirping… but it’s the SAME bird sound clip each time. Tsk tsk tsk, guys.
• I really liked the rendition of “America the Beautiful” played during the end credits, especially the beginning part that has only a trumpet and a piano.

The Descendants - DVD movie review

From May 26, 2013

Grade: A-
When I saw that this film was by Alexander Payne I thought, “That’s the guy that made ‘Dark City!’” That was not correct (Dark City was by Alex Proyas). Anywhoo, while watching this film I swore it was done by Wes Anderson, what with its dark, awkward humor.
The film is a very good dramedy, which sort of wigged my fiancee out (she wanted a straight comedy). 
Is it sad? Yes. 
Is it funny? Yes. 
It’s all about a family that is hit hard by an accident that puts the mother in a coma in the hospital. How will the husband, George Clooney, deal with raising his 10-year old daughter? And there’s also his 17-year-old daughter, a drug addict (as the film says, although there’s none of her actually doing that in the film. She gets drunk once.) Will the mother come out of her coma or won’t she? And what was she hiding from Clooney? Also, Clooney’s character is descended from a native Hawaiian and so his family owns a huge plot of land on one of the islands. Will they sell it? And to whom?
The acting is top-notch of course. The characters are interesting. The events are fun to watch unfold. I don’t know if there’s much in the way of “rewatchability”, though, as there was with Alexander Payne’s other film “Sideways”, which is a very enjoyable film to watch again and again. (No, I haven’t seen “About Schmidt” yet, so I can’t comment on that.) At any rate, I recommend seeing it.
By the way, in looking up Alexander Payne, I learned that before he started directing he was a screenwriter on some other films, one of which was “Jurassic Park III”. No joke.

America: The Story of Us - DVD series review

From May 13, 2012

SERIES REVIEW
America: The Story of Us
Score: A-
My brother recently bought me the Blu-Ray of this 2010 History channel series for my birthday. 
Overall--having only watched 6 of the 12 episodes--I think it is very well-done. 
There's a bit of overdramatizing at parts and sometimes the music or sound effects drown out the narrator (and the electric guitar riffs are often out of place over scenes from the Revolutionary War and the like). 
Speaking of the narrator, the series is narrated by Liev Schreiber, in an unrecognizable voice over (sounding a lot like David Ogden Stiers).
I like that the show focuses on some parts of our history that you wouldn't expect, such as the fact that new technologies like the new Mini Ball bullets, the telegraph, and the North's abundance of Railroads (which provided supplies and troops to the front lines) won the Civil War.
The series also makes many analogies to modern-times to help the viewer understand how much money the transcontinental railroad cost, etc. I also find the CG overviews of the nation helps to understand what they're talking about (like showing the North's bounty of railroad and telegraph lines during the Civil War as opposed to the South's meager lines). 
I don't care for the series overuse of Shaky-Cam and out of focus shots (something I think most TV series and films overuse today). 
As for the commentators, the series has many good university professors and historians as well as Buzz Aldrin, Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Patraeus, Navy SEAL Richard Machowicz, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, etc. I don't understand the series inclusion of people like Sheryl Crow, Tim Gunn, Melissa Etheridge, Puff Daddy, Michael Douglas, Donald Trump (and his comb over), Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Margaret Cho, NFL stars, or even Bill Maher. Some of the people I like, some I don't, but I don't understand any their inclusions on the series (except to show different Americans?).
Some interesting notes from the series thus far:
• Jamestown was settled BEFORE the Pilgrims came to America, thus the settling of America was about business opportunities (tobacco production) before it was about escaping religious persecution.
• The colonies began as a place to grow tobacco. For the first century and a half, tobacco was America's biggest export.
• George Washington experimented with a smallpox vaccine at Valley Forge.
• When the British Navy attacked New York during the Rev War, it was their biggest assembled attack until D-Day during WWII, and the only time New York was attacked until 9/11.
• The series draws a connection from the sewing machine punch cards of the 1830s to the advances in Silicon Valley in the 20th/21st cen.
• In a twist that I didn't see coming, the "Westward" episode begins 300 million years BC with a meteor that smashes into the Appalachian Mountains, creating the Cumberland Gap that Americans use to cross the mountains and head west.
• Women enter the workforce for the first time in the 1820-1830s in cotton mills (you usually only hear about women entering the work force during WWII).
• In Oct. 1836, women mill workers protested against wage cuts in one of the first strikes in US history.
• During the Industrial Revolution whale oil was used before crude oil was discovered.
• During the Civil War, the South had 800K troops, but the North had 2.4 million.
• The discovery of Bromine led to better hygiene.
• Civil War Railroads: 24,000 miles in the North, 9,000 miles in the South. During the War, the North added 4,000 more miles of new tracks to the 400 new miles that the South added.
• During the Civil War there were 50,000 miles of telegraph lines that Lincoln used to help inform himself and his generals on the front lines.
• The Railroad cut the 6 month journey across the US to just 6 days.
• Locusts swarmed across the US in 1874 and ate half the mid-western crops. The swarm was half a mile high, 100 miles wide, 1,000 miles long, and consisted of 3 trillion locusts.
• The series points out that horses are not native to the US plains. They were brought over 400 years ago by Spanish conquistadors.
• Lassos date back to the ancient Egyptians.
• 1 out of 3 cowboys were Hispanic or African-American.
• The heyday of the cowboy on the open range lasted only about 20 years.
• The Railroad is responsible for our current times zones (begun in 1883).

The Avengers - movie review

From May 4, 2012

Rating: B+
The action in 'The Avengers' is great. And there are some big laughs. 
There is a bit too much of in-fighting of the individual superheroes for me, though. They often argue with each other for no reason or fight with each other for no reason. It gets annoying after a while. But don't worry. Soon enough there will be a close-up shot of Scarlett Johansson's butt, so I guess that makes up for a multitude of sins...
I should say that this movie is enjoyable and it is my favorite thing that Joss Whedon has done. 
Now, do keep in mind that normally I dislike anything Whedon does (except 'Toy Story' and 'Alien: Resurrection') because I just don't see what the hype is all about. Most fanboys basically worship Whedon and everything that he does. I don't know why. He's not that good of a writer. Buffy? Firefly/Serenity? Please. They're "ok" at best. I read a few issues of his run on X-Men and that was decent.
But back to 'The Avengers': 
My biggest beef with the movie is that they constantly weaken the main villain: Loki. Every time he gets the upper hand for one instant, the heroes cut him down to size way too easily. 
Loki has a great evil speech, Black Widow just shakes it off. Loki makes the humans bow before him, Iron Man shoots him down. Loki reminds Hulk that he is a god and the Hulk is not, and the Hulk beats the shit out of him. That gets the biggest laugh in the picture but it totally weakens the villain. He is little-to-no threat to the heroes. So why should we as the audience fear him? His character was much more powerful in the 'Thor' film, wherein he took over Asgard, nearly destroyed Jotenheim, and almost killed Thor and Odin. In 'The Avengers' he's portrayed as a VERY weak villain.
I guess I'm in the minority thinking that the movie is only a 'B+' seeing as 'The Avengers' has made almost $2 Billion worldwide. I don't understand why everyone likes it as much as they do. People that normally wouldn't be into superhero/comic book movies like it especially. Yes, it was good, but not nearly as good as any of Christopher Nolan's Batman flicks or 'X-Men 2'. I assure you I will buy 'The Avengers' DVD. (Why not further along Joss Whedon's so-so career?) I think that the individual superhero movies from Marvel have been successful overall and I like a few of them better than 'The Avengers'. My ratings of them would be as follows:
A+: 'Thor' 
A: 'Iron Man' 
B+: 'The Avengers' and 'Cap't America'
C+: 'Iron Man 2'
C: 'The Incredible Hulk'

Victory Through Air Power - DVD movie review

From April 4, 2012

Overall: A
I finally watched Disney's 1943 propaganda film "Victory Through Air Power".
The film was made essentially to be shown to FDR so that he would start the U.S. investing in the new mode of military combat: Air Power. 
Much of the film is/are animated sequences explaining how normal combat used to go (either direct confrontations on land or indirect ones on the seas, cutting off an enemy's supplies through naval attack). The film explains that the new mode of battle does the other two one better by bypassing both and striking an enemy's production lines, crippling their ability to make both ground and water war machines. 
I must say, I was swayed by the end of it, just as FDR and Churchill purportedly were.
It is simply amazing to see this film. I love it! The Disney animators really did a good job animating all the warships and airplanes. And the whole beginning of the film is a really great recap of the history of flight (which had only been around for 40 years at that point).
This film is what inspired the animated scene in "The Rocketeer" about Hitler acquiring the jetpack, as well as (I assume) my favorite Disney TV show: Tail Spin.
To watch: You had to buy the Walt Disney Treasures: On the Front Lines DVD back in 2004. I did not, so I went to the link below.
To watch (in 10 parts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paY6y87rrpE
For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Through_Air_Power_(film)

The Hunger Games - movie review

From March 25, 2012

Overall rating: B
Please keep in mind that I have not read the books, so I was really coming at the movie with fresh eyes.

PROS:
The acting and writing are VERY good. Jennifer Lawrence (as the main character) does a particularly good job. I liked her in this much more than I did in X-Men First Class.
It took me a while to realize that I was looking at Elizabeth Banks. She looks so weird and creepy in the movie. Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, and Donald Sutherland were at top form as usual. And Lenny Kravitz? Who knew that he would show up in a film?
I liked the sci-fi undertones in the movie. There's a hovercraft here, a shot of the grand Capitol there. Nothing in your face. Being a huge sci-fi fan, I appreciated this and wished there was more, but that's ok. 
The people in the Capitol are gaudy and vain-looking. Nice. (I wanted there to be more about the politics, but then again everybody bitched and moaned that Phantom Menace did too much of that. But I'd like to know the politics of the ruling-class. They seem fascistic but also like effete aristocrats. So which is it?) 
I also liked seeing the cuts back to the guys running the show.
I was very glad that the "arena" in the movie didn't look like your standard arena. I liked that it was a forest.
I also appreciated the subtle blue-grassiness of the score of the film.

CONS:
The names of the characters are VERY stupid-sounding. Peeta? Like fucking pita bread? Are you kidding me? And Katniss? Oy vey. I guess that the author of the books was trying to subtly update names from our current era for use in the future. Instead of Hamish there's a guy named Haymitch. Ok. That's cool. I appreciate that. I just didn't like the majority of the names that she chose. Frank Herbert also did this in the DUNE books. Paul's last name is Atreides, an update of Atreus (as in the House of Atreus from Greek mythology). That's cool. But Tylwyth Waff (from Heretics of DUNE)? That's a stupid name.

The movie makes extensive use of one of my all-time hated film tropes: Shaky Cam.
I fucking hate Shaky Cam. I don't get sick/nauseous from it like some people do, but it annoys me nonetheless. Many directors think that if they use the Shaky Cam technique, their film will be magically imbued with a certain reality, like a documentary. 
It will not.
The audience already knows that the film is not real. Shooting everything in Shaky Cam doesn't suspend anyone's fucking disbelief. Using Shaky Cam really just looks like you don't know what you're doing. It looks like you're a bad filmmaker. 
And what was worse, the movie used CLOSE UP (Zoomed-in) Shaky Cam. Grrrrrrrrrrr! It made watching certain parts of it extremely hard. 
Shaky Cam CAN be used to great effect... 
SPARINGLY! 
Just watch any old sci-fi movie space battle (Star Trek anyone?). Good use. 
Or watch the scene in HP Deathly Hallows Part 1 where they're running through the woods chased by the baddies. Good use. 
Christopher Nolan also uses Shaky Cam well in his Batman movies. But in all those cases, Shaky Cam is used sparingly, not in 90% of the shots. 
The Hunger Games used it at least that often. Lame. It was like watching a fucking Peter Berg movie. Ugh. (I DO like Peter Berg, but he overuses Shaky Cam)

Meet the Robinsons - DVD movie review

From March 13, 2012

Overall: C
I remember some students from Monte Vista telling me about how great it was back when it came out in 2007. For me, the movie wasn’t great, but it was far from bad, too. I thought it was a solid “B”. Fun to watch, but don’t go looking for much more than that.
PROS:
The voice of Goob is spot-on. Great character. 
Bowler Hat Guy is also funny at times.
I appreciated the cameo of Space Mountain (from Disneyland) when Lewis first goes to the future.
I really like the song in the future, with the whole choir singing in the background.
I like the movie’s message about moving forward, progressing into the future. Not forgetting about the past, but not being hung up by it either. 
So often I hear people talk about how much better things used to be… in the past. “Things were better in the ‘50’s” and so forth. And the whole religious notion of “The Fall of Man” that has always rubbed me the wrong way. 
In Frank Herbert’s fourth DUNE novel (“God Emperor of Dune”), he talked about how human societies always have half-remembered visions of a Golden Age that we are constantly moving away from as time progresses. He also states that that notion is complete bullshit because such a Golden Age never existed, and I heartily agree. (When I find the specific quote, I’ll post it here.)
Other people, like Disney and Star Trek’s Gene Roddenberry, also agreed that humans are constantly living better and better lives. We are progressing. 
Anyway, I’m seeming to get off topic. My point was that the theme of “Meet the Robinson’s” is to keep moving forward and that the future is brighter than the past, which I agree with. I also appreciate that this theme was directly taken from a quote of Walt Disney. Nice.
CONS: 
There are parts of it that are inspiring, but I wish they were MORE inspiring. There are parts of it that are funny, but I wish they were MORE funny (as well as more instances of humor).
Lewis, the main character, looks like the kid from “Jerry McGuire”, which is off-putting.
The animation wants very desperately to be Pixar, and it isn’t. The main character reminds me a whole hell of a lot of Dash from “The Incredibles”. Also, the girl with the ants in the science fair sounds and acts like Violet from “The Incredibles”. Lame.
The T-Rex is cool, but he moves WAY too fast. There’s no sense in the animation that it is a 6-ton creature. There's no skin jiggle as it moves. That may sound like a nit-picky thing, but I know a lot about animation, and getting a sense of weight and mass in a character is a sign of good animating. NOT getting that sense is a sign of bad animating. Disney Studios really nailed this seven years earlier when they did "Dinosaur". The T-Rex in this movie is about ten steps backward in terms of animation.

John Carter - movie review

From March 12, 2013

MOVIE REVIEW:
Overall: B
John Carter was directed by Andrew Stanton (of Finding Nemo and WALL-E fame) and it was pretty good. 
I recommend it!
The acting and CGI were far better than in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. (The music wasn't because, well, how can you beat John Williams unless you went with Mozart or Beethoven or something?)
However, a lot of movie critics have apparently panned it. I completely disagree. A reviewer for Variety, Peter Debruge, said, "To watch John Carter is to wonder where in this jumbled space opera one might find the intuitive sense of wonderment and awe Stanton brought to Finding Nemo and WALL-E." Christy Lemire of the Associated Press wrote that, "Except for a strong cast, a few striking visuals and some unexpected flashes of humor, John Carter is just a dreary, convoluted trudge — a soulless sprawl of computer-generated blippery converted to 3-D."
What the hell? Did she even see the same movie that I did? The movie is far from dreary. It's very funny, visually stunning, well-acted, etc. Sure the story could seem convoluted, I suppose, to someone who isn't used to watching sci-fi fare. They throw around a lot of names/words that don't make sense until later, but I'm used to that.
Owen Glieberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a D rating, feeling, "Nothing in John Carter really works, since everything in the movie has been done so many times before, and so much better." I guess that's the problem this movie will suffer: it will be compared to things like Star Wars (hell, I even did it). While this makes sense to compare them, you have to realize and note that this story is 100 years old! It's exactly 60 years older than Star Wars, 49 years older than Star Trek, and even 48 years older than DUNE. It's pretty much the origin of all sci-fi (except Jules Verne and H.G. Wells' stuff). 
I just don't like how many critics have basically said, "Meh. It's just like other stuff." And then they don't even acknowledge that John Carter inspired it all. That's sort of infuriating to me.
One of my friends said the he appreciated the subtlety of its religious undertones and its warning about the potential for blind faith to destroy all.