Ghost in the Shell Review

My review of Ghost in the Shell is up at Black Gate.  No spoilers to worry about.  Just one guy's opinion.  I had my reservations in seeing the movie because I wasn't certain I'd like a new adaptation.  But I think it's obvious that the director, Rupert Sanders, had a lot of respect for the 2016 anime movie.  Check it out!

World War Z

Last Friday, my wife and I saw "World War Z".  We actually saw a movie on opening night!  I can't think of the last time that happened.

The film is an adaptation of Max Brooks' book by the same title.  I'm most of the way  through the book, and if you haven't read it yet, you should pick up a copy.  It's not a novel in the traditional sense; it reads more like an anthology.  But it's a suspenseful book with interesting characters, culture and settings.

I knew beforehand that the movie would not follow the book's flow.  Otherwise, it would simply be a series of flashbacks from the view of many characters.  Instead, the film focuses around Gerry Lane, who had recently worked for the U.N. as a top operand with unmentioned skills. 

Lane is traveling with his wife and kids through Philadelphia just as a global outbreak strikes.  Originally labeled as a type of rabies, the infected become undead zombies with ravenous hunger, and their bites spread the infection throughout the population.

The U.N. wants to bring Lane to their secure outpost in order to utilize his skills in figuring out how to overcome the mysterious pandemic.  But in order to help the U.N., Lane and his family must first get to a place where they can be transported to safety.

This was a very suspenseful film.  So much so that my wife was practically clawing my arm off at points.  (Not that there's anything wrong with having a really attractive woman clinging to you.)  By the end, I couldn't believe that two hours had flown past.

The movie did a good job of covering the outbreak from a global perspective rather than staying focused around a single city or country.  And I think it was a good change of pace that it wasn't full of gore, hence the PG-13 rating.  This proves that you can still have zombies and the premise that goes with zombies (they eat people, can only be killed by destroying their brain, etc.) without having a blood-spangled guts-fest.  I've been so used to "The Walking Dead" that I hadn't considered another way of conveying a zombie story through visual media.

Another item that I both liked and disliked was how real it felt.  Rather than a group of individuals trying to escape from zombies, a family is trying to escape.  Not only that, but one of their kids has asthma.  As parents of three children, two of whom have chronic health conditions, that really hit home for my wife and me. 

I watched the movie in 2D because I'm just not into 3D films (yes, I've tried recently with "The Hobbit", and it just didn't do anything for me).  But I think regardless of the version you might choose, it will be entertaining and nerve-racking (in a good way).

Star Trek Into Darkness

A couple of weekends ago, my wife and I went to see the latest Star Trek movie, "Star Trek Into Darkness".  Not to spoil anything, but if you're wondering what's in the darkness, it's action.

Someone bombs a secret Federation installation in London, leading to a manhunt for a rogue Starfleet agent.  The agent transports himself to an isolated region on the Klingon home world, likely to escape incarceration.

Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise have orders to approach the Neutral Zone and fire photon torpedoes at the agent's location.  Rather than complying, Kirk chooses to go directly to the Klingon world to apprehend the rogue agent.

The agent reveals his motives, and the crew soon finds themselves in mortal danger. 

Throughout their plights, the crew faces one action sequence after another.  There are countdowns to explosions, a chase through warp, and massive destruction.  There are also a number of references to the Star Trek series/movies that fans would enjoy.

I liked the movie, but it felt like there was too much action.  I would rather have had more character development.  I had some sense of who the characters were, but part of that is based on my familiarity with the Star Trek franchise.  Spock probably had the most depth, seconded perhaps by Kirk, but there wasn't time to see too much beyond that.  I was a bit confused by the references to the friendship between Kirk and Spock; I didn't really see much evidence of a friendship, other than their light banter.

The first part of the movie felt surprising, but the latter half became more predictable.  It was good, however, to involve the Klingons (they do look cool), and I'm sure they will become the focus of the next Star Trek movie.  That would be better than trying to remake the horrible Star Trek IV movie.  (If that's the only idea on the table at some point in the future, that's the point to stop.)

Seeing this action flick from the Star Trek universe makes me cringe a little because I'm concerned the next Star Wars trilogy may be similar.  I don't want a hyped-up, hollowed-out version of Star Wars.  Forget the prequels, I'm talking about the original trilogy; those had a great story, and though there was action, it wasn't all about making 3D viewers ooh and ah.  Sure, a 3D light saber is probably going to be employed, but there has to be a good story as well, especially over the length of three movies.  I hope Lucas can go back into his 1970's mindset and that J. J. Abrams can draw upon some of the magic from Lost.  Combine that with modern technology, and it could be a really cool trilogy.  Or it could be like Star Trek and just be some good action films.  But even that would be better than the prequels, so maybe that's not so bad.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

This weekend, my wife and I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  Neither of us have gone to the movies to see anything in 3D, so we thought we'd try it out.  Honestly, I think I could have watched it in 2D without missing anything significant.  But I'm not a 3D fan, so take that with a grain of salt.

As for the movie itself, I felt like it moved too slowly.  Beyond that, I disliked the added dialogue.  By that, I don't mean that the dialogue needed to match the book verbatim, but the additional verbiage was full of bad jokes.  For example, Bilbo refers to something as being crochet, and one of the dwarves says he loves that game, if you've got the balls for it (or something along those lines).  Gandalf relays a tale of the Took who could ride a horse and how he decapitated an enemy in battle, knocking the head into a rabbit hole (which I think is directly from the book); then he adds, "And the game of golf was invented as well."  Golf - in Middle Earth?  By far, the worst offender was the goblin king, who traps the party and asks what Gandalf will do, and when Gandalf responds physically, the goblin king replies, "That'll do."  Oh, it was horribly cheesy.

Now, I did like some aspects: I liked the scene with Bilbo and Gollum, and I liked seeing Erebor in all of its splendor.  Oh, and the plot with the Necromancer was intriguing; that's one thing I wish had been explored a bit more within the novel.

How would I rate the movie?  Well, it wasn't bad.  But it wasn't good either.  It's not a movie I feel like I need to see again anytime soon.  And it gives me pause on whether or not to see parts two and three in theatres.  Because with a young family, three hours out of the house is a luxury, so we're very cautious in how we use it.

Winnie the Pooh

Yesterday, I took a vacation day to go to a picnic with my daughter’s preschool class. Since I had the day off, I thought it would be fun to see the new Winnie the Pooh movie that afternoon. The kids were still napping mid-afternoon, so the four of us went to the 6:40 showing.

My wife and I hadn’t tried taking the kids to the movies before. Elora’s three and a half, so I wasn’t concerned about her age. William, however, is only 21 months old, and he doesn’t like to sit still for long periods of time unless he’s doing something.

With the expectation that I would only see ten minutes of the movie, we bought lots of candy and a fair amount of popcorn, along with a “small” fruit drink that was large enough for three people. We put Elora in a booster they had at the theatre while William had his own we brought from home. Then we passed out the candy, and the previews started soon afterward.

Each time the green preview screen popped up (the one indicating the preview is for all audiences, etc.), William would say, “Uh-oh.” Perhaps he thought the film was broken.

Surprisingly, the kids did well throughout the movie. William wanted out of his seat toward the end, so I let him stand in the row (we sat in the first raised row, so he could watch the movie through the railing). Since we almost had the theatre to ourselves, I didn’t mind too much while they explored the place during the credits.

I liked the movie. It seemed to be similar in theme to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh from 1977. The kids really enjoyed it, too. I even heard Elora laughing at times (she especially liked it when Pooh’s tummy growled). If you’ve got little ones, I recommend this one; it’s entertaining and also the right length.

Next up for the family – Captain America. Yeah, right.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

I just came out of seeing “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”. I think a viewer’s opinion on the movie will depend heavily on how much he or she enjoyed the television show.

I’m probably in the target audience for this movie. The cartoon came out when I was around seven or eight years old. I collected the toys, quoted the taglines and wanted to be one of them. “Yo, Joe!” was one of the coolest phrases I’d ever heard.

The movie tried to capture all of that and bring it back relatively unchanged. This isn’t a movie that tries to make a realistic what-if scenario, like “Batman Begins”. This is about a cartoon in live-action form. You don’t ask questions about how a terrorist organization builds an enormous military base beneath the polar ice cap. You don’t think twice about how people walk away from spectacular car crashes or how futuristic/implausible many of the weapons and machinery are (after all, a caption indicated that this was the near future).

One thing I didn’t really like were the camera shots during fight sequences. It seemed like the cameraman was taking a few punches, too. I hope this doesn’t become the new trend of action movies: to violently shake the camera while carnage ensues.

Ah, but this is G.I. Joe, after all. We must have fights, we must have explosions, and we must have over-the-top plotlines that leave gaps. Someone has to give the obligatory, “Knowing is half the battle” (which I felt Dennis Quaid did with utmost dignity). And of course they have a colossal underwater base! They’re Cobra! (Incidentally, does anyone else understand why Cobra Commander became evil? I didn’t quite understand his motivation. Crud, there I go thinking again!)

It’s best to let go of logic and pretend you’re eight again; otherwise, I think you’ll be disappointed. The eight-year-old in me thought it was great, recalled many of the toys I collected (and still keep in the basement) and thought the characters were really cool. Balance that with my current age (32), and I think it’s a good movie so long as I don’t analyze it (or think about how many scenes were stolen from other movies – did anyone else feel like they were watching the Millennium Falcon escaping from the second Death Star?).

I’m sure I’ll have a few laughs with others about some of the logistics, but I had fun watching it. I’d recommend it for any Joe fans out there. Just don’t think like an adult.

L: Change the WorLd

Last night, my wife and I met one of my friends at the theatre to watch a recently released Japanese movie titled “L: Change the WorLd.” The movie is based around the character L from Death Note (a popular manga title and anime series). In the U.S., the film is playing on two nights, with subtitles in last night’s showing and an English dubbed version playing tonight. I’m not a purist when it comes to manga/anime; I prefer dubbed versions, but last night was our only chance to go, and I honestly didn’t mind having to read the dialogue (plus, parts of it were in English).

A world-famous detective and recluse who identifies himself with the initial L has seemingly wrapped up the Kira case, in which a villain named Kira uses an unworldly notebook (known as a Death Note) to write down the names of any person he wishes to die. In order to outwit his nemesis, L writes his own name in a Death Note, thus precluding anyone else from writing his name. The only problem is that any person whose name is in a Death Note must die within 23 days, so L describes his demise as dying peacefully from a heart attack in 23 days.

An environmental extremist group develops a virus designed to kill anyone infected who isn’t vaccinated, thus cleansing the earth from humans. The only problem for the group is that the man they tricked into creating the vaccine hides its secret with his daughter and then takes his own life. L ends up in custody of the twelve-year-old girl along with a boy who managed to survive in a town that was used for testing the virus. L must find someone who can create the vaccine and stop the extremist group from succeeding in their attempt to unleash the virus, all before his 23 days expire.

The movie had a good mix of action and humor. L’s quirky behavior steals many of the scenes, but that’s as it should be since it’s his movie. It's an interesting “What If” tale from the Death Note universe, one that I think fans of the manga/anime would find amusing.

The Dark Knight

I watched The Dark Knight Friday afternoon. The latest Batman film is an excellent response to the previous movie, Batman Begins.

I’ve only recently seen Batman Begins, and I felt like kicking myself for not viewing it sooner. The dialog and pacing were outstanding. When I discovered that both Batman movies had the same writers, I really wanted to see the sequel.

The Dark Knight is indeed a dark movie, but I think this is a result of casting a truthful spotlight on evil. Some films glamorize villains to the point that I find myself identifying with these antagonists and sometimes secretly cheering for them. The Joker, however, isn’t the typical villain. His only purpose is causing people pain and degrading the morality of Gotham’s citizens by putting them in situations that test their convictions. Those character traits remind me of Satan, so I’m not surprised at how creepy The Joker comes across on screen.

When I first left the theater, I thought Heath Ledger (The Joker) had outperformed Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman). Clearly Ledger’s portrayal of an insidious and deranged Joker left me with chills, but Bale’s acting was subtler. I think I’ve simply gotten so used to the smooth scenes between Michael Caine (Alfred) and Bale between both Batman movies that I expect (and take for granted) the excellence of their performances. That said, if I could only nominate one of the two men for an award, I would recommend Ledger because The Joker seemed much more complicated.

For those who haven’t seen this film yet, I don’t want to oversell it (or spoil it). I really enjoyed the movie, but in the past, I’ve sometimes been disappointed when good movies become too hyped. Of course, Batman Begins had a lot of hype, and I wasn’t disappointed at all. One measure of approval that I think most everyone could agree with: if you liked Batman Begins, you should really like The Dark Knight.

Batman has seen its share of bad sequels in the past, but if the current writers and actors stay on for yet another Batman project, I wouldn’t hesitate to see it. There is something special about the group of people that is working together to make these movies. I hope their collaboration continues in the future.

Indiana Jones

A couple of weeks ago, I had the chance to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I was not only surprised by the price of admission for a matinee, but I was also taken aback at the quality difference between this latest sequel and others in the series. For those who have yet to see this film, beware of spoilers that lie below.

I think my main dislike of this film is how it mixed genres. Science-fiction does not belong in the Indiana Jones universe. Each of its predecessors had an element of the supernatural, but I can more readily accept God (in the general sense, not necessarily God Himself) as the supernatural force than extra-terrestrial beings. As soon as I realized this latest caper was tied to the Roswell incident (though I’m not sure they used that phrase exactly), I inwardly groaned. Why did we have to go there with this? Couldn’t the crystal skull unlock some other mystery, like the lost city of Atlantis?

Aside from the genre-conflicting plot, I agree with one reviewer who said this movie just felt tired. The dialogue revealed everything all the time, leaving little to the imagination, and some of the action sequences seemed like they reruns from the previous trilogy. One example of the slowness is when they go over three waterfalls. It just seemed to go on forever, and I thought, “Didn’t this already happen in Temple of Doom?”

Then there’s the hokey factor. When Indiana goes into an atomic bomb test site, my hokey-sense started tingling. Sure enough, Dr. Jones is there as the bomb is about to go off, and he survives by climbing into a refrigerator lined with lead. I can’t even begin to express how ridiculous this entire concept was. Again, why did the film go there? I could accept Indiana’s unexpected confrontation with Hitler in The Last Crusade as an interesting scene, but this was way over the top. The rest of the movie going in hokey directions, to the point that I just threw my hands up towards the end and though, “Why not?”

Now, the film wasn’t horrific the whole way through. I liked the concept of an aged Dr. Jones who doesn’t get around quite as well as he used to, and I even liked the character of Mutt Williams as a decent sidekick (though he often proved to be a device for explaining too much of the plot). There were also some cute throw-back moments, like when the Ark of the Covenant is revealed near the opening of the movie. Some of the action sequences also worked well, or seemed to at least fall in line with the same level of expectation as previous Indiana Jones movies. Of course, that may have been because they were part of the original movies.

I think there’s a level of accountability that’s missing from George Lucas’s life right now. Maybe that’s what’s keeping him from coming up with more good movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead, we’re left with movies like the Star Wars prequels and this latest Indiana Jones disappointment. Somewhere between Raiders and now, Lucas realized who he is, and that pride is getting in the way of better stories.