Remember Me (2010)

When they advertised Allen Coulter's Remember Me, it was a movie about love. (Watch the trailer here.) Two lonely people -- Tyler (Robert Pattinson) and Ally (Emilie de Ravin) -- who find each other and overcome obstacles like her over-protective father and the reason why Tyler approached her in the first place. I wasn't really excited to see it. Something about it told me that I shouldn't but when I went with my group of friends to the movies, it's what we ended up seeing. Turns out, I was right.

Don't get me wrong. It's well acted and engaging. You root for the couple. You hope that the problems they're facing will get resolved and/or overcome. But, for me, it was soul-crushingly painful to watch.

What the trailers didn't show you is why these two lonely people were lonely. Ally's mother was shot in front of her. Her cop father became hyper vigilant to protect her, to the point that he's smothering her. This I could handle. It's Tyler's family drama that haunted me for days afterward.

Three years before the movie begins, Tyler's older brother, Michael, hung himself and Tyler was the one who found the body. The aftermath of the suicide saw grief break the family apart. Tyler is estranged and angry at his father. He blames Dad for his brother's death and hates Dad for abandoning them emotionally afterwards. The movie is a good and accurate depiction of the open chest wound that suicide leaves behind for every family member. Watching their pain and stifled grief was gut-wrenching, disturbing and something that still hurts, thinking about it almost 7 years later. It overshadowed any romance for me.

If they had just left it at this, then I would have rated the movie about a 7 out of 10. As I said before, it's well-acted and engaging. There are no bad guys or characters you hate (they even paint Dad in his prideful misery in a sympathetic way). But then there was the ending. The stupid, manipulative, insulting ending. That ending is why I only gave the film a 3 out of 10.

Right when things were looking up for the pair, and things are finally getting better between father and son, Tyler drops by Dad's office. It just happens to be located in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  It was an unexpected visit so Dad is in a meeting, so Tyler waits. It's easy to imagine what happened after.

So, when they all were finally starting to move on and heal, not only do they have the scars of those previous deaths (Tyler's brother's and Ally's mother's), but they also get to weep over his senseless death, too. I guess that's why they named the movie 'Remember Me.'

I really wish I didn't.

My Rating: 3/10

Links:
IMDB page for the movie
Wikipedia page for the movie

Reviews:
AV Club review
Entertainment Weekly - I'm Still Not Over ... The twist ending of 'Remember Me'
Plugged In review
Roger Ebert review

A Snarky Blow-by-Blow Retelling of 'Noah' (2014)

Our movie begins. Foreboding music (drums mostly) accompanies its beginning narration.

In the beginning there was nothing...
We see an image of the serpent, slithering forward.
Temptation led to sin...
Image of the apple (even though the forbidden fruit *wasn't* an apple, except in religious tradition), a hand picking it, sound of someone eating it
Cast out of Eden, Adam and Eve had three sons:
CAIN, ABEL and SETH.
Shadowplay of Cain killing Abel
Cain killed Abel
and fled to the East,
where he was sheltered by a band of fallen angels:
The Watchers.
Huge mishapen disjointed rock creatures (there's no way that these things would legitimately live if they were real)
These Wachers helped Cain's descendants
build a great industrial civilization.
Say what? Since when was the technology of Noah's era industrial?
Elizabethan-looking city grows and grows (like there were that many people...)
It reminds me of a plague.
Cain's cities spread wickedness, (Cain's still alive then?)
devouring the World.
The blight of Cain's people spread across the land (that looks a lot like Pangaea, something that broke apart 175M years ago)
Only the descendants of Seth
defend and protect what is left of Creation.
Today, the last of Seth's line becomes a man. (What about Lamech's other sons and daughters?)
The action starts...

Encino Man (1992)

Back in 1992, there was a movie about a nerdy boy, Dave (Sean Astin) who yearns to be popular. He decides that having a pool will make him cool and so he starts digging the ditch and uncovers a frozen Cro-Magnon man. He and his buddy, Stoney (Pauly Shore), decide to thaw the floe of ice with heat lamps. It gets to the point where it breaks while the boys are at school and, without any type of resuscitation, the Cro-Magnon iceman (Brendan Fraser) wakes up.

The boys proceed to give the iceman a name, Link, and after teaching him a few phrases, they decide he should go to high school with them. (Because someone illiterate and who barely speaks English would do really well there.) 

Of course, registering him is no problem and everyone at school thinks that he's totally cool, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. Link is a quick study in modern English and in his spare time, he hangs out with Stoney, so there's tons of Pauly Shore's bro-isms. In the end, Dave and Stoney get just as popular as Link, Dave gets the girl he's been crushing on and Link's Cro-Magnon girlfriend appears. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Back in 1992, I skipped this movie. Pauly Shore was nothing but a doofus and I had no interest in watching Brendan Fraser act like a caveman. I came across the movie recently, when they first are meeting Link, so I decided to record it and watch it from the beginning. Maybe it would be humorous. After all, it made about 300% of its original budget and I remember it being popular among the 'it' crowd.

Was it humorous? Not really, at all.
Had I forgotten it existed until I saw it on TV? Yes, I did.
Did I fast forward through much of the movie? Yes.
Was Brendan Fraser enjoyable to watch as Link? Definitely.
Do they need to resurrect this movie or keep it in the public's consciousness? No, definitely not.

Pauly Shore was a novelty spawned by MTV.  I never found him particularly amusing or endearing, but this was one of his most successful movies -- most likely because it didn't *star* him and it starred Brendan Fraser, whose unabashed glee is what made me watch any of it. Frankly, I fast-forwarded about half the movie, mainly the parts that didn't involve Link.

 My Rating: 2/10

Links:
IMDb page
Chris and Elizabeth Watch Movies Review
Cinemablend.com - Wait, Encino Man 2? Here's What Pauly Shore Says

Jack Reacher (2012)

Jack Reacher starts with a man with a smashed thumb making bullets interspersed with a man driving a white van. Man in the van is wearing gloves, nondescript brown shoes, average pants. He drives over some cones to park (I wonder if he put them there to save his spot) and then pays the meter, buying 30 minutes. The man has a sniper rifle.

When we see his face, I recognize him as Jai Courtney, Bruce Willis's son from Die Hard. He calmly puts on his sunglasses and proceeds to shoot people: a man on a bench, who looks like he's waiting for someone, and 4 women walking in various directions, one carrying a little girl.

By the time the police are on the scene, the shooter is long gone. The lead detective, Emerson (David Oyelowo), discovers a shell casing in one of the cracks in the cement and also, because of the crushed cones, thinks to check the meter. This yields a quarter with a usable fingerprint; it identifies James Barr. When they raid his house to arrest him, they find the brown shoes, the license plate (PA CHC 6785) and matching bullets. The DA, Alex Rodin (Richard Jenkins), who never takes cases unless he can win them, takes this one. In cases like this, he always pursues the death penalty.

When Emerson interviews Barr, he tells him that "the DA is wondering if Barr's going to walk like a man or cry like a pussy."  Friendly interview this is not. They offer him life if he confesses or the death penalty if he doesn't. Barr takes the paper and writes something, but it's not what they expected: GET JACK REACHER. The camera pans and the man they've arrested (Joseph Sikora) is *not* the man we saw shoot those people.

Noah (2014)

General synopsis: a re-imagining of the biblical story of Noah to become a blockbuster epic with no faith behind it and lots of rock monsters. Biblically accurate it is not and despite what others might write, is not a good movie.

It's interesting reading reviews of the movie. Despite its departure from the source material, many thought it was a good film. My friends and I (a group of about 10 of us) gathered for movie night and watched it. Several times throughout the movie, various people muttered about how terrible it was and several times, someone asked why we were still watching it. Even when I take religion out of it, it's still a bad movie. Yes, it was visually stunning, and yes, the acting was well-done, but the basic story-line, Noah's bat-crazy ideas and the cliches, plus the ridiculous rock monsters, make this movie one that I tell people to stay away from.

I'm going to preface my review by saying that, for the most part, I don't mind movies which are irreverent to Christianity and/or the Bible. I personally love Dogma and Saved!, because I think the message in both is about having the right motivations, not just a dogmatic following of rules. I could care less about the director's intent behind The Golden Compass. The way South Park skewers religious hypocrisy is great. Bruce Almighty... Evan Almighty... Oh, God. You Devil. The TV series Supernatural's angels storyline. Joan of Arcadia. Even Touched by an Angel or Highway to Heaven. I don't mind the non-traditional depictions of God and/or angels. What I do mind are movies which advertise as if they are the original story but then take major artistic license with it. They leave the bare bones of the story, with everything else some Hollywood executive's fevered dream. (Whoever green-lit this must have had pneumonia.)

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

I'd heard that Jupiter Jones was not a good movie. I usually am not really persuaded by ratings on 'Rotten Tomatoes,' so I thought I'd see for myself. But my expectations were really low; after all, here's the synopsis on my DVR:

Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) was born under signs that predicted future greatness, but her reality as a woman consists of cleaning other people's houses and endless bad breaks. Caine (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered hunter, arrives on Earth to locate her, making Jupiter finally aware of the great destiny that awaits her. Jupiter's genetic signature marks her as the next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the cosmos.

My reaction: Wow. This is going to be bad. And the haters were right. This thing is a hot mess. A visually stunning, special-effects masterpiece, but it's a hot mess. The movie starts with Jupiter Jones somberly narrating that she's "[t]echnically speaking... an alien. And from the perspective of Immigration, an illegal one..." Her parents met... blah, blah, blah. Uncomfortable scene where Dad is rubbing Vaseline on Mom's pregnant belly before men burst in, steal his telescope and kill him.

Cue immigration to the US... Jupiter says that she was born in the house of Leo... with Jupiter rising at twenty-three degrees ascendant. This means that she is destined for great things and to find the one true love of her life. Really? I guess that the Wachowskis thought that they were being clever and ironic, introducing it this way, because then we're treated to a too long montage of Jupiter cleaning toilets. Multiple toilets. We are wasting time watching Jupiter clean toilets. And that's just the start, folks.

After I finished the movie, I had 2 thoughts: (1) the special effects looked so realistic, and (2) the movie should have been longer, at least from a narrative standpoint. It's only 127 minutes. They could have used another 30 minutes to flesh out the plot and Jupiter's relationship with the male lead, Caine Wise (Channing Tatum). [Side note: the top 14 grossing action films average 159 minutes.]

2012 (2009)

Back in the early 21st Century, doomsday advocates were claiming that the world was going to end on December 21, 2012. Their reason? The Mayan calendar was ending after 5,126 years. Back in 1966, Michael Coe claimed that Armageddon is supposed to happen on the final day of the current (13th) calendar and the present universe would be annihilated. Later scholars questioned the validity of his assertions, but as 2012 approached, the idea that the world would end started to gain traction in public consciousness. Y2K, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the financial collapse in 2008 only added to the sense of doom. (See this article and this article.) In 2009, Roland Emmerich made a movie about it.

Religious fervorents have been predicting the end times for years. This was the end of the 13th baktuns of the Mayan calendar, so it must be bad. Personally, I rolled my eyes at the idea. The world didn't end and begin again back in 3114 BC. (I think they would have noted that in the Bible and other ancient texts. Here's a link for a list of when things happened in the Bible.) So why would it happen now?

Of course, modern-day Mayans also roll their eyes and sigh with exasperation at this distortion of their beliefs. The head of the Guatemalan confederation of Mayan priests, Jesus Gomez, said in this article in the Telegraph that "There is no concept of apocalypse in the Mayan culture."  But when had that stopped holiday from making a disaster movie?

And make a disaster movie, they did. They spent about $200M on this ridiculous blockbuster which follows American geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and struggling writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack). (It made much more than that, but it's still $200M). The events in the movie are based on the theory of Earth Crust Displacement. (It was posited by a guy who didn't have a background in any type of science, let alone Plate Tectonics, but why base things in reality?)

My Movie Ratings

Everyone has their own preferences as far as movies go. Some critics I agree with. Some I think are crazy (Did we really just watch the same movie? Are you really going to intellectualize *that*?) So, here's my list of movie ratings (and reviews as I get to them). Use them as you will... (Last updated 4/24/17)

2012 (2009) - 4/10 (review)
13 Going on 30 (2004) - 7/10
27 Dresses (2007) - 7/10
The Fifth Wave (2016) - 6/10
The Adjustment Bureau (2011) - 7.5/10
The African Queen (1951) - 8/10
Air Force One (1997) - 7/10
Amelie (2001) - 10/10
Argo (2012) - 9/10
As Good As It Gets (1997) - 8/10
The Avengers (2012) - 10/10

Gone Girl (2014)

If you're not familiar with David Fincher, he started out in music videos, highly stylized music videos like Madonna's 'Vogue,' Johnny Hates Jazz's 'Shattered Dreams,' Paula Abdul's 'Cold Hearted,' Billy Idol's 'Cradle of Love,' and George Michael's 'Freedom! 90.' By 1992, he had moved on to directing movies: Se7en (1995), The Game (1997), Fight Club (1999), Panic Room (2002), The Social Network (2010), and most recently 2014's 'Gone Girl.'

Throughout the years, Fincher has perfected his craft, creating films that unfold like an onion, evoking a mood and revealing things bit by bit. 'Gone Girl' is no exception. From its beginning, Fincher envokes a mood -- ominous, foreboding -- and doesn't let up once.

The movie starts with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) stroking his wife, Amy's (Rosamund Pike), hair, as his voiceover says, "When I think of my wife, I always think of her head." There's a pause and he adds, "I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brain, trying to get answers." Not expecting that, that violence... It sets the tone for the movie. He continues: "The primal questions of a marriage: What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we *done* to each other?" Amy looks up at him (the camera). Fade out.

Next we see Nick taking out the trash, then standing in his driveway, looking stymied. Something feels off. He's standing there too long. Nick heads to work: The Bar, which he owns with his twin sister, Margo (Carrie Coon), aka 'Go.'

We meet Amy through a flashback. Her voice over announces that she's "so crazy, stupid happy... [she] met a boy." We see how she and Nick first met - and I'm reminded of all those 30s movies with the snappy banter. These are two attractive, likeable people, people you wish were as cool as.

In the present, Nick drinks some bourbon. He and Go play 'Life' -- adults playing a kid's game. Is there some meaning in that? It's obvious that he dreads what's in store: Amy's anniversary treasure hunt (year #5). As he phrases it: "the forced march designed to point out what an uncaring, oblivious asshole I am." It's obvious that the love has left the marriage.

Mirror, Mirror (2012)

Growing up, I loved fairy tales. I loved fantasy stories like the stories of Oz and Little people who live in the walls of houses. I really loved fairy tales. Something about good triumphing over evil always appealed to me. The story of Snow White was never a favorite of mine. (I much preferred 'Snow White, Rose Red,' but most people have never heard of that fairy tale.) In fact, I find her a very annoying Disney princess. Even if the 1937 cartoon is a product of its times, with some great songs, the idea of watching a live-action version of her didn't really appeal to me.  When I first saw the commercials for Tarsem Singh's 'Mirror, Mirror,' its costumes made me want to watch this film. Plus, it seemed like a light-hearted take on the story.

Watching the film, I wasn't disappointed. The costumes were amazing and the set pieces were just as good. It was a light-hearted take on the story. The evil queen, Clementianna, played by Julia Roberts, isn't so much evil as just really selfish. She wants what she wants, because she deserves it, but her happiness is held up by one obstacle: her step-daughter, Snow White (Lily Collins).

This selfishness has bankrupted the kingdom. None of her subjects likes her (not that she cares) but they stick around because of their love for Snow (which she finds greatly annoying). The Queen sets her sights on winning visiting Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer), since he comes from a very wealthy kingdom and he's dreamy to boot. Alas, her plan is thwarted because the young Prince has already fallen in love with someone else, Snow .

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

2012 saw the release of two movies based on the Snow White fairy tale: 'Mirror, Mirror,' which released on March 30th and 'Snow White and the Huntsman,' which was released on May 14th. [For my review of 'Mirror, Mirror,' click here.]

Snow White and the Huntsman stars Kristen Stewart as the titular Snow White. How she continues to get casts as the lead in things, I don't know. Yes, her performance in this movie is better than her acting as Bella Swan, the queen of the Twilight series, but that's not saying much. In fact, she's the one real weak link in the movie's acting chain. Emoting has never been Stewart's strength, and this movie is really no exception. It is an improvement over the horrid 'Twilight' movies, but that's not really saying much: her basic expressions are blankly looking scared, confused, or awed (like I said, a small improvement in her acting, since you can actually tell which emotion she's going for at least). 

But, while Stewart's performance is possibly the worst thing about this film (after the convoluted, nonsensical plot and lack of any type of character development), Charlize Theron's performance as Queen Ravenna more than balances it out.  Theron's Ravenna is the perfect mixture of steel and vulnerability. She's calculating, positioning herself as the victim and prisoner of an evil army, so that she can easily seduce King Magnus and become his queen. She's cold-hearted, brutally murdering the King on their wedding night and sucking the life out of young maidens in order to maintain her own beauty. Ravenna could have been played as pure, cold-hearted, remorseless evil, but Theron takes her lines and imbues them with pain and vulnerability. You get the sense that something bad happened to her once and her quest to be all powerful stems from never wanting to be at someone else's mercy and be hurt ever again. It's a performance not to be missed.

Toronto or Hong Kong - Can You Tell the Difference?

This post is related to my review of 'Pacific Rim.'

'Pacific Rim' is primarily set in Hong Kong, a city in Asia. They speak Cantonese (Chinese) there. It's the world's fourth most densely populated sovereign state or territory. 7.3 million people live in a land area of 427 sq mi. Was it filmed in Hong Kong? That would make sense. They have a thriving film industry and a little USD goes a long way there. But it wasn't.

Instead, filming was done in Toronto, a city in North America. They speak English there. About one-third of Hong Kong's population (2.7 million) live in 243.3 sq mi. Also, as someone who has been to *both* cities, I can say that the architecture of the 2 cities is not alike. It doesn't seem like director Del Toro really cared about that authenticity. Or perhaps he just didn't do very much research...

But maybe it's me. How about you decide: Toronto or Hong Kong?

1.

The Social Network (2010)

Back in 2010, a movie came out about the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and the creation of that social-media phenomenon, Facebook. It's aptly titled 'The Social Network.' It was immediately a critical darling, who raved about it.

Here's its synopsis on Rotten Tomatoes:

"The Social Network" explores the moment at which Facebook, the most revolutionary social phenomena of the new century, was invented -- through the warring perspectives of the super-smart young men who each claimed to be there at its inception. The result is a drama rife with both creation and destruction; one that audaciously avoids a singular POV, but instead, by tracking dueling narratives, mirrors the clashing truths and constantly morphing social relationships that define our time. Drawn from multiple sources, the film captures the visceral thrill of the heady early days of a culture-changing phenomenon in the making -- and the way it both pulled a group of young revolutionaries together and then split them apart.

Revolutionary? Audacious? Definitive? Visceral? Heady? Um, Okay. It must be really good.  After all, it was nominated for 8 Academy Awards -- including Best Actor, Best Director, Best Picture, Cinematography, Sound Mixing -- and it won three of them: Best Adapted Screenplay, Film Editing and Original Score.  So it must be amazing. I mean, movies like 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' and 'An American in Paris' were nominated for 8 Oscars. 'The Dark Knight,' 'A Beautiful Mind,' 'A Room with a View,' Platoon,' and 'Witness' were all nominated for 8 Oscars. It had to be good.

I didn't end up seeing it in theaters. I've never really been an avid user of Facebook and I wasn't really interested in how it got started. But in January 2011, I ended up bored on a flight to Brussels, Belgium, and it was the movie playing. So watch it, I did... and I was not impressed.

Don't get me wrong. Jesse Eisenberg knocked it out of the park as Mark Zuckerberg. Aaron Sorkin's blistering dialogue was superbly executed and David Fincher created a movie that was engaging, involving and kept my attention the whole time. I was never bored. But, I wasn't impressed. That's what all the hype was about?

Logan (2017)

James Mangold's Logan is not your traditional X-Men movie. It's not light-hearted nor optimistic. The good guys don't really win. Logan takes place in 2029, 12 years into the future. The world of Logan is bleak, dirty, gritty, despairing... and real. No new mutants are appearing and those alive are being wiped from existence, either by a virus or by Reavers from the Transigen Project. Pretty much only our unkillable hero and the most powerful telepath are left.

But this is not the healthy Logan that we know. This Logan walks with a limp, coughs up blood and isn't healing. His claws don't always extend fully and it seems as though his adamantium is killing him. He spends his days either drunk (which previously wasn't really possible for long periods) or acting as a chauffeur with his leased limo. You get the feeling that Logan would disappear into the wilderness all together, except that one thing keeps him going: Charles Xavier, the last member of his family, needs him. Logan drives the limo in order to buy the medicine that Charles needs to stave off seizures. These seizures are eventually going to kill him and everyone caught in Charles's psychic radius. These same seizures -- which immobilizes/paralyzes anyone around him -- caused the death of most of Charles's X-Men the year before. Both men are shadows of their former selves, with Charles battling drug-induced dementia (while locked in the innards of a broken-down smelting plant) and Logan weak and vulnerable.

The Decoy Bride (2011)

There's something about this 2011 romantic comedy that I love. I'm not quite sure what it is, but I really, really do. Perhaps it's the Scottish accents, or the British humor, or the fact that it stars David Tennant as the milquetoast fiance of the world's most beloved actress, but it's a film that I've watched many times. The mood hits me and I turn it on (and never regret it). If you love all things British and like intelligent RomComs then this is one not to miss.

The movie starts with 'the Wedding of the Century,' where Lara Tyler (Alice Eve) is getting married. She emerges from a building, face hidden by her veil. Her adoring fans scream in delight and paparazzi are everywhere. She climbs into a car and drives away. Shortly afterward another bride emerges, and then another, wedding dress and veil in yet another color. Everyone wants pictures of her upcoming nuptials and the telly and the papers wonder if author James Arber (David Tennant) is the one. Arber is the author of one book:  The Ornithologist's Wife, and Lara absolutely loves it. As the movie continues, we learn that the book is verbose, self-important and huge (probably 1,000 pages or so) and not very successful.

We switch to the chapel, where Lara's publicist, Steve (Michael Urie), and his assistant, Emma (Sally Phillips), have arranged the real wedding. Steve is quite pleased with his cleverness (over the multi-bride scheme) and asks if there's any sign of Marco Ballani (Federico Castelluccio). Who's Marco Ballani? Only Lara's most dogged paparazzo, who is so dedicated to getting his shot that he's been hidden in the church's organ for several days (illustrated by the bottles of urine at his feet). Lara walks down the aisle to 'Panis Angelicus' -- what a song to choose, 'Bread of Angels' -- and immediately discovers him. She grabs a candlestick and chases him out of the church. Lara vows not to lose to "that disease of a man" and declares that they're going to have to go somewhere "crazy remote" to get married.

You might think this is their story, a rehash of Notting Hill, where an ordinary man loves a megastar actress, but it's not. This is not their love story. The start of the movie is there to introduce us to the main obstacle to our one true pair living happily ever after: he's engaged to someone else, a someone who is one of the most popular and beloved actresses on the planet. Cue Ingrid Michaelson's "Be OK" and the island of Hegg. Our heroine, Katie Nic Aodh (Kelly MacDonald) is on a boat, riding towards the island. She looks crushed, lost. As Hegg comes closer, she looks down at her engagement ring and chucks it into the ocean.

Battleship (2012)

Someone out there decided that since Hasbro's Transformers was such a money maker, they should adapt other Hasbro toys into full-length motion pictures. This genius not only included Battleship, but Candy Land, Monopoly and Stretch Armstrong (according to Wikipedia). (Clue was also in there, but there's already been an awesome film made in 1985, so anything else would be a retread, or a bad Sherlock Holmes/Hercules Poirot rip-off.) Thus cometh 2012's Battleship.

Going in, I was cautiously optimistic. I mean, they're making a movie based on a plastic board game that's been around since the late 60s. Who hasn't played Battleship at some point? Unfortunately, the idea that it was going to be lame was an understatement.

We start by meeting our hero, Lt. Alex Hopper, played by Taylor Kitsch. At the time, Kitsch was the "It" boy because of his performance as Tim Riggins in 'Friday Night Lights,' and this movie was expected to be one that only helped in his climb to the top. Uh, no. This and the movie bomb that is 'John Carter' pretty much tanked things. But I'm digressing, which is easy to do. The film is pretty forgettable.

Pacific Rim (2013)

KAIJU (kaiju, Japanese) Giant Beast.
JAEGER (yagar, German) Hunter.

Our movie starts with a man saying, "When I was a kid, whenever I'd feel small or lonely, I'd look up at the stars. Wondered if there was life up there. Turns out I was looking in the wrong direction. When alien life entered our world it was from deep beneath the Pacific Ocean. A fissure between two tectonic plates. A portal between dimensions. The Breach.

The voice puts off a feeling of toughness, but I don't buy it. I guess I'm skeptical... or just intolerant of movies that ask me to leave my brain at the door.

Our narrator proceeds, with film images to illustrate, how huge creatures, Kaiju, began emerging from the rift. (It takes out the Golden Gate Bridge!!! Not just part of it, but the *whole* thing.) The Kaiju are pretty impervious to our military technology -- not like the alien ships in 'Independence Day' -- and it takes them 6 days to kill the first one. But more keep coming. (Dun, dun, dun!) The world bands together, "throwing aside old rivalries for the sake of the greater good." And the Jaeger program was born.

What's the Jaeger program? Huge robots that operate through a neural interface with a pilot. They're so huge that only *two* human minds can handle the "neural load," right hemisphere, left hemisphere. (So is one pilot more artistic and the other more analytical?) And Jaegers are only as successful as the people who pilot them.

Jaeger pilots turned into rock stars. Danger turned into propaganda (not at all like what's happening in the US today - wait? is this going to be some political commentary?).  And Kaiju became toys (literally, where they were no longer scary). Then it all changed. (Not really, but since the world revolves around Raleigh, it did.)

Willow (1988): Just a Lesser Retread of Star Wars?

I first saw Willow years ago and I loved it. Val Kilmer was dashing as Madmartigan and Joanne Whalley was beautiful and hardcore as the Prince Sorsha. Good battled evil and good eventually won. Warrick Davis starred as the titular Willow. It had magic and its message was positive: believe in yourself.

Its reception by critics was mixed. One thing that made it remarkable were the special effects. Lucas was always good at that and his company, Industrial Light and Magic, came up with some new tricks to show Fin Raziel's transformation back from an animal to her human form. Bavmorda's two-headed dragon was pretty fantastic (maybe not in retrospect, with advances in special effects, but when you're a kid, your imagination makes up for any shortfalls).

My Rating: 7/10

Roger Ebert gave it 2.5 stars. He felt like the story was "turgid and relentlessly predictable. Not much really happens, and when it does, its pace is slowed by special effects set pieces that run on too long and seem to be recycled out of earlier movies."

V for Vendetta (Revisited)

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

This 2005 tour-de-force by director James McTeigue really resonated with me when I first saw it, and it resonates with me still today. Based on the 10-issue comic book series by Alan Moore, the film asks you the question: What would you do to stand up to tyranny? and What really *is* a terrorist?

The movie opens with Guy Fawkes.  The name might sound vaguely familiar... vaguely. Every November 5th, the Brits shoot off fireworks and burn his effigy in celebration of his failure to blow up King James I and Parliament. He wasn't alone -- he had 12 co-cospirators -- but his is the name and identity that has become synonymous with Catholic extremism in the 17th century.

A calm, somber voiceover - Evey, our heroine - opens the movie with the first few lines of "Remember," a poem about Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot:

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
why the Gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot."

Light slowly starts in a corner as Evey asks: "But what of the man? I know his name was Guy Fawkes, and I know in 1605, he attempted to blow up the houses of Parliament.  But who was he, really? What was he like?" Barking dogs and we see Fawkes captured as Evey continues: "We are told to remember the idea and not the man... because man can fail. He can be caught. He can be killed and forgotten. But 400 years later, an idea can still change the world."