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.