michael_the_nermal Reviews

Steven Universe: The Movie (2019)

Beautiful Message for Children: Wonderful Family Movie.

[9/10 · 19 September 2019]

I'm a big fan of "Steven Universe". I first got into the show because I love the fantasy/sci-fi genre, and "Steven Universe" engages the viewer in a rich world that serves as a platform for the creators' worldview: people must be free to find themselves as individuals, and use their unique talents to in turn help others. Another great message from the show is that it's always a good idea to empathize with even those who hate you, or who would use violence against you. Understand the point of view of the other side, and see if you disengage a conflict by using dialogue. They're beautiful messages, really. This is a deep cartoon, with rich world-building and vivid animation.

These qualities are transferred to the film. I highly recommend parents watch this movie with their children. There's little here that grown-ups will find objectionable. The protagonist, the eponymous Steven Universe, will show children the value of empathy in conflict resolution and in building friendships. The problem with this message is that not all bad people can be reasoned with, but I think it's an important cognitive step for children to learn as they go through life and interact with other people.

The movie also has a quirky charm that will no doubt delight old and new fans alike. The new character Spinel plays a big part in this film's appeal, and this is no doubt buoyed by the character's voice actress, theater veteran Sarah Stiles. Her talents (especially notable in the singing segments) bring a shining theatricality that is missing from most children's media.

Some negatives: even if you empathize and engage in dialogue with others, not everyone can be reasoned with. Even thoughts film evokes pathos and sympathy for this film's antagonist (I was almost brought to tears a few times), it does not excuse her wicked behavior, and I think she gets away with her bad deeds with almost no consequences. With that in mind, this is a positive film with a great message for children.

Revenge of the Sith Review (2010 Video)

Stunning End to an Amazing Trilogy

[8/10 · 1 February 2018]

Good ol' Harry Plinkett ends his review trilogy with a stunning dissection of the flaws inherent with the final film of the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy. He analyzes everything wrong with "Revenge of the Sith", from poorly-developed characters, sluggish pacing, and mishandling the themes that made the original trilogy so beloved. He does this with biting humor, which keeps the viewer engaged the entire time. On the negative side, I didn't really care for the side story attached to this review; it really isn't needed. It detracts from the points that Plinkett makes, and it really isn't that funny of a story.

This review did good in making the sinister Emperor into an iconic comedic character. Emperor Palpatine is one of my favorite movie villains, and the saving grace of "Revenge of the Sith". Plinkett impersonates the Emperor with gusto, the way he should, and he just reinforces what an awesome villain he was. Calling Palpatine "Monster Mash" was the icing on the cake. Please watch this review; if you hated the prequels, you'll feel validated and satisfied.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Weakest Entry in the Series. Mediocre Adventure Story

[5/10 · 31 January 2018]

WARNING! HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD!

I suppose it isn't really anyone's fault that, by now, the power of The Force is diminishing. That's to be expected when a franchise reaches its fortieth year. Where can you go from here? What more can you explore that hasn't already been explored by the original trilogy, the prequels, the expanded universe, fan fiction, and Ewok television movies, not to mention the 1978 Christmas Special? Sooner or later, "Star Wars" will decline in quality--and it has, with the Disney sequels. The Mouse is trying to make bank with a familiar name, seemingly blind to the law of diminishing returns. Thus, it's to be expected that "The Last Jedi" is a weak film that relies too much on special effects to impress. Its bloated runtime doesn't help matters: the film felt far longer than it ought to have been. With the exception of Rey, none of the characters were particularly memorable. I do admire director and writer Rian Johnson's efforts to take the series in a bold new direction, but his efforts are not enough to salvage a shopworn, tired franchise that has long since worn out its welcome.

Now to say something about the movie itself. "The Force Awakens" set up certain expectations: Rey would be trained by Luke Skywalker; Luke would help the Resistance, albeit reluctantly; some backstory about Rey would be revealed; Rey would actually be defeated by Kylo Ren; we'd learn more about Supreme Leader Snoke; Kylo Ren would complete his Dark Side training with Snoke; Leia would be riven with anguish over the fact that her son murdered his father, and would do what it took to avenge Han Solo's memory. Most of these setups are satisfied in a mostly unsatisfactory way. The manner in which Luke Skywalker was presented was disappointing. As many other reviewers have said: he made a map to find him, only to rebuke Rey? What? What few other reviewers have mentioned is that we are not shown the results of Kylo Ren completing his training. That is a huge disappointment: he is shown as weak and unready an adversary as he was in the previous film. It would have been satisfying to have him best Rey in single combat; she would learn a lesson about arrogantly trying to challenge such a formidable Dark Side user. I would have liked to have seen Rey struggle to learn the ways of the Force under Luke's tutelage. Yes, this is all a rip-off of "The Empire Strikes Back"--but a well-written ripoff is what we expected! To not satisfy this is disappointing, to say the least. If we expect Jedi training, we had better get Jedi training, period! If we expect Kylo Ren to grow into a more powerful villain under than training of Snoke, we'd better get that as well. Johnson seems to have deliberately set the audience up for disappointment in a mediocre chase story.

The film is not a completely wasted effort, and does have redeeming qualities--enough to attract and inspire some viewers. One: I love the fact that Rey is not anyone special; that she is not a Skywalker, and that her parents were plebeian junk dealers. This idea democratizes the Force: not all can be strong with the Force, but you don't have to have a notable lineage to be strong with it either. Following that route would have been *too* predictable, and I am glad Johnson chose to disappoint audience expectations with this. I also didn't mind Luke Skywalker being a sullen, grim, hopeless old man. I still would have liked him to have trained Rey, even with this new characterization; but that alone doesn't ruin his character. We expect people to change over time, even characters as iconic as Luke Skywalker. I also like Rey as a character. Yes, I agree with many reviewers that she's too *perfect*; that is, she does not face enough challenges, nor does she fail often enough due to her inherent flaws as a person. Still, her spunk and fearlessness is more welcome than Luke's blandness, in this film and in the original trilogy. She should be iconic, but simply does not face enough challenges or grow enough as a character to merit that distinction. She's a protagonist who badly deserves an arc, which the writers don't giver her.

And yes, some of the imagery was beautiful. I particularly loved the salt planet. I find an erie beauty in salt flats: salt flats with red crystals makes for a doubly dazzling setting. I also liked watching the AT-ATs face off against the X-wings on the salt flats. It all looked spectacular.

Overall, this is a below-average film from a franchise that did not need any more new movies. This is a cash grab from Disney that may entertain some for a brief time, but will quickly be forgotten. I recommend waiting for the film to come out on Netflix to watch it.

Game of Thrones: Home (2016) Season 6, Episode 2

Best of the Latter-Season Episodes

[9/10 · 2 May 2016]

WARNING! *MAJOR* SPOILERS AHEAD, AND I MEAN IT!

After a disappointing Season 5, the second episode of Season 6 makes up for it with several climactic moments squeezed in within an hour. In addition to the long-expected ending (which most fans were very happy to see, I'm certain), there were other important shifts in power, most importantly in the Iron Islands and the North. I was glad to see the Iron Islands again, after a lengthy absence, and was also pleased to see the farewell of one of my favorite "Game of Thrones" villains, the hunched, Riff-Raff-looking Lord Reaper of Pyke, Balon Greyjoy. At least the old king went down fighting. I'm excited to see what role the Ironborn will play in the wars to come...hopefully they will play a *major* role.

Ah, yes, and the plot turns as Ramsay Bolton (nee Snow) takes control of Winterfell. To those who think his actions mark a new low....there's never low enough for Ramsay. When it comes between power and family, he will take power, hands down. In essence, his character and actions are downright Shakespearean: he reminds me of Edmund from King Lear, Macbeth, and Richard III; although, unlike the calculating Duke of Gloucester, Ramsay is willing to get his hands dirty every time. He is most like "Lear's" Edmund---and, to a lesser extent, the legitimate, though shunned Richard III--- in that he is an illegitimate son who feels cut from power, and will do what he can to get what he feels is rightfully his. I will admit that Roose Bolton's departure was shocking; but I suppose, based on his actions at the Red Wedding, it was fitting end for him. Murdering his half-brother and stepmother ruthlessly, while disturbing, was not surprising. It will be interesting to see where his ruthless quest for power will lead him. Hopefully, Ramsay will suffer a fate far worse than any of his Shakespearean counterparts.

Ah, yes, then we go full circle with the imprisonment Dany's dragons. The whole reason they were imprisoned was because they wantonly caused destruction. How will Tyrion hope to control them? Tyron is a great thinker and leader, so I hope that he has a plan for setting free the dragons. I look forward to Season 6 resolving this matter; though, after Season 5's dismal performance, I won't give my hopes up. I love Tyrion for his skills as a leader, and freeing the dragons seems to be yet another example of his cunning. Let's hope my surmising in this instance was right, and that he didn't make the biggest mistake in his life by doing so.

In short, the climactic moments and brisk pace of this episode made it far more satisfying than any of previous seasons. I'd argue that this episode was the best since Season 1. I hope it's not a fluke, and that most of Season 6 is as disappointing as Season 5. Still, I hold out hope that "Home" portends a highly entertaining season ahead of us.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Decent Space Opera; Gives the People What They Want

[7/10 · 14 March 2016]

Yes, I am cynical: I realize that the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy is a naked cash grab by Disney; now that Disney owns Lucasfilm and the Star Wars franchise, they naturally want to squeeze every last dime from it they can. I know this clashes with the artistic vision of Star Wars' creator George Lucas, who saw the prequels as a natural end to his franchise. That said, does that mean that the first of the sequel films is garbage? Absolutely not! In spite of being a cash-grab-of-a-film that did not need to be made, "The Force Awakens" is at the very least a fun and entertaining movie. It provides just the right balance of nostalgia and newness that young and old fans can enjoy.

I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily that "The Force Awakens" pretty much recycles the plot of the original Star Wars movie, to the point that it seems to lack any originality. The fans feel comfortable with going down memory lane, so long as the retread is well-written and engaging. J.J. Abrams makes this movie entertaining by including likable new protagonists like Finn, Poe Dameron, Maz Kanata and Rey. Maz is honestly my favorite character in the film: she fulfills the "wise man Yoda" archetype in a subdued yet believable way. I know most will think of Rey as nothing more than a distaff Luke Skywalker, but I think the character is portrayed in a way that makes her seem more dynamic and strong-willed than Luke ever was.

My big problem with Rey isn't how she's written--again, she has a bolder and more engaging personality than Luke--but in the fact that she *doesn't* save the day. That was a big letdown for me. Also: I don't know a heck of a lot about who Rey is; some backstory beyond cryptic flashbacks would be nice. I know that her character will likely be developed throughout the trilogy; but I don't like that epic films feel the need to do this. A character should be fleshed out in the "first" movie, and needs to complete his/her character arc in the first movie, which Rey definitely doesn't do. It feels like the screenwriters are cheating me out of a potential compelling and interesting character. This is a big negative on the film's part.

For nostalgia's sake, the film did right in bringing back the most compelling and engaging of the original film's protagonists: Han Solo and his loyal companion Chewbacca. Harrison Ford is still able, after nearly forty years, of bringing life back to the roguish mercenary- turned-hero. The writers made sure to include Han's dry wit and sarcasm, not to mention show his close bond with Chewie. I love that we see a lot of Chewie in this movie, and see more of his signature crossbow ray gun. Han Solo and Chewbacca make a great pair, like Butch and Sundance, and I am glad the film focused more on him than weaker characters like Luke and Leia.

For a cash grab like this, it's not a bad thing that J.J. Abrams and Disney recycled the plot of the original movie: they added enough newness to make it seem like a work of its own. They knew the audience would not like the innovations to the Star Wars universe that were created in the prequels, and they ultimately did the right thing by cutting out any reference to the things in the prequels that disgusted the audience. My problem with "The Force Awakens" is that it does not do enough to flesh out its characters, like Rey, instead opting to stretch their storyline throughout the trilogy. A movie--even one in a trilogy--needs to stand on its own in order to be compelling, and unfortunately "The Force Awakens" does not do enough to develop the characters in the story. Too many blank spaces are left, and it is ultimately unsatisfying.

Old and new fans alike will find much to enjoy in "The Force Awakens." Don't expect a timeless classic; it's better than the prequels (and, in some ways, equals the originals), but don't expect a great work of art either. Watch it to see Han and Chewie kick bad guy booty. You''ll be satisfied then.

Deadpool (2016)

Parody of Superhero Blockbusters Proves Genre Has Jumped the Shark

[8/10 · 13 March 2016]

First off, I'm not a comic book guy; I usually avoid comic book movies like the plague (unless they're about Batman, which has been a steady part of my media consumption for a long time). To start off with the negative: the fact that "Deadpool" is a parody of Marvel/DC superhero blockbusters--and is actually successful at parodying the genre--means that the whole "superhero blockbuster" has jumped the shark. Where do you go from "Deadpool", which lampoons the genre down to the last detail? While also paying homage to superhero movies, "Deadpool" mocks the clichés and tropes of the genre so effectively that it is nigh impossible for me to take any action blockbuster superhero movie seriously ever again. We've reached peak- superhero-blockbuster, people; time to follow a new genre of film. Not even Mel Brooks could parody the genre like "Dea"…you get the point of what I'm saying (while also dating myself).

That said, I loved the movie…and I rarely like movies. From what I could tell, the "Deadpool" comic was one twisted story, more akin to comical comic books like "Howard the Duck" and "Tank Girl". The Nostalgia Chick said years ago that adapting "Tank Girl" into a movie (which most people didn't like) was like trying to make "Deadpool" into a movie…only this time, the results were excellent. Ryan Reynolds is hilarious as the "merc with a mouth". The film is the definition of a "meta movie". Deadpool is aware that he is in an over-the-top superhero movie, and constantly makes references to people, movies and songs from "the real world". Reality and fiction are melding, people! The movie doesn't just break the fourth wall: Negasonic Teenage Warhead nukes it to oblivion! Deadpool's wisecracks make Spider Man seem like an amateur. In short, the film's an ingenious parody that fans and haters alike of superhero movies should see.

I think "Deadpool" may be for action films what "Pulp Fiction" was for films in general: a totally original take on a shopworn genre that could get the public excited about movies as an art form again. That said, "Deadpool" heralds not so much the revival of the superhero blockbuster as its death kneel; again; where do movie makers go from here? I'd call this film the reductio ad absurdum of comic book films if it wasn't a completely self-aware parody.

PS: "Deadpool" would be an excellent cartoon on "Adult Swim": the execs of that channel should get together with Marvel/Disney and make it happen.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Decent Ending to a Bloated Epic

[7/10 · 3 February 2015]

I agree now with most critics of the Hobbit trilogy that this story went on far longer than needed. The fights seem dull and interminable rather than gripping and exciting. There doesn't seem to be any decisiveness to the conflict presented until the very end. The same problems with the battles with Smaug from the previous film are evident, on a much larger scale, in this film. This movie also leaves many loose ends unresolved, particularly with regards to the Arkenstone and the corrupt rulers of Lake Town. There is also much in this film that seems hastily concluded or unfinished. I am not saying the film is completely unsatisfactory, but it is far from being a perfect ending.

That said, there are positive aspects to the film. Bilbo Baggins remains the likable, sensible character holding this movie together. He represents the hobbit race perfectly: plain, humble, unprejudiced, unpretentious, and without the greed and lust for power that poisons the minds of the dwarfs, elves, humans, and orcs surrounding him. Bilbo is a credible audience surrogate, and remains the bright shining jewel of humanity (a metaphor for the baser Arkenstone, if you will) that keeps this film worth watching.

The other races of Middle Earth (whether "good" or "evil") are comparatively unlikeable, particularly the elves and dwarfs. Thorin Oakenshield, the dwarf leader, is especially poisoned by greed. This film does a wonderful job showing the dangers of greed and power, and how Throin resolves these issues *by himself*. There is a vague hint that Thorin is not inherently greedy, but is manipulated by some supernatural power left by Smaug--I didn't like that aspect of it, as it did not ring true to me; having Thorin resolve a conflict that is entirely within himself seems more true to life. The elves, the "good" analogues to the repulsive orcs, don't come off much better than the dwarfs. Their leader Thranduil is moved by a strange sort of racism and cold-heartedness (his pale hair and flat effect reflect this coldness), which does the elves little good. Balin the Dwarf and Tauriel the Elf seem the most positive representatives of their respective races, and counterbalance the coldness of their leaders. As for the orcs, it's hard to feel true hatred towards them because there is no conflict within them: they are inherently, innately "evil", and that's that. They're ugly monsters with no complexity to their characterization. It's therefore easy to root for the good guys to kill the whole lot of them.

In all, the film could have been much shorter; ninety minutes would have been enough. I don't fault Jackson for expanding "The Hobbit" beyond the book into the appendices of "The Lord of the Rings" and the greater mythos of Middle Earth. His main flaw with the trilogy was that he focused way too much on fighting and action, and did not focus enough on the story as presented by Tolkien. The final film's greatest flaw was its failure to resolve loose ends from the previous film. Beyond that and the action, the movie is actually good, and worth watching. If you buy the trilogy on DVD, be ready to fast forward through large portions. The film may actually seem better that way.

Butte, America: The Saga of a Hard Rock Mining Town (2008)

Fascinating Story About a Western Mining Town

[8/10 · 3 February 2015]

I hope to visit Butte one day as a tourist (I have no familial ties to the city whatsoever, which may make my interest seem peculiar), and this documentary certainly was helpful in providing a historical overview of the city. I found it interesting that the film included the ethnic background of those giving testimony about their town; it shows the myriad countries of origin of those who came to settle in "The Richest Hill on Earth." The witnesses who grew up in Butte during its heyday give the viewer an intimate look inside the city and its people. The documentary doesn't sugarcoat anything, and it goes into detail about the various labor upheavals throughout the twentieth century, the rise and fall of Anaconda, the waxing and waning of the fortunes of the working class, and Butte's ultimate decline. The film portrays the city's history so artfully that it seems like a fictional saga of rise and fall--except it's all true. It seems this documentary left nothing significant out.

Granted, a documentary for a general audience will only mine the surface history (so to speak) of a place; still, I found it not only an educational experience, but a personal one as well thanks to the testimony of the witness. I found especially moving the witness's description of the destruction of their neighborhoods during the digging of the Berkeley Pit. The toxicity of the Berkeley Pit is also described (for a flippant and dismissive description of the Pit, try to find a clip from the "Daily Show" discussing it. It wasn't all that funny, as I found a thinly-veiled East Coast contempt for the Mountain West permeating the skit, much like heavy metals permeate the pit's waters. But I digress). I highly recommend this to those with a connection with Butte, Montana or with an interest in Western history. Butte is a part not only of Western history, but also an integral part of the story of America's Industrial Revolution, which is not stressed that often in popular history books and in the media. Hopefully, this documentary will open the viewers' eyes to not only the West (which wasn't all cowboys and gunslingers), but to America's painful entry into the twentieth century as well.

The Big Bang Theory (2007–2019)

Mediocre Show. Unlikeable Characters.

[3/10 · 21 May 2014]

I thought Peter Griffin was the most annoying and unlikeable TV character currently on the air. Having been introduced to Sheldon Cooper, I will have to revise my opinion.

My family *loves* this program, though I fail to see what makes it special. The main male characters are cartoonish stereotypes of twenty-first century nerds. "Geeks", "nerds" and "betas" (take your pick of a slang word for a smart yet unhip individual) sure do *love* their video games and comic books! They are socially awkward, and know nothing about how to mingle with the in-crowd. This stereotype is fairly new in American culture, but it's been beaten to death so many times that depictions of characters that meet these stereotypes cause me to yawn. "Big Bang Theory" relies on these stereotypes for 100% of its humor. Added to this is another stereotype, this one of the above-average-but-not-a-genius girl whose role is to teach the socially inept nerds how to fit into society. She serves as the foil and audience surrogate, though I found her character to be just annoying as the nerds she's supposed to teach.

The trite stereotypes are bad enough, but the arrogant attitude of the show's protagonist, Sheldon Cooper, makes the show unwatchable most of the time. Yeah, the stock character of the nerd is supposed to be smart and socially awkward, but he is also supposed to be charming and endearing. Sheldon is a narcissist who thinks he is above everyone else, including his university colleagues. He is utterly condescending, rude, unkind, and lacks even the most basic modicum of empathy. These traits are supposed to be "quirky", but instead they make him come off as a repulsive jerk who *should* be shunned not only by the "cool" people, but by his fellow nerds as well. Yeah, Steve Urkel was a weird genius geek with a talent for robotics and nuclear physics, but he seldom put anyone with an lQ lower than his down. He was kind and sweet-natured towards the average-IQ Winslow family, and treated everyone around him with respect. Sheldon loves to lord his intelligence over everyone around him, and his arrogance blinds him to his own flaws, weaknesses and gaps in knowledge. Rather than learn from his mistakes and become a better person, he remains the same smug, cold-hearted jerk week after week. He may be a genius at physics, but he feels knows "everything" about "everything" as well. He treats his girlfriend, a biologist from the university, with the same arrogance he treats everyone else. The biologist girlfriend likes him for his brain, but fails to see Sheldon's more negative traits as hindrances to a lasting relationship, including his utter lack of emotional intelligence. Why any sane woman would want to stay with a guy like this is beyond me; the biologist girl (played by Blossom) is way too good for the likes of him!

The shows stretches my suspension of disbelief beyond what I can accept. If the men on the show really are Cal Tech faculty members, they would not waste their free time worrying about the minutiae of comic book characters; as other reviewers have said, they'd instead focus their minds on mashing and smashing the atom. I might like the show more if Sheldon and his colleagues (I hesitate to call them his "friends", as his cold demeanor seems to preclude any real warm bonds with other human beings) focused their time on physics experiments instead of World of Warcraft games or debates about comic book characters. Urkel may have been a fanciful character, but he loved science so much that he didn't have time to devote to any other hobbies. For persons who brag about their intellect, I've yet to see Sheldon and his colleagues do anything related to science in their apartment or on campus. Sorry to say this, but I doubt that grown geniuses in their thirties would devote most of their free time to hobbies best left to younger men, like comic books or RPGs, and that they would do so to the exclusion of more intellectual pursuits. Their immature personalities and petty squabbling also make them more akin to five-year-old children rather than adult men. They argue over stupid, trivial stuff and whine like babies when they don't get their way. It's a pain to watch, but my family *loves* the show.

My advice is to watch reruns of "Family Matters" instead of "Big Bang Theory." Urkel seems like more a real scientist than anyone on "The Big Bang Theory," and his personality is more likable and realistic, in spite of "The Big Bang Theory" writers' pathetic attempts at verisimilitude. I hope someday Jaleel White guest-stars as "Professor Steven Q. Urkel" on "The Big Bang Theory," and participates in a Jeopardy-like competition with Sheldon, and beats him badly. If that happened, I might like "Big Bang Theory" a little more; as the show stands, it's fairly unwatchable.

Fitzcarraldo (1982)

A Fascinating Story of a Passionate Individual

[8/10 · 6 May 2014]

I have to confess that this is the first Werner Herzog movie I've seen; I am no expert, and cannot comment on his oeuvre. Based on this film alone, I admit that Herzog is definitely a bold director who makes no compromises to complete his vision---just like the protagonist of this film.

Herzog paints an intriguing picture of a wealthy entrepreneur in early-20th century Peru who is unique among his peers. He is a genuine aesthete, and has a vision far beyond the mere accumulation and enjoyment of wealth. The film portrays the nouveau-riche rubber barons, who are Fitzcarraldo's friends and acquaintances, as vulgar, money-driven people who have accumulated so much wealth that throwing some money away means nothing to them. They mock Fitz for his failed ventures as a railroad builder and an ice maker, already setting him apart from his peers. He only decides to exploit a new area for its rubber not simply to become a fat and happy baron, but as a means to an end: he wants to bring culture and beauty in the form of an opera house in his frontier settlement. This dream drives his dangerous adventure into the jungle, with a single-mindedness that puts other rubber barons to shame. Herzog does not shirk from depicting Fitzcarraldo as mad and irrational, but also also treats him sympathetically. He is mad, but he is a determined dreamer, willing to do what it takes against overwhelming odds to make his strange dream come true. From this film alone, it seems Herzog places value on the individual with powerful dreams and ambition, and, while not above criticizing the individual for his recklessness, also treats him with unabashed admiration.

This movie is a bit troubling in its depiction of a white protagonist who ventures into the jungle and "tames" the natives. Fitzcarraldo is apparently considered by the natives as some sort of superhuman who fulfills a prophecy, and they risk their lives to complete the Herculean task of lifting his immense riverboat up a hill using only primitive winches and their muscle power. Granted, the lifting of the boat is a visually amazing scene, one of the best set pieces in cinema I've seen; still, the implications of what this scene depicts is troubling. While Fitzcarraldo may be a nicer white man than the other rubber barons living in the Peruvian jungle, he is nevertheless just as exploitative of the native peoples who live there: they consider Fitzcarraldo as some sort of "special" person they need to work for, and they work for him without compensation of any sort. This movie does not engage enough with the troubling issues of colonialism and the exploitation of native peoples around the world; the film's focus is primarily on Fitzcarraldo and his state of mind. I wish the film would have explored the themes of colonialism more acutely than it does. As it stands, the movie seems a bit too Eurocentric and treats European exploration and exploitation with a triumphal tone.

In all, this was a fascinating movie. It is, so far as I can tell, the only movie to depict the Amazon Rubber Boom. I would have liked this film to have focused more on the plight of the Indians rather than just on Fitzcarraldo and his vision; I suppose that will have have to await another filmmaker. The film makes great use of special effects and lush tropical scenery to depict the story of a driven man. There are some "Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness" tones to the riverboat voyage, but "Fitzcarraldo" is a much *much* less dark movie, though of no less quality than Coppola's work. Highly recommended.

The Lego Movie (2014)

A Fun Movie, but With an Ambiguous Message

[8/10 · 7 April 2014]

From a visual perspective, "The Lego Movie" is spectacular. The computer animation seems flawless, and the depiction of the Lego World was amazing. This film's second positive attribute is its clever writing and humor. I loved that the Lego people placed supernatural power on everyday household items that wandered into their world. This film could have been absolutely terrible. It, like "The Transformers" of the '80s, or its predecessor "Gobots: Battle for the Rock Lords," could have been panned by anyone over 13 as just a cash-in to sell more Legos. This film does have adult sensibilities, and the screenwriters envisioned a movie that had an actual message worth saying. For cynical parents, this movie is *not* merely a cash-in that will have your children screaming tantrums for an Emmett and Lord Business Playset; this movie has fully-fleshed-out and funny characters. Chances are you, the grownups, will be laughing and even empathizing with Emmett and his other plastic friends.

Now on to this film's themes, which may leave some parents puzzled. On the surface, this movie is about the conflict between creativity and strict obedience to sets of rules, mostly in the realm of art (I suppose you could say this conflict applies to all aspects of life, but "art" is the subject that came to mind first). Strangely, I think this film is morally ambitious as to its message, though that does not seem the case at all…at least, not at first. The villain is, for lack of a better word, an "aesthete": he has a vision of perfection and beauty for the world that others may see as too strict and rigid; he literally wants to glue his subjects in place so that everything in the Lego World will be "perfect" as he sees it…or "awesome", as the film's main song suggests. He is opposed by a group of subjects who refuse to ascribe to his vision of "perfection" and instead emphasize free thought and wild creativity over *any* order. On the surface, the film may be a parable about the struggle between democracy over fascism, but I don't quite see the film's message as being on that large of a scale. The message is about how best to create works of art; and, odd as it seems, I can see Legos as a medium through which artistic expression can come alive. This film has two extremes: there's the fascistic world of LegoTown, where everything is to be done according to specific sets of written rules; and there's the colorful, psychedelic Cloud Cuckoo Land, where there is no order at all: cynics would say the Cloud Cuckoo Landers live a life of anarchy and chaos, and it would be a wonder that things get done at all. The rebel Legos' devotion to extreme creativity has its limits, and this is shown in the film. It's up to Emmett, the protagonist, to find a compromise between extreme order and specificity and extreme creativity. He is, indeed "The Special"; the bridge that leads to a path of moderation between two extreme views of expression.

This film gives the grownup viewer a lot to wrap his or her mind around. The ambiguous tone will also confound those who think they have this movie's message pegged down. It's not just a kid's movie: it's a clever manifesto about the nature of the creative process! And it offers no easy answers! This message is wrapped around clever humor, silly characters, and excellent animation. By all means, take your kids to watch this film; but don't offer them easy answers about the film's moral, either.

Cesar Chavez (2014)

Superb Biopic of Great American Labor Leader

[8/10 · 7 April 2014]

Some reviewers do not like that the actor playing Chavez plays him as a rather bland everyman as opposed to a great and charismatic leader. Truth be told, this portrayal doesn't bother me. Chavez's skills as a labor organizer come more from dogged determination and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds, as opposed to a strong, magnetic personality. Chavez's strengths, as shown in the movie, is that the man simply did not give up in the face of injustice. I think the way Chavez was portrayed did justice to one of the most famous labor leaders in American history. The filmmakers do an excellent job in making the injustices migrant farm workers went through palpable. There is little romanticization of Chavez the man or the United Farm Workers, and the film is commendable for showing that his methods were controversial. For example, his holier-than-thou approach with the rank-and-file in the fields did cause inter-union conflict, and his apparently noble aim of using nonviolence as a tool for labor is not completely unquestionable, especially in the face of violent opposition from the growers. The film is limited in scope and straightforward in the way it presents its narrative, which focuses on Chavez's most famous fight, the Delano Grape Strike and Boycott. The audience is seldom lost, and gets a pretty good understanding of how the events played through.

Pluses include that the film does at least show that the United Farm Workers was a multi-ethnic union, in that it included both Hispanic and Filipino laborers, and that both were equally responsible for leading the fight against the growers (one scene shows the flag of the Philippines across from the Mexican flag). The film does devote equal time between the farmworkers and the growers, and shows that the growers, too, could find strength in union---although this plot seems rather undeveloped. John Malkovich does a superb job as a grower determined to fight to the bitter end. Chavez is portrayed not as a messianic figure or even a larger-than-life man like Abraham Lincoln, but as a simple union activist who had as his main life's goal justice for the working man. Nothing in this film is "epic"; it is really a simple story told well. "Cesar Chavez" most closely resembles another movie about the struggle between workers and their employers: "Matewan", by John Sayles. Both films are raw in depicting the fight between unions and employers; unlike "Matewan," "Cesar Chavez" does not feel as bleak, and, for those who enjoy large doses of cynicism in their movies, will be disappointed with the latter film, as it is far more hopeful in its tone.

This film is not without its flaws. I would have loved to have seen at least fifteen minutes devoted to Cesar Chavez's back-story as a union leader: how did he get into leading unions? Why did he feel the need to devote his life to migrant workers? How did he meet fellow union activists like Dolores Huerta? This could all have helped in fleshing out his character before we got to the main plot. The two minutes (or less) of exposition at the beginning was not sufficient as backstory. The film tries to balance its depiction of Chavez the labor leader with Chavez the family man. His turbulent relationship with his son is fairly undeveloped: the film could have benefited by spending more time on this subplot, or significantly less. As it stands, the subplot with the son who has problems with an uncommunicative father and with bigotry is rather choppily presented. There are also claims that the film is not true to history, particularly with the way Filipino members of the UFW have been seemingly relegated the background. I didn't think this was apparent, but it might have behooved filmmakers to have devoted a bit more time to the Filipino contribution to story of the Delano Strike and Boycott, particularly if they had any conflict with Chavez's methods. Lastly, this film, like the arguably better "Matewan", is highly polemic. The movie blatantly takes sides with who's "good" and who's "bad" on the political spectrum. Conservative viewers, who may like Chavez's lack of radicalism and his devotion to religion, will not like the persons this movie presents as "villains" (albeit unseen villains, except in historical newsreel footage).

In all, the film is a well-done story about an important part of American history. I highly recommend it. For comparison, watch "Matewan" on Netflix to get a better view of how American labor history is depicted on film.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Goes on Longer than Needed

[7/10 · 6 February 2014]

WARNING! MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

Unlike a lot of people, I preferred the first "Hobbit" movie to this. This is not to say that I hated the second "Hobbit" movie; far from it. I just thought that the middle installment had too much padding and plot development that did not need to be there. Even if one accepts the fact that Jackson was correct to fill the plot with elements from the appendix of "Lord of the Rings," and that these elements add to the movie…there's still too much stuff here for this to be a completely satisfactory film. I once played devil's advocate and argued that Jackson was right for stretching "The Hobbit" into three films; now I regret that statement. If Jackson wanted a trilogy, he should have made each movie no more than two hours long, and that's being generous. The second film should have been no more than ninety minutes.

The first half seemed okay. I actually thought the action sequences in Mirkwood were *too* rushed, particularly with the spiders. I like that Jackson kept the Azog and Necromancer elements from the first movie in this one, if only to give the trilogy some consistency. I was more annoyed with the second half than the first; specifically, with the final quarter of the film, where Bilbo and the dwarfs fight Smaug. This sequence was padded beyond belief. There was no reason to stretch the fight against Smaug to half an hour, only to have the film end anticlimactically. The action sequences were not exciting; they were repetitive filler, and it was not right of Jackson to have taken the audiences' time with this.

In short, I thought the pacing was uneven (the first half moved events along too quickly, while the second half bogged down the pacing) and padded with unnecessary and ultimately boring elements. The thematic elements of the film were interesting, and character development was inspired. I liked how Bilbo has grown to be a strong, confident and brave individual compared with how he started in the first film. His diminutive stature and humble appearance only make him a more endearing protagonist, for whom the audience will sympathize with and root for all the way. Also intriguing is the change apparent in dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield, presumptive "King Under the Mountain." He wasn't all that likable in the first movie, being a humorless, abrasive fellow. Here, he seems more sinister, seduced by greed and willing to sacrifice the life of Bilbo to gain power. While Thorin's malevolent nature is addressed in the movie overtly (via dialogue), I think the "Hobbit" addresses the nature of greed and power more subtly than the "Lord of the Rings" movies. There is no supernatural Ring of Power to lead Thorin astray; his dual nature is entirely within himself, influenced by no outside force, like Sauron or an evil talisman similar to the Ring of Power. The Lonely Mountain is less severe a goal than the destruction of the One Ring. The audience sympathizes with Thorin's quest to regain what is rightfully his; however, the means by which he will achieve this goal are questionable, and the prize itself does not seem worth the toll in lives Thorin is willing to pay (sending Bilbo alone to face Smaug; angering Smaug, etc). In all, the stakes are lower than "Lord of the Rings," but the subtle nature of the "good versus evil" struggle make this a more mature movie than the original trilogy.

I still recommend this movie, but advise patience. I wouldn't blame the audience if they walked out in the final thirty minutes. Still, if you like action for the sake of action, you'll probably love this film and will gladly sit through the whole thing.

American Hustle (2013)

An Amusing Comedy, But Not a Classic

[7/10 · 6 February 2014]

PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD.

In brief, this movie is a comedic homage to "Goodfellas." Everything stylistic about this movie calls back to "Goodfellas," from the dialogue, the camera work, the characters' personalities, the use of pop music as a motif, and, most annoyingly (to me), the third-person limited out-of-body narration by the characters. This director obviously admires Scorsese, thinking him one of the great pioneers of cinema, and it seems that he wanted to make this movie as a valentine to him. I thought "American Hustle" was much more entertaining than "Goodfellas." For one, the tone is lighthearted, witty and fun; "dark" is not an adjective I would use to describe this movie. Second, some of the characters in this film have redeeming qualities--something sorely lacking in the cold and amoral "Goodfellas." I do question some of the producer's casting decisions, particularly that of Jennifer Lawrence as the protagonist's wife. This movie tries to touch upon themes of political corruption and its causes; the "villain" of this piece is not as rotten as he seems. The film seems to be saying that the ends justify the means, and that behind some Boss Tweeds there are noble Robin Hoods (that's not to say that Boss Tweed did no good for the people of New York; scholarly articles on New York history will reveal this). This movie does not have a pat morality, and I appreciate that point of view. I think viewers will, too, and will definitely appreciate that the comedic tone lightens these serious themes, preventing this from being a somber, depressing movie.

Now on to the negatives. Firstly: the plot. This movie is based on a political scandal that happened over thirty years ago, and is all but forgotten today. I know filmmakers--notably Louis Malle--have tried to make a film about the ABSCAM Scandal since the participants were sent to jail; but I think the ship has long since sailed on giving this subject a film treatment. Something more timely would have seemed appropriate this far ahead. ABSCAM is too obscure an event off of which to base a movie in 2014. Bigger scandals from around the same time, like the Iran-Contra Scandal or the Savings and Loans debacle, seem better for film topics; the general public might make an emotional connection, in the current economic mess, to the perfidious and larcenous behavior of those in the late-'80s Savings and Loan scandal; but I digress (which I love doing!). This film's second major flaw is the casting. I think Jennifer Lawrence is a fine actress. She did well here. The problem isn't with her acting; it's with her age. Her part calls for a middle-aged woman with crow's feet and a smoker's cough. This part called for an an actress of about forty-five who can generate pathos and revulsion at the same time. At 23, Lawrence still looks too young for the part. She is too baby-faced to play the part of a world-weary Long Island housewife. It seems odd to watch Lawrence pull off a performance of a yenta trapped in a shiksa's body. I found it distracting. An older actress ought to have been placed in this role. I thought Christian Bale was okay in his role, though he seemed interchangeable with other actors, like Matt Damon or Markie Mark. Ditto for Amy Adams. I don't expect Oscar wins for any of the actors here.

In all, I think "American Hustle" is an amusing and compelling movie. It works well as an homage to "Goodfellas," superseding the work of the director from whom it was inspired. Still, the plot and the casting of Jennifer Lawrence leave one puzzled. I recommend this film, but don't expect a timeless masterpiece, as all the hype would have you expect.

Attack of the Clones Review (2010 Video)

Amusing Blow-by-Blow Deconstruction of the Prequel

[8/10 · 29 November 2013]

This review mixes the comic styles and sarcasm of "The Nostalgia Critic" with actual serious college-level analysis as to why the "Attack of the Clones"--and the "Star Wars" prequels in general--are flawed. Done straight, a blow-by-blow analysis might be dreadfully boring. Luckily, the reviewer plays his review for laughs by deconstructing the movie in the guise of a fictional character: a lovable homicidal maniac who sounds like Zoidberg from "Futurama" and has a strange affinity for pizza rolls. The silliness of the character makes the one-hour review a real treat to watch. The reviewer's analysis of *why* "Attack of the Clones" stunk is impressive. He really does a remarkable job picking apart every last detail of the film, from the clumsy writing for the love scenes, the implausible special effects, the lack of logic with regards to the multiracial Jedi using light sabers, and the poorly-defined characters. This reviewer should be a professor at a film school; he's that precise with his criticisms! If you're not a film buff, you might not find this interesting, even through the use of a fictional character; still, for fans (or haters) of the Star Wars prequels, Red Letter Media provides a real treat. You probably won't agree with every point the reviewer makes (and I get the impression he doesn't take every point seriously), but you'll nevertheless find him fascinating and amusing. The main flaw with this review is the inclusion of a plot revolving around a hooker trapped in the reviewer's house of evil. This seems perfunctory and superfluous, tacked on in order to add depth to a fictional character that needs none at all. Other than that, sit back and enjoy!

Gravity (2013)

One of the Best Movies of 2013. Highly Creative!

[9/10 · 4 November 2013]

Warning! Major Spoilers Ahead!

Alfonso Cuaron deserves enthusiastic plaudits for his creative thriller "Gravity." Unlike most sci-fi and action filmmakers, Cuaron is able to create a quality film from relatively little. The audience realizes that this film only has *two* on screen characters, and one of those departs early in the film. Sandra Bullock deserves at least an Oscar nomination for best lead actress simply because she is able to pull off an amazing performance with *no one else* to work against in the second half of the film. The audience plausibly feels her fear as she struggles to return to earth after a major disaster at her space station, which kills off everyone in her crew except for her and George Clooney. A film where a person talking to herself may sound off-putting, and the audience may assume the character nothing more than a madman; however, given Bullock's character's circumstances, the audience understands her every action and word throughout the proceedings.

The film is remarkable for its minimalist approach. The situation the characters face is not fanciful, but remarkably realistic for a science fiction movie. The setting is limited to the earth's orbit in the near future, rather than on Tattooine "a long time ago" or Pandora a hundred years from now. The "antagonist" (if the conflict in the film merits such as description) is not Darth Vader, Jabba the Hutt, or the "Sky People," but merely an accident and simple carelessness on the part of man: space debris from a Russian missile test. The vastness of space and malfunctioning spaceships and spacesuits I suppose count as "antagonists" in the broad sense because they are obstacles preventing the protagonist from achieving her goal. "Gravity" is storytelling reduced of all of its trappings to its most basic form. The episodic nature of Bullock's perils are gripping to watch in and of themselves. Cuaron takes simple fears, like that of floating off into the abyss of space, or a spacesuit running low on oxygen, and uses them to make for a compelling film. His use of expensive special effects is well done here, and fits in well with paradoxically simple story. There are no flashy fights with legions of spacemen or monsters, nor lush settings (other than the Earth from space) to distract from the story. Pacing is also well-done, as we, the audience, feel like we, too, join in with Bullock's plight.

George Clooney does well as the roguish, playful partner in Bullock's mission. He seems to be channeling Clark Gable in his portrayal of a clownish yet debonair "bad boy." He plays his part well here--again, remarkable in a movie with only one other visible actor.

The film's violence is limited to the perils of surviving outer space with limited resources. There is a brief scene where an astronaut gets his face torn off by space debris. Other than these concerns, the film doesn't seem inappropriate for younger viewers. This film is amazing because it has become a blockbuster in 2013, and yet has a very limited amount of violence and no sex at all. A dearth of sex and/or violence in a major Hollywood film in 2013--both traits being de rigueur if a non-computer animated kid's film is to be marketable--is refreshing. This film seems like a hopeful sign that movies will adhere to the credo "less is more," be forced to be creative in their storytelling, and will shed the crutches of excessive violence and gratuitous sex in order to capture an audience's attention. Hopefully, Cuaron will win Oscars for this film, and not simply those for special effects. I highly recommend this film, if only because it is so different and emotionally satisfying compared to the usual fare.

Silkwood (1983)

Fine Film About a Genuine Working-Class Heroine

[8/10 · 4 November 2013]

Warning! Spoilers ahead!

This film is but one of a series made in the early 1980s that dealt with issues of social change and individuals dealing with overwhelming odds against powerful oppressors. Among earlier epics like "Reds" and "Gandhi", "Silkwood" is perhaps the most relatable to the average individual, and thus perhaps the most poignant. Unlike the protagonist of "Reds," Karen Silkwood is not an upper-class do-gooder out to change the whole world from the outset; she is an ordinary laborer in a nuclear materials plant who becomes a social crusader due to the hazards of her workplace on both herself and her coworkers. Also, unlike "Gandhi," "Silkwood" is subdued and limited in scope, the setting being limited to rural Oklahoma and the nuclear materials plant; the characters are not nation-builders or viceroys, but workers, union leaders, managers and reporters. Mike Nichols's film about Karen Silkwood, while being comparatively humble, is no less heartbreaking and gripping.

Meryl Streep is excellent as the eponymous protagonist. Unlike John Reed in "Reds", Karen Silkwood is of the same class and temperament as the people she is trying to save. She playfully steals coworkers' food in the cafeteria, laughs at their crude jokes, and chides her roommates--also employees at the company--for keeping spoiled food in the refrigerator. Because Silkwood is close to the people she works and lives with, she is particularly distraught when she learns about the plant's contamination and watches as a coworker is given a brutal bath to rid her of irradiation. She understands them as John Reed never could. Some critics have characterized the character of Silkwood as equally obnoxious and irrational as she is noble. Silkwood is a back-slapping blue-collar woman like everyone else in her life, but Streep is able to make these traits endearing rather than annoying. It is Silkwood's personality which makes her hated by coworkers and company later in the film, even though members of the audience get the sense that *anyone else in the plant* could have ended up like Silkwood if they had chosen her path. The audience feels, for the most part, sympathy with the tribulations of Silkwood rather than distance, and this is to Streep's credit.

It seems fair to fault the movie for getting sidetracked in the first hour or so with stories about Silkwood's relationship with her boyfriend and roommates, as well as her painful relationship with her divorced common-law husband and her children. While, on the surface, having little to do with the main plot about Silkwood's fight against nuclear plant corruption, these vignettes are nevertheless important in building and developing Silkwood's character, such that she is fully three-dimensional and sympathetic when the main plot starts rolling. Unfortunately, these early scenes may be distracting to the first-time viewer, so much so that they may lose sight of what the movie is about, and might turn off the TV (or monitor) in frustration because the first third is boring and doesn't seem to go anywhere plot-wise. A fair warning: "Silkwood" is as much about the emotional interactions between three roommates in a small house as it is about workplace safety; these plot points *do* eventually join together, but it requires patience on the part of the audience.

While Meryl Streep portrays Silkwood as a gutsy, fearless individual, the movie treads carefully between hagiography and castigation. The movie does not ignore the toll SIlkwood's fight against the company has on her roommates and, more significantly, her coworkers, who show understandable concern that her sleuthing will only result in the company shutting down and everyone getting laid off. While those around her change in their attitudes toward Silkwood, Silkwood, remarkably, remains a static character, as boisterous and playful near the end as she was in the beginning (a near-finale scene with her boyfriend as she departs for the last time shows this character development).

"Silkwood" is a fine piece of filmmaking about a true working-class hero. Meryl Streep deserves credit for making Karen Silkwood a likable and compelling protagonist, who in lesser hands may have come off as annoying. While unsung today, "Silkwood" remains one of the best of the "social cause" movies of the 1980s. Highly recommended.

Game of Thrones: The Rains of Castamere (2013) Season 3, Episode 9

Shocking and Masterful Climax to Third Season

[9/10 · 7 July 2013]

Warning! Major Plot Spoilers Ahead!

I know that this episode stunned the viewing audience during the final fifteen minutes. Perhaps the blow of seeing evil triumph over good in such an abrupt and high-handed fashion was too much for many viewers to take in. I thought the move was a bit too abrupt for the viewers to accept in fifteen minutes--after having invested eighteen hours and two seasons with the characters--but it was nonetheless appropriate and fit in nicely with the cynical themes about justice and morality that George R.R. Martin had developed for his epic fantasy series. I thought the violence of the "Red Wedding" was grotesque and shocking as well, but also very well choreographed and composed to elicit maximum pathos from the audience. It is to the credit of the show's creators that they had developed the personalities and motivations of the members of the Stark family---in particular, that of the "King in the North" and his mother---enough that most members of the audience would feel anguish at seeing the apparently-righteous North destroyed in one fell swoop. Keep in mind, though, that the Starks are not pure saints---just as the Lannisters are not pure devils. The shades of gray prevalent in the "Game of Thrones" universe keeps the plot from being a simple story of "good guys vs. bad guys." In other words, the Starks are not mere "white hats," nor the Lannisters "black hats:" they are politicians who have selfish ends for their actions, even if some (like the Starks) behave more righteously than others (Lannisters and Freys) I suppose one of the themes of the "Rains of Castamere" is that all's fair in war, including treachery and double-cross. The darkest theme of all is that "the universe is impartial with regards to morality: evil can certainly triumph over good time and again, and the "gods" will do nothing to stop the evil men do." The grey universe of "Game of Thrones" has never been more clear than in the infamous "Red Wedding" episode.

The moral ambiguity continues in the parallel story lines of Arya Stark and Jon Snow. Both must make choices with regards to the lives of innocents: should they commit murder to save their own skins, or do they let them live and pay the consequences of their mercy? I thought one of the major themes of the first season was that "sometimes the ends justify the means," which can include killing your enemies. This notion, of course, is vile to the honorable and (mostly) noble-hearted Starks. I thought Arya and Jon's revulsion towards murder was a bit heavy-handed, but they nonetheless emphasized the moral and ethical values of the Stark family---and perhaps why the audience sympathized with them throughout the course of the series.

The episode was well done, and the "Red Wedding" sequence will go down in television history as one of the most violent and moving moments of a series. The tragedy of the Stark family was moving enough to make this a memorable episode of a masterful show. I can't wait to see how the aftermath of the Red Wedding plays out in Season 4.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Much Darker Than I'd Expect From a Movie From the Mouse

[5/10 · 7 July 2013]

Warning! Major plot and thematic spoilers ahead!

To start, Johnny Depp and Gore Verbinski already made a wonderful and highly entertaining Western movie: "Rango." "Rango" was a clever, creative and whimsical spoof of the Western genre that also payed homage to the genre as a whole and addressed in a not-so-subtle fashion historical and present-day problems in the American West. In contrast, "The Lone Ranger" is an attempt to recreate the overdone CGI, fantastic action and quirky comedy of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise in a Western setting. The result is ultimately unsatisfactory.

My main problem with "The Lone Ranger" is the amount of violence and swearing in what has been marketed ostensibly as a family movie distributed by the Walt Disney Company. If this film were marketed towards an older audience (those 13 and up) under the Touchstone label, perhaps I wouldn't be making this complaint. The violence was especially gruesome (though not extraordinarily graphic), and the language inappropriate for an audience of children. I am not exaggerating when I say that the level of violence is only a few steps below the grisly carnage one could see on "Game of Thrones" on a Sunday night. People have criticized "Game of Thrones" for its graphic violence (particularly that of the third season; I'll say no more on that), yet a Disney film featuring an army of Indians getting mowed down by machine gun fire and a Texas Ranger getting his chest stabbed by a Bowie knife (with the killer raising a bloody palm after committing the foul deed) hardly raises a peep from critics or the news media. This film also features a scene taking place in a gaudy brothel, wherein a madam shoots at a would-be John for getting a little too frisky with one of the prostitutes. To the film's credit, prostitutes, brothels, and madams are not identified as such, but older viewers--even those not familiar with the Western genre--will know exactly what's being shown. Parents should be strongly cautioned if they consider taking any children under 13 to watch this movie.

The content is especially troubling given the subjects: the iconic radio and TV characters of the Lone Ranger and Tonto. These iconic heroes were, since their inception over eighty years ago, targeted towards an audience of children. Moreover, the Lone Ranger and Tonto traditionally represented traditional values of honesty, justice and virtue, all within *the official confines of the recognized law and order;* in other words, the Lone Ranger was never an antihero or cynical vigilante, but always tried to uphold the law and obey the officially recognized authorities. In a post-1960's society, the Lone Ranger's moral certainty and respect for official law and order seems old-fashioned and archaic. Today's action movies, and the heroes portrayed in them, need a dose of cynicism and doubt with regards to "official" law and order in order to be marketable to a more jaded 21st-century audience; in this film, the Lone Ranger has an important moment where he questions the way the world works after realizing that officialdom is corrupt and in league with the "bad guys," and wrestles with the idea that *killing* your enemies is acceptable if it is done for the greater good. These themes are awfully dark for a Disney film targeted towards a young audience; hell, they're dark even for a show as morally ambiguous and grim as "Game of Thrones!" These themes, moreover, go *against* the typically straight-laced morality of the old "Lone Ranger" TV show. 

The Western genre is not so much spoofed, as it was in "Rango," so much as exaggerated to a silly degree and infused with prolonged action and spectacular special effects typical of the "Pirates" films. Like "Pirates," the film's running time is overly bloated, but the film's climactic action scenes are so fantastical as to be entertaining. The flashy action scenes are this film's saving grace--that, and the equine actor who played Silver. Like many other posters, I thought the horse was exceptionally well- trained and was more entertaining and funny than the human actors. Silver was amusing, intelligent, and a delight to watch on the screen. The Western stock characters and plot line are blatantly predictable to anyone who's familiar with the Western genre: we have the badman ("black hat"), good guy (literally, he wears a "white hat"), the feisty brothel madam, the corrupt politician/railroad baron, and the lascivious old drunkard with a heart of gold. Actual history (the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, the discovery of silver in the mountains, and, more disrespectfully, the dispossession of the American Indians) is transformed into fantasy. I'd hope Disney would tread carefully when showing conflict between American Indians and the whites; sadly, they are not careful when showing such a controversial and sensitive issue, and reduces such a crucial event in human history into a plot device involving Tonto and the corrupt politician. Yes, the white railroad man is shown as the villain and the Indians are the good guys, but I thought Disney's handling of white-Indian conflict was sloppy at best, disrespectful at worst.

In short, "The Lone Ranger" is a mess of a movie. It's too violent and cynical to be a good family film, and too silly and simpleminded to be a film for grown-ups. The Western genre is not really portrayed well here, either as parody or homage. I recommend you watch "Rango" instead, and then can say safely that Verbinsky and Depp *did* make a good Western film.

The Hangover Part III (2013)

The Movie Only Gives the People What They Want

[6/10 · 13 June 2013]

I honestly don't understand the critical and popular dislike for this most recent installment in the "Hangover" franchise. What exactly were the people expecting from the Wolfpack? The first movie pretty much exhausted most of the comic possibilities this franchise could produce. How many more variations of "the morning after the hangover" as the plot can you expect? I, for one, am glad that this movie dispensed with the whole literal "hangover" as the plot and went ahead with a generic robbery and kidnapping caper instead. The first movie was a stupid, gross-out comedy--did the people expect that such a genre would yield veritable masterpiece sequels?

To those who dislike that Leslie Chow and Alan were given expanded roles, with their characters exaggerated far beyond what they had been in the original: this is typical of franchises! Consider "Happy Days": Fonzie stood out from the rest of the bland characters, and became the central figure. Also consider "Family Matters:" the sitcom was a typical middle-class family with banal problems program until Urkel guest-starred; the producers realized his bizarre character would attract more viewers than the too-normal main characters, and deliberately steered the show from a realistic program into a fantasy involving time machines and Urkelbots. This is what "The Hangover" producers did with Chow and Alan: they are trying to turn them into the next Urkel and Fonzie. What? You'd rather they focus on the other characters? Those lame, unappealing losers? Sure, Alan is a huge dork with little empathy or consideration for others, but his eccentric and childlike personality is the only one that might garner sympathy from the audience. Bradley Cooper's character is a smug jerk, and Ed Helms's is kind of an unlikeable wimp. Doug is utterly normal. Only Alan has gross-out comedy potential. Sadly, Alan, like Bradley Cooper's character, is too much of a jerk to become as likable as Urkel or Fonzie; the viewers and critics realized this too late. The producers also thought that Leslie Chow's weirdness would be a huge draw. I absolutely cannot imagine a "Hangover" movie without Leslie Chow. The creators did not disappoint. I expected Chow to be center stage in this movie, and the producers fulfilled my expectations completely. The problem with Chow is that he is too weird and too inscrutable to be likable. He has little redeeming personality traits to work as a character; he is just too much of an evil scumbag to become a likable villain. He is just too bizarre to be understandable. He is too perverted to be innocent and childlike. He is too intelligent to be an Alan doppleganger. He is not enough of anything to be an interesting character.

What do you expect for a sequel to a lame-brained gross-out comedy? This isn't Shakespeare, people! The director and producers gave the people exactly what they wanted, and, for some reason, the critics and people weren't warm to it. The film was pretty funny at parts, and Alan and Chow were fairly amusing throughout the proceedings. I can only hope the next movie is simply an Alan and Chow road trip adventure, directed by Tim Burton, and produced by the guys who made "Cabin Boy." Nobody would like it save for a few folks, but hey, it would at least be better than the formula followed by the other three "Hangover" movies.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

A Worthy Effort, Though it Falls Short

[6/10 · 19 March 2013]

Disney's "The Black Cauldron" is an uneven film, with an anticlimactic ending. The protagonist confronts the villain too early in the film to lend their conflict gravity. The villain's demise is ultimately unsatisfying and the film's resolution seems rushed. It is fair to say that the protagonist does go through a change in his view of the world, particularly what it means to be a hero, which lends the film merit. The tone mixes light-hearted Disney humor with the darker tones of the "sword and sorcery" genre popular in the 1980s. The film is ultimately interesting, in large part due to the animation and mature themes imbued in the plot. I loved that Disney, prior to the Eisner era, was willing to explore a dark sword and sorcery fantasy concept in its animation. This movie is no fairy tale, like "Cinderella" or "Sleeping Beauty." I doubt Walt would have green lit such a grim project, which has more in common with "Lord of the Rings" than Dopey and Grumpy. A few reviewers have complained that "The Black Cauldron" does not look or feel like a typical Disney animated movie; that's why I enjoy it!

The cartoon is based on a book for older children and preteens written in the 1960s, which in turn was inspired by Welsh mythology. The aura of high fantasy pervades the animation, which lends it an element of "coolness" that no doubt would appeal to older viewers than is the case for Disney animated films. The characters' facial appearances have the look typical of 1960s to mid-1980s Disney cartoon movies, so expect that. The Horned King and Creeper look pretty cool; while not particularly vile when compared to the likes of the Wicked Queen in "Snow White" or Stromboli in "Pinocchio," the Horned King is one the scariest-looking Disney villains designed. His skull-face and antlered cloak evoke a sense of the sinister supernatural not present in much of the Disney fare. His army of undead soldiers, the "Cauldron Born," are especially creepy--again, preteens who feel too old for cute mice and who want an introduction to high fantasy may be drawn by the ghoulish villains. This film also has a bit more realistic violence than most Disney cartoons, which may also attract older kids: the protagonist's cheek actually *bleeds* after a dragon attack, which is uncharacteristic for a Disney character! Granted, the plot and themes are pretty sloppy compared to Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Ring" films, but for any kid who wants a more "mature" fantasy-themed Disney movie may enjoy what "The Black Cauldron" has to offer.

This film came out when high fantasy was en vogue, and films like "The Dark Crystal," "Conan the Barbarian" and "Willow" were popular. Sadly, this movie was a flop, and marked a dead end for Disney's attempts to animate dark high fantasy cartoons for an older audience. I sometimes think of what could have been: Disney might have released a slew of animated features based on adult fantasy novels, like "Wheel of Time" or Herbert's "Dune;" hell, they may have ended up producing the first "R" rated Disney animated film, perhaps an adaptation of "Game of Thrones." Sadly, this film's ill-fated production precluded that possibility, and it would not be until "The Lion King" and the Pixar movies that Disney would market its cartoons to children and adults simultaneously. While not a classic, "The Black Cauldron" is worth a watch. Watch it to experience a truly unique Disney venture: its first foray into high fantasy.

Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure (1976)

Delightfully Trippy Animated Movie

[7/10 · 19 March 2013]

This film was regularly shown on "The Disney Channel" in the mid-1990s, back when the channel had quality entertainment. I must have seen this movie several times back then. While the plot is rather weak, the animation is absolutely wonderful. I love this film because, rather than in spite, of its eclectic and eccentric animation styles. I also enjoy the songs in this film; were "Raggedy Ann and Andy" released today, there would be no doubt that someone would try to transform it into a successful Broadway musical. When designing the movements of Raggedy Ann and Andy, the animators mixed realistic rotoscoped human movements with the fanciful tumbles and contortions one would expect of rag dolls. In keeping with the psychedelic styles of the 1970s, this film features some bizarre and crazy sequences, in particular those involving a creature made of living taffy called The Greedy, and Looney Land. The Greedy is a particularly inspired character, as he is a liquid rather than solid being, and he is constantly flowing and spilling over himself, and his features constantly change. The animation shows a whimsical and childlike form of creativity, which I feel is perfect for a movie involving living toys as iconic as Raggedy Ann and Andy.

Like the adult movie "Heavy Metal," "Raggedy Ann and Andy" is ultimately about style over substance. The film does have a plot, but much of the story diverts into subplots that have little bearing on the main story. The weird and inspired animation is the movie's main attraction. Many people have criticized the movie for this, and it does detract somewhat from this film's quality, but I nonetheless find the movie ultimately entertaining and beautiful. There are some good themes about love, friendship and the importance of cooperation in times of difficulty, although they are not developed enough to make an impression on the minds of the target audience of small children. In spite of this film's flaws, the subplots are in themselves amusing and wonderful to watch, and their sense of weirdness only help to cement this film as a cult classic in the minds of the Generation Y viewers who saw it on the Disney Channel. The voices are also inspired. Didi Conn, best known as Frenchie in "Grease," is perfect as the kind, gentle and sweet-natured Raggedy Ann. Her brother, voiced by theater actor Mark Baker, is also well-defined as a plucky, sarcastic yet compassionate character. Character actor Marty Brill is amusing as the curmudgeonly, Teutonic-accented antagonist King Koo Koo. His henchman, mad and sadistic prankster known as the Looney Knight, is voiced by "Laugh-In" player Alan Sues. Sues is able to channel the mischievous persona of the infamous Knight through deranged giggles and cackles.

I recommend this movie as a way to pass the time with your kids. Viewers of all ages will enjoy the funky animation and positive messages in this film. The plot's not well-defined, but I doubt child viewers will care too much. Enjoy this classic directed by veteran animator Richard Williams.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

A Great Adventure

[7/10 · 1 January 2013]

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

I admit that I have not read the novel on which this film is based. With that in mind, I will say that I really enjoyed this movie. This is one of the few movies I've seen in many years that I have really liked. What I liked most was how Peter Jackson decided not merely to adapt "The Hobbit," but weave its story into the narrative of "The Lord of the Rings" and of J.R.R. Tolkien's general mythology about Middle-Earth. I understand "The Hobbit" was written for children as a straightforward adventure story, and that "The Lord of the Rings" was a much more gravid tale, full of dark themes and dire consequences. Some reviewers have argued that making "The Hobbit" into a three-part epic like "The Lord of the Rings" was completely unnecessary and nothing more than a cash-in; I disagree. Jackson did not want to go for a simple adaptation, but rather continue to explore the general mythology of "Lord of the Rings," in particular how the hobbits got involved with the One Ring in the first place. Stretching the film out to more than one part allows Jackson to explore the Tolkien mythology more fully--albeit with his own touches added in. "The Hobbit" is *mostly* about the story in the children's novel, but it is so much more: it is about the titanic battle between good and evil in Middle-Earth, and of the story of its sentient beings over the course of that fictional land's history: the Dwarfs, the Elves, and the humans. It is clear Jackson blended the children's "Hobbit" with the information he could coherently gather from appendix from the "Lord of the Rings," which explores the mythology much more thoroughly than the novel did. The result is actually satisfactory.

Jackson understood that, as a children's book, "The Hobbit" had some light moments not found in "The Lord of the Rings," and expressed this well in his film. The trolls in "The Hobbit" are much more comical and less intimidating than the monsters in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Gandalf and the dwarfs escape from the goblins in a scene that mirrors the Fellowship's escape from Khazad Dumb, but the stakes are lower, and the Goblin King is a bit of a buffoon, a clownish, unimposing parody of the Balrog. The goblins are not scary; the Goblin King and the goblins of the Rankin Bass "Hobbit" are much more terrifying (especially the Goblin King *shudder!*). Gollum is back, and he plays a central role. I won't spoil *too* much, but the themes about mercy and compassion that I though *should* have been expressed in "The Lord of the Ring" movies are beautifully expressed here, actually keeping with the text of the "Lord of the Ring" novels. While more light-hearted than "The Lord of the Ring" movies, Jackson's "Hobbit" does have some somber moments, and tries to make connections with the earlier films, particularly with the malignancy permeating Mirkwood. The battle between the dwarfs and goblins at the door of Khazad Dumb provides an obvious link to the greater mythology of Middle-Earth Jackson tried to show in "Lord of the Rings." Jackson is insistent on showing "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" as companion pieces about the history of Middle-Earth than two completely different standalone pieces. It looks like he is successful.

I recommend "The Hobbit;" it will please fans of the "Lord of the Rings," so long as they keep in mind that the film is considerably less dark and contains less gravity in the plot line than "Lord of the Rings." I look forward to Jackson's next installment of "The Hobbit."

This Is 40 (2012)

Negative View of Human Interactions

[2/10 · 1 January 2013]

WARNING! MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

As other reviewers have stated, this film is a depressing, pessimistic view of married life and growing older. Judd Apatow has decided to make dramedies rather than goofy, off-the-wall comedies; and that's fine. The problem with Apatow is that he mixes crass vulgarity, toilet humor, and shock humor with a maudlin drama. The two genres do not jell well. If you want to come out of this movie feeling rejuvenated and happy, forget it! If you want to come out feeling pensive and have your mind stimulated enough to ponder contemporary problems relating to the human condition--as any good drama about a midlife crisis affecting a wealthy white suburbanite couple would--sorry, you will leave disappointed. This film takes itself way too seriously for audiences to enjoy it as a comedy, and it is too facile and simplistic to be taken seriously as a meditation on the human condition. What results is a downer film that satisfies no one.

The Nostalgia Chick, a film reviewer from the website "Channel Awesome" did an intelligent and insightful video review of the film "Reality Bites" a few months ago, and brought up a great point about that film: that a film's (or play or book's) characters can be unlikeable, so long as the film is designed such that audience need not sympathize with them, and that the characters' actions have negative consequences. While the characters of "This is 40" *do* suffer negative consequences for their poor, naive and/or stupid life decisions, the film is (to use the NC's words) "framed" such that the audience will "side" with the protagonists, and that the negative consequences of their actions can be brushed aside once the film's resolution has happened. The protagonists of "This is 40" are a bunch of self-obsessed yuppies who blame others for their problems rather than themselves. They face critical life decisions, as do we all; and often show poor judgment--as do we all. How these characters choose to deal with their lives' problems is stunningly inept. We can always screw up, and it takes a big person to accept responsibility for one's mistakes, and then later *correct the mistakes!* These characters are not big people. They behave in public in ways most normal people do not. They spew a litany of obscenities in front of their children, and their spiteful behavior towards themselves in front of their children make them dubious role models for their children. I know, I know--we're not perfect, and we all screw up, and all of our families are dysfunctional one way or another...True, all too true...and yet, this film's dialogue and its overly-serious way of dealing with dysfunction is disjointed and poorly done, making it unbelievable. This movie could have been successful either as a drama about dysfunction or a light-hearted "Married with Children" farce. By trying to unwisely strike a balance in between, all that is left is a depressing dramedy with patently unlikeable characters whose poor decisions, and the subsequent consequences, do not change them for the better. The film should have been "framed" such that the characters' choices cause them to change their behavior and make them more sympathetic; instead, we're left with people who are as unlikeable at the end as they are in the beginning.

The movie is also far longer than it needs to be. Extraneous characters, like Megan Fox's, take up way too much screen time. Also: why did the second job for Megan Fox's character have to be..what it was in the movie (Not *too* many spoilers here). That was tasteless and sexist. It would have been better to make her an average Jane with another second job (like a college student or a paralegal or secretary or *anything else*) than...what it was in the film. Just because she is a famous sex symbol doesn't mean she has to be degraded in this way.

Best part: Phil Hendrie cameo. I was shocked and delighted, and awarded this film an extra star for it. Phil was the film's high point. Judd Apatow must be a huge Phil Hendrie fan (as are many in SoCal). Kudos to Judd for that!

In short: I think the film struck an uneven balance between toilet humor and seriousness, and ended up a mess. The characters are unlikeable and suffer no real consequences. Next time, Apatow should make a lighthearted comedy, preferably with Phil in a major role (Paul Rudd can play Vernon Dozier, Leslie Mann can play Margaret, and Seth Rogen can play RC--all Phil Hendrie Show characters!).

Game of Thrones (2011–2019)

Well-Done Fantasy Series. A Dramatic Tour-de-Force!

[8/10 · 18 October 2012]

WARNING! PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!

This review will only be for the first season of the program, as I haven't yet seen any of the second season episodes; that being said, I think it's fair to review the series based on what i have seen only from the first season.

Of late, HBO has scored a sting of victories in the eyes of viewers and critics alike with their original series. If "Game of Thrones" is typical of the HBO original series, then the channel is well worth the premium cost for cable subscribers. "Game of Thrones" succeeds mostly because of its three-dimensional and engaging characters, dark themes, and riveting plot line; the fantasy setting, in my view, is incidental to the series' success, but it is not entirely irrelevant, as the setting provides a framework for an exciting plot involving murder, betrayal, and byzantine court intrigues and power struggles.

The series is based on a series of fantasy novels that seem inspired by "The Lord of the Rings" and the general mythos of Middle-Earth, but is far more naturalistic in style than Tolkien's works (for example, the "Game of Thrones" series involves graphic sex and violence, coupled with a grim and cynical tone missing from the more optimistic story presented in "Lord of the Rings"). The setting is located in a fictional world based closely on medieval Europe, and the first season storyline centers around a feudal lord named Eddard Stark. Lord Stark acts as the adviser to an ineffectual king, and is presented with a conflict that forces him to choose between an honorable and ethical course of action, or more pragmatic choices which are not in themselves ethical. The tragic flaw of Lord Stark--which I have read from other online comments about the series-- is his blind allegiance to honor and morality over pragmatism. Stark will invariably follow his conscience in every decision he makes, without viewing the the bigger picture. While Lord Stark thinks he is in the right with his course of action, he unthinkingly steers the kingdom into a disastrous course of events in the long run. This classic irony speaks well of the intelligence behind the creation of the "Game of Thrones" series. Not all viewers will appreciate the dark and cynical themes present in the series, two of which seem to be that "sometimes the ends justify the means" and "good men are no match for those who place power above morality and justice". Nevertheless, many viewers will nonetheless be moved by the tragedy of the series' main protagonist; while I am not going so far as to claim "Game of Thrones" is great literature, the series works because, it, like great works of literature, engages the audience with the believable and palpable tragedy of a powerful protagonist.

Other characters also prove compelling, the most notable of whom is the cunning and witty Tyrion Lannister, a member of a rival noble house. Also known as "the Imp" (both for his diminutive stature and his wily demeanor), this character, who is able to use his silver tongue to persuade other characters to get him out of unfavorable situations, has become a fan favorite, and rightfully so. Peter Dinklage, the actor playing Tyrion, breathes life into a character who is able to overcome his status as an outsider in a discriminatory feudal society and become a key player in the politics of the kingdom. While Tyrion's family is defined by their amoral lust for power, Tyrion, while far from being pure-hearted, does seem to abide by a personal code of ethics and morals, although he is much more pragmatic and less rigidly bound by this code than Lord Stark.

Not everything about the series is worth praising. While the screenwriters aim for a paradoxically realistic approach in a fantasy setting, they sometimes take it too far with gratuitous T & A (a feature of which many HBO shows are guilty). I understand why some reviewers were disgusted with the excessive amount of graphic sex, nudity and violence displayed on the show, much of which is not necessary to furthering the plot, and seems to be there only to titillate the audience. Unlike "Harry Potter" or even "Lord of the Rings", "Game of Thrones" is definitely not a fantasy series the whole family can enjoy. I would go so far as to say that the soft-core sex detracts from the mature themes and brilliantly-crafted tragedy present in the story.

My misgivings about the sex and violence in the series notwithstanding, I find "Game of Thrones" to be a quality work of art, an exception to the banal reality shows proliferating television today. I hope HBO keeps "Game of Thrones" running for years to come.