Fly Me to the Moon (2024)

After the first 10 minutes of this movie I was afraid I was going to be disappointed. In an attempt to create the character that Scarlett Johansson plays, the script creates a series of moments where her bright go-getter, thrives on besting men who are too dim to see the argument that she's making for the advertising campaign she wants to undertake. She relies on manipulation, lies, and downright fraud to convince people to go with her ideas. Since she's supposed to be the romantic lead in the movie, it seems strange to start off by making her an unsympathetic character. The goal might have been to do a Howard Hawks type comedy ala "His Girl Friday". The problem is that it seems rushed in concept not just execution.

Fortunately things calm down when she reaches Florida and encounters her romantic counterpart played by Channing Tatum. Her character, Kelly Jones, is still manipulative but feels a lot less smarmy and condescending. Instead she is showing her smarts and being wily at the same time. Tatum as Cole Davis, deservedly needs some direction with the obstacles he faces, but at least he's not portrayed as a witless man who can be turned simply by the slightest of feminine manipulation. After their meet-cute, we get a much more sophisticated and well-developed character relationship between the two of them. The setting of the late 1960s at Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach gives the filmmakers a chance to add some nostalgic romantic elements to the film as well.

Setting the story against the first attempt by man to reach the moon is fine, I think most of us who lived through that era consider it an important period of time. The the complications of NASA and the space program were fraught with danger and uncertainty, but also the thrill of exploration and discovery. Tatum's character is supposed to be the launch director of the mission, a pilot who lost out on being an astronaut because of a heart afib. He's a competent and sincere person, who lives with the guilt that comes from being a survivor of what up until that point, had been the worst disaster in manned space flight, the fire that killed the three astronauts of Apollo 1. He feels responsible, because he was in charge, not because of any real neglect on his part. One of the best things about this film is the sincere respect given to that incident, and the understandable grief that it evokes in one of our main characters.

The romantic parts of the film start working as the two characters clash over little things, and they work their way through mutual obstacles. Lurking in the background is a shadowy character who invents a plot, an hour into the film, that might be the main selling point of the movie but also something that may in fact be unnecessary to make the romance work. Woody Harrelson plays the mysterious government operative, who's using Johansson's character to create an alternative moon landing scenario. The idea is to twist the conspiracy theory of the moon landing on its head, and make the subterfuge a sort of insurance against failure as opposed to a substitute for success. So screenwriters Keenan Flynn, Bill Kirstein, and Rose Gilroy have concocted a story that allows them to play the conspiracy card and then dismiss it. Thank goodness, otherwise this film would have been sunk from the get go. 

Basically, this is an adult film, with charismatic leads in an interesting setting, but with unbelievable plot twists and incidents. In other words, it's a typical Rom-Com. Perfect for date night, but insubstantial beyond that. We don't end up on the dark side of the moon, so you can live with it. 

Asteroid City

 

Somewhere over the last decade, I became a fan of Wes Anderson movies. I have enjoyed them all but not all of them are great. The previous film from the director, "The French Dispatch" is the least interesting of the films for me. It's style is elegantly in line with the visual flair of Anderson, but the content just seemed a little too on the nose for me. It was a movie filled with references to language and the way that we use words was the focus of the film. It did at least have that to hold it together. "Asteroid City" does not have these kinds of ambitions. There is a singular story told through multiple levels that will keep us amused and detached simultaneously,  and for me it worked a lot more effectively because I could not detect a point or theme, i only saw an entertainment. 

Once again, if you are not willing to be presented with artifice being passed off as a story, you should skip this, but if you look at the crystal blue sky and the phony desert horizons in the opening part of the film, and they make you laugh, then you are in the right place. This film cruises on the look Anderson can achieve in the circumstances he and his cowriters have conceived. This is a film, conceived as a play, being described by a documentary about the creation of the story. Every step we take leads down a different path and sometimes, just as you are getting involved with something that is happening on screen, the camera pulls back and we see the story from a completely new perspective, although the attitude and the moods remain the same. 

The film is filled with the usual suspects. Anderson has developed a company of players that he wants to have in his movies and when you see how they fit in, you can't blame him for wanting to keep some consistency. Jeffery Wright returns for what I think is his second Anderson film, and his delivery of General Gibson's speech is perfection. I'd love to have the laminated version that all of the attendees were promised, I think I could read it everyday and still laugh out loud. Jason Schwartzman is back for his seventh film with Anderson, and he has his biggest role since being the star of "Rushmore" back in 1998. He has mastered the deadpan delivery that is a signature of  Anderson's words. Even when he is supposed to be reacting strongly to a moment with co-star Scarlett Johansson, he still manages to keep the reaction dulled down to fit with the character. Edward Norton, Bryan Cranston, Adrian Brody and Willem Dafoe all show up for repeat appearances in one of these unusual films. Tom Hanks shows up in his maiden voyage on the good ship Anderson, apparently replacing the usual presence of Bill Murray who is surprisingly not in the film. Although he is in the movie for only a couple of seconds, I really want to believe that Jeff Goldblum was in the alien costume, although it is clearly some of the animation that has been used in Anderson's two best films, "Isle of Dogs" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox". 

I mentioned the production design early on. The black and white sequences are fine, with some effective lighting and clever use of backstage tropes. As usual though, the colorful and cinematically electric visuals in the sequences that are in color are the thing that will hypnotize you. There is a filter on some of the scenes that will make you feel like you are driving through the desert on a summer evening, cruising Route 66 in 1956. There are two or three moments with some blue shading that are subtle but make the actor's eyes pop on screen. Cinematographer Robert Yeoman has done a fantastic job of bouncing between styles, and evoking moods with the lighting of this film. Also, as usual, the production design team should be given all the awards this year for their fake sandstone towers, two lane blacktops and especially the train that opens the film. This movie is just a visual delight. 

The story dances around grief as a subject, but it also touches on authoritarianism, love, music and family. None of the subjects are really the point of the film. This is a bauble, made to look amazing, with a stack of nesting doll type storytelling that reveals one new thing after another. It is not so much emotionally engaging as it is visually and intellectually evolving. Don't get caught up in whatever plot you might pick out, just sit back and watch the circus perform. If we are going to get movies that are all about the spectacle of how they look, this is a nice alternative to the CGI worlds of James Cameron. Both can be breathtaking, but one feels warm while the other simple seems to celebrate technology.  

Black Widow

 

Here is my take on this long delayed film, I will try to explain why but I am not sure I can articulate it as clearly as I would want. Black Widow is an entertaining, mid-level MCU film. It left me unmoved by the events but I can live the action scenes and over all story. There is very little connecting it to the Avengers, except the presence of Natasha, Scarlett Johansson, and the fact that she is an Avenger. All of the other characters are new to us and although there is an attempt to develop character for all of them, some of it is a bit rushed.

For those of you dying to know, this takes place between "Civil War" and "Infinity War". While hiding out after thwarting Secretary Ross's attempt to arrest her, the Black Widow is lead by to her origins by a mysterious package that shows up in her effects. Several chase scenes and hand to hand combat sequences later, we get a clearer explanation of what is going on. The totality of the Budapest story that she and Clint made reference to back in "The Avengers", is not revealed, but there is enough detail to understand why she has regrets and feels that there is so much "red" on her ledger. 

Maybe the reason I had difficulty connecting to this emotionally is that the secondary characters are all new. There is one, a fixer that Agent Romanoff has used before, who is treated as a longtime ally and associate. This is the first time in any of the films he has been referred to. He is not really given a backstory but the character is represented to us as one we should appreciate without knowing anything more, and that does not quite work for me. The movie starts with a flashback story to 1995 and we see a family coming together for dinner and suddenly taking flight from pursuing dark forces. Maybe the fact that we are being asked to sympathize with a Soviet Sleeper Cell, operating in Ohio, which is killing pursuing FBI agents, just does not sit well with me. This is a Post Cold War world, but those of us who lived through that war may have a hard time deleting the suspicions that we have. The character of the Red Guardian is slipped into this segment only vaguely, and when he returns to the story, we have to build another relationship.

The one new relationship that works well is that of Natasha to her supposed sister Yelena, played by Florence Pugh. The combat ready reunion was a bit much but it does establish the creds for this character as well as the other Black Widow zombies that the villain is creating. Pugh does great with her action sequences and is a believable female badass who can get the job done and stand toe to toe with Natasha. I enjoyed their banter a great deal, and they need more time together to make this the key relationship of the story. Unfortunately, there is a Mother Figure, Father Figure and villain who also need time with the main hero and that makes the plot points feel a little repetitive and it sucks up a lot of time. 

Look, I know this is a comic book movie, and maybe I'm overthinking it a bit, but it needs some explanation. How did this Soviet Era Program continue, go private, and remain hidden? How was it funded? There is technology here that the Avengers would be envious of, but there is no Tony Stark or Russian version of S.H.I.E.L.D. visible. It feels like a 1970s Bond film with a secret lair that would be impossible to keep a secret. Maybe that's why the movie that gets interrupted on Natasha's TV is "Moonraker". It's a subtle attempt to nudge us more toward the fantasy world that exists outside of the MCU and use that to justify some shortcuts.

Hawkeye and Black Widow are master assassins, and they took on a job twenty years prior to this story. How is it that they could botch up their mission so much as to leave their actual target alive, much less the collateral damage that goes along with it. There is no explanation of why that happened, even after we have witnessed an explosion that is immense and would have killed any other character in this universe, except for those from space. It feels like lazy writing. There are three screenwriters credited, one was at least partially responsible for Thor Ragnarok, but also episodes of WandaVision and Agent Carter. Maybe the styles just don't mesh well or the fertilizer is showing and too much of what we are getting is set up for future projects. 

David Harbour and Rachel Weisz are able to play both young and older versions of themselves with only slight assistance from CGI. Harbour is doing comic riffs with a Russian accent and that is funny. The Prison escape is fun to look at but it does little to advance the plot, it was merely an obstacle that gives the two women a chance to run an elaborate action sequence and have some comic relief along the way. I like Ray Winstone as an actor but his part in this is underwritten and it consists almost entirely of monologuing with the heroine. 

I was happy to see the film finally open. I was thrilled to see that the theater was sold out and that people are going out to the movies. I was surprised by the number of people who have already forgotten that MCU films tend to have stingers at the end of the credits and lot of folks left before the last scene. I was just not blown away by the film. I will certainly see it again, but if you are looking for a ranking in the MCU, put this at the top of the bottom quarter of the films. I liked them all but let's keep some perspective, they can't all be the greatest thing since Ironman. 

Jo Jo Rabbit

This may be on two distinct sets of lists at the end of the year. Some folks are going to find that it is a misfire that fails to manage the complex shift in tone that occurs on a regular basis in the story. Others will be beguiled by the delicate balancing act between the sweet and the bitter. It took me to the last couple of shots to decide which group I am going to fall into. Count me enchanted.

The lead character, Jo Jo is a ten year old boy who is a microcosm of Germany under Hitler. He seems to be hypnotized by the promise of the Fuhrer and the propaganda machine that engulfs the whole country. Little boys and nations can become obsessed with symbolism, and the swastika, uniforms and military pomp all sucker the crowds in. Taika Waititi has punctured these concepts with obvious asides about the stupidity of some of the things the boy and the country are buying into. That humor is often outlandish and it does provoke a big laugh on numerous occasions.  The dangerous high wire act he is performing exists because that humor is often juxtaposed with a horrifying reality. Even though those moments of tragedy are presented in non-graphic ways, it is a sudden jolt to the left that might upset the balance of the story at any time.

By making the lead a ten year old, the whole metaphor can be looked at as a loss of innocence on the one hand, but it is also a rude awakening at the same time. Since Jo Jo gets a Rabbit to interact with and he is designated as a rabbit by some of the other characters, I guess it is fair to classify this story as a fable. In many ways it has the same sort of fairy tale essence to it that "Life is Beautiful" had. The harsh realities of the world are being covered up by a childish view of the events surrounding our lead. That his imaginary friend is Hitler himself makes the story feel completely absurd. Sure we laugh at the amusing image of Hitler jumping out a window or sitting down to a meal of unicorn, but each moment is building toward the shakeup that will be so heartbreaking at the climax of the film. Sam Rockwell acquits himself with the usual high caliber comic performance he has been noted for, but he gets to pay off some actual sentiment in the end. Rebel Wilson is merely a cartoon in the movie, but it is a funny cartoon that we will never have to take seriously.

Straddling the gap between sweet fantasy and morbid reality is Scarlett Johansson as Jo Jo's mother.  She is an indulgent mother who vaguely disapproves of her son's embrace of Nazism, but she is also an enigma, one that presents us with a reality far from the domestic bliss she is trying to project. Waititi himself plays Hitler, and at times he is cloyingly obtuse and at other moments we hear the rhetorical weapons he used to seduce a whole nation being wielded against a child. If you hold your neck too straight in the curves, you may break it. The trick is to lean into the humor but try to ease back from it before the next breakneck switch in tone. I was able to do this more effectively as the film went on and I got used to the sort of whiplash inducing moments writer/director/star Waititi had in store for us. I can easily imagine though that some people will find it annoying.

Roman Griffin Davis makes his debut as the title character and the performance is essential for the movie to work. He has to be a kid who is both incredibly sure of his grounds while simultaneously doubting the foundation he is standing on. He hits those notes especially well with his interactions with costar Thomasin McKenzie. She plays a belligerent and sarcastic version of an Anne Frank character, and she must be stern but frightened at the same time. That the director got these performances from his cast is what allows us to go along with the story. Ultimately, it is a hopeful interpretation of the minds of the German population under the Nazis. If would be easy to dismiss it as a tasteless concoction that never quite gels, but I think in the last few minutes, it firms up into one of the best films of the year. 

Movies I Want Everyone to See: Eight Legged Freaks

[Originally Published on Fog's Movie Reviews, Fall 2013]

Here is a Halloween Special for you all.

There is a long history of movies where nature strikes back at the human world. From the "Island of Lost Souls" to "The Happening", Mother Nature proves that she is not someone to be messed with. (Although running away from the wind may just be the one way to mess with her that would cause her to crack up and just stop trying to wipe us out). The most fertile period of time for these far fetched stories was the post war atomic age when exposure to radiation causes giant ants, killer rabbits, and irritated amphibians. In the lengthy annals of horror films featuring monsters that are simply real creatures pushed to the brink, no animal, fish or insect has been more widely used to terrify us than the spider. Most people instinctively withdraw their hands from proximity to a spider. The hair on the back of our necks raises at the thought of one normal spider crawling across our flesh. It is therefore no surprise that out sized spiders have been a go-to critter whenever a film maker is looking for a way to scare us. Our fear of spiders is also something that is regularly mocked. In "Annie Hall, Woody Allen's character jokes " Honey, there's a spider in your bathroom the size of a Buick." It is this combination of the frightening and the ridiculous that makes "Eight Legged Freaks" a movie that I want everyone to see.


This 2002 horror comedy has a enough to recommend it despite being cheesy as hell and way over the top. While there are a couple of legitimate scares and  plenty of creepiness to make this a fun horror film for anyone who doesn't want their terror too gory, the biggest selling point is the humor. This film is a hoot and should give you a couple of laughs to brush off the ickiness of watching spiders. Most of the laughs are intended unlike some other films in this unique category. A small dying Arizona town ends up being over run by spiders that have been contaminated by toxic waste.  It seems a spider wrangler named Joshua is planning on making a fortune selling these quickly growing arachnids to collectors and spider enthusiasts. The creepy Joshua is played by genre veteran Tom Noonan. His friendship with the bright preteen son of the local sheriff allows a little time for exposition on the spiders and their habits, once that is done, exit Joshua after providing a convenient start to the story. There is not much doubt that we will need that information later, because we get some nice quick little illustrations of what each breed of spider is capable of. Unfortunately, young Mike falls into "Wesley Crusher" syndrome and becomes the one source of knowledge that anyone needs for the rest of the movie.

 Mike's mother is the sheriff and she has eyes for the returning son of the deceased owner of the local mine. A largely superfluous romantic plot that gives star David Arquette something more to do when he is not reacting to big damn spiders.
Most of the plot details don't matter because the movie is an excuse to use CGI spiders that are huge and have them do creepy things to the locals. The number of other films referenced here is pretty substantial. There is a "Dawn of the Dead" vibe based around the location the locals choose to make their stand against the spiders. "Gremlins" is cribbed from as the spiders begin to overtake the town. The 1950s creature features are acknowledged with a clip from "Them!" playing on the TV in the background of one scene. "Eight Legged Freaks" plays out sometimes like a Frankenstein version of a horror film with a part inserted here and some leftover ideas from there being added on.

So if the movie is derivative and it is not really scary, what is it that would make you need to see it? The answer is twofold; fun shots of CGI Spiders and occasional Three Stooges type humor. The weaker of the two elements are the jokes. It is a hit or miss proposition, For every well placed L.Ron Hubbard crack, there is a bad piece of camera mugging by one of the actors. There is a cute oblique reference to a Monty Python Parrot sketch and then at some other point there is a slightly unfunny double take done by Doug E. Doug. Arquette actually ad-libbed his line about the big bugs being "eight legged freaks" and it is one of the pieces of dialogue that works and it became the title of the film as a result. If only all of the script's dialogue had had that sense of crazy frustration. There are a few too many Alien conspiracy jokes that involve anal probes. The film is directed at a tween audience, so there are romantic subplots and potty humor. This would be a pretty good Halloween Film for your 8 to 12 year old kids.

The stronger argument for seeing the film concerns the spider shots. There are some cool ideas that work despite the ancient CGI technology involved. At one point a teen is being chased by spiders that can jump twenty yards at a time, he rides his motorbike through the hills and makes a jump himself that has a fun kick to it. Of course a dozen other kids get taken and are never heard from or referenced again. This is a comedy after all not really a horror show. The old barber who take refuge in the sporting goods shop, is followed by an animated tent across the floor of the store. It is a corny joke that works because none of this is being taken seriously. Even the sections where you don't actually see the spiders are visually interesting. Trap door spiders start taking down ostriches at a local ranch and the vanishing birds are the punchline. There is a great showdown between a cat and one of the big spiders that takes place inside the walls of the deputies home. It is visualized in an amusing way and it sets the tone for the film early in the stages of the spider invasion.


The initial stages of the spider invasion feels like that section of "Gremlins" when the gruesome little monsters take over the town. All hell breaks loose and there are panicked citizens running through the streets. Some people get wiped out and others stare in disbelief as it happens. Then they run and some comic bit with a spider trying to eat a stuffed moose-head is inserted. The lead up to the town being over run is sometimes not as fun as it should be but once the shooting of spiders starts the mayhem turns into the goofy monster-fest the film has wanted to be from the beginning.



The last act of the film features a march of arachnids not seen since "Starship Troopers". Hundreds of giant spiders crawl over the screen and the locals try to shoot, squash, stab, fry and puncture them. Plenty of green splatter fills the edges of the movie, instead of the blood that would be there from the humans being shredded. The use of "Itsy Bitsy Spider" as a musical motif keeps things light in spite of the dozens of casualties the townsfolk run up during the attack.

As I re-watched this, I experienced many cringe worthy moments of humor that failed and acting that isn't. The kids in the movie are wooden, including a very young Scarlett Johansson. Her next movie would feature that shot of her behind that opens "Lost in Translation", but here she is playing a little younger and sexy is not really the mood they were looking for. David Arquette is better suited for a role like the weird deputy in "Scream" than he is for playing action hero. Doug E. Doug and Rick Overton are the comic relief and both of them mug shamelessly for the camera. The human element is not the movies strong suit.  Don't worry though because big ass spiders are coming and once they start overrunning the town, you will have a pretty fun time.

There are better horror films and there are better horror comedies. "Arachnophobia" may be the best analogous movie but it lacks spiders  the size of a tank and visuals of people being dragged off and spun into webs. Even though this is the mildest recommendation I have yet made for "Movies I Want Everyone to See", there is something that makes me push the button for this movie. It's probably just that I'm tickled by shots like this:
Richard Kirkham is a lifelong movie enthusiast from Southern California. While embracing all genres of film making, he is especially moved to write about and share his memories of movies from his formative years, the glorious 1970s. His personal blog, featuring current film reviews as well as his Summers of the 1970s movie project, can be found at Kirkham A Movie A Day.

The Jungle Book (2016)

There are many in the film community who will deride the idea of remakes, live action or otherwise. It seems to suggest a shortage of creativity somewhere in the script department. I understand that feeling and I myself often hesitate to venture into a new version of an old film. You don't want to be disappointed or have your fond memory of the original besmirched. At the same time, if the movie touched you in some way the first time, there may be something to the subject that can affect you again, and why someone would not want that is hard for me to fathom. Of course it is also a money issue, but every movie is a money issue and remakes and sequels do not always guarantee results despite the hopes of producers everywhere. The new version of "The Jungle Book" is a live action remake of the last film that Disney himself oversaw. The animated version is a different take on Rudyard Kipling's stories from the 1942 version. So we have been here before. I was encouraged to go by word of mouth and several sources insisted that the 3D version is the one I wanted to see, so I used up all my accumulated AMC Stubbs points and pulled the trigger on a 3D IMAX (FAUXMAX) screening this morning.

It was a delightful experience and lived up to most of my hopes and it included a couple of surprises as well. The story closely follows the tale as it was told in the animated version, and here is the surprise, they even included a couple of songs. Admittedly the animals in this version are as animated as they were in 1967, but since they are photo-real, it was still a little bit of a shock that they spoke and sang. One of the best things that the film has going for it is the voice casting. Bill Murray as Baloo just about perfect. He is not a singer and the presentation of "The Bare Necessities" is not a show stopping moment but rather a casual way of telling us who the character is supposed to be. Similarly,  Christopher Walken as King Louie is no Louie Prima but he gives an engaging almost rap like delivery of his signature song. The film has humorous moments but it does not have the comic visuals that would go along with this sequence. Probably a good choice.

The most valuable addition to the story here is the integration of the wolf pack into the story. There is a code that they live by which becomes a turning point for the animals in the story, and the family development makes Mowgli much more a part of the pack. That also makes what happens in the climax of the film more satisfying and exciting. We got a little bit more about Mowgli's background and a clearer sense of what it is that drives the villain of the piece, Shere Khan. Idris Elba does a menacing voice that has authority, but it lacks the snarly sophistication that George Sanders brought to the role. Bagheera is voiced by Ben Kingsley and he is wise and loyal without the fussiness that Sebastian Cabot added. The changes are subtle ones and they seem to be designed to make this more "real" version of the story work for the universe that is created here.

Obviously, the real stars of the movie are the technicians who have brought the jungle to life. They make all the animals real, in spite of the size perspectives and physical details that have to be worked out. It is a complicated job and if you look at the credits for the film, you will see hundreds of names, most of whom I'm sure Director Jon Favreau never met, much less spoke to on a daily basis. There was an interesting location id in the final credits saying the film was shot entirely in the City of Los Angeles. Guns and Roses may think of it as the jungle, but the closest it comes in looks are some bad neighborhoods, there are no cliffs, rivers, or lush Savannah anywhere around here, this was all created in the computer.

Young Neel Seethi is the star of the film. He is credible in the action sequences but a little stiff in the dramatic scenes. Child actors are tough, they have great presence sometimes but they may have limited range at their young age and I think that this is the case here. The action scene at the end is pretty spectacular, although there are several scenes where the visuals impress, including a mudslide/stampede sequence. The fire effects and the the trees in the last action scene are rendered in a way that makes the #D investment worth the price, but there were dozens of shots like that throughout the film, so I will add my voice to those who say go 3D. Stick around for the credits and you get Scarlett Johanson's version of "Trust in Me", which did not make the film but does play and remind us of the character and the earlier movie, without having it's specter hanging over this film the whole time.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I can't imagine anyone would be encouraged to see or discouraged from seeing this movie on the basis of any film goers comments. This is a movie that sort of demands a first hand experience from anyone who is interested. It is likely to be the biggest film of the year, there is a good chance that it will be one of the biggest films of all time, and critical assessment by professionals or amateurs is not going to change that fact. So, that having been said, let me weigh in on the film and if anyone wants to talk about it, I'd be happy to go into greater depth. As of this moment I can say it is a terrific popcorn film that has moments of greatness. It is also overstuffed and convoluted to the point that unless you were to write a near synopsis of the story, it is still not likely to be very clear.

A few problems that I had with it to start with and then we can get to all the good stuff that makes it worth seeing. "Age of Ultron" is a continuation of the concepts in the first Avenger movie but we have had four Marvel Universe Films in the time period between and many of the other films have pieces of business in them that play small parts in the story and actions displayed here. I know these are comic book tales but the way that events speed through, get resolved and a new set of threats pops up without much establishment is a little frustrating. the stand alone films (with the exception of the IronMan movies) have generally taken their time building up a set of characters, revealing a plot or plan slowly and then the movies get to the action stuff in the last third of the film. This movie feels like the third act of a bigger story, but not necessarily the story we have been watching in the other movies. I'm glad that Pepper Potts does not show up and impersonate Ironman, but the end of that film seemed to be moving away from Tony Stark as hero and center square. Yet that is exactly what continues in this film, with a twist on his intentions that is being reworked and repeated over and over again in the films he is featured in. He is a conflicted War profiteer who loves and loathes his job and he creates as much havoc as he solves. When you arrive at the end of this film, we play out the same scenario again, and everybody sees this except him. Ironskull might be a better nickname since he seems incapable of learning from his own mistakes. I have said many times that "Experience" is the only teacher that some people will listen to (including my oldest child) but Stark is not capable of listening to experience at all.

The opening of the film features a battle sequence at a fictional castle in a fictional country with characters that may have been in another film but if they were, it was for a nanosecond. The Avengers are on the attack and it is hard to believe they would be slowed down by the conventional forces they face after the alien invasion they repelled in the first movie.  Faster than you can say "Who the heck is that?" the main bad guys appear to be disposed of and the secondary mutants "Quicksilver" and the "Scarlet Witch" are introduced as traumatized volunteers in another super soldier program that is "Hydra/SHIELD" based. The fight is exciting although the CG animation in the opening actually looked noticeable for this sequence. It worried me but the rest of the movie settled down a little. The money shot of the Avengers in action in the first movie, waited until the third act. In this film it is almost in the third minute of the movie.

It would be difficult to give plot points away, since there is another one every two minutes. The Avengers are damaged by some early contact with the new characters, the secret plans are partially revealed, Artificial Intelligence takes over, another battle sequence begins, the Avengers are manipulated into internal strife, a love affair springs up between characters, secrets of one of the Avengers are revealed, another character reappears, Avengers fight each other, they discover part one of a plot hatched by Ultron, they discover part two of the plot hatched by Ultron, they secretly search for answers on their own, they come together again,...whew, it is simply exhausting. There is so much narrative and it is so rapidly delivered that there is virtually no time for emotional connection to any of it.

Now that those issues are out of the way, here is some of the good stuff. Ultron, the A.I. creation of Stark (with a little push from the Tesseract), is played perfectly by the voice work of James Spader. His tone and wit are dry and the moments of high camp drama are delivered with suitable venom and at times anger. The script use of the song from Pinocchio is exactly right and sets up a macabre  attitude whenever the Avengers encounter one of his many forms. While the visuals might be a bit confusing as to which robotic character has the true Ultron persona at any time, Spader manages to make it work with the right amount of cynicism and philosophy.

Once again, Captain America is a standout character that manages to influence the group productively even though he is not the smartest, strongest or most cunning of the lot. He manages to be the butt of a joke about language use that someone of my generation can appreciate, even though I'm one generation behind him. His character works well with all of the other characters and in the fight scenes he manages to stay relevant because of that. He also has the high ground on ethical issues and seems to be the voice of reason much the way Tony Stark is an exuberant puppy dog willing to try out everything.

Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, gets a better part this go round and his interaction with the the Scarlett Witch near the end of the movie is one of the few pieces of drama that works in the story, while everything else is in a rush to show us what is next. I don't know that the background story he is featured in is necessary, in fact I'm pretty sure it could be cut and no one would really miss it. This would have been a place to go in a lower budget stand alone movie with his character, but I get the impression that those kind of films will not be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.His character has the most interaction with the new Avenger characters and there is a pretty good payoff for both of those figures.

There is a lot of humor in the film and I suppose because it is comic book based, we should expect that. Everyone has a one liner to throw down and most of them hit the funny bone but they do tend to take away from any sense of danger or drama that is going on. Another new character is introduced late in the film. It's nice that the actor who has been in most of the earlier films gets a chance to show up on screen, but it was confusing and rushed and not altogether certain that the character is reliable. Ultron's plan for global eradication of humans is an interesting one, but like so many other elements of the film it is rushed. The story is a little more coherent than that of Furious 7, but both films are designed for visceral  visual junkies to get a fix from. Avengers: Age of Ultron works more effectively because the universe it operates in is contained in the fantastical galaxy of super heroes, aliens, and technology.

That's my two cents. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but it did not impress me the way "The Winter Soldier", "The First Avenger" and "The Avengers" did. I commented in my review of "Guardians of the Galaxy" that I did not need to see Peter Quill and Tony Stark trading barbs with one another. After this movie, I can see it happening, I still don't think I will like it. Hope you all enjoy the film, I know you will see it whether you read this or not. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I loved the first Captain America movie. I thought that the World War Two setting and the idealistic persona of Steve Rodgers was exactly what it should have been. The movie was very straightforward about the good guys and the bad guys. I'm also a big fan of The Avengers, I thought the splicing of the character into the modern story and the SHIELD organization took what we were given and ran with it. The mix of the super heroes helps keep some of the issues that Cap faces in the background, but the groundwork was being laid for future stories and an inevitable conflict between the Dudley Doo Right manner of our idealistic super hero and the harsh realities of the modern world and the spies that inhabit it.

"The Winter Soldier" puts Steve Rodgers back into the complicated position he found himself in during the Avenger's film. He sees that there are enemies, but he also has to question the methods of those charged with fighting those enemies. A confrontation between Rodgers and SHIELD's Nick Fury is brewing and we are being lead to believe that the spy organization is more malevolent than it originally appeared. It has been a popular pastime since the War on Terror became an official and public mandate, to question the means by which that war is being fought. Heck, those challenges have always existed even before 9/11. Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington went head to head over strategy on terror in "The Siege" back in 1998. Last year in "Star Trek Into Darkness", another allegorical story questioning the wisdom of aggressive policies on terror was crossed with a pop culture icon. I was somewhat concerned about the moralizing that goes on, getting in the way of a story about a good man, given a chance to do good, being lost in this symbolism. Fortunately, it works out for the best because the story here subverts that self questioning canard, with an insidious plot that allows the hero to be the good guy by actually fighting actively against an identifiable conspiracy rather than his own left hand.

Chris Evans was born to play this part. Like Hugh Jackman before him, the character is molded to fit the actor and the actor submerges himself in the character. The Wolverine character has often been better than the movies he was featured in, and this film has the same double edged sword. "The Winter Soldier" is not on a par with "The First Avenger", but the character of Captain America and the performance of Chris Evans, raises it to a level of excellence that will satisfy the fans. The plot is very convoluted and the twists are best left out of the discussion so that an audience can discover their pleasures and frustrations on their own. I will say that there are two things that are set up as reverse twists, that you will see coming a mile away. So, it is not quite as clever as it wants to be. That aside, the motivations and actions of the characters are even less clear than those in the first big screen "Mission Impossible" which was famously filled with "huh?" moments. You will ultimately figure it out, but it will confuse you and there is still at least one major question that does not get clarified. It is only of minor concern for the film because ultimately this will be judged as an action piece and at that it succeeds admirably.

The early action sequence involves Cap and the Black Widow, again played by a nicely amusing Scarlett Johansson, engaging in a rescue mission on the high seas. It turns out that the mission has multiple components to it that set up the rest of the plot, but the execution of the action was fun and the combination of teamwork by the SHIELD insertion group and the Captain was just enough to get us started and to show what we will eventually see as a necessary precursor to the plot. Later in the film, Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury gets a long chase segment and he uses the technology and wily experience available to a spy to bring off a pretty impressive stunt based scene. There are two follow up sections in the movie that also involve driving chases and they are solid as well but sometimes feel a little repetitive. The final battle scene is long and complicated and it looks spectacular, even though it is a little over the top. There are some clever plot twists that take place during the battle that make it a lot of fun as well. The movie does manage to keep some of the spirit of fun that made the first Captain America so effective. There is some sparring dialogue between Cap and the Widow, and a new character adds some comic relief as well as some grounding to the proceedings.

The plot line of the character of "The Winter Soldier" is set up dramatically, and the payoff is realistic in the end rather than sentimental. Key players from the first movie make welcome returns here and the conditions of each of those characters is a nice realization of the goals of the story. Fans of the comics will already know one of those characters but the other two were solid resurrections that while not essential for plotting, do contribute to giving the stories a sense of continuity. I could still use a few more light hearted contributions from a Tommy Lee Jones or a Stanley Tucchi like character. The presence of Robert Redford adds some gravitas to the story but not the energy that a movie like this could really use.  I did enjoy the sudden insertion of a more engaged Jenny Agutter for a moment or two, and Emily VanCamp could be a successful addition to the franchise with the right follow up. The real hero of the story is the honest soul of Captain Steve Rogers. His impromptu speech and rallying of the troops is exactly the kind of leadership that his character is supposed to inspire. I for one am completely ready to follow him on the next adventure.

Her

This was the last of this years Best Picture nominees that I needed to catch up with. I saw it yesterday at the AMC Best Picture Showcase along with four of the other nominees. It has an amazing original take on technology and humanity and the vision of the future is realistic enough to take seriously some of the concepts that are presented here. Joaquin Phoenix stars in a meditative and sad performance that was surprisingly un-nomiminated this year.There may have been some talk of Scarlett Johansen being included for her voice work, but that technological breakthrough will not be coming to the Academy Awards first. Someone else is going to need to push that part of the envelope.

In the not too distant future, humans become so dependent on technology to connect with each other that they begin to fray at the edges. Theodore is a writer of letters that are personal expressions of deep emotions, the only thing is they are not letters written for him but by him. He works for a company that is paid by others to express their ideas in more poetic and eloquent ways. He is a ghostwriter for the daily emotions that people wish to convey to one another. He himself is something of a ghost. His marriage has broken up and while he has friends, he is intensely lonely. He expresses others feelings in amazing letters, but appears to have a block on connecting with others at more than a superficial level. He is not a hermit but he does have trouble maintaining relationships.

A new operating system for his electronic life begins to take over his emotional core. "Samantha" is a great fictional character that is never visualized on screen, she is a voice in his earpiece that means more to him than the once precious marriage that he is in the process of dissolving. As an artificial intelligence, Samantha is not ominous in the way HAL turned out to be, but the impact on human life may be devastating in completely different ways. I was impressed with the story arc and development of the relationship between Theodore and Samantha. There were several odd moments where the issiue of sex comes up and if you are at all squeamish about those issues, let's be frank, it is not nudity that is discomforting it is the imagination.

I don't like to put anything into these posts that could spoil the movie for an audience. There are some things here that will be a bit surprising and some that are a little too precious. I thought the ease with which his dating relationship was accepted by his coworker was an interesting take on tolerance but also a potential condemnation of our unwillingness to judge others. The society of the future might sound silly to begin with but it does not seem that far fetched when you see how people currently interact with their phones. I also would have to imagine it is the far future when L.A. has become as elevated an compacted as NYC and as dependent on public transportation. It was nicely visualized and the CG modifications to Disney Concert hall and the city scape are pretty inventive. The beach scene is funny because the crowds and the way Theodore enjoys the sand in his street clothes. Taking a nap in the sun like that on the beach would result in a nasty sunburn, but that part of the technology is not really shown.

I would not be at all surprised if the next generation of phones work in a way very similar to those shown in this film. There are some nice practical advantages to the bi-fold design and the multiple lens access. The blue tooth earpiece is already ubiquitous so it is a short step to the interactive nature of the tech seen in this movie. Years ago I read a science fiction story called "Meathouse Man", about a guy who misunderstands the way in which human bodies are being used as sex partners. He falls in love with the unseen operator of the "sex equipment" and the revelation at the end of the story reminds me a little bit of what happens in this movie. In the end, we are our own best measure of what love really is.