Pacific Rim

What criticism can you make of a movie that features giant robots battling giant monsters? Once that premise is accepted, everything else simply comes down to technical execution and storytelling. I can't imagine that there is any way that someone could get pulled into this movie by accident and not anticipate a bunch of action sequences featuring giant creatures battling each other. I know that the "Transformers" movies have gotten a lot of crap over the years, but let me put it simply, people like to watch big creatures fight each other while cities get crushed. Ever since the man in the dragon suit crawled out of the bay in Tokyo, and the big Gorilla got loose in New York, we have been interested in the wanton destruction such a scenario presents. Post 9/11 I think there may have been some hesitation on this stuff but it is clear that the audience can separate the nightmare from the movie.

"Pacific Rim" is basically "King Kong vs. Godzilla" with better special effects and a more human centered focus. This is another alien invasion movie with a premise as old as a Japanese horror film from the fifties. It works mostly because the effects are convincing and the battles are creatively presented. I don't want to take anything away from Director and Co-writer Guillermo del Toro, because he did come up with some very interesting visuals and a complex technical background for the movie, but the premise sells itself. I liked this movie when it was called "Robojox" and featured more primitive effects, so there is almost no reason for me not to like this. It features a large cast of familiar but distinctive faces, none of whom are house hold names, because what would the point of that be? There are a couple of sub plots designed to add a human element to the movie, pay no attention, they never develop and would be distracting if they did. You do need the humans to make this a story rather than just a cock fight, but don't expect any depth to those human elements. The search by the nebbish scientist for a monster brain to sync up with is designed to add some humor and humanity to the mixture, is is just enough salt to add to the flavor without changing the recipe.

The movie starts off years after the invasion has begun. The first five minutes of the movie could easily have been the movie that this is a sequel to. There were even a couple of story strands that I think might have made the movie a little more meaningful, for example the commercialization of the invaders and the warriors that fight them, or the politics and economics that come from waging this seemingly endless war. Those thoughts fo out the window in two seconds and we get the essential ingredient of the movie right away.  We get to see imaginative technology that is currently impossible be used to kick some tail of big assed monsters. The names of the invaders are Japanese, acknowledging their roots in Godzilla movies and the term used for the warriors sounds like a German liquor so no stereotyping there. The cast is multinational and the defenders of the planet are multiracial. Nothing brings people together like the end of the world. The American scientists talk so fast you can't really understand them, the Australian warriors are played by Brits and Americans, we never hear the Chinese team speak, but the Japanese co-pilot is an Oscar nominated actress and we can usually understand what she says even if we don't understand why she is saying it.

Enough of the cinema analysis, none of that matters because we get to see monsters fight each other. There are really only three major battle sequences. Two of them are staged at night in the rain, just to add atmosphere. The third takes place under water and is the climax of the picture. Unlike "Transformers" because you have monsters vs. robots, the audience can usually tell what is going on in these combat sequences. Sometimes the monsters have developed a new physical characteristic that makes the battles a surprise.  There was a spontaneous outburst of cheers and applause at one of the strategies employeed by our main team of robot operators. So it was clear the audience was motivated enough to root for the good guys. There is a lot of inventive imagination in creating the complex technology that the humans use to make the monsters work. It is fun to see the erector set be assembled by the film makers and then turned on and it does what we want it to do. For two hours we got to be entertained.

Obviously this is a giant B movie. It has no purpose other than to entertain for the time it is running. The movie stands on it's own, so if it does tank financially like many suspect it might, we will not be left hanging waiting for a sequel that will never arrive. It was very entertaining, but not because the story was new or the characters mattered, it was all the high concept premise. So I have come full circle to my original question. What criticism can you make of a movie like this? The answer is not much. Better to sit back and enjoy it while it runs. You will have fun, but it is a very safe film without the grit and dirt under the fingernails that would make it more interesting. I had a fine time and you will too, and there will be something else next week.

The Lone Ranger

Last year, I went to the mattresses to defend an expensive, high concept, potential franchise film from the Disney Company that bombed. Here I am fourteen months later about to do the same. I thought "John Carter" was true to it's roots and was a lot of fun and it is a shame that we will not get to see more of Edgar Rice Burroughs hero. The new Bruckheimer Production of a Gore Verbinski film, starring Johnny Depp, takes a classic story concept, twists it ever so slightly and winds up with an entertaining film that is going to leave egg on the face of everyone who went ahead and agreed to make the movie. I don't think that box office is the determining factor of a films entertainment value. While it is true that the audience ultimately has to decide, I think there are plenty of examples of where the audience has decided poorly and everyone knew it. This will be a case where they don't know that they chose poorly and the analysts of box office doom will make it appear that they were correct.

"The Lone Ranger" has been a pet project of Johnny Depp for almost a decade. Just before the orginal start of production the plug was pulled and the studio and film makers had to negotiate changes in the story and budget to make the movie feasible. I can't explain all the financial ramifications or the economic consequences to the studio and film makers, but I can say they did a pretty good job making an entertaining summer picture that should work for the audience but doesn't for some reason. The production value is top notch, there is plenty of humor in the story, some great action pieces and the charm of Johnny Depp in an idiosyncratic interpretation of Tonto, the Lone Ranger's Indian companion.  Armie Hammer plays John Reid, the Lone Ranger, but Depp is the star of the movie and it is his shoulders that the movie must stand to reach it's potential.

The opening forty five minutes of the movie feature a well known legend, of how a posse of Texas Rangers is ambushed and only one survives. In this version, the Rangers escape from death is attributed to the intervention of supernatural forces brought together by Tonto, a vengeance seeking hunter of Wen-dingo, and a horse believed to be the connection to the spirit world. We come to know the horse as Silver, and he should have been third billed in the picture given his significance, screen time and contribution toward the enjoyment of the story. That opening segment contains a great bit of train stunt work and humor. It was very reminiscent of the water wheel duel in the second "Pirates" movie. It was easy to follow, preposterous in almost every way and executed with enough aplomb to satisfy an audience hungry for something different. I found it to be much more  involving and interesting than the convoluted multiple "Ironman" robot clones in the finale in "Iron Man 3". There is an even more complicated train sequence at the climax of the film that works almost as well although it was a bit more confusing to follow.

The middle of the picture has a great deal of exposition, and while at times clever, it takes a while to get through it all and that section feels slow. There is a pretty good shootout and the production design is fine, but it can't quite sustain itself. There are a couple of subplots that involve the two women featured in the story and that just seems to detract from the momentum of the story. Two old hands at playing villainous characters are in the film. William Fichtner is barely recognizable under the make up but plays the slimy gun-slinging cannibalistic evil front man with some gusto if lacking in panache. Tom Wilkinson is the respectable side of the treacherous plot and we only discover how deeply he is involved as the picture goes on. Once again, a story like this depends for it's success on the quality of the villain and their plot. I thought all of it worked just fine to make me want to see justice from our heroes. The twist in this movie is a take off on a similar theme from earlier films. The first of which that occurs to me is "Without a Clue". This Michael Caine/Ben Kingsley film from the late 80s, imagines that Watson is the real genius behind Sherlock Holmes. A couple of years ago we had the same plot twist with "the Green Hornet", where Kato is the real force behind the crime fighters. Here, Tonto is the driving force behind the events that take place. John Reid (the Lone Ranger and by the way the great grand Uncle of Brett Reid, the Green Hornet) is the naive bumbler who gets taken for a ride. While Hammers version of the Ranger makes him "green", he is not without fortitude and a code that become a part of the story. I saw him less as the butt of the jokes than as a part of the comic duo of the Ranger and Tonto. He is the straight man, but he has some humorous moments at other peoples expense not just his own.

The movie could stand to be tightened by twenty or thirty minutes. There are some long sections of exposition, and a flash back structure, that tend to slow the movie down. On the other hand, there is a great use of Tonto's crow headpiece that is both funny and in keeping with the supernatural theme. I also appreciated the bunnies in the movie. It reminded me of Monty Python and I laughed out loud a couple of time because of that. I really enjoy westerns and that may be in part why the movie is out of touch with today's audience.  Genres ebb and flow and I get the impression that right now, the western is at low tide. I also suspect that comic book movies are sucking the wind out of the room for big action films. Except for the "Fast and Furious 6" and "Star Trek Into Darkness", big budget movies that have succeeded this year have been of the super hero variety. Maybe this is a double edged sword. We get the comic book movies we want but are distracted from the other things that ought to draw our attention. "The Lone Ranger" did not have good word of mouth from early on because of the production cost fiasco, and then reviews have been weak. I believe that most film audiences will enjoy it and when the William Tell Overture fully kicks in toward the end of the picture, we will be shouting Hiegh-Ho-Silver ourselves. I was very happy to turn back to those thrilling days of yesteryear, and I'll tell you who that masked man was, he was a guy I'd enjoy seeing again and will miss until the next time someone finds the courage to try this franchise, twenty or thirty years from now.

Despicable Me 2

Three years ago I was thrown for a loop by how much I enjoyed and was surprised by the original Despicable Me. It made my list of ten favorite films that year and I have enjoyed it every time I have seen it since. Inevitably these days a movie that succeeds on a financial level is going to be franchised. When you invest as much money as it takes to make a major motion picture, you want to cover your bets by having a pre-sold audience. That is why so many films this year are sequels to films from other years. The results are not always satisfying. Despite the huge money windfall, "Iron Man 3" feels like a disappointment. No one expected much from "The Hangover III" and "Fast and/or Furious 6" is what it is. I worry that a sequel might undermine the original charm of a movie and spoil my enjoyment of the characters. That happened with "Cars 2" and I pretend there was only one "Matrix" film so that I can continue to admire it. I really hoped that "Despicable Me 2" would be able to extend the idea of the story and the characters instead of merely using them to grab some more cash. Well, I did not need to be concerned. The creaters of this film have as much inventiveness as they did the first time and the movie has charm to spare.

Gru, the villain turned hero from the first movie, is being recruited to aid a secret agency in fighting an unidentified new evil villain. This allows him to continue to use the wild inventions and creative plot ideas from the first movie but to do so in a reversal of roles. In addition, he is not being won over by the three girls he is now a parent too, he is doing his best to be the best dad he can be, and that makes the secret business a little more complicated. The three girls are as idiosyncratic as they were in the first story, but there are some traditional themes thrown in this time. Margo, the oldest is subject to romantic notions and the protective Father drive kicks in when Gru notices his little girl is noticing boys. There is a great set piece early on in the movie where Gru responds to a booking emergency at his youngest daughter's birthday party. It was five minutes of laughter that sets the tone for the rest of the movie.

The Minions played a substantial supporting role in the first movie and they are more prominent in this film. Personally, they entertain the heck out of me. They combine slapstick with pantomime and character humor to create some truly funny pieces of mental candy. The funny language they speak and the expressiveness they manage to have despite being blank faces with big eyes is a good indication of the animators and writers creativity. If you give people who are artistic and funny enough time, they will manage to find something to please you and the Minions almost always pay off. There are also a variety of extravagant settings and pieces of equipment that they are given a chance to play in and that helps as well. Most of the laboratory design in both Gru's lab and that of the villain, is incredibly complicated and funny and interesting at the same time. 

There is a very successful addition to the cast in the form of Lucy, the rookie partner that is assigned to work with Gru by the "Anti-Villain League". She is a complementary character for our lead and presents a lot of fun possibilities. It also helps that she is voiced by Kristen Wiig and allowed to be a little loopy despite the fact she is presented as a competent agent. There is a personal story arc that works given all the characters, and the imagination of Minion Dave gives us a minute of silly bliss that focuses on Lucy very affectionately. There were a couple of side plots that exist to flesh out the story and give both Lucy and Gru some chances to be funny outside of the main spy plot. It doesn't advance the story much but it does allow the characters top be a little more understandable in terms of their relationship.

Every minute or so there was a minute to chuckle about. I laughed out loud several times and frankly I smiled the whole way through the movie. The two minor criticisms I have of the movie should not discourage anyone from seeing it. First, there were a couple of jokes based on current references, and that is one of the failings of the "Shrek" series. I hope that the writers don't become dependent on topical humor too much. There were several more generic references that did not bother me at all, including an allusion to "Return of the Jedi" in a very subtle form. Another of those effective movie references is escaping my memory at the moment, but it was just as subtle so it should not be a problem. The second issue was the featuring of four or five poop/fart jokes. I know it's a kids film, but they did not do that the first time around. One or two would have been OK, the extras just seemed to push it a little to much in the kiddy direction. This is a great family film that entertained for the whole running time. It may not seem as fresh because it is a sequel, but the jokes were not stale and the characters continue to make us want to spend time with them. No doubt we will be doing so in the summer of 2016. For the moment, enjoy the minions that we have today.

Evil Dead: The Musical

I've been out of town and out of theaters for a little while. While we were traveling, we stopped in Vegas and made it to a presentation of "Evil Dead: The Musical". I'd heard of it but I did not know that it was still in production. It turns out that after its Off-Broadway run, it has cropped up in a number of places and it has found a pretty solid home in the V theater in the Planet Hollywood Hotel. A friend had gone to see it a few weeks ago and I could hardly wait to join the initiated.

The production values are even lower than the original film the musical is based on. This play is done on the cheap. It works pretty well because the story is trashy, the jokes are vulgar and the concept is silly. It is one step up from an elaborate Reader's Theater presentation. The recorded music and the sets are a tip off that your money is going to pay the cast not to build an empire. That's a good thing because the cast is the main reason that the play works. Everyone is enthusiastic and having a good time. The leads have pretty solid voices and if they were not sometimes betrayed by the audio system, you might be able to say they have good chops. Whatever draw backs there were in the singing, are compensated for by the over the top physical comedy the actors put into their parts. They ham it up and dance with vigor and mug for individual audience members. It feels like a lounge act but with a plot.

The songs are all very funny and play off the horror film aspects of the story pretty well. "Cabin in the Woods" is a cheerful upbeat piece that sets the characters and establishes the cheesiness of the production. It is followed by "Stupid Bitch", "What the F*** was That?" and "All the Men in My Life Keep Getting Killed by Candarian Demons". You can pretty much get the idea by looking at those titles. The show is not scary, or serious or much more than a series of jokes about all the "Evil Dead" movies. The highlight for me was the dance number "Do the Necronomicon". It clearly invites a comparison of this play to "Rocky Horror". That is a pretty good comparison to make, the movie is self referential silliness that plays well at mid-night. At the end, you'll be standing in the aisles doing the dance your self, although it is a little more complicated than the "Time Warp".

If I had known ahead of time what the perks were of being in the "Spatter Zone" seats, I might have thought of upgrading.  Let me just say if you spring for the upgrade, be sure to wear disposable clothes that you won't miss. At intermission, the character of Dead Scott, (I'm not sure if the pun is intended, I want to believe so) makes sure that if you did not get your monies worth of liquid crimson, that you will not go home disappointed. 

There are bits and pieces from all the films in the musical. Most of the great lines get recycled in an obvious manner by the characters. There is nothing subtle about it, and it isn't even very clever but it is satisfying for all of us deadites. While there is no nudity, it is not really for kids. The language is frequently excessively vulgar. The MC is especially free with the F-bomb and there is a running theater joke based on the play's official photographer that results in audience call outs which encourage the whole assembly to participate. If you love these movies you will have a great time. It does suffer a little loss of steam in the second act but there are a couple of highlights that make the lull less painful. Over all I would rate the whole thing "Groovy".

The Heat

I made a joke in class the other day that the only reason any guy ever goes to see a Sandra Bullock movie is because he has a wife or a girlfriend. Sandy is the Queen of romance in the last fifteen years. When Meg Ryan dumped Dennis Quaid and got her face messed up, the crown was picked up by Miss Bullock and has never been put down since. The joke is funny as long as we ignore "The Blind Side" and "Crash". This movie wants to be an action film with comedy, but in truth it is another romance. Like all of the recent guy bonding films may be referred to as "Bro-mances", this can legitimately he called a "Ho-mance". Sandra is bonding with another woman, and that is the real focus of the movie.

Melissa McCarthey was described in a post I read on line as the female Zack Galifinakis. She was seen as odd and irritating. Despite that comparison, and her presence as a love interest for Galifinakis in "The Hangover III", I think she is much closer to a Chris Farley type. She is a bull in a china shop, but ultimately she has a heart of gold. She is the driving force in the movie and it is her humor that makes this movie work despite it's by the numbers plot. She sells the tough gal character pretty well and the foul mouthed insults are creative enough that when you are laughing at them, they actually sound like something a clever person might say rather than words that a screenwriter forced from her lips.

This is a buddy cop picture with a mismatched pair of protagonists. Bullock is channeling her character from "Miss Congeniality", but it works and in the end her story arc seems credible enough. McCarthey drags her along for the rough humor and plays against her more timid side pretty well. There are some plot lines that are tossed in that go nowhere and are clearly designed to give McCarthey's character some street smarts and Bullock's character some sympathy. None of that is needed because the dialogue is what makes this funny as well as a couple of visual jokes. I got a big laugh from the tracheotomy scene and then the visual of one of the villains turning an earlier interrogation scene around was also amusing. This movie earns it's R rating honestly, there are enough f-bombs to satisfy and Scarface fan who ends up in the audience.

The humor is also visual at times and it mostly grows out of the characters. There is a sequence that will get some big laughs that is completely contrived, just to give the girls a chance to act out when drunk. It does not really fit with the rest of the movie but it did have some bits in it that will get some big chuckles. It's not quite as hysterical as it wants to be but it is generally very satisfying. There was a surprising amount of violence and sometimes the tone of the movie switches a bit too abruptly. I could have used a little more of Jane Curtain, she has one funny visual bit and then the family scenes are so similar to the ones in "The Fighter" that you wonder how big a stereotype we must be dealing with in those Irish families in Boston.

This is going to be a movie that is very successful and for which a sequel will be created very quickly. I don't need a sequel, but the characters were entertaining enough together that it seems like an easy reach and Hollywood is not going to pass up the low hanging fruit that this moneymaker is going to turn out to be. There isn't much to analyze here. It is a straight buddy cop action/comedy film. The two leads have a lot of appeal and there are enough jokes to sustain it. Your life will not be changed but you will laugh out loud a few times and you won't feel bad doing so.

White House Down

If you are looking for big and stupid with a lot of explosions, you could do worse than "White House Down", like maybe "Godzilla" or "2012". Which would be completely appropriate given the heritage of this film. Roland Emmerich has made some spectacular popcorn movies over the years but he has also made some that did not quite live up to the craptasitic story telling that we know he can accomplish. This movie falls squarely in between. It would like to soar near "Independence Day" but it is closer to "The Day After Tomorrow". Preposterous and derivative it can't quite reach the heights of fun silliness that it shoots for, but it has some passing moments and while a bit overstuffed, it still leaves us wanting something just a little bit more.

In 1998, "Armageddon" did not suffer in the wake of it's earlier in the year, end of the world comet crashing into the Earth cousin "Deep Impact". "White House Down" unfortunately does not compare as favorably with it's previously released story incarnation, "Olympus has Fallen." Part of the reason might be that the enemy is so much more believable in that film, and while there are plot twists, it does not require the highest echelons of government to achieve the destruction of the President's house. There was also a more realistic portrayal of the President in that movie than we get here. Jamie Fox is a fine actor, I watched "Django Unchained" just last night and he can carry a film. In "Ray" he had a personality to convey. As the President in "White House Down", he is a caricature of a leader. We are supposed to buy that he has a fixation on achieving greatness by accepting the word of the Iranian President on military matters in the Middle East. He believes the turmoil in the world is all caused by poverty, and he has unilateral authority to act on the basis of his beliefs regardless of treaties or Congressional oversight. The only personality traits he shows are the Jordans that he dons in the last half of the movie and his insistence in the face of the opposite advice from everyone involved to fly Marine One down low over the Lincoln Memorial. He does get a couple of good one liners in the story, and they undermine his credibility but do add some jocularity to the proceedings.

Channing Tatum gets to play the hero in this story. He gets a little more character development because his precocious daughter is part of the group of hostages that is taken during the attack. She becomes a bigger hero than him because she has a You Tube Channel. Yep, Hollywood is going to glory in the fight against terrorism through the surrogacy of real life media uploads. The big advantage of her video is that it allows the military fighters in the terror group to be identified. Which is then used for no purpose whatsoever except to suggest they are bad guys. They are bad guys who have an ax to grind with the U.S. government. There is an abandoned CIA agent, a racist right wing nut job, and mercenaries of various types. They are brought into the same action for completely different reasons and they form a cohesive unit until they don't. The main character behind the plot has his own agenda, which some of the group knows and some does not. In the long run we are expected to believe that government officials with long careers and a history of honorable service, will become merciless killers of innocents and colleagues alike. Maggie Gyllenhaal's Secret Service functionary is even more naive than the President and her comments often stir unintended laughter.

The five minute car chase on the South Lawn of the White House is one of the more inane sections of the movie. Some explosions kill dozens of people and others merely scatter a few before they take up arms again. The President and The Hero keep running back and forth without much of a plan. The scenario behind the plot is convoluted, and it has inherent flaws in story telling. Nuclear codes are changed, but the identification system for Presidential Authorization stays the same, despite multiple changes in Presidential status.

I'm willing to go along with all of the malarkey if the entertainment value is high enough. It just does not reach that point here. Nothing in the characters ever reaches the joyful audacity of Nic Cage in "The Rock". There are some flares of temper and frustration, but Tatum can't carry the maniacal glee of Cages scenery chewing and none of the terrorists has any fun lines at all. I did enjoy the tour guide and the line about "Independence Day" did get me to laugh at loud. The manipulation is not just obvious, that can be forgiven, it was just artless and that hurts the entertainment quality of the movie.

R.I.P. Richard Matheson - 'Twilight Zone' Writer Dead At 87

R.I.P. Richard Matheson - 'Twilight Zone' Writer Dead At 87

I read his short stories and books when I was a teen and loved the Twilight Zones he was connected to. A great legacy.

World War Z

So I am used to zombie movies that function in a slightly different way, that being said, this film works pretty darn well. There were stories about behind the scene problems and re-shoots on the movie. Originally this was to have been released last Christmas. The CGI Zombie attack clips on the walls surrounding Jerusalem seemed to undermine the idea of the film, making it look a little odd.. In the end those film clips make up a small portion of the movie and they work well enough to give us the idea of how a massive group of infected /dead people could suddenly be a threat rather than something to just be avoided. The script problems don't seem to have effected the tension level and the PG-13 rating is not as off putting for a horror action film as I thought it might be. This is definitely not a gore movie but it is a tight action film that provides plenty of suspense and enough creepiness to keep the average film goer satisfied for it's running time.

It is probably fortunate that I am unfamiliar with the source material. Everyone who has read it says it would be impossible to make as a single film, so clearly there has to be a simplification and an "inspired by" qualification of the movie. The zombies here are much like the infected humans in the "28 Days/28 Weeks" mode, they are Fast and Furious (although they don't steal cars or look like Vin Diesel, OK, some of them do). In most of the zombie films I've seen, the survivors try to hunker down and ride it out. They are subject to stress and fear and it is usually the internal strife that causes the drama in the film. Ultimately, they have to escape or fight and some live but most die. There never seems to be much hope for the world after the whole thing starts. In this story, we see the outbreak take over very rapidly. I still have some questions about how that could be the case when most of the incubation time takes a few minutes. I'm not sure who boarded all those zombies on flights, but I guess the airlines were desperate enough that as long as a person was ticketed they could get on a plane, in spite of wanting to bite everyone else in line.. TSA is once again shown not to be very effective. The logic aside, when the big cities start to see the spread of the infection and the rapid growth of the dead population it is pretty scary.

Brad Pitt is the hero of our story. He is a U.N. Health Specialist. It is never quite clear what his specialty is or why his assistance is so necessary that a special operation is arranged to save him and his family. The family set up is solid and the outbreak is handled smashingly well. The opening act of the movie pulls us in quickly and those other pesky questions seem irrelevant. There are three pretty effective chase sequences that feel very intense. The first one features a series of car crashes that are realistic, sudden and perfectly imaginable in the circumstances. Along the way, the family picks up a boy that they take on responsibility for as one of their own. All of this mostly moves to the background once the second act commences. The second act consists of a series of chases and attacks in a variety of situations. Some of them are simple and one of them is very elaborate. The influence Pitt's character has seems to be substantial even in the parts of the world that are cut off or over run. It does seem at times as if the story gives him cache when it is convenient and none when it suits the story for dramatic purpose. This is not a story of survivors holding out against the oncoming hordes, it is a globetrotting race against time and every stop features some new wrinkle to the plot.

As you may have noticed, there are a lot of chases and escapes and attacks. It may seem a bit repetitive after a while. Each one is staged differently so they don't seem too recycled, but there is only so much you can draw out of the concept.  The attack on the plane was one of the most innovative and the result does stretch credulity quite a bit. Still it gets us to the third act where we begin to see some plot ideas from earlier in the movie begin to gel. The film seems set up to allow the story to continue, so don't be too surprised that the zombies are not wiped out and a cure does not seem likely. The trick here is a little bit different and I thought it made the movie work a little better in the end. The action in this act is a lot more direct and visible since it is contained in a well lit location and we have clear objectives that are being pursued. If this was the section of material that had to be re-written, then they did a solid job making it work in terms of drama and action.

Pitt was the only recognizable actor in the cast so that must be where the money went (OK, David Morse is in it for about 80 seconds but his exposition was so vague that it did not matter ). Everyone else was just fine but only one other character is given a chance to shine a little bit in the movie. The Israeli soldier Segan is just as tough as Pitt's character and doesn't have any back story, but she manages to broaden our interest in the rest of humanity by her willingness to fight on despite a dramatic turn of events. You can see that this is a big movie, there are cities being torn apart and naval ships put at the disposal of some of the survivors. Plane crashes and nuclear explosions seem to occur every few minutes and the production design was usually convincing. It's a crackerjack entertainment that has some big gaps in it's plotting but it overcomes those weaknesses with some effective tension and suspense sequences. I still think I will be heading over to my son in-law Drew's house when the Zombie Apocalypse shows up. He is better armed than Brad Pitt is and I think our chances would be stronger in the long run. Besides if Brad shows up, we'll know where all the zombies are, right behind him.

Monsters University

After the debacle that was "Cars 2" it would be understandable that Pixar fans would be concerned about an unnecessary sequel to a fantastic original film. While the sequel route worked with "Toy Story", it certainly did not feel like there was more follow up story for Monsters Inc. Fortunately, instead of inventing a new challenge for the characters in the original film, they have chosen to visit their roots and explore the characters from an historical perspective. This preserves the world in which we first met Sully and Mike but it allows us to see them from a different perspective. I think it was a wise choice. While "Monsters University" lacks some of the dynamic story telling and emotional heft of the first movie, the prequel wisely sticks to character development and humor. The plot is less important than the jokes and the personalities of our two friends and assorted other characters.

Billy Crystal puts so much into the character of Mike Wazowski, that he feels new and fresh despite the fact that we already have one movie story behind us (or is it in front of us?). Mike seems to be the smart kid with big ambitions who just seems to not quite fit in. We get to see where his dream comes from and how he doggedly pursues it. Along the way, some old rivalries and new friendships are started. College is the place where people go to reinvent themselves and Mike has every intention of doing just that. He longs to be a "Scarer" at Monsters Inc., and excels at his academics at the same time that he continues to struggle with his place in the school. John Goodman is back and he plays it more like a second fiddle this time. It is Mike's story, and although he has important story moments, the plot ultimately depends on Mike. This is where the characters meet and it is great to see how they manage to become friends in spite of some of the things thast seperate them in the beginning.

While it is not quite "Animal House" the story does center on the antics of a group of outsiders trying to fight the powers that be. The humor is closer to "revenge of the Nerds" with little touches of the Disney/Pixar magic thrown in. The tables set up in the quad that solicit the freshman to join a club or activity are very funny. There is a reference to some of the usual college traditions, like football chants and good luck touching of school icons. Anyone who has gone to a college that has a real campus life will recognize the stereotypes and the obligatory processes that student struggle with. Most of them are handled hilariously here. Early efforts in the classroom fall away to the usual Fraternity hijinks that make a movie like this work. Imagine trying to establish a coll persona and having your Mom pop up to take your picture. 

Once again the animation is top notch but there was nothing spectacular in the vision of the movie that draws attention to itself. The challenges that the competing fraternities and sororities have to go thru are all similar to something that might be done in the non-monster world. The main differences were not the ideas but the fact that the participants were monsters. There are some funny bits based on the idea that the monsters will have an allergic reaction to some of the obstacles or that there is a massive monster librarian. To me the thing that was most effective about the animation was how much emotion they could get onto the face of a one eyed creature. Mike is very expressive despite having half the tools and none of the unique characteristics of the other creatures. There are plenty of nods to the original film along the way and everything seems to fit together pretty well.

I was a little surprised at how the major conflict at the end was resolved. There is a consequence to trying to take a shortcut and Mike and Sully both learn that, but they learn it cheerfully. The end credits contain a series of visuals that bridge the story and turn what might have been a disappointment into a triumph. Also, there is a stinger joke and if you leave before the credits are done you are going to miss a pretty good laugh. Monsters University is not an instant classic like "Ratatouille" or "Up" or and of the "Toy Story" movies, but it is an immensely charming entertainment that has clever humor and is integrated well with characters that we already know.

As always, a Pixar feature is accompanied by a short that has plenty of whimsy and charm. It is not laugh out loud funny as some of the older Pixar shorts are. This one tells a sweet little story about two umbrellas that catch each others eye and the struggle they go through to meet. It is five minutes of mild pleasure that looks like it mixes computer animation with actual footage of the real world (although I simply think that is the excellence of the Pixar design fooling us).

The Bling Ring

There is not any mistaking that this is a Sophia Coppola film. I have seen a couple of the pictures she has made in the past and this movie has several of those elements to it. There are long passages without anything other than the location audio track, there are incessant contemporary music cues to highlight anything dramatic and there are a couple of shots done from a detached distance that emphasis how much outside of the story we viewers are despite the close up and the intimate moments. I'm not saying it does not work but I am saying that she has developed a style and a set of habits that is noticeable.   If any of those things irritate you about her films, this will not be the movie to change that, if you like the hip outsider detachment thing, than this film will be all up in you.

The story is based on the real events that took place a few short years ago here in Lotus (LaLa) land. High school students with no sense of identity other than those achieved from a designer purse or jewelry, go a bit overboard with their celebrity style obsessions and begin stealing from the icons that they worship. These kids come from privileged but not wealthy backgrounds. Their families all appear to be absent or excessively obtuse as to their real persona.  It would seem that every trendy club in the city was willing to have them come in and to serve them whatever booze they requested, despite the fact that none of them look older than 15 or 16. The film ends up trying to be a criticism of the absent or negligent parenting they receive, the consumerist culture and the society that values such empty "things" such as designer shoes. Coppala wants to have it both ways, the kids are corrupt and soulless and that is largely because celebrities are the exact same way.

The audience is given a view into a lifestyle that is pretty much what the media spends time purporting to be important. The one guy in the group is as obsessed with style as are the girls. Later, another guy enters into the burglaries but we know so little about him and why he is there that he is almost invisible. These characters agonize over what clothes match and which club is the most socially hip. From the beginning, the guy is drawn in by their friendship based on his need to belong. One of the very first things that should have been a warning to him is that his new best friend is a soul sucking kleptomaniac, who takes him walking down the streets of their own neighborhood, looking for unlocked cars that they can steal from. It's a short step from that to entering homes that are either unlocked or for which the keys are so badly hidden that there might as well be a sign that says, "Bored, Insolent Youth Enter Here." They treat their escapades as if it were a shopping spree, but it is not just clothes they take and they don't just take them for trophies. Valuables that can be sold and especially cash are the targets that get the most praise from each other. The idea that this was just hero worship gone awry can be quickly dismissed.

What should not be dismissed is the result that seems to condemn all of society to self inflicted oblivion. The punishments that are meted out for thefts in excess of 3 million dollars worth of goods is laughable. I took some satisfaction when the cops showed up and presented warrants and hauled the kids off, but that was stemmed substantially by the light handed treatment that follows.  The character played by Emma Watson is given such a light sentence and it results in the kind of admiration and attention that these characters would want that it makes me worry for our future. The fact that the story is then turned into a movie is also almost as disturbing. The film does not try to make heroes out of the kids, but idiots out there will do so because the over the top party lifestyle will seem appealing. Drinking, drugs, hot dance routines, media attention and then being the subject of a movie, it's easily enough to make the dim bulbs that occupy much of the modern media world feel like they could be next. Take the plot from "Scream 4", take out the murder and replace with theft and you have a real world nightmare of a story.


Look, the movie is very well made. The soundtrack is populated with music that worships impersonal sex and objectification and money. It is shot to make the kids lives look amazing as they spend the money, live the glamorous life and suffer minimal consequences as a result. It even has Emma Watson, "the" hot girl of the moment (she lampoons herself in last week's "This is the End"), performing on Paris Hilton's stripper pole in her homes club room. Maybe there were just too many sequences of beautiful people doing horrible things and enjoying it for my taste. It never seems to be the position of the film maker that this is OK. Just because Orlando Bloom has a half dozen Rolex's does not mean he deserves to be stolen from. Yet the depiction makes it seem like the crimes are minor and the consequences even more so. The detachment of the observers extends to all parts of the story. If everyone is a victim and everyone is an idiot, why should we care? There are important themes in the story, but every time one of them  starts to rear it's head, another conflicting view comes along to undermine the point. I hope the kids are all good actors because if they bear any resemblance to the fashion zombies in this movie, I have to pity us all.

Kubrick Day at KAMAD

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art has had a featured exhibition of Stanley Kubrick material and unfortunately it ends this coming week. I've been meaning to get to it for several months and of course I waited until the last week of the exhibit, but I did manage to get over there and had an amazing time looking at artifacts from all of the Kubrick films and some other projects as well.

The entry had a series of film sections from his major motion pictures, with some words from artists, critics and Kubrick himself. We scrolled through the dozen or so bits in about twenty minutes and then made our way into the entry hall which features a number of cameras and movie posters. I of course would be happy to have this wall to display in my home.

There was a room dedicated to his work as a very young photographer, primarily for Look Magazine. Several shots were on display that featured Hollywood connections and there were scrap books of magazine articles featuring photos he had taken. The first photo that he received a professional credit and payment for was a shot of a sad faced news vendor, as he looks over the headlines on the papers announcing the death of FDR. There was also an elaborate set of materials that he had put together for an abandinde project on the Ghettos of Poland from the time of Nazi occupation. The amount of work he put in to simply move on was incredible.

The gallery did not seem to be organized in any chronological fashion, it did seem to flow very smoothy through all of the film projects although some clearly received more attention than others. The section on his last film, "Eyes Wide Shut" felt to be the slimmest, although reading his words and looking at the background material, I think i might appreciate the film more the next time I see it.

High on the wall was the helmet worn by Private Joker in "Full Metal Jacket". There was also a model helicopter that had been used in the production. Each section had elaborate versions of the script with Kubrick's very detailed notes on everything in the scene. His planning was clearly meticulous. The history of each production was described, especially interesting was the display of some of the original source material. In the case of this film, there was a paperback version of the novel that started Kubrick on the movie. 

The exhibit was not thin but it was less in the works from the 1950s. His two collaborations with Kirk Douglas had large photos and detailed shooting material. "Paths of Glory" is probably the first of his masterpieces and the themes were nicely described by the curators of the exhibit. "Spartacus" was not his project, in fact he came on after shooting had started and the first director had been dismissed. Kubrick added some much needed battle scenes and the sequence where the Romans watch Douglas and Woody Strode fight for their pleasure and they can hardly be bothered to pay attention, was clearly a Kubrick shot. We see the battle from over the shoulders of the viewers as they chat and gossip. It looks like a view from a window with people sitting on a couch in front of the frame. It was the only film he made where he did not have total control over the picture and he viewed it as something of a disappointment.

Lovers of Horror would have enjoyed the way the axes were displayed from "The Shining". They were basically buried into the wall as if Jack Torrance had just tried to take us out. The dresses from the two little girls were hung up next to each other, just as if we were Danny and came up on them on our tricycle. There were some interesting letters from Saul Bass, who was pitching advertising ideas and poster artwork. While Bass was enthusiastic, we can see Kubrick's notes on each sketch and he did not like any of them. There was also a model of the maze from the end of the film and a description of how it was shot. The highlight of that room however had to be the typewriter that was actually used in the film and contained the page with the script that clearly gives away the insanity that has taken over Jack Torrance.

There were two long rooms displaying material from Barry Lyndon, including costumes and the evolution of the script. The other element of the second room was the amazing collection of material that Kubrick had put together to create a film about Napoleon. It may well be the greatest movie never made. I know that the work was immense, he had his own card catalog drawers for the reference works he had accumulated.

There was a small alcove room that was playing a series of film clips and highlighting the music that was used in the films. It was a little claustrophobic, and while it was interesting, I did not stay through the whole loop . To gain entry to that room, one had to move through the section that featured material from "A Clockwork Orange". There was a series of newspaper articles about a British man who had modeled his behavior on the droogs from this film. Kubrick had defended the movie vigorously from criticism over the violence, but after the events that occurred in the real world he held the movie out of circulation in Great Britain for many years after. In another display, one shelf over were all the mock up newspapers from the film, covering "Alex" and his trials and subsequent rehabilitation. It was an interesting contrast to see the two sets of news right next to each other.

The details of the shoot were highlighted by a series of pictures from the set from the attack on the couple by Ale and his gang. The music sequence from this film that I did watch in the side room featured the treatment which of course involved the score by Beethoven.

I can't quite remember which section featured the discussion of "red" in Kubrick films. The color has a distinctive role to play in the films, and the significance was indicated by a series of shots from the various films that showed how the color was being used. The clothes that are cut off of the victim in Clockwork and the blood on the wall behind Private Pyle are two of the examples.









There was a passageway from the Clockwork Orange displays to the Barry Lyndon rooms that featured the film A.I., which Kubrick had long planned and then passed off to his friend Steven Spielberg. The drawings that went into the visualization of the movie clearly illustrate why he took so long to get the film started. He was waiting for technology to catch up with his vision. Most of the drawings were from the 1980s and the film did not get made until after Kubrick's death in 1999. It was released in 2001.

To the right here is a close up of a miniature set reproduction of the War Room from Dr. Strangelove. It looks amazing and you should know that the chairs around the table are about the size of a paperclip. The screens in the display were actual scenes on display from the screens in the movie. The technical material here was the most involved in the exhibit. Cameras and lenses and small script elements made up most of the display. It was on one end of the entry gallery and right next to it was the material on Lolita. There were a number of photos frames of Sue Lyon in costume and on the set. They were all in color and a magnifying glass on a fixed rail allowed the viewer to scroll down the line examining them in much the way a director or photographer like Kubrick might have in making tiny decisions about costumes, make-up, props and lighting.

Friday night, I re-watched 2001:A Space Odyssey in anticipation of the trip to the LACMA. I was sure glad I did because the highlight of the exhibit for me was the material presented on what I think is his greatest film and certainly my favorite Kubrick film. There were two sections of space devoted to the 1968 epic, it included a replica model of Discovery hanging from the ceiling as well as costumes and masks worn by the performers in the "Dawn of Man" sequence. In the center of the first room were pieces of furniture found on the orbiting space station visited by Heywood Floyd on his way up to the Moon.

There was an interesting discussion of how futurists and designers from a number of big companies contributed suggestions to make the vision more real. I find it interesting that at least two of those companies, Bell Telephone and Pan Am, no longer exist and did not make it to 2001. Frank and Dave do seem to be absorbed in their i-pads while on Discovery, so it is not clear to me why IBM did not hit that technology before Apple did. There was a film clip that I saw on some other material explaining the process by which the circular section of Discovery was rotated to produce the effect of the astronauts walking in a vertical circle at times. The actual helmet used by Dave Bowman was on display and it had an interesting front projection display to put the actor in the helmet along with some of the visual effects from the film.

The most startlingly beautiful thing I saw in the whole exhibit was a miniature reproduction of "God's" white room from the end of the film. This model was suspended above the crowds heads, thus requiring us to look up to see it and leaving many patrons in slack jawed awe as they stared into space.  The Monolith is clearly visible in the center of the room It was a very dramatic piece of design for the curators of this project, and I was lucky that it was among the final things I came across.




I don't know if this exhibit is touring, if you see it in your local museum be4 sure to take the time to visit. Anyone who admires the work of one of the greatest film directors of all time will feel privileged to have spend even a small amount of time in the shadows of his genius. I know that is how I feel.

KAMAD VLOG on Sean Connery Double Feature

This is the End

I must begin with a confession. I have never been a pot smoker, I am not a drinker, I feel self conscious about the use of foul language and mocking religion seems to be a bad thing from my point of view. Having said that, this movie plays on all of those concepts and it is pretty damn funny, even to someone like me who generally does not "party" like all the actors being portrayed here. I know enough about Hollywood and how it works and while I don't follow any scandal sites, I do have a average persons knowledge of some of the characters here. If seeing Michael Cera mock the degree to which he is despised, or Seth Rogan re-evaluate some of the choices he made sounds funny to you, this is the flavor you are looking for.


There is a simple concept behind the movie, what would the end of the world be like for a bunch of pot addled Hollywood types? If the Apocalypse is anything like the Bible forecasts, it is not going to go well for most of them. This is a combination of religious philosophy and bomb shelter mentality. Ideas that were explored on the Twilight Zone fifty years ago are revisited here with the added twist that most of the characters don't have much moral fortitude to begin with. Some thoughtful moments of human wisdom are combined with desperation to survive and the result is hilarious. As the characters begin to subvert their friendships, exploit each others weaknesses and look for redemption at the same time, they explore what is truly funny about being molested by demons or consumed by the fires of hell. Let me assure you it is damn profane.

All of these actors come from a school of humor that basically puts no limits on the kinds of things a person can say about another person, even if the end of times is not present. They s@*t talk each other and say the most vile things when they are simply high, it is not that much worse when all hell breaks loose, except that now we can add on violence and screaming and the kinds of slapstick that might seem pointlessly childish without the story set up.I don't get the feeling that many of them are acting, they seem to be themselves. That does not mean that they are the way they are portrayed in the story, but that they speak in their normal rhythms and pitches, they have the same vocal qualities that go along with being a member of the group. James Franco is an enthusiastic head case, Seth Rogan is a cool dude who is a little too needy, Jay Barucel is an awkward outsider who fits in the group but is not sure why, Jonah Hill is the nice guy who could just be faking it, Craig Robinson is funny but a little insecure and Danny McBride is the cocky self centered egoist without a real sense of worth. I said all of that in the politest way possible, they will say the same things in the most horrifyingly honest way you can imagine and you will probably be like Seth when the tigers showed up in "Gladiator".

There are dozens of cameo appearances by stars great and small. TV personalities seem doomed to die early and movie co-stars get slightly bigger exits. I'd have to see it again to see what happened with a couple of the personalities that are at the party at Franco's house when things start going wrong. There are also some late surprises that are worth a giggle and a guffaw or two. I would consider seeing a couple of the film projects that get some time in the movie. There is a sequence where Franco and Rogan talk about a sequel to "Pineapple Express". Neither of them has any idea of what the story should be but they are high and in love with the idea. This movie was probably written the same way. No one knows what it is all supposed to be about, but there has to be some funny material here and they will just run with it.

"This is the End" is another in a long line of films made by these actors over the last ten years or so. Clearly they feel some degree of friendship for each other, these movies are not star turns, they are joke fests. It seems no one wants to be left out even if they end up looking like a douche. It is an acquired taste and I cannot recommend it to everyone, but if you have a high tolerance for dope humor, gross out comedy, silly situations and have enjoyed any of these performers in the last few years, you'll probably like this movie. My biggest laugh was based on the amount of blood that gets sloshed out of a severed head. If that does not sound funny to you, stay away. If you are under thirty, a pot smoker or just have a twisted sense of humor, go for it. The worst that can happen is that you are damned to hell.

Man of Steel

The much anticipated Superman reboot is here, and as well as being much anticipated, I suspect it will be much debated. This version of the strange visitor from another world is likely to provoke enthusiasm from many but disappointment from others. It looks to be a huge winner in the summer box office race, but whether it will command the respect that the Christopher Nolan Batman reboot managed to get is questionable. I come from a perspective far outside of the comics. My world of Superman experience is limited to the 40s era cartoons, the 50's era television show, the 70s era movies, and the early nineties TV adaption. I have no axes to grind based on Smallville or from the many variations of Superman that have apparently populated the comic book universe. I will freely state that my bias is strongly toward the version embodied by the late Christopher Reeve, and therefore my assessment of this film is likely to involve measurement by that standard.

Let me start with those things that I liked about this movie: Russel Crowe, Kevin Costner, and Diane Lane. Just about every scene they were in was worth the price of admission. Crowe is the hopeful scientist father that plans to save his son and the legacy of Krypton by sending his child to Earth. He is poet, warrior and visionary to the family he is trying to save. The opening section on Krypton features the kinds of fantasy elements that ought to make anyone with imagination drool. There is technology that morphs substances into objects to interact through, there is a complex genetic system that both strengthens and weakens the Kryptonians at the same time. A military coup is frustrated while the planet comes crashing down. Crowe is a super hero himself in the opening scenes of the movie. He steals vital information, he daringly stands up to his oppressors, and he has a solid throwdown with the General who is trying to save Krypton by means of conquest rather than peace and science. We don't get the discovery of young Kal-el by Johnathan and Martha Kent, but we do get to see the legacy that they try to create for their adopted son. Ma Kent played by Diane Lane seems to have the greatest influence on Clark at a young age, but Costner's Johnathan Kent is the moral center of the film. He trains Clark to control his impulses, choose his battles and learn to understand good from evil. Costner is terrific as the kind of thoughtful and decent man that was exactly right for Kal-el to model himself after here on Earth. It may be the basic nature of the character, but Glen Ford was one of my favorite things about the 1978 Superman, and Costner lives up to that memory very well. His greatest moment involves saving the dog and his adopted son at the same moment. It is a moment undermined by the story structure.

The story of Clark's development is actually told through a series of flashbacks rather than in a linear narrative. This allows that part of the story to intrude at key moments in the film. We can understand a choice that gets made by a reference to an earlier experience. I understand that it is a creative story telling technique, but I think it undermines the emotional arc of the character.This is the beginning of the problems I had with the movie. The character of Clark Kent is introduced in intermittent sequences and just when we begin to relate to him, boom we're in another part of the story. Jor-el returns in electronic visual form at several points in the story and is almost as impressive as a hologram as he was as a real person. The reveal when Clark discovers his genetic father is undermined by the laying on of the Louis Lane story at that point. This movie is trying to cover a lot of territory so that by the end we will be caught up and ready for the confrontation with the forces from Krypton that threaten the planet. The presence of the flashbacks make the movie feel almost like a time travel story,because characters don't stay down and events change instantaneously. I got used to the experience but I still feel as if emotions are undermined by the way things get played out in the non-linear format.

General Zod was another thing about the movie that I liked. The character is played true to his genetic programming, and as a result, despite the heinous nature of his acts and plans, there is a logic to it that is understandable. Michael Shannon is not in over the top villain mode, his goal is actually a noble one despite the immorality of his means. The absence of the megalomania that drove Zod in the previous films will probably feel like a cheat and a let down to those wanting the face off between the two refugees to be more satisfying. It is a touch of consistency that when the confrontation is resolved, there is more mourning than there is satisfaction. This brings us to the major complaint I have about the film. It is serious. It is so serious that it drives most of the joy out of the movie. There is not really any humor, the love story is almost non-existent and there are no pieces of business that are designed for the audience to be entertained by a movie, everything is in aid of the story that has been created. When super beings engage in fisticuffs it is natural that there be damage. The damage of a single blow by one of the combatants however, is the equivalent of a 9/11 event. Buildings crash and collapse. Explosions rise hundreds of feet into the air. Thousands of people will be displaced and thousands more will die, even though we will not see them do so and the only sense of threat to humans that we get at this point is limited to five or six characters. I know it was cartoonish to have the bad guys flung into a Coke Ad in 1980, but the laughter was real and our sense of adventure was spirited fun. This movie makes the Herculean task feel exhausting. As a comparison, last year in "The Avengers" the attack that takes place in New York City is also massive in scale, but there are moments of humor, threat, relief and joy built into those sequences. Here Kal-el and Zod are brutally trying to off one another and the rest of the world be damned. Only in a final moment is there a hint of the humanity that is needed to make this confrontation work. It is a grim, realistic vision of a battle between super beings, but it is not much fun despite all of the spectacle.

There is are two references to Kal-el being Superman. One of them is partially muted, the other is the closest that they come to having a joke in the movie. Neither is satisfying. I think Henry Cavill is effective in the role, he looks the part and except for one moment of youth based ingratitude, that he quickly regrets, he is a noble character. In this film he has become the image of Superman that most people who like other comic book characters always fault him for. He is boring and mostly without fault. I know some criticized the 2006 reboot attempt for making Superman a bit of a loser. Yet, even a loser has some personality, our Superman here is nearly a cypher. We will be able to project what we want on him, but the story tellers are not giving us much to go on. This is a solid film with many qualities to admire. It is simply not the entertainment that I was hoping for. I liked it a lot, but any love I have is tentative at the moment. I may feel more passionately about it when I see it again. I don't use a rating scale for movies because I want people to understand why I feel a certain way about a movie, not just that it scores a certain number. When I post on The Lamb, a scale is required. If you want to see it, head over there and you can evaluate for yourself. If you are already buzzed to see the movie, then anything I have to say should not dissuade you. If you have no intention of seeing it, maybe I can get you to reconsider. The end of the movie promises more interesting things and a little more fun. I wish all of the movie had that going for it, but It has a lot of other things to recommend it for regardless.

Bond Posters Addendum

Another blogging pal has posted his own list of Bond Posters, and generously included my comments on some overlapping choices. If you get a chance, go by and visit, here is the link:

http://le0pard13.com/2013/06/12/ebm-oo7-posters-a-top-13-list/

Saul Bass Google/Doodle

Just in case you missed it last month.

The Internship

When I saw the first trailer for this movie, I was a little concerned. It looked like Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson were trying to survive on the vapors of past success. Time marches on for all of us and the idea of these two making a raunchy comedy seemed a little distasteful. As it turns out there is almost nothing raunchy about this. It enhances the story that these two are a little long in the tooth and it plays like a more straightforward comedy from the 1990s, with a newer subject but the same mixture of humor and heart that was so typical of that era. This is much closer to "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" than to "Wedding Crashers". As a result it is a fairly easy film to recommend to a wide audience. Last summer I could smell the stink on "The Watch", and I avoided it, this year, I was suspicious but I am really glad I did not turn my nose up at it.

The setup is something anybody of a generation from before 1990 will be able to relate to. The world has changed, and while you might have a good skill set, it may not be the one that anyone is looking for anymore.   Nick and Bill are sales guys who have a great personal touch but are antiques in the modern age of communication. It seems strange to think that guys like this are old school, but since that was the name of one of the early hits for Vaughn, maybe it is correct. This is basically a fish out of water story, and as such it comes down to how willing you are to believe that the fish can master a new environment. There are a couple of cheats just for laughs. I think guys in their forties are going to know who the X-Men are and would not fall for the joke that is teased in the trailer. One of them even makes a more current pop culture referent to "The Hunger Games". So they are not totally out of touch.  Someone savvy enough to do a Google Hangout for a job interview is likely to know of "Instagram". Other than a couple of short cuts like that the film manages to be pretty realistic in setting up the characters at the internship they manage to get with Google. Programming and engineering are not their strong suit and so the movie plays best when showing them struggling with the technical side of the job.

Everyone on their intern team becomes a dutch uncle, pointing out their weaknesses. There is a snotty rival team member who discourages one character so much that the obligatory plot complication in the last act seems pretty reasonable. Outsiders are vulnerable to self doubt, although the Vince Vaughn character of Bill, seems like the least likely of the two to give into it. Some good seeds were planted early on so it is not a complete contrivance. We get some nice background bits without having too much of the characters played by Rob Riggle and Will Farrell. Riggle gets enough screen time to be mildly disturbing but not so much that you wish the part was gone from the film. Farrell on the other hand, brings the movie to a complete stop in his brief time on screen. The scene is needed for us to believe that Wilson's character would go along with Vaughn, but Farrell does his usual scream acting. He seems to believe that louder is funnier. In fact it is just irritating. He has become a parody of himself instead of an interesting personality. Vaughn and Wilson are doing some of the same stuff they have done for years but they freshen it up, and actually try to make it work for the story. It is an interesting contrast in the development of their careers.

I'll tell you who this film will not work for: hipsters. It is too conventional and the characters are too grounded to satisfy the desire for the new and innovative. I on the other hand appreciate a story that is well crafted, even if it is derivative. The construction of a good meal starts with solid ingredients, and a good recipe. Sometimes people don't want the ravioli with chipolte tomato bisque and goat cheese. They want a simple ravioli with a good meat sauce. It may not be as inventive but it will go down well and it is usually a lot more satisfying. If you hate movies that you can see the story arc from a mile away on, than you should skip this. If you like a movie that tells a fun story and is well performed and very entertaining, than this is right up your alley. Wilson is his usual surfer burnout persona, but it was used very nicely here. Vaughn is the emotionally driven cheerleader type, but it was limited to reasonable doses along the way. The "Flashdance" inspiration story is not nearly as irritating in the film as it was in the trailer, so don't be scared away. The Google connection is the biggest product placement component I have seen since FedEx in "Cast Away". You can't get around it, and while it looks like it might be interesting, it also makes me a little squeamish. The work environment feels just a couple of steps away from "Stepford", where everything is perfect.

This film was so much better than I thought it was going to be. It is a conventional comedy, and that was the biggest surprise. The script and story are largely a result of Vince Vaughn's work, and he is not swinging for the fences. He is trying to keep the game going by getting a hit and he manages a solid double. I can't say that everyone will like it, it may be a little staid for younger audiences, expecting filthy language, outrageous behavior and cutting edge humor. If you are looking for a pleasant evening at the movies, with a date or a friend, than "The Internship" will be rewarding enough for you. You will be glad that you applied and the experience will be worthwhile.

Furious 6 or Fast and Furious Six, or

I saw the original Fast and Furious in 2001. That was twelve years and five whole movies ago. It was a guilty Summer pleasure that did not stick with me for more than a minute or two. I do remember that it was the last time I went to Universal Studios, right after the 9/11 attacks, because the cars from the movie were on display. Nothing fancy, they were just sitting there. OK, that was kinda cool for two minutes and then I moved on. It appears a lot has happened in the last ten years, the movies are now heist films, the good guy from the first movie is now a member of the criminal gang, and Dwayne Johnson has had some dealings with them in the past as some kind of U.S. Federal agent. That last part works out well for me because I like the former "Rock". He is an action star with some charisma.

It does not work out as well for Vin Diesel. I have no problems with him except that he is incredibly unexpressive in this whole movie. His tone of voice never varies, I don't remember any facial expression that could be described as more than a slight smirk, and he has a whole bunch of ponderous lines he has to read. Johnson by comparison is full of attitude, the voice changes from scene to scene,  and he only does two or three incredibly silly, gravity defying action moves. Don't get me wrong, the flying headbutt that Diesel performs is fun, but it is also over the top ridiculous. This is Johnsons third big film of the Spring and he has not outworn his welcome yet. Diesel on the other hand needs a cup of Joe and some Benzedrine. I saw the trailer for the Riddick movie coming out later this year, he looks sleepy in that also.

"Furious 6" features a returning cast member who was apparently presumed dead. She now has to be recovered and a strategic genius rogue British Special Forces guy has to be defeated. We open the film with a car race. There is a car race in the middle of the film pitting Diesel against his old amnesiac girlfriend. The film ends with a car race in Tokyo. In between the car races are car chases. The primary difference between the two types of car activities seems to be that the crashes are deliberate in the chases.  If you are not into car chase shots and racing motifs, you should skip this movie (and hell why would you even have thought of seeing it in the first place?). Although it is set up as something of a heist film, there is only one element that fits that bill and it is mostly buried in the big car chase that involves a tank. I like cars well enough, but I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a gearhead. They don't really talk much about the cars or show why one might be better than another, and it seems that they will have an endless supply to crash as the movie goes on.

There are a half dozen or more "good guy" characters to keep track of, and an equal number of villains. I suppose we have met some of Diesel's crew in the earlier films, I'll just accept them as they are and treat them like the established characters in any continuing series. I did not feel any particular affection for any of them, and there was only one scene where Johnson and one of the crew take a little revenge on a snooty car broker, that had much comedic value. This movie could use a stronger plot for the villain, and better dialogue for the secondary characters. It could also be tightened up by about twenty minutes. Some of the chases go on way to long. Instead of a breezy 90 minutes it is a ponderous two hours plus. Nonsense works best when it is brief and to the point. This movie is of course complete nonsense. That does not mean it isn't fun. I had a pretty good time, even though I was frequently lost in all the car chases trying to figure out which set of cars was chasing what other set of cars. No one seems capable of dying in a car crash, and they all appear to be the worst marksmen in the world. That's OK because then they can race again a little while later.

I did like the character of Gina Carano, as Johnsons sidekick. She is a tough looking but attractive woman who looks great fighting.  I saw her in "Haywire" last year and she should definitely be doing these action kinds of films. Her character is wasted in a plot line that was not necessary and is a contrived cliché. It does appear however that in the next movie, we will get a different kind of kick ass character. I don't know if there is some story line I missed in the previous movies, but it looks like "Handsome Rob" is going to be an antagonist in the next film and that short burst of charisma he injects in the film at the end makes the villain in this movie look tepid.