Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Cap Is Back!

I have thought all weekend, trying to figure think of something I didn’t like about “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (hereafter referred to as Cap 2).  I was mostly unsuccessful.  And considering that it took me so long to come up with anything at all, that tells me that my gripes really didn’t matter to my enjoyment of the film.

First off, the things that were great:  the action, the characters, the costumes, the story, the pace, and the aesthetics of the end credits.  In short, everything.

There was a lot of action in this movie.  I hope that’s not news.  Lots of hand-to-hand combat.  A few car chases.  A decent number of explosions.  Some shooting.  And, of course, Cap’s shield flying and ricocheting all over the place.  Several different fighting styles were exhibited, all of which were very cool to watch.  I have to say that, compared with the first movie (hereafter referred to as Cap 1), the action in Cap 2 was a step up.

One of the things that was great about Cap 1 was that the fighting styles were fairly conventional—true to the era in which it took place.  Of course, Captain America and the Red Skull, as super soldiers, were stronger and faster than normal men.  That made it so that the fight scenes they had with each other and otherwise had some moves that were less common.  For Cap 2, Cap’s fighting style changed, which is fitting for his having spent time in the modern world training and running operations.  I really liked how well he incorporated his shield in his fighting, both offensively and defensively.  I also loved that he wasn’t dependent on it.

Another thing that I liked was how Black Widow’s fighting style has been consistent from “Iron Man 2” to “The Avengers” to Cap 2.  So often when characters cross over several movies, each with a different director, they change with the movie-makers’ visions.  That hasn’t been the case so far with any of the Marvel movies.  I think that’s one of the things that makes them so enjoyable and re-watchable.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, action scenes in many movies these days can be very frenetic and confusing, especially in close quarters.  But in this movie, there were only a couple bits that were unclear to me.  On one occasion, I wasn’t sure if it was good guys pointing guns or if it was bad guys.  And on another occasion I thought it was one character who got knocked out of the way, but it turned out to be another.  That’s one of the two complaints I had with the film.

The characters were well done.  The interplay between Cap and Black Widow was a lot of fun.  The new characters, especially Sam Wilson, were great additions to the cast and the story.  Of necessity, not many of the characters from Cap 1 made it to Cap 2.  But the few (4? 5?) that did were consistent between this movie and the last.

Captain America is my second favorite comic book super hero.  And right now it’s a close second.  Chris Evans’ portrayal of him in the movies is excellent.  The character is a genuinely good man.  He’s uncompromising in his morals.  He’s selfless and willing to walk the talk.  But he’s not too perfect.  There’s evidence of a temper on occasion, and he can come off as a bit self-righteous.  But the good far outweighs the bad.  I also appreciate that the writers haven’t tried to down-play his goodness or make it look like those are undesirable qualities.  That’s kind of refreshing.

One of the challenges about bringing comic books to live-action movies is making the ridiculous look reasonable and the far-fetched seem feasible.  For example, one of the villains in the movie is named Batroc.  In the comic’s he’s called Batroc the Leaper.  (When you see the movie, you’ll see why.)  He’s always (since I’ve been aware of him) seemed a bit silly to me.  But watching his fight scene with Cap was a lot of fun!  Very acrobatic, and not silly at all.

Another character that made a very successful transition was Sam Wilson, the Falcon.  Frankly, his costume in the comics is stupid.  It is very different in the movie, and a vast improvement.  Not to mention completely awesome!

I enjoyed the story: the twists and turns.  It has been described as a political thriller, and I think that fits well.  There were some things that I saw coming, and others I was blind-sided by.  However, the second thing I perceived of as a flaw in this movie had to do with the story.  It’s a pretty big spoiler, so I won’t go into specifics.  But it has to do with revealing secrets that could have an impact on national security.  I understand why the story went in the direction it did, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it whole-heartedly.

The pacing was good, too.  The intense action was balanced by periods of calm, allowing the audience to catch its breath.  But it didn’t feel like they stopped the momentum.  They did well to progress the story without making it drag.

There were also little things that were nice touches.  One, mentioned in the beginning of this post, were the aesthetics of the end credits.  The title of the movie was done in the font of the comic book title from a couple years ago.  I also liked that it was minimalistic silhouettes and just three colors: black, white, and red, symbolic of Cap’s world view as well as a color associated with the second title character of the film, the Winter Soldier.

In summary, this movie was awesome!  I cannot wait to be able to add it to my movie collection!

Various and Sundry - Playing Catch-Up

Over the past several months, there have been a few movies that I’ve seen that I never wrote posts for.  I thought I’d take this opportunity to write short reviews for them.  At least one of them is already out on Blu-Ray/DVD, but there are others that are more recent.

 

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”

Of the books that this series is based on, I thought the first one was the best.  However, in my opinion, this second movie was better than the first one.  It followed the book really well, but there was something about it that also improved on the original format.  Some of that had to do with the casting, which I thought was one of the best thing about the first movie.  Some of it had to do with who well the film-makers’ vision matched my own.  I loved seeing the costumes the book described come to life.  One of my favorites was Effie’s poodle look early in the film.

One of the movie’s weaknesses is that it spent so much time on the pre-Hunger Games segment, that there were things I thought important that were left out of the Hunger Games bit.  At the same time, there were parts left out of the first part, too.  That isn’t much of a surprise, though.  It’s never possible to include everything.  Otherwise, movies would be about 10 hours long instead of 2 or so.

Over all, I thought that the movie was well done.

 

“I, Frankenstein”

Do not bother with this one.  I wasn’t expecting much from it, and I was disappointed.  Some of the special effects were okay.  The look of one of the groups, the Gargoyles, was actually pretty cool.  But the other group, the Demons, looked cheap.  I think most of the time they were just actors in masks—and really bad masks at that.  There were a lot of inconsistencies and logic errors in the story.  The acting wasn’t great.  Almost none of the characters were likeable.  I wanted to root for the title character, but I had a hard time doing it.  He just wasn’t a nice guy—and he didn’t make any effort to be.  Mostly he was miserable and angry, with no desire to be anything else.

 

“Divergent”

This one suffered from the book it was based on.  The book wasn’t the best I’ve read recently.  I picked it up because I saw a preview of the movie.  But the book never felt like it got started.  And its main character/story-teller was a rather weak character.

My favorite character from the book, Four, was my favorite character from the movie.  But most of the other characters were shallow and boring.  Maybe it has to do with one of the major premises of the book: that everyone is divided into one of five different factions, each based on one character trait.  Four mentioned, in the book and the movie, that he didn’t want to be just one thing.  Instead, he wanted to have all of the qualities.  He had layers.  Part of what made the main character, Tris, “special” was that she could have fit in several factions.  Most of the time, though, it seemed like she couldn’t decide if she was timid or bold.

I didn’t have any complaints related to the movie that didn’t have something to do with the book.  The casting was pretty good.  The costuming wasn’t too bad.  But, unlike “Catching Fire”, “Divergent” failed to improve upon its source material.

 

“The Lego Movie”

This one was so good!  I was deceived by the mediocre preview, so I wasn’t all that excited about it.  In fact, I didn’t see it until it had been in theaters for about a month.

I loved the humor of it.  It was surprisingly both clean and clever.  I loved the silliness of it!  And it had great themes and messages.  I appreciated that the rebellious “Master Builders” had weaknesses (lack of unity and team work), and that they needed the very average Emmett to succeed in their objective.  Emmett had qualities that they needed: inside the box thinking and the frowned-upon ability to follow directions.  I like that, ultimately, neither of those qualities were bad.

Also, incidentally, Will Farrell is a much more entertaining voice actor than a live-action actor, in my opinion.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Is Tolkien Rolling Over in His Grave?

Like just about every movie I write a review on, I saw “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug” (just “Smaug” after this) twice.  The second time, I saw it with my family.  Afterward my mom and I were discussing it, and we came to the easy conclusion that there wasn’t a lot of the story that was straight from the original book.  There were quite a few embellishments.  I didn’t think that was a bad thing.  My mom, though, is sure that J. R. R. Tolkien is rolling over in his grave.

The first installation of this Hobbit movie trilogy, “An Unexpected Journey” (“Journey” hereafter), had many extras as well.  I’ve read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings several times.  I also read The Silmarillion once, though I really struggled to get through it.  I haven’t tried reading other Middle-earth history, so I don’t know how many of the additions in the movies are cannon and how many are inventions of Peter Jackson and company.  One thing that’s sure, however, is that nothing from the novel has been left out!  Beorn; the spiders and the Elves of Mirkwood; the escape from the Elves; Lake-town and Bard; and the dragon Smaug were all intact (with some enhancement in several cases).

As for additions (without spoiling too much), Legolas was featured in “Smaug” along with another elf that didn’t exist in any Tolkien works, as far as I am aware (Evangeline Lilly did a great job in that role).  Gandalf’s solo adventures were also featured.  Some of the Dwarves were fleshed out in ways that they never were in the book.  That, to me, is a very welcome elaboration because I don’t remember any of them, except maybe Thorin, having much of a personality in their original format.

My feeling about the additions to the story is that either they are meant to make “The Hobbit” more of a prequel to “The Lord of the Rings” than the book really was or to make the story more exciting and approachable for modern audiences.  I don’t think either of those purposes is bad.

 A year ago, I really enjoyed “Journey”.  I liked the hair and costuming of the Dwarves.  I liked the relatively light-hearted feel of the movie (in comparison to the tone of “The Lord of the Rings”).  I enjoyed Radagast the Brown.  The special effects were well done (ugly trolls, creepy goblins, and scary orcs!).  But one of my favorite things about “Journey” was Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins.

All of that is still true for “Smaug”. 

I remember having The Hobbit read to me as a kid.  I also vaguely remember a cartoon version of the book.  From those two sources, my vision of Bilbo was a chubby little guy.  That description doesn’t necessarily fit Martin Freeman (though movie magic makes him hobbit sized).  Freeman is a good deal skinnier than the Bilbo I pictured from my memories as a child.  But that doesn’t seem to matter.  He does such a great job of bringing the character to life that the nay-saying voice in me is hushed and I just sit back and enjoy what’s on the screen.

One of the gripes that I’ve heard about “Journey” was that it dragged in places.  Personally, I didn’t think it did.  But if “Journey” was a little slow on occasion, “Smaug” picked up the pace.  There was a lot more action and peril in this latest installment, but it still managed to feel lighter than the “Lord of the Rings” movies.  Martin Freeman’s Bilbo was a big part of that lightness.

Smaug himself was amazing!  The level of detail in his animation was mind-blowing to me.  (Of course, we might look back in a couple years and wonder why we thought it was so well done.)  Benedict Cumberbatch is a perfect choice for his voice.  He really does a great villain!  (As an aside, that might actually be why he’s so good as Sherlock Holmes in “Sherlock”.)

In summary, many of the additions to the story of The Hobbit may not be part of the cannon of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, but I think they fit well with the original work.  If Tolkien is rolling in his grave, I hope it’s with delight and not with disappointment!

Thor: The Dark World - Illogical Villains, Heavy-handed Heroes, and Funny Science

WARNING:  SPOILERS AHEAD

I’ve been avoiding this post, and I think I finally figured out why.  Hopefully the reason will become clear as I write.

I saw Thor: The Dark World (hereafter TTDW) on opening day, like I do most of the movies I go to see.  Ever since then I’ve been debating with myself whether I liked it or not.  I eventually had to see it a second time to decide.

There are a lot of things in its favor.  It was visually pleasing (always a plus for me).  There were elements of humor reminiscent of the first move, but they weren’t overwhelming (another good thing).  One of my favorite characters from the first one, Heimdall, had more of a part (he’s a favorite because I really like Idris Elba and the character design is really cool).  Finally, Tom Hiddelston as Loki has so much fun with his character that you can’t help but like him even though he is undeniably a bad guy.

The cause of my consternation was two-fold.  First, the villains don’t make sense to me.  Second, elements of the story seemed like thinly veiled references to semi-current events having to do with the United States and terrorism.

The bad guys in TTDW were a race of people called dark elves.  They existed before light, so before the universe.  Their intent was to destroy everything so that they could go back to their previous existence.  Perhaps it’s my failure of imagination, but I can’t get my head around how existing before light would work.  For one thing, I don’t understand why they have eyes if they came about before the advent of light.  Also, why would their ships emit light if they’re that against it?  I know it’s a lot to ask, but I like my bad guys to have some logic behind them.

There were things about the dark elves that I really liked.  Their design was very appealing to me.  And, in spite of my above gripe, I really liked how their ships moved.  Also, one of their more devastating weapons actually made sense for them.  It was sort of a mini black hole grenade.  It made me think that whoever came up with the design of it was actually thinking about what kind of weapons a race that hates light might develop.

The other thing that bugged me was what I perceived as parallels between Asgard and the United States and between the dark elves and terrorists.  I don’t pretend to be up on current events.  Most of what I get is tidbits on the news that makes it through my protective wall of escapist entertainment and portrayals I see within said escapist entertainment (NCIS and NCIS: LA).  So here’s my admittedly frail (and over-simplified) perception of how the US and terrorists are seen:  the United States is a heavy-handed, self-appointed peace keeping nation and organizations such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda use tactics like suicide bombers and such.

The beginning of the TTDW showed a war between Asgard and the dark elves.  The dark elves created a devastating weapon that had the potential of wiping out the universe.  The Asgardians managed to take it away, hiding it in a place that was nearly impossible to get to and effectively neutralizing the threat.  In a last ditch effort, the dark elves crashed their ships into the Asgardian forces, sacrificing themselves in an attempt to destroy their enemies.  The Asgardians were portrayed as heavy-handed peace keepers.  The dark elves were portrayed, essentially, as suicide bombers with the dark elf leaders making their escape to hide until the time was right.

That beginning somehow made the heroes (Asgard) less likable to me.  And because of what I saw as parallels to the United States, it felt like an attack on my love of country.  And instead of being able to root for the entire nation of “good guys”, I had to mentally back a small group of “traitors”: Thor and his friends.  (As an aside, one of his friends uses a rapier-like weapon.  Against heavily armored foes, that weapon makes absolutely no sense!)

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mind some tarnish on my good guys.  It makes them more believable and, when done right, more likable.  But in this case, the tarnish was too much, and that was another attack on my love of country.  I know that the United States is not perfect.  But I believe that the world would be worse off if we hadn’t acted in many situations.

This post is ending up a whole lot more political than I’m comfortable with.  I think I need to switch gears.

Another minor gripe that I have is about the funny science.  The movie didn’t explain it well, which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.  Good thing in that it wasn’t botched worse than it was.  Bad in that I couldn’t follow what was explained.  But it was a comic book movie, and I tend to give those more leeway on funny science.  So while it was a negative, it was one I could live with.

In conclusion, if I could figure out a way to turn off my brain, I think I would have liked TTDW a lot more than I did.  Like I said at the top, it was visually very appealing.  The character designs were really cool.  And Idris Elba and Tom Hiddelston were great!  (What does it say when your two favorites are a minor character and a bad guy?)  And, in spite of the illogic of the dark elves, the  attack on my love of country, and the poorly done science, it was a watchable movie.  The first one was better, though.

Ender's Game - Book vs. Movie

It has to be a difficult task to make a movie based on a widely-read book.  Sometimes it turns out well, but often, it doesn’t.  Peter Jackson did a great job with “The Lord of the Rings”, and I really enjoyed the first installment of “The Hobbit”.  The translation of the Harry Potter series from written word to live action was well done, too.  “The Twilight Saga” (while not exceptional in either form) was a true and faithful adaptation of the books, though some of the casting left a lot to be desired.  And, with the exception of a few changed plot points, “The Hunger Games” was probably one of the best movies based on a book that I’ve read.

Then there are the ones that don’t turn out so well.  (I’m having a hard time coming up with examples, because I don’t have any in my movie collection…)  But, in my opinion, one of them was “Ender’s Game.”

There are several challenges to making a movie based on a book that I can think of.  First, people who have read the book have their own ideas about how the setting and the characters look.  Another is deciding what to keep in and what to leave out.  Sometimes a decision has to be made about plot points that need to be added or completely changed to make the transition from the page to the screen work.  With ever decision and every change, there’s a risk that fans of the original form of the story will be upset.  There has to be a balance between the familiar and the different.  There’s a threshold at which people who know the book become too disappointed with the film.

As a medium, live action film has a lot of limitations.  For example, the viewer is chained to the vision of (essentially) one person—and that person isn’t likely to be the viewer.  Also, the way to get into a character’s head is mostly restricted to emoting and dialogue.  Then there’s the time constraint.  In general, a book has to be stuffed into a 2-3 hour time slot.  Finally, there’s the acting ability of the cast.

In my opinion, “Ender’s Game” failed in all but one of those categories.

The good:  The set designs were amazing; the adults in the film were really well cast; and a lot of the important plot points were preserved.

The look of the movie was magnificent.  I loved the design of the ships, the planets, and other sets I can’t mention without spoiling things.  I liked that there was at least some attempt to think 3-dimensionally in zero-G.  I also liked how the technology worked—typing out letters, manipulating screen views, etc.  It seems like it was taking where our technology is now and progressing it farther into the future in a logical and believable way.

The younger cast was somewhat of a disappointment to me, but I thought that the adult cast was very good.  Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Ben Kingsley were fabulous.  Their portrayals of their characters were spot on.  I have no complaints on that front.

Sacrifices always have to be made when making a book into a movie.  That’s understandable.  And, even though I thought more could be left in, I think that the essential parts of the story were there.  That doesn’t mean that I think that they were well presented (as I’ll get to later), but I’m glad that the major parts of the story survived intact.

The bad:  The portrayal of the main character was VERY different from how I imagine him to be; most of the book is the main character’s internal observations and musings, and not many of those made it into the film; and the movie moved way too fast.

I understand that you really can’t have a six-year-old (the age he is at the start of the book) in the role of Ender Wiggin for a movie.  Six-year-olds just don’t have the acting ability needed.  It would also be really hard to get a six-year-old actor age five years (the time span of the book) from the start of the movie to the end of it.  So I’m mostly okay with a young teenager or a tween in the role.  My gripe is that the actor cast for the role of Ender was way too tall.  He was too much arm and leg.  And his portrayal of the character was not at all how the Ender in my imagination was.  He wasn’t strong enough.  And I don’t mean physical strength.  I’m talking about strength of personality.

In an interview at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, Orson Scott Card, the book’s author, was quoted as saying, “Ender’s Game is an ‘unfilmable’ book, not because it’s too much violence but because everything takes place in Ender’s head.”  (Melissa Young, “Orson Scott Card Talks About ‘Ender’s Game’ Book and Movie”, Neon Tommy, April 20, 2013.)  Some attempt was made to take us into Ender’s head with body language and dialogue, but it didn’t feel quite the same.  I suppose the filmmakers did the best they could with their chosen medium and style, but it didn’t do the book or the character justice, in my opinion.

Finally, I thought that the pacing was way too fast.  Elements of Ender’s progression were there, but he moved from one thing to the next with superhuman speed.  It didn’t seem like he had enough time to really learn.  So many of the events of the book were left out.  I understand that, as packed as the book is, things had to be left out.  But these days, a 2 ½ or 3 hour movie isn’t unheard of.  I think more of Ender’s story could have been told, and I was left dissatisfied with the amount that wasn’t.

So while there was some good in the movie, I thought the bad outweighed it.  I think the best thing about this movie is that it is likely inspiring more people to read the book—which is excellent!

Monsters University - Pixar Flix Aren't Just for Kids

Pixar is magic.  Over and over again they come up with characters and stories that are fun for audiences of hugely varying ages.  The worlds they create are beautiful and imaginative.  Their characters are original and relatable.  Out of fourteen films, there has only been one dud (Cars 2).  A batting average of 0.929 isn’t too shabby!  In my opinion, Pixar is the standard when it comes to animated movies.

I think that part of the appeal is that they are accessible and enjoyable to a wide variety of audiences.  They are bright, colorful, fun, and funny to little kids.  They are cool enough for teenagers.  And they’re clever enough to keep adults interested and entertained.  They truly are family movies.

Monsters University was no different.

Here’s why this movie appealed to me as a more “mature” viewer:

1.       It gave me credit for having seen Monsters, Inc.  It rewarded me with plenty of in-jokes that would only be truly appreciated by someone who was familiar with the first movie.  Yet it was still inviting to people for whom Monsters U was their first foray into the Monster’s world.  There was enough reminder of (or introduction to) the concept of the Monsters without being too much.

2.       It took character stereotypes and made them funny.  This isn’t too much of a spoiler (I hope), since the title of the movies is “Monsters University”, but the setting is largely on a college campus, with all that entails: professors, various types of students, roommates, and fraternities and sororities.  The concept of the jock, the frat boy, the nerd, etc. aren’t new or original, but they were so well done in this movie that they worked!  And there were some other characters that weren’t quite as typical, too, to balance it out.

3.       The attention to detail and the set and character designs were gorgeous!  As I’ve said before, part of the pleasure of watching animated movies for me is the look of the film.  CGI movies have come a long way since Toy Story was released in 1995.  Pixar has always been on the forefront of the industry in terms of animation quality.  Watching Monsters, Inc. on an HD TV last night, I saw that the characters and the sets didn’t mesh as well as they did on older, less advanced screens.  That wasn’t the case with Monsters U.  From the lighting to the backgrounds, the textures and the colors, this was eye candy from start to finish.

4.       One of my pet peeves with a lot of “kids” movies is that the message of the story is heavy handed, immature, or even faddish.  With the exception of WALL-E’s overt environmentalist slant, Pixar has avoided that.  That trend continued in Monsters U.  The themes were relatable and well integrated with the story.

There were other things that I really liked about the movie, but some fall into the realm of spoilers, which, despite the title of this blog, I’m trying to avoid.  Hopefully it’s already understood that this is a prequel, and so it takes place before Monsters, Inc.  Related to that, it was fun to see the development of the relationship between Mike and Sully, the two main characters.  I was also pleased with the subtle changes to their appearances to make them look younger.  The voice acting was great!  The cast did an amazing job.  Helen Mirren brought her character to life in a way that, even though the character is an antagonist, made her one of my favorites.

Monsters University was well worth the price of admission.  It is worthy of the Pixar label.  And it is another of summer 2013’s great sequels.

Despicable Me 2 - Something's Missing

This summer (and probably most summers to come) has been and will continue to be full of sequels:  Iron Man 3, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Monsters University, Red 2, The Wolverine, and Despicable Me 2 are all movies that I’ve seen or will be seeing this summer that involve returning characters and universes.  I’ve already written about Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness, both of which were really good sequels (yes, time and distance have made me fonder of IM3.)  I haven’t written about it yet, but I also thought that Monsters University was done very well.

That brings me to Despicable Me 2 (hereafter referred to as “DM2”).  Over all, I thought it was a cute story with a decent (not too overt) message.  The character designs were fun to look at.  The voice acting was well done.  The minions were hilarious!  But some of the elements that I enjoyed about the first movie were missing from this one.

First off, there was a distinct lack of inventing and building in DM2.  Gru still had gadgets, but they didn’t seem very original, and anything that was new seemed rather basic.

Second, he wasn’t really competing with anyone.  This is probably a major reason for the dearth of new machines and plots on Gru’s part.

Third, while the girls definitely had a role in this movie, they didn’t seem like they were as big a part of it as they were in the first one.

DM2 was definitely a sequel in that it didn’t spend much time re-introducing characters.  It was a stand-alone story, not depending on the first movie for anything except the characters themselves.  In that regard, I would suggest watching (or re-watching) the first movie before going to see DM2.  On the other hand, I’d only seen Despicable Me once, but I had no trouble stepping back into the world of Gru and company.

For me, a lot of what makes an animated movie enjoyable is the look of it.  I’m not all that fond of the designs in DreamWorks movies because all of the characters look the same to me.  Pixar does it right, though, with a seemingly endless variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and textures.  DM and DM2 were done by a company called Illumination Entertainment (part of Universal Studios), and they have taken a page from Pixar’s book.  I am especially impressed with the minions.  I mean, really, how many ways can you make yellow cylinders with arms, legs, eyes, a few hairs each, and mouths different?  And they all dress the same (for the most part), too!  And yet, if you pay attention, each minion is unique.  That’s impressive to me.

So while I didn’t enjoy DM2 quite as much as the original, it was still worth a watch.

(I’m starting to wonder if the length of my reviews reflects how strongly I feel about a movie…)