Chimpanzee (Movie Review)

Share

5 stars
Chimpanzee is a documentary film released by Disney. It was directed by renowned BBC nature film creators Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield. Only true specialists in this genre could have created such a sad yet inspiring and touching movie. This film features Oscar, a helplessly cute chimpanzee who has all sorts of adventures as an infant and small child chimp. Through the course of these adventures, his community is forced out of its habitat by another band of hungry chimps. The ambush is not without casualties and Oscar’s mother, who is still nursing, dies. At that point, Oscar loses weight and we gain empathy for him as we view firsthand how tough it is to survive as a child monkey in the wild. All hope seems lost for Oscar when the Alpha male of the groups “adopts” Oscar and fills a surrogate mother role.

This movie is a wonderful cinematic treat from beginning to end. We are shown panoramic views of forest waterfalls and several other breathtaking scenery. But that is just the backdrop for what this movie provides us. While we are entertained by a band of chimps learning how to use rocks as tools to open nuts, and other day to day activities, we learn about the life of these creatures. I kept thinking about how similar they are to us humans. While the chimps may not be waiting in line at their jungle medical group for an annual thyroid test, they are good at self-preservation in other ways. They overcome their own frailty living proudly and robustly. Whether it is how Oscar nurses or how Freddie, the Alpha male who adopts him, takes the grooming role for a younger male, I was moved by the activity captured on film. It reminded me of a simpler life where getting food is a daily challenge and yet no one in the community needs antidepressants. I think we have a lot to learn from out chimp friends. This movie will keep the attention of younger children while still entertaining the adults. It is a gem of a documentary in the spirit of “Oceans” or “Big Cats.” If you can, try to see it on the big screen. The cinematography and scenery match the quality of the story in this very special movie.

The Hunger Games (Movie Review)

Share

3 stars
More buzz is out on a famous bestselling book that was made into a major motion picture. Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games may end up rivaling Stephenie Meir’s Twilight Saga. It is expected to earn 250 million after this first weekend and by those terms it’s an indisputable success. It was directed by Gary Ross known for Pleasantville and Big. It stars Jennifer Lawrence as protagonist Katniss Everdeen and Josh Hutcherson as her love interest Peeta Mellark. There are a handful of other major actors which includes Woody Harrelson as Katniss’ coach, Haymitch Abernathy. When someone reads a book, she/he wants a personal experience. When someone watches a movie made from a book, it’s no guarantee they’ll have the same experience. My guess is the only people crying in the theater will be the ones who’ve read the book first.

I’m in a position to make that statement because my wife and son who I saw the film with have both read the Hunger Games. As for me, I had very little exposure to the story and characters. I had seen Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone a few years back and really appreciated her talent in that. Otherwise, they were the experts on the Hunger Games and I saw it with ignorant eyes. I found it well crafted and suspenseful but for me it lacked the backstory and character development to really move my emotions. My wife and son had a different experience. They loved it on a visceral level and to quote my wife she, “got everything she wanted” from the film adaptation of the novel.

The Hunger Games is a story about a government that places a select number of its citizens in a survivalist arena where only one emerges alive as the winner. They call this event the Hunger Games. It is meant both to punish the lower class for attempting to revolt and thereby entertain the wealthy, ruling class. Katniss volunteers to be in the bloody games in the place of her young sister who is selected by lottery. Once the players are selected, the majority of the movie consists of people killing each other off. The “players” hate the government and yet turn into murderers immediately upon beginning the games. There is a winner and after the win, the movie ends quite abruptly. Sequel anyone? Based on box office results, I think that’s inevitable.

Jennifer Lawrence delivers an entrancing performance. I really “believed” she was Katniss in the Hunger Games due to her incredible acting. There is really only one other actor who delivers a strong performance, Woody Harrelson. As Katniss’ coach he has relatively less screen time. Still, we have his backstory: he won the games at one time so we know he has killed and lived to tell about it. The rest of the characters are extremely flat with, again, little or no backstory. I assume there is more character development in the novel but when you have that many people killing each other, it helps to know why they think the way they do.

Are people truly that bent on living that they will kill to appease rulers and entertain the rich? I think these killings are rather gratuitous. There is one killing they did right: a little girl was killed, which was a horrendous act against a child. When her killer was taken out, someone in the audience cheered. I agreed with him. They gave a backstory, built up anger against a character’s actions and then killed her off. If all the killings were treated that way I would have liked it more. despite its shortcomings with me, The Hunger Games has wonderful cinematography and special effects. People who know the book well will probably like it more but most who haven’t will probably like this movie just for its action and fantasy.

John Carter (Movie Review)

Share

2/5
This movie was directed by Andrew Stanton, known for Wall*E and Finding Nemo. He took a giant step out into the adventure epic genre with this one. The question is: “should he have?” This is a Disney creation and as a result has state of the art graphics and cgi. It stars Taylor Kitsch as John Carter, a relatively new actor known for the TV series Friday Night Lights. Clearly he worked out with weights for the role. His character flexes muscles like the best action stars extant. Lynn Collins plays Dejah Thoris, the princess. She also “gives good flesh” onscreen. Let me just say, she looks really hot in her costumes. They cast her well. Make no mistake, it is a visually stunning piece in many ways. Unfortunately, the implausible plot and cheesy screenplay overshadow the visual triumphs of John Carter. I forgot it was 3D in about 15 minutes as its sorry plot just kept dragging on.

The character John Carter is a captain set in the Civil War and he appears to be running from all forms of duty. We are never told why but we do find out at one point his wife and daughter have been burned inside his home. Perhaps that is why he runs? Again, we are not told why. The movie is based on a beloved turn-of-the-century novel so I can only assume the book explains these things. The movie moves quickly from Earth to Mars leaving no space for explanation. John Carter comes into the possession of a pendant that transports him to Mars. Once there, he discovers he has a new ability to jump ridiculously high over long distances. This makes him a sort of hero among a colony of 12 foot tall beings that each have 4 human like arms and tusks. They are uncomfortably similar to the tribes in James Cameron’s Avatar only they are flesh colored. The even have their own language like the creatures in Avatar. Things happen and there are all sorts of special effects that go on. There is a dog-like creature that runs blindingly fast, I found this creature quite cool. However stunning everything may look in this movie, make no mistake that none of it makes any sense. The story is preposterous, even from a fantasy standpoint. I hoped against hope it eventually would make sense and engage me but it decidedly never did.

There is a princess and John becomes her savior. There is a gladiator scene where John is thrown to a set of giant white gorillas. John defeats the mammoth beasts. It then becomes a struggle for John to get back to his planet but he really has no motive to do so. He decides to become a Martian and marries the princess. The romance writing is terse and the characterization underdeveloped. The love between them is not believable nor is much of anything written in John Carter. I must say, I hardly even know how to be sarcastic about this movie, it’s like a poorly made scif-fi channel movie. Disney knows how to make hero/princess stories, shame on Disney for this one. Oh, and I must inform you that if you persist in your desire to see this movie after reading  … it is 2 1/2 hours long so be warned. For my wife and I out on a date, it was movie watching torture. This movie may appeal to some but for me, it was a real waste of 2.5 hours. Having said all that, I am sure Disney is already starting to plan the sequel. If they make John Carter 2, let’s hope it’s better than this.

Chariots of Fire (Movie Review)

Share

5/5
Chariots of Fire was directed in 1981 by Hugh Hudson, known also for Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes. It stars Ian Charleson as Eric Liddell, a devout Christian runner, and Ben Cross as Harold Abrahams, a dedicated Jewish runner. Watching the movie now, over 30 years later, one can identify an A-list class from both major and minor characters. This movie is based on a true story. It is called a drama, history, and sport movie by imdb.com. It’s one of those movies I liked so much I bought. It’s a story of running, endurance, and conviction. The signature music of Vangelis inspired many in my generation to run and to appreciate running. I’m a proud runner probably because I saw this film at age 11.

Chariots of Fire is about two rising Olympic champions: Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams who are driven by very different impulses. Liddell is an ardent missionary who cares more about “feeling God’s pleasure” when he runs that he does about winning trophies or medals. Abrahams on the other hand is overly ambitious about winning. He is in fact primal in his drive to win at any cost. There is a lot of development toward the climax but the most important point is when the Olympics are to be held on a Sunday. Liddell refuses to run due to his beliefs. This is where we see the conviction of a truly inspiring man displayed in real time. Because this is a true story, we feel the temptation we might have to run but Liddell refuses. It is an excellent conversation piece. What drives us? How do we define success? and What will we not do in out quest for that success?

This movie is a gem and a pride among movies. While I don’t share Liddell’s polarized worldview, I still admire his conviction and resolve. This movie tells me I should define success and answer the questions above for myself. I am always defining and redefining myself. Chariots of Fire reminds me that true success has to be self-defined. You don’t have to be a runner to enjoy this film, it’s for everyone. When I first saw it I was 11 years old. When the credits rolled, I got up to walk out of the row. My mother stopped me and motioned me back into my seat. I saw the eyes of my parents and siblings watching the credits in awe as they listened to the angelic music. I would later learn the theme song and play it in the house hundreds of time. This is truly a remarkable film in my collection.

Bambi (Movie Review)

Share

Bambi was released by Walt Disney Productions in 1942 as a full length animated movie. The supervising director was David Hand, known for Snow White. There were also 7 other directors of this early Disney film. The task of writing was shared by several as well. Among them was the supervising writer Perce Pearce, also known for Snow White. The voice talents, whose identities now are known on the internet and other sources, were uncredited in the movie. Bambi is 70 minutes long and was nominated for 3 Oscars.

It is the story of a baby deer who grows up alongside a cast of silly but speaking animal characters. The most memorable arguably is Thumper, a baby rabbit so-named for the way he stamps his feet. Bambi grows up learning from his friends and after a time, he loses his mother to a hunter’s bullet. This scene is done in a tasteful fashion so children will not be scared but it is meant to be sad. Bambi then meets his father and has to grow up without his mother. A series of events over time, including a horrendous forest fire and haunting thunderstorm, teach Bambi lessons of life and leave him with a measurable amount of maturity. His friends grow up with him and he finds love with Faline, a pretty young doe. The stages of life we experience with Bambi are delivered in a clear timeline that belies the dreamy style of the settings. It’s no wonder Bambi appealed to all ages and personality types at the ticket counter. Bambi clearly was made for a universal audience but it does hold some partisan and controversial messages. Around 70 years later, they hardly seem controversial but considering the time, they were.

Animation for the big screen was still in its infancy but Bambi help catapult it into a brave new world. It would signal an era where animated movies held moral messages. Watching Bambi now, it’s clear to see some moral and cultural trends of the times. It was a time of war and a time where men and women had clearly defined roles. It’s likely the Disney studio execs, especially Walt himself, had a hand in whether a scene or line made it in the final cut. Knowing that, I found a couple scenes surprising. For example, the hunting scenes. Birds and animals are being hunted and some are even shot in the movie. This was a movie aimed at kids. This may be indicative of the popularity of hunting at the time. The point of view of the camera demonstrates how inhumane the act of hunting is. This is an avant garde aspect of the film I think. During World War II, it was probably more popular to preach hunting than pacifism but this movie does. War might be considered a form of hunting. It was not a time like Vietnam where movies could open challenge war and the government. It had to be done subtly or a world that supported war and would not pay admission. All Disney movies have moral messages in them. This, being one of the first, is no exception. It’s interesting to identify the subtle moral signposts in Bambi.

Disney financed the movie himself and it was a hefty project to support. He believed in his vision and its legacy lives on today. It uses old methods of achieving cinematic effects with much success. For example, the thunderstorm sound effects are not actual storm sounds. They are mimicked evocatively with an orchestra and a choir. With regards to effects, less “technology” is more in Bambi. It is a movie I have purchased and I will take it out when I want to relive what the early magic of Disney.

Hancock (Movie Review)

Share

This is a repost of Will Smith as Hancock: Lacking Human Moments published first on Yahoo Voices Jul 16, 2008.
1.5/5
Will Smith’s movie “Hancock” is a superhero flick that struck me as lackluster at best. There are a few moments toward the end that worked but overall it was just a movie trying to win an audience through special effects.

In the beginning we find John Hancock curled up on bench in Hollywood, California. He’s clutching a bottle of booze much to the chagrin of a little kid urging him to go get the bad guys. This scene is wholly confusing and I found myself guessing that he was a well known bum with amazing powers. Sounds stupid huh? Well, I was 100% correct. In the first 2/3 of the movie we see Hancock go through rehab and do jail time. I kept hoping we’d get something to hold onto in terms of a moral, but it never came. I suppose one could justify that big chunk of the movie by saying it shows people should be responsible and stay in jail even when they have the superhero ability to break any brick wall down (or thick steel for that matter). I’m sorry but the morals here, which are always there in great super hero movies, are cloudy if not non-existent. This superhero movie had no morals and therefore slipped and fell most of the way through. Now, in the last 1/3 of the movie it recovered somewhat, at least in the morals department. We find out he has a wife he didn’t know about and he does a few things to save her life. Without giving away too much of the plot, I will just say this moral of “selflessness” is presented in the most cryptic way it takes a movie reviewer to glean it, at least that is this movie reviewers opinion. If I were to ask one of my kids what the moral is of the scenes between Hancock and his wife I have a feeling I’d get a blank stare.

Should superhero movies be that complicated?

The second area the movie flopped in my opinion was the lack of human moments. Ironically, superhero movies are great because they reveal the humanity through the characters. Not only did these characters lack endearing human qualities, they seemed one dimensional, like a storyboard that was never fleshed out with human characteristics. I found the characters flat and built to serve only the grossly overdone violence that never stops from the first scene. This movie has tons of CGI effects that are neat to look at but unfortunately they don’t carry the weight needed to become a great superhero movie like “the Hulk” or “Spiderman.” I am a big Will Smith fan, but unfortunately, not even Will Smith can save this colossal train wreck.

Hancock will be a good rental for kids that want to see things get destroyed or by drunks that find identification in going to jail to sober up. For the rest of us working class heroes that need good movies to inspire and propel us to do great things, this movie will fall on empty ears and desperately-seeking-for-more than “Hancock,” human eyes. Those eyes, in case the makers of Hancock are interested, want morals and human moments in movies, it’s what keeps us coming back.

The Vow (Movie Review)

Share

Article first published as Movie Review: The Vow on Blogcritics.
2/5
The Vow is a movie directed by Michael Sucsy, known for Deep Impact. It stars Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channng Tatum) as its main characters. It has been advertised as a romance flick. It nonetheless presents the difficult, unromantic topic of a brain injury. After a serious car accident where she goes through the windshield, Paige winds up in a coma. After some time, she wakes up unable to remember her husband Leo or any part of their relationship. Leo goes to great lengths to remind her of their life together with no success. His efforts leave her cold and she moves out to live with her parents. Much of the romance of this film is shown in flashbacks. We see what Paige and Leo were like before the accident. We don’t see Leo and Paige happy together throughout the movie as the promos suggest.

Sorry to disappoint the romance seekers but this is not a “feel good” movie. Still, it has some value on a date. Watching Paige leave Leo is uncomfortable. I kept wondering why she wouldn’t give him more time to try and win her back. After all, he did nothing wrong to deserve losing her. The question then becomes: should one keep the vow out of duty when feelings are gone? Watching poor Leo try to win Paige back may be a painful journey but it does raise interesting conversation.

Dating and marriage are popular subjects for movies. When a movie seems to have romance, some call it a “chick flick.” In this movie’s case however, the romance is rare so it doesn’t qualify. I’d call it a decent drama though because good dramas make you think. It reminded me of when someone broke up with me in real life. Others reading this may recall that same “punch in the stomach” feeling. The actual woman the movie is based on, Krickitt Carpenter, who said in a New York Post interview, “You make a promise before God with your wedding vows.” She seems to have a different view of The Vow than the director.  With respect to her and what she has been through, that isn’t a very romantic concept for a chick flick. This film has ads that look more like the Notebook than a brain injury study or otherwise religious film. To summarize my view, the Vow fails as a romance but is ok as a drama. If you watch it on a date, it can serve as an interesting conversation starter.

Movies I Liked so Much, I Bought Them

Share

Here is a list of movies I liked so much, I bought them! They span roughly from 1970 to present. The titles with links I have written movie reviews for. Remember, the list of movies I’ve seen and enjoyed is much longer than this. These are just the ones I enjoy watching over and over.

Listed by Movie Genre
Drama

  • Chariots of Fire
  • Les Miserables
  • Meet Joe Black
  • Hugo
  • A River Runs Through it
  • Bridge to Terabithia
  • Dan in Real Life
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  • Kramer vs. Kramer
  • The Black Stallion
  • Urban Cowboy
  • Serendipity

Comedy

Action, Thriller, Horror, Music, or Fantasy

Disney, Kids, Family, Animation (always good to have for the kids and grandkids)

  • How to Train Your Dragon
  • Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs
  • Pinocchio
  • Dumbo
  • Bambi
  • Cinderella
  • Peter Pan
  • Lady And The Tramp
  • Sleeping Beauty
  • 101 Dalmatians
  • Robin Hood
  • The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh
  • The Rescuers
  • The Little Mermaid
  • Beauty And The Beast
  • Aladdin
  • The Lion King
  • Hercules
  • Tarzan
  • Meet The Robinsons
  • Bolt
  • The Princess And The Frog
  • Tangled
  • Cars
  • The Incredibles
  • Mary Poppins
  • Monsters, Inc.
  • The Nightmare Before Christmas
  • Pete’s Dragon
  • Rango
  • Ratatouille
  • Toy Story
  • Up
  • Wall*E
  • Gnomeo & Juliet

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (Movie Review)

Share

Article first published as Movie Review: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close on Blogcritics.
2.5/5
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close was directed by Stephen Daldry, known for The Reader, Billy Elliot, and the Hours. It has been advertised as a stunning, avant garde movie centering on how the 9-11 tragedy affects one family. It centers around Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), a nine-year-old boy who is hell bent on discovering a remnant of his father’s past. His father is Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks), a jeweler, who dies in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The last remnant, as it were, he has left behind for his son is a cryptic key. Oskar finds in a vase in the closet after his father is dead. He is from then on driven and fixated on finding the lock that the key opens. This generates a plot of pseudo adventures meeting all sorts of people and devising all sorts of elaborate schemes along the way. What about the twin towers? That was my burning question most of the movie. Make no mistake: this film is not so much about 911. Instead it is more akin to a public service announcement for Asperger’s syndrome, or some garden variety diagnosis of a tortured genius nine year old. Oskar Schell apparently has license to scream horrible words at his mother, (Sandra Bullock) because of his unique disorder. He rolls on the floor, bangs his hands against furniture, and shows utter frustration when his “genius” ideas are thwarted. I could get into the unrealistic amounts of time he is alone to carry out his adventures but I won’t. I also won’t get into the ridiculous cussing exchanges (equally implausible) he has with the security guard (John Goodman) of his building as he comes and goes. I don’t think this movie is meant to be realistic, it’s up to something else. I am not sure I know what it is. It is definitely hard to follow. Fortunately, we can find some compassion for the boy and that held my interest for some of the film.

Of course, anyone would have sympathy for Oskar. He lost his father who was seemingly his best friend to the tragedy we now refer to as 9-11. Still, it doesn’t excuse his disdain for his mother and the strange fixations he leaps headlong into to find the origin of the key. Along the way, he meets a nice, quiet (mute in fact), man who rents a room from his grandmother. He is aptly called “The Renter” (Max von Sydow). He accompanies Oskar on his key expedition which is very difficult because the old man cannot speak. In a way, the renter is best suited to Oskar: he never talks back. The renter is Oskar’s long lost mute grandfather and ironically becomes the only voice of reason. In my opinion, Max von Sydow gives the most compelling performance in the movie. I must add also that there isn’t much competition.

Oskar is very taken with his own “clever” ideas and likes to tell people about them with every opportunity. His lines are annoying and they are delivered with an equally unsettling voice. There isn’t much more to the story than Oskar finding the lock for the key. The mystery’s end is not exciting and he doesn’t seem to advance much in is grieving process for his dad.

I think this movie failed to impress me because it was not about what it advertised. A movie can get away with that when it is such a powerful film you forget you were cheated by the ads. In my opinion, this movie used 9-11 as a “bait-and-switch theme to get people into the theater. There is only minimal reminiscing about the tragedy. On the other hand, the movie centers on Oskar who is not an emotionally well young man. We therefore have nothing to relate with. The boy’s actions are annoying and obtuse, he treats his mother atrociously. I can’t relate with how a kid like that sees his mother and the world. We want to relate with Oskar but the feelings never come. Then there is the theme of 9-11. We want to relate with that but it has such a small small place in the movie. I think it would have been better to either make a well developed movie about 9-11 -or- to make a movie with a decent script about Asperger’s syndrome. They didn’t do that though so what we are left with is a movie with an extremely long title and an incredibly flat plot. I was very let down by this movie and the way it promoted itself to be something it was not. If you like the actors, it is worth seeing. If you want to re-examine 9-11 or anything “real” about the grieving process, or Asbergers for that matter, stay incredibly far away from this one. While this movie may be extremely loud & incredibly close on one level, it is most decidedly not incredibly deep.

Hugo (Move Review)

Share

5/5
Article first published as Movie Review: Hugo on Blogcritics.
Sometimes a film comes along that I think of as perfect, not because it was made well or even acted well, but because it gave me a space in which to think clearly. These types don’t tell you what to think like so many modern ones try to. Hugo is about life and more specifically the role movies play in our lives.

When I first saw the previews for Hugo I thought it was a kid’s film about a rapscallion pre-teen who lived in a train station and called everyone “gov’na.” It isn’t that at all. Ben Kingsley’s character says when addressing his movie fans, “I address you all tonight as you truly are: wizards, mermaids, travelers, adventurers, and magicians. You are the true dreamers.” Are you one of those? If so, you’re who Hugo was made for.

Hugo is based on the bestselling book by Brian Selznick. It was produced by Johnny Depp and directed by Martin Scorcese. It’s about a 12-year-old named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a huge clock in a train station. His father was a tinkerer and repairman who died in a museum fire. He left his son a broken automatron, a sort of 1930′s version of a robot, and Hugo is determined to get it working. He thinks there is a message in it from his dad. He meets Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) a girl of his age who has a mysterious grandfather, Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley). He has a toy stand in the station and seems to despise Hugo for some reason. He is unusually cruel.

There is also a ruthless inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) with a Doberman and a leg brace who captures vagrants in the station. He sends them to jail or to the orphanage. He is a sort of lingering nemesis of Hugo throughout the movie, although he provides few scenes of subtle comic relief; I laughed out loud watching him try and pick up a woman.

The boy is on a quest to make the automatron work, and through the process learns a lot about the people in the station and Isabelle. There is a message here about the role of fantasy in our lives as well as the role of movies.

In conclusion, Hugo is a little slow in the beginning but the 1930s sets, costumes, and Parisian music makes the slow beginning worthwhile. When Hugo steals a croissant from a food cart you feel like you can taste it. The colors and attention to detail are so convincing, you feel like you are in the movie. The stalled action en principio is important in that it develops the characters. I really enjoyed Hugo. Once the ride began, I never wanted it to stop. If you want to go on a cinematic ride and be inspired, watching Hugo should be on your to-do list. I gave it 5/5 stars. Oh yeah, and if you love the history of movies, Martin Scorcese knows a thing or two about that! He certainly says it well in Hugo.