Captain America: Winter Soldier

Saw the movie this morning. It had a nice libertarian, don't-trust-the-government streak to it. It didn't explicitly say "we think Obama's kill list and drone strikes are bad, and people like Edward Snowden are good", but it sure didn't miss saying it by much. And the theme of "you get to choose between freedom with risk, or security with slavery" was explicitly stated. Cap's "I'm always honest", and the contrast with the villain, could be taken as a comment on our current administration (quite a few of our previous administrations, but it was made during this one). Lots of action, of course. A couple of fan-service shots of Black Widow but not obnoxiously so. Nice introduction of the Falcon. I saw this one in 3d; I'm likely to go see it again in 2D.

Movie Weekend

Diana is out of town this weekend so I've watched a couple of movies:

• Big Trouble in Little China. I was wondering how I missed seeing this when it was originally released, and the answer is that it came out in 1986 when I was in grad school. Kurt Russell and his buddy Wang Chi set off to rescue Wang's girlfriend McGuffin--er, Miao Yin--from the sorceror Lo Pan and his mini-bosses Thunder, Rain and Lightning. The great line, after they slay the villains and rescue the girl (and some other girls they run across along the way), is " We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?" This appears to be a reference to Job 26:11: "The pillars of Heaven shake and are amazed at His rebuke."
• The Warrior's Way. A Japanese warrior/assassin refuses to kill the baby who is the last surviving member of the enemy clan; he takes the child, fights his way through his clan's other killers, and goes to the American West. He starts a new life as a laundryman in a small town, taking care of the baby and befriending a young woman. However, outlaws come raiding. The hero must take up his sword again, but once unsheathed, the sword's lament draws the clan assassins who are hunting him. This one didn't have any notable quotes but it did have a good structure, with The Final Battle Against the Outlaws being interrupted by the Final Battle Against the Assassins.

Thor: the Dark World

Or possibly "The Rise of Loki" since Loki is a more interesting character.
The movie was entertaining. Thor was a good Norse God of Smashem Inna Face, not particularly clever but able to solve things by brute force + invulnerability + physical courage,  He didn't wrestle with tough moral choices; he did have to make one tough choice, but all the discussion on that one was "how do we pull this off", not "what will it cost us?" and "what if we're wrong?" The line from the trailer "Ask yourself: what would you sacrifice, for what you believe?" just didn't apply. Thor isn't, apparently, much given to worrying about consequences.
Other than that: I didn't find the villain's "Let's destroy all the worlds" motivation to be believable, although I think it could have been improved with a bit better writing; also, he apparently didn't care about his own people's casualties, which is a bit odd since that's all that's left of his whole species. The Asgardian flak guns and aero-boat fighters (with open decks....) were jarring, particularly since the Asgardian infantry only uses melee weapons. I think they tried to give too many people screen time; for instance, they could have eliminated Selvig and given all his "figuring out what's going on" functions to Jane, which would have made her less of a passive victory token and more of an active participant.
Still, it was fun.

Tonto and What's-His-Name

We went to the Beach Movie Bistro for opening night of The Lone Ranger, starring Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the masked man. I had high hopes, but it was weak. Too violent to be fun--one of the bad guys cuts out someone's heart, with lots of blood--but later on it's almost cartoonish, with the Spirit Horse casually standing on a roof, the madame with the ivory leg, and infinite-six-shooters. Tonto is eccentric-to-crazy, which is fine--eccentric people are more memorable than normal people--but he outshines the supposed main character.
The Ranger starts off bland and clueless, and never really gets a clue. When he tracks down a villain, he insists on "bringing them back to justice", but when he finds out that   the local political boss is in cahoots with the villain and no justice will be done, he doesn't really even think through the situation, much less come to any decision on what to do about it. He doesn't want to carry a gun. When he's persuaded to carry one anyway, he then doesn't want to shoot anyone; but when his first shot ricochets and kills two bad guys, he doesn't have any misgivings about it, nor does he rationalize why violence is sometimes necessary.  Overall, a wimpy character. There was no chemistry with the Love Interest.
Pass.

Van Helsing

I attempted to watch Van Helsing tonight, but...the acting, it burns!

Cowboys and Aliens

This was a movie with a reasonable story, and two stars who know how to act, and yet it flopped. There were some logic problems with it--for instance, how come only the one alien had a gun?--but nothing insurmountable. So why did it fail?

One fail factor was from the science fiction aspect. There was no opportunity to figure out and use the alien technology. There was no taking the fight to the aliens, other than that one ship; nothing would prevent the aliens from sending another ship. There was no epic moment when we felt the universe was much bigger than we knew. There were aliens, yes, but they were just after gold, and some shooting and some dynamite could fix that. There was no "wow" moment.

A second fail factor, and probably a more important one, was that, at the start of the film, nobody was especially likable. Jake had no sense of humor and didn't know who he was. Dolarhyde was a cold blooded cattle baron who didn't mind torturing people. Ella was a mystery woman with ulterior motives who never explained herself. Yes, we found out more about them as the film went on, but by that time you've spent two thirds of the movie with nobody to really like.

Men in Black III

The villain was villainous, the menace was menacing, the heroes were heroic; but somehow, it didn't quite gel. That may be the fault of a review I read beforehand, which led me to expect that the strong point of MiB3 would be that it was funny. I have no idea what movie that reviewer stumbled into. So my problem with the movie may be due to my erroneous expectations -- like biting into a piece of strawberry rhubarb pie, only to find out that it's roast beef.

Best part of the movie was Josh Brolin's performance as Agent K.

John Carter of Mars

I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie. It stuck reasonably close to A Princess of Mars (plus bits from some of the following books), and was done by people who took it seriously. And they managed to make it a complete movie, while still making it clear that there's more to come. Sab Than, the Zodanga jeddak, wasn't just a scoundrel, he was also fearless; Dejah Thoris wasn't just eye candy, standing around helplessly and waiting to be kidnapped, she could also fight and scheme (and in that sense reminded me of the princess in the Prince of Persia film).

Favorite secondary character: Kantos Kan, the Helium lieutenant who is "taken hostage". Generally a character in a movie is just a character in a movie, but Kantos Kan is someone I'd like to know.

The Man from Snowy River

The back-of-the-box blurb said "Kirk Douglas stars in as an ambitious rancher who's trying to find a fortune in unmined gold in the Highlands, while a young cowboy steals his daughter's heart." Clearly someone read a synopsis and assumed that Kirk Douglas was the hero, instead of the young cowboy who was raised in the Highlands.

My moment of enlightenment was realizing "ah, that's why the horse in the The Last Continent was capable of trotting up and down vertical cliffsides with aplomb."

Wild Wild West

I have to admit I had fun at this, although "admit" may be the key word here. It certainly wasn't a great movie. The chemistry between West and Gordon didn't work well--I think because we're used to Will Smith playing smart characters, and in this movie he was the action type while Gordon was the genius. Selma Hayek was there purely for eye candy; her character didn't really have anything to do other than stand around in a corset. Same thing with Bai Ling / Miss East. It looked like the story was setting her up to be an important character, and then it just fizzled. I'd like to have seen more of her, but after the fight in the plantation, she just stood around next to Loveless, doing nothing. The final fight scene was badly written; instead of taking on previously-established bad guys, West takes on a bunch of minions we've never seen before. On a 1 to 10 scale, it can't rate more than a three.
But nonetheless, I had fun.

The Last Airbender

This is one of the rare movies where the film is better than the previews make it look. That's not to say that it's a fantastic epic; it's constrained by trying to follow the source material, and it looks like it was intended to lead into a TV series rather than be a stand alone film. (I know that there is a series; I don't know which came first). But within those constraints, it's not bad. The magic effects were generally well done; the earth bending might have used a little more imagination, but the other elements were handled well. I liked the fight scene with Aang and the Blue Spirit. I liked the fact that there was friction within the Fire Nation; I'd have liked to see more of that within and between the other nations. I'd probably see the sequel.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

The idea was interesting, but the execution was lacking. It's an action film, but some of the action just doesn't make sense--it feels too contrived. My Suspenders of Disbelief were overstretched, so to speak. Jekyll was okay but why was Hyde such a nice guy? When did Nemo get to be a martial artist? Why blow up that much of Venice? How did the characters learn to drive cars? Why did the villain go to all that trouble when he had superweapons already? Given who the villain was, why would he say "There will be more like me"? Why did he move to Russia?

Further...in a good film, the characters have to make choices. Am I going to throw in my lot with the Rebellion even though it means I have to take a fighter to the Death Star? Do I want Buttercup bad enough to storm the castle when I can barely move? In this movie, though, each character (except Quatermain) got a couple of lines of token "why I'm fighting" at the beginning, but that was it. Not a lot of agonizing over "why are we doing this? Is this right or wrong?", not enough "I could give up and move to Cleveland but instead I'm going to risk my life to accomplish this."

It felt too busy, particularly during the fight at the Evil Fortress. We have a kind of climactic scene between one hero and the traitor, we have another one with Nemo and Hyde, we have another one with Quatermain...okay, I know you have to show why this character and that character and all are extraordinary, but it was just too much. Build up the climax, make it big and impressive, and be done.
But if you want a campy pseudo-superhero group in 1899 , this may be for you.

Tintin

We saw Tintin The Movie tonight. It was enjoyable, although nothing profound; in fact, that was the main problem with it. There wasn't much introspection, and what there was seemed a bit forced; there was no pondering of "why am I risking my life to do this?" There was plenty of action, though: "a few more thugs with guns hunting for our hero", and "yet another chase scene". There were a few inconsistencies or storytelling issues: why did they show Haddock shooting the dam, when it had so little effect? How did the tank get involved? Why did Sir Francis Haddock need to make a mysterious message to tell where the treasure was? But the animation was impressive.

Movies

Watched The Golden Compass and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

I'd heard The Golden Compass is pro-atheist and specifically anti-Catholic. The book may well be, but it didn't come across that strongly in the film, certainly not as blatantly as in V for Vendetta. The Big Evil Organization was apparently intended to be the Church but was actually rather more like your average Communist dictatorship. There is a certain irony to it: the author was preaching atheism because he was afraid the Church might act the way atheistic governments do. And of course there's the alethiometer, which is a mystical device, and only a few people have the esoteric knowledge necessary to use it; this reminds me of Gnosticism, or for that matter our "ruling elites" who "know what's best for us" because they've been to Harvard, or some such.
The film was watchable, once, but not memorable. I ended up feeling that the protagonist was in need of a spanking or two.

The Mummy was the third in the series; instead of taking place in Egypt, this one is set in China, with the terra cotta army, the Great Wall, and Shangri La making an appearance. I was disappointed that Rachel Weisz didn't play Evy this time around, but otherwise it was fine; not a life-changing epic, but a fun movie nonetheless.

The Three Musketeers (2011 version)

I can do no better than to quote Howard "Schlock Mercenary" Taylor:

Once we're done scrolling past a neat, toy-soldiers-on-map version of Europe, The Three Musketeers gives us a steampunk scuba diver emerging from the canals of Venice with repeating crossbows.

Okay, so it's going to be THAT kind of movie. I mean, if this is seventeenth-century Italy we can't even call the scuba rig "steampunk" because there aren't any steam engines yet.

Well, at least your expectations have been set. It's going to be THAT kind of movie. This isn't historical fiction by a long shot. It misses the romanticized historical mark by a wide margin as well. What you've got here is full-on, brass-balls to the clockwork-secret-passage-wall alternate history. And if you can make it past the waterproof repeating crossbows, you're in for a real ride.

Green Lantern

This was a forgettable film. Partly because the lead didn't bring much chemistry to the part; it's hard to believe he's actually a hero. Partly because there were no great lines; the best line we heard was actually in the trailer for another movie. Partly because the writers were confused as to who the villain was; was it the giant space octopus, or the guy on earth? And there's a pacing problem; there's the minor fight where he discovers his powers, another incident which is not all that challenging, and then the fight with the huge planet eating monster.

It wasn't a bad film, exactly. We didn't come out  of the theater saying "That was stupid!" or wishing we had our money back. It just wasn't very good.

Wild Bunch

We watched most of The Wild Bunch tonight. I say "most of" because I got tired of watching it; the cinematography was great, but the story and characters were not enjoyable. Apparently this is Peckinpah's best, which means I can skip anything else he did.

The Lost World

Watched the 1992 version of The Lost World, based on the Conan Doyle novel. Definitely not a high budget film, but fun. It's a classic pulp story, including romance between the Native Princess and the Intrepid Hero, and John-Rhys Davies does a good job as Professor Challenger.

On Stranger Tide

I read Tim Powers' novel On Stranger Tides roughly twenty years ago; I saw Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides tonight. The book was excellent, nominated for a World Fantasy Award as well as a Locus Award. The movie was okay, which means it was better than PotC 2 and 3. I'd hoped the movie would follow the book a little more closely, but the book was a pretty high goal to live up to.

The similarities:

• people were after the Fountain of Youth
• Blackbeard had magical abilities
• pirates and zombies were involved

Good points:

• Blackbeard was well played
• The missionary's part was well written
• The discussions of faith and redemption
• The mermaids were well done
• Jack asking the quartermaster
• Jack's solution to the fountain problem

Points that bothered me:

• the first escape / chase was a bit lengthy
• Penelope Cruz is attractive but not a powerful actress
• Jack and the lighthouse--why did that supposed to work?
• Why were mermaids in the script in the first place? What do they have to do with the Fountain of Youth?
• The treetop escape. I can live with movie physics to some extent, but this was ridiculous
• The ship with the chalices...that just screamed "Disney needs a new ride and this is it"

The movie wasn't something I'd want to see twice but it was a fun couple of hours. The best thing about it might be that it will lead more people to read the book.

The Aluminum Show

Diana and I went to see the Aluminum Show tonight. Ninety minutes. Two big pieces of aluminum tube meet, and shortly thereafter have a baby, which wanders off and gets lost. Half a dozen energetic dancers, usually with drums, do stuff, and then do different stuff, and then more stuff. They toss fifty or sixty big aluminized mylar balloons into the audience, and the audience bounces them like beach balls, which is fun. The dancers do stuff, and more stuff, and additional stuff. They feed more aluminum tubes out into the audience, which is quite creepy if you've just finished reading anything to do with the Lovecraft mythos (I'll have a review for The Jennifer Morgue coming up soon). Then the dancers do lots more stuff, and the baby tube is reunited with the parents. The end. Some more the end. Yet additional the end. Are we done yet? Curtain calls, yeah, whatever. Finally, finally done.

I think productions should generally tell a story, and each dance routine should have something to do with the story line. This seemed like "work up twenty or thirty separate dance routines mostly involving aluminum tubes, and do them all". It was a spectacle, but I can't say it was worth seeing.

I'm going to tag this as "Movies" because I should have rented one instead.