Let's Go Out To The Movies: The Maze Runner (PG-13 - 20th Century Fox - 1 hr, 43 mins)

Alo Party Peoples.

Directed by Wes Ball
Written by Noah Oppenheim,
Grant Pierce Myers and T.S. Nowlin

The Maze Runner is another situation like Divergent in that it is a movie based on the first installment of a YA book series that I probably would not be aware of if not for two things. 1) it's the only thing coming out this week, and 2) my younger sister really wanted to see it. It's no secret by now that I have a certain bit of disdain for the YA genre. It isn't even a genre, its a marketing term, and quite a few of the films coming out under that marketing term are terrible, cheap cash-ins on the current phenomenon of vaguely dystopic SF in the wake of The Hunger Games' runaway success.

Considering that pedigree, my expectations for Maze Runner were that it would be "Hunger Games for boys with all the socioeconomic metaphors stripped out", and it is essentially that, but it also turns out to be a mediocre if serviceable genre entry, that completely falls apart by the end. Darn.

Our story concerns a group of seemingly abducted boys with no memory of their past lives besides their names, living in a forest Glade surrounded on all sides by a gigantic maze filled with cyborg slug monsters called "Grievers" that keep them inside said maze. Every day, the boys send Runners into the maze to search for a way out, a task made difficult by the fact that the walls of the maze rearrange themselves every night, when the maze closes and the cyborg slugs come out to play. When our nominal hero Thomas shows up, things start to change. Supply lines from the maze's unseen creators start to dry up, and the first girl shows up in the Glade, something that seemingly angers the Grievers enough for them to abandon their nocturnal habits and start attacking the camp. This eventually incites Lord of the Flies style shenanigans that threaten to destroy the tenuous community of the Glade.

I couldn't find any good pictures of the
Grievers online, so here's my rendition.

If there is anything to say about The Maze Runner, it's that it does feel like Hunger Games for boys with all the socioeconomic allegory stripped out in favor of setting up and solving various puzzles. It also looks pretty good, not terribly inventive, but well executed and it has it's own identity. If shown clips from Maze Runner along side Divergent or Hunger Games, one could tell them apart. The maze itself looks gorgeous, and the Grievers are interestingly designed, unfortunately, we barely get to see them amid the handheld cinematography and a couple of baffling editing decisions.

In particular, Thomas just ran into the maze at night to help an injured Runner, and they come across a Griever. They start running for the nearest corridor, which is slowly becoming more narrow. The Runner hopes that they can get through in time and seal themselves off from the slug. Thomas has other ideas, and lures it towards the narrowing walls, but instead of us seeing the result of our hero's ingenuity and quick thinking, we just cut to the injured one screaming and then to the next morning as they exit the maze.

It is actually marginally interesting to see the relations between the boys play out, but the more that gets revealed about the nature of the maze and why it exists, the less interesting things get, culminating in a "twist", that instead of having been built up by the preceding film, feels tacked on in order to get potential sequels. In fact, I had to check to be sure that it wasn't a Shyalaman gig.

The Maze Runner, isn't terribly compelling stuff, but it at least has it's own identity, and when held against it's contemporaries it's a piece of fried gold, but that isn't saying much. There's a reason this was dumped in September.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's (Not) Go Out To The Movies: The Zero Theorem (R - Amplify - 1 hr,46 mins)

Directed by Terry Gilliam
Written by Pat Rushin

Alo Party Peoples.

Sweet buttery Jesus, are we still in the annual dead zone? Is the only big release this weekend a kids movie about a dolphin with a prosthetic tail fin? Has my Doctor Who column failed to attract any real readership, and in fact has less readers with each post? The answer to all of those questions is yes, so it's time to do another on demand release.

The Zero Theorem is like Lucy in the sense that it is a bizarre, frequently beautiful, stylistically director driven, arthouse sci-fi movie, but unlike Lucy, it might have an actual point to make, or at least a comprehensible point. Namely, one about the big advance of the 21st Century so far.

Our story concerns Christoph Waltz as one Qohen Leth, a computer programmer in a dystopic future where nearly all human interaction has been confined to cyberspace, to the extent that the physical world seems to be crumbling around him. He's trying to get a disability charge so he can do his coding from home. This is for two reasons. 1) He never interacts with his coworkers anyway, so he feels there is no reason for him to bother with the formality of an office, and 2) so he doesn't miss a phone call that he thinks will tell him the meaning of his life. Since the film portrays him as an interchangeable part of the corporate machine, he is even referred to as a "tool" on multiple occasions, I can see why he would want such a call.

One day, management informs him that he gets his wish, but on the condition that he takes on a certain project for them. Providing a proof of the titular "zero theorem", a theoretical math equation in which zero equals one hundred percent, proving that all is for nothing, and that life has no meaning. Into the mix come Lucas Hedges as Bob, management's computer whiz teenage son who is also looking for a meaning in life, and Mélanie Thierry as Bainsley, a woman hired to arouse Qohen out of his delusions.

The Zero Theorem is a tragedy concerned with the way that our modern digital world can make one feel quite small. The way it can seem that people are little more than integers in one great machine, and that we are insignificant amid the torrent of data we are constantly surrounded by. Like all is for nothing. I'm not sure it quite articulates that point, but it at least knows what it's trying to say.

The assembled cast is terrific, Christoph Waltz perfectly sells the mannerisms of a man that has locked himself up surrounded by screens waiting for someone to hand him a purpose for existence. Mélanie Thierry is a scarily compelling onscreen presence, although at times it feels like the only reasons she's here is because that makes it easy for certain scenes to feel like they're about to turn into a pornographic film at any moment.

The whole film takes place on intricately detailed and elaborate sets, portraying a sort of dystopic neon-cyberpunk urban decay, and Terry Gilliam's direction takes full advantage of them, it's something that has to be seen to be believed. The way it depicts programming is a strange and strangely plausible new interface composed of vertically oriented screens, tablet/game controller hybrids in place of keyboards, and an operating system that resembles a mix between Tetris and a flight simulator. Anyone else headed to the Oscars for Production Design should just stay home.

The Zero Theorem is a movie that has big game to talk, but doesn't hit it out of the park. It is an ambitious work, but parts of it feel like it is too constrained by budget for it's own ambitions, and it doesn't quite make sense by the end. It already got a theatrical run in various parts of the world, but just came out on demand in the United States before a limited theatrical release next weekend. What's my verdict? It is a spectacularly assembled movie, and you should give it a chance, if for no other reason than you probably won't find anything else like it.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's Go Out To The Movies: If I Stay (PG-13 - Warner Bros. - 1 hr, 36 min)

Directed by R.J. Cutler
Written by Shauna Cross

Alo Party Peoples.


Two weeks ago, in in my review of The Giver, I stated that there were five YA movies that were either being released or had already been released this year. Divergent, The Fault In Our Stars, The Giver, The Maze Runner, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. Well, it looks like I missed one, today's subject If I Stay, one of the most frustrating movies of the year. I hope I can explain why.

Mia Hall is a bright young woman about to graduate high school that has a passion for playing the cello and just applied to one of the most prestigious liberal arts schools in the country. On the way to visit her relatives, she gets into a terrible car wreck and ends up in critical condition. The bulk of the story concerns her having an out of body experience in the hospital where her body is being treated. She sees her relatives, friends, and boyfriend Adam worrying about her as she decides whether or not it's worth it to wake up.

These scenes, as she struggles with whether to go on, are where If I Stay shines brightest and comes frustratingly close to perfect. Young actress Chloe Grace Moretz is rather brilliant in the lead role, and she completely sells the grief of seeing her immediate family die around her in the emergency room, each passing leaving her with less of a reason not to leave the mortal coil. Unfortunately, this is inter cut with flashbacks, or hallucinations, it isn't entirely clear if she's actually a soul waiting to get to the afterlife, of the last year and her relationship with Adam.

These scenes play out as a twee, indie rock filled, teenage romance that left me thinking "Come on, this is a slog, go back to the hospital, that was great." If I needed shorthand to describe this part of the movie, it would be that it feels like The Fault In Our Stars with none of the charm. Not that these scenes are entirely bad, it's competently shot and acted, there aren't any glaring plot holes to discuss, it just doesn't aim that high.

If I Stay feels like half of a really good movie spliced together with half of a thoroughly mediocre one. The hospital scenes are a fantastic slow burning melancholic mood piece and if that was the entire movie, it would almost be worth a matinee, but it is held back by being fused to a weepie romance story that keeps it strictly in the average category. There's a reason this got dumped at the beginning of the dry spell.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Lets (Not) Go Out To The Movies: Life Itself (R - Magnolia Pictures - 1 hr, 46 min)

Directed by Steve James

Alo Party Peoples.

Documentaries are a hard thing for me to talk about. Since they aren't a narrative form, at least not primarily, it becomes very hard to review one without falling into a list of stuff they got right, got wrong, or left out, and if the final production falls on the dry side, you probably can't hold that against it, because, dems' the facts man.

As there were few new releases this weekend, I once again turn to on demand cable offerings. This can be a good way to shed some light on smaller scale independent productions, foreign imports, TV specials, and documentary features that didn't make it into theaters. It also has the added bonus of letting me do more of this job from my home.

Last time we did this, it was Clark Gregg's passion project Trust Me, which, while certainly an admirable effort, wasn't exactly a masterpiece. Fortunately, today's topic, Life Itself, is a much better film.

Named after and based on a memoir written by the late Roger Ebert, this documentary chronicles the entire life and career of the influential film critic, from working as the Chicago Sun-Times' film critic and winning the Pulitzer Prize, to his 30 years working on television with Gene Siskel and Richard Roper, to his transition into writing for the Internet after thyroid cancer rendered him unable to speak in 2007.

If it weren't for Ebert helping to turn film criticism from a journalistic odd job into a form of entertainment itself, and putting that idea into the popular psyche, I probably wouldn't be writing this now. So I suppose I owe him a sort of retroactive debt.

The film is composed of interviews with Roger's friends, co workers and family, archive footage of him on At The Movies, and footage of Ebert in a hospital and rehabilitation center after a hip fracture in December of 2013, this would turn out to be his final stay as the fracture had become cancerous.

Life Itself is an informative, well put together documentary, and I expect it to be shown in film and journalism classes if it ever gets a release on physical media, even if it's only as something for this country's overworked and underpaid teachers to slap in the DVD player to fill a gap in their schedule. As for right now, it is available on iTunes, through on demand cable services, and did get a limited theatrical release.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's Go Out To The Movies: The Giver (PG-13 - The Weinstein Company -1 hr, 34 mins)

Note- I realize that I didn't put out a review last week, that's my bad. The only big release, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, was a foregone conclusion. We all saw it's advertisements, we all got the red flag of Micheal Bay handling another Gen-X nostalgia property, we all knew it would be terrible, and thus there was no reason for me to cover it. Word from the professionals is that it was even worse than it looked. Also, a spoiler warning is in effect.-End Note

Alo Party Peoples.

Directed by Philip Noyce
Written by Micheal Mitnick
and Robert B. Weide

The YA trend shows no sign of stopping soon in either the books it started in or the films that sprung out of it. Just this year we have, in order of release date; Divergent, The Fault In Our Stars, today's subject The Giver, The Maze Runner in September, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 in November. That's more than the superhero movie phenomenon, which has had only four major releases this year and attracts plenty of think pieces.

Today's subject, The Giver, is based on a 1993 novel by Lois Lowry that can be thought of as the progenitor of the whole phenomenon. The Hunger Games, Twilight, John Green's entire body of work, Harry Potter. The Giver predates all of it, and alongside Enders Game, it is the foundation on which countless subsequent YA authors would build, and by build I mean take the dystopian trappings of and endlessly rehash. Except Mr. Green, who's work tends to not involve the fantastic.

For those in my audience old enough to not have read it in middle school, The Giver the book is essentially 1984 mixed with Brave New World mixed with Fahrenheit 451 the kiddie version. Hum along if you know the words, in the future after an incredibly destructive and nondescript war, a dystopic society has emerged. In this version, state run planned Communities. Every aspect of people's lives is controlled by the Council of Elders, spouses are assigned to people based on a compatibility test, and children are assigned societal roles upon turning eighteen. The way that this dystopia maintains control of the people, rules and ignorance via a policy referred to as Sameness.

The people do not know pain or pleasure, see in monochrome due to genetic engineering, are of only one race, and emotional depth has been removed in exchange for social stability. Our nominal hero is Jonas, a child who is shocked to discover that he has not been assigned a job, but has been chosen to be the Receiver of Memory, a living backup drive of all the things that the Council has excised from the people's lives. He begins attending sessions with the old Reciever and slowly discovers that the world as he has always known it isn't quite right.

When reading the book for school, I always imagined that the Communities looked like a vague amalgam of mid to late 20th Century suburbia, the kind of place and atmosphere that Pleasantville was satirizing, but here it has been replaced by stock YA dystopia setting No. 23. However, I suppose that was inevitable, it was only greenlit to cash in on the success of The Hunger Games, and thus it feels and plays out like the other recent Hunger Games cash in, Divergent.

The film is incredibly fast paced, clocking in at only 94 minutes, and often to it's detriment. I know that part of what makes the written word a unique medium is that it allows you to really get inside a character's head without bogging down your story to do so, and that usually doesn't translate well to visual media, but scenes in The Giver the movie just come and go so quickly there isn't any real weight to them. Especially one scene in particular, which I will have to spoil here in order to explain my point, you have been warned.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT...


About a year into Jonas' training, and I'm not sure of that, it's paced so quickly, he discovers a certain truth about his Community. He discovers that part of the way that they removed difference from the general population is through a Spartan style eugenics policy of performing euthanasia on aberrant births. An example of aberrant births, the lighter of a pair of identical twins, having identical people would cause too much confusion. Jonas finds out about this when he watches his father, who is a nurse, performing this activity without a second thought. In Jonas' words "They didn't remove murder, they brought it home, they just gave it a different name." The obvious allegory aside - which I don't have a problem with in principle, you should be able to convey any message you want - in The Giver the book, this scene is haunting, it has an impact, I really stopped and thought after reading it, but in the movie version, it just comes and goes, like everything else.


END SPOILERS

The acting, which might have brought this up above average, is not very good. I don't know if the younger actors were told to deliver their dialogue like this, or if they're just bad, but they talk in a manner that no living human would ever speak. Maybe it was intentional to show how unnatural the policy of Sameness is, like the uncanny valley of social orders, but that doesn't give a pass for a bad performance. The older stars fare a bit better, Jeff Bridges as the old Receiver is fine, and Meryl Streep as the Chief Elder is, while not really developed, serviceable.

When I heard that a Giver movie was happening, I was naively hopeful. I thought that there was some serious potential in this material, and it could be genuinely great, but then I saw this teaser, and thought it would end up becoming an unintentional parody of itself and the YA phenomenon. Then again, it's adapting a work that kicked off this phenomenon, so maybe it was inevitable that when it was brought to the silver screen, not that much would stand out about it anymore. Lois Lowry, the author of the book, evidently stated that dystopian fiction is passe now, and I couldn't agree more. Fans of the book will find a paint by numbers adaptation that hits all the scenes and beats it needs to but brings nothing new to the table, everyone else will find the year's second big profile Hunger Games knock off, and are better off just renting Pleasantville.

Have a nice Day.

Greg.B

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Guardians of the Galaxy (PG-13 - Marvel/Disney - 2 hrs, 1 min)

Alo Party Peoples.

Directed by James Gunn
Written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman

Each of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films has been a financial success, but while the idea of a live action comic style continuity spread across several disparate genres might seem to be an insane risk, or at least used to, each of it's component parts has had something to draw on as far as an audience is concerned, aside from comic fans that is.

Sure, Iron Man might have been a character that not many people outside of comics fandom had ever heard of, but the movie had Robert Downey Jr's star power to get people in seats. The Incredible Hulk had fans of the 70s' TV show, Captain America was known as a cartoonish symbol of wartime American patriotism, even Thor might have been known from Norse mythology if nothing else, and The Avengers had the novelty of seeing all those suddenly well known characters in the same movie together, and writer/director Joss Whedon's passionate following. A following that carried over to TV spin-off Agents of SHIELD, not for very long, but it was there when the pilot ran.*

Guardians of the Galaxy on the other hand, will be the first real test of whether the Marvel name alone is enough to fill a theater at this point. There aren't many name stars besides Vin Disel, who is never on screen, and maybe Chris Pratt, people usually don't see space operas in theaters unless they are named Star Wars or Trek, and the comic it's based on isn't very successful even by the standards of modern comic sales. It probably helps that it is opening basically unopposed, and that last week's action holdovers have had mixed word of mouth.

Anyways, our story concerns one Peter Quill, a man abducted by aliens as a child that has made himself into a Han Solo by way of Indiana Jones adventurer by the name of Star Lord. After he steals a particular magic rock, he finds himself the target of Ronan the Accuser, a villain that needs said artifact to destroy a planet that he has a grudge against. Quill is hunted by Ronan's assassin Gamora for the magic rock, and bounty hunters Rocket the space raccoon and Groot the tree man for a price on his head. They all end up being arrested and taken to prison where they meet Drax, a massive man with a grudge against Ronan. They decide to team up, escape, and sell the rock and split the money. Then they find it contains an Infinity Stone, an all powerful macguffin that explains why Ronan wanted it in the first place.

This is probably the most out there Marvel movie to date, abandoning the superhero sub genre entirely for a space opera in the mold of Star Wars or The Fifth Element. It accomplishes this very well courtesy of writer/director James Gunn, who I now want to handle a Star Wars picture somewhere down the line. The design of the various locations, starships, and devices are bursting with imagination, and it's easily some of the most original stuff I've seen on screen all year.

The cast is terrific, Chris Pratt does a fantastic job as Star Lord, perfectly embodying the archetype of a charismatic space outlaw. Dave Batista as Drax gives off a likable charm and his hyper literal affectation provides some of the film's funniest moments. The real standouts however, are Vin Disel and Bradley Cooper as Groot and Rocket respectively. They are, pardon the pun, marvels of voice work and motion capture, and it's amazing how much emotional attachment they get out of a raccoon and a tree man. Groot in particular becomes the emotional center of the film, Disel and the animators play him as a cross between a gentle giant and a loyal guard dog, and it is unbelievable how well this works. If there is a weak link among the main cast, it's Zoe Saldana as Gamora, but that's no fault of the actress, the script just doesn't give her much to work with.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the best kind of summer movie, putting likable characters in thrilling situations amid gorgeous 3-D justifying spectacle. It's the kind of stuff that usually doesn't come out anymore, and it's a welcome change of pace from the usual fare. Eventually, one of these things is going to not be up to snuff, but probably not for a while.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B



*Seriously though, SHIELD got a lot better after Winter Soldier came out. When it gets to DVD, just skip episodes 2 through 9 and you'll be fine.

Let's Go Out To The Movies: The LEGO Movie (PG)

Alo Party Peoples.


I'm surprised as you are that "The LEGO Movie" is a thing that exists. Not that LEGO had a movie made, they've done a bunch of stuff over the years, what I'm surprised by is that a feature length LEGO movie got made and had a theatrical release. I don't usually cover family movies on here, and that's for a reason. I don't want to look like a creep. I only saw this one because I wanted to know how it turned out. How is it? Well...


Story: Our main character is Emmet (Chris Pratt), a Lego construction worker with no personality of his own. He lives in a generic Lego city with no personality of it's own. He meets a wizard named Vitruvius who reveals to him that the city he lives in is one of many themed Lego worlds that once coexisted in mixed up harmony, but were separated into rigid logical sense by President Business (Will Ferrel), who now plans to use a super weapon to glue the universe together into his vision of perfection*. Now Emmet must work with a woman named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), a Lego Batman (Will Arnett), and a 1980's spaceman (Charlie Day) to stop Lord Business by using the Piece of Resistance, which has become stuck to Emmet's back, and restore creativity to it's rightful place.

If that description felt like a generic story, that's because the film is attempting to parody a lot of things. In particular the hero's journey, kids films, blatantly commercial blockbusters, and the function of Lego as a creative tool. Let's use The Matrix as a comparison and see if I can make sense of this. Emmet is Neo, Wyldstyle is Trinity, Vitruvius is Morpheus, Liam Neeson's Cop is Cypher if he worked for the machines, and Lord Buisness is Agent Smith. I'm not sure that the film entirely works, but it is trying.

Presentation: This is a real strength for The Lego Movie, if it does anything right, it's presentation. The animators went into painstaking detail to create a Lego universe that doesn't just borrow the Lego aesthetic, but also includes all the scuffs, scratches, smudges, and general imperfections which hint at their origins as plastic. One where literally everything (even steam, fire, and water) is made out of Lego. Lego was a big part of my childhood and I can tell you that this was an accurate representation of the toys, at least in visual terms. It's trying to look like a homemade stop-motion Lego fan-film, and the resemblance is spot on.

The tone of the film is firmly tongue-in-cheek, like I said, it's going for parody. Any possible satire going on is probably going to fly over the kid's heads, but that won't make it unenjoyable for the adults in the audience.

Cast: Chris Pratt does well as Emmet, Elizabeth Banks does well as Wyldstyle, Will Arnett plays a fantastic parody of the Nolan Batman, Lego Batman turns the super serious Dark Knight into the guy trying way too hard to look cool. Allison Brie is enjoyable as Unikitty, and Charlie Day is fantastic as Benny the Spaceman. If you noticed all the pop culture references in the trailers, those are there because Lego has the license to make toys for most of them. They'll either work for you or not, and I'm just sort of ambivalent to them. Overall, you can tell that everyone put a lot of effort into this movie, and it has a sense of childlike wonder that I find charming.

In conclusion, it is a serviceable film, and if you have a kid that's super into Lego, it will quickly become their favorite movie for a while. It will also probably keep you interested. Maybe it was just over-hyped by all the people who saw it before I did, but I can't know for sure. General consensus is that it's an instant classic, I'd call it a 7.5/10.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*I relate so very much. He's essentially trying to create aspie heaven.

P.S. I've heard that Monuments Men is enjoyable, but not remarkable. That it's the kind of movie cable channels would run to fill their airtime. I will talk about it once it comes to DVD. If you are an adult, go see that instead, It will probably make you feel good.

A Piece From The Collection: Batman (1989)

Alo Party Peoples.

The time has come again for me to talk about a movie in my DVD collection. This month's topic is, the first live-action Batman movie. Well, technically the Adam West show got a movie in 1966, but this is the earliest one that most people ever talk about.

If you were around in 1989, then you probably recognize that poster and I don't have to explain anything. This movie was a BIG deal. It got three sequels, and spawned a critically acclaimed and well remembered animated series, put Tim Burton on the map as a director, and has been praised for bringing the Caped Crusader into a serious light after the campy nonsense that was the Adam West show.

SIDE-NOTE- It might not have aged especially well, but the Adam West Batman show deserves some credit. This movie made the franchise a box office juggernaut, and the Nolan films gave it critical merit, but the Adam West show is what made it a household name.-END SIDE-NOTE

What do I think of it? I liked it, but I can't call it anything more than pretty decent. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. It is not a bad movie, at all, in fact I can think of many good things about the movie. Let's just get to the listing of points.

Story: Batman must stop the Joker from using cosmetic products to bring Gotham City to it's knees. It isn't terribly engaging, and that's my only serious problem, unfortunately it's kind of a big problem. Granted if I had seen this back in 1989 when it came out I might think more of it, but that is because the only thing I would have to compare it to would be Adam West show. I can't know how it felt to see this film back then anyway, because I did not yet exist.

Presentation: Tim Burton's signature aesthetic style is applied effectively, but it's only in play part of the time, and the dissonance between where it is and where it isn't really stands out. In fact, Burton himself has said that he wasn't satisfied with how the movie turned out, and only came back for Batman Returns in exchange for much greater creative control. The action scenes are serviceable, but there is no real stand out moment, and Micheal Keaton being unable to move in the Batsuit doesn't help. The sets look damn good, it is nice to see practical effects, and Danny Elfman's musical score is fantastic. Yeah, the Prince songs date the movie considerably, but I didn't mind them very much.

Cast: Micheal Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman combination*, even if the reaction to his casting wasn't unlike the controversy over Ben Affleck being cast in the same part for the Man of Steel sequel. Jack Nicholson as the Joker is a joy to watch, easily the best part of this movie. Those are the two major players, but everyone else does alright in their supporting roles.


In conclusion, it is a damn nice looking film, that just sort of drops the ball in terms of plot. If you haven't seen it, you don't need to rush out and do so, but if you want to, then know that it is a serviceable endeavor. As for the sequels, the only one I have seen is Batman Returns, and I have yet to finish it because I find it generally unpleasant.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Christian Bale does a better Bruce Wayne.

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit

Alo Party Peoples.

I know that I haven't done any movie reviews recently besides last months Matrix article. I just haven't been at the movies very much, and there have been no new releases that have caught my attention. So here is something that is in wide release that I decided was as good as anything else for a review. Enough talk from me, let's get to it, shall we.

Jack Ryan is a character that is the focus of a series of Cold War political-espionage-thriller novels, that began with The Hunt For Red October, written by the late Tom Clancy. I am not terribly familiar with this franchise, at all, but my father is and he has told me that they are intricately written, detailed and engaging books.

Before we get to the movie, I will attempt to explain the character. It is very complicated, short version: In the books, Jack is an economics student that becomes a marine, retires after a helicopter accident, and then becomes a stock broker that marries a medical student. He later gets a position with the CIA during a trip to London and the rest is history.

The character has been portrayed by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Ben Affleck in previous attempts to film the books. My father has also told me that the Ford versions are really good. I haven't seen any of those versions and I don't have time to do so. Because of this, I will not be comparing this newest film to any other version of the character, it will stand or fall on it's own merits.

Said latest effort, rather than adapt a specific book, positions itself as a prequel to a 21st' century version of the Jack Ryan lore. John Ryan, Jack is an alias in this version I think, it isn't terribly clear, is an economics student that decides to join the Marines after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the rest of the origin story is unchanged from the books except that he now joins the CIA because he notices an agent watching him at the rehab center. A decade after he joins, he uncovers a Russian billionaire's plot to topple the US dollar and issue in a second Great Depression. Really. 

This movie, is not very good. Sadly, it is the first time I have to give a negative review of a film on this blog. Now I don't think that anyone sets out to make a bad film, and it isn't abysmal, but this movie is a flat, un-engaging, bore that feels like it was conceived in the same way that The Amazing Spider-Man, which was not amazing, got green-lit in 2012. An attempt at taking a once successful but now relatively obscure franchise and giving it a movie to try and cash in on it's fan-base. It is therefore fitting that just like the Spider-Man reboot, which felt like it was trying to turn the Spider-Man franchise into a Twilight clone, this film feels like a weaker version of the Jason Bourne movies.

The new Jack is played by Chris Pine, who you might remember is playing Kirk in the J.J. Abrams Star Trek** reboot films. He, is not terrible, but his performance is flat* and he stutters quite a bit. Kevin Costner as the CIA agent that recruits Jack, is also unengaging. The rest of the cast, I didn't bother to look up their names it doesn't matter, are completely forgettable. On the way home from the theater, my father said something like this. "Come to think of it, why is Chris Pine even doing this part? Sony clearly wants to start a franchise with this movie, and he already has Star Trek for at least one more installment."

The only three real action moments, I hesitate to call them set-pieces, really make it sink in how badly this movie wants to be The Bourne Identity. The problem is that it is an unleavened version, poorly shot handheld cinematography, middle of the road, terrible editing, and uninspired choreography.

I have one more thing to say before we go. It is a common saying that the worst thing you can do as a storyteller is insult your audience, I disagree. In my opinion, the worst thing you can do is fail to engage your audience. An insult is not a good thing by any means, but you at least care about it.

In conclusion, this film is terrible, if Sony really thinks that Jack Ryan can be a franchise in a post-Bourne, and post-Skyfall world, then they have greatly miscalculated their odds. If this movie bombs, then I am not terribly hurt by that. Unfortunately, the only other material for action flicks right now is either The Legend Of Hercules, which I haven't seen but I have heard is abysmal, and Lone Survivor, which I also haven't seen but audiences seem really divided on. If you really need an action flick this weekend, save the money and just go rent The Bourne Identity.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Two uses of "flat" in the same area of text. Good buttery God I need to get a thesaurus.
**Hey look at that, another once mighty franchise that got a big budget movie rebirth.

A Piece From The Collection: Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)

NOTE: This article was originally put up on November 30th 2013. I have been organizing the blog's archive and accidentally put this up here. I would take it down, but I cannot do that and also put it back into it's original place. I apologize for this error.




Alo Party Peoples.

I Decree This Shalt Be A Recurring Segment.

Some of you might remember that a month ago I reviewed Pleasantville, a film from my DVD collection. I've decided to do so again, a film from the collection that is, not Pleasantville again.

On the last day of each month I will review a film from my DVD collection. The chosen film for November 2013 is: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Let's not waste text space and get to it.

Story: This spoof about the divine quest of Arthur, King of the Britons, to aquire the Holy Grail is hilarious. I can't explain why it is hilarious, as that would spoil the jokes, but I can say that much of the humor is quite wordy. It doesen't play out like one story as much as a collection of loosely connected skits, but a comedy doesen't have to make sense* so long as it is funny. I assure you that this film is very funny.

Visuals: Much of the humor is visual in nature, and the animated segments are uniqely bizzare, but much of it looks like it was done on the cheap. That isn't a critisim, just an observation, most comedies don't have very large budgets anyway, and the visual humor is quite funny.

Acting: I haven't seen the Monty Python comedy group in action before so I can't judge this in comparision to their other work, but the acting here is wonderfully tounge-in-cheek.

In conclusion, this film is great comedy, and it is a classic for a reason. Track it down.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Though making sense is always a bonus.

Let's Go Out To The Movies: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Alo Party Peoples.

I enjoyed the first Hobbit film. It wasn't quite able to match Lord Of The Rings's massive scope, The Hobbit is not an epic story, but An Unexpected Journey was a well crafted fantasy adventure in its own right. How does The Desolation Of Smaug continue it?

It does alright. It continues the quest of twelve dwarves and a hobbit to kill the evil dragon Smaug and reclaim the Lonely Mountain, while still on the run from Azog and his orcs. Along the way they encounter a shape changing bear, the Elven land of Mirkwood where they encounter Orlando Bloom's returning Legolas, and a human settlement called Laketown.

While this is happening, Gandalf and Ratagast are investigating the returning Sauron to prepare for war. That's all I can say without spoilers, but I can say it builds and builds towards a massive conclusion, and then it just stops. 

This is certainly a well made film. Sets, great, costumes, great, effects, iffy towards the end but good for the most part. Let it never be said that Jackson isn't trying. 

The actors do well. Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield work well together. Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Sylvester McCoy as Ratagast interact well, Evangilene Lily is alright as a newly added love interest for Bloom's Legolas, Bennedict Cumberbatch does fantastic voice work and motion capture for Smaug, who is also designed very well, and Manu Bennett is alright as Azog.

There are certainly problems, the love story between the new elf and one of the minor dwarves didn't really do much towards engaging me. The CG on Smaug starts to deteriorate towards the end, almost as if they were running out of money, and the aforementioned halt of an ending.

In conclusion, I don't think the Hobbit needed to be a trilogy*, but they do alright for the middle segment. I'm not sure I would reccomend it, but see for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*It probably needed to be one to get greenlit after Lord Of The Rings.

Let's Go Out To The Movies: The Book Thief

Alo Party Peoples.

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak is an incredible book, one that I am glad to give the title of great to. It is a moving story of a girl growing up with a foster family in Nazi Germany that discovers the power of words. Brian Percival might have downplayed the theme of words, but he adapts it to the silver screen quite nicely.

It is a relatively faithful adaptation, some things are done in a different order, others are removed entirely, but the theme of words probably wouldn't have translated to the screen well. It is well told and well made, the sets and costumes all look great, and the emotions take center stage while the theme of the book takes a back seat.

The actors all do a good job. Geoffery Rush and Emily Watson do a good job as the Hubermanns. Ben Schnetzer makes a good Max Vanderberg, a Jew that the Hubermanns hide in their basement, and Roger Allam does a good voice job as the personification of Death. As for the younger cast, Sophie Nélisse makes a fine Lisel Meminger, and newcomer Nico Liersch is well done as Rudy. It is all well acted and never once does an accent slip. 

In conclusion, is it as good as the book? Probably not, but is is a really good and well made film that I can overall reccomend.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's (Not) Go Out To The Movies: The Day Of The Doctor

SPOILER WARNING. IT WOULD BE RATHER DIFFICULT TO DISCUSS THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSING WHAT HAPPENS IN IT. NOTHING MAJOR BUT I WILL TALK ABOUT THE HURT DOCTOR.

SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHO JOHN HURT IS PLAYING, TURN BACK NOW.

Alo Party Peoples.

Today I am doing something different. I usually wouldn't cover television, but since this is a feature length episode of one of my favorite shows, I decided to try it out. In particular, the fiftieth anniversary episode of Doctor Who. However, since many of you are likely unfamiliar with Doctor Who, I will provide some background first.

Doctor Who is a British science fiction television series produced by the BBC. It is also the longest running science fiction television series ever, having first aired on November 23 1963. It is about an alien, the titular Doctor, that travels with his human companions all over time and space. Hijinks insue. He does this in a police call box, Which is actually a living and sentient time machine called the TARDIS that is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

The classic series aired from 1963 to 1989 with a brief hiatus in 1985. In 1989 it was cancelled for various reasons that I don't have time to discuss here. There was an attempt to bring it back in 1996 with a TV movie that failed. It was then brought back sucessfully in 2005 and has been airing since.

How can a show about one person last for fifty years? When William Hartnell, the First Doctor, left the show due to his failing health they came up with the idea that when near death the Doctor's species, Time Lords, had the ability to "regenerate" healing any damage to the body with the trade off being a complete change in appearance and personality. 

This allowed them to change lead actors without having to worry about the audience thinking that this new guy wasn't the same guy. To date twelve actors have portrayed the Doctor in canon, with one being added in retroactively in between Eight and Nine. Occasionally he meets himself, usually on an anniversary.

It is rather niche in the US perhaps because the classic era was only ever imported on PBS stations, but in the UK it is much more mainstream, it's even a family show over there, and the revived series has a growing following in the US.

Overall it is a great show, and a favorite, and now I will answer some questions.

Classic Who or New Who: New Who,  I am aware of the classic series. I am working through Netflix's tiny selection.

Favorite Doctor: Out of those I've seen (2,3,6,9,10,11) Nine/Christopher Eccleston 

Favorite Episode: "Dalek" but I do have a soft spot for "The Fires of Pompeii" if for no other reason than I take a Latin class.

Least Favorite Episode: "Fear Her"

Favorite Companion: don't have one. I haven't seen enough of them to judge.

Favorite Villan: Weeping Angels

Favorite Moment: The Time Lord Victorious speech from "The Waters of Mars"

Before I begin I have something to say. Most of this will be from the perspective of a fan because, most of the people who watch it are fans of the show. Even then without the context of the last season you would be lost.

Enough talking about the show, let's talk about the show.

PREVIOUSLY ON DOCTOR WHO: Clara jumped into the Doctors timestream in order to save him at every point in his life. While there she discovered a hidden incarnation of the Doctor, played by John Hurt, in between his eighth and ninth lives.

Story: I apologize for this, but we have a very complicated story that I can't explain. Sorry, time travel stories tend to do that. I'll try anyway.

Rose/Bad Wolf(Billie Piper) opens fissures in time that bring together the War Doctor that is trying to end the Time War*, the Tenth Doctor (David Tennant) who is stopping a race of shape shifting aliens from invading Elizabethan England, and the Eleventh Doctor(Matt Smith) plus companion Clara (Jenna Coleman) who are investigating a security breach in UNIT's** Under Gallery.

That's all I can say about it without spoilers, but for such a big hyped event, it's a little underwhelming.

Visuals: Sets great, costumes great, effects great for a TV budget, although for this show that is to be expected.

Acting: Matt Smith and David Tennant do their jobs well. Jenna Coleman is good. John Hurt is competent, the acting isn't bad, it's just not very notable 

In conclusion, I'm a little disappointed. It feels like a student project, everyone shows up and puts in the effort, but you can tell they weren't enthusiastic about it.

Which is odd, press concerning this thing has clearly shown that everybody was excited to be working on the anniversary of a British TV history touchstone, but the end result, it really embodies the remark "not bad" sorry Whovians.

Hats off to all and have a nice day.

Greg. B

Do you want me to cover the Christmas Special? Let me know on twitter.

I leave you now with my fanart.

Clockwise from One: William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker (no relation to Tom Baker), Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann, Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant, Matt Smith, Peter Cushing.

* The final conflict between the Time Lords and Daleks that wiped them both out.

**United Nations Intellegence Taskforce.

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Thor The Dark World.

I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS IS LATE. MY FATHER HAD A BUISNESS TRIP TO CHINA AND I WASN'T ABLE TO SEE IT FOR A WHILE.

Alo Party Peoples.

You usually don't see superhero movies come out in November do you?

Anyway, Marvel Studios has by now proven to be a safe bet in terms of film quality. With good films steadily coming out, they have also been big hits, and have successfully brought comic book continuity to the big screen. They have also been able to bring the same quality and continuity to television with Agents of SHIELD*, and plan to bring it to Netflix in 2015.

They've also done this with variety. Sure they have all been action movies but think about it.

The Iron Man movies have been action-comedy, The Incredible Hulk was a high budgeted B-movie, Thor is cosmic fantasy, Captain America was a WWII pulp adventure,( and if that Winter Soldier trailer is to be trusted, the franchise is moving into all out action fare), Avengers was a scifi pyrotechnic visual ride, Agents of SHIELD is a Joss Whedon show, and the recently announced Netflix stuff might be the dark gritty and or serious wing of the MCU.

They might not be amazing, but they have yet to make a thing I have disliked. Let's see if Thor: The Dark World lives up to those standards.

Story: Here's our setup. The Dark Elves, a primordial race from before our universe, long ago attempted to destroy the Nine Realms with a super weapon called the Aether during an alignment of those realms. 

The Asgardians stopped them, but now they are aligning again and the Malekith, leader of the dark elves, wishes to try again. Thor must spring Loki from prison to both stop them and get the Aether out of his mortal girlfriend Jane.

That's a lot of plot, and the movie is paced rather quickly as a result. That's not a praise or critisim, just an observation. Other critics have sited the story's quickness as a problem, but I'm not feeling that.

Oh, and there is in fact a post credits bonus scene, for those who like that sort of thing.

Visuals: If these movies are good at one thing, it's looking pretty. It takes fantasy and seemlessly blends it with science fiction, in terms of visuals. From the ancient glyphs on the holographic displays, to the Asgardian Air Force of flying canoes, to having guys with laser guns and black hole grenades be held off by guys with shields and spears. It all looks great.

Acting: Chris Hemsworth is fun as Thor, Tom Hiddleston is, as usual entertaining as the ever scheming Loki, Idris Elba and Anthony Hopkins are fantastic as Heimdal and Odin respectively. 

Natalie Portman is good Jane Foster, and Christopher Eccleston is enjoyable as Malekith, there isn't much to play, but he does it well.

Conclusions: It's not a particularly deep or complex film, but it is very entertaining and I reccomend it.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Still waiting for the season finale before tackling that. It just doesn't seem fair to review a thing that is not finished.It's been good so far

Archivis News Update.

Alo Party Peoples.

Ever since the Zimmerman post brought the wrath of God upon me from my mother I haven't blogged about things that could be seen as political. Instead I have a news thing next to the posts. But since something newsworthy happened at my school, I figure this is different.

So on November 13, one Justin Lookadoo spoke at Richardson High School about dating. The things he said proved to be controversial. Mostly supporting gender stereotypes. Here's a news article if you want to know more.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/richardson-lake-highlands/headlines/20131113-motivational-speaker-at-richardson-school-criticized-for-gender-stereotyping.ece

I wasn't there that day, but I did research Mr. Lookadoo, and I found plenty to disagree with, but I'm mostly sad about the stereotype thing. 

In a perfect world this wouldn't be a problem, but it's not a perfect world, so it is.

You can't just fit people into little boxes labeled "datable" or "undatable". That's not how it works. People are complicated, they just don't fit into categories like that.

That's all I have to say on that.

Have a nice day.

Greg.B

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Enders Game

DISCLAIMER:FOR THE SAKE OF FAIRNESS I AM KEEPING MY OPINIONS ON ORSON SCOTT CARD'S HOMPHOBIC VIEWS SEPERATE FROM THIS.

FOR THE RECORD THOSE VIEWS ARE TERRIBLE BUT HE WROTE A GOOD BOOK.

ALSO SINCE BOTH THIS MOVIE, AND THE BOOK IT IS BASED ON ARE BUILT AROUND A TWIST ENDING, SPOILER WARNING. SHORT VERSION: IT IS QUITE GOOD

Enders Game the book is one of the most influential works of science fiction in recent memory, and also an incredible book. It is required reading, I decree it of you. Let's see how the new movie represents such a marvel.

Story: It's the future, fifty years ago mankind was nearly wiped out by a Formic hive mind. In the aftermath of this, we have decided to take the best and brightest of Earth's children and stick them in Battle School, where they constantly go through grueling war games to pick the best to defend mankind. 

The best ends up being Ender Wiggin, an incredibly gifted child that is soon singled out for Command School, where he and his class do simulation after simulation of a theoretical second war. After he leads them to victory on the Formic homeworld, the Stratagos has something to tell him. SPOILER WARNING, IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN UNSPOILED TURN BACK NOW. It was real, it has always been real and he has just commited genocide. 

I cannot begin to understand the burden that would place on someone's concience. The closest analog in the real world is likely being the one that had to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. That isn't even the worst part. That is the realization, it was probably the course of action that results in the least deaths by keeping the war from being dragged out.

It tells this story well, but it is also a beat for beat retelling of the book which you can probably find in a library for free. Make of that what you will.

Visuals:If anything can be said fo this movie it's that it looks great. Battle School and Command School look, approprietly, like one big video game. In fact, there are entire sections of the film that are essentaily gameplay footage. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a planned game. That might make the point hit home even harder. It all looks well organized, and shiny, and I can only assume that it looks better in 3D.

Acting: For our adult cast, Harrison Ford is quite great as Colenel Graff, Viola Davis plays a compassionate Major Anderson, and Ben Kingsley plays a wise and well executed Mazer Rackham, even if I don't quite accept the face paint. 

As for the child actors, Asa Butterfield is great as Ender, but aside from that I can't think of any standout performances. They aren't bad, but not great either. Moises Aries is not bad as Bonzo, but I can't get past the fact that he played Rico on Hannah Montana, which makes some scenes unintentionaly comical.

In conclusion, the Enders Game movie might not be as good as the book, but it is certainly a good film on it's own. 

Hats off to all, and have a nice day.

Greg.B

These people responded to my comment in one of their videos. Thanks Glove and Boots! http://youtu.be/o5desZLRuzQ

A Piece From The Collection: Pleasantville (1998)

Alo Party Peoples.

Money has been tight again, so I'm doing something from my DVD collection that you probably have never heard of.

Pleasantville was the brainchild of one Gary Ross, who hasn't done much since. The only significant thing he's done in fact was the Hunger Games movie. That is a real step down, because Pleasantville is incredible.

I love this movie, let's not waste any time.

Story: This film about a couple of teenagers that get trapped in a 1950s sitcom and their antics force it into color with the social turbulence of the sixties, would appear on the surface to just be a silly comedy, and comedy is certainly present, but it also goes for serious drama about how these people react to serious social change when Pleasantville has only ever been pleasant. And it does so with, well, flying colors.

Gary Ross creates a fantastic work that manages to juggle comedy, drama, and an actual relevant message, all at the same time.

Visuals: At the time this was made having color and black and white onscreen at the same time was a big deal. This was actually one of the first films to be shot digitally, they shot it in color and shaded the footage into monochrome where they didn't want color.

I'm sure it was impressive at the time, but in 2013 it's something anybody with moderate skill in Photoshop could do.

Acting: The actors are fantastic. Toby Maguire and Reese Witherspoon do a great job as our leads, William.H.Macy and Joan Allen do a wonderful job as the sitcom parents, and special note goes to Jeff Daniels as the owner of the soda shop that discovers art.

Music: I usually don't talk about soundtracks, because I just don't know music, but this film has an amazing one. Ranging from music from the actual fifties, to emotional heartstring pulling original work by Randy Newman.

In Conclusion: This movie is absolutely fantastic and I recommend it wholeheartedly, since you probably missed it on the big screen, go hunt it down for the small one. 

Greg.B

Sidenote- How does the director of this end up making the serviceable, but not very good Hunger Games movie?

Let's Go Out To The Movies: Gravity

WARNING: IF YOU EASILY SUBCUMB TO MOTION SICKNESS. I STILL RECOMMEND YOU SEE THE MOVIE BUT DON'T EAT FOR TWO HOURS BEFOREHAND. AND NOW ON WITH OUR SHOW.

Alo Party Peoples.

is a fundamental force of the universe.

This film is a little different from my usual material. There are no more than three actors on screen at any given time, for one thing. I usually don't cover serious award season stuff either. But, when I saw the trailers I was intruiged, so I went and saw it. I recommend you do so as well.

No time to waste so let's get to the bullet points.

Story-The film is the story of two astronauts*, played by George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, working on the Hubble Telescope when a Russain sattelite explodes. Cutting off communication with the surface and surrounding them in a field of lethal shrapnel. Forcing them to drift from one sattelite to the next for hundreds of miles or die alone in the blackness of the void. It is engaging as all hell, the actors are absolutley fantastic, and it illustrates the unbreakable nature of the human spirit rather well. Although one scene towards the end is a bit of a moodbreaker, which I will not spoil.

Visuals-This movie is absolutley beautiful to behold. It is very hard to make space not look pretty. Several scenes consist of single unbroken shots, that work very well. But the warning up top is quite accurate. Many of those unbroken shots consist of a lot of spinning and sattelite debris flying at the audience. However that does not subtract from how beautiful it is and it looks even better in 3D, although if you have a weak stomach I reccomend opting for 2D instead.

Acting- Like I said the cast is very small, Mostly consisting of just Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Even then Clooney exits near the halfway mark, sort of. Leaving Bullock to do an absolutley wonderful job. Several minutes of the film is just her talking to herself while drifting and I bought every second of it. And a particular point is one of the few occasions that a film has gotten me to nearly shed a tear.

She deserves to get an Oscar nomination for this, and I will be very surprised if she doesn't. Clooney also does a very good job.

In conclusion, Gravity is a spectacular experience, and you will want to see it just to say you did. It's an experience that you just have to see.

Hats off to all, and have a nice day.

Greg.B

*Funnily enough, the government shutdown has a couple astronauts stuck up on the ISS.

Movie Magic!: Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme (2007) (PG-13)(Direct to DVD)

Alo Party Peoples.

You might remember that at the end of Trilogy Month I said that I would enlighten you about something. I planned to do so the following week. But then I had technical issues with the site that resulted in a couple posts being deleted. And then I ended up finally seeing Pacific Rim. 

Then I got press screening tickets to see Rush.... Anyways the point is the technical issues have blown over and I'm back now. So lets not waste any time now. Shall we?

Best described as Iron Man with magic instead of super science. Doctor Strange is a fictional superhero that appears in comic books published by Marvel. He was an arrogant neurosurgeon who got in a car crash and wrecked his hands. 

After spending his fortune on surgeries to try and fix them. He ends up on abridge ready to commit suicide when a mysterious old man appears. He gives him an ancient map that will supposedly lead him ho a man who can fix his hands, and he spends the last of his money on a one way plane ticket to Tibet.

There he gets lost in the Himalayas and finds the old man there. He reveals himself to be a wizard and takes him on as an apprentice.

There are some other details and events afterwards, but those are the essentials. Dr. Strange has always been pretty well liked. And my father is/was a big fan. There was a TV movie in the 70s ,which I haven't seen, but was only aired once, and only survives now because someone out there recorded it and, eventually, they put it up on the Internet. 

If your curious just type "doctor strange tv movie" into the search bar on YouTube and you should find it in ten minute parts.

The 1992 film "Dr. Mordrid" was going to be a live action Doctor Strange movie, but the license expired before they started production. 

And eventually Lionsgate did a direct to video movie in 2007. Which is today's subject for review. Marvel and Lionsgate actually did a bunch of these during the later years of the initial superhero boom. Before Marvel started its own film studio to do movies based on their characters in house. Overall they average out as being pretty good. 

Lets get started. I'm trying out a new review structure today so let me know what you think.

-Animation Quality: Design wise it looks almost animeish and is quite good. Character models are distinct, backgrounds are very well drawn, and action scenes are very smooth. On the other hand sometimes movements can be quite choppy. 

Maybe it was meant to be like that to show that his hands are screwed up, but it also happens in other scenes when Strange is in no way present. 

I know that animation is very dependent on budget and I shouldn't judge this by Disney standards, and considering said budget restraints they did a great job. But I'm not going to hold back a thought to make the Internet trolls happy.

-Sound: The voice actors do a great job, even if lip movements don't quite keep up with them. And the soundtrack is very fantasy.

-Story: This is a tough one. I like this movie. It's good. But it feels just a bit generic. Maybe it's because a majority of superhero movies are origin stories. In fact the only non sequel ones I can think of off the top of my head are The Avengers and Watchmen. Even then, Watchmen was adapted from a graphic novel, and Avengers was the feature length finale for Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I might have liked it more if the car crash was just a freak accident, instead of Strange being distracted by magical visions. Maybe if magic only started to show up after his accident, because it jostled his brain and made him able to see through the Mist.

But review the movie you have, not the movie you want.

In conclusion, it's perfectly serviceable and I was entertained. Just not enough for me to actually recommend it.

But if your curious, the DVD is easy to find on ebay. And it's on Netflix Instant Stream, which is how I watched it for this review even though I do own it. And Marvel Studios is doing a live action movie to be released in 2016 after Avengers 2 and Ant Man.

Hats off to all. And have a nice day.

Sidenote: Russia? I know that someone in Russia has read my blog. They haven't been around recently. But on the off chance that they read this. Would you kindly tell Putin to knock it the hell off. You know what I'm referring to.

Greg.B

Rush (2013) (R)

Alo Party Peoples.

Sorry for the delay. I got into another press screening. So lets discuss Rush.

This film based on the real events of Niki Lauda and James Hunt's rivalry/bromance on the Formula 1 racing circuit in 1976 brings it to the screen very well.

Director Ron Howard makes a very engaging, if slightly long, film that makes you forget it's based on true events, to the point that you immerse yourself in it and think it's real again. That makes sense trust me.

Lead actors Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Brühl are great as James Hunt and Niki Lauda respectively. Olivia Wilde does a fine job as James's wife Suzy Miller. And in general they all do a great job. (sidenote. You wouldn't know it from the trailer, but it's much more focused on Lauda than I would have thought.)

The racing scenes are intense, with a well done aesthetic of looking like broadcast footage of the actual events, and I'm sure that a lot of it is. It stays consistent without feeling repetitive. And is well made.

If I can think of a criticism, which is the definition of my role as a critic, it's that it feels a bit long towards the end. But I can't think of anything that they could have cut.

In conclusion, it probably won't change your life, but I recommend that you check out Rush when it hits theaters on September 27.

Hats off to all. And have a nice day.

Greg.B