Aldri7 Reviews

Oblivion (I) (2013)

some good, some bad

[6/10 · 13 May 2013]

"Oblivion" is one of those movies thats hard to review without writing a spoiler. I'll have to be careful...

OK, lots of people have written reviews here complaining about how this movie is a rip off of so many other Sci-Fi movies like 2001: a Space Odyssey, Tron, The Matrix, Blade Runner, Wall-E, Independence Day, etc. So maybe thats the bad news. But the good news is that all of those movies were good movies, so at least here you can count on Oblivion NOT being trashy like the Alien series, etc. I mean thankfully, we have Tom Cruise, and playing a role too in which he must confront and understand his own existence almost like Bruce Willis had to do in "The Sixth Sense". So you will be forced to think a little bit, but it shouldn't take Sci-Fi veterans that long to get the catch. We've been down this road too many times now.

Anyway, Tom plays Jack Harper, a technician entrusted with maintaining power generating equipment and drones on a post apocalyptic earth. Who he actually works for is for you to figure out. Who Jack Harper really is is also for you to figure out, as well as for Jack, who is not really all there mentally. Now, IF Jack can remember whats been wiped from his memory, and many are counting on him being able to do that, he may be able to save earth from the aliens that wrestled control of it from humanity. There is still time, but only if a secret plot intended to bring him to his senses works. Thats the story, anyway.

OK, but is this enough to carry the film? Its a very lonely place where Jack works unfortunately, and we must first suffer through a pretty dull opening 45 minutes before anything really interesting happens. Here he is paired up with a beautiful assistant (Andrea Riseborough) but with virtually NO other support structure which is bizarre. So of course they make love. There seems little else to do and no one is watching anyway. But I found all of this boring and tedious. Meanwhile Jack stalks the planet like a Swat team member. Looking for what? Scavs? What are they doing there?

Slowly, a plot does begin to unfold, though, and soon nothing is as you thought it was in the beginning. Meanwhile, we've got some nice but not earth shattering cinematography to enjoy, an atrocious music score to listen to, and not a whole lot in the way of dialogue from anybody thats not military-talk. Yawn........Oh, and there are these drones with those blinking red eye-lights.

Eventually though, the minimalistic plot a la 2001: a Space Odyssey turns existential when a spaceship with mysterious cargo crashes and we get to scratch our heads a lot. Meanwhile, I like the flashbacks to NY and the "oasis" which was green, but inexplicably so given the seeming absence of any other life on the planet. I kinda don't have a clue as to how the shack and all that memorabilia got there, so it was almost like a dream. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't real at all, but a state of mind, like an eden. Jack visits the shack early on like a man returning to his childhood. Without his memories, though, what draws him there? Some strange attraction he will eventually come to understand, I guess, and a garden of eden and rebirth it will prove to be ultimately.

So, but thats about all I can reveal though, and you will have to see the movie to find out what really happens. I can tell you though that Jack does fall in love, or re-falls in love, which reacquaints him with his human side. Its a love kind of like in "Avatar" - a dual "love of woman/love of nature" kind of love. And of course, from there, just like in Avatar, we go right to the battle which climaxes the movie.

So yeah, its a rehash - I admit it. Avatar mixed with 2001: A Space Odyssey mixed with Independence Day mixed with Wall-E, etc. I'm glad that we never got to meet any real aliens though, which turned out to be one of the interesting little twists in the story. But overall, all of that thought provoking mystery surrounding Jack and his love and his past doesn't quite make up for the fact that so much of this movie is predictable visually, musically, and technologically. Morgan Freeman gives us his usual nice performance, but otherwise, we don't get much insight into the folks that he leads. Their plight? Their pain? Not really revealed, unfortunately. And lastly, ANY movie who's main character's name is "Jack" is going to dredge up memories of Titanic for me and WILL YOU PLEASE STOP REPEATING THAT NAME and calling it out over and over again!

JACK!........JACK!........Call him Clarence and maybe you won't feel so compelled to cry out.

Thank you....

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

not so deserving prequel

[5/10 · 10 March 2013]

The story of how the Wizard of Oz came to be the Wizard of Oz is one I suppose might captivate a lot of people. But you might end up leaving the theatre a bit disappointed to find out exactly how it happened. Oz it seemed at the time was dominated by a trio of powerful sisters, all young and lusting for a man. Strangely, no suitable guy could be found on the premises though, and so they must wait for the gods to deliver a unsuspecting con-man from Kansas who arrives via a tornado and is named "OZwald". Oswald is soon courted by the sisters, all of whom are witches but only "good" vs "bad" in the context of their relationships with men and the outcome of their petty sibling rivalry. Predictably (and to many peoples discomfort), the least beautiful witch is the most evil while the good witch (Glinda) is the most beautiful. MIla Kunis on the other hand, the third witch, is at first less tainted by evil, but then transforms into the wicked witch of the west when sister Glinda snatches Oswald away from her. Got it all? And so an entire war is unleashed because of this petty rivalry among three powerful women. No other guys figure into this. Its as though Oz itself is devoid of any other men of any stature - every other guy is just a simpleton, soldier or dwarf. Huh? anyway, so the "wizard to be" has to figure out how to stay alive thanks to his unfortunate preference for blond, beautiful witches over dark haired, less kindly witches. If he can do that, then Oz is his for the taking..

Anyway, so thats the story. Oz was always about the war between the witches, but at least in the original "Wizard of Oz" there is Dorothy's own story or quest which had some heroic qualities. But here, the Wiz is just a hapless guy who gets thrown into a mess he has no control over. His lack of heroic qualities actually is what got him into this. And so he must figure out how to adapt and con his way into becoming the heroic leader the witches all want him to be. So what kind of trouble was OZ in anyway, that they had this need for a wizard? I don't really know.

But what I really liked about the original Wizard of OZ" was that the wizard turned out to be this familiar guy from Kansas while all around him were these people that were like aliens to Dorothy. And so only the Wizard was able to get her grounded, her head turned around right and headed back to Kansas where she belonged. But here, the Kansas vs OZ thing is lost. The wiz never looks back, returns to his roots nor wishes he had an Auntie Em he could talk to. Strangely, his girlfriend from Kansas is also the good witch. So maybe he doesn't need to look back. But the jist is that everything he does in this film is out of necessity as a way to save his skin. He has no control over his fate otherwise. Generally in these situations, people do more than just grin and wise crack their way through it all. I suppose being fought over by three women isn't all that bad, but on the other hand, I kept hoping the wiz would show a little broader range of emotions. The effect is that the movie is all glossed over fantasy with nothing deeper to chew on. I mean, I hate to wax sentimental, but when Dorothy went "there's no place like home" a lot of people could actually relate to that at the time...

So, yeah, Mila Kunis is a central figure here and I know she was the jealous girlfriend in "That 70's show". And so I kept flashing back to her in that role and seeing this jealous, vindictive high school feuding over boyfriends thing going on in "OZ" which was the main theme to me. But I don't think that as a prequel to a classic Hollywood movie, this was up to snuff. It was an alien to the original. Very little attempt was made to rekindle the character of the original wizard, who was all homespun and Kansas bred. The rural vs urban theme in the original was central to the plot. The original wiz was a con man but with a heart born of humble roots. The wiz here on the otherhand is just a con man, a city slicker perhaps who wound up in Kansas doing magic acts because I guess he felt he could make a buck.

Anyway, but there were some things i enjoyed here so it wasn't all disappointing to me. This is not a movie i would tell people to stay away from. It had cute moments and nice visuals, and the homages to Thomas Edison, etc and the technology of the times (1905) were nice. But its funny how this story sort of reverses the original in that Dorothy was young and innocent while her traveling comrades were older. Here, its the companions that are or seem childlike. But the sidekicks were pure Disney fantasy as was the humor and that also left me a little nostalgic for the original. You've got over 70 years of filmmaking in between these two movies, and too much in Hollywood has changed for them to bear much resemblance to one another.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

giving it the test of time

[7/10 · 22 December 2012]

"Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is over 25 years old now and so I thought it was about time I gave it a review. Recently I also went back and reviewed Risky Business, NL's Vacation and a few other 80's movies and so I'm kind of going to try and compare it to its contemporaries.

Anyway, I'll kick this off by asking a few question: No 1 - Where do you think Ferris wound up in life after he graduated from High School? Another question might go like this: "If you liked Ferris, how would you compare your life now to that of someone who didn't like Ferris?". THere is a polarization of attitudes here at IMDb over him, and so these would seem to be relevant questions.

And so to begin with, as has often been pointed out over the years, the biggest issue with Ferris for many was that he was made of Teflon - i.e. nothing stuck to him. I think that this was due in part to the fact that he got so much love and attention from his parents that he never considered the possibility that others might not also love him. This in turn made him feel impervious to wrongdoing and caused him to do morally questionable things :) Another issue is that he came from that part of society where parents are powerful enough to bully school administrators whenever they feel like it. Witness Ed Rooney's shivering in his boots when he thinks he's talking to Sloan Peterson's Dad. So, Ferris moral compass is a bit skewed, and if you have any teaching experience, you have probably seen this all before.

Now, contrast him to buddy Cam and maybe Joel Goodson of "Risky Business". Cam and Joel, in contrast to Ferris, had moral consciences. Where Ferris would just sort of go out and do something whenever he felt like it, Cam and Joel were more restrained and prone to weighing pros and cons. All of these differences to me were related to each character's relationship with his parents. Only Ferris seemed to take his parents (and their love) completely for granted. And where Cam would say "I don't know what I'm going to do with my life", it shows you that at least he's thinking about it. Joel Goodson was also on a career path at the time his story takes place. But Ferris? Does Ferris ever talk about what he wants to do with his life? No, not that I can recall.

So, I ask myself all of this because I am no longer 18 and am not that successful in life. I also got a kick out of skipping class when I was in high school, and didn't like to talk about what I wanted to do afterwords because I didn't know. And......I always pretty much loved this movie which has perhaps caused me to be blind to its message. And just what was the message?

Well, a good movie will take you on a journey, a journey in which the principal characters change. Well, but the problem as I look back on it now is that Ferris DIDN'T change that day. Cam did, and Joel did in Risky Business, but Ferris learned only that, once again, deceitful and impulsive behavior results in no consequences. This was perhaps the movie's message, that Ferris was some sort of God or something and well, "just don't try this at home kids!" Sounds like I really didn't like him, heh? Well, but i DID! I'm not one of those Ferris haters. But I gotta admit, of the three characters I'm referring to, he's the one who's going to have the most issues to deal with later in life, IHMO!

And so the irony to me is that Ferris was the catalyst that caused Cam to grow up and face his fears, but it was really Ferris that needed a catalyst, not Cam. Catalysts cause other things to react and change, but don't change themselves. This was the "Teflon" aspect of Ferris's existence. He didn't project any sense that he needed to work on himself, to grow. Perhaps unconditional parental love is not always a good thing then, and Ferris never appreciated how good he had it. Guys like that can get you in a lot of trouble because they have few moral boundaries owing to that love. I don't know, but remember that "the motorheads, dweebs, wasteoids, dickheads, etc" all loved Ferris. That left Ed and sister Jeanie to lead any attempts to burst his bubble, to catalyze any change in him. They don't succeed here, but maybe they planted some seeds in his brain? So "wake up and smell the coffee", Ferris. Cam's dad's is going to find out that you really wrecked the car, not Cam. And then your reputation is going to be the next hot topic around town.....

OK, OK......there, I've said it. I've made my peace with myself and with Ferris. Yeah, we love you, and I'd still pluck my money down to watch you outsmart Ed Rooney and the whole town of Chicago. But if immortal youth is the only God in this universe, you've got some years of reckoning ahead of you. That is unless of course, you drift into theatre, acting, comedy, or are independently wealthy. Because I guess I still don't know what you were really planning on doing with YOUR life? What skill sets were you going to bring to the rest of world?

Well, you might have made a pretty good houdini....

Lincoln (2012)

spellbinding or boring...

[6/10 · 19 December 2012]

While watching Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" tonight, I tried not to get too bored and so from time to time I would pinch my arm, reminding myself that this is an important, historical epic. Fidgeting slightly, I thought to myself that what I really should have done was bone up on my history BEFORE going into the theater so that I could write a though provoking review afterwards. I mean, I don't mind films like this one as long as I can approach them from the proper frame of reference. And so let me just say this to anyone interested in going to see this film: It is deep and political. You have to actually listen to the dialogue and challenge yourself to think. Otherwise, there is no point in you being in the theater.

But is it worth it? Taking on that challenge? Well, the film did not succeed in stirring up a lot of emotions and feelings inside of me. I wanted to feel proud or patriotic when I left the theater, but I didn't. Scenes showing crowds celebrating after the 13th amendment passed didn't bring on the goose bumps. So, in a nutshell, all of that effort I put into listening and understanding what was going on didn't really lead to any payoff. So here's the deal...

"Lincoln" is about a man, and as a story about a man it excelled on many levels. Daniel Day- lewis was exceptional in his portrayal of Lincoln with all of his shrewd political talent mixed with humble roots. He truly gave Lincoln heroic qualities and succeeded brilliantly in setting the man apart from his contemporaries. it was all there: the gentleness and kindly soft spoken manner. The humor and self depreciation. The oratorial skill, shrewd politicking and occasional fire and bombast. Simply put, Day-Lewis's Lincoln was every bit the brooding, humble, towering figure we all know and love from our history books. Well done, everyone.

But unfortunately, "Lincoln" was not so much a biography as it was a film about the passage of the 13th amendment to the constitution abolishing slavery. Pretty dry stuff, in other words, which was unfortunate. I mean, as a story, there was not a lot there. OK, you need votes. You need to wheel and deal a little bit. And of course there are other players too - some of whom are on your team, and some of whom are not. So, but If you enjoy courtroom antics, politicspeak and legal debates, perhaps this might have kept you entertained throughout most of the movie. Unfortunately, I don't that much though. And the ending is a foregone conclusion despite attempts to hype it up. The amendment passes and everyone goes home, right? So now what we have is not a stirring biography about a man but a not-so-stirring story about an historically important political victory. IMHO, that was a shame. So with that in mind, how could the movie have been improved?

Well, to tell you the truth, I really don't know. The problem is that treating the slavery issue sympathetically but without any pandering, condescension nor "bleeding heart" sentimentality is not easy. To Spielberg's credit, black's appearing in the film are given understated roles and treated with great dignity and respect. White senators on the other hand are often shown to be grimy, disreputable, tempestuous and rowdy. OK, I get the point. But still, something was missing here, and to me that was context, i.e. no one really showed us what a world with slavery was like and how it would be so much better without it. We do see scenes from the civil war, and the carnage there forms an important backdrop to what is going on in the White House. But that is somewhat divorced from the slavery issue itself. The reality went sort of like this: Slavery lead to the war which lead to the 13th amendment. But in the movie we just see the war and the 13th amendment. Tie ins to slavery are there, but they are somewhat of an abstraction. You don't FEEL the tie in in other words. I think that is my point. And without a tie in, I didn't get that feel good vibe when they counted the votes in the end. Could the movie have benefited from having a more prominent black character? Possibly, but it would have had to have been handled delicately to avoid the "bleeding heart" problem. I guess I don't know who would have been up to the challenge here. You would think though that Spielburg would have been if anyone was.

But anyway, so Lincoln is a movie that is a bit hard for me to recommend and comprehend at this point. Maybe I need to sleep on it. As a portrait of a man and a time, it often succeeds very nicely, and you will smile at the humor, the sets and choreography, and the knowledge that a master of the cinema is behind it all. But the plot revolving around the 13th amendment was static, predictable, and devoid of any real tie in to the very issue it was attempting to address. Stepping back a bit and doing a better job of relating what was going on inside the offices with what was going on in the surrounding countryside would have given the plot more meaning. I mean, I'm all for senators negotiating, debating and trading barbs, but an entire movie devoted to that can get a bit tedious.

EDIT: and one final point - these days any movie about a world not of our own (Sci-Fi, fantasy, historical, etc) ought to include at least some CGI, IMHO. Show us a CGI panorama of DC, in other words. We do see fragments of the city, but you don't really get a sense of place here. Just my opinion..

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

good family fun

[6/10 · 23 November 2012]

Wreck-It-Ralph is a cute animated movie from Disney about a video game bad guy who decides he wants to be good. In the video game world that is created here, characters are shown to be like actors and actresses in a studio, playing roles for the benefit of their quarter carrying customers - generally preteens. Anyway, this I thought was fun. So Ralph is like an actor fed up with playing bad guy roles. Rather than wreck things, he wants to be a hero for a change. Built like the incredible Hulk, he yearns to be able to use his strength and wrecking power to do good, not bad. The plot then is built around finding a way for Ralph to be able to be this hero.

The set up is engaging. Ralph find he can't really be the hero he wants to be in the game he is presently playing, so he "walks out" and enters some other games in the same arcade. Meanwhile, we go behind the scenes to a place that looks like Grand Central Station where game characters come and go, mingle, and spend their spare time when not "on the set" i.e. not playing their game roles. In other words, when no quarters are inserted in the machines, Ralph and other "cast members" can be found "backstage" like actors taking breaks. Its all kind of cute in a way. And with the set up the way it is, it also makes possible migration of characters to different games. This is where the plot takes off. Also, when game characters leave their game for whatever reason, the game is declared "out of order" and all characters are affected (i.e. put out of work like being laid off). So, this is the world we are introduced to here, and is what makes the story function and have some logic to it.

OK, so Ralph leaves his game, putting it out of commission, and searches for one where he can be a hero. His first try fails, but in his second attempt, he meets an unfortunate but engaging little girl trapped in a CandyLand type game called "Sugar Rush" who is in need of a hero. Meanwhile, his fellow characters from "wreck-it-Ralph" come looking for him. Also, some insect like monsters he inadvertently unleashed in his first alternate game get transported to CandyLand also where they eventually wreak havoc. So, in the end Ralph gets to be the hero he craves, saving his little girlfriend while defeating the villains, both imported and "indigenous".

And so what we end up with here is a little morality play about good and bad and how love can change everything. You see Ralph is a big crude dude and no one loved him in "Wreck-it- Ralph". But in "Sugar Rush" he is able to get a fresh start, find love, and put his wrecking power to positive use. And so eventually we learn that Ralph is a softie at heart and simply needed some love to feel good about himself. In the end, the hero's medal he craved takes a back seat to the love he found during his quest for that medal. Thats good as I didn't want him to become "good" just because he found himself a little piece of gold to hand around his neck. It was looking that way for a while...

Anyway, I am not a gamer, but you can see that throughout the movie there is much homage being played to gaming. The plot is well thought out with enough twists and turns to keep you guessing. And the journey through CandyLand was fun with lots of humor thrown in as characters stumble across the sweet landscape. So, all in all, throw in some good music and visuals, and I found the whole trip entertaining.

And if you remember "The Wizard of OZ", expect to see some references and parallels to it in Ralph's journey through CandyLand. Its as though Ralph traveled to OZ in search of a wizard (King Candy) to give him a medal only to find that through love and good deeds, he earns it naturally. Same lesson - you don't get something for nothing. I think it was on purpose that we come to wonder at first if Ralph can be "good" simply by stealing medals not belonging to him. No, he has to earn them, and eventually he does.

The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947)

amusing

[5/10 · 10 September 2012]

I did not know that Shirley Temple ever made any movies past puberty, so I watched this little film with great interest. What would she look like as a teenager? Was she still charming? Well, I can tell you that yes, she is still charming and cute and now womanly too, with curves in all of the right places. Nice to know that. Otherwise, the theme here which involved a teenage Shirley having a crush on an older man, seemed appropriate somehow. I mean after all, Shirley Temple the child star always seemed much more comfortable around people much older than herself than she was around her peers. So it all made sense to me. Now throw in Cary Grant as the older love interest, and I found myself smiling quite a bit. But you know, it is a silly film. I mean, its relatively intelligent, but the theme is not. And when I turned it off midway through, it looked like Cary was developing a romantic interest in Shirley's cool tempered lawyer sister rather than with Shirley herself. I guess that didn't suit me too well. I wouldn't have wanted to see her sadness when she finds this out, to see her pout and cry. Poor little Shirley Temple losing at love. And then I kind of wondered at that point if perhaps this might be a reflection on her real life relationships as well. I mean shunning your own peers in favor of adults might make finding a suitable mate difficult, in film as well as in the real world. That hunky basketball playing boyfriend in the movie wasn't all that bad, Shirley. But you elected to pursue an unrealistic love interest instead and probably got squashed down as a result! So i guess I turned the movie off because I think she deserved better. She deserves happiness. She did not make any films after 1950, so I'm figuring that once she became an adult, she put the past behind her and moved on. To a happy life as an adult now? I hope so. To see her become a tragic figure like Gary Coleman would have been too much to bear. But I think the films she made as a teen were not that popular which sort of suggests to me that others felt the same way she did. That it was time for her to move on and live a normal life. That she is still alive today makes me feel good and implies that she did find happiness as an adult. But now she is surrounded everyday with people much younger than herself, not older. Does that make you sad, Shirley? Hopefully not. I wish you well....

WALL·E (2008)

wow

[7/10 · 22 August 2012]

Wall-e is a great movie, entertaining in every respect. I saw it by chance last week, and I was overwhelmed. Its one of those movies that everyone can enjoy - kids, grandparents, everyone.

I won't go into the details here as that would probably be a waste of time. But the best part for me is how the story unfolds and how you come to understand and see what is going on without any dialog to support it. That is the beauty of this film for me - the detective work that is required on the part of the viewer in lieu of any dialog (until later on in the movie). Us human beings are naturally curious creatures just as Wall-e is. Without dialog (which in most movies these days isn't worth squat anyway), that curiosity is intensified, and I for one really enjoyed the challenge here of deciphering messages encoded in body language, etc instead of being spoon fed a predictable plot. And it wasn't a predictable plot. By the time I started seeing the fat humans careening around the space station, I began to understand what was going on, and I knew the plant carried by Eve was an important part of the story. The rest of the plot then soon fell into place (along with some dialog now). When that happened, I smiled and felt very satisfied.

Cute movie. Very fast paced (almost to the point of being dizzying). There is that familiar twist sometimes where the robots come across as more human than the humans. But more than just acting like humans, Wall-E and Eve were childlike. Their muteness combined with curiosity made perfect sense then as a small child is also mute and curious. And also, just like children, their lives were full of discovery and mischief. Neither were particularly "self-aware" meaning we do not know if they knew or understood who they really were nor what their place in the universe was. But they did understand emotions - love in particular. That ruled and the big picture - man's role in all of this as their creator and all - was not of much concern to them.

So all of this I found refreshing and fun. I would really enjoy seeing this movie again. In addition to the story, we also had good music and some pretty cool visuals. And to anyone who would have rather replaced the "too-cutsie" love story with lots of action and violence - I say "look, pal - take your pic among the hundreds of animated, fantasy and sci-fi movies that glorify action and violence, and then tell me we can't, FOR ONCE, focus instead on love and a positive message about mans place on this planet." Thats all I gotta say -

The Big Year (2011)

right up my ally

[6/10 · 31 July 2012]

As a long time birdwatcher and Steve Martin fan, I watched "The BIg Year" with keen interest and an eye for the details. Having birded quite extensively in the US, I think I am qualified to give this a very thorough review!

To start things off, this is a story about three talented birders - one young hotshot (Owen Wilson), one budding hotshot (Jack Black), and one old guy (Steve Martin) - competing against one another to see who can list the most birds in North America in one calendar year. The action starts on Jan 1, and right off the bat, birds, or "ticks", start to go up on everyone's lists. A siting here, a siting there, and with a little scientific narration, we're off and running Thankfully, we also see a running tally of each birder's totals frequently as the movie progresses.

And then the various subplots and scenarios kick in as the race heats up. These subplots revolve around each birder and his normal life outside of his hobby with the idea being to show you what kind of sacrifices are involved in doing a big year. OK, nice idea, but only one of these really works for me, though - the one involving Jack and his dad, played by Brian Dennehy. Good work there - both believable and touching. But otherwise, the subplots were predictable and added little to the main story. I did enjoy, though, the one scene where expert birder Ken Bostick is making love to his wife while news reports of a "fallout" of migrants on the Texas coast is broadcast. That was probably the funniest moment in the entire film. Anyway, and then as the race heats up, more plot unfolds. Part of doing a big year is to not let others know you are doing one. Thats to lessen any chance of all out warfare among listers. Also, you can form alliances and team up with others along the way if your goal is to stop the top dog, the favorite expected to tally the most birds in the end.

But overall, a big year is not all that unlike it was portrayed in the film making allowances for Hollywood invention, etc. Things can get a bit crazy. The level of competition is such that ordinary people will sometimes do extraordinarily expensive, unethical, or just plain stupid things to see a bird. I liked that the film delved into this a bit, as each actor seemed fairly believable as a competitive birder, with enough scheming and conniving behavior thrown in to give you a feel for what a big year can really be like.

And now on to the movie from a scientific point of view: I'd rate the scientific accuracy of the birding lore here fairly highly at times. In particular, the culture on Attu, Alaska was a lot like I have read (I have never been). But at other times, inexplicably, science gave way to whatever seemed to suit someones idea of a good plot twist best. For example, THe great spotted woodpecker siting in Oregon was pure fantasy - Woodpeckers do not migrate much and this is an Asian species. Other birds like the pink footed Goose and Grey Owl were located in habitat unsuitable for them in real life. And then there was the trek to High Island in Texas, which really amused me because of how they hyped it up - I mean as the scene unfolds, tens of thousands of birds are shown filling the air like you only see on the duck and geese refuges. Very funny....:)

But here's what I kept wanting to see more of though - first off - more moving, beautifully photographed scenery (a la "Winged Migration", perhaps). Kudo's to the Bald Eagle mating scene which almost brought me to tears. But also - more science. A big year is more than about going to Texas and Attu in the spring. What about the Fall migration? The winter migrants? A big year strategy will take in all 12 months, and with each season, new birds become possible as the landscape changes. One could have been given a better sense for how the different seasons affect the distribution of birds and thus the fortunes of someone attempting to do a big year.

But in the end here, its all about the competition mixed with a little comedy. And as the days wind down and the winter months approach, big years often end up with some really crazy, last minute cross country treks to see late breaking hot birds. But here? - both the competition and the comedy sort of fizzle out in the end. The conclusion is pretty anti-climactic unlike a lot of real life big years I've read about. We cheer the ultimate winner, but even the losers wind up winning something in a small way - a feel good ending which at least keeps you from walking away disappointed that your favorite comedic actor did not get the top prize.

In conclusion, "the big year" is a fast paced adventure which does a fairly decent job of portraying the birdwatching culture and particularly those that are into competitive listing. Birding is also fallow ground for comedy though, but sadly, despite the appearance of Steve Martin, the film is only given a light comedic touch there. Steve's performance is very understated. Thankfully though, there is enough scientific meat, nice scenery and decent performances from the others to pull it off. Owen Wilson as Ken Bostick is perfect as the arrogant hot shot, while Jack Black does a nice job as the conniving but big hearted wannabe. So, but overall, maybe ditch or reduce two out of the three subplots, build to a bigger climax, and add more scenery shots and I'd have given this a much better review.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

a forgettable mess

[3/10 · 12 June 2012]

I hate to sound cynical, but I couldn't help thinking (as I left the theater early) that someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to create a movie and a whole theory of evolution just so as to lay a little schlock horror - sci-fi on everyone. Prometheus is basically just that. The whole Alien series is, in fact, arguably just that. And so try as one might to find a little meaning here, to find comfort and some peace of mind about our place in the universe, I just can't. I can't get past the main 'raison d'être" or reason for the existence of this series. Its to creep you out, basically. Always has been. So prequel or no prequel, (and expect sequels to this prequel I guess) - what should one expect now and in the future? BTW, what do you get when you make a sequel of a prequel - you get the ORIGINAL MOVIE BACK! Heh heh, well maybe eventually, but of course no one would stand for that. In any case, unless someone wipes out the entire Xenomorph population, horror - sci-fi is what you are going to get, plain and simple. Slimy aliens invading human bodies, plain and simple.

Which is not to say you can't TRY and elevate the bottom line here. Lord knows, they've gone to a lot of effort to do that over the years. It does help some, but in Prometheus, the story is so weak and poorly thought out, its hard to care. I've enjoyed reading about Space Jockeys and Xenomorphs and really its an elaborately thought out world. But none of this gets translated from print to movie here as the visuals take over, adding a superficial gloss to everything while smothering any depth and insight. Yeah, the visuals at times were nice, but cynical me also looked at them like they were mainly a set up, i.e. setting me up to think I was going to see a movie more akin to 2001: a Space Odyssey than a horror - sci-fi one. This kind of ticked me off, actually. I mean, I'd enjoy spending an evening contemplating our origins as 9ft tall, hairless creatures that look sort of noble and serene. Except that I can't connect spiritually to them at all not knowing anything about them other than the fact that they are careless with their bioweapons. What does this all say about our lives here on earth? Our future, our destiny? Nothing that I can tell..but do try and avoid grabbing cobra like reptiles when you see them in the future.

So, but I tried to like Prometheus at the onset. I was in the mood. But there was not a kernel of quality, original filmmaking for me to grab onto. Man travels to a distant planet to investigate his species origins here on planet earth. OK, what else? They send a team of young and seemingly talentless individuals as well as some corporate types. What else? They start getting attacked by the same slimy creatures that killed off their species ancestors. Will we ever learn?? Anyway, I did notice that the blonds here were sort of the bad guys, almost like Nazi stereotypes. Why, I don't know, but Ridley Scott does like to equate teutonic looking gods and goddesses with androids. He did it in Blade Runner. But bad guys too? - I mean, what was their motive here? That was never really explained too well. Anyway, and the rest of the characters were even more forgettable. They did inexplicable, unscientific things. They behaved like amateurs. No one really seemed to have a well defined role nor credentials to back it up. Most of the time, they seemed to react to their surroundings more or less like children - prodding and poking things to see how they work, etc. And you know what, I almost found myself saying "they deserve to get attacked by alien reptile creatures!". As descendants of noble looking but careless 9ft humanoids, perhaps that is their fate. And is that perhaps OUR OWN fate as well someday? While others may have somehow found a deeper philosophical message in all of this, that is mostly what I left the theater concluding - that we humans are nothing more than careless, warm, oxygen breathing cavities for opportunistic slimy creatures. We are, after all, the stuff of those poor, unfortunate Space Jockeys. And that is the comforting message that I will sleep on tonight. Its not about Religion nor our exalted place in the universe. Its about victims and predators. And that man had to travel millions of miles just to find that out is really depressing. Why couldn't everyone have just stayed home and read a good novel about man's achievements here on earth instead? Thats kind of what I wished I had done tonight anyway....

Contact (1997)

some flaws

[7/10 · 11 June 2012]

Contact is a movie I have seen many times, and through it all, I have learned to sort of ignore all of the irritating, poorly cast male characters and focus on the big picture - the movie's positive message, the sophisticated plot and the often stunning visuals. So its always been a mixed bag for me and another case of Hollywood transforming a book into something that would probably shock the original author. Contact may have been a book written by Carl Sagan, but the movie is all Jodie Foster. And as a vehicle for Jodie, it was well conceived. But Jodie's incredibly strong on screen persona is not easy for everyone to digest. And worst of all, it tends to rubs off on everyone else that is cast to play along side of her here.

Anyway, Jodie is Dr Ellie Arroway, a brilliant, lonely, obsessed and tempestuous astrophysicist. Since the death of her Dad when she was a youngster, there has been a big wormhole sized hole in her world, and she attempts to fill it by searching for life on other planets. This very personal story is then weaved together with an intergalactic one involving not only all of humankind but otherworldly beings as well when she succeeds in making first contact with aliens from the Vega star system. They want to say hello and send down a taxi (which we must build ourselves) to ferry some lucky individual to the center of the galaxy for a rendezvous with......God? Anyway, only one person gets to go, which, although it makes no sense from a practical point of view, fits well with the movie's theme which is an exploration of one woman's very personal, spiritual journey. One very bright but socially inept young woman.

OK, now perhaps because those that wrote the screenplay knew that Jodie's personality would not go down easily with everyone, they actually wrote jokes about her confrontational, "pain in the ass" style right into the script. That way you were at least told up front what to expect and it was OK - Dr Arroway is a seething mass of conflicting emotions, veiled and not so veiled hostilities, and childlike obsessions that often go beyond normal logic or reasoning. She doesn't always get along with others, particularly men, and particularly anyone that tries to control her. Instinctively, every male to her is either a loving father figure or someone just trying to jerk her around. Well, predictably, I guess, this is why all of the male's cast here are either jerks or Dads. Or sometimes both :) But does this make for enjoyable movie viewing? No, most of the time it doesn't. Not when you have actors like Tom Skerrit and James Woods cast in painfully confrontational roles and given incredibly lame scripts, playing jerks opposite Jodie. And neither does it work for me regarding Ellie's blind friend Kent, who I found irritating. But I reserve most of my scorn for Ellie's love interest, Palmer Joss (Played by Mathew McConaughey), who somehow manages to combine jerk/leering/frat boy with godlike/father/saintliness, and does it with a straight face. I mean, WTF? Who is kidding who? Well, Ellie seems to be attracted to both sides of this chameleon, though. I mean, it took lines like "that must really chap his ass" to get her attention initially, but down the line, she also bows down to "you could call me a man of the cloth", as if, by now balancing the ticket, she just might have found herself her perfect man? I don't know, but Palmer's White House "Spiritual adviser" connections are ludicrous. Couldn't they have cast someone less of a hunk for this role? Someone more cerebral? Jeff Bridges, perhaps?

Anyway, I no longer laugh out loud at these sillier casting perplexities, and enjoy the movie for its originality plot-wise and for the science, the mystery and the journey into space. This is where Jodie is most at home anyway, not in the social arena. And ditto myself when viewing this movie. There is much to enjoy. A cool space transporter powered by strange technology that looks like a giant atom. A message from space that must be decoded. And without writing a spoiler here, I must say there are some unexpected plot twists along the way that will entertain. But ultimately, what it comes down to is Jodie and her relationship with all of these men, both the jerks and the dad's. Jodie frets and glares at the jerks. But in the presence of the Dad's she is soft, vulnerable, feminine and childlike in awe. I kind of find this to be a little disquieting, as though she never grew up, never accepted her place in the world amongst all of her peers. Maybe her journey, though and the fulfillment of her spiritual quest will settle her down. I think that knowing that might be a relief to us film goers, anyway. Knowing that Ellie Arroway, if she were ever to resurface in a sequel, would be a little mellower and forgiving towards those of us less Godlike than dear old Dad. And then maybe the jerks would disappear too...

Vacation (1983)

classic Chevy

[6/10 · 21 May 2012]

If I could choose one movie that best represents what Chevy Chase and his brand of humor is all about, I'd probably go with "National Lampoon's Vacation". Chevy's own career often seemed to reflect the fortunes of his hapless alter-ego here, Clark Griswald, as many of his subsequent films were flops. So as much as I have always liked Chevy, I have never felt that he really had a lot of control or interest in the quality of his own work post-Saturday NIght Live. Its as though his on screen persona - aloof, disinterested, wise-assed, etc was also his real life persona. Also, Chevy was born into a lot of wealth and probably really didn't need the money. So all this I think spelled trouble for much of his film career. "Vacation" is possibly the best of the lot, and even here, there are times when he goes beyond comedy and lapses into behavior that just seems absurd for the sake of being absurd. But overall, "Vacation" is a funny film and it should touch anyone who has found themselves in similar circumstances while "on the road".

OK, Chevy is Clark Griswald, a nerdy husband to Beverly D'Angelo and a father of two. The family lives in Chicago but want to drive to "Wally World" in Southern California for a few weeks of fun and rides. To get there, he buys an absurdly built "family truckster" (station wagon), packs the bags and off they go on their family vacation.

Once outside of Chicago, problems surface immediately. Everything is terra incognito to Clark as he bumbles his way across farmland and prairie. The standard schtick is that he claims to be in control of everything thats going on, but he really doesn't have a clue. He makes things up and lies if he has to. Beverly D'angelo knows this. His kids know it. So ultimately, the joke is always on him despite how hard he tries to act casual and remain "in command". Sometimes, the result is great comedy. Other times, its a little absurd. But mostly you will enjoy and possibly relate to what they are going through as they wind their way to California.

But once they depart Kansas and head to Colorado and Arizona, the movie starts to fall apart for me. Clark's bumbling and antics start to go over the top, and that peaks when they stay at a hotel in Arizona where Clark meets a mysterious blonde (Christie Brinkley) who seems to be following the family across the country. Also, there is a subplot involving an older relative (Imogene Cocoa) that borders on bad taste. So what started out as kind of a cute and funny film begins to escalate into absurdity and anger as Clark begins to get on EVERYONE"S nerves, including my own. In fact, you almost want to strangle him at some points. Its not the jokes with bad taste so much as the fact that his growing incompetence makes those jokes less funny. There is a balancing act going on here, and at some point, he crosses the line. For example, Beverly's "as long as you don't tie me to a bumper" line in reference to an incident earlier where Clark accidentally kills his cousin's dog, takes the shine off of the comedy and starts to turn it into something darker and less enjoyable.

Anyway, but before they reach California, though, there is one more funny scene where they get lost and crash the car near Monument Valley, Arizona. Clark's "father to son" talk here is a classic, and he follows that with a dash through the desert looking for a gas station. When they recover the car later and Clark is lashed by an attendant for his stupidity in thinking he could find a gas station in the desert, he replies "well, I'm from out of town", another classic Chevyism. So that to me was a funny scene, and oh well, then we hit California...beyond that I probably should shut up or else I could be writing a spoiler here. Suffice it to say, things don't go well at Wally World either...and once again Clark's antics go over the top for me.

But "vacation" is still a funny film worth checking out if you are a comedy fan. If you know and like Chevy, you will like the movie. And then I will close with one lingering question that always resurfaces for me every time I see this movie. The question is:

"Would you dump Beverly D'Angelo for Christie Brinkley???"

I dunno.......I really don't know...

Risky Business (1983)

Risky but rewarding

[6/10 · 20 May 2012]

Everyone has their own "coming of age" story, and many could probably peddle theirs on the big screen if they worked hard enough at it. "Risky Business" is one example of this age old theme, and a great one for exploring issues such as class conflict, peer pressure and parental expectations, all as they relate to the sexual awakening of a young upper middle class male.

This is the movie that launched Tom Cruise's career, and its success is due in a large part to his great performance as the lead character, Joel Goodson. Joel is an earnest, hard working high school student who wants to do the right thing, but is also possessed with desires (aren't we all) and an intense curiosity about life beyond his well manicured front lawn. To help him explore these desires are three friends who all seem to be a little more experienced and less inhibited than himself. This appears to be the source of much of Joel's problems. Joel, in a nutshell, needs to prove to himself and the world that he is more than just a ""Goodson".

Now one will note that right off the bat, "Risky Business" offers a little more than the usual coming of age fare. There is depth, style, good music and a carefully crafted mingling of dreamlike sequences with real life sequences. All of this serves to create the proper mood for the play out of Joel's inner conflicts. And the conflict that haunts Joel the most in the opening hour of the movie is the one between sex and success. The message: If you pursue one, you will sacrifice the other. Among those hammering home this theme are Joel's parents who fear that one day, the egg they brought into the world will hatch into a bad egg. So what happens when they leave home for a three day weekend, leaving their big house in the suburbs all to Joel? Well, keep an eye on that egg....

Joel is tempted, and the empty house soon becomes a playground for the play out of his fantasies. "Egged" on by his friends, he invites over Lana (Rebecca de Mornay), a beautiful and classy working girl from downtown who represents everything he desires. They have sex, but soon after the fantasy begins to spiral out of control. For one, Lana has friends, and they seem intent on taking over Joel's house. All of this means that Joel's future is now in jeopardy. The egg meanwhile disappears for a time and when it reappears, it now has a crack in it...

OK, so now we have arrived at the nexus of the movie's message, and it is one that many have argued about over the years. Personally, I find it abhorant that anyone's life should be ruled by a credo that says that sex and a successful working life are mutually exclusive. This seems a problem unique to Joel. Yet Joel's solution to this problem is only one of many, and really, I mean, turning your folks house into a cathouse for a few days doesn't rank up there as one of the smartest decisions that a young man could make. But hey, Joel will never be the bad egg that his parents fear, and the risk he took COULD be seen as a sign that he possesses some qualities that will serve him well later in life. Is that why his misdeed lands him a spot at Princeton, and ONLY why? I don't really have a problem with the message, having faced similar circumstances in my own life a long time ago.

Anyway, through it all, Joel maintains a sort of sheepish attitude, smiling his way through much of the movie. But he also gets scared when he's REALLY in trouble (i.e when it comes to Dad's car). Otherwise, he seems way too genuinely nice to be a bad egg. And also, he falls in love with Lana, the scheming working girl and business woman who strangely becomes his mentor, both sexual AND career wise. To me, it all works in a crazy sort of way. His sexual awakening is balanced and augmented by a tutoring in how to respect the power of money. Maybe Joel can have BOTH his sex and his success in life after all...thanks to Lana...?

So, but there is even more to Risky Business than that. Consider the great, hypnotic music by Tangerine Dream,and some truly memorable dreamlike sequences including one on a subway late in the movie. All of this brought emotional impact to the movie in addition to the conflict and inner tension. It was enough to almost bring one to tears. So how can Joel's parents not be happy with the outcome of all this? Joel knows his place in life, and he has securely positioned himself for future success. And that he had this little adventure only broadened his horizons a little while provided him with one heck of a real life fantasy!

In conclusion, all of this secured "Risky Business's" place as probably the best coming of age movie to come out of Hollywood in the 1980's. And it also served as a springboard for Tom Cruise, who was justly praised for making it all happen through Joel Goodson, the earnest and appealing high schooler, who deftly transformed his sexual fantasies into a great career move. "Risky Business" is aptly named, and should not be missed.

Good Will Hunting (1997)

somehow it works

[6 January 2012]

Good Will Hunting is an improbable film about a young man with an unbelievable IQ and gift for mathematics. Set in Boston, Mass, it deals will many issues that I found prevalent in that city when I was growing up 40 years ago. Everyone, rich or poor, wants to be "smaaart" in Boston. No one wants to be a "fucking moron". So, here you have everyone's secret fantasy brought to life, especially if you are a "southie" from the poor part of town. And that fantasy is to be able to outsmart the MIT and Harvard boys. Will Hunting does just that, and the fact that he is a janitor at esteemed MIT only serves to further illustrate the class conflicts that only his prodigious talent can penetrate and overcome.

Now I think that many people watching this film did not find Will's character to be believable. But Will is first of all a Boston native and so I believe that the movie is somewhat autobiographical or at least the expression of a fantasy of his. This makes the movie work for me as he is able to be himself with all of its contradictions - angry and foul mouthed but also smart and wanting the world to know it. He embodies well the Boston I remember with all of its class tensions. Intellectuals hold a place of great respect there, but they also can be resented and envied. That resentment is what fuels Will's ambition and gives the movie a sense of believability. Could this happen in real life? - sure, but only if the gift is toned down somewhat. Yeah, but thats Hollywood and you have to expect that his talent would be trumped up a bit.

Anyway, so I enjoyed this movie on many levels. In particular I loved Minnie Driver and believe that without her, things could have fallen apart very easily. I don't think her relationship with Will was awkward or forced. Smart girls often fall for less fortunate guys. This was one of the more satisfying relationships in a movie I have seen in quite a while. And Robin Williams puts in a strong performance although if you are from Boston you know he's no southie. He is, though, a little like Popeye the sailor man - still a force to be reckoned with. Did he and Will have to bond over fart humor though? Seems they could have worked on that a bit...

But Good Will hunting is overall a well written, thought provoking drama that explores a lot of issues and relationships surrounding class, career ambitions, personal triumph and tragedy. No one escapes unharmed and there are no gods in the end. The fortunate are humbled, and Will can never escape his past. This is Boston. Here we end up with a compromise of sorts where several individuals from completely different backgrounds teach each other a few things about life and grow as a result. Now if you had told me the storyline before I saw the movie, I would have been dubious that it could work. But because you had two up and coming, talented individuals writing and acting from the heart, a sensitive director, some good music and nice city shots, this is a movie I would watch again for sure. Two thumbs up.

Battle Los Angeles (2011)

what?

[19 June 2011]

The main reason I spent my hard earned money to watch Battle: Los Angeles in my hotel room is because of the trailer which was really intriguing and included some eerie, cybermusic that was very cool. So my first question is - what happened to the music? I kept waiting to hear it and never did. But anyway, it could not have saved this movie. Nothing could have saved this movie.

OK, well, in Battle: Los Angeles, expect to be surrounded by marines the entire movie, living and breathing marines, following marines everywhere. The marines were just a first line of response to the attack upon Los Angeles brought about by aliens landing just off shore. But I kept expecting at some point that we would break away and meet some civilians with some real power and influence. We never do. So this gives the movie a sense of anarchy, a "view from the trenches" feel which is actually not bad, given the situation. I mean, telling the story of an alien invasion from the point of view of a chosen few who are trapped within its midst would work for me if it was handled well. but its not handled well. Its just low budget filmmaking.

So when I find myself watching a movie like this, I try to find things to enjoy. The alien spacecrafts, for example were pretty cool. The aliens themselves were OK too. And that the aliens have invaded earth for our precious water held out promise for a plot twist or two down the road. That kept me in the game as I expected this fact to figure heavily in the outcome of the movie somehow. Would they attempt to suck all the water out of the aliens and their spacecrafts with giant hair dryers? I pictured delirious, parched aliens staggering around, begging for water from a GI's canteen. Or maybe the Santa Ana winds would suddenly kick up and kick the aliens out. I don't know.

Anyway, but instead we are just treated to cliché after tired cliché of marines sacrificing, going the extra mile, getting tough when the going gets tough, etc, etc. And in the meantime we learn ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the aliens themselves. There is no broader message, no larger story, nothing to excite or ponder. Just a few marines slugging it out with these strange creatures that taste bad when they blow up in front of you and their "stuff" gets in your mouth. Thats about it. So in conclusion Battle: Los Angeles left a pretty bad taste in my mouth, and it probably will you too.

The King's Speech (2010)

needed more

[6/10 · 6 February 2011]

The King's Speech was nicely photographed and gave us some insights into the period leading up to World War II. But the story was too narrowly focused on its principle subject and could have really benefited from a sub plot or diversion to give us some contrast and more historical insight. So yeah, it was a bit boring. Predicably the movie begins with a badly given speech and ends with (oh sorry, I guess this might be a spoiler here) a well given speech. Is this a spoiler? Ha! Anyone could have predicted that, so I don't see how it could be! But anyway, worth a look but pretty much what you get is what you would expect to get. Don't look for any surprises.

Avatar (2009)

predictable visual feast

[11 January 2010]

I finally got a chance to see Avatar today after several failed attempts due to snow, crowds, theaters only showing it in 2D etc. Below are my impressions which assume you already know the story and maybe have formed your own opinions already.

First of all, I agree with everyone that complains about the lack of dialog and the predictable story. I remember when Titanic first came out and people were complaining back THEN about how insipid was the script and Jack's character, etc. Well, Jack Dawson was much better fleshed out as a character than Jake Sully! I mean, it seems our standards for dialog have dropped another notch in the past ten years. Jake is an appealing character, and I think pretty well suited to the role. He also narrates the story a bit. But he basically is not given even a moments worth of meaningful dialog (unless you consider lines like "count me in" and "teach me" meaningful dialog) I think they could have basically scripted him as mute as well as paraplegic, and the movie would not have had any less impact. This is remarkable when you consider the deep, personal crisis he confronts midway through the film. Oh well, we must not let anything get in the way of the visuals...

Anyway, the story unfolds very quickly here, and we're not given much time to think about characters. I felt like I was being immersed in Pandora before I was really ready. Its always nice to build a little suspense and audience expectation up before going some place so fantastic. Unfortunately here, though, the wonders of Pandora were treated in a pretty matter of fact way, almost as if we were expected to already know a bit about it. I think it would have really been nice for Grace (Sigorney Weaver), the primary advocate for the planet, to show a little more excitement about her world and a little less jaded attitude. I mean, if Pandora was the star of this movie, it was not given the reverence it deserved by Grace. That reverence was reserved for the Na'vi, but their's was from a wholly different perspective, being that it was THEIR world and the only one they have ever known.

But on to the main plot here - politically, what you get with Avatar is a healthy dose of left wing morality. A VERY healthy dose. Western man rapes a planet and threatens an indigenous culture in the process. THis sad tale pits a cocky soldier thug (Stephen Lang) and military industrial complex dweeb (Giovanni Ribisi) against the Navi, a noble, indigenous tribe of Indian-like people. The princess of this tribe is Neytiri who is both strong and confident as well as sexy and emotionally fragile. Her "West Side Story" love affair with Jake, the reluctant warrior, is what adds personal triumph and tragedy to the story that already is designed to tug at your heartstrings quite a bit. You are suppose to cry for the Navi, and I imagine many did. Others undoubtedly saw this as blatant political propaganda and squirmed in their seat. But If you were in the latter category, it might have been best for you to just skip this little morality tale all together. This was not a military propaganda film. THe "good guys" - mother nature, the Na'vi, tribal values, etc triumph in the end.

Anyway, but superimposed on the main plot is Jake's personal story and his relationship with his Avatar. This I thought was fascinating and one of the movie's main draws apart from the visuals. I thought that what really facilitated Jake's conversion to the Navi lifestyle and his political about face was the thrill he got from having legs and mobility again. This theme of returning to ones childhood and/or to a more primitive state (but more robust physically) is a key to understanding the love interest and from there, the conversion Jake experiences. The "love" Jake suddenly finds himself experiencing is really a love of nature and of his youthful, more athletic self. Disabled as he was, who would not want to return to the garden of eden and be given a second chance at life? So I enjoyed this sub plot which played a key role in bridging the fantasy and the reality, the animated and the non animated characters and bringing unity to the story.

Well, I just remembered there is a limit on how much you can write in a review. So, on with the visuals. The visuals were stunning like I expected, but one does not get a good sense for the overall scale of it all. Were they traveling miles, hundreds of miles, or what? And, well, the floating mountains just kind of didn't really make much sense from a ecological point of view. So this lent more of a fantasy element to Pandora than one based solidly in science. And as for the plant and animal life, I preferred the plant life. The luminescence was kind of cool and made the Na'vi's lives seem mystical and enchanting. But the animals were crude and hostile by comparison (except for the "horses"). And they were also not well suited for the rain forest environment either. Basically, they just stuck big, fast, aggressive game animals into a thick, wet forest, which I guess is why so many of them kept running into trees...:)

So in conclusion, Avatar is a visually stunning, well made film but with a predictable, time honored love/war theme. Thankfully, the Avatar sub plot though is refreshing and breaths originality into the romance. But overall, maybe the best thing about Avatar was that it introduces us to a totally new world and teases us with the potential for some really great sci-fi movie-making. So we'll see what develops in the way of a sequel...

2012 (I) (2009)

not very memorable

[4/10 · 25 November 2009]

You would think that something as cataclysmic as the end of the world would be memorable (that is if you were to somehow survive it). But I'm sorry to say 2012 is not a movie I'll be discussing for weeks and weeks with my friends and family. That is because mostly its a rehash of recent epic disaster flicks, especially "Titanic", where the question of "how to survive the sinking of a luxury liner" is replaced with "how to survive the sinking of a continent". But I better not go into any further detail without a spoiler alert here.....

Anyway, the movies starts out reasonably well, and there is tension from the start. I think both the senator and Woody Harrelson's character worked quite well. There is trouble brewing beneath the earth, and only geologists and conspiracy freaks have any clue as to what is going on. Not a bad premise for a movie there, but then enter John Cusack and family to contribute the "human element" and things start to go seriously awry. I mean, the world is coming to an end, and do we really want to spend most of the movie experiencing the pain, sadness, loss and heroism of that spectacle through the eyes of this insipid family? And is their harrowing journey to China really an act of heroism, or is it an act of narcissism? Well, its not heroic if you are only out to save yourself. Meanwhile, as city after city crumple all around them, Cusack and son are joined by a host of wealthy people from across the planet who will carry forward mankind's presence on earth. And herein lies the main problem with the movie: There is no personal story nor tragedy amid the ruins and decimated parts of the planet itself. There is only a story of escape from that, and an escape facilitated by wealth. I mean, the wealthy few were never shown to represent mankind at all. There was no formal selection process nor endorsement from the multitudes, no official send off. They just sort of snuck away, figuring no one would be around anyway to mind that they alone, through the power of their wealth, had the means to survive. So this was sort of like a "Titanic" theme only in reverse. Imagine celebrating and cheering on those lucky Titanic passengers who managed to bribe their way onto lifeboats while leaving thousands behind to die?

So, but I don't know if this movie even deserves that much analysis because it just doesn't seem like a whole lot of thought went into it, period. The special effects weren't bad with LA's destruction the hands down winner in that department. But I was actually ready for more, and would have gotten a kick out of seeing NYC go down in similar fashion. But no........we have to take care of the rich people instead, and show the world how important it is that they survive above all else. The fact that the last hour or so of the film contained almost NO scenes from the decimated and destroyed part of the earth was especially bothersome. The vast multitudes had their coffins nailed shut with barely a tear shed. Contrast that to the amount of time spent later on exploring whether or not some fat cat's poochy would be saved, and you get my point. Towards the end, I found myself flashing back to movies like "The Towering Inferno" and "The Poseiden Adventure" as well as "Titanic". In each we had wealthy people surrounded by disaster and tragedy. But only here were those involved IMHO undeserving of any support or emotional connection on my part.

On occasion, though, I did feel moved while watching this spectacle, especially when there were helpless old folks on the telephone from far off places. After all, telephone calls to loved ones is something you could easily imagine taking place during such a crisis. But I did not tear up while watching the contrived and "hearfelt" scenes later on. It could have been compelling - the survival of mankind in a cataclysm such as this is a story worth telling. That this movie succeeded in totally trivializing that experience by making it dependent upon the "heroics" of a ten year old kid and his dad is quite a cinematic blunder.

WarGames (1983)

Vintage Broderick and more

[7/10 · 18 August 2008]

War Games came along during a time (1983) when concerns over nuclear annihilation were very real and filled our newspapers daily. If you are not old enough to remember that era, though - don't worry. Like "The China Syndrome" (1979), War Games is not just a topical thriller, but an educational and entertaining drama as well. Is it dated now? Of course it is! What movie featuring computer technology is NOT dated within five years? 1983 was 25 years ago, which means its now older than your average film-goer. Plus, the cold war ended almost 20 years ago. But despite all this, War Games is still fun, and Mathew Broderick will forever be 18 in my mind thanks to this film and "Ferris Bueler's Day Off".

OK, Mathew Broderick is David Lightman, a talented but alienated high school student from Seattle. His parents are middle class nobodies. His biology teacher delights in tormenting slackers like him and friend Jennifer Mack (Aly Sheedy). Luckily for David, though, the personal computer industry is just in its infancy, and so he is more than happy to barricade himself in his bedroom for long hours to tinker with his hi tech toys. Its the perfect escape, and also the perfect place to hatch a little mischief. David is really just a classic hacker, destined perhaps to become a scientist or researcher someday. But his activities, which begin in all innocence, soon raise the ire of the button down types in the War Planning Room at NORAD. Just what exactly does David do? How about inadvertently place the world on the brink of World War III, all from the comfort of his cozy bedroom? Its a little dizzying to contemplate, but such is the nature of David's precocious talent that suddenly puts him at the center of an international incident and manhunt.

Soon, the action shifts to NORAD headquarters in Colorado. From the onset, NORAD appears to be run by a tin horn dictator and his feuding malcontents, but thats just Hollywood. Anyway, it amuses me that the least technical employee at NORAD is the General that runs it. Anyway, tensions surface immediately, then mount as David's mischief hatched in far away Seattle becomes apparent. And then once David himself becomes aware of what he has done, the movie really shifts into high gear.

David is in trouble now, and friend Jennifer, who is about as cute as a high schooler can be, can only dish out the wisdom of a 16 year old ("just act natural and everything will be OK"). But how much trouble is David REALLY in? Did I mention that the Global Thermonuclear War game he started at NORAD, which NORAD cannot determine is real or imagined, can't be stopped until it reaches its monstrous conclusion? Such is the predicament that everyone now faces, and which fuels the tension that will grip the movie until its climax.

Anyway, all of this is good storytelling up until this point. The logic and reasoning used by David and his cohorts to hack the WOPR computer at NORAD is inventive. Meanwhile, we also get a decent look inside a shadowy defense agency, and are introduced to Professer Falken and his nemesis, Dr. John McKittrick (Dabney Coleman). I enjoyed the contrasts between these two characters and the way that they embodied the hawk vs dove debate that one is asked to ponder throughout the film. How futile is Global Thermonuclear War? How sad is it that so many devoted their entire lives to contemplating or planning for this catastrophe? Professer Falken, who's JOSHUA program caused all the misery at NORAD to begin with, shares his thoughts on the matter before deciding whether or not to help David end the trouble that he began. And as for the ending - well, its quite good and a well conceived climax to the film.

Through it all, War Games entertains, and treats us to some memorable characters. Broderick here is great as the precocious slacker we all have come to know and love. At times he crosses over into being arrogant and insulting though, like when he fails to show the proper deference towards the brilliant Falken. Dabney Coleman, John Wood and Alley Sheedy are also very good. High schooler Alley is wonderfully naive in a stubborn and demanding sort of way. Her innocence was well conceived and a nice contrast to the ultra seriousness of the defense establishment higher ups she and David do battle with throughout the film.

There were a few curious plot inconsistencies, though- one in particular that occurred early on. For example, when it first surfaced at NORAD that WOPR had been compromised, the error was attributed to a phone company slip up. Yet soon after, David is accused of working with spies on the outside to purposely hack the WOPR. This is clearly inconsistent, as a phone company slip up should absolves David of any premeditated wrong doing.

Halfway thru the film, the action shifts to an idyllic island retreat off of the coast of Oregon and introduces us to some unexpectedly relaxing and peaceful music. I loved this scene, and it brought a wonderful breath of fresh air (literally) to a movie that up until that point had all been technical or military related. The contrast here was no accident I am sure, and the peace and harmony represented by that island resurfaced again when the same tune was used to close the film. It was as if to say "all's well that ends well; peace was preserved in the end" I think that this brought a lot of depth to the film and was genuinely touching. The harmonica to me was meant to symbolize the peacefulness of the old west, or of "Marlboro Country". And it also served to highlight the contrast between the peaceful Falken and those that ran NORAD.

Two thumbs up for War Games.

The Music Man (1962)

refreshing scenes from a bygone era.

[8/10 · 25 July 2008]

The movie version of the Music Man is one of the most outstanding films not only of the early sixties but of all time. I love to watch it today because it shows us how we approached entertainment back then, and how different that approach was compared to today. It was a simpler time, but not a simpler movie! It was sophisticated entertainment for educated minds with a taste for humor and irony and a little silliness - all 60's style. No movie preserves that era and mentality better than the Music Man!

Oh, well I didn't intend to write more, but there is a ten line limit on comments. Anyway, this movie is almost flawless. It comes together with so much ease, you sense everyone was born to play their part. There is so much humor and so much great music. It is so sad that we never get to see so much talent on display in Hollywood movies anymore. Maybe its the stage training that actors and actresses had back then that meant you got 120% from each one, all the time. Whatever - the Music Man is a true original and an American icon. No student of the history of film should go without seeing it!

Romancing the Stone (1984)

One of my favorites

[25 April 2008]

Looking back at the early 1980's, it seemed almost like a mini-golden age for movies. Romancing the Stone was one of those gems to come out of that period. As an action/comedy/romance, it struck gold in a market hungry at the time for Indiana Jones type adventures, and succeeded by delivering non-stop, fourteen carat entertainment from start to finish.

OK, enough with the "precious stone" analogies :) Seriously, more than anything, this movie is just plain FUN. Kathleen Turner is Joan Wilder, a New York romance novelist and "indoor girl" who writes about adventures she can only dream of having. But then, when her sister suddenly winds up in some big trouble down in Columbia, SA and needs to be rescued, she is reluctantly thrust headlong into her own adventure tale. Naturally, the adventure involves a hidden treasure and a love interest along the way, as well as some people that are about as evil as they got back in 1980's Hollywood.

So right off the bat, there is action, mystery and suspense. First Joan finds herself in the possession of a strange package, the contents of which will be the source of all her troubles down the road. Then her sister calls frantically from a distant phone in far off Columbia, demanding that Joan deliver that package to her or she may lose her life. Finally, a mysterious man shows up at Joan's apartment door and shoots a witness in cold blood. All of this takes place in New York, and it's only the beginning. Soon enough, the action shifts to Columbia.

Once in South America, Joan's adventure really takes off, and so did mine. In fact, I fell in love with this movie while watching the bus she had mistakenly gotten on climb a lush, tropical mountain road the morning after her arrival. You could feel the tension now, and also a sense of foreboding. Joan is now terrifyingly alone in an unfriendly, exotic land, and already she is being pursued by dark forces. Not only that, she is on the wrong bus, headed for nowhere! So clearly she is in need of a hero, when all of a sudden, in one of Hollywood's most memorable entrances, Jack T. Colson (Michael Douglas) arrives to help our damsel in distress. Well, perhaps somewhat reluctantly at first, though... :)

Anyway, I can't give it all away. But suffice it to say the two proceed to team up and then fall in love while evading their pursuers at every turn. The action, meanwhile, is often funny. It is also often beautifully photographed against a backdrop of South American uplands. And it is often poignant. You see, Jack is kind of a macho guy and is completely at home in the bush, but otherwise he's a nobody. While Joan is.....well, pretty green as a bushwacker, but a really big deal as a romance novelist, especially in South America. So all of this makes for some incredibly funny moments as well as fodder for an unlikely romance. And little Danny Devito, who lurks in the wings when he's not falling off of counter tops, is everyone's favorite "bad guy", especially when stacked up against the sadistic Zolo. Backed by an ingenious score (that used electronic drums for the first time in movie history), the magical scenery, and the sometimes funny, sometimes harrowing action, the viewer is kept entranced for the next hour or so of screen time. Meanwhile, Jack fumes, then gets upstaged, then ultimately falls in love under a canopy of fireworks. Oh yeah, and what about that treasure hunt that has everyone, good and evil, scrambling up and down mountainsides? What good is a romance without a prize to cement it with, or a prize to finance a honeymoon with? Jack's lonely man's dreams are about to be fulfilled.....

But wait, there is more. Before the honeymoon can begin, the evil ones strike back, and a tense, grizzly climax ensues. I was a bit put off by the ending here, though. Apparently, some felt the need to have the most evil character severely punished at the end. Maybe he deserved it, but the whole tone of the movie changed for me at this point and I was uncomfortable with that. In a way, it was almost as if the film attempted to achieve not only comedic plateaus, but action/violence plateaus as well. But the result for me was a bit unsatisfying and sort of like attempting to cram intense sweetness, sourness and bitterness all into one flavor. Such contrasts will inevitably repel to some extent, and on the balance, which one remains for you to savor?

But that was a relatively minor issue for me when compared to the hugely positive affect the movie had on me overall. I think what I will savor the most from this movie was the scenery, the "opposites attract" romance, and one particularly memorable scene in a mountain village that was quite possibly the funniest to ever appear in a film of this genre:

"Joan Wilder?.....THE Joan Wilder??"

So go see "Romancing the Stone", if only for those reasons. :) You will not be disappointed.

Titanic (1997)

aging well

[8/10 · 22 April 2008]

So much has been said about "Titanic" , pro and con, I doubt I can add much to the discussion. I am one of those that has seen it numerous times (at least a dozen) and watching it now is a lot like putting on a comfortable old shoe. The nostalgic quality of the film was always a big draw for me anyway, and now, seeing it again brings on a sort of "double nostalgia" i.e. a nostalgia both for the movie itself as well as for the time period in which it took place.

We all know who Rose was or rather who she represented. She was the "Miss Liberty" that appeared on all the coins of the era, and whom also was the inspiration or model for the Statue of Liberty. At the moment she proclaimed her freedom in the movie, in fact, she traded her tight corsets for the same free flowing gown worn by those early feminist icons. I think a lot of people missed that point and instead took to making negative comments about her weight, etc as though an actress with a super model bod would have done a better job of projecting that Miss Liberty persona. Anyway, the more I see the movie now, the more I love both the old Rose and the Kate Winslet Rose. Young Rose wasn't an overly strong person through much of the movie, but that to me was consistent with the types of relationships she was in. I can see some wanting a sexier Rose, while others, a stronger and more assertive one. But to me, the balance was just about right as it had to be for the movie to succeed.

Otherwise, there are many other things I still marvel at while replaying this movie over and over again. For example, nine times out of ten, long movies suffer from problems related to pacing and holding the audiences attention. But Titanic's "take it slow" approach was in my mind a stroke of genius, not a fault, and the pacing was magnificent in the first half (pre iceberg). Paradoxically for me, the second half of the movie actually contained some of the "slowest" scenes, with "slow" being a relative term tied to one's expectations.

And then there is DiCaprio's Jack, and my only lingering regret with regards to this movie. Maybe I was wanting Matt Damon for the role. I don't know. But Jack's mix of humble roots and Paris sophistication was just too hard for me to swallow. It reminded me of how super sophisticate Hawkeye Pierce of "M*A*S*H" was actually from.......Crabapple Cove, Maine? This is Hollywood wanting to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Jack did have to be an artist, though, because that was central to the plot. But his humble roots was to me just a case of "balancing the ticket" politically, so to speak, and was irrelevant otherwise.

Anyway, Titanic is still a beautiful and moving film to me. Sure, I might have toned down the cheesy aspects of the romance and cast a more mature and believable Jack, but the real achievement here lies elsewhere. People use terms like "timeless" and "enduring" when describing movies such as this, and yes they are clichés. But when applied to a historically based film they have real meaning. Implicit is the requirement that such a film span generations and appeal to filmgoers from across the decades. Titanic accomplished this beautifully in a unique and powerful way. As serious historical epics go, I suppose this movie will never be a heavyweight. But yet it still has that power to endure in one's psyche - almost as much as the original disaster may have endured in the memories of those that experienced it first hand.

Starship Troopers (1997)

lots of ways to look at it

[15 April 2008]

I haven't seen "Starship Trooper" in a long time, but I may go back for a second look after reading some of the other comments here. The question on my mind is - is this a legitimately great, thought provoking film, or is it exploitive sci-fi schlock. My initial reaction years ago was that is was the latter, but maybe it is worth a second look.

Admittedly, this is a notable movie in many regards. The violence alone, surpassing anything I have ever seen in any movie, assures it a place in movie history. Was the violence excessive and unnecessary? I think more to the point was whether or not the violence added to or detracted from the film as a work of art. Many great films have contained shocking episodes of violence (The Godfather, Catch 22, etc), so that doesn't necessarily disqualify it. However, in "Starship Trooper", the violence was senselessly crude and repetitive, and was about all I came away from the movie remembering. Was there a message about fascism I was also suppose to have absorbed as well? Yeah, well maybe it was "fascists are incredibly stupid" or something like that. Another notable aspect of this movie was the extent to which it insulted my intelligence. Here, it was as if I and everyone else in the audience was also assumed to be incredibly stupid as well.

Anyway, so I don't think that if I were to see this movie again I would pick up a lot of important, subtle messages intended for the more literary minded. The messages, if any, were intended for a different crowd. In fact, I might also argue that the movie glorified fascism as much as it may have warned against it. But possibly I am wrong and really do need to see the movie again. Maybe the glorification of fascism was a subtle ploy to suck you in (or rather, suck in the fascistically minded) only to repel you later with the disgusting violence. I mean, after all, why make a truly intelligent movie for educated people who already KNOW that fascism sucks? Aim lower in other words, and appeal only to those who might be inclined to become one of Hitler's youth. Suck them in, then sock 'em with the violence later which will surely cause them to think twice about their future career plans, right? Was that the REAL idea behind this film?

Well if THAT didn't work, there was still the sheer spectacle of it all which guaranteed that this gross-out movie would gross big at the box office. Maybe the filmmaker was just trying to cover all his bases. In other words, If you didn't get the big picture, you could still be entertained with all those endless and gory insect battles.

Meet the Robinsons (2007)

A little frenetic and confusing.

[9 May 2007]

Even though I did not bring any kids with me to see this movie, I watched "Meet the Robinsons" with an eye for how it would come across to a 10 year old. If I had seen it when I was ten, I would have needed someone to explain it to me. The implications of time travel are subtle, but are presented here as though one has already seen "Back to the Future". Adding to the confusion is the fact that the "future" we are introduced to looks like 2400 AD when its only, like, 2040 AD. Also, the "Bowler Hat" guy is not, as I thought he might be, from say, the 1890's. He's from.....well I better not say.... and is just a convenient villainous type that is fun to portray. So maybe this was all designed to throw us off and keep us from guessing the plot line. But I dunno.....although I was pleasantly surprised when the plot was revealed, it didn't make any of these "out of time" elements easier for me to accept. For a time travel movie to succeed for me, I need convincing reference points to hold on to, not Hollywood mishmash. Unfortunately most screenwriters do their own mental time traveling as well when creating these movies, assembling bits and pieces from past successful animations. So, all in all, to ten year old............I mean, huh?

Anyway, our young hero Lewis is a geek with a dream. Or maybe two dreams. As an orphaned child, he wants desperately to know his real mother and to have a family. He also wants desperately to be an inventor. Standing in his way are, not the bullies that torment him as is usually the case, but a strange villain of unknown origin with a very smart hat. Next we fast forward to the future, literally, as a plot unfolds about a missing time machine. Then the movie makes a left turn, and we get introduced to the Robinson family, who are a little like the "Adams Family". Quirky and decadent, yes, but relevant? It all unfolds at a rather dizzying pace. Then, just as you start to tire of this family, the rest of the plot falls into place. OK, I understand it, but is it believable fantasy, or contrived? Well, try cooking me up a different villain for one, one more true to the character from which he sprang. I mean, he's deliciously evil, but we've seen it all before. Anyway, finally there is a nice climax involving bowler hats gone wild which is a lot of fun. And then things resolve themselves in predictable ways.

All in all, "Meet the Robinsons" is not a bad movie. It has an interesting plot with plenty of unexpected twists and turns as well as humor. But did we REALLY go for a ride in a time machine here? Personally, I went for a nice ride in 3D, but not really one in time. In "Back to the Future", much of the humor and interest sprang from the "out of time" experience the characters had to endure. This helped keep the audience's frame of reference firmly planted. But aside from an odd reference to Lewis's hair, "Meet the Robinson's" doesn't exploit that potential at all. Instead, we are presented with a strange vision of what our future might be like - one filled with wondrous technologies and beautiful lawns, but with quirky, Alice in Wonderland type characters that you may have hoped you left behind a long time ago. Lewis should be happy to have that to look forward to - or SHOULD he?

Happy Feet (2006)

penguins are cute

[4 December 2006]

Penguins are so cute and human like, it must be irresistible to want to make an animated movie about them. Ever wonder what penguins do all day long down there in the Antarctic? Just stand around like folks at a bus stop? Not anymore. Thanks to Mumble, who was practically born tapping his feet, they now dance. Why? Well, the reason is a little confusing.......

Mmmm....lets see. Dancing is fun and most likely keeps the feet warm. Dancing also angers the elders, which in Hollywood is always a good thing. But besides that, I guess its just cute to an eight year old - an eight year old that can whisper in daddy's ear about how horrible it would be if something were to happen to these cute little critters. Heaven forbid! They must not be allowed to starve. After all, we need the entertainment and what other critters walk around on two feet like us, wear tuxedos and have such cute little chicks? But can cute and dancing save them all from annihiliation? Thats the million dollar question.

Anyway, I didn't really feel the need for much of a plot here. I can dig two hours of great animation and scenery and music with no plot at all. I loved Winged Migration for example, a movie that came to mind during a couple of scenes. So in otherwords, others can argue about the political message and the stereotypes and all that. But I was preoccupied more with things like the poor choice of musical numbers and how I really couldn't tell any of the tall penguins apart except for Mumble. And the dancing? It really wasn't all that inspiring. So in essence, what we were left with was a movie that was basically about penguins singing and dancing, but with neither inspiring music nor inspiring dance. Oh well......nothing like going with your best punches and then missing both of them.

So what memorable moments did this movie leave me with, then? What themes touched my heart? Those chicks were so cute in the beginning, I almost started to cry. And I also think that having another race of Latino penguins was a definite plus. But the love story, on the other hand, fell flat because I never bonded with any female penguin, and because Mumble did not really seem to be as interesting in attracting a mate as he was in saving his fellow penguins from starvation. And where was our hero's redemption in the end? His crowning moment of glory? It was mostly lost in a sea of gyrating penguins, who were too busy grooving to the beat to remember who to thank. We know who saved the penguins, but did the other penguins know?

Overall, I'd give this effort mixed success at best. I don't think it was bad, but it missed in important areas where it should have made sure it hit the mark (music, dance). I didn't even mention the computer animation, which was very satisfying as i expected. Anyway, cute penguins are nice, but I don't know if I would have bothered to save them without more inspired song and dance.

North by Northwest (1959)

fun to see again

[8/10 · 28 August 2006]

The greatness of North by Northwest may be measured in part by its imitators. Two of my favorite movies, both made since 1959, are "Silver Streak" and "The Sting". Both were very popular movies that borrowed heavily from it. It is easy to look back now, see the scenes with Cary Grant on the train, and say " I've seen this before". Sure, in "Silver Streak", which had Gene Wilder and Jill Clayburgh trading sexual innuendos across the dinner table ("I give great phone" was one line) just as Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint did. Or to watch the climactic gun battle between Robert Redford and Paul Newman in "The Sting" and have the same reaction. Both of these movies, made in the 70's, were big hits, but how many people knew that Hitchcock deserved half the credit?

As I watched this movie again (hadn't seen it for a long time), I was also struck by Martin Landau's understated but captivating performance. Based on his work in this film, he would have been just right for the part of Mr Spock in Star Trek, a role that Gene Rodenberry wanted him to take. Cool and emotionless playing next to James Mason, one can definitely see the Spock in him.