Fury Road

The latest Mad Max movie is fantastic. Great acting. Great practical effects. Great music. Literal non-stop action. Cool camera and filming techniques. And also not the misogynistic type that most action movies tend to be. It was actually pretty much not a Mad Max film and more of a Furiousa film. Charlize Theron is fantastic.

I wanted to see it anyway, but I wanted to see it way more after reading that some "men's rights advocates" were upset about it. It lived up to their fears and was amazing. There is nothing romantic between the lead characters. There is only give and take equally. Furiousa is strong more than just physically. And Max recognizes this without even having it test it. And the Vuvalini. I don't think I've ever seen badass older women in a movie before.

It still retains the trademark of Mad Max films. It's odd. It doesn't have a whole lot of dialogue and what it does have often doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's a lot of death and disease and general bleakness. Characters, places and events aren't really explained fully or fleshed out. This leaves a lot to the imagination which is occasionally frustrating, but mostly makes it a bit more realistic.

There is really nothing about the movie I don't love. I need to see it again in 3D.

Avengers (Spoilers maybe)

I watched Age of Ultron today. I liked it well enough. Interestingly, I don’t actually like superhero movies all that much and I generally wait until they are on DVD. However, I do watch Agents of SHIELD, so I needed to see the film to tie it all together. Also Joss Whedon is a sort of hero.

Anyhow, I liked the film well enough. It was a fun surprise to see Andy Serkis and Paul Bettany. I really dislike Tony Stark. I really love Natasha Romanov. I also like Clint, but I really dislike the actor, so it’s sort of hard to reconcile that. I really enjoyed his little family twist.

The film and Whedon have been getting some criticism (rightly so) for Stark’s primae noctis line. My theory on that is that it isn’t so much just a cheap rape joke put into the script for fun. It’s Stark. His character is real. I mean, it’s horrible of course, but it’s his character. And it’s also something that comes up in real life. What was upsetting perhaps more than the joke itself, was that no one called him out on it.

That’s what Joss Whedon’s strength is: making real people. These characters aren’t just archetypes, they are more real than any of the other superheroes I’ve seen, including the other Marvel ones with the same characters. They all have weaknesses. And they all have strengths other than the obvious. I think the main reason I love Natasha is that she doesn’t have super powers. She’s just bad ass. And that’s why I like SHIELD as well. Real people. Humanity. And Joss does that so well.

So yeah, no real spoilers I guess, just my thoughts. Now I can go back to watching SHIELD and wishing for a Black Widow movie.

Lucy

I’ve had “Lucy” on my list of movies to watch for some time now. It didn’t do so well with ratings and all, so I decided it was a drinking movie: one I wouldn’t have to pay too much attention to.

I actually liked it. It was strange to be sure. The premise was unreasonable (we actually don’t use only 10% of our brains. We just don’t use it all at once). ScarJo was great of course. As was Morgan Freeman. I really enjoyed the style. Flashing back and all, delving into human evolution. (Seeing the writing/direction credit - Luc Besson - explained it all.)

I do feel that it lacked real impact, though. But the potential was there. She mentions that she feels less human as the human emotions melt away.

I think that that bit should have been the focus. Because- as I’ve stated before- humanity is the real subject of sci/fi. So if I were writing the film, I’d say she learns everything she can. Everything there is. She unlocks it all, but ultimately chooses to remain human, understanding that knowledge and power aren’t the goals of life. It’s the raw, experienced, emotions that make us who we are.

I just watched The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel again. I first watched it on the plane back from Iceland.

It's really quite amazing. A bit of a comedy, but mostly drama. Great scenery, music and acting. I absolutely love Dame Judi Dench. But there are so many other older British actors as well.

My boyfriend's synopsis: "Super Excellent Hotel"  It's about a bunch of old people who go to India to die.

Not exactly true, but not entirely false either. Basically, it's really good and I think everyone can get a little something out of it. I think I may even buy it.

Oh, and they're making a sequel. I hope it doesn't disappoint.

The Enemy Gate is Down

This is a spoiler-filled review of the film Ender's Game. (Please note that I am not going to get into any discussion on the author, Orson Scott Card, especially related to his politics and religious beliefs.)

The film was okay. It seemed... simple, I guess. I know it'd be hard to get all the nuances of the book onto the screen, but I was bummed with how it turned out. At the same time, I was amazed at what was pulled off. As a stand alone film, it was quite engaging, or at least I assume it would be. But I've only just finished listening to the audiobooks, so the differences were disappointing to say the least.

First of all, it seemed to move too fast. The novel takes place over several years. Ender is 6 at the beginning and around 11 at the end. The film seemed to take up only about a month's worth of time. Which is really quite implausible considering the task at hand. The children had to learn not only basic school studies, but also tactical maneuvers and how to work together as a unit. I understand that it would be hard to film a kid growing up, but I also think that they may have chosen a slightly too old kid. Yes, Asa Butterfield's performance was strong, and he looks quite young. However, he was 14 or so during filming and he's quite tall, which made some of the fights seem not as momentous as in the book. In the book, fighting the bullies and winning was a big deal because he wasn't bigger than them in any way. He had to use his brain to find ways to overcome them.

Another thing I missed in the film was Peter and Valentine's deeper roles. I realize that it was unnecessary for the film to have anything to do with them, but it didn't really drive home how awful Peter was and how good Val was. How Ender wanted to be nothing like Peter in any way. And it skipped all of Peter and Val's writing to become influential on earth; which was not needed for the film, but still quite interesting, as they were just as smart as Ender, but not suited for Battle School.

I think that they used the phrase "The enemy's gate is down" in much to trite a manner. We didn't get to see how Ender reoriented the Battle Room to fit this idea. How he had his soldiers attack feet first to make smaller targets, and now none of the other Armies could figure out his tactics. It made the phrase nearly meaningless when Bean reminded Ender of it at the beginning of the final battle.

There are things I did like about the film. The performances were quite good. Asa Butterfield embodied much of the Ender I imagined as I read. He showed confidence and strength of character. He did reveal a lot more emotion in the film; but in the book, we were inside his head, reading about his anguish and lonliness. He never expressed it. It would have been impossible to portray that onscreen. Butterfield also handled an American accent quite nicely. That's got to be hard. Harrison Ford made a perfectly dispassionate Col. Graff. I loved the changes they made to Major Anderson; choosing Viola Davis for the part was perfect. And Ben Kingsly! At first I was worried after seeing promotional photos of his tattooed face. I worried about cultural appropriation and the like, though I knew the character Mazer Rackham was from New Zealand. But the simple fact that Kingsly used a spot-on Kiwi accent washed all those misgivings away. He was perhaps my favorite part.

I also very much enjoyed the film visually. The simulations were amazing. I wanted to see much more of those. The Battle Room was also quite awesome, though not as I had imagined. I imagined a stark white room. No views anywhere at Battle School. But I liked the visuals of space and earth. I wish they'd showed more battles there as well.

So I was disappointed that the film left out a lot of beloved details. It seemed rushed. But I did enjoy it. Let me know what you thought if you've seen it.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

I just watched Beasts of the Southern Wild. I recommend it. It's a bit hard, but mostly just hauntingly beautiful. It's an insight into a world not many people have seen.

I don't really know what to say about it other than that everyone should see it. It's what I'd call magical realism, having fantastical elements that don't detract from the truth of the story. It's always interesting to have some insight into a culture other than my own. And coming from a global studies and humanitarian perspective, it hit home in a very different way than many other similar movies have. In this film, the people do not want outside help. They don't feel connected to anyone but those in their community. They don't want to leave, they don't want anyone to come in. And that's hard to grasp from a humanitarian point of view. I just want to help everyone. I want to give everyone what they need. What was reinforced today is that some people don't want anything I have to offer. Some people don't need anything. They only want to be left alone. Something to think on.
 
Also the music compliments the film wonderfully, and the little girl deserves that Academy Award.

A review of sorts by one who doesn't like to read reviews

There are possible/probable spoilers for The Hobbit here, especially if you're like me and don't like reading reviews before watching the film. 

I watch movies I'm interested in without first (or ever) reading reviews about them. I feel that reading such things before the film makes me think too much about what positives and negatives were previously pointed out.

Thus, I did not read anything about The Hobbit until after seeing it. And it seems that a lot of critics were rather harsh.

I agree that it may have been hyped up a bit much. It's a prequel to one of the highest grossing trilogies of all time, not to mention most Academy Awards. The technology is cutting edge, but you might not actually know that unless they told you. And they did. But I think that technology is supposed to be a support, so not noticing it is actually the point. And yes, Jackson and the team did embellish Tolkien's story quite a bit.  However, not as much with non-canon material so much as delving into extended histories of Middle-Earth. So the film didn't follow the book verbatim, but was supplemented with many things from more obscure works. In this way I think it catered more to the dedicated fans more than the casual viewer.

I loved the extra lore and character depth. I loved the flashbacks. I love New Zealand as a backdrop. And I love Bilbo.

When I was quite young my mom read The Hobbit to my brother and me. Bilbo was always a very dear character to me. And when I read it myself and then went on to The Lord of the Rings, I was actually disappointed that Bilbo was not also the protagonist of LOTR. I found him much more personable and not so afflicted with martyrdom as Frodo.  Martin Freeman certainly did not disappoint as Bilbo. I am very fond of the actor (my car is even named after him.) Though I do wish he'd get done with this Hobbit business and go back to Sherlock.

I really appreciate how they made each Dwarf as unique as possible. It's still hard (impossible?) to keep them all separate, but at least I can tell which is Thorin and also who Fili and Kili are, as they were always my favorite. Also Aidan Turner as Kili is totally hot. I really liked the interactions of Thorin and Bilbo and how their relationship is progressing.

Details I'm glad were added/retained in the Hobbit:

"Is it scrumptious? Is it crunchable?" Gollum says "scrumptiously crunchable" in the book, but it is possibly my favorite Gollum line.

The stone Giants. I wondered if they were too far-fetched for Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth. After all, they're reminiscent of the rockbiters in Neverending Story. But I liked them nonetheless.

Radagst. He's not actually in the Hobbit book more than just a brief mention, but I always liked him from his brief appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring (book). In this film I'm assuming he's meant to take the place of Beorn, which makes me a bit sad. I enjoy a good skinchanger, especially of the bear variety. I wonder why they figured rock giants were a go, but not skinchangers. Regardless, Radagst serves nearly the same role in the film as Beorn did in the book, but without Gandalf's ingenious introduction of 13 dwarves to him.

The mention of the other two wizards. I like that Gandalf even said he didn't remember the names of the blue wizards. Alatar and Pallando, by the way. They're only mentioned in order to note that they left and no one has seen or heard from them since.
 
I cannot wait to see more of Smaug and the Elves of the Green Wood.
I've yet to go back to see it in 3D- as it was intended to be seen. I can tell that the cinematography would be even more spectacular in this mode.So perhaps I'll write even more later

Oh, and I still want a warg.

EDIT: December 16

I saw The Hobbit in 3D and it was certainly meant to be seen in 3D. Nothing of my review has changed except the fact that Beorn is almost surely going to be in the next film, as that's how the flow of events in the book are and the company seem to have ended up on the Carrock at the end of Unexpected Journey, which I didn't really notice the first time around. So perhaps I should have done a little research before making assumptions. 

We Need to Talk about Kevin

I watched this movie some time ago and it's been on my mind off and on ever since. It was an extremely unsettling movie. Someone suggested I read the book before the movie was even made. I've decided that I will not be doing that ever.

Mostly, it just made me sad.

From IMDB: "Kevin's mother struggles to love her strange child, despite the increasingly vicious things he says and does as he grows up. But Kevin is just getting started, and his final act will be beyond anything anyone imagined."

Basically it follows Tilda Swinton's character as she deals with her son and his choices. All of the acting is amazing. It made me sad because I know that some of it is true. When young people do horrible things, often their parents are blamed. If not directly, at least socially. It happened after Columbine High School and I'm sure it's happening now for James Holmes' parents in California.

The film laid it out fairly well that Kevin was a bit off. Many people who commit atrocities do not show these signs. Most of their parents are actually unaware of anything, rather than unable to do anything.

Anyhow, I don't really suggest the film, but it was and still is something important to think about.

And it did end well, all in all.