Argo: A

Scott and I saw Argo just before the Oscars. It was an enjoyable movie with an interesting story and great cast. I prefer historically-based movies -- even though I always wonder how much of it was true. However, I haven't heard any complaint about the movie's accuracy. It even compared the actors with the real life characters in the end titles.

Zero Dark Thirty: C

Scott and I saw Zero Dark Thirty about a month ago. I remember it was a compromise selection as there wasn't anything playing that we really wanted to see.

I enjoyed director Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, so I had high hopes for this movie with similar military themes. Like the bomb-defusing scenes of The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty had some intense scenes waiting for a potential explosion. However, the suspense for me waned as we all knew the main character probably wouldn't be killed.

The much discussed interrogation scenes were disturbing and were definitely torture. Is it just me though, but I'm a bit weary of re-opening the torture debate of the last decade. I suspect many of us would prefer to put the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield days behind us and hope that doesn't happen any more -- or at least we won't hear about it.

The movie was well-paced, which I appreciate. The movie's biggest drawback was it basically ended at the completion of the Bin Laden killing mission, which was not very suspenseful considering the details of the raid have been widely reported. Like The Hurt Locker which focused on a soldier's struggle to transition to civilian life, I would have much rather have seen what happened to the characters after the Bin Laden mission ended.

Les Misérables: C (B for musical)

Scott, ma, and I saw Les Misérables several weeks ago, but I'm just now posting my thoughts before tonight's Oscars. Having never seen the stage version, I didn't know what to expect other than a lot of singing. There was almost no dialogue. The constant singing seemed like a endless medley, but I don't watch many musicals.

One of the promotional clips mentioned that the singing was filmed live with an elaborate system of hidden earpieces and carefully mic'd stages. While live singing would seem to be better than voice over, I can't say it made much difference to me. Other than Anne Hathaway's Oscar-baiting performance [of that Susan Boyle song :)] filmed in a confined space, the sound quality was still fainter and less clear than voice over. And, regardless of the terrific technical efforts, singing dialogue inherently undermines authenticity of any scene.

Weeks later, I recall that Hugh Jackman's performance was good, but I can't recall any songs he sang. Russell Crowe's singing has been widely criticized; however, I thought his less than stellar singing brought made his ill-thinking character more realistic. After all, wouldn't all of us sign imperfectly if thrown into a musical? That said though, I'm not sure what Russell Crowe was thinking.

Overall, an okay musical, but a long dreary story with only a few likable characters. I probably would have appreciated seeing the stage version more.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: A

Scott, Jay, and I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey today. There's not much to say about this movie. It's as high-quality and well done as any of the prior The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. In fact, I would say it's even better as the story is far less complicated without the confusing multiple storylines and far less Middle Earth jargon.

That said, my only complaint is the same as the LOTR trilogy: How can a three-hour movie with dozens of characters have only one woman? Well, okay there were some female extras doing domestic chores in the background - 'cuz someone's got to do the laundry. If a similar movie was made with a 99% female cast it would be derided as a chick flick, but I have yet to hear anyone call The Hobbit a guy movie. I know, I know, the filmmakers were probably staying true to J. R. R. Tolkien's chauvinist writings and yet the same filmmakers have taken many other liberties such as stretching a book out to three feature movies...

Anyways, my main motivation for the seeing the movie was to see the nine-minute sneak peek at Star Trek Into Darkness. Wow!

Lincoln: A

Scott and I saw Lincoln a few weekends ago. I looked forward to seeing this movie ever since I heard a movie about about Lincoln was being made. (I have to admit to some embarrassment when I momentarily mistook this summer's Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for the Steven Spielberg movie.)

Lincoln should be subtitled "Politicking The 13th Amendment" although I understand the studio's reason not marketing the movie's emphasis on the legislative process. I do appreciate that the movie didn't rely on any non-linear or flashback gimmick like so many biopics. Instead, the movie assumed the audience already knew the basics about Lincoln's life and revealed more about the obscure details his life as president.

Before seeing Lincoln, my impression was that he fought for the 13th amendment for more pragmatic reasons rather than being an ardent abolitionist. I was a little concerned that Spielberg was glossing over Lincoln's complicated racial politics in the opening scene. The film opens with two African-American soldiers paying tribute to the president as he sits on an elevated covered platform -- much like people today walk-up the Lincoln Monument today. I did wonder how plausible the scene was that African-Americans would be allowed to address the president; however, it doesn't seem impossible either. I'm not a historian and have to rely upon historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin whose Lincoln biography the movie was inspired from.

Overall, the movie was great. Well-paced with great performances that made the legislative process seem exciting. My only concern is whether or not the movie whitewashed Lincoln's view on race. My understanding is that Lincoln probably didn't believe in racial equality or civil rights as we understand these values today. However, there's no denying that he made considerable sacrifices to pass the 13th amendment which undermines doubts that Lincoln only opposed slavery to reign-in the South.

Skyfall: B

>

Scott, ma, and I saw Skyfall several weekends ago. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Bond franchise, so Skyfall was filled with tributes to the first Bond movies which culminated into the final scenes. Daniel Craig's James Bond is so well-established now it's easy to forget that this is only his third Bond movie. Javier Bardem's flirty, campy villain was fun to watch and left me wanting a few more scenes.

Admittedly, the Bond genre has always had a bit of fantasy and, like any movie, audiences are willing to let unbelievable technobabble and coincidences slide for a good story. So, I'm willing to overlook that Bardem's Bond villain can hack into a government spy agency's network and control a building's security system. However, I was a little irked that Bond seemed to act too slow to save innocent bystanders' lives.

Regardless, the movie was great. My only complaint is that in honoring the franchise, the sequel didn't bring much new to the franchise. I appreciate that Daniel Craig did reveal more of Bond's vulnerability (i.e. age) and the story revealed a bit more about Bond's back story.

The Cabin in the Woods: B

>

Scott didn't quite drag me to The Cabin in the Woods a couple of weekends ago. I was a little more willing to see this horror movie because Joss Whedon was involved, so I figured it would not be a typical horror movie and have a little more wit. Like most movie genres, the horror movie formula is so overdone that even the parodies are formulaic. Cabin in the Woods isn't quite a parody, but it still seemed to drag a bit going through the usual horror movie set-up.

Overall, I liked the movie. Richard Jenkins (Six Feet Under) and Bradley Whitford (The West Wing) were great playing their usual characters. It had a good pace and a quick ending.

Brave: C

Scott and I saw Brave yesterday. Scott convinced me to go because it was a Pixar movie and not merely a Disney princess movie (although technically it is). I forgot that I actually like Pixar (The Incredibles, WALL-E, Up, Finding Nemo, etc.).

The 3D CGI movie was visually beautiful and stylized. However, it didn't feel like an adult Pixar movie to me. It seemed too cartoonish. The castle in an enchanted forest setting just seemed too Disney cliche. Worse, the story took an unexpected turn becoming a sentimental mother-daughter movie with slap-stick animals thrown in.

A "C" rating is probably too harsh, but in terms of Pixar films, Brave just didn't wow me like their other films. It certainly isn't a bad film and I don't regret seeing it. However, it seemed a bit Disney average to me. And while it was beautifully done, the preceding animated short, La Luna, is more memorable to me.

Prometheus: B

Scott, Sheena, and I saw the much anticipated Alien prequel Prometheus. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the Alien franchise. I never completely watched the original 1978 Alien although I've seen portions of it on TV. I only saw one of the later sequels which pretty much affirmed that the franchise is more horror movie than sci-fi.

It seemed the original premise of the Alien franchise was to set a horror movie in a gritty, realistic industrial space setting. The aliens were the horror movie monsters pushed to an extreme courtesy of H. R. Giger's gruesome imagination. Likewise, humanity is portrayed unsympathetically as a soulless corporation dispatches humans in harms way.

Prometheus starts off a bit more optimistically. Through the generosity of a corporate benefactor, humanity sets out for the noble goal of searching for the origins of life. And the aliens are discovered to actually not be that alien from humanity at all. While there are the usual horror movie cliches such as the doomed, expendable characters, Prometheus initially peaked my interest as the alien origins began to be revealed. Unfortunately, the movie builds up to a key scene, only to disappoint when the monsters are merely revealed to be monsters.

The movie then has the usual climatic action scene crescendo and the door is left open for a continuation. But I can't help but feel a little disappointed that story decided to dodge being a sci-fi movie and instead just went back to merely being a horror movie.

The Hunger Games: C

I reluctantly saw The Hunger Games on Saturday with Scott. Although I like sci-fi and post-apocalyptic visions, children murdering children just isn't something I'm interested in seeing. The movie's quick cuts avoided dwelling on scenes that could have been overly graphic and gory, but it was still just too disturbing for me. The nihilistic vision that human society is so defeated as to willingly submit to inhumane rule was just too far a leap for me. Maybe I'm too naive, but I have a little more hope in humanity.

The production was visually stunning though. The costumes and hair were over-the-top ridiculous -- which I like. The movie's pace was good -- although 30 minutes could have been trimmed. The ending and the foreshadowing that this was merely the first in a film franchise were predictable. Overall, an okay movie based on a flawed story.

J. Edgar: D

I looked forward to seeing J. Edgar when I first heard about a biopic that would explore J. Edgar Hoover's alleged secret homosexuality and male partner. I avoiding seeing this movie in the theaters though after reading disappointing reviews. However, after recently hearing Dustin Lance Black's interview on Fresh Air again, I decided to watch it via Amazon.com.

Even after being warned from reviews that the aging make-up was poorly done, I was still surprised how distracting it was to see the amount of prosthetic stuff applied to the actors' faces as if they were playing Star Trek aliens. Worse, the movie's constant jumping back and forth with the younger and older versions, often framed scene-to-scene, only highlighted the poor quality of the make-up. The contrast with The Iron Lady's subtle make-up technique is profound. There's no way to fool an audience into not recognizing a familiar actor is behind the make-up, but J. Edgar decided more is more.

I'm not good at judging acting skills as I tend to go along with the actors' performances. I'm usually the last person to call-out bad acting. However, I do recognize how well Meryl Steep was able to completely recreate herself in nearly back-to-back characterizations of Julia Child and Margaret Thatcher whereas DiCaprio's Hoover depiction reminded me of his Howard Hughes depiction from seven years ago. Besides a slight change in accent, I don't recognize much difference between DiCarpio's old man Hoover depiction versus his old man Hughes.

I was surprised in the Fresh Air interview that Black understands that Director Clint Eastwood still doesn't know if Hoover was gay because the movie blatantly depicts Hoover having a romantic relationship with FBI associate director Clyde Tolson. However, sex was never portrayed in the movie. The speculation, which isn't quite clear in the movie, is that Hoover's and Tolson's relationship could have been sexless. Black speculates that Eastwood may not consider Hoover a homosexual if Hoover never acted sexually.

Overall, while the movie does cover Hoover's alleged sexuality and even throws in a sentimental cross-dressing scene, its depiction of Hoover was bit too sympathetic. Yes, Hoover's blackmail files and his vile conspiracy against Martin Luther King, Jr., are depicted, but it didn't really depict Hoover's self-serving hypocrisy. How can an alleged gay man also lead an agency that actively persecuted gays and lesbians? And why was Hoover's FBI so reluctant to take on organized crime?

Moneyball: B

I watched Moneyball last night at home via Amazon Video On Demand. I'm not a sports fan and consider baseball to be ridiculous and unwatchable, but Moneyball is not really about baseball. Like other sports movies I've recently watched, The Damned United and Invictus, Moneyball focuses less on the sport itself and more on the professional sports industry and culture.

I enjoy movies that make an effort to seem realistic and, to my non-sports fan perspective, Moneyball at least felt realistic so me. It's about the Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who realizes that he can't compete with the other teams' player budgets, so he hires an Ivy-league economist who uses statistical analysis to hire affordable, unknown players. Admittedly, that description doesn't sound very compelling. What makes the movie interesting is Beane's struggle to implement his statistical approach against the passionate, traditional baseball management.

Hugo: D

Automaton from Hugo

Pipe man from overactive bladder medication, VESIcare. (Image stolen from Etsy.com)

Scott dragged me to Martin Scorsese's Hugo last weekend. I have to admit that I did not give this movie a chance. Having no interest in seeing it, I completely mis-remembered the trailer and carried a lot of ill-conceived preconceptions going into the theater. I assumed Hugo was about a robot -- which is understandable considering how prominent it appears in the trailers. I also assumed the robot was named Hugo, which was stupid because the trailers clearly indicate that Hugo is the name of the main character, a human boy. Worse, since the trailers emphasized that it was 3D, I somehow had the impression that it was going to be a terrible CGI fantasy animation like Avatar or worse, The Polar Express (I even told Scott before the movie that I assumed the movie was going to be some sort of extended VESIcare commercial). While there was a lot of unbelievable CGI scenes -- especially the opening zoom which felt more like a video game introduction -- Hugo wasn't a total CGI/3D mess. In fact, it was almost a traditional story that had no reason for 3D.

The story was sadly sentimental (dead parents, orphan police, etc.). Worse, the movie was needlessly long (over two hours), painfully slow-paced, and full of cutesy gimmicks that didn't work like Sacha Baron Cohen's unfunny, inept mall cop character. Unfortunately, the most interesting aspect of the story were the depictions of Georges Méliès and his movies which one Wikipedia author says Hugo mostly accurately portrayed. I would have found the movie more interesting had it focused more on Méliès's real life.

The Iron Lady: C

Mom and I dragged Scott to The Iron Lady last weekend. It has been quite a while since we've been to the ye olde cinemas. We've been watching more Netflix and Amazon at home (sorry tradition movie theater industry). We attempted to see Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy on New Year's weekend, but of course it was sold out at the Regal Fox tiny 'arthouse' multiplex in downtown. Considering this was The Iron Lady's local opening weekend, I figured we should buy our tickets online and arrive early to secure our seats. Much to Scott's annoyance though I failed to consider that we were going to Regal City Center in the 'Couv which rarely ever sells out. We sat outside the vacate theater for 30 minutes (By the way, a surprising filthy theater. Either Regal is cutting back on staff or The Iron Lady attracts a rough crowd.)

Considering how much Scott loves Julie & Julia and The Devil Wears Prada, I assumed he would want to see this Meryl Streep performance. He didn't care. The Streep factor wouldn't overcome his hesitation that this was a dull political movie about someone he didn't know of or care about. I, on the other hand, have been looking forward to this movie since I heard of Streep's casting.
Meryl Streep's performance did not disappoint. She thoroughly transformed herself into a short, shuffling, elderly woman. I haven't seen or heard Margaret Thatcher footage recently, but I do recall her public appearance a few years ago which Streeped seemed to have matched.

Unfortunately, the way The Iron Lady decided to tell Margaret Thatcher's life story was depressingly dull. I understand filmmakers' desire to find original and interesting ways to frame biopics. The problem is so often the framing is the weakest part of the movie and distracts from the subject's compelling life story. For example, did anyone really look forward to the whining, self-absorbed Julie parts of Julie & Julia?

The Iron Lady chose to frame Thatcher's life from the perspective of her confusingly shuffling around her home haunted by her dead husband (portrayed by the always entertaining Jim Broadbent). While the elderly scenes highlighted Streep, they took up too much of the story and, again, distracted from parts of Thatcher life that warrant attention. I also doubt any biopic subject would want to be portrayed as a faded figure reminiscing of their former glories in the middle of the night in their empty home. I understand the filmmaker's point of giving insight into Thatcher's alleged ambivalence toward her daughter and other women while ecstatically seeking her absent son's attention, but it seemed a long, dull way to get there.
Worse, I can't say I gained insight into Thatcher after watching this movie. It reduced her political life down to a hand full of moments. Northern Ireland, the Cold War, Reagan, etc., are barely mentioned at all. According to the movie, Thatcher was a sincere, but stubborn conservative ideologue who rescued the conservative party that exploited her gender and eventually betrayed her. While I wouldn't want to watch a fawning political depiction, I can't say this movie sincerely attempted to explain Thatcher's politics beyond her supposed bias against women and homemaking.

The Ides of March: D

The Ides of March, originally uploaded by levi2411.

On Saturday, I ditched Scott and Sheena at The Thing and reluctantly saw The Ides of March instead. I would have preferred seeing Moneyball, but it started 90 minutes later than The Thing.

[***SPOILERS BELOW***]
Although I doubt anyone reading this will actually bother seeing this movie.

I usually wait a week or two after seeing a movie to allow the most memorable parts of a movie linger, but in this case I figure I should write out my thoughts as I can only vaguely recall the movie only two days later. This was such a dull political movie laden with bland stereotypes and predictable political cynicism, it seemed like a bad West Wing episode. Primary Colors, Wag The Dog, and The Manchurian Candidate all come to mind as movies with similar political campaign themes with more original and interesting stories.

Ryan Gosling stars as a young, superstar campaign staffer for George Clooney's Obama-like Democrat presidential primary candidate. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti play opposing campaign managers that are completely jaded and interchangeable. The all-star cast's performances were great and kept a predictable story somewhat interesting. After the first half of the movie slowly set-ups the characters and setting for a political scandal to happen, finally a campaign intern affair similar to Bill Clinton or John Edwards is revealed. The story picks up the pace with a few predictable twists and political diatribes including Gosling's climatic confrontation that the one unpardonable rule is that presidents can't fuck the interns. Meh. It was a good line, but not worth building an entire movie on.

And the more I think about it, the more I suspect the writers did build the movie backwards from Gosling's one climatic scene. Why else would the rest of the movie's characters be so bland and one dimensional? To avoid actual political differences being the focus of the story, the movie is set within a party primary in which political differences are indistinguishable. And to avoid race and gender distractions, the main candidates and their staff are cast as white, hetero males. And to avoid the notion that the young woman intern could actually be a victim, the writers go out of their way to show her to be a flirt, unflinching in exercising her right to choose. Basically, the movie confirms the worst stereotypes that Democrats really are sexually amoral who just casually have affairs, hook-ups, and convenient abortions.

Contagion: B

Contagion Movie Poster, originally uploaded by nxusco.

We saw Contagion last month. I liked the movie, but I wouldn't call it "entertaining" with as with a story. It's more similar to a bleak documentary about how bad a swine-flu epidemic could be. Soderbergh did try to keep the movie fast paced and with a bass-beat soundtrack (which Scott hated) that tried to animate scenes of what otherwise are folks in talking on cellphones, blogging, working in labs, and getting sick.

I was mainly interested in the movie after hearing a NPR interview with the author Laurie Garrett. She wanted to make a realistic movie that didn't have silly science like the Dustin Hoffman movie Outbreak. A ridiculous helicopter chase with the heroes saving the day with a monologue and magic monkey serum probably would have made Contagion a bit more entertaining.

Captain America: The First Avenger: B

CAPTAIN AMERICA THE FIRST AVENGER, originally uploaded by ARMYRANGER1.

Well, I'm slipping behind on my little movie review. Ma, Scott, and I saw decided to see Captain America: The First Avenger a few weekends ago during a hot weekend (well, hot for Portland). Maybe I'm just not a comic book fan, but nothing of this movie stood out to me as compelling or different from all of the other comic book movies. Worse, the movie once again reminisces about World War II.

I will say Capt. 'merica was well-paced with no lulls and it even managed to tone-down the mindless patriotic flag waving. There was even a nearly sensible explanation for Captain America's silly uniform. However, it overall, stuck to the Marvel comics movie formula.

When we gave the ticket taker our tickets, he told us to make sure we waited until after the credits to leave the theater. The after the-credits-shtick is getting old. Instead of appreciating the hundreds of names slowly scrolling by, I think, "wow, with all these people, no wonder it seems like corporate mediocrity". Anyways, a trailer for next year's The Avengers -- the Marvel ensemble movie which somewhat explains why all of these comic book movies had to come-out to explain the characters' origins.

Cowboys & Aliens: C

Cowboys & Aliens, originally uploaded by Daniel Norris.

Scott and I saw Cowboys & Aliens a few weeks ago. It was a good summer movie. It was well-paced and it was nice seeing Harrison Ford back in an action movie. The story was relatively straight forward. However, over the weeks, my impression of the movie has dimmed at bit.

I wanted to like this movie because it was one of the few original, non-sequel movies. Although it is based on a comic book like this summer's other movies (Green Latern, Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor, etc.), Cowboys & Aliens was a relatively unknown comic novel. The notion of mixing action genres sounds attractive. However, the movie's story seemed a bit too simple with too many cowboy and alien movie cliches tossed in.

Daniel Craig stars as the mysterious cowboy with an unknown past; however at times he seems more like super agent 007. Harrison Ford's old, crotchety cattleman reminded me of True Grit's Rooster Cogburn -- especially when it unsurprisingly revealed that he has a kind soul under the harsh exterior. More annoyingly, Cowboys & Aliens throws in sci-fi cliches such as an Alien-esque alien with mini-mouth for no apparent reason.

Overall, a good summer action movie, but probably not one that will be remembered as ground-breaking or original. I hope this movie is not considered for sequel -- unless they plan on mixing other genres: Cowboys & Pirates, Vampires & Aliens, Gladiators & French Aristocrats, etc.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: B

DH Part 2 Posters, originally uploaded by katherine ♡.

After returning from Seattle on Sunday, we saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Although I wasn't much of a Harry Potter fan, I did enjoy this movie. As it was the final Potter movie, Part 2 reminded me of a TV series grand finale in which favorite characters are killed, familiar settings are destroyed, and mysteries revealed in no holds barred final score-settling. Even knowing the fate of the three main characters beforehand, the movie still was able to maintain suspense and anticipation.

My main complaint is that because it was a grand finale of a eight-movie series, I still felt a little lost when names or prior events were mentioned. I had similar complaints with the Lord of the Rings.

Also, the story missed an opportunity by glossing-over Snape's revelation that Dumbledore had secret motivations for befriending Harry Potter. Maybe the book explains it better, but the movie doesn't how Potter so quickly reconciles Dumbledore's seemingly betrayal of his trust.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon: D

Transformers 3 Poster, originally uploaded by Roger-the-Dodger.

Scott, ma, and I reluctantly saw Transformers: Dark of the Moon. It was a warm day and we couldn't agree on any outing, so we settled on a movie.

I'm really not a movie snob. I have nothing against big budget summer movies, but this was just too much...everything. Too much story with the gratuitous back story, boy-saves-babe. Too many cameos. Too many non-nonsensical CGI destruction porn. And worse, just way too long: over two-and-one-half hours.

But probably my biggest gripe is Buzz Aldrin's disgraceful appearance as himself discrediting the moon landing as a conspiracy theory (with a very creepy CGI President Kennedy). I was even more irked that Leonard Nimoy voiced a character that reverses his nerd-famous line from Star Trek II.

Like the prior Transformers movies, no amount of CGI, action, or celebrity appearances can make-up for lack of an interesting story, smart dialogue, or entertaining characters.