In the classic Christmas film Mr. Krueger’s Christmas, the titular character has a dream that finds him as a visitor to the Nativity scene. As he approaches the Christ child – the only one aware of his presence – he notes his own humble attire and lack of any gift. Still, he approaches. He approaches with expressions of gratitude and love. But he also approaches the manger with confidence. As he kneels at the manger, Willie Krueger kneels before not only his Savior and King, but also his trusted and beloved Friend.
A few years ago, Elder Jorg Klebingat taught us ways to approach the throne of God with confidence. At this Christmas season, can we not also think on ways to approach the manger of Christ with confidence? In doing so, we can take guidance from those who were there.
Mary approached with deep reverence as she “kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” Joseph approached with obedience as he “did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him” and protected both Mary and the Christ child. The shepherds approached with gratitude, “glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen.” The wise men approached with sacrifice, traveling far and bearing treasures to offer a King. Moreover, they each approached Christ and the manger with humility.
Reverence, obedience, gratitude, sacrifice, and humility: these were the gifts they brought to lay before the manger. In doing so, shepherds and magi, handmaid and carpenter could also approach with confidence.
The final verse of “In the Bleak Midwinter” reads: “What can I give Him, poor as I am? / If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb. / If I were a wise man, I would do my part. / Yet what I can, I give Him – give my heart.”
Before we start rockin’ around the Christmas tree, before we dream at a Yuletide fire, before we assemble for our family feast, let us first remember to gather at the manger. And may we, like Mary and Joseph, the shepherds and the wise men – and yes, even Willie Krueger – kneel there with gratitude, humility, and confidence.
Merry Christmas!
19 December 2017
11 December 2017
The Man Who Invented Christmas
Year: 2017
Director: Bharat Nalluri
Starring: Dan Stevens, Christopher Plummer, Jonathan Pryce, Anna Murphy, and Justin Edwards
Tagline: How Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol and created a tradition
Synopsis: After three flops, Charles Dickens decides to write a Christmas story, which leads him on a personal journey as well.
Tagline: How Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol and created a tradition
Synopsis: After three flops, Charles Dickens decides to write a Christmas story, which leads him on a personal journey as well.
Review
The title of the film is a bit misleading. The story is more about how Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol than it is about how doing so reshaped the traditions of Christmas in Victorian England. Some sense of the latter comes across. But that may be because I've read about Dickens' influence and could read between some of the lines. Title aside, The Man Who Invented Christmas is an enjoyable holiday film.
I don't know how many liberties the film takes with the truth. Dickens did write A Christmas Carol in a pinch. His last three works hadn't sold well, and by the time he had the idea to write a Christmas story, it was about six weeks until Christmas. It's likely unknown how much inspiration Dickens drew specifically from the world around him or from encounters he had. But even if fiction strays from the facts, the gist is there. And it helps bring A Christmas Carol to life in a new way.
The more familiar you are with A Christmas Carol, the more you will enjoy The Man Who Invented Christmas. I've read the story many a time. I loved seeing all the details that would show up in the story (like the brass door knocker and the chain-clad safe) and hearing words that would eventually come from Scrooge's mouth.
The story centers on Charles Dickens himself, and Dan Stevens brings the author to life with energetic zeal. Dickens is almost manic-depressive as he feverishly tries to write the story only to be interrupted left and right. The chief distraction is his own father: a kind and generous man who is also an incorrigible spendthrift. Dickens characters also take on lives of their own in his imagination. Ebenezer Scrooge -- brilliantly portrayed by Christopher Plummer -- follows Dickens around as both inspiration and critic.
The heart of the film is the climax of A Christmas Carol. It's almost frustrating to watch Dickens wrestle with the ending of his tale, which for us is a foregone conclusion. Can a "covetous old sinner" like Scrooge really change? Yes. He can. He must. But Dickens isn't so sure. And in order to write that redemptive ending, Dickens must first come to terms with his own ghosts of the past and the shadows he can't let go of. Thus Dickens and Scrooge find their redemption together.
It doesn't entirely work, but it works well enough to be satisfactory in the film.
The film is rated PG for thematic reasons. I don't remember any swearing. There are a few dark/scary moments. Any child who can handle A Christmas Carol can manage this take on it.
Unfortunately, the film didn't get a lot of press. Nor did it get a very wide release. You may have to hunt a little in order to see it.
The Man Who Invented Christmas doesn't quite live up to that title. Nor does the "making of" capture all that makes A Christmas Carol the timeless literary masterpiece it is. But as a fresh take on a familiar tale, it is an enjoyable film. It will get you in the holiday spirit, even if it doesn't fully explain how Dickens' work revived that spirit. I enjoyed it and will likely watch it again next Christmas. But now I need to go watch Muppet Christmas Carol again.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Dickens gets A Christmas Carol published in time and it becomes a huge success that helps rekindle the spirit of Christmas in Victorian England. OK, that's not really a spoiler.
I don't know how many liberties the film takes with the truth. Dickens did write A Christmas Carol in a pinch. His last three works hadn't sold well, and by the time he had the idea to write a Christmas story, it was about six weeks until Christmas. It's likely unknown how much inspiration Dickens drew specifically from the world around him or from encounters he had. But even if fiction strays from the facts, the gist is there. And it helps bring A Christmas Carol to life in a new way.
The more familiar you are with A Christmas Carol, the more you will enjoy The Man Who Invented Christmas. I've read the story many a time. I loved seeing all the details that would show up in the story (like the brass door knocker and the chain-clad safe) and hearing words that would eventually come from Scrooge's mouth.
The story centers on Charles Dickens himself, and Dan Stevens brings the author to life with energetic zeal. Dickens is almost manic-depressive as he feverishly tries to write the story only to be interrupted left and right. The chief distraction is his own father: a kind and generous man who is also an incorrigible spendthrift. Dickens characters also take on lives of their own in his imagination. Ebenezer Scrooge -- brilliantly portrayed by Christopher Plummer -- follows Dickens around as both inspiration and critic.
The heart of the film is the climax of A Christmas Carol. It's almost frustrating to watch Dickens wrestle with the ending of his tale, which for us is a foregone conclusion. Can a "covetous old sinner" like Scrooge really change? Yes. He can. He must. But Dickens isn't so sure. And in order to write that redemptive ending, Dickens must first come to terms with his own ghosts of the past and the shadows he can't let go of. Thus Dickens and Scrooge find their redemption together.
It doesn't entirely work, but it works well enough to be satisfactory in the film.
The film is rated PG for thematic reasons. I don't remember any swearing. There are a few dark/scary moments. Any child who can handle A Christmas Carol can manage this take on it.
Unfortunately, the film didn't get a lot of press. Nor did it get a very wide release. You may have to hunt a little in order to see it.
The Man Who Invented Christmas doesn't quite live up to that title. Nor does the "making of" capture all that makes A Christmas Carol the timeless literary masterpiece it is. But as a fresh take on a familiar tale, it is an enjoyable film. It will get you in the holiday spirit, even if it doesn't fully explain how Dickens' work revived that spirit. I enjoyed it and will likely watch it again next Christmas. But now I need to go watch Muppet Christmas Carol again.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Dickens gets A Christmas Carol published in time and it becomes a huge success that helps rekindle the spirit of Christmas in Victorian England. OK, that's not really a spoiler.
Quotable Quotes
- "I'm the author!" "Allegedly." -- Charles Dickens and Scrooge
- "People will believe anything if you are properly dressed." -- Charles Dickens and John Dickens
- "No life is useless that lifts the burden of another." -- Charles Dickens
- "No! You can't kill Tiny Tim." -- Tara
- "I knew you and I would make something great together." -- Charles Dickens to Scrooge
02 December 2017
Coco
Year: 2017
Directors: Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina
Starring: Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, and Alanna Ubach
Tagline: The celebration of a lifetime
Synopsis: In following his dream to become a musician, Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead where he must uncover the truth behind his family's ban on music.
Tagline: The celebration of a lifetime
Synopsis: In following his dream to become a musician, Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead where he must uncover the truth behind his family's ban on music.
Review
Before the feature film is a (not-so) short film: Olaf's Frozen Adventure. It was a bit twee at points. It was much longer than it needed to be. But by the end, it was better than I'd expected and it made me smile (mostly because of Sven and a hawk).
On to Coco!
In a return to what it does best -- original stories that tug at your heartstrings -- Pixar has crafted yet another winner. I've seen it twice already and look forward to seeing it again.
Although it didn't strike me immediately, I later realized that Coco is Pixar's first musical. Others of their movies feature songs in the soundtrack, but they don't have the characters themselves breaking into song. Well, there is Mike Wazowski's "Put That Thing Back Where It Came From," but that doesn't really make Monsters, Inc. a musical.
Coco is a realistic musical. By that I mean the characters sing in a way that wouldn't be strange in the real world. Miguel sings at a talent show. Ernesto sings in a musical production. This isn't the kind of musical where a character breaks into song to express their emotions and the entire village joins in with harmony and choreography. Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of musical, but the realistic approach suits Coco, which has enough non-realistic things going on.
The songs are short and fun and suit the film and the characters. The main song of the film is "Remember Me," and it has been stuck in my head since I saw the film. There are actually three versions within Coco, two of which will tug at your heart.
Pixar has raised the bar once again in terms of animation. Coco is breathtakingly beautiful. The lights, the colors, the marigold petals, the alebrijes, all are gorgeous to look at. Think back to what Andy and Sid looked like in Toy Story. Then look at Miguel and Hector. Animated humans have come a long way since Pixar's early days. Even the differences in hair and water textures from The Incredibles to now are amazing. And if that wasn't enough, I read that the animators took the time and effort to ensure that all guitar playing in the movie is accurate. Miguel is correctly fingering the music when he plays. Impressive.
I love the humor of Coco (and, let's be honest, of most Pixar films). The jokes aren't forced, manic, or crude. They flow naturally from the characters and the situations. We chuckle at Miguel's family because we recognize ourselves and our own families. Dante (the Xolo dog) is also fun. He has some great facial expressions.
Coco would be a good film if it were simply beautiful and funny. But it's more than that, which is what has long set Pixar film's apart. Coco has heart. It's not about Miguel hanging out with skeletons on the Day of the Dead; it's about Miguel connecting with his family in both the living world and the land of the dead. Miguel's passion is music. But as his journey continues, he realizes that family is most important of all. Coco is about treasuring the family we have and remembering the family that has gone before us and the legacy they left us. Honestly, Coco is like one brilliant, poignant plug for family history work.
The film is rated PG for thematic reasons. It is a movie that deals unashamedly with death after all. If your kiddos were OK with The Incredibles they'll be fine with Coco.
Coco is all about what Pixar does best. It's not quite up to the same level as Finding Nemo, Up, or WALL-E, but it comes pretty close and is a fitting addition to the Pixar lineup of heart-tugging films that take us where we've never been before. Go see Coco. Then go home and call your parents/grandparents.
*** Spoiler Section ***
That Hector is actually Miguel's great great grandfather didn't surprise me. I'd put that together when Hector first showed himself to be a musician. The fact that Ernesto never questions that he has a great great grandson, and never asks about his family, says quite a bit about Ernesto's character in life and in death.
I went into the film wondering why it was named "Coco." As the film unfolds, it becomes clear. Mama Coco is the link, the link between the living and the dead. She is the link between Miguel and Hector and between Hector and the world of the living. Coco is why Hector did some of things he did. And Coco is why Mama Imelda did some of the things she did.
On to Coco!
In a return to what it does best -- original stories that tug at your heartstrings -- Pixar has crafted yet another winner. I've seen it twice already and look forward to seeing it again.
Although it didn't strike me immediately, I later realized that Coco is Pixar's first musical. Others of their movies feature songs in the soundtrack, but they don't have the characters themselves breaking into song. Well, there is Mike Wazowski's "Put That Thing Back Where It Came From," but that doesn't really make Monsters, Inc. a musical.
Coco is a realistic musical. By that I mean the characters sing in a way that wouldn't be strange in the real world. Miguel sings at a talent show. Ernesto sings in a musical production. This isn't the kind of musical where a character breaks into song to express their emotions and the entire village joins in with harmony and choreography. Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of musical, but the realistic approach suits Coco, which has enough non-realistic things going on.
The songs are short and fun and suit the film and the characters. The main song of the film is "Remember Me," and it has been stuck in my head since I saw the film. There are actually three versions within Coco, two of which will tug at your heart.
Pixar has raised the bar once again in terms of animation. Coco is breathtakingly beautiful. The lights, the colors, the marigold petals, the alebrijes, all are gorgeous to look at. Think back to what Andy and Sid looked like in Toy Story. Then look at Miguel and Hector. Animated humans have come a long way since Pixar's early days. Even the differences in hair and water textures from The Incredibles to now are amazing. And if that wasn't enough, I read that the animators took the time and effort to ensure that all guitar playing in the movie is accurate. Miguel is correctly fingering the music when he plays. Impressive.
I love the humor of Coco (and, let's be honest, of most Pixar films). The jokes aren't forced, manic, or crude. They flow naturally from the characters and the situations. We chuckle at Miguel's family because we recognize ourselves and our own families. Dante (the Xolo dog) is also fun. He has some great facial expressions.
Coco would be a good film if it were simply beautiful and funny. But it's more than that, which is what has long set Pixar film's apart. Coco has heart. It's not about Miguel hanging out with skeletons on the Day of the Dead; it's about Miguel connecting with his family in both the living world and the land of the dead. Miguel's passion is music. But as his journey continues, he realizes that family is most important of all. Coco is about treasuring the family we have and remembering the family that has gone before us and the legacy they left us. Honestly, Coco is like one brilliant, poignant plug for family history work.
The film is rated PG for thematic reasons. It is a movie that deals unashamedly with death after all. If your kiddos were OK with The Incredibles they'll be fine with Coco.
Coco is all about what Pixar does best. It's not quite up to the same level as Finding Nemo, Up, or WALL-E, but it comes pretty close and is a fitting addition to the Pixar lineup of heart-tugging films that take us where we've never been before. Go see Coco. Then go home and call your parents/grandparents.
*** Spoiler Section ***
That Hector is actually Miguel's great great grandfather didn't surprise me. I'd put that together when Hector first showed himself to be a musician. The fact that Ernesto never questions that he has a great great grandson, and never asks about his family, says quite a bit about Ernesto's character in life and in death.
I went into the film wondering why it was named "Coco." As the film unfolds, it becomes clear. Mama Coco is the link, the link between the living and the dead. She is the link between Miguel and Hector and between Hector and the world of the living. Coco is why Hector did some of things he did. And Coco is why Mama Imelda did some of the things she did.
Quotable Quotes
- "I asked for a shoe shine, not your life's story, kid." -- Mariachi player to Miguel
- "I'm terribly allergic." "But Dante doesn't have any hair." "And I don't have a nose, yet here we are." -- Clerk and Miguel
- "We need to borrow your guitar." "Like how you borrowed my van, and my mini fridge, and my femur?! Where's my femur, Hector?!" -- Hector and Chicharron
- "Aw, that's such a sweet sentiment. And such bad timing!" -- Hector to Miguel
27 November 2017
Justice League
Year: 2017
Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Jeremy Irons, Amy Adams, Ray Fisher, Diane Lane, and Ciaran Hinds
Tagline: You can't save the world alone.
Synopsis: With an otherworldly invasion already beginning, Batman must enlist Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg to unite and save the world.
Tagline: You can't save the world alone.
Synopsis: With an otherworldly invasion already beginning, Batman must enlist Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg to unite and save the world.
Review
I grew up watching iterations of Batman and Superman. I knew their backstories inside out before I'd ever even heard of Iron Man or Captain America. So as Justice League drew closer, my hopes were high that it would turn out. Batman v. Superman had filled me with doubt, but Wonder Woman gave me hope that DC could pull it off. In the end, some of Justice League worked well and some of it didn't. It's not a great film, but it is an enjoyable one.
First, let's start with some of the problems. Then we can end on the highlights.
Lego Batman once said, "I only work in black. And sometimes very, very dark grey." We get it, he's the Dark Knight. But the dark and gloomy aesthetic of the DC films is getting old. Every scene feels moody and visually subdued in blues and greys. This feels true even when we have colorful characters like Wonder Woman or Flash. The dark aesthetic is especially jarring when compared to Thor: Ragnarok, which I had seen a few days before. I understand that DC wants to show itself different from Marvel ... but this might not be the way.
Batman has one of the greatest rogues galleries (villains who oppose him) of any superhero. Clearly, DC can do excellent, memorable villains. Steppenwolf isn't one of them, at least not in this iteration. He wants to take over the world (typical) and reform it like his own (which sounds a bit like General Zod). He's powerful, without question. But Steppenwolf is bland.
Another problem with Justice League is that it feels way too similar to Avengers: Age of Ultron at times. Steppenwolf's parademons are similar to Ultron's army of robots: plentiful and expendable. They are the perfect fodder for our heroes to show off their skills. Further, both villains make their base of operations in eastern Europe. And both villains are bent purely on the destruction of all life on earth.
There are other similarities with Age of Ultron, and other problems with the story, but they are in the Spoiler Section. Suffice it to say here that the story is enjoyable, but not great or memorable. Justice League brings nothing new to the superhero table.
The music in Justice League is a mixed bag for me. I didn't like the choice of songs that were used a couple of times. Some of that is my own musical taste, but they didn't seem to fit. The score itself was interesting. It borrowed the themes from the recent Wonder Woman and Man of Steel films. But it also subtly incorporated at times some older themes. Superman's theme from the Christopher Reeve movies is used briefly. And there are hints of the Batman theme used in the Tim Burton films.
Despite the film's flaws, it is undeniably fun to see these heroes come together and learn to fight side by side. The film focuses mainly on the motives and histories of Batman and Wonder Woman. They have some good moments together as they learn from each other and prod each other forward. The Flash brings some much-needed humor to the film. He's socially awkward. As he says: "I need friends." He's also new to heroics, which makes him a nice balance for the more mature and seasoned Batman. Aquaman is the tough cynic (who has a great scene involving Wonder Woman's lasso of truth).
Cyborg, though, felt like the weak link. At times he seemed more like a convenient plot device than a character the film knew what to do with. His personality seems to have one side: angst. Yes, his backstory lends itself to being angst-filled. But he felt the least-developed of all the characters.
In addition to the heroes, we've also got Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Lois Lane, and Martha Kent. Each of them play their parts well. And all the roles (superheroes and allies) feel like they have the right actors.
While Justice League can't begin to compare to the humor found in most Marvel films, Justice League does attempt to have more fun and doesn't take itself as seriously as previous DC films. Batman and Wonder Woman both have a subtle humor to them. Alfred offers some great sarcasm and droll wit (as only Jeremy Irons can deliver). But much of the humor centers around the Flash. And it mostly works. The film is a step in the right direction, but it's still missing the humor and heart that made Wonder Woman a winner.
The film is rated PG-13. I don't remember much language. The rating is almost entirely for the superhero violence, which might even be a bit less than the previous DC installments.
I enjoyed seeing Justice League. And I will likely buy it so I can watch it again. Is it a great film? No. But it's got some fun moments. And it's a step in the right direction. The movie is partly about not losing hope. I believe there is still hope for DC films.
There is a mid-credits scene for fun. There is also a post-credits scene to tease future films.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Superman returns. That should come as a surprise to nobody.
This is where Justice League is again too similar to Age of Ultron. Bringing Superman back to life is highly reminiscent of bringing Vision to life. There is even an almost identical conversation about the wisdom of such a plan. Some heroes are all for it, driven in part by their own guilt. Other heroes are against it, because bringing beings to life or back to life is pretty serious stuff. And in both films, the doubters eventually acknowledge that it was a good idea (as Superman and Vision do the heavy lifting of defeating the villain).
Another qualm I had with the film was, why was Lois Lane plan B and not plan A? They are bringing Superman back from the dead. From the dead. Having four armed strangers (well, Wonder Woman is only a near-stranger) confront him when he first comes back seems like a bad idea from the start. Why not go straight to the one person he would most want to see? Then maybe the heroes could have focused on protecting the Mother Cube of World-Destroying Power rather than let Steppenwolf just lazily pick it up off the ground. Just a thought.
One last thing. They can explain Superman coming back from the dead. But how do they explain Clark Kent coming back from the dead?
First, let's start with some of the problems. Then we can end on the highlights.
Lego Batman once said, "I only work in black. And sometimes very, very dark grey." We get it, he's the Dark Knight. But the dark and gloomy aesthetic of the DC films is getting old. Every scene feels moody and visually subdued in blues and greys. This feels true even when we have colorful characters like Wonder Woman or Flash. The dark aesthetic is especially jarring when compared to Thor: Ragnarok, which I had seen a few days before. I understand that DC wants to show itself different from Marvel ... but this might not be the way.
Batman has one of the greatest rogues galleries (villains who oppose him) of any superhero. Clearly, DC can do excellent, memorable villains. Steppenwolf isn't one of them, at least not in this iteration. He wants to take over the world (typical) and reform it like his own (which sounds a bit like General Zod). He's powerful, without question. But Steppenwolf is bland.
Another problem with Justice League is that it feels way too similar to Avengers: Age of Ultron at times. Steppenwolf's parademons are similar to Ultron's army of robots: plentiful and expendable. They are the perfect fodder for our heroes to show off their skills. Further, both villains make their base of operations in eastern Europe. And both villains are bent purely on the destruction of all life on earth.
There are other similarities with Age of Ultron, and other problems with the story, but they are in the Spoiler Section. Suffice it to say here that the story is enjoyable, but not great or memorable. Justice League brings nothing new to the superhero table.
The music in Justice League is a mixed bag for me. I didn't like the choice of songs that were used a couple of times. Some of that is my own musical taste, but they didn't seem to fit. The score itself was interesting. It borrowed the themes from the recent Wonder Woman and Man of Steel films. But it also subtly incorporated at times some older themes. Superman's theme from the Christopher Reeve movies is used briefly. And there are hints of the Batman theme used in the Tim Burton films.
Despite the film's flaws, it is undeniably fun to see these heroes come together and learn to fight side by side. The film focuses mainly on the motives and histories of Batman and Wonder Woman. They have some good moments together as they learn from each other and prod each other forward. The Flash brings some much-needed humor to the film. He's socially awkward. As he says: "I need friends." He's also new to heroics, which makes him a nice balance for the more mature and seasoned Batman. Aquaman is the tough cynic (who has a great scene involving Wonder Woman's lasso of truth).
Cyborg, though, felt like the weak link. At times he seemed more like a convenient plot device than a character the film knew what to do with. His personality seems to have one side: angst. Yes, his backstory lends itself to being angst-filled. But he felt the least-developed of all the characters.
In addition to the heroes, we've also got Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Lois Lane, and Martha Kent. Each of them play their parts well. And all the roles (superheroes and allies) feel like they have the right actors.
While Justice League can't begin to compare to the humor found in most Marvel films, Justice League does attempt to have more fun and doesn't take itself as seriously as previous DC films. Batman and Wonder Woman both have a subtle humor to them. Alfred offers some great sarcasm and droll wit (as only Jeremy Irons can deliver). But much of the humor centers around the Flash. And it mostly works. The film is a step in the right direction, but it's still missing the humor and heart that made Wonder Woman a winner.
The film is rated PG-13. I don't remember much language. The rating is almost entirely for the superhero violence, which might even be a bit less than the previous DC installments.
I enjoyed seeing Justice League. And I will likely buy it so I can watch it again. Is it a great film? No. But it's got some fun moments. And it's a step in the right direction. The movie is partly about not losing hope. I believe there is still hope for DC films.
There is a mid-credits scene for fun. There is also a post-credits scene to tease future films.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Superman returns. That should come as a surprise to nobody.
This is where Justice League is again too similar to Age of Ultron. Bringing Superman back to life is highly reminiscent of bringing Vision to life. There is even an almost identical conversation about the wisdom of such a plan. Some heroes are all for it, driven in part by their own guilt. Other heroes are against it, because bringing beings to life or back to life is pretty serious stuff. And in both films, the doubters eventually acknowledge that it was a good idea (as Superman and Vision do the heavy lifting of defeating the villain).
Another qualm I had with the film was, why was Lois Lane plan B and not plan A? They are bringing Superman back from the dead. From the dead. Having four armed strangers (well, Wonder Woman is only a near-stranger) confront him when he first comes back seems like a bad idea from the start. Why not go straight to the one person he would most want to see? Then maybe the heroes could have focused on protecting the Mother Cube of World-Destroying Power rather than let Steppenwolf just lazily pick it up off the ground. Just a thought.
One last thing. They can explain Superman coming back from the dead. But how do they explain Clark Kent coming back from the dead?
Quotable Quotes
- "I don't believe it. Who are you?" "A believer." -- Terrorist and Wonder Woman
- "Save one person." "Then what?" "You'll know." -- Batman and Flash
- "I miss the days when one's biggest concern was exploding wind-up penguins." -- Alfred
- "This wasn't the plan." "No. It's the team." -- Batman and Alfred
- "I work with children." -- Wonder Woman (in reference to her teammates)
20 November 2017
Thor: Ragnarok
Year: 2017
Director: Taika Waititi
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Mark Ruffalo, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Anthony Hopkins
Tagline: Thunder will reign.
Synopsis: Thor must enlist the help of Hulk, a Valkyrie, and the ever-mischievous Loki in order to save Asgard from Hela, goddess of death.
Tagline: Thunder will reign.
Synopsis: Thor must enlist the help of Hulk, a Valkyrie, and the ever-mischievous Loki in order to save Asgard from Hela, goddess of death.
Review
When I saw the first trailer for Thor: Ragnarok, I was nervous. I wasn't sure about the music or the retro 80s vibe. And after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, I wasn't so sure I liked the comedic direction Marvel was taking. Within a few minutes of the film, though, I was sold. Thor: Ragnarok is terrific. Terrific I say.
First off, this movie is perhaps the funniest Marvel film to date. From start to finish (and post-credits finish), there is humor. Thor has developed a sense of fun and irony, especially as he deals with Loki and Hulk/Banner. Loki is as wonderfully sarcastic as he ever was. And a number of other new characters steal whatever scene they are in. The comedic timing is spot on, including Stan Lee's obligatory cameo.
Thor finds himself on the far-off world of Sakaar, which is a long way from the noble and proper Asgard. The world is colorful and eclectic and personified by Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster. Such a manic place lends itself to the humor the film is going for. Thor's "journey" to first meet the Grandmaster is perfectly trippy and musically recalls another off-kilter character/film (but I won't spoil that).
Thor: Ragnarok has a terrific cast of characters. As I said, Thor is allowed to be more fun and humorous. But at the same time, we see how he has also matured since his first outing. His relationship with Loki is as complicated as ever. But pairing him with Hulk/Banner is what works so well.
The first Thor film had a very Shakespearean vibe to it (it was directed by Kenneth Branagh after all). While that tone is long gone for Ragnarok, this film has two characters who struck me as being very Shakespearean: Valkyrie and Skurge. Their character arcs are nothing new. Rather, they are more archetypal. And in both instances, that works.
Hela has the distinction of being Marvel's first main female villain. (Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy is only a secondary villain.) She is a scene-stealing, scene-chewing villainess with sharp knives and an equally sharp tongue. I got the impression Cate Blanchett loved every minute of it.
Dr. Strange has a brief role in the film (as teased in a mid-credits scene in Doctor Strange). Though the sequence isn't long, it is funny and works well to keep the every-sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe connected to Earth and the myriad characters linked to each other.
Of the new characters, the rock-like alien Korg was my favorite. He's voiced by the film's director, Taika Waititi. Pretty much everything his unexpectedly high voice says is quotable and put a grin on my face. He possesses a dogged optimism and self-deprecating humor. Korg is the best.
Humor and good characters are one thing, but if you don't have a good story to tie them together, you've lost me. Fortunately, Thor: Ragnarok has a good story to go with it. Sure, it's another superhero tale and not Shakespeare. But it still has one of the strongest stories of a Marvel film. Nearly everything in the plot and story works together seamlessly. The story ties the zaniness, the sarcasm, the spectacle, and the impending world destruction all together. And it works. It works better than its predecessors. And it's a whole lot of fun along the way.
The film is rated PG-13. There is some language. I'll admit, I don't remember it being a lot, but then again, the film I'd seen previously swore quite a bit. So Thor might just have been mild by comparison. Still, it was nothing beyond what other Marvel movies have done. The level of violence is also about the same. Thor has a shirtless scene (because I'm fairly certain that is written into his contract). CGI Hulk has a brief bare backside scene. There are a couple more mature gags.
At this point, there are so many Marvel superhero movies, it's hard to pick favorites. But Thor: Ragnarok is definitely in my top 5. Maybe even my top 3. I look forward to seeing it again. If you haven't seen it yet, get to it. And be sure to stay through all the credits.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Thor loses an eye. I didn't see that coming.
My only complaint about the film was how Lady Sif and the Warriors Three were handled. Sif wasn't in the film because of scheduling conflicts with actress Jaimie Alexander. But they might have at least mentioned her and accounted for her absence. And I was sad by how unceremoniously both Volstagg and Fandral were dispatched by Hela. Hogun at least gets to die fighting. But the three aren't ever mentioned again. Yes, Thor has a lot on his mind, but it would still have been nice to have him acknowledge that three of his best friends are dead.
Given my (admittedly slim) knowledge of Norse mythology, the ending of the film felt appropriate. Ragnarok isn't something that could be avoided or prevented. It's something to rebuild from.
Lastly, the three cameos during the Asgardian play are terrific. Sam Neill is Odin. Chris Hemsworth's brother, Luke, plays Thor. And Loki is portrayed by none other than Matt Damon.
First off, this movie is perhaps the funniest Marvel film to date. From start to finish (and post-credits finish), there is humor. Thor has developed a sense of fun and irony, especially as he deals with Loki and Hulk/Banner. Loki is as wonderfully sarcastic as he ever was. And a number of other new characters steal whatever scene they are in. The comedic timing is spot on, including Stan Lee's obligatory cameo.
Thor finds himself on the far-off world of Sakaar, which is a long way from the noble and proper Asgard. The world is colorful and eclectic and personified by Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster. Such a manic place lends itself to the humor the film is going for. Thor's "journey" to first meet the Grandmaster is perfectly trippy and musically recalls another off-kilter character/film (but I won't spoil that).
Thor: Ragnarok has a terrific cast of characters. As I said, Thor is allowed to be more fun and humorous. But at the same time, we see how he has also matured since his first outing. His relationship with Loki is as complicated as ever. But pairing him with Hulk/Banner is what works so well.
The first Thor film had a very Shakespearean vibe to it (it was directed by Kenneth Branagh after all). While that tone is long gone for Ragnarok, this film has two characters who struck me as being very Shakespearean: Valkyrie and Skurge. Their character arcs are nothing new. Rather, they are more archetypal. And in both instances, that works.
Hela has the distinction of being Marvel's first main female villain. (Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy is only a secondary villain.) She is a scene-stealing, scene-chewing villainess with sharp knives and an equally sharp tongue. I got the impression Cate Blanchett loved every minute of it.
Dr. Strange has a brief role in the film (as teased in a mid-credits scene in Doctor Strange). Though the sequence isn't long, it is funny and works well to keep the every-sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe connected to Earth and the myriad characters linked to each other.
Of the new characters, the rock-like alien Korg was my favorite. He's voiced by the film's director, Taika Waititi. Pretty much everything his unexpectedly high voice says is quotable and put a grin on my face. He possesses a dogged optimism and self-deprecating humor. Korg is the best.
Humor and good characters are one thing, but if you don't have a good story to tie them together, you've lost me. Fortunately, Thor: Ragnarok has a good story to go with it. Sure, it's another superhero tale and not Shakespeare. But it still has one of the strongest stories of a Marvel film. Nearly everything in the plot and story works together seamlessly. The story ties the zaniness, the sarcasm, the spectacle, and the impending world destruction all together. And it works. It works better than its predecessors. And it's a whole lot of fun along the way.
The film is rated PG-13. There is some language. I'll admit, I don't remember it being a lot, but then again, the film I'd seen previously swore quite a bit. So Thor might just have been mild by comparison. Still, it was nothing beyond what other Marvel movies have done. The level of violence is also about the same. Thor has a shirtless scene (because I'm fairly certain that is written into his contract). CGI Hulk has a brief bare backside scene. There are a couple more mature gags.
At this point, there are so many Marvel superhero movies, it's hard to pick favorites. But Thor: Ragnarok is definitely in my top 5. Maybe even my top 3. I look forward to seeing it again. If you haven't seen it yet, get to it. And be sure to stay through all the credits.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Thor loses an eye. I didn't see that coming.
My only complaint about the film was how Lady Sif and the Warriors Three were handled. Sif wasn't in the film because of scheduling conflicts with actress Jaimie Alexander. But they might have at least mentioned her and accounted for her absence. And I was sad by how unceremoniously both Volstagg and Fandral were dispatched by Hela. Hogun at least gets to die fighting. But the three aren't ever mentioned again. Yes, Thor has a lot on his mind, but it would still have been nice to have him acknowledge that three of his best friends are dead.
Given my (admittedly slim) knowledge of Norse mythology, the ending of the film felt appropriate. Ragnarok isn't something that could be avoided or prevented. It's something to rebuild from.
Lastly, the three cameos during the Asgardian play are terrific. Sam Neill is Odin. Chris Hemsworth's brother, Luke, plays Thor. And Loki is portrayed by none other than Matt Damon.
Quotable Quotes
- "That's a crown? I thought those were eyebrows." -- Thor to Surtur
- "I've been falling for 30 minutes!" -- Loki to Dr. Strange
- "I tried to start a revolution, but didn't print enough pamphlets. So hardly anyone turned up." -- Korg
- "He's a friend from work." -- Thor about the Hulk
15 November 2017
Murder on the Orient Express
Year: 2017
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Michelle Pfieffer, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Josh Gad, Willem Dafoe, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr., and Judi Dench
Tagline: Everyone is a suspect.
Synopsis: Hercule Poirot must deduce a murderer aboard a luxury train stranded in the snow.
Tagline: Everyone is a suspect.
Synopsis: Hercule Poirot must deduce a murderer aboard a luxury train stranded in the snow.
Review
I've never read the Agatha Christie novel. Nor have I seen any other adaptation. So I went into Murder on the Orient Express having no idea who the murderer was. That greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the film.
This was also my first real introduction to Hercule Poirot. (I'm not sure the spoof version in Murder by Death should count.) I found Branagh's take on the eccentric Belgian detective to be quite enjoyable. He has humor, intellect, and just enough heart. Poirot has most of the best lines in the film and I enjoyed his dry humor and straightforward manner. While he certainly has an ego, I never felt it became overbearing.
The rest of the cast of characters are well-played but not very fleshed out. I suppose it is hard to get to know characters who are all on their guard. They are all suspects and all suspicious of each other. It was nice to see Daisy Ridley in a role other than Rey (in Star Wars). And it was interesting to see Josh Gad in a completely non-comedic role (he's the voice of Olaf from Frozen and plays Le Fou in the live action Beauty and the Beast).
Murder on the Orient Express is a period piece. It takes place in 1934 aboard a luxury train travelling through Europe only to get stuck after an avalanche blocks the tracks. I enjoyed the cinematography. The opening scenes nicely set up the time period. And the claustrophobia of the train cars/compartments is well-used and reflects the characters' own feelings of being trapped and closed in on.
The mystery is well laid out, with plenty of clues, twists, and red herrings. I've always enjoyed mysteries, so watching Poirot unravel the case was fun. It kept me engaged, though the film's pacing did slow a bit during his investigation.
The film is rated PG-13, but it's the tamest PG-13 I've seen in a while. Kids wouldn't enjoy it because of the subject matter and pacing. I don't recall any swearing, so if there is any, it's mild. There are a few mild innuendos (watch the trailers, that's about it). Obviously there's a murder.
Murder on the Orient Express is old-fashioned storytelling. It's a bit slow at points, but I grew up with films that require a bit of patience. The story is intriguing, which is why it's still around 80+ years later. At some point, I look forward to watching the film again, now that I know the end. It will be interesting to see how everything fits into place. I would also be pleased to see Kenneth Branagh return to the role of Poirot in another adventure.
If you are looking for an old-fashioned whodunit, I recommend booking passage on the Orient Express.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Nope. No spoilers here. I will say that the ending surprised me. Not entirely though. It all clicked into place in a satisfactory way.
This was also my first real introduction to Hercule Poirot. (I'm not sure the spoof version in Murder by Death should count.) I found Branagh's take on the eccentric Belgian detective to be quite enjoyable. He has humor, intellect, and just enough heart. Poirot has most of the best lines in the film and I enjoyed his dry humor and straightforward manner. While he certainly has an ego, I never felt it became overbearing.
The rest of the cast of characters are well-played but not very fleshed out. I suppose it is hard to get to know characters who are all on their guard. They are all suspects and all suspicious of each other. It was nice to see Daisy Ridley in a role other than Rey (in Star Wars). And it was interesting to see Josh Gad in a completely non-comedic role (he's the voice of Olaf from Frozen and plays Le Fou in the live action Beauty and the Beast).
Murder on the Orient Express is a period piece. It takes place in 1934 aboard a luxury train travelling through Europe only to get stuck after an avalanche blocks the tracks. I enjoyed the cinematography. The opening scenes nicely set up the time period. And the claustrophobia of the train cars/compartments is well-used and reflects the characters' own feelings of being trapped and closed in on.
The mystery is well laid out, with plenty of clues, twists, and red herrings. I've always enjoyed mysteries, so watching Poirot unravel the case was fun. It kept me engaged, though the film's pacing did slow a bit during his investigation.
The film is rated PG-13, but it's the tamest PG-13 I've seen in a while. Kids wouldn't enjoy it because of the subject matter and pacing. I don't recall any swearing, so if there is any, it's mild. There are a few mild innuendos (watch the trailers, that's about it). Obviously there's a murder.
Murder on the Orient Express is old-fashioned storytelling. It's a bit slow at points, but I grew up with films that require a bit of patience. The story is intriguing, which is why it's still around 80+ years later. At some point, I look forward to watching the film again, now that I know the end. It will be interesting to see how everything fits into place. I would also be pleased to see Kenneth Branagh return to the role of Poirot in another adventure.
If you are looking for an old-fashioned whodunit, I recommend booking passage on the Orient Express.
*** Spoiler Section ***
Nope. No spoilers here. I will say that the ending surprised me. Not entirely though. It all clicked into place in a satisfactory way.
Quotable Quotes
- "Forgive me. I am Belgian." -- Poirot
- "I know your mustache." -- Miss Debenham
- "You're Hercules Poirot." "Hercule. I don't fight the lions." -- Miss Debenham and Poirot
- "You are allowed a coincidence." -- Poirot to Princess Dragomir
- "If it were easy, they would not call me 'great.' Next theory." -- Poirot to Bouc
23 October 2017
Only the Brave
Year: 2017
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Starring: Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connolly, Miles Teller, Jeff Bridges, Taylor Kitsch, and Andie MacDowell
Tagline: It's not what stands in front of you; it's who stands beside you
Synopsis: The story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots based out of Prescott, Arizona.
Tagline: It's not what stands in front of you; it's who stands beside you
Synopsis: The story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots based out of Prescott, Arizona.
Review
Only the Brave tells the story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, one of a number of hotshot crews to fight the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona in 2013. I remember hearing about the story at the time. It made national headlines. In case you don't remember the story and don't want the film to be spoiled, I'll say no more until the spoiler section. But I knew the story before going into the film.
With all the disasters and tragedies the nation and the world have seen lately -- including devastating wildfires in California -- this is a timely film. It's about ordinary men doing extraordinary things as they risk their lives for the sake of others. These firefighters are heroes. But they're also real and flawed. Only the Brave admirably pays tribute to their humanity and their heroism.
The story centers on Eric Marsh, the supervisor of the hotshots crew (played by Josh Brolin), and Brendan "Donut" McDonough, a rookie (played by Miles Teller). We get to know both men, see some of their personal lives, and watch how firefighting affects them. And we come to care about both men. We get to know some of the other members of the 20-man crew as well and watch them bond and come together. Jennifer Connolly plays Eric's long-suffering wife, Amanda. I don't know of any other actress who can portray raw emotion as capably as she does.
It could be said that fire is a character as well in the film. It's hard to say how much was real and how much was CGI, but the visuals in Only the Brave are top notch. The film gives the viewer a sense of what wildfires can do, how unpredictable they can be, and how beautiful and terrifying they are. That's as close to a wildfire as I ever hope to be and I truly stand in awe at those who run toward them rather than away.
The film is rated PG-13. There is language throughout, including two uses of the F-word (all or partial). There is also some crass language and drug references.
Only the Brave is a compelling story and a well-made movie. As one of the reviews I read put it, it's a movie that sticks with you after the credits roll. And it will leave you with a greater appreciation for the sacrifices firefighters make in the service of others.
*** Spoiler Section ***
For much of the movie, I wondered how exactly it would end, or rather, how it would all wrap up. With a true story like that, it can be a fine line between fitting tribute and sloppy sentimentality. Only the Brave remains a fitting tribute to the very end as our focus shifts to Brendan and Amanda and how they struggle and eventually cope with the pain and grief.
The pictures at the end also bring it home that these were real mean with lives and families that they didn't get to return home to.
With all the disasters and tragedies the nation and the world have seen lately -- including devastating wildfires in California -- this is a timely film. It's about ordinary men doing extraordinary things as they risk their lives for the sake of others. These firefighters are heroes. But they're also real and flawed. Only the Brave admirably pays tribute to their humanity and their heroism.
The story centers on Eric Marsh, the supervisor of the hotshots crew (played by Josh Brolin), and Brendan "Donut" McDonough, a rookie (played by Miles Teller). We get to know both men, see some of their personal lives, and watch how firefighting affects them. And we come to care about both men. We get to know some of the other members of the 20-man crew as well and watch them bond and come together. Jennifer Connolly plays Eric's long-suffering wife, Amanda. I don't know of any other actress who can portray raw emotion as capably as she does.
It could be said that fire is a character as well in the film. It's hard to say how much was real and how much was CGI, but the visuals in Only the Brave are top notch. The film gives the viewer a sense of what wildfires can do, how unpredictable they can be, and how beautiful and terrifying they are. That's as close to a wildfire as I ever hope to be and I truly stand in awe at those who run toward them rather than away.
The film is rated PG-13. There is language throughout, including two uses of the F-word (all or partial). There is also some crass language and drug references.
Only the Brave is a compelling story and a well-made movie. As one of the reviews I read put it, it's a movie that sticks with you after the credits roll. And it will leave you with a greater appreciation for the sacrifices firefighters make in the service of others.
*** Spoiler Section ***
For much of the movie, I wondered how exactly it would end, or rather, how it would all wrap up. With a true story like that, it can be a fine line between fitting tribute and sloppy sentimentality. Only the Brave remains a fitting tribute to the very end as our focus shifts to Brendan and Amanda and how they struggle and eventually cope with the pain and grief.
The pictures at the end also bring it home that these were real mean with lives and families that they didn't get to return home to.
Quotable Quotes
- "If this isn't the greatest job in the world, I don't know what is." -- Eric Marsh
- "That was six years ago! I've changed. This relationship has changed me." -- Amanda Marsh to Eric Marsh
- "You wanna talk about it? Or are you going to do your John Wayne thing." -- Amanda Marsh to Eric Marsh
- "If you give me a chance, I won't let you down." -- Brendan "Donut" McDonough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)