The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Marc Webb

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, and Dane DeHaan

Tagline: His Greatest Battle Begins
Synopsis:  Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, faces old friends and new enemies, all while reconciling his past with what he wants for his future.

Review

Of all the adjectives I could use to describe The Amazing Spider-Man 2, "amazing" isn't one of them.  Words like "contrived," "convoluted," "overblown," "overlong," or "mess" come to mind instead.  Oh sure, it does have its good points.  I'm not quite sorry I saw it.  But I'm certainly not feeling excited for the inevitable third installment.

Let's start with what went wrong, then we can end with what was right.

The whole thing is just way too long.  At 142 minutes, it is the longest of all the Spider-Man films to date.  And you can feel it.  There were moments when I just wanted things to move along and be done.  Part of the problem was how incredibly predictable the whole thing was.  I knew how it was going to end long before we got there: long, long before.  So the film just seemed to drag.

But at the same time, too much was crammed into the story.  It could be argued that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 suffers from the same problem as Spider-Man 3: too many villains.  For most of the film, the way they used the three villains (Electro, Green Goblin, and Rhino) worked reasonably well.  The problem was they tried to resolve two of the three villains' story lines, which meant two climaxes.  Like I said, that's when it starts to feel really long.

Maybe the filmmakers realized the story was getting overlong and they needed to keep people's attention.  Why else would they so haphazardly throw in the oldest action movie trope of them all: the ticking time bomb.  No, it isn't an actual time bomb.  But there is an actual ticking clock and a worried group of people counting down.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Spider-Man or Electro.  Electro only inadvertently set up the situation (kinda weak), and Spider-Man (and Gwen) unknowingly prevent the calamity (again, kinda weak).  I'm not saying the "ticking time bomb" is a bad thing.  It's used in countless action movies because it works.  But this was not how to do it.

There was also the entire subplot with Peter's parents.  They did a whole lot of buildup in the first film about the mysterious disappearance of Richard and Mary Parker and how Richard was somehow highly involved with equally mysterious goings on at Oscorp.  Well, we get more mystery in this film too.  And we get lots of Peter trying to figure out what happened and why they left him with Aunt May and Uncle Ben.  And yes, we also finally find out just what happened.  But none of it really serves much purpose in the story.  It doesn't particularly forward the plot.  Nor does it really have any impact on Peter's character arc (actually, I'm not entirely sure Peter had a character arc in this film, which is a major problem in and of itself).  It's all just sort of tangential filler to explain why the mutant spiders affected Peter one way but would affect anyone else differently.  There had to be a more efficient way to do that.  After all that setup from the first film, there just wasn't much payoff.

Okay, back to the villains.  Does Spider-Man just not have good villains (I'm a Batman fan personally, and he has a terrific rogues gallery)?  So far the major villains in the new Spider-Man movies have basically been science experiments gone wrong.  Granted, that is how Peter Parker became Spider-Man, so maybe it is poetic justice?  Don't get me wrong, Electro was pretty cool.  Max Dillon comes across as a pretty unstable, albeit intelligent, fellow so his setup to become a super villain works (were those his thoughts we heard being rapped in the background when he first battled Spider-Man?).  But Green Goblin's setup kinda felt like the same story.  Both are the products of science experiments gone wrong.  Both feel irrationally slighted by Spider-Man.  It works once.  I'm not sure it works twice.

And that brings me to a villainous side character: Dr. Ashley Kafka.  If ever a character was a cliche, it was him.  Mad scientist with a thick German accent: check.  Listens to classical music: check.  Crazy hair and thick glasses: check.  White lab coat: check.  Gleefully torments characters (in this case Electro) in the name of science all while wearing a simpering smirk: check.  Seriously?  I groaned every second he was onscreen.

I hated the character so much I had to come home and search Wikipedia to see if he was an actual comic book character.  There is a Dr. Ashley Kafka in the comics.  For starters, that Dr. Kafka is female.  She's not German (she's from New York).  She's not a mad scientist (she's a psychologist).  And she's a good character who tried to help the criminally insane and was a sometimes ally of Spider-Man.  So basically the film just stole her name and gave it to the most garish cliche I've seen in recent cinema.

My last gripe (until the spoiler section) is perhaps the most unexpected.  At least it surprised me.  I did not like the musical score.  Normally I either love the score (and rush out to buy the main themes on iTunes) or I don't really notice it at all because it simply works.  This score I noticed.  And I was not impressed.  Which is even more mind-blowing to me because it was by Hans Zimmer, the genius behind the fantastic music to more movies than I have space to list.  I'm not even sure what the problem was.  It just seemed like the music was a bit ... corny.  It didn't seem to suit the film or its tone at all.

So, what actually went right?  Well, the casting was quite good.  I really like Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker / Spider-Man.  He brings just the right balance of intelligent and goofy.  Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is also fantastic.  And the two of them have terrific chemistry.  At no point do you think, now why is she with him?  Their relationship just works, even when it isn't really working so well in the story.  It's all believable.  Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan both do a terrific job at selling their characters' falls from decent to villainous.  Paul Giamatti is pretty over the top.  But then that's what's required for a character called "The Rhino" who goes around in a big mechanized rhino suit.

The other good point of the film was its humor.  Spider-Man is a fun character who likes to crack jokes.  He is a teenager after all.  There were a lot of fun moments and great lines from him and from Gwen.

Oh, and the special effects were really good.  Electro is quite impressive.

As you can see, I found a lot more to criticize than to love about The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  If you are a die hard Spidey fan ... sure, go see it.  If you're bored and want to see a good superhero movie ... go see Captain America: The Winter Soldier and wait for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to be available through Netflix.

One more thing.  How does Andrew Garfield fit all that hair under Spider-Man's mask?

***Spoiler Section***

Okay.  I get why Harry Osborne is initially angry with Spider-Man.  He's dying and he has reason to believe that Spider-Man's blood could heal him.  He's emotionally vulnerable and desperate, so I can see why his judgment is clouded after Spider-Man refuses to help.  But then he actually gets the spider venom ... and pretty much what Spider-Man feared happened: the venom transformed Harry, and not in a cool Spider-Man way.  At that point, Spider-Man is pretty much validated in his refusal.  From that point, Harry basically just seems to be using Spider-Man as a scapegoat for all his woes.  Yes, he's kinda gone off the deep end.  But considering what he goes on to do, that's pretty weak motivation.  The Harry Osborne in the Sam Raimi trilogy had much better motivation for hating Spider-Man.

And what does Harry go on to do?  Well, anyone who knows anything about Spider-Man knows that his main love interest ends up being Mary Jane Watson.  And they also know that Gwen Stacy dies.  So Gwen was basically doomed from the start of the previous film.  And from the moment she starts giving her graduation speech at the beginning of the movie, you know she isn't going to live to see the credits.

Symbolism is terrific.  I love a good, well-thought-out motif.  But having Gwen die in a clock seems a bit heavy handed (pardon the pun).  We get it; her time's up.  It wasn't simply that it was in a clock, it was how they staged the whole scene.  It all felt too contrived, almost manipulative.

The Peter Parker / Gwen Stacy relationship has been hands down the highlight of these movies.  This doesn't exactly bode well for the third installment.

Quotable Quotes

• "We're hiding in a maintenance closet.  That's the most cliche hiding place ever." -- Peter to Gwen
• "He [Max Dillon/Electro] loves Spider-Man."  "That's not the vibe I was getting.  I was getting the wants-to-kill-me vibe."  "That's kinda what it's like to love you."  Gwen and Peter
• "I'll be like a god to them."  "A god named 'Sparkles'?" -- Electro and Spider-Man
• "On behalf of the fine people of New York and real rhinos everywhere, I ask you to put your mechanized paws in the air." -- Spider-Man to Rhino

ISFS

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo

Starring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, and Robert Redford

Tagline: In Heroes We Trust
Synopsis: While still trying to adjust to his new life in modern times, Captain America is thrust into a new adventure where nothing and no one is quite as they seem.

Review

Ah, Marvel.  You've done it again.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a terrific movie.  It has loads of action, terrific characters, fair doses of both heart and humor, and an intriguing plot.  And it has good old Captain America.

I love Tony Stark / Iron Man.  He's brilliant and clever.  Plus everything that comes out of his mouth is snarky and quotable.  Thor has an epic grandeur about him.  He's literally otherworldly and brings a pseudo-Shakespearean gravitas wherever he and his mighty hammer go.  Hulk smashes.  And then there's Captain America, aka Steve Rogers.  He's a decent, average guy who just so happens to end up superhuman.  He's the most down to earth and relatable of the Avengers.  Which is part of what makes him the most heroic.  Saving the world isn't his hobby.  It's the right thing to do.  And Steve Rogers does what's right, no matter what.

That what I love about Captain America.  He is genuinely good.  Right is right.  Wrong is wrong.  You trust your friends and stick by them until the end of the line.  There's something very refreshing about that, especially as distrust, dishonesty, cynicism, betrayal, and hidden agendas swirl around the Captain.  And in true heroic fashion, rather than letting the world bring him down to its level, Captain America rallies those around him to rise to his level.

Captain America is surrounded by a great bunch in this film.  He and Black Widow make an odd duo.  He's an idealist.  She's a realist.  He has a high moral code.  She does what needs to be done.  He's all about trust and truth.  She ... well, isn't.  Seriously, she's been in three movies now and I'm not sure we really know anything about her.  Nick Fury is also quite the foil for Captain America, and the story plays off those differences well.  And then there's Sam Wilson, aka the Falcon.  He's a newcomer.  And a welcome one at that.  While Sam is a slightly jaded veteran, he has not become cynical.  It's apparent from the start that he admires Captain America and is ready to follow his lead.  He has quite a lot to do in terms of the action and plot, but what struck me is that he is proof that Captain America's "old-fashioned values" are alive and well and applicable today.

Two other characters I was quite excited to see the return of were Peggy Carter and Maria Hill.

Agent Peggy Carter is, of course, the love interest of Steve Rogers in Captain America: The First Avenger.  And she was one of my favorite parts of that movie.  She also stars in the Marvel One Shot: "Agent Carter."  By the time of The Winter Soldier she's in her mid-nineties.  I don't remember that her one scene does much to forward the actual plot.  But it is a wonderful, much-needed quiet moment that shows just who Steve is as he goes to visit her in the hospital.

As I was thinking about it, Maria Hill is sort of the modern version of Peggy Carter.  In their own times they are both high ranking women.  They are both very intelligent, skilled, and perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.  But neither is as rough, tough, or flashy as say Black Widow.  Maria Hill doesn't have a whole lot to do in The Winter Soldier, and yet what she does is essential to furthering the plot and aiding Captain America and the others.

There's also the Winter Soldier himself.  But I can't say much about him without spoiling things.  Suffice it to say he is an intriguing antagonist and it is fascinating to watch him fight toe to toe with Captain America.  He also has a fitting post-credits scene.

As I said above, the movie has a well-done plot.  It really is as much an espionage thriller as it is a superhero movie.  While it isn't as witty as other movies in the Marvel universe, it has its humorous moments.  And it's just satisfying to cheer for Captain America.

I do have one nit-pick about the movie.  It is a fairly standard Hollywood trope that bad guys with guns can't hit the broad side of a barn let alone the hero.  Still, the movie is full of highly trained soldiers, many of whom have all sorts of automatic weapons.  They seem generally intelligent.  And yet not one single bad guy can figure out that shooting at Captain America's vibranium shield simply doesn't work.  Not at all people.  And the shield is only so big.  But do any of the baddies think to shoot at the Captain's unprotected lower legs?  Nope.  Futilely shooting the shield over and over and over again is so much cooler.

Aside from that minor gripe, I have nothing but praise for Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  If you enjoy Marvel movies, you'll have a great time.  If you don't, give it a try.  You might like this one.

*** Spoiler Section ***

I hope we get to see more of the Winter Soldier in Captain America 3.  I look forward to seeing how Bucky comes back from years of brainwashing.  I'm glad they didn't do too much with that in this film, it would have felt rushed and thus less meaningful.

Lastly, did anyone really think they'd actually kill Nick Fury?  They couldn't even bring themselves to really kill off Agent Coulson.

Quotable Quotes

• "Secure the engine room, then get me a date."  "I'm multi-tasking." -- Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff
• "Then what's not broken?!" "Air conditioning is fully operational." -- Nick Fury and his car
• "On your left." -- Steve Rogers
• "I do what he does -- just slower." -- Sam Wilson

ISFS

Rio 2

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Carlos Saldanha

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Jemaine Clement, and Kristin Chenoweth

Tagline: It's on in the Amazon!
Synopsis: When more blue macaws are discovered deep within the jungle, Blu, Jewel, their kids, and their friends embark on an adventure to the Amazon.

Review

Remember how before reviewing Mr. Peabody and Sherman I talked about the insipid short that preceded it?  Well, believe it or not, the exact same short preceded Rio 2.  Seriously?  That's just lazy.  C'mon Blue Sky Studios.  Why is your film being preceded by a Dreamworks short anyway?  Also preceding the movie was the first five minutes from How to Train Your Dragon 2.  While that was far more entertaining and interesting, it's also kind of a shameless marketing plug.  (I am very excited for that movie, though, and still have high expectations for it.)

Speaking of expectations, I went into Rio 2 with fairly low expectations.  The first movie was fun and worth at least one viewing.  It had some catchy samba-inspired songs and flamboyantly feathery choreography.  The plot was decent and the characters were likable enough.  It had some clever moments but was ultimately rather forgettable.

And I basically just reviewed both movies right there.

All the main characters from the first movie return.  Blu spends most of the movie trying to learn how to fit in and what he's good for (which is pretty much how he spent the first movie).  Jewel doesn't have a whole lot to do this time around aside from urging Blu (and thus the plot) along.  All the other characters are along for the ride and add their own various antics.  New characters include the villainous Nigel's henchmen: a lovesick poisonous tree frog and a silent, ever-hungry anteater.  Blu's GPS was also a fun "character," if you can call it that.  And of course there are new blue macaws, primarily Jewel's father and her childhood friend.  Both fill their roles ... well, exactly as you'd imagine from having watched the trailer.

The plot was simply nothing new.  It was safe, cozy, and predictable (all things Blu would probably approve of).  It had a musical revue and a bird version of a soccer game.  There was the requisite "save the rainforest" plot.  One of the problems was it had both a human plot -- with Linda and Tulio, Blu and Jewel's caretakers -- and a bird plot -- with, you know, the birds.  When the two plots did finally come together, it was a little too quick and too tidily patched up.  Like I said, it was all a little too safe.  None of the characters really risked much.  The stakes were never high enough to be emotionally satisfying.

That said, I really was pleasantly surprised.  Rio 2 was more fun than I was expecting.  While the music won't be sung by children and adults everywhere for the next half year, it was still toe-tapping.  The version of "I Will Survive" was a highlight of the film even.  And it was hard not to smile at Kristin Chenoweth (the original Galinda from Wicked) as she crooned about her poisonous love for the Shakespeare-inspired cockatoo, Nigel.  The flying choreography during the musical numbers was also just as fun, feathery, and flamboyant as in the first film.  It may not break any new ground in animation, but it's still nice eye candy.

My favorite part of the movie was the journey itself from Rio de Janeiro to the Amazon.  I'm not sure how long movies have been traveling by map.  I believe it was popularized by the (awesome!) Indiana Jones films.  And it has been put to humorous effect in various Muppet movies.  But Rio 2 is the first film (to my knowledge) to do travel by pop-up book.  And the result is charming, colorful, and smile-inducing.  If I watch the movie again, it will be for that segment ... and the crazed cockatoo's "I Will Survive."

Is Rio 2 a brilliant film that will go down in animation history?  No.  Is it worth an hour and a half of your time via Redbox or Netflix?  Sure.  Where else are you going to watch birds play soccer or a cockatoo recite Hamlet?

Quotable Quotes

• "We attack at midnight ... because it's more evil." -- Nigel
• "Put the spork down." -- Rafael
• "He called me a pet!" -- Blu
• "Are you sure you trust this woman?" -- Jewel to Blu regarding the female GPS voice

ISFS

Noah

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman, and Ray Winstone

Tagline: The end of the world ... is just the beginning.
Synopsis: Noah and his family are tasked with building an ark before the world is destroyed by flood. 

Review

I went in to Noah with high expectations and an open mind.  At no point was I expecting a doctrinally accurate portrayal of Noah.  I wasn't even expecting a particularly Biblical portrayal of Noah (director Darren Aronofsky is, after all, a self-proclaimed atheist).  And I was fully prepared to defend the film as an artistic piece of historical fiction (with a whole lot of liberties taken) and leave religious accuracy out of my review.  That intention lasted for about the first half of the movie.  Then the film lost me up until the last five minutes.

Now this is going to be as much an analysis as a review.  FYI, there may be some spoilers.  But I trust you know the Biblical account and how this ultimately has to end.

Perhaps I should begin at the end.  By the time I left the cinema, the overwhelming feeling in my heart was of gratitude for the plan of salvation.  Halfway through the film, I could no longer refrain from wanting to infuse my own beliefs and understandings into the action.  The fact the film was so devoid of the simple yet beautiful truths of the gospel made me appreciate those truths all the more.  (Sort of like how you appreciate food so much more when fasting.)  The film's lack reaffirmed my own abundance.

If gratitude was my primary feeling, sympathy was the second.  I felt sympathy for those without the understanding and perspective the restored gospel brings.

The film started out well enough.  Yes, there were some "wait what?" moments and components as the filmmakers took quite the artistic license (okay, that's probably an understatement).  But as the story progressed and began to fall apart, I realized it was in part because the film's very foundation is unstable.  The whole story is constructed upon three false premises:

1. The Creator had no purpose in creation
2. Mankind is just another creation
3. Mankind, through the Fall and subsequent wickedness, ruined the rest of creation

Throughout the film, Noah and all the other characters only ever refer to "the Creator."  I don't recall the movie ever referring to Him as "God" and certainly never as "Father."  He is merely the Creator of all things, but apparently with no plan, purpose, or design.  For the purposes of this film, the verse would have to read: "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass a beautiful garden where all the animals and people are well-behaved and tidy."  That is certainly not the Creator I know and serve.

[It was strangely fitting that a few hours later I was singing "I Am a Child of God" with millions of women the world over during Women's Conference.]

In the film, the Fall of Adam and Eve is a great calamity for the world.  And from Cain's murder of Abel onward, mankind is full of violence and wickedness and bent on destroying the world for gain.  Mankind's major crime is the destruction of creation (which does include mankind itself).  Only the line of Seth (of which Noah's family is the last) have lived in harmony with nature.

All of this leads to the main -- and invented -- drama for the film: whether or not mankind is fit to continue or if they were simply a mistake and the new world would be better off without them (harking back to the false premise that there was no ultimate purpose to creation).  This idea doesn't fully manifest itself until halfway through the film (the point it lost me).  At that point you realize Noah has his own false premise: that he is primarily tasked with saving the innocent animals and not with being the new father of the human race.

This leads to a major deviation from the Bible account.  When the ark door shuts, neither Ham nor Japheth have a wife, and Shem's wife, Ila, is thought to be barren.  Noah becomes so convinced that all of mankind must be punished and wiped out, he is ready to do the unthinkable.  It turns out Ila has been cured of her barrenness (by Methuselah).  And when Ila gives birth to twin girls, Noah believes it is his duty to kill them, lest they perpetuate mankind and its evils.  When it comes down to it, though, he is unable to harm the babes.

Which actually leads to one of the main themes of the film: justice versus mercy.  Justice is hammered pretty hard throughout the film.  It is just that the Creator destroy mankind for having destroyed the rest of creation.  It is just that the innocent animals be preserved.  It is just that even Noah's line die out because he sees their imperfections and faults.  All of that is described as "just."  And the fact that Noah's family is ready to turn on him and hates him for saying his own granddaughters must be killed is -- as his wife, Naameh, tearfully and vehemently points out -- also just.  Noah's complete subscription to justice became almost unbearable to watch.  It was a long, long wait for mercy to finally show up.

Ultimately, Noah does show mercy over justice in sparing his granddaughters' lives.  He then feels like a failure, like he has failed the Creator and his family, because he still believes the false premise that humanity doesn't deserve to live.  Once they reach land, Noah gives into his depression and survivor's guilt, becomes estranged from his family, and indulges quite heavily in wine.  (That last part does at least have basis in the Bible).

Then, at long last, the film finds a redemptive note.  Ila goes to talk to Noah (merciful in and of itself considering he almost killed her daughters).  When Noah says he feels as though he failed, Ila points out that the Creator chose him for a reason.  The Creator chose Noah because He knew Noah would choose mercy  and love over justice.  Comforted, Noah then finds reconciliation with Naameh (in a beautifully simple scene) and blesses his sons and granddaughters with the admonition to "multiply and replenish the earth."  Cue the rainbow.

For me, the ending works.  It does offer the much needed note of redemption, mercy, and reconciliation the film was desperate for.  But I'm still not entirely sure it was enough.  If I'm tempted to accept that the mercy there was enough to balance out the justice of the film, I think it is because I'm imposing all my own beliefs about God's mercy in that event.  And there really isn't enough movie left to fully start liking Noah again.

Putting theology temporarily aside, the film also struggled even from a story perspective.  It's Noah's ark!  One of the major components of that story is the animals.  Not only were the animals entirely CGI (that's one way to make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this movie), but they spend most of the film asleep.  Yep, once the animals get settled on the boat, Noah and the others walk around with some type of incense that puts all the animals (but not the humans) into a sort of hibernation.  And when you finally get to the flood, well, it's not that impressive.  Just a lot of water.

And let's not even discuss the "Watchers": fallen angels turned into rock creatures with a hint of the Prometheus myth in their backstory.  Yes, really.

The film also struggles as it tries to be religious to the believers and fantastical to the non-believers.  In trying to straddle both, it never quite succeeds at either.

Noah can be considered a prophet in only the most literal sense of the word.  He prophesies that a flood will come.  That's it.  Still, he starts out quite well.  He is shown to be a kind father (including a caring, adoptive father to Ila), a loving husband, and generally a good man.  He shows himself to be obedient and dedicated.  But he as the burden of impending justice weighs upon him and indeed begins to consume him, he becomes ... well, pretty difficult -- if not impossible at times -- to like.  After he finally shows mercy, he at least becomes sympathetic again.

I was prepared for a complicated Noah, one torn between justice and mercy, one devastated at having to watch the destruction of the world (even knowing the rebirth and renewal that lay ahead), one who perhaps even struggled some to find inner peace.  I was expecting that sort of interpretation from a Hollywood film.  Instead the film seemed to emphasize neither his prophetic role nor his humanity, instead falling somewhere awkwardly in between.  That said, I felt that Russell Crowe did an excellent job with the Noah he was asked to portray.

The film's villain is Tubal-Cain (portrayed by Ray Winstone), and for the most part he worked quite well.  He was certainly menacing and focused in his efforts.  And, quite appropriately, much of his personal justification was founded in half truths.  It is he who points out time and again that man is in the Creator's image.  He also points out that man was given dominion over the earth.  But he, like the rest of mankind, has twisted those truths to suit his own selfish desires.  He proudly affirms that what he wants, he takes.

Like I said, a villain spouting half-truths works quite well, especially in a Biblical context.  What becomes so frustrating is that there is no one affirming the full truths.  At no point does Noah seem to acknowledge man having been created in the Creator's image or of having been entrusted with dominion.  It seems like there should have been some powerful moment when Noah boldly affirms that with dominion (like great power) comes great responsibility.

As for Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth are pretty bland and aren't given much to do.  Ham gets far, far more screen time.  The Bible essentially says that Ham became estranged from the family but is fuzzy on the details.  So the film spends a great deal of time coming up with reasons for that estrangement.  It does at least make Ham an interesting character to watch.  And he becomes a convenient person for Tubal-Cain to beguile with his half-truths.

Well, that's an awful lot of what the film did wrong and sometimes utterly wrong.  It also did some things right.

For starters, I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah.  No, he wasn't the faithful patriarch I would have liked, but he was nonetheless charmingly eccentric.  He added a little much-needed lightheartedness in his interactions with his grandson and great-grandchildren.

Hands down, the two highlights of the entire film were Naameh (Noah's wife) and Ila (Noah's adoptive daughter who becomes Shem's wife).

Naameh is terrific and Jennifer Connelly is perfect in the role.  She is truly a "help meet" for Noah: strong-spirited, loyal, and diligent.  She is utterly believable as a woman who would walk miles through barren desert, help build an ark, put up with a menagerie, and only falter slightly as the snakes make their way aboard.  Her love for Noah is clear, which makes her struggle against his sense of justice all the more difficult as she must come between her husband and her children.  Connelly's emotions in some of her arguments with Noah are so real and raw, you forget she is acting.  She does such a complete job of selling this couple's relationship, that when a penitent Noah comes wordlessly seeking forgiveness, it works.

As terrific as Naameh is, it is still Ila who steals the show.  Emma Watson is absolutely fantastic (she's come a long way from her bushy-haired, Sorcerer's Stone Hermione Granger days) and the character she plays works so perfectly.  Noah and his family rescue and adopt Ila as a child.  Her family and kin have been killed and she is left wounded among the dead.  Noah's interactions with Ila, both as a little girl and as a grown woman, do much to emphasize his humanity and goodness.

What makes Ila stand out so beautifully is that she is the only character in the entire film who is willing to make a sacrifice.  She wholly believes that the Creator intends for mankind to continue.  And there is an absolutely beautiful, poignant scene between Ila and Noah.  Ila is barren and not yet wedded to Shem.  And though she loves Shem, she tearfully begs Noah to find him a "real woman" who can give him posterity.  Watson's emotions are so real in that moment.  Maybe it's because we're studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year, but in Ila's words and tears I glimpsed an echo of what Sarah or Rebekah might have felt.

If Noah becomes the (nearly) unyielding embodiment of justice, Ila is the embodiment in the film of mercy. It is more merciful than just that she should be willing to sacrifice her own desires for love and happiness.  It is more merciful than just that she should be cured of her barrenness by Methuselah's blessing.  It is more merciful than just that she should go to Noah in his isolated anguish to offer him comfort and clarity.  And so in that sense it works to have Ila be the one to explain mercy to Noah.

Ultimately, the film (not the story) feels like a tragedy.  It had the potential.  It did some things so right.  Yet it fell short of that potential because it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and because it was founded upon false premises.  Certainly the film never made me question my beliefs.  On the contrary, it made me feel and embrace them all the more fully and want to shake Noah and tell him the plan of salvation as well as how justice and mercy are supposed to work.

In summation, I find that I can neither fully condemn nor condone this film.  Nor can I bring myself to actively encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it.  What I can do is express how grateful I am for a merciful Father in Heaven's plan, a plan founded not upon false premises, but upon the pillars of salvation: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.  And how grateful I am for that "grand design, where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine!"*

Quotable Quotes

• "The snakes are coming too?" -- Naameh
• "I am not alone." -- Noah
• "Is this the end of everything?"  "The beginning.  The beginning of everything." -- Ila and Noah

*Snow, Eliza R., "How Great the Wisdom and the Love," Hymns, no. 195.

ISFS

Muppets Most Wanted

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: James Bobin

Starring: Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Walter, Ricky Gervais, Ty Burrell, Tina Fey, all the other Muppets, and more celebrity cameos than anyone can keep track of

Tagline: Taking the World by Farce
Synopsis: While the Muppets are on a world tour, Kermit is deviously replaced by a lookalike, mastermind criminal.

Review

I love the Muppets.  I grew up watching reruns of The Muppet Show as well as watching Muppet Babies, the short-lived Muppets Tonight, and all the various movies.  It is not Christmas if I haven't watched A Muppet Christmas Carol.  I even own a self-help book written by Kermit the Frog and have gone as Beaker for Halloween.  The Muppets are terrific.  And a few years ago when The Muppets brought the fuzzy gang back to the big screen, I rejoiced.

Needless to say, I've been looking forward to Muppets Most Wanted.

Once again though, I need to backtrack.  Before I reviewed Mr. Peabody and Sherman, I first railed on the insipid short that preceded it.  So it is only fitting that I should now rave about the short that preceded this film.  As soon as the beloved Pixar logo appeared I got excited.  The short was Monsters University: Party Central and it was terrific.  It was witty and clever and full of the gags that make Pixar so awesome.  The final payoff gag still puts a smile on my face remembering it.  That's how you do a short.

We now return you to your feature presentation ...

The opening for Muppets Most Wanted was everything I love about the Muppets.  The segment is "We're Doing a Sequel," and it gleefully pokes fun at Hollywood and its chronic sequelitis as well as the pitfalls of franchises.  The catchy musical number and its lead-in were full of self-aware humor, goofy antics, celebrity cameos, and a parody reference to a classic film that probably most people in the audience had never heard of let alone seen.  But for those of us in the know, it was a laugh out loud moment.  Although I've never seen Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, the iconic scene of Death playing chess with a medieval knight is a staple in film textbooks.  So to have that scene briefly reenacted by Death and Swedish Chef (Bergman was Swedish) was priceless ... as was Kermit's rejection that American audiences don't watch movies with subtitles.

I wish I could say that the rest of the film lived up to that opening sequence.  But while the film was fun and enjoyable throughout ... it still felt like it was a little lacking.  The Muppets had nostalgia on its side and it used it for all it was worth to great success.  This should have been the Muppets now getting to do what they do best.  Instead it seemed like we spent more of the film with the human characters or the villain than with the Muppets.  Constantine (Kermit's evil lookalike) got more showstopping musical numbers than Kermit.  Nor were the musical numbers as catchy or memorable as the previous film.  The exception is "We're Doing a Sequel," which truly is terrific.  The "Interrogation Song" is pretty fun too, but it can't compare to "Life's a Happy Song."

But that is way too much about what the film did wrong.  So while it isn't the best Muppet movie ever, it is still a fun movie full of endearing characters.  Kermit is ever-lovable and ever-relatable in his exasperation.  Miss Piggy is still Miss Piggy.  Walter (a new character from the last film) makes a nice addition to the gang.  Sam the Eagle gets a fairly good sized role for a change, and he has a terrific repartee with Ty Burrell's Interpol officer.  Tina Fey is also quite fun as Nadya, a prison guard at the Russian Gulag where Kermit is falsely imprisoned.  Also enjoyable are all the various cameos (a Muppet staple) from Usher as an usher to Celine Dion singing a duet with Miss Piggy to Tom Hiddleston as a prisoner in the Gulag to Stanley Tucci as a friendly Gulag guard.

Quotable Quotes

• "Turn the lights back on.  I can't see anything.  You have to, like, wait until I'm out of the hallway." -- Nadya
• "And not one single person noticed I'd been replaced by an evil criminal mastermind?!" -- Kermit
• "When do I get to do the indoor running of the bulls?" -- Gonzo
• "Slow news week: Muppets make headlines!" -- Newspaper headline

ISFS

Mr. Peabody and Sherman

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Rob Minkoff

Starring: Ty Burrell, Max Charles, Ariel Winter, Stanley Tucci, and Patrick Warburton

Tagline: History is catching up with them.
Synopsis: The improbable adventures of Mr. Peabody -- a genius who happens to be a dog -- and his adopted boy Sherman as they time travel through history.

Review

Let me begin by saying that I have fond memories of watching reruns of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show from when I was a kid.  I loved the quirky humor.  And I always enjoyed the segment, Peabody's Improbable History.  I think by the time I started watching the show I knew enough about history to get the jokes and know how far they'd stretched the truth.  After all, how realistic could you get with a genius, talking dog as your main character?

I should back up though.  I guess it has been a while since I saw a Dreamworks animated film.  Have they always done short films before the feature?  I don't remember any of them.  Maybe it is a new thing and they are trying to be cool like Disney (Paperman was better than Wreck-It Ralph) or awesome like Pixar (Gerry's Game, 'nuff said).  If it is a new thing, they started with a fail.  I don't even remember what the short was called.  It was colorful, but nonetheless bland.  It finished and I thought, "Wait, that's it?"  I've seen commercials with more heart and humor.  Bleh.

Sorry, back to the actual movie.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman does a nice job paying homage to its origins.  It even begins and ends with the same lines as the very first Peabody's Improbable History segment.  It also ends with the same disgruntled, bristle-brush mustachioed street sweeper cleaning up after the final parade.  Nice.

And it is fairly true to the zany view of history and historical figures.  This is certainly not a movie that is trying to teach history.  It is a film having fun with history and embracing anachronisms.  And, true to the original, Mr. Peabody loves to crack terrible puns.  Case in point: Peabody and Sherman find themselves in an Egyptian tomb where a mummy loses its arm, freaking out Sherman.  Peabody responds with, "Well, that's disarming."  What can I say, I'm a fan of puns.

The humor in the film is more than just puns though.  It manages to run the full gamut: from body odor gags to humorous references about Oedipus ("You do not want to go to family dinner at his house.  Awkward!").  How many in the audience actually got the Oedipus joke I don't know.  But I appreciated it.  While it is hardly laugh out loud worthy, there are certainly enough chuckles to keep most people amused throughout.  I think my favorite gag had to be the "I'm Spartacus!" line during the climax.  Terrific usage of a famous movie quote.

As for the story itself, well, it is fairly predictable.  And by the end it starts getting a bit convoluted (a typical consequence of ripping holes in that pesky space-time continuum).  It does have some heart as it strives to be not just an adventure, but a "father" and son bonding tale.  I got the impression it was trying to take a few pages out of Finding Nemo's book with the whole "You think you can do these things, but you can't" setup.  But it just doesn't quite work here.  I guess you might say the film only puts forward a halfhearted attempt to have heart.

The film is visually fun and the voice acting is pretty spot on.  It's not a terrific movie, but it's fun and worth seeing, if not in theaters then via Redbox or Netflix.  So if someone asks if you want to see Mr. Peabody and Sherman, just say "Sure, man."  (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Quotable Quotes

• "You can't have your cake and edict too." -- Mr. Peabody
• "If at first you don't succeed ... Troy, Troy again." -- Mr. Peabody on his escape from the battle of Troy
• "I love you, Mr. Peabody."  "I have a fond regard for you, too" -- Sherman and Mr. Peabody
• "I'm Spartacus!" -- Spartacus

ISFS

The Lego Movie

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Starring: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, Will Arnett, Will Ferrell, and Liam Neeson

Tagline: Assembling in 2014
Synopsis: When President Business threatens to unleash a super weapon, Emmet, an ordinary minifigure, must rally the Master Builders in order to save the Lego world.

Review

The other week I noted that Monuments Men failed to live up to its movie trailer.  Well, I suppose in a strange way The Lego Movie balances that out by far surpassing its trailer.

I've loved Legos for as long as I can remember.  It was my toy of choice during my childhood.  I had castle sets and pirate sets and space sets and town sets.  Even now, I still have some Legos as decorations.  I'm also a big fan of the Lego Indiana Jones video game.  So when I saw that Lego was coming out with a movie, I was cautiously optimistic.  The trailers showed the film would have zaniness and humor (and Batman), but they didn't really get me excited about the film.  And then the reviews started coming in ... and they were nearly all positive, very positive.  I knew I definitely had to check it out.

So, now I can add my praise.  The Lego Movie is terrific.  I suppose "awesome" would be a more appropriate term given the number of times the song "Everything Is Awesome" plays throughout.

There is a wonderful humor that runs throughout the entire film.  There were so many clever or tongue-in-cheek lines it was hard to keep up.  I think I spent most of the run time with a grin on my face.  The film also pokes fun at various movie genres (e.g., there is a constant bar fight going on in the western town; the villain's lair is guarded by lasers, sharks, and laser sharks), superheros (Batman is fantastic, with a great theme song), and pop culture (e.g. Emmet happily buys a $37 coffee).  The humor is also at times very irreverent.  There were a few times when I thought to myself they'd never get away with this if these weren't plastic minifigures.

The animation is colorful and somewhat manic, but very fun throughout.  Even when there is water or an explosion, there is the appearance that it is all made of Lego pieces.  Also outstanding was the voice cast.  They were all perfect for their roles.  I was especially impressed with Liam Neeson who played a Bad Cop/Good Cop character.  Each personality had a very distinct voice.  Will Ferrell is also a terrific villain.

The story itself is fairly straightforward.  Bricksburg is a nice orderly city where everyone follows the instructions.  But the world is in danger because President Business still isn't satisfied that everything is perfect and plans to unleash his secret weapon: Kragle.  So a prophesied "chosen one" must arise to save everyone.  In this case, that person is termed "the Special."  Emmet is as ordinary as ordinary can be and follows his instructions obsessively.  But when he accidentally stumbles on the "Piece of Resistance" (that clever name made me very happy) he is immediately believed to be the Special and is whisked off to a meeting of the Master Builders who are in hiding.  What follows is the typical quest.  The heroes experience some setbacks, have to work together, and manage to get exactly what they need exactly when they need it (by means of my favorite cameo in the movie).

In terms of themes, the Master Builders pride themselves on their creativity and ability to build whatever they need without instructions.  And it is awesome and fun to watch.  But Emmet, whose creativity is severely lacking, teaches them that there is a place for instructions.  More importantly, he shows them that sometimes their own creativity is keeping them from successfully working together.  There is also a theme of being yourself and your own special.

And then the third act hit with a plot twist I didn't see coming.  All of the above is why The Lego Movie is a fun, enjoyable movie.  But the twist takes it to the level of a terrific movie.  Suddenly there is as much heart as there was humor.  It's a little annoying that I can't say more, but that would ruin the movie.  So the rest of my review will have to go down in the Spoiler Section.

I definitely recommend this movie, but be in a slightly goofy mood and be prepared to have "Everything Is Awesome" stuck in your head.

*** Spoiler Section ***
Once the movie revealed what the Kragle was (Krazy Glue with some of the lettering rubbed off) and President Business started showing off his relics (including a used Band-Aid, a Titleist golf ball, and an X-Acto knife) I had a feeling there might be a real world tie in at some point.  Having Emmet sacrifice himself by throwing himself off the edge of the universe worked quite well in the story.  And I wasn't particularly surprised when, in the real world, he was picked up by a young boy.  Up until that moment, the movie was humorous and fun.  And then Will Ferrell, the voice of President Business, walked down the basement steps to confront his son for messing with his (the father's) toys.

In that moment, the entire movie changed.  Yes, it was still about what it means to be special and creativity vs. instruction-following.  But mostly it was about a father and son.  In that one moment, everything that had been happening in the movie took on a different meaning.  It had always been about a son and his relationship with his father.  And because of what had come before, you already knew much more about their relationship and who this father was than was portrayed in the live action sequence.  Watching Will Ferrell's character thaw from being an OCD perfectionist to seeing the value of his son's "chaotic" creativity put a bigger smile on my face than any of the witty lines or visual gags.  Based on all the trailers and the entire movie up until that point, I was not expecting that much heart.  And that surprising touch of humanity is what elevates The Lego Movie.

In the end, the film was never about Emmet saving the world.  Given that it is based in the imagination of a young boy, that Lego world will never be safe.  Instead, the movie was about reconciliation: the reconciliation (and coexistence) of precise instruction following with creative play and the reconciliation of father and son.  And that is awesome.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, when I played with Legos as a kid, I built according to the instructions and played President Business style.  As Emmet proves, we can't all be Master Builders, but that doesn't mean we can't still have fun.

Quotable Quotes

• "I think I heard a whoosh." -- Emmet
• "The Special will now give an eloquent speech." -- Vitruvius
• "Come with me if you want to not die." -- Wyldstyle

ISFS