By and large I am not a fan of superhero movies.  En masse they are colorful, action-filled entertainments, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  But few of them, for me, elevate themselves to something greater.  I suppose that is why I was so happily surprised by the first Iron Man (2008), which introduced and unleashed brash billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) on the world.  While the climactic battle between Stark as Iron Man and Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) as a bigger, badder villain was unexceptional, I really, really enjoyed the earlier parts of the film.  Tony Stark is a wonderfully flawed character, crackling with irony and brilliance, and I cannot imagine any other actor in the role.  Whatever Downey does for the rest of his career, he will, I think, always be known as Tony Stark / Iron Man first and foremost.

Iron Man 2 (2010) was interesting but more depressing than exhilarating, and I feared that the series was heading the way most movie series eventually go — into the proverbial toilet.  Then came Marvel’s The Avengers (2012), which was great sloppy fun, and now Iron Man 3, which, in its way, is almost as good as the first one.

First off, Shane Black’s film is seriously funny.  The fate of the free world may be in the balance, but one of Tony Stark’s trademarks is to laugh off the danger, and he does so here with élan.  His badinage with an adolescent boy in Tennessee (Ty Simpkins) is clever, cruel and hilarious; his banter with girlfriend / business partner Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is ironic, tinged with remorse and yet still funny, too. Even the bad guys get great lines.  One henchman, facing death or serious injury at the hands of Stark, yells “Don’t shoot!  Seriously, I don’t even like working here! They are so weird!”

Even when the plot thickens into syrup when people who can burn things by heating themselves to extreme temperatures go after Stark, and the U.S. president, the film revels in having fun and not taking things super-seriously.  There are enough off-the-cuff lines, in-jokes and pop culture references that multiple viewings (or hearings) may be required to catch all of them.  Perhaps they dampen the film’s timelessness, but they make audiences pay attention and reward viewers at opportune moments.

Ultimately the film works because of the Tony Stark and Pepper Potts characters. They continue to evolve, both singly, and within a meaningful relationship, and witnessing that evolution is a treat when staged within an action-oriented movie. Other superheroes will come and go; I hope the Iron Man franchise will continue as long as it can deliver movies as good as the first one, The Avengers, and Iron Man 3. Long live Tony Stark!  ☆ ☆ ☆.  16 May 2013.

Movies involving sports successes are, by their very nature, inspirational.  They celebrate whatever it is inside us that arises in competition and makes us perform better, faster, stronger or smarter than other people.  Most everyone has dreamed of sports glory — of being physically better than others, of having that one glorious moment of exultation, of being idolized for one’s physical prowess — and good sports movies channel those feelings to viewers vicariously.  Yet some sports transcend this formula, and 42 is one of them.

Baseball player Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) broke the long-standing color barrier in 1947.  42 chronicles how Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) orchestrated Robinson’s ascent to the major leagues, the social obstacles and prejudice that Robinson faced, and why Rickey’s grand experiment succeeded.  This was a huge step in accepting minorities in all sports, and helped popularize the cause for civil rights in America.  Brian Helgeland’s film demonstrates, in vivid detail, just how the process evolved and why it succeeded.  Because if it hadn’t then — if Jackie Robinson had lost his temper and attacked those who were taunting him, or if he had not been able to hit or field or run with above average ability — chances are that he would have been sent packing and the cause of equality in baseball would have been set back several, if not many, more years.  But Jackie Robinson did succeed, and 42 celebrates that fact and argues that his success was incredibly important to a lot of other people besides himself.

The movie is presented chronologically the two years leading up to Robinson’s debut and including his first major league season in Brooklyn.  Some scenes play quickly while others — those that reveal Robinson’s character and determination — develop without haste, as naturally as possible.  This is certainly true on the ball field, where some of Robinson’s base running exploits are presented in superb detail.  Robinson’s personal life is presented, too, with heartfelt respect for the manner in which his pretty young wife Rachel (Nicole Beharie) kept her husband grounded throughout the period of abuse he suffered.

42 is a very good baseball movie, blending intricate details of the game with compelling locker room drama.  It generally eschews the traditional “big game” climactic moments because, for Robinson, every game was a big game.  As a social movement document, the movie is wildly successful.  It may be argued that by now everyone knows the story and a movie like this is as much a sermon as a showpiece, but Helgeland’s film is so vivid, colorful, realistic and dramatic that its necessity should not be questioned.  Sermons are delivered every weekend; a movie like this only comes around every generation or so.

Chadwick Boseman is superb as Jackie Robinson.  The role called for someone not very well known, and Boseman fit that bill, but he won’t be an unknown for long.  His demeanor and powerful physicality are just right for the role.  Even better is Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey.  Ford disappears into the character, so much so that I didn’t recognize him in the movie’s previews.  Ford has only been nominated for one Academy Award, back in 1985, for the wonderful Witness.  He is a shoo-in for his second nomination (in the supporting category this time) because of his great work here, and at this point I think Ford will win no matter who his competition may be.

This actually isn’t the first movie about Jackie Robinson.  The second baseman played himself in the 1950 biopic The Jackie Robinson Story, made at the height of his fame. It was a small, independently-made movie that is well worth a look to see the real man.  A 1990 TV-movie, The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson, cast Andre Braugher as Robinson in the Army, facing insubordination charges for protesting against forced segregation.  A 1996 TV-movie, Soul of the Game, cast Blair Underwood as Robinson, competing against Satchel Paige (Delroy Lindo) and Josh Gibson (Mykelti Williamson) to be the first black player chosen by Branch Rickey (Edward Herrmann) to play for the Dodgers.  All of these are good movies, yet 42 towers above them all.

In its evocation of a time, place and culture in American history, 42 is a well-crafted cinematic document.  By showing how and why that culture was subtly changed, for the good and forever, the film is transcendent.  It acknowledges the ugly racism that stained our proud history, while depicting a major step in overcoming that social ill, leading to much more progress to come.  It is an important film that never forgets to entertain while it informs, and finds its inspiration in simple, basic human dignity.  It is a great movie.  ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆.  10 May 2013.

It has become somehow fashionable lately to make all-star comedy-dramas centered around events (New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day) and now that trend has usurped a wedding.  The Big Wedding, to be exact.  Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Amanda Seyfried, Topher Grace, Katherine Heigl and Robin Williams are the headliners, although Ben Barnes and Ana Ayora are just as prominent and David Rasche and Christine Ebersole play punchline characters.  When it isn’t offensive, due to unnecessary profanity and crudity, the film is actually rather funny — and it plays even better as a drama.

This confection is concocted by writer – director Justin Zackham, who also wrote the flawed comedy-drama The Bucket List several years ago.  Zackham stages the upcoming wedding of De Niro and Keaton’s adopted son (Barnes) as an excuse for the dysfunctional family members to air dirty laundry to each other, everyone at the wedding and, of course, the audience.  Zackham can’t take sole credit for the script; it is based upon a Swiss / French film known as My Brother is Getting Married (2006). Zackham has completely overhauled the concept, with more emphasis on humor and less on irony.

The movie might actually be good if it didn’t focus so heavily on sex and its various consequences.  Every character is having sex acts, or sex urges, or sex hangups, and most of them are eventually exposed during the weekend of the wedding.  Some of this is actually cute, or funny, or both, but it just becomes so tiresome that the characters are overwhelmed by it.  That is unfortunate, because the dramatic elements which underlie the laughs are surprisingly effective.  When the film plays as a drama it is pretty solid, but then it backslides into crudity again and again.

Forty years ago, this could have been a genial Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda comedy with some upcoming stars to flesh out the cast.  It wouldn’t be as farcical, but would tug at the heartstrings and leave viewers with warm feelings.  Even a movie experience as vanilla as that would be preferable to the smarmy sexual shenanigans given the spotlight here.  Zackham seems to be a pretty decent director of actors, but he needs to work on the maturity of his scripts.  ☆ ☆.  8 May 2013.

One of the cool things about internationally-made movies is that their makers don’t feel the need to have to explain every little thing in them.  Hollywood movies too often over-explain, mostly through dialogue, perhaps because the movie-going public is considered slow to catch on to intricacies.  International films are, generally, more ambiguous and open to interpretation.  Such is the case with Barbara, which takes place in 1980 East Germany, years before Communism crumbled.

Barbara (Nina Hoss) is an attractive East German doctor seemingly banished to a small town, and watched by suspicious authorities.  She seems unhappy but never is able to express her frustration.  She gradually develops a working relationship with a kind, compassionate doctor (Ronald Zehrfeld) but remains aloof, planning to defect to the West when the opportunity arises.  But then fate complicates matters.

Christian Petzold’s film is low-key.  Barbara’s personal subjugation is almost silent, comprising of men in cars watching her house, occasional searches of her apartment, glances of people she sees in public; nevertheless, it is very real and authentic.  She is trapped — deemed untrustworthy by the State, even while she is helping people and saving lives in her job — because of some unknown transgression.  The political atmosphere is chillingly oppressive, and yet Barbara’s spirit cannot be fully cowed. Her inner defiance is what the movie is all about.

Barbara is about as anti-Hollywood as one can get.  Shots are long takes, without much extraneous camera movement.  There isn’t a gun in sight.  Virtually no tertiary character is developed.  Music is sparse, and muted.  Dialogue is fleeting, but always full of portent.  The atmosphere is oppressive because there aren’t enough people around to change it, to spark something.  Yet while people seem to be hiding, eyes seem to be everywhere.

Because it is slow and deliberate, Barbara isn’t for everyone.  But for viewers willing to challenge themselves with a thoughtful character study set in a bygone era (only three decades past), Barbara is a very rewarding film.  ☆ ☆ ☆.  26 April 2013.

Every once in a while comes a movie that makes me love the format all over again, and suddenly excited to see even more.  Such a movie is Oblivion.  I’ve loved sci-fi films forever, and am always on the lookout for great new adventures.  This movie, co-written and directed by Joseph Kosinski, is the best new sci-fi film I can recall seeing since Minority Report, which also starred Tom Cruise.  While I wouldn’t term Oblivion a masterpiece, it is an amazing movie with all sorts of dramatic, futuristic and philosophical ramifications which will keep viewers’ heads spinning for days.

Cruise portrays a drone repairman on the remnant of Earth, keeping the machines running until the planet is abandoned for good.  But Earth is not yet bereft of life, nor are things exactly what they seem.  What begins as a slowly-paced, nostalgic planetary sign-off gradually ramps up through mystery status to a full-fledged final fight for the right to survive, as the president in Independence Day would say.  And along the way, Cruise’s character and the audience learn things that are simply stunning in their significance.

The visuals are great and the acting is fine; where the film truly succeeds is in the details of its story, which provide a verisimilitude that is completely convincing.  It is personal and epic at the same time, which is very difficult to do, and do well.  It asks huge questions yet doesn’t try to provide easy answers.  It didn’t give its secrets away in the previews.  It is a movie that demands multiple viewings, and I am absolutely looking forward to seeing it again.  For science-fiction fans I cannot rate this film highly enough.  Go see it!  ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆.  25 April 2013.

The animated cave-people comedy The Croods is a fun, enjoyable, visually intriguing movie that was better than I figured it to be.  Because of its scope — depicting the very abrupt, incredibly destructive tectonic plate shifts changing the prehistoric world — it had to be animated, and the film veers sometimes uneasily between its danger sequences and its comic sequences.  Yet I really enjoyed the matter-of-fact tone with which the characters understand, relate and accept the generally meager prospects of their own survival.

The Croods pokes fun of ignorance and short-sightedness.  The father, Grug, is so focused on daily survival that he never even thinks about improving the family’s lot in life.  The daughter, Eep, is the focal character, representing the evolution of spirit and adventure in the early human species.  Because she isn’t afraid to experiment, explore and learn, she is mankind’s best hope for the future.  Another character, Guy, arrives on the scene as a reluctant savior figure.  It is his presence that moves the family and protects them, yet he is just so far ahead of them that he doesn’t seem authentic.  He’s like the professor on Gilligan’s Island, just younger and with more humor and purpose.

The film, directed by Kirk De Micco and Chris Sanders, is inventive and contemporary at the same time.  Although prehistoric, the family acts like people just down the street.  Subtle references to things connect the past with the present, both visually and through dialogue.  It’s an odd movie in many ways, yet because it is animated, its oddity is appealing and amusing.  The Croods is one of those movies that is designed to be critic-proof; it isn’t meant to be taken seriously as social commentary, drama or even art, but it contains elements bound to appeal to both kids and adults as entertainment.  As such it succeeds surprisingly well.  ☆ ☆ ☆.  24 April 2013.

This is my first dual-movie review in this format.  I had not seen the first G. I. Joe film, which was made in 2009, because I thought its preview looked ridiculous. But once I decided to see its sequel this week, which looked less ridiculous, it made sense to see the first one on DVD, which I did last night.  I’m glad I did, because they are strongly linked together by story and character — if you can call the rather plastic action-oriented protagonists characters.  Let’s start with the first movie.

G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) introduces a super secret branch of American armed forces which comes to the rescue when they others falter.  I’m sure that the other branches appreciate being portrayed like this.  New weapons with “nanomite” technology are developed that can dissolve targets without messy explosions, and these weapons are intercepted by people with nefarious intent.  The Joes are sent to retrieve the errant weapons, which leads to all sorts of mayhem — and the toppling of the Eiffel Tower!  But justice eventually prevails, thanks to the incredible battle technology and bravery of the men and women of the G. I. Joe force.

Stephen Sommers of Mummy movie and Van Helsing fame directed this cartoonish attempt to personify the famous Hasbro plastic fighting men (and later, women).  The movie plays much like kids playing with the toys would, with lots and lots of action, cool gadgets (Sommers has said this is his homage to James Bond-type films), and a bare modicum of characterization, with muscle-bound soldiers named Duke, Ripcord, Heavy Duty, Snake Eyes, Scarlett and General Hawk.  As a fantasy adventure it’s kind of cool in a pre-adolescent way with unrealistic special effects, poor computer animation and a pace that never slows, except for the high body count.  Like a video game, this movie is just an excuse for shooting, maiming, exploding, drowning, and otherwise eliminating as many opposing soldiers as possible while reveling in the PG-13 carnage.  It’s violence without consequence, although the story pretends to aspire to a higher level of profundity involving political power.  This junk is hard to take seriously on any level.  ☆ 1/2.  11 April 2013.

That was yesterday.  Today I saw the sequel, G. I. Joe: Retaliation, which continues the story and ups the ante as far as global ramifications.  Surprisingly, the Joes are no longer a secret organization; when the president (Jonathan Pryce) has them blasted into kingdom come he holds a press conference and brags about it.  But three survive (new to the scenario) and seek revenge on those who would destroy all that is good about America.

Jon M. Cho’s film is more realistic than its predecessor in terms of its computer graphics, special effects and the scope of the story.  The way that the president calls for nuclear disarmament is outrageous but actually kind of sensible once the process gets started.  But it, like its predecessor, is rife with illogical points, big and little, that distract from its potential to entertain.  The cast is better, with Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis in key roles, though D. J. Cotrona is absolutely bereft of charisma.

Retaliation has the same issue with violence for violence’s sake, but of course toned down so that young or sensitive viewers won’t be traumatized.  Nevertheless, scores of soldiers are wiped out in battles both big and personal.  In one scene Bruce Willis machine guns several secret service guys protecting the area where the president is being kept.  Are they villains?  Maybe, but maybe not.  They may just be honest guys doing their presidential protection jobs.  Not any more.  It’s this type of mindless massacre that epitomizes how Hollywood producers view violence.  When it doubt, mow ‘em down, then make a joke.  It’s one of the main reasons why films like this have such low value and worth.

Moral considerations aside, the movie is fairly entertaining when it isn’t being stupid. Dwayne Johnson is carving himself a nice movie career and seems perfectly at home brandishing such large weaponry.  Bruce Willis could do this stuff in his sleep — it’s about time he find himself some interesting character roles and try to re-establish his acting credibility.  But maybe I’m asking for too much from a movie like this.  It isn’t Shakespeare — but it also isn’t Olympus Has Fallen, which is action combined with dramatic integrity.  It’s a shame Hollywood can’t, or won’t, try to raise their action standards more frequently, even in movies based on little plastic play toys and games that were popular when we were kids.  ☆ ☆.  11 April 2013.

This German – Australian co-production regarding a German family trying to survive the end of World War II takes a different approach to its subject, telling the story from the kids’ perspective as they walk away from their former, comfortable life toward what they hope will be safety and security.  Even so, I disliked much of it and was disturbed by its main character. The film this reminds me of is Winter’s Bone, which netted Jennifer Lawrence her first Oscar nomination, and was a movie that I frankly couldn’t stand.

Credit should be given to the writers and director Cate Shortland for creating a story that eschews sensationalism in favor of the harrowing reality of forcing five children (one of them a baby) to walk unchaperoned through a hostile countryside as the war draws to an end.  Glimpses the kids see of their crumbling society are effective and powerful, as distrust and selfishness rule the land.  But this isn’t a tale about the “big picture.”  The movie details how the children suffer as they journey on, and I think it gets those details right.

So why didn’t I like it?  First, it’s a darned depressing story, even assuming that they reach their goal so far away (their grandmother’s house).  Bad stuff happens, and it happens to kids.  Second, the quite necessary tone of the picture is so much like the aforementioned Winter’s Bone that I pretty much despised — or at least didn’t trust — any adult in the movie.  There is, of course, nothing wrong with portraying people in such a fashion, especially under circumstances like these where survival is difficult and paramount, but I don’t find this approach entertaining.  Even when such a tale is well acted and profoundly written, as in Schindler’s List, I am not drawn back to such material again and again.  Once is enough.

Third, and most problematic for me, I was bothered by the main character, Lore (short for Hannelore).  As portrayed by pretty young Saskia Rosendahl, Lore is just entering puberty, and confused by adulthood.  It is Lore’s contradictions that either drew me out of the story or frustrated my sense of logic.  Sure, real people are often confused and contradictory, but an artistic work demands more unity than this one provides.  Viewers more grounded in psychology would probably find the movie more rewarding than I do; it just confounded me at key moments.  And in a story like this, when one cannot identify or empathize with the main characters, interest is difficult to sustain.  Ultimately I think Lore is a fairly well made movie but I cannot justify a recommendation for it.  ☆ ☆.  11 April 2013.

Is it too soon for a prequel to the classic 1939 musical fantasy The Wizard of Oz?  It’s only been seventy-four years!  Although technically the film is not related to the 1939 classic (different studios, fights over rights), in all general aspects Oz the Great and Powerful introduces Kansas con man / magician Oscar “Oz” Diggs (James Franco) as a young version of the older dude (Frank Morgan) who blusters his way through MGM’s classic Emerald City tale so familiar to us all.  This new film borrows several elements from the earlier one, including a black and white opening, a yellow brick road and flying monkeys and baboons.  But for some viewers, including myself, even seventy-four years is too soon to mess with a genuine masterpiece.  I wasn’t sure if I would feel this way until I witnessed that even with modern technology, good actors, good intentions and all the time in the world to prepare . . . it wasn’t worth trying.

I shall digress for a moment about the flying baboons.  Sometimes my attention flutters away from the main story, and in this movie I found myself wondering about the flying baboons.  They are loud and terrifying — and they seem to live in the Emerald City.  How can that be?  They serve at the beck and call of the evil witch, who is supposed to live far away, but when they attack, they emerge from the towers of the Emerald City to do so.  Wouldn’t the Ozlings know about them, and thereby determine who the wicked witch really is?  How would the ostensibly good witch go about caring and feeding these horrible creatures?  Especially without letting anyone else know about them?  Wouldn’t their screeches and smell be a dead giveaway?

As should be obvious, I wasn’t particularly engrossed by this movie.  The visuals are pretty neat, especially when Oz enters Oz (how stupid is it to name the guy the same as the place?) and pretty color and pretty music overwhelms the scene.  That, and Mila Kunis in slick boots and hot leather pants.  The other witch, Rachel Weisz, also wears boots, although the rest of her outfit is comfortably traditional.  The high-heeled boots must be a dark-haired witch thing.  But I digress again.

Three of the four leads are former Oscar nominees, so there’s no question of talent on the screen.  But none of them are particularly charismatic or even interesting; Oz is such a stereotypical con man character with a hidden heart of gold that I was half hoping one of the baboons — or the teethy river fairies, who only make a token appearance when he first gets to Oz —  would eat him.  Michelle Williams (as Glinda, whom Oz inexplicably calls Wanda for some time) suffers daintily, but Rachel Weisz seems to be afraid to cut loose and Mila Kunis is completely underwhelming in perhaps the key role in the movie, tight leather pants aside.  Why is it that with three hot supernatural babes in charge since the King was poisoned, the country is at a standstill, just waiting for the prophesized wizard to arrive, do his thing and take over?  And at the climax, the two supposedly smart, powerful witches are defeated and driven away by illusion and fireworks!  Talk about sexist!

Sam Raimi’s film pays homage to the 1939 classic in various ways and a respectful approach, but the inferior script undermines its logic.  Not having read the L. Frank Baum books on which the film is based, I cannot ascertain where the fault lies, but I suspect that Baum’s fantasies are simply not designed to be filmed — remember, the 1939 movie turned Dorothy’s adventures into a wild dream; at least that made some sense.  No such diversion occurs here, with the result that this movie is neither great nor powerful.  Unnecessary, yes.  Worthwhile, no.  ☆ ☆.  9 April 2013.

This surprisingly old-fashioned (and slowly paced) science-fiction drama has a lot of heart, even if it is aimed at a teenage and post-teenage audience (it has a heavy emphasis on kissing).  Much of its success has to do with two key performers, Soarise Ronan and William Hurt.  Even more is due to its writer-director, Andrew Niccol, who has taken Stephanie Meyer’s novel and has fashioned an intelligent, effective drama regarding the survival of humanity against tall odds.

Niccol has made a specialty of sci-fi oriented sociological explorations (Gattaca, The Truman Show [as writer only], Sim0ne, In Time) which posit dystopian futuristic scenarios.  The Host is perhaps the most benign alien invasion imaginable, and yet the theme of loss of humanity — both on individual and societal levels — remains imperative. The film follows a long tradition of a pocket of human resistance refusing to go down without a fight, although it must be noted that unlike most movies, this one does not end in anything resembling a blaze of glory.

Instead, it focuses on character development.  Melanie (Soarise Roman) is that rare human who, after being “inhabited” by an alien host, refuses to simply disappear, but fights her host about just about everything.  Ronan is a marvelously talented actress, one of the finest of her generation, and she conveys the characters’ dualism and split personalities with real feeling.  And as the leader of the remaining humans not under alien control, William Hurt shows why he was the top actor of the 1980s.  Hurt is just great as the slightly crazy old geezer with his own ideas of how to save the world.

As the plot unfolds and one particular alien (Diane Kruger) begins to adapt to the human ways of the world the story becomes more complicated and intriguing.  And when Melanie’s host begins to identify with the humans and Melanie’s existence is revealed, things really become interesting.  The characters are developed well enough that it really does matter what happens to them.  All of this results in a film rewarding in ways I did not expect to find.  ☆ ☆ ☆.  31 March 2013.