Change Your Image
agentbinky-74-891144
Reviews
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Can be hard to follow
First off, I saw in some of the blurbs that people were saying this movie is better than The Avengers, and I definitely disagree with that assessment. The Avengers had a whole CAST of superheroes, including Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, fighting a full scale alien invasion of New York city. This movie features one superhero fighting one nefarious government organization, although the organization in question is very resourceful and nefarious indeed.
There are so many plot twists in this film, I can't really describe the storyline without ruining it. I read that it was "inspired" by 70's government conspiracy films like Three Days of the Condor, and it definitely seems like it was. Basically everybody is out to betray everybody at some point in this film. To be honest, the intrigue came so quick and fast that I had a hard time keeping up with it, what with my frequent bathroom breaks and messing around on my phone. I guess I shouldn't knock it for that, since I didn't give it my full attention, but I will anyway. It's not a film to multitask with.
The action is, as expected, big and loud, although not quite as compelling as one of the Marvel movies where the main character has actual "superpowers," like Spider-Man swinging through the Big Apple on webs or the Incredible Hulk shrugging off bullets. Captain America's foil, the titular "winter soldier," is more like a cypher than an actual character, and although they try to flesh him out a bit near the end he comes off as rather cardboard and uninspiring. He also allows himself to be manipulated in a way that seems absolutely counter-productive and confusing to me. He looks awfully cool, though.
Scarlett Johannsen is in this film also, reprising her role as the Black Widow, looking as hot as ever. There's a little sexual tension between her and Captain America that I could appreciate, given that their relationship never moves beyond the platonic. Oh, how I know that place so well! Anyway, I suppose her and the handsome fellow who plays Cap turn in acceptable acting jobs, although nothing to write home about. They're surprised and shocked in the appropriate spots, but nothing really emotional or demanding is expected of them. And the "mastermind" villain does a pretty good job of leaving the scenery intact, instead of chewing it all to hell.
All in all I say this movie is definitely incredibly action-packed and fun to watch, although a little confusing if you don't play close attention. I think I liked the first one a little better, though, simply because it featured Hugo Weaving playing the Red Skull. I guess if you were to evaluate the movies "objectively," however, Winter Soldier would have to come out on top. I'd have to say I give it a definite "thumbs up," and four stars out of five.
Are You Here (2013)
Recommended for a personal reason
I watched this movie because it was recommended to me, with the statement that I would probably "identify with a character played by Zach Galifianakis." In the film, Zach plays a man who suffers from bipolar disorder with schizoid tendencies, coming to grips with his illness and trying to re-integrate himself into society. I think the moment that hit me the hardest was when Zach was prescribed mood stabilizer medication for the first time and it really hit him that, man, I'm going to be on this stuff for the rest of my life. I could totally relate to the crushing feeling that gives a person.
So anyway, Zach plays the aforementioned bipolar and Owen Wilson stars as his best friend, a weatherman for the local news. They are both heavy pot smokers and the movie features loving scenes of them hanging out and smoking it together. Anyway, Zach feels disconnected from society and Owen is struggling with his own problems relating to women and settling down into a committed relationship, not to mention having a hard time keeping a handle on his money. They're both flunky losers, basically.
Suddenly Zach breaks the news that his Dad has died, and he and Owen attend the funeral and the reading of the will, whereupon Zach is bequeathed a lot of money, a country store, and 100 acres of farmland by his old man. His sister (played by Amy Poehler) is outraged at this, considering him incompetent, and desperately wanting to take control of the property and manage it as she sees best. So, she tries to declare him unfit in court, which goes awry, and Zach takes control of the properties. He promptly goes haywire and tries to create an "Omega Society" to teach people to "live in harmony with the land" and "get rid of all the bull#@^!." All this is cut short, however, when he attacks a man in a bar, imagining him to lob harsh insults in his direction about his competence.
In the mean-time, Owen is starting to develop a thing for Zach's dad's widow, a young girl he obviously married for her sexual characteristics, and who spares no insult directed toward Owen for his drunken, pot-smoking lifestyle. At one point Owen offers to "get her on the next flight," and waves a bong at her, to which she responds "No thanks, I try to avoid things that keep me from feeling." Ba-zing! They continue to hit it off however, and there's a lot of sexual tension in the air.
However, Zach gets really upset one night and bemoans his very existence, and his dad's widow feels a connection with him and they sleep together. This does wonders for Zach and starts getting him thinking about how he needs to "get his #%@% together," so he shaves his beard (the first time I've seen Zach without one), regularly takes his medication, and bequeaths the country store to his sister for her to do with as she sees fit. She promptly turns it into a SuperStore called "Amish Farms." Zach bequeaths the farmland to Owen, who quickly finds out about Zach and the widow sleeping together, and threatens to kick them off the land. But, things are soon resolved in a heartwarming conclusion.
Overall the movie is very uneven and hit-or-miss, with a lack of focus or narrative drive, as it kind of meanders from plot point to plot point. In addition, the emphasis on mental illness lacks a lot of the direct "oomph" of something like say, Silver Linings Playbook, perhaps because it deals less genuinely with the subject. However, because of my empathy with Zach's character, I overall enjoyed the film, and must give it three out of five stars.
Blue Ruin (2013)
More of a feud movie than a revenge movie
This film has been dubbed as a classic "revenge movie," but I take issue with that description. It's more of a "feud movie" than a "revenge movie," because the revenge in question takes place in the first 30 minutes of the film, and the rest of the film deals with its aftermath.
Our unlikely hero, Dwight, who drops his keys at the scene of the crime and misses at point blank range with firearms, is rather messily entangled with the Cleland family, a surly group with rural inclinations and suggestions of poverty, sort of a modern day Hatfield or McCoy clan. One of them murdered both his parents one night while he was in high school, and upon his release from prison, Dwight fears that he or his ex-wife will be targeted for sending him there, so he follows him after his release and stabs him to death in a dive bar restroom. The rest of what plays out is gritty, intense, grinding, and inevitable, and quite compelling to watch.
The feud plays out in a cat-and-mouse game of attack and counterattack, with home invasions, kidnapping, stalking, all that good stuff of which I am so terrified. It's no wonder I didn't come away from this movie as a nervous wreck. I guess it helps that none of my family has ever murdered anyone. The conflict builds to a titanic confrontation at the Cleland home, where Dwight lies in wait for the rest of the family to return. This part is tense and well-acted, and resolved in a heart-wrenching way that entirely fits the theme of the movie. There's even a little twist afterward, hearkening back to the opening of the film, that brings things full circle and wraps them up.
Overall I have to say this is an excellent low-key "feud movie," and give it a thumbs up, with four stars out of five.
Noah (2014)
Better off watching The Fountain again
I watched this movie with Fordcozen and Weaponode while the latter was in town over the weekend, and it's pure hogwash from a Biblical perspective, as one would expect from Darren Arenofsky. After man eats the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden, the movie purports to state, angels disobeyed the Creator to help mankind make his way in the world. They fell to Earth, and their bodies of light got stuck in the dirt and mud of the Earth's crust, forming them into weird, asymmetrical rock monster things. Then Cain murdered Abel, and left the company of Adam and his family to found the evil Nations of the World, built on strife, rape, and mayhem. These nations waged war with Adam's clan and the rock monsters, and generally despoiled the planet. This is the back story provided in the first fifteen minutes of the movie.
Anyhow, Noah sees a vision of a great rainstorm that floods the earth, and he goes to visit his grandfather, Methuselah (excellently played by Anthony Hopkins), for confirmation. Methusaleh tells him that indeed, he must build an ark to save the worlds' land-based species, and gives him a seed from the Garden of Eden. Once planted, it transforms the despoiled land into a verdant forest, from which the wood for the ark can be gathered. It is only then, with this miraculous display, that the distrustful rock monsters agree to help Noah build the Ark. The special effects where the animals all stampede into the ark are quite impressive.
Tubal-cain, the King of the evil world's armies, gets wind of all this and prepares to launch a massive attack on the location of the ark, intending to claim it for himself. There's a good speech here about how man should not be beholden to miracles, but should claim his future for himself with his own will. Kind of struck a chord in my agnostic heart. There's a giant, visually spectacular battle between the rock monsters and Tubal-cain's armies just as the Flood begins, and eventually Tubal-cain is the only one to survive. He climbs onto the ark via a secret side entrance.
This is turning into a rote description of the film's plot, which was not my intention. I won't spoil the rest of the film for you, but suffice it to say that strife continues with the survivors on the Ark, and there are plenty of opportunities for Russell Crowe (as Noah) and especially Jennifer Connelly (as Naameh, Noah's wife) to show off their acting chops. The film grasps for the poignancy reached in Aronofsky's film "The Fountain," as Noah narrates the creation story as scenes of evolution from single cells through fish through amphibians through mammals through primates are shown. I thought the best part of the film was when Noah talks about the violence inherent in man since the Fall as the victims of thousands of murders similar to Abel's flash in rapid succession on the screen. It really struck a chord with me.
All this is not enough to save the movie from its overall mediocrity, however. If you want a study of human mysticism and purpose, with an Aronofsky bent, you would do far better to just rent "The Fountain" and watch it. It's a much more brilliant movie that actually brought tears to my eyes the first time I watched it. I'd have to say that "Noah" suffers from a rather clunky plot, a third Genesis, a third Book of Enoch, and a third Aronofsky's own invention, and as a whole it doesn't really work. I liked the film, but I have to give it a VERY hesitant "thumbs up," and a rating of three stars out of five.
The Stand (1994)
Better than the book, if you ask me
I watched this because I recently read the book and wanted to see what the differences were. Forgive me, but you must expect a lot of comparisons and contrasts between the book and miniseries in this review. Another reason I watched it is because it is a perpetual favorite of Weaponode, one of my closest friends. Any time Weaponode gets drunk, there's a good chance that he'll fire up "The Stand" on Netflix and watch some of his favorite scenes. So, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
The book is more subtle than the miniseries, for one thing. There are no "transformations into Satan" on the part of Flagg, no voice of Mother Abigail at the very end, proclaiming that "the promise has been fulfilled." As a matter of fact, when I read the book, I assumed that Flagg himself had set off the bomb inadvertently by summoning his ball of flame. That took a lot of the wind out of the sails of the so-called "Stand" on the part of the main characters. After all, what was the point of them traveling all that way, with no food or water, only to be wiped out in an instant via a cataclysmic accident?! The film adds the voice of Mother Abigail and references to the giant hand as "The Hand of God," so that's definitely an improvement over the ambiguous ending of the book.
There are other things in the miniseries that were a lot clearer than the book version, as well. For example, the instructions given to Tom Cullen while he was under hypnosis were a lot more clear and direct. However, some things were left more in the dark. Howard's turn to evil, so aptly described by his decision to begin keeping a bitter, acerbic journal, is completely left out of the miniseries version. Nadine's turn is a lot less detailed as well, she's sort of Flagg's by default in the miniseries, whereas she struggled with it a lot more in the book. It's a shame, because I thought the turning of these two characters were some of the most compelling parts of the book.
To be honest, I think the miniseries as a whole is better than the book. The main reason being that the miniseries is only six hours long, whereas the book is over 1,200 pages in its "uncut" edition. The miniseries cuts out a lot of useless filler, like the establishment of the Boulder Free Zone and the endless bureaucratic meetings involved. I said in my book review of "The Stand" that King could have cut out most of the middle third without significantly hurting his narrative, and I stand by that assessment. The miniseries does a good job of this. There's only one Boulder Free Zone meeting featured, enough to establish that the mechanisms of democracy are functioning again, and it is relatively brief. Thank goodness.
Even so, I think watching it was mostly a waste of time. The acting was passable, only Molly Ringwald came off a little stale, and the actor who played Flagg was way campy and over-the-top, as seems to be the case for a lot of these Stephen King miniseries. Overall I'd say I have to give it just barely a "thumbs down," with a rating of three stars out of five.
It (1990)
Quite different from the book
I read the book on which this was based in the summer of last year, so my desire in watching the miniseries was primarily to see it come to life on the screen as well as notice what differences there might be from the printed text. There are many, and not all of them are effective changes. However, I am very glad to see certain scenes removed, such as the "bonding" ritual deep in the sewer system of Derry featured in a flashback to the main characters' childhood. I felt that particular scene ruined what enjoyment I had gained from the book, and felt it was included merely as cheap shock value.
Some of the best scenes from the book remain, such as the excellent (and very creepy) Chinese restaurant sequence, and the head appearing in the library refrigerator. Others were added seemingly out of nowhere, such as the scene where the shower heads extend to trap a wary Eddie Kaspbrak. Others were altered or left out because they would have been too graphic for television. All in all, I suppose the writers of this miniseries did as well as they could given the medium (network television at a prime time hour), although there is a lot left to be desired.
For one thing, I don't know how to feel about Tim Curry as "It." Tim Curry is more known for his comedic work, and he lends Pennywise the Clown a more over-the-top, ridiculous air as opposed to the undercurrent of menace provided in the book. It's almost like Pennywise is a living joke, meant to conjure laughs out of the audience, than an eternal, generational evil that has plagued a region of New England for millennia. This gives the miniseries version of "It" more of a campy feel than that of horror. I suppose the era in which it was made also adds to that effect.
The acting is passable enough, I suppose, with at least no seriously groan-inducing moments, though none of it is notable for its quality. The special effects leave a lot to be desired, this being an age before CGI hit wide usage, and the final form of "It" is very obviously a stop-motion puppet. I suppose if you dig that sort of thing, you might get a kick out of it. The design of the show is pure 80's through and through, even though the film was released the year after that decade came to an end.
Overall I can't say I enjoyed "It" very much, though it was kinda cool seeing a young Seth Green as childhood Richie Tozier, and Harry Dean Anderson as the older version. It was also neat to see some of the scenes from the book played out in visual form. Overall I give "Stephen King's It" a hefty "thumbs down," with two stars out of five.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993)
Too much religion, but otherwise good
A lot of the central elements of Deep Space Nine's overarching plot thoroughly rub me the wrong way. As an agnostic bordering on atheist, I strongly resented the emphasis on religion present in the series. The primary expression of this, of course, is the introduction of Bajor's mysterious "prophets" at the very beginning of the show, which continue to be a central aspect of the series as it unfolds. The sudden revelation of the "pas wraiths" as their nemesis near the end, the Bajoran's devils whereas the prophets are their angels, was even more ludicrous. I guess what offended me most of all is that the show held a certain reverence for mystical belief, whereas The Next Generation went out of its way to disprove or explain so-called supernatural happenings.
The Bajorans' faith isn't the only religion treated this way. A lot of ink is spilled on the scripts for episodes dealing with the Klingon and Ferengi religions also and, while they are humorous, once again the reverence the characters give these beliefs strikes me as a bit off-putting. For example, in one episode, Lieutenant Worf is determined to win a difficult battle so someone important to him (I won't reveal who, for fear of spoilers) will get into the Klingon "heaven" of "Sto-vo-kor." And this person isn't even a Klingon! And the other characters actually go along with him for such a foolhardy reason! Ah, perhaps I'm clinging to a little bit of the old shrill anti-theist screed I picked up as a reaction to my fundamentalist youth, but I found myself wishing that Star Trek had concerned itself with reason and objective analysis instead.
As far as the series as a whole goes, it shares a lot in common with The Next Generation, with plenty of technobabble, last-minute countdowns, and clumsy physical combat to go around. It also touches on some more intelligent topics as well, such as religious tolerance (one good side effect of putting so much emphasis on religion), covert intelligence operations, and the moral questions of war. My favorite episodes tended to center around the alien races, particularly the Klingons and the Ferengi. The Klingons were funny in their pomposity, and the Ferengi, with their incompetence and greed, were obviously intended to be a "comic relief" race. More favorites included the episodes dealing with the secretive, almost-rogue Starfleet organization known as "Section 31," with its obvious parallels to the NSA and other shadowy US organizations of today.
Deep Space Nine differs from The Next Generation in the fact that it is much more serial, as opposed to episodic, in nature. There are multiple-episode arcs spread throughout the seven seasons. These arcs are the show's setpieces, and they really shine. I have to say, though, that the Jem'Hadar, the Vorta, and the Founders weren't nearly as intimidating an enemy as the Borg from The Next Generation. They even seemed to me to be rather bumbling at times, with simple humans like Benjamin Sisko being able to get the better of supposedly genetically bred supersoldiers like the Jem'Hadar in hand-to-hand combat.
Supposedly, in the writing for The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry stipulated that none of the characters should have significant interpersonal conflicts with one another, reflecting the evolved nature of the human race in a span of over 300 years. After all, Earth has eliminated poverty and money, don't you think they could also get rid of personal drama? But Ronald D. Moore and the other writers of Deep Space Nine found this unrealistic, so they made a conscious decision to alter Roddenberry's vision and make the characters of Deep Space Nine more earthy and sharp around the edges. It makes for a more compelling show when people actually have disagreements and get up in each other's faces. It also makes it more like a soap opera, which one may have distaste for, but to each their own. I kinda liked it, personally.
The final, nine-episode arc that concludes the series is wondrous. Nearly all of the threads introduced in the show's primary story lines, the war against the Dominion as well as the significance of Benjamin Sisko as the emissary of the prophets, is wrapped up perfectly. I have a hard time thinking of many television shows that concluded everything so well, except perhaps for Breaking Bad.
Anyhow, although the show is textbook Star Trek in most ways, it differs from the formula significantly in several others, particularly when it comes to religion and personal strife. One of those aspects I didn't care for, the other I did, enough for me to bump a star off my final rating. I give Deep Space Nine a hearty "thumbs up," with a rating of four stars out of five.