Alice Through the Looking Glass

Posted on May 26, 2016 at 5:50 pm

“Alice Through the Looking Glass” the movie has almost no relationship to Alice Through the Looking Glass, the book by Lewis Carroll in spirit, character, or storyline. That might possibly be all right if the spirit, character, or storyline were in any way worthwhile, but it is not. Gorgeous production design and some cool stunts do not make up for a story that begins as passable and ends as painful.

Tim Burton, who produced this one, previously gave us an “Alice in Wonderland” with an adult Alice (Mia Wasikowska) replacing the little girl of the story and spending way too much time in the above-ground “real” world as she attends a party, turns down a proposal of marriage from the odious Haimish (Leo Bill), and accepts instead the offer from his father to serve as crew on a merchant ship.

In “Looking Glass,” we first see Alice, now captain of the ship, in an exciting escape from pirates that show us her courage and love of adventure. But when the ship returns to port in London, she finds that Hamish’s father has died, leaving him in charge, and he refuses to let her go back to sea. In his home, she finds a mirror over a fireplace that is a portal back to Wonderland, led by the former caterpillar, now-butterfly (voice of of the much-missed Alan Rickman).

Having already imported the talking flowers, chess pieces, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the Jabberwocky from “Through the Looking Glass” into the first film, conflating the first story’s Queen of Hearts (the “Off with the head!” one) with the second story’s Red Queen (the chess one) this movie takes — but makes no use of — the first book’s characters like the Cheshire Cat and the White Rabbit, and then has a completely invented story about time travel.

This has many disagreeable aspects, but the worst is when it puts Sasha Baron Cohen as the embodiment of Time into a scene with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and allows them to try to out-grotesque each other in a manner clearly intended to be charming. It is not.

Neither is the plot, which relies heavily on just the kind of treacly heartstrings-plucking backstories that Carroll would never have allowed, asking us to feel sympathy for outrageous behavior and affection for caricatures. The first film’s attempt to create a warm, devoted friendship between Alice and the Mad Hatter was rather ooky. In the sequel, we are asked to believe that she has returned to do whatever it takes to help him because they love each other so much.

To paraphrase the folks behind “Seinfeld,” in the Alice world, there should be no hugging and no apologizing — and no heartfelt professions of affection, especially when they are not in any way justified by the characters’ history with each other.

Alice is needed on the other side of the mirror because the Mad Hatter has found something that has convinced him that his family is still alive, and not killed by the Jabberwock as he had thought. Why is this so important? Is it because he misses them so? Not really. It is because he feels bad about his behavior and needs to see them again so he can be forgiven. The disconnect between the expressions of devotion and the narcissistic reality of behavior is disturbingly cynical. Alice decides the only way she can save his family is to go back in time to the Jabberwock battle, which means she has to retrieve the chronosphere from Time himself, and that leads to more time travel as she solves various not-very-mysterious mysteries and Time chases her to get it back. Not that any of it makes any sense, logically or emotionally.

The production design is imaginative and witty, but it is buried under a gormless, hyperactive mess of a film. The book is endlessly witty and imaginative and delightful with all kinds of wordplay, math puzzles, and chess references from Carroll (aka Charles Dodgson), a math professor. The movie wastes all of that opportunity. Look at the title — the movie should be about a reverse world, not a heist/time travel saga that only concludes you can’t change history. If I had the chronosphere, I’d use it to go back to the moment I sat down to watch this movie so I could go home.

Parents should know that this film has extended fantasy peril with many disturbing images, discussion of loss of parents, brief image of someone dying, and bullying.

Family discussion: If you could go back in time, what time would you pick? Why did the Hatter and the White Queen have a hard time telling their families how they felt?

If you like this, try: the many other movie Alice stories including the Disney animated version and the Kate Beckinsale version of “Through the Looking Glass” and the books by Lewis Carroll

X-Men: Apocalypse

Posted on May 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, action and destruction, brief strong language and some suggestive images
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended comic book/action peril and violence, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	A metaphorical theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	May 27, 2016
Date Released to DVD:	October 3, 2016
Amazon.com ASIN:	B01G9AXWH2

We love superheroes, but most of the time what makes a superhero movie work is the supervillain. Just as the Avengers on the other side of the Marvel Universe move into X-Men territory by having the supes fight each other, with a villain in “Civil War” who is a mere human, with the most human of motives and goals rather than Loki’s “let’s blow up the universe and roast marshmallows on the flames” sort of threat, the X-Men, whose primary plotlines rest on the shifting loyalties of its mutant members, switches direction toward a more Loki-esque bad guy.

That would be the first mutant of all, going all the way back to ancient Egypt, where he was a god. He is resurrected, he is nearly omnipotent, and he is played by one of the most exciting actors in movies, Oscar Isaac. But there are three big problems with Apocalypse, and that means there are three big problems with the movie.

First, we never really understand that “nearly” part about his powers, and therefore we cannot judge the threat he poses in any given confrontation. Second, Isaac is a superb actor with deeply expressive eyes and voice. Yet he is put into a mask that conceals his eyes and given a double-tracked distortion of his voice. The big, hulking outfit also impairs the precise, distinctive physicality he has brought to roles as different as “Star Wars” ace Po Dameron, the title folk musician of “Inside Llewyn Davis,” and billionaire Nathan Bateman (“Ex Machina”). The power of his presence as a performer is all but muted just when we need a character to be terrifying.

Plus, we’ve seen ancient Egyptian super villains before. After the many versions of “The Mummy,” we need something more than he’s from the time of the pyramids plus chanting. But there is a very cool opening sequence that brings us through history to 1983, the pre-digital era when overhead projectors in classrooms represented cutting-edge technology. And Magneto seems to have found peace, in a small town, with a factory job, and a loving wife and daughter.

Of course, that can’t last. And soon he has experienced yet another devastating loss, and returns to his bad, furious, destructive self — until someone who is even more furious and destructive comes along.

When I say that this episode is a “Muppet Babies” take on the X-Men, I do not necessarily mean that in a bad way. Origin stories are intriguing, and the X-Men have always had an adolescent quality, with the onset of their mutant powers coming with puberty and acting as a heightened metaphor to examine the sense of uncertainty, anxiety, and isolation that comes with the physical and emotional changes that separate teenagers from their childhood. It is intriguing to see Scott (Tye Sheridan) rubbing his red eyes as he becomes Cyclops. But Sophie Turner does not have the screen presence of Famke Janssen as the young Jean Grey, in part because her telepathic gift is not as cinematically dynamic.

Quicksilver (Evan Peters) once again provides the high point, not just in a darker showpiece callback to the sensational Pentagon kitchen scene in the last film but in the film’s brief but most emotionally authentic scene, involving his relationship to Magneto. In a movie about mutants with superpowers, the best moment is human.

Parents should know that this film includes extended comic book-style action violence, with characters injured and killed and some disturbing images, skimpy costumes, and some strong language.

Family discussion: What is the biggest challenge in getting the X-Men to work together? Which powers would you like to have?

If you like this try: the other X-Men movies, especially “Days of Future Past”

Captain America: Civil War

Posted on May 4, 2016 at 8:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of violence, action and mayhem
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended superhero/action violence with chases, crashes, and explosions, characters injured and killed.
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	May 6, 2016
Date Released to DVD:	September 13, 2016
Amazon.com ASIN:	B01D9EUNB4

The most important element of any superhero movie is the villain. He (or she) has to pose a credible threat to humanity and challenge particular strengths and vulnerabilities of someone with extraordinary powers. In “Captain America: Winter Soldier” there was a paranoiac Pogo-esque “we have met the enemy and he is us” theme that is expanded in “Civil War.” It goes to the heart of the Avengers themselves as a critical issues divides them so they are fighting each other.

The issue is not one we usually see in superhero movies or indeed action movies in any category: consequences. Part of the fun of action movies is seeing all of the chases, fights, and explosions, without having to worry about the cleanup or what the military euphemistically calls “collateral damage.” But this story has more impact because it acknowledges and engages with the damage that superheroes do while they are preventing worse damage. It falls somewhere between “The Incredibles” and “Eye in the Sky.”

The true meaning of collateral damage is presented early on in “Civil War.” Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has just announced that he will fund all of the student research projects at MIT when he is confronted by a mother (a small masterpiece of devastation and fury from the extraordinary Alfre Woodard). Her son was on a humanitarian mission when he was killed in the Sokovia crash of an entire city at the end of Avengers: the Age of Ultron. For her, it doesn’t matter that the entire world was saved in theory by a supervillain who is not around when her son was killed in reality by a man who is. “You think you fight for us,” she says. “You fight for yourself.”

Stark is devastated. “We’re no better than the bad guys.” The man we first saw demonstrating his company’s military weapons as though he was a rock star performing an arena show and who had no problem defending the money he made in munitions finally has to reckon with the truth he barely realized he had been moving closer to. And that is why, after the typical superhero opening action sequence we get a non-typical reaction. With SHIELD collapsed following “Winter Soldier,” the Avengers are operating on their own, without any oversight. A coalition of 117 nations insist that they agree to be subject to a UN commission (the “or what” is not ever spelled out because, what would it be?).

One of the film’s most intriguing developments is that not only do the Avengers line up on opposite sides but they don’t take the positions we might expect. Stark’s post-confrontation grapple with guilt has the most anarchistic of superheroes suddenly looking for the comfort of some rules. And the shock of SHIELD’s corruption has the most Boy Scout-ish of all superheroes, Captain America (Chris Evans) suddenly resistant to putting himself under anyone’s control. Some of the avengers pick a side on principle; some are more instrumental or practical. The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who has her own history of unspeakable crimes, says, “Staying together is more important than how we stay together.”

Directors Anthony and Joe Russo deftly manage an enormous cast of characters. It’s easier to list those who do not appear in this film: Pepper Potts, Thor, Nick Fury, and the Hulk. Pretty much everyone else is here, and superbly added to the mix we have Paul Rudd as Ant-Man, who has some surprises in store, Black Panther (a lithe, powerful, and compelling Chadwick Boseman), avenging the death of his father, and the brand-new Spidey (Tom Holland, with Marisa Tomei as Aunt May). Bucky/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) is here, too, and his storyline nicely mirrors the larger themes. He has been responsible for terrible crimes and abuses and some can never forgive him. But Captain America knows something about military operations. “We try to save as many people as we can,” he says. “Sometimes doesn’t mean everybody.” He knows how a human can become a weapon, and he is determined to get his friend back. Remember, this is not the Justice League. They are Avengers, and another character’s determination to get vengeance provides one of the movie’s most signficiant twists.

I don’t want to give away too much, so I’ll just say the action is everything you’d hope, with superhero-on-superhero collisions beyond the dreams of fanboy heaven. Keep an eye on the motorcycle. And the helicopter. And Ant-Man. And some cool special effects with Stark’s augmented flashback/therapy. And stay through the credits, of course.

Parents should know that this film includes extended sci-fi/comic book action violence with chases, crashes, and explosions, characters injured and killed, and brief strong language.

Family discussion: What are the best arguments for Ironman’s position on the accords? For Cap’s? How is this Spider-Man different from other portrayals of the character?

If you like this, try: “The Avengers” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”

The Huntsman: Winter’s War

Posted on April 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm

With a storyline as awkward and unfocused as its unwieldy title, “The Huntsman: Winter’s War” is like a mashup of “Frozen,” “Lord of the Rings,” and the Narnia movies, without any of the heart or imagination of any of them.

It’s both a prequel and a sequel to a movie no one was all that eager to see, with only 48 percent positive on Rotten Tomatoes and one of those counted as positive didn’t muster much enthusiasm: “This Snow White may not be the fairest of them all, but sometimes, especially during the heat of summer, fair-to-middling does just fine.” This one is more middling than fair.

In the first film, the evil Ravenna (Charlize Theron) bewitched a king, killed him on their wedding night, and locked his daughter in a tower. Then, when she grew up to be Kristen Stewart and threatened to challenge Ravenna’s status as the fairest of them all, Ravenna ordered the Huntsman with no name to kill Snow White and bring back her heart so Ravenna could eat it and achieve permanent fairness.

In this film, we see Ravenna murder her husband, the king, over a game of chess, and we meet her sister, Freya (Emily Blunt), who is in love and pregnant. Her sister is the one with the magical powers. Freya has none — or so she thinks. But when she is faced with the ultimate loss and betrayal, all of a sudden she discovers her power, or, should I say, she lets it go. Yes, she is the queen of cold and ice. So, she leaves and takes over her own queendom, where her primary occupation is stealing children, telling them that love is illegal, and turning them into fighting machines, with freezing things a close second. Two children grow up to be world-class fighters and to be Chris Hemsworth (this time he gets a name: Eric) and Jessica Chastain as Sara. They break the big rule, and Freya punishes them terribly. Eventually, Eric ends up trying to find the magic mirror, complicated because it was stolen by goblins and because it exerts an evil “Fellowship of the Ring”-style power over anyone who looks into it. He is accompanied by two dwarves, played by Nick Frost and “The Trip’s” Rob Brydon, when, as I pointed out before, little people characters should be played by little people actors. They come across two female dwarves. One is played by Sheridan Smith, who, with Colleen Atwood’s gorgeous costumes, provides the movie’s few bright moments.

The storyline makes even less sense than the first one, with (SPOILER ALERT) repeated reliance on that weakest of plot twists, the character you are supposed to think is dead who turns out to be still alive. Blunt and Theron are game but given little to do but strut and declaim. Chris Hemsworth manages to bring his character to life and there are some striking visuals, but that can’t make up for a dreary mess.

Parents should know that this film features extended fantasy peril and violence, characters injured and killed including an infant, monster, some disturbing images, sexual references and situation, some strong language and crude comments.

Family discussion: What happened when Eric looked in the mirror? Why were so many of the huntsmen loyal to Freya?

If you like this, try: “Stardust” and “Jack the Giant Slayer”

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Fantasy Romance

The Jungle Book

Posted on April 14, 2016 at 5:32 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for some sequences of scary action and peril
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended peril and violence including bees, a tiger, a snake, and fire
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the film
Date Released to Theaters:	April 15, 2016
Date Released to DVD:	August 29, 2016
Amazon.com ASIN:	B01CTNDO58

The camera swoops behind the familiar Disney castle logo to take us to that magical place — you know, like the one that is found second star to the right and straight on ’til morning or through the wardrobe in the attic, down a rabbit hole, or via a house swept up in a Kansas tornado. Just a moment past the castle we are deep, 3D IMAX deep, in the midst of of a lush and luscious jungle, where a mop-headed, big-eyed boy in a red loincloth is running for his life.

The wolves are after him. No, the wolves are with him and a sleek black panther is after him. No, he catches him. No, they are friends. It is Mowgli (newcomer Neel Sethi) and the Bagheera (Sir Ben Kingsley), the panther who discovered him as a toddler and delivered him to the best mother he knew, the wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) who raised him lovingly along with her other cubs. While he matures more slowly and cannot do some of the things they can to stay safe, he can climb and use tools. Although Raksha tells him not to use “tricks” like pulleys, knots, and scoops, he feels very much a part of the wolf pack and solemnly recites along with the others:

Now this is the Law of the Jungle —
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.

As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back —
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

When the rainy season ends, a dry spell shrinks the river so that the “peace rock” is showing. According to the well-established rules of the jungle, as long as they can see that rock, everyone may drink together in peace, meaning the predators cannot attack their usual prey. The one-eyed tiger with burn scars named Shere Khan (Idris Elba) sees Mowgli and warns the others that as soon as the rock is submerged again and the truce has ended, he will come for the boy and will do whatever it takes to kill him. Raksha reluctantly agrees to let Bagheera take him to the town, where Mowgli can be with other people. On the way, they have encounters with Kaa the mesmerizing snake (Scarlett Johansson), Baloo the easy-going bear (Bill Murray), and King Louis (Christopher Walken), an enormous ape (based on the extinct Gigantopithecus) who presides over an orangutan kingdom living in an ancient temple.

Fans of the Disney animated musical version will be happy to find some familiar moments within the superb score from John Debney.

But this is very much its own film, with stunning integration of the digital animals and the real-life boy. (Disneyphiles may think of Walt’s earliest short films featuring a real-life girl interacting with hand-drawn characters.) The world of the jungle is enchanting and vital, a Rousseauian dream of an Edenic natural world (in this PG film, while there is peril and some characters are injured and killed, any carnivore behavior happens off-screen). Sethi has an engagingly natural quality that is as important in bringing the digital characters to life as the brilliant work of the many, many artists and technicians whose names appear in the credits.

So does the storyline’s respect for this world and its inhabitants. Mowgli does not have many of the physical gifts of his wolf family or his friends in the forest. He does have some skills they do not, and it is heartwarming to see him develop simple tools like a stone ax and a pulley because they are not presented as superior or used to establish dominance, but to help his jungle community and to give thanks for all they have given him. This is gorgeous, inspiring filmmaking.

Parents should know that this movie includes extended peril with some violence and some disturbing images. A theme of the film is the tiger’s determination to kill Mowgli, and characters are injured and killed (including parents).

Family discussion: Why did the wolves and Baloo have different ideas about Mowgli’s “tricks?” Should Mowgli stay in the jungle or live with other humans?

If you like this, try: Rudyard Kipling’s Just-So Stories and two earlier films based on this story, one starring Sabu and the Disney animated version.