Godzilla

Posted on May 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm

All the basic ingredients are there for a slam-bang summer monster movie. We have people in helmets and hazmat suits running to try to get away from something scary. We have a scientist pleading with a military officer to trust him and the guy in camo responding that he can’t take that chance. We have a guy everyone thinks is crazy who turns out to be right. We have mumbo-jumbo about radiation and bio-acoustics. We have a tentacle(?) tease 40 minutes in. We have a corporate/government cover-up. People say things like, “There’s been a breach,” and “I can prove to you and the world that this was not a natural disaster.” Oh, and “I’m going to find the truth and end this, whatever it takes.” And “It’s going to send us back to the stone age.”

Buildings will be destroyed and a bridge will collapse. People will be told to stay home and then traffic will be at a standstill as they all ignore directions. We have a lot of globe-hopping so that international forces can be involved and iconic skylines can be trashed. And, most important, we have a very, very big monster to do the trashing. Enormous ships will be tossed around like a rubber duckie in a bathtub.

What we don’t have is a very good story. And for a movie with a lot of destruction, not enough of a sense of real investment in the outcome. The good news about CGI is that you can make anything happen on screen. The bad thing is that everyone knows you can make anything happen, so at a fundamental level, it does not feel real.

“Godzilla” begins promisingly, with a terrific opening credit sequence over “archival” footage and glimpses of redacted government reports. And ash, lots of ash, detritus from atomic fallout, pretty cool in 3D. Then there’s a little backstory. In 1999 we see the discovery of a skeleton in a Philippine mine. The rib cage is the size of an apartment building. And there’s goop! If there’s one thing we’ve learned from monster movies over years, it has to be DON’T TOUCH THE GOOP.

Meanwhile, still in 1999, we get our introduction to the adorable family — there always has to be an adorable family — living near a nuclear energy plant in Japan who will provide the emotional core of the film. There’s loving American father (Bryan Cranston) Joe Brody, distracted by some inexplicable but rhythmic tremors. There’s loving French wife (Juliette Binoche), who also works at the plant. And there’s a son, cute tyke Ford. “Earthquakes are random, jagged,” Joe explains. What he is hearing is “consistent and increasing.” We know he will have a hard time persuading his bosses, but we know he is right. And soon tragedy strikes and the cooling towers collapse. The entire community is contaminated and shut down.

Fifteen years later, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson of “Kick-Ass”) is coming back from a military deployment where his job is “stopping bombs.” After he has an adorable reunion with his own adorable wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son, he gets a call. Joe has been arrested in Japan, where he is still obsessed with finding the truth about what happened. He has a crazy room with walls covered in clippings connected by string to show the various conspiracies. Ford thinks his dad is nuts. He’s about to find out that he is right.

I don’t want to give away any monster spoilers here, so I’ll just say that there are some surprises for anyone not thoroughly immersed in “Godzilla” lore. I liked seeing the creature pop nuclear warheads into his mouth like Popeye knocks back spinach. And it steps things up nicely when the monster’s power charge shorts out the grids. The special effects are excellent, though only a high-altitude/low opening parachute jump makes full use of the 3D. But the story is weak and the characters are cardboard. The original 1954 “Godzilla” resonated because it personified (monstronified?) our then-new fears about the atomic age. With so many contemporary scares about environmental damage, they should have been able to find something equally potent.

Parents should know that this is a sci-fi movie in the tradition of all monster movies, with extensive mayhem,scary surprises, some disturbing images, and many characters injured and killed. There is some strong language.

Family discussion: What made the scientist and the military come to different conclusions — information or training? What was the significance of the pocket watch?

If you like this, try: the original Japanese “Godzilla” movies

Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return

Posted on May 8, 2014 at 6:00 pm

“Oh, Toto,” says Dorothy (“Glee’s” Lea Michelle), “This doesn’t look like the Oz I remember.”

Tell it, sister.

Why why why why why take the most beloved family film of all time, based on a cherished book, and make a charmless sequel based, not on the other books by the original author, but on a story by the original author’s stockbroker grandson?

The original The Wizard of Oz has survived other attempts to build on its imperishable appeal, and it will survive this one, too. A bigger challenge will be for the audiences who try to struggle through this version, much too long at under 90 minutes.

Here is what is not too bad. The voice talent is excellent, with Broadway divas Bernadette Peters (as Glinda) and Megan Hilty (China Princess), a kindly Patrick Stewart (a tree), a dashing Hugh Dancy (Marshal Mallow — he’s a marshmallow, get it?), Martin Short as the wicked Jester, and shambling Oliver Platt as an enormous owl called Wiser (names are not this film’s strong point, either). The opening credits spin out of a 3D tornado that is pretty nifty.

That’s about it. The animation is garish and uninspired. The songs range from forgettable to not awful. The story is dreary. And the dialog is painful. “Emerald City needs all the heart and courage it can get right now!” says the Scarecrow (Dan Aykroyd) to the Tin Man (Kelsey Grammar) and the Lion (Jim Belushi) — Cowardly has been dropped from his name. This is apparently a cue for some excruciating bro-talk like “Can it, rust-bucket!” Can you imagine a line like “I have a large piece of bark lodged in my hindquarters” in the original? TMI, Wiser, way TMI. The attempts at humor are especially tough going. When Dorothy is hauled into court, she has to face the “peanut gallery” of candy peanuts and a jury of her peeps made up of Peeps. When Wiser says he is scared of the dark, the response is, “You’re nocturnal. Get a grip.” Oh, and the flying monkeys are here, and their leader has a pink mohawk.

Emerald City is indeed in trouble and they need Dorothy’s help. In Oz, years have passed, but back in Kansas it is the morning after the tornado and yet taking place in modern times — Auntie Em wears jeans. Dorothy’s house has been destroyed and this movie’s version of Agnes Gulch is an appraiser (Short again) who says he is “government-adjacent” and condemns all the property in the area. Before Dorothy can do something about this, she and Toto are whisked through a rainbow vacuum tube and find themselves back in Oz.

It turns out the Wicked Witches of the East and West had a brother, the Jester. He is capturing people and turning them into marionettes, so he can take over Oz. He has even captured Glinda, using the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West plus a magical orb that intensifies its power.

Dorothy and Toto meet up with Wiser, Marshal Mallow, and China Princess on their journey. They have dreary adventures and finally arrive for the confrontation with the Jester, which is surprisingly violent for a film for children. Weapons include a sort of gatling gun. The China princess appears to shatter. But all is resolved, finally, so that Dorothy can go home and set that appraiser guy to rights.

The best one can hope for from this movie is that it will be a potent deterrent to those who want to try to make more Oz movies, and a powerful reminder to families that they can best go over the rainbow by watching the classic.

Parents should know that this movie has fantasy violence and peril and scenes of post-storm destruction.

Family discussion: What could Dorothy do that the others could not? How did what she learned in Oz help her back home?

If you like this, try: the Judy Garland “Wizard of Oz” and the books by L. Frank Baum (great for family reading aloud)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Posted on April 30, 2014 at 1:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action/violence
Profanity:	Some mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	extended comic book/superhero violence with characters in peril, injured and killed, chases, explosions, bombs, very sad deaths
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	May 2, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	August 18, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00JPS7HOA

This is not the angsty Spidey we know. Just like the old television series theme song said, Peter Parker is “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.” We first see him exuberantly swinging through the skyscrapers, deliciously vertiginous in 3D. His disposition is so sunny that he cheerfully greets a crook driving a truck filled with highly volatile stolen cargo with a happy, “Hi, Criminal!” and, when his offer of a handshake gets no response, offers a hug.

But then it’s down to business, with a gloriously witty and dexterous action scene as Spidey (Andrew Garfield) has to use his web to scoop up every one of the explosive vials rattling out of the truck before they hit the ground. No more of the dreary re-cap of the origin story that weighed down chapter one. We’re in it right from the beginning.

All seems to be going well for Peter, though this little fracas is making him late for graduation (not important) and the valedictory speech delivered by his true love, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). The special effects and action scenes are just fine in this film, but what makes it qualify as “amazing” is the chemistry between real-life couple Garfield and Stone, so electrifying that even super-villain Electro (Jamie Foxx), master of all power sources, seems to fizzle by comparison. The warmth (and downright heat) between the two leads make this far and away the most romantic superhero movie ever. As performers, they understand and respond to each other so completely in synch that we are immediately engaged in whatever is going on between them. They never waste time with the usual movie couple worries about how they feel about one another or whether they can trust each other or whether she knows and understands who he really is. “You’re Spider-Man and I love that. But I love Peter Parker more,” she tells him.

They have a bigger problem.

Peter is literally haunted by visions of Gwen’s late father (Denis Leary), who made Peter promise he would not put Gwen at risk by letting her become involved with him. Gwen is understandably frustrated with his struggle, and especially with his insistence that the decision is up to him. And, while she completely supports all of his crime-fighting activities (another refreshing departure from the usual storyline — no “I’m worried about you” or “Be careful”), she is committed to her own dreams, which may take her to England to study at Oxford.

Oh, and there are a couple of super-villains coming after Spidey, too.

If that seems like an afterthought, the movie makes it feel that way, too. It raises our expectations by starting right in the middle of the action and getting the obligatory Stan Lee appearance out of the way early (though not foregoing a corny line of dialog). But then it turns out to be a bit over-long at two and a half hours, and the big confrontation scenes are oddly truncated at the end. Normally, the most important character in a superhero movie is the villain (hello, Tom Hiddleston as Loki). For mostly better but sometimes worse, the main character in “Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the Peter-Gwen romance. It is more than fine; it is great. But it is so powerful that it throws off the rest of the film.

As we often see in movies with young male heroes, there are plenty of daddy issues for everyone. Gwen and Peter have both lost their fathers (Peter has also lost his surrogate father, Uncle Ben), and Peter’s old friend Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) loses his (Chris Cooper) early in the film. Peter finds out more about his late father (Campbell Scott), uncovering a cool secret hideaway, though it takes too long for him to figure it all out. Peter and Harry have a great moment of awkward reconnection before falling into a familiar pattern of bro-talk. But Harry is sick, and he is convinced that the only thing that can keep him alive is a transfusion of Spider-Man’s blood. Spider-Man visits him to explain why that can’t happen, but is unable to persuade the desperate Harry. “Your blood can’t make me die more.”

Meanwhile, the shy, nebbishy Max Dillon (Foxx), overlooked and mistreated, has (of course, this is Marvel) a lab accident that turns him into a blue glowy guy (reminiscent of “Watchman’s” Dr. Manhattan) who can channel and harness all power sources. The problem with this character is that both his powers and his motivations are underwritten and he just does not have enough to do until too late in the film. Dane DeHaan is well cast as the spoiled rich kid who is bitter and wounded by his father’s neglect, and thank goodness his supervillain make-up and super-space-skateboard-y thing is much better than Willem-Dafoe’s. But again, we wait a long time for him. Paul Giamatti is wasted in a small part, much of which takes place inside a big robot that could have come from the final confrontation in “The Incredibles.”

But those big, swoopy swings through the skyscrapers and terrific performances by Garfield and Stone make this a great way to start the summer movie season. (And you don’t have to sit through all the credits — no stinger scene at the end.)

Parents should know that this film has extended comic book/superhero violence with characters in peril, injured and killed, chases, explosions, bombs, and sad deaths of a parent and a major character.

Family discussion: Should Peter have kept his promise to Gwen’s father? How did learning the truth about his own father make a difference to Peter? Could Peter have changed Harry’s mind?

If you like this, try: “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Avengers”

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Posted on April 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm

This is how you make a superhero movie. Director brothers Joe and Anthony Russo are best known for sitcoms with few but passionate fans (“Community,” “Happy Endings,” “Arrested Development”) and the underrated crime comedy “Welcome to Collinwood.” That is not the kind of credential that usually leads to a big budget comic book movie. But they prove to be just what the doctor ordered, funny where it should be, exciting where it should be, smarter than it needs to be, and just plain fun. Plus, I may be late to the party, but now I totally get the shield thing now as offensive and defensive weapons and it is very cool.

This is the sequel to the WWII-era origin story, where Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) a 98-pound weakling, volunteered for a government experiment that turned him into a super-strong super-soldier. But he got frozen in a block of ice and was thawed out more than sixty years later in time to join “The Avengers.” the storyline continues Captain America’s adjustment to the 21st century. We first see him running around Washington D.C.’s monuments neighborhood, repeatedly lapping vet Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie). Pretty soon, they’re talking some mild smack and Wilson is telling Rogers what he has to add to his catch-up list of cultural touchstones: Marvin Gaye’s Trouble Man. Also on the list “Star Trek/Wars” and Steve Jobs. Evans and Mackie have a natural chemistry that makes that scene very funny but also shows us how much both of them need a friend who understands what it’s like to be a soldier home from the war.

But then Captain is called into action again. Alongside the Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson, tough, smart, funny, and just a touch flirtatious, as she chats with Rogers about girls he might want to ask out while they trade blows with the bad guys. There’s a mission, a hijacked cargo ship (I kept looking for a captain-esque crossover from Captain Phillips). Straight-ahead Captain America, used to fighting Nazis and other incontrovertibly bad guys who dress the part, expects that the people on his side will treat him with the same trust and respect and integrity he gives them in return. But this is the 21st century, and it’s complicated.

Rogers knows how to follow orders and he knows how to fight. Now he must learn to understand who he is fighting and what he is fighting for. It’s one thing when the bad guy has a Red Skull and wants total world domination because he is a fascist. It is another when both the good guys and the bad guys wear suits and speak in tempered, diplomatic tones, and want total world domination because it is best for everyone. “Don’t trust anyone,” Nick Fury tells Rogers. And Rogers, used to trusting everyone (how many people today would allow the government to inject them with an experimental serum?), has to learn what that means.

And it is one thing to take on a dozen bad guys at a time, knowing none of them have superpowers. But here Rogers must face an assassin called The Winter Soldier, someone as strong as he is, someone without any of the second-guessing that comes from understanding the complexities of the situation, someone who cannot be reasoned with or argued with or appealed to. And someone Rogers knew and trusted in the past.

The easy chemistry between Cap, Sam, and Natasha/Black Widow adds depth and heart to the story. Natasha needs to learn to trust as Cap needs to learn when not to trust. “How do we know who the bad guys are?” Sam asks as they race into battle. “The ones who are shooting at us,” Cap tells him.

There is just enough depth and gloss and humor and heart to set off the action, gorgeously staged in and around Washington, D.C. The elevated Whitehurst Freeway along the Potomac River gets the super-fight it was built for and it is a beaut. Wait until you see what’s been going on under the Potomac. It was a whole other level of pleasure to see a movie that gets Washington’s geography right. Most important, this is a film that respects the genre and the audience. Captain America and his fans get the movie they deserve.

Parents should know that this film includes constant comic book, action-style, superhero violence with many characters injured and killed, guns, bombs, chases, crashes, explosions, weapons of mass destruction, discussion of genocide, torture, fights, and brief strong language.

Family discussion: If you were advising Captain America on cultural developments while he was gone, what would you suggest? What is the biggest problem he faces in trying to adjust to modern times? How do the plans under consideration here relate to current discussions on world affairs?

If you like this, try: “The Avengers” and the other Marvel superhero movies

Noah

Posted on March 27, 2014 at 8:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for violence, disturbing images and brief suggestive content
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness:	Disturbing images, peril, chaos, characters injured and killed, dead bodies, violence, attacks, sexual assaults, girls sold into slavery
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	March 28, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	July 28, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00JBGWP3Y

“Noah” is a serious, thoughtful, reverent movie that, like its title character, wrestles with the big issues of morality, survivor guilt, and strengthening a connection to the divine. It is also a big, grand adventure with drama and special effects. It should satisfy believers, seekers, and those who just want an exciting story, well told.

Writer/director Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan”) shows us a Noah (Russell Crowe) who struggles to be a good man and do as God wants. Only ten generations from Adam and Eve, he is haunted by the stories of the Fall and Cain’s murder of his brother. When he was a boy, he witnessed the murder of his own father at the hand of the brutal leader of the descendants of Cain (Ray Winstone as Tubal-Cain). Now, he tries to protect his wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly), and three sons from the marauders.

Noah lives lightly on the earth, gently chiding his son for picking a flower because that interfere with its work of spreading seeds. He and his family do not eat animals; they respect the innocence of all creatures, unlike Tubal-Cain who defines himself as someone who takes without regard for anything but his own urges and lust for power.

Noah is filled with an ominous sense that he is receiving omens and seeks the advice of his mystic of a grandfather, Methuselah (Sir Anthony Hopkins). He begins to understand that he is commanded by The Creator to build an ark and collect the animals of the earth and to preserve them in the coming storm that will wipe out all of life on Earth. He will be helped in this by The Watchers, fallen angels who were once pure light but are now punished for their mistakes by being imprisoned in enormous bodies of mud and rock.

As Auden reminds us, the grand, sweeping events of the world do not happen purely. They occur in the midst of human lives that are messy and imperfect. While Noah struggles to follow the will of The Creator, he has to deal with problems at home. Ila (Emma Watson), a girl Noah and his family rescued after her entire community was slaughtered by Tubal-Cain, is loved by Noah’s son, Shem (“Romeo & Juliet’s” Douglas Booth), who loves her, too. But due to her injuries, she cannot have children, and she does not want to keep him from being a father and creating a new generation. Ham (Logan Lerman of “Percy Jackson”) is furious that there is no prospect of a wife and family for him.

And then there is Tubal-Cain, used to taking whatever he wants. He will do anything to stay alive through the flood and become king of whatever the world will be afterward. And he senses that Ham may be susceptible to joining him.

We rarely see Bible stories told with such artistry and power. The acting is superb and the special effects are well done. The big moments, the flood, the omens, the Watchers, the thousands of animals moving inexorably toward the ark, are all handled with meaning and import. When Noah tells his family one of the few stories that they have in this still-new human world, the story of creation, we feel the nothingness that was before. Story-telling itself becomes a way to shape the world and form an understanding of patterns, purpose, and meaning.

Men wind a snakeskin around their arms in the earliest of rituals and prayers and we see the flicker of what would become a daily observance for Orthodox Jews over the millennia through the present, the phylactery leather strips that men use in their morning prayers. We are reminded that this is a time before Jesus and before Abraham, when there was no organized religion and no established set of beliefs and practices. There is not even the word “God.” It is just “Creator.”

The innocence and the impulse to reach out toward the heavens are very moving. So is the way that Noah grapples with what today we might call survivor guilt or PTSD. And he struggles to find his better angels. Tubal-Cain is not just a man who wants to fight him; he is that part of Noah himself that is all lower urges toward flesh and power, the impulse to trap and smash and to break laws even in a world where laws have not been established.

While some viewers and some who have not even seen the film have objected to this portrayal (or, in the case of strictly Muslim groups, any portrayal of a religious figure), most should see this film as an eternal story well told in a manner that is itself a form of worship in prompting us to think more profoundly about our own choices and connections.

Parents should know that this film includes epic/Biblical violence including murder, battles, flood, some disturbing images, parent killed in front of child, character trampled to death, discussion of infanticide, some disturbing images, non-explicit sexual situation, and childbirth.

Family discussion: Why did the two groups of humans develop so differently? What should Noah have done about Na’el? Why did he separate from the family after the flood?

If you like this, try: “The Fountain” and “Pi” by the same director and Biblical-era classics like “Ben-Hur” and “The Ten Commandments”