Jack Reacher

Posted on December 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Jack Reacher, the hero of a series of books by Lee Child, is as much an idealized fantasy figure as any adorkable chick-lit single girl rocking her Jimmy Choos and self-deprecating quips until Mr. Perfect puts a ring on it. The testosterone version has the observational and analytic skills of Sherlock Holmes, the “who was that masked man” righting-wrongs-and-leaving-town career path of the Lone Ranger, and the single-minded devotion to righteous indignation firepower of Rambo, and he will never, ever, ever put a ring on anyone.

Reacher is ex-military, and ex-pretty much everything else. He has no strings, no relationships, no commitments — also, no id, no phone, no home, and no baggage, in both the literal and metaphorical sense. When he needs to change clothes, he picks up something at Goodwill and throws away whatever he was wearing before. When he needs a car, he has a very effective way of persuading people to let him drive theirs. Or, he just takes one. And he keeps moving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK7y8Ou0VvM

In the books, Reacher is 6’5″ and 250 pounds and blond. But that did not stop Tom Cruise, who is none of those things, from taking the role. He more than makes up for the lack of physical stature with pure movie star charisma, a fair trade.

The movie is based on Child’s One Shot, written and directed by “The Usual Suspects” screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie. It opens with a scene of a sniper shooting random passers-by, and it is especially jarring when we see him aiming at a child. I would say that it might have made sense to delay the release of the film because it is unfortunate to have it open a week after the shooting of children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, but it may be that after that horrible tragedy there will never be a good time for a movie that turns carnage into entertainment. Within the world of the movie, a world people willingly enter because they want to see some guilt-free fights, chases, and shoot-outs, it is reasonably effective. But if it is harder to enter that world these days, perhaps that is not a bad thing.

Law enforcement tracks down the sniper, a military vet, and the case seems open and shut. But before he is beaten into a coma by other prisoners, he scrawls “Get Jack Reacher.” Reacher can’t be contacted, but somehow he knows where he is needed, and he shows up. The sniper’s lawyer Helen (Rosamund Pike) believes her client is guilty, but wants to do her best to represent him. It turns out Reacher knew the sniper in Iraq. He has reason to believe the sniper is guilty. And, as Reacher tells us, he is not a hero.

Oh, who is he kidding, of course he is. Surprise! The case is not as open and shut as we thought. There are some dreary detours into Helen’s relationship with her father, who happens to be the DA, and to a hideous torture scene with a bad guy known as “The Zec” (Werner Herzog, better known as a director), and a five-on-one bar fight, and than, thankfully, we meet up with Robert Duvall as a ex-Marine shooting range owner. He is the only one who seems to understand what kind of movie this is, bringing a delicious zest to his scenes that almost make us forget that this is a movie in which a man is asked to bite off his own fingers and everyone seems to speak Russian.

It delivers what it intends to and what fans of the series are looking for. But I’d say it’s too soon, and maybe it’s never going to be the right time for a mindless shoot-em-up again.

Parents should know that this film includes extensive, brutal and graphic violence including a sniper who kills innocent people and executions, many fights, many guns, car chases and smashes, torture, some disturbing images, characters injured and killed, some strong language (one f-word, crude epithets), drinking, and references to drug use and drug dealing.

Family discussion: Why does Jack stay on the move? Did Emerson have a choice?

If you like this, try: the Jack Reacher books by Lee Child

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Posted on December 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended fantasy violence and peril with swords and arrows, characters injured and killed, scary monsters
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	December 14, 2012
Date Released to DVD:	November 4, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00E8S2JZ4

As the second in the Hobbit trilogy is about to be released, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Extended Edition). Director Peter Jackson returns to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth for this “Lord of the Rings” prequel, the adventure of young Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit we meet in the LoTR trilogy as the middle-aged uncle of the heroic Frodo. We see many familiar faces, especially Ian McKellan as the wizard Gandalf, the sepulchral Christopher Lee as Saruman, Cate Blanchett as the ethereal Galandriel, Hugo Weaving as the regally gracious Elrond, and Andy Serkis plus CGI as Gollum, and the now-familiar but still marvelously eye-filling New Zealand locations.What is most different here is that Jackson has doubled the frames-per-second for a new hyper-clarity. The 24 frames per second standard that has been in effect since the beginning of the sound era has been upped to 48, giving the film a depth of detail that is so fresh it can be a little unsettling. We subconsciously associate the quality of light and focus with the video used for news programs and lower-budget sitcoms (think of the difference between the indoor and outdoor scenes in the old “Monty Python” episodes), so it can take a while to get used to it in a richly imagined fantasy, especially when close-ups reveal the pores of a character’s skin like a magnifying mirror at a department store makeup counter and the quality of light seems chillier and more sterile. We get so much visual information that it takes a while to re-calibrate our ability to separate the meaningful from the superfluous.

It does not help that Jackson himself seems to miss the forest of the story for the literal trees. Blowing out the shortest and most accessible of the books to a projected trilogy of nearly nine hours suggests that Jackson has fallen so in love with the project that he has lost touch with what it feels like not to be completely obsessed with it. Of course, he is enabled by the intensity of the fans, who are famously dedicated to every leaf, twig, and Elvish declension. But he seems to have lost track of the thread of the story and dulled his sense of how to communicate with those who are not as deeply involved with the story as he is. He glosses over the important discussion of Bilbo’s two competing heritages, one open to adventure, one devoted to home and hearth, which makes it hard to understand why he changes his mind about accepting Gandalf’s challenge. Since it is a prequel, we are all familiar with the destructive power of the One Ring to Rule Them All, which makes it confusing when we see it 60 years earlier as a simple and benign invisibility ring. Meanwhile, it takes all of 40 minutes before Bilbo leaves his house as what should have been a 10-minute scene about the unexpected arrival of a bunch of rowdy dwarves is expanded to include two different musical numbers. And yet, it still does not give us enough of a sense of who the individual dwarves are.

The action scenes are filled with vitality and dynamically staged, but the film assumes a commitment and understanding on our part that it has not earned. In a story about a quest of honor, that is an unexpected disappointment.

Parents should know that this film includes many battle sequences and scenes of peril, scary monsters, characters injured and killed, some disturbing images, smoking, drinking, and some potty humor.

Family discussion: Why did Bilbo decide to join the adventure? Why did Gandalf pick him? Why didn’t Gandalf use his powers to help the dwarves sooner?

If you like this, try: The book by J.R.R. Tolkien and the “Lord of the Rings” films

Life of Pi

Posted on November 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout and some scary action scenes and peril
Profanity:	Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Wine
Violence/ Scariness:	Scary shipwreck, frequent peril, deaths of characters and animals, some scary images including dismembered animals
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	November 22, 2012
Date Released to DVD:	March 11, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B005LAIIHG

“Oh God, thy sea is so great and my boat is so small.”

This classic Breton fisherman’s prayer describes “Life of Pi,” Ang Lee’s exquisitely beautiful fairy tale story of an Indian boy shipwrecked with a Bengal tiger, and their journey home.

The book by Yann Martel is an award-winning national best-seller, filled with meditations on life, faith, and zoos. Pi, played as an adult by Irrfan Kahn and as a teenager by newcomer Suraj Sharma, was named Piscine Molitor after a swimming pool in France. He insisted on shortening it to Pi after the kids at school teased him, and showed off by memorizing pi to the hundreds of places. Pi’s family owned a zoo in Pondicherry, India, or, rather, the community owned the zoo and his family owned the animals. When they must leave India, his parents sell most of the animals and pack up the rest with Pi and his older brother to travel to Canada by ship. On a stormy night, the ship sinks and, according to the story the adult Pi tells to a visitor, the only survivors are Pi, a zebra with a broken leg, a hyena, an orangutang named Orange Juice, and a Bengal tiger improbably named Richard Parker thanks to a clerical error and always referred to by his full name. Soon, it is just Pi and the tiger.

Pi is an unusually thoughtful boy who considers himself at the same time a Hindu, a Moslem, and a Christian. (This is described in much more detail in the book, including an amusing encounter between two of his teachers.) His parents are not religious and his father jokes that if he picks up a few more faiths every day will be a holiday. He is a thoughtful, observant boy who considers matters deeply and wants to understand. In the lifeboat, he considers his options carefully, making an inventory of the food and equipment and lashing together a small raft to protect himself from the hungry tiger. As it becomes clear that they will have to sustain themselves for an indefinite time, Pi uses what he knows about animals to establish his territory and earn the tiger’s trust. In a sense, his life has been simplified to its essence, as everything — home, family, plans, community, food, water, — is taken from him. In another sense, these losses open him up to a depth and spiritual richness that would not be possible in a busy world of connections and obligations.

Pi and Richard Parker weather storms. They share unexpected riches when flying fish literally jump into their laps, and soul-expanding beauty, especially a great luminous leap by a whale the size of a motor home.

When he was a young boy, Pi tried to feed a tiger. His father arrived just in time to prevent him from being the tiger’s lunch and gave him an unforgettable lesson by making him watch as the tiger attacked a live goat. Pi insists that he can see the tiger’s soul in his eyes. His father insists that there is nothing behind his eyes but the law of the jungle. Pi has a great heart and the gift of faith. Both are tested. And it is only when everything he thought he could not live without is taken from him that he realizes how much he has gained, and how it is the troubles he has faced that have kept him alive.

The rapturous visual beauty of the film is itself a spirit-expanding experience. The lyrical poetry of the images and the skillfully immersive effects surround us with a powerful sense of connection to the divine.

Parents should know that the plot concerns a boy lost at sea with a Bengal tiger and it includes sad deaths of family members and animals, some graphic and disturbing images, and extended danger and peril.

Family discussion: Why does a character say the story will make you believe in God? Which story do you prefer? How did Richard Parker keep Pi alive? What do we learn about Pi from his questions about the dance? From his reaction to the island?

If you like this, try: the book by Yann Martel

Red Dawn

Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm

There was much to improve in the original version of “Red Dawn,” a simple-minded fantasy film about a communist invasion of small town America: the plot, which asked us to believe that Cuban and Soviet invaders would focus their attention on subduing the teenage population of a town with no military significance; the dialogue, which was hilariously wooden; the special effects (the bad guys tracked our heroes using a locator that appears to have been borrowed from a 1930s Flash Gordon serial); the acting (despite a cast of future stars such as Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, the original “Red Dawn” left the actors little to do except shoot guns and emote in their mountain hideouts); the production values (unseen artillery and aircraft shelled a lone tank in the middle of a vacant field with what appeared to be firecrackers). In fact, everything about the original “Red Dawn” had a childlike simplicity that made it endearing to audiences.

The plot of the new “Red Dawn” mimics the original in most respects. Members of the Wolverines, a high school football team, refuse to surrender to or collaborate with the invaders (this time from Asia) the way many of their disappointing parents do. They take to the hills, learn to fight and inspire a resistance movement. Along the way they learn lessons about loyalty, patriotism, and the price of the freedoms we all hold dear. Older brother Jed Eckert is played by Chris Hemsworth (Thor from “The Avengers”) while younger brother Matty Eckert is played by Josh Peck. The obligatory girlfriend who looks hot in guerrilla garb is played by Adrianne Palicki.

MGM looked at the original formula and decided that if it was going to upgrade just one ingredient, it would be the quality of the explosions. No firecrackers here, the new and improved “Red Dawn” has serious explosions and gunfire. A residential neighborhood is blown up with high definition digital effects. First time director Dan Bradley was previously a stunt coordinator and it shows. We see house to house gunfights that look and sound authentic. The new version uses realistic blood, rather than the Heinz ketchup favored by the producers of the original.

The problem is, this change in the formula disrupts the equilibrium that gave the original its charm. Every element of the original was equally unpersuasive. By making bullets more persuasive, Bradley only highlights the dumbnicity of the rest.

Worse, the new Red Dawn is a less kind movie. Along with the more realistic violence, there is more drinking and profanity. Unfortunately, the dialogue that is supposed to glue these elements together remains as insubstantial as the dialogue in the cartoonish original. (Says the young guerrilla leader: “We have to make it too hard and too difficult for them.”) One other change — the Soviet Union no longer being available as invaders, this film substituted the Chinese when it was shot a few years ago until the distributors who ended up with it after the first group ran out of money figured out that Chinese people constitute a very big audience for films, preferably ones that don’t make them the bad guys. So, the Chinese invaders were digitally altered to make them North Korean.

The new “Red Dawn” is slicker than the original but it lacks the heart that was the only redeeming feature of the first version. It is a meaner production, and probably not worth your time unless you go for the explosions, which are pretty good.

Parents should know that this film has extensive and sometimes graphic images of battle with guns and explosions, fighting, with characters injured and killed, and very strong language.

Family discussion: Why did some parents instruct their children to cooperate with the invaders? What made some people in the town choose to resist? What would be the hardest thing for you about fighting the invaders? How were the Wolverines like our founding fathers?

If you like this, try: the original 1984 version starring Patrick Swayze

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Remake War

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2

Posted on November 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm

The “Twilight” series comes to a close with the fifth film based on the four-book supernatural love story from Stephenie Meyer. This one is for the fans, with a loving farewell that includes a romantic recap series of flashbacks and final credits bringing back all the stars of the series. It will be less satisfying for non Twi-hards, who will have a hard time ignoring the ludicrousness of the storyline.

In the last chapter, Bella (Kristen Stewart) at long last (well, not too long, she just finished high school), married her one true love, Edward (Robert Pattinson), a vampire. They had a wonderfully romantic but bed-breaking wedding night, and she got pregnant, a surprise to everyone because it was thought to be biologically impossible. The pregnancy left Bella so frail that childbirth would have killed her if Edward had not kept her alive by turning her into a vampire. “Breaking Dawn, Part 1” ended with her eyes opening, vampire-ified to electrified amber with a kind of permanent mascara. “I didn’t expect you to seem so..you,” Jacob says. “Except for the creepy eyes.”

In the past, we saw the “other” world of vampires and wolf-people like Jacob (Taylor Lautner) through Bella’s brown human eyes. Now we see everything through the hyper-charged senses of the ultimate predator. Ironically, it is only as a vampire that Bella feels most purely herself — strong, confident, capable. This is the fork in the road where the fans will stay with it but everyone else may take a detour. One reason for the sensational popularity of the books is the way they so perfectly capture a young teenager’s fantasy. That works better when the characters are themselves teenagers. Trying to project them into the adult world, even one as skewed as the vampire world, is a tougher stretch.

Bella and Edward have an idyllic existence of eternal adolescence, with a life free from work, struggle, and parents. They do not have to eat or sleep. They do not have to do anything but have wildly energetic sex and conversations about who loves who more, with banter like “We’re the same temperature now.” You may ask, “Wait, isn’t there a baby with some kind of nutty name?” Yes there is, and her name is Renesmee (after the two grandmothers, Renée and Esmé). When Jacob calls her “Nessie,” Bella gets angry because that’s the Loch Ness monster’s nickname, though it seems likely that it is just another of Jacob’s protective instincts, her birth name being something of a burden.

Bella and Edward-style parenting is not very demanding. The baby has a full-time staff of loving vampire relatives and an imprinted wolf-guy. And it turns out that vampire/human children grow in dog years. The movie, unfortunately, moves rather slowly, with a lot of time bringing in 18 new vampire characters from all over the world to help persuade the vampiric governing body, the Volturi, that they have not broken the law and produced an “immortal child” who could put the community at risk. All of this leads up to a grand battle across a snowy field, the motley crew of good guy vampires and the robed Volturi.

The endless procession of new characters gets tedious except for a Revolutionary war veteran played by Lee Pace (“Lincoln,” “Pushing Daisies”), who talks about his time with General Custer and has far more electricity on screen than the vampiress who catches his attention with her super-tasing power to jolt anyone. I also liked Rami Melek (“Night at the Museum,” “Larry Crowne”) as a vampire who can control the elements. But the sheer volume of new characters made having to remember each one’s special talent like trying to keep track of the Smurfs.

We’ve spent a lot of time with these characters and it is good to see a satisfying resolution to their story. But I couldn’t help feeling that Meyer had run out of ideas and just tossed in everything she could think of. My primary reaction at the end was relief that this was the end.

Parents should know that this movie includes vampire violence with battles that include graphic decapitations and other disturbing images, characters injured and killed, sexual references and situations with some nudity, and some language.

Family discussion: What are the biggest changes in Bella’s outlook and abilities from the first installment to the last? How much should she tell Charlie? If you could have one of the special gifts of the characters in the film, which would it be and why?

If you like this, try: the other “Twilight” movies and the books by Stephenie Meyer