Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

Posted on August 6, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for fantasy action violence, some scary images, and mild violence
Profanity:	Some mild language ("screwed," etc.)
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Fantasy violence and peril with some moments that may be too intense for younger viewers including repeated apparent deaths
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters, very strong and brave female characters
Date Released to Theaters:	August 7, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	December 16, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUNTG

The second in the series of films based on Rick Riorden’s Percy Jackson and the Olympians is even better than the first. The young actors are more comfortable, their characters better established, and the special effects more, well, special.

We learned in the first film that Percy (Logan Lerman) is the son of Poseidon, one of the gods of Olympus and brother of Zeus and Hades. Because his mother was human, he is considered a demigod. As this film begins, he is safely at Camp Half-Blood with the other children of gods and mortals, including Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), the daughter of Athena, goddess of wisdom, Luke (Jake Abel), the son of Hermes, god of messages and deliveries, and Clarisse (Leven Rambin), daughter of Ares, the god of war.

We see in flashback Percy’s friend Grover (Brandon T. Jackson), a satyr, Annabeth, and Luke first arriving at Camp Half-Blood, pursued by murderous monsters. Another young demigod named Thalia sacrificed herself to save them, and in death Zeus turned her into a tree that provided an impenetrable safety zone around the camp. In the present day, as Percy is losing a competition to Clarisse and feeling dejected and alone. His mother is gone, his father does not respond, and he does not feel that he has what it takes to live up to the expectations everyone seems to have for him. Yes, he saved the world in “The Lightning Thief,” but was that really him? He does not feel like a hero. The support of centaur Chiron (Anthony Head), Annabeth, and Brandon does not reassure him.

A new arrival at Camp Half-Blood shocks Percy. It turns out, he has a half-brother. When a god and a human have a child, the result is a demigod. But when a god and a nymph have a child, the result is…a cyclops. (“The politically correct term is ocularly impaired.”) As much as he longs for family, it is hard for Percy to accept this one-eyed person named Tyson (Douglas Smith) as family.

He does not have much time to think about it. Camp Half-Blood is attacked by a bronze Colchis bull. Thalia’s tree is poisoned and the protective shield is destroyed. Clarisse is assigned the task of retrieving the golden fleece that can repair the tree, but Percy, Annabeth, Grover, and Tyson set off as well. But the golden fleece is guarded by a scary giant cyclops who uses it to lure demigods so he can eat them. And the people who want to destroy Camp Half-Blood are after it, too. A series of CGI adventures lie ahead of them, including rides on and in various mythic creatures and a little help from Hermes (a terrific Nathan Fillion) and Poseidon.

Like the books, the films have a nice balance between the mythic scale of the adventures and the teenage problems that can feel every bit as grand and daunting, a nice balance between the classic and the modern, with a sprinkling of humor when it starts to get too intense. Locations range from an amusement park to a UPS store to the inside of a sea monster and things move briskly along to a conclusion that is exciting and touching as well.

Parents should know that this film has a lot of fantasy peril and violence with some scary monsters. There are several apparent deaths but (spoiler alert) just about everyone turns out to be all right.

Family discussion: How did Percy feel about his brother? Why did Percy doubt himself and what did he learn from this adventure?

If you like this, try: the books and the original film — and read books about Greek myths like Greek Mythology for Teens: Classic Myths in Today’s World and Heroes, Gods and Monsters of the Greek Myths

2 Guns

Posted on August 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm

A+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Preschool
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for violence throughout, language and brief nudity
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drug dealers
Violence/ Scariness:	Constant intense and graphic peril and violence, some very disturbing images, torture, guns, chases, explosions, many characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	August 2, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	November 19, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00BEIYN9Q

The couple with the most electrifying chemistry on screen so far this year is Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg in “2 Guns.” As the title of the the graphic novel by Steven Grant and Mateus Santolouco suggests, it is a double-barreled shoot-em-up. It is very violent, and it seems that the two stars think they are making a more light-hearted, escapist bang bang frolic than the movie can deliver. The other characters in the often-sour story seem to be in a different movie. But as long as the two stars are trading quips in syncopation with the rounds of firepower, it is very entertaining.

Washington plays Bobby, a DEA agent who has been undercover for a couple of years infiltrating a Mexico-based drug ring. Wahlberg is Stig, working undercover for the Navy for the same reason. We’re told they are the best at what they do, but somehow when they are trading banter about the best doughnuts in three counties and the drug dealer henchman who has been separated from his head they never figure out that they are both working for law enforcement. Me, I think I might suspect that Bobby was not the usual bad guy when he stops in the middle of a robbery to pick up and soothe a crying baby. But Stig is too busy being cool to notice. Other than that, and repeatedly trusting the wrong people, and not making much progress in getting anyone arrested or confiscating any drugs or weapons, they are both crackerjack detectives.

Bobby has some issues. He is a loner. He does not “have people.” He has a sometime girlfriend, a Justice Department attorney named Deb (Paula Patton). “Did you ever love me?” she asks him when they are in bed together. “I meant to love you,” he says. Stig is more easy-going, but he may be too far in the other direction when it comes to trust, not able to see when his “people” are less loyal to him than he is to them. That may be part of the explanation for their mutual blind spot in not figuring out that they were both doing the same thing. Neither they nor we have much time to think about that as very quickly it turns out that they have been set up and betrayed, and they will need to find a way to work together in the midst of being hunted down by three separate groups who want to kill them.

After that, it’s just banter, chase, banter, shoot-out, banter, a couple of torture scenes, banter, betrayal, more quippy banter, and then ludicrous even in the context of this movie side-story about the perils of illegal immigration, then pay-off (literally). It is an uneasy mix, but the stars own the fizzy dialogue with such brio, electricity and pure charisma that they provide the real explosive power.

Parents should know that this film includes constant comic book-style violence, some graphic and disturbing images, torture, guns, explosions, chases, fights, many characters injured and killed, non-explicit sexual situation, female nudity, some strong language, and pervasive corruption.

Family discussion: The issue of loyalty occurs several different times in this movie. How do Bobby and Stig show their views about loyalty? How does Deb? How do their views change over the course of the story?

If you like this, try: “Lethal Weapon,” “Shoot ’em Up,” and “The Other Guys”

RED 2

Posted on July 18, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Catherine Zeta Jones seems to be making a habit of appearing in the dumbed-down sequels to big, all-star franchises. First there was “Oceans 12,” and now there’s an utterly thankless role in “Red 2,” a stylish but empty follow-up to the original, based on the comic book about spies who are classified as “retired extremely dangerous.”

It was a lot of fun the first time around to see an over-the-hill-gang take on a spy story with an all-star cast that included Oscar-winners Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, and Richard Dreyfuss along with Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, and Mary-Louise Parker. It was a lot of fun. This one, not so much.

Dean Parisot (“Galaxy Quest”) takes over as director from Robert Schwentke (whose new action comedy, “RIPD,” is also being released this week). Willis returns as Frank Moses, the once-top CIA operative with the American equivalent of a license to kill. He is now living happily ever after with Sarah (Parker), the woman he met on the customer support line and sort of kidnapped in the first film.

Happily ever after is a little boring for both of them. Shopping at Costco does not compare to the good old run-with-a-gun days. When Marvin (Malkovich), somewhat paranoid following years of CIA-sponsored LSD experiments, shows up to tell them they are in danger, Frank and Sarah are almost relieved. After all, she reminds him, he gets restless if he isn’t killing people (note: not saving the world — it is killing people he misses).

Parisot stages some nice fight scenes. The bad guy points out that it’s seven to one and Frank is in handcuffs. We know he will get out of it, but it is fun to see how he does it. It would be more fun with less carnage. Even if we were not living in a more sensitive time when it comes to the casual — even gleeful — treatment of senseless widespread slaughter, this would be over the top. Almost as bad is the uselessness of another death that adds nothing to the story.

The plot is not much — there’s a MacGuffin thing that could destroy the world and our heroes have been framed so they are being pursued as they try to save the day. Someone apparently did a Google search on what the best-protected international locations are and sent the RED team to break into them.

These always-watchable stars do their best. Helen Mirren is clearly having a blast as a cheerful assassin with a freezer full of bodies, especially when she gets to pretend to be a madwoman who thinks she is a queen, the role Mirren has played many times. Her “Hitchcock” costar Anthony Hopkins is a treat as a tweaked version of the fusty professor type he played in films like “Shadowlands.” Willis and Parker have palpable chemistry, which makes it all the more disappointing that they are stuck with dreary jealousy banter. Parisot tries to hide the script’s frequent sags with smartly-staged action scenes (the martial arts bouts with Byung-hun Lee, “G.I. Joe’s” Storm Shadow, are electrifying) and, less successfully, by having the characters chit-chat about relationship advice as they are chasing, shooting, and bombing. The AARP-eligible cast still has it. Next time, the MacGuffin they seek should be a better script.

Parents should know that this film includes constant action-style spy violence and peril with chases, crashes, explosions, guns, knives, martial arts, and a weapon of mass destruction. It has a casual attitude about a very large body count and a lot of property damage. There is also some strong language, drinking, drugs, and some sexual references.

Family discussion: What made some of the characters switch sides? What is the difference between following the rules and doing what is right?

If you like this, try: the original “Red” and “Hitchcock,” also starring Dame Helen Mirren and Sir Anthony Hopkins

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Series/Sequel Spies

Pacific Rim

Posted on July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm

I know there’s only one question you have about this movie, and the answer is yes. If you ever wanted to see a movie with giant monsters battling giant robots, this is it.

And if you ever wanted to see a movie that is nothing but giant monsters battling giant robots, this is that movie.

Not much more to say after that. And thankfully, director Guillermo del Toro understands that. I don’t remember ever seeing a movie that gets to the point so quickly. Less than a minute into the running time there’s a monster attacking a city and cars falling off a bridge and moments later, we get, you guessed it, a monster fighting a robot. And it’s pretty much monsters and robots from then on.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. These are some mighty fine monsters and robots.

So, here’s the deal. There are monsters. We don’t know where they came from but they arrive through some sort of “Thor”-like portal under the Pacific Ocean. Its cheeky conceit is that the dinosaurs were a sort of failed advance team and the monsters had to wait until humans evolved and deteriorated the environment until it was Goldilocks-just-right for them.

These are very, very big monsters known by the Japanese term “kaiju.” Del Toro loves monsters, and these are absolutely fantastic. Like Ray Harryhausen, del Toro and his character design team understand that we need monsters to be at the same time very strange and very familiar, impossible but possible. The structure of bone and muscle and teeth has to make sense to us. They have to be able to support their frames and their movements have to feel weighty and powerful. These monsters are masterfully designed, marvelous and scary. There are blue, glowing tentacles and massive jaws with pointed teeth. They attack cities like Godzilla’s gigantic brother, stomping and chomping.

What’s cool here is the sheer scale of the things. Over and over, it take your breath away.

At first, the humans think it is a one-time attack. But then there are others. And the earth has to recalibrate all notions of what is possible, all priorities. They have to find a way to fight the kaiju. They have to build robots the size of the Empire State Building.

The robots look great, with ninja heads and believable scuffs and dents. Some of what they do does not seem physically possible — how does that running and jumping thing work? — but mostly their movements seem to make sense and feel believably powerful and weighty. What goes on inside, not so much. We can build robots the size of a skyscraper but the arms and legs have to be operated manually, like a kind of gym stair-stepper? And what is this mumbo-jumbo about how the pairs who operate them have to be able to “drift” — meld their neural pathways so they can access each other’s thoughts? Oh, well, let’s get to the fights!

Charlie Day provides some comic relief without going overboard as a nerdy scientist. Ron Pearlman shows up as a colorful profiteer. He goes overboard, but that’s what he’s there for. Idris Elba gets to use his real accent for once, is majestic as the guy in charge. Charlie Hunnam, bulked up, fades into the background, more generic than the machines. Whenever they try to add some human interest, everything stalls, but fortunately that does not happen too often.

There are a couple of good touches about the way different elements of civilization respond to the monsters. I couldn’t really understand who was doing what some of the time or what they were saying much of the time (a lot of the usual sci-fi moments of people staring intently into monitors, but it is always nice to Clifton Collins, Jr., and he does better with the jargon than most people). But there were robots fighting monsters and in the middle of the summer, that’s good enough for me.

NOTE: Be sure to stay halfway through the credits for an extra scene.

Parents should know that this film has non-stop and intense sci-fi action violence with massive destruction and genocide, very scary monsters, chases, explosions, suicide missions, gruesome images, sad deaths, brief language

Family discussion: Why didn’t Staker want Mako to go out in the Jaeger? How is the cooperation between Gottleib and Geiszler like the drifting of the Jaeger operators? What are three different ways we saw characters respond to the attacks?

If you like this, try: “Independence Day,” “Top Gun,” “Blade Runner,” and the original “Godzilla”

Related Tags:

3D Action/Adventure Science-Fiction

The Lone Ranger

Posted on July 7, 2013 at 11:32 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, and some suggestive material
Profanity:	Some mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Scenes in bar
Violence/ Scariness:	Extensive action-style violence, some graphic, many deaths and injuries
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie but some insensitivity to racial differences
Date Released to Theaters:	July 4, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUOC2

For more than a century the movies have been telling us the story of America through westerns, and each decade gets the version it deserves. We have seen films range from the optimistic, heroic, and racially insensitive movies of the 40’s (“Destry Rides Again,” “My Darling Clementine”) to the more politically metaphoric movies of the cold war era (“High Noon,” “The Ox-Bow Incident”) to the subversive 60’s (“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Cat Ballou”), to the bleakness of spaghetti westerns and the Oscar-winning “Unforgiven.”

And now, 110 years after Edwin S. Porter’s “Great Train Robbery” (considered the first movie western), we get an update on the radio show-turned television series-turned forgettable 1981 movie version starring model-almost-turned-actor Klinton Spilsbury and Michael Horse, “The Lone Ranger.” And it is indeed a reflection on the era of Citizens United and squestration. It is the very essence of soulless corporate excess and celebrity self-regard.

The folks behind “Pirates of the Caribbean” have reunited for a reboot of “The Lone Ranger,” but this is more like the overstuffed sequels than the fresh and charming original. Everything is out of balance in this bloated two and a half-hour endurance challenge. The worst part is that pared down to lose 40 minutes or so of filler, this could be a nice little action movie. It has the key ingredients: a story and characters that have stood the test of time, inventive and absorbing action sequences, and talented performers. Unfortunately, it is hard to find any of that in the midst of all of the bombast and overkill and tooooo many cooks.

It is now well known that Depp became a superstar with his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates” movies, a performance of such quirk and weirdness that it completely freaked out the suits. So of course now, with him as producer, they let him do whatever he wanted for the character of Tonto, including spending the entire movie with his face completely painted and wearing a dead crow on his head, inspired by a picture he saw. This is when the suits should have stepped in. Instead they were enablers, allowing the quirks to become distracting and unpleasant. That is especially true in a completely unnecessary framing story set in 1933, with Depp in old man make-up appearing in an old west display, telling a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger his story.

Armie Hammer does his best in a thankless role. His John Reid is part James Stewart in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” (bookish lawyer who wants to bring Lockeian notions of a civil society to the west), part doofus. He isn’t as smart as Tonto or the villains, which is fine, but he isn’t as smart as his horse, either. He isn’t as smart as the blanket under his saddle, except when he is, or when he is called upon to do crazy stunts like racing the snow-white “spirit horse” across the top of a racing train, shooting his gun as he goes. He is a fine actor with a strong screen presence and he is clearly game. He deserves better.

The many, many references to other movies seem like crutches, not tributes. The many, many anachronisms are sloppy and show contempt for the audience, not meta-commentary. People in 1869 did not say “Let’s do this.” They did not eat hot dogs in buns with ketchup. The “Star Spangled Banner” did not become the national anthem until 1931. There was no such thing as “health code violations” in a bar — or a house of prostitution. And the all-purpose conspiracy that has the military, a hostile takeover, and an outlaw feels desperate and generic. Any commentary on today’s economic and political woes is purely coincidental.

The real commentary on the failures of capitalism is in spending $250 million of the Disney shareholders’ money on this uninspired vanity project.

Parents should know that this film has intense and graphic violence for a PG-13. A villain literally eats the heart of a man he has murdered and there is massive slaughter, with many characters injured and killed. There are prostitutes, a cross-dresser, bathroom humor, some alcohol, and mild language.

Family discussion: Why did Tonto feed the crow? Why was trading so important to him? Read the Lone Ranger’s creed and discuss how it applies to your life.

If you like this, try: “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “Silverado,” “Cat Ballou,” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”