Edge of Tomorrow

Posted on June 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Are there moments you would like to relive, so you could make a different choice?edgeoftomorrow poster

It’s a universal fantasy that has played out many times in books and films. It can be a gift (About Time). It can be a curse, though a curse with some benefits that could involve saving the world, personal growth, and falling in love (“Groundhog Day,” “Source Code”). In “Edge of Tomorrow,” Tom Cruise plays Major Bill Cage, a slick military officer who stays far away from the fighting by handling press relations for the global effort to defeat mechanical spider-y aliens called Mimics. A general (Brendan Gleeson) wants to send him to the front to get footage of the battle. Cage’s usual smooth patter fails to dissuade him, so he tries blackmail, which so infuriates the general he is demoted and sent to the front, not to shoot movies but to shoot Mimics. He gets hollered at by a Kentucky non-com named Major Sergeant Farell (Bill Paxton), thrown into a exo-skeletal fighting suit, and dropped from a plane, where he gets killed. End of story.

Except that it isn’t. Cage somehow has been caught up in a time loop that keeps bringing him back to that rude awakening in Farell’s division. Like a video game character, when he gets killed, the system is reset and no one but he remembers that it has all happened before. Over and over, he repeats the same actions. No matter what he does, nothing changes until in the midst of battle he meets up with the war’s most decorated soldier, Rita (Emily Blunt), who looks him in the eye and says, “Come find me when you wake up.”

It feels like a nightmare, but it is not. To explain more about what is going on would be to spoil some of this highly entertaining film’s best surprises.  Director Doug Liman and editor James Herbert are terrific at using the re-sets to add energy to the storyline rather than bogging it down.  They use different angles and pacing to help us keep it all straight, even though sometimes we follow Cage back to his original starting point and sometimes we join him well into another foray, not realizing until just the right moment how many tries it took him to get to that point.  Liman deftly plays the rinse-and-repeat familiarity for both us and Cage as comedy and as thriller as needed. Big props to the creature designers, too.  The Mimics are like lethal tumbleweeds made of razorblades, moving at hyperspeed.

Cruise describes himself on Twitter as “running in movies since 1981,” but growing up in movies is something he has done just as often.  He is just right as the slick and callow advertising man turned press relations officer who has to find a way to stay alive and then find a way to save the world.  Blunt is excellent as the battle-worn veteran.  As Cage has to find his inner soldier, Rita has to ask herself whether she can let go of hers, lending just enough emotional heft to the storyline to keep the story moving forward even when the events are repeating.

Note: the DVD release is renamed “Live Die Repeat”

Parents should know that this film includes constant sci-fi/action-style peril and violence with scary aliens and many characters injured and killed.  There is some strong language including one f-word.

Family discussion:  What did Cage learn about himself by repeating the same day?   Why didn’t he tell Rita about the helicopter at first?

If you like this, try: “Source Code” and the graphic novel that inspired this film, All You Need Is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka

Related Tags:

 

3D Action/Adventure Based on a book Comic book/Comic Strip/Graphic Novel Fantasy IMAX Romance Science-Fiction War

The Fault in Our Stars

Posted on June 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm

fault-in-our-stars-poster-largeJohn Green’s best-selling novel, The Fault in Our Stars is the story of kids with cancer, but it is not about dying.  It is about living.  This exquisite adaptation is that rare film based on a beloved novel that does full justice to the source material without being static or talky.  The screenplay is by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, who showed exceptional sensitivity in the bittersweet love stories “(500) Days of Summer” and “The Spectacular Now” (also adapted from a beloved YA book and also starring Shailene Woodley), and it was directed by Josh Boone, of the underrated “Stuck in Love” (also starring Nat Wolff, who appears here as a friend of the central couple).  

Remember the hospital scene in “Terms of Endearment?”  This one will make you cry more.  But it is sad, not depressing.

Woodley plays Hazel Grace Lancaster, whose lungs have been badly compromised and who cannot breathe without a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen tank.  Pushed by her mother to attend a support group that meets “literally in the heart of Jesus,” with a guitar-strumming leader who is well-intentioned but unwilling to acknowledge the direness of the circumstances, Hazel catches the eye of lanky Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort, and yes, he played her brother in “Divergent”).

She’s the nerdy girl, he’s the basketball-player and cool guy, which is the classic high school movie romantic setup for opposite attraction except in this case what they have in common is more important than what table they would sit at in the school cafeteria.  He is not playing basketball anymore because his leg was amputated due to cancer.  What brings them together is not the cancer but the shared worldview they developed as a result of the cancer, with few illusions but an openness to hope, if not hope for a longer life, at least hope for a better life.  Hazel worries that she is “a grenade,” that the most significant impact her life will have is the devastating grief she leaves behind.

Hazel and Augustus exchange favorite books.  His is a novelization of a video game.  Hers is an ambitious, literary novel by a reclusive author named Peter Van Houten (Willem Dafoe, superb in a tricky role).  The book ends abruptly, in the middle of a sentence, when its main character dies, and Hazel is overcome with curiosity about what happens to the characters she left behind.  For all they have lost, they still have “cancer perqs,” privileges that come with the combination of pity and guilt felt by people around them.  Augustus takes advantage of his to help Hazel meet Van Houten.  But it is in the other parts of the journey that they find more important answers and better questions as well.

The characters in the movie like to say, “it’s a metaphor,” but their own story is a metaphor about the issues we all grapple with.  Watching people whose biggest problem should be what to wear to the prom confront the problem of making sense of life, finding meaning, risking intimacy is a heightened version for dramatic purposes.  But these are the core challenges for all of us, whether our lives will last for 16 years or 116.  These teenagers just do not have the luxury the rest of us do of being in denial about how little time there is.

Elgort is marvelous, but then he gets to say swoon-worthy lines like “You realize that trying to keep your distance from me will not lessen my affection for you. All efforts to save me from you will fail.”  On the other hand, he has the challenge of grandiloquent lines like. “It would be a privilege to have my heart broken by you,” and he says them beautifully.  Woodley is in every way (except literally) the heart of the film, and once again delivers a performance of endless sensitivity, even with a cannula in her nose.  Fans of the book will find key scenes like the egging of a car and the ultimate romantic restaurant date exactly as they envisioned it.  Even the trip to the Anne Frank house, which could have been heavy-handed, is handled well.  Anne Frank is, in a way, the spiritual sister of Hazel and Augustus.  Like them, she had to find meaning in the midst of devastation.  As they walk through the hidden annex where she lived, her words of hope come out of tinny display speakers.  And Hazel’s climb up the steep steps to see it is itself a “shout into the void.”

I like the way they call each other by their full names.  Even though their time is limited, addressing each other with a touch of formality and grandeur is too important for short cuts.  I like the intensity and honesty of their talks; anything less they know they do not have time for.  The title comes from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.”  The nobleman Cassius says to Brutus: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”  He is saying that it is we who determine how we live.  But the line that I think of when I see this film is from poet Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote, “The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough.”

Parents should know that the theme of the film is teenagers with cancer.  Many characters are very ill and there is a very sad death, as well as brief strong language, sexual references and situation, teen drinking and adult alcohol abuse.

Family discussion: What questions would you like to ask an author about a book you like? How should you choose who will hurt you? What makes some infinities larger than others?

If you like this, try: the book by John Green and the films “Harold and Maude” and “Restless”

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Date movie Drama Romance Stories about Teens Tragedy

Words and Pictures

Posted on June 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm

wordsandpicturesWhat a refreshing change to have a witty grown-up love story in the midst of summer movie season. Popping up in the middle of monsters, superheroes, and special effects is this endearing romance built around what Shakespeare (and George Orwell) called “a merry war” between two teachers that challenges the darker wars each is fighting with themselves.

Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) teaches English at a prep school, very popular with his students and very good at getting the best from them. Once a promising poet, he has been unable to make any progress on a new book and his relationships in the community, with the school administration, and with his son are deteriorating due to his abuse of alcohol. The prestige he had as a writer “made it easier to forgive faults,” a school board member warns him. His sense of himself as a good teacher is what fuels his denial about his failures in other parts of his life, and keeps him feeling superior. He likes to challenge the other faculty members to word games, especially one involving coming up with five-syllable words for each letter in the alphabet.

A new teacher arrives. Her name is Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche) and like Jack, she is respected for her work outside the classroom as a gallery artist. (The paintings in the film were created by Binoche herself, who is an accomplished artist.) When she says she teaches art, Jack comments, “Hence the scarf.” When he tells her he teaches literature, she responds, “Hence the ‘hence.'” He feels awake for the first time in many years because like Ferdinand in Shakespeare’s “Tempest,” he has found someone who speaks his language.  Jack talks too much. Dina talks too little, especially when it comes for the reason she is teaching and the reason she left New York and the reason she uses a cane, all of which are the same reason.

Or has he? He challenges Dina with a five-syllable “a” word: antihistamine. She responds “blahblahblahblah,” which, as he points out, is just four syllables, and, as he does not point out because he is intrigued by her, it is not a word. Dina believes that pictures are not just worth a thousand words, they are truer, too. They conduct a “merry war” between words and pictures because first, it captivates the students, and that matters to both of them more than they admit to themselves, and second, like the five-syllable word challenge, it gives them a witty context to explore some romantic feelings without getting too sentimental.  It can be arch and artificial, but it is smart and funny and Owen and Binoche are clearly enjoying themselves and we enjoy it, too.

Parents should know that this film includes strong language, some crude, sexual references and a sexual situation, painful family confrontations, illness, and some mild peril.

Family discussion:  Which do you prefer, words or pictures, and why?  How should the school handle a problem like the one faced by Emily?  What makes a great teacher?

If you like this, try: “Roxanne,” by the same director and “Dan in Real Life” with Juliette Binoche

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Citizen Koch

Posted on June 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Not rated
Profanity: Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: None
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie, some offensive comments
Date Released to Theaters: June 6, 2014

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the door — no, opened the floodgates — to unlimited and unaccountable political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals.  The case itself rose from a film about Hillary Clinton that was funded by a group opposing her candidacy for President.  And now this film, “Citizen Koch” takes on Charles and David Koch, the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential, and least known of the individuals who have taken advantage of the Citizens United ruling and the corrupting, distorting, and toxic effect on democracy.

The filmmakers make it clear from the beginning whose side they are on, opening with a racist quote from Koch paterfamilias and c0-founder of the John Birch Society Fred Koch, then cutting to Sarah Palin, shouting “Game on!” to Barack Obama at an Americans for Prosperity rally.  Americans for Prosperity is just one of the more than 30 organizations known to be funded by the Kochs.  It then goes back two and a half years earlier to examine the impact the Kochs have had in just a small but representative sample of issues and events, focusing in detail on Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, kept in office despite a recall vote, thanks to enormous amounts of money for an “end the recall madness campaign,” none of which was disclosed until after the vote, when it was too late to affect the outcome.

The unexpected hero of the film turns out to be Buddy Roemer, former Governor and Congressman from Louisiana who has served or run as Democrat, Republican, and independent.  His fresh, frank outlook and good cheer despite being ignored by contributors, voters, and the other candidates is a bracing antidote to the despair and animosity surrounding him.  One Rove/Koch operative refuses to answer questions about the benefits to their business interests that the policies the Koch brothers are promoting and another insists, outside of a Koch-funded bus filled with get-out-the-vote callers representing themselves as “volunteers for Americans for Prosperity,” that his group is not “election advocacy,” just “issue” education.  By contrast, Roemer’s candor — and his inability to get any support — are telling.

But the inescapable conclusion from the film is that there is something even more distressing than the impact of near-unfathomable individual wealth on politics: the impact on public understanding of the issues.  As sort of Gresham’s Law of information, the availability of outlets for unlimited sources with their own spins and agendas.  A group of people take in the anti-Semitic-fueled rant of a John Birch Society leader (he actually comes down on Hitler’s side regarding the threat posed by Jews), and one of them gratefully says it is good to be able to get information from those who are knowledgeable.  Another man, told that the money the Kochs spent on elections is vastly greater than that spent by the unions (as much a target of the Kochs as government regulations and the social safety net), simply refuses to believe it.  That same attitude — and the power of the Kochs to keep this film from being aired on New York’s PBS station to get this story told — is the real problem.

Parents should know that this film includes some disturbing language and bigotry.

Family discussion: How do other countries handle this problem?  What is the best way to evaluate the impact of political spending by all sides?

If you like this, try: Koch Brothers Exposed and Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty

Related Tags:

 

Documentary Movies -- format Politics

Maleficent

Posted on May 29, 2014 at 5:59 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: 4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating: Rated PG for sequences of fantasy action and violence, including frightening images
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: Fantasy/fairy tale peril and violence with characters injured and killed, death of parents, scary creatures
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: May 30, 2014
Date Released to DVD: November 3, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN: B00M4ADWTK

Maleficent

What makes bad guys bad?  We’ve always been told that Sleeping Beauty was cursed at birth by a wicked fairy caught up in a jealous fury because she was not invited to the christening.  In the classic 1959 Disney animated version of the story, she has a name that contains the root syllables for evil and for grand-scale power, a combination of malevolent and magnificent: Maleficent.  And in the climax of the film she transforms herself into a fire-breathing dragon to prevent Prince Philip from getting inside the castle to wake Sleeping Beauty with true love’s kiss.

Now we get to see her story, meeting her first as a friendly young fairy who sweetly says good morning to all of the magical creatures in the fairyland that abuts the human world.  No one is supposed to cross that boundary, but Maleficent meets the young human boy Stefan when he crosses the boundary to try to steal a jewel.  They become friends and, as they grow older, they care for each other.  But Stefan (Sharlto Copley) is ambitious.  He steals her wings, and is thus able to marry the king’s daughter and ascend to the throne.  When their baby, Princess Aurora, is born, Maleficent arrives at the christening for the curse we all remember — on her 16th birthday she will prick her finger on a spinning wheel’s spindle and then fall into a deep, permanent sleep, to be awakened only by true love’s kiss.

Director Robert Stomberg, who worked with Tim Burton as a visual effects and production designer, keeps a more consistent tone in the settings than in the storyline.  The fairy settings are imaginative, with some enchanting details.  Maleficent herself is brilliantly designed with wings that seem part-bat, part-eagle and cheekbones sharp enough to cut glass.  The script feels pieced together and uncertain.  The reason to see the movie is Jolie, clearly having a blast and giving a performance filled with heart, wit, and spirit.  As in the Disney version, Princess Aurora is bundled off to a remote cottage under the care of three bickering pixies (poorly used Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Leslie Manville), to keep her from ever seeing a spinning wheel.  Maleficent cannot keep away and watches the Princess constantly, as a baby, a toddler (played by Jolie’s daughter because she was the only little girl who was not afraid of the scary Maleficent costume), and then as a young woman (Elle Fanning, whose role consists primarily of smiling, but does that very well).  The sunny, loving qualities of the young Princess (enhanced, perhaps, by the wishes of the three fairies at her christening), begin to melt Maleficent’s heart.  But the curse cannot be undone.

The classic tale can be undone, or at least rearranged.  A handsome prince, a fire-breathing dragon, and, yes, a sleeping beauty all come together, with some clumsy switches.  The real enchantment here is not the story but the star.

Parents should know that this film includes fairy-tale peril and violence with fire, swords, scary-looking creatures, and a fire-breathing dragon, characters injured and killed, death of parents, betrayal, and some disturbing images.

Family discussion: What other stories would you like to see from the villain’s point of view?  Why did Stephan and Maleficent have different responses to fear and disappointment?

If you like this, try: “Stardust” and Disney’s animated classic Sleeping Beauty

Related Tags:

 

3D Based on a book DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Fantasy Remake
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik