"Captain America: Civil War" Review

I'm going to give my SPOILER ALERT early, because any information can ruin a movie - something I wish I remembered before devouring every sneak peek I could find for Captain America: Civil War. If you sneak too many peeks, you gain a pretty good grasp of the whole without even seeing it. You can predict the plot.

Strangely, a fan like me often wants to predict the plot, which is why there are so many web sites and podcasts and YouTube channels specifically dedicated to that purpose. Like an appetizer, it tides you over while increasing your appetite, and all the while, you just assume the filmmakers are still going to surprise you.

And then they don't.

It's not their fault. Not entirely. Sure, sometimes formulaic writing and genre tropes are to blame; but again, if I watched every Captain America: Civil War trailer, tv spot, and clip leading up to the film's release, why am I surprised by the lack of surprise?

(Knowing this was another Russo movie, I even watched Community for the first time - every single episode! - because that's how eager I was for more of their work. At least now I notice the cameos.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't agree with a lot of the hype surrounding Civil War - specifically that it's the best superhero movie ever, or even within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For me, Winter Soldier still holds that title. Repeat viewings might cause a change of heart, but like they say, you can't un-ring a bell, and I can't undo all my sneak peeking. My sons and I walked out of Ant-Man gushing pleasant surprise because we walked in knowing very little. We walked out of this...divided. Given its theme, maybe that was appropriate!

However, it seems like I only muster the energy for a review when I'm disappointed by a movie, which is kind of sad and not entirely fair. After all, I only see them and write about them because, under all the nitpicking, I do enjoy them. So as I delve into details, I'm going to try a binary approach and balance all my complaints with sincere praise. I know that's a bit ironic, given this movie largely resists binary, black-or-white interpretations, but whatever.

I'm going to call these warring sides "Team Obvious" (led by Captain Obvious, obviously) and "Team Other Hand."

"Jurassic World" Review

I thought Jurassic Park: The Game by Telltale Games (2011) was a worthy sequel to the first film, whether or not it's considered canon. (Does it really matter in this series?) Not only did it feature all the same dinosaurs and settings, but also puzzle-solving game-play clearly inspired by all the technological challenges in the movie - even an explanation why "Push to Close" is the button for restoring electrical power. It fleshed out the character Harding (albeit a younger version), whose story deviated from his role in the book but explained what he was doing during the events of the movie following his brief appearance with the sick triceratops. Setting it during and immediately following the movie was a great way to capitalize on its urgency and the audience's nostalgia. What's more, it beat the new movie Jurassic World to introducing a Mosasaurus threat and the first on-screen death of a female character (by the mosasaur in both cases, oddly enough).

Despite all that, the game was criticized for being more a movie than a game, and not many are likely to "see" it as a result of that hybrid nature. Fortunately, Jurassic World is a nostalgic sequel in its own right, featuring a more impressive hybrid in the Indominus rex. (See what I did there?)

I loved the first movie and went on to read the book much younger than I probably should have. My copy is so used it fits my hands like a well worn baseball mitt. I must have reread Dennis Nedry's death scene the most, since that page is so exhausted it's falling out. Prior and after this, I was known for an obsession with dinosaurs and often bragged that one of the first words I could spell was "paleontologist." My point is, I went to Jurassic World fully expecting a nostalgic experience, but I also walked out wondering where the line is between "nostalgic" and "predictable."

I wrote my own sequel to Jurassic Park when I was eleven or twelve. Like Crichton's actual sequel, Lewis Dodgson was the villain, but I also contrived a way to get the entire original (surviving) cast back on the exact same island for pretty much the exact same tour. The kids ended up stranded with Grant again, and when he played another playful prank on them (as in the movie), Tim said, "That was another good one!" Fan fiction at its least creative.

Jurassic World does a much better job than me or either of the other movie sequels at recreating the original. (Spoilers follow.)

Angles on Ultron

It has been over two weeks since I saw Avengers: Age of Ultron with my brother and two sons. We made a celebration of it, as it was also Free Comic Book Day. (You can still see the pictures I tweeted on the right.) By now it's a bit late for a review. I've read a number of other people's, though, and here are some of my favorite angles. Beware major spoilers.

Where it Fits in the MCU

Emily Asher-Perrin (Tor.com) reviews the movie "as a piece of the Marvel Cinematic Universe jigsaw puzzle" because it's more successful that way. That's how I've invested since the post-credits scene of Iron Man, which I saw late, after Iron Man 2 was on its way to officially, maybe awkwardly announce the MCU. The first one I saw in the theater was Avengers because the individual characters' stories hadn't won me over yet. (With the exception of Iron Man 3, I've attended every Phase Two theatrical release.) For me, the serial continuity is what's fun, so all the Easter Eggs and fan service are easy bait.

Like Asher-Perrin, I'm hopeful that we might actually get an extended cut of AoU to redeem those moments that feel tacked on. The Maximoff twins are force-fit and Quicksilver's death completely hollow. (And unnecessary? I need to see it again, but couldn't he have just rushed Hawkeye and the kid out of harm's way instead of intercepting the bullets? I guess he was fridged for Wanda's development, which at least flips the common trope.) Thor's subplot is even less coherent, and I understand that Joss Whedon was forced by Marvel to include it. Again, I like when one MCU film sets up future ones, but hopefully not by sacrificing itself. I find AoU more guilty of that than IM2. Even the closing shots of the New Avengers (Falcon, War Machine, Scarlet Witch, Vision) struck me as cheesier than I would have hoped. Was Wanda flying, though?

Final "Hobbit" Review: "The Battle of the Five Armies"

Tradition! For the past two years I've watched and reviewed The Hobbit movie installments as part of my holiday break, so I knew I had to finish with the third and final part, The Battle of Five Armies.

My Unexpected Journey review (which I now realize was actually written on Facebook, not here) was a summary of my thoughts while watching the film. My Desolation of Smaug review was the same, plus a transcript of my second son's enthusiastic commentary. (You can read both here.) This year I convinced my elder son to join us by suggesting he bring a blanket to hide under, which is what he normally does at home. (For him, a security blanket isn't so much a specific baby relic as it is any random screen against scary things on TV. For the record, he's a bigger fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings than my other son.) At the last minute my daughter begged to come, too, effectively making it a whole family affair - not to mention earning us a few looks and comments for bringing such young children to this movie. Don't tell anyone we did a LotR marathon last New Year's.

As expected, our daughter wasn't scared, but bored, and proved something of a distraction - mostly because of how much I worried she was being a distraction. I may have missed a few things as a result. Also, aside from a few enraged outbursts from my son about neglecting to warn him who would die (I did, by the way; we read the book this year), I was the one providing most of the spoken commentary. I'm sure this was mildly irritating for my brother, but sitting next to him in the theater was another requisite of this three-year limited tradition.

So, on to the summary! It probably goes without saying, but beware of spoilers.

Ninja Turtles and Other Mutants: An Illustrated History

teenagemutantninjaturtlesmovie.com

Egyptian Gods. Fairy tale creatures. Mickey Mouse. Animals have always been used to tell stories, but in these cases - and many, many others - they don't just talk, as in, say, The Jungle Book or Finding Nemo. They also stand upright, wear clothing, and generally behave like humans. They are anthropomorphic (anthro, "human being" + morphe, "form").

In these past two weeks, two blockbusters featuring humanoid animals were released: Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy with Rocket Raccoon, and the rebooted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Critics loved the first and hated the second. Neither quite lived up to my expectations. Admittedly, the hype itself was more entertaining in both cases, allowing me to revisit my longstanding love of "mutant" characters and how they have fueled my own imagination. So I give you my TMNT review by way of this lengthy illustrated history!

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

marvel.com/guardians

Background: I didn't have any. I knew Guardians of the Galaxy was the 10th installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and enjoyed the first trailer so much I showed it to my college students.

The Good: For me, most everything in this category is showcased in the various trailers -- upbeat music, witty one-liners, self-parody, colorful mutant characters, etc. Extra:

• The 1988 prologue shows hero Peter Quill about as old as I was then. Thus begins the long series of fun 80s references. Bonus: His emotional attachment is more than just nostalgia.
• Dave Bautista's character Drax ("the Destroyer!" my boys quickly reminded me, informed by the LEGO Marvel Super Heroes video game) struck me as boring in the trailers, especially alongside the goofy Rocket, Groot, and Star-Lord. Turns out he's funny, too.
• I'd counted on my boys loving Groot. He doesn't disappoint, especially in his final scenes.

What Does Disappoint (some spoilers):

• Underuse of the bad guys, most of whom are whiny and boring (although I still liked Karen Gillan's Nebula). Lee Pace's black face lingerie is weird. And in case anyone's counting, this is the second Thanos tease telling us how scary he is without showing us. What does he do when Ronan betrays him? Nothin'. Granted, they have shown us the power of the Infinity Stones (here and in Thor: The Dark World), and imply that he is strong enough to wield them. I expect this to pay off eventually.
• Very predictable and forgettable plot, like an afterthought.
• For introducing entire new worlds to the MCU, it is surprisingly short on "world-building." You just sort of have to accept that all this is going on outside Earth's knowing, even though Earth culture and dialect is prevalent throughout. It's like Star Trek without the lens flare.
• Scenery is a bit claustrophobic and dull. I actually kind of missed the Star Trek lens flare.
• Worst post-credit scene of all the MCU. Isn't the point of these to show how the different installments are connected? Instead we get a cameo from a goofy character most people don't know belongs to Marvel. (Thanks again to LEGO Marvel, my boys were happily in-the-know.)

Conclusion: Win for my boys! What else matters?

"Edge of Tomorrow" Stuck in Yesterday

www.edgeoftomorrowmovie.com

In Edge of Tomorrow, a video game character's ability to reset or "respawn" is a very apparent metaphor (and intentional, according to this Hollywood Reporter interview with director Doug Liman). It occurred to me that the movie's central question could be "What if you had to keep playing a video game until you won?", which at first sounds intriguing. But on second thought, wouldn't it be more poignant and memorable a movie if it made me think about things like reincarnation, resurrection, or succeeding in life? The metaphor inside a metaphor is a bit convoluted. More interesting to me is the premise of a villain that can respawn and learn from its mistakes, sort of like the robots in The Incredibles or maybe the artificial intelligence of the xenomorph in the upcoming game Alien: Isolation.

It was Incredibles director Brad Bird who first piqued my interest in this movie when he tweeted the following:

Sure, he may be biased, being a sci-fi aficionado and having directed EoT star Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol. Then again, he is also the writer/director of some of my favorite movies, including those mentioned, The Iron Giant, and Ratatouille. That, and I was intrigued by his calling EoT "original." He made a similar pitch for Gravity, another movie that won me over and that inspired the amateur film study on this blog.

While EoT is not a sequel or a reboot, it is an adaptation of a Japanese book called All You Need Is Kill, and therefore not original in the sense of a "new idea." Bird suffered a lot of Twitter backlash on this point and so clarified two days later that he knew it was a book adaptation and simply meant "original" as "first film."

Now having seen it, I have to call "foul" on interpreting originality so loosely. As a fan of retellings, I have no complaints about recycling old ideas; however, I personally felt a little betrayed by his and critics' praise for the film as something unexpected and fresh. I did enjoy it, but I kept waiting for the originality I'd paid for, wishing I could reset my expectations. Like Tom Cruise's character in the movie, it's only on the edge of tomorrow because it's still stuck in yesterday.

To demonstrate, the following are plot points or other elements from the movie that draw from existing films (spoilers follow):

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review

I don't worry much about film adaptations staying loyal to their literary origins. Resemblance is one thing, but too literal translations strike me as boring and somewhat pointless. However, I do have a strange obsession with internal continuity.

Last November I reacted to a Days of Future Past announcement by listing ten (or X -- get it?) X-Men film franchise continuity problems and how they might try to fix them. My anticipation continued to build until the movie's release, and all the positive reviews that came out last week led me to believe my expectations would be fulfilled. Was I right? See the updated tables below (which contain spoilers).

But in the spirit of not obsessing over little things like continuity, here are the things I really liked about Days of Future Past (again, beware of spoilers):

1. Singer's signature style (opening and closing monologues, Magneto prison break, Mystique being awesome, etc.).
2. Quicksilver.
3. The joke implying Magneto is Quicksilver's father (per the comics).
4. The homage to Magneto ripping out Wolverine's adamantium in the comics.
5. The futuristic frame story as a "ticking clock" device for conflict and tension.
6. Blink. Well, pretty much all the future team members who die twice. But especially Blink.
7. The fact that Anna Paquin's Rogue has only a very small cameo. (She was my favorite character as a kid but the movie version doesn't do her justice.)
8. The return of James Marsden's Cyclops! (I'll admit I like the actor more than the character.)

A few things I didn't like:

1. No return of Moira from First Class.
2. We wait seven films for an actual fight with the Sentinels (the homage in Last Stand doesn't count) and Wolverine is stuck with lousy bone claws!
3. The strange ending with Mystique as Stryker. What in the world was that about?
4. The disappointingly cryptic post-credits Apocalypse teaser.
5. And, of course, the continuity stuff...

"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" Review

20th Century Fox

I'm the right audience for this movie: I like minimalist humor, daydream a lot, and have a fondness for stories that confuse reality and fantasy.

The corporate villains are pretty archetypal (acknowledged in a cool "Mr. Smith vs. Neo"-style sequence), the "real" adventures aren't terribly believable (I don't think sharks behave like the Shrieking Eels from Princess Bride), and the plot parallels As Good As it Gets in more ways than one (middle-aged single guy obsessed with his work slowly overcomes a slight mental disorder through his attraction to a single mom and by acting as a kind stranger to her son).

That said, the visuals, direction, writing, acting, and music all come together quite nicely. The movie hammers home the "stop dreaming and live" concept, but again, I'm the right audience for that. I like how the details come together in the end, the character Cheryl's meta-fictional line about writing a mystery, and the repeat interruptions from Patton Oswalt. We've seen the "customer service representative as hero's helper/deus ex machina" idea in countless commercials before, but none of them have anything on Patton Oswalt.

"Noah" Review (Binary Style)

www.noahmovie.com

I'm going to tackle this one "good vs. bad" style, mostly in hopes that doing so will help me decide what I think! Don't continue if you want to see the movie fresh, though I'll leave out major spoilers.

The Good

1. The performances. Everyone is good, but Emma Watson stands out the most, in part because her character really redeems the movie (in more ways than one). Russell Crowe's changing hair style is an impressive performance of its own.
2. The plot seems to develop around the idea "What if Noah didn't know exactly what God wanted him to do or why?", or in other words, "What if Noah misunderstood his mission?" The faithful, bible-believing side of me was uncomfortable with that at first, but I quickly recognized the value in debunking the notion that prophets are perfect men and God's BFFs. I think the portrayal of doubts, fears, and mistakes is far more realistic and, in a sense, encouraging.
3. As an extension of the above, I like the turmoil Noah and his family undergo when faced with their own weaknesses. "Survivor's guilt" is a believable conflict, given the situation, and overall, the movie does a good job reminding us that the story of Noah, despite its end message, is a tragedy.
4. Family heritage, priesthood, and patriarchal blessings play a large role in the disguise of supernatural relics and healing powers. Cool by me.

The Bad

1. The Watchers. Going in, I knew the movie took liberties and was completely comfortable with that. (As my wife put it, we already know where to look for spiritual reinforcement. This is entertainment.) I even like the explanation for why the Watchers look and act the way they do, and their redemption provides nice foreshadowing. But they are just too familiar. Ents if they were rocks instead of trees. Everything about them screams The Two Towers, which is why so many reviews are referencing The Lord of the Rings. As a plot device to protect Noah's family and heighten tension, they are far too "stock."
2. I was actually so prepared for creative liberty that I am a bit disappointed by the lack thereof. In other words, if the movie isn't going to feel obligated to the scriptural account (short as it is), why not push the boundaries a bit? Despite several moments of genuine, gut-wrenching surprise, too much of the movie feels safe. For example, why go to the trouble of designing extinct/under-evolved animals if you're only going to show them in vague groups from a distance? Or why not merge the biblical account of the deluge with its equivalent in other religions and cultures (The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example)? The attempt to satisfy both the literal and the literary falls short.
3. Likewise, the attempt to merge ancient and modern worlds is unnecessary (an assumption that the bible is outdated) and clumsy. Anachronistic technology is an interesting idea (who knows what they'd figured out in the antediluvian world?), but a welding helmet? How random.
4. I don't know if the environmentalist/vegetarian agenda is necessarily trying to replace the traditional message about death and rebirth, but it definitely butts in several times. You have to roll your eyes a bit when the religious apology for animal products -- that God gave man dominion over the beasts -- is put in the mouth of the disgusting, overindulging villain.

That's a tied score by my reckoning, so I guess I'm saying I didn't hate it, didn't love it, but could be pushed further one way or the other with a second viewing or a really persuasive interpretation. Because I'm flaky like that.

And while I did approach this film as a very separate entity from the scriptural account of Noah, I will add that, for me, that story is most significant as a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose life and teachings bear a message of mercy and hope.-- a message left intact in this telling.

What I Learned From "Gravity"

Warner Bros. Pictures

This director hasn't disappointed me yet, and I doubt if he can. I guess that means I was sure to enjoy this (biased). Ex: I was giddy over the signature long takes and use of mirror reflection just for being there, sort of like finding the toy in the cereal box. The zero gravity stuff terrified me like I thought it would (thank goodness I didn't see it in 3D in the theater).

But what's really crazy is that it convinced me -- someone who gets anxiety on the freeway or in a plain old crowded hallway -- to untether, relax, and let come what may. The death and rebirth imagery was so so cool (like the fetus shot above). Really. How does a special effects action film make you want to fight to live but also accept your inevitable death? I don't know, but this one does.

So, what I learned from Gravity:

1. To await Alfonso Cuarón's next film with eagerness.
2. That I have much more control over the internal than the external, and conceding this is the key to living long and dying happy.
3. Faith in the hereafter and reunion with lost loved ones helps.
4. That it's never too late to start over -- like Sandra Bullock's character, to be reborn and learn to walk all over again.
5. That an original story with a female lead can be successful both financially and critically. I see a Venn diagram forming....

Updated 3/31/14

What is Creativity?

Photo credit: thelegomovie.com

My ENGL 1010 students have to complete an activity in which they read two definitions of "creativity" and discuss which one they like better. One posits that creativity is "being free to express yourself in a way that is unique to you, not having to conform to certain rules and guidelines" (qtd. in Ramage, Bean, and Johnson, The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing, Brief 6th Edition, 154). The other gives several contradictory definitions (creativity = making something yourself vs. something that's derivative is not creative) before arriving at a synthesis: "Creativity, therefore, is a process.... The less experienced tend to allow for less originality, while the more experienced demand real originality to classify something a 'creation'" (155). Students usually find the second stronger and more interesting because it provides a more nuanced definition of creativity.

All this went through my mind while watching The LEGO Movie with my family last weekend. Though full of laughs and certainly a good time, it quickly unveiled loftier ambitions than I had expected. For most moviegoers and critics, it succeeded; for me, those ambitions were a risk that didn't pan out. I was expecting the people behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009), which I loved, to suspend my awareness of reality through over-the-top goofiness. Instead, the movie's insistence on facing reality made its over-the-top goofiness something only my kids could truly enjoy...as if that's what it wanted. As if to say, "This kind of fun is not for you."

To illustrate my point I'll have to move into spoiler territory.

Can't Let it Go

I did a good job holding this in until yesterday, when I unloaded it on some hapless students almost without provocation. Now, with even less provocation, I'm subjecting you to it, too. And before you tell me I'm over-analyzing, let me firstly agree, and secondly, point out that analyzing writing is sort of my job.

So Elsa. Elsa from that computer-animated musical Disney film called Frozen. Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen. Voiced by Broadway actress Idina Menzel, who also appears in another Disney musical, Enchanted, but for some reason doesn't sing in it. Amy Adams does, and on screen boyfriend Patrick Dempsey does, but not the Broadway singer. She does sing for Elsa, though." Let it Go," now up for an Academy Award, is probably stuck in your head right now. Yes, that Elsa.

She bugs me.

No, I think she's a great character and all. Really, I do. In fact, I wish her role in the film was a bit more pronounced; that, after creating her ice castle, she had more to do than "sashay around 'cause I'm sexy now and then promptly chill out." (Get it?)

I know, creating that ice castle was pretty cool. In fact, Elsa's powers are undeniably awesome. Let's review: