The Men Who Stare at Goats

Tagline: "No Goats, No Glory."

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor), a small-town journalist desperately trying to impress his estranged wife, travels to the Middle East to cover the Iraq War. On his way, he runs into Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), who reveals that he's a psychic soldier on a secret mission. Turns out, as Cassady explains, that in the 1980s the Army trained a whole unit - the New Earth Army - to use new age strategies to fight the wars of the future, led by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges). But, alas, a power struggle ensues with one trooper, Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey), fracturing the group. Using his psychic mind and intuition, Cassady leads himself and Wilton to a secret base in the middle of the Iraqi desert. Apparently, after the New Earth Army was dismantled, Hooper founded a Blackwater-style group and is making major money launching psychic warfare. Ultimately, Cassady and Django decide to sabotage Hooper's operation by spiking all the food with LSD and then they go riding off into the sunset, never to be seen again and leaving Wilton to try to report the strange tale.

This movie is good. Not great, but good. But, if it isn't already evident, the movie is hard to explain in conventional terms as well. It isn't quite fiction, but it isn't quite non-fiction either. (The opening title states "More of this is true than you would believe.") For a movie that seems to drag on at points, it is surprisingly short.

The hazy gray middle area that this movie occupies is ultimately what held it back. Cassady is so strange, crazy, and off-the-wall that I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to laugh at his absurdist ideas or to pity him for his disconnection from reality. At times the movie is artistic journalism, self-discovery journey, road trip, social commentary, and comedy. None of these are necessarily exclusive from one another, but too many of them packed into just shy of 90 minutes pulled my mind around too much. There were even just a few too many big-name actors thrown into such a short script. (And, I'm not complaining, but it seems like Jeff Bridges can now only play "the washed-up ________ trying to redeem himself." Insert "hippie" for this movie, "country singer" for "Crazy Heart," and, probably, video game programmer for the new "Tron.")

Despite my final confusion, I can easily say that I enjoyed watching the movie. All of the leads - Clooney, McGregor, Bridges, Spacey - were fantastic, dynamic characters. The rich colors of the sets and scenes gave a sense of being just on the edge of reality, without falling away to fantasy. The best comparison I can think of is that this movie is like a grilled hamburger - good on its own, but a few more spices could have made it much better.

Directed by: Grant Heslov

Written by: Peter Straughan (screenplay) and Jon Ronson (book)

Atonement

Tagline: “You can only imagine the truth.”

Director Joe Wright’s adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel “Atonement” tells version of the fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” set in World War II England.

In the first act, Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) has a crush on the one of her family’s servants Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), but her image of him is ruined when she reads an inappropriate note he had written to her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightly) and when she stumbles upon the two in a private moment of passion. When another family member is sexually assaulted, Briony lies and says that she saw Robbie doing it, using the raunchy note as evidence.

In the second act, taking place a few years later in the midst of World War II, Bobby has volunteered to join the British army in exchange for his freedom. Cecilia, realizing her sister’s lie, renews their affair and they exchange letters and passionate visits. Of course, the irony (in case you haven’t caught it) is that he has put his life in danger to earn freedom from a crime he didn’t commit. The two carry on a passionate affair, always with the promise of returning to England together.

The third act involves Brioney (now played by Romola Garai) coming to terms with the effects of her lie. She volunteers as a nurse, only to realize (in a very graphic moment) the power of love compared to the brutalities of war. Briony tracks down her sister, only to have to confront both Cecilia and Robbie, home on leave, together. Although it is too late to change much, Briony agrees to write a letter to the court explaining that she had lied as a child. She leaves, ashamed, giving the lovers a moment of privacy before he needs to report to the front lines.

The film has a coda, though, set in contemporary times. Briony is now an old woman (played by Vanessa Redgrave), and reveals that her latest novel, “Atonement” – telling the story of the triangle of love, sin, and contrition we’ve been watching – is completely true. Except! (she reveals) that Robbie actually died as the British army was evacuating Dunkirk and that her sister was killed by a bomb during the Battle of Britain. The part where Robbie and Cecilia meet up was completely made up by Briony for her book, giving them the chance to be happy together that she had originally taken away.

(Phew! Enough plot summary for now? I think so.)

I guess my strongest criticism of “Atonement” is that it tries to be too many things – an epic, a love story, a period piece, with sprinklings of social commentary. If it had focused on one of these aspects, it would have been a much better film overall. For example, although the visual and emotional effects of the scene of Robbie at the evacuation of Dunkirk were incredibly powerful, I feel that this scene did not necessarily add any meaning or depth to the rest of the movie. Although I appreciated that the film did not shy away from the brutal realities of war – Robbie and Cecilia do not live happily ever after – the final visual of old Briony confessing her sins and working for atonement was little overboard. (If you don’t understand from watching the rest of the movie that writing the book and giving new life to the dead was her penance, then you must be dense.)

My other major problem is that the film was too darn literary. I mean, I understand that it was adapted from a novel, but for a movie with essentially three major characters there was too much time spent creating verisimilitude by developing background characters. I don’t mind symbolism either, but too many times in this movie the symbols were so blatant as to be intellectually jarring (such as how the characters are standing in relation to each other in the scene when Robbie is arrested). Even the moment of catharsis – a powerful scene in which Nurse Briony visits a dying soldier who recalls his lost love – is so telegraphed that there may as well have been a caption reading “THE MOMENT OF CATHARSIS – BRIONY REALIZES THE ERROR OF HER WAYS.”

Part of the reason I am so critical of this movie, though, is because it is so close to being great in my opinion, but just misses the mark. I want desperately to hold it in high esteem, but I restrain myself. It has all the traits of a great movie, but felt like everybody – the director, the actors, even the composer – were trying for a great movie. The music, the scenery, the costumes, the performances – everything felt like it was created with Oscar gold in mind.

So, ultimately, I will say that this was a pretty good movie. (I avoid saying that it was “enjoyable” because any movie in which the audience is exposed, in seriousness, to a man missing part of his skull is hard to call “enjoyable.”) I recommend it highly, and I wish I had seen it in the theatre. I just wish it could have been better, somehow.

Idiocracy

Tagline: "The future is a no brainer."

In Mike Judge's 2006 comedy, the perfectly average Joe (Luke WIlson) and Rita (Maya Rudolph) take part in an military experiment with suspended animation. When they wake up five hundred years later, they find that evolution has actually led to humanity losing intelligence. While trying to get to a time machine so he can get back to his proper era, Joe gets into some trouble with the law. Through an IQ test (which, for some reason, is part of his arrest process), it is discovered that he is the smartest man on earth, and so he is recruited to solve America's problems. Joe proves adept at handling these issues - such as using water to help plants grow - and ultimately decides to stay in the future with Rita.

This movie was generally panned by the critics, especially after Fox put it on an extremely limited release and refused to give advanced screenings. And it's easy to see why. The movie lacks cohesion. It feels like a lot of semi-great ideas duck taped together with a limited budget. At times, the comedy is slapstick. At other times, it is almost absurdist (think Terry Gilliam). But most of the time it seems like the set was slapped together moments before filming, while the script was being edited and adjusted mid-scene.

Which is unfortunate, because this movie has a lot of great moments which are lost in the film's self-destruction. Justin Long's great appearance as a doctor is absolutely hilarious, but that scene is passed over so quickly that we barely get to enjoy it. Many of the best jokes are there and gone - Joe's cunning escape from prison - while some of the weaker material ends up being used repeatedly - such as how Starbucks's marketing caters to a more carnal menu in the future (and that's as far as I'll go here about that).

After finishing this movie, trying to find the silver lining, my wife said, "It was good for a laugh." But that's about it. A laugh. Or two. Maybe four or five, after drinking for a bit. But there just was not enough to make up for the film's inconsistency.

Bullets Over Broadway

In this 1920's timepiece comedy by Woody Allen, David Shayne (John Cusack) is an up-and-coming playwright who wants to get his new play produced. But, when the money dries up, his producer turns to the mob - who agree to fund the play, on the condition that Olive (Jennifer Tilly) - the boss's girlfriend - gets to play the lead. Keeping Olive happy is no small feat, though, and so her bodyguard Cheech (Chazz Palmentari) starts to offer advice to make the play better. Cheech's tips are surprisingly good, and he takes on a larger role helping Shayne finish the play, even to the point of betraying his boss's wishes! (There's also a subplot about Shayne having an affair with another actress (played by Dianne Wiest) who is also jockeying for a better role in the play.)

As much as I like Woody Allen's work (such as "Annie Hall" (duh!) and "Manhattan"), this film took me a little while to dig in and enjoy. At first, the 1920's setting came off as a little too cartoonish or like a high school play. The costumes were just too clean and the sets almost simplistic. Once I got past these superficial issues, though - and the fact that John Cusack was playing the Woody Allen role - I was able to enjoy it.

Part of the reason it took me so long to get past those features was the fact that the movie spent so much time in exposition. The characters were so busy being characters - and fleshing out every detail of their personality - that it was nearly an hour before the plot started to move forward. Cheech is basically set furniture for the first half of the film, although he turns out to be one of the most dynamic and important characters. Once Cheech starts to speak up, though, things start to move along and the film takes on a great vibrancy.

Although the movie was technically a comedy, the comedy itself veered from Allen's typical high-wit with a hint of slapstick style. This humor was much more situational and character based, with most of the verbal jokes (such as Wiest's constant "No! No! Don't speak!" repetition) coming off with a dry mock-seriousness, to the point where I was not sure whether or not to laugh.

Despite all my complaints here, though, I want to make clear that the movie had an enjoyable, simple charm. I had fun watching this movie. It did not require me to push emotional buttons or think too deeply about symbolic meanings, but, at the same time, it was was not bland or boring. It threaded a tough needle that way.

I recommend this movie because of its charm and effect. Just make sure you drink some coffee to help you get through the slow opening.

The Man from Earth

From Netflix: “Renowned sci-fi writer Jerome Bixby penned the script for this thought-provoking film starring David Lee Smith as John Oldman, a college professor who reveals to his colleagues that he’s actually a centuries-old caveman. And so begins a captivating philosophical meditation on immortality, the last work from screenwriter Bixby, who earned career accolades for his contributions to such genre-defining shows as “Star Trek” and “The Twilight Zone.””

This film was recommended to me based on my interest in the writer’s previous work. In regards to production value, though, the movie is a bit too much like the television shows the writer was famous for – very low. From the very start, the movie is dialogue heavy with little action. In fact, almost the entire movie takes place with the group of characters sitting around and talking. The majority of the film is set with the characters sitting in front of the fireplace of a cabin, with a bunch of boxes in the background.

The premise of the movie (directed by Richard Schenkman) is based on a game of logic – trying to prove or disprove a point that can neither be proven nor disproven. If a man lived for 14,000 years, how could he possibly prove it? At the same time, if someone claimed to live for 14,000 years, how could someone possibly prove him wrong? Much of the early dialogue of the film is spent exploring this, to only come to the conclusion that one must either accept or reject the premise regardless of the proof. This idea, the necessity of proof, leads to the most interesting discussion of the movie.

It turns out, you see, that John Oldman was, in fact, Jesus. He claims that he actually came preaching the same essential ideas as Buddhism, but that his words were misinterpreted and that it was humanity who deified him into the Jesus despite his protests. This idea is reminiscent of Daniel Quinn’s “Ismael,” in which it is posited that much of the Bible is an interpretation of the natural social development of humanity. Anyway…

Ultimately, Oldman tells everyone that he’s not really 14,000 years old, and that it was just a cruel joke. Of course, we all know that he is merely appeasing them because he is just about to move on to begin a new life before people realize that he is not aging. There's also a "deus ex machina" moment right near the end in which one of the characters realizes that Oldman is actually his father, which did not seem to fit in with the rest of the film. The end of the movie occurs very suddenly, and really settles nothing.

What has been surprising to me is how well this movie was (generally) received by the critics. It didn't get wild reviews, but I was surprised at how many people were generally impressed by it. I was simply underwhelmed. It is based on a very intriguing concept, but the concept itself was not explored beyond the surface level. There are no flashbacks or scenes that take place away from Oldman's cabin. I've seen student-produced plays that have better staging and blocking.

So, despite the intrigue of the premise and the charm of the low budget, the movie was unsatisfying.

Avatar

Last night my wife and I went to see the new James Cameron movie "Avatar" in 3-D. Actually, it wasn't so much a "movie" as it was a "completely different experience." I have never been quite as amazed and awed coming out of a movie theatre as I was last night.

Now, this is not to say that "Avatar" is the perfect film. Rather, it is unlike anything else I've ever seen (although it obviously takes some elements from previous science fiction and fantasy books and movies). Using 3-D technology, Cameron was able to take the audience to another world.

But, before I start gushing, a little bit about the movie. Apparently, in the future, humans are mining some sort of high-energy ore on a planet called Pandora, which is worth a ton of money back on earth. The only problem is that the planet is already inhabited by a blue humanoid species which considers pretty much every nook and cranny of the planet to be sacred in one way or another. Enter Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a former marine who has taken his brother's place in the "Avatar Program" - which allows humans to take control of an alien body and live through that body. The company in charge of the mining needs to get to a massive ore deposit which, unfortunately, lies directly beneath the natives' largest city (so to speak), and is looking for a diplomatic, but forceful, way of moving the aliens. Tensions rise between the scientific team researching the planet - led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) - and the business and security teams - led by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) and Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) respectively. Long story short - too late! - the science team, using their avatar bodies, defects and joins the natives in resisting the human expansion. Sully manages to become the leader of the natives (in a manner reminiscent of the rise of Paul / Muad'ib in "Dune"), and - in a fantastically massive battle scene - manage to defeat the invading corporation.

The movie was well written. The plot unfolded nicely with enough twists and turns that it did not become predictable. Many story elements that were developed early on - such as, say, the territoriality of the native animals - played out nicely at the end.

It was hard to ignore the political message of the movie - there is no question left as to where James Cameron stands on issues like Manifest Destiny or, say, the Iraq War. But that aspect of the movie does not dominate the entire story or drag it down. Rather, it adds to the mystique of the plot and gives it a nice allegorical feeling without coming down too preachy.

This blog wouldn't be complete, though, if I didn't comment further on the 3-D experience. Seeing this movie in 3-D gave me a glimpse into the feeling my parents must have had when they first saw color television - something familiar taken to a completely different level. I didn't so much "watch" "Avatar" in 3-D, I "experienced" it. Cameron did a great job of using the 3-D technology to create a sense of realism and depth to the environment without falling into the usual 3-D traps of making something jump out at the audience.

I highly recommend seeing "Avatar" in the theatre. And, if you're already shelling out $11 to see it, I'd highly highly recommend paying the extra couple of dollars to see it in 3-D. (Unless you have a depth-perception problem, because the effects may be lost on you and you could have spent that money on overpriced candy.)

Sugar

With baseball season nearly over (as the World Series builds to a climax), I thought it might be an apt time to review the 2008 film "Sugar" - co-written and co-directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. The film follows the early adult life of a young Dominican pitcher nicknamed Sugar (Algenis Perez Soto) through is trials and tribulations of the minor league baseball system.

Born in poverty in the Dominican Republic, but with a natural arm for pitching, Sugar is part of a major league development club and, after mastering a "spiked curve" pitch, makes his way into the American minor league system, where his family hopes he can make money to support them. In the US, he is suddenly immersed in a culture beyond his comprehension and ability to adapt. Unfortunately, this is where Sugar's life begins to take a downward turn. In the Dominican, his talents were something special, but in the US he is just one of hundreds of talented players who are trying to make their way to the top. His career stalls, and when another young Dominican pitcher takes his place in the team's rotation, he sees the writing on the wall and runs away to New York before he can be deported. In New York, he struggles to survive, but meets a carpenter who "adopts" him and helps him to adjust to the life he had never planned for. At the very end, we see Sugar playing contently on a Sunday league team.

What was most surprising for me was how much this movie was simultaneously both about baseball (and the player development system) while also being about a single individual within that system. It was quite a shock when he abandons the team two-thirds of the way into the movie, and the baseball premise becomes merely a background to the character. The film was generally heartwarming, and, at many times, felt more like a documentary than a movie.

The core theme of the movie, to me at least, was the unfairness of a sports development system in which people - real people with hopes and dreams and talent - are treated as though they are commodities to be bought, sold, traded, and let go without conscience. Most American boys - boys around the world, in fact - grow up admiring Major League ballplayers. Imitating their swings, trying to field the positions, dreaming of winning the World Series. Yet, too often left in the background, is the flood of ball players who were left behind in the development process. Players whose physical or mental abilities may have wavered at the wrong moment and were not given a second chance.

The final sequence of the movie, I feel, hammers this point home. The audience sees Sugar playing for a local Sunday league team through a chain-link fence. He is smiling and joking around with the other players, although their words are not translated. Suddenly, the soundtrack goes silent and we see Sugar stare off into the distance, and his face goes from smiling to one of solemn reflection. Finally, the camera re-focuses to the fence in the foreground, leaving Sugar a blur in the background for a few seconds - and then the screen goes black.

That last shot gave me major pause. It symbolized that these players, especially the foreign born players raised in poverty, are often left muted on the other side of the fence. Nobody sees (or perhaps cares) about their plight. It rarely comes up in salary negotiations (such as those by Manny Ramirez last winter), how much money will trickle down to those who, by some single stroke of bad luck, may never get the chance to ask for millions of dollars. These players never become part of our collective conscious, and because they are not necessarily citizens, are not given the labor protections granted to others. The massive Yankee and Dodger Stadiums, and Wrigley Fields and Fenway Parks, are built upon the sweat, blood, and aching muscles of thousands of players who hope for one chance to take an at-bat and build a career.

Overall, "Sugar" was an outstanding movie, and I highly recommend it. Just don't expect it to be an uplifting film about the one player who gets the big hit in the final game. It's about the thousands of players who just hope for that chance to make their mark.

Be Kind Rewind

On a whim, I moved Michael Gondry's 2008 film "Be Kind Rewind" to the top of my Netflix queue. Although I don't regret the decision, I will say that I didn't have the best luck either.

In the movie, Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) are working at a little independent video store in New Jersey, when they accidentally erase all the tapes while their boss Elroy (Danny Glover) is out of down desperately trying to figure out how to save his business. Jerry gets the idea to "Swede" (independently re-make) as many movies as they can, with hilariously successful results. Business booms until a lawyer (a great cameo by the great Sigourney Weaver) representing several film companies puts an end to the fun. In a last-ditch effort to save the video store, the entire town bands together to make a new movie about a "local" jazz hero as part of a fund-raiser. Although the money raised falls woefully short of what is needed to save the store, the decaying town is brought together in the wake of their civic loss.

The movie had a lot of potential, but only ended up showing a lot of heart. But that heart carried a movie higher than it should have ever gone, considering the final product. The ending is a bit of a tearjerker at the moment when Elroy reveals that he's accepted the store's relocation to the projects and that the money is nowhere near enough, despite everyone's best efforts. The ending was touching, but, unfortunately, it was too late to save the drag of the rest of the movie. The first two-thirds of the movie were so slow, clunky, and awkward, that it was slightly beyond the salvage of the ending (or even the help of a Sigourney Weaver appearance!).

As a comedy, this movie really fell flat. There were only a few "laugh out loud" moments which were overshadowed by far too many "awkward chuckle" sequences. The "sweded" movies are not funny crappy re-makes, but, too often, just crappy re-makes. Jerry and Mike are not a silly-type of stupid (think Andy Bernard from "The Office"), but the characters are literally stupid - the implication being that their intelligence may be correlated to their home proximity to a power plant. As a result of this, there's a feeling of guilt whenever they do something stupid - as though you probably shouldn't be laughing at them. Over the course of the movie, this feeling wears thin and uncomfortable.

Ultimately, the ending of the movie serves as a perfect allegory for the movie itself - a lot of heart, but not enough to save the entire operation.

Adam

Last week, Nicole and I went to see "Adam," a 2009 film written and directed by Max Mayer. The movie stars Hugh Dancy as the title character - a young man with Asperger's syndrome - and Rose Bryne as his neighbor Beth.

As the movie begins, Adam's father has just died and he is adjusting to life alone in New York. Beth moves into his apartment complex and the two become good friends, and, eventually, more than friends. Beth reads about Asperger's syndrome so that she can help Adam function better in normal society, even helping him practice for interviews. Tension arises in their relationship, though, as her parents demonstrate disapproval of what is happening and feel that she could do much better. The story reaches its climax when Adam gets the job of his dreams in Flintridge, California, and wants Beth to come with him - but Beth is torn between her love for Adam and her fear that she will never have a normal life if she leaves her family. Ultimately, Beth decides to stay in New York, and Adam moves away on his own. In the last scene, we catch a glimpse of Adam's life in California, and it is apparent that he has become better functioning and is doing well on his own.

I really appreciated that this movie attempted to tackle a very sensitive issue in our modern society - the relationship between "normal" people and those with Asperger's syndrome (on the Autism spectrum). People with Asperger's often have trouble forming emotional connections because it is hard for them to read and understand the emotions of other people, and this often leads to a ego-centrism which prevents healthy relationships. In the movie, Beth realistically fears that Adam will never say "I love you," no matter how much he cares for her. At one point, emotionally upset by a family problem (the film's shallow subplot) she has to tell Adam to hug her because he cannot read between the lines of her comment that she "could use a hug." As the population of people with Asperger's and Autism grows and grows, these are essential human issues that must be faced and addressed at some point, and this movie represented a big step in the right direction.

Except, I think, for the end...

I've spent a lot of time thinking and debating how I felt about the climax and resolution of the story. Beth chooses to stay in New York because she feels that Adam does not truly love her, but that he is only using her because he needs her to navigate the complexities and subtleties of society. Yet, I felt in Adam's plea that he needs her to move with him so that she can "teach him how to get to work" (as well as other tasks) - I felt that in that plea he was, in his own way, saying "I love you." Adam's Asperger's prevented him from understanding her need to hear "I love you," but in his plea I felt he was saying what everyone means when they say those three words - that you need that person in your life, by your side, to help get you through the small and the big tribulations and challenges of simply living. At that moment, I feel that her selfish need to hear three words prevented her from hearing the meaning behind those words that he was outlining.

I'm also a bit confused over the message of the ending. Beth abandons Adam in his time of need, but - good news! Adam's even better than before! Somehow, by leaving him on his own, Adam has learned to survive successfully and overcome his social difficulties! Is this realistic? Probably not...

The final scene of the movie has Adam reading a book that Beth has written about a talking raccoon family (one aptly named "Adam") and how "they didn't really belong there, but there they were." What is that line subtly suggesting about people with Asperger's? That they don't belong? That we just need to accept that they are here to stay? I feel that is probably the wrong message - I feel that we need to embrace them as members of the human race and find out how best we can work with them for the benefit of all - to end the "normal" and "not-normal" divisions that plague our social interactions. This movie, in its (possibly innocent) last lines, suggests otherwise.

Overall, I was impressed with the movie. Dancy's performance was fantastic. And, although I'm not sure I agree with the message of the movie, it's about time a movie made any kind of comment on an issue which is very quickly becoming something that cannot be ignored.

Terminator Salvation

I held out as long as I could, but on Wednesday I finally broke and went to see "Terminator Salvation." The 2009 film, directed by McG, is the fourth film in the "Terminator" series, but is the first one to take placed after Judgement Day - the day that the Skynet military computer program becomes self-aware and launches an attack to wipe-out humanity.

In terms of a timeline, "Salvation" takes place after Judgement Day and the first full assault of the machines, but before John Connor (played in this film by Christian Bale) has risen to total command of the human resistance. We are at a lull in the war - the machines are making smaller campaigns to collect and kill the smaller human settlements, while the humans are still working to organize themselves into a homogenous resistance. The civilized world has been generally obliterated by the machines, with only a few buildings left standing and nature generally taking back the territory.

Into this world wakes up Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who isn't quite sure what has happened and can only remember donating his body to science before being executed for a presumably horrendous crime. (The astute eye might catch that the paperwork he signs has Skynet Labs letterhead - foreshadowing!.) He runs into a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and a little girl in the remains of Los Angeles, and together they decide to track down John Connor. (On the way, though, Reese and the girl are captured by the machines and taken to Skynet headquarters in San Francisco.) Just as he is about to meet Connor, Wright steps on a mine which, instead of killing him...

...reveals that he is, in fact, a new model of Terminator with a human heart and brain! This comes just as much of a shock to Connor as it is to Wright, who does not understand what has happened to him. Connor and Wright agree on a plan in which Wright will infiltrate Skynet headquarters and disable the defenses so that Connor can come in and rescue Reese (who, we all know, needs to survive so that he can go back in time and father Connor).

Big twist here - this was all part of Skynet's plan! Wright had been programmed (without knowing it) to go out, earn Connor's trust, and bring him back. Wright, realizing his unwitting betrayal, rips out the chip that Skynet was using to manipulate him and decides to use his machine-level strength to protect Connor. Eventually they escape, but Connor's heart is damaged and, in a symbol-heavy resolution, Wright donates his heart to Connor to keep the hope of humanity alive.

(Oh, and there was a subplot about a weakly organized human resistance trying to destroy the machines with some sort of radio wave which would tell them to shut down. When the leaders of this resistance group do not listen to Connor and launch an attack, the machines destroy that arm of the resistance, and Connor comes to power.)

Was the movie a neat episode in a franchise which had been sent off-course with the third film (forever unnamed here)? Yes. Was it a great movie? No. The plot of the movie moved across long flat plains and would then make huge jumps. The characters were all these confused, introverted people which made it hard for the viewer to have any sort of relationship with them.

The movie suffered from not really adding anything to the prior movies. It seemed more like a fan-fiction story made into a movie. We didn't learn anything new about Connor or the war with the machines. It did not directly effect on developments made in the original two stories, but also did not bring anything new to the table. Rather, it simply seemed to exist in a world that had already been created.

The Painted Desert

This afternoon I watched Howard Higgin's 1931 western "The Painted Desert." To be honest, I'm not quite sure how this movie got on my Netflix queue. Nor am I quite sure how it made it to the top of the queue. But, sure enough, it was mailed to me and I managed to ignore it for quite a while. Until this afternoon...

The movie begins with two cowboys - Cash Holbrook (played by William Farnum) and Jeff Cameron (played by J. Farrell MacDonald) - finding a baby at an abandoned wagon camp near their well. The two men agree that they will take care of the baby together.

Then, the film flashes forward about 20 years, and apparently Holbrook and Cameron have become mortal enemies for reasons unexplained (although there is reference to Holbrook taking the baby and some sort of dispute about the well). The baby has grown up into Bill Holbrook (played by William Boyd before he became Hopalong Cassidy) and has his sites set on marrying Cameron's daughter Mary Ellen. But to marry her he needs to mend the wound between the two old men, and so hatches some sort of plan involving tungsten mining.

Of course, the malicious cowboy Rance Brett (played by Clark Gable in his first speaking role) has recently stumbled into town and also set his sights on Mary Ellen, it seems. Brett sets about sabotaging Bill's plans and generally causing spite and anger between the two old men. Bill realizes Brett's plan, but not before the two old men wander through town - somehow building tension - looking to duel each other. At the last moment, Bill jumps between the dueling old men and ends up shot, although not mortally, and the two men see the error of their feud.

This movie had a lot of heart, and showed a lot of promise. Somehow, the promise never quite paid off. The characters fell flat, and there were quite a few plot holes and leaps of logic taken in the 75 minute film. The movie never explains what drove the two men apart, except that they both wanted to raise the boy as their own. There is little to no action, and the most exciting scene merely consists of the two old men wandering around the shanty town trying to find each other so they can duel. In the context of a very early western, it succeeded at presenting a genre film with genre tropes and elements. But by modern standards, it does not hold up.

Juno

So, I finally broke down and saw Jason Reitman's 2007 film "Juno" - mainly because Nicole wanted me to.

The movie follows the pregnancy and related life-changes of a teenage girl named Juno (Ellen Page). Not only does she have to deal with her pregnancy, but also the complexities of giving the baby up for adoption as well as the typical challenges of being an American teenager. She decides to give her baby to a young couple - Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) - whose marriage then proceeds to fall apart. In the end, she gives away the baby to the suddenly-single Vanessa, and then realizes that she is in love with the father of the child. The end.

There is a moment very early in the film in which Juno's father, just informed of her pregnancy, says that he thought she was the kind of girl who knew when to say when. Juno responds by saying "I don't know what kind of girl I am."

Frankly, that's how I felt about the whole movie. I could not tell which way it was going or what kind of message I was supposed to be getting out of it. Was it supposed to be a realistic drama about teenage pregnancy? Was it supposed to be a comedy? A tragedy? A romance? (I pretty well eliminated sci-fi adventure after the first scene.)

As a realistic drama, it failed. The character of Juno was completely unbelievable. No high school junior is familiar with Iggy and the Stooges, the Carpenters, Sonic Youth, Mott the Hoople and is completely comfortable referring to the early seventies as "Punk, Volume One" as well as readily referring to McSweeney's (among her many other underground cultural references). She had the witty comeback and the right thing to say simply too often to be believable. Her parents were even less believable, leaving reality the moment they said that they couldn't believe she was pregnant because they were expecting her to have a DWI or be into hard drugs. Let's face it - no parent would act so casually so soon after hearing that kind of news from their teenage daughter.

As a comedy, it failed. Rainn Wilson and Michael Cera are great at what they do in their other movies and TV shows (well, maybe not Rainn Wilson in his movies), but in this movie their performances seemed forced and fell flat. Rainn Wilson's only scene was shown, nearly in its entirety, in the trailer, and seemed only there to leverage his star power from "The Office." Michael Cera, meanwhile, wasn't given nearly enough screen time to do anything meaningful, except eat Tic-Tacs, or have any impact on the film (but more on that a little later on in this post).

As a film tragedy (perhaps tragedy is the wrong word - character piece?) about the trials and tribulations of a pregnant teenage girl, it failed. Juno cries or shows any major emotion about her situation once (maybe twice) in the entire film. Instead, she spends most of her time showing off how hip she is (or, rather, how hip the writer and director are to include the references) and occasionally complaining about how much she has to pee. I'm not saying that I wanted the baby to die or anything, but a little bit of suffering - or even some discomfort - would have been a bit more appropriate. Instead of any sort of panic or worry when her water breaks, she once again takes the chance to show off how cool she is by referencing the Thundercats when she needs to leave.

Finally, as a romance, it fell completely flat. Juno's romantic interest is her best friend Bleeker (played by Michael Cera), who also happens to be the father of the baby. Yet, he only appears in a handful of scenes. Which is what makes it so surprising that the big cathartic moment in the resolution is when Juno realizes that she is truly in love with Bleeker, and they go playing guitar together happily ever after. I didn't see that coming - mainly because that subplot was so insignificant for the entire movie up until that point!

So - what kind of movie was "Juno" then? (And if anyone says anything like "it was an indie movie," I'm going to pummel them with a truckload of DVDs of the movie!) I'm not quite sure. And that leaves a really dissatisfying taste in my mouth.

Gran Torino

Last night I watched Clint Eastwood's 2008 film "Gran Tornio" (which he both starred in and directed). I have to say that, despite my initial misgivings (mainly Eastwood playing the same character he's played in a thousand other films), the movie was pleasantly surprising.

Although the previews portrayed the movie as a simple movie about an old man griping about changes in the demographics of his Detroit neighborhood, the previews fail to even hint at the complexities and depth of the characters.

Yes, Eastwood does play an old man - Walt Kowalski - griping about the changes in demographics of his Detroit neighborhood, but that premise is over with after the first thirty minutes of the movie. From there it moves to developing his relationship with his new neighbors, especially the two young adults - Thau and Sue. Thau gets into a little gang trouble with his no-good gangbanger cousin, but Walt, being a righteous, hard-working, and old-fashioned American, tries to steer Thau into a more traditional adulthood. The two sides violently clash (literally and figuratively), and, without spoiling anything, Walt reveals a side of himself nobody believed existed.

My only real problem with this movie, until the last few scenes, was that I had felt I had seen the entire thing before, except in the old west instead of Detroit and titled "Unforgiven" instead of "Gran Torino." The major differences in the end make up for the striking similarities, though.

Of course, the highlight of the movie is Clint Eastwood in his gritty, growling, snarling, insult-hurling best, especially now that he's almost eighty. One of my favorite moments is when Walt happens upon a couple of gang members harassing his neighbor, Sue. He steps out of his car, confronts the assailants by saying, in a gravely voice, "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? [At this points Walt spits on the ground and stares coldly before continuing] That's me."

Rumor is that Eastwood has proclaimed that "Gran Torino" was to be his final acting performance. If so, he certainly went out on the top of his game doing exactly what he did best. But I hope that the rumor isn't true, because it would be very hard for me to believe that the man who portrayed Walt Kowalski - as well as "the Man with No Name" and Dirty Harry - could ever just quit and walk away, or ever stay down for very long.

Run Fatboy Run

I must admit that I didn't expect much from "Run Fatboy Run" (2007) when I threw it in the DVD player last night. I figured it would be simple, corny, and filled with dry attempts at edgy humor. And, to an extent, my expectations came true. But the movie also had a simple, heart-warming charm that I was not expecting, and which made it an enjoyable film.

It stars Simon Pegg as Danny, a somewhat overweight, lowlife of a man who has major trouble with commitment - running away from his pregnant would-be bride, Libby, moments before the wedding. He is trying to re-spark the relationship with his ex-fiance, when, surprise surprise, he finds out that she has taken on a new lover - the very wealthy and in-shape Whit (played by Hank Azaria). Danny decides to prove that he has matured enough to commit by running in the same marathon as Whit.

Where I feel the movie gains its real charm, though, is through its minor characters and (albiet weak) subplots. Danny and Whit are vying for the affection of both Libby and her son - Danny with humor and Whit with an endless supply of money (and all the things money can buy). Danny's best friend Gordon (Dylan Moran) has a gambling problem, but has managed to wager his entire debt to the underworld on whether Danny can complete the marathon. The sultry daughter of Danny's landlord wagers with Danny that she will forgive all of his past-due rent if he can complete the race, but that she'll evict him immediately if he doesn't. But his kind landlord takes it upon himself to become Danny's "assistant coach" and motivate his training with a swift spatula in the rear-end.

Have I mentioned that this little heartwarmer was directed by non-other than Ross from "Friends"? That's right - this film was the big-screen directorial debut for David Schwimmer. The screenplay was also written in-house (at least, collaboratively) by Simon Pegg.

Most of the people involved in this movie have been a part of bigger and better things. This movie doesn't necessarily mark a low-point in their careers. More of a side project that became overshadowed by everything else surrounding it.

Ghostbusters

I went to see "Ghostbusters" and the local "indie" theatre last night, and somehow it took me by surprise at how good of a movie it actually was. Even after 25 years, the jokes are still fresh, the characters still seem real, and even the effects have held up pretty well.

The four main Ghostbusters, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Akroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) are perhaps the most believable team of Ghostbusters that could have possibly been assembled. Stantz and Spenger represent the heart and the brains of the operation (respectively), with Venkman being the salesman who can actually deal with the public. The small details of their characters are perfectly formed, and their interactions throughout the film do not seem forced but feel as though they've been friends and colleagues for years - except for Winston, who fits in well as the new guy who gets caught up in the storm. The hardest character for me to believe this time around was Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) - she comes off as too cold and simple, and misses some of the finer touches of a well-defined character.

On the big screen, I noticed some interesting details that I had never seen before. In the kitchen scene (when the eggs cook on the counter), a bag of Stay Puft Marshmallows can be seen on the counter. Later, when panning the city skyline, a billboard for Stay Puft Marshmallows can be seen on the side of a building. Although these details are largely unnoticed, they subtly set the stage for the climactic appearance Gozer the Destructor in the form of The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

To say that I grew up on this film (and its many franchises) would be a gross understatement - I just recently got the video game for Wii, fulfilling a life long dream of blasting ghosts! I look forward to watching this movie again and again, through its fiftieth anniversary, and warmly embracing any new additions to the series.

Alien

I re-watched the 1979 science fiction / horror movie "Alien" the other day, and it only reminded me of what a great movie it actually is. Sure, it's not "Casablanca" (and Sigourney Weaver is sure no Humphrey Bogart), but it definitely has all the small things right which helped turn it into a cult classic.

Watching it this time around, I was struck by two things: 1) The quiet of the movie, and 2) the great use of plot twists.

I was surprised how closely the movie stuck to it's tagline - "In space, no one can hear you scream." In fact, the movie itself is eerily quiet, considering that it features an acid-bleeding monster and several death scenes. There's no major explosions, no huge gun fights, and very little screaming. Instead, the movie lets the silence seep in and absorb you, which makes the occasional loud noise very striking and haunting. For example, in the scene in which the captain, Dallas (played by Tom Skerritt), is tracking down the alien in the ventilation system, the "blip" on the motion monitor of the alien running at him is much creepier than booming footsteps or horror movie music. The same goes for the scene in which Ripley has set the ship to self-destruct, and the alarm system constantly blares in the background for five minutes - without any other sounds, the alarm becomes eerily ambient.

In regards to the plot twists - this movie hits all the great ones, including the classic chest-bursting sequence. There is also a great moment when Ripley, taking command, checks the ship's computer to determine how to handle the situation, only to find that the science officer had received orders to bring the alien back to earth alive as the primary objective with the note "Crew expendable" (at which point the camera pulls back to reveal the science officer standing right behind her, reading over her shoulder).

Although this movie spawned (no pun intended) many sequels, the chain went significantly downhill after the second film ("Aliens"), and this progenitor stands out far above the rest.