Elysium

Elysium, science fiction flick starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster was on my list to watch during the holidays – I'll say right off that I was disappointed. I like science fiction movies and this was the second big budget film done by South African-born short film director Neill Blomkamp – he did District 9 a few years ago, so I had high expectations for this movie. The premise of the film was solid enough – Earth in the year 2159 is devastated by disease, poverty, etc. The Wealthy and powerful have moved to an orbiting city called Elysium. Matt Damon is exposed to lethal dose of radiation while at work, so he wants to go to the city to be healed by some high-tech atomizer that can regenerate the human body's many diseases and faults. Jodie Foster, the chief security officer of the space city is there to stop him. Of course, on the way Matt manages to save a young girl with leukemia, whose mother just happens to be his childhood girlfriend. In the end, our hero gives his life to save the girl and the entire human race... Sorry no Spoiler Alert, actually there's none needed because the execution of the story is so predictable and poorly conceived that we know from the beginning what's going to happen at the end. So what's not to like? The special effects were decent, but leftovers from District 9. There was nothing new. The props, the robots, and some of the city footage came directly from District 9. Even the space station looked like a cardboard set from a 1980's Star Trek episode. The camera work Neill Blomkamp is famous for seemed to be absent – at least I was not impressed at all with the visual aspects of the film. The bad guys were stupid... And also Jodie Foster's considerable acting skill was not visible. Then there was Matt Damon – he played the same character he always does...boring... So, my advice is, don't bother renting this film, instead rent District 9 – a much better choice.

The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger, the summer blockbuster is now available On Demand and on DVD. I'll say right away that it is worth a rental and that I enjoyed most of it, but it is also a perfect example of why I dislike remakes. The writers, producers, and director became lost during the two-hour plus movie and could not decide if they want to follow the essence of the old story and characters, or create something entirely new. The audience was left with a mixed bag of Western comedy, drama, and riotous action. Older audiences, like myself, who have fond memories of the Lone Ranger, will laugh and smile at some of the "campy" language and over-the-top acting. I enjoyed learning some of the back story of the Lone Ranger and Tonto. I thought the premise that a museum Tonto was telling the story to a little boy dressed as the Lone Ranger was clever – I had the exact same costume, complete with cap-fired six guns. When the familiar music started to play at just the right climatic scenes, I felt myself galloping along with the masked avenger. It brought back wonderful memories of cowboy and Indian fights in the backyard... Saturday matinees, black and white reruns.

However, towards the middle of the movie, things began to drag and to feel overly dramatic – even heavy handed regarding the plight of Native Americans. The creators of the movie needed to remember that the original Lone Ranger short films were usually never more than thirty minutes long and that we never needed to know every little bad thing about the bad guys – they were bad guys, that was enough for us and the Lone Ranger. For a younger audience, Not indoctrinated to the ways of Kemosabe, Tonto, and Silver the movie must have been confusing at times. My son thought it was all rather stupid – just like Pirates of the Caribbean, but set as a Western. He was right – the bad guys were the exact same actors and even wore the same costumes as the Pirates sailing through the Caribbean. Johnny Depp played the same character – Tonto was Jack Sparrow without the swash-buckling sword fighting. The bad guys in both movies were just as horrible and nasty, motivated by greed and whatever... The good guys tromped through both movies just as clueless without real substance or character development. The acting was shallow. The plot seemed overly familiar. My only hope is that they don't start a Lone Ranger franchise and make a dozen sequels – that would certainly kill the spirit of the original.

The Master

The Master, starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams is a long, over two hours and 20 minutes, complex drama. This is not a happy movie, nor a story that will leave you thinking – there's no blockbuster action or comedic relief. However, this is an engaging character study with superb acting. Phoenix plays a troubled, alcoholic World War II veteran that is lost and seeking his way through life. He stumbles upon Hoffman, the charismatic leader of a postwar New Age religion – based loosely on Scientology, and the life of Ron Hubbard. His wife is played by Amy Adams. The story centers around the relationship between these two very different men. Hoffman wants to save Phoenix, probably for his own selfish reasons, but also Phoenix desperately needs the love and affection, the stability that Hoffman can give. Some of the New Age religion stuff is a little weird and overly dramatic, but in general the acting is excellent, and the story is easy to follow. I was completely engaged and followed the progression of their relationship eagerly. The ending left a little bit to be desired, but this was not your traditional storybook type of movie – no ending would have been perfect. If you like excellent acting, complex relational drama, superb dialogue, and very well done cinematography – then I recommend this as a rental. If you're looking for pure entertainment, fun or action, then you probably should look somewhere else.

The Words

The Words, starring Bradley Cooper, Zoe Saldana, Jeremy Irons and Dennis Quaid, is a movie about a struggling writer who makes a very bad decision. I was looking forward to watching this movie, hoping that it may give some insight to an author's struggle to write and the publishing world – sadly, it didn't. The story was some bit of confusion for me – a story, within a story, within a story. All three of the main characters, writers, or want-to-be writers... left me wanting more information, more emotion, more plot and character development. I'm sure if this story were actually a book, it would be worth reading – as a movie, it was barely watchable. I'm sorry, ladies, but I really dislike Bradley Cooper, though I did like him in The Silver Linings Playbook. He just seems to walk through the film without effort, without commitment or conviction. Jeremy Irons was decent. Zoe was okay, at least nice to look at. Mister Quaid could have easily been anyone else, and probably should have been... And I'm not even sure what character Olivia Wilde was supposed to play. The acting was weird for all of them, but they have to be forgiven for the script was probably a disaster. So, if you're looking for a movie to rent, skip this one. However, if the book comes out, it may be worth reading...

Babe – a classic!

Babe, is a 1995 family friendly movie about a little piglet and his remarkable life on a farm in New South Wales, Australia. After watching the CNN documentary about nuclear power and the Wolverine's newest venture, I was happy to find this movie on the Starz channel. The movie had me smiling the entire time. The animals are charming and unique characters. The dialogue is believable. The farmer and his wife are priceless. The story is well-written and superbly acted – I believe the late Jim Henson was in charge of much of the puppetry. There certainly is a moral to the story, but it doesn't smash you over the head – it creeps up on you slowly and subtly. If you have not watched this movie, and you have small children in your life, please take the time to rent it and watch it together... All I can say is, "that 'll do pig, that 'll do."

Pandora's Promise – time to take a second look at nuclear power

Pandora's Promise, a CNN documentary about the perils and promise of nuclear energy is very much worth the time to watch. The documentary takes a unique perspective – four different lifelong environmentalists who were once anti-nuclear energy tell their stories and explain their journey from being against nuclear power, to becoming pro-nuclear.

The documentary is unashamedly biased from the beginning, but it does make an attempt to show both sides of the argument. The tipping point for these environmentalists is of course, global climate change, undeniably caused by the pollution created by human activity. If you still Doubt that climate change is happening, just turn on the news and take a look at the horrific video from Beijing and Shanghai, China – as well as the extreme storms, hurricanes, drought and monsoons occurring throughout the world.

Like the environmentalists in the documentary, I am against deriving energy from the burning of fossil fuels – oil, coal and natural gas. However, I differed with their stance against nuclear power in the 70s, 80s and 90s. For me, the nuclear energy question was always a confusing one. For several years, when I lived in Gaffney, South Carolina, I worked just a few miles from the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant. I had friends who worked at the plant. I drove by it frequently. I swam in the Broad River, where it was located. I took students on tours of the facility. It seemed like a viable, clean alternative – well, almost clean, except for the nuclear waste that lasts for tens of thousands of years.

Then there was Three-mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently Fukushima. Radioactive clouds, radioactive contaminated water dumped into the ocean and rivers, whole areas of land becoming uninhabitable – the images are terrifying. I think average citizens had every right to be scared to death of this radioactive technology. I believe that, as the documentary points out, large oil and gas conglomerates did everything they could to feed that fear. I had, still have, my doubts...

But, things have changed. If the world population continues to grow, develop, and utilize fossil fuels at the current pace – our planet will be in dire-straits within the next couple of generations. Kyoto protocols and United Nations Climate Summits will never solve the climate change problem... Solar, wind and hydroelectric power cannot produce enough electricity for the demand. And, for humans to change their insatiable desire for the necessities and luxuries that electric power brings, well, this is truly out of the question.

It's now the 21st century, technology has advanced considerably. Our understanding of Nuclear energy has grown exponentially. Many believe it can be deployed correctly and safely. Nuclear power is not the best solution, but at the moment it seems to be our only choice.

The Wolverine Unleashed

The Wolverine – unleashed, the summer action-pic by Marvel Comics is now available on DVD. This was one sequel that I was looking forward too. It was entertaining, but also somewhat flat and disappointing. For Marvel Comics fans it's worth a rental – for those of you looking for a good action film, perhaps you should look elsewhere... Hugh Jackman, as the Wolverine, is always entertaining, unfortunately, it seemed to me like he was still channeling his role from Les Miserables. His acting may have been better if he was singing! He started out as the usual grumpy, grouchy, "I have nothing to live for", super-mutant hermit – the same character we have seen previously. There was even the requisite fight at the bar at the beginning. To the credit of the writers, we did learn some new things about the Wolverine, his past, and he did develop as a character through the movie. However, the conflict and emotions were very predictable. Most of the movie was set in Japan. This, for me, was interesting, but also irritating. Interesting, because I love Japan, I lived there and I have a Japanese wife. So, seeing the Japanese scenery and some of the Japanese actors was fun. The irritating part was the complete stereotypical way that the people and traditions were portrayed. There were the ninjas, yakuza, Tokyo city lights, temples, tatami mat houses, beautiful kimono clad women, the girlish redheaded Japanese punk karate expert, etc., etc. etc. For Me it all got rather tiresome. Nevertheless, the two-hour movie went by quickly and I did enjoy it. Don't expect a blockbuster or something memorable, but it is probably worth a rental.

The Heat

The Heat, is a rather enjoyable and unique buddy cop movie that came out earlier this year starring Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. I usually avoid this type of cop comedy because there have been some very bad ones over the last decade. This movie is unique, however, because the cops are two women. This made the movie refreshing and different, as well is something my wife and I could enjoy together. Melissa McCarthy made the movie hilarious! She really is a comedic genius. The character she portrayed, the tough foul mouth city cop, she embraced wholeheartedly. It took a few minutes to get used to the language and her character, but after that, I totally rooted for her and actually laughed at most of her antics. McCarthy's timing is impeccable. Sandra Bullock played the straight FBI agent. She is a wonderful actress and held her own, even with McCarthy's over-the-top scene stealing. The contrast between the two and their back-stories made the movie interesting and gave the plot some meaningful moments. The action was mostly silly, but satisfied me. A movie worth renting.

Sumo!

Sumo hiatus – Many of you know that I worked in Japan for three years before I married and moved here to Honolulu. That was 28 years ago! I had a wonderful time there and immersed myself in the culture, history and language – my wife (girlfriend at the time) helped a lot – but I also studied Japanese archery and became fascinated with sumo wrestling on my own. Just this year we started to subscribe to NGN, Japanese TV, and so now, every two months I am lucky that I can watch the Grand Sumo Tournament.

The tournaments are held six times a year, for 15 days. During this time, I watch every night from 9 PM to 11 PM – thus, my hiatus from this blog. No time to watch movies!

This is exciting stuff for me, but borders on ridiculous boredom for my 23-year-old son. That's okay, I love the ritual and the history of the sumo, so indulge me while I jot down some of my impressions. If you watch sumo, indulge me further for any inaccuracies:

The feeling this ancient sport conveys is, to me anyway, complex and deep. The sumo wrestlers train in stables (clubs) and have very specific rank. They are professionals – they earn salaries. The Higher ranked wrestlers are treated like royalty. Even the referees, judges, the hair groomers, and the men who sweep the ring, have ranks and belong to different clubs or stables. Sumo is a sport of hierarchy. Sumo is a sport of tradition.

The matches between the 300 to 400 pound gladiators take place on an elevated platform made of hard packed earth. When it is their turn to fight, the wrestlers come out from the locker rooms and sit patiently, on their own private pillow below the ring, waiting for their name to be called. The caller, usually a tiny little Japanese man, is dressed in a plain workingman's kimono, but when he comes to the center of the ring, everyone goes quiet. The audience listens to his powerful voice as he sings the wrestlers' names.

The wrestlers step onto the platform, into the circular ring, wearing their traditional sumo belt – this covers about as much as a Brazilian thong, but it is thick and strong around the belly. Facing each other, they bow, stomp their feet, and show their outstretched naked muscular arms – a signal that they are unarmed, but ready to fight. Make no mistake about it, these are big, strong, muscular men. The wrestlers strut slowly to their designated corners – the East and the West. They are given purified water to drink from a fellow wrestler, and from an attendant, a cloth to wipe their sweat.

After a few moments of contemplation, they grab a handful of salt from an overflowing basket, face the center of the ring and toss it high into the air – purifying the ring. Moving to the center, they face off just a few feet from each other, squat and stare into each other's eyes – sizing up the competition. Usually the higher ranking of the two will break the stare, stand up and turn away, like a bull who knows he is superior in every way. This facing off ritual repeats itself four more times, until finally they come to the center ready to do battle. The suspense builds. Some audience members yell words of encouragement to their favorite.

The referee, dwarfed by the tremendous bodies of the warriors, stands between them dressed formally in a colorful kimono – one that rivals the most beautiful garments worn by Japanese women. He holds a lacquer fan at just the right angle, signaling the wrestlers that he is ready to judge their bout. There's no starting bell ring, gunshot or whistle – the wrestlers know instinctively when to begin. Suddenly, the wrestlers slam together, like huge buffalo during the rut.

"Wham!" They slap, push, grab and pull with all of their considerable weight and might, trying to throw each other on to the ground or out of the ring. Most matches last only a few seconds. They sacrifice their entire bodies for the win, often flying off the earth platform into the audience at the same time. The man who touches the ground first, loses. The crowd cheers loudly if it has been a good fight. Sometimes when the highest-ranking wrestlers lose to a lower ranking wrestler, the crowd will jeer and throw their pillows into the air – either showing their dismay at the loss or their joy at the upset.

When the match is over, the wrestlers return to their respective side of the ring. The loser bows and leaves the arena. The referee announces the winner with a resounding flourish, and often gives him several envelopes – cash reward for a job well done. The commentators chatter incessantly, analyzing every detail of the match. There are hundreds of ways to describe the winning technique. They speculate on injuries and the next day's matchup.

The sweepers ready the ring. The caller announces the next match. The sumo continues...

Hitchcock

Hitchcock, starring Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren and Scarlett Johansson, is a nicely done Bio-picture, focusing on the twilight of Hitchcock's career, specifically during the time when he made the horror film – Psycho (1960). Those of us that are old enough to remember Mister Hitchcock from his movies, The Room with a View, Vertigo, The Birds, and his television shows "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and "The Twilight Zone," should appreciate this movie and enjoy learning more about this great filmmaker. For example, I didn't realize that the original Psycho had a budget of only $800,000, that's amazing considering that movies today run well into the hundreds of millions – and are usually junk... And, I did not realize that his wife was a integral part in Hitchcock's success as his principal screen writer and film editor, or that Alfred was a womanizer and infatuated by his blonde bombshell starring actresses. I did not realize that Hitchcock had to fight the "censors" to create the movie that he wanted. "Too much skin, too much violence, you can show the blood, but not the knife cutting her flesh." – Films have sure come a long way. The acting is superb. Anthony Hopkins does a wonderful job! His mannerisms, the makeup, his voice, and his ability to show Hitchcock's weaknesses and strengths are absolutely marvelous. Helen Mirren was also excellent. Caution, however, this movie has no action, little suspense, not much drama, but still it's a great story about a wonderful character. I recommend it for those with enough nostalgia to remember being scared to death by this fantastic director. Younger folks, less than 40 years old, may find the film boring, unless they are interested in learning more about one of the greatest filmmakers ever. I enjoyed it!

The Man with the Iron Fists

The Man with the Iron Fists, 2012 remake by hip-hop artist RZA, starring Russell Crowe and Lucy Liu. With all of its obvious flaws, I found myself enjoying this decent attempt at a traditional Chinese kung fu movie. RZA made some partial attempt to stay true to the traditional format, but he gave the movie his own hip-hop, cowboy-like feel and atmosphere – I applaud that, but sometimes it fell flat and just seems to be downright silly. The dialogue was absolutely comical. I wonder if the writers really wanted it to be funny? Perhaps they did. The acting was pretty decent, but over the top in some places. I think RZA could've easily made the movie without Russell Crowe. He seemed fat and lackluster as the British expatriate –Emperor's emissary. RZA himself, did a decent job, though he didn't really have much to say. Lucy Liu is always great. The story was typical Chinese kung fu, good guys versus bad guys, with lots of interesting characters in between. The plot had enough twists and turns, and semi-believable intricacy to keep me engaged. The kung fu fighting was pretty decent, but there was heavy emphasis on swords and knives – lots of gratuitous blood and limbs flying everywhere. The music was interesting, in fact, this is perhaps what I enjoyed most about the movie – the fusion of hip-hop music with traditional Chinese kung fu story and characters. Picture the protagonist sauntering down the main street of a Chinese village to hip-hop music, wearing a hoodie – pretty cool if you're willing to just sit back and suspend all sensibility for a while. If you like these types of movies, this one is probably worth a rental.

Blackfish

I watched the CNN documentary Blackfish this weekend, and wanted to recommend it to anyone who still believes that the mammals of the sea, whales and dolphins, should be kept in captivity. The film effectively documents the tragedy of large organizations like Sea World that attempt to keep Killer Whales in captivity for show – there are billions of dollars at stake. The tragedy is twofold – it's a tragedy for these beautiful, intelligent creatures to be captured from the wild and forced to live in prison for no reason other than to make money and entertain humans; it is also a tragedy for the trainers and their families who have fallen in love with these animals and have been injured or killed. I must say, it can also be considered a tragedy for us, the unsuspecting and uninformed public, who believed the myth that Sea World, Disney World, and other aquariums were protecting and preserving these animals. The film is admittedly biased, (As I am), but it still attempts to show both sides of the issue.

I remember going to Sea World as a young boy, totally amazed and infatuated by the Dolphins and whales – their beauty and their intelligence. Yes, it's true, had not these animals been captured in the wild or raised in captivity, I would've not been able to see them up close. However, I could've easily watched documentary films about these creatures and learned just as much. I could've read a book and felt their presence and beauty. I do remember watching them swim in their small pools and wondering if they were "happy." NO, they are not happy! They are prisoners, isolated from the open ocean and kidnapped from their families. They should not have to suffer their entire lives, so that little boys and girls can receive a few minutes of awe-inspiring entertainment. How selfish and self-centered we are...
Watching this documentary prodded me to return to two of my earliest attempts at writing fiction – Dolphins Dance and Sealand 1001. In both of these stories, I tried to convey the beauty and intelligence of Dolphins and whales, and tackled the issue of protecting and preserving the ocean and these beautiful creatures. Please consider checking them out on the Amazon, available in print and Kindle version.

The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby, has been remade and reimagined once again for the 21st century. Based on the great American novel written by Scott Fitzgerald in 1925, this classic tale has been told and retold numerous times: in 1926 it was presented as a silent film, then in 1949 it was created as a black and white "talkie," and in 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow gave the film a good run. There was a TV adaptation in 2000, and in 2002, there was a hip-hop version made. Now, in 2013, Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby Maguire gave the story new life. I read the novel in college for my freshman American literature class, and I think I recently watched some of the 1974 movie on television, very late at night. I was wary of another interpretation of the wonderful book – however, this film did not disappoint me. The producers, writers and directors did a decent job in capturing the atmosphere, character development and emotion of the story. The actors did a fine job, even Leonardo DiCaprio, seemed to rise to the occasion. I particularly enjoyed the music and the computer-generated graphics. These two modern tools gave the movie a unique and dreamlike feel that I felt remained true to the original novel. The music was a blend of 1920s jazz and current Jay-Z inspired, written and performed songs, all nicely done. The CGI enhanced the mood of the film, creating comic book like scenery, fantastic party scenes, and smoothed out action sequences. This all brought me deep into the world view of Nick, the narrator of the story. The visual and auditory effects entertained me from the beginning to the end, even though I knew the story. I especially liked the idea that the movie showed some of Fitzgerald's words and sentences as they were produced on the typewriter, floating and blending mystically with the atmosphere of the film. With all of that, what really made the movie is the classic love story. Definitely worth a read, and a rental!

Now you see me

Now you see me – now you don't! "Don't" as in DON'T BOTHER... I was sorely disappointed by this poorly acted and constructed movie. I was actually looking forward to watching this film. The previews looked like fun – magicians, bank heists, intrigue, and suspense. To the producer and director's credit, they did try to include these things, but unfortunately it all fell very flat. The acting was abysmal – and even Morgan Freeman sucked. Michael Caine was laughable. Woody Harrelson will regret this film no doubt... Mark Rufulo and "whatever" Eisenberg, I don't even care enough about them to spell their names correctly, were awful. The magician girl was bad, and the French girl was worse. To be fair, they had very little to work with. The plot had potential, but the script and the final product was atrociously shallow. We never really got to understand them or their real motivation. I never once empathized with the characters or rooted for them to succeed. They acted and looked like spoiled children the whole time, running around acting cool for no apparent reason. The "cool factor" got old very quickly. The idea that they were genius magicians never came across – their tricks, even with the use of special effects that digital film allowed, came across staged and lack luster. One trick with the stupid white rabbit had me gagging – come on! The writers could have/should have come up with something more original. If I had paid more than the four-dollar rental, I would've left the theater. As it was, comfortably in my bedroom, I forced myself to watch until the end. The writers attempted to tie everything up at the end, and answer all of the unanswered questions, but it was so far-fetched and poorly presented that I was happy when the final credits began to roll. Don't waste your time with this one!

Iron Man Three

I finally got around to watching Iron Man Three, I've been busy lately watching the end of Showtime series Dexter and season finale of Ray Donovan, as well as checking out some of the new Fall television shows. There sure is a lot of stuff on television/cable these days – most of it junk, but a lot of good stuff too. I hope to get back to the weekly movie review.

I was a little bit disappointed with Iron Man Three, I think that perhaps I'm getting a little bit too old for the summer comic book blockbusters. It was fun movie, I have to admit that and probably worth the rental, but it left me feeling rather tired and shallow. Part of the problem is that I really don't like Robert Downey Junior. The Tony Stark character is really just Robert Downey playing himself – I don't see or feel any real acting there. And unfortunately Miss Paltrow, I believe, is just a pretty face there for the million-dollar paycheck. She really doesn't have to do much of anything, great gig for her... The bad guys are okay, but predictable. The plot is old, predictable and seems to be to contrived to be anything but sheer entertainment, which maybe is okay for a summer movie meant for 12-year-old boys, but these days I'm looking for a little bit more content, acting and emotion. I want to believe that the characters can somehow the real or their problems somewhat connected to reality. I found little in this movie. The computer-generated graphics were great, but in some places the action goes by so quickly that my old eyes can not follow what's happening. The different Iron Man robots were fun, Jarvis the computer is perhaps the most interesting character – I'd like to see him grow more in the next film. Of course there will be another... So, if you're like me, and you wait until the fall to watch the summer blockbusters, this one is probably worth the rental. If you're not into comic book action movies, skip it.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Summer blockbusters are now starting to appear in DVD. There are several action films that I am looking forward to... Star Trek Into Darkness, is the one I most anticipated. If you are a Star Trek fan, like I am, and you have not watched this movie yet – rent it today!! When Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner passed the phaser on to the new Star Trek youngsters, I was at first very skeptical. At this point, I will say nothing about the debacle of the Next Generation movies, except that Captain Picard should've stayed on the small screen... However, the first new version Star Trek that came out a few years ago was pretty decent. This second attempt is even better! Captain Kirk, Spock, Bones and the rest of the characters seem much more developed than they did in the earlier movie. The actors have studied the old films, and the nuances and character flaws are all there for us diehard Trekkies to enjoy. The fellow that plays Spock, looked and acted exactly like Leonard Nimoy to me. The action is nonstop. The CGI is fantastic. The futuristic gadgetry is still there. The plot seems to be a prequel to a remake of the "Wrath of Khan"– which I hope is on the docket for a 2016 release (all I've been able to find out is that the next Star Trek movie is slated for 2016 – no information on the plot or title). Granted, the Star Trek story is still the same and the corny dialogue still exists, but I have to admit I love it. There's just something about exploring space, "going where no man has gone before," that captures my imagination every time. With this second movie, I believe that the Star Trek franchise has successfully remade itself for a new generation of Trekkies... And us loyal older fans are happy to come aboard and join the ride.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

My 23 old son recommended Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It is a British gangster movie set in London's East End, during the late 1980s or early 1990s. It is part suspense, part thriller and part comedy. The movie and the characters don't take themselves too seriously, which is good, and the purposely grainy cinematography adds to the comic book feel of the film. The dialogue is pure Cockney, sometimes a little difficult to follow. One scene even uses subtitles – slightly weird, but effective. For an old fella like me, there were just too many characters and the plot was to complex and twisted for me to keep up. However, I stuck with it and in the end it was well worth my effort. I thoroughly enjoyed how everything came to a great crescendo at the end, tying the suspense and story nicely together. The acting was acceptable, the characters were interesting, the dialogue was entertaining when I could understand it, and the action scenes were nicely done. Worth a rental if you are in the mood for a British style gangster movie that doesn't take itself too seriously.

Mud

Mud, is an intriguing title for a movie and an even more interesting name for the main character played by Matthew McConaughey. Set along the banks of the Mississippi River, Mud is discovered living on a deserted island by two adolescent boys. The movie is billed as a "coming-of-age" story, which is true, but also I believe it goes much deeper than just showing the experiences of two boys growing up – it is a story about the importance of love in our lives. Ellis is one of the boys, his parents are getting a divorce and he can't understand why they don't love each other anymore. He meets Mud who is hopelessly in love with Juniper, played by Reese Witherspoon. From Mud, he learns about the power of love, the mystery of it and is in awe of the loyalty that Mud has for his one true love. Ellis has his own experience with first love. He learns that love is difficult, not always linear or predictable, but in the end he learns that love is wonderful and the most important thing of all. A very nice story that grabbed my attention from the very beginning, even though it was slow in pace and lacking BIG events through most of the movie. Generally well written, but there were a few times during this film when I thought, "how did they get there or how did that happen?" The dialogue was good, however the boys often seem to be saying things meant to help the story along, not necessarily what the characters would really say. The visual aspects of life along the Mississippi River were captured exquisitely, and I assume accurately. I was very interested in seeing more about that part of the country, and way of life. If you're interested in good storytelling, this movie is worth renting!

Beasts Of the Southern Wild

Beasts of the Southern Wild was nominated for several Academy Awards last year; I believe Best Picture, and also Best Actress. I finally got around to watching it this evening and for once I'm left without words. They will come, but I'm not sure if they will be coherent. Perhaps that's because the movie itself was not completely coherent – part documentary, part fantasy – all drama. It was powerful, visually, emotionally and dramatically, but the message of the film, if there is one, eludes me. Maybe I just have to think about it for while longer... Perhaps that's the draw of this film, every viewer can decipher what it means on their own – it will mean something different to each one of us. Set in some apocalyptic-like, Louisiana Bayou, before and after Hurricane Katrina moved in, the poverty and raw emotion was at times difficult to watch. The brutality of the characters' situation was appalling, but probably real for many people. It made me realize that we are spoiled, and have little true understanding of the plight of other people on the other side of the levy. The little girl, who was nominated for the Best Actress Award, did a wonderful job, but I got the feeling that a lot of the time she was just being her precocious self and not really acting. You need to listen carefully to her narration, that's where the true story unfolds. The courage and perseverance of her character throughout was inspiring. The father was drunk, dying and self-destructive, yet he was still a redeemable character, loving and trying to protect his daughter in his own way. The minor characters, I believe all local Louisiana folks, were interesting and bizarre at the same time. I know very little of the true Louisiana culture, and wonder how accurate they were portrayed. You may not "enjoy" this film and it won't leave you smiling, but I guarantee that it will make you think. Definitely worth a rental.

The Company You Keep

The Company You Keep, a recent, Robert Redford film just out on DVD did not do that well at the box office, but it may be worth the rental. I found it decent, but not spectacular. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller, but was actually more of a slow-paced drama. The story however, was very interesting, based on true events during the late 1960s and early 1970s. A radical group of young people called the "Weathermen" had splintered from the popular anti-Vietnam War movement and became domestic terrorists. They did some bad things, bombings and such. They ended up killing a security guard during a bank robbery, before they went underground. To me, this story stream was worth pursuing, especially in our current world situation. Unfortunately, the movie focused on a few remaining characters 30+ years later when they were much older, in hiding, and mellowed with age and comfortable with their middle class suburban lifestyles. One of the Weathermen, Susan Sarandon, turns herself in for unexplained reasons, sending the rest of the group into turmoil. I kept hoping for some flashbacks to bring the characters into deeper focus, but instead the story centered on a young, ambitious journalist, Shia LaBeouf, and his attempts to investigate and uncover Robert Redford and the rest of the gang. Here, the story fell apart. He was completely unbelievable as an aggressive journalist. His acting was flat and uninspired, dialogue cliché. I've seen so many great journalists in films, so perhaps my expectations were too high. The facts and breaks in the case seemed to just fall into his lap. He was always two steps ahead of the FBI – which by the way, were also portrayed very cliché and unoriginal. Robert Redford has some bright spots in the movie, but not as a terrorist on the run, instead, as an aging father who loves his young daughter. There is no real suspense; the movie is much too predictable. The writers, producer and director missed the mark on this one. They should've focused on the background, feelings and emotions of the Weathermen more deeply, forgetting their paltry attempts at "thrill" and "suspense." I don't really recommend this film unless there's nothing better to watch this evening! Or, you adore Robert Redford.

Deadwood

Deadwood is a HBO Original Series that aired several years ago. The setting is the gold mining camp/town in the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1876, just after gold was discovered and General George Custer lost the battle of Little Big Horn. Deadwood is part of the Wild West, not yet annexed into the Dakota or the Montana territories. The camp springs up overnight, the gold attracting every type of human being – prospectors, merchants, saloon operators, gamblers, prostitutes, drunks, gunfighters, criminals and common folk. I originally got this series to watch for research purposes – the Gunslinger's Confession takes place partly in Deadwood and the Black Hills during that time. The HBO series served me well for this purpose, but soon I was drawn into the entertainment value of the show itself. I found myself "binge watching" three or four episodes per night until I finished the entire DVD set (three seasons).

I thoroughly enjoyed the complexity of the characters. The writing is superior. Every character is perfectly flawed and conflicted with desires and emotions that make them come alive on the screen. Just a couple of examples – Al Swearinger is the proprietor of the Gem Saloon, one of the original settlers in the camp. He has the foulest mouth and disposition imaginable. On the surface, he is ruthless and only interested in making a profit. He easily orders his henchmen to beat or murder any who cross his path. He's always angry, yet he cares for his whores and working boys with a fatherly affection that is wise and knowledgeable. It's clear that he loves them, and relishes their loyalty. Seth Bullock, another main character, reluctantly accepts the position as Sheriff. He's tall and handsome. He is the silent type. He had given up his job as a Marshal in Montana to pursue a more ordinary life as a hardware store proprietor in Deadwood. The reasons are not abundantly clear, but it is apparent through his actions and the slow unfolding of his personality that Mister Bullock has a dark past. He is torn between good and evil. He works to restore justice, protect the innocent, and make things "right," while at the same time he is prone to sudden unexplainable violence. All of the characters are wonderfully written and acted... The dialogue throughout the episodes is excellent, though sometimes a little bit hard to follow because of the attention to the late 1800s "authentic" style of speech – although, I have no idea how accurate the writers and actors are in their efforts. If you enjoy Westerns, especially the dirty and gritty type, this is a series you should watch. Be warned, this show is NOT for youngsters or the easily offended, the cursing is pervasive, sex graphic, and the storyline is grim and violent.

Oblivion

Another summer released science fiction film with mixed reviews... "Oblivion" was certainly not the blockbuster that Tom Cruise and the producers had hoped for, but it was entertaining and worth a rental—though probably not worth the price of admission at movie theaters these days. So, why the mixed reviews and limited success at the box office? Tom Cruise, a huge star, probably brought a large audience to the film, but unfortunately, he is beginning to appear much to type cast and one-dimensional. His acting is sometimes good, but often dismal. He is pinned in the same niche again. Like Morgan Freeman, who was also in the film, these guys seem to always play themselves, which works well if you've only seen them in a couple of movies, but when they play the same role over and over again, their characters become too predictable and tedious. The story, sadly, was also extremely "used" and uninspired. It felt like the writers went to a movie script garage sale, and purchased parts of several past science fiction movies and threw everything into a blender... Where is the originality? "Oblivion" was just a mixed up remake of so many other End of Earth, Survived the Apocalypse, Save the Human Race movies—there was nothing new. However, not all was lost. There were a few good twists in the plot. The action scenes were fun! Also, the depiction of the future was very believable and extremely well designed, filmed and rendered. I loved the gadgetry, architecture and some of the imagery. The computerized special effects kept me most engaged. The obligatory shots of a totally destroyed New York City – the Empire State building, Statue of Liberty flame, etc. – were tiresome, but overall everything was visually pretty cool. So, in conclusion, If you don't like Tom Cruise, you will probably hate this movie. If you do like Tom, enjoy! Science fiction fans will find the visual aspects of the movie worthwhile, but may groan, like I did, at the unoriginal story.

House of Cards

I finally got around to watching this series on Netflix and thoroughly enjoyed it. It makes the eight dollars a month I have been paying Netflix worth it—I hope they create some more original programming. Kevin Spacey, the main character, plays an ambitious Congressman from the Fifth District in South Carolina, and just happens to be from Gaffney (the small town where I lived for three years just after graduation from Clemson). He is the Democratic Majority Whip. There are 13 episodes to watch with lots of interesting characters, twists and turns, so I won't try to describe any of the plot. Basically, this series is all about the corruption and ruthless wheeling and dealing in Washington, DC. If HALF of the goings-on depicted are true, which I believe is entirely possible, our government is a nasty place—no wonder nothing ever gets done. The acting is superb. The dialogue and writing is very engaging. I particularly like how Kevin Spacey speaks directly to the camera at times. It's not too highbrow or complicated, so it's easy to follow the story from episode to episode. Very well produced. If you subscribe to Netflix, and enjoy political drama, then you will definitely enjoy this series. Well worth it! I

Silver Linings Playbook

I'm not sure why this movie was categorized as a romantic comedy. It is a romantic story, and it does have some lighthearted moments, but the movie deals with the very difficult topic of mental illness in a serious and heartwarming way. There's no slapstick, no gross sophomoric humor, or general adolescent silliness. This is an adult movie about an adult topic. It's a movie about family, life lessons, struggling through adversity, and finding love. Bradley Cooper (best known for The Hangover movies) plays the troubled second son of the iconic actor Robert De Niro. Jennifer Lawrence (best known for The Hunger Games) plays a troubled neighbor. Bradley and Jennifer, both struggling to cope with their mental issues, find each other. The rest of the world doesn't quite understand why they thrash about trying to live day to day. They just don't fit in, and in actuality they don't want too. They feel lost and alone in a strange world that can't seem to accept them as they are. However, because of their common experiences, the two main characters create a friendship based on mutual understanding, which eventually turns into love. The acting is superb! I'm surprised that Bradley Cooper is more than just a pretty face – and showed that he can actually act. Jennifer Lawrence is all grown up and promises to be a fine actress for many years to come. Robert De Niro was wonderful as always... Even Chris Tucker I had a good part to play. The story is seamless and completely believable. The dialogue is excellent. There are no big action scenes, special effects, or big aha moments. It's just a wonderfully paced meaningful movie. I was drawn-in to the story from the very beginning, and I immediately empathized with the characters. I never got bored and I stayed with them throughout. I cheered. I laughed. If you haven't seen this movie, rent it!

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Sadly, there was little magical about this movie. The writers, producers and director seemed confused about the central theme and message of the movie. They didn't know if they were making a serious drama about the state of "magic" in our Las Vegas-centric world, or a comedic satire. The story, two young boys discover the world of magic, dream of becoming magicians, make it big in Las Vegas, become bored and cynical with their success, lose everything because of their uninspired performances and the success some upcoming "street magicians" who steal the younger audiences – was a great basis to start from. It could've easily made an excellent serious drama about magicians and the life they lead. The struggle between the traditional magicians/illusionist versus the new breed of shocking guerrilla street magicians has real potential and depth. Unfortunately, however, the movie relies too much on stupid jokes, silly off the mark satire, and shallow cliché. I think they mistakenly tried to make a comedy, but because of the serious undertones throughout the movie, they failed here as well. Steve Carrell does a decent job as Burt Wonderstone, but his character is so thoroughly unlikable that even when he loses everything and strives to make a comeback, I found myself not empathizing with him at all. Jim Carrey has a great part as the shocking, crazy, and unbelievable street magician – but again the character is shallow and the writers could have easily given him much better material to work with. He just came across as annoying. The movie is undeniably flat. Nevertheless, there were a couple of scenes that I did find enjoyable; the part where Burt met his original magical inspiration at a nursing home during the time he had lost everything and was struggling to find himself, was particularly enjoyable and somewhat heartwarming. Unfortunately, those scenes did not last very long, and soon we were brought back into the confusing world of NOT comedy – NOT drama. Don't bother with this one... Watch something else.

Jack Reacher

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, seems like the same character he plays in almost every other action movie he has made lately. I'm not sure if this guy can act – at least he can follow directions and as an action hero he usually hits the mark – corny and shallow as it may be... He did take his shirt off a couple of times for the ladies – with the requisite scars from past battles that are supposed to somehow give the character depth. This film I give a rating of equal parts good and equal parts bad. Half of the story, half of the acting, half of the scenes, and half of the characters were pretty good and entertaining – the other half spilled out of my TV screen and dirtied the floor with shallowness, wasted attempts at humor, and a corny sense of patriotism. One scene in particular bothered me, I think I can safely explain my confusion and adverse reaction without spoiling the movie for you – actually the part that I want to lambaste a little is shown in the trailer. Tom Cruise is being chased by the bad guys and the cops at the same time. He's driving a hot red GTO – I think that's what it is. The car was cool. He comes to the middle of the city, abandons his car smooth and silky-like, walked slowly over to a bus stop where at least 20 working men are waiting for the bus home. He melds in to the group, one man even gives him his Pittsburgh baseball cap to wear. Cruise boards the bus with the men – end of story. Several things bother me about this – first of all, are we supposed to believe that all of these workingmen were waiting at the bus stop at the same time. What kind of work did they do? Were they construction workers?? More importantly, why would they attempt to help someone who was clearly running away from the police. I think in this day and age of terrorism, the more likely scenario would've been that the men would have jumped Tom Cruise and held him down until the police came and arrested him. The fact that Jack Reacher is supposed to be a good guy, the supposedly super detective, who lives off the grid and who cares about justice, and will do anything to get the bad guys – just didn't come through very well in the movie, and the last scene, just made everything that more shallow and confusing. Cool, but stupid. So, if you like Tom Cruise – watch this movie and enjoy it. If you're in the mood for 50% mindless entertainment and 50% Tom Cruise in his typical role, then this one's for you.

Looper

Looper, has an interesting title and concept, but is not extremely well conceived. I'm a sucker for good science fiction stories, so that's what first attracted me to this movie. Time travel is always fun, and the idea of sending criminals back in time to be murdered and disposed of is a very good solution to a difficult problem – so you would think. However, when you're the Looper that has to finally dispose of yourself 30 years in the future, it creates complexity and problems. Throw in a kinetically charged, possibly evil, wonder child, and there's your plot. The special effects are pretty cool and it's always fun to see how directors, producers and writers imagine the future. Though, the future in this movie doesn't look so appealing. Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt all did decent acting jobs with the material they were given. They could have done without the silly makeup job for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, trying to make him look like a younger version of Bruce Willis – the makeup looked weird. The director has to realize that his audience has already agreed to watch a SF movie anyway, so spare us the lame attempts at continuity or reality in the actor's faces. Spend more time on good dialogue, character development and a realistic vision of the future. So, with all that said, I did watch the entire movie and I did enjoy most of it. Worth a rental, but caution for science fiction buffs only.

The Watch

It was Friday night, and I was looking forward to watching a mindless comedy. Unfortunately, this movie was less than mindless and barely watchable. I was quite disappointed, as I like Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and aliens. They have all made decent comedies in the past, but somehow the four of them together just never gelled. Ben Stiller's character was flat and lifeless. Vince Vaughn was even more over-the-top than usual. Jonah Hill probably had the best character of the three, but his understated humor clashed with the over-the-top bits throughout the movie. And unfortunately, the aliens were just remakes of all the other alien movies I have ever seen. They did not even bother to create original looking monsters. The writers resorted to too much crude sexual humor and weird bouts of schizophrenia in all of the characters. I was never able to truly connect to any of them, and I really didn't care if the aliens skinned them alive for not. It's so hard to find a decent comedy these days that has a real story and believable characters – sophomoric humor and 30-second gag jokes just don't cut it for me anymore. It's a shame, because this movie had potential. There were even a couple of scenes that were minimally funny, they just never carried through to make the plot or the characters anything but shallow shells. I did watch the entire movie, however, at the end I felt like I had wasted two hours. Don't bother with this one!

Love in the time of cholera

Occasionally, I'll enjoy watching a love story, if it's well-written and acted. This relatively unknown movie set in Columbia in the late 1800s and early 1900s, fits the bill...The movie is based on the novel by the Colombian Nobel Prize winning author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Without giving too much away, I'll say that it's a story about a young Colombian man, Javier Bardem, named Florentino. He falls in love with a beautiful woman way out of his league. They have a brief romance through the letters only, when finally, the young woman marries a rich and handsome doctor, Benjamin Bratt. To compensate for the loss of his one true love, Florentino becomes a Colombian "Don Juan" keeping a record of the many women he makes love too. He enjoys the sex, but he's a hopeless romantic, and never forgets his first love. Fifty-three years later, (Florentino is able to count exactly how many years, days and hours since he first had fallen in love with her), the doctor dies and Florentino makes his move. That's all I'll say... Not wanting to spoil the movie for you. The acting is superb, Javier is excellent. The poetry, language, monologue and dialogue are wonderfully deep and yet accessible. The background of Columbia is beautiful. This is not a movie about cholera, it's about romance and the essence of love. If you're interested in a decent love story, not your run-of-the-mill romantic comedy or overly dramatic teenage love story, this will entertain you. I recommend it.

Killing Them Softly

A dark and gritty crime drama set in 2008. Somehow the writer, director and producers tried to make the connection between the 2007 – 2008 United States/Wall Street financial collapse and the economic collapse of a local crime community because a couple of mob-protected poker games get robbed – pretty far-fetched! It didn't work for me. Instead of music or other white noise in the background, we hear radio and television snippets of the Wall Street collapse, government reaction, and Obama's 2008 election campaign speeches... This connection may have worked for some, but it just seemed to be out of place to me. The crime itself, robbing mobsters in their own poker game, seemed a little bit underwhelming as the main plot for a gangster movie. Though, the actual robbery was a little bit suspenseful. The crooks were dirty and greasy, you immediately don't like them. This is in almost comical contrast to the slick and clean Brad Pitt, who played the hitman hired to clean up the mess. Brad likes to "kill his victims softly," without fuss or emotional attachment – but the actual murder scenes are filmed with a gritty slow motion violence that is actually quite gripping, if you're into that kind of stuff. Normally, I find it entertaining, but only if there is a decent full-fledged story behind the violence – this film however, was all quite shallow. The actors were decent, and some of the dialogue was quite good. James Gandolfini (the Sopranos) played a sad but interesting part in the movie – I think this was his last major role. Unfortunately, this movie was a waste of time and a rental. Not recommended.

Trouble with the Curve

Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Justin Timberlake and John Goodman a good lineup for a baseball film, so I thought. Turns out this movie wasn't very much about baseball. Instead, it was about the grumpy old typecast Clint Eastwood father figure, trying to reconcile with his ambitious therapy ridden thirty -something daughter. Baseball was sprinkled around the periphery, giving the characters something to do and talk about. Unfortunately, the movie was slow and predictable. The directors and writers never really decided if this was a movie about a father daughter relationship, a romance, or baseball. The acting on the whole was dismal... Poor Clint, it really is time for him to give Up acting. I have a lot of respect for him, I loved him as Dirty Harry and as the ultimate gunslinger in the old spaghetti Westerns, but recently he has just played the old-timer with failing health, trying to hold on to old traditions and misplaced nostalgia. I still watch his movies, though, hoping he'll pull out a 45 Magnum and tell a bad guy to "make my day!" However, he didn't come anywhere close to that kind of glory in this movie. It seemed like he was still talking to the empty chair at the Republican convention – he meandered through the movie and when he tried to show some real feelings or emotion, it was painful to watch. Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake were not much better – I think they're both decent actors, but two 30-year-old adults throwing baseball trivia questions back and forth is not my idea of romance. Do people really do that? It was just not believable, especially since most of the questions they asked each other were obscure baseball facts that happened way before they were even born. John Goodman was the one bright spot in the movie. I hope someday, he is rewarded with a good leading role in a film. Well, I've bashed this movie enough. Oh, one last thing, I do think if this movie script had been combined with "Money Ball" and they focused on the traditional scouting methods versus the computer and analysis of the modern era, they would have come up with a great baseball movie. On the whole however, it was a "nice" movie and pleasant to watch. If you're tired of over-the-top action films, stupid sophomoric comedies, overly dramatic love stories, then this movie might be for you!

Parker

I was in the mood for a decent action movie, and movies about clever thieves are always interesting to me. I was leery 10 min. into the film, and sadly, I was very disappointed two hours later after watching the entire thing. Jason Statham has made a few good movies in the past – he's a great action star. But, unfortunately the script and story just did not make muster on this one. His attempt at a Texan accent was laughable. He strode to the movie lifeless and uninspired.  J-Lo offered a little bit of "eye candy" but it was not enough to overlook her dismal acting skills. She really should stick to commercials and music. Nick Nolte was barely understandable. He played Jason's father, and murmured and grumbled through the dialogue. He needs to retire. The bad guys were stupid, almost comical. The story and character development never really occurred, we were supposed to empathize with Jason somehow – he's supposedly a thief with a code. That was explained with only a few feeble lines of dialogue and never really was solidified. And another thing, I do like action movies with some semblance of reality – Jason was shot three times and stabbed two times and never missed a beat – "come on man!" If I wanted Superman, I would've rented that. Not recommended!

Dexter, Season Seven

Have you heard of the new trend "binge watching"? It's when you watch a full season of TV episodes in a short period of time. I indulged in this modern day practice over the Memorial Day weekend watching Dexter, Season 7. For you Dexter fans, I probably don't need to give you an explanation of why I would watch 12 episodes in four days. For you folks that are not familiar with Dexter – it's a quite popular crime drama presented on Showtime – I'll try to give a short summary of why I enjoyed this series so much. I have watched this series, Dexter and a plethora of engaging characters grow over the last several years. It is the only TV series that I would ever rent or buy. Each year I look forward to the season coming out on DVD, as I don't subscribe to Showtime channel. Dexter (Michael C Hall) is the ultimate likable serial killer/psychopath. He is a crime scene investigator, a blood spatter specialist, for the Miami Metro. The stories are gruesome, dark and horrifying, yet Dexter has a tragically heartfelt back-story and a magnetic inner humanity. He has a method and a code to his darkness and need to kill, but the series is more about family, love, loyalty, compassion and the complexity of the human condition than it is about murder. The cast of characters, his constantly stressed out sister who is a police woman, his dead stepfather who taught him the code and still guides him, the beautiful and intriguing women who come and go in Dexter's life, the horrible criminals that Dexter meets and kills, and his Miami Metro colleagues, are all expertly written and acted. I think the program, last time I looked, has at least seven or eight Executive producers – Showtime definitely puts a lot of time, money and effort into the program. It's a amazing program, and a yearly indulgence to my own dark side, which I rarely have any tolerance for – most of you know that I am the total optimist. Dexter fans, don't miss Season Seven. For those of you not initiated into the Dexter world, start with season one or two. The show is so well-done, and highly recommended for adults only.

Cloud Atlas

An epic science-fiction/fantasy covering six time periods. Starring Tom Hanks, Halley Berry as the principal actors, and produced and directed by the Wachowski brothers (think The Matrix) – what's not to like? At least that's what I thought before I rented the 179 min. extravaganza. The problem for me is that these type of movies that involve multiple stories/plots and numerous flashbacks and forward-flashes require a lot of attentive listening and thinking – something that I often find difficult when watching a movie. The short duration of each flashback or "stay" in each time period/subplot, and the transitionless jump to each of the different stories (especially during the first half of the movie) made it difficult to remain engaged. I want to relax and be pulled along effortlessly. I don't want to have to stop in the middle and try and figure out what is motivating the characters, what time frame it is, or how the developing stories fit together. If I have to do that, I'd rather read the book. One of the six subplots could've easily been a full-length feature film. However, this movie did have everything – the past, the present and the future. Fine actors and actresses playing multiple roles. Excellent makeup and costumes. Wonderful cinematography and special effects, and I believe, if I understood the whole thing correctly, and interesting story. Without giving anything away, I can say it is about reincarnation and the interconnectivity of our lives throughout space and time – an intriguing premise that I have often included in my own writing/stories. With that said, if you like science fiction/fantasy and you don't mind following six different stories at the same time, then you might enjoy this movie. Otherwise, there's lots of other, better rentals out there.

Promised land

Matt Damon and John Krasinski did a great job writing the screenplay and acting in this thoughtful film drawn directly from modern headlines. They do a decent job of addressing the issue of fracking, attempting to show both sides of the argument. America, especially America's small towns, needs the energy and the wealth the technology brings. It promises to help us gain some independence from foreign oil. However, there is a rush to develop these wells in rural America too quickly. The technology is new, and the long-term dangers are unknown. It's clear after watching the movie where Damon and Krasinski sentiments and beliefs lie, but unfortunately as the main character says early in the film, "the energy companies have already won." Fracking is here to stay. A June 2012 study reported over 680,000 underground injection wells in the US, I'm sure there are many more than that now. Back to the movie – well acted, nice cinematography, good characters, and a strong story. Sadly, the writers decided to put in a couple of surprise twists at the end that were totally unnecessary. I was entertained by the sudden and unexpected twists, but afterwords felt that it somehow cheapened the well-developed first 7/8 ths of the movie. Worth a rental if you're interested in fracking and its effects on rural towns.

The Bone Collector

I watched this movie more than 10 years ago. It was released in 1999. I watched it again, just yesterday, for research for my first attempt at a crime novel. If you have seen this movie and you know a little bit About my health condition, you'll understand why I chose this movie for research purposes. It helped somewhat, but the lack of depth in the back story and the flimsy motivation of the murderer, made me realize how difficult it will be to write an engaging, realistic, and enjoyable crime saga. On the whole, however, this movie is worth a rental if you enjoy crime dramas and especially if you like Denzel Washington and/or Angelina Jolie. The two main characters were believable and nicely developed. The action was suspenseful, but sometimes I thought the murder scenes were overly gruesome and not very well defined. It's not as good as some of the other crime dramas during that time, such as "Seven", "Kiss the Girls", "Fallen" or "Silence of the Lambs", but if you haven't seen it and you're looking for a good, but relatively light weight crime movie – this one might fit the bill.

Lincoln

Awesome historically based film by Steven Spielberg; easily his best effort since Saving Private Ryan. I read that Spielberg took great pains to make the movie as accurate as possible. I'm so glad he took that extra time and effort, as it made the film realistic, authentic and horribly engaging. I believe that it succeeds not only as a superb piece of art, but also as an excellent educational endeavor/near-documentary. If I were still teaching ESL, I would show this film along with Glory when introducing the Civil War to my students. It is slow moving at times and the dialogue is occasionally hard to follow. The audience has to pay attention to the words Lincoln and his colleagues have to say—every phrase has important nuance and deep meaning. This is not a movie to watch if you want to relax or enjoy a roller coaster ride. It's a serious movie about slavery, morality, war and politics. If I had my wish, I would lock President Obama, the Congress and the Senate into a large theater and make them watch the movie over and over again until they learned their lesson and promised to attend to the business of governing. Even though the split over the issue of slavery was divisive and deadly, and the debates were ferocious and ugly, the Congressmen of that day understood that to preserve the union they had to vote and no matter which way the majority swayed, the nation had to move on. Obama and our current government officials need to learn the same lessons so we can solve the issues of deficit, health care, immigration, gun violence and global climate change. I was delighted, however, that the movie was much more than a history lesson and a political thriller. There was a story about a father and a husband that jumped off the screen. The cast of characters was spectacular. Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing as President Lincoln. He somehow channeled the emotional, intellectual, spiritual and physical essence of the man. I truly believed I was watching and listening to Abraham Lincoln. I thoroughly enjoyed all two hours and 29 minutes! Bravo!

Zero Dark Thirty

A powerful film, though it was difficult for me to get through the first 45 min. of CIA operatives torturing enemy combatants, but perhaps that is what the writer/director Ms. Bigelow wanted – if so, she succeeded. I believe the beginning could have been edited to ten minutes or less. However, the wait was worth it and the rest of the movie was much more espionage driven and suspenseful. There is some controversy about the blending of fact and fiction, and the use of torture, but that did not bother me at all. From the outset, I was completely brought in to the world of the CIA and our fight against Al Qaeda. The characters were interesting and well developed, though it seemed the main character played by Jessica Chastain remained the same youthful and high intensity female CIA agent throughout the entire movie. Perhaps she changed emotionally during the 12-year span of the movie – her growth could have been emphasized a little bit more. The plot, which most of us lived through, was engaging and even though it covered over a decade, it was nicely paced. It was interesting to relive some of the terrorist attacks and to be reminded that we are still at war. Zero Dark Thirty is military slang for 30 min. past midnight – often considered the darkest hour of the night. It is also the time, Pakistani local time, when the special operation to kill Osama bin Laden occurred. You have to look closely at the clock just above Jessica Chastain to see this fact in the movie – a nice touch by Bigelow. Hopefully now, in 2013, we are beginning to emerge from the darkness...Definitely worth a rental.

Django Unchained

Quintin Tarantino has created another masterpiece. I enjoyed every moment of this two-hour and 45 min. roller coaster ride of entertainment. I was engaged from the very beginning. I love Westerns, especially the old Spaghetti Westerns and Tarantino did an excellent job paying respect to that genre, while adding his own unique modern twists and techniques. I believe this is Tarantino's best move since "Kill Bill." Quintin Tarantino is able to create a certain unique atmosphere with his movies that no other writers, producers and directors have been able to successfully copy. It starts with an excellent story and superb characters. A bounty hunter, Christoph Waltz, and his freed slave partner, Jamie Foxx, make a powerful and dynamic duo. Waltz, even though he is a vicious bounty hunter preferring to collect his reward with dead bodies, for reasons that are not totally believable or clear, has a certain moral code and empathy for his black partner and his bleak situation – together they set out to find and free Django's wife. Throughout the movie, their dialogue and actions made me cringe at times and smile at others. I burst out laughing during the scenes when the white people in the movie were aghast at seeing a black man riding a horse. Of course, they did not refer Django to slaves as blacks, but use the "N-word" throughout the movie – some critics and people found this offensive, I just thought it gave the movie a realistic sense of the times and an accurate portrayal of the pre-Civil War Southern United States. Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L Jackson, and the other supporting actors were all very believable and did an excellent job. I love Tarantino's ability to create suspense through dialogue and painstakingly choreographed scenes – even when there is not a lot of physical action on the screen, the subtle movements, expressions, and careful use of language create a palatable tension. Then suddenly the movie explodes with violence and gore! Amazing, mesmerizing, entertaining! If you're a Quintin Tarantino fan you will love this movie, if you're not, I still believe it's worth watching.