Guardians of the Galaxy

So ... I've seen Guardians of the Galaxy four times. In the theater.

I don't think I've ever done that with any first-run movie.

By way of comparison, I'm a huge Captain America fan -- and not casually. Not casually at all.

I've been a fan and reader of all things Cap for thirty-plus years, and my love for the character and ideals and challenges wrapped in that mythos is deep and informed, well-considered, and oft-wrestled-with.

I liked Captain America: The Winter Soldier a lot. A lot a lot. And I saw it in the theater. One time.

I didn't plan on seeing GotG so many times. It just ... happened.

Sure, I'm a Guardians of the Galaxy franchise fan -- From the original crew, to the great great Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning stuff. *

The first time I saw the movie, it was with a fellow franchise fan on opening weekend.
(I like to see films with genre friends who will appreciate the awesome when the films are great, and weep with me when they're not.)

The second time I saw the flick, it was when I took my game studio to see it (it was a topical team-building opportunity, plus I wanted to do a big old "told-you-so" in response to nearly 2 years of derision for my bold summer of 2012 announcement that "Guardians is what 2014 is going to be about").

The third time I saw the film, I took my lovely wife. Because I love her. And because I wanted to share with her a recent pop culture offering that I love. She was skeptical -- and she loved it.

Fourth time? Took my brother, who doesn't get as much time as he'd like to see first-run movies (the dude's usually off working to find a cure for cancer.)

I'll probably even go a fifth time, and take my oldest daughter.

My daughter's maturing, and The Guardians of the Galaxy is a more mature film than other Marvel Studios films (this is different than offerings like Ang Lee's Hulk or Iron Man 3, where the young audience arguably had to be a little more mature to safely view them).

The criticism a comic colleague leveraged on the film was "it feels a bit like James Gunn was out to make a popular film."

Fair enough.

And, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

Do you know how hard it is to make a film that appeals to action fans and fantasy fans and sci-fi fans and space opera fans and comic book fans and introverts and extroverts and people who do/don't like animals and the non-genre masses and men and women and ... ?

You don't set out knowing you're going to make Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Empire Strikes Back or The Wrath of Khan or Ferris Bueller's Day Off or ...

Rant aside (and a bit because of it), this seeing-a-movie-four-times-going-on-five gives me pause.

What is going on here?

It was after the fourth viewing it started to make sense. And then it codified a bit after I wrote up some thoughts on the movie soundtrack, the "Guardians of the Galaxy: Awesome Mix Vol.1". **

Guardians of the Galaxy fires on all cylinders (that makes sense when you see it; and if you don't, I can't make that real for you).

Aside from firing on all cylinders, the movie is "that thing I want to share with people."

It's like a mix tape.

I've made a lot of mix tapes. I made mix tapes that had and deep and poignant meaning to me; of course they did -- I made them to talk to and yell at and echo my euphoria or heartbreak or romanticism or unfathomable teen angst or whatever.

Did you ever get a mix tape from someone else? And it was amazing? And it resonated with you and it was more moving and refreshing because it was new -- You didn't have a hand in it, but it was hand-crafted and had meaning and it still hit you where you lived? And you were shocked that it was so amazing? And that made it more amazing?

And then you shared that unlooked-for mix tape with someone else, and they "got it", too, and you had this amazing, simpático conversation about why you both got it and you both got why it mattered and you both got why it was awesome?

Guardians of the Galaxy is like that. For me.

(Oh, and evidently for a ton of other folks, too.) ***

* (I've stayed reading even through the new stuff, but quite frankly, comparatively it's been a bit slow and hollow. It does seem to be picking up, though.)

** For those that know and love me, a vinyl version is being release this month. F***ing vinyl, man!

*** And that's after a shortened 4-week summer run. Ooga-chaka.

Pacific Rim

I've been raving about Pacific Rim since I saw it opening weekend, and didn't realize I hadn't yet written about it.

It's a fantastic, big-robots versus giant monster film, has the requisite Guillermo Del Toro visual panache, and is a needed film.

(What?)

I avoid reviews before movies, but I remember after seeing them movie hearing a phrase from one reviewer who said, "This is exactly the kind of movie we need" -- And that resonated with me.

I don't know what his/her meaning was, but for me, movie going has changed for the (far) worse over the years. Theaters not being competitive (not running their establishments like a business), spoilers rampant and tough to avoid on social media streams before the movie even comes out, disrespect and distraction from audience members during a showing, etc.

(Thank goodness for Alamo Drafthouse.)

But then Pacific Rim comes out.

It's a movie meant to be seen in the theater, and it drove people to the theater. It's a genre film, and that genre is "anime mecha" (cartoon giant robots). And it delivered a live-action version of that genre in a brilliant way that pulled in the Neon Genesis Evangelion crowd, and the crowd for which that esoteric franchise isn't accessible or attractive.

It pulled off tropes from Japanese action cartoons in a live-action film, and did so not only believably, but in a way that made people cheer out loud in theaters.

Charlie Hunnam as the lead is solid. Charlie Day is engaging as not over-the-top comedy relief. Rinko Kikuchi is empathy-grabbing without being maudlin -- I would love love love to see a Breakfast at Tiffany's remake with her as Holly Golightly, or My Fair Lady with Ms. Kikuchi as Eliza Doolittle. (Give me a moment.)

And  Idris Elba? Totally sells cancelling the apocalypse. Every time.

It's a fun film to see in digital 2D. And IMAX. And D-Box. Multiple times.

(And I'm hopeful for a director's cut with tons of extras.)

Star Trek Into Darkness

We took the entire studio to see Star Trek Into Darkness Friday.

The consensus from the team it's "great fun".

It's hard to talk about the film without spoilers (and I think it's important to avoid those spoilers), but it's enough to say the film stands on its own, is a strong successor to the previous film, and has a lot of great (and clever) nods to original series and films.

The movie is getting a little critically dinged for various reasons -- "More of the same", "predictable", "too sentimental", etc. -- None of which I agree with. (Besides, it seems like critics feel the need to be critical.)

As matter of fact, I consider Into Darkness a genre success along the lines of The Dark Night -- Not just a great genre flick, but a great film (independent of genre).

"More the same"? Sort of, if you mean, "More of the same fresh take on the Star Trek universe", or "More of J.J. Abrams's Awesome Sauce".

"Predictable"? OK, so I've got a minor beef with the big conceit I saw teased at the beginning, and then got beat over the head with a couple of other times, but outside of that, there's a difference between "predictable" and "artfully constructed".

It is Abrams, after all. From Alias to Lost to Revolution, part of his signature magic is constructing "zomigosh what now?" scenarios, and then doing something amazing inside of that.

He also gets amazing, amazing things out of actors. If anyone had other than him had picked Zachary Quinto (Hero's Siler) to be Spock, I might have been nervous (arguably unfairly). But not with Abrams at the helm. As an actor myself, I get excited by the range and language and emotion Abrams pushed from Quinto (and the challenge to which Quinto rose). Consistently, Abrams gets greatness from his team.

(And not just Abrams; I'd enjoy being on any project written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, or Damon Lindelof; and I'm sure Abrams doesn't surround himself with slouches in any production discipline.)

Additional actor-wise, Chris Pine's not just dreamy eyes -- the guy can act. His subtle and grand emoting in response to small and big things is a joy to watch. And Zoe Zaldana gives Uhura amazing range, Karl Urban is Bones McCoy, John Cho shows he's so much more than Harold & Kumar (and a ridiculously hard-working actor), Simon Pegg humbles me with his quickness and range, and Bruce Greenwood is so accessible and stately as Pike -- brilliant to watch. I'm hoping there's a director's cut showing a lot more of what Alice Eve can do; aside from the eye-candy role she serves in this film, there are teases as some real depth there.

And Benedict Cumberbatch? I was already a fan of his (thanks to "Sherlock" and otters), but he shows surprising range in this film. Can't say too much without spoilers, but he's fun to watch throughout.

Honestly, there's a point in the film where I felt emotion welling up. It wasn't about the scene in the movie -- It was this joy of a summer genre film package coming together with acting and writing and directing and genre tropes and honor to legacy and being its own thing. And doing so exquisitely.

So, yeah -- It's a recommended see.

Oblivion

Saw Oblivion this weekend.

I'm not going to say a lot concretely about the film, because it has some fun twists and nuances for folks who have done their best to avoid spoilers.

I definitely put it in the "very good movie" category. I was looking forward to great visuals -- especially after meeting one of the members of the visual team last week -- and the film more than delivered. The entire "futuristic ruin" aesthetic really works for me. The technology (all three kinds) are very internally cohesive, and the smooth white aesthetic in particular is pulled of well (think "TRON in the daytime", and avoiding the dirty-ish Mad Max vibe).

The scenery from Iceland and June Lake (California) are absolutely gorgeous, and make me ache for my Idaho / Montana / Wyoming stomping grounds (but not at all for Cali).

I have minor quibbles with some of the art (buildings on top of angled spires? Earth and rubble pulled up after the events that devastate the earth?) -- But they are minor quibbles, and there are fictional elements that address those quibbles. A bit.

There's much more plot and story than I expected. I got wrapped into several of the emotional threads, and they feel authentic.

There's some really nice interpersonal messiness. Relationships are messy, and I like to see filmic treatments of that messiness -- both analogous to the things we all do as we try to make this important stuff work in the real world, and allegorical treatments of relationship friction.

Actor-wise, this is one my top-3 Tom Cruise films (along with Collateral and Jack Reacher). Andrea Riseborough is wonderful in an understated, conflicted way. I would have loved to see more of Ukrainian-born Olga Kurylenko, but there is a wonderful, moving, subtle scene during a meal that shows the depth and connection of this actress. I hope there's a director's cut with more scenes from Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, because as it is, his scenes feel a little ham-fisted (but not in a Ralph Fiennes chewing up scenery in Clash of the Titans way; more like in a "scenes that build to import were edited out" way). And I could watch Morgan Freeman sit and read a phone book, so there's my bias there.

I'm also really digging Joseph Kosinski as a director. First TRON Legacy, then Oblivion, and (soon) the TRON sequel. I'm looking for more goodness from Mr. Kosinski, and hope I get to be a part of it in some way.

And for those who are fans of the graphic novel source material, this is a really a good treatment of that originating story. And kudos to Radical Publishing -- Oblivion this year, and then Hercules: Thracian Wars looks to be great fun in the movie version in 2014. Now, if I could just get a Freedom Formula movie (or make a game for it) ...

So, yes -- Oblivion is a worthwhile watch, especially in the theater. I'll probably see it a second time in IMAX,  because unlike TRON: Legacy (where the film was opened up to full-frame for 40 minutes of the movie), the entire Oblivion film was shot in full-frame, probably making digital IMAX the preferred viewing experience.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I saw the Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and I am deeply impressed.

I honestly was expecting a great movie. I was not expecting a powerful, moving, and in some ways, important film.

It was all of that.

Yes, I'm tired and impressionable and a ganglion away from my raw emotions right now, but the initial trailers really mislead about what the movie has to say. There's deeper stuff here.

James Franco does a solid job. Well cast, emotive, and not over-used. John Lithgow is brilliant, and his portrayal of a victim of Alzheimer's is poignant and moving and appropriately hard to watch. No, it doesn't show us what it is to live with the disease day in and day out anymore than a movie sex scene shows what a lifetime romance is, but his portrayal is at least less tawdry.

And Andy Serkis gives one of the most powerful utterances I'm heard in a film in a long, long time.

But what's important about a science fiction movie with apes?

I dunno -- maybe what it says about medical ethics, humane treatment of lesser creatures, family love versus obligations, desperate hope in the face of futility, greed, playing god, and revenge versus reckoning?

You know -- light, sci-fi fare.

The film is a prequel to the 1968 film -- and yes, there are earlier entries in the franchise (I had to argue that point with a cheeky cashier who not only didn't understand The Customer is always Right, but she also doesn't know her classics).

Rise does a good job setting up the small set pieces needed to dovetail into Planet of the Apes, and other than one over-done piece of dialog, wasn't hamfisted about it (the extraneous bit of dialog was jarring, and would be OK for homage, but not prequel). On the positive flip side, there's a bit of nifty easter egg here for the first film's leading man.

There also are some neat solid artistic-but-not-art-house composition and shots in the film, if you're into that kind of thing (I am).

On a not-quite-minor point, I'm impressed with the movie's clever use of end credits as epilogue. Some, "But how did" questions get deftly answered in the graphics there. Cheeky Cashier missed that.

I recommend the film. It's not War and Piece, but it is a solid offering that pulls the bandage off of some unresolved debates, watch the small moments, and enjoy the fun ride.

Daybreakers

I caught a matinee of Daybreakers yesterday at the Alamo Drafthouse Village (avoid the brunch scones), and find it a good, worthwhile film.

It's a newish take on vampire lore (not unique to the film, but not as tired as a lot of genre conceits), stylish and at times gritty, and it did a good job of sucking me in (ahem).

The basic premise is that it's the future, vampires are the dominant population, and humans are facing extinction as they're farmed or hunted for blood. But blood's running out, and unless a substitute is found, vampires face their own extinction as they devolve into brainless animals.

Vampire fandom aside, I'd watch Ethan Hawke or Willem Dafoe just sit and drink coffee, so I was likely to enjoy this movie just because of them. The hard-working Claudia Karvan makes a great muted romantic foil, and I appreciate that she's strong and sexy without being overbearing or slutty (both in-character and in the film).

Despite my enjoying the film, I do have to say it is amazingly uneven -- on pretty much every front (other than the acting, with the possible exception of Sam Neill, who plays up the whole "evil corporate entity"" role way too stereotypically).

By "uneven", I mean from the pacing to the focus on the mythos to the cinematography to the dialog.

Pacing ranged from staid and thoughtful to frantic and music video-like. The film didn't feel like it knew what to do with the mythos -- here was this great take on a modern vampire utopia, complete with the mundane versions of non-vampire living (commuting, getting coffee, etc.), that was at first set up and explored, and then thrown out to focus on serial happenings.

Ironically, this caused the film to lose a bit of its humanity, as it bulleted through plot points, at the expense of the relationships and exploring the societal impacts of this whole system.

The shooting is great, though there are some marquee moments in the film I found jarring, because you can almost see someone working hard to pose the actors and setup the shot, for the sake of it looking "bad-ass", at the expense of authenticity (and frankly, I almost laughed out load when I saw them).

At the same time, there are some great nods to traditional vampire tropes (staking, etc.) that are put in in surprising, fun, and non-obtrusive ways.

Overall, a worthwhile flick, at times unnecessarily gratuitous, but, overall, a good movie to add to your queue.

District 9

I've been looking forward to District 9 for a long time.

Helmed by director Neill Blomkamp, and produced by Peter Jackson, District 9 9 is the big-screen realization of South African independent director Blomkamp's Alive in Joberg.

I've watch Blompkamp for a little while now (though most people seem to know him as the Halo insterstitials director), and I am so stoked his short film has gotten big-screen commmercial play.

The film is pretty true to original, with the budget to do the stuff Blomkamp wasn't able to do before. This is one of his strengths -- despite being a wunderkind storyteller / director / visual effects wizard trapped in a mortal body, and despite being able to pull off effects he has no right to pull off without a budget -- he doesn't try to show what he shouldn't show.

Lesson to folks making films: Take a page from Mr. Blomkamp. Too many films fall over because they're trying to show something they're not equipped to show -- actors who can't get their emotionally, special effects that don't come together, too obviously cheated locations that rob the moment of import, etc.

I don't want to say a bunch about the movie, because I don't want to give stuff away, and if you don't know about the movie, going in fresh will be a ton of fun.

Be warned -- this is not a "popcorn summer movie". This is a sci-fi genre film that's not about the sci-fi; that's just set dressing for the important stuff. And it's pretty important stuff.

Oh, and while not a comedic movie by any means, the documentary trope gives some great moments, and there's a particular funny moment I found funnier -- and have put that item at the bottom of this post, so as not to spoil it for those purists among you.

Sharlto Copley is stunning in the lead role, and keep in mind, his only two acting credits are District 9 and the original Alive in Joburg. It's the kind of acting to which I aspire.

While the film was great, and did a great job of holding onto original vision while being commercially accessible, it was a bit heavy-handed at the very end. Uncharacteristically so. Kind of like, "Wow, that's kind of ... hey, wait, oh, now it's obvious, and I was already there!"

For now, here's the Alive in Joberg precursor film (but checkout Spyfilms.com for the high-quality version with far far superior sound).



Now, if only they would give me a Tetra Vaal film; or even Tempbot:



Spoiler(ish) from District 9: A sci-fi weapon trope is the gravity gun ("grav gun"). There's a brief, not overdone moment where a grav gun is used to unexpectedly grab and launch a large pig, killing a man. It's wicked fast, slickly executed, and not telegraphed.

Now let me ruin it for you.

The man was killed because ... (wait for it) swine flew ...

(It's hilarious! It's topical! I slay me!)