Joshua Palmatier

So I went to see THE CROODS this weekend, in 3D, with a friend and her son. It wasn't high up on my list of movies to see, but it did look like it might be fun. And it was!

The premise is that we have a family of cavemen named the Croods. The main character is Eep, essentially a teenager, who's starting to get antsy about all of the rules that her father uses to keep the family safe from everything that's attempting to kill them. Which is literally everything. All of this gets interrupted when Eep runs into a boy who's good with ideas and who warns them all that the world is ending and they need to leave the safety of their cave and routine if they want to live. The rest of the movie is about the family being forced to flee toward the nebulous safety of a distant mountain, experiencing all new wonders and learning how to adapt to new situations and new relationships along the way.

I did enjoy this movie, however it is targeted toward the kids, with enough for the adults to be entertained as well. The real heart of the movie is the relationship between Eep and her dad, who's simply trying to protect everyone and doesn't realize that he's also stifling his daughter and needs to let go . . . at least a little. But the entire family is great in the movie and they all have defining moments and shifting relationships with each other along the way. So the characters are interesting and involving and keep you riveted to the movie. The visuals are also stunning, but in an appropriately stunning and non-gratuitous way. what I mean is that they were stunning when they should have been stunning (such as when the characters find themselves in a totally different environment than they're used to, so they're stunned as well) and even then the director didn't linger on the "stunning" so long that it became a gratuitous use of 3D special effects. It was stunning for as long as it needed to be stunning and then it became the background again, with the characters and their situation at the forefront. Which is as it should be.

My only real issue with it is that I can't say that it necessarily covered any new ground. Part of this is because it's targeted toward kids, and there's only so much ground you can cover with a kids movie. There were some darker moments in the movie that may bother some kids if they see it, but nothing that would make me recommend that you not take your kids to it. Everything works out in the end, as it should. But because of the "no new ground" thing, there wasn't anything that elevated this movie to the TOY STORY level.

But don't get me wrong. It was fun, entertaining, enthralling in places, humorous in others, and certainly a great way to wile away a few hours on a weekend. Based on the reactions of the kids around me, they'll thoroughly enjoy it. The kid inside of me certainly did.

I went to see A Good Day to Die Hard yesterday. I'm a fan of the "Die Hard" movies, although the first movie is by far the best in the series so far. It had a rock solid plot and worked in the family relationships perfectly. It was an action movie, but the character development wasn't compromised either. It will always be one of my all-time favorite movies. So I was excited to learn that there was a fifth movie coming out and of course had to see it opening weekend.





The premise of this fifth movie is that John McClane has learned that his son has been arrested for killing someone in Russia and even though they've had a rocky relationship and a falling out (they haven't spoken to or seen each other in years), he heads to Russia. Meanwhile, there's a political controversy brewing in Russia between the current leader and a political prisoner who's about to go to trial. We learn pretty fast that John McClane's son, Jack, is somehow mixed up in this trial. Of course, as soon as John arrives, things start exploding and he gets caught up in whatever his son is mixed up in. And of course, it's about more than just politics as the plot begins to twist and turn, as "Die Hard" plots are wont to do.

First off, the good stuff. If you're going to see this because you like explosions and chases and gun fights and some interesting plot twists and turns, then you're in luck. I thought the plot of the movie was great. It snaked through the usual betrayals and sudden revelations as Jack and John fight to stay alive and figure out what the hell is going on, as their initial assumptions are shot to hell around them. It's a plot in the grand "Die Hard" tradition. One of the best things about this franchise is the way the plots start off being about one thing, but morph into another along the way in a believable way. (I am willfully ignoring the plot of the second movie here . . . and to some extent the fourth.) I'm not saying the plot was rock solid, but it was cleaner than many other action movies out there.

The plot was the best part of the film. I had major problems with the father-son relationship. Basically, I just didn't buy into it at all, at any point during the movie. The scenes between John and his son Jack were awkward and sometimes painful. There was maybe one or two sections that felt genuine (like the time his son overheard John talking to the guy their attempting to keep alive, and perhaps the moment near the pool), but pretty much I squirmed in my seat during all of the other "touching moment/reconciliation" scenes. The good news is there weren't many. In fact, the best family characterization scenes were those involving John's daughter (who reconciled with him in the fourth movie). THOSE scenes felt real, even the one at the end. Unfortunately, the daughter was only featured in two scenes, one at the beginning and one at the end (plus a phone conversation early on, but that doesn't really count). In any case, the family dynamic and characterizations in that respect fell flat for me.

Another issue I had was with the plot (yes, even though I said it was a good plot earlier on): mainly, the plot wasn't set up as well as it could have been. I felt the first part of the movie was far too rushed and that a few key scenes here and there would have gone a LONG way in establishing things before they all started going to hell. I'm not talking big things, but the first "Die Hard" movie took its time setting things up--how McClane got there, what the relationship with his wife was like, how the bad guys seized control, etc. This movie didn't do that. Some of the plot turns early on were not fleshed out and explained as much as they should have been. It was mostly a problem with clarity. The essential pieces of the plot and why it turned are there, but they aren't set up and explained well enough. For example, at one point Jack and John's hiding place is found. If you watch closely and pay attention, you can piece together that the bad guys have discovered John is there and is involved and that they tracked his cell phone to find them. But all of those connections are left up to the viewer, and even though the pieces are there, it would have taken a couple of second of (perhaps great) conversation between John and Jack to establish those connections. This issue happened early on in the movie, but lessened as it progressed. The movie was only about an hour and forty minutes; they could have spent 10 more minutes at the beginning giving us just a little more in the set-up and the rest of the movie would have worked much better.

And lastly, John's reactions to many of the events in the movie were just . . . off. He wasn't acting like the John McClane we know and love from the first movie. I'd say Bruce Willis phoned this in, but I don't think he did. Any scene that was longer and involved decent screen time with him was good. But many of the connecting scenes involving action were not. We didn't get to see the great facial expressions of "Oh, shit!" and such that were such a part of the other movies.

So, some issues with the movie, yes. But overall I did enjoy seeing the movie and would recommend it to those who just want to see John McClane in action, with an emphasis on the action, rather than thought or family drama. I can see why this movie wasn't released over the summer blockbuster season--it isn't really a blockbuster--but it was still great entertainment.

This movie was my most anticipated movie of the summer, because it was a new idea, not Smurfs 5 or soemthing. I watched the first trailer and thought, WHOA! and ever since have not allowed myself to see any trailers because they usually spoil a ton of stuff in the movie for me. (One of the disadvantages of being a writer: you can piece together plot fairly easily with little to no details.)

So, this past weekend I was bouncing in my seat waiting to see this. And now that I've seen it . . . well, it didn't live up to my expectations. This is not to say it wasn't a good movie, but I had high hopes that it would blow me away, like Inception did last summer. I WANTED it to blow me away, and there were some cool scenes in here, but the whole package just didn't make it up into the "great" category.

The premise is fairly simple: aliens have come to earth and have landed in the great American West, during the time of cowboys, stagecoaches, and riverboats. Jake wakes up with no memory and with a metallic wristband. He saunters into town to find out who he is. Just as things were going bad to worse for him, the aliens attack. Of course, no one knows what they are at this time period, but they know they're abducting their family and friends from town. They want Jake to help them rescue them all. Initially, he doesn't help out, but then he remembers that his girlfriend was abducted as well, so he goes along to try to save her.

My basic issue is with the first half of the movie. It takes a while for the setup, although I don't see how that could have been shortened much. But then there's a long sequence where they're following a wounded alien trying to find their main base, and that's where it drags a little. Once they find the main base, things pick up and the movie ends with a bang. So I felt it could have been tightened up more and certainly that lull in the middle needed to be dealt with.

Some of the good elements were that they did spend some time on actual character development. And as I said, the action of the last half of the movie worked fairly well. The plot held together, but it worked better as a western than a sci-fi movie. (I stole this last from Patricia Bray pbray.) I was simply . . . hoping for more. The premise appeared to have so much potential.

That said, it was much better than a couple of the other SF&F movies that have come out this summer. I look at you, Green Lantern. *evil eye*

Patricia Bray (pbray) and I went to see HP7, Part 2 this afternoon. My general impression of the movies up to this one has been . . . meh. They are fun, they are entertaining and good way to spend a few hours (especially if the theater is ACed and your apartment is NOT and it's 90-something out). I've read the books, so there isn't going to be much in the way of a surprise, and honestly, it's the surprises that make the book/movie for me. If someone can surprise me, then they've done something special.

There were no real surprises in HP7, Part 2, except that I thought the way the screenwriters altered the ending made MUCH more sense than some of the stuff that happened at the end of the book. It was just . . . cleaner. Some of what was in the book just couldn't happen onscreen, and that was probably a good thing. Once again, I thought it was a good movie . . . not great, but again . . . no real surprises.

One of the things that I've complained about regarding ALL of the movies is that the directors, especially of these last few, haven't edited the movie so that the battles and drama escalated and put me on the edge of my seat. I WANT to be on the edge of my seat. There was huge POTENTIAL for me to be on the edge of my seat. And the directors would start to GET me to the edge of my seat . . . and then they'd back down and the intensity would die for me. So the movies were never as intense for me as I wanted them to be, and there was plenty of opportunity to make them intense.

Patricia pointed out after the movie today that she thinks this is because they could never decide who exactly their audience was. I want the intensity, but making the movie that intense starts pushing it out of the young crowd and into the adult crowd exclusively. The kids just can't take the emotional intensity that I want. So the directors start pushing the action toward the adult intensity, but then have to tone it down before the really BIG moments because they want to include the kids in the movie as well. After some thought, I think this is correct.

They should have made 2 version of the movies--one for the adults and one for the kids. I'd really like to see the adult, high-intensity version.

But this version was good. In fact, as most have been saying, it's nearly the best out of all of them (Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite). There were some really good scenes and sections in this one. There were some better emotional scenes in previous movies, but this one had the best action/drama.

But I still think they should have had a major battle at Hogwarts at the end of the sixth movie, like in the book. Saying they were "saving" everything for this last battle was a cop out.

pbray and I braved the frigid weather and went to the movie theater today to see The Green Hornet. I wasn't certain what to expect. I never heard the radio version, nor watched the TV series or read the comics. I basically went into it blind.

But I enjoyed the living hell out of it. *grin*

It was fun, it had actual characters (even if they were a little over the top, but not too far over the top), and at no point during the entire movie did anyone take themselves or the plot seriously. The director struck the perfect note with the acting and the action, so it ended up being an enjoyable ride with characters that were fun to be with and a plot that certainly wasn't new or startling in any way . . . but it didn't matter! It was supposed to be fun, and to be mocking of itself and the comic genre in general, all at the same time.

If you need a little break from the stressful world, this would be a good way to take a break. I'd recommend it. I know that Patricia and I had much more fun than expected (and we certainly had more fun with the movie than the rest of the people in the theater). And we saw it in 2D and I never once felt that I was missing anything.

Today, co-conspirator and co-editor Patricia Bray (pbray) and I went off to see the movie Tron: Legacy, and I realized that we've seen a few movies recently and I haven't reviewed any of them. So let's play catch-up, shall we?

First up, Tron: Legacy: I've been waiting for this movie since I first heard they were making it, months and months ago. I only vaguely recall the first movie from the 80s (and surprisingly, you can't even buy a DVD of it now, which is utter FAIL for the marketing department at Disney), but I remember being wowed by the idea and I can remember certain scenes from the movie rather vividly. And today, all of that came back to me in a warm little glow of nostalgia. *grin* The new movie has all of the same flavor of the original, and contrary to some rumblings I heard beforehand, does indeed have a plot. I think what people are grumbling about is that the plot is more sedate and character-involved than they were perhaps expecting. There are some good moments between father and son, the distance that can grow between them (especially when one is trapped on The Grid, let's say), and a touch of what father's might expect of their sons, etc. There wasn't anything heavy-handed in the character department, and there were certainly some new ideas in the Tron universe. I like how they took some of the elements of the original Tron movie and extended them in new and interesting directions. They didn't push it far enough to capture the new generation though. I do think they left the end of the movie open enough that they can do a much more updated version of "Tron" for the new generation, with this movie being a good bridge between the two generations. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, even though it didn't completely blow me away. I'd recommend it for everyone who might have seen the original movie, and think the new generation should check it out for the kitsch factor, with the hopes that the producers/directors/etc will take the next step and take Tron and its universe to the next level.

Last weekend, we also saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I remember when I read these books way back when that this one was my favorite of the series, although I can't remember why. I don't remember anything of the plot of these books for the most part. I should probably reread them. But based on the three movies so far, I'd say that the reason this was my favorite book was because there was MUCH more action in this one than the previous ones. Basically, the kids are taken to Narnia through a picture of the Dawn Treader on the sea and there discover that "evil" has entered Narnia in the form of a green mist. While the main lands of Narnia are more or less at peace with each other under King Caspian's rule, the islands in the eastern ocean are another matter, and this is where the Evil has taken hold. The ship and its crew hop from island to island, encounter strange new creatures, and are tested by the Evil in various ways. Overall, it was an OK movie. I felt they should have spent more time developing the temptations that Evil gives them, built them up so they were move significant. It felt like most of them were simply thrown in. This would have satisfied the adults in the audience more. They certainly catered to the kids enough with some rather good action and lots of great scenery and strangeness. The battle with evil at the end was particularly good, the monster gruesome enough that I'm certain some kids who watched it are having nightmares. So, much better than the second movie, I'd certainly like to see the fourth movie made, but they need to find a better balance between the action and the more serious aspects of the plot.

At some point before Narnia we also went to see Hereafter. This movie is in a completely different vein than the other two, being a more literary movie. And by literary I mean dull. The best part of the entire movie was the opening sequence with the tsunami, which sets up the main angst of the French woman character, who essentially dies, sees the hereafter (or a version thereof), before being brought back. Her life is now haunted by what she saw and the questions it raises for her. This plotline is woven into two others: the first is Matt Damon's character, who is psychic, can speak to the dead in the hereafter, but doesn't want his power any more because it alienates him from everyone; and a young boy who is having a hard time dealing with the death of his twin brother. Matt Damon's character lives in San Francisco, and the boy lives in London. This movie probably two and a half hours long, and in my opinion could have been covere in a half an hour instead. Far too much angst and woe before solutions are reached. As a writer, I spent most of my time trying to figure out how the hell these three characters were ever going to meet. How they DO end up meeting is interesting (and believable, although there's no way in hell that the book fair is that calm). But the most believable part of the entire movie is when the French woman, who's a writer, is at her computer, supposedly writing, and ends up getting on the internet to do "research." Both Patricia and I burst out laughing at this (probably to the other movie-goers consternation), because of course this never happens to us.

I'm fairly certain there's a movie in there somewhere that I've forgotten we went to, but neither one of us could remember what it was. So instead, I'll talk about the two trailers we saw before the Tron movie today: Transformers 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4. For T3, I'm hoping someone slapped some sense and talent into Michael Bay. Please do not let this be the disaster T2 was. The trailer was good and gave me hope. As for P4, I was worried they were going to somehow try to work the Orlando Bloom character and the others into this fourth one. There's no way I'd buy this, since they basically ended their plotlines with P3. But based on the trailer, they didn't try for this at all. Aside from Jack Sparrow and a couple of the pirates, it appears everyone is new. And again, the trailer shows promise.

The rest of the trailers sucked. Both Patricia and I mostly said, "No!" or "My brain hurts."

Just got back from seeing the movie Salt with pbray, and it was a blast. Lots of action, intense chases, twists and turns in the plot that you aren't expecting. And by that, I mean that they actually played off of your expectations, making you think THIS is going to happen or is happening, when in fact it would be something else. This is hard to do. (I know, I try to do this with my writing all the time.) Especially in such a way that when they finally tell you what is actually happening, you believe it and it makes sense. Pretty much everything in this plot made sense and I didn't see any gaping plot holes. I think this happened mostly because the plot was simple, even though it was complex. *grin* And it doesn't end where you think it will end either.

What I heard about this movie before going to the theater was that it was written with Tom Cruise in mind as the lead and that when he opted out, they changed the movie so that Angelina Jolie could play the lead role of Salt. I think she did a great job. She's believable as the action star/spy in the movie, and the emotional turns that her character is required to take are believable as well. That said, the best part of the movie is taking some of the key scenes and imagining Tom Cruise doing/saying what she's saying instead. WHOLE new take on the scenes. And the thing is, they would still have worked, just with a gay slant, (which of course would never be allowed in Hollywood for a summer blockbuster for some reason *eyeroll*).

In any case, I thought it was a great movie. Not the best summer movie I've seen so far (Inception is going to be hard to top on my list), but definitely one of the top three. If you haven't seen it, add it to your list.

So, pbray and I went to see The Last Airbender this afternoon. This was not on our "must see" list for the summer (I'm dying to see Inception), but since it was like 100 degree out and neither of us have AC, we decided the movie price might be worth the cost of two hours of air conditioning.

It wasn't.

The movie sucked like you cannot even believe and I'm not even certain I can competently describe it. The acting was bad, starting with the first lines of the movie. The writing was bad, which was not a surprise since, as I discovered at the end of the movie, it was written by M. Night himself. I had gone into the movie thinking that someone ELSE had written this one and so there was hope that M. Night hadn't screwed it up. He did. The plot was horrible and had HUGE GAPING plot holes. And all of this came together in a convergence of sheer stupidity that I nearly walked out of. I only stayed for the AC and the many, many snide comments Patricia and I made to each other throughout the movie.

I think the major problem (besides having M. Night attached to it; why do they keep giving this guy money?) was that it didn't know what it wanted to be. Is it targeted toward the kids? Adults? Somewhere inbetween? I can see some of the horribleness coming from the desire to appeal to the kid market. But then they also seemed to want the adults to take the plot seriously, and in that there was epic fail. NONE of the kids could act. There were brief sparks or moments where I thought we saw the REAL character, the one that was supposed to be on the screen, but they were rare. The only actor who was actually good was the guy who played the uncle. HE was good. And his character should have gotten more screen time, since he became important to the plot AND was attached to the most interesting character out of the entire ensemble: the banished prince.

Aside from those two, everything else sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked. There are obviously supposed to be two sequels to this movie HOWEVER if there are, if the studio actually decides to fork over more money to this thing, they ABSOLUTELY MUST get someone different to write and direct them. If they don't, there is NO WAY I'll be dragged to the theater to see them.

Not even to escape 100 degree heat.

So, pbray and I went off to see Robin Hood this afternoon. We'd heard some rumbling about the movie, mostly some negative reactions. I try not to listen or see anything ahead of time when I KNOW I'm going to go see the movie, so I mostly ignored these, and I didn't see any of the trailers (because in the past, the trailers have had a tendency to completely spoil the movie for me). But I admit that I'd heard enough to go into the movie with some trepidation.

And I have to say that the movie was good. It was better than good, verging on great. I loved the "historical" feel to it, even though I seriously doubt there was a whole lot of historically correct activity going on in the movie. I'm not an expert (or even mildly versed) in this time period, so if there were any inaccuracies they blew completely over my head. Once the movie started, and I realized that this was going to be as realistic as possible, without all of the frills of a "Disney" version of Robin Hood, I really got into the movie.

And that's what I think everyone nees to realize about this movie. This is not a "Disney" version. It's not a fairy tale. There isn't any glossing over of the way life was lived back then to make everyone feel good about life. No one in the movie was romanticized. Everyone had both good and bad sides to them. No one really did anything just for the sake of it being the "noble" thing to do. And you know what? I loved this. These were people, doing what they did to survive and to make their own lives better in the long run.

However, the MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU NEED TO KNOW about the movie before you go see it, aside from the fact that this is not the "Disney" version of Robin Hood that we've been fed for ages, is that this movie is about HOW ROBIN HOOD BECAME AN OUTLAW. In most movies, including the Kevin Costner one, we get how Robin Hood became an outlaw in the first half of the movie, and then there is outlawry fun for the rest of the movie. THIS IS NOT THAT MOVIE. The entire movie is how Robin Hood became Robin Hood. It ENDS with Robin Hood being outlawed and ending up in the forest, with all of the old familiar friends. And I found this genesis of Robin Hood very interesting. This may be because it dealt with a lot of politics and manipulations by quite a few people, and I love this kind of thing in the books I read and the movies I watch.

In the end, how and why people acted the way they did, and how Robin ended up where he did, made sense. It wasn't because of any altruistic need to help the poor, although that was an outcome. This realistic approach to the legend appealed to me. Just as the adventurous side of me still loves the Kevin Costner version as well. (Let's not talk about Mel Brooks' version.) There was adventure in this version, lots of battles and fights and general, all-around fun, but it was realistic.

There was only one thing that made me wince and say WHY, WHY, WHY?!?! And that was toward the very end. All of the actors did splendid jobs depicting their characters, especially Cate Blanchett as Marion. However SOMEONE (the writer, the director, who knows) decided that Marion needed to be at the battle at the end, in a full suit of armor. There was absolutely no need for this regarding plot, or characterization, or anything. No reason at all. They should have just had Marion stay back in Nottingham. She'd already well established that she was a strong woman and someone everyone could respect, so showing up for the battle in armor--overkill.

But that aside, I thought it was a good movie. Definitely something I'd suggest people go see, as long as they don't go into the movie expecting the standard story. Go in with the idea that this will explain how Robin got into the Hood . . . I mean forest.

So, I just got back from the movie Sherlock Holmes . . . and it was a GREAT movie! I knew going into the movie that it was not going to be "true to the books" in any sense, but I have to say that it certainly had the same spirit of the books.

And that's what was so great about the movie: spirit. Both Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law played their roles with great spirit and good humor and just the right touch of seriousness. So while they did have their little spats and their own personal stories throughout the movie, those stories didn't subsume the main plot. I'd say that everything was extremely well balanced: personal stories along with main plot, as well as the larger plot. There weren't so many twists and turns that you got completely lost. You could follow everything and they explained nearly everything that dealt with the explanation of how the "crime" was committed. I only say "nearly" because there were a few handwaving moments when they didn't explain exactly how things worked . . . but I wouldn't say that was a problem. They explained exactly what they needed to in the detail they needed to. Any deeper explanation would have amounted to a science lecture and that's not what you go to the movies for.

And here's the thing: there weren't any movie tropes here. Oh, sure, good guys win in the end and such, but unlike Avatar I couldn't guess where things were going in the plot sense. So I was riveted to the pillow screen and kept involved during the whole movie. There were no slow points.

And the best recommendation I can give the movie is that at the end, I REALLY REALLY wanted to go immediately to the next movie. And there will definitely be a next movie, simply because I WILL IT! But just in case, I highly suggest that EVERYONE go out to see this movie.

And bring your pillow.

PS--Thanks to Joshua B for the last minute gift of some spare tickets!