Review: "World of Tomorrow"

"A little girl answers a video phone and begins an extraordinary journey of memory and discovery guided by her own clone 227 years in the future."
- Brief description from Netflix

That brief description tells you everything about this short film, and yet nothing about it.  The little girl is Emily, and she is quite young - maybe 4 or 5 years old.  Emily hears something from the family's video phone and plays with the button until a woman enters the screen and announces that she is the Emily's clone from the future.

I didn't have many expectation when I first watched "World of Tomorrow".  The characters are animated stick figures; the back ground are simple colors with random lines and circles.  When my husband suggested we watch this, I agreed more because I wanted to spend time with him than because I wanted to watch the film itself.

But by the time the film ended, I was on the verge of tears.  Not because "World of Tomorrow" is inherently sad, but because it mixes sadness and hope in such a way as to make the viewer both question the future and embrace the present.

All in 16 minutes.

If you have a short window of time, I highly recommend watching "World of Tomorrow".  Just make sure you have a tissue or two handy.

Movie Review: "The Lobster"

Released in 2015, "The Lobster" billed itself as a love story, which is technically true.  This story takes place in a dystopian society, where every adult must be married.  At the beginning of the movie, the male protagonist, David (portrayed by Colin Farrell), finds himself single after his wife leaves him.  He goes to this creepy hotel where he has 40 days to find a mate or be turned into an animal of his choice.  He chooses to be a lobster if he can't find someone.

The movie itself is a bit creepy, as the director, Yorgos Lanthimos, explores humans, relationships, and commonalities.  The creepiness starts with the character names, or lack of them.  I think the only person in the entire movie with an actual name is David; everyone else is referred to by either their job or some prominent characteristic.  For example, one character is a man who limps, so he is called the Limping Man.  The lack of names forces you to focus on the people more, making each character more anonymous but more sympathetic.  I think it's easier to see yourself or your friends in a person with no name to get in the way.

The set contributes to the movie's atmosphere.  Even at noon, there is a pale gloom over every scene.  After watching the movie, I learned that the director had no lighting.  None. Nada.  All the light in this film is from the sun or the moon outside, and regular lights inside.  The hotel feels like it belongs in the 1950s or 1960s, even though the movie takes place in the present day, with dated wallpaper, older furniture, and worn carpets.

Finally, the actors bring home the creepiness and raise it to uncomfortable levels.  An air of desperation surrounds everyone, regardless of their relationship status.  The married people put effort in appearing compatible and happy.  The single people slowly crumb away as their time runs out.  Well before the end of the movie, I stopped seeing the actors and only saw the characters.  Their stilted speech, odd twitches, clumsy movements - all of it melded into a seamless whole of brittle people in a terrible situation.

As for my opinion of the movie, there is no simple way to describe my feelings.  On one hand, the acting, directing, and writing is superb; and I found myself viewing the foibles of humanity in a different light after watching "The Lobster".  On the other hand, I found the movie viscerally disturbing; I had a few nightmares afterwards.  That is not normal for me.

Do I recommend this movie?  Yes.  No  Maybe?  It depends on what type of movie you want to watch.  "The Lobster" will mess with your world view and cause you discomfort at times.  But maybe it's good to get outside of our comfort zones sometimes.

I linked the trailer below.  Decide for yourself.

Movie Review: "Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters"

At my house, we have Family Movie Night on Saturdays. This past weekend, we watched "Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters" for the first time.  While the story in the movie only followed the main story in the book, as is wont with movies, the actors portrayed their characters well enough  that if I ever see who played Grover in another film, I will still consider him Grover; as with Clarisse, AnnaBeth, Percy, Luke, and Tyson.  Overall, I enjoyed the movie.

But a large part of my opinion comes from the fact that I read all of the books at the same time my children did, years ago.  When I discussed the movie with my husband, who never read the books, I discovered that his opinion was quite different.

The movie seems to assume that you, the viewer, know parts of the story ahead of time.  For example, AnnaBeth's life was dramatically changed by a group of cyclops, causing her to carry a blinding hatred of all cyclops around with her.  When Tyson (Percy's half-brother cyclops) shows up, AnnaBeth instantly hates him and wants absolutely nothing to do with him.  If you have read the book, the hatred is understandable.  But for those who haven't read the book, the hatred clashes with her established personality.  Partway through the movie, a quick flashback shows why AnnaBeth might not like cyclops, but the movie never really explains the situation.

Basically, the movie does not necessarily make sense to someone who has not previously read the book.

If you have to pick one, I suggest reading the book.  I admit, I am a bit of a book snob, preferring books over movies or other forms of media (e.g. graphic novels).  But the book covers the material in a more cohesive manner, making it the preference here hands down.

Movie Review: "The Hunger Games" (2012)

Yes, I realize that it took me a while to read the book and now to finally see the movie.  I have... "issues" with movies based on books because some directors take a bit too much creative license.  For example, the Lord of the Rings trilogy changes so many plot elements that I sometimes felt as though I was watching an entirely different story by the third movie.

But I must admit, "The Hunger Games" surprised me.  While the movie doesn't have all of the knowledge you get in the book by hearing Katniss' thoughts, all of the basic and important scenes, characters, and dialogue made the transition from book to the screen smoothly, leaving me feeling as though the book-verse and movie-verse were in harmony for this particular story.

If you've read other reviews, you know that the acting, special effects, costumes, music, ... are excellent.  But I want to stress that for the length of the movie, I didn't see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson on the screen - I saw Katniss and Peeta.  I had no idea that Elizabeth Banks played Effie Trinket - I used IMDB to look up who played her because the actress became Effie.  That's how good these actors are.

The movie does perform better than the book in illustrating the dichotomy between the citizens living in the Capitol and the citizens living in the Districts. The citizens of the Capitol applaud the arrival of the Hunger Games every year, either ignorant or indifferent to the suffering of the participants and their districts.  The Districts treat the Hunger Games in one of two ways. Either they train their children to participate, knowing that they only have to win to live a comfortable life. Or they hope that their own children don't get chosen and support the unlucky families whose children do. In the Capitol, the masses possess such abundance of food, and money that they focus on outward appearances, contriving outrageous hairstyle, outfits, and make-up.  Yet friendships, love, and loyalty mean little to them.  But in the Districts, people enjoy friendships, love, and loyalty while struggling to survive on little food or money.

If you are planning on both reading the book and seeing the movie, I suggest that you read the book first.  You will understand more about the situation, and yet you'll still be entertained by the move.

Overall, I give this film 10 stars (**********) out of 10.

Movie Review: "The Last Airbender"

Every Saturday, we have a family movie night, when the entire family sits down, watches a movie, and then discusses the movie.  This past Saturday, we watched "The Last Airbender"  again.  Since I've seen the movie before, I used this viewing to understand my feelings. You see, the first time I watched the movie, I both liked and disliked it.  But I couldn't put a finger on the why.

Now, I understand.

Each scene in the movie, taken individually, is quite good.  The actors portray the characters in a fashion true to the original cartoons.  The special effects flow seamlessly with the actors' motions, adding to the story line positively.  The director even managed to generate and sustain a sense of urgency throughout the story.

But as someone who watched the original series, I felt disappointed by the omission in the plot.  This movie covers the entire first season of the show, and it does a poor job of it.  The conquest of the Great Library is at least three episodes in the show, with conflicts between Aang and the Fire Nation.  Yet in the movie, this event gets an honorable mention.  Plus, the movie lacks the growing connections between Aang, Katara, and Sokka.    While the three characters interact appropriate in every single scene, the movie as a whole lacks the flow between scenes and the sense of growing closer.  Similarly, while Aang is okay in every individual scene, the movie lacks the sense of loss and anguish that haunt him, lacks the depth of Aang that you find if you watch the series.

Ironically, if you haven't seen the original series, the movie still disappoints.  The plot depends in no small part on the viewer knowing the story before watching, because there are holes for people who have never seen the cartoon.

On a scale from 1 to 5, I would give the movie 2.5 stars.  While each scene is good, the movie as a whole lacks cohesion.

Review: "I Am Number Four"

Imagine that you are from another planet, hiding out on Earth with your own guardian, waiting for these killers to find you and kill you.  This is the premise behind the movie, "I Am Number Four".

Small spoiler alert:  In the beginning of the movie, you learn that nine children from the planet Lorién escaped to Earth after the Mogadorians invaded their planet, killing everyone.  Now, the Mogadorians are on Earth, tracking down and killing the remaining Loriéns before moving on to invade Earth.

I find myself pausing, attempting to describe the movie without giving away an already thin plot.  This movie is a combination chick flick and action movie, ready made for a teenage date.  The Bad Guys are Bad Guys, there is no confusion there.  The protagonist, John Smith, sounds like an alien James Dean from "Rebel Without a Cause", only here it would be "Alien Rebel With a Cause".  Henri, John's guardian, is Stoic Man, able to confront any situation with extreme calm.  Sarah Hart, the Love Interest, is the former Shallow Girl who Found Herself.  And Sam is the Classic Geek who gets bullied by the football team and wants to find UFOs when he grows up.

The acting in the movie is good, within the limit of the movie. There are a few two-dimensional characters, but they tend to show in only a few scenes.   Between the action scenes and soliloquies explaining the plot, there exists only  a limited amount of screen time for character growth.  My favorite character, by far, was Sam, the UFO geek.  I don't know if it's because I can relate to his geekiness in general or I can admire his passion despite heavy criticism from everyone around him, but Sam strikes me as a survivor and a nice guy.

On the other hand, the special effects in the movie rock!  I like a good alien throwdown.

The movie is based on a book by the same name that's part of a series, Lorién Legacies.   While I wouldn't pay theater prices to see this movie or its sequel, I do want to read the book and see what I think.

Overall, I give this movie 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

Holey Moley, Batman!  What a movie!!!

Okay, I grew up watching the corny Adam West Batman TV show, where I learned to love the Caped Crusader.  I mean, here's a guy who doesn't have super powers, hasn't altered his DNA or genetics through a scientific experiment, and doesn't have special government spy training.  But Bruce Wayne takes on crime intelligently, using his brain power to out think the bad guys while sporting cool Bat technology.

Plus, the show helped the phrase, "Holy cow!" become famous.

I watched all the Batman movies, starting with "Batman" in 1989.  I love the ones with Michael Keaton and I try to forget all the others.  Actively try to forget, that is.  But then came "Batman Begins", and Christopher Nolan hooked me into the series again.   From Bruce Wayne falling down a well to how and why he became Batman, Nolan took the Batman legends and stories, then crafted a trilogy that balances the darkness of Gotham and the human spirit with the hope brought by Batman and (strangely enough) the human spirit.

In an era of badly-done remakes and poorly planned sequels, the Nolan Batman trilogy exceeds all expectations to rise above the crowd, each movie fitted together like a hand-crafted wooden puzzle.

Okay, enough gushing about the Batman trilogy, and on to reviewing the final movie, "The Dark Knight Rises".

The movie begins eight years after the last one ended.  Bruce Wayne stopped appearing in public as Batman, opting instead to be a recluse in Wayne Manor.  Alfred still works there, tending to Bruce's needs and acting as his interface to the world.  I will not say more about the plot of the movie, but you can read a great plot description here at IMDB.

What I want to talk about are the other parts of the movie.  The acting surpassed by general expectations.  I knew that Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne) could portray both anger and brooding well, but I was surprised at his emotions during the movie. Anne Hathaway (Selena Kyle/Catwoman) stole the show as a martial artist/thief/realist, a multi-dimensional character that was so believable I forgot it was Ms. Hathaway before the movie was half over.  But Tom Hardy, as the veritable Bane, vibrated with calm destruction, a certainty about himself and the world that gave me goosebumps, since that certainty included a knowledge of how evil people will be given the proper circumstances.

Other than the actors, the special effects enhanced the movie without taking over every scene.  The score helped create the environment for the movie goer, adding to the sorrow, the suspense, and the angst when appropriate.  The dialogue sounded like normal conversations, never like a movie script.  And the cameramen or director left out all of the new and annoying camera tricks that make me motion sick.

For those who haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you watch the entire Christoper Nolan Batman trilogy.  It is definitely worth your time.