Beyond Skyline

 Skyline was kind of fun in a terrible way. This was definitely beyond that amount of terrible...

The Punisher bashes alien robots powered by human brains and reconnects with his son.

At least there were some good fight scenes at the end.

Geostorm

 Less exciting than a few rounds of Wordstack with adverts.

I was kind of hoping the storm would come....

Stowaway

 Netflix must pay loads of cash to get big talents to do small projects.

Stowaway wasn't a bad movie; it wasn't good enough for the talent.

Pretty standard plot; pretty meh special effects; pretty predictable ending; pretty flat writing.

I knew from the beginning that not everyone would make it and I knew who was going to be the one to accept the sacrifice.

Anna Kendrick did a great job being Anna Kendrick. It would have been nice to have her sing a little though.

Daniel Dea Kim and Tony Collet did a great job being tense and pensive.

Cloverfield Paradox

 The real paradox is why they keep making Cloverfield movies.....

The first one was fine as far as found footage Kaju movies go.

The second one, while for the life of me I cannot see the tie in, was actually pretty good. It really should not be a Cloverfield movie.

This last one was just pants. There are some touching moments and sparks of good acting, but they get lost in the derivative plot, poor writing, and underwhelming set pieces.

At least this one had a giant monster...

Maybe they will make one more to explain how all the Cloverfields tie together; sadly it will probably be pants.

Battleship

 Terrible. Boring plot, bad acting, and not enough explosions.

I cannot see how it has anything to do with Hasboro's game other than being boring and tedious.

OK there is a minor plot point about using grid coordinates, a battleship, and lots of boats sinking, but that does not make for "based on".

Utter tosh!! I saw it for free on Netflix and want my money back!

Aldnoha Zero

I have a minor anime addiction. It also happens that anime series on Netflix happen to be packaged in under thirty minute episodes that I can sneak in without much disruption.

That is how I happened upon Aldnoa.Zero. It follows all of the standard tropes of the genre and is beautifully drawn. The action is satisfying. It ticks all of the right boxes.

What made it appealing to me was that it had the feel of the proto-anime from the late 80s and early 90s. It was dark but not hopeless. There were moments of touching emotion, humor, heroism, and ultimately redemption.

The female characters were not caricatures. They all had agency and talent and heroism. I wouldn’t mind my daughter finding any of them, except for one of the princesses, as a role model.

One other thing that I found appealing was that it ended its first season in utter darkness. Before I knew there was going to be a second season, I was truly shocked at how things ended. The fact that there was a second season and the unbelievable explanations does bring it back a notch. However, it was still a bold move.

Aldnoah.Zero is still anime and does not rise above its genre. It is, however, a finely crafted piece of work.

Into Darkness

I’d heard mixed reviews of the latest Star Trek outing. Some thought it was too action packed and strayed from the intellectual heritage of classic Trek. Some thought it was too laden with references to classic Trek episodes. It felt to me like the split was more about tradition than the merits of the movie.
Personally, I thought Abrahms' first Trek outing was an exciting action movie. Sure it used the time paradox cop out to hit the reset buttong, but that is not the worst sin. I don’t put it in the same class as the classic Trek movies - for me this includes TNG movies. It was more of an action movie than a Trek movie.
It isn’t surprising that my feelings about Into Darkness follow similar lines. It was a great action movie. Much like the parallel movie in the classic series, it ups the action from the first movie. The action and pace are amped up to eleven. It is a thrill a minute ride with barely anytime to catch your breath between big set peices. Unlike its parallel, it skimps on what makes classic Trek more than simple action. There is very little focus on ideas and character development. The pace is just too fast for that. The plot allows for deep issues about the industrial security complex and the balance between security and peace. It just glosses pass them.
One thing that Abrahm’s Trek does away with is the over acting. Pine is every bit Captian Kirk, but without the ham. Cumberbatch plays Kahn in much the same manner. He is evil, but not over the top. I’m torn about this. I think the new Kirk is more realistic and human. However, Shatner’s Kirk made for great speeches. Montalbán’s Kahn matched Kirk ham for ham. It was pure b-movie fun.
On its own merits, Into Darkness is a bonkers action movie. As part of the Trek cannon, it depends on your allegiance to classic Trek.

The Machine

The Machine is rated at four out of five stars on Netflix. It explores the endlessly interesting idea of computer sentience. It is from an independent studio. It has no big name stars. It must be good.

The Machine is not bad. It hits all of the right tropes. Noble tough scientist with a secret working for the good of humanity by, begrudgingly, selling out to the military. Idealistic, brilliant, and beautiful apprentice. I startling breakthrough that is both the answer and far beyond what was expected. Sniveling, evil, self-interested officials messing with things beyond their knowledge or control. Noble, but misunderstood, minions that eventually rise up. An ambiguos ending that points to points to hope for humanity or its ultimate doom.

The through line story is standard and unsurprising. Sadly, the director decided to use a lot of jump cutting to tell the story. I found it jarring and without merrit. In the beginign of the movie, it feels like a device to cram in as much set-up as possible in as little time as possible.

It does keep the running time down to a reasonable 90 minutes, but at the expense of the story. You never see the key relationship in the movie develop. You never get a sense of how the central character matures. Instead, you get sudden, sometimes discordant, shifts. Maybe this techniue is supposed to build suspense or be post modern, but I found it annoying.

The acting in the movie is wooden. Toby Stephens, as the sensitive, dark scientist, could easily be mistaken for a robot. His sole expression is pained, like he is constipated. His character does have a lot to be sad about, but some range would be nice. Caity Lotz, as the titular Machine, whose character should be the most wooden, is actually the better of the two leads. She manages to give the robotic machine some humanity while never breaking the illusion that she is a machine.

I gave The Machine three out of five stars. It was not a bad movie for a rainy day on the couch. It does raise some interesting ideas. It is not anything more than average TV fare.

Asscension

Ascension shows SyFy getting back to its roots: intelligent, hard core science fiction.

It was a good effort. The premiss, or premises, are interesting. They consider big things in interesting ways. For the most part, the acting was solid.

It could have been a great effort. Instead the event felt like it crammed a twelve episode season into three nights. Many of the character threads were rushed. At least one of the plots lines ended unsatifactorally. When the big reveal does come, the show hasn’t earned it.

A longer run would have provided more time for the audience to get to know the players better. Things could have rolled out smoother and with more depth. The big thoughts could be plummed to deeper depths. Instead it felt like either something that was supposed to be a series being turned into an event for financial reasons or an event designed to set up a series.

There was enough in the event to hook me into a series. However, I feel a little cheeted out of the first season….

Inception

Instead of suffering through the Super Bowl, I decided to catch up on some movie watching.
Inception was on the top of the list. I have wanted to see it since it came out, but just have not had the chance. The only bummer with this plan was that I wouldn't get to see it on the big screen. Inception feels like a movie that should be seen at scale. Instead, I watched it on an iPad. (I forgot that the 27" iMac was available for use...).
Even in miniature, Inception is an exceptional movie. The set pieces and effects would be much better at big scale, but they are still impressive. The strength of the movie is that it doesn't require the set pieces and effects to have impact. The acting and plot are central to the movie. It proves that block busters can be smart, demanding, and original.
The plot is a mind-bender from the outset. I never felt certain where the 'real world' existed, if it existed at all. You are presented with what seems like a baseline real world, but hints are dropped that it may not be real either. For me, this made the experience more interesting. The location of reality doesn't necessarily change the outcome. It does, however, change how you feel about the ending. I liked that the plot doesn't force the interpretation on the viewer and trusts the viewer to make their own decisions.
The performance from DiCaprio is stunning. He is damaged and earnest with depth. He finds a way to make a slimy guy sympathetic. I never really liked his character, but I did care about what happened to him. I wanted him to succeed.
Nolan and DiCaprio are rightfully in the top echelon of film makers.

The Avengers

The Avengers finally made it to Netflix! It is not that I wouldn't have paid to see it in the theaters; I just didn't want to expend precious escape points on it last summer and couldn't get H to go with me on date night.
It was probably for the best. It is one of the best super hero movies I've seen, but it wasn't special enough to trade for a day of kayaking or a bike ride. Whedon is a master of the small screen and that removed the things that make a movie a must see in the theater. Some movies need a huge screen, The Avengers did just fine on my 36" screen.
The things that made the movie standout were all in the interplay of the characters. Sure most of the characters are pretty stock super hero types, but watching them interact and learn to form a team is interesting. The least interesting characters were Hawkeye and Scarlet Johansen. I'm hoping they ditch them in favor of some actual super heroes or give them personalities in the sequel.
Marvel has gotten the super hero movie figured out. They brought in serious acting talent and focused on the characters. The even found a way to make the Hulk interesting. I still don't think the new Hulk could support a standalone movie, but he does make a nice addition to the ensemble.
I'm hoping they stick to the formula for at least a few more movies.

Pacific Rim

The first thing to know about Pacific Rim is that it exactly what it looks like: a 21st century remake of an old Japanese monster movie. It is giant robots fighting giant monsters with all of the standard tropes that goes along with the genre. The acting is over the top, the characters are archetypal, the dialog is stilted, and the plot is predictable. If you grew up, as I did, watching Godzilla, Gamara, Monster X, and Mega Man, you know what to expect. If not, it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out.
That is not a criticism. In fact, it is high praise the del Toro can make a serious block buster out of a genre that has been nearly destroyed by the likes of Transformers, Cloverfield, and re-imaginings of Godzilla.
del Toro clearly understands and loves the genre. He is also a true artisan. Pacific Rim is beautiful, exciting, and engaging. The monsters and robots have a weight and scale that is rarely seen in movies today. It is not that the robots in Transformers and the monster from Cloverfield are not big, it is that they don't have any weight. In Pacific Rim, they feel big and solid. When they hit, you feel the amount of damage being done. They also have a realism about them that adds to the sense of awe. Each robot has characteristics that align it with its country of origin. They are not just generic robots. The monster also have an organic quality and vague similarity to living creatures makes them feel alive.
The characters are archetypes, but del Toro adds just enough depth to make them interesting. You actually care about their fates. His oriental wonder girl is more than just a sexual force to guide the lost hero back to the world. She has her own issues. The stock mad scientists are goofy comic relief, but they also serve a point in the story.
That the characters are engaging is a vital strength because the plot is entirely predictable. You know how things are going to end up, but you still get caught up. The tension points work because you care enough to not want bad things to happen. Enough bad things do happen that you believe just enough that the really bad things will happen.
I saw Pacific Rim in IMAX 3-d. The 3-d was cool in some parts, but in others it was actually a distraction. There were also some spots where the projection was blotchy. If I were going to see it again, I would see it in regular IMAX. The scale of IMAX is perfect for Pacific Rim. It is a big film and makes the most out the big screen.

Iron Man 3

The Marvel Movie Machine keeps churning out the hits. Marvel has definitely found the right formula for cranking out summer block busters that don't require a lobotomy to watch. The Machine doesn't produce anything Nolanesque, but what it does make is art when put up against most summer block busters by people like McG and the Transformers guy.
Iron Man 3 sticks to its strengths: solid performances. Downey, Jr. is a near perfect Tony Stark. He has the right blend of arrogance and vulnerability. Cheadle plays Rhodes with a nice balance of seriousness and humility. He is totally believable as War Hammer/Iron Patriot. Paltrow's Pepper Pots is strong and plays off Downey perfectly.
The strong cast takes a plot that borders on pedestrian and could easily of fallen off a cliff and creates a hit.
The first third of the movie is a little slow, but it rebuilds the bond you have with the characters. By the time, the action kicks off you want them to pull through. While there is never a real sense of threat, the audience is invested enough to root for the heroes.
The middle of the film is the strongest part of the film. The thing I liked most about it was that it was strong without relying on big set pieces, CGI, or any super powers. It stands almost entirely on the strength of the characters.
The last third of the film is the expected CGI fueled super clash. It is a loud visual spectacular. It does not disappoint, In fact because the majority of the movie is special effects lite, it feels even better.
Is this a film that makes you think? Does it ask big questions? Not really. There is an interesting question about how to deal with terrorism. There is also an interesting reflection of the question of what makes Stark and Rhodes heroes. Does the suit make the hero?

Iron Sky

A cheap movie about Moon Nazis is either going to be terrible or terribly fun. Iron Sky was terribly fun. It had better special effects than it had the right to. The performances were over the top. The plot was predictable. Even the moralizing was expected. Still it was exactly what you would expect from a low budget movie about Moon Nazis. It was way better than the normal ScyFy movie of the week.

Fringe

Fringe has finally ended its improbably long run. I never expected that it would make it past the first season. Each summer I would wait for the announcement that it wasn't coming back. Then it would come back and be just as good or better than the season before.
The story lines went off the rails sometimes; plot caverns cropped up; continuity was broken like a twig. The biggest violation was in the middle of season four when Peter went from avoiding Olivia to simply giving into his urges. It was like during the mid season break the characters had some rewiring. Let's also not forget how Walter supposedly wrote the book of the first people or the other book from the first two seasons. The complete rewriting of the timeline was at least telegraphed.
There was also the annoying habit the show had of never quite resolving anything. First there was the pattern, then there was the other side, and finally the future. The writers just skipped from one to the next without ever really resolving the previous. At least in the end the whole framework was put into some sort of sense. It was the Observers all along not that it really answers everything.
Despite all of the shows flaws, it was a great show. It didn't dumb things down even if it did take great liberty with science. The writing was typically sharp. The actors were typically in top form. More than any of that however, the show had great characters that I wanted to follow. They were multilayered and flawed and noble and conflicted and always aimed at doing the right thing. Walter was probably the best of the bunch. Walter was hubristic and brilliant and blind. Olivia was wounded, defensive, smart, tough, and kind. Peter was a lot like Walter. Broyles was too willing to sacrifice what he thought was right for the greater good.
As the final episode drilled home, the show, underneath all the crazy, was a story about family and friends and finding your way in the crazy world. Unlike many shows recently, Fringe went out on top with a close to perfect ending. It may have been too neat, but it was right.

Limitless

I had moderate hopes for Limitless, but Brad Cooper's name on the poster should have scared me off. Still the concept seemed ripe for a smart movie that plumed some depths. Hollywood has recently shown that it will make smart blockbusters....
Sadly, this is not one of the smart blockbusters. It is dumb and dull. Instead of digging into the issues raised by chemical enhancement, addiction,the ethics of being "super", or the implications of corporate control of access to healthcare, it punted. The entirety of the side-effects, or any other consideration, is just one more obstacle to be conquered. In the end, the message is that any lazy idiot can pop a pill and become awesome.
The plot is just as sad as the intellectual depth. It plods along predictably with little suspense or stunning action. The acting, if it can be called that, is wooden. The characters are so thin that it is hard to care about them.
I think that I should be paid for the time I spent watching this dreck. $10 should be just about enough.

Thor

Thor finally made it onto Netflix, so when H announced she needed to go to the mall for something I took my rare opportunity to watch a full length geek boy movie. I enjoyed the pure escapism for a couple of hours.
Make no mistakes, Thor is not a great movie, but it is a good popcorn super hero movie. It lacks the depth o f Nolan's Batman, the edge of Iron Man, and the heart of X-Men. However, it is significantly better than either of the recent Hulk outings, the last few Superman outings, and the last Wolverine movie.
It pulls off a delicate balancing act. The principles clearly know that this is comic book movie, but they take it seriously enough to give solid performances based on a well written script. The big set pieces and special effects are first rate. The plot moves along at a decent clip. It does feel a little jumbled when switching between locations and the script never does anything to explain it away. The love story doesn't really ring true. It is hard to see how a smart woman would fall for a big lunkhead in the time provided, but it never really matters much to the story. Perhaps in the sequel the love story will matter and become more flushed out.
Hemsworth does a great job as Thor. He certainly looks the part. His wooden acting style fits the character's haughty nature. Portman does her usual good work. She is believable as a scientist.
The true star of the movie is Loki. He is deliciously malevolent. Even before he turns completely dark, you can see his mean streak and his underlying shifty nature. Yet he still retains a small morsel of my sympathy because he really does love Thor and his family. He wants to be loved, trusted, and honored for his strengths. It is his insecurity and jealousy that get the best of him.
I'm torn about wanting to see the inevitable sequel. While not a classic, Thor was a solid piece of escapist comic book fun. Sequels, think Iron Man 2 and the X-Men sequels, usually fall short of the original. For a movie like this falling short puts it squarely into rubbish category. On the other hand, there have been sequels that surpassed the original such as The Dark Night. If Marvel can pull that off, the result could be an excellent movie. There is certainly enough material to work with.

Source Code

Rented Source Code on iTunes for a flight today. It was an interesting film. I'm not sure I liked the twist at the end, but it was kind of cool. For me there were two things that made it so compelling: the acting and the premiss. All of the actors do a great job making the characters real. Gyllenhall's war hero chopper pilot is both inspiring and heart breaking. You want him to succeed and get the girl and find some peace. The actor that plays his handler paints an equally compelling character. You can see the conflict in her. She knows her duty and will see the mission through. You also see the pain it causes her to use another soldier this way. The idea that you can relive the last eight minutes of a person's life is interesting. The idea that you can use those eight minutes as the basis for a role playing game is out there. The idea that you can use those eight minutes to relive the past is crazy, but fascinating. Can you do that without altering the time line? Is it all just a computer simulation? If it is just a simulation how can you trust that the "facts" that are uncovered aren't just ghosts in the machine? Is it really time travel? The who done it and the love story are almost ancillary. They are required to give the characters something to do and some way to make the premise tangible. They are handled well enough to make the film work. I do recommend the movie. I think it would be better on a big screen although I didn't find the small screen detracted too much.

Monsters

I've wanted to see Monsters I first saw the trailer. I almost paid $10 to rent it from iTunes before it was in theaters, but my inner cheapskate won out. Since my ability to get to the theater lately is nill, I was forced to wait for it to wait for it to be on pay per view. I got lucky though and it showed up on Netflix(in HD) at about the same time.
Monsters is billed as a smart, independent monster movie that was made for a pittance. The film maker did the special effects on a MacBook Pro and they look as good as anything being out out by the big studios. The movie delivers on its promises except for the one in the title.
There are monsters and they are big and scary, but they are not the focus of the movie. It is also possible that the title is a metaphor. The monsters are the backdrop for a quest story. The main action of the story is two people, one rich and one poor, trying to get home. The journey is perilous because they must cross a quarantine zone that is populated by the monsters of the title. There is also tension in the journey because home is fraught with complications for both characters.
The thing that makes the movie is the relationship between the central charters as they travel through the quarantine zone. The actors, who are a real life couple, bring the rawness and complexity of their charters to life. The male lead is a war photographer who has been sidelined by his employer. He is tasked by his employer to bring the employers daughter home. The daughter is in South America for unknown reasons and does not seem thrilled to be going home.
As the journey progresses, we learn why they are both so raw. We are also presented with subtle commentary on war and futility.
I highly recommend renting Monsters.

Iron Man 2

H and I finally saw Iron Man 2. We had read the reviews, but hoped that they were just the typical stuffy reviewer tripe.
It wasn't. The movie is a mess. The creators attempted to cram way too many story lines and too many characters into a single movie. There are, if I counted right, five story lines vying for attention. There is an attempt to work them all together, but it never pans out. The net effect is that most of the story lines seem tossed in for no good reason except to further Marvel's need to push its other movie properties. The extra bits burry the bits that made Iron Man a good movie.
The whole Shield story line feels bolted on to pimp for Thor, Capt. America, and the Avengers. While Scarlet is nice to look at, her character serves no purpose worthy of the amount of screen time she gets. Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury is underwhelming. Pulling this fluff would free up needed time to make the rest of the movie better.
I never bought the Stark is dying story line either. It feels like a gimmick to explain the need for the new atom and the behavior that allows Rhodie to steel War Hammer.
The flaws do not get in the way of the movie being a fun romp. Downey and Paltrow are excellent together. In fact, the best parts of the movie involve Stark and Potts. Micky Rourke is fantastic as the baddie. The effects and action sequences rock - literally. The movie is very loud.
I left the movie feeling hopeful for the third movie. The lard piled on by Marvel couldn't destroy the strength of the franchise and by the time the third film comes out Marvel won't need to pimp other movies.